Wednesday, 4 February 2009

Wildcat Strikes: The Media's Silence on the Cost

By now most readers will have seen the news that a set of proposals agreed by the unions and stewards will be put to the workers at Lindsey tomorrow. In my opinion it is likely the strikers will accept the deal, and the secondary actions will vote to return to work by the end of the week.

But there's something missing from the media commentary on the strikes. As CBC pointed out to me last night, when the firefighters were on strike in 2002 the BBC were all over it, reporting every moggy that was stuck up a tree and every minor fire. In 2005 British Airways were hit by their own wildcat action and the £45 million loss this caused them was widely reported. And when the posties walked out in 2007 the press and TV news were full of how many millions the strike was costing Royal Mail. This kind of narrative, which is usually wheeled out every time workers take action, is completely absent this time round. No reports of money lost. No reports of disruption or inconvenience. As the workers involved belong to a 'strategic' section of the working class (especially true of refinery and power station workers), I refuse to believe the actions are having no effect whatsoever.

This is a cross-section of localised reports on the strikes.

Lindsey - According to Total's press release, operating non-stop round-the-clock, the Lindsey Oil Refinery processes around 200,000 barrels of crude everyday. But the nearest we get to disruption comes from Humberside plod,
who say it is "impacting on the flow of traffic".

Sellafield - Monday's
press release blandly states 900 workers went on strike while Sellafield Ltd employees stayed in. It says "we are confident it will have no impact on safety, security or production."

Drax Power Station -
The Press claims the contractors were working on projects ancillary to power generation.

Coryton - About 150 on strike, but again, the
local press quote the refinery as business as usual.

Stanlow - Again, no disruption, as all the 500 workers, we are
led to believe, are maintenance workers and marginal to operations.

Grangemouth - 700 out, but again, nothing about loss of production.

In addition, the
CBI has put nothing I can see on their website, despite several press websites saying it gave Total its backing.

I don't believe in media conspiracies, but this is strange. Are the right wing press keeping it out their pages because, for the moment, they think the protests serve their anti-EU agenda?

62 comments:

Anglonoel said...

It could be that the BBC and media in general realises that there is not a lot of sympathy amongst the general public for oil and power companies. After all, however much has been lost by these firms in the past few days, I doubt whether their bosses will be selling the Big Issue soon...

Eddie Truman said...

Phil, I don't believe that in relation to EU employment law the right wing press do have an anti-EU agenda.
In this case it is specifically about European court rulings on cases that have been brought in relation to the Posted Workers Directive.
This was originally intended to protect workers but in subsequent cases has been interpreted in a way that attacks union negotiated collective agreements which are not recognised as `universally applicable’ in the UK.
In the case of EU employment law which assists companies in driving down wages and terms and conditions the right wing press are more than happy to go along with it.

Phil BC said...

I would agree with you there Eddie. The right wing press have been playing a careful game with the strikes - they are torn by an instinct to cheer on what they see as an outpouring of anti-foreigner sentiment on the one hand, and their instinctive recoiling from anything that smacks of an independent and unofficial mobilisation of workers.

An excellent piece by Andy today on Socialist Unity that talks in depth about the issues you flag up.

Btw, did any SSP comrades make it down to Grangemouth?

Eddie Truman said...

Hi Phil, we had comrades go down to Grangemouth but the strikers had headed down to North Lincolnshire !
Grangemouth is notoriously difficult to intervene in, it's a massive complex with security that treats anyone who approaches as a potential terrorist.
What we did do was consult with our comrades in Unite which enabled us to make sure the SSP had a credible position.
Richie Venton, SSP workplace organiser, and I have got an article here.

skidmarx said...

On Anglonoel's point, I don't think that there is more dislike of oil companies than there is generally sympathy for firefighters.

Arthur Bough said...

The strikes have shown a number of things. First, the BBC's reporting was terribly biased. The strikers have produced a Youtube video which shows the difference between an interview with one of the strikers shown on the BBC Ten o'clock News, and the full interview on Newsnight. In the first the striker is heard saying "We can't talk to the eyeties and Portuguese", making it seem like he was attacking them. In the full interview he goes on to say "because they keep us separated from them". In other words attacking the bosses.

The Left has been all over the place. As I said in my blog Sanity and Sectarianism there were basically three organisations that got it about right - The Socialist Party, The Commune, and Permanent Revolution, to which I'd now add the CPGB. In contrast, we had the SWP, Workers Power and the AWL, actually attacking the strikers, calling on pickets of union HQ and so, and at the other extreme we had the Stalinists simply supporting the strike, whilst saying nothing about the reactionary nature of "British Jobs for British Workers".

The strike is over - for now. I can't believe that in the current conditions we won't see more actions, and from the comments I hear every day the nationalistic ideas certainly haven't gone away. In fact, today I got a leaflet through the door ffrom the BNP for their candidate which is all about "British Jobs for British Workers", local industries such as coal and steel having gone etc.

This highlights the task for the Left. We have to give solutions to workers to their immediate problems, or else the BNP will. For those of us who are politicos those solutions might appear as "Campaign for this or that", but for most ordianry workers they don't see things in that way. They want practical soluitons here and now, not some long drawn out political campaign for some Government action. In any case most workers have no faith in Brown's Government actually doing any of these things anyway - and of course they are right. The days are gone when you could organise such campaigns knowing the government wouldn't comply, but out of which you could recruit a few more members to your respective organisation. You might do that, but in the meantime the BNP will have recruited ten times more.

But, as I've written on my blog, workres have shown in lots of examples that theyc an organise things for themselves - Credit Unions are a good example - without relying on appeals to the bosses state. We should give a lead in getting workers to try to use such solutions to their immediate problems, setting up Housing Co-ops to run estates rather than relying on privatised Management Companies, or the bosses local bureaucratic state, which for years has failed working class Council tenants.

And if the Labour Movement would take back real democratic control of those parts of it which are supposed to be in our control like the Co-op, we could make some real progress, because it has considerable resources that could be mobilised, not to mention an excellent network of shops and other facilities.

I've recently been looking back at what Marx and the early socialists said about that. Marx argued for the development of such Co-ops and one of his co-thinkers in the First International set out what would be a goodc riticism of the Co-op now, and the way we should go forward. See; Third Letter .

The strikes are good, but we need political solutions, and ones based on demanding the bosses government act - unless you can organise a gernal Strike to bring that about, which seems unlikely, - aren't good enough.

The Sentinel said...

Arthur Bough,

Some honest and very valid points - especially the BBC bias and the attitudes of ordinary workers.

I too doubt very much if this was just a one off, flash-in-the-pan demonstration and given all the indicators, much harder times are set to follow and the ordinary workers will not be at all interested in any lofty political ideals or hidden agendas - they will just want immediate solutions.

Unfortunately for the unions, that solution is the complete opposite to the 'internationalist' ideal and the active encouragement and assistance of foreign labour into the UK (and what real use will the unionisation of mass foreign labour be to the British worker - he will still be up against more and more competition for work.)

The only solution to meet the demands of immediacy will be protectionism - ultimately a nationalist solution.

Arthur Bough said...

Sentinel,

I'm glad you thought my commenst were honest, and valid, but, unfortunately, you do not seem to have understood the argument I was making.

Yes, workers will need immediate answers to their problems, and some will off such solutions. The BNP will offer, "blame the foreigners", whilst sections of the left will offer, "Blame the Governemnt", "Build the Party", "More Militancy", and such like, none of which really provide a solution for workers immediate problems. Protectionism, falls into the first of those categories, and its unfortunate that some sections of what is termed the left fall into that category. Actually, its not that surprsing because those sections of "The left" such as the Communist Party, and some of their associates in the old Labour left, have always had a national socialist perspective that goes back to Stalin's adoption of the idea of "Socialism in One Country".

I am not saying that workers do not need a political perspective that IS based upon the need for internationalism, they DO! I am saying that such a perspective is too long term, too remote to offer to workers here and now. It has to be linked in to solutions that provide some answer for workers that are feasible in the very short term, and which they can have control over themselves.

Workers do not control what the Government does, what local Councils do etc. Only in exceptional times of heightened class struggle can workers exert that kind of influence,and even then Governments and bosses will only concede in a way that enables them when the tide ebbs to take back what they have been forced to give. That was Marx's argument in relation to workers wage struggles,a nd the need instead to gain ownership of the means of production.

But, there are lots of things workers can do themselves here and now if they are properly organised, and shown what to do. AS I said, a Credit Union to deal with financial problems cna be established by workers themselves. Tenants and residents Associations can be established by workers themselves and take decisions about their estates. UNemployed workers on such estates can be given assistance by TU's and the Co-op and other organisations to establsih their own workers Co-op to do necessary jobs on the estates. I wrote a blog on my website a while ago about the fact that Co-operative housing has been shown to be the most efficient means of providing housing. Its possible to get finance from various Co-operative bodies, and the Housing Corporation as well as advice to establish Housing Co-ops that give workers real control of their housing and estates rather than Council bureaucrats, or private landlords, or sham not for profit organisations. The savings made that no longer have to be given to high paid bureaucrats etc. means that local construction and maintenance worker co-ops can be kept busy.

There are lots of areas like this where workers CAN have immediate solutions without looking to the Government or someone else to provide them, and which in the process empower the working class, and icnrease its solidarity.

The Sentinel said...

Arthur,

Some more honest and valid points - but I did understand your perspective - I just disagree.

The only realistic and logical way to protect British workers jobs, especially in these times, is to restrict the competition that they face. Especially if that competition is able to seriously undercut British workers because of a much lower expectation of pay and conditions.

And of course, this is the only solution that will provide immediate benefit to British workers and the only solution that will also provide long term guarantees not only of high chances of employment, but of pay and conditions consummate with a highly developed western nation.

Arthur Bough said...

Except, of course all history shows that not to be the case. The Depression of the 1930's was made much worse as a result of Protectionism. The biggest, most powerful economy, the US was able to benefit through Protectionism at the expense of pretty much everyone else. But, that certainly isn't true of the puny British economy compared with the US, Europe, the Asian block centred on China and Japan. Already, economies like Iceland are having to seek the protection of the EU, and those EU contries still outside the Eurozone are seeking a fast track in to protect themselves again their currencies being decimated. Britain could well see the same thing, indeed it already has to some degree.

A collapsing pound will send import costs soaring pushing the cost of living through the roof reducing workers living standards. Protectionism would not only just add to that process, but would be disastrous for British jobs, as Europe and others countries retaliated.

I was talking to a bloke last week who works at Bentley in Crewe. A german firm that relies on selling a lot of its production on the world market. Many jobs in Britain today are like that. Think how many jobs would go if Toyota, Honda and Nissan shut up shop, if Tata Motors moved production of Jaguar and Land Rover to India and so on.

In the battle over the Corn Laws Karl Marx stood on the side of those seeking their abolition, not because he supported Capitalist Free Trade as against Capitalist protection, but because Free Trade exposes Capitalist exploitation more openly, it shows who the real enemy of the workers is. The Repeal of the Corn Laws reduced the cost of workrs food, just as Chinese imports have reduced the costs of many of the goods that british workers buy today. It was then a straightforward issue of British Bosses trying to cut British workers wages on the basis that their living costs had fallen.

The same applies today. Proitectionism will cause workers living costs to go through the roof - imagine going back to paying £200 plus for a British made suit, instead of £20 now for one made in China, imagine how much a shirt, a T-Shirt and so on would go up to. Then imagine all the jobs lost as foreigners retaliated!

No we need Europe wide Trade unions, and Europe wide Rates of Pay, Condiitons and benefits with no opt outs like that Britain has over the Working Time Directive. We need a Europe wide Worekrs Party to fight for them, but that would mean a proper democratic European Parliament and Government that could lesgislate those things.

But, to get workers to see that need requires socialists to deal with the immediate problems by the type of things I was talking about. Working-class self activity to establish Co-operative type organisations to provide work and goods and services, linked up as a national workers co-operative venture as Marx and the First International proposed.

The Sentinel said...

arthur,

I agree with you that full-blown and traditional protectionist polices (tariffs, import quotas etc) would not work in this country at this time, and would certainly make things worse for pretty much because of the reactions to it you describe.

This is mainly because we no longer have any viable industries (or even the agricultural production) to compete with globally. The sad fact is, that we could not even come to close to feeding ourselves without foreign imports and that we would be in serious trouble after just a few days of embargo.

Over the course of the years, Britain's status as an industrial powerhouse has declined to one of a virtual economic 'vassal state' for other nations industries.

Various reasons include the pointless and absolutely ruinous world wars as well as the US price for 'assistance' (and their direct policy and aim of removing Britain's 'super power' status - political, economic and military) as well as 'our own' deliberate government dismantling through to pure capitalist greed.

And given the appalling general education supplied over the past 20 years to our young along with a deeply instilled apathy and low work ethic, it would seem a long struggle to even attempt to find our way back.

But certain things can be done in the short term to protect British jobs - primarily by restricting the use of foreign workers in companies based on British soil for one. This could be done by variety of methods but most likely tax incentives would be the most amicable solution, and the most logical as any offset would saved by the reduction in benefits.

Of course, it is illegal to do this because of EU laws, so in the short term other methods will have to be applied under the existing legislation. Or maybe not. It will all depend largely on the severity of this crisis and the dynamism of the British workers.

Either ways, the only realistic short-term solution for British workers in a serious downturn would be such a small scale form of protectionism - and the long term solution would be supplying our young with quality education, traditional apprenticeships and rebuilding a quality based industry - bench mark industries that we used to posses.

My prime concern is for Britain and British workers first and foremost - and most ordinary workers will feel the same, demonstrably so - not some broad based European or 'international' model that relegates or generalises British workers interests.

Even just in Europe, work conditions and practices, pay and standards are vastly disparate and are largely in tune with each countries development and culture.

Each country is unique because it is a make up of its people, history and beliefs and so consequently each employment environment is unique as to expectations and outlook. Their is no 'one size fits all' solution and it is purely ideological theory to try and apply one.

Anonymous said...

Jobs for All

Workers Power leaflet for the construction workers' strike

This leaflet will be distributed at the Unite and GMB construction workers national shop stewards meeting in Manchester on Monday 9th February.

http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47,1843,0,0,1,0

Arthur Bough said...

Sentinel,

I have to say that your post is a combination of bad history, bad economics, and bad political theory.

Firstly, Britain's industrial power declined during the last half of the 19th century for pretty well understood economic reasons. The same reasons effectively that explain the rise of US and German economic and industrial power. The same reasons that today explain he decline of US economic and industrial power, and the rise of China and India as the superpowers of the first part of the 20th century - a position they too will lose, probably to new dynamic powers in Africa later this century if we don't blow oursleves up in the next war first.

Britain did not lose its economic and industrial power because of WWI or II, those wars were rather a symptom of its already diminished power, and the rise of the US and Germany and Japan, powers who sought to obtain the same kind of control over markets and sources of raw mateials that Britain had once enjoyed, and who could only obtain it by kicking Britain out of those colonies.

The idea that Britain could ever today properly be self-sufficient in food is also not on. Certainly, all those things we now take for granted such as bananas, and other fruits could not viably be produced, and the cost of producing many other types of food would be prohibitive. It is far more rational to import those goods, in return for exporting those goods aand services which Britain CAN produce efficiently. And that applies to many other types of goods besides foodstuffs. Some raw materials that are vital are simply not available in Britain.

The idea of only employing British workers on jobs on British soil is also not a good idea. There are some 1.5 million British workers working on s imilar basis in he EU alone. If all EU countries followed suit then the return of those workers would load a huge burden on to the taxpayer, not only because many of hem would not be able to find work when they returned. In addition to that as we see in the Health Service there are at times simply not the trained or skilled workers to do particular jobs at any one time.

As for different countries have different traditions etc. That is true, but really no different from the fact that Yorkshire has different traditions to Lancashire. Britain itself as a nation state has only existed for a few hundred years, go back a few hundred before that and even England was a series of warring Kingdoms with different traditions, money, laws and so on. The consolidation of all of those competing Kingdoms and the creation first of an English nation, and then of a British nation state was the precondition for a single currency, a single state and common laws. At that time Britain was a backward country compared to the established and rich Empires that exited in India, China and elsewhere. But, that transformation was the necessary condiiton for Britain's transformation into a modern industrial power that was able to overtake those former powers. The same is true today as to why Britain needs to forget about its past and forge its future in a single European state.

Of course, as a socialist I want tht state to be a Workers State, a Socialist United States of Europe, but if even the bosses move in hat direction I will not oppose them. Rather I will argue for the defence of and furthering of workers interests within that process. In contrast down the road of nationalism and protectionism lies tragedy for British workers and indeed the british state itself.

The Sentinel said...

arthur,

I have to say that your post is a combination of bad history, bad economics, and bad political theory.

For instance, to say that China was a superpower in the first half of the twentieth century is ludicrous - especially given that it could not even defend itself from the much smaller and resource-isolated Japan. China is only just emerging now as a superpower and only because it has all but abandoned its abject failure socialist dogma.

I would be very intrigued which 'new dynamic powers in Africa' you believe are superpowers in the making.

Britain did lose its economic and industrial power primarily because of WWI and WWII - and we only recently finished paying off the extortionate WWII 'loans' - it completely devastated us, not just in completely drained reserves, crippling debts and bombed out industries but because our continued survival relied upon political subservience as well as financial, and that influence was used to undermine our own interests. (one public example of that influence would the US reaction to the Suez crisis.)

If you do not understand the extremely far reaching, world changing consequences of the world wars that you are no position to lecture me or anyone else on history, economics or political theory.

I didn't say anywhere that Britain could / should pursue a policy of complete autarky, and I am not sure how you thought I did.

Certainly it could produce a lot more then it does. But as for bananas and the like, they are luxury items and not a staple necessity, and Iceland has no problems producing them and many other exotic fruits in massive hydroponic sheds (using their natural geothermal energy) so it can be done, in any case.

Again, nowhere did I say that we should be 'only employing British workers on jobs on British soil' I said 'my prime concern is for Britain and British workers first and foremost' - British workers should be employed first.

And we would have no shortage of jobs if that policy were to spur the return of ex-pats if we simply removed the illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers from the country.

As for your NHS example, you are so out of touch with reality it is scary. In fact the exact opposite to your absurd contention is true:

"A survey of {British} 2,356 junior doctors carried out in August found that almost one in 10 had been unable to find work{..}The BMA said if that proportion was replicated across the country, then as many as 3,000 doctors could be affected, forcing many to go abroad. Each has been trained at a cost of £250,000...

Why?

"The BMA says the problem has come about {...} combined with an influx of overseas doctors looking to train in the UK."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-362923/Young-doctors-face-jobs-crisis-NHS.html

"Thousands of newly qualified {British} nurses and other health professionals will be without jobs by the time they graduate this year, the BBC has learned. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5127668.stm

And the same it true with every other skilled job - particularly construction jobs where it is common knowledge that British tradesman are being undercut by recent immigrants.

To say that Yorkshire and Lancashire have different 'traditions' as some sort of indicator of a massive and irreconcilable divide is facile. The people of this country share a cohesive commonality which make them British - as do other countries.

Of course, you scorn the concept of nationality.

I am not sure if you have ever been abroad (or lived abroad) but I can tell that each country varies immensely in national commonality, outlook and structure. In fact, that is why countries form in the first place, the tribal gathering of commonality through shared ethnicity, experience and outlook.

And we can see from examples like the Basque problem what happens when borders is misdrawn and people of differing 'tribes; are included under the rule of other 'tribes.'

And just one small example in workplace variance would the Spanish siesta.

The EU, your beloved 'single European state' is a massively corrupt, largely autocratic and unelected monolithic nightmare that sucks the life and identity out of all it touches.

But why do you feel just a 'Socialist United States of Europe' is in order? What is so unique about Europeans, that they should form their own enclave?

Socialism is a disaster.

Socialism has been a complete and utter failure wherever it has been practised. And it has also produced the worlds biggest mass murderers and most political victims.

Arthur Bough said...

“For instance, to say that China was a superpower in the first half of the twentieth century is ludicrous - especially given that it could not even defend itself from the much smaller and resource-isolated Japan. China is only just emerging now as a superpower and only because it has all but abandoned its abject failure socialist dogma.”

That was an obvious typo which should have read,

“The same reasons that today explain the decline of US economic and industrial power, and the rise of China and India as the superpowers of the first part of the 21st century”

The context the use of the phrase “that today explain”, the reference to the decline of US power etc. shows exactly what was meant. The fact you opportunistically use a typo to make an argument I think says something about the weakness of your case.

“I would be very intrigued which 'new dynamic powers in Africa' you believe are superpowers in the making.”

I don’t have a crystal ball to know which economies may emerge in 30-50 years time, anymore than in 1940 or 1950, it would have been possible to see the rise of Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, China or even Japan as major and dynamic economic powers. But, for pretty straightforward economic reasons they did become so. We already see China investing large sums in the Congo (not to be confused with the Democratic Republic of Congo), South Africa has all the necessary pre-requisites to become a superpower, for instance.

”Britain did lose its economic and industrial power primarily because of WWI and WWII - and we only recently finished paying off the extortionate WWII 'loans' - it completely devastated us, not just in completely drained reserves, crippling debts and bombed out industries but because our continued survival relied upon political subservience as well as financial, and that influence was used to undermine our own interests. (one public example of that influence would the US reaction to the Suez crisis.)”

Not true. The World Wars, certainly did drain British coffers considerably, but Britain’s superiority had already gone by the time WWI took place. As I said, that War, in particular was a consequence of that fact, and WWII was effectively just a continuation of it. Throughout the latter half of the 19th century the US and Germany grew much more rapidly that did Britain, and their more dynamic economies arising from the later development, the ability to go straight to more up to date technologies etc. meant that they would have surpassed Britain with or without the Wars. But, the wars were fought precisely because that growing economic power meant that they needed the same kind of overseas access to markets and materials that Britain enjoyed, needed the access to areas in which they could export their excess capital to exploit new sources of labour, at higher rates of profit. That is a fundamental feature of Capitalist development, and another reason why your idea of restraining it within national boundaries is not possible.

“If you do not understand the extremely far reaching, world changing consequences of the world wars that you are no position to lecture me or anyone else on history, economics or political theory.”

But, I do, and they were a consequence of the ending of British hegemony not a cause of it. As I said bad history.

”I didn't say anywhere that Britain could / should pursue a policy of complete autarky, and I am not sure how you thought I did.

Certainly it could produce a lot more then it does. But as for bananas and the like, they are luxury items and not a staple necessity, and Iceland has no problems producing them and many other exotic fruits in massive hydroponic sheds (using their natural geothermal energy) so it can be done, in any case.”

Well, I think your argument here shows probably why I interpreted you as advocating something like autarky. If you are forced to conclude that bananas are “luxury items and not a staple necessity” that sounds to me like the kind of hair shirt economy you get reduced to when you advocate such policies. I wish you luck trying to convince workers that they should give up such luxury items as bananas!

As for Iceland, perhaps you could show us where Britain has access to the same kind of geology that enables it to access thermal springs etc.

”Again, nowhere did I say that we should be 'only employing British workers on jobs on British soil' I said 'my prime concern is for Britain and British workers first and foremost' - British workers should be employed first.

And we would have no shortage of jobs if that policy were to spur the return of ex-pats if we simply removed the illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers from the country.”

But, we’ve seen the consequence of that. British workers will not do many of the jobs that those foreign workers do. For example, fruit and vegetable picking would not get done without immigrant labour. Even at £7.50 an hour unemployed people won’t go to pick butternut squash. Fair enough, you say that the fruit growers would have to pay much higher wages to get those workers to do the job, but what then. The price of all that food becomes prohibitively expensive. All you’ve done is rob Peter to pay Paul. You’ve created some jobs for a few British workers by making all other British workers pay for it in vastly higher food prices. They may just as well have had a whip round and give them the money direct, and let them stay on the dole. But, even that wouldn’t happen. The likelihood is that faced with having to pay much higher wages for pickers, the growers facing reduced demand would move on to something else more profitable, probably investing their Capital overseas where wages are lower as Wedgwood’s and lots of other British capitalists have done. Then you are even worse off, no jobs no production either. Or if you are lucky they might leave production here, but look to introduce some labour-saving machine to replace the high wage labour. Either way it doesn’t benefit workers.

As for the ex pats. First you assume that the skills they have are the ones that would be needed by the jobs that were freed up. Secondly, you assume that there would be time to allocate these workers to the jobs which is unlikely, and thirdly you assume that the capitalists engaged in this production wouldn’t have chosen to move elsewhere. As for asylum seekers bogus or otherwise they are not allowed to work until their case is settled so they can’t be taking jobs away. As for illegal immigrants as by the definition of being illegal you don’t know who they are, so you couldn’t remove them.

Finally, the general reduction in trade and economic activity resulting from your protectionist measures would throw far more people on to the dole than could be made up for by such a measure, and as all of these people are also consumers, and therefore a constituent part of aggregate demand the general reduction arising, therefrom would throw even more workers on to the dole. As I said bad economics.

”As for your NHS example, you are so out of touch with reality it is scary. In fact the exact opposite to your absurd contention is true:”

What I said was,

“In addition to that as we see in the Health Service there are at times simply not the trained or skilled workers to do particular jobs at any one time.”

None of the quotes you gave challenge that. None of the people you cite could, for example, become dentists, of which there was a severe shortage, which meant that we needed to bring dentists in from abroad. I doubt that someone who has spent 4 years at University and medical School training to be a doctor would want to become a nurse, for which in any case there are different requirements, yet without all the foreign nurses we have working in the NHS it would fall apart.

”And the same it true with every other skilled job - particularly construction jobs where it is common knowledge that British tradesman are being undercut by recent immigrants.”

Come on, only a few years ago it was common knowledge that there was a huge shortage of such skilled workers. We had teachers giving up their profession to train as plumbers because of the high wages that were being earned.

”To say that Yorkshire and Lancashire have different 'traditions' as some sort of indicator of a massive and irreconcilable divide is facile. The people of this country share a cohesive commonality which make them British - as do other countries.

Of course, you scorn the concept of nationality.”

No, I recognise the concept of nationality, I simply don’t give it any overarching historical value, for the simple reason that it is a recent product of history. Man like every other animal is migratory, if he weren’t we’d all still be living on the African savannah where we first evolved several million years ago. We all move to where we think the prospects are best, and we integrate and intermarry with others who have similarly migrated, so what appear at any one time to be fixed and settled customs are nothing of the kind. Britain’s most eaten dish today is curry. It used to be fish and chips, but only that arose when it was brought here by Jewish immigrants in the 19th century. My own lineage contains elements from Sweden, France, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The Cornish are a nationality just as much as the Welsh or the Scots or the Irish, yet we all form a single nation state. France is made up of of more than 100 nationalities, and until the last century there was not even a common French language spoken. That is how recent the concept of nationality is. The same is true of Germany, Italy and so on, all recent inventions of the last 100 years or so.

So, no I don’t see the fact that I live in Britain as some kind of “massive and irreconcilable divide” with my fellow human beings in Europe or anywhere else. On he contrary I have far more in common with a French or German worker than I do with a British Capitalist.

”I am not sure if you have ever been abroad (or lived abroad) but I can tell that each country varies immensely in national commonality, outlook and structure. In fact, that is why countries form in the first place, the tribal gathering of commonality through shared ethnicity, experience and outlook.”

Now you’ve added bad anthropology to the list. Nations do not arise from the bottom up, but the other way around. The first human societies were based on consanguineous families (actually probably before that on promiscuous relationships like most other animals, but we have no proof of that now), on clans or tribes, like those of the North American Indians or as seen in many other parts of the world. The modern structure of society based on individual monogamous family structures is again a fairly recent development in historical terms, though much older than the nation state. In fact, I travel in Europe considerably, and I’ve been to many other parts of the world, and like 5 million other Britain’s I’m hoping to go and live in Spain in the not too distant future. I have to say that in all the interactions I have with foreign people I see nothing of the irreconcilable differences you want to portray. On the contrary I see a huge commonality of interests and outlooks.

”And we can see from examples like the Basque problem what happens when borders is misdrawn and people of differing 'tribes; are included under the rule of other 'tribes.'”

Not the consequence of lines being drawn on a map, but the consequence of the political oppression of a given group.

”And just one small example in workplace variance would the Spanish siesta.”

Actually, the siesta is largely a thing of the past in Spain, because the need to conform to the economic norms of European capitalism, means that continuous production in large factories is a necessity. The only time production tends to cease nowadays is in August, for a month, because it is just too hot to work.

”The EU, your beloved 'single European state' is a massively corrupt, largely autocratic and unelected monolithic nightmare that sucks the life and identity out of all it touches.”

That has nothing to with the fact that it is European, and everything to do with the fact that it is Capitalist.

”But why do you feel just a 'Socialist United States of Europe' is in order? What is so unique about Europeans, that they should form their own enclave?”

I don’t. I’m in favour of a World Socialist Federation, but its necessary to start somewhere.

”Socialism is a disaster.

Socialism has been a complete and utter failure wherever it has been practised. And it has also produced the worlds biggest mass murderers and most political victims.”

Socialism hasn’t been tried so you can’t say that. As for mass murderers, Hitler was a capitalist politician and was responsible for killing 6 million Jews and millions of others. The same is true of Mussolini. The British Empire murdered millions of people too in the colonies and elsewhere. Britain killed half a million Irish people during the Famine, and more who died from the disease afterwards. The United States killed tens of thousands by dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It killed many more in Vietnam and Cambodia, not to mention devastating the country with the use of diocsin, which also caused long term damage to the population through mutations, cancers and other problems.

The Sentinel said...

"The fact you opportunistically use a typo to make an argument I think says something about the weakness of your case."

Rubbish - I am not a mind reader or a decipher of your semantic style and I addressed the point you raised. I actually thought it fitted well with the rest of your post.


"I don’t have a crystal ball to know which economies may emerge in 30-50 years time..."

In other words it was completely pointless and groundless for you to even cite 'new dynamic powers in Africa' because a) there are none now and b) you have no evidence or even idea of which ones might spring from non-existence.


"Not true. The World Wars, certainly did drain British coffers considerably..."

It took the reserves of this country, massively indebted it, made us extremely susceptible to the influence of our debtors, bombed our industries away, killed off our young and destroyed our empire.


"As I said bad history"

I put the same to you.


"If you are forced to conclude that bananas are “luxury items and not a staple necessity”

I am not 'forced to conclude' it - it is a fact, and it refers back to my original argument about the effects of an embargo.


"As for Iceland, perhaps you could show us where Britain has access to the same kind of geology that enables it to access thermal springs etc."

It doesn't, it was an aside and that was why it was in brackets.

We have electricity instead.


"But, we’ve seen the consequence of that. British workers will not do many of the jobs that those foreign workers do"

That is absolute rubbish - apart from the small number of the chronically and professionally work shy that exist here, there is no job Britons will not do for fair pay.

How do you think these jobs got done in the past? All these jobs were getting done long before waves of mass immigration arrived here.


"Even at £7.50 an hour unemployed people won’t go to pick butternut squash"

I challenge you show me a picking job that pays that.

And your position that Britons are work shy loiters is quite offensive and patronising in any case.

Just from personal experience I used to do farm work (including picking) for the minimum wage.


"As for the ex pats. First you assume that the skills they have are the ones that would be needed by the jobs that were freed up"

Well, if they were professionally skilled, they would be able to market these skills globally in any case.


"As for asylum seekers bogus or otherwise they are not allowed to work until their case is settled"

Except that they do. You have the ones who can work illegally 'off the cards' for even less then the minimum wage because we supply everything for them, and then you have the ones who have been allowed to remain in any case because of government incompetence and apathy, but largely political ideology.

Just one example:

"Up to 80,000 bogus asylum seekers have been granted an 'amnesty' to live in Britain, it has emerged night.
They have been in the UK for so long the Government has decided not to even bother considering their claims."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-404269/Up-80-000-bogus-asylum-seekers-granted-amnesty.html


"As for illegal immigrants as by the definition of being illegal you don’t know who they are, so you couldn’t remove them."

Once again, you are so far removed from reality is scary.

Just two examples:

"Thousands of foreign nationals who took jobs illegally as security guards may have been issued with national insurance numbers, it emerged last night.
The disclosure adds to Government embarrassment over the fiasco, which saw illegal immigrants working in sensitive areas, including guarding the Prime Minister's car.

In November, the Home Office admitted that 6,653 foreign nationals without work permits had been licensed to work by the Security Industry Authority (SIA), a government vetting agency. The SIA confirmed last night that when the immigrants applied for clearance, they had to fill in application forms giving a national insurance number."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575755/Illegal-security-workers-given-NI-numbers.html

"Thousands of illegal immigrants have been given the green light to work here because the Government has handed them National Insurance numbers, figures suggest.

Although only 270,000 work permits have been granted to non-EU nationals in the last three years, almost 900,000 of the numbers have been issued.

Just 755 work permits were issued to those from Ghana between January 2004 and April 2007. But 21,300 got NI numbers.

Almost 900,000 numbers have been issued to non-EU nationals in the last three years, but only 270,000 work permits have been granted

And although only 1,455 Nigerians were given leave to enter the UK, 35,900 got numbers. Some 110 Albanians got permits, but 4,160 were handed numbers.

Despite a promised crackdown, it has emerged that more than 6,600 with no right to work in the UK, used apparently valid NI numbers to gain sensitive jobs in the security industry."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-508448/Thousands-migrants-cash-great-National-Insurance-giveaway.html

You see we do know who they are because the NI application can be back- engineered to find them - even though it was absolutely shocking that they even got NI numbers in the first place.

Like I said, a mixture of government incompetence and apathy, but largely political ideology.

Another way we could have got some more of them would be to arrest these:

"LONDON (Reuters) - Thousands of illegal immigrants, backed by religious leaders and politicians, marched through London on Monday calling for fairer treatment by the government and a chance to become "normal" citizens."

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0717363120070507

And just one more example to tie up what I have said on this subject:

"Estimates of the number of illegal workers range from 500,000 to 700,000, half of which may be failed asylum-seekers. An estimated two-thirds of illegal migrants work in London and the South-east, in cleaning, catering, hospitality and construction. Because they do not have legal rights, their pay and conditions are subject to abrupt changes."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mayoral-candidates-unite-in-call-for-illegal-immigration-amnesty-806310.html

"None of the quotes you gave challenge that."

Of course they do.

They show that far from a British medical skills shortage as you claim, British doctors and nurses cannot get work in their own countries NHS because of foreign employees.


"yet without all the foreign nurses we have working in the NHS it would fall apart."

Good God man!

Also as the quotes prove, we only have to employ the British nurses who are having to go abroad because no jobs exist in the NHS here BECAUSE of foreign nurses.



"Come on, only a few years ago it was common knowledge that there was a huge shortage of such skilled workers. We had teachers giving up their profession to train as plumbers because of the high wages that were being earned."

Thats because pretty much the only skill in short supply was plumbers. All down to the previous scrapping of apprenticeships.



"we’d all still be living on the African savannah where we first evolved "

An unproved theory (missing link?)

And the first trace of whites on this planet is found in the Caucasian mountains - hence the term.



"I simply don’t give it any overarching historical value, for the simple reason that it is a recent product of history"

Babylon? Egypt? Rome?



"Britain’s most eaten dish today is curry"

Curry was brought in by our colonisation of India, not by the waves of South Asian immigrants of recent times.



"France is made up of of more than 100 nationalities, and until the last century there was not even a common French language spoken. That is how recent the concept of nationality is. The same is true of Germany, Italy and so on, all recent inventions of the last 100 years or so."

They were still a union of common peoples - the Franks in the case of France.



"actually probably before that on promiscuous relationships like most other animals, but we have no proof of that now"

Don't let a lack of proof stop you, it hasn't so far.



"and like 5 million other Britain’s I’m hoping to go and live in Spain in the not too distant future"

Why do you think they want to jump ship - and its not just the weather, which is not great in winter in any case.

It can be proved that emigration has a direct correlation to immigration.

"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



"Not the consequence of lines being drawn on a map, but the consequence of the political oppression of a given group."

Well, you must tell them that then, because they want an independent state.



"Actually, the siesta is largely a thing of the past in Spain"

Is it really? Then why does virtually every shop close between 1 and 6 then?



"Hitler was a capitalist politician"

Funny, because he considered himself a socialist too. A national socialist.



"The British Empire murdered millions of people too in the colonies and elsewhere"

Did they really? No wars, no rule of law just outright murder?



"Britain killed half a million Irish people during the Famine"

Starvation killed half a million Irish during the famine.



"Socialism hasn't been tried so you can’t say that"

This is the part I love.

All socialists try to deny their ideological past (and present) - the USSR, China etc. with the old game of 'not my flavour': "The USSR wasn't my brand, I'm a trot!" etc. etc and all the disingenuous rubbish of that type.

(But invariably they are oh so fast to label people as fascists and Nazi's)

The bottom line is these regimes based themselves on socialist ideology, considered themselves to be socialist and actively enforced socialist ideology upon their citizens.

Perhaps you would feel happier if I said that all attempts at enforcing socialism have failed and have lead to the greatest mass-murderers the world has ever seen?

Arthur Bough said...

“Rubbish - I am not a mind reader or a decipher of your semantic style and I addressed the point you raised. I actually thought it fitted well with the rest of your post.”

Nonsense, the context of the sentence showed that it was talking about the situation now, not at the beginning of the last century.

”In other words it was completely pointless and groundless for you to even cite 'new dynamic powers in Africa' because a) there are none now and b) you have no evidence or even idea of which ones might spring from non-existence.”

Rubbish. What I said was that there are well understood economic dynamics, which lead to Capitalist development occurring throughout the world economy on the basis of a combined and uneven development. That dynamic necessarily leads to the decline of previously leading powers, and the rise of new ones. The process that led to the decline of Britain as the first power, and the rise of the US and Germany, of France and other European powers, and then to Japan, and now to other Asian economies. That process is bound to continue short of either a) workers creating socialism, or b) mankind destroying itself in the next imperialist war. And, in fact, I did point to you the kind of countries likely to be in that category, those countries which are already being referred to as the African Lion economies.

”It took the reserves of this country, massively indebted it, made us extremely susceptible to the influence of our debtors, bombed our industries away, killed off our young and destroyed our empire.”

All, because Britain had already lost its economic supremacy by the outbreak of WWI, and new economic powers such as Germany and the US had risen to replace it.

As I said bad history. You seek to explain the cause by the symptom.

”I am not 'forced to conclude' it - it is a fact, and it refers back to my original argument about the effects of an embargo.”

No it isn’t. Bananas are in no way a luxury item, and I doubt if you went into the street and asked any ordinary worker they would say the same, and look at you as if you were nuts to even suggest it. If you think bananas are a luxury item, how do you think then people will react when you tell them they can’t have their Nokia Mobile phones????

”It doesn't, it was an aside and that was why it was in brackets.

We have electricity instead.”


Precisely, and how much do you think it would cost for all the electricity needed to produce the heat and light, to cultivate even a tiny crop of bananas????

”That is absolute rubbish - apart from the small number of the chronically and professionally work shy that exist here, there is no job Britons will not do for fair pay.

How do you think these jobs got done in the past? All these jobs were getting done long before waves of mass immigration arrived here.”


Not true. Firstly, Britain has always imported labour of one form or another. The roads, canals and railways in the 18th, and 19th centuries would not have been built had Britain not imported Irish navvies to do the job. A large number of Jews were encouraged to come to Britain during the 19th century to work in a variety of trades, particularly the rag trade. In the 1950’s when there was insufficient labour, and when even encouraging women to go out to work didn’t provide a large enough workforce, the Government encouraged immigration from the West Indies to do the low paid work they could not get British workers to do, and so on. Go to any of the main fruit or vegetable growing areas of Britain, and they will tell you that they cannot get British workers to do the job at a wage that would make growing the stuff profitable, and a recent Documentary about Poles coming to Britain to do that kind of work showed unemployed British people being offered that work at £7.5 an hour, and refusing it.

I don’t blame those workers for doing that. We need jobs on higher wages, and we need people being properly trained to do them. But, in the meantime if you are going to adopt that position you can’t complain about other workers taking those jobs as a means of improving their own lives.

“I challenge you show me a picking job that pays that.”

The BBC Documentary I think it was called “The Poles Are Coming”, showed precisely that. The poles Are Coming , picking Butternut Squash.

”And your position that Britons are work shy loiters is quite offensive and patronising in any case.”

I didn’t say that, I said British workers are not prepared to do some jobs at the wage offered. Why should they be forced to?

”Just from personal experience I used to do farm work (including picking) for the minimum wage.”

”Well, if they were professionally skilled, they would be able to market these skills globally in any case.”

Not in your world where people have to stay in their own country, or at least jobs always have to first go to people already living in that country!

“Except that they do. You have the ones who can work illegally 'off the cards' for even less then the minimum wage because we supply everything for them, and then you have the ones who have been allowed to remain in any case because of government incompetence and apathy, but largely political ideology.”

First, of all the idea that asylum seekers or any other immigrant is supplied with everything is a racist myth that has been shown to be a lie time and again. Secondly, the number of asylum seekers who do illegal work must be small both because of the numbers involved in total, and because of the surveillance kept on them, where they are not actually in detention.

The fact, that you quote from the Daily Mail is confirmation of that. The Daily Mail is an openly racist newspaper that in the 1930’s supported Hitler. I wouldn’t wipe my arse with it.

”Like I said, a mixture of government incompetence and apathy, but largely political ideology.”

Rubbish, this Government has been one of the most racist for years, particularly under Blunkett. It has an incentive to whip up that kind of division, precisely because it knows it benefits the bosses, and because the British economy relies on using some illegal immigrants as non-unionised, low paid labour. The same has been true of recent years in the US.

"Estimates of the number of illegal workers range from 500,000 to 700,000, half of which may be failed asylum-seekers. An estimated two-thirds of illegal migrants work in London and the South-east, in cleaning, catering, hospitality and construction. Because they do not have legal rights, their pay and conditions are subject to abrupt changes."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mayoral-candidates-unite-in-call-for-illegal-immigration-amnesty-806310.html


But, this doesn’t prove your point either. Even the higher number here only comes to half of the total number of British workers working abroad, and that figure is likely to be an underestimate, because its likely that there are some British workers too, who work abroad while claiming benefit here, and who are similarly “illegal”. Moreover, if the demand for goods from these 700,000 people was taken out of the economy that would have a devastating effect on jobs here. If we assume a multiplier of just 4, then the reduction in jobs arising from 700,000 consumers from the economy would mean a loss of nearly 3 million jobs. And in the other quotes you have given you can only account for thousands who might be traced, not hundreds of thousands.

The simple answer here would be to scrap all immigration controls so that no one had to be “illegal”, and thn everyone could be properly registered, unionised, paid the minimum wage, and get all the other protections that other workers get.

”They show that far from a British medical skills shortage as you claim, British doctors and nurses cannot get work in their own countries NHS because of foreign employees.”

But, I didn’t say there was a GENERAL shortage, I specifically said PARTICULAR shortages. As I said a heart surgeon might be surplus to requirements, but that doesn’t help if you need him to be a dentist!!! Moreover, the quote about the trained doctors was not quite what it seemed. A lot of people train as doctors in this country with the intention of looking for work overseas anyway. Moreover, the fact was that they could not obtain work IMMEDIATELY, the fact is that they would be able to obtain work in the short term. Moreover, if all those British trained doctors working in the US and elsewhere had to come back under your policies because a lot of Americans decided to train as doctors the problem would be even worse.

”Also as the quotes prove, we only have to employ the British nurses who are having to go abroad because no jobs exist in the NHS here BECAUSE of foreign nurses.”

Rubbish. British nurses do not go to work in the US and elsewhere because they can’t get jobs here. They go to work in those countries, BECAUSE THEY GET HIGHER WAGES. In other words the same reason that foreign workers come here!

“Thats because pretty much the only skill in short supply was plumbers. All down to the previous scrapping of apprenticeships.”

Rubbish, there were shortages of joiners, and electricians and other skilled trades. Yes, that largely is because of the scrapping of apprenticeships by Maggie Thatcher, and the general run down in skills training that 18 years of Tory Government brought about. That doesn’t change the fact that there was a shortage, and the run down in apprenticeships and training was just a symptom of British capitalism doing what it normally does, tries to do things on the cheap.

”An unproved theory (missing link?)”

What unproved theory, what missing link? You should watch some of the current programmes on Darwin. The theory of Evolution is more proved than pretty much any other theory. Not only is it proved, by the fossil record, by empirical observation, by biology, but is now proved following the unravelling of the human genome, and the development of genetic fingerprinting beyond doubt, along with our lineage and connection to other anthropoid apes.

”And the first trace of whites on this planet is found in the Caucasian mountains - hence the term.”

To where they had migrated from the African plains!

”Babylon? Egypt? Rome?”

None of which were nation states. You could be a Roman wherever you were born in the Empire for instance. The nation state is only around 300 years old. Most nation states such as Germany, Ital etc are younger than that, and combine people of a number of nationalities. Britain itself combines Scots, Welsh, Irish, Cornish, Manx, Celts, Picts and so on.

”Curry was brought in by our colonisation of India, not by the waves of South Asian immigrants of recent times.”

So what? The point is that even in terms of cuisine the basic habits and customs of people within a specific territory change considerably over fairly short periods of time, so they cannot be considered as in some way innate characteristics of those peoples separating them from other peoples. They certainly cannot be considered immutable, and irreconcilable differences with those other peoples as you suggest.

“They were still a union of common peoples - the Franks in the case of France.”

No they weren’t they were peoples of a multitude of different nationalities with different languages, culture, religions and so on. There were greater differences between them than exist between say a British worker and a French worker today.

”Don't let a lack of proof stop you, it hasn't so far.”

On the contrary I’m the one whose quoted facts, you’re the one whose quoted the Daily Mail, which should have been enough to tell everyone about the veracity of your arguments to begin with.

”Why do you think they want to jump ship - and its not just the weather, which is not great in winter in any case.”

I can only speak for myself, and all the other people I know who’ve made that decision, and it is absolutely about the weather. Where you get the idea that the weather isn’t that great during Winter I don’t know. I was in Spain in Almeria in November, and the temperature was in the 40’s, a temperature that the guy I was talking to said was about the same on Xmas Day! Current temperature in Alicante is around 18 degrees.

”Well, you must tell them that then, because they want an independent state.”

Not all Basques do want an independent state. But, the fact that people want to govern themselves is understandable, especially where they think that lack of such control leads to them losing out. But, that has noting to do with everyone in a particular area sticking with that area does it? The Basques are not suggesting that they would not continue to work in the rest of Spain or have others working in the Basque Country are they?

”Is it really? Then why does virtually every shop close between 1 and 6 then?”

Not all shops do. I was speaking primarily about production, which is where most people work, and in the factories and so on, work is continuous other than in August.

Funny, because he considered himself a socialist too. A national socialist.

No he didn’t. National Socialism isn’t socialism. It was a useful label for the Nazis to use to con workers. Hitler was the paid agent of the German big Capitalists such as Krupp, who when they felt that the German Communists might come to power swung their money and support behind Hitler. Hitler murdered all of those elements within the Nazi Party who took his anti-capitalist demagogy seriously – the Strasserites – in the Night of the Long Knives. In Mein Kampf, Hitler speaks of his admiration of Henry Ford from whom he not only took his ideas on mass production, but also his ideas on anti-semitism. His first actions, were not against the Jews but against socialists, Communists and Trade Unionists. In fact, Hitler’s co-fascist Mussolini had Jewish businessmen in his inner circle. All of Hitler’s policies were designed to benefit his backers in big business from his outlawing of independent trade unions, to the establishment of the National Economic Council that was made up of those same big busineesmen.

"The British Empire murdered millions of people too in the colonies and elsewhere"

”Did they really? No wars, no rule of law just outright murder?”

That’s right not the rule of law, just the rule of capitalist greed and profit. When you launch a war to conquer another people who have not attacked you what do you call that? Or do people in foreign countries, particular Britain’s former colonies not have the right to be left alone that you want British people to have?

"Britain killed half a million Irish people during the Famine"

No Britain killed them, or more correctly British and Irish Capitalism killed them. There was no shortage of food in Ireland during the famine only a shortage of potatoes which were the only food the peasants could afford to eat, and to which they were forced to rely for growing on their impoverished plots. But, the wheat, vegetables and other crops those same Irish peasants were growing were demanded by Britain to be exported, and Irish capitalist farmers in cohorts with their British overlords were keen to export that food in order to make profits, and because the destitution caused of the peasants meant that they had more land to pick up for nothing, and a new supply of wage labourers. But, Britain killed them more directly than that. British workers held collections and organised food shipments to Ireland to send to their starving brethren. The British authorities refused to allow any such food to be distributed until such time as any foodstuffs available to be sold had been cleared, on the basis that to do otherwise would interfere with the free operation of the Capitalist free market. Of course, the poorest workers and peasants had no money to buy the food that was for sale, and so the food sent to assist them was left to rot!.

See: Labour in Irish History

”The bottom line is these regimes based themselves on socialist ideology, considered themselves to be socialist and actively enforced socialist ideology upon their citizens.”

No they didn’t. Socialism is about workers owning the means of production, and controlling it via the most democratic means yet developed. In none of the countries you mentioned was that the case. But, to contrast that with your complaint about people being described as fascist we also know what the definition of fascism is, as a system based on extreme nationalism, that fuses state and political power within a totalitarian regime, and which seeks uniformity of purpose thereby in the interest of national economic development. Was that what existed in Germany, Italy and so on? Absolutely. So the two comparisons are completely different. I agree that often people throw around the term fascist incorrectly. For example, Thatcher was called a fascist, though she quite clearly wasn’t. But, we do know that there are a number of organisations that fascist such as the BNP, and who do define their ideas such that they can be described as nothing less.

”Perhaps you would feel happier if I said that all attempts at enforcing socialism have failed and have lead to the greatest mass-murderers the world has ever seen?”

No, I wouldn’t. I’d still say the greatest mass murderers have probably been capitalist regimes. As for people such as Stalin or Mao, I’d say that they were mass murders, who were forced to engage in such activity in order to pursue policies designed to meet the narrow interests of a comparatively small group of nationalistic, bureaucrats as against the interests of the vast majority of people, and who, therefore, are closer in outlook and method to the Capitalist than to the socialist.

Arthur Bough said...

Correction.

Above I should have said assuming a multiplier of .4 the effect would be a reduction of 300,000 jobs not of 4 and 3 million.

Arthur Bough said...

Even on the Spanish shops closing you are wrong. Not only do a large number of shops not close now, but the ones that do certainly don't close between 1 and 6. Normally, 2 till 4 is more common.

The Sentinel said...

Bloody hell, I take back any comment about honesty I may of passed about your posts - you are just as raving as the rest of of your comrades.

Petty little semantic games, huge contortions of logic, bold statements without basis, selective source acceptance, weasel words and deeply entrenched ignorance.


"Nonsense, the context of the sentence showed that it was talking about the situation now, not at the beginning of the last century."

What utter rubbish - "the rise of China and India as the superpowers of the first part of the 20th century" makes even less sense when you substitute 20th for 21st because we are only 9 years into the 21st. There has been no first or second part to this century as yet. I think you first statement was written exactly as it was meant to and now you are just embarrassed.


"Rubbish. What I said was that there are well understood economic dynamics..."

You really need to learn that just because you say something, it doesn't make it true.



"those countries which are already being referred to as the African Lion economies"

Laughable.

But given that you are such an expert, why are you not able to use your "well understood economic dynamics" and pick out a couple of future African superpowers for us? And if you can't why even bother to suggest that there will be?


"and new economic powers such as Germany and the US had risen to replace it"

Rubbish - but they were very powerful, no doubt.

Germany was a Nazi state that went from economic depression to economic success and took on pretty much the entire world for six years, and it would have easily demolished your workers paradise if it hadn't taken on too many powerful countries. The economic system and industrial system it employed was ingenious, from its rapid rise from the gutter to being a world superpower - it even managed to produce more towards the end of the war, despite everything thrown at it, then it did at the start - it was still growing.

And not a commune in sight.

Economically it was vastly superior to any form of socialism ever practised.


"No it isn’t. Bananas are in no way a luxury item"

It is a luxury item - not a staple and this was clearly expressed in the context of UK food production short fallings and potential embargoes.



"Precisely, and how much do you think it would cost for all the electricity needed to produce the heat and light, to cultivate even a tiny crop of bananas????"

Not a lot of you use wind and other renewable sources - but, again, you missed the whole point.



"Not true. Firstly, Britain has always imported labour of one form or another."

Not always, but sometimes, when in economic stability. We are not in that position now.



"the Government encouraged immigration from the West Indies"

Yes, directly after WWII, because we had killed off so many young men.



"a recent Documentary about Poles coming to Britain to do that kind of work showed unemployed British people being offered that work at £7.5 an hour, and refusing it"

Really? And it didn't set out to prove that no did it?



"Why should they be forced to?"

If they are long term unemployed, then why do you think? To eat? To clothe themselves? Because they have no right to leech of others that do work?

If there really are picking jobs paying £7.50 and it is not just a TV 'documentary' invented tool to prove its pre-decided theories then there would be no excuse for the long term unemployed refusing the work.

But I know full well (as do you) it doesn't happen and that these immigrants are working the jobs because at best its minimum wage, and very often its not even that.


"Not in your world where people have to stay in their own country"

Nowhere did I say that.



"or at least jobs always have to first go to people already living in that country!"

As they do pretty much everywhere else - a condition of work visa entry in the US, Canada etc. and just plain old common sense.



"First, of all the idea that asylum seekers or any other immigrant is supplied with everything is a racist myth"

Hang on, one minute first you say that cannot work and now you say that they are not supplied with everything - how do they live then? By what means? And who supplies it?



"Secondly, the number of asylum seekers who do illegal work must be small both because of the numbers involved in total, and because of the surveillance kept on them, where they are not actually in detention."

Like I said, your detachment from reality is truly frightening.


A liberal average of so-called 'asylum seekers' p.a (according to government figures) would be 60,000 and the average case takes 2-3 years (with some still going on over 8 years) so at any one time there are around 120,000 - 180,000 cases pending

The BBC says


"The last figure we have is for 26 March 2005 when 1,625 asylum seekers were in detention.

Amnesty International has come up with its own figure of 25,000 for the number of asylum seekers held 2004."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4109720.stm

I have no doubt that the government is most likely lying, but even so 25,000 is far too much. Lets say, for arguments sake it was 10,000 that still leaves well over 100,000 not in detention - and a lot of surveillance.



"The fact, that you quote from the Daily Mail is confirmation of that."

What???!!!!



"The Daily Mail is an openly racist newspaper that in the 1930’s supported Hitler"

We are in 2009 now mate; and if you really feel that the Daily Mail is 'an openly racist newspaper' and that article was made up to stir up racial hatred, why don't you put a complaint into the police?



"I wouldn’t wipe my arse with it"

I'm sure the feeling is mutual.



"Rubbish, this Government has been one of the most racist for years"

Rubbish. Its been the most left wing and politically correct this country has ever seen.



"But, this doesn’t prove your point either."

In your topsy turvey world maybe.

Heres one more for you:

"The Independent Asylum Commission estimated earlier this summer that 283,500 failed asylum seekers were living homeless in the UK."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/24/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices



"the demand for goods from these 700,000 people was taken out of the economy that would have a devastating effect on jobs here"

Yes we'd have 700,000 less criminals taking up jobs and defrauding inland revenue costing us all money.



"And in the other quotes you have given you can only account for thousands who might be traced, not hundreds of thousands "

Well lets start there then, eh.


"The simple answer here would be to scrap all immigration controls"

I said you were raving.

Just for a start - do you not think that EVERYONE from poor countries would rush here enmasse?

And what would happen?



"But, I didn’t say there was a GENERAL shortage, I specifically said PARTICULAR shortages."

Such as?



"Moreover, the fact was that they could not obtain work IMMEDIATELY"

AT ALL.



"British nurses do not go to work in the US and elsewhere because they can’t get jobs here"

Rubbish. Its becasue, as that article points out, there are no jobs for them here.



"That doesn’t change the fact that there was a shortage"

A slight shortage, not worthy of hundreds of thousand more immigrants. And there is no shortage now.



"What unproved theory, what missing link?"

Well there you go - you know nothing about it at all do you.



"You should watch some of the current programmes on Darwin"

Pop TV programmes are not an education.



"The theory of Evolution is more proved than pretty much any other theory"

What a bizarre qualifier.


"To where they had migrated from the African plains!"

Then where are the remains? None have ever been found.


"You could be a Roman wherever you were born in the Empire for instance"

Not even really true - they could be given a limited form of Roman citizenship such as the Latin Right. This amounted essentially to a second-class citizenship within the Roman state.



"the nation state is only around 300 years old"

The concept of common unity, tribalism etc that led to national unity is as old as man.


"So what?"

So what was your point?


"No they weren’t they were peoples of a multitude of different nationalities with different languages"

Who were primarily Franks - hence the name France.


"you’re the one whose quoted the Daily Mail"

Among others. But this is a standard leftist bluster - dispute any source that disagrees with them.


"Where you get the idea that the weather isn’t that great during Winter I don’t know"

Maybe because I spend around two-three months of the year in Spain and the Canaries (mainly the Canaries now.)

The average Spanish temperature in November, December and January is 7c

http://www.kyero.com/weather/55529-spain-weather


"Not all Basques do want an independent state"

Just the ones who plant bombs.


"Not all shops do"

Hence the term virtually.


"All of Hitler’s policies were designed to benefit his backers in big business from his outlawing of independent trade unions, to the establishment of the National Economic Council that was made up of those same big busineesmen"

No they weren't. They were designed to build a vast war machine.

Either ways, the economics applied were extremely successful by any standard and when compared to your USSR it was light years ahead.


"When you launch a war to conquer another people who have not attacked you what do you call that?"

How about survival of the fittest? You seem to lover Darwinism but don't think that applies to humans?


"No Britain killed them"

No, they starved.

And Ireland is an island surrounded by water, what do you think an alternative food source might have been?


"No they didn’t. Socialism is about workers owning the means of production blah blah blah"

Oh yes they did.

USSR - Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Like I said, that is my favourite part of leftist farce - the desperate attempt to escape socialist history.


"As for people such as Stalin or Mao, I’d say that they were mass murders, who were forced to engage in such activity"

Yip - your raving all right.

They were forced to mass murder. Poor lost souls they were.


"Even on the Spanish shops closing you are wrong. Not only do a large number of shops not close now, but the ones that do certainly don't close between 1 and 6. Normally, 2 till 4 is more common."

Rubbish; it is generally between 1 and 6.

Arthur Bough said...

“What utter rubbish - "the rise of China and India as the superpowers of the first part of the 20th century" makes even less sense when you substitute 20th for 21st because we are only 9 years into the 21st. There has been no first or second part to this century as yet. I think you first statement was written exactly as it was meant to and now you are just embarrassed.”

Yes, right, I really believed as an economist that a China which was at the beginning of the twentieth century a semi-colony was a superpower!!!!! Of course, this is the first part of the 21st century!!!! What other part do you want to describe it as???? And as it is NOW that China and India are rising powers doesn’t it make complete sense to any sane person that that is precisely what was being alluded to? And were there any possibility for not knowing that look at what I actually said,

“The same reasons that TODAY explain he decline of US economic and industrial power, and the rise of China and India as the superpowers of the first part of the 20th century - a position they too will lose, probably to new dynamic powers in Africa later this century if we don't blow ourselves up in the next war first.”

If I were referring to the first part of the 20th century then how explain that word TODAY, and how explain “a position they too will lose, probably to new dynamic powers in Africa later this century”.

No its you that is playing with semantics as an alternative to having an argument to put.

You really need to learn that just because you say something, it doesn't make it true.

”Laughable.

But given that you are such an expert, why are you not able to use your "well understood economic dynamics" and pick out a couple of future African superpowers for us? And if you can't why even bother to suggest that there will be?”


For the same reasons that a financial analyst can’t tell you which companies will be the biggest companies in 20 years time, but do understand the dynamics by which companies achieve that position. The Africa issue is a diversion I was only saying that Britain declined as the US and Germany rose, who in turn have declined as Japan, China and other Asian countries have risen. By the same token the extension of the capitalist market, and of industrialisation into Africa, which is one of the last remaining parts of the world where available labour can be exploited at low wages, means it will undoubtedly go through the same kind of industrial and development process. And I have given you names of such African economies such as South Africa and the Congo, other rapidly developing countries are Angola and Mozambique, for example, but which out of a range of potential leaders assume the dominant role only time will tell.

"and new economic powers such as Germany and the US had risen to replace it"

”Rubbish - but they were very powerful, no doubt.”

What do you mean rubbish its historical fact! As Eric Hobsbawm says,

“Unlike, in other industrial powers, the British boom would not really revive. (after the Great Depression of 1873-96) Prices, profits and rates of interest fell or stayed puzzlingly low. A few feverish little booms did not really halt this long and frustrating descent, which was not reversed until the middle 1890’s. And when the economic sun of inflation once more broke through the prevailing fog, it shone on a very different world. Between 1890 and 1895 both the USA and Germany surpassed Britain in the production of steel. During the “Great Depression” (1873-96) Britain ceased to be the ‘workshop of the world’ and became merely one of its three greatest industrial powers; and in some crucial respects, the weakest of them”.

”Germany was a Nazi state that went from economic depression to economic success and took on pretty much the entire world for six years, and it would have easily demolished your workers paradise if it hadn't taken on too many powerful countries. The economic system and industrial system it employed was ingenious, from its rapid rise from the gutter to being a world superpower - it even managed to produce more towards the end of the war, despite everything thrown at it, then it did at the start - it was still growing.

And not a commune in sight.”


I thought you told us Hitler was a socialist!!! But again, very bad history. For most of the 1930’s Germany was assisted in its regeneration and rearmament by both Britain and the US, who hoped that it would launch a war against the USSR. The US, in particular had large factories in Germany and both Ford and General Motors factories, turned over to tank production, continued full speed ahead right up until the US entered the war. In contrast, the USSR was still facing economic sanctions by the Allied Powers, until Hitler attacked the USSR. German industrial power built up prior to WWI had not been destroyed by that war, because the peace was achieved without German soil being infringed. Germany was financially impoverished by the Versailles Treaty, but its industrial power base remained intact. It was not Germany, which went from the gutter to being a world power but the USSR, which went from a medieval feudal state in 1917 under the Tsar to a modern industrial power by 1947, the world’s second super power, the first into space and so on.

And the fact, is that Germany had overrun France, and obtained the benefits of its colonies, its agricultural production and so on, along with the other minor European states not already allied to Germany. Britain was effectively defeated and shut up within the confines of its bunkers, whilst Hitler hoped that his supporters here such as Lord Halifax would replace Churchill and sue for peace. So when he attacked Russia his hands were pretty much free to do so. The reality is, that despite the bureaucratism and ineptitude of Stalin’s regime, the superiority of Russia’s planned economy was able to not only move production facilities out of Germany’s reach, but the willingness of Russian workers to work and to defend property, which they still felt in some way belonged to them – and in stark contrast to their reaction in the First World War – meant that they were able to produce high quality aircraft, tanks and other materiel in such quantities that even Hitler’s advisors were amazed. And having done so they were able to quickly roll over Hitler’s armies and forward into Germany, prompting the US and Britain to launch the second front afraid that Russia might simply walk into the whole of western Europe. We also now know from General MacArthur that the reason the Japanese surrendered was not due to the atom bombs – the Japanese believed the US had no more left to drop – but was because the USSR was sweeping down through Manchuria, and the Japanese government preferred to surrender to a US occupation that a Soviet occupation.

”Economically it was vastly superior to any form of socialism ever practised.”

It was an advanced capitalist industrialised economy. As there has been no socialist economy the comparison is moot, but in a crucial test between the Germany, and the nationalised and planned economy of the USSR the latter came out clearly on top.

”It is a luxury item - not a staple and this was clearly expressed in the context of UK food production short fallings and potential embargoes.”

Well I look forward to you and your Nazi friends putting this on your leaflets to British workers as an indication of what things they are likely to have to cut out of their lives. If you want to tell British workers that bananas are a luxury be my guest. I’ll have a good laugh watching the reaction.

”Not a lot of you use wind and other renewable sources - but, again, you missed the whole point.”

Are you joking? Most renewable sources of electricity generation are more expensive than conventional sources in Britain, and even if they were the same the cost of producing the quantities of electricity required would be astronomical.

”Not always, but sometimes, when in economic stability. We are not in that position now.”

Britain has used foreign labour throughout its history whether in a downturn or an upturn. The current period is despite the current downturn still one of underlying economic growth. We have record levels of employment. The current downturn will be over by the end of this year, and economic growth will likely accelerate fairly rapidly by the beginning of next year.


”Yes, directly after WWII, because we had killed off so many young men.”

No, because the world had entered a 25 year economic upswing along with the rest of the world, just as it did in 1999. The numbers killed in WWII, were actually quite small compared with WWI. The labour shortage was due to the rapid economic growth.

”Really? And it didn't set out to prove that no did it?”

Whatever it set out to prove it produced real human beings as opposed to the made up stories of the Daily Mail. And what it does do is disprove the point that you made.

”If they are long term unemployed, then why do you think? To eat? To clothe themselves? Because they have no right to leech of others that do work?”

Hang on I thought you were the one arguing against workers being undercut on wages! Now you want them to be forced to accept low wages! Make your mind up.

”If there really are picking jobs paying £7.50 and it is not just a TV 'documentary' invented tool to prove its pre-decided theories then there would be no excuse for the long term unemployed refusing the work.

But I know full well (as do you) it doesn't happen and that these immigrants are working the jobs because at best its minimum wage, and very often its not even that.”


But, it does happen, watch the video. As I said, not the made up stories the Daily Mail and he express go in for, but facts. As someone who actually does support workers against bosses rather than who simply pretends to as is your case I have every sympathy with workers refusing to take low paid jobs.


"Not in your world where people have to stay in their own country"

”Nowhere did I say that.”

That is the logic of your argument.

"or at least jobs always have to first go to people already living in that country!"

”As they do pretty much everywhere else - a condition of work visa entry in the US, Canada etc. and just plain old common sense.”

Having a work visa in neither the US, Canada, Australia or anywhere else is done on the basis that you only get it if every native worker is fully employed. Not, in the rest of Europe either of which whether you like it or not Britain is now a member. And quite right too. If Capital can roam the globe in search of the best place to make the highest profit workers should have the same right to roam the world to where they can get the highest wages.

”Hang on, one minute first you say that cannot work and now you say that they are not supplied with everything - how do they live then? By what means? And who supplies it?”

Probably, the majority of asylum seekers come from middle class backgrounds – that’s often one of the reasons they are asylum seekers – some have their own funds. But, there is a difference between being provided with a basic minimum to live on, and being provided with “EVERYTHING”, isn’t there. So for example, the stories about asylum seekers being given cars and other such crap have always, when investigated either melted away as not being a real story, or else have turned out to be not true, or else have been a gross distortion of the truth.

”A liberal average of so-called 'asylum seekers' p.a (according to government figures) would be 60,000 and the average case takes 2-3 years (with some still going on over 8 years) so at any one time there are around 120,000 - 180,000 cases pending “

Even if all these were working in terms of a total UK workforce that number is small, but in any case there is nothing here that says that these asylum seekers were working, which is the whole point.

”We are in 2009 now mate; and if you really feel that the Daily Mail is 'an openly racist newspaper' and that article was made up to stir up racial hatred, why don't you put a complaint into the police?”

The Daily Mail IS an openly racist newspaper. There is a difference between being openly racist as is the case with the Mail, the Express and so on, and that running over into an incitement to racial hatred, which would be illegal. They normally operate by putting out stories which are hard to verify, and against which individuals have difficulty seeking redress. It is one thing suing these rags if you are Elton John, and have a few million to lay out in legal fees, quite another if you are some poor Asian factory worker.

”Rubbish. Its been the most left wing and politically correct this country has ever seen.”

Hmm. Let’s see, Blair and Brown scrap Clause 4 of the LP Constitution. They privatise things that even Thatcher didn’t dare touch. They treat the unions with disdain while inviting all the top bosses and millionaires into Downing Street. They get millions in donations from those same millionaire’s and businessmen. The first person Brown invites to Number 10 is Maggie Thatcher, he asks Alan Greenspan to be an economic advisor.

Yes, I’d say your statement here ranks alongside your claim that bananas are luxuries.

”Heres one more for you:

"The Independent Asylum Commission estimated earlier this summer that 283,500 failed asylum seekers were living homeless in the UK."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/24/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices”


Earlier you were telling us that these same asylum seekers were provided with EVERYTHING. Which is it.

"the demand for goods from these 700,000 people was taken out of the economy that would have a devastating effect on jobs here"

”Yes we'd have 700,000 less criminals taking up jobs and defrauding inland revenue costing us all money.”

Unless, you have proof that all of these 700,000 people are criminals then this statement is one which could be classed as stirring up racial hatred and would be illegal. Do you know all these 700,000 people personally then that you can make this claim? Or is it one of those well researched Daily Mail type stories.

"And in the other quotes you have given you can only account for thousands who might be traced, not hundreds of thousands "

”Well lets start there then, eh.”

No, let’s not eh. Let’s use the vast amount of manpower that would require to do something socially useful as opposed to attacking workers. A far better use would be to track down all those billionaire’s who are getting away with avoiding tax to the extent of tens – probably hundreds if the truth were known – of billions of pounds per year. Money, which could go to provide decent jobs and training on decent wages.

”Just for a start - do you not think that EVERYONE from poor countries would rush here enmasse?”

No I don’t. They didn’t before Immigration Controls were introduced. Even when the US and Canada, and Australia encouraged people to emigrate to their countries they were not overwhelmed with immigrants, in conditions where there prospects were far better than in Britain today. All the studies of migration show that it takes a hell of a lot for people to move from one country to another, particularly people who are used to not moving further than their next village, and people who perhaps own their own peasant farm etc.



"But, I didn’t say there was a GENERAL shortage, I specifically said PARTICULAR shortages."

”Such as?”

Dentists, plumbers, electricians. Do try to keep up.

"Moreover, the fact was that they could not obtain work IMMEDIATELY"

”AT ALL.”

I’d suggest you go back and read the details of that story again, because it was in fact made clear that those doctors would in fact find places in the next intake.

”Rubbish. Its because, as that article points out, there are no jobs for them here.”

British nurses have been getting trained for free by the NHS, and then going to work in the private sector or overseas where they can get higher wages for years. In the last ten years the expansion in the NHS meant that there was not enough nurses to fill available posts, which is why a crash training programme was introduced, why nurses wages were increased, and why they sought nurses from overseas. If nurses coming out of training now are having difficulty finding work its because of the recent cutbacks in staff that have arisen due to hospital bureaucrats engaging in empire building and expensive projects that overrun budgets, and finding savings by laying off staff.

”A slight shortage, not worthy of hundreds of thousand more immigrants. And there is no shortage now.”

Obviously enough of a shortage that all those immigrants plus all the new UK job entrants were able to find work in the main.

"What unproved theory, what missing link?"

”Well there you go - you know nothing about it at all do you.”

Clearly a damn lot more than you do as witnessed by the fact that in everything that follows you could put forward not one single argument or fact, to support your position!!!!

"To where they had migrated from the African plains!"

”Then where are the remains? None have ever been found.”

Remains are no longer necessary. DNA fingerprinting means that we can trace lineages and human movements over time.

”Not even really true - they could be given a limited form of Roman citizenship such as the Latin Right. This amounted essentially to a second-class citizenship within the Roman state.”

The fact remains that Rome was not a nation state it was a city state, and the division within the Empire was not based on what your nationality was, but what you class was.

”The concept of common unity, tribalism etc that led to national unity is as old as man.”

So what? All this shows is that people group together periodically in different combinations. The North American tribes were grouped similarly, but it didn’t cause them to believe that there were “irreconcilable” differences between them. They ahd sensible arrangements based on the numbers which a particular hunting ground could support, and allocated territory accordingly. If numbers grew too large the tribe would divide up, and part would go off and live in a different area. But, different tribes also had customs between them allowing one tribe to cross another’s hunting ground in its migration, for access to water, sometimes to fishing etc. In the same way now the people of Europe have recognised the benefit of a common unity, and have come together in the EU.

”Who were primarily Franks - hence the name France.”

Actually, no they weren’t, and the Frankish language was actually a minority language in the entire territory of France.

”Maybe because I spend around two-three months of the year in Spain and the Canaries (mainly the Canaries now.)

The average Spanish temperature in November, December and January is 7c

http://www.kyero.com/weather/55529-spain-weather”


Hmm. I have to say that given you quoting Kyero’s average temperature here I have doubts about your comment about spending 2-3 months in Spain. The Kyero average temperature is an average covering the whole day and night time temperatures. Its true that during December, January and February night time temperatures drop considerably, and that lowers the average figure, but the daytime temperature, which is the one most people are interested in if they’ve gone to live in Spain for the weather, is around 18 degrees in the Costa Blanca. Its hotter as I said in the desert in Almeria, and cooler up around Barcelona or on the higher grounds such as Madrid.

I was in Northern Costa Blanca from the beginning of October, and the temperature was in the 20’s all the time. I went to look at some properties down in Almeria and it was in the high 30’s.

”Just the ones who plant bombs.”

Who are a small minority.


"All of Hitler’s policies were designed to benefit his backers in big business from his outlawing of independent trade unions, to the establishment of the National Economic Council that was made up of those same big businessmen"

”No they weren't. They were designed to build a vast war machine.”

No it wasn’t. War production was a way of providing those big businessmen with lucrative contracts, for those rearmaments, for the steel that was used in them, for the coal, to make the steel and so on. The rearmament could be used for German militarism that’s true, but it wasn’t the primary reason for it.

”Either ways, the economics applied were extremely successful by any standard and when compared to your USSR it was light years ahead.”

Actually, some of the economic policies were very bureaucratic and inefficient, for example those that gave incentives for using labour intensive rather than Capital intensive production techniques. Of course, stealing vast amounts of money from Jews, smashing independent trade unions in order to reduce wages and increase productivity did help to raise profitability, but I take it you won’t be advocating those policies to workers in this country to vote for. Actually, not only did the USSR outproduce the Nazis in tanks, aircraft and other materiel, but the higher levels of science in the USSR, also enabled them to produce higher quality tanks and airplanes, as even the Nazis were forced to admit.

"When you launch a war to conquer another people who have not attacked you what do you call that?"

How about survival of the fittest? You seem to lover Darwinism but don't think that applies to humans?

Again you display your ignorance. Darwin’s theory, besides not being applicable as a social theory, does not talk about survival of the fittest in that sense. It talks about survival of those species best adapted to the surroundings. There have in fact, been lots of experiments done to show that animal species do not have a necessary aggressiveness to other species other than as a matter of survival. For example, cats and mice were provided with adequate food from birth, and bought up alongside each other, and they lived together quite peaceably. The experiments have been replicated across a wide range of species including fish with the same results. British humans were not starving and did not need to attack Indians or other peoples, and in doing so and killing them that was murder. It was not done for any reason of survival, but purely for profit.

"No Britain killed them"

”No, they starved.”

When people are sent food to eat, and a government prevents that food being distributed to them, and those people then starve then that government has killed them. That is what Britain and its Irish capitalist associates did.

”And Ireland is an island surrounded by water, what do you think an alternative food source might have been?”

What on Earth are you talking about? There was plenty of food. The Irish peasants produced it on the farms owned by the Irish capitalist farmers. The food was exported to Britain where it fetched high prices.

"No they didn’t. Socialism is about workers owning the means of production blah blah blah"

”Oh yes they did.”

Oh yes they did what???????

"As for people such as Stalin or Mao, I’d say that they were mass murders, who were forced to engage in such activity"

”Yip - your raving all right.

They were forced to mass murder. Poor lost souls they were.”


Now you are reduced to chopping quotes out of context. Let’s look at the full quote again, shall we?

” As for people such as Stalin or Mao, I’d say that they were mass murders, who were forced to engage in such activity in order to pursue policies designed to meet the narrow interests of a comparatively small group of nationalistic, bureaucrats as against the interests of the vast majority of people, and who, therefore, are closer in outlook and method to the Capitalist than to the socialist.”

In other words a perfectly legitimate use of the word forced in context to show that here was a group of people who followed policies of exploitation to meet their own narrow interests much as do the capitalists, and much as do the capitalists when those they exploit seek to challenge that exploitation and to overthrow those in power, those in power respond with ruthless violence.


”Rubbish; it is generally between 1 and 6.”

No it isn’t, and many don’t close at all, especially in the big cities. More importantly the large factories don’t general close down for long periods, because the cost to production would be too great.

“The siesta for shops and businesses is from approximately 2pm until 5pm while bars and restaurants close from about 4pm until about 8 or 9pm”

“However, today many people are unable to take a siesta and their lives haven't collapsed around them. The gradual disappearance of the siesta has not changed the late-night lifestyle, which means the Spanish sleep an average of one hour less per day than other European countries.
Today, the siesta hits Madrid and Barcelona much less than it hits Granada or Salamanca. Big supermarkets and department stores also stay open during the siesta.”

See: Spanish Life

Arthur Bough said...

Just to prove the point on the migration out of Africa.

"New research published in the journal Nature (19 July) has proved the single origin of humans theory by combining studies of global genetic variations in humans with skull measurements across the world. The research, at the University of Cambridge and funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), represents a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory."

See: Humans All Came Out of Africa

and as a further article points out to talk about different "races" within the human species is meaningless.

"Templeton’s contributions to the controversy of recent human evolution include dashing the popular ‘Eve Theory’ because of flaws he detected in researchers’ 1987 computer analyses. In 1998, he published a paper in American Anthropologist that explained humans as one race, instead of a species with subdivisions, or races. His study showed that, among people now categorized by race, everyone shares about 85 percent of the same genes. The 15 percent of variation is not enough difference to separate people biologically."

See: Templeton

Arthur Bough said...

On the African Lion economies I’d refer you to the following.

From the Economist last year.

“And the IMF argues that cub-like countries such as Togo and Gabon are following the path the Asian tigers took in the 1980s, only much faster.”

See: Economist African Lion Economies

Or this from the United Nations.

“Fast-growing "lion" economies are appearing in Africa, and with the assistance of the international community, could rise to the heights of the tiger economies in Asia, said Peter Hain, British junior foreign minister.
"Lion economies are emerging in Africa where Africans are themselves ready and willing to build them," Hain told the annual Southern Africa economic summit, organized by the World Economic Forum and held this week in Durban.”

See: UN on African Lion Economies

Or this IMF paper might be interesting to you.

IMF on Safrican Lions

Sorry, to explode your racist prejudice that its only the white man that can have economic success, but there you go.

By the way. On that point you replied to the point about Britain invading other countries and turning them into colonies by an ignorant reference to “survival of the fittest”. Does that mean that now that Britain is less than a fourth rate power, and the new superpowers of this century are going to be India and China, and possibly later some African countries, that you are resigned to becoming the coolie of some Indian Raja, or Oriental Potentate?

Arthur Bough said...

On France,
the following book is a refutation of your argument.

Feudal Europe

The Sentinel said...

As I have before, you are so far removed from reality it is frightening; your grasp of history is appalling and you make bold statements based on hypothesis and rumours.

But moreover, you fundamentally misunderstand the simplest of statements.


Just a handfull of examples will suffice:


"I thought you told us Hitler was a socialist!!!"

No, quite clearly I said this: "Funny, because he considered himself a socialist too. A national socialist."


"For most of the 1930’s Germany was assisted in its regeneration and rearmament by both Britain and the US"

Wow - Hitler consistently defied the crippling Versailles treaty and its range of sanction against Germany.

Just for instance, they had to form the Luftwaffe in secret and it was largely developed in the USSR - with the Germans giving the Russians technical know how in return.


"It was not Germany, which went from the gutter to being a world power but the USSR"

Really?

German hyper inflation caused by the Versailles treaty became so bad people were paid with wheelbarrows of money and a loaf of bread cost billions- those that were lucky enough to have a job - and the country teetered on civil war as the rule of law had broken down.


"the first into space and so on"

That came from German science - they back-enigeered captured V2 rockets and had the likes of Helmut Gröttrup advancing them. The US space programme has exactly the same basis but Von Braun instead, as the primary.


"the superiority of Russia’s planned economy"

Rubbish.

It was largely due to massive Allied aid.


"but the willingness of Russian workers to work and to defend property"

Rubbish.

Many welcomed the Germans as liberators initially; it was only the short sighted brutality of the Germans toward the occupied lands that made them so resolved, that and the consequences from the NKVD: They had no choice.


"As there has been no socialist economy"

Well, there has been many attempts at it, as you well know. Its just never worked.


"your Nazi friends"

Thats more like it; some gratuitous and baseless insults.

Still, I can reciprocate now - I think your an idiot but didn't say so, but I will now.


"If you want to tell British workers that bananas are a luxury"

Your an idiot.

It was in reference to an embargo, as you well know.


"Are you joking?"

Your an idiot.

No nationalist government is going to be bother about wind farming bananas, as you well know.


"The current period is despite the current downturn still one of underlying economic growth"

You are an idiot!!


"The current downturn will be over by the end of this year"

You are an idiot!!!!

Based upon what exactly? Your say so?


"The labour shortage was due to the rapid economic growth."

Your an idiot.

Food rationing continued until 1954 - a full nine years after the war ended.


"Whatever it set out to prove it produced real human beings as opposed to the made up stories of the Daily Mail"

Your an idiot.

It found people to support its original contention.

Like I said, these Dail Mail stories produce 'real human being; and the journalists would be out of jobs and most likely in prison if they didn't.


"Hang on I thought you were the one arguing against workers being undercut on wages! Now you want them to be forced to accept low wages! Make your mind up."

Your an idiot.

I said long term unemployed and for a wage above the minimum wage.


"But, it does happen, watch the video"

Your an idiot.

They set out to prove that and worked everything around it.


"As someone who actually does support workers against bosses"

Your an idiot.

I was born a 'worker' and I worked as a 'worker' for a very long time.

But it does reveal your whole attitude problem - 'against bosses' - always against something.


"Having a work visa in neither the US, Canada, Australia or anywhere else is done on the basis that you only get it if every native worker is fully employed. Not, in the rest of Europe either of which whether you like it or not Britain is now a member. And quite right too."

For idiots like you, who hate their country and want to see it destroyed.


"Probably, the majority of asylum seekers come from middle class backgrounds"

Don't make me laugh!!!

Have you even met one?


"But, there is a difference between being provided with a basic minimum to live on, and being provided with “EVERYTHING”

Not really.

Food, shelter and clothing is everything - especially if someone is else is footing the bill.


"So for example, the stories about asylum seekers being given cars and other such crap have always, when investigated either melted away as not being a real story, or else have turned out to be not true, or else have been a gross distortion of the truth."

Like this one maybe?

"A family living on benefits in a £1.2 million house in west London told today how they felt they had won the lottery.

Mother-of-seven Toorpakai Saindi gets £170,000 a year in benefits and the council pays the property's private landlord £12,500 a month to accommodate the family who fled Afghanistan seven years ago.
The house in Acton has seven bedrooms, two reception rooms, a dining room and two kitchens, as well as an extensive back garden.{...}

"It's not that we wanted this big house - my mum is not happy because she has to clean all of it. The first day we moved in here we got lost because it was so big."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23566550-details/Our%20%C3%82%C2%A31m%20council%20house%20You%20just%20take%20what%20you're%20given/article.do?expand=true


"There is a difference between being openly racist as is the case with the Mail, the Express and so on, and that running over into an incitement to racial hatred, which would be illegal"

If they are making up racist stories as you claim - just complete fiction - then that would be illegal. And so again, why do you not complain to the police?


"Hmm. Let’s see, Blair and Brown scrap Clause 4 of the LP Constitution..."

Hmm, lets see - just for a start, they bring out a law that leads to a student being arrested for saying a police horse was gay???

But this has already been discussed at this blog in detail, here is the basics:

'Political Correctness' started in a think tank (called The Frankfurt School) in Germany in 1923. The Frankfurt school recommended (amongst other things):

- the creation of racism offences

- continual change to create confusion

- the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children

- the undermining of schools and teachers' authority

- huge immigration to destroy national identity

- the promotion of excessive drinking

- emptying the churches

- an unreliable legal system with bias against the victim of crime

- dependency on the state or state benefits

- control and dumbing down of media

- encouraging the breakdown of the family

Sound all too familiar?'



"Earlier you were telling us that these same asylum seekers were provided with EVERYTHING. Which is it."

Your an idiot.

See the word failed in the report?


"Unless, you have proof that all of these 700,000 people are criminals then this statement is one which could be classed as stirring up racial hatred and would be illegal. Do you know all these 700,000 people personally then that you can make this claim?"

You are an idiot. You really are.

These people are illegal immigrants and are criminals by definition.

Just to push it into your head a bit further: They have acted illegally, they are not here legally, they are breaking tax laws, making them even more illegal.The clues is in the name: Illegal immigrant.

Starting to sink in?

But please do feel free to take it to the police. Good luck with that.


"Let’s use the vast amount of manpower that would require to do something socially useful as opposed to attacking workers"

Not workers - illegal immigrants who pay no tax.


"No I don’t. They didn’t before Immigration Controls were introduced. Even when the US and Canada, and Australia encouraged people to emigrate to their countries they were not overwhelmed with immigrants"

Your an idiot.

That is because they didn't have an open doors policy at all - just for instance Australia had an avowedly "White Australia policy" until only recently, and the other countries imposed lots of restrictions.


"All the studies of migration show that it takes a hell of a lot for people to move from one country to another"

Do they really?

How about that Swedish report then? Biggest wave of immigration in their history equalled the biggest wave of emigration in their history?


"Dentists, plumbers, electricians. Do try to keep up"

Your an idiot.

You said there was a specific medical shortage - what was it?


"I’d suggest you go back and read the details of that story again, because it was in fact made clear that those doctors would in fact find places in the next intake"

What the hell are you on about?


"British nurses have been getting trained for free by the NHS"

Your an idiot.

Read the report again:

"It warned of significant consequences for unemployed nurses who have incurred considerable student debt"


"Clearly a damn lot more than you do as witnessed by the fact that in everything that follows you could put forward not one single argument or fact, to support your position!!!!"

What position? Thats its an unproved theory? It is!!!

And most likely it wasn't of Darwin's origination in any case.



"Remains are no longer necessary"

Ha ha ha!!! You REALLY ARE AN IDIOT!!!

Why aren't there any?


"So what? All this shows is that people group together periodically in different combinations"

So everything idiot. Everything that pertain to human nature and natural unity.


"Actually, no they weren’t, and the Frankish language was actually a minority language in the entire territory of France."

And yet France is called France because of the Franks.


"Hmm. I have to say that given you quoting Kyero’s average temperature here I have doubts about your comment about spending 2-3 months in Spain"

I couldn't give a flying Marxist what you think. You know nothing, and like the rest of your rubbish its all based on nothing. I quoted that to stop your silly waffle - and I made sure it wasnt Daily Mail weather for you.



"Kyero average temperature is an average covering the whole day and night time temperatures"

Thanks for that.


"Its true that during December, January and February night time temperatures drop considerably, and that lowers the average figure, but the daytime temperature, which is the one most people are interested in if they’ve gone to live in Spain for the weather, is around 18 degrees in the Costa Blanca. Its hotter as I said in the desert in Almeria, and cooler up around Barcelona or on the higher grounds such as Madrid."

Your an idiot.

What a load of waffle for nothing.

The average temperatures for Spain are 7c over winter; face it.

But then that is you all over - you just waffle on and on against an establised fact.


"Who are a small minority."

But everyone knows who they are.


"No it wasn’t. War production was a way of providing those big businessmen with lucrative contracts"

Your an idiot.

That there tells me and everyone else that you know absolty nothing about it.

The whole point of the Nazi regime was to re-militarise and reverse the defeat of the Great War; as fast as possible.


"but the higher levels of science in the USSR, also enabled them to produce higher quality tanks and airplanes, as even the Nazis were forced to admit."

It was more to do with the primitivness of the design actually - for example the conditions inside the T34 were extremely dire even by military standards and not one that even the Nazis sought to impose; and of course, given the history of extreme cold weather in the USSR, many features were added to the designs to counter the weather - just local knowledge. The Russians never came close to the V2 rockets, or jet fighters, or prototype helicopters, or prototype heat seeking missiles etc etc that the Nazis produced.

And near the wars end, the US and USSR fought to scavenge the best Nazi scientists for themselves.


"It talks about survival of those species best adapted to the surroundings"

Exactly.


"British humans were not starving and did not need to attack Indians or other peoples"

But the competitive human nature compelled them to in any case.

And the Indians largely co-operated for many years. Days of the Rag.



"and those people then starve then that government has killed them"

Really? I dont need a government to feed me.

If I am hungry, and I have been, I find my own food - be it plants, animals or fish. There are very few places on this planet that you cannot survive in.


"What on Earth are you talking about? There was plenty of food. The Irish peasants produced it on the farms owned by the Irish capitalist farmers. The food was exported to Britain where it fetched high prices."

More fool them.

But if your hungry and surrounded by water - fish.


"Now you are reduced to chopping quotes out of context. Let’s look at the full quote again, shall we?"

Yeah - you said they were forced to be mass murderers 'in order to pursue policies designed to meet the narrow interests of a comparatively small group of nationalistic, bureaucrats as against the interests of the vast majority of people.'

I almost feel sorry for them.


"No it isn’t, and many don’t close at all"
A SPANISH DAY:

The workday begins at 8:00 or 9:00am depending on the business. Work normally stops around 12:00 or 1:0opm and resumes around 4:00 or as late as 5:00pm. Retail shops remain open until 9:00pm each evening

http://www.tenerife-training.net/Tenerife-News-Cycling-Blog/2007/08/spanish-island-life/a-typical-spanish-day-the-infamous-siesta-sleep-time-explained-justified/



"Just to prove the point on the migration out of Africa"


Just to prove human-ape-african evoltion is an an umproved theroy:

Paleoanthropology
Creationists regard all supposed ape to man intermediate fossils to be either fully ape (the Australopithecines) or fully human, although there remains some disagreement [2].

Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni): Fraudulent fossil that was filed-down to look human-like and chemically treated to give it the appearance of age. It was hailed as proof of Darwin's theory for forty years.
Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii): Refers to a poorly-preserved fossilized tooth incorrectly identified as belonging to a primate in the 1920s, but a consensus was later reached that it belonged to a peccary (wild pig).
Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus): Fraudulent fossil.
Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis): Despite earlier attempts by evolutionists to classify Neanderthals as primitive "ape-men," recent discoveries indicate Neanderthals were human. Further, several Neanderthal specimens dated by Professor Reiner Protsch were found to be drastically younger than suggested. [3]
Archaeoraptor
The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic (196:98-107, November 1999). Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.

Human-chimp DNA Similarity
This was a myth followed and taught blindly by evolutionists for 30 years. It is now, since we have unraveled DNA and decoded the genome can we see and truly understand the complexity and difference of human and chimp DNA.

Writing for Scientific American, JR Minkel had this to say about the findings and statistics that back it up[4]:

“ In humans and chimps, which have about 22,000 genes each, the group found 1,418 duplicates that one or the other does not possess. For example, humans have 15 members of a family of brain genes linked to autism, called the centaurin-gamma family, whereas chimps have six, for a difference of nine gene copies.
The group estimated that humans have acquired 689 new gene duplicates and lost 86 since diverging from our common ancestor with chimps six million years ago. Similarly, they reckoned that chimps have lost 729 gene copies that humans still have.

"The paper supports the emerging view that change in gene copy number, via gene duplication or loss, is one of the key mechanisms driving mammalian evolution," says genomics researcher James Sikela of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center.


Matthew Hahn (Indiana U) and a team of scientists carried out studies comparing human and chimp DNA but took into consideration gene duplications which wasn't when the 1.5% was propagated. It is now known that difference ranges about 6%. Mr. Hahn published the myth-shattering findings [5] in PLoS One, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_myths


"and as a further article points out to talk about different "races" within the human species is meaningless."

And this study points out its not:

'THE SCIENTISTS
Richard Redon,
Shumpei Ishikawa,
Karen R. Fitch,
Lars Feuk,
George H. Perry,
T. Daniel Andrews,
Heike Fiegler,
Michael H. Shapero,
Andrew R. Carson,
Wenwei Chen,
Eun Kyung Cho,
Stephanie Dallaire,
Jennifer L. Freeman,
Juan R. González,
Mònica Gratacòs,
Jing Huang,
Dimitrios Kalaitzopoulos,
Daisuke Komura,
Jeffrey R. MacDonald,
Christian R. Marshall5,
Rui Mei4,
Lyndal Montgomery,
Kunihiro Nishimura,
Kohji Okamura,
Fan Shen,
Martin J. Somerville,
Joelle Tchinda,
Armand Valsesia,
Cara Woodwark,
Fengtang Yang,
Junjun Zhang,
Tatiana Zerjal,
Jane Zhang,
Lluis Armengol,
Donald F. Conrad,
Xavier Estivil,
Chris Tyler-Smith,
Nigel P. Carter,
Hiroyuki Aburatani,
Charles Lee,
Keith W. Jones,
Stephen W. Scherer
and Matthew E. Hurles

THE INSTITUTIONS
1. The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK
2. Genome Science, and,
3. Dependable and High Performance Computing, Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Tokyo, Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo, Japan
4. Affymetrix, Inc., Santa Clara, California, USA
5. The Centre for Applied Genomics and Program in Genetics and Genomic Biology, The Hospital for Sick Children, MaRS Centre–East Tower, 101 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
6. Department of Molecular and Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada
7. Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
8. Genes and Disease Program, Center for Genomic Regulation, Charles Darwin s/n, Barcelona Biomedical Research Park, 08003 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
9. Departments of Medical Genetics and Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
10. Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois, USA
11. Pompeu Fabra University, Charles Darwin s/n, and National Genotyping Centre (CeGen), Passeig Marítim, Barcelona Biomedical Research Park, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
12. Japan Science and Technology Agency, Kawaguchi, Saitama, Japan
13. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
..........
Here is an extract from the study:

"We have constructed a first-generation CNV map of the human genome through the study of 270 individuals from four populations with ancestry in Europe, Africa or Asia (the HapMap collection). DNA from these individuals was screened for CNV using two complementary technologies: single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping arrays, and clone-based comparative genomic hybridization. A total of 1,447 copy number variable regions (CNVRs), which can encompass overlapping or adjacent gains or losses, covering 360 megabases (12% of the genome) were identified in these populations."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/full/nature05329.html


“And the IMF argues that cub-like countries such as Togo and Gabon are following the path the Asian tigers took in the 1980s, only much faster.”

Really?

Just on Togo we have this report:

"This small, sub-Saharan economy is heavily dependent on both commercial and subsistence agriculture, which provides employment for 65% of the labor force. Some basic foodstuffs must still be imported. Cocoa, coffee, and cotton generate about 40% of export earnings with cotton being the most important cash crop. Togo is the world's fourth-largest producer of phosphate. The government's decade-long effort, supported by the World Bank and the IMF, to implement economic reform measures, encourage foreign investment, and bring revenues in line with expenditures has moved slowly. Progress depends on follow through on privatization, increased openness in government financial operations, progress toward legislative elections, and continued support from foreign donors. Togo is working with donors to write a Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) that could eventually lead to a debt reduction plan. Economic growth remains marginal due to declining cotton production, underinvestment in phosphate mining, and strained relations with donors. "

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/togo/togo_economy.html



"On France,
the following book is a refutation of your argument."

"The name "France" comes from Latin Francia, which literally means "land of the Franks" or "Frankland". There are various theories as to the origin of the name of the Franks. One is that it is derived from the Proto-Germanic word frankon which translates as javelin or lance as the throwing axe of the Franks was known as a francisca.[citation needed]

Another proposed etymology is that in an ancient Germanic language, Frank means free as opposed to slave. This word still exists in French as franc, it is also used as the translation of "Frank" and to name the local money, until the use of the euro in the 2000s."

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

Arthur Bough said...

“No, quite clearly I said this: "Funny, because he considered himself a socialist too. A national socialist."”

And the only point in you making that statement in the context was to say that he WAS a socialist i.e. the context in which you were saying that socialists were responsible for mass murder.

”Wow - Hitler consistently defied the crippling Versailles treaty and its range of sanction against Germany.”

And was allowed to by Britain and the US, just as they allowed the huge build up of the German Navy. Why, because they anticipated a German attack on Russia.

”Really?

German hyper inflation caused by the Versailles treaty became so bad people were paid with wheelbarrows of money and a loaf of bread cost billions- those that were lucky enough to have a job - and the country teetered on civil war as the rule of law had broken down.”


Yes, really. The hyper inflation wasn’t caused by the Versailles Treaty. The Weimar republic printed huge amounts of paper currency as a deliberate means of paying back the Entente Powers with funny money. That caused the hyper-inflation. Yes, in 1918 and 1921 there were revolutions, and yes, the Versailles Treaty imposed terrible conditions on Germany. But, the fact remains that Germany was not invaded by the Entente, Russia was. In fact, Russia was not only invaded by 18 imperialist powers, but by Germany itself, and forced to concede a large area of territory including some of the best industrial areas under the Brest-Litovsk Peace agreement. In 1914 Germany was already one of the 3 leading industrial nations whereas Russia under the Tsar was still a mostly medieval society with 80% of the population working on the land in inefficient agriculture. In 1918, Germany was still one of the three leading industrial powers whereas Russia was decimated both by the War, and by the Civil War fostered by imperialism. Yet, just over 20 years later even given the terrible bureaucratism and corruption of the Stalinist regime, that same backward country had developed to a stage whereby it had better military technology than Germany, and where its productive capacity far exceeded that of Germany in terms of its ability to produce the weapons needed to smash Hitler’s Reich.


”That came from German science - they back-engineered captured V2 rockets and had the likes of Helmut Gröttrup advancing them. The US space programme has exactly the same basis but Von Braun instead, as the primary.”

Partly, true though both Russia and the US had their own rocket scientists too. The fact remains that from being a medieval peasant society they developed quickly enough to be a super-power in just 30 years, and even, despite Von Braun’s assistance to the US, still beat it into space, and continued to beat it in the space race. Even now the US relies on technology developed in the USSR for the trickiest elements of the ISS.


”Rubbish.

It was largely due to massive Allied aid.”


Clearly, not true. Until, Germany invaded Russia the USSR was still under an embargo by the US, Britain and so on. Until, Germany signed an alliance with Japan after Pearl Harbour, the US plants such as GM and Ford continued to churn out German Tanks and planes, and they even had the nerve after the war to seek compensation from Britain for having bombed them!!! The huge production of Russian aircraft and tanks had nothing to do with Allied Aid whatsoever. Although, Britain did begin to send aid to Russia on the North Sea convoys little of it got through due to German U-boats sinking them. Stalin continually complained to Churchill about proposed aid not being sent alongside his complaints about Britain and the US not opening the second front, and basically leaving Russia to fight Germany alone, while Churchill concentrated on actions to defend Britain’s interests elsewhere. It was only when it looked like Russia was simply going to roll over Germany, and possibly into western Europe that Churchill and Roosevelt decided to open the second front.


”Rubbish.

Many welcomed the Germans as liberators initially; it was only the short sighted brutality of the Germans toward the occupied lands that made them so resolved, that and the consequences from the NKVD: They had no choice.”


That wasn’t at all true of the Russians. It was true of the Lithuanians, Ukrainians and other nationalities who had suffered under the senseless Great Russian Nationalism of Stalin. But, even they soon changed their position again when they saw that the even worse nationalism of the Nazis made life even worse for them. Its true the NKVD acted as a whip on Russian troops, and those convicts brought in to fight in the front lines. But, the Tsar’s army used even worse measures of terror and repression against the people and troops. Flogging was a common occurrence under the Tsar’s army, and he wrote many times advocating that soldiers be flogged just to give an incentive to other troops. Yet, those same troops under such repression turned round, went home and overthrew the Tsar. It would have been probably easier to have overthrown Stalin had they chose to do so.

”Well, there has been many attempts at it, as you well know. Its just never worked.”

There were many attempts to build a powered flying machine all of which failed until the Wright Brothers didn’t.

”Thats more like it; some gratuitous and baseless insults.”

Nothing gratuitous or baseless about it. In sentence after sentence above you have glorified the achievements of Hitler’s Reich, you advocate a set of nationalist ideas and politics that are the common coin of Nazis like the BNP. How else can we define such people and your admiration of them other than as your “friends”?

”Still, I can reciprocate now - I think your an idiot but didn't say so, but I will now.”

That would imply that you believe that Nazis are idiots. Your choice not mine.


”It was in reference to an embargo, as you well know.”

No it wasn’t. You had said,

“I agree with you that full-blown and traditional protectionist polices (tariffs, import quotas etc) would not work in this country at this time, and would certainly make things worse for pretty much because of the reactions to it you describe.

This is mainly because we no longer have any viable industries (or even the agricultural production) to compete with globally. The sad fact is, that we could not even come to close to feeding ourselves without foreign imports and that we would be in serious trouble after just a few days of embargo.”


So, in other words you were saying that you would favour protectionist policies that ensured that British workers got available jobs, and the needs of British people were met by British production. You accepted this wasn’t possible FOR NOW because the condition of British industry and agriculture meant it couldn’t meet those needs. But, its quite clear that from this you thought such a situation would be desirable.

I pointed out to you that not only was such a system undesirable, but that it was in any case impossible, because it simply isn’t possible for Britain to feed itself etc.

“The idea that Britain could ever today properly be self-sufficient in food is also not on. Certainly, all those things we now take for granted such as bananas, and other fruits could not viably be produced, and the cost of producing many other types of food would be prohibitive.”

I was not at all referring to a situation of embargo here, but the straightforward situation that Britain could not meet its own food needs from its own production. In fact, Britain has not been able to fed itself from its own food production sine the middle of the 19th Century.

It was in reply to this statement that you said that bananas were a luxury item, not at all in relation to a situation of embargo.

You said,

“Certainly it could produce a lot more then it does. But as for bananas and the like, they are luxury items and not a staple necessity, and Iceland has no problems producing them and many other exotic fruits in massive hydroponic sheds (using their natural geothermal energy) so it can be done, in any case.”

In short, you are trying to squirm out of it again.

”No nationalist government is going to be bother about wind farming bananas, as you well know.”

No you’d just send an edict out telling people that under the Reich people couldn’t have bananas.

”You are an idiot!!”

For bothering to reply to the incoherent ramblings of a racist bigot probably so.


”Based upon what exactly? Your say so?”

Based upon my own economic analysis, and the analysis of many other financial analysts, the IMF, the OECD etc.

”Food rationing continued until 1954 - a full nine years after the war ended.”

And your point is? Look at the figures for economic growth during the 1950’s. Why do you think that Harold Macmillan came out with the phrase during that period, “You’ve never had it so good.”?

”It found people to support its original contention.”

Possibly so, but real people nevertheless. Also, you have to explain then why it is that fruit growers etc. have to bring in these workers at such rates of pay if there are available British workers prepared to do the work? You have to explain why it is that after the Government changed the law so that the foreign workers, mainly students, who came in in previous work to do fruit picking were stopped, that fruit growers lost some of their crop for the reason that they couldn’t get enough british workers to do the job.

”Like I said, these Dail Mail stories produce 'real human being; and the journalists would be out of jobs and most likely in prison if they didn't.”

No they wouldn’t. The Daily Mail is an openly racist paper that encourages its journalists to write such stories. Its by writing such crap that it sells papers to its readership of low-intelligence, ignorant and bigoted readers, who look for confirmation of their racist and bigoted views. Provided that it doesn’t actually incite people to racial hatred it gets away with writing this crap, because the people it writes about either don’t exist or else they lack the resources to sue it.

”I said long term unemployed and for a wage above the minimum wage.”

But a wage above the Minimum Wage is still low wages. £7.50 an hour is only about 60% of what the government says is the average male wage. I can quite understand why British workers do not feel they should be forced to work for such low rates of pay in order to produce profits for British bosses.


”They set out to prove that and worked everything around it.”

You say without any proof of that statement. They could in any case do that if the evidence was there to be used. Unless of course they made it up, which is what the Daily Mail does.

”I was born a 'worker' and I worked as a 'worker' for a very long time.

But it does reveal your whole attitude problem - 'against bosses' - always against something.”


No not always against something, I am for the workers, I am for socialism. But, in any case you are “AGAINST” foreigners. But, what are you FOR. You are for Nationalism, but what does that mean. It means you are for what you mistakenly believe is your nation, but being for your nation means being for the people who control that nation, those who own and control the means of production and the majority of wealth. In other words it means being FOR the bosses, and that means being AGAINST the workers. And that is what your politics amount to politics which look after the interests of the bosses at the expense of the workers, just as was the politics of the Nazis you so admire.


"Having a work visa in neither the US, Canada, Australia or anywhere else is done on the basis that you only get it if every native worker is fully employed. Not, in the rest of Europe either of which whether you like it or not Britain is now a member. And quite right too."

”For idiots like you, who hate their country and want to see it destroyed.”

This answer makes no sense as a reply to the point you were responding to. In any case I don’t want to see Britain destroyed. I want to see Capitalism destroyed in Britain and elsewhere and replaced with Socialism, and whereby the ridiculous lines on maps that divide human beings will gradually disappear.

”Have you even met one?”

Yes, quite a few. I was a Governor at my kids school where there were quite a few kids of asylum seekers. The general consensus was that everyone wished all the kids were like them. The police representative commented that they were by far the best behaved and well-mannered, and he teacher representative said that not only were the kids hard working, but the parents took far more interest in their education than most parents.


”Not really.

Food, shelter and clothing is everything - especially if someone is else is footing the bill.”


No, it isn’t especially when papers like the Daily Mail and the BNP spread ridiculous stories about asylum seekers being given cars, mobile phones etc.


”Like this one maybe?”

They weren’t GIVEN the house were they. A good example of how the truth is distorted. For example it says the family receive £170,00 in benefits AND the Council pays the rent of £12,500 a month. In fact, the £170,000 in benefits must INCLUDE that payment of £12,500 a month to the landlord, because it would be impossible on the basis of even claiming for 6 people to receive £170,000 in benefits. In fact, the real person that is benefiting here is the landlord who is being paid £150,000 a year out of the pocket of the local taxpayer. And as far as we can tell he is a British citizen! The family themselves are left with just £20,000 for 6 people to live on – assuming that even this figure in the story is true – which is not very much given the cost of living in London. If there weren’t the restrictions on asylum seekers not being able to work they would have no need to claim these benefits, and would be able to seek alternative more appropriate accommodation. Had it not been for the fact that Maggie thatcher forced councils to sell off the housing stock, and that Blair and Brown have continued those Tory policies, then there would have been more chance of a straightforward Council House being available instead.

”If they are making up racist stories as you claim - just complete fiction - then that would be illegal. And so again, why do you not complain to the police?”

No it wouldn’t. Its only illegal if it can be shown to be inciting racial hatred. And why complain to the police, an institution that has been found to be ridden with institutional racism itself.

”"Hmm. Let’s see, Blair and Brown scrap Clause 4 of the LP Constitution..."

Hmm, lets see - just for a start, they bring out a law that leads to a student being arrested for saying a police horse was gay???”


Was the student found guilty, or was it just a convenient means for the police to arrest someone? There is nothing Left-wing in any case in such a law. If anything, I’d say the contrary along with other measures, which increase the power of the State.

"But this has already been discussed at this blog in detail, here is the basics:

'Political Correctness' started in a think tank (called The Frankfurt School) in Germany in 1923. The Frankfurt school recommended (amongst other things):


”Sound all too familiar?'”


Yes, some of it seems like the kind of rantings of the Right, some like the confused ideas of Liberals, and other parts like the kind of Mary Whitehouse complaints against modern capitalist society. Nothing in it is particularly, Left-Wing, and certainly nothing in it is Marxist.

”These people are illegal immigrants and are criminals by definition.

Just to push it into your head a bit further: They have acted illegally, they are not here legally, they are breaking tax laws, making them even more illegal. The clues is in the name: Illegal immigrant.”


The fact remains that if we followed your advice then the loss of demand in the economy caused by the removal of these 700,000 people would be devastating for jobs in this country. The reduction in aggregate demand as I stated would be at least 300,000, and probably as much as 3 million, because of the multiplier effect. It makes far more sense as the article you were referring to suggested to declare an amnesty on these workers so that they could get proper trade union rates of pay, be properly registered so that they were protected by Health and Safety and other laws, and so they did pay tax.

”Not workers - illegal immigrants who pay no tax.”

They are still workers.

”That is because they didn't have an open doors policy at all - just for instance Australia had an avowedly "White Australia policy" until only recently, and the other countries imposed lots of restrictions.”

That policy in Australia was a recent development witnessed by the large numbers of Asian people who DO live in Australia. The US had a motto “Bring Me Your Starving and Huddled Masses”. Yet, the populations of Africa etc. did not move en masse to the US, nor did they move to Britain prior to the introduction of Immigration Controls.

”How about that Swedish report then? Biggest wave of immigration in their history equalled the biggest wave of emigration in their history?”

That doesn’t change the fact that the majority of people find moving from one country to another a big thing to take on, and is the reason why few do.

"Dentists, plumbers, electricians. Do try to keep up"

”Your an idiot.

You said there was a specific medical shortage - what was it?”


And you call me an idiot. Did you not notice that the first group in the list you have just quoted was DENTISTS????


”What the hell are you on about?”

I’m on about the fact that you didn’t read the story closely enough, and the follow ups to it, which made clear that many of the doctors would be emigrating anyway, and that the rest would find posts in the next intake.

"It warned of significant consequences for unemployed nurses who have incurred considerable student debt"

All students run up debt nowadays. It doesn’t change the fact that the training is essentially free.

”What position? That its an unproved theory? It is!!!”

Every, theory is unproven if you want to be pedantic. The whole basis of the scientific method is that any theory is only provisionally true i.e. true until proved false. That applies to the theory of gravity as much as the theory of evolution. But, the scientific method is also based on the idea that if a sufficient body of evidence supports a theory it is taken as being proved, and that the burden lies on those who disagree to disprove it. The Theory of Evolution has been proven in this context more than almost any other scientific theory, and is, therefore, proved.

”And most likely it wasn't of Darwin's origination in any case.”

Who cares. It’s the theory that’s important, and its been proved to be true.

”Why aren't there any?”

There probably are, but it doesn't matter anymore because, DNA now gives us a more accurate, and more extensive proof.


”So everything idiot. Everything that pertain to human nature and natural unity.”

Not at all, because those combinations are not at all an indication of any innate characteristics, certainly not irreconcilable differences of one group and combination compared with another. The combinations themselves are fleeting, the basis on which they are formed change, the characteristics of the group change and so on.

”And yet France is called France because of the Franks.”

Actually, no it appears more likely to have come from the Kings of the Ile De France.

”I couldn't give a flying Marxist what you think. You know nothing, and like the rest of your rubbish its all based on nothing. I quoted that to stop your silly waffle - and I made sure it wasnt Daily Mail weather for you.”

Nevertheless, if you think that the weather in Spain in the Winter isn’t all that great, especially if you think the average day time temperature is only 7 degrees then this suggests to me you’ve clearly never been there at that time of year.

”The average temperatures for Spain are 7c over winter; face it.”

You claimed that the weather in Spain during Winter wasn’t that great. Now you want to defend that argument by saying that the average temperature there is only 7 degrees. But, that doesn’t tell us whether the weather is good or bad, because that 7 degrees is the average for Day and Night. The average daytime temperature is between 14 and 18 degrees, compared with an average figure in Britain of perhaps 4 or 5. Anyone can see that by looking on the daytime weather maps on Euronews, or CNN. The fact that you want to try to argue over this point when you can so easily be proved wrong tells us everything about your mentality.

But then that is you all over - you just waffle on and on against an established fact.

”But everyone knows who they are.”

And?

”The whole point of the Nazi regime was to re-militarise and reverse the defeat of the Great War; as fast as possible.”

No, the whole point of the Nazi regime was that German Capitalists were facing their overthrow by the German Communists who had the support of millions of workers, alongside the millions of workers supporting the German Social Democrats. The German Capitalists ceded political power to the Nazis in order to keep control of the means of production in their own hands rather than in the hands of the workers. Faced with a huge crisis of international Capitalism in the 1930’s, it was necessary to use up the surplus Capital that could not be employed profitably, which led to the building of the autobahns, and other Keynesian economic measures, of which rearmament was part, but, of course, the German Capitalists and their Nazi agents knew that a new war would be needed to resolve the problems that the First had not, and so the rearmament programme fitted in with the need to provide work for Germany’s big coal, steel, and engineering businesses.

”It was more to do with the primitivness of the design actually - for example the conditions inside the T34 were extremely dire even by military standards and not one that even the Nazis sought to impose; and of course, given the history of extreme cold weather in the USSR, many features were added to the designs to counter the weather - just local knowledge. The Russians never came close to the V2 rockets, or jet fighters, or prototype helicopters, or prototype heat seeking missiles etc etc that the Nazis produced.”

But, they did produce better planes, better tanks and more importantly produced them in far greater numbers than the Nazis could achieve.

"British humans were not starving and did not need to attack Indians or other peoples"

"But the competitive human nature compelled them to in any case."

No it didn’t. It was the drive for profit of Merchant Capitalists, and for rent by English Landlords.

”Really? I dont need a government to feed me.”

It was not a matter of the Government feeding them, but of that Government physically preventing them from having the food sent to them.

”If I am hungry, and I have been, I find my own food - be it plants, animals or fish. There are very few places on this planet that you cannot survive in.”

Obviously, Ireland during the famine was one of them, or all those peasants who had survived precisely be eking out such a living from the land would have done so.

”More fool them.”

What do you mean? The food wasn’t exported by the people who needed it, but by the Capitalists who owned it. Its precisely your nationalism that cannot understand that it is this difference between classes that is the determinant of history, that it is differences between classes and not nationalities that really are irreconcilable. That British Capitalists cannot give a fuck for British workers when it comes to those capitalists making a profit.

”But if your hungry and surrounded by water - fish.”

Have you ever been to Ireland? Do you realise what a big country it is? Do youn not understand that the majority of the peasant smallholdings were because they were agricultural in the interior of Ireland a long way away from the sea? How many days in the middle of the 19th century do you think it would take to get to the sea on foot to fish? And in any case, the peasants not only needed to continue to try to tend their land, but in order to pay their rents and taxes they needed to continue to work on the Capitalist farms to earn money.

"Now you are reduced to chopping quotes out of context. Let’s look at the full quote again, shall we?"

”I almost feel sorry for them.”

Given your admiration for the Third Reich I can understand you feeling sorry for mass murderers.

"No it isn’t, and many don’t close at all"

"A SPANISH DAY:

The workday begins at 8:00 or 9:00am depending on the business. Work normally stops around 12:00 or 1:0opm and resumes around 4:00 or as late as 5:00pm. Retail shops remain open until 9:00pm each evening

http://www.tenerife-training.net/Tenerife-News-Cycling-Blog/2007/08/spanish-island-life/a-typical-spanish-day-the-infamous-siesta-sleep-time-explained-justified/"


So, I give an account from a mainstream Spanish website that deals with people’s questions about living in Spain that states clearly, “However, today many people are unable to take a siesta and their lives haven't collapsed around them. The gradual disappearance of the siesta has not changed the late-night lifestyle,”, and you respond with what – comments from someone’s blog!!!!! Comments, which are not even about mainland Spain, but about Tenerife, a mostly holiday island off the coast of Africa, and which does not in any case challenge the point that although SOME shops and businesses still close for the siesta – and not for the duration of 1-6 that you claimed – the siesta is dying out, that in the big cities its largely gone, and that in industry its pretty much disappeared, and is nothing more than, the fact that in Germany workers have a two hour break, and workers in Britain often take long lunch breaks, particularly if they work flexi-time.

It hardly confirms your view that this represents some innate, irreconcilable difference between Spaniards and Brits does it? Especially, when the person whose blog you cited says that they have adopted the practice themselves!!!!!!

"Just to prove human-ape-african evoltion is an an umproved theroy:

”Paleoanthropology
Creationists regard all supposed ape to man intermediate fossils to be either fully ape (the Australopithecines) or fully human, although there remains some disagreement [2]. “"


Precisely, Creationists. A bunch of nutters who believe the Bible is literally true. Who believe that the Earth is no more than 7,000 years old!!! And you have the nerve to describe the theory of evolution as unproven!!!!! You not only associate yourslef with the most crass Nationalist ideas, but now we find out you are a Creationist. I knew you were a moron from your writing, but that just about caps it!

As for the frauds quoted, so what. The fact that some frauds and some mistakes were found does not change the fact of all the fossil records that ARE NOT frauds. And the biggest fraud is of course the Bible account of creation.

"Human-chimp DNA Similarity

”This was a myth followed and taught blindly by evolutionists for 30 years. It is now, since we have unraveled DNA and decoded the genome can we see and truly understand the complexity and difference of human and chimp DNA.”"


In fact, another good example of pseudo science perpetrated by creationists. No one says that humans and Chimpanzees are IDENTICAL, of course, there are genetic differences, that is precisely the point of evolution. But, in fact the latest analysis shows that the differences in the human genome and the chimp genome are, in fact smaller than that between a horse and a donkey. When you consider that horses and donkeys are still able to interbreed that shows how close the human genome is to that of chimps.

"And this study points out its not:


Here is an extract from the study:"


"We have constructed a first-generation CNV map of the human genome through the study of 270 individuals from four populations with ancestry in Europe, Africa or Asia (the HapMap collection). DNA from these individuals was screened for CNV using two complementary technologies: single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping arrays, and clone-based comparative genomic hybridization. A total of 1,447 copy number variable regions (CNVRs), which can encompass overlapping or adjacent gains or losses, covering 360 megabases (12% of the genome) were identified in these populations."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/full/nature05329.html”


There is nothing whatsoever in this quote that says that the human species is anything other than a single race!!!!!


”Really?

Just on Togo we have this report:”


Again nothing that contradicts the argument previously put forward, and certainly does not challenge the view put forward that “Fast-growing "lion" economies are appearing in Africa, and with the assistance of the international community, could rise to the heights of the tiger economies in Asia”, said Peter Hain, British junior foreign minister. Again I quote the IMF, the UN, the Economist on range of developing African economies and you are reduced to quoting some obscure article on one single country that doesn’t even make the case you wanted to present.


”"The name "France" comes from Latin Francia, which literally means "land of the Franks" or "Frankland". There are various theories as to the origin of the name of the Franks. One is that it is derived from the Proto-Germanic word frankon which translates as javelin or lance as the throwing axe of the Franks was known as a francisca.[citation needed]

Another proposed etymology is that in an ancient Germanic language, Frank means free as opposed to slave. This word still exists in French as franc, it is also used as the translation of "Frank" and to name the local money, until the use of the euro in the 2000s."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France”


If you are going to chop quotes out of Wikipedia or elsewhere to make up for your lack of knowledge you should at least take the trouble to read the full article, and the other background material. If you had done so you would have found that it completely destroys your argument. Contrary to your assertion that France was made up of COMMON PEOPLES all of whom were Franks, you would find that this is not at all true. Not only were the peoples of what was to become France, and was, the province of Gaul, not Franks, but the Franks themselves were not native to Gaul. And given your nationalist politics and the argument you have been putting this last bit will really stick in your craw.

Who were the Franks? They were immigrants!!!!!!! The Franks were a GERMAN tribe, totally alien to all the other peoples of Gaul. They migrated west from Germany into North-eastern France, establishing a kingdom there, around what was to become the Ile de France, and from which France itself gets it name. Far from them being a COMMON PEOPLE with the other nationalities of France they conquered all of the native peoples, and established the Frankish Empire in France over them! That is why the Frankish language was a minority within the territory of France, and why French was not established as a single language there until the last century!

See: The Franks

The Sentinel said...

"And the only point in you making that statement in the context was to say that he WAS a socialist i.e. the context in which you were saying that socialists were responsible for mass murder."

You've been told before, just because you say something doesn't make it true.

It said what it said and it meant what it meant.



"And was allowed to by Britain and the US, just as they allowed the huge build up of the German Navy. Why, because they anticipated a German attack on Russia."

Refer to above:- 'just because you say something doesn't make it true.'

Amongst many other things, the Luftwaffe was formed in secret and the Nazis used the USSR as a training and development area in return for technical know how.

In other areas, Hitler openly defied the terms of the treat and no country believed it was mobilised enough to counter it, or had the will.


"The hyper inflation wasn’t caused by the Versailles Treaty"

As I have said, you are an idiot.


"Partly, true though both Russia and the US had their own rocket scientists too"

Completely true - neither country had rocket scientists that had on patch on the Nazi scientists, which is why they led the programmes.


"despite Von Braun’s assistance to the US, still beat it into space"

With the use of other Nazi scientists, most notably Helmut Gröttrup.


"The huge production of Russian aircraft and tanks had nothing to do with Allied Aid whatsoever"

Of course it did - it allowed them to focus on specific military production.

The other spur was the ruthless NKVD retaliations against anyone they considered unproductive workers.


"Stalin continually complained to Churchill"

And Stalin continually lied too - such as the Kaytn massacre.


"It was only when it looked like Russia was simply going to roll over Germany"

If it were not for German commitments elsewhere due to Allied involvement (and a few tactical mistakes early on) the USSR would have collapsed long before - and given the vastly increased Nazi production and vastly sophisticated Nazi technology towards the end of the war it would have held its own, at the least.


"It was true of the Lithuanians, Ukrainians and other nationalities who had suffered under the senseless Great Russian Nationalism of Stalin"

It was the senseless socialist 'workers paradise' of enforced collectives and 'class warfare' such as the mass starvation of the Kulaks, along with the destruction of their way of life and religion, as well as the removal of their national identity that led to the hatred of the socialist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.


"But, even they soon changed their position again when they saw that the even worse nationalism of the Nazis made life even worse for them"

Not even slightly right - it was the Nazi's erroneous racial theory regarding these peoples and the treatment that followed.

But even so, many of the Baltic states were very enthusiastic towards the Nazis - the ranks of the Waffen SS swelled with Balts and many other foreign volunteers - including Indians and muslims.


"Yet, those same troops under such repression turned round, went home and overthrew the Tsar"

These troops did nothing of the sort - their mainly foreign assisted, wall street fianced agitators did that - massacring the family.


"There were many attempts to build a powered flying machine all of which failed until the Wright Brothers didn’t."

Given that tens, and probably hundreds of millions have been murdered in the attempts to impose socialism on people, do you not think you should stop killing people to enforce the so far bloody and failed result?


"Nothing gratuitous or baseless about it."

Yes it is and you know it is - its just a cheap little smear.


"In sentence after sentence above you have glorified the achievements of Hitler’s Reich"

I have taught some history to an obviously ignorant man - you re the only to say that they were achievements.


"you advocate a set of nationalist ideas and politics"

So nationalism = nazism? You are an idiot of the highest grade.


"How else can we define such people and your admiration of them other than as your “friends”?"

The word you are looking for is smear.


"That would imply that you believe that Nazis are idiots. Your choice not mine."

Pathetic.


"You accepted this wasn’t possible FOR NOW because the condition of British industry and agriculture meant it couldn’t meet those needs"

You are an idiot - I said we couldn't stand up to an embargo and so full protectionist were no good, pure and simple. Nothing else, you long-winded hot air buffoon.


"No you’d just send an edict out telling people that under the Reich people couldn’t have bananas."

Your an idiot.


"For bothering to reply to the incoherent ramblings of a racist bigot probably so."

Just for being an ignorant, obtuse, pompous and obnoxious arse really.


"Based upon my own economic analysis"

Ha ha ha ha.


"and the analysis of many other financial analysts, the IMF, the OECD etc"

What a load of crap.


"And your point is?"

Pretty bloody obvious to anyone other then idiiot.

Food rationing does not equate to economic bliss.



"Why do you think that Harold Macmillan came out with the phrase during that period, “You’ve never had it so good.?"

He said that in 1957 you idiot - 3 years after rationing had ended - you really are clueless aren't you?

Amazing.

And why did he say it? Because he is a politician and they lie as much as they try to sell.


"Possibly so"

Most defiantly so.


"but real people nevertheless"

If you look you will find people who are amaphrodites, people with six fingers and people joined at the hip - but what would that prove?


"they couldn’t get enough british workers to do the job."

Because they don't pay £7.50 an hour - they don't even like paying the minimum wage - hence the flock of illegals.


"its readership of low-intelligence, ignorant and bigoted readers, who look for confirmation of their racist and bigoted views"

Given the appalling quality of your utterances, you really have some front.


"Provided that it doesn’t actually incite people to racial hatred it gets away with writing this crap, because the people it writes about either don’t exist or else they lack the resources to sue it."

Yeah - I thought as much, you cant get away with it can you?

If the stories were made up it would be illegal for many reasons - including inciting racial hatred - and you wouldn't need money to sue. So again, if these stories are not true and you say they are not because you know they are not - why do you not report it to the police with your evidence.

And what is your evidence that these stories are made up, by the way?


"I can quite understand why British workers do not feel they should be forced to work for such low rates of pay in order to produce profits for British bosses."

Its in order to feed themselves, clothe themselves and pay their own rent instead of expecting others to work and pay it for them.


"You say without any proof of that statement"

Funny, because just a few paragraphs up you concur with "Possibly so."

But, just for instance, when the BBC set out to make a 'documentary' on 'army bullying' do you think they set out not to find any? Or do you think they do everything they can to trash the army and slant the footage to prove the original commission contention?


"No not always against something"

No, nothing that is degenerate or cohesive.


"I am for the workers, I am for socialism"

And as we have seen, the biggest murderer of the workers has been socialists.


"But, in any case you are “AGAINST” foreigners."

Nowhere has that been said - I am for my own people in their own country first.


"It means you are for what you mistakenly believe is your nation, but being for your nation means being for the people who control that nation, those who own and control the means of production and the majority of wealth. In other words it means being FOR the bosses, and that means being AGAINST the workers."

What utter rubbish - it means caring about your country and your own people interests first and foremost above everything else.


"In any case I don’t want to see Britain destroyed"

Really?

Remember this:

"The same is true today as to why Britain needs to forget about its past and forge its future in a single European state.

Of course, as a socialist I want tht state to be a Workers State, a Socialist United States of Europe..."


"Yes, quite a few. I was a Governor at my kids school where there were quite a few kids of asylum seekers. The general consensus was that everyone wished all the kids were like them. The police representative commented that they were by far the best behaved and well-mannered, and he teacher representative said that not only were the kids hard working, but the parents took far more interest in their education than most parents."

You really live on cloud cuckoo land.

Here is the real experience of a few countries with more open media:

"AUSTRALIA is set to drastically reduce its Sudanese refugee program this year.

With growing community concern about the behaviour 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



"Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily...

The study is the first where the crime statistics have been analyzed according to ethnic origin.

Of the 111 charged with rape in Oslo last year, 72 were of non-western ethnic origin, 25 are classified as Norwegian or western and 14 are listed as unknown...

Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year."

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



"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."

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/1-latest-news/27877.html



"According to a new study from the Crime Prevention Council, Brå, it is four times more likely that a known rapist is born abroad, compared to persons born in Sweden. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects."

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article327666.ab



"Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) chief Jørn Holme said the greatest anti-terrorism challenge facing Norway is its own citizens, particularly second generation immigrants...

Specifically Holme said it was vital to gather those in the danger zone and find them employment..."


http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1207224.ece


"Immigrants behind 25% of Swedish crime

Immigrants in Sweden are four times more likely to be investigated for lethal violence and robbery than persons born in Sweden to Swedish parents, the National Council for Crime Prevention said on Wednesday.

Immigrants were also three times more likely to be investigated for assault and five times more likely to be investigated for sex crimes.

Among foreigners suspected of offences, those from North Africa and Western Asia were overrepresented."

http://www.thelocal.se/2683/20051214/


The cost to the Swedish state of receiving asylum seekers is set to rise to 12.2 billion kronor ($1.7 billion) by 2010, double the 2005 figure. The rise is largely due to more generous new laws introduced last year, which has led in particular to a large number of Iraqis being allowed to stay

http://www.thelocal.se/6693/20070314/




And just for good measure, one from the UK:


"The row over Britain's asylum policies took a new twist last night when Britain's most senior police officer claimed mass immigration has created a 'whole new range of crimes' threatening to overwhelm towns and cities across the country.
In comments which will spark a debate about whether genuine asylum seekers are being used as a cover for criminal gangs, Chris Fox, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said the mass movement of people around the world had brought new levels of organised crime, with drug dealing, gun offences, prostitution and kidnapping.

Claiming the numbers of asylum seekers coming to Britain had reached 'tidal wave' proportions, Fox said: 'Mass migration has brought with it a whole new range and a whole new type of crime, from the Nigerian fraudster, to the eastern European who deals in drugs and prostitution to the Jamaican concentration on drug dealing.'

'Add to that the home grown criminals and we have a whole different family of people who are competing to be in the organised crime world,' he said in an interview with The Observer ahead of Acpo's annual conference this week."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/may/18/immigration.ukcrime



"No, it isn’t"

Yes it is everything - anything else is a luxury.

You really just try and waffle and contort your way out of obvious truths.



"They weren’t GIVEN the house were they. A good example of how the truth is distorted"

Bloody hell man. no said they had been.

Bloody hell.

But they are in a house that very, very few of the people paying for them to live in will ever see.

The rest of your waffle is just that : another attempt to waffle and contort your way out of obvious truths.



"And why complain to the police, an institution that has been found to be ridden with institutional racism itself."

Bloody hell - you really are full of it - 'institutional racism' - what a load of meangless Marxist crap.

You haven't done it because you've got nothing but blind prejudice and hot air.



"Was the student found guilty, or was it just a convenient means for the police to arrest someone? There is nothing Left-wing in any case in such a law."

Really?

Do you think the right-wing would make such a law?



"Yes, some of it seems like the kind of rantings of the Right, some like the confused ideas of Liberals, and other parts like the kind of Mary Whitehouse complaints against modern capitalist society. Nothing in it is particularly, Left-Wing, and certainly nothing in it is Marxist."

Like I said, this has been proven here before.

Political correctness was started by Marxists as a deliberate device.



"The fact remains..."

That, once again, you were wrong.

These people are criminals who have no place here and contribute nothing.



"They are still workers"

No, they are criminals.



"That policy in Australia was a recent development witnessed by the large numbers of Asian people who DO live in Australia."

What?



"The US had a motto “Bring Me Your Starving and Huddled Masses”. Yet, the populations of Africa etc. did not move en masse to the US, nor did they move to Britain prior to the introduction of Immigration Controls."

Thats because the US didn't mean it and Britain wouldn't let them.


"That doesn’t change the fact that the majority of people find moving from one country to another a big thing to take on, and is the reason why few do."

Yes it does - of course it does!!!

Historic numbers have left because historic numbers have arrived!!!



"And you call me an idiot. Did you not notice that the first group in the list you have just quoted was DENTISTS????"

Dentists are not doctors. We were talking about doctors.



"All students run up debt nowadays. It doesn’t change the fact that the training is essentially free."

My God, your bullshit never ends does it?

It wasnt 'essentially free' at all.


"Every, theory is unproven if you want to be pedantic"

Again, utter crap.

I theorise that if I ran over your head with semitrailer you would die - shall we prove it?



"The Theory of Evolution has been proven in this context more than almost any other scientific theory, and is, therefore, proved"


More crap.



"There probably are"

No, there isnt.



"DNA now gives us a more accurate, and more extensive proof."

DNA is still in its infancy - they don't even know what 97% of it does (so they call it junk!!!)

"DNA profiling: A powerful tool - but not infallible"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/09/world.ukcrime1

"DNA evidence may not be infallible: experts"
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1195029.htm



"Actually, no it appears more likely to have come from the Kings of the Ile De France"

Actually no, it was after the Franks.



"Nevertheless, if you think that the weather in Spain in the Winter isn’t all that great, especially if you think the average day time temperature is only 7 degrees then this suggests to me you’ve clearly never been there at that time of year."

Its not and I have and I didnt make the figures.



"You claimed that the weather in Spain during Winter wasn’t that great. Now you want to defend that argument by saying that the average temperature there is only 7 degrees. But, that doesn’t tell us whether the weather is good or bad, because that 7 degrees is the average for Day and Night. The average daytime temperature is between 14 and 18 degrees, compared with an average figure in Britain of perhaps 4 or 5. Anyone can see that by looking on the daytime weather maps on Euronews, or CNN. The fact that you want to try to argue over this point when you can so easily be proved wrong tells us everything about your mentality.

But then that is you all over - you just waffle on and on against an established fact."

Wow - even more waffle against established facts.



"No, the whole point of the Nazi regime was that German Capitalists..."

Bloody hell man, really!!

Get an education!!

The Nazi party was only born at the end of the Great War because it was a product of Germany's loss of the Great War - the overriding theme was the 'stab in the back' theory as to its loss and the promise of a reversal.

Jesus H Christ!!!



"But, they did produce better planes, better tanks and more importantly produced them in far greater numbers than the Nazis could achieve."

Something else you know nothing about - the King Tiger for instance had no rivals at all. And neither did the Me262.



"No it didn’t. It was the drive for profit of Merchant Capitalists, and for rent by English Landlords."

Bloody hell man - and what do you think that was if not competitive human nature?!!



"It was not a matter of the Government feeding them, but of that Government physically preventing them from having the food sent to them."

More fool them.



"Obviously, Ireland during the famine was one of them, or all those peasants who had survived precisely be eking out such a living from the land would have done so."

And amother thing you know nothing about.

Survival in places such as Ireland is a doodle.



"What do you mean?"

I mean more fool them for not having the balls to stop it.



"That British Capitalists cannot give a fuck..."

Tut tut tut.

You are lowering the tone again.



"Have you ever been to Ireland?"

More then you I'll bet - a few tours in the North and a few visits to the south.



"Do you realise what a big country it is?"

Its not big by most standards.



"Do youn not understand that the majority of the peasant smallholdings were because they were agricultural in the interior of Ireland a long way away from the sea?"

At most around 100 miles - and only those in the interior - but there are lakes, ponds and streams everywhere in any case.



"Given your admiration for the Third Reich I can understand you feeling sorry for mass murderers."

Your the one who thinks mass murderers are forced to do it.



"and you respond with what – comments from someone’s blog!!!!!"

Do you really think that this guy wrote that, before this debacle, just to derail your ludicrous contention?

That its a lie? A conspiracy against you?

Besides, it was the first result for something I already know to be true.



"Comments, which are not even about mainland Spain, but about Tenerife, a mostly holiday island off the coast of Africa"

I told you I spent most of the time in the Canaries (not Tenerife though) and it is a part of Spain just as the Isle of Wight is a part of the UK.



"the siesta is dying out, that in the big cities its largely gone"

Its still there mate, as you well know.



"It hardly confirms your view that this represents some innate, irreconcilable difference between Spaniards and Brits does it?"

Well I never said it was an "irreconcilable difference" - you did.

But in relation to what I did actually say - Yes, of course it does - we don't do it at all.



"Precisely, Creationists. A bunch of nutters who believe the Bible is literally true. Who believe that the Earth is no more than 7,000 years old!!! And you have the nerve to describe the theory of evolution as unproven!!!!!"

You really are an idiot - an unbelievable idiot!!!!

That list is about the various missing links that have been faked to prove your ape-man theory - thats all - and I didnt write it you moron.



"As for the frauds quoted, so what"

So despite desprate fraudualnt attempts at fooling everyone, it has never been proved.



"In fact, another good example of pseudo science perpetrated by creationists. No one says that humans and Chimpanzees are IDENTICAL"

No, they say we descended from them and apes.



"There is nothing whatsoever in this quote that says that the human species is anything other than a single race!!!!!"

To an idiot maybe.

Here, I will make it easy for you:

"12 % of the DNA Differs Amongst Human Races and Populations. Till now, humans of different races were thought almost identical"

http://news.softpedia.com/news/12-of-the-DNA-Differs-Amongst-Human-Races-and-Populations-40872.shtml


"Scientists have shown that the genetic make-up of humans can vary hugely - far more than was previously thought{..}

"We were certainly surprised; we expected to find that there would be some variation, but we weren't expecting to find quite this much," Dr Hurles told BBC News."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6174510.stm



"Genetic variation: We're more different than we thought"

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/hhmi-gvw112006.php



"The genetic makeup of the human race is much more varied than previously believed, new research shows.

Scientists say that surprisingly many large chunks of human DNA differ among individuals and ethnic groups. "

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061122-human-genetics.html


"Again nothing that contradicts the argument previously put forward, and certainly does not challenge the view put forward that “Fast-growing "lion"

Doesn't it?

Really?

Because I thought this bit just might:

"Economic growth remains marginal"



"said Peter Hain"

What the hell would he know?



"you are reduced to quoting some obscure article"

Of course!

You dont like the content so attack the source! Do you want another source?



"that doesn’t even make the case you wanted to present."

Yes it does, and you know it does.



"If you are going to chop quotes out of Wikipedia or elsewhere to make up for your lack of knowledge"

Is that what your doing when you chop quotes out and paste them?



"Not only were the peoples of what was to become France, and was, the province of Gaul, not Franks, but the Franks themselves were not native to Gaul. And given your nationalist politics and the argument you have been putting this last bit will really stick in your craw"

Not even slightly as France was not a nation at that point, now was it?



"Who were the Franks? They were immigrants!!!!!!! The Franks were a GERMAN tribe"

The whole of northern-europe and its race are Germanic (Eg: Normandy = Normans = Norseman) Whats your point?


"Far from them being a COMMON PEOPLE with the other nationalities of France"

There were no other nationalities at that time there, just other tribes - races.



"That is why the Frankish language was a minority within the territory of France, and why French was not established as a single language there until the last century!"

And after all that waffle the fact remains that France is name France because of the Franks and that over time, the tribes formed bigger cliques, merged and bonded as per commonality and eventually formed what we now term a nation.

JJ said...

Good grief! Talk about giving a man enough rope!

Arthur Bough said...

Quite right JJ. He's not only hung himself, but drawn and quartered himself too. Now all that's left is to kick the remaining body parts into the lime pit, which I'll do shortly below.

The Sentinel said...

Oh here we go again - an 'anonymous' affirmer of your righteousness!!! "jj" this time.

Hung myself? What utter crap!

You are so full of it mate.

You just waffle endlessly, on and on. presenting nothing worthy of note - nothing of substance - just a convoluted and contorted mishmash of opinion, Marxist mantra and dubious references.

The only thing missing was the mindless affirmers - and now you have one - albeit 'anonymous.'

And why has Phil instituted comment moderation - did you embarrass yourself again? Or maybe you just let rip?

Arthur Bough said...

I can only assume that you just wrote this response in a hurry, because although your previous posts have shown a pretty low level of intellectual rigour this one appeared to be you just saying anything without any thought to it. In fact, its so beneath intelligent discussion that I’m inclined to respond just by taking the piss out of you, but then as JJ says above you don’t need me to do that, you make a fool of yourself with every word you write.

”You've been told before, just because you say something doesn't make it true.

It said what it said and it meant what it meant.”


Yes, it said Hitler believed he was a socialist, and there was no point you making that comment in the context unless you were agreeing with him.

”Amongst many other things, the Luftwaffe was formed in secret and the Nazis used the USSR as a training and development area in return for technical know how.

In other areas, Hitler openly defied the terms of the treat and no country believed it was mobilised enough to counter it, or had the will.”


Britain, France and the US could have intervened to prevent the German military build up at any time during the 1930’s. They didn’t for similar reasons for them not intervening in the Spanish Civil War. They saw Germany as an ally against the USSR, and in Spain against the working class.


"The hyper inflation wasn’t caused by the Versailles Treaty"

”As I have said, you are an idiot.

But, as in this case you continually say things without a shred of evidence or argument to back up what you say. The hyper inflation wasn’t caused by the Versailles Treaty.


"Partly, true though both Russia and the US had their own rocket scientists too"

”Completely true - neither country had rocket scientists that had on patch on the Nazi scientists, which is why they led the programmes.

No its not as the link here demonstrates Russian Space Program

”With the use of other Nazi scientists, most notably Helmut Gröttrup.”

Yes, but mainly Soviet scientists, and entirely Russian workers and industrial production.

"The huge production of Russian aircraft and tanks had nothing to do with Allied Aid whatsoever"

”Of course it did - it allowed them to focus on specific military production.

The other spur was the ruthless NKVD retaliations against anyone they considered unproductive workers.”


Rubbish you can’t make tanks and aeroplanes without steel, you can’t make steel without coal and iron and so on. All of those things were produce in the USSR. The US and the Allies could not hope to produce a fraction of the needs of Russia’s huge population.

"It was only when it looked like Russia was simply going to roll over Germany"

If it were not for German commitments elsewhere due to Allied involvement (and a few tactical mistakes early on) the USSR would have collapsed long before - and given the vastly increased Nazi production and vastly sophisticated Nazi technology towards the end of the war it would have held its own, at the least.

Rubbish. When Germany attacked the USSR, the US was not even in the war. In fact, US factories like GM and Ford in Germany were still helping crank out tanks and planes for he Nazi war effort. Britain had already effectively been defeated, and was holed up in its bunker. The Nazis had control of Western Europe and its resources with client regimes under the Vichy, and Quisling, along with fellow fascist powers in Poland and other Axis states. Germany through Rommel had control of the main oil fields in North Africa. Hitler was entirely free to attack the USSR. He did so and the Soviets kicked his ass.

”It was the senseless socialist 'workers paradise' of enforced collectives and 'class warfare' such as the mass starvation of the Kulaks, along with the destruction of their way of life and religion, as well as the removal of their national identity that led to the hatred of the socialist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”

I’d agree that all those things turned large numbers against Stalin, but they have absolutely nothing to do with Socialism.

"But, even they soon changed their position again when they saw that the even worse nationalism of the Nazis made life even worse for them"

”Not even slightly right - it was the Nazi's erroneous racial theory regarding these peoples and the treatment that followed.”

But, you can’t divorce that theory from the ideology of Nazism it flows necessarily from an attempt to define different nationalities as having “irreconcilable” differences as you propose. Just look at the nonsense you have written previously and later in your post here trying to portray those differences as being genetic. That is precisely the Nazis “racial theory”.

"Yet, those same troops under such repression turned round, went home and overthrew the Tsar"

”These troops did nothing of the sort - their mainly foreign assisted, wall street financed agitators did that - massacring the family.”

Again you show your complete ignorance. The February Revolution which overthrew the Tsar was a bourgeois revolution not a socialist revolution. It was led by bourgeois politicians with the support of some sections of the Russian nobility, and carried through by the masses, and in particular the peasant masses in the army. At that time those Bolsheviks you refer to – with the ridiculous Nazi claims about them being part of some World Zionist conspiracy financed by Wall Street – were not even in the country!!!!!

”Given that tens, and probably hundreds of millions have been murdered in the attempts to impose socialism on people, do you not think you should stop killing people to enforce the so far bloody and failed result?”

They haven’t. Probably, as you say hundreds of millions, have been murdered by people trying to PREVENT the establishment of socialism. They have been murdered and otherwise killed by Capitalism and class society, and so the sooner that class society is ended with the creation of socialism the better.


"Nothing gratuitous or baseless about it."


”Yes it is and you know it is - its just a cheap little smear.”

No its not. Any sensible person can read your comments and see exactly what your politics are as presented here.

”I have taught some history to an obviously ignorant man - you re the only to say that they were achievements.”

Being described as ignorant by a moron who can’t even snatch quotes from Wikipedia and understand what he has copied is a bit rich. Again anyone who reads your repeated assertions about the Third Reich can interpret them in no other way than your commendation of them, whether it is you telling us that neither the USSR or the US would have had its space programme without Nazi scientists, or you telling us about the fact that they should have won the war had they not made a few mistakes!

”So nationalism = nazism? You are an idiot of the highest grade.”

Again coming from a cretin who doesn’t even have the creativity to use any other word than idiot your insult is a bit rich. Its not just your Nationalism that equates to Nazism, but that combined with your repeated adulation of the Third Reich, your repeated statements of hatred against socialists, your adoption of Nazi racial theory, which you try to defend with totally misunderstood references to genetics that in total equates to Nazism.

”The word you are looking for is smear.”

The word I would apply to your comments actually is bullshit. Smear, lying, perversion of history, misrepresentation of others views and so on are the methods you have applied here. All methods no doubt learned from your friend Dr. Goebbels.

"That would imply that you believe that Nazis are idiots. Your choice not mine."

”Pathetic.”

Would you like to say whether you DO think that Nazis are idiots?

”You are an idiot - I said we couldn't stand up to an embargo and so full protectionist were no good, pure and simple. Nothing else, you long-winded hot air buffoon.”

Coming from someone who has written so many lengthy posts full of so many meaningless words again your comment here is a bit rich. I showed above that your comment was in response to mine, which was not at all about an embargo. Again you try to misrepresent things because you were wrong, and your argument was shown to be nonsense.

"No you’d just send an edict out telling people that under the Reich people couldn’t have bananas."

”Your an idiot.”

Yet, one whose arguments you apparently have no answer to except an uncreative repetition of the same insult.

"For bothering to reply to the incoherent ramblings of a racist bigot probably so."

”Just for being an ignorant, obtuse, pompous and obnoxious arse really.”

No just for replying to someone with those characteristics.


"Based upon my own economic analysis"

”Ha ha ha ha.

That’s the most sensible argument you’ve been able to put so far. At least by not attempting to counter an argument you haven’t once again demonstrated your own intellectual deficieny.

"and the analysis of many other financial analysts, the IMF, the OECD etc"

”What a load of crap.”

Not as sensible as your last answer, because you convey the idea that you disagree with all of these experts, which does impose a duty on you to say why, and what qualifications you have to take your assessment as opposed to theirs. There again as your intellectual capacity appears to be little more when it comes to understanding economics than betting on the Daily Mail’s Racing Tips, perhaps we can understand why you are loathe to sally forth with such an assessment.


"And your point is?"

”Pretty bloody obvious to anyone other then idiot.

Food rationing does not equate to economic bliss.”


That doesn’t follow at all as any economist will tell you. For one thing most economists believe that food rationing was extended far longer than it should have been in Britain. Secondly, the continuation of food rationing was a consequence of Britain’s trade position, and the need to pay back debts. None of that changed the fact that during this period the British economy like most other developed Capitalist economies during that period was enjoying rapid economic growth. As I said look at the figures for growth during that period, don’t just give us superficial anecdotes about food rationing.

British GDP in millions of pounds
1930 4,572
1935 4,676
1940 7,117
1945 9,816
1950 13,162
1955 19,264
1960 25,678

See: UK Economy

"Why do you think that Harold Macmillan came out with the phrase during that period, “You’ve never had it so good.?"

”He said that in 1957 you idiot - 3 years after rationing had ended - you really are clueless aren't you?”

But, the economy hadn’t suddenly become good in 1957 you dolt. It had been developing for several years, actually from around 1949, to provide that level of improvement. That’s why there was full employment, why women were being encouraged to go out to work etc. Have you read no economic and social history at all???? Oh no, that’s right only the works from the Ministry of Truth isn’t it.

See: BBC

"but real people nevertheless"

”If you look you will find people who are amaphrodites, people with six fingers and people joined at the hip - but what would that prove?”

It would prove that THERE ARE people who ARE amaphrodites, people with six fingers, and people joined at the hip. And that is the point isn’t it. The film could only find those people who wouldn’t take on those jobs because they DID exist.

"they couldn’t get enough British workers to do the job."

”Because they don't pay £7.50 an hour - they don't even like paying the minimum wage - hence the flock of illegals.”

Most illegal immigrants don’t work on these jobs, they tend to work in back street sweatshops. The people working on the fruit and vegetable picking are pretty much all legal migrants, and, therefore, are paid the minimum wage at least.

"its readership of low-intelligence, ignorant and bigoted readers, who look for confirmation of their racist and bigoted views"

”Given the appalling quality of your utterances, you really have some front.

They only seem appalling to you because you are a racist bigot with the intellectual capacity of an amoeba. You can’t understand anything beyond the most basic utterances, so you condemn what you can’t understand.

”Yeah - I thought as much, you cant get away with it can you?”

Can’t get away with what????? Now you’re not even making grammatical sense.

”If the stories were made up it would be illegal for many reasons - including inciting racial hatred - and you wouldn't need money to sue”

Ridiculous and shows you don’t understand basic legal concepts for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the newspapers make up lots of stories on a whole host of things and they aren’t by that definition illegal. For example, some journalists from a serious newspaper a few years ago had a laugh by sitting in a pub trying to see what the most ridiculous anti-EU story was they could make up that journalists from the Daily mail would take up. They made up a number of stories, and discussed them in the Pub in ear shot of the said Daily Mail reporters, and sure enough the next day those stories appeared. Secondly, if the story was made up how could a person who doesn’t exist sue????? Thirdly, neither I nor anyone else could sue the Daily Mail or anyone else for defamation or libel of a third person, particularly a third person who doesn’t exist, you can only libel real people for God’s sake you div. Fourthly, how you get the idea that you could sue someone like the Daily Mail without access to a large amount of money to bring the case to Court God only knows. In practice only rich people can do that. Finally, you don’t seem to understand the legal differences between suing which is a Civil suit, and a Criminal Suit for committing an offence.

“So again, if these stories are not true and you say they are not because you know they are not - why do you not report it to the police with your evidence.”

Because it is no more illegal for a comic like the Daily Mail to make up stories than it is for the Daily Sport to run stories like “Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster”.

”And what is your evidence that these stories are made up, by the way?”

Because there have been many cases of them being checked out by Benefit workers and other journalists, and proved to be false or at least grossly distorted as with the case of the woman in Acton you referred to.

”Its in order to feed themselves, clothe themselves and pay their own rent instead of expecting others to work and pay it for them.”

Capitalism deprived people of the ownership of their own means of production whereby they could do all those things. If it can’t provide decent jobs for people on decent wages that is the fault of Capitalism not those workers.

"You say without any proof of that statement"

”Funny, because just a few paragraphs up you concur with "Possibly so."

Clearly, given your lack of intellectual capacity you have difficulty understanding basic categories or semantics. Possibly so does not mean absolutely true, it means you could be right, but at least equally you could be wrong. You’d need to prove your statement first. In the context it meant “even were your statement correct it is irrelevant”.

But, just for instance, when the BBC set out to make a 'documentary' on 'army bullying' do you think they set out not to find any? Or do you think they do everything they can to trash the army and slant the footage to prove the original commission contention?”

But, if they find some doesn’t that prove it exists you sap? There was once a theory that all swans were white, because only white swans had ever been seen. Were those that sought out black swans being devious?

"No not always against something"

”No, nothing that is degenerate or cohesive.”

You’re the one that defends things that are degenerate like Nazism, and the division of human beings on nationalistic grounds. And yes I am not against the cohesiveness and solidarity of the working class.


”And as we have seen, the biggest murderer of the workers has been socialists.”

On the contrary what we have seen is that the biggest murderers of workers have been those OPPOSING socialism.

"But, in any case you are “AGAINST” foreigners."

”Nowhere has that been said - I am for my own people in their own country first.”

Yes, it has. You have repeatedly said you oppose foreigners taking jobs in Britain if British workers want those jobs. You have repeatedly opposed foreigners if they are illegal immigrants. You have repeatedly opposed foreigners if they are asylum seekers. You have repeatedly opposed foreigners being treated the same as British people in respect of benefits etc., and later in your post here you give several reports from newspapers the message of which you want to present as being all immigrants are some form of criminal, prostitute etc.

”What utter rubbish - it means caring about your country and your own people interests first and foremost above everything else.”

But, that makes no distinction between British workers and British bosses. Putting Britain first means in reality putting the interests of those whose country it is first, those who own and control it – the bosses. As the bosses interests contradicts the interests of workers you put yourself where Nazis always put themselves on the side of the bosses against the workers. You try to pretend you support workers but every word you utter shows you are not, that is why you oppose socialism, because it means workers having control of society for themselves without those bosses.


"In any case I don’t want to see Britain destroyed"

”Really?

Remember this:”


"The same is true today as to why Britain needs to forget about its past and forge its future in a single European state.

Of course, as a socialist I want that state to be a Workers State, a Socialist United States of Europe..."


Jeez what a lack of intelligence you do have. I live in Staffordshire. The fact that Staffordshire is a constituent part of Britain, which is a constituent part of Europe hasn’t meant the destruction of Staffordshire has it????

”You really live on cloud cuckoo land.”

And that’s your response to a real life account that you obviously can’t respond to is it?

You then give us a series of foreign articles from various right-wing newspapers, all of which attempt to portray immigrants as being rapists and criminals. This from someone who has just told us they were not opposed to foreigners of course. In fact, even if the stories were accurate they don’t prove the point you try to have them make. The fact that, a larger proportion of crimes were committed by a certain group says nothing about that group itself. Those committing offences represent a small minority of the group itself.

”Yes it is everything - anything else is a luxury.”

You really just try and waffle and contort your way out of obvious truths.


No it isn’t and quite obviously, you moron. EVERTHING, means excluding NOTHING. So if someone is prove with EVERYTHING there can be nothing else. If there was “anything else” then what there was to begin with by definition could not have been EVERYTHING.

"They weren’t GIVEN the house were they. A good example of how the truth is distorted"

Bloody hell man. no said they had been.

Bloody hell.


Yes you did. I said,

”No, it isn’t especially when papers like the Daily Mail and the BNP spread ridiculous stories about asylum seekers being GIVEN cars, mobile phones etc.”

To which you replied,

””Like this one maybe?”

”But they are in a house that very, very few of the people paying for them to live in will ever see.”

So what? They aren’t in that house because they are asylum seekers, are they? It could just as easily have been some homeless British family housed there couldn’t it? The point is that the Daily Mail doesn’t carry stories about homeless BRITISH families who have to be accommodated in such places because that wouldn’t appeal to all those ignorant, bigoted racists who read it to confirm their ignorant, bigoted, racist views. It would also raise the question why its necessary to house people in such places, and why landlords can get so much taxpayers money fro renting them out.

”The rest of your waffle is just that : another attempt to waffle and contort your way out of obvious truths.”
No, its not, which is shown by your failure to rise above insults as a response. The fact is that the real story here was not that some poor family had been housed in this place, but that British capitalism can’t provide enough houses for people to live in, that Maggie Thatcher’s policy of selling off Council houses has created a housing crisis in social housing, and that British landlords are ripping of the British taxpayer, and that as in this case some of these landlords are terrorising tenants. But, that’s a story that the Capitalist press don’t want to tell, especially those that cater for those at the lower end of the intelligence spectrum.

In fact, I checked this story with a benefits Advisor from the Citizen’s Advice Bureau who told me the following.

”The lady claimant, if under 60 and in good health, is entitled to a minimum of £60.50 per week income support as a lone parent - £3146. Long-term disability would give her another £1300 per annum on her income support, and severe disability might bring in disability living allowance at some level - a maximum of another £5200 for extremely severe disability (night and day care and virtually unable to walk).

Child tax credit is roughly £50 per week for each dependent child - £2600 each. The 22 and 20 year olds are too old to be dependents even if in full time education, though.
So say £2600 each for five children - £13,000.

We're still a long way short - but add council tax benefit for inner London and you get...? That could be thousands - paid by the Council, to the Council!

Perhaps the older children are getting student financial support or EMA and that's also been thrown into the mix?

Or a value has been put on entitlement to free school meals?

The bottom line, though, is that this family are getting exactly the same benefits as any other family in their circumstances with indefinite leave to remain in the UK would get - including UK citizens.

Refugees qualify for the same social security provision as UK citizens. Asylum-seekers have a different Home Office support system, which is much meaner than our social security benefits - a single adult qualifies for less than a UK child.

EU migrants from the long-standing EU member states qualify for the same as UK citizens as long as they are workers or work seekers. This is a reciprocal agreement, so UK citizens have the right to work and claim in-work benefits, or unemployment benefits, in European states. Could be a smart move with the relative value of the £ and Euro!

A8 nationals (ie from the 8 "accession states" (Poland, the Baltic States etc) only have the right to reside for benefit purposes if economically active, namely while actually working and registered under the workers' registration scheme. They are eligible for in-work benefits (tax credits, housing benefit) for themselves and their families, but if out of work without having completed 12 months continuous registered work, they qualify for nothing.

If they complete 12 months registered work, they have the same status as other EU workers. As many are agency workers and often have weeks of worklessness between contracts, I don't see many who've managed to get in 12 months registered work.

A2 nationals (Romania and Bulgaria) have leave to enter only to be engaged in specific jobs and more restricted benefit rights again, which I can't recall off the top of my head.”


In other words, there was no way in hell this family could have got £170,000 in benefits PLUS have the rent of £150,000 paid. Yet, despite the fact that a number of readers in their comments picked up on the way the story had been written, which implied that, the paper made no attempt to correct that misapprehension. That is the way these racist papers spread this nonsense.

”Bloody hell - you really are full of it - 'institutional racism' - what a load of meaningless Marxist crap.”

You imbecile. That phrase wasn’t produced by any Marxist, there is nothing Marxist about it. It was the phrase used by the liberals who conducted the investigation of the Met’s handling of the Stephen Lawrence murder.

"Was the student found guilty, or was it just a convenient means for the police to arrest someone? There is nothing Left-wing in any case in such a law."

”Really?

Do you think the right-wing would make such a law?”


They could do, there’s nothing anti-capitalist, nothing that challenges the ownership of the means of production in it. Right-wingers today support all sorts of things that were once falsely presented as being left-wing. Given that a lot of people on the Right are homosexuals, why wouldn’t they want legislation that opposed homophobic behaviour, especially given that it is the Right, not the Left, which looks to the Capitalist state to provide such protections.

"Yes, some of it seems like the kind of rantings of the Right, some like the confused ideas of Liberals, and other parts like the kind of Mary Whitehouse complaints against modern capitalist society. Nothing in it is particularly, Left-Wing, and certainly nothing in it is Marxist."

”Like I said, this has been proven here before.

Political correctness was started by Marxists as a deliberate device.”


No it hasn’t its been asserted by you, and as you’ve pointed out just because you assert something doesn’t make it true. Your last statement is false. You claim that the list you cited was created by the Frankfurt School. Firstly, this has all the hallmarks of those fabrications so loved by Nazis such as the Protocols of he Elders of Zion. As far as I can see you give no real evidence that this list was produced by the Frankfurt School.

Firstly, you said it was produced in 1923, but in fact as the Wiki article here says the school did not arise until 1930. Secondly, you say that they were Marxists, whereas as again the article shows they were not Marxists, and in fact, the article refers to a Marxist Critique of the ideas of the school.

"They are still workers"

”No, they are criminals.”

Again, you show that you are an imbecile that doesn’t understand categories or semantics. The category worker is not exclusive of the category “criminal”. It is more than possible to be both. A joiner who is done for drink driving is a criminal. It doesn’t mean he ceases to be a joiner, and therefore, a worker. That level of logic is usually understood by children, which tells us the level of intellect you have reached.

"That policy in Australia was a recent development witnessed by the large numbers of Asian people who DO live in Australia."

”What?”

Look amoeba brain, Australia had an open door policy after WWII, which is why it has lots of Asian people living there. Get it.

”After World War II, Australia encouraged immigration from Europe; since the 1970s and the abolition of the White Australia policy, immigration from Asia and elsewhere was also encouraged. As a result, Australia's demography, culture, and self-image have been transformed.”

See: here

"The US had a motto “Bring Me Your Starving and Huddled Masses”. Yet, the populations of Africa etc. did not move en masse to the US, nor did they move to Britain prior to the introduction of Immigration Controls."

”That’s because the US didn't mean it and Britain wouldn't let them.”

Yes, they did they were desperate for workers. What do you mean Britain wouldn’t let them, you numbnuts, Britain couldn’t stop them.

"That doesn’t change the fact that the majority of people find moving from one country to another a big thing to take on, and is the reason why few do."

”Yes it does - of course it does!!!

Historic numbers have left because historic numbers have arrived!!!


Two is an historic number compared to one, but hardly means anything significant does it. Moreover, its just if not more likely that historic numbers arrived to compensate for the historic numbers who had left.



"And you call me an idiot. Did you not notice that the first group in the list you have just quoted was DENTISTS????"

”Dentists are not doctors. We were talking about doctors.”

No we weren’t you lying toe rag. You said,

””Your an idiot.

You said there was a specific medical shortage - what was it?””
.

So we see not only who is the idiot here, but who is such an idiot they can’t even tell convincing lies to get out of their predicament. Nevertheless, you no doubt adopt your friend Goebbels perspective that if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it.

”My God, your bullshit never ends does it?

It wasnt 'essentially free' at all.”


Yes it was.


"Every, theory is unproven if you want to be pedantic"

”Again, utter crap.

I theorise that if I ran over your head with semitrailer you would die - shall we prove it?”


Your ignorance is boundless. The whole basis of the scientific method is that all theories are provisional. I’d suggest you read the leading philosopher on the question Karl Popper, but as your intelligence level doesn’t give you the ability to understand much more than the Beano, you wouldn’t get past the first page.

"The Theory of Evolution has been proven in this context more than almost any other scientific theory, and is, therefore, proved"

”More crap.”

But yet again, your lack of intelligence prevents you from substantiating your claim.

"There probably are"

”No, there isnt.”

If you didn’t have the intelligence of a microbe you’d know its impossible to prove a negative.

"DNA now gives us a more accurate, and more extensive proof."

DNA is still in its infancy - they don't even know what 97% of it does

We know enough to be able to sequence it, and to compare one set to another. That’s enough to prove the Theory of Evolution.

"Nevertheless, if you think that the weather in Spain in the Winter isn’t all that great, especially if you think the average day time temperature is only 7 degrees then this suggests to me you’ve clearly never been there at that time of year."

”Its not and I have and I didnt make the figures.”

Well anyone can check on CNN, or Euronews or on a load of different websites to see the number of hours sunchine, and the daytime temperatures, and will see that not only are you a moron, but you are a lying moron.

"No, the whole point of the Nazi regime was that German Capitalists..."

”Bloody hell man, really!!

Get an education!!

The Nazi party was only born at the end of the Great War because it was a product of Germany's loss of the Great War - the overriding theme was the 'stab in the back' theory as to its loss and the promise of a reversal.

Jesus H Christ!!!”


Actually, I’ve already got a very good education, thank you, a damn sight better than yours. Yes, the Nazis arose after WWI, but they were an insignificant force at that time. The mass parties were the Social Democrats in 1918, and the split from them in the form of the Communists led by Luxemburg and Liebknecht who led the 1918 Revolution, and by 1923 the German Communist Party, which led the 1923 revolution. It was in response to the threat from the working class that the support for these workers parties represented to the Capitalists at a time of world wide Capitalist crisis that led the German Capitalists to bankroll and support the Nazis, transforming them from a minor role into the main party of the Capitalists, and sections of the middle class, that relied on assorted criminals and other dregs of society to make up the gangs of street thugs organised in the brownshirts.

"But, they did produce better planes, better tanks and more importantly produced them in far greater numbers than the Nazis could achieve."

”Something else you know nothing about - the King Tiger for instance had no rivals at all. And neither did the Me262.”

More bullshit.

”During the Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, it was discovered that the Soviet T-34 tank outclassed the Panzer III and IV. Its sloped armour could defeat most German weapons, and its 76.2 mm gun could penetrate the armour of all German tanks. The Panzer III, which was intended to be the main medium tank, was upgraded to a longer, higher-velocity 50 mm gun. Even this was only marginally effective. Thus the Panzer IV, originally intended to be a support tank, became the de facto main medium tank re-armed with a long-barrelled, high velocity 75 mm gun. A new tank, the Panzer V Panther, was developed, incorporating lessons learned from the T-34. The Germans' traumatic experiences against the Soviet heavy tanks, with cases of single KV tanks holding up entire German tank units, spurred them to develop ever heavier designs including the Tiger and Tiger II Königstiger ("King Tiger").”

See: Tanks in WWII

And,

”The Soviet Union ended the 1930s with a fleet of tanks almost completely derived from foreign designs, but would later field some of the most important trend-setting tanks of the war.”

“Several excellent designs were just entering production in 1940-41. The most significant would be the T-34. This was originally designed as the successor to the BT series, but with its heavy armour and heavy dual-purpose gun, it became the best medium tank of the first half of World War II.”

“In response to better German tanks, the Soviets began to produce the T-34-85 in the winter of 1943-44, which had an 85-mm gun, while retaining superiority in speed and mobility over the German tanks—an advantage it enjoyed until the very end of the war. This model was also significant in that it had a much larger turret with a 3 man crew, finally allowing the tank commander to concentrate fully on maintaining a tactical awareness of the battlefield. The Soviets also responded with the 122 mm-armed IS-2 heavy tank. The IS-2 managed to carry heavier armour than the KV but with no weight increase in comparison to the KV-1. This was done by thinning the rear armour and moving most of the armour to the front of the tank, where it was expected to take most of its hits.”

“Soviet tank production outstripped all other nations with the exception of the United States.”


But, again we note your devotion to the myths of the Third Reich rather than the facts.


"No it didn’t. It was the drive for profit of Merchant Capitalists, and for rent by English Landlords."

”Bloody hell man - and what do you think that was if not competitive human nature?!!

The drive for profit or for Rent has nothing whatsoever to do with some supposed competitive human nature. On the contrary it is a perversion of man’s natural co-operative nature, arising out of class society. Modern Man has been around for about 70,000 years, whilst civilisation and class society has exited for only around 7-10,000 years. During all of that previous period, Man lived in Co-operative societies, where the kind of competition you speak of would have been inconceivable. And as I’ve said before even amongst animals there is no natural competition either. Provided all their needs are met, they can be brought up to live quite peaceably and co-operatively with each other.

"It was not a matter of the Government feeding them, but of that Government physically preventing them from having the food sent to them."

”More fool them.”

You really are a mindless buffoon. How on earth do you think they could prevent a heavily armed state from doing that?

”Survival in places such as Ireland is a doodle.”

More mindless bollocks. Look living off a few roots and fish on one of your army survival courses for a few weeks is one thing, especially when you are not competing for those roots and fish with a million other people, but being able to feed a million people by such methods is an impossibility. That after all is why Man had to abandon hunting and gathering in favour of settled agriculture.

"What do you mean?"

”I mean more fool them for not having the balls to stop it.”

Ah, by not overthrowing Capitalism and taking hold of the means of production you mean or to give it its proper name, creating socialism! But earlier, you told us that people shouldn’t do that. Of course, I agree that the real solution to their problems was to do precisely that, but given the overwhelming force of arms of the British State, and its Irish Capitalist allies not an easy task to accomplish, especially as people like you would have been turncoats fighting alongside the bosses for fear of socialism.

"That British Capitalists cannot give a fuck..."

Tut tut tut.

You are lowering the tone again.


Given the intellectual level you’ve been capable of that would be impossible.

”Its not big by most standards.

Big enough for it not to be possible for people just to pop to the sea to fish as you ludicrously suggested.

”At most around 100 miles - and only those in the interior - but there are lakes, ponds and streams everywhere in any case.”

And how quickly can you walk 100 miles just to fish. What about he need to also be tending your land, to be working where you can to earn money to pay the rent and taxes. Yes, there are streams, lakes and rivers, but mostly they are the property of capitalists and landlords, who at the time could have you hung for poaching on them.

”Your the one who thinks mass murderers are forced to do it.

Only in the normal sociological sense of the word that is that people are led into various actions by the force of circumstances, by personal motivations. But I don’t excuse them for it let alone glorify it in he way you glorify the Third reich, and seek to mimic its politics today.

”Do you really think that this guy wrote that, before this debacle, just to derail your ludicrous contention?

That its a lie? A conspiracy against you?

Besides, it was the first result for something I already know to be true.”


No, and I didn’t suggest that I did. I simply point out that whereas I give details from a mainstream source that specialises in providing information for people about Spain, you can only give us the opinions of some bloke writing an obscure cycling blog!!!! And then not about Spain, but about Tenerife! Says it all really. You’re a disingenuous moron.

”I told you I spent most of the time in the Canaries (not Tenerife though) and it is a part of Spain just as the Isle of Wight is a part of the UK.

Who gives a toss where you spend most of your time, actually you should spend it somewhere much, much hotter than the Canaries. The canaries are a part of Spain, but they are not Spain itself are they? Again you fail to understand basic categories and semantics.

Its still there mate, as you well know.”

Doesn’t make it characteristic though does it?

”Well I never said it was an "irreconcilable difference" - you did.”

You’re a liar. You said,

”To say that Yorkshire and Lancashire have different 'traditions' as some sort of indicator of a massive and irreconcilable divide is facile.”

You then went on,

”And just one small example in workplace variance would the Spanish siesta.”

”But in relation to what I did actually say - Yes, of course it does - we don't do it at all.”

Not true, Churchill used to have a mid day nap, and its been recommended by Doctors. Thatcher used to have a midday nap too, because she used to only sleep for a few hours at night. As the descriptions of those workers in Spain who do take a Siesta shows many of them do not nap, but use it for socialising and other activities, which also many workers in this country do nowadays too, particularly if they work flexitime. As even the blogger you quoted said, he did it even.

”You really are an idiot - an unbelievable idiot!!!!

That list is about the various missing links that have been faked to prove your ape-man theory - thats all - and I didnt write it you moron.”


I know you didn’t write it you buffoon. But as I pointed out the fact that science itself has exposed a number of frauds doesn’t change the fact that science itself has also produced genuine fossils, and other proofs.

”So despite desprate fraudualnt attempts at fooling everyone, it has never been proved.”

Nonsense its been conclusively proved by the fossil record, by biology, by zoology and now by the DNA record.

"In fact, another good example of pseudo science perpetrated by creationists. No one says that humans and Chimpanzees are IDENTICAL"

”No, they say we descended from them and apes.”

Now we know you are a nutter. Evolution has NEVER EVER said that we are descended from Chimpanzees and the other apes. That was the ridiculous argument put by the Creationists during the 19th century. Its illuminating that you haven’t even learned anything since then. Evolution says that humans, and Chimpanzees evolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR. The DNA record now proves that to be true. How on earth can you think that you can say anything sensible on these matters when you clearly don’t understand even the first thing about it.

"There is nothing whatsoever in this quote that says that the human species is anything other than a single race!!!!!"

”To an idiot maybe.

Here, I will make it easy for you:


"The genetic makeup of the human race is much more varied than previously believed, new research shows.

Scientists say that surprisingly many large chunks of human DNA differ among individuals and ethnic groups. "

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061122-human-genetics.html”

Yet again, you chop out quotes with clearly no understanding of what you are chopping. The clue to understanding this is given in this quote, which talks of DNA “differ(ing) among INDIVIDUALS and ethnic groups”. In fact, we’ve known this for a long time. What is shows is that there is significant genetic variation between individuals. But, that DISPROVES the point that you were trying to make. In fact, as the previous quote you gave cited BETWEEN ethnic groups the variation is only 12%, Templeton actually put it as high as 15%, and that figure is way too low a variation for it to be considered a significant variation that would cause us to say that it constituted a separate race.

” In 1998, he published a paper in American Anthropologist that explained humans as one race, instead of a species with subdivisions, or races. His study showed that, among people now categorized by race, everyone shares about 85 percent of the same genes. The 15 percent of variation is not enough difference to separate people biologically."

In fact, as the quote you gave showed similar and even greater genetic differences than that exist between individuals within a given people, which completely destroys the point you were trying to make. Its you that is the idiot here, both because you clearly don’t understand evolutionary theory, because you don’t understand scientific principles and methods, and because yet again you give a quote which turns out to disprove the point you were trying to make!

”Doesn't it?

Really?

Because I thought this bit just might:

"Economic growth remains marginal"



"said Peter Hain"

What the hell would he know?”


No it doesn’t because the point was that the conditions were being created for that economic growth, and because the quote you gave was just for one country that did not in any case contradict rhe idea that conditions were being created within which some of these countries would follow the same route to rapid growth that was taken by the Asian Tigers.

”Of course!

You dont like the content so attack the source! Do you want another source?”


If it was one that was credible it might help your case, but it would need to address not just one country but all of them.



”Yes it does, and you know it does.”

No it doesn’t it says nothing about whether the conditions are being laid to follow the same path followed by the Asian Tigers.

"If you are going to chop quotes out of Wikipedia or elsewhere to make up for your lack of knowledge"

”Is that what your doing when you chop quotes out and paste them?

No I don’t need to because unlike you I already have an extensive knowledge of history, economics, philosophy and politics alongside a passing acquaintance with science. I only need to make such quotes as corroboration.

"Not only were the peoples of what was to become France, and was, the province of Gaul, not Franks, but the Franks themselves were not native to Gaul. And given your nationalist politics and the argument you have been putting this last bit will really stick in your craw"

”Not even slightly as France was not a nation at that point, now was it?”

Precisely! France wasn’t a nation, and wasn’t made up as you tried to tell us of Frankish nationalities!

"Who were the Franks? They were immigrants!!!!!!! The Franks were a GERMAN tribe"

”The whole of northern-europe and its race are Germanic (Eg: Normandy = Normans = Norseman) Whats your point?”

There’s no such thing as a Northern European Race! What is the point, you moron. You were claiming that France was established as a nation state, by the coming together of peoples within France (Gaul) who were Frankish. It wasn’t, the Franks were not even inhabitants of Gaul, but were from GERMANY. Moreover, your lack of understanding of categories and semantics leads you astray again. You say, “The whole of northern-Europe and its race are Germanic”, without seeming to understand that whilst the Franks were a Germanic Tribe, not all Germanic Tribes are Franks!!!!!! Worse, you don’t even seem to realise that the majority of France is not IN Northern Europe. The Franks occupied a small part of Northern France, and the rest was populated by many different tribes and nations.

"Far from them being a COMMON PEOPLE with the other nationalities of France"


”There were no other nationalities at that time there, just other tribes - races.

Yes, there were. All nations are made up of tribes, which have to divide when they get to big for the area in which they live, for example the Sioux nation.

"That is why the Frankish language was a minority within the territory of France, and why French was not established as a single language there until the last century!"

”And after all that waffle the fact remains that France is name France because of the Franks and that over time, the tribes formed bigger cliques, merged and bonded as per commonality and eventually formed what we now term a nation.”

Its you that’s waffling. The Franks formed just one tribe within Gaul. The formation of a nation state had absolutely nothing to do with tribes forming bigger cliques, and had everything to do with the Franks conquering other peoples within Gaul, and establishing an Empire over them.

“The first Frankish chief to make himself "King of the Franks" (rex Francorum) was Clovis I in 509. He had conquered the Kingdom of Soissons of the Roman general Syagrius and expelled the Visigoths from southern Gaul at the Battle of Vouillé, thus establishing Frankish hegemony over most of Gaul (excluding Burgundy, Provence, and Brittany), which he left to his successors, the Merovingians, to conquer.”

See: The Franks

Phil BC said...

FYI Sentinel, all posts over 2 weeks old are under moderation so I'm able to catch the comments. It's quite a useful thing to have when your archive's almost 400 posts long.

It's interesting to see you deal with Boffy's arguments by, erm, not dealing with them and letting rip with 'your (sic) an idiot' comments. You still haven't a clue about the rule of evidence do you? It's a shame, because if you did you might be a capable debater rather than an inchoate ranter-at-large.

The Sentinel said...

Dear oh dear Phil!

The complete reversal of all that is reality, everything that has passed, the inverse assignment of culpability, the instant resort to smears, insults and jibes, the incessant use of affirmers - It really is a standard tactic employed by you 'class warriors' isn't?

This guy "Boffy" has proved nothing other then he has to backtrack on various bold statements one post at a time, or complete ignore his short comings altogether.

He started with the insults - as is always the case — and so I reciprocated, stooped somewhere near his level - why not?

(Look at this crap:

”Well I never said it was an "irreconcilable difference" - you did.”

You’re a liar. You said,

”To say that Yorkshire and Lancashire have different 'traditions' as some sort of indicator of a massive and irreconcilable divide is facile.”

You then went on,

”And just one small example in workplace variance would the Spanish siesta.”


Amazingly he even quotes the facts to call me a liar - I said his analogy of "Yorkshire and Lancashire" as "as some sort of indicator of a massive and irreconcilable divide" was facile - I described the siesta thing as "one small example in workplace variance."

You can see that clearly, it is there for everyone to see - the only liar here is "Boffy")



And to tell you the truth I couldn't even be bother to type out "you are an idiot" or "you're an idiot" after the first couple because it is so obvious that this guy wouldn't know the distinction anyhow - but I notice you do not bother with the (sic) with any of "Boffy's" many grammatical mishaps - why is that?

To say I haven't dealt with his comments is more Marxist Alice in Wonderland reality (besides the fact that he clearly feels there is something to respond too) I have presented plenty of evidence.

And then we arrive at that other 'class warrior' practice - twist the evidence, deny the source or just get hysterical - either ways don't ever admit that you could be wrong.

But, all the same, in the interests of the truth, I will rip apart the rest of "Boffy's" absurdities just as soon as I bother to read them all.

Phil BC said...

I look forward to you doing so, Sentinel, because the more you do so, the more your monomania and lack of intelligence shines through.

Arthur Bough said...

“The complete reversal of all that is reality, everything that has passed, the inverse assignment of culpability, the instant resort to smears, insults and jibes, the incessant use of affirmers - It really is a standard tactic employed by you 'class warriors' isn't?”

Paranoia or just more diversion? Incessant use of “affirmers”. I’ve been replying to your crap for over a week, and someone puts a short post in and its an “affirmer”. I haven’t got a clue who “JJ” is, perhaps they could clarify for you. And as Phil says, you don’t seem to have a clue about the rules of evidence – not surprisingly really from someone who puts forward the views of Creationists as in some way a credible alternative to all the huge body of evidence that supports Evolution. It was you that began the tactic of using smears. Your whole method has been about using innuendo and allusion whether it is in respect of “foreigners”, or of socialists. Any sane person that looks back on these posts can see that for themselves.

In what way was calling Nazis your friends an insult? The whole of the politics you have presented here is one in which not only have you elaborated Nazi politics, not just Nationalist politics, but Nazi politics that incorporates your fanatical Nationalism, your repeated allegations against foreigners as being “criminals” – hence your repeated presentation of selected newstories to that effect – your repeated statements of hatred against socialists, and your repeated glorification and mythologizing of the Third Reich!!! How else could anyone describe your position other than friendly to Nazism. If you disagree then you had a duty to tell us in what way you disagree with Nazism, tell us why you are not a Nazi. But, in fact you responded instead by simply slinging insults around, just as in every other instance you have slid away from defending any of your positions.

”This guy "Boffy" has proved nothing other then he has to backtrack on various bold statements one post at a time, or complete ignore his short comings altogether.”

I’ve backtracked on nothing. Its you that has done that for example your defence of the idea that Britain’s decline only began after WWI disappeared when I showed it was clearly false. In every other case you simply deny the truth, look for obscure websites to back up your position – which even then when read carefully they fail to do as for example over the question of DNA, or over Spanish Winter Weather a thoroughly stupid for you to try to maintain given that everyone can easily verify that your position is wrong, and which the many ordinary people I speak to at the gym, who go to Bendidorm in December found hilarious, and so on.

”He started with the insults - as is always the case — and so I reciprocated, stooped somewhere near his level - why not?”

No I didn’t.

”Well I never said it was an "irreconcilable difference" - you did.”

”You’re a liar". You said,”

”To say that Yorkshire and Lancashire have different 'traditions' as some sort of indicator of a massive and irreconcilable divide is facile.”

You then went on,

”And just one small example in workplace variance would the Spanish siesta.”


”Amazingly he even quotes the facts to call me a liar - I said his analogy of "Yorkshire and Lancashire" as "as some sort of indicator of a massive and irreconcilable divide" was facile - I described the siesta thing as "one small example in workplace variance."

You can see that clearly, it is there for everyone to see - the only liar here is "Boffy")”


No, this quite clearly shows its you that is the liar. You claimed that it was me that had said that people in Spain having a Siesta whereas people in Britain not having a Siesta was an “irreconcilable difference”. Any sensible person knows that this would have been impossible for me to have said, for the simple reason that I have spent several posts proving the EXACT OPPOSITE. I had pointed out that although there are differences between people who live in different countries, that is no different from the fact that there are differences between people who live in Yorkshire compared to those who live in Lancashire. That is those differences are in no way IRRECONCILABLE.

You objected as the above quotes show, and tried to refute that statement by giving as an example of an irreconcilable difference the fact that people in Spain take a siesta and people in Britain don’t. Yet above you try to make out that it was me that made that statement, everyone can look back and see that it was YOU. You said above,

"You then went on,

”And just one small example in workplace variance would the Spanish siesta.”

No I didn't as everyone can see for themselves. It was you that gave that as an example in response to my point about Lancashire and Yorkshire. There was no reason why I would do so. And then you even admit it was you that made that statement. You say,

"I described the siesta thing as "one small example in workplace variance."

The facts are plain. You tried to present that difference as an example - "one small example in workplace variance" – of such irreconcilable national differences. I showed that it wasn’t, and unable to disprove that you instead try to change the facts of the discussion. You simply can’t admit when you’ve been proved wrong, and so you lie about what was being discussed. And you’ve done that several times so its not just a mistake, but a method.

”And to tell you the truth I couldn't even be bother to type out "you are an idiot" or "you're an idiot" after the first couple because it is so obvious that this guy wouldn't know the distinction anyhow - but I notice you do not bother with the (sic) with any of "Boffy's" many grammatical mishaps - why is that?”

Another gratuitous insult. I’d compare my educational qualifications against yours at any time.

”To say I haven't dealt with his comments is more Marxist Alice in Wonderland reality (besides the fact that he clearly feels there is something to respond too) I have presented plenty of evidence.”

No you haven’t. You’ve presented statements that are usually not backed up, or you back them up with evidence from sources that are unreliable or themselves not sourced, or else when the evidence from the sources you give is read carefully it turns out not to support the argument you were putting – endless examples from DNA, to Soviet Tank production, to Spanish Siestas, to Spanish temperatures, to the formation of the French Nation State – and either you are not intelligent enough to understand that the evidence you are giving doesn’t support your argument, or else you think you can just swamp the debate with this stuff and no one will notice.

”And then we arrive at that other 'class warrior' practice - twist the evidence, deny the source or just get hysterical - either ways don't ever admit that you could be wrong.”

But, its you that uses unreliable sources, you that twists the evidence – or simply presents evidence that doesn’t back up your case and tries to get away with people not noticing it – and I have not got hysterical over such evidence, its you that has done that, I have in every case taken that evidence apart showed why it doesn’t support your argument, or why its not reliable.

”But, all the same, in the interests of the truth, I will rip apart the rest of "Boffy's" absurdities just as soon as I bother to read them all.”

I’m sure we all can’t wait.

The Sentinel said...

My apologies phil and 'boffy' for the tardy response but I have been celebrating.

I am not going to get bogged down by the endless waffle of 'boffy' and the infantile little taunts or Phil's childish little jibes (an independent observer - not an anonymous one either- recently told you that I wipe the floor with you in these 'debates' Phil) - that is what is really prompting your desperate attempts at 'degrading' me; and ‘boffys’ attempts at ridicule and debate are just so desperate it is abundantly transparent.

Along with his internet hardman insults.

Two old reds outgunned but thinking a bit of mutual affirmation, childish insults and reams of waffle will prevail.

Very sad.


"Yes, it said Hitler believed he was a socialist, and there was no point you making that comment in the context unless you were agreeing with him."


Not even close - It said what it said and it meant what it meant.



"Britain, France and the US could have intervened to prevent the German military build up at any time during the 1930’s. They didn’t for similar reasons for them not intervening in the Spanish Civil War. They saw Germany as an ally against the USSR, and in Spain against the working class."
What utter crap.

For the UK it suited the traditional 'balance of European power' policy up until the annexation of Poland. With France, it wasn't military prepared (and we can see that the truth in that as it only took 6 weeks for them to fold) and the US had long running mantra of no more foreign wars for 'our boys.'

And all of them were terrified of another world war.


"They didn’t for similar reasons for them not intervening in the Spanish Civil War."

Intervene on who's side exactly? The Red Brigades? Franco? And what business was of it of theirs in any case?



"But, as in this case you continually say things without a shred of evidence or argument to back up what you say"

Don’t make me laugh - you are doing exactly that. Where is your evidence?



"The hyper inflation wasn’t caused by the Versailles Treaty."

Here is the result of just two quick searches, the first from the economist.

No doubt though, you are wither going to tell me that it doesn't actually mean what it says or that the source is rubbish.


"The public finances, bad enough anyway, were worsened by the Allies’ demands for reparations, enough not just to compensate for damage done but to pay the pensions of Allied combatants. Even ignoring the part due to be paid in some bonds of dubious worth, the total was $12.5 billion—a huge amount for the time, about half Britain’s GDP. How could it be found? The Allies did not want to see German exports boom, nor were they united in encouraging payment in labour to rebuild Europe. So—roll the presses{...}As early as 1919, when the peace treaty was signed, Keynes had warned that the settlement imposed on Germany would ruin it{...}Later that year, the German government defaulted on its reparations payments. In response, in January 1923 French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr, Germany’s industrial heartland{...}Prices roared up. So did unemployment, modest as 1923 began. As October ended, 19% of metal-workers were officially out of work, and half of those left were on short time. Feeble attempts had been made to stabilise prices."

http://www.economist.com/diversions/millennium/displayStory.cfm?story_id=347363

"The main factor in the hyperinflation, however, were the reparations payments that the Allies demanded of the Germans as part of the Versailles treaty."

http://www.socyberty.com/History/The-Causes-of-Germanys-Hyperinflation-in-the-20s-and-30s.69012



"No its not as the link here demonstrates Russian Space Program"

Without the Nazi rocket scientists, the V1 and the V2, there would have been no space programme for any country as we know it.


"After the Nazi defeat in WWII, the knowledge gained was spirited to the US under Operation Paperclip that gave the US space program and war department its shot in the arm. The same was true for the Soviet Space program, but the Soviets managed only to obtain a handful of lesser scientists. Both got advances from the Nazis{...}All of Warhner von Braun's rockets were liquid fuel chemical rockets, including the Saturn 5 and hydrogen propelled rockets. Solid rocket fuel was developed independently by a different research team working under NASA. Up until the advent of the Space Shuttle, all astronauts, most planetary probes and most satellites launched by the US and USSR were founded on designs heavily influenced by Nazi research under Warhner von Braun. The early work of Goddard paled when compared to the development of the V-1 and V-2 which were the foundations of all heavy lift vehicles."

http://www.helium.com/items/1202009-nazi-rockets-liquid-fuel-rockets-us-space-program-ussr-space-program?page=4



"Rubbish you can’t make tanks and aeroplanes without steel"

And you certainly cannot make them without people. Something the USSR had plenty of; terrified of the NKVD and the Gulags.



"The US and the Allies could not hope to produce a fraction of the needs of Russia’s huge population"

What they gave allowed the focus to be placed upon military production; but the USSR couldn't care less about its people welfare in any case.



"He did so and the Soviets kicked his ass."

Your lack of knowledge in this matter is very amusing - especially as you desperately try attack mine.

In less than four months, the Soviets had lost more than 1.8 million men in prisoners alone: Such losses had not been sustained by an army before in history
By late November, two German advance units penetrated right into the suburbs of Moscow: one advance unit came to within eyesight of the onion domes of the Kremlin itself. Then the Russian winter set in with a viciousness which the Germans were not expecting: many were also not equipped for the winter, and the month delay in launching the campaign finally tripped up the Blitzkrieg war.
It was primarily the winter that stopped the Blitzkrieg - not the USSR; and were it not for the delay in launching the operation due to the action against Yugoslavia,, and the action to shore up the incompetent Italian campaign that winter would have been 6 weeks later.
The loss of Stalingrad was the major turning point in Operation Barbarossa - in feb 1943, long after the USA had physically entered the war, and by then the Germans had commitments all over Europe and North Africa - around 100,000 troops in Norway and 100,000 in Yugoslavia alone without factoring in North Africa, France and all the other occupied countries.

"I’d agree that all those things turned large numbers against Stalin, but they have absolutely nothing to do with Socialism."
Your Soviet Socialist buddies clearly thought differently.

"But, you can’t divorce that theory from the ideology of Nazism it flows necessarily from an attempt to define different nationalities as having “irreconcilable” differences as you propose. Just look at the nonsense you have written previously and later in your post here trying to portray those differences as being genetic. That is precisely the Nazis “racial theory”."
The theory applied to the Balts and most of Russia was erroneous because the Russians originate from the Rus tribe - Vikings.

"Again you show your complete ignorance"

Do I really?

"Even by the grisly standards of the Romanov dynasty, it was a terrible death. In the white heat of the Bolshevik revolution Tsar Nicholas and his family were first shot in their bodies, then bayoneted and finally shot in their heads.
The problem that has concerned the Russian courts for the best part of a decade has been: was it a simple murder committed by a few out of control revolutionaries, or was it ordered from above as a political assassination? Again and again, courts have dodged out of admitting that the Bolshevik state was responsible.
But the Russian Supreme Court ruled yesterday - much to the surprise of Romanov descendants - that the killing was a political act and that the Tsar's family should be considered victims of Bolshevism."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4863837.ece


"At that time those Bolsheviks you refer to – with the ridiculous Nazi claims about them being part of some World Zionist conspiracy financed by Wall Street – were not even in the country!!!!!"

Really?!!!

"Evidence already published by George Katkov, Stefan Possony, and Michael Futrell has established that the return to Russia of Lenin and his party of exiled Bolsheviks, followed a few weeks later by a party of Mensheviks, was financed and organized by the German government.1 The necessary funds were transferred in part through the Nya Banken in Stockholm, owned by Olof Aschberg, and the dual German objectives were: (a) removal of Russia from the war, and (b) control of the postwar Russian market.2
We have now gone beyond this evidence to establish a continuing working relationship between Bolshevik banker Olof Aschberg and the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust Company in New York before, during, and after the Russian Revolution. In tsarist times Aschberg was the Morgan agent in Russia and negotiator for Russian loans in the United States; during 1917 Aschberg was financial intermediary for the revolutionaries; and after the revolution Aschberg became head of Ruskombank, the first Soviet international bank, while Max May, a vice president of the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust, became director and chief of the Ruskom-bank foreign department. We have presented documentary evidence of a continuing working relationship between the Guaranty Trust Company and the Bolsheviks. The directors of Guaranty Trust in 1917 are listed in Appendix 1.
Moreover, there is evidence of transfers of funds from Wall Street bankers to international revolutionary activities. For example, there is the statement (substantiated by a cablegram) by William Boyce Thompson — a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a large stockholder in the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Bank, and a financial associate of the Guggenheims and the Morgans — that he (Thompson) contributed $1 million to the Bolshevik Revolution for propaganda purposes. Another example is John Reed, the American member of the Third International executive committee who was financed and supported by Eugene Boissevain, a private New York banker, and who was employed by Harry Payne Whitney's Metropolitan magazine. Whitney was at that time a director of Guaranty Trust. We also established that Ludwig Martens, the first Soviet "ambassador" to the United States, was (according to British Intelligence chief Sir Basil Thompson) backed by funds from Guaranty Trust Company. In tracing Trotsky's funding in the U.S. we arrived at German sources, yet to be identified, in New York. And though we do not know the precise German sources of Trotsky's funds, we do know that Von Pavenstedt, the chief German espionage paymaster in the U.S., was also senior partner of Amsinck & Co. Amsinck was owned by the ever-present American International Corporation — also controlled by the J.P. Morgan firm..."

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/

"They haven’t. Probably, as you say hundreds of millions, have been murdered by people trying to PREVENT the establishment of socialism. They have been murdered and otherwise killed by Capitalism and class society, and so the sooner that class society is ended with the creation of socialism the better."

The USSR, China, Cuba etc etc were all attempts at socialism, whether you like it or not.


"No its not. Any sensible person can read your comments and see exactly what your politics are as presented here."

It’s just a smear from an ignorant and desperate man.


"Being described as ignorant by a moron who can’t even snatch quotes from Wikipedia and understand what he has copied is a bit rich"

Pathetic.


"Again coming from a cretin who doesn’t even have the creativity to use any other word than idiot your insult is a bit rich"

Pathetic


"Its not just your Nationalism that equates to Nazism, but that combined with your repeated adulation of the Third Reich"
Just relaying facts. No adulation at all, except in your very biased mind.


"your repeated statements of hatred against socialists"

Most people hate you, are they all Nazis too?


"The word I would apply to your comments actually is bullshit. Smear, lying, perversion of history, misrepresentation of others views and so on are the methods you have applied here. All methods no doubt learned from your friend Dr. Goebbels."

Another pathetic smear.

"No just for replying to someone with those characteristics"

Didn't you hear the bell ring for the end of playtime? Many, many years ago.


"That’s the most sensible argument you’ve been able to put so far. At least by not attempting to counter an argument you haven’t once again demonstrated your own intellectual deficieny."

Your own economic assessment - you really are a clown. Who do you think you are?!!!

Tell me eco- genius, did you see this all coming?

"Not as sensible as your last answer, because you convey the idea that you disagree with all of these experts, which does impose a duty on you to say why, and what qualifications you have to take your assessment as opposed to theirs. There again as your intellectual capacity appears to be little more when it comes to understanding economics than betting on the Daily Mail’s Racing Tips, perhaps we can understand why you are loathe to sally forth with such an assessment."

All very clever Im sure, but it is really these people that you are arguing with:

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - The global economy may be deteriorating even faster than it did during the Great Depression, Paul Volcker, a top adviser to President Barack Obama, said on Friday.
Volcker noted that industrial production around the world was declining even more rapidly than in the United States, which is itself under severe strain.
"I don't remember any time, maybe even in the Great Depression, when things went down quite so fast, quite so uniformly around the world," Volcker told a luncheon of economists and investors at Columbia University."

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE51J5JM20090221

"The economic downturn is so severe that it would surpass even the Great Depression of the 1930s, Ed Balls said yesterday.
In an extradorinary admission about the extent of the financial crisis, the Schools Secretary and a close ally of the Prime Minister, declared that the downturn was the most serious global recession for "over 100 years".

He said: "The reality is that this is becoming the most serious global recession for, I'm sure, over 100 years as it will turn out."

He added: "I think this is a financial crisis more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s."

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5699906.ece

"The UK's recession will last between one and a half and two years, a leading economist has warned.

That is the estimate of Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at New York University, and one of the few people to predict the credit crunch."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7846932.stm

"That doesn’t follow at all as any economist will tell you"
I think anyone with a half a brain will tell you that when a country is reduced to rationing its food supply, times are not very rosy. Its simple common sense.


"But, the economy hadn’t suddenly become good in 1957 you dolt. It had been developing for several years, actually from around 1949, to provide that level of improvement. That’s why there was full employment, why women were being encouraged to go out to work etc. Have you read no economic and social history at all???? Oh no, that’s right only the works from the Ministry of Truth isn’t it."

That comment was made 3 years after rationing had ended. And we know just how fast the economic situation can change. Barley 6 months ago there was no recession, and now it is global.


"The film could only find those people who wouldn’t take on those jobs because they DID exist."
Because they went out and looked for them to ensure a predetermined result for the theory.


"Most illegal immigrants don’t work on these jobs, they tend to work in back street sweatshops. The people working on the fruit and vegetable picking are pretty much all legal migrants, and, therefore, are paid the minimum wage at least."
Got any evidence of that, or we just take your word for it?


"They only seem appalling to you because you are a racist bigot with the intellectual capacity of an amoeba. You can’t understand anything beyond the most basic utterances, so you condemn what you can’t understand."

Ha ha ha - you are so desperate it is sad - and very, very transparent 'boffy.'


"Finally, you don’t seem to understand the legal differences between suing which is a Civil suit, and a Criminal Suit for committing an offence."

Wow - after all that waffle, you arrived here at last.
If they are making up 'racist stories' as you claim - without evidence - then it would be a criminal offence. So, once more what evidence do you have that they are making up 'racist stories'?

"Because there have been many cases of them being checked out by Benefit workers and other journalists, and proved to be false or at least grossly distorted as with the case of the woman in Acton you referred to."

Rubbish - where is your evidence these 'many cases'? There must be many examples.


"Capitalism deprived people of the ownership of their own means of production whereby they could do all those things. If it can’t provide decent jobs for people on decent wages that is the fault of Capitalism not those workers."

If people do not want to work for years for no good reason they do not deserve anything.


"Clearly, given your lack of intellectual capacity you have difficulty understanding basic categories or semantics. Possibly so does not mean absolutely true, it means you could be right, but at least equally you could be wrong. You’d need to prove your statement first. In the context it meant “even were your statement correct it is irrelevant”."

Again, you are so desperate you are just embarrassing yourself.


"But, if they find some doesn’t that prove it exists you sap?"

No you muppet - they applied a civilian mindset to a military practice. One recruit got a slap that even he says didn't hurt and he deserved because he was messing around with his rifle - a very serious safety issue - but the BBC tried to play up as outrageous. Believe me it happens all the time in the army - did before I was in, did while I was in and continued after I left. If you mess up with weapons or mouth off expect to get hit.


"On the contrary what we have seen is that the biggest murderers of workers have been those OPPOSING socialism."

That’s one way to justify the socialist NKVD and gulags.


"Yes, it has. You have repeatedly said you oppose foreigners taking jobs in Britain if British workers want those jobs. You have repeatedly opposed foreigners if they are illegal immigrants. You have repeatedly opposed foreigners if they are asylum seekers. You have repeatedly opposed foreigners being treated the same as British people in respect of benefits etc., and later in your post here you give several reports from newspapers the message of which you want to present as being all immigrants are some form of criminal, prostitute etc."

After all that waffle you we go straight back to what I had originally said: "I am for my own people in their own country first" - most asylum seekers are economic migrants - we can see that from the huge numbers of failed applications as already presented; of course I oppose " foreigners if they are illegal immigrants" muppet, they are criminals and most people oppose it too.

And that report was the words of the countries most senior policeman, not me.

But of course, you know better then him don't you?!! You know everything.


"But, that makes no distinction between British workers and British bosses. Putting Britain first means in reality putting the interests of those whose country it is first, those who own and control it – the bosses. As the bosses interests contradicts the interests of workers you put yourself where Nazis always put themselves on the side of the bosses against the workers. You try to pretend you support workers but every word you utter shows you are not, that is why you oppose socialism, because it means workers having control of society for themselves without those bosses."

I don’t have to try and pretend anything to anyone - especially not a nonentity like you.
I am working class you muppet - born and bred. Are you?

If anything the BNP are too socialist for my liking wanting to nationalize large and medium scale industries and reform factories into share and management co-operatives; nationalize and centralize the banks etc effectively stifling healthy competition.


"Jeez what a lack of intelligence you do have. I live in Staffordshire. The fact that Staffordshire is a constituent part of Britain, which is a constituent part of Europe hasn’t meant the destruction of Staffordshire has it????"

You really are a twisted liar aren't you?

To say "The same is true today as to why Britain needs to forget about its past and forge its future in a single European state" means that you want to destroy Britain as a sovereign state, because it could be continue as such in a "single European state"


"You then give us a series of foreign articles from various right-wing newspapers, all of which attempt to portray immigrants as being rapists and criminals."

You see, that’s your whole problem.

They are just reporting the facts mate, they are not trying to portray anything - really, if you have any evidence that it is a giant conspiracy then do present it - go on, I dare you.

If not, just shut up and accept that these are facts and the huge and disparate impact on crime these people have is real.

Here is a couple more for you:

In over 80 per cent of UK gang rape cases, the defendants are black.

http://www.newstatesman.com/199811200011

There are five times more young blacks in prison then whites.

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


"The fact that, a larger proportion of crimes were committed by a certain group says nothing about that group itself."

In your world maybe but not in the real one. It says everything about them.

Why the hell would we want to let people like this into our country?

"Those committing offences represent a small minority of the group itself."

But such a huge proportion nationally - extremely significant given their population ratio to the 'host.'


"No it isn’t and quite obviously, you moron. EVERTHING, means excluding NOTHING. So if someone is prove with EVERYTHING there can be nothing else. If there was “anything else” then what there was to begin with by definition could not have been EVERYTHING."

What a waffling muppet you are.


"So what?"

Unbelievable. What do you think most of the people paying the rent might think about it.


"It could just as easily have been some homeless British family housed there couldn’t it?"

But it just never is, is it? Or do you have proof to the contrary?


"The fact is that the real story here was not that some poor family had been housed in this place, but that British capitalism can’t provide enough houses for people to live in"

Yet again, just complete rubbish:


"The Empty Homes Agency estimates that there are 840,000 empty homes in the UK"

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/buying_and_selling/article2686130.ece


"But, that’s a story that the Capitalist press don’t want to tell, especially those that cater for those at the lower end of the intelligence spectrum."

Like the Daily Mirror?

"In fact, I checked this story with a benefits Advisor from the Citizen’s Advice Bureau who told me the following."

So you say. And you are a proven liar.


"You imbecile. That phrase wasn’t produced by any Marxist, there is nothing Marxist about it. It was the phrase used by the liberals who conducted the investigation of the Met’s handling of the Stephen Lawrence murder."

Its a PC term, and PC originated from Marxists.

But, anyway chew on this:

"The police should no longer be accused of institutional racism, the UK's equalities chief has said."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7836766.stm


"They could do, there’s nothing anti-capitalist, nothing that challenges the ownership of the means of production in it. Right-wingers today support all sorts of things that were once falsely presented as being left-wing."

I doubt it very much indeed.


"Given that a lot of people on the Right are homosexuals"

Evidence?


"No it hasn’t its been asserted by you, and as you’ve pointed out just because you assert something doesn’t make it true. Your last statement is false. You claim that the list you cited was created by the Frankfurt School. Firstly, this has all the hallmarks of those fabrications so loved by Nazis such as the Protocols of he Elders of Zion. As far as I can see you give no real evidence that this list was produced by the Frankfurt School."

This should educate you a little:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236



"Again, you show that you are an imbecile that doesn’t understand categories or semantics. The category worker is not exclusive of the category “criminal”. It is more than possible to be both. A joiner who is done for drink driving is a criminal. It doesn’t mean he ceases to be a joiner, and therefore, a worker. That level of logic is usually understood by children, which tells us the level of intellect you have reached."

Again you are just a waffling windbag - these people are criminals who have no business being here, and are not allowed to work here and who are undermining work pay and conditions and failing to pay tax, they are just criminals who commit further crimes whenever they take up employment.


"Look amoeba brain, Australia had an open door policy after WWII, which is why it has lots of Asian people living there. Get it."

Look muppet:

"The White Australia policy is a term used to describe a collection of historical policies that intentionally restricted non-white immigration to Australia from 1901 to 1973"

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

You really are clueless, aren't you?!!!



"Yes, they did they were desperate for workers. What do you mean Britain wouldn’t let them, you numbnuts, Britain couldn’t stop them."

The overwhelming vast majority of Blacks in the US are descended from slaves, not immigrant arrivals- and the UK's mass third world immigration started after WW2


"Two is an historic number compared to one, but hardly means anything significant does it. Moreover, its just if not more likely that historic numbers arrived to compensate for the historic numbers who had left."

Oh God!! What a clown.


Historic numbers of Third Worlders arrive in Sweden - and you now know the criminal behavior of these people there, especially gang raping - and record numbers of Swedes leave.

And just in case you are in any doubt as the to the serious problem they now have in Sweden with Third World immigrants:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diw5SneythM



"No we weren’t you lying toe rag. You said"

Like I say, you are just another internet hardman, you would not say it to my face and stay standing pal.


"Nevertheless, you no doubt adopt your friend Goebbels perspective that if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it."

That’s very much your technique.

That and waffle.


"If you didn’t have the intelligence of a microbe you’d know its impossible to prove a negative."

If whites were present in Africa in the numbers we are talking about the remains would be everywhere. The fact is none have been found. Not one. None.


"We know enough to be able to sequence it, and to compare one set to another. That’s enough to prove the Theory of Evolution"

We know very little about it - only 3%, so if you think that 3% of knowledge is all powerful, then good luck to you.

And I notice you stay away form the fact its not infallible either.



"Well anyone can check on CNN, or Euronews or on a load of different websites to see the number of hours sunchine, and the daytime temperatures, and will see that not only are you a moron, but you are a lying moron."

Yeah, internet hardman, I didn't make the figures did I?


"Actually, I’ve already got a very good education"

You think you have, and that’s the main problem here - but sadly you haven’t.


"Yes, the Nazis arose after WWI, but they were an insignificant force at that time. The mass parties were the Social Democrats in 1918, and the split from them in the form of the Communists led by Luxemburg and Liebknecht who led the 1918 Revolution, and by 1923 the German Communist Party, which led the 1923 revolution. It was in response to the threat from the working class that the support for these workers parties represented to the Capitalists at a time of world wide Capitalist crisis that led the German Capitalists to bankroll and support the Nazis, transforming them from a minor role into the main party of the Capitalists, and sections of the middle class, that relied on assorted criminals and other dregs of society to make up the gangs of street thugs organised in the brownshirts."

And after all that waffle the fact remains that the Nazis lived and breathed to avenge the 'stab in the back', reverse the defeat of WW1 and remilitarize. Which is pretty much why WW2 occurred, muppet.


"But, again we note your devotion to the myths of the Third Reich rather than the facts."
Really?

"The German King Tiger Tank was introduced in early 1944 and was the most powerful tank during world war 2. With its powerful 88mm gun and an almost impenetrable front armor, it was one of the most feared weapons of world war 2. Up to the end of the war, the allies had not introduce any effective means to counter the threat."

http://www.worldwar2aces.com/

"The final development of the Tiger MBT, the Tiger II or King Tiger was the most powerful tank on the battlefield in the Second World War."

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_tiger2.html

And I notice that you have stayed away form the German jets.


"The drive for profit or for Rent has nothing whatsoever to do with some supposed competitive human nature. On the contrary it is a perversion of man’s natural co-operative nature, arising out of class society. Modern Man has been around for about 70,000 years, whilst civilisation and class society has exited for only around 7-10,000 years. During all of that previous period, Man lived in Co-operative societies, where the kind of competition you speak of would have been inconceivable. And as I’ve said before even amongst animals there is no natural competition either. Provided all their needs are met, they can be brought up to live quite peaceably and co-operatively with each other."

More waffle.

Man has fought man for as long as man has been around. Individually, tribally, and nationally. And one thing is certain while man is still around: There will be wars.


As for animals and no natural competition it exists even amongst species - deers rutting, beers wrestling and baboons fighting; it is the origin of the term 'law of the jungle'

Now in the real world 'boffy' animals do not have very need catered for now do they? And what a ridiculous statement. Given that a large proportion of animals are carnivores something has to be killed for them to eat in any case.

Or will socialists change all that too?

"You really are a mindless buffoon. How on earth do you think they could prevent a heavily armed state from doing that?"

History has shown us that when people resist things change.
But personally, I would kill and be killed before I let my family starve to death.


"More mindless bollocks. Look living off a few roots and fish on one of your army survival courses for a few weeks is one thing, especially when you are not competing for those roots and fish with a million other people, but being able to feed a million people by such methods is an impossibility. That after all is why Man had to abandon hunting and gathering in favour of settled agriculture."

More ignorant bollocks.

You only need one fish to survive every day - the sea could sustain forever in those circumstances.



"Ah, by not overthrowing Capitalism and taking hold of the means of production you mean or to give it its proper name, creating socialism!"

Not really, just by killing anyone who tried to steal from them, or die trying.


"But earlier, you told us that people shouldn’t do that."

Where did I say that liar?

"What about he need to also be tending your land, to be working where you can to earn money to pay the rent and taxes."

Hang on, weren't they starving to death?


"Yes, there are streams, lakes and rivers, but mostly they are the property of capitalists and landlords, who at the time could have you hung for poaching on them."

Or even better, do nothing and starve to death.


"Only in the normal sociological sense of the word that is that people are led into various actions by the force of circumstances, by personal motivations."

What a load of shit. You think Stalin and co were really just victims.


"No, and I didn’t suggest that I did. I simply point out that whereas I give details from a mainstream source that specialises in providing information for people about Spain, you can only give us the opinions of some bloke writing an obscure cycling blog!!!! And then not about Spain, but about Tenerife! Says it all really. You’re a disingenuous moron."

And Tenerife is a part of Spain is it not? You know, going back to your "I live in Staffordshire. The fact that Staffordshire is a constituent part of Britain..."


"Who gives a toss where you spend most of your time, actually you should spend it somewhere much, much hotter than the Canaries. The canaries are a part of Spain, but they are not Spain itself are they? Again you fail to understand basic categories and semantics."

A lot of people give a toss actually muppet; but I was talking about the canaries where I knew my contention to be true, and quite frankly I couldn't be bothered searching around for links on it when your link confirmed it anyway, just gave different timings.


"You’re a liar."

No, you are the liar: I said your analogy of "Yorkshire and Lancashire" as "as some sort of indicator of a massive and irreconcilable divide" was facile - I described the siesta thing as "one small example in workplace variance."


"Not true, Churchill used to have a mid day nap, and its been recommended by Doctors. Thatcher used to have a midday nap too, because she used to only sleep for a few hours at night."

Two people is not a national siesta.

But you so deluded and arrogant you even try to prove that there is a UK siesta. Amazing.



"But as I pointed out the fact that science itself has exposed a number of frauds doesn’t change the fact that science itself has also produced genuine fossils, and other proofs."

Bloody hell - the missing link is still missing, That’s the point!!!


"Nonsense its been conclusively proved by the fossil record, by biology, by zoology and now by the DNA record."

No, it hasn't.


"Now we know you are a nutter. Evolution has NEVER EVER said that we are descended from Chimpanzees and the other apes."

Yes it does - from primates.


"Yet again, you chop out quotes with clearly no understanding of what you are chopping. The clue to understanding this is given in this quote, which talks of DNA “differ(ing) among INDIVIDUALS and ethnic groups”. In fact, we’ve known this for a long time. What is shows is that there is significant genetic variation between individuals. But, that DISPROVES the point that you were trying to make. In fact, as the previous quote you gave cited BETWEEN ethnic groups the variation is only 12%, Templeton actually put it as high as 15%, and that figure is way too low a variation for it to be considered a significant variation that would cause us to say that it constituted a separate race."

You really would just say black was white to try and prove a point.
The tests were carried out on 4 racial groups so all variance is between those groups and of course, the individuals will vary outside those 4 groups too. Which is the headlines say "Till now, humans of different races were thought almost identical" because now we know they are not.
And that's just 12% variance of the 3% of DNA we know about.

Here’s another eminent expert on the subject, one of the founders of DNA:


"One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of "scientific racism".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html



"If it was one that was credible it might help your case, but it would need to address not just one country but all of them."

My God - you are a right one.
You say Togo so I give you Togo.


"No I don’t need to because unlike you I already have an extensive knowledge of history, economics, philosophy and politics alongside a passing acquaintance with science. I only need to make such quotes as corroboration."

Ha ha ha ha.

Really???!!!

"Precisely! France wasn’t a nation, and wasn’t made up as you tried to tell us of Frankish nationalities!"

How can they be nationalities if they were not from a nation?

"There’s no such thing as a Northern European Race"

Really? There are no blond, blue eyed Germanic people?


"Worse, you don’t even seem to realise that the majority of France is not IN Northern Europe"

I fully aware of it. And as a result, most of the French south of the Seine are dark.


"All nations are made up of tribes"


My point exactly. And tribes are homogenous.


"Its you that’s waffling. The Franks formed just one tribe within Gaul. The formation of a nation state had absolutely nothing to do with tribes forming bigger cliques, and had everything to do with the Franks conquering other peoples within Gaul, and establishing an Empire over them."

Not at all; its your very sad protection mechanism that prevents you from being wrong ever that lead you to go on and on and on about something as fundamentally simple that France is called France because of the Franks.


"I’ve backtracked on nothing"

The fact that illegal immigrants are criminals just for one.


"No, this quite clearly shows its you that is the liar. You claimed that it was me that had said that people in Spain having a Siesta whereas people in Britain not having a Siesta was an “irreconcilable difference”. Any sensible person knows that this would have been impossible for me to have said, for the simple reason that I have spent several posts proving the EXACT OPPOSITE. I had pointed out that although there are differences between people who live in different countries, that is no different from the fact that there are differences between people who live in Yorkshire compared to those who live in Lancashire. That is those differences are in no way IRRECONCILABLE."


More boring waffle from a boring liar.

I said your analogy of "Yorkshire and Lancashire" as "as some sort of indicator of a massive and irreconcilable divide" was facile - I described the siesta thing as "one small example in workplace variance."


“Another gratuitous insult. I’d compare my educational qualifications against yours at any time.”

You’re the one with the gratuitous insults ‘boffy’ and I am highly qualified in my field; in fact I completed yet another high level certification - one of the highest in my field - on Friday, you silly little man.

etc

etc

etc

Arthur Bough said...

“I am not going to get bogged down by the endless waffle of 'boffy' and the infantile little taunts or Phil's childish little jibes (an independent observer - not an anonymous one either- recently told you that I wipe the floor with you in these 'debates' Phil) - that is what is really prompting your desperate attempts at 'degrading' me; and ‘boffys’ attempts at ridicule and debate are just so desperate it is abundantly transparent.”

Who was it your Granny?

”Along with his internet hardman insults.

Two old reds outgunned but thinking a bit of mutual affirmation, childish insults and reams of waffle will prevail.

Very sad.”


Bloody hell, and you accuse others of waffle!!!

"Yes, it said Hitler believed he was a socialist, and there was no point you making that comment in the context unless you were agreeing with him."


"Not even close - It said what it said and it meant what it meant."

Yep, it meant you were saying that Hitler thought he was a socialist, and you weren’t disagreeing with him.


"Britain, France and the US could have intervened to prevent the German military build up at any time during the 1930’s. They didn’t for similar reasons for them not intervening in the Spanish Civil War. They saw Germany as an ally against the USSR, and in Spain against the working class."

”What utter crap.

For the UK it suited the traditional 'balance of European power' policy up until the annexation of Poland. With France, it wasn't military prepared (and we can see that the truth in that as it only took 6 weeks for them to fold) and the US had long running mantra of no more foreign wars for 'our boys.'

And all of them were terrified of another world war.”


Rubbish. France was certainly weak compared to Britain, one reason it entered into an alliance with the USSR and Italy. But, it was no significantly weaker than was Germany during the 1920’s and early 30’s. Britain certainly wasn’t weak, and entered into a contest with the US, which was building up its armaments, particularly sea power to challenge Britain. Many commentators during the 1920’s thought indeed the next war would be between the US and Britain as the two main imperialist powers. But either, Britain or the US or the two combined could have prevented Germany rearming from the early thirties had they chosen to. They chose not to, because suffering from the Great Depression whilst the USSR’s economy was powering ahead, seeing rising support for the Communist Party in their homelands, they saw the fight against Communism as the main challenge, and they hoped that Germany would be the spearhead of that fight just as they allowed it to be in Spain.

”Intervene on who's side exactly? The Red Brigades? Franco? And what business was of it of theirs in any case?”

They refused even to supply the Republican Government of Spain with arms with which to fight. Faced with Franco’s fascists, supported by the military might of Germany, and the support of Italy, if Britain and the US or other supposed “democratic” powers had wanted to fight fascism they would at the very least have agreed to sell arms to the legitimate government of Spain. They didn’t. Why? Because, they saw in that legitimate government the potential for Spanish workers to exert power, and lined themselves up in effect behind Germany, Italy and Franco. So, by the same token what business was it of Germany or Italy to get involved? And having done so, why didn’t Britain and the US respond when they could easily have done so, before Germany had properly rearmed. After all, all those German bombers bombing Spanish cities could hardly have been unnoticed to them could they?

"But, as in this case you continually say things without a shred of evidence or argument to back up what you say"

”Don’t make me laugh - you are doing exactly that. Where is your evidence?”

My evidence is your post, and the fact that for everyone to see, you simply made a statement and then failed to back it up with any substantiation.

"The hyper inflation wasn’t caused by the Versailles Treaty."

"Here is the result of just two quick searches, the first from the economist.

No doubt though, you are wither going to tell me that it doesn't actually mean what it says or that the source is rubbish."


No I’m going to tell you that it says exactly what I had said.

” Even ignoring the part due to be paid in some bonds of dubious worth, the total was $12.5 billion—a huge amount for the time, about half Britain’s GDP. How could it be found? The Allies did not want to see German exports boom, nor were they united in encouraging payment in labour to rebuild Europe. So—roll the presses{...}”

Which is exactly what I had said. The cause of the hyperinflation as with all hyperinflations was the excessive printing of money!!!! Why did the Germans print excessive amounts of money because it meant they could pay the onerous conditions of the Versailles Treaty with funny money, just as the US has used similar methods to pay back its creditors in devalued currency.

I originally said,

“Yes, really. The hyper inflation wasn’t caused by the Versailles Treaty. The Weimar republic printed huge amounts of paper currency as a deliberate means of paying back the Entente Powers with funny money. That caused the hyper-inflation.”

In other words exactly what the Economist article also says!!!!!

”Without the Nazi rocket scientists, the V1 and the V2, there would have been no space programme for any country as we know it.”

As the link I gave showed that is clearly not true. And your own post even confirms it. It says,

"After the Nazi defeat in WWII, the knowledge gained was spirited to the US under Operation Paperclip that gave the US space program and war department its shot in the arm. The same was true for the Soviet Space program, but the Soviets managed only to obtain a handful of lesser scientists.”

In other words the US got the best scientists, and the greater number, whilst the USSR got only a handful of lesser scientists. Yet it was the USSR not the US, which was first into space, and which led in the space race from then on!

"Rubbish you can’t make tanks and aeroplanes without steel"

”And you certainly cannot make them without people. Something the USSR had plenty of; terrified of the NKVD and the Gulags.”

So now you admit you were wrong then when you said that all of this production was non-existent that it had all come from the West!!! But rather than actually say you were wrong, you try to distract the argument on to a different path!!!! Typical of your dishonest method of argument.

"The US and the Allies could not hope to produce a fraction of the needs of Russia’s huge population"

"What they gave allowed the focus to be placed upon military production; but the USSR couldn't care less about its people welfare in any case."

Then tell us what it actually was that they gave, what amounts that allowed this to happen!

"He did so and the Soviets kicked his ass."

”Your lack of knowledge in this matter is very amusing - especially as you desperately try attack mine.

In less than four months, the Soviets had lost more than 1.8 million men in prisoners alone: Such losses had not been sustained by an army before in history.

By late November, two German advance units penetrated right into the suburbs of Moscow: one advance unit came to within eyesight of the onion domes of the Kremlin itself. Then the Russian winter set in with a viciousness which the Germans were not expecting: many were also not equipped for the winter, and the month delay in launching the campaign finally tripped up the Blitzkrieg war.

It was primarily the winter that stopped the Blitzkrieg - not the USSR; and were it not for the delay in launching the operation due to the action against Yugoslavia,, and the action to shore up the incompetent Italian campaign that winter would have been 6 weeks later.

The loss of Stalingrad was the major turning point in Operation Barbarossa - in feb 1943, long after the USA had physically entered the war, and by then the Germans had commitments all over Europe and North Africa - around 100,000 troops in Norway and 100,000 in Yugoslavia alone without factoring in North Africa, France and all the other occupied countries.”


This is a total manipulation of reality. Its true that Germany had early success against Russia. The reason the terrible consequences of Stalin’s rule. He had refused to believe the advice of those who told him Hitler was going to attack. He had destroyed the top echelons of the Red Army and so on. But, the fact remains that having got over that the USSR mobilised its resources and despite those avoidable setbacks trounced Nazi Germany. Yes, in February 1943, the US had entered the War, but its role at that point was largely reinforcing Britain, and fighting its own war against Japan in the Pacific. It was not until 7 months AFTER Stalingrad that the US involvement in the War had any real import for the War in Europe with the invasion of Italy! Even in North Africa the Allied assaults didn’t really begin until the beginning of 1943. As for Europe, this had long since ceased to be an arena of battle, and in fact, Germany had all the advantages of its client regimes in Norway and France in supplying it, and as fortresses and staging posts from which to attack the Allies. Far from there presence their being a drain it was a positive advantage!

"I’d agree that all those things turned large numbers against Stalin, but they have absolutely nothing to do with Socialism."

”Your Soviet Socialist buddies clearly thought differently.”

Unlike, your adoration for the Nazis the leaders of the USSR are not my buddies, by my deadly enemies. So I really don’t give a toss what they thought, the fact is that they were the enemies of socialism.

"The theory applied to the Balts and most of Russia was erroneous because the Russians originate from the Rus tribe - Vikings."

It was erroneous because the idea that the human race is divided into separate races is mumbo jumbo. It creates meaningless divisions between peoples based on arbitrary criteria.

"Even by the grisly standards of the Romanov dynasty, it was a terrible death. In the white heat of the Bolshevik revolution Tsar Nicholas and his family were first shot in their bodies, then bayoneted and finally shot in their heads.

The problem that has concerned the Russian courts for the best part of a decade has been: was it a simple murder committed by a few out of control revolutionaries, or was it ordered from above as a political assassination? Again and again, courts have dodged out of admitting that the Bolshevik state was responsible.

But the Russian Supreme Court ruled yesterday - much to the surprise of Romanov descendants - that the killing was a political act and that the Tsar's family should be considered victims of Bolshevism."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4863837.ece"


You don’t seem to understand the difference between the overthrow of the Romanov’s which happened in February (Old Russian Calendar) 1917, and their murder several months later!!!!

"At that time those Bolsheviks you refer to – with the ridiculous Nazi claims about them being part of some World Zionist conspiracy financed by Wall Street – were not even in the country!!!!!"

"Really?!!!

"Evidence already published...

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/


None of this nonsense is new. The Mensheviks in 1917 when they were losing to the Bolsheviks came out with all this crap. It was thoroughly investigated and shown by documentary evidence to be such. Later Stalin tried to make similar allegations against Trotsky, for similar reasons. The Dewey Commission gain thoroughly reviewed all the evidence and found it to have been made up, and contradicted by the facts. The Nazis also gave it a twist by claiming that this financing was all part of a Jewish conspiracy through their control of international finance, of which the “evidence” you put forward here is an example. It is, as I said, the same as the type of document as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, based on forged documents, and the misrepresentation of facts. Another example, was the so called “Zioviev Letter”.

The fact is that those same bankers were the ones who had a direct and important controlling say in the US State and Government, the same State and Government which launched in 1918 an attack on Russia, in an attempt to overthrow the revolution and reinstall the forces of Tsarism. That is an indisputable fact that requires no documentation to prove it, made up or otherwise.

"The USSR, China, Cuba etc etc were all attempts at socialism, whether you like it or not."

Lenin described Russia as a State Capitalist economy with bureaucratic deformations. He believed as all Marxists do that it is impossible to create socialism in one country. It was not Lenin that killed millions of workers and peasants, but those Tsarists, and bourgeois who launched the Civil War, it was the US, Britain and so on, who invaded Russia and tried to bring back Tsarism. And, no Stalin was not trying to create socialism, he was looking after the interests of the bureaucrats – many of them former Tsarists and bourgeois – who had taken control of the factories and state institutions. It was in order to do so that he and his fellow anti-socialists such as Mao, and Castro, murdered and oppressed millions of workers. Nothing at all to do with socialism

"No its not. Any sensible person can read your comments and see exactly what your politics are as presented here."

"It’s just a smear from an ignorant and desperate man."

No its not. I’m certainly not ignorant, and definitely not desperate. Your politics are there for all to see. Repeated adulation of the Nazis, fanatical nationalism, hatred of foreigners, hatred of socialists, the advocacy of a thoroughly fraudulent racial theory all of which give us the description of what you are.

"Being described as ignorant by a moron who can’t even snatch quotes from Wikipedia and understand what he has copied is a bit rich"

"Pathetic."

Yes, you are.

"Again coming from a cretin who doesn’t even have the creativity to use any other word than idiot your insult is a bit rich"

"Pathetic"

And your still without the intellect to even vary your insults.

"Its not just your Nationalism that equates to Nazism, but that combined with your repeated adulation of the Third Reich"

"Just relaying facts. No adulation at all, except in your very biased mind."

You wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you on the arse.

"your repeated statements of hatred against socialists"

”Most people hate you, are they all Nazis too?”

No, they don’t. Most people DISAGREE with true socialists, and they are quite within their right to do so. But its only Nazis who take disagreement with someone else’s views to the level of hating them for holding them. The fact that you come into that category shows again exactly what your politics amounts to.

"The word I would apply to your comments actually is bullshit. Smear, lying, perversion of history, misrepresentation of others views and so on are the methods you have applied here. All methods no doubt learned from your friend Dr. Goebbels."

”Another pathetic smear.”

Yes, but they always come from you.

”Didn't you hear the bell ring for the end of playtime? Many, many years ago.”

Yes, you’d better go in before the teacher tells you off.

”Your own economic assessment - you really are a clown. Who do you think you are?!!! “

An Economist for one thing.

”Tell me eco- genius, did you see this all coming?”

Yes, I did actually, and wrote a blog saying it was going to break out about two weeks before it did, and spelled out why it was going to break out then.

See: Severe Financial Warning where I warned,

“However, events last night on the markets lead me to beleive that a very serious situation might have arisen. If I am right, and it plays out then we are talking a complete financial meltdown, a catastrophe of Biblical proportions, "rivers of blood, cats and dogs living together etc."

That was written just weeks before that financial meltdown happened, and was indeed caused by the factors I outlined in the article, and which I have been warning for several years could, and indeed almost certainly would cause such a crisis.

"Not as sensible as your last answer, because you convey the idea that you disagree with all of these experts, which does impose a duty on you to say why, and what qualifications you have to take your assessment as opposed to theirs. There again as your intellectual capacity appears to be little more when it comes to understanding economics than betting on the Daily Mail’s Racing Tips, perhaps we can understand why you are loathe to sally forth with such an assessment."

”All very clever I’m sure, but it is really these people that you are arguing with:”

I don’t dispute any of the points made in the quotes you give other than that perhaps of Roubini, who has an ideological axe to grind. It is as I said last July warning that this crisis was about to break the worst financial crisis at least since the Depression and probably worse. But a FINANCIAL crisis and an ECONOMIC crisis are not the same thing. One affects the financial markets the other affects the economy in total, though both can cause a crisis in the other. I do not either doubt that in terms of the severity of the economic crisis that has now broken out it could indeed be as deep as the Great Depression. The difference, though, is in how long it lasts. The Great Depression, in reality began in 1913 not the 1930’s. It was hidden by the fact of the First World War, but by 1921, the world economy had turned down again. Europe remained mired in economic downturn throughout the 1920’s. It was only the new and dynamic US economy that grew strongly in the 1920’s – just as its equivalents today China, India etc. are doing. Even the US could not remain isolated for ever and succumbed in the 1930’s. So for much of the World the Depression dragged on for 20 years not just the ten years of the 1930’s.

But, the fact is that that depression coincided with a Kondratiev 25 year Long Wave decline. The same was true of the prolonged recession of the 1970’s to 1990’s. Today, the world is in a totally different circumstance, a 25 year Kondratiev upswing. Just as in similar periods in the post war boom or during the 19th century such periods are marked by recessions which can be deep, but which are relatively short-lived, around 18 months. Britain has already been in recession for more than 6 months, so has the US, so on average it should only last another 12 months, and will have hit its depths before that. In addition the fact that the most dynamic sectors of the world economy in China and India are continuing to grow rapidly, the fact that the whole world economy has been given an unprecedented monetary and fiscal stimulus means that far greater forces have been unleashed to prevent such a recession from dragging on or doing to much damage. One reason why unemployment has not even begun to reach the levels it did in the 1980’s let alone the 1930’s.

In fact. I’ve just been watching Ben Bernanke’s Congressional Testimony on CNBC, and he too says that the recession will end this year with growth resuming in 2010.

"That doesn’t follow at all as any economist will tell you"

"I think anyone with a half a brain will tell you that when a country is reduced to rationing its food supply, times are not very rosy. Its simple common sense."

Well as someone who has only half a brain you would know. Common sense perhaps, economic fact, absolutely not. As I said, most economists believe that rationing was continued far too long after it could have been lifted. It was continued not because the economy was not growing strongly, but partly because it was. That strong growth meant wages were rising, which would have meant increased demand for food, which would have meant rapidly rising imports at a time when the main concern was to be able to earn foreign currency to pay back foreign debt. The fact is as was shown by the economic statistics – that is real evidence – showed economic growth from the beginning of the 1950’s was strong, and prosperity was rising with it, hence the growing number of people, buying TV sets etc.

”That comment was made 3 years after rationing had ended. And we know just how fast the economic situation can change. Barley 6 months ago there was no recession, and now it is global.”

British GDP in millions of pounds
1930 4,572
1935 4,676
1940 7,117
1945 9,816
1950 13,162
1955 19,264
1960 25,678

That is between 1945 and 50 growth increased by 34%, between 1950 and 1955 by 46.3%, and between 1955 and 1960 by 33.3%. So it can be seen that, in fact, the highest rate of growth was achieved during the period 1950-55. Moreover, the average annual rates of growth during the whole of this period 1945-50 approx 7%, 1950-55 approx 9%, and 1955-60 of approx 6.5% compare with an average annual growth rate today for the UK economy of around 2%-2.5%. What does common sense have to say about that? Perhaps you could get your half a brain around it.


"The film could only find those people who wouldn’t take on those jobs because they DID exist."

”Because they went out and looked for them to ensure a predetermined result for the theory.”

Its only possible to find black swans to disprove the theory that there are no black swans, because there are in fact black swans out there to find, thereby disproving the theory.

"Most illegal immigrants don’t work on these jobs, they tend to work in back street sweatshops. The people working on the fruit and vegetable picking are pretty much all legal migrants, and, therefore, are paid the minimum wage at least."

Got any evidence of that, or we just take your word for it?

This article from the Independent describes the types of jobs that illegal immigrants work in.

Independent

The following story from the BBC also sets out the position in respect of recruitment for those fruit and vegetable farms.

Jobs Available


”Ha ha ha - you are so desperate it is sad - and very, very transparent 'boffy.'”

Nothing desperate about pointing out both the inadequacy of your politics, your intellectual capacity, or your repeated failure to provide any response to many of the points put to you. Such as your failure to provide any response here other than evasion.


”Wow - after all that waffle, you arrived here at last.”

For someone with your verbal diarrhoea you have a nerve complaining about waffle. It wasn’t it simply exposed your lack of knowledge of the law.

“If they are making up 'racist stories' as you claim - without evidence - then it would be a criminal offence. So, once more what evidence do you have that they are making up 'racist stories'?”

No it wouldn’t. The law requires that you are inciting racial hatred. The failure of the case against the BNP, despite filmed evidence of the comments being made, shows how difficult it is, to prove that.

The proof is actually given in the story from Acton that you quoted. It talked about someone receiving £170,000 in benefits PLUS having £150,000 rent paid, and failed to correct readers incorrect interpretation of that – a not unreasonable incorrect interpretation – that failed to realise that the £170,000 INCLUDED the £150,000 paid actually not to the claimant but to the landlord!!!

"Because there have been many cases of them being checked out by Benefit workers and other journalists, and proved to be false or at least grossly distorted as with the case of the woman in Acton you referred to."

”Rubbish - where is your evidence these 'many cases'? There must be many examples.”

I’ve just shown you in relation to the example you quoted.

”If people do not want to work for years for no good reason they do not deserve anything.”

Who says they don’t? My point was that I don’t blame workers for not wanting to be pushed into working for low wages. That’s the difference. I am on the side of workers. You are on the side of the bosses.

"Clearly, given your lack of intellectual capacity you have difficulty understanding basic categories or semantics. Possibly so does not mean absolutely true, it means you could be right, but at least equally you could be wrong. You’d need to prove your statement first. In the context it meant “even were your statement correct it is irrelevant”."

”Again, you are so desperate you are just embarrassing yourself.”

No it was you that embarrassed yourself with the demonstration of your lack of understanding of basic principles of logic. You do so again by your inability to either provide any argument in your defence, and your lack even of the intelligence to simply avoid that further embarrassment.

"But, if they find some doesn’t that prove it exists you sap?"

”No you muppet - they applied a civilian mindset to a military practice. One recruit got a slap that even he says didn't hurt and he deserved because he was messing around with his rifle - a very serious safety issue - but the BBC tried to play up as outrageous. Believe me it happens all the time in the army - did before I was in, did while I was in and continued after I left. If you mess up with weapons or mouth off expect to get hit.”

But, that doesn’t explain all of those further examples of real bullying does it?

"On the contrary what we have seen is that the biggest murderers of workers have been those OPPOSING socialism."

”That’s one way to justify the socialist NKVD and gulags.”

No those things are examples of organisations OPPOSING socialism, not of socialist organisations.

”After all that waffle you we go straight back to what I had originally said: "I am for my own people in their own country first" - most asylum seekers are economic migrants - we can see that from the huge numbers of failed applications as already presented; of course I oppose " foreigners if they are illegal immigrants" muppet, they are criminals and most people oppose it too.”

But, by definition if you put “your own” people first that means opposing people who are not your own people i.e. foreigners. But, its not just that you oppose foreigners, but that you do so in the most appalling way by making them all out to be criminals, and so on. Moreover, why “oppose” foreigners simply for being “illegal immigrants”. Does this mean that if the law was changed so that they were no “illegal” you would not oppose them? Of course, it doesn’t, because you have shown that you oppose immigrants whether they are in fact legal or illegal.

”And that report was the words of the countries most senior policeman, not me.”

I never said it WAS from you. But, firstly, the police are hardly a paragon of anti-racist virtue, secondly, as has been shown some reports have been designed as a means of arguing for greater resources for the police, and finally the report did not by any means say what your interpretation of it implied, which was that ALL immigrants are some form of criminal.

"But, that makes no distinction between British workers and British bosses. Putting Britain first means in reality putting the interests of those whose country it is first, those who own and control it – the bosses. As the bosses interests contradicts the interests of workers you put yourself where Nazis always put themselves on the side of the bosses against the workers. You try to pretend you support workers but every word you utter shows you are not, that is why you oppose socialism, because it means workers having control of society for themselves without those bosses."

”I don’t have to try and pretend anything to anyone - especially not a nonentity like you. I am working class you muppet - born and bred. Are you?”

Solidly and without doubt. The difference is I continue to defend my class, whereas you have sold out to the bosses. That’s why you can’t refute the argument above.

”If anything the BNP are too socialist for my liking wanting to nationalize large and medium scale industries and reform factories into share and management co-operatives; nationalize and centralize the banks etc effectively stifling healthy competition.”

As I said, you are a lackey of the bosses.

"Jeez what a lack of intelligence you do have. I live in Staffordshire. The fact that Staffordshire is a constituent part of Britain, which is a constituent part of Europe hasn’t meant the destruction of Staffordshire has it????"

”You really are a twisted liar aren't you?”

Again you can’t respond to an argument and to logic so you resort to insults.

”To say "The same is true today as to why Britain needs to forget about its past and forge its future in a single European state" means that you want to destroy Britain as a sovereign state, because it could be continue as such in a "single European state"”

But, not being a sovereign state is not at all the same thing as it being destroyed as a country, or even as an administrative area is it?

”You see, that’s your whole problem.

They are just reporting the facts mate, they are not trying to portray anything - really, if you have any evidence that it is a giant conspiracy then do present it - go on, I dare you.

If not, just shut up and accept that these are facts and the huge and disparate impact on crime these people have is real.”


I’ve already shown that the example you gave of the woman in Acton was a flagrant distortion. I’ve already stated that the fact that SOME people from a migrant community MIGHT – even where the facts haven’t been made up, or manipulated – have been involved in crime, doesn’t at all mean that all, or even a large number ARE involved in crime. The point is that you take these stories about isolated examples, and turn them into a statement about ALL migrants.

”Here is a couple more for you:

In over 80 per cent of UK gang rape cases, the defendants are black.

http://www.newstatesman.com/199811200011

There are five times more young blacks in prison then whites.

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


There you go again, a perfect example of what I was just talking about. How many defendants were there? What proportion of black people do these defendants constitute. Alternatively, let me give you the alternate view.

The vast majority of black males have not been charged with gang rape. So if we are going to judge a people doesn’t it make sense to judge them according to the actions of the vast majority not the small minority? Not for a racist without any understanding of logic obviously.


"The fact that, a larger proportion of crimes were committed by a certain group says nothing about that group itself."

”In your world maybe but not in the real one. It says everything about them.

Why the hell would we want to let people like this into our country?”


People like what? The vast majority who just want a decent life for themselves and their families.

"Those committing offences represent a small minority of the group itself."

"But such a huge proportion nationally - extremely significant given their population ratio to the 'host.'"

You haven’t given us any evidence as to what proportion let alone your statement that its huge. In fact, on the basis of the statistics in the articles you cited the proportion of the total population was tiny.

"No it isn’t and quite obviously, you moron. EVERTHING, means excluding NOTHING. So if someone is prove with EVERYTHING there can be nothing else. If there was “anything else” then what there was to begin with by definition could not have been EVERYTHING."

”What a waffling muppet you are.”

Not waffle simple semantic logic, that clearly you don’t understand and can’t respond to.

”Unbelievable. What do you think most of the people paying the rent might think about it.”

I would think that they would think what a society we live in whereby British landlords can live off the ordinary taxpayer by charging such huge rents. I’d think that they would think what a disaster the policies of Thatcher had been in selling off the Council houses so there was nowhere for people to live.

"It could just as easily have been some homeless British family housed there couldn’t it?"

”But it just never is, is it? Or do you have proof to the contrary?”

So you are telling us that homeless British people are NEVER housed by the authorities are you? Seriously, you want to make that claim, do you? If so let’s see your proof. The fact is that virtually every Local Authority in the country has responded to these ridiculous allegations, and has given statements to show that everyone is treated the same, on the basis of proven need. If you can show that those Authorities are lying, if you can show that no homeless British people have been housed, then go on show us.

"The fact is that the real story here was not that some poor family had been housed in this place, but that British capitalism can’t provide enough houses for people to live in"

”Yet again, just complete rubbish:


"The Empty Homes Agency estimates that there are 840,000 empty homes in the UK"

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/buying_and_selling/article2686130.ece”


Yet, capitalism can’t ensure that they are provided to the people who need them as I said.

"But, that’s a story that the Capitalist press don’t want to tell, especially those that cater for those at the lower end of the intelligence spectrum."

”Like the Daily Mirror?”

And the Sun, the Star, the Mail, the Express.

"In fact, I checked this story with a benefits Advisor from the Citizen’s Advice Bureau who told me the following."

”So you say. And you are a proven liar.”

Really, where has that been proved. You are the one who has been proven a liar here. The facts are as they are whether that person who gave me that information wants to confirm it to you or not is up to her. And the facts she gave me in relation to those Benefits are there for anyone to check for themselves so they will be able to see for themselves whether it is you or me that is lying here. I note that you do not in any case seek to challenge those facts, so I think its obvious who is telling the truth, and who is lying yet again.

”Its a PC term, and PC originated from Marxists.”

No it didn’t. PC originated from middle class liberals.

”But, anyway chew on this:

"The police should no longer be accused of institutional racism, the UK's equalities chief has said."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7836766.stm”


His view.


"They could do, there’s nothing anti-capitalist, nothing that challenges the ownership of the means of production in it. Right-wingers today support all sorts of things that were once falsely presented as being left-wing."

”I doubt it very much indeed.”

Doubt what you like, it’s a fact. For example, it used to be considered very left-wing 20 years ago to argue for crèche facilities. Nowadays no one thinks there is anything left-wing about that at all, people on the Right think it’s a good idea as much as people on the left.


"Given that a lot of people on the Right are homosexuals"

”Evidence?”

Because a fairly high percentage of people are either homosexual or have had some form of homosexual experience. Kinsey’s survey in the US suggested a figure in men as high as 37%, though in Britain the latest figure suggests something under 10% - See: Avert. . This figure is probably an underestimate for the reasons the article sets out. As people on the right are human beings they are just as likely to be homosexual as anyone else. So even if the figure is only 5% that comes to a lot of people.

"This should educate you a little:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236
"

What a load of right-wing superficial, and unsubstantiated old codswallop.

”Again you are just a waffling windbag - these people are criminals who have no business being here, and are not allowed to work here and who are undermining work pay and conditions and failing to pay tax, they are just criminals who commit further crimes whenever they take up employment.”

But, you’ve just admitted they work here, so you have admitted they are workers, which shows the logic of your statement was false.

”Look muppet:

"The White Australia policy is a term used to describe a collection of historical policies that intentionally restricted non-white immigration to Australia from 1901 to 1973"

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

You really are clueless, aren't you?!!!”


No, you can’t even read or understand what you quote. They opened their doors and lots of Asian people went there. More recently they have introduced more restricted immigration based on a points scheme for required skills like that now operating in Britain. The point is that during the period when they encouraged immigration from elsewhere they were no swamped by immigrants from poor countries.

"Yes, they did they were desperate for workers. What do you mean Britain wouldn’t let them, you numbnuts, Britain couldn’t stop them."

”The overwhelming vast majority of Blacks in the US are descended from slaves, not immigrant arrivals- and the UK's mass third world immigration started after WW2.”

Precisely! The US encouraged immigration from all over the world, but it didn’t result in millions of Africans or Asian or people from other very poor areas moving there. On the contrary, most of the people who moved there were from Europe. You still haven’t told us how Britain could or would have wanted to stop the US allowing such people in!!! Britain itself, only introduced immigration controls in the early 1960’s, and similarly was not swamped before that period by immigrants from such countries.


"Two is an historic number compared to one, but hardly means anything significant does it. Moreover, its just if not more likely that historic numbers arrived to compensate for the historic numbers who had left."

”Oh God!! What a clown.

Historic numbers of Third Worlders arrive in Sweden - and you now know the criminal behavior of these people there, especially gang raping - and record numbers of Swedes leave.

And just in case you are in any doubt as the to the serious problem they now have in Sweden with Third World immigrants:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diw5SneythM”


No you are the clown. The point is that these “record numbers” are hardly astronomic are they?

"No we weren’t you lying toe rag. You said"

”Like I say, you are just another internet hardman, you would not say it to my face and stay standing pal.”

I notice that you don’t actually deny that you lied. You claimed that we were discussing DOCTORS when in fact, as I showed you had said,

”Your an idiot.

You said there was a specific medical shortage - what was it?”


So we see the proof that not only are you a lying toe rag as I said, but that unable to deny that you are a lying toe rag, you resort instead to threats of physical violence. Oh what a surprise a lying toe rag whose also a thug. Who would ever have thought you might find that combination in a Nazi.

"Nevertheless, you no doubt adopt your friend Goebbels perspective that if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it."

”That’s very much your technique.”

But, as the above demonstrates its you that is the lying toe rag.

”That and waffle.”

That and thuggery.

”If whites were present in Africa in the numbers we are talking about the remains would be everywhere. The fact is none have been found. Not one. None.”

No one said that whites existed in Africa. What was proved was that humans originated in Africa and migrated out of it. Humans adapted to the various conditions they found themselves in, but they remained humans, not even different races of humans.

”We know very little about it - only 3%, so if you think that 3% of knowledge is all powerful, then good luck to you.”

If that 3% allows you to sequence it then that is enough to prove evolution.

”And I notice you stay away form the fact its not infallible either.”

Because its irrelevant to the question of sequencing, which is what is relevant to determining lineage.

"Well anyone can check on CNN, or Euronews or on a load of different websites to see the number of hours sunchine, and the daytime temperatures, and will see that not only are you a moron, but you are a lying moron."

”Yeah, internet hardman, I didn't make the figures did I?”

You did misrepresent their meaning trying to pretend that an average figure for day and night time figures was in fact an average daytime figure so as to justify your ridiculous assertion.

"Actually, I’ve already got a very good education"

”You think you have, and that’s the main problem here - but sadly you haven’t.”

Actually, and especially from the time when it was achieved – i.e. when only 2% of the population reached that standard – I would say that my degree certificate says that I have actually. If that weren’t enough I’d say that the many other certificates and qualifications including my Postgraduate certificates and others I have in many other subjects would reinforce that belief.

”And after all that waffle the fact remains that the Nazis lived and breathed to avenge the 'stab in the back', reverse the defeat of WW1 and remilitarize. Which is pretty much why WW2 occurred, muppet.”

They were nothing until the bosses needed them to fulfil a function. Had the bosses not needed them for that they would have remained nothing. The second world war was to avenge nothing it was to try to achieve what WWI set out to achieve a redivision of the world between the competing imperialist powers.

"But, again we note your devotion to the myths of the Third Reich rather than the facts."

”Really?

"The German King Tiger Tank was introduced in early 1944 and was the most powerful tank during world war 2. With its powerful 88mm gun and an almost impenetrable front armor, it was one of the most feared weapons of world war 2. Up to the end of the war, the allies had not introduce any effective means to counter the threat."

http://www.worldwar2aces.com/”

"The final development of the Tiger MBT, the Tiger II or King Tiger was the most powerful tank on the battlefield in the Second World War."

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_tiger2.html”


Yes, really. As the quotes I gave showed those tanks wre only introduced because the Soviet tanks were crucifying the Germans in tank warfare, and despite the introduction of these later tanks the Russian tanks continued to defeat them, not to mention to be produced in huge numbers

”And I notice that you have stayed away form the German jets.”

Glad you reminded me of that.

“In spite of the constant danger of being arrested for expressions of radical ideas and false accusations of treason, Soviet aircraft designers mastered technical hurdles astonishing even by today's standards.

The innovative aircraft include a cutting edge swept-wing Delta aircraft design from 1933; a rocket-powered fighter from 1939; a long distance fixed wing aircraft with features incorporated two decades later in the U-2 spyplane; a flying tank prototype; a submarine-bomber combination designed to attack unsuspecting enemy ships in port; and a canard wing, mid-40s aircraft that resembles a modern day Burt Rutan-designed plane.
Also examined is a 1936 Soviet rocket-power fighter, an innovation that bested the Germans by several years.

Indeed, as far back as 1937 the Russians achieved an aviation milestone that shocked the world: the first non-stop, trans-polar flight from Moscow to Washington State, a distance of over 7,000 miles.

A three man crew flying the ANT-25, brainchild of Andrei Tupolov, surprised Americans with its boldness and served as a wake-up call to the United States which was on the brink of canceling its own long distance bomber programme.

Tupolov, whose achievements include the world's first flying wing designed in 1936, followed this achievement with a totally new, high performance fighter aircraft.”


See: The History Channel

You really must learn to stop kicking yourself in the nuts.

Of course, one of the most important scientific developments came from a Marxist, a German Jew who got out of the way of the Nazis. Without Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity the atom bomb would not have been possible.


"The drive for profit or for Rent has nothing whatsoever to do with some supposed competitive human nature. On the contrary it is a perversion of man’s natural co-operative nature, arising out of class society. Modern Man has been around for about 70,000 years, whilst civilisation and class society has exited for only around 7-10,000 years. During all of that previous period, Man lived in Co-operative societies, where the kind of competition you speak of would have been inconceivable. And as I’ve said before even amongst animals there is no natural competition either. Provided all their needs are met, they can be brought up to live quite peaceably and co-operatively with each other."

”More waffle.

Man has fought man for as long as man has been around. Individually, tribally, and nationally. And one thing is certain while man is still around: There will be wars.”


The fact that at times Men competing over scarce resources has led to conflict is not at all typical human behaviour. Man has for the vast majority of his existence lived in co-operative societies. In fact, the basic hunter-gatherer tribe can exist by no other means than by co-operation. It is that co-operation that is typical of human nature not competition, which is only a product of the division of Man into classes in the last few thousand years.

”!As for animals and no natural competition it exists even amongst species - deers rutting, beers wrestling and baboons fighting; it is the origin of the term 'law of the jungle' “

It doesn’t exist within bees and other insects and for good reason as Richard Dawkins has demonstrated in “The Selfish Gene”. Each species acts to ensure the continuation of the species not individual members of the species, and frequently that requires co-operation and altruism not competition.

”Now in the real world 'boffy' animals do not have very need catered for now do they? And what a ridiculous statement. Given that a large proportion of animals are carnivores something has to be killed for them to eat in any case.”

The point is that it is not an inevitable or unchangeable characteristic, but a result of the need to fulfil a basic requirement. They compete because of scarcity not because they are driven by some innate requirement to compete.

”Or will socialists change all that too?”

Of course, socialism will change that. It will provide every ordinary worker with a much higher standard of living, and aim to create a society where this is sufficient supply of all the basic requirements of human life that there will be no need to compete for them.

”History has shown us that when people resist things change.
But personally, I would kill and be killed before I let my family starve to death.”


If you knew anything of history you would know the Irish tried that time and again, and WERE killed by the British State, and their Irish lackeys.

”More ignorant bollocks.

You only need one fish to survive every day - the sea could sustain forever in those circumstances.”


But, if you live 100 miles or so from the sea, and need to tend your land, to ensure that some landlord or Brit doesn’t come and take it off you, if you need to earn money to pay your rent on your land, and pay your taxes the sea isn’t an option is it? And in any case 1 fish doesn’t seem much for the sea to provide per day, but for a million people that’s 1 million fish per day, and that is a hell of a lot even for the sea to provide.

”Not really, just by killing anyone who tried to steal from them, or die trying.”

Precisely, to overthrow the Capitalist State and the Capitalists who WERE the ones doing that. In other words to create socialism.

"But earlier, you told us that people shouldn’t do that."

”Where did I say that liar?”

When you said socialism had failed. When you have repeated that socialism has killed tens of millions and that we should therefore stop trying to create socialism. Do you want me to show you to be an idiot and a liar again by copying the actual quotes?

"What about he need to also be tending your land, to be working where you can to earn money to pay the rent and taxes."

”Hang on, weren't they starving to death?”

Yes, and how does that change their need to continue to tend their land or to have to pay their taxes and rents?????

”Or even better, do nothing and starve to death.”

What an ignorant moron you are. Do you really think the people just sat back, did nothing and died? Of course, they tried poaching despite the risks, of course some by the sea fished. But can you not get it into your thick skull that when it’s a million people trying to feed themselves by such means, that when you have a state apparatus bearing down on you even when you do all those things its simply impossible for everyone to survive. These people even gave up the land they had farmed for centuries because you had to do that in order to qualify for a job working on the road, to earn a bare pittance to try to survive. They emigrated where they could with thousands being crammed into ships like cattle, where again thousands died locked into the hold when the ship sunk.

"Only in the normal sociological sense of the word that is that people are led into various actions by the force of circumstances, by personal motivations."

”What a load of shit. You think Stalin and co were really just victims.”

More lies, I’ve never said anything of the sort.

"And Tenerife is a part of Spain is it not? You know, going back to your "I live in Staffordshire. The fact that Staffordshire is a constituent part of Britain..."

Yes it is, but I wouldn’t give a fact about Staffordshire and pretend that it applied to Britain as a whole. But that’s because I’ve studied Philosophy and understand the basics of semantic logic, whereas you obviously don’t understand even the basics of categories that a school child can grasp.


”A lot of people give a toss actually muppet; but I was talking about the canaries where I knew my contention to be true, and quite frankly I couldn't be bothered searching around for links on it when your link confirmed it anyway, just gave different timings.”

My link confirmed it!!!! You lying toe-rag.

My link said,

“The siesta for shops and businesses is from approximately 2pm until 5pm while bars and restaurants close from about 4pm until about 8 or 9pm”

“However, today many people are unable to take a siesta and their lives haven't collapsed around them. The gradual disappearance of the siesta has not changed the late-night lifestyle, which means the Spanish sleep an average of one hour less per day than other European countries.

Today, the siesta hits Madrid and Barcelona much less than it hits Granada or Salamanca. Big supermarkets and department stores also stay open during the siesta.”


In other words it completely contradicts your assertion. Not only, “However, today many people are unable to take a siesta and their lives haven't collapsed around them. The gradual disappearance of the siesta…” and “Today, the siesta hits Madrid and Barcelona much less than it hits Granada or Salamanca. Big supermarkets and department stores also stay open during the siesta”, showing that the siesta is now not at all typical, but even in so far as its description of the siesta as it was says, “The siesta for shops and businesses is from approximately 2pm until 5pm” as opposed to your claim of 1 until 6!

"No, you are the liar: I said your analogy of "Yorkshire and Lancashire" as "as some sort of indicator of a massive and irreconcilable divide" was facile - I described the siesta thing as "one small example in workplace variance."

The facts are clear for all to see. I never said that there was an irreconcilable difference between Lancashire and Yorkshire. I replied to your assertion of such differences between nationalities by saying they were no different than the difference between people from Lancashire and people from Yorkshire. You said that the differences between nationalities were not the same as that and gave as your example the Siesta.

You have been proved wrong, refusing to admit you were wrong, you resorted to lying, and your still lying now.

”Two people is not a national siesta.”

But, they were British and they did have a nap, so there is nothing irreconcilably Spanish about it is there? In addition it used to be a common thing for people on a Sunday to go to bed in the afternoon after they came home from the pub and had their Sunday lunch. But as you have now conceded that there is nothing irreconcilably Spanish about taking a Siesta it doesn’t matter does it? Or are you going to lie again and say you haven’t conceded that which will just further expose your previous lie.

”But you so deluded and arrogant you even try to prove that there is a UK siesta.”

No I didn’t I simply pointed out the fact that there is nothing irreconcilably Spanish about it.

“Bloody hell - the missing link is still missing, That’s the point!!!”

No it isn’t the DNA record has closed that question for good.

"Nonsense its been conclusively proved by the fossil record, by biology, by zoology and now by the DNA record."

”No, it hasn't.”

Yes, it has and every respectable scientist agrees that it has. The only people who ddeny it are Creationist morons like you.

"Now we know you are a nutter. Evolution has NEVER EVER said that we are descended from Chimpanzees and the other apes."

”Yes it does - from primates.”

You claimed we were descended from Chimpanzees and the other apes. We are not, and evolution has never, ever claimed that we are. Yet again, rather than accept you were wrong you try to change what you said.

"Yet again, you chop out quotes with clearly no understanding of what you are chopping. The clue to understanding this is given in this quote, which talks of DNA “differ(ing) among INDIVIDUALS and ethnic groups”. In fact, we’ve known this for a long time. What is shows is that there is significant genetic variation between individuals. But, that DISPROVES the point that you were trying to make. In fact, as the previous quote you gave cited BETWEEN ethnic groups the variation is only 12%, Templeton actually put it as high as 15%, and that figure is way too low a variation for it to be considered a significant variation that would cause us to say that it constituted a separate race."

”You really would just say black was white to try and prove a point.

The tests were carried out on 4 racial groups so all variance is between those groups and of course, the individuals will vary outside those 4 groups too. Which is the headlines say "Till now, humans of different races were thought almost identical" because now we know they are not.”


Quite right, they are not identical either between groups, or between individuals. But, the difference of 15% between groups is not enough to consider them different races. And one of the reasons for that is that the differences between individuals WITHIN those groups is even wider.

"And that's just 12% variance of the 3% of DNA we know about."

What do you mean the 3% of DNA that we know about you moron. Don’t you listen to the news. We have now mapped 100% of the human genome. We know all of its constituents not just 3%, and we can compare it across human beings. 85% of it is shared by all human beings meaning that we are all one single human race. The other 15% differs from individual to individual, so as to explain why one person has black hair another red, one person green eyes another blue and so on.

”Here’s another eminent expert on the subject, one of the founders of DNA:”

I believe that Watson has said that his comments were taken out of context. The point is most scientists disagree with the views that were attributed to him. It certainly doesn’t fit reality given that there were civilisations in Africa when people in Northern Europe were still living in caves and running round in animal skins.

”The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of "scientific racism".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html”


And yet again your own quote speaks against you.

“The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of "scientific racism".

Precisely.

”My God - you are a right one.
You say Togo so I give you Togo.”


I gave you about six countries, you responded with one. I gave you quotes saying that the basis was being laid for those countries to develop along the same path as had the Asian Tigers – having already previously spoken about such development being some 50 years away – and you give a quote referring to slow growth in just one country at the moment!!!!

"No I don’t need to because unlike you I already have an extensive knowledge of history, economics, philosophy and politics alongside a passing acquaintance with science. I only need to make such quotes as corroboration."

”Ha ha ha ha.

Really???!!!”


Yes, really and I have an Honours Degree to prove it, along with a shed load of other qualifications in a wide range of subjects.

"Precisely! France wasn’t a nation, and wasn’t made up as you tried to tell us of Frankish nationalities!"

”How can they be nationalities if they were not from a nation?”

Who said three was no nation. I said there was no French nation, certainly no nation state, but there were about two hundred different nationalities living in the territory we now call France, and what was Gaul. But, the point is that your assertion that all of these nationalities were Frankish is not true as I have proved several times, and which you now want to slip around, by diverting the discussion. Not only were these nationalities not Frankish, but as I have demonstrated the Franks were not even a native people of Gaul, but were Germanic. Not only were these people not Franks, not only did they not come together on the basis of shared national characteristics, but on the contrary they were CONQUERED AND SUBJUGATED by the Franks.

"There’s no such thing as a Northern European Race"

”Really? There are no blond, blue eyed Germanic people?”

Yes, but they don’t constitute a race.

"Worse, you don’t even seem to realise that the majority of France is not IN Northern Europe"

”I fully aware of it. And as a result, most of the French south of the Seine are dark.”

Then your comment about all of Northern Europe being populated by Germanic tribes was meaningless wasn’t it???? Your attempt thereby to suggest that the nationalities of Gaul were Germanic fraudulent, and proved to be so.

"All nations are made up of tribes"

”My point exactly. And tribes are homogenous.”

What do you mean your point exactly???? You tried to tell us that France was made up of Frankish peoples, you tried to tell us that the various Gallic Nationalities were Frankish!!!!! They weren’t as the above demonstrates. The various tribes in Gaul were homogenous within themselves – actually not entirely, because in primitive peoples when the numbers in a particular tribe or clan declined below a certain level they would often make up the numbers with assistance from other tribes who had grown too large – but the fact remains that there were around 200 different nationalities in Gaul, and they were by no means homogenous one to another, they had different traditions, different Gods, different languages!!!

"Its you that’s waffling. The Franks formed just one tribe within Gaul. The formation of a nation state had absolutely nothing to do with tribes forming bigger cliques, and had everything to do with the Franks conquering other peoples within Gaul, and establishing an Empire over them."

”Not at all; its your very sad protection mechanism that prevents you from being wrong ever that lead you to go on and on and on about something as fundamentally simple that France is called France because of the Franks.”

Another diversion. That has nothing to do with your assertion that France was made up of Frankish peoples who came together as such to create France. They weren’t Frankish people’s. They didn’t come together on the basis of shared characteristics. They were conquered by a foreign people – the Franks.

"I’ve backtracked on nothing"

”The fact that illegal immigrants are criminals just for one.”

It was you that backtracked or more correctly sidetracked away from the argument about the consequence for unemployment if as you suggested these 700,000 people were deported. I don’t accept that illegal immigrants ARE criminals in the usual sense of the word. If as seems likely an amnesty is introduced then even on the purely terminological sense of that criminality they will cease to be so. Certainly, despite your assertion that you can’t be a worker and a criminal they are workers, and as such I’m on their side not the capitalist state.

”More boring waffle from a boring liar.

I said your analogy of "Yorkshire and Lancashire" as "as some sort of indicator of a massive and irreconcilable divide" was facile - I described the siesta thing as "one small example in workplace variance."”


But you are lying here again. Where did I say that the difference between Lancashire and Yorkshire was an “Irreconcilable difference”? Show us where I said that. I challenge you to produce the quote of me saying that there is an irreconcilable difference between Yorkshire and Lancashire!!!! Why would I say that? Its me that has been saying that no such irreconcilable differences exist between peoples, and you that claims there is!!!!!

You have said so again several times in this post. You tried to use as evidence of such “irreconcilable differences” the Spanish Siesta. You have tried to present it as such again here, by telling us that people in Britain don’t take a Siesta, and by trying to prove that people in Spain still do. Any rational person reading this discussion and reading your comments in this post alone knows its you that is making that case not me. You are not even a clever liar.

“Another gratuitous insult. I’d compare my educational qualifications against yours at any time.”

"You’re the one with the gratuitous insults ‘boffy’ and I am highly qualified in my field; in fact I completed yet another high level certification - one of the highest in my field - on Friday, you silly little man."

Yes, I’ve seen that field its full of bullshit!

The Sentinel said...

“Who was it your Granny?”

Why am I not surprised that you have started you hopeless rant with such gratuitous and childish nonsense?

What kind of response are you looking for? A playground style ‘no it’s your mama?’

Truly pathetic – and from an old man like you.

Here’s the actual comment:

“I have to say that as someone who strongly disagrees with Phil on many things and yet follows this blog out of genuine interest and respect that the posts by Sentinel both shock and amuse me. On the one hand as he has repeatedly demonstrated he simply wipes the floor with the lot of you in a debate!”

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4486641877026778105&postID=7952129242413881238&isPopup=true


“Yep, it meant you were saying that Hitler thought he was a socialist, and you weren’t disagreeing with him.”

Yep - It said what it said and it meant what it meant. Hitler considered himself a socialist.

Just as Castro does – I’m not disagreeing with him either, just stating a fact.


“France was certainly weak compared to Britain”

Yeah, a bit hard to get away from that given the facts.


“But, it was no significantly weaker than was Germany during the 1920’s and early 30’s”

It took only 46 days for Germany to defeat France – the facts speak for themselves, as much as you fantasy world doesn’t want them too.


“Britain certainly wasn’t weak”

Ludicrous rubbish – more ignorant fantasy.

The ‘Sitzkrieg’ was a result of the unpreparedness of the British military for modern warfare, and the BEF were not match for the Whermacht – as history has shown. If the Battle of Britain had been lost, the Germans would have walked straight through Britain. Everyone knew it.

But don’t just take my word for it – here is the word of the word of Churchill in 1941, who, as the British leader just might have had a better idea of the real military situation then your silly little ignorant fantasies:

“I have taken the occasion to speak to you tonight because we have reached one of the climacterics of the War.

In the first of these intense turning points, a year ago, France fell prostrate under the German hammer and we had to face the assault alone.

The second was when the Royal Air Force beat the Hun raiders out of the daylight air and thus warded off the Nazi invasion of our island while we were still ill-armed and ill-prepared…”

Speech by Winston Churchill broadcast on 'The Home Service
Programme' (BBC radio), 9pm, Sunday 22 June 1941 (BBK/C/87)

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/Churchill.pdf


“But either, Britain or the US or the two combined could have prevented Germany rearming from the early thirties had they chosen to.”

Again, just ludicrous fantasy.

You have been educated as to why Britain didn’t intervene:

1It was not military prepared

2)The traditional policy of the balance of European power.

The first point is proved above, the second point below:


" There are those who say: Let us ignore the Continent of Europe. Let us leave it with its hatreds and armaments to stew in its own juice, to fight out its own quarrels…

You have heard the old doctrine of the balance of power. I don't accept it. Anything like a balance of
power in Europe will lead to war. Great wars usually come only when both States think they have good hopes of victory.”

Speech by Winston Churchill broadcast on BBC radio, 10pm,
15 November 1934 (LG/G/4/5/7)

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/Churchill.pdf


“They chose not to, because suffering from the Great Depression whilst the USSR’s economy was powering ahead, seeing rising support for the Communist Party in their homelands, they saw the fight against Communism as the main challenge, and they hoped that Germany would be the spearhead of that fight just as they allowed it to be in Spain.”

More ignorant fantasy.

The US had aided the allies to such an extent that the whole world saw the US as effectively at war with Germany.

Here is a contemporary source that you might like:

Fourth International, Vol.2 No.6, July 1941, pp.177-179.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/novack/1941/07/2fronts.htm

“May 27th the President decreed an “unlimited national emergency.” His speech was universally received as a virtual declaration of war against the Axis powers.

So far as Washington is concerned, “it’s all over now but the shooting.” Only a fool could console himself any longer with the pacifist illusion that any possibility exists of our escaping involvement in the war. Roosevelt made this painfully plain to the whole world.

And of course, Roosevelt had campaigned on the basis that there would be ‘no more foreign wars for American boys’ – a blatant lie.

“During the last Presidential campaign, when the electorate did have some power of decision, this hypocritical and lying capitalist politician posed as a Prince of Peace and promised American fathers and mothers that their boys would never have to fight in any foreign war. He has now extended the lines of domestic defense so far from our shores that by his definition there can no longer be any foreign wars. By such sleight-of-hand tricks does Roosevelt drag the country into war.”

Fourth International, Vol.2 No.6, July 1941, pp.177-179.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/novack/1941/07/2fronts.htm

As well as effectively declaring war on Germany, the Japanese were provoked into World War Two (contrary to what is taught in most schools) Roosevelt cut off oil to the Japanese, funded an illegal US intelligence-run air force (the Flying Tigers) that fought the Japanese in China and Roosevelt delivered an un-Constitutional ultimatum (which he had no authority to give) to the Japanese in November 1941 demanding that they stop their war with China. All these actions convinced the Japanese that war with the US was inevitable and to strike first was the only option.

There is much to suggest that the US knew such an attack was coming and did nothing.


“They refused even to supply the Republican Government of Spain with arms with which to fight”

Most likely because the Soviets were supplying that for them.

The Republic sent its gold reserve to the Soviet Union to pay for arms and supplies. That reserve was worth £63,000,000 ($315,000,000) in 1939 prices. In 1956, the Soviet Union announced that Spain still owed it $50,000,000


“So, by the same token what business was it of Germany or Italy to get involved?”

Because they made it their business.

Non-democratic countries can do that – and clearly the root of their business was to prevent a Red Spain.

Obviously.

What did you think?!!


“And having done so, why didn’t Britain and the US respond when they could easily have done so, before Germany had properly rearmed”

This has all been carefully explained to you before:

1) Britain’ ‘balance of power’ policy didn’t cater for it
2) Britain wasn’t military prepared in any case, nor would it go to war for Spain.
3) The US did not want any more ‘foreign wars for American boys.’


“My evidence is your post, and the fact that for everyone to see, you simply made a statement and then failed to back it up with any substantiation.”

More Tweedle-dum Tweedle-dee nonsense.

You have no evidence.


“In other words exactly what the Economist article also says”

No, it actually says that “As early as 1919, when the peace treaty was signed, Keynes had warned that the settlement imposed on Germany would ruin it” and that “even ignoring the part due to be paid in some bonds of dubious worth, the total was $12.5 billion—a huge amount for the time, about half Britain’s GDP. How could it be found?” – well, by printing money. It goes on: “later that year, the German government defaulted on its reparations payments. In response, in January 1923 French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr, Germany’s industrial heartland{...}Prices roared up. So did unemployment, modest as 1923 began. As October ended, 19% of metal-workers were officially out of work, and half of those left were on short time.”

Clearly the Versailles treaty was the catalyst for the German hyperinflation, impossible demands were attempted to be met with desperate measures.

And the other article is more succinct:

"The main factor in the hyperinflation, however, were the reparations payments that the Allies demanded of the Germans as part of the Versailles treaty."

http://www.socyberty.com/History/The-Causes-of-Germanys-Hyperinflation-in-the-20s-and-30s.69012


“As the link I gave showed that is clearly not true. And your own post even confirms it. It says”

I see, your source is the ultimate – because you posted it!!!

And it’s not “my” post; it’s a quote from an independent and referenced article.

You really have no idea do you?

But anyway, just to demonstrate, once again what a twisted liar you are, you decided to leave out this part (for obvious reasons, even though it there for everyone else to see in any case):

“Up until the advent of the Space Shuttle, all astronauts, most planetary probes and most satellites launched by the US and USSR were founded on designs heavily influenced by Nazi research under Warhner von Braun. The early work of Goddard paled when compared to the development of the V-1 and V-2 which were the foundations of all heavy lift vehicles”

Which supports my contention that “Without the Nazi rocket scientists, the V1 and the V2, there would have been no space programme for any country as we know it.”


“In other words the US got the best scientists, and the greater number, whilst the USSR got only a handful of lesser scientists.”

Without whom (most notably Helmut Gröttrup) there would have been no Soviet space programme as we know it; and as we have seen, all of the designs were based upon the German design anyway.


“Yet it was the USSR not the US, which was first into space, and which led in the space race from then on!”

Not really true is it? They launched the first orbital craft, yes, but the US actually put men on the moon. More then once. The USSR never did; nor has any other nation.


“So now you admit you were wrong then when you said that all of this production was non-existent that it had all come from the West!!!”

I have never said the USSR produced nothing – show me where I have.

I said Allied aid enabled them to concentrate on purely (strategic) military production.


“But rather than actually say you were wrong, you try to distract the argument on to a different path!!!! Typical of your dishonest method of argument”

Typical of your inverse logic more like (or dishonesty really) – as I say show me where I have said USSR “production was non-existent that it had all come from the West.”



“Then tell us what it actually was that they gave, what amounts that allowed this to happen!”

OK, here is a bit more education for you (from a Russian source):

“To sum up the results of the lend-lease program as a whole, the Soviet Union received, over the war years, 21,795 planes, 12,056 tanks, 4,158 armored personnel carriers, 7,570 tractor trucks, 8,000 antiaircraft and 5,000 antitank guns, 132,000 machine-guns, 472 million artillery shells, 9,351 transceivers customized to Soviet-made fighter planes, 2.8 million tons of petroleum products, 102 ocean-going dry cargo vessels, 29 tankers, 23 sea tugboats and icebreakers, 433 combat ships and gunboats, as well as mobile bridges, railroad equipment, aircraft radar equipment, and many other items.”

http://www.oilru.com/or/23/390/

An absolutely remarkable sum of aid – remarkable and unparalleled in history. Now do you concede you were (once again) wrong? That this immense aid would undoubtedly have enable the USSR to have an enormous advantage over Germany, and enable it to focus its own production wherever it wanted?

I’ll bet not!!!

But here is one more of just the British contribution to the USSR:

“Stalin was already asking for assistance in fighting the 'fascist aggressors'. His first request for 30 divisions to fight on the Russian Front was totally out of the question considering Britain's own state of affairs after being routed from France a year earlier and having other commitments around the world…

What Churchill did decide to do was to provide a supply of war materials to help Russia. This was not an easy solution to the problem of helping an ally, albeit quite a new and unusual one. The Armed Forces of Britain still required equipment, the same as that being requested by the Russians. The Russians were asking for Spitfires, to the consternation of the RAF who were still building up their squadrons and phasing out the Hurricanes. It was decided at the Moscow Conference - First Protocol to send 200 aircraft a month between October 1941 and June 1942. These consisted mainly of Hurricanes, but also Tomahawk IIB's and P39 Airacobra. (Later the Russians were to receive over 1000 Spitfires but did not actually like them in the end). The Russians also received supplies of guns, tanks, clothing, rubber, engines, trains - anything used in wartime...

Hurricanes were to be the largest aircraft consignment of aircraft from the UK, put at around 3,000 Hurricanes of different marks. At this point, it was noted that there was no point sending hundreds of aircraft, Hurricanes especially, without showing the Russians how to unpack, assemble, operate and maintain Hurricanes with their relatively sensitive Rolls-Royce Merlin engines.

During July 1941 it was decided to send a party to Russia to help with these problems, and Force 'Benedict' was established. On 29th July 1941, the 81st Squadron. was reactivated at Leconfield under S/Leader Tony Rook. Likewise on 31st July 1941, the 134 Squadron under S/Leader Tony Miller did the same to become the two fighter squadrons of 151 Wing….”

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/sheppard/hurricanes/index.htm


“This is a total manipulation of reality”

No at all. It is documented fact –it is history.


“But, the fact remains that having got over that the USSR mobilised its resources and despite those avoidable setbacks trounced Nazi Germany”

Were it not for the strategic delay in the invasion and the subsequent intervention of the extreme winter six weeks early - and the German unpreparedness for - it the offensive campaign would have rolled on for over a month and would have undoubtedly have taken at least Moscow. The Germans only ever intended to invade to the Urals in any case.

“Yes, in February 1943, the US had entered the War, but its role at that point was largely reinforcing Britain, and fighting its own war against Japan in the Pacific”

Which allowed the USSR to remove its immense numbers of troops from the east – there to defend against Japan – to the west. And these troops – the Siberians, as they were largely known – were used to extreme cold and extreme hardship.

You are genuinely very ignorant about this part of history.


“It was not until 7 months AFTER Stalingrad that the US involvement in the War had any real import for the War in Europe with the invasion of Italy!”

Again, with military matters you are as ignorant as you are unqualified.

Apart from the enormous material aid (as I have shown you) delivered to all Allies, the US provided massive fighter and bomber cover over Europe, as well as massive naval presence in all theatres. Additionally, the US based its troops in the UK and many other strategic theatres forcing the Germans to respond with defensive deployments – thus tying up valuable manpower.


“Even in North Africa the Allied assaults didn’t really begin until the beginning of 1943”

Good God!!

The Germans didn’t rush troops down there 5 minutes before battle; it was a long and steady build up that cost massive amounts of manpower and resources.

And I also educated you on the turning point of the war: 1943.


“As for Europe, this had long since ceased to be an arena of battle, and in fact, Germany had all the advantages of its client regimes in Norway and France in supplying it, and as fortresses and staging posts from which to attack the Allies. Far from there presence their being a drain it was a positive advantage!”

Astounding ignorance.

Truly astounding.


Just with France:

“The historian Robert Paxton estimated the number of active resistants to be "about 2% of the adult French population [or about 400,000]", going on to say that "there was no doubt, wider complicities, but even if one adds those willing to read underground newspapers, only some two million persons, or around 10% of the adult population, seem to have been willing to take that risk."[38] The postwar government of France officially recognised 220,000 men and women.[39]”

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

This tied down inordinate amounts of German fighting troops.

“inflicted massive damage on infrastructure and tied down German troops across France. The Resistance could far more easily neutralise railways, industrial sites and power stations than Allied air power, and their intelligence networks, at first lightly regarded by the British, were of decisive importance. Between June 1943 and May 1944 nearly 2,000 locomotives were destroyed. In October 1943 alone, over 3,000 attacks were recorded on the railways, 427 resulting in heavy damage, with 132 trains derailed. In the South West such sabotage was so effective that by June 6th 1944 it took 3 days to travel from Paris to Toulouse!”

http://libcom.org/history/articles/spanish-resistance-in-france-1939

And this caused inordinate material, logistical and military damage.

In Yugoslavia:

“Tito set up a rival guerrilla army, eventually had 150,000 men, enough to tie down 15 Axis divisions”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,807165,00.html

In Norway:

“The Norwegian resistance movement played an important part in World War Two. The people who fought in the Norwegian resistance had a number of major advantages over the Germans - a long coast line with vast amounts of the country uninhabited. Norway also had a long border with neutral Sweden which could be easily crossed. In such an environment, a focused resistance movement could do great harm to an occupying army.
The Norwegian secret army (known as Milorg) {…} In 1944 , the number of people in Milorg stood at 32,000”

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/norwegian_resistance.htm


And then there was Poland, Greece, Belgium, Holland etc etc

Starting to get the idea?



“Unlike, your adoration for the Nazis the leaders of the USSR are not my buddies, by my deadly enemies. So I really don’t give a toss what they thought, the fact is that they were the enemies of socialism.”

As I have said, given that he was the worlds biggest mass murderer I can understand why you want to distance yourself from him – but face it, he was a Marxist peddling your socialist fantasies and attempting to put them into play.

He’s one of yours mate.


“It was erroneous because the idea that the human race is divided into separate races is mumbo jumbo. It creates meaningless divisions between peoples based on arbitrary criteria.”

So says Marxist dogma – based on corrosive fantasy.

Science says differently, as I have proved.


“You don’t seem to understand the difference between the overthrow of the Romanov’s which happened in February (Old Russian Calendar) 1917, and their murder several months later!!!!”

Oh dear, here we go again.

You Said:- "Yet, those same troops under such repression turned round, went home and overthrew the Tsar"

I said: - ”These troops did nothing of the sort - their mainly foreign assisted, wall street financed agitators did that - massacring the family.”

And who was right? Who killed the tsar and massacred the family?

That’s right. I’m right.


“None of this nonsense is new”

All verifiable facts – much to your chagrin.



“It is, as I said, the same as the type of document as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, based on forged documents, and the misrepresentation of facts”

Sadly for you, it is not.

It is the work of the same author as “‘Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler” which kind of takes the legs away from your biased “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” rubbish. This is an independent author with acclaimed works.


But none other then Winston Churchill has this to say not too long after the event:

“In a February 8, 1920 article, "Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People," Churchill declared that "We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind." But "it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent."

While assuring readers that "Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct," and praising "National Jews," he warned:

"In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews .... There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover,
the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders."

He patronized Zionism as an antidote to Bolshevism:

"Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weizmann, in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a worldwide communist State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal."

http://www.word-power.co.uk/viewPlatform.php?id=388

http://www.patriot.dk/Churchill.jpg


“The fact is that those same bankers were the ones who had a direct and important controlling say in the US State and Government, the same State and Government which launched in 1918 an attack on Russia, in an attempt to overthrow the revolution and reinstall the forces of Tsarism. That is an indisputable fact that requires no documentation to prove it, made up or otherwise.”

Here is another little fact of how the principle players in the game of international finance operate and are perceived as they do (Jacob Schiff was a major player in the financing of the Bolsheviks):

“Japan was able to defeat Russia in 1905 only after a Jewish banker in New York, Jacob Schiff, helped Japan by floating bonds. So The Protocols of the Elders of Zion confirmed what the Japanese already suspected: Jews really did pull the strings of global finance. However, instead of wishing to attack them, the Japanese, being a practical people, decided they would be better off cultivating those clever, powerful Jews as friends.
As a result, during World War II, even as the Germans were asking their Japanese allies to round up Jews and hand them over, dinners were held in Japanese-occupied Manchuria to celebrate Japanese-Jewish friendship. Jewish refugees in Shanghai, though never comfortable, at least remained alive under Japanese protection.
This was good for the Jews of Shanghai. But the very ideas that helped them to survive continue to muddle the thinking of people who really ought to know better by now. “

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25037351-7583,00.html

“Lenin described Russia as a State Capitalist economy with bureaucratic deformations.”

Lenin was a socialist, even as espoused by the Socialist worker:
“WHEN Lenin became a socialist in Russia in the late 1890s…”

http://socialistworker.org/2004-1/502/502_08_Lenin.shtml

And as such attempted implement socialism when he came to power.

“He believed as all Marxists do that it is impossible to create socialism in one country”

All Marxists? Now that’s not true is it?

This is from:

En Marcha
Organ of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador
December, 1997

Stalin: Builder of Socialism

The Building of Socialism

The peoples of the world and, subsequently of the former USSR, evaluate ever more highly Stalin's historical role. The work of the Party and the masses, under Stalin's leadership, is a beautiful and victorious example of the superiority of socialism {…}
After Lenin's death, Stalin continued and developed the planned policy for the construction of Socialism, which could be summed up as follows:

1. To develop an independent economy, based on the internal market and on the union of industry with the peasant economy of the country, which unfolded to the maximum the development of industry to the degree of the resources that the country possessed.

2. To lead the economy in a planned manner, taking into account the necessities existing for it and constantly developing the reserves.

The fulfillment of these lines permitted the raising of the USSR to the level of an industrialized country. In 1938, socialist industry occupied first place in the world in its pace of development and in technique it surpassed the principal capitalist countries. This is one of the demonstrations of the superiority of socialism over capitalism, which in the decade of the 1930s was undergoing a tremendous economic crisis, which led millions of workers in the capitalist world to unemployment.

http://www.mltranslations.org/Ecuador/Stalin.htm

“It was not Lenin that killed millions of workers and peasants”
He was hardly free of blood.


“And, no Stalin was not trying to create socialism”

Strange, because he thought he was and so do your fellow Marxists:

“Socialism in one country

A foundation of the Stalinist political theory, introduced for the first time in 1924, after Lenin's death. The theory was in direct opposition to the Bolshevik theory that the success of the Russian Revolution depended on proletarian revolutions in Europe. The Stalinist theory stipulated that a socialist society could be achieved inside a single country. Later, when it was incorporated into the program and tactics of the Comintern, it became the justification for the domination of Russia in the proletarian revolution: claiming that the Soviet Union was the leader of the International proletariat.”

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm


“It was in order to do so that he and his fellow anti-socialists such as Mao, and Castro, murdered and oppressed millions of workers. Nothing at all to do with socialism”

Madness.


“After three days of speeches, the Cuban National Assembly has voted to amend the country's constitution, making its socialist system of government untouchable…
"A return to the past is undesirable, unthinkable and impossible for our people. The revolution is invincible," Vice-President Carlos Lage told the assembly.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2069057.stm

But for the record, this graph illustrates how many people each Marxist country has murdered:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.FIG1.GIF

And an even more detailed anaysis:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF

“In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987.”

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM


“No its not. I’m certainly not ignorant, and definitely not desperate. Your politics are there for all to see. Repeated adulation of the Nazis, fanatical nationalism, hatred of foreigners, hatred of socialists, the advocacy of a thoroughly fraudulent racial theory all of which give us the description of what you are.”

As I have repeatedly shown, and particularly in this post you are most certainly ignorant. Almost completely.

And you are very desperate – hence all of the desperate attempts at ridicule in the face of facts and the incessant hyperbole.

I have not carried out any ‘Repeated adulation of the Nazis’ I have presented facts that firstly you do not know, secondly, you do not like, and thirdly are just plain old facts. It all boils down to your smear tactics again, and can be applied to the rest of that desperate statement.


“And your still without the intellect to even vary your insults”

It wasn’t an attempt to insult but a rather wearied statement of fact.

(And Phil, you might want to weigh in with you’re (sic) comments here)


“You wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you on the arse.”

Whatever mate – you have had more then a few thrown at you here.


“No, they don’t. Most people DISAGREE with true socialists, and they are quite within their right to do so. But its only Nazis who take disagreement with someone else’s views to the level of hating them for holding them. The fact that you come into that category shows again exactly what your politics amounts to.”
Amazing.

I point you back to “In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000…”


“Yes, but they always come from you.”

That’s an oxymoron, moron.

“An Economist for one thing”

What a waste of time! What is it you do? What is your practical function? How do you benefit society? And to top it all off you are a fanatic of a failed economic model!!!


“Yes, I did actually, and wrote a blog saying it was going to break out about two weeks before it did, and spelled out why it was going to break out then.”

You predicated nothing, mate.

“Monday's declaration by the panel of the National Bureau of Economic Research confirms what many private economists, lawmakers and members of the general public already have assumed and puts an official date on it: A U.S. recession began in December 2007.
That was the same month employment peaked, and the economy began shrinking in a downturn that has been exacerbated by the financial crisis that took hold of markets beginning in September.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27999557/


“I don’t dispute any of the points made in the quotes”

Oh but you do:

“Britain has already been in recession for more than 6 months, so has the US, so on average it should only last another 12 months, and will have hit its depths before that {…} One reason why unemployment has not even begun to reach the levels it did in the 1980’s let alone the 1930’s.” – This is all completely contrary to the quotes.


“Well as someone who has only half a brain you would know. Common sense perhaps, economic fact, absolutely not. As I said, most economists believe that rationing was continued far too long after it could have been lifted…”

They can believe what they like – the fact is it didn’t happen.


“The fact is as was shown by the economic statistics – that is real evidence – showed economic growth from the beginning of the 1950’s was strong, and prosperity was rising with it, hence the growing number of people, buying TV sets etc.”

Any working class person who lived in the post war years will tell you first hand of the hardships. It was only coming into the late fifties and early sixties that times improved and certainly after food rationing had ended.


“What does common sense have to say about that? Perhaps you could get your half a brain around it.”

You keep quoting these unsourced figures as evidence.


“Its only possible to find black swans to disprove the theory that there are no black swans, because there are in fact black swans out there to find, thereby disproving the theory.”

Facile.

If you want to find people to lazy too work 2 hours for £200 you will.


“This article from the Independent describes the types of jobs that illegal immigrants work in.”

Again, you are a liar:

You said: "Most illegal immigrants don’t work on these jobs, they tend to work in back street sweatshops. The people working on the fruit and vegetable picking are pretty much all legal migrants, and, therefore, are paid the minimum wage at least."

And not only does that article not provide any evidence of what jobs they do work in, but it starts:

“A vast hidden army of illegal immigrants ensures that each day thousands of offices and homes are cleaned, streets are swept and drinks are served in Britain's pubs and clubs.

From London's building sites to farms in East Anglia..”


“The following story from the BBC also sets out the position in respect of recruitment for those fruit and vegetable farms.”

Again, you have no clue as to what you are presenting:

“The MPs were told UK workers did not want seasonal agricultural jobs, which pay a basic wage of £5.74 an hour.”

Exactly what I said in the first place man!!! These jobs do NOT PAY £7.50 P/H!!! That ‘documentary’ of yours was CONTRIVED!!!


“Nothing desperate about pointing out both the inadequacy of your politics, your intellectual capacity, or your repeated failure to provide any response to many of the points put to you. Such as your failure to provide any response here other than evasion.”

Its desperate smears from a desperate man losing every desperate point he has made. I have already told you I am a nationalist.


“The proof is actually given in the story from Acton that you quoted. It talked about someone receiving £170,000…”

Don’t you think that’s enough anyway?


“and failed to correct readers incorrect interpretation of that – a not unreasonable incorrect interpretation – that failed to realise that the £170,000 INCLUDED the £150,000 paid actually not to the claimant but to the landlord!!!”

That is your interpretation.

In fact, its one better, it’s you trying to ‘empathize’ with those evil readers of that evil paper!!!
Either ways – the story is valid.


“I’ve just shown you in relation to the example you quoted”

You haven’t shown anything, you just made something up!! This to be precise:

“In fact, the £170,000 in benefits must INCLUDE that payment of £12,500 a month to the landlord, because it would be impossible on the basis of even claiming for 6 people to receive £170,000 in benefits.”

And then quote it back as evidence!!

You have no proof whatsoever.


And as you say there are many cases there must be many examples, why can you not supply some?


“Who says they don’t? My point was that I don’t blame workers for not wanting to be pushed into working for low wages. That’s the difference. I am on the side of workers. You are on the side of the bosses.”

By making the workers pay more tax to support those who will not work for a living?


“No it was you that embarrassed yourself…”

If it makes you feel better ‘boffy.’


“But, that doesn’t explain all of those further examples of real bullying does it?”

There want any in that film.

And what the hell would you know about it anyhow?


“No those things are examples of organisations OPPOSING socialism, not of socialist organisations.”

No, these are socialist organizations murdering around 110,000,000 people – primarily workers.


“But, by definition if you put “your own” people first that means opposing people who are not your own people i.e. foreigners.”

Not at all, it means putting my own people first – it does what it says.


“But, its not just that you oppose foreigners, but that you do so in the most appalling way by making them all out to be criminals..”

Illegal immigrants are criminals and the impact of Third World immigration on western nations is a matter of record.


“Does this mean that if the law was changed so that they were no “illegal” you would not oppose them?”

If the law was changed to allow members of a legal political party – the BNP – to be members of the police you would not oppose them?


“I never said it WAS from you. But, firstly, the police are hardly a paragon of anti-racist virtue, secondly, as has been shown some reports have been designed as a means of arguing for greater resources for the police”

Again desperate waffle.

The police are riddled with PC and statements like that could easily have cost him his job. But the bottom line is you will not accept any fact, or any expert that does not conform to your fanaticism, despite the overwhelming evidence.


“and finally the report did not by any means say what your interpretation of it implied, which was that ALL immigrants are some form of criminal”

Nowhere have I said that – all illegal immigrants are criminals because they are illegal and as for the rest of the volumioius, undisputable evidence presented on the criminal impact of Third Worlders in western nations, I
said:

“They are just reporting the facts mate, they are not trying to portray anything - really, if you have any evidence that it is a giant conspiracy then do present it - go on, I dare you.

If not, just shut up and accept that these are facts and the huge and disparate impact on crime these people have is real.”


“Solidly and without doubt. The difference is I continue to defend my class, whereas you have sold out to the bosses. That’s why you can’t refute the argument above”

Another one of your ‘if I keep saying it, it must be true’ smear attempts.


“As I said, you are a lackey of the bosses”

Not all. A realist and an advocate freedom and freedom of competition. I agree with some of the BNP economic policies – certainly some form of enforced work share scheme – but not all of them.


“But, not being a sovereign state is not at all the same thing as it being destroyed as a country, or even as an administrative area is it?”


Are you for real?!!

You are just a twisted liar.

You have called for the end of Britain as a Sovereign state, its absorption into a Socialist European Federation and the end of life as we know it in Britain, and now tacitly concede that at best, Britain would only be designated as an “administrative area” and then you have the front to say you haven’t called for the destruction of Britain at all?!


“I’ve already shown that the example you gave of the woman in Acton was a flagrant distortion.”

Again, you haven’t shown anything!!
You have made a bold statement with absolutely no proof whatsoever and proceeded as it is established and verified fact.


“I’ve already stated that the fact that SOME people from a migrant community MIGHT – even where the facts haven’t been made up, or manipulated – have been involved in crime”

Show me some evidence that any of these reports were made up.


“doesn’t at all mean that all, or even a large number ARE involved in crime.”

Oh my God!!

You really are a twisted liar
aren’t you!!

Absolutely bare faced.

Look again:


"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."

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/1-latest-news/27877.html

"Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily...

The study is the first where the crime statistics have been analyzed according to ethnic origin.

Of the 111 charged with rape in Oslo last year, 72 were of non-western ethnic origin, 25 are classified as Norwegian or western and 14 are listed as unknown...

Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year."

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

"a 1998 Justice Ministry survey on crime, which found that immigrants were over-represented by an average of 46 per cent. In addition, the recent publication of a report from the Copenhagen police shows that 47.5 per cent of prisoners on remand for serious crimes such as murder, attempted murder and rape come from immigrant backgrounds."

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/1-latest-news/28210.html

“Illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war, says a new report from Family Security Matters that estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. and about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population”

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/february/0222_illegals_report.shtml

"According to a new study from the Crime Prevention Council, Brå, it is four times more likely that a known rapist is born abroad, compared to persons born in Sweden. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects."

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article327666.ab

"Blacks were almost three times more likely than Hispanics and five times more likely than whites to be in jail."

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/jails.htm

"About half the US nation’s 2.2 million prisoners are black. With only 36 million of us, that’s an astounding 3% of African Americans, counting all ages and both sexes, languishing behind bars, with a roughly equal number on probation, parole, house arrest or other court supervision. Almost one in three 18-year-old black males across the board is likely to catch a felony conviction, and in some communities nearly half the black male workforce under 40 have criminal records"

http://www.blackcommentator.com/146/146_cover_dixon_ten_worst.html

“A Sunday Herald Sun survey of 400 cases at magistrates' courts across Melbourne found 14 per cent of offenders came from the Horn of Africa and the Middle East -- many of them refugees -- about 20 times the representative proportion of the population.”

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,21166482-661,00.html

“For over a decade there has been concern expressed about the growth in Australia of organised criminal activity by Vietnamese{…} Similar concerns have emerged in Canada note#69 and the United States. In 1992, a United States Senate subcommittee reported”

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/australia/docs/ncaaoc3.html

“Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture. His remarks angered community leaders, who accused him of ignorance and failing to provide support for black-led efforts to tackle the problem.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/apr/12/ukcrime.race

“There you go again, a perfect example of what I was just talking about. How many defendants were there? What proportion of black people do these defendants constitute.”

You clearly have no integrity whatsoever.

You are a bare face lying fanatic, clearly.

What an amazing stupid question “What proportion of black people do these defendants constitute” when the answer is clearly 80%.


“The vast majority of black males have not been charged with gang rape.”

But 80% of everyone who had was black.


“So if we are going to judge a people doesn’t it make sense to judge them according to the actions of the vast majority not the small minority?”

Amazing.

80% of gang rape cases in the UK having black defendants is an enormous and remarkable statement on its own.

And have a look at the huge Scandinavian gang rape problem – and the perpetrators.


“People like what? The vast majority who just want a decent life for themselves and their families.”

People that, with huge disproportion, dominate the crime rate – in fact pushing it to previously unheard of levels and bringing previously exceedingly rare occurrences to regular event.


“You haven’t given us any evidence as to what proportion let alone your statement that its huge. In fact, on the basis of the statistics in the articles you cited the proportion of the total population was tiny.”

My God.

Really, my God.

Either you are that stupid you cannot figure it out or you are that fanatical you will argue day is night.

The evidence presented speaks for itself and anyone can see that – huge Third World impact on western countries – HUGE.


“I would think that they would think what a society we live in whereby British landlords can live off the ordinary taxpayer by charging such huge rents. I’d think that they would think what a disaster the policies of Thatcher had been in selling off the Council houses so there was nowhere for people to live.”

And that shows how out of touch you are as most working class people thought that scheme was the best thing that ever happened to them.

And as I proved there are plenty of homes, at least 840,000 of them so yet again you are wrong.


“Yet, capitalism can’t ensure that they are provided to the people who need them as I said.”

No, people cannot ensure that they are provided to the people that need them – but either ways, you are wrong again aint ya!!

There are plenty of homes.


“Really, where has that been proved. You are the one who has been proven a liar here”

Quite a few times just in this post!!! Where is your proof?

“His view.”

Yes, as head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

But again, you know better don’t you. You know everything and everyone is wrong unless they agree with you.


“Because a fairly high percentage of people are either homosexual or have had some form of homosexual experience…”

In other words you have absolutely no evidence to back up yet another of your bold statements: “"Given that a lot of people on the Right are homosexuals"


“What a load of right-wing superficial, and unsubstantiated old codswallop”

Well of course it is!!

It proves you wrong doesn’t it!!

Its all one massive conspiracy isn’t it?!

But tell me, were the pictures in that report unsubstantiated too??!!

Here’s some more rich diversity in action in Sweden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKAM2iNO0_E

“But, you’ve just admitted they work here, so you have admitted they are workers, which shows the logic of your statement was false.”

They take up illegal employment making them criminals.


“No, you can’t even read or understand what you quote. They opened their doors and lots of Asian people went there. More recently they have introduced more restricted immigration based on a points scheme for required skills like that now operating in Britain. The point is that during the period when they encouraged immigration from elsewhere they were no swamped by immigrants from poor countries.”

Oh dear oh dear, yet again it’s the kettle calling the pot black!!!

You said “That policy in Australia was a recent development witnessed by the large numbers of Asian people who DO live in Australia.” When clearly it was one that went on for the best part of a century and you also claimed that removing immigration controls didn’t have a bigger difference in immigration and you are now admitting that many Asians took advantage of it and that now Australia has reverted back to selective immigration.


“Precisely! The US encouraged immigration from all over the world, but it didn’t result in millions of Africans or Asian or people from other very poor areas moving there”

You are mad!!

If you really think that that the US were trying to get more Africans into the US when, up until only the sixties it was to all intents racially segregated you are raving!!


“On the contrary, most of the people who moved there were from Europe.”

No accident - because these were the people they wanted and encouraged.


“You still haven’t told us how Britain could or would have wanted to stop the US allowing such people in!!!”

What the hell are you on about now??


“Britain itself, only introduced immigration controls in the early 1960’s, and similarly was not swamped before that period by immigrants from such countries”

Ha ha ha!

You are mad!! Aside from the citizenship acts, what do you really think would have happened if millions of Africans or Asians had tried to land at Dover?


“No you are the clown. The point is that these “record numbers” are hardly astronomic are they?”

Yes they are – historic.
Sweden has 9m people and 44,000 Swedes left just as 65,000 immigrants arrived.


“I notice that you don’t actually deny that you lied. You claimed that we were discussing DOCTORS when in fact, as I showed you had said”

I think what I said spoke for itself.


“So we see the proof that not only are you a lying toe rag as I said, but that unable to deny that you are a lying toe rag, you resort instead to threats of physical violence.”

The trouble with people like you is that you start to take one too many steps over the line; you think you can say whatever you want because you are on the internet and not face to face. Well that is a very naive assumption and I couldn’t give a toss about the politics of a comment once that line starts getting crossed.

You have no proof of anything, just more big-mouthed internet cowardice.


“whose also a thug”

If you equate being a thug with telling someone if they spoke to you in such an outrageous fashion to your face you would smack them, then yeah, I’m a thug. And believe me, if you or anyone else spoke to me like that to my face that will happen. Funnily enough, though it has very rarely ever happened to my face, only really just people you on the internet. The internet hardmen.


“No one said that whites existed in Africa. What was proved was that humans originated in Africa and migrated out of it. Humans adapted to the various conditions they found themselves in, but they remained humans, not even different races of humans.”

Have they not?

Anyhow it has not been proved at all. MISSING LINK!!!!

“If that 3% allows you to sequence it then that is enough to prove evolution.”

And when we had 3% knowledge of our planet (and much more) people thought the earth was flat.


“Because its irrelevant to the question of sequencing, which is what is relevant to determining lineage.”

The fact that DNA is not an infallible science is very relevant.


“You did misrepresent their meaning trying to pretend that an average figure for day and night time figures was in fact an average daytime figure so as to justify your ridiculous assertion.”


I misrepresented nothing.

You misunderstood.


“Actually, and especially from the time when it was achieved – i.e. when only 2% of the population reached that standard – I would say that my degree certificate says that I have actually. If that weren’t enough I’d say that the many other certificates and qualifications including my Postgraduate certificates and others I have in many other subjects would reinforce that belief.”

Parrot fashion education and regurgitation that has led to a non-productive job of economist.
And given your appalling grasp of history the quality of your education is very questionable, as is your honesty.


“They were nothing until the bosses needed them to fulfil a function. Had the bosses not needed them for that they would have remained nothing. The second world war was to avenge nothing it was to try to achieve what WWI set out to achieve a redivision of the world between the competing imperialist powers.”

Amazing.

Absolutely amazing.

But go on then, where is your evidence for this conspiratorial departure from reality?


“Yes, really. As the quotes I gave showed those tanks wre only introduced because the Soviet tanks were crucifying the Germans in tank warfare, and despite the introduction of these later tanks the Russian tanks continued to defeat them, not to mention to be produced in huge numbers”

Again, you are a bare faced liar.

You said “But, they did produce better planes, better tanks” – and again, you were wrong.

The best tank of the war was the German King Tiger. It had no rival and the Russians couldn’t ‘defeat it.

And given the immense Allied aid (including 12,000 tanks) and the rest of the reasons I have educated you in earlier in the post, it is hardly surprising that the USSR could afford such productive and military advantage.


“Glad you reminded me of that.

“In spite of the constant danger of being arrested for expressions of radical ideas and false accusations of treason, Soviet aircraft designers mastered technical hurdles astonishing even by today's standards”

These USSR aircraft were so secret they never took part in the war.

The German jets, however did:

“The Messerschmitt Me-262 was the first jet fighter to enter operational service. It was a superb day and night bomber interceptor, with a speed advantage so great, and armament so powerful, that it could easily intercept and destroy allied heavy bombers, while practically ignoring their swarms of piston-engined escort fighters, and the bombers' own gun turrets.”

http://www.2worldwar2.com/me-262.htm

“You really must learn to stop kicking yourself in the nuts”

Are you nuts?

The USSR never used jets in WW2!!!

Nor Helicopters…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_Fl_282


“Of course, one of the most important scientific developments came from a Marxist, a German Jew who got out of the way of the Nazis. Without Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity the atom bomb would not have been possible.”

So you are claiming a Marxist victory for the nuclear weapon?!

Besides, there is much evidence to suggest that he plagiarized this theory from his wife.

Here is a taste:

“Einstein is also at the center of one of the hotter debates to emerge from feminist theory. A wide range of scholars has suggested that his first wife, Mileva Maric, with whom he studied at the Polytechnic School, made equal or even greater contributions to his great 1905 papers but was denied credit.
Einstein’s letters to Maric include several references to “our work” and “our research,” and one biographer claimed to have seen an early draft of one the 1905 papers that was signed by both of them. Moreover, when Einstein won the Nobel Prize in 1921 — two years after they divorced, quite bitterly — he gave Maric the money.

The question is one that touches off heated arguments. In 1990, the dispute had become important enough that the American Association for the Advancement of Science convened a panel discussion, where scholars pursued what they saw as her vindication. A PBS documentary, “Einstein’s Wife,” made the case so compellingly that in an online poll on its Web site, 77 percent of respondents thought Maric “collaborated” with Einstein on the 1905 papers.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7406337/page/2/

But even so, the USSR lagged behind in that area too – only getting the bomb in 1949 and only after numerous (but distinctive) traitors spilled the secrets.

“The fact that at times Men competing over scarce resources has led to conflict is not at all typical human behaviour. Man has for the vast majority of his existence lived in co-operative societies.”

You are a classic.

You really are.

Violence and human history are inseparable.


“It doesn’t exist within bees and other insects and for good reason as Richard Dawkins has demonstrated in “The Selfish Gene”. Each species acts to ensure the continuation of the species not individual members of the species, and frequently that requires co-operation and altruism not competition.”

Right, so you have bee’s – and what else?

Let’s get this straight – you are now trying to tell me that the animal kingdom really gets along? And that animal’s do not compete at all, let alone inter-species?

Have you ever been around any animals – say a just a dog for instance?


“The point is that it is not an inevitable or unchangeable characteristic, but a result of the need to fulfil a basic requirement. They compete because of scarcity not because they are driven by some innate requirement to compete.”

You are certifiable.

They compete for many, many reasons – to mate, to lead, to feed…


“Of course, socialism will change that. It will provide every ordinary worker with a much higher standard of living, and aim to create a society where this is sufficient supply of all the basic requirements of human life that there will be no need to compete for them.”


You are defiantly certifiable.

I asked:

“Now in the real world 'boffy' animals do not have very need catered for now do they? And what a ridiculous statement. Given that a large proportion of animals are carnivores something has to be killed for them to eat in any case.

Or will socialists change all that too?”

And now you tell me that Socialists are going to change animal behavior, so that do not compete any more by “provide every ordinary worker with a much higher standard of living…”

You are mad.


“Precisely, to overthrow the Capitalist State and the Capitalists who WERE the ones doing that. In other words to create socialism”

Not at all. To stop my family from starving – nothing political at all.


“When you said socialism had failed. When you have repeated that socialism has killed tens of millions and that we should therefore stop trying to create socialism. Do you want me to show you to be an idiot and a liar again by copying the actual quotes?”

No – like I said, by killing anyone who tried to starve your family to death. Nothing to do with socialism at all.


“Yes, and how does that change their need to continue to tend their land or to have to pay their taxes and rents?????”

So, in your world, people who are starving to death don’t think of food to survive – they think, you know what, I am dying, and so is my family but I must pay my rent and my tax!!!


“What an ignorant moron you are. Do you really think the people just sat back, did nothing and died?”

You are the ignorant moron, you Muppet – that is exactly what you were trying to suggest.


“But can you not get it into your thick skull that when it’s a million people trying to feed themselves by such means”

Get it into your thick skull that people lived that way for millennia.

“More lies, I’ve never said anything of the sort”

Err, yes you did, liar.

“As for people such as Stalin or Mao, I’d say that they were mass murders, who were forced to engage in such activity...”

You say they were forced to mass murder so therefore they were victims too.

“Yes it is”

Yes it is. The Canaries is a part of Spain and the siesta is still strong there just as I contended.


“But that’s because I’ve studied Philosophy and understand the basics of semantic logic, whereas you obviously don’t understand even the basics of categories that a school child can grasp.”

I’d be very surprised if you even had a secondary education.


“My link confirmed it!!!! You lying toe-rag.”

OK internet hardman:

“The siesta for shops and businesses is from approximately 2pm until 5pm while bars and restaurants close from about 4pm until about 8 or 9pm” – confirms the siesta, just disputes time – “Today, the siesta hits Madrid and Barcelona much less than it hits Granada or Salamanca” – different locations diffe4rnt siesta practices – “Big supermarkets and department stores also stay open during the siesta.” – hardly surprising, but there is clearly a siesta for them to stay open during.

Starting to sink in fathead?


“The facts are clear for all to see”

Yes, you are twisted liar - : I said your analogy of "Yorkshire and Lancashire" as "as some sort of indicator of a massive and irreconcilable divide" was facile -I described the siesta thing as "one small example in workplace variance."


“You have been proved wrong, refusing to admit you were wrong, you resorted to lying, and your still lying now”

Quite the reverse – as usual.


“But, they were British and they did have a nap, so there is nothing irreconcilably Spanish about it is there?”

Oh my God – you really are trying to equate two people taking naps with the Spanish siesta!!!!!

Jesus H Christ!!!!!

You are a RIGHT ONE!!!!


“But as you have now conceded that there is nothing irreconcilably Spanish about taking a Siesta it doesn’t matter does it? Or are you going to lie again and say you haven’t conceded that which will just further expose your previous lie.”

I said it was “one small example in workplace variance” and that is true – we do not do it!!!!

Bloody hell!!!!


“No it isn’t the DNA record has closed that question for good”

NO IT HAS NOT!!

Only to people like you that don’t need evidence, just affirmation.
If the theory was correct, the physical evidence would be there to confirm it.

But it isn’t.


“Yes, it has and every respectable scientist agrees that it has. The only people who ddeny it are Creationist morons like you”

You are just a very strange Muppet aren’t you?!!

That quote was from Wikipedia and wasn’t even anything to do with creationists!!!!


“You claimed we were descended from Chimpanzees and the other apes. We are not, and evolution has never, ever claimed that we are. Yet again, rather than accept you were wrong you try to change what you said.”

Newsflash – chimps and apes are primates.


“Quite right, they are not identical either between groups, or between individuals. But, the difference of 15% between groups is not enough to consider them different races.”

Yes it is – hence the headline: "Till now, humans of different races were thought almost identical"

And its 12% of the 3% of DNA we know about.

And because of the various illness and treatments that are genetically / racially specific; and the link between race / genes and intelligence etc etc


“And one of the reasons for that is that the differences between individuals WITHIN those groups is even wider.”

The difference in individuals referred to are outside their own racial groups.


“What do you mean the 3% of DNA that we know about you moron. Don’t you listen to the news. We have now mapped 100% of the human genome. We know all of its constituents not just 3%”

Your ignorance gets more and more exposed every time you post!!!

I mean, you really do not have a clue do you?!!

“You've probably heard of a molecule called DNA, otherwise known as "The Blueprint Of Life". Molecular biologists have been examining and mapping the DNA for a few decades now. But as they've looked more closely at the DNA, they've been getting increasingly bothered by one inconvenient little fact - the fact that 97% of the DNA is junk, and it has no known use or function! But, an usual collaboration between molecular biologists, cryptoanalysists (people who break secret codes), linguists (people who study languages) and physicists, has found strange hints of a hidden language in this so- called "junk DNA".
Only about 3% of the DNA actually codes for amino acids, which in turn make proteins, and eventually, little babies. The remaining 97% of the DNA is, according to conventional wisdom, not gems, but junk.
The molecular biologists call this junk DNA, introns. Introns are like enormous commercial breaks or advertisements that interrupt the real program - except in the DNA, they take up 97% of the broadcast time. Introns are so important, that Richard Roberts and Phillip Sharp, who did much of the early work on introns back in 1977, won a Nobel Prize for their work in 1993. But even today, we still don't know what introns are really for.”

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/04/04/133634.htm

“Chromosomes are compact linear entities in the nucleus of the cell. They are composed mainly of DNA, some RNA, and proteins called histones. People have been created with 23 matched pairs (46 total) of chromosomes. Years ago, scientists discovered that only about three percent of the human genome (the complete set of DNA inherited from the father and mother) is comprised of genes--about 35,000 of them. The remaining 97 percent was given the unscientific title of "junk" because secular biologists felt that over evolutionary time the DNA had lost its function. This useless DNA was the foundation for the secular argument that the genome was not designed.”


http://www.icr.org/article/revealing-purpose-junk-dna/

“DNA may be the building block of life, but the vast majority of it in nearly all species is apparently useless. The human genome, for example, is made up of 3 billion base pairs of nucleotides arranged in the well-known double helix, yet only 3 per cent of that works as functional genes. The other 97 per cent has been written off as junk. But remarkably, junk DNA may turn out to be as important as genes - if not more so.”

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825262.600-the-word-junk-dna.html

“The human genome, the 3.15 billion-letter instruction book for our cells, seems pretty elegant. But it turns out to be chock-full of typos, gibberish, repetitions and redundancies, and scientists don't know why.
"Junk DNA," some call the residue, and it takes up an amazing 97% of our genome.”

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-6832905.html

“and we can compare it across human beings. 85% of it is shared by all human beings meaning that we are all one single human race. The other 15% differs from individual to individual, so as to explain why one person has black hair another red, one person green eyes another blue and so on.”

OK, read the above, do your own research, educate yourself a little.


“I believe that Watson has said that his comments were taken out of context.”

Ha ha ha.

Of course you do!!!

His comments were very clear.

Do you think his being suspended from his job over political objections might have colored his revised outlook?

In the end he had to resign over it.

“The point is most scientists disagree with the views that were attributed to him.”

Not the science behind it – the fact that he said it.


“It certainly doesn’t fit reality given that there were civilisations in Africa when people in Northern Europe were still living in caves and running round in animal skins.”

Well it certainly fits today:

“The failure to tackle academic underachievement of African-Caribbean boys is threatening to turn them into "a permanent underclass", the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality warns today.

Trevor Phillips says it is not good enough to blame their underperformance on the "racist attitudes" of white teachers which lead to low expectations among black pupils.

Instead, ministers and education experts should look at the evidence, debate its meaning, and "come up with some answers" even if they involve controversial proposals such as segregation, he argues.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/may/31/race.schools

“the recent “Nation’s Report Card,” published annually by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics{…}only 13 percent of black fourth-graders and 11 percent of black eighth-graders score as proficient. Twenty-nine percent of black fourth-graders achieve a score of “basic,” which is defined as having a partial knowledge and skills necessary to be proficient in the grade. Fifty-nine percent score below basic, not having any of the necessary knowledge and skills. It’s the same story for black eighth-graders, with 40 percent scoring basic and 49 percent below basic.
In math, it’s roughly the same story. For black fourth-graders, 12 percent score proficient, 47 percent score basic and 40 percent below basic. For black eighth-graders, 8 percent score proficient, while 33 percent score basic and 59 percent score below basic; however, 1 percent of black fourth-graders and eighth-graders achieved an advanced score in math…
Racial discrimination has nothing to do with what’s no less than an education meltdown within the black community. Where black education is the very worst, often the city mayor is black, the city council is dominated by blacks, and often the school superintendent is black, as well as most of the principals and teachers – and Democrats have run the cities for decades


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=36877

"The differences in schooling, especially for Africans, shows how they are not eligible in the same way as other groups for upper secondary education, as they are not achieving the right grades, even though we take into account how long they have been in Sweden," said Persson.

"We don't really know why this is.”

http://www.thelocal.se/
16452/20081218/


“And yet again your own quote speaks against you”

Nope – they used Marxist and Orwellian terms like ‘scientific racism’ to condemn the publication of its findings, but could not dispute its factual basis.
Have a little read:

“The Bell Curve, published in 1994, was written by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray as a work designed to explain, using empirical statistical analysis, the variations in intelligence in American Society, raise some warnings regarding the consequences of this intelligence gap, and propose national social policy with the goal of mitigating the worst of the consequences attributed to this intelligence gap. Many of the assertions put forth and conclusions reached by the authors are very controversial, ranging from the relationships between low measured intelligence and anti-social behavior, to the observed relationship between low African-American test scores (compared to whites and Asians) and genetic factors in intelligence abilities. The book was released and received with a large public response. In the first several months of its release, 400,000 copies of the book were sold around the world. Several thousand reviews and commentaries have been written in the short time since the book's publication”

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/bellcurve.shtml


“I gave you about six countries”

Including Togo - it was the first one I checked and you were wrong so why continue!!!


“having already previously spoken about such development being some 50 years away – and you give a quote referring to slow growth in just one country at the moment!!!!”

Exactly – it’s all bullshit predicated on nothing.


“Yes, really and I have an Honours Degree to prove it, along with a shed load of other qualifications in a wide range of subjects”

So you say.

Your bizarre and groundless rants say otherwise.

And you have a functionless job.


“Who said three was no nation. I said there was no French nation, certainly no nation state, but there were about two hundred different nationalities living in the territory we now call France, and what was Gaul.”

What defines a nation?

What distinguishes it from a tribe?


“But, the point is that your assertion that all of these nationalities were Frankish is not true as I have proved several times, and which you now want to slip around, by diverting the discussion.”

I have said France is called France because of the Franks.


“Yes, but they don’t constitute a race”

No, they are a mirage – just a ‘social construct’ – not based in reality. Is that the latest absurdity?


“Yes, but they don’t constitute a race Your attempt thereby to suggest that the nationalities of Gaul were Germanic fraudulent, and proved to be so.”

My God!!!

What the hell are you on man!!!

Southern France has a long history of Islamic invasions and Arabic integrations – just as with most of the Mediterranean peoples.
The Romans associated blond hair with (amongst others) the Gauls.


“What do you mean your point exactly????”

What??

“The various tribes in Gaul were homogenous within themselves”

Obviously – like I said, all tribes were homogenous.


“Another diversion. That has nothing to do with your assertion that France was made up of Frankish peoples who came together as such to create France. They weren’t Frankish people’s. They didn’t come together on the basis of shared characteristics. They were conquered by a foreign people – the Franks.”

No, all of it is an irrelevance – I said France is called France because of the Franks.

But in any case here you are saying France wasn’t named France because of the Franks, but the country we know as France was conquered by the Franks – and that’s why it’s called France.


“It was you that backtracked”

Not even slightly – illegal immigrants are criminals and you backtracked after your silly little rant about my supposed saying all immigrants were criminals:

“Unless, you have proof that all of these 700,000 people are criminals then this statement is one which could be classed as stirring up racial hatred and would be illegal. Do you know all these 700,000 people personally then that you can make this claim”

Priceless.


"But you are lying here again. Where did I say that the difference between Lancashire and Yorkshire was an “Irreconcilable difference”?

Again, priceless.

Read what it says, and look at the punctuation, and then try to comprehend what has passed here:

“I said your analogy of "Yorkshire and Lancashire" as "as some sort of indicator of a massive and irreconcilable divide" was facile - I described the siesta thing as "one small example in workplace variance."”

Arthur Bough said...

Twelve thousand words, and every one of them bollocks.!!!!

Let’s start with this because it demonstrates your method most clearly. You have told us that Germany attacked the USSR, and that the reason the USSR was able to defeat that attack was because a) the USSR was provided with the majority of its supplies by the Allies, and b) the attack on Pearl Harbour which brought the US into the War against Japan, freed up the USSR’s troops in Siberia to go to the defence of Moscow.

You said speaking of Operation Barbarossa the German invasion of the USSR,

”Were it not for the strategic delay in the invasion and the subsequent intervention of the extreme winter six weeks early - and the German unpreparedness for - it the offensive campaign would have rolled on for over a month and would have undoubtedly have taken at least Moscow. The Germans only ever intended to invade to the Urals in any case.”

And explaining that the USSR had been able to send troops from Siberia to defend Moscow, you said that this was due to the US entering the War, and thereby removing the threat to the Soviet East from Japan. In response to my comment,

“Yes, in February 1943, the US had entered the War, but its role at that point was largely reinforcing Britain, and fighting its own war against Japan in the Pacific”

You said,

”Which allowed the USSR to remove its immense numbers of troops from the east – there to defend against Japan – to the west. And these troops – the Siberians, as they were largely known – were used to extreme cold and extreme hardship.

You are genuinely very ignorant about this part of history.


Finally, you told us that the USSR was able to turn round the German Operation Barbarossa due to massive Allied support. You said,

” It was largely due to massive Allied aid.”

Okay, those are the facts, the basis of your position. As I’ve said several times, I have no desire to defend Stalin’s National Socialist regime, but I do have an interest in exposing your political method, your cavalier attitude to facts, and the fact that what your politics amounts to is that you start from preconceived prejudices, and then seek out facts – any facts will do – that you think might support your view. Its not a scientific approach, but a bigoted, religious approach.

So, what are the real facts? There are two separate, but very obvious problems with the argument that you present. The first is that Operation Barbarossa began in June 1941!!!!! So, your argument that the Siberian troops could be sent to defend Moscow, because the entry of the US meant they didn’t need to defend the East against Japan is complete and utter rubbish, because the US did not enter the War until 18 months later!!!!! For that same reason the USSR’s defeat of Germany could not possibly be due to “massive Allied Aid”, because the US, which was the main supplier of the aid was not at that time an Ally!!!!

For a military expert your military history sucks. I’d suggest you read whata ctually happened here.

See Operation Barbarossa

In particular,

“Over 4.5 million troops of the Axis powers invaded the USSR along a 2,900 kilometer front (1800 miles).”, which shows that the Nazi defeat could hardly be considered as you suggest to be down to a lack of manpower and resources thrown into the battle, and

“Operation Barbarossa remains the largest military operation, in terms of manpower, area traversed, and casualties, in human history.[23] The failure of Operation Barbarossa resulted in the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany and is considered a turning point for the Third Reich. Most importantly, Operation Barbarossa opened up the Eastern Front, which ultimately became the biggest theater of war in world history.”

And your argument about the German advance and the Winter does not stack up either. You don’t know where they would have got to they’d been stalled outside Leningrad due to the resistance of the Russian people for months. Moreover, even had they taken Moscow, which the Russians were prepared for – their main production had been moved further East out of the range of the Germans, and they were ready to move the administration – then the Germans would simply have found their supply lines even more stretched than they were when the Winter would have frozen them in. In effect the Russian counter-attack would have been made easier.
Your history sucks.
So, even in the area where you profess to be some kind of specialist we find that your cavalier attitude to the facts, your desire to simply grab facts to support your preconceived bigotry leads you into the most terrible errors. In this case you explain events in 1941, by events which were not to happen until 1943!!!! That is typical of your method in general, and as I expose the rest of your arguments to be fraudulent I’ll simply refer to (1941-43) as a shorthand of where you repeat this fraud.

In fact, there’s another reason why your argument above is faulty. The USSR did not need the entry of the US into the War to secure its Eastern Front against Japan. In fact, it has already done so itself. In 1939, it had already defeated Japanese Imperialism, in a battle that was a stark contrast to the fact that Japan had trounced Tsarist Russia in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War, when it seized Port Arthur. The USSR victory, as with many later victories was down to Zhukov.
”In August 1939, just weeks before Hitler invaded Poland, the Soviet Union and Japan fought a massive tank battle on the Mongolian border - the largest the world had ever seen.
Under the then unknown Georgy Zhukov, the Soviets won a crushing victory at the batte of Khalkhin-Gol (known in Japan as the Nomonhan Incident). Defeat persuaded the Japanese to expand into the Pacific, where they saw the United States as a weaker opponent than the Soviet Union. If the Japanese had not lost at Khalkhin Gol, they may never have attacked Pearl Harbor.
The Japanese decision to expand southwards also meant that the Soviet Eastern flank was secured for the duration of the war. Instead of having to fight on two fronts, the Soviets could mass their troops - under the newly promoted General Zhukov - against the threat of Nazi Germany in the West.”

See also:Khalkin Gol
Having shown that even in your area of expertise both your history and your method suck I’m tempted to simply leave it there, because this just sums up the whole of your political method. But, for the sake of completeness I’ll now demolish the rest of your arguments, and show how this method is repeated throughout.
”Why am I not surprised that you have started you hopeless rant with such gratuitous and childish nonsense?

If you write egotistical unsubstantiable crap, you invite a facetious response.

”Here’s the actual comment:

“I have to say that as someone who strongly disagrees with Phil on many things and yet follows this blog out of genuine interest and respect that the posts by Sentinel both shock and amuse me. On the one hand as he has repeatedly demonstrated he simply wipes the floor with the lot of you in a debate!”

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4486641877026778105&postID=7952129242413881238&isPopup=true”


And wasn’t it you who spoke of incessant use of “affirmers”? As I said, who is it your Granny?

”Yep - It said what it said and it meant what it meant. Hitler considered himself a socialist.

Just as Castro does – I’m not disagreeing with him either, just stating a fact.”


What is the point of stating a fact unless you intend it to prove a point? What point were you trying to prove?

I said,

"Hitler was a capitalist politician" to which you replied,

”Funny, because he considered himself a socialist too. A national socialist.”

The first word there “Funny”, clearly implies that the meaning you were imparting was that no he wasn’t a capitalist politician he was a socialist.

It took only 46 days for Germany to defeat France – the facts speak for themselves, as much as you fantasy world doesn’t want them too.

Yes, the facts were that was not in the 1920’s or early 30’s was it????

There’s that method again (1941-43) explaining events by other events that didn’t happen until later.

“Britain certainly wasn’t weak”

Ludicrous rubbish – more ignorant fantasy.

”But don’t just take my word for it – here is the word of the word of Churchill in 1941, who, as the British leader just might have had a better idea of the real military situation then your silly little ignorant fantasies:”

Except that my comments were about the situation in the 1920’s and early 1930’s not 1939. (1941-43) again.

As I said,

“But, it was no significantly weaker than was Germany during the 1920’s and early 30’s”

And the reason I said that was because we were discussing the possibility of Britain, France and the US PREVENTING Germany from re-arming. It was precisely because they didn’t PREVENT Germany from re-arming that the situation you describe in 1941 existed.

“But either, Britain or the US or the two combined could have prevented Germany rearming from the early thirties had they chosen to.”

”Again, just ludicrous fantasy.

You have been educated as to why Britain didn’t intervene:

1It was not military prepared

2)The traditional policy of the balance of European power.

The first point is proved above, the second point below:” (1941-43) again.

But, Britain and the US certainly were prepared in the 1920’s and early 30’s. You have yourself commented that Germany in the aftermath of WWI was economically destroyed. You can’t have it both ways. And you haven’t shown that Britain and the US were not militarily prepared to prevent German re-armament in the 1920’s and 30’s, because the quotes you given are for 1941, AFTER that re-armament. (1941-43)

As for the balance of power, the contending imperialist powers spent most of the 1920’s jockeying for position in shifting alliances. That’s how come France signed a pact with fascist Italy, because it feared being outdone by Britain. Its why it signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR for similar reasons. Its why the USSR signed a deal with Hitler. As the recent papers released show sections of the British ruling class around Halifax favoured a deal with Hitler allowing him to have sway in Europe and a free hand to attack the USSR, provided that he agreed to leave the British colonies alone. A deal he was sympathetic to. Its one reason he stopped at Dunkirk rather than wipe out the British Army, which he could easily have done. He wanted a deal with Britain. Other sections of the British ruling class realised that if they did this deal, German imperialism would once it had secured Europe attack the Colonies anyway, which is why they didn’t do it, especially knowing that US imperialism would have to intervene rather than see its main imperialist opponent Germany take over those colonies – colonies the US itself wanted access too.

“They chose not to, because suffering from the Great Depression whilst the USSR’s economy was powering ahead, seeing rising support for the Communist Party in their homelands, they saw the fight against Communism as the main challenge, and they hoped that Germany would be the spearhead of that fight just as they allowed it to be in Spain.”

”More ignorant fantasy.

The US had aided the allies to such an extent that the whole world saw the US as effectively at war with Germany. (1941-43)

Here is a contemporary source that you might like:

Fourth International, Vol.2 No.6, July 1941, pp.177-179.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/novack/1941/07/2fronts.htm”


We are discussing the situation in the 1920’s and early 1930’s and you keep giving evidence from ten years later!!!!! The Great Depression was already over by 1941. During the Great Depression the US certainly WAS NOT giving support to the Allies, both because their were no ALLIES, and because during that period US protectionism was being used to put the weight of the economic crisis on Europe!!!!

“They refused even to supply the Republican Government of Spain with arms with which to fight”

Most likely because the Soviets were supplying that for them.

The Republic sent its gold reserve to the Soviet Union to pay for arms and supplies. That reserve was worth £63,000,000 ($315,000,000) in 1939 prices. In 1956, the Soviet Union announced that Spain still owed it $50,000,000


No because, they favoured a victory of fascism over the workers. That’s why during the 1920’s, the British press eulogised over Mussolini, and why even when they knew what Hitler was doing to the Jews, papers like the Daily Mail eulogised over him. The fact, that the Russian Stalinists were soaking the Spanish for the limited arms shipments they sent just showed what a reactionary role they played in the whole affair.

“So, by the same token what business was it of Germany or Italy to get involved?”

”Because they made it their business.

Non-democratic countries can do that – and clearly the root of their business was to prevent a Red Spain.


But, “democratic” countries can do that too. Just look at the US and Britain in Iraq. It was in their interest to prevent a “Red Spain” too. That’s why they allowed Hitler to re-arm in order that he could attack Russia, that’s why they allowed him to attack Spain, as I said.

This has all been carefully explained to you before:

1) Britain’ ‘balance of power’ policy didn’t cater for it
2) Britain wasn’t military prepared in any case, nor would it go to war for Spain.
3) The US did not want any more ‘foreign wars for American boys.’


One is bullshit, Britain along with all other imperialist powers knew another war was coming and had been jockeying throughout the 1920’s and 30’s for when it started. Two is also bullshit, because for a time they did prevent Germany re-arming. They allowed Hitler to re-arm, when their hopes of the USSR collapsing had vanished as the USSR grew rapidly and stabilised, and when that growth accelerated in the 1930’s just as their own economies were mired in the Depression. You have yourself given the reason why three is bullshit. It was just rhetoric put out by a US Government, which even as it spoke was preparing for War against its main imperialist rival in the Pacific – Japan - and was – as it had done in WWI – waiting to see how the chips stacked up in Europe before deciding on which side to intervene. Again its main concern being to best weaken its main imperialist rivals in Europe, Britain and Germany. A task it fulfilled in spades.

And you previously told us that,

” Just for instance, they had to form the Luftwaffe in secret and it was largely developed in the USSR - with the Germans giving the Russians technical know how in return.”

They wouldn’t have had to do that if 1,2, or 3 above applied would they?

”You have no evidence.”

Yes, its there for all to see. But you have no arguments to refute it, and again you have failed to do so.

“In other words exactly what the Economist article also says”

”No

Clearly the Versailles treaty was the catalyst for the German hyperinflation, impossible demands were attempted to be met with desperate measures.”


Yes, its exactly what I said. The terms of the Treaty were ruinous for the German economy. But, ruinous does not in itself mean hyperinflation. On the contrary, the Great Depression was economically ruinous too, but it led not to hyperinflation but deflation. The collapse of the bubble in asset prices in Japan was ruinous, but was again deflationary. The Credit Crunch is ruinous, but its effects are deflationary not inflationary. Inflation is a monetary phenomena. It is caused by the printing of excessive amounts of money tokens, or issuing of credit – hence the hyper inflation in Zimbabwe at the moment. The Weimar Government CHOSE the printing of money tokens as their solution to the ruinous situation that the Treaty created as I said, and it was that which led to the hyper inflation. Had they chose another solution there would have been other consequences.

“As the link I gave showed that is clearly not true. And your own post even confirms it. It says”

”I see, your source is the ultimate – because you posted it!!!

And it’s not “my” post; it’s a quote from an independent and referenced article.”


Obviously, I don’t think that because I said ” And your own post even confirms it. It says”

You really have no idea do you?

”But anyway, just to demonstrate, once again what a twisted liar you are, you decided to leave out this part (for obvious reasons, even though it there for everyone else to see in any case):

“Up until the advent of the Space Shuttle, all astronauts, most planetary probes and most satellites launched by the US and USSR were founded on designs heavily influenced by Nazi research under Warhner von Braun. The early work of Goddard paled when compared to the development of the V-1 and V-2 which were the foundations of all heavy lift vehicles”

Which supports my contention that “Without the Nazi rocket scientists, the V1 and the V2, there would have been no space programme for any country as we know it.”


I left it out, precisely because having linked to it anyone COULD see it. It was not relevant both because I hadn’t denied that Nazi scientists had played a significant role in rocket development, all I denied was your assertion that such development would have been impossible without them – which the links I gave showed was not true – and that in particular the USSR would not have been able to do so, which I again showed was not true, because despite the US getting the vast majority of the scientists, and the leading scientists such Braun, it was the USSR that was first into space, and which remained ahead in the space race.

”Without whom (most notably Helmut Gröttrup) there would have been no Soviet space programme as we know it; and as we have seen, all of the designs were based upon the German design anyway.”

Nevertheless, with only a small number of the less able scientists, the Soviet scientists were able to develop those designs to a stage where they were capable of space flight, and did so before Von Braun with all the backing of the US economy was able to do!!!!

“Yet it was the USSR not the US, which was first into space, and which led in the space race from then on!”

Not really true is it? They launched the first orbital craft, yes, but the US actually put men on the moon. More then once. The USSR never did; nor has any other nation.”

Of course, its true. The USSR: launched the first satellite into space, the first animals into space, the first man into space, the first woman into space, performed the first extra-vehicular walk in space, were the first to land a vehicle on the moon, were the first to use a robot to explore the moon, the longest duration in space, the first long duration space station, the first unmanned flight and landing of a space shuttle, first successful landing on Venus, first landing on Mars, first soil sample brought back from the Moon, first to photograph the dark side of the moon, first to put a satellite in orbit around the Moon, first space station, first docking to a space station, first return to Earth having circumnavigated the Moon, first crew transfer in space, first simultaneous flight of three space ships, first multi-man crew in space, first automatic docking of space craft, and so on

videocosmos

And today the ISS relies on the Russian space industry to provide some of the most complicated modules based on the lessons learned by the Soviets in their long years of having a space station when the US had none.

“So now you admit you were wrong then when you said that all of this production was non-existent that it had all come from the West!!!”

”I have never said the USSR produced nothing – show me where I have.

I said Allied aid enabled them to concentrate on purely (strategic) military production.”


But, as I’ve shown that your argument was false, because you wanted to explain the USSR’s defeat of Hitler in 1941, by reference to US supplies that didn’t begin until 1943, its all a bit irrelevant isn’t it? (1941-3)

Fair enough the word “all” is capable of being interpreted literally here, but what you actually said was,

” It was LARGELY due to massive Allied aid.”

The fact, is that even this statement of “largely” due to massive Allied Aid, is clearly not true, and your comment showed that you admit its not true. And the aid you list is not aid that could enable the USSR “to concentrate on purely (strategic) military production”, because it is itself all military equipment!

“Then tell us what it actually was that they gave, what amounts that allowed this to happen!”

”OK, here is a bit more education for you (from a Russian source):

“To sum up the results of the lend-lease program as a whole, the Soviet Union received, over the war years, 21,795 planes, 12,056 tanks, 4,158 armored personnel carriers, 7,570 tractor trucks, 8,000 antiaircraft and 5,000 antitank guns, 132,000 machine-guns, 472 million artillery shells, 9,351 transceivers customized to Soviet-made fighter planes, 2.8 million tons of petroleum products, 102 ocean-going dry cargo vessels, 29 tankers, 23 sea tugboats and icebreakers, 433 combat ships and gunboats, as well as mobile bridges, railroad equipment, aircraft radar equipment, and many other items.”

http://www.oilru.com/or/23/390/

An absolutely remarkable sum of aid – remarkable and unparalleled in history. Now do you concede you were (once again) wrong? That this immense aid would undoubtedly have enable the USSR to have an enormous advantage over Germany, and enable it to focus its own production wherever it wanted?”


No I don’t. You say this sum is unparalleled in history. It was in fact, only a third of the lend-lease provided to Britain. The supply of aircraft to the USSR amounted to only 14%, of the total aircraft production let alone total numbers, and so on (this includes the British aircraft supplied see: Kotelnokov B.P., 'Using Anglo-American Aviation Equipment in USSR during WWII and its impact on Soviet Aviation Development', July 30, 1993 report reprinted in "Iz Istorii Aviatsii i Kosmonavtiki', IIET RAN, Moscow, 1994, Issue 65, p. 58. See http://www.aviation.ru/articles/land-lease.html#b8.) So your assertion that “” It was largely due to massive Allied aid.” is not true, especially as the USSR defeated Hitler in 1941, and that aid did begin until 1943.


“It was not until 7 months AFTER Stalingrad that the US involvement in the War had any real import for the War in Europe with the invasion of Italy!”

”Again, with military matters you are as ignorant as you are unqualified.

Apart from the enormous material aid (as I have shown you) delivered to all Allies, the US provided massive fighter and bomber cover over Europe, as well as massive naval presence in all theatres. Additionally, the US based its troops in the UK and many other strategic theatres forcing the Germans to respond with defensive deployments – thus tying up valuable manpower.”


But, they did not have the range to fly over the Eastern front for God’s sake, and as I’ve shown the Battle for Moscow was in 1941, before the US had even entered the War. It was from there that the Russian counter-offensive began that rolled back Hitler, so you can’t credit that to the US because, at that stage they weren’t even in the War!!!!! Moreover, you speak as though Germany was fighting this War on its own. You emphasise the role of the Allies, but say nothing about the Axis Powers, which also attacked the USSR and other parts of the world. There had been 200,000 Italian Troops in Russia, along with Rumanian and Hungarian armies for a start. And, of course the Italians were the first forces in North Africa.

“Even in North Africa the Allied assaults didn’t really begin until the beginning of 1943”

Good God!!

The Germans didn’t rush troops down there 5 minutes before battle; it was a long and steady build up that cost massive amounts of manpower and resources.


Except, of course they were already there. Rommel already had control of much of North Africa!!! It was the Allies who had to get troops there to launch an assault.

”And I also educated you on the turning point of the war: 1943.

Except, of course, brilliant military historian that you are you got the date wrong by two years. The turning point was the Battle of Moscow in late 1941, before the US was even in the War!!!!!

”Just with France:

“The historian Robert Paxton estimated the number of active resistants to be "about 2% of the adult French population [or about 400,000]", going on to say that "there was no doubt, wider complicities, but even if one adds those willing to read underground newspapers, only some two million persons, or around 10% of the adult population, seem to have been willing to take that risk."[38] The postwar government of France officially recognised 220,000 men and women.[39]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance”


Hardly, an army though is it? Its not requiring huge numbers of tanks and artillery and so on. Doesn’t require your best troops, especially when you’ve got an established Secret Police, French Collaborators, and a French client Government in the Vichy.

“inflicted massive damage on infrastructure and tied down German troops across France. The Resistance could far more easily neutralise railways, industrial sites and power stations than Allied air power, and their intelligence networks, at first lightly regarded by the British, were of decisive importance. Between June 1943 and May 1944 nearly 2,000 locomotives were destroyed. In October 1943 alone, over 3,000 attacks were recorded on the railways, 427 resulting in heavy damage, with 132 trains derailed. In the South West such sabotage was so effective that by June 6th 1944 it took 3 days to travel from Paris to Toulouse!”

http://libcom.org/history/articles/spanish-resistance-in-france-1939


All a long time after the turning point in the war in 1941, when the USSR had turned back the German advance. (1941-43)

”As I have said, given that he was the worlds biggest mass murderer I can understand why you want to distance yourself from him – but face it, he was a Marxist peddling your socialist fantasies and attempting to put them into play.”

Except, of course that the Russian Marxists including Lenin had already distanced themselves from him long before any of that mass murder, so your argument hardly holds does it?

”He’s one of yours mate.”

Both the leaders of the Russian revolution denounced him. Trotsky said of him, his regime differed from that of Hitler only in its greater brutality. He was a National Socialist making him one of yours not mine.

“It was erroneous because the idea that the human race is divided into separate races is mumbo jumbo. It creates meaningless divisions between peoples based on arbitrary criteria.”

”So says Marxist dogma – based on corrosive fantasy.”

No, so says, science as I have conclusively and repeatedly proved.

“You don’t seem to understand the difference between the overthrow of the Romanov’s which happened in February (Old Russian Calendar) 1917, and their murder several months later!!!!”

”Oh dear, here we go again.” Yes we do, (1941-43) again.

”You Said:- "Yet, those same troops under such repression turned round, went home and overthrew the Tsar"

I said: - ”These troops did nothing of the sort - their mainly foreign assisted, wall street financed agitators did that - massacring the family.”

I said the troops went home and overthrew the Tsar. Is that true? Yes, its true. In February 1917, when Lenin, Trotsky, and the other Bolshevik leaders were still in exile there was a bourgeois revolution that overthrew the Tsar. It was led by bourgeois politicians, and the main force that brought it about was returning Russian troops.

“The February Revolution (Russian: Февральская революция) in 1917 in Russia was the first stage of the Russian Revolution of 1917. Its immediate result was the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II, the collapse of Imperial Russia and the end of the Romanov dynasty. The non-Communist Russian Provisional Government under Prince Georgy Lvov replaced the Tsar, Prince Lvov being succeeded by Alexander Kerensky after the tumult of the July Days. The Provisional government was an alliance between liberals and socialists who wanted to instigate political reform, creating a democratically-elected executive and constituent assembly. The February Revolution took place in March 1917 of the modern calendar (Gregorian calendar). In the calendar Russia was using at the time (Julian calendar), the events occurred in February, which would explain the revolution's name.
This revolution appeared to break out spontaneously, without any real leadership or formal planning. The tensions which had for so long been building up finally exploded into a revolution, and the western state of Petrograd (the City of Saint Petersburg prior to the war) became the focal point of activity. An illustration of just how large Russia was is that it took some years for eastern parts of the country to realise that a revolution had actually taken place.”
“On February 25, after three days of such riotous anarchy, the Tsar sent a large battalion of soldiers to the city to quell the uprising.[citation needed] Although the soldiers killed many demonstrators, they grew progressively sympathetic to the crowds, and deserted their officers to join the protesters. The addition of soldiers helped to arm the revolt, and many of them were soon firing on the hapless police, who quickly succumbed and joined the demonstrations as well.”
“On March 1, the Tsar decided to take a train to Petrograd after hearing that his children, including the Tsarevich Alexei had contracted measles. The royal train was instructed to divert by a group of disloyal troops. When the Tsar finally reached his destination, the Army Chiefs and his remaining ministers (those who had not fled on February 28 under the pretense of a power-cut) suggested in unison that he abdicate the throne. He did so on March 2, on behalf of himself and his son, the Tsarevich. Nicholas nominated the Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich, his brother, to succeed him. The Grand Duke realised that he would have little or no support as ruler, so he declined the crown, stating that he would take it only if that was the general consensus of an elected government.[citation needed] On 22 March 1917, Nicholas, no longer a Tsar and addressed with contempt by the sentries as "Nicholas Romanov", was reunited with his family at the Alexander Palace at Tsarskoe Selo.[6] He was placed under house arrest with his family by the Provisional Government.
A provisional government was formed at the initiative of Alexander Guchkov's Progressive Block, and took control of the Russian state apparatus, but the socialists also formed the Petrograd Soviet (or workers' council). The Petrograd Soviet and the Provisional Government competed for the power over Russia.”

See: February Revolution
As I said you really do suck at history don’t you?

”And who was right? Who killed the tsar and massacred the family?

That’s right. I’m right.”

Except the question was not who killed the Tsar, but did the Russian troops go back home and overthrow the Tsar? Answer yes, they did.

”But none other then Winston Churchill has this to say not too long after the event:

“In a February 8, 1920 article, "Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People," Churchill declared that "We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind." But "it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent."

While assuring readers that "Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct," and praising "National Jews," he warned:

"In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews .... There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover,
the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders."


Firstly, he was wrong about Jews and Bolshevism. The Jewish Bund had long since separated itself from the Bolsheviks. Stalin was notoriously anti-semitic and utilised anti-semitism to mobilise support amongst backward elements, particularly against Trotsky. And if he had been right, how come the anti-semite Stalin became head of the State and not the Jew Trotsky? How is it that pretty much all of the Jewish members of the Politburo were executed by the anti-semite Stalin?

More significantly, Churchill himself was a well known, and well documented anti-semite, probably as anti-semitic as Hitler.

”He patronized Zionism as an antidote to Bolshevism:

"Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weizmann, in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a worldwide communist State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal."

http://www.word-power.co.uk/viewPlatform.php?id=388

http://www.patriot.dk/Churchill.jpg”


As I said the words of a well-known, well documented anti-semite.

”Here is another little fact of how the principle players in the game of international finance operate and are perceived as they do (Jacob Schiff was a major player in the financing of the Bolsheviks):

“Japan was able to defeat Russia in 1905 only after a Jewish banker in New York, Jacob Schiff, helped Japan by floating bonds. So The Protocols of the Elders of Zion confirmed”


Stop. There we go, that’s the legitimacy of all this crap you are regurgitating. I knew you’d have to resort to it at some point. The old Protocols of the Elders of Zion. A forgery produced by the Nazis and proven beyond doubt to be such, and that is the calibre of all the other made up crap you’ve cited at length.

“Lenin described Russia as a State Capitalist economy with bureaucratic deformations.”

Lenin was a socialist, even as espoused by the Socialist worker:
“WHEN Lenin became a socialist in Russia in the late 1890s…”

http://socialistworker.org/2004-1/502/502_08_Lenin.shtml

And as such attempted implement socialism when he came to power.


And as a socialist even he didn’t claim that Russia was socialist!!!!! Precisely my point.

“He believed as all Marxists do that it is impossible to create socialism in one country”

All Marxists? Now that’s not true is it?

Yes its absolutely true. A fundamental principle of Marxism is that socialism cannot be established in one country, because it has to be able to raise the level of production above that of international capitalism, and that can only be done via an international division of labour. Secondly, a country trying to establish socialism in a sea of Capitalism would necessarily be isolated and driven backwards, and in any case would sooner or later be invaded by those Capitalist powers. A belief in creating socialism in one country is not Marxism, but National Socialism.

”Stalin: Builder of Socialism”

There’s the answer. The people you are quoting are not Marxists but followers of Stain – a National Socialist.

“It was not Lenin that killed millions of workers and peasants”

”He was hardly free of blood.”

The revolution he led was for all intents and purposes bloodless. He even offered to allow his political opponents in the Menshevik Party and the Social revolutionaries to join the Government – the left SR’s actually did, and then tried to assassinate him. It was the actions of the former Tsarists, sections of the bourgeoisie, together with their imperialist allies that launched the Civil War, and yes, he fought back against them with the help of Trotsky and the Red Army, and did so with the massive support of the Russian workers and peasants, which is why they succeeded against tremendous odds.

“And, no Stalin was not trying to create socialism”

”Strange, because he thought he was and so do your fellow Marxists:”

I don’t give a toss what he thought he was doing, what he was ACTUALLY doing was opposing everything that socialism stands for, everything that Lenin and the Bolsheviks stood for let alone, everything that Marx stood for. That’s why Marxists then opposed him, and he murdered them. Its why Marxists ever sine have opposed him, and those who follow him.

“Socialism in one country

A foundation of the Stalinist political theory, introduced for the first time in 1924, after Lenin's death. The theory was in direct opposition to the Bolshevik theory that the success of the Russian Revolution depended on proletarian revolutions in Europe. The Stalinist theory stipulated that a socialist society could be achieved inside a single country. Later, when it was incorporated into the program and tactics of the Comintern, it became the justification for the domination of Russia in the proletarian revolution: claiming that the Soviet Union was the leader of the International proletariat.”

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm”


The clue is in the words there which say, ” The theory was in direct opposition to the Bolshevik theory that the success of the Russian Revolution depended on proletarian revolutions in Europe.” In other words it was an anti-socialist doctrine.

“It was in order to do so that he and his fellow anti-socialists such as Mao, and Castro, murdered and oppressed millions of workers. Nothing at all to do with socialism”

”Madness.”

A statement of fact, an anti-socialist elite that looked to protect their vast material privileges obtained by exploiting the workers, and who could only maintain themselves in power by huge political force. The very antithesis of socialism, which is about ownership and control of the means of production by the workers, and the gradual withering away of the State.

“After three days of speeches, the Cuban National Assembly has voted to amend the country's constitution, making its socialist system of government untouchable…
"A return to the past is undesirable, unthinkable and impossible for our people. The revolution is invincible," Vice-President Carlos Lage told the assembly.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2069057.stm


What is this supposed to prove????? The Cuban National Socialists use the name of Socialism. So what? That doesn’t make them socialists anymore than the fact that Cesare Borgia’s Father was the Pope made him a Christian, or even that his Father was a Christian either for that matter. He called himself the biggest Christian being the Pope, yet he fucked his own daughter, and murdered thousands.

”But for the record, this graph illustrates how many people each Marxist country has murdered: “

All very interesting, but these are about National Socialist regimes not socialist regimes let alone Marxist regimes.

”As I have repeatedly shown, and particularly in this post you are most certainly ignorant. Almost completely.

And yet I’ve shown that you have a very poor grasp of history attributing causes to effects even when those causes actually happened after the effect they were supposed to have caused, and you do not even understand the basic definition of what socialism is, and you repeatedly accept without question the way someone describes themselves as being a true evaluation of that person. Now I call that REALLY ignorant.

”And you are very desperate – hence all of the desperate attempts at ridicule in the face of facts and the incessant hyperbole.”

No I take the piss out of you, because you make it so easy, and its not worth trying to have a rational conversation with someone whose intelligence is as limited as yours is. And no that’s not a frivolous comment, you really don’t seem to understand how truly unintelligent you are, and in that I have to feel sorry for even you, because you are the product of a failed educational system.

”I have not carried out any ‘Repeated adulation of the Nazis’ I have presented facts that firstly you do not know,”

I don’t know them because in nearly every case they are WRONG. Like your long diatribe about the role of US support for the USSR at the crucial turning point of the War in the battle of Moscow, a turning point you described as being after the US had entered the War, but which in fact happened in 1941, before the US was even involved!!!! An event in history you seem to have completely confused with the Battle of Stalingrad!!!!

“secondly, you do not like, and thirdly are just plain old facts. It all boils down to your smear tactics again, and can be applied to the rest of that desperate statement.”

Except as proved above they are NOT facts. The same is true of your statement about Soviet weapons being LARGELY provided by the Allies, whereas even on the basis of the facts you eventually provided they clearly did not, amounting to only a small fraction. Then we have you relying on forged documents such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and vast swathes of similarly made up material.

“You wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you on the arse.”

”Whatever mate – you have had more then a few thrown at you here.”

Well a lot of what for you pass as facts, but which as I’ve shown above turn out to be far from facts. As I said, you wouldn’t know one if it bit you on the arse.

“No, they don’t. Most people DISAGREE with true socialists, and they are quite within their right to do so. But its only Nazis who take disagreement with someone else’s views to the level of hating them for holding them. The fact that you come into that category shows again exactly what your politics amounts to.”

”Amazing.

I point you back to “In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000…””


And I point you back to the fact that they were National Socialists not Communists.

”What a waste of time! What is it you do? What is your practical function? How do you benefit society?”

By ripping apart the type of crap you come out with here for one thing.

”You predicated nothing, mate.”

I don’t think I said I predicated anything, but I did PREDICT the financial metdown and most demonstrably so. Not only predicted it being about to break, amazingly accurately, but also setting out accurately the causes of it.

”“Monday's declaration by the panel of the National Bureau of Economic Research confirms what many private economists, lawmakers and members of the general public already have assumed and puts an official date on it: A U.S. recession began in December 2007.

That was the same month employment peaked, and the economy began shrinking in a downturn that has been exacerbated by the financial crisis that took hold of markets beginning in September.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27999557/”


(1941-43) Yet again.

Firstly, that is talking about the recession NOT the financial crisis, I’ve already explained to you the difference between the two. Secondly, you failed to tell us WHEN all those Economists came to that conclusion didn’t you, you little tinker. And when was it? Dec. 1, 2008. In other words 5 months AFTER my blog predicting the outbreak of the crisis. Or put another way, I was 5 months ahead of all those economists who have the full power and resources of the US state at their disposal. I’d say that wasn’t a bad result on my part!!!!

“I don’t dispute any of the points made in the quotes”

”Oh but you do:

“Britain has already been in recession for more than 6 months, so has the US, so on average it should only last another 12 months, and will have hit its depths before that {…} One reason why unemployment has not even begun to reach the levels it did in the 1980’s let alone the 1930’s.” – This is all completely contrary to the quotes.

No its not. Tell us how it contradicts the quotes. It certainly doesn’t contradict the evidence of the US’s top economist Ben Bernanke in his testimony this week to Congress. He also forecasts an end to the recession in the second half of this year and resumed growth next year.

“Well as someone who has only half a brain you would know. Common sense perhaps, economic fact, absolutely not. As I said, most economists believe that rationing was continued far too long after it could have been lifted…”

”They can believe what they like – the fact is it didn’t happen.”

Irrelevant, the point is that it doesn’t contradict the fact that the economy was growing strongly during that period, and you were wrong when you said it wasn’t.

“The fact is as was shown by the economic statistics – that is real evidence – showed economic growth from the beginning of the 1950’s was strong, and prosperity was rising with it, hence the growing number of people, buying TV sets etc.”

”Any working class person who lived in the post war years will tell you first hand of the hardships. It was only coming into the late fifties and early sixties that times improved and certainly after food rationing had ended.”

I did grow up during the 1950’s so I know first hand. I didn’t say that things weren’t hard, I said they were getting better, and that is true the facts prove it, not just in the GDP figures but the figures for wage increases, and consumer spending. But, even that is irrelevant. The point at issue was the reason for immigration during that period, and it was because of a shortage of labour as the economy grew rapidly as I said, and as the statistics prove. Yet again you were wrong.

”You keep quoting these unsourced figures as evidence.”

They are not unsourced. I gave the source from Wikipedia when I first quoted them. Do try to read more carefully.

Here it is again.

See: UK Economy

”If you want to find people to lazy too work 2 hours for £200 you will.”

If they exist, precisely my point.


“This article from the Independent describes the types of jobs that illegal immigrants work in.”


”Again, you are a liar:

“The following story from the BBC also sets out the position in respect of recruitment for those fruit and vegetable farms.”

”Again, you have no clue as to what you are presenting:

“The MPs were told UK workers did not want seasonal agricultural jobs, which pay a basic wage of £5.74 an hour.”

Exactly what I said in the first place man!!! These jobs do NOT PAY £7.50 P/H!!! That ‘documentary’ of yours was CONTRIVED!!! “


Except, you conveniently cut out from this quote, the following,

“Seasonal farm workers were paid 1p an hour more than minimum wage, he told the MPs, but with piece work they could earn as much as £7.50 an hour.”

”Its desperate smears from a desperate man losing every desperate point he has made.”

Except as I’ve shown above in point after point, you get important historical dates wrong, you cite as causes events which happened after the effects they are supposed to cause, you accept people’s own description of themselves as being valid without question, you cite forged documents as though they were true, you leave off parts of quotations where they contradict what you want to say and so on ad infinitum. I have no need to resort to desperate measures because time and again you defeat yourself.

“The proof is actually given in the story from Acton that you quoted. It talked about someone receiving £170,000…”

”Don’t you think that’s enough anyway?

More than enough for the British exploiting landlord who was the one who received it!!! Yes, absolutely. The point is that you quoted it as though this poor woman had received this money, when in fact it was that British landlord. So, why do you not write to complain about that Landlord????

“and failed to correct readers incorrect interpretation of that – a not unreasonable incorrect interpretation – that failed to realise that the £170,000 INCLUDED the £150,000 paid actually not to the claimant but to the landlord!!!”

”That is your interpretation.”

No its, not. The landlord got £150,000 in rent. The woman got £20,000 in benefits for her and the rest of her family, an amount that is probably less than that a British family would have received in similar circumstances for the reasons stated in the e-mail from the Benefits Advisor, the details of which can easily be checked at the DWP website. There were several comments from readers who understandably believed the woman had received £170,000 in Benefits – a figure that would be impossible to receive given her circumstances – in addition to having the £150,000 in rent paid. She clearly did not, but the paper did not correct them. Why, because that is the way these racist papers get away with spreading such crap, and people like you are either gulled by it, or know its crap, but welcome it because it helps spread your racist bigotry.

”Either ways – the story is valid.”

No its not it’s a lie. The woman didn’t get £170,000 PLUS the rent. It would have been impossible to do so. It’s a perfect example of what I had said, racist newspapers running racist stories that they get away with on the basis of presenting facts in a distorted way, or by simply making up the stories.

”You haven’t shown anything, you just made something up!! This to be precise:

You have no proof whatsoever.”


No I didn’t I gave you the details of what benefits are available for someone in those circumstances as supplied to me by a Benefits Advisor at the CAB. In fact, she was was being generous by quoting for the Disability benefit and so on, which there was no evidence this woman was claiming. Those benefits can be checked easily at the DWP website. If you want to prove differently, show us the benefits this woman could have claimed to make up this £170,000 as separate from the Rent. You can’t because it would be totally impossible to get that amount of benefit in those circumstances. I know it, you know it and any sensible person knows it. The only way it would be possible to get that amount of money is by including the £150,000 paid to the Landlord. But, actually, I think you are right that this should be reported, so I thank you for bringing it to my attention, and I’ll pass it on to one of the local MP’s for an investigation of this newspaper, and a complaint to the PCC.

”And as you say there are many cases there must be many examples, why can you not supply some?”

I don’t need to I’ve already made my point with the story you quoted. Give us another, and I’ll pull that apart too.

“Who says they don’t? My point was that I don’t blame workers for not wanting to be pushed into working for low wages. That’s the difference. I am on the side of workers. You are on the side of the bosses.”

”By making the workers pay more tax to support those who will not work for a living?

No by opposing the bosses being able to use the unemployed as a means of pushing down all workers wages.

”If it makes you feel better ‘boffy.’”

Not particularly. There’s no enjoyment in defeating intellectual minnows. I’m used to arguing with right wingers who at least can put up a decent intellectual argument.

”No, these are socialist organizations murdering around 110,000,000 people – primarily workers.”

No they were definitely National Socialists at best as defined by their programme and their actions.

”Not at all, it means putting my own people first – it does what it says.” Which means putting others second, third and so on. It discriminates against them, and opposes them.

”Illegal immigrants are criminals”

Only in a very restricted sense, which will be removed if they are amnestied.

”And the impact of Third World immigration on western nations is a matter of record.”

It may be, but it doesn’t show that all those immigrants are criminals does it? Yet that is what you pretend to be the case.

“Does this mean that if the law was changed so that they were no “illegal” you would not oppose them?”

”If the law was changed to allow members of a legal political party – the BNP – to be members of the police you would not oppose them?

But, you didn’t answer the question did you? So, I think we know what that means, don’t we. It means you oppose them not because they are illegal, but because they are immigrants.

“I never said it WAS from you. But, firstly, the police are hardly a paragon of anti-racist virtue, secondly, as has been shown some reports have been designed as a means of arguing for greater resources for the police”

”Again desperate waffle.

The police are riddled with PC and statements like that could easily have cost him his job. But the bottom line is you will not accept any fact, or any expert that does not conform to your fanaticism, despite the overwhelming evidence.”


No its not, and its been documented that such claims have been made to try to get extra resources. The Police are riddled with PC’s maybe but even for you the claim that it is a hotbed of Liberals and Political Correctness is totally ludicrous. This is an organisation that shot a bloke in the head in cold blood six times just because he had the wrong skin colour, and then said OOOps, sorry he was totally innocent. And what consequence? Found that they might have infringed Health and Safety!!!!!!!!! This is an organisation that even its own black and Asian members say is racist, an organisation that has just paid up to even one of its leading members on the grounds that he was racially discriminated against!


“and finally the report did not by any means say what your interpretation of it implied, which was that ALL immigrants are some form of criminal”

Nowhere have I said that – all illegal immigrants are criminals because they are illegal and as for the rest of the voluminous, undisputable evidence presented on the criminal impact of Third Worlders in western nations,”

No as I said you IMPLIED it. Just like that racist newspaper you use certain facts and present them in a way that gives a false impression. You put things together that do not go together such as above you start by referring to ILLEGAL immigrants, and hen switch to ALL immigrants as though there is no distinction. Then you say that SOME immigrants are guilty of crime, without pointing out that they are a small minority, and thereby implying that it is a majority or all immigrants. You do it agin below when you say,

”these are facts and the huge and disparate impact on crime these people have is real.” implying again that this huge and disparate effect could only be the result of a huge and disparate number of immigrants, when in fact even the figures you have presented show that not to be the case.


“But, not being a sovereign state is not at all the same thing as it being destroyed as a country, or even as an administrative area is it?”

Are you for real?!!

You are just a twisted liar.

You have called for the end of Britain as a Sovereign state, its absorption into a Socialist European Federation and the end of life as we know it in Britain, and now tacitly concede that at best, Britain would only be designated as an “administrative area” and then you have the front to say you haven’t called for the destruction of Britain at all?!


But, I haven’t called for the destruction of Britain, and the above shows it. The ending of the British State is not the destruction of Britain, just of that State. How would, becoming part of a Socialist European Federation mean the end of life as we know it in Britain, other than the end of capitalist exploitation? It would make no more difference to British people’s habits than is likely to happen, and has already happened over previous decades as people’s habits, customs and cultures evolve.

“I’ve already shown that the example you gave of the woman in Acton was a flagrant distortion.”

”Again, you haven’t shown anything!!

You have made a bold statement with absolutely no proof whatsoever and proceeded as it is established and verified fact.”


No, I’ve given you the facts of what Benefits she could at most have claimed, and they come nowhere near £170,000. That IS a fact. I challenge you to prove she could have got £170,000 in Benefits, show us what Benefits, and amounts she could possibly have claimed to come to that amount.

“I’ve already stated that the fact that SOME people from a migrant community MIGHT – even where the facts haven’t been made up, or manipulated – have been involved in crime”

”Show me some evidence that any of these reports were made up.”

I’ve shown you above how the press make up stories or manipulate the facts.

“doesn’t at all mean that all, or even a large number ARE involved in crime.”

”Oh my God!!

You really are a twisted liar
aren’t you!!

Absolutely bare faced.

Look again:


"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."

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/1-latest-news/27877.html”


I repeat,

“doesn’t at all mean that all, or even a large number ARE involved in crime.”

I will try to explain in terms that your tiny brain might understand using the above example.

Suppose there were here 100 rapes. Of these according to the above 68 would have been committed by someone from an ethnic minority. Suppose that the number of people from an ethnic minority is 10,000 then that 68 amounts to 0.68% of that population.

Do you understand? Is that simple enough for you? It would mean that less than 1% of people from an ethnic minority were involved in rapes. As I said,

“doesn’t at all mean that all, or even a large number ARE involved in crime.”

Jeez, its like teaching infants.

“There you go again, a perfect example of what I was just talking about. How many defendants were there? What proportion of black people do these defendants constitute.”

You clearly have no integrity whatsoever.

You are a bare face lying fanatic, clearly.

What an amazing stupid question “What proportion of black people do these defendants constitute” when the answer is clearly 80%.


Are you innumerate as well as illiterate??????

The Black population of Britain is around 3 million. If as you say these defendants constitute 80% of the black population then there must have been 2.4 million defendants!!!!!!!! It is you that is lying here. Bare faced fanatical lying. That and you obviously have as much grasp of maths as you do of military history.


“The vast majority of black males have not been charged with gang rape.”

”But 80% of everyone who had was black.

That’s no reason to blame all black people is it? There have been some BNP supporters involved in violence should we lock you and every other BNP supporter up on that basis?

“So if we are going to judge a people doesn’t it make sense to judge them according to the actions of the vast majority not the small minority?”

”Amazing.

80% of gang rape cases in the UK having black defendants is an enormous and remarkable statement on its own.


Only if you have the lack of understanding of statistics that you do.

“People like what? The vast majority who just want a decent life for themselves and their families.”

”People that, with huge disproportion, dominate the crime rate – in fact pushing it to previously unheard of levels and bringing previously exceedingly rare occurrences to regular event.”

Except the vast majority of those populations are NOT involved in crime and are NOT, therefore, pushing up the crime rate. Besides there are other factors. Immigrants have always been blamed for crime, and are an easy target. When Jews first came to Britain they were blamed for crime and other things. Today few people in Britain think that Jews are responsible for crime. When the Irish came here as navvies and labourers, they were blamed for crime, but there is no suggestion that Irish people are anymore responsible for crime in Britain than anyone else. And so on.

“You haven’t given us any evidence as to what proportion let alone your statement that its huge. In fact, on the basis of the statistics in the articles you cited the proportion of the total population was tiny.”

”My God.

Really, my God.

Either you are that stupid you cannot figure it out or you are that fanatical you will argue day is night.

The evidence presented speaks for itself and anyone can see that – huge Third World impact on western countries – HUGE.”


No, you simply don’t understand basic maths.


“I would think that they would think what a society we live in whereby British landlords can live off the ordinary taxpayer by charging such huge rents. I’d think that they would think what a disaster the policies of Thatcher had been in selling off the Council houses so there was nowhere for people to live.”

”And that shows how out of touch you are as most working class people thought that scheme was the best thing that ever happened to them.”

You asked what they think now, not what they thought then. The fact is most think now, what a big mistake, as they can’t get a Council house to live in.

”And as I proved there are plenty of homes, at least 840,000 of them so yet again you are wrong.

I didn’t say there weren’t homes, just that Capitalism couldn’t put people into them.


”No, people cannot ensure that they are provided to the people that need them – but either ways, you are wrong again aint ya!!

There are plenty of homes.”


I didn’t say there wasn’t, I only said that Capitalism couldn’t provide people with them, so no I’m not wrong.


“Because a fairly high percentage of people are either homosexual or have had some form of homosexual experience…”

”In other words you have absolutely no evidence to back up yet another of your bold statements: “"Given that a lot of people on the Right are homosexuals"”


Of course, its proof unless you want to say that people on the Right aren’t human beings.


“What a load of right-wing superficial, and unsubstantiated old codswallop”

”Well of course it is!!

It proves you wrong doesn’t it!!


No, because as you’ve just admitted its “superficial, and unsubstantiated old codswallop”.



“But, you’ve just admitted they work here, so you have admitted they are workers, which shows the logic of your statement was false.”

”They take up illegal employment making them criminals.”

But, as you’ve now admitted still workers, so you lose again.

“No, you can’t even read or understand what you quote. They opened their doors and lots of Asian people went there. More recently they have introduced more restricted immigration based on a points scheme for required skills like that now operating in Britain. The point is that during the period when they encouraged immigration from elsewhere they were no swamped by immigrants from poor countries.”

Oh dear oh dear, yet again it’s the kettle calling the pot black!!!

”You said “That policy in Australia was a recent development witnessed by the large numbers of Asian people who DO live in Australia.”

” When clearly it was one that went on for the best part of a century and you also claimed that removing immigration controls didn’t have a bigger difference in immigration and you are now admitting that many Asians took advantage of it and that now Australia has reverted back to selective immigration.

What a confused person you really are. There was a restriction of non-white immigration into Australia until 1973, so clearly it hadn’t been going on for “the best part of a century” as you claim. The point is that after 1973, Australia was not flooded with migrants from poor parts of Asia as a result, though SOME Asians did move to Australia under the pacific policy. Again you don’t seem to understand the difference between SOME and MANY or ALL.

“Precisely! The US encouraged immigration from all over the world, but it didn’t result in millions of Africans or Asian or people from other very poor areas moving there”

”You are mad!!

If you really think that that the US were trying to get more Africans into the US when, up until only the sixties it was to all intents racially segregated you are raving!!”


Only the South was racially segregated, not the North, and it was the North that desperately needed workers, because it was the North where all the industry was. They were desperate for workers of whatever colour or creed. In fact, one reason the North went to War with the South was in order to obtain for itself all those black workers that the South monopolised as slaves. The North was only too glad to attract them to the industries of the North around Chicago and Detroit. In addition I didn’t just say Africans. We were talking about people moving from very poor countries, and that would include Asia and Latin America. It would have been very easy during that period for Mexicans to have simply flooded into America, but they didn’t.


“On the contrary, most of the people who moved there were from Europe.”

”No accident - because these were the people they wanted and encouraged.”

No they wanted anybody. These people moved because a) they were persecuted – many were Jews, and b) they had more opportunity to move than people from Africa or very poor countries.

“You still haven’t told us how Britain could or would have wanted to stop the US allowing such people in!!!”

”What the hell are you on about now??”

You said Britain wouldn’t let the US take them in. You said.

“Thats because the US didn't mean it and Britain wouldn't let them.”

“Britain itself, only introduced immigration controls in the early 1960’s, and similarly was not swamped before that period by immigrants from such countries”

Ha ha ha!

You are mad!! Aside from the citizenship acts, what do you really think would have happened if millions of Africans or Asians had tried to land at Dover?


Its not relevant. The fact is they could have come, but they didn’t.

“No you are the clown. The point is that these “record numbers” are hardly astronomic are they?”

”Yes they are – historic.
Sweden has 9m people and 44,000 Swedes left just as 65,000 immigrants arrived.”


As I said, not astronomic is it. You really have no clue in relation to maths do you? The emigration is equal to just 0.0049% of the population. Which is miniscule by anyone’s standards. The immigration only slightly less miniscule at 0.0072%. To put it in perspective at that rate it would take a thousand years of that rate of immigration, before these immigrants comprised just 7% of the population!!!!!

I’d suggest you enrol for a maths class when you sign up for some history lessons.

“I notice that you don’t actually deny that you lied. You claimed that we were discussing DOCTORS when in fact, as I showed you had said”

”I think what I said spoke for itself.”

Yes, it did and it does. You repeatedly called me an idiot, you repeatedly called me a liar, but it was you that was the idiot, and you that was the liar. You lost this argument, but rather than admit you had lost you lied to try to pretend that something different had been said. Thoroughly dishonest like all your politics and method. Lying is how I described it. Lying is what it was.

“So we see the proof that not only are you a lying toe rag as I said, but that unable to deny that you are a lying toe rag, you resort instead to threats of physical violence.”

”The trouble with people like you is that you start to take one too many steps over the line; you think you can say whatever you want because you are on the internet and not face to face.”

Like your repeated inane repetition of “You’re an idiot” you mean. The trouble with people like you is you can dish it out, but you can’t take it.

”Well that is a very naive assumption and I couldn’t give a toss about the politics of a comment once that line starts getting crossed.”

Or before, as we’ve seen with your lack of concern for the truth, for facts or anything else required for a serious intellectual debate. Which is why having been shown up for what you are you resort to threats of violence.

”If you equate being a thug with telling someone if they spoke to you in such an outrageous fashion to your face you would smack them, then yeah, I’m a thug. And believe me, if you or anyone else spoke to me like that to my face that will happen. Funnily enough, though it has very rarely ever happened to my face, only really just people you on the internet. The internet hardmen.”

You are the one who began the nauseating “You’re an idiot” and accusations of lying. But, I can understand why no one bothers discussing with you in the pub. In fact, you remind me of someone I knew about ten years or so ago. I quite liked the bloke. Other people who’d known him for a lot longer than me, and gone to school with him told me he was a bullshitter, but I still liked him. He’d been in the forces too, and he was good at some things, and had the same kind of confidence in himself that you appear to have. In fact, I remember him saying to me once that he could talk about anything. He asked me to name a subject so I said Economics. He came out with a right load of crap that he obviously thought to be a pearl of wisdom. But, I didn’t pick him up, because I liked the bloke, and it simply wasn’t worth my while arguing with him. There was no point. It was harmless enough for him to go on thinking that he knew something about economics. In fact, there was another bloke there as well who was quite intelligent, and on occasions we’d both look at each other when this chap came out with some other confident statement that we both knew to be a load of bollocks, but why bother correcting him. Over a time, I found that he was indeed a bullshitter. What he said, normally about himself, had some kernel of truth, but it was so stretched, and contorted that the end result was far from the truth. I could see him being like you. Allowed to go on confidently making statements that no one has bothered to correct him about, because it just isn’t worth it, and with a bit of an ego born out of self-confidence, a belief that they know everything, a belief that grows because nobody can be bothered to tell them they’re wrong.


”Anyhow it has not been proved at all. MISSING LINK!!!!”

There is no missing link.

See: Hominina and

Homo Sapiens

“If that 3% allows you to sequence it then that is enough to prove evolution.”

”And when we had 3% knowledge of our planet (and much more) people thought the earth was flat”.

But, we have sequenced not 3% of the human genome, but 100%, or, to use your comparison, we have a map of the entire planet.

“Because its irrelevant to the question of sequencing, which is what is relevant to determining lineage.”

”The fact that DNA is not an infallible science is very relevant.”

No its not, because the sequencing of the genome is not fallible. Its been done 100% no question. You don’t understand the difference between sequencing and DNA evidence. I’d read up on it if I were you before you make more of a fool of yourself.

”I misrepresented nothing.

You misunderstood.”


No you misrepresented it – repeatedly – to try to hold up your position that the weather in Winter in Spain is not that good.

”Parrot fashion education and regurgitation that has led to a non-productive job of economist. And given your appalling grasp of history the quality of your education is very questionable, as is your honesty.”

You obviously have neither studied nor know anything about undergraduate study. It has absolutely nothing to do with parrot fashion learning – which effectively ends at what was then “A” levels. Undergraduate study is all about learning how to research data, understand concepts, and develop critical thought. That’s why I can apply all those things here, whereas you begin with your bigotry and try to fit whatever facts you can to defend it. Its why time and again I prove you so terribly wrong.

”Amazing.

Absolutely amazing.

But go on then, where is your evidence for this conspiratorial departure from reality?”

There’s nothing conspiratorial about it! The First World war was fought because Germany wanted to get its hands on a share of the world markets and sources of raw materials that Britain monopolised. At the end of WWI it was obvious to all politicians that the question hadn’t been resolved, and that there would be another War. As for the support of the Nazis by big business that is a matter of historical record. Its why those same big business men were put in charge of the National Economic Council.

Just one source of very many:

Schacht

“Yes, really. As the quotes I gave showed those tanks wre only introduced because the Soviet tanks were crucifying the Germans in tank warfare, and despite the introduction of these later tanks the Russian tanks continued to defeat them, not to mention to be produced in huge numbers”

Again, you are a bare faced liar.

Er no, that would be you. Overall, the Russian tanks were superior as the link I gave showed.

”You said “But, they did produce better planes, better tanks” – and again, you were wrong.

No I wasn’t.

”The best tank of the war was the German King Tiger. It had no rival and the Russians couldn’t ‘defeat it.”

That’s one tank out of many. Overall as the links showed the Soviet Tanks were superior.

”And given the immense Allied aid (including 12,000 tanks) and the rest of the reasons I have educated you in earlier in the post, it is hardly surprising that the USSR could afford such productive and military advantage. (1941-43)

Except, of course that you – the great military historian – completely got your dates wrong. At the time when the USSR was rolling Nazi Germany back in 1941, the US wasn’t even in the War!!!! And as I’ve shown that military equipment that you told us was LARGELY provided by the US, was no such thing, not least because at that point they weren’t in the War!!!!

And again your maths let’s you down. How many tanks did the various countries produce, what percentage was this 12,000 tanks???? Here’s the answer

Tanks produced by the following 1939-45

Britain: 30,396
USSR: 105,232
Germany: 61,700

So, the USSR produced twice as many tanks as germany, and that 12,000 tanks provide amounted to only around 10% of total USSR tank production!!!!!

See: Wiki Answers


“Glad you reminded me of that.

“In spite of the constant danger of being arrested for expressions of radical ideas and false accusations of treason, Soviet aircraft designers mastered technical hurdles astonishing even by today's standards”


These USSR aircraft were so secret they never took part in the war.

It doesn’t matter the point is that Soviet scientists developed them.

“Of course, one of the most important scientific developments came from a Marxist, a German Jew who got out of the way of the Nazis. Without Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity the atom bomb would not have been possible.”

So you are claiming a Marxist victory for the nuclear weapon?!


No, just an amusing aside that without a Marxist the world wouldn’t have had the most important scientific theory of the last century.

”Besides, there is much evidence to suggest that he plagiarized this theory from his wife.”

Yeah right.

“The fact that at times Men competing over scarce resources has led to conflict is not at all typical human behaviour. Man has for the vast majority of his existence lived in co-operative societies.”

”You are a classic.

You really are.

Violence and human history are inseparable.”


The history of mankind says different, particularly the long peaceful history of many North American Indian tribes that lived for thousands of years with each other in peace, prior to European settlement. In itself clear evidence that it is class society which creates the kinds of divisions and economic competition that leads to wars.


“It doesn’t exist within bees and other insects and for good reason as Richard Dawkins has demonstrated in “The Selfish Gene”. Each species acts to ensure the continuation of the species not individual members of the species, and frequently that requires co-operation and altruism not competition.”

Right, so you have bee’s – and what else?

The Selfish Gene
and this

Atruistic Animals.

”Let’s get this straight – you are now trying to tell me that the animal kingdom really gets along? And that animal’s do not compete at all, let alone inter-species?

Have you ever been around any animals – say a just a dog for instance?”


Yes, I’ve got a dog and he’s fine with other dogs, and he’s fine with cats.

“The point is that it is not an inevitable or unchangeable characteristic, but a result of the need to fulfil a basic requirement. They compete because of scarcity not because they are driven by some innate requirement to compete.”

”You are certifiable.

They compete for many, many reasons – to mate, to lead, to feed…”


Not all do as the above links demonstrate, and competition doesn’t mean violence. Some animals compete through show for instance as with a Peacock, some with a call as with various birds.

”You are defiantly certifiable.

I asked:”


Defiantly?

“Now in the real world 'boffy' animals do not have very need catered for now do they? And what a ridiculous statement. Given that a large proportion of animals are carnivores something has to be killed for them to eat in any case.

Who cares? The point is that animals act violently because they need to eat, not because they are innately violent. The same is even more true of humans. One that need is gone there is no need for violence. That’s why peoples like the North American Indians could live peaceably with one another for thousands of years. They had ample food supplies.

And now you tell me that Socialists are going to change animal behavior, so that do not compete any more by “provide every ordinary worker with a much higher standard of living…”

I wasn’t saying that I was saying that they would remove the need for humans to compete, which was perfectly clear from the statement I made.

“Precisely, to overthrow the Capitalist State and the Capitalists who WERE the ones doing that. In other words to create socialism”

”Not at all. To stop my family from starving – nothing political at all.”

The food was guarded by British troops. You couldn’t have defeated them on your own. It would have to be a collective effort. That effort would have meant the need to overthrow the State, a Capitalist State. Having done that you would have had to put something in its place, or else as happened on many occasions with failed uprisings the British State would have overwhelmed you and strung you up.

“When you said socialism had failed. When you have repeated that socialism has killed tens of millions and that we should therefore stop trying to create socialism. Do you want me to show you to be an idiot and a liar again by copying the actual quotes?”

”No – like I said, by killing anyone who tried to starve your family to death. Nothing to do with socialism at all.

But, it is as I’ve just demonstrated above.

“Yes, and how does that change their need to continue to tend their land or to have to pay their taxes and rents?????”

”So, in your world, people who are starving to death don’t think of food to survive – they think, you know what, I am dying, and so is my family but I must pay my rent and my tax!!!”

Yes, of course they do when their land is the only thing they have, the only chance they might have of providing for themselves in the future. And as I’ve said, your idea of everyone walking a hundred miles to the sea to fish is ridiculous, as is your idea of a million people feeding themselves from poaching.

“What an ignorant moron you are. Do you really think the people just sat back, did nothing and died?”

You are the ignorant moron, you Muppet – that is exactly what you were trying to suggest.

No, I didn’t where did I say that?

“But can you not get it into your thick skull that when it’s a million people trying to feed themselves by such means”

”Get it into your thick skull that people lived that way for millennia.”

With absolutely miniscule populations compared to that of even 19th century Ireland, and even then continually on the brink of starvation except in favourable areas such as North America or the Nile Delta. That’s why they invented agriculture!!!!

“More lies, I’ve never said anything of the sort”

”Err, yes you did, liar.

“As for people such as Stalin or Mao, I’d say that they were mass murders, who were forced to engage in such activity...”

”You say they were forced to mass murder so therefore they were victims too.”

Total distortion as usual. You cut off the quote, because the ret of the sentence puts it in context. A context which makes clear that the use of the word “forced” does not mean that someone stood over them with a big stick making them do it – who would that be if that were the meaning – but were led to that course of action in order to fulfil their desire to be able to exploit the workers and thereby obtain privileges for themselves. So as I made clear that that was the reason for their actions how could that be me saying they were victims. I wasn’t, and you lie in claiming that I was saying that.

Yes it is. The Canaries is a part of Spain and the siesta is still strong there just as I contended.

Bloody hell my dog has a better grasp of semantic logic. All dogs are animals, not all animals are dogs. Get the idea. The Canaries is a part of Spain, Spain is not the Canaries. I suppose being as you think that less than 1% of a population is the same thing as the whole population its no wonder you can’t understand the basics here. Just because something applies to the Canaries you can’t extrapolate it as applying to the whole of Spain. It is not characteristic of the whole. Get it!

“But that’s because I’ve studied Philosophy and understand the basics of semantic logic, whereas you obviously don’t understand even the basics of categories that a school child can grasp.”

”I’d be very surprised if you even had a secondary education.”

Well given my obvious intellectual superiority over you here that wouldn’t say much for you would it. As it is actually I have a B.Soc.Sc.(hons) in Politics and Economics with Philosophy and Statistics obtained from Keele University in 1980, and a Postgraduate Certificate in Education obtained from what was then North Staffordshire Polytechnic in 1981. I have an ONC in Business Studies, and “A” levels in Economics, Accounting, and Law, as well as 7 ‘O’ levels. In addition I have am qualified as a Quality Management Auditor under BS5750/ISO9002 plus a number of other similar vocational qualifications.


“My link confirmed it!!!! You lying toe-rag.”

“The siesta for shops and businesses is from approximately 2pm until 5pm while bars and restaurants close from about 4pm until about 8 or 9pm”


”confirms the siesta, just disputes time”

I’ve never disputed that there is a Siesta, have I, I have only said that the majority now don’t abide by it, that it is not typical. The times prove that your times were wrong even for those that still do abide by it.

“Today, the siesta hits Madrid and Barcelona much less than it hits Granada or Salamanca”

different locations different siesta practices”

Shows one barely abides by it, whereas the other does to some extent, that is the bigger the city, the more its tied to big business the less there is any Siesta at all.

“Big supermarkets and department stores also stay open during the siesta.”

”hardly surprising, but there is clearly a siesta for them to stay open during.”

Hardly surprising, because as I said the Siesta is dying out, and the bigger establishments don’t usually have one, even less in industry. And that was confirmed by the quote in the bit that of course you didn’t include.

“However, today many people are unable to take a siesta and their lives haven't collapsed around them. The gradual disappearance of the siesta has not changed the late-night lifestyle, which means the Spanish sleep an average of one hour less per day than other European countries.”

Strange you missed that bit of the quote isn’t it?

Starting to sink in fathead?

“The facts are clear for all to see”


“You have been proved wrong, refusing to admit you were wrong, you resorted to lying, and your still lying now”


”Quite the reverse – as usual.”

No the facts remain as they were, and you are still a liar with no comeback except a stupid refusal to admit it.


“But, they were British and they did have a nap, so there is nothing irreconcilably Spanish about it is there?”

Oh my God – you really are trying to equate two people taking naps with the Spanish siesta!!!!!

Jesus H Christ!!!!!

You are a RIGHT ONE!!!!


No just proving that English people can do it just as easily as Spanish people so there’s nothing irreconcilably Spanish in it. Just common human behaviour that anyone can do, especially when it’s a sensible idea.

“But as you have now conceded that there is nothing irreconcilably Spanish about taking a Siesta it doesn’t matter does it? Or are you going to lie again and say you haven’t conceded that which will just further expose your previous lie.”

I said it was “one small example in workplace variance” and that is true – we do not do it!!!!

Bloody hell!!!!


So, as I said you are now telling us that its not a difference that shows that Spanish people have irreconcilable differences with say British people. In that case your original argument that there are such irreconcilable differences between British people and Spanish people still requires you to give us some evidence, because you’ve now told us the example you gave wasn’t an example of such an irreconcilable difference.

So go on. Now give us one of these “irreconcilable differences” you say separates British from Spanish!!!!


“No it isn’t the DNA record has closed that question for good”

”NO IT HAS NOT!!”

Only to people like you that don’t need evidence, just affirmation.
If the theory was correct, the physical evidence would be there to confirm it.”


The physical evidence IS there. I’ve shown you the scientific evidence, the DNA record proves it beyond doubt. The only people who deny it are Creationists like you, people who reject science because it contradicts their bigotry and prejudices, people who simply grab at whatever fragment of a fact they can get their hand on to try to shore up their prejudices and beliefs, who even tell us that something that happened in 1941 was the effect of something that didn’t happen until 1943!!!!




“You claimed we were descended from Chimpanzees and the other apes. We are not, and evolution has never, ever claimed that we are. Yet again, rather than accept you were wrong you try to change what you said.”

”Newsflash – chimps and apes are primates.” (1941-43) again.

Oh dear how many times do you have to be taught simple semantics? Remember all dogs are animals, not all animals are dogs????? All chimps and apes are primates, not all primates are chimps and apes. You said we were descended from Chimps and the other apes. We are NOT.

“Quite right, they are not identical either between groups, or between individuals. But, the difference of 15% between groups is not enough to consider them different races.”

”Yes it is – hence the headline: "Till now, humans of different races were thought almost identical"”

No its not, if that were the case then every individual would form their own race!!!!!!! Why, because the differences between individuals within any group are greater than the differences between groups. There are no separate races only one human race.

”And its 12% of the 3% of DNA we know about.”

You really do keep embarrassing yourself with your lack of understanding of this 3% don’t you. We have mapped the human genome not 3%, but 100%. In other words its like having a map with every single country listed on it, its borders firmly established. Do you understand that? The 3% only refers to the fact that we only understand the FUNCTION of around 3% of those genes. Or put another way, we know all the countries, we know where all the borders are, but as yet we only know a small amount about the people who live there. Have you got it now?

”And because of the various illness and treatments that are genetically / racially specific; and the link between race / genes and intelligence etc etc”

Makes no sense. All the serious studies that have been done show that apart from the statistical outliers pretty much the whole of the variations in intelligence within the normal distribution are explained not by genetics, but by environmental factors i.e. family background, parental support, educational opportunity etc. That’s why kids from poor homes who show up as brighter at pre-school and nursery, have by the age of seven lost that advantage to kids from middle class backgrounds who showed as less intelligent at the earlier age.

“And one of the reasons for that is that the differences between individuals WITHIN those groups is even wider.”

”The difference in individuals referred to are outside their own racial groups.”

No its not that wouldn’t make any sense. The genetic differences between you and me will on average be greater than the differences on average between British people as a whole, and say Chinese people as a whole. That is what the statistics show that is what they mean.

“What do you mean the 3% of DNA that we know about you moron. Don’t you listen to the news. We have now mapped 100% of the human genome. We know all of its constituents not just 3%”

Your ignorance gets more and more exposed every time you post!!!

I mean, you really do not have a clue do you?!!

I’ve cut out all the “junk” you posted, because its irrelevant and simply shows that you have no understanding of what you are reading. The human genome has been decoded the whole 100%, not 3%. Anyone who wants to read the links you gave can do so, and will see that that is what it says. Unfortunately, you lack the scientific understanding to grasp it.

See: here

“and we can compare it across human beings. 85% of it is shared by all human beings meaning that we are all one single human race. The other 15% differs from individual to individual, so as to explain why one person has black hair another red, one person green eyes another blue and so on.”

”OK, read the above, do your own research, educate yourself a little.”

I have I understand it, and you don’t.


“I believe that Watson has said that his comments were taken out of context.”

”Ha ha ha.

Of course you do!!!

His comments were very clear.

Do you think his being suspended from his job over political objections might have colored his revised outlook?

In the end he had to resign over it.


It turns out he has black genes too.

See Here

“The point is most scientists disagree with the views that were attributed to him.”

”Not the science behind it – the fact that he said it.

No, they disagree with the science behind it. Watson is a geneticist who has made a number of similar scandalous statements in the past about women and homosexuals, but he is not an expert on human intelligence, or else he wouldn’t have made the comments he made.

Commenting on Dr Watson’s current views about race, Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University, said: “This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain.
He added: “If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically.”

See: here
“It certainly doesn’t fit reality given that there were civilisations in Africa when people in Northern Europe were still living in caves and running round in animal skins.”

”Well it certainly fits today:

“The failure to tackle academic underachievement of African-Caribbean boys is threatening to turn them into "a permanent underclass", the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality warns today.”


Which just shows that the reason can’t be genetic doesn’t it????? Which disproves your argument. The reason is obviously to do with the backgrounds of those boys, the sociological conditions, the aspirations of the community in which they live, the attitude of the boys to school – after all boys underperform compared to girls now – probably because in today’s society they think its easier to be a multi-million pound footballer, and so on. And as the report only talks about Afro-Carribean Boys, and not girls that view is further reinforced that this can’t be a genetic phenomenon.

”Nope – they used Marxist and Orwellian terms like ‘scientific racism’ to condemn the publication of its findings, but could not dispute its factual basis.”

But, there was no factual basis. Watson did not provide any argument based on facts, just speculation and anecdote. In fact, he admitted that there were currently no known genes to explain intelligence, saying he expected such to be found perhaps in ten years time. If he doesn’t know what genes if any are responsible for intelligence then you can’t produce a theory which says the possession of these genes as opposed to those genes means you will be intelligent whereas you won’t. More importantly, you can have genes that mean you are more rather than less likely to have a heart attack. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean that someone with the genes WILL have a heart attack whereas someone who doesn’t won’t. If the latter has a healthy lifestyle, and the latter doesn’t then it may well be the reverse. The same is true of intelligence. Even were genes to be found that meant some people were likely to be more intelligent than others – whatever that means anyway – it doesn’t mean they would be, because all the evidence we have shows that the main determinant is environmental.

“I gave you about six countries”

”Including Togo - it was the first one I checked and you were wrong so why continue!!!”

You have absolutely no idea about the scientific method do you. The reason you check the others is because if only one out of six is wrong then your argument falls. A scientist always tries to disprove their theory. You use any evidence you can to simply try to justify your prejudices. But, in any case the quote you gave on Togo, did not contradict the argument that it has the potential to develop down the road of the Asian Tigers.

“having already previously spoken about such development being some 50 years away – and you give a quote referring to slow growth in just one country at the moment!!!!”

”Exactly – it’s all bullshit predicated on nothing.”

And you don’t understand economics either. Its quite possible to identify that countries have a potential to develop even if they are not experiencing rapid growth at the moment. The point being that the ground is being laid for such rapid growth in the future. That is what all those references from respected journals like the Economist were saying, and thereby proving my point.


“Yes, really and I have an Honours Degree to prove it, along with a shed load of other qualifications in a wide range of subjects”

”So you say.

Your bizarre and groundless rants say otherwise.

And you have a functionless job.”


Sounds like a bit of penis envy too me.


“Who said three was no nation. I said there was no French nation, certainly no nation state, but there were about two hundred different nationalities living in the territory we now call France, and what was Gaul.”

”What defines a nation?

What distinguishes it from a tribe?”


I thought you were the expert on this! I could tell you to go and find out, but you’d no doubt misunderstand what you read, so I’ll enlighten you. Early human societies were based on various forms of consanguineous family. That is polygamous families in which all brothers held their wives in common and all sisters held their husbands in common. There were various forms of such families that developed with different conditions and as human society developed from being simply hunter-gatherers, into more developed societies, then becoming what was once called barbarous, but which today is classified in anthropology as various forms of settled agriculturalists, before eventually around 7-10,000 years ago forming reaching the stage of civilisation. For example, the Punaluan family was a consanguineous family type in Hawaii and Polynesia. Other forms were taken by the North American Indians, and various European Gens or Clans. The Gens becomes a fundamental aspect of the tribe, because it is clear that the necessary family relations and taboos that prevent inter-marriages necessitate new Gens being established. The members of all Gens within a tribe are, therefore, all related. In the North American Inidans for instance, within a Tribe, the different Gens have different names such as Bear, Wolf, Deer, Buffalo etc. The Tribe will depending upon the stage of development and form of production occupy a given geographical area for example, the Indian Hunting Ground. In the Middle East the various Semitic tribes, for example the Hebrews had their own particular territories throughout which they roamed as Nomads grazing their livestock, until such time as they settled such areas with settled agriculture. When a Tribe became too big for the territory within which it lived, it would divide and another Tribe would be established which would go to live in another area, where it could be sustained. The totality of Tribes formed the Nation e.g. the Sioux nation. Within the nation because it was formed by Tribes all of whom shared the same heritage their were shared language, customs, rites, gods etc.

Got that now.

“But, the point is that your assertion that all of these nationalities were Frankish is not true as I have proved several times, and which you now want to slip around, by diverting the discussion.”

”I have said France is called France because of the Franks.

Yes, you have. As I said, you have turned to that argument as a diversion from the fact that you began by arguing that France was formed by the coming together of all of its peoples who shared common heritage in all being Franks. They weren’t. You were wrong. There were around 200 nationalities in the area that became France. They did NOT have a shared heritage or even shared language. They were NOT Franks.

“Yes, but they don’t constitute a race”

No, they are a mirage – just a ‘social construct’ – not based in reality. Is that the latest absurdity?
No they definitely existed and exist, but they are just a collection of peoples of varying gens and tribes and nations. They are not a race. There is only one race the human race.


“Yes, but they don’t constitute a race Your attempt thereby to suggest that the nationalities of Gaul were Germanic fraudulent, and proved to be so.”

”My God!!!

What the hell are you on man!!!

Southern France has a long history of Islamic invasions and Arabic integrations – just as with most of the Mediterranean peoples.
The Romans associated blond hair with (amongst others) the Gauls.”


All of which goes to prove that your assertion that they were all Frankish was false!!!!

“The various tribes in Gaul were homogenous within themselves”

”Obviously – like I said, all tribes were homogenous.”

Er no, that would mean every tribe was the same as every other tribe. They weren’t. Each nationality had different Gods, traditions, language etc.

”No, all of it is an irrelevance – I said France is called France because of the Franks.”

Whatever, the crux of your argument that it was made up of peoples all of whom were Frankish is false. Your statement about the origin of the name is another diversion. That has nothing to do with your assertion that France was made up of Frankish peoples who came together as such to create France. They weren’t Frankish people’s. They didn’t come together on the basis of shared characteristics. They were conquered by a foreign people – the Franks.”

”But in any case here you are saying France wasn’t named France because of the Franks, but the country we know as France was conquered by the Franks – and that’s why it’s called France.

I’m not bothered where the name came from. I’m only interested in showing that your argument that the Nation was created by the coming together of Frankish peoples is false, and I have.


“It was you that backtracked”

”Not even slightly – illegal immigrants are criminals and you backtracked after your silly little rant about my supposed saying all immigrants were criminals:”

But, this was irrelevant to the point at issue, which was my argument that if you got rid of these 700,000 people it would create massive unemployment because of the consequent reduction in aggregate demand. As Keynes demonstrates in his Theory of General Equilibrium, National Income = National Expenditure. So, if each of those 700,000 people spends £10,000 a year that is a reduction of £7,000,000,000. However, we know that because of the multiplier the actual reduction in aggregate demand will be far greater than this, because all the workers, and capitalists etc. who would have received this as income now don’t, and consequently, they reduce their consumption too. The figure by which they reduce consumption depends upon the savings rate current at the time. In Britain at the moment the savings rate is next to nothing, though its rising due to the Credit Crunch. The lower the Savings rate also known conversely as the Marginal Propensity to Consume or MPC then the higher the multiplier. Consequently, the actual reduction in Consumption could in fact turn out to be say more like £70,000,000,000. If we take an average income of say £20,000 then because of Keynes equation of equality this reduction in Expenditure is the equivalent of a reduction in employment of £70,000,000,000 divided by £20,000 or 3,500,000. Of course, that is just an estimate it would depend upon how much is spent on Exports compared to home consumption and so on. However, what is clear is that removing these 700,000 from the economy would be disastrous.

That was the substantive point, and your argument about these people being illegal is a diversion from it.

You don’t understand history, you don’t understand maths and certainly not statistics, you don’t understand economics, you don’t understand the law, you don’t understand scientific principles, you don’t understand logic or semantics, you confuse and conflate historic events, you explain events by reference to other events that happened two years later and so on. What is the point of me wasting my time arguing with someone who understands so little about anything?

Arthur Bough said...

Correction,

Just before you pick me up on it. Of course, what I should have said was the US did not enter the War until December 1941 not until 18 months later. The point being it was AFTER the USSR had already defeated he offensive.

Arthur Bough said...

Second correction, my maths are getting as bad as yours. The correct figures for Swedish immigration and emigration should be 0.49% and, and 0.72%. The point being that they are still tiny amounts.

The Sentinel said...

You really don’t know when to quit do you?

You are so desperate it shocking.

I mean, seriously, you really have no idea just how much you are embarrassing yourself – you have been thoroughly discredited; your ignorance has been fully exposed, as has your frequent recourse to fantasy and outright lies.

In your twisted world animals do not compete with each other, nor or are they even innately violent – and socialism can change animal behaviour in any case. North American Indian tribes lived peacefully with each other; two people taking an afternoon nap equates to a siesta; 3% scientific comprehension of DNA equals 100% infallible knowledge; the turning point of WWII came in 1941; Marxist nations were actually National Socialist – Nazi – states; mass murderers like Stalin and Mao were forced to commit mass murder; the consistent domination and escalation of the western crime rate by Third Worlder’s means nothing nor does the fact that 80% of defendants in UK gang rape cases are black; uniform African failure in schools globally is coincidental or due to other factors other then the only constant and generally everything is what you want it to be regardless whether it is actually is or not in reality.

Evidence is there to be distorted or dismissed to fit you’re twisted fantasy world. And bold statements turned mute points like Britain “certainly wasn’t weak” prior to WWII and PC “isn’t Marxist” can just be conveniently forgotten after being discredited and when a lie or distortion cannot be formulated to cover the error.

I can only conclude that your equal measures of ignorance and arrogance compel you to keep digging even when it is obvious that you are buried.

And so here comes some more exposing of your absurdities – but at least you can gain a little education as a by-product:


a) the USSR was provided with the majority of its supplies by the Allies

Nowhere have I said that, you have made it up. Here is what was ACTUALLY said:

You said :"The US and the Allies could not hope to produce a fraction of the needs of Russia’s huge population"

I said: “What they gave allowed the focus to be placed upon military production; but the USSR couldn't care less about its people welfare in any case.”



You said: “Then tell us what it actually was that they gave what amounts that allowed this to happen!”

And so I did, presenting Russian evidence of the aid – and it was enormous aid – truly remarkable – but that’s by the by – the point here is, yet again, you have to lie to create a dual reality in which you are right.


“b) the attack on Pearl Harbour which brought the US into the War against Japan, freed up the USSR’s troops in Siberia to go to the defence of Moscow.”

Nowhere have I said that these troops went on to the ‘defense of Moscow’ – Again you have made that up completely. Here is what was ACTUALLY said:

You said: “Yes, in February 1943, the US had entered the War, but its role at that point was largely reinforcing Britain, and fighting its own war against Japan in the Pacific”

I said: “Which allowed the USSR to remove its immense numbers of troops from the east – there to defend against Japan – to the west. And these troops – the Siberians, as they were largely known – were used to extreme cold and extreme hardship.”


And you continue with your absurdities based upon these lies:


“And explaining that the USSR had been able to send troops from Siberia to defend Moscow, you said that this was due to the US entering the War, and thereby removing the threat to the Soviet East from Japan.”

A lie – as shown above.

“As I’ve said several times, I have no desire to defend Stalin’s National Socialist regime”

Oh but you do though don’t you!!!

Desperately and fanatically despite the evidence!!!

And you are now claiming that the USSR was really a Nazi state to boot!!!

Amazing!!!


“but I do have an interest in exposing your political method, your cavalier attitude to facts, and the fact that what your politics amounts to is that you start from preconceived prejudices, and then seek out facts – any facts will do – that you think might support your view. Its not a scientific approach, but a bigoted, religious approach.”

Given just the facts above, you are clearly assigning your methods to me.

“So, what are the real facts? There are two separate, but very obvious problems with the argument that you present. The first is that Operation Barbarossa began in June 1941!!!!! So, your argument that the Siberian troops could be sent to defend Moscow, because the entry of the US meant they didn’t need to defend the East against Japan is complete and utter rubbish, because the US did not enter the War until 18 months later!!!!!”

And this is where your ignorance really shines through again– not only have I made reference to the start date of Barbarossa, and not only has your lie that I said troops form the east were sent to defend Moscow – but the US entered the war against Japan on Dec 8, 1941 and then against Germany on Dec 11 1941 – LESS THEN SIX MONTHS AFTER BARBAROSSA!!!

You do not even know the fundamental facts of the war!! The basic timeline!!!

In your world the US entered the war in DECEMBER 1942!!!

ASTOUNDING IGNORANCE!!!


“For that same reason the USSR’s defeat of Germany could not possibly be due to “massive Allied Aid”, because the US, which was the main supplier of the aid was not at that time an Ally!!!!”

AGAIN ASTOUNDING IGNORANCE!!!

The US began aid to the USSR on March 11 1941, A FULL THREE MONTHS BEFORE Barbarossa – here is the ratified agreement:

“The Government of the United States and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in order to provide for the orderly disposition in their mutual interests of the undelivered articles which were in inventory or procurement in the United States, prior to the cessation of active military operations against the common enemy, for the purpose of providing war aid to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the act of Congress of ~1arch 11,1941, as amended, agree as follows:

Article l

All articles and services undertaken to be provided by the Government of the United States under this agreement shall be made available under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of the act of Congress of March 11, 1941, as amended, and any acts supplementary thereto.”

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/documents/document_2.htm

Now will you accept that accept that you are so very wrong and hopelessly out of your depth??!!

Of course not – cue the next lie and ignorant fantasy!!!


“For a military expert your military history sucks. I’d suggest you read whata ctually happened here.”

I have never claimed to be an expert but you are not even a layman!!!



“Over 4.5 million troops of the Axis powers invaded the USSR along a 2,900 kilometer front (1800 miles).”, which shows that the Nazi defeat could hardly be considered as you suggest to be down to a lack of manpower and resources thrown into the battle”

Yet another lie:

I said: “Were it not for the strategic delay in the invasion and the subsequent intervention of the extreme winter six weeks early - and the German unpreparedness for - it the offensive campaign would have rolled on for over a month and would have undoubtedly have taken at least Moscow. The Germans only ever intended to invade to the Urals in any case.”

I said it was the winter that stopped the initial offensive – and only after the winter, when the US entered the war was the Axis troop levels reduced dramatically to cover other theatres.

Again, amazing.



“And your argument about the German advance and the Winter does not stack up either”

It’s a mater of record – history you fool!!!

“Everyone present knew this meant there would be a winter campaign, for which the German army was not prepared, and the conflict would turn into a war of attrition. The only concession Guderian subsequently wrung from Hitler was that his panzer group would return to the Moscow front as soon as the battle for Kiev was won…



Hitler's irresolution had consumed a month of dry summer when his panzers could have rolled to Moscow. It was August 25 when Guderian finally turned south on the new mission that was to take another month to finish. By the time he could get back on the Moscow road the autumn rainy season would arrive, a period of mud called rasputiza (literally time without roads), which would slow or stop vehicles and thus the advance. And after that would come the Russian winter.{…}

This final offensive went down in the annals of the German army as the “die Flucht nach vorn ” or "the flight to the front"---the desperate attempt of the troops to get into the shelters of Moscow before The German offensive stopped. The reasons were the onset of cruel winter, and the decision of Zhukov to move to the offensive, when a part of the reinforcements from the Far East arrived the onset of winter.{…}

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/barbarossa.aspx

Not only the winter, but “reinforcements from the Far East” – interesting.



“You don’t know where they would have got to they’d been stalled outside Leningrad due to the resistance of the Russian people for months.”

Again, this was all massively aided by outside help:

“American Lend-Lease food and material supplies to Leningrad began in the last quarter of 1941, while British and American convoys to Murmansk increased this support in 1942 and 1943, providing aid to the remaining civilians and Soviet defenders of the besieged city.”

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



“Moreover, even had they taken Moscow, which the Russians were prepared for – their main production had been moved further East out of the range of the Germans, and they were ready to move the administration – then the Germans would simply have found their supply lines even more stretched than they were when the Winter would have frozen them in. In effect the Russian counter-attack would have been made easier.”

All speculative and grounded in ignorance.

Were the Germans to have achieved their initial objectives and stabilized the line, they would have resupplied from air.

But I think the whole point is that the Russians were not prepared for anything!!!

That was why the Germans were able to make such spectacular inroads and victories!!



“Your history sucks.”

Ha ha ha!!!

Coming from a man who wears his ignorance like a badge that is really funny!!

I mean, you don’t even know when the US entered the war do you?!!!



“So, even in the area where you profess to be some kind of specialist we find that your cavalier attitude to the facts, your desire to simply grab facts to support your preconceived bigotry leads you into the most terrible errors.”

Again, you assign your failings to me.



“In this case you explain events in 1941, by events which were not to happen until 1943!!!! That is typical of your method in general, and as I expose the rest of your arguments to be fraudulent I’ll simply refer to (1941-43) as a shorthand of where you repeat this fraud.”

ASTOUNDING!!!

You put forward a few lies, expand on more easily discredited ignorant fantasies and then proceed o n the basis that you are right!!!!

TRUELY ASTOUNDING!!!



“In fact, there’s another reason why your argument above is faulty. The USSR did not need the entry of the US into the War to secure its Eastern Front against Japan. In fact, it has already done so itself.”

Yet again, you are so very wrong it is astounding:

“During the autumn, Stalin had been transferring fresh and well-equipped Soviet forces from Siberia and the far east to Moscow (these troops had been stationed there in expectation of a Japanese attack, but Stalin's master spy Richard Sorge indicated that the Japanese had decided to attack Southeast Asia and the Pacific instead). On 5 December 1941, these reinforcements attacked the German lines around Moscow, supported by new T-34 tanks and Katyusha rocket launchers. The new Soviet troops were prepared for winter warfare, and they included several ski battalions. The exhausted and freezing Germans were routed and driven back between 100 and 250 km (60 to 150 miles) by 7 January 1942.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Patriotic_War#Soviet_counter-offensive:_Winter_1941



“By early December {1941}, freshly mobilized reserves[95] allowed the Soviets to achieve numerical parity with Axis troops.[77] This, as well as intelligence data that established a minimal amount of Soviet troops in the East sufficient to prevent Japanese Kwantung Army from the attack,[96] allowed the Soviets to mount a massive counter-offensive that started on December 5 along 1000 km front and pushed German troops 100-250 km west.[97]”

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



“Having shown that even in your area of expertise both your history and your method suck I’m tempted to simply leave it there, because this just sums up the whole of your political method.”

The rant of an ignorant fanatic!!!

You know nothing!!!

You have only showed your immense ignorance and deep dishonesty!!!



“But, for the sake of completeness I’ll now demolish the rest of your arguments, and show how this method is repeated throughout.”

And, quite brazenly, you actually want to proceed on that base of lies and ignorance!!!

You really are a clown!!!



“And wasn’t it you who spoke of incessant use of “affirmers”? As I said, who is it your Granny?”

OK, this is what you want isn’t it? “no, its your mama!!!”

Feel better?!

“What is the point of stating a fact unless you intend it to prove a point? What point were you trying to prove?”

The point I made: Hitler considered himself a socialist too!!!!



“The first word there “Funny”, clearly implies that the meaning you were imparting was that no he wasn’t a capitalist politician he was a socialist”

Not even remotely – in you’re world maybe!!!

It meant exactly what it said – funny that!!



“Yes, the facts were that was not in the 1920’s or early 30’s was it????{…} Except that my comments were about the situation in the 1920’s and early 1930’s not 1939. (1941-43) again.”

Yes that’s right – I brushed over you abundant ignorance again to try to bring he ‘debate’ to a level on par with reality.

The Nazi party didn’t gain power until 1933 and didn’t start remilitarizing in earnest until 1936 – so your contention that France, Britain etc could have intervened in the 1920’s is ludicrous and equally is the early 30‘s contention.

But, in any case, France (and Belgium,) did ‘intervene’ in Germany in January 1923 when it invaded Germany and annexed the Ruhr region when the Germans defaulted on treaty payments.



“As I said,

“But, it was no significantly weaker than was Germany during the 1920’s and early 30’s”

And the reason I said that was because we were discussing the possibility of Britain, France and the US PREVENTING Germany from re-arming. It was precisely because they didn’t PREVENT Germany from re-arming that the situation you describe in 1941 existed.”

See above you silly little man.



“But, Britain and the US certainly were prepared in the 1920’s and early 30’s. You have yourself commented that Germany in the aftermath of WWI was economically destroyed. You can’t have it both ways. And you haven’t shown that Britain and the US were not militarily prepared to prevent German re-armament in the 1920’s and 30’s”

See above you silly little man.



“As for the balance of power, the contending imperialist powers spent most of the 1920’s jockeying for position in shifting alliances… blah blah blah…”

Yes, shifting sides, adjusting weight – an attempt at balance – balance of power.

Again you were wrong.



“We are discussing the situation in the 1920’s and early 1930’s and you keep giving evidence from ten years later!!!!!”

JESUS H CHRIST!!!

The Nazis were not in power in the 1920’s – and when they did gain power they were not in a position to start re-arming in earnest until 1936!!!!

Like I said, I am trying to put this on a footing with reality!!!



“During the Great Depression the US certainly WAS NOT giving support to the Allies, both because their were no ALLIES, and because during that period US protectionism was being used to put the weight of the economic crisis on Europe!!!!”

There was also no Nazi Germany and no rearmament!!!

BLOODY HELL MAN!!!!



“They refused even to supply the Republican Government of Spain with arms with which to fight”

Most likely because the Soviets were supplying that for them.



The Republic sent its gold reserve to the Soviet Union to pay for arms and supplies. That reserve was worth £63,000,000 ($315,000,000) in 1939 prices. In 1956, the Soviet Union announced that Spain still owed it $50,000,000

No because, they favoured a victory of fascism over the workers. That’s why during the 1920’s, the British press eulogised over Mussolini, and why even when they knew what Hitler was doing to the Jews, papers like the Daily Mail eulogised over him. The fact, that the Russian Stalinists were soaking the Spanish for the limited arms shipments they sent just showed what a reactionary role they played in the whole affair.”

More your favorite pastime – senseless waffle.

You said the ‘west’ refused to supply the Spanish republic with arms and I proved why – the USSR was already doing it!!!



“But, “democratic” countries can do that too. Just look at the US and Britain in Iraq.”

And that doesn’t make it right.

But at least in the US there was a vote on the war – here nothing but a Junta style dictatorship (complete this week with the withholding of the cabinet meeting leading to war – why?!) redolent with your labor movement and its application – as always it is an arrogant imposition on people.



“1) Britain’ ‘balance of power’ policy didn’t cater for it:


One is bullshit, Britain along with all other imperialist powers knew another war was coming and had been jockeying throughout the 1920’s and 30’s for when it started”

Even after a contemporary quote from Churchill explaining that that was exactly what was happening, as early as 1934 you still insist on your ignorant fantasies.

Well here is one more source for you:



“On Oct. 1, French and German delegates will meet in Paris to negotiate a treaty of commerce between their respective countries. That fact is of tremendous importance to Britain for two reasons:

Political. Before the War, Britain's influence on the Continent of Europe rested snugly upon the doctrine of the balance of power. In those days, the Continental Great Powers were Germany, Austria - Hungary, Russia, France. "Balance of power" meant to Britain the equal division of these Powers so that she could, at a given time, exert a decisive influence. “

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,719001,00.html

But again, the fact that you do not know this is testament to your ASTOUNDING IGNORANCE!!!



“2) Britain wasn’t military prepared in any case, nor would it go to war for Spain:

Two is also bullshit, because for a time they did prevent Germany re-arming.”

Remember you earlier statement? Let me remind you:

“And the reason I said that was because we were discussing the possibility of Britain, France and the US PREVENTING Germany from re-arming. It was precisely because they didn’t PREVENT Germany from re-arming that the situation you describe in 1941 existed.”

Which one is it, liar? Did they are didn’t they? Or is it both as you contend!!!!!



“3) The US did not want any more ‘foreign wars for American boys.’

You have yourself given the reason why three is bullshit. It was just rhetoric put out by a US Government”

No, it was a campaign promise by Roosevelt – one that is largely attributed to his success that he broke by way of devious machination.

The US public did not want another foreign war.



“And you previously told us that,

” Just for instance, they had to form the Luftwaffe in secret and it was largely developed in the USSR - with the Germans giving the Russians technical know how in return.”

They wouldn’t have had to do that if 1,2, or 3 above applied would they?”

Yes of course- but it was primarily to get around the Versailles treaty restrictions – obviously!!!



“Clearly the Versailles treaty was the catalyst for the German hyperinflation, impossible demands were attempted to be met with desperate measures.”

Yes, it’s exactly what I said.”

What a bare faced liar!!!

You said: “The hyper inflation wasn’t caused by the Versailles Treaty.”

But then have to concede (only in the face of evidence):

“The cause of the hyperinflation as with all hyperinflations was the excessive printing of money!!!! Why did the Germans print excessive amounts of money because it meant they could pay the onerous conditions of the Versailles”

Obviously the Germans would not have needed to print excessive amounts of money were it not for the excessive repayments demanded by the Versailles treaty – so the true cause, the root, of German hyperinflation was the fault of the Versailles treaty!!!!

As I said all along and as you now have to concede!!!

Amazing!!!



“I left it out, precisely because having linked to it anyone COULD see it. It was not relevant both because I hadn’t denied that Nazi scientists had played a significant role in rocket development, all I denied was your assertion that such development would have been impossible without them”

Yet another lie:

I ACTUALLY said:

“Which supports my contention that “Without the Nazi rocket scientists, the V1 and the V2, there would have been no space programme for any country as we know it.”

Not that it was impossible!!!

And it is true – every design was based upon the Nazi rocket scientist’s design – without that design the space programme would not have possible AS WE KNOW IT!!!!



“Of course, its true. The USSR: launched the first satellite into space, the first animals into space…”

Non competitive socialist animals no doubt!!!

But the fact remains as I said – the USSR has never had a manned landing on the moon – the pinnacle of technical achievement!!!

And without the Nazi rocket designs wouldn’t have even has a space programme as we know it!!!



“But, as I’ve shown that your argument was false, because you wanted to explain the USSR’s defeat of Hitler in 1941, by reference to US supplies that didn’t begin until 1943, its all a bit irrelevant isn’t it? (1941-3)”

The ignorant error that absurd statement has already been exposed!!

THE US SUPPLIES STARTED IN 1941 – EVEN BEFORE THE NAZI’S INVADED THE USSR!!!!

And I love how you add you own little shortcut of (1941-3) to try to ridicule me when it is all based upon absolute bullishit!!!!

AMAZING!!!



“No I don’t. You say this sum is unparalleled in history. It was in fact, only a third of the lend-lease provided to Britain.”



Absolute rubbish!!!

The initial scheme was entitled “cash and carry” and was designed to get around the US neutrality act. This scheme only enabled the UK to PURCHASE arms from the US.

Then came the “Destroyers for Bases Agreement” from which the British realistically only got around 50 dilapidated vessels – many due for decommission in any case.

The later lend lease scheme primarily provided loans for equipment purchase or production.

Never did Britain receive such massive aid as over 27,000 aircraft and over 12,000 tanks and the rest.



“The supply of aircraft to the USSR amounted to only 14%, of the total aircraft production let alone total numbers”

Exactly – a massive boost.

And it was around 15% of the German aircraft production.

21,795 planes, 12,056 tanks, 4,158 armored personnel carriers, 7,570 tractor trucks, 8,000 antiaircraft and 5,000 antitank guns, 132,000 machine-guns, 472 million artillery shells, 9,351 transceivers customized to Soviet-made fighter planes, 2.8 million tons of petroleum products, 102 ocean-going dry cargo vessels, 29 tankers, 23 sea tugboats and icebreakers, 433 combat ships and gunboats, as well as mobile bridges, railroad equipment, aircraft radar equipment, and many other items is a remarkable sum of aid in reality.

Truly remarkable.



And only a fool like you- who was unaware of it until I proved it and still thinks it didn’t start until two years after it did (and thinks the US entered the war in December 1942) – would try to deny that aid like this was immensely significant.



“Apart from the enormous material aid (as I have shown you) delivered to all Allies, the US provided massive fighter and bomber cover over Europe, as well as massive naval presence in all theatres. Additionally, the US based its troops in the UK and many other strategic theatres forcing the Germans to respond with defensive deployments – thus tying up valuable manpower.”



“But, they did not have the range to fly over the Eastern front for God’s sake”

They didn’t need to you clueless muppet!!

They tied up German fighters all over Europe – especially over Germany!!!!



“the Battle for Moscow was in 1941, before the US had even entered the War. It was from there that the Russian counter-offensive began that rolled back Hitler!!

No they didn’t – the tide didn’t turn until 1943 you clueless muppet!!!

I will prove that in a short while.



“Moreover, you speak as though Germany was fighting this War on its own. You emphasise the role of the Allies, but say nothing about the Axis Powers, which also attacked the USSR and other parts of the world. There had been 200,000 Italian Troops in Russia, along with Rumanian and Hungarian armies for a start. And, of course the Italians were the first forces in North Africa.”

Again your ignorance is astounding!!!

The Italians were a disastrous liability:

“In October, Italy invaded Greece but within days were repulsed and pushed back into Albania, where a stalemate soon occurred.[60] Shortly after this, in Africa, Commonwealth forces launched offensives against Egypt and Italian East Africa. By early 1941, with Italian forces having been pushed back into Libya by the Commonwealth{…}

The Germans soon intervened to assist Italy. Hitler sent German forces to Libya in February and by the end of March they had launched an offensive against the diminished Commonwealth forces. In under a month, Commonwealth forces were pushed back into Egypt with the exception of the besieged port of Tobruk. The Commonwealth attempted to dislodge Axis forces in May and again in June, but failed on both occasions. In early April the Germans similarly intervened in the Balkans, invading Greece and Yugoslavia; here too they made rapid progress, eventually forcing the Allies to evacuate after Germany conquered the Greek island of Crete by the end of May.[62]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#War_breaks_out_in_Europe

It was BECAUSE of the botched Italian adventures in the Balkans that the Germans invasion of the USSR was delayed for six weeks!!!

And the other failed Italian actions led to more German troops being removed from the eastern front!!!!

And the dubious quality of the other eastern troops is also a matter of public record!!!



“Except, of course they were already there. Rommel already had control of much of North Africa!!! It was the Allies who had to get troops there to launch an assault.”



Again – rubbish – more astounding ignorance!!!

“Fighting in North Africa started with the Italian declaration of war on 10 June 1940. On 14 June, the British Army's 11th Hussars (assisted by elements of the 1st Royal Tank Regiment) crossed the border into Libya and captured the Italian Fort Capuzzo. This was followed by an Italian offensive into Egypt and then in December 1940 by a Commonwealth counteroffensive, Operation Compass. During Operation Compass, the Italian Tenth Army was destroyed and the German Afrika Korps, commanded by Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, was dispatched to North Africa, during Operation Sonnenblume, to bolster the Italian forces and prevent a complete Axis defeat.”

The British were already there – and so were the Italians – it was the sheer ineptitude and incompetence of the Italians that forced the Germans into the theater!!!!

And with this effect:

“By making the Axis powers fight on a second front in North Africa, the Western Allies provided some relief to the Soviet Union fighting the Axis on the Eastern Front.”

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



“And I also educated you on the turning point of the war: 1943.

Except, of course, brilliant military historian that you are you got the date wrong by two years. The turning point was the Battle of Moscow in late 1941, before the US was even in the War!!!!!”

BLOODY HELL!!!!

WORDS FAIL TO DESCRIBE JUST WHAT AN IGNORANT CLOWN YOU ARE!!!

Churchill’s famous contemporary speech makes it plain when he thought the war had turned:

"The Germans have received back again that measure of fire and steel which they have so often meted out to others. Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

—Lord Mayor's Luncheon, Mansion House following the victory at El Alameinin North Africa, London, 10 November 1942.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=388

But he was yet to witness the loss of the battle of Stalingrad – when just about every contemporary source and every historian thereafter places the turning point of the war – 1943!!!!

Probably the best contemporary source and WWII chronicler was William L Shirer:-

“The historian William L. Shirer, in his history of World War II, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, summarised the importance of the Battle of Stalingrad with these words:

“Coupled with El Alamein and the British-American landings in North Africa it marked the great turning point in World War II. The high tide of Nazi conquest which had rolled over most of Europe to the frontier of Asia on the Volga and in Africa almost to the Nile had now begun to ebb and it would never flow back again. The time of the great Nazi blitz offensives, with thousands of tanks and planes spreading terror in the ranks of the enemy armies and cutting them to pieces, had come to an end.”

http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/stalingrad.htm



“Besides being a turning point in the war, Stalingrad…”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/Stalingrad.htm



Here a few more sources:

“The Battle of Stalingrad was a battle between Nazi Germany and its allies and the Soviet Union for control of the city of Stalingrad in Southern Russia. The battle took place between 17 July 1942 and 2 February 1943, during World War II.

The results of these operations are often cited as one of the turning points of World War II. “

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



“The defeat at Stalingrad threw Hitler's offensive in the Soviet Union into disarray, and was a turning point in the war in Europe”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/2/newsid_3573000/3573003.stm



“The Battle of Stalingrad is considered by many historians to have been the turning point in World War Two in Europe.”

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_of_stalingrad.htm



“Hardly, an army though is it? Its not requiring huge numbers of tanks and artillery and so on.”

Ha ha ha!!!

It just gets better and better!!!

France was heavily garrisoned in any case you fool!!! If it were not the Allies would have invaded a long time before they did!!!!



“Doesn’t require your best troops, especially when you’ve got an established Secret Police, French Collaborators, and a French client Government in the Vichy.”

Again, astounding ignorance!!!

Even at the height of the war the Gestapo only numbered 20,000 for the whole of Europe!!!

And your French collaborators only apply in France!!!

What about Yugoslavia, where, as proved 15 divisions were tied down by partisans? – Of course you have chosen to forget this!!!

Or what about Russia, Poland, Norway, Belgium, Greece etc etc ???!!!



“All a long time after the turning point in the war in 1941, when the USSR had turned back the German advance. (1941-43)”

Like I say – this gets better and better!!!

“By spring 1942, the Germans had stabilized their front in a line running roughly from Leningrad in the north to Rostov in the south. There were a number of salients in the line where Soviet offensives had pushed the Germans back, notably to the northwest of Moscow and south of Kharkov, but neither was particularly threatening. In the far south the Germans were in control of most of the Ukraine and much of the Crimean, although Sevastapol remained in Soviet hands along with a small portion of the Kerch peninsula.

The Germans were confident they could master the Red Army when winter weather no longer impeded their mobility. There was some substance to this belief: while Army Group Center (Heeresgruppe Mitte) had suffered heavy punishment, 65 percent of its infantry had not been engaged during the winter fighting, and had been rested and reequipped. Army Groups North and South had not been particularly hard pressed over the winter{…}

Blau finally opened as Army Group South began its attack into southern Russia on June 28, 1942. The German offensive started well. Soviet forces offered little resistance in the vast empty steppes and started streaming eastward in disarray. Several attempts to re-establish a defensive line failed when German units outflanked them. Two major pockets were formed and destroyed: the first northeast of Kharkov on July 2 and a second, around Millerovo, Rostov Oblast, a week later{…}

The initial advance of the Sixth Army was so successful that Hitler intervened and ordered the Fourth Panzer Army to join Army Group South (A) to the south. A massive traffic jam resulted when the Fourth Panzer and the Sixth both required the few roads in the area. Both armies were stopped dead while they attempted to clear the resulting mess of thousands of vehicles. The delay was long, and it is thought that it cost the advance at least one week. With the advance now slowed, Hitler changed his mind and re-assigned the Fourth Panzer Army back to the attack on Stalingrad.

By the end of July, the Germans had pushed the Soviets across the Don River. At this point, the Germans began using the armies of their Italian, Hungarian, and Romanian allies to guard their left (northern) flank. The German Sixth Army was only a few dozen kilometers from Stalingrad, and Fourth Panzer Army, now to their south, turned northwards to help take the city. To the south, Army Group A was pushing far into the Caucasus, but their advance slowed as supply lines grew overextended. The two German army groups were not positioned to support one another due to the great distances involved.

Besides being a turning point in the war, Stalingrad…”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/Stalingrad.htm



“{the}successful Soviet defense of the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) in the Russian S.F.S.R. during World War II. Russians consider it to be the greatest battle of their Great Patriotic War, and most historians consider it to be the greatest battle of the entire conflict. It stopped the German advance into the Soviet Union and marked the turning of the tide of war in favour of the Allies.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/562720/Battle-of-Stalingrad

“By mid 1942, the German invasion had already cost Russia over six million soldiers, half killed and half captured by the Germans, and a large part of its vast territory and resources. With the help of its arctic winter, it stopped the exhausted Germans just before Moscow and pushed them back a bit. But in the summer of 1942, when Russia was still very weak from its tremendous losses, the German military was again ready to demonstrate its formidable fighting force.”

http://www.2worldwar2.com/stalingrad.htm



“The objective of the Stalingrad battle-front was to stop the further advance of the enemy, keeping the defense on the line of 520 km.”

http://www.ruvr.ru/stalingrad/st/en/1.htm



“Except, of course that the Russian Marxists including Lenin had already distanced themselves from him long before any of that mass murder, so your argument hardly holds does it?”

Ha ha ha!!!

Stalin was a Marxist and a socialist – he was attempting a socialist state – as we have seen!!!



“Both the leaders of the Russian revolution denounced him. Trotsky said of him, his regime differed from that of Hitler only in its greater brutality”

See above!!!



“He was a National Socialist making him one of yours not mine.”

Ha ha ha!!!

You are now trying to claim he was a NAZI!!!!!!



“No, so says, science as I have conclusively and repeatedly proved”

All you have done is try to distort the evidence on race, muppet!!!



“You Said:- "Yet, those same troops under such repression turned round, went home and overthrew the Tsar"

I said: - ”These troops did nothing of the sort - their mainly foreign assisted, wall street financed agitators did that - massacring the family.”

And yes, I was right.



“Firstly, he was wrong about Jews and Bolshevism.”

Not even slightly:

“A high percentage of ethnic Jews in comparison to the percentage of the total population took an active part in Bolshevik movement and revolutionary leadership before the revolution and for years after[12][13] - see details below. Most of these Jews were hostile to traditional Jewish culture and Jewish political parties, and were eager to prove their loyalty to the Communist Party's atheism and proletarian internationalism, and committed to stamp out any sign of "Jewish cultural particularism".

Of the 21 members of the Central Committee (CC) of the Bolshevik party in April 1917 [14], three were of Jewish descent: Lev Kamenev[15][16], Grigory Zinoviev[15][16], and Yakov Sverdlov[15][17]. Of the thirteen committee members who, during the historic meeting on October 10, 1917, agreed for the necessity of armed revolution (leading to the October Revolution), six were Jewish: Zinoviev, Kamenev, Leon Trotsky, Moisei Uritsky[15][18], Sverdlov, and Grigory Sokolnikov[15] – although Kamenev and Zinoviev opposed the revolution, and Trotsky abstained).[19]

Of the 25 Bolsheviks who worked alongside Lenin as members and candidate members of the Politburo of the Central Committee from August 1917 to 5 March 1918 (between the 6th and 7th congresses)[14] there were six ethnic Jews: Adolph Joffe[20], Kamenev, Sokolnikov, Trotsky, Uritsky, and Zinoviev. Concurrently, there were eleven Russians (Bubnov[21], Bukharin[22], Kiselyov[23], Krestinsky[24], Milyutin[23], Oppokov[25], Preobrazhensky[26], Sergeyev, Stasova[27], and Yakovleva[28]), two Latvians (Berzin[29][30] and Smilga[30]), two Ukrainians (Muranov[31] and Skrypnyk[32]), two Georgians (Dzhaparidze[33] and Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky[34]), the Finnish-and-Russo-Ukrainian Alexandra Kollontai[35][36], and one Armenian (Shahumyan[37]).”

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



“How is it that pretty much all of the Jewish members of the Politburo were executed by the anti-Semite Stalin?”

Stalin, like so many in power became an anti-“Semite” – why is that? –

(The word Semite is in speech marks because most Jews are of Ashkenazi origin and are not even remotely Semitic!!)

Indeed, there is much evidence to suggest may have been murdered by Jews:

It was the summer of 1952 and Andrei Zhdanov, a senior Politburo member who had died four years earlier. Zhdanov had supposedly died of natural causes, but Stalin was convinced that he had been killed by the deliberate negligence of his physicians. It was the dictator' belief that a vast network of Jewish doctors, secretly backed by America, was conspiring to topple the U.S.S.R. by systematically killing its leaders.


Stalin was planning his own version of the Holocaust to rid the U.S.S.R. of its Jewish citizens. It had been long brewing in his mind, long before the Zhdanov incident.


For quite some time, Stalin had been deeply suspicious about the Soviet Jewish power. He feared they had greater loyalty to America because of family ties or because of U.S. support for Israel. And America's political and military power concerned Stalin greatly following World War II.


But moreover he was convinced by the evidence that Jews has systemically infiltrated the highest strata of Soviet government whilst owing their loyalties elsewhere, and were working to their own agenda.



Tangibly he could see the powerful push within to allow the state of Israel to be formed.


He had long battled with the Jewish element of the CPSU including Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev, and had no love for them, when all pragmatic use had gone.


The Jewish AntiFascist Committee (JAC), headquatered in Moscow, whilst userful during the war, had alarmed Stalin by proposing a separate Jewish Republic be carved out of the USSR, in the Crimea. The JAC was funded by American Jewish capitalists. Stalin saw this as a threat to the unity of the USSR, and even attempted to counter it in the earlier years:


"The odd story of Stalin’s Russian homeland for the Jews has taken another strange twist.
The ribbon-cutting ceremony at the two-story Moorish-style synagogue in Birobidzhan Sept. 10 was the highlight of a weeklong celebration of the 70th anniversary of the Jewish Autonomous Region, an area in Russia’s Far East that Stalin declared a secular Jewish homeland in 1934 to divert Soviet Jews from pre-state Israel...


Additional funding for the projects came from a group often at odds with Chabad in the former Soviet Union, the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee"


http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/23647/edition_id/469/format/html/displaystory.html



Stalin will also have no doubt been pre-occupied about the Baruch Plan for World Government, authored by Baruch and Lilienthal, both American Jews, put to him in 1946 on behalf of the American Government.


He who ruled by the cult of the personality, Stalin, could not countenance what he perceived as disloyalty and he had a tried and trusted way of dealing with opposition - he simply eliminated it.


He had already overseen the deaths of at least 43 million people from mass starvation, purges, executions and deaths in the labour camps. Now, with characteristic ruthlessness, he planned to purge the Soviet Union of Jews.


In 1947, he launched a vicious anti-Semitic campaign. Thousands of Jewish intellectuals, scientists, political leaders and private individuals were interrogated, dismissed from their posts, publicly ridiculed, threatened and imprisoned.


Self-appointed citizen's committees would tour towns and villages to find out who were 'true' Russians and who were not.


All Jewish theatres were closed, and the statue of the Jewish composer Felix Mendelssohn was removed from the Grand Hall of the Moscow Conservatory. On Stalin's direct orders, Solomon Mikhoels, an internationally respected Jewish actor and director, was deliberately crushed beneath the wheels of a lorry and his body abandoned in a side street in a clumsy attempt to make it look like a road accident.


By 1950, many other leading Jewish figures had been executed. Public opinion was rounding against the Jewish intelligentsia, but if Stalin was to act against the entire Jewish population he would need 'evidence' of a major Jewish conspiracy against the U.S.S.R.


It was then that he remembered the death of Zhdanov and the letter from Dr. Timashuk with her concerns about his treatment.


His opportunity came in November 1950 when an eminent Jewish physician, Dr. Yakov Etinger, was arrested for uttering anti-Soviet thoughts to his friends and family.


Three months later, Etinger's interrogator wrote to Stalin claiming that Etinger had confessed to the murder of Alesandr Shcherbakov, a relatively minor figure in Stalin's government who had died in 1945.


Etinger's confession was never recorded but it was enough for Stalin to link some of the strands of a conspiracy. In the summer of 1951, a picture beagan to emerge of a sinister network of Jewish saboteur-doctors; part of an international Zionist cabal.


The Soviet public was scandalised by the doctors' alleged crimes. Stoires circulated that Jewish doctors were poisoning Russian children, injecting them with diphtheria and killing infants in maternity hospitals. Public opinion was moving exactly where Stalin wanted it to and he pressed ahead with his plans to purge the Jews. Newly discovered documents show that in February 1953, Stalin authorised the construction of four large prison camps in Kazakhstan, Siberia and the Arctic north. Officially they were for all classes of dangerous criminals, but Stalin was preparing for a second Great Terror - aimed at the millions of Soviet citizens of Jewish descent.


"...And Beria knew Stalin had planned on 5 March to begin the deportation of Jewish people from Moscow."


As always in Russia, conspiracy piles on conspiracy. Some saw buses parked all round Moscow to take away the Jews. Others glimpsed special barns erected for the deportees in Kazakhstan."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2793501.stm




On March 1, 1953, just two weeks before the accused doctors were due to go on trial, Stalin collapsed at Blizhnaya, a country house near the Kremlin. He had earlier finished a dinner with four members of the Politburo, including his eventual successor, Nikita Khrushchev, and Lavrenti Beria, head of his muchfeared secret police. The party went on until the early hours of the morning and some time after that Stalin fell ill. He died on March 5, 1953, after four days of agony. His death was put down to a brain haemorrhage but has always been surrounded by controversy.


The official version, given at the time was that Stalin had ordered his guards to sleep that night- the first time he had ever given such an order in his life.


But Pyotr Lozgachev, one of the guards on duty that night


"confirmed that it was not Stalin who gave the guards the order to go to bed, rather the order was conveyed by the main guard Khrustalev.


"Stalin would taunt the guards by saying 'Want to go to bed?' and stare into our eyes," Lozgachev said. "As if we'd dare! So of course we were glad when we got this order, and went off to bed without thinking twice."


The guards slept late the following morning, and so, it seemed, did Stalin. Twelve o'clock, one, two o'clock came and no Stalin.


The guards began to get worried, but no one dared to go into his rooms. They had no right to disturb Stalin unless invited into his presence personally.


At 6.30 a light came on in Stalin's rooms, and the guards relaxed a little. But by the time 10 o'clock had chimed they were petrified. Lozgachev was finally sent in to check on Stalin.


"I hurried up to him and said 'Comrade Stalin, what's wrong?' He'd, you know, wet himself while he was lying there. He made some incoherent noise, like "Dz dz". His pocketwatch and copy of Pravda were lying on the floor. The watch showed 6.30. That's when it must have happened to him."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2793501.stm





A classic setup job- remove the protection.


That Stalin knew he had been set up and poisoned seems to be borne out by his daughter, Svetlana


"Father's death was slow and difficult. . . . His face was discolored and different . . . his features were becoming unrecognizable.... The death agony was terrible. It choked him slowly as we watched. At the last minute he opened his eyes. It was a terrible look - either mad or angry and full of the fear of death.... Suddenly he raised his left hand and seemed either to be pointing upward somewhere or threatening us all . . . then, the next moment, his spirit after one last effort tore itself from his body."


His son Vasily was said to have gone running into the dying man's room shouting: 'They've killed my father, the b*****ds'. Beria supposedly boasted to another Politburo member that he was responsible for Stalin's death, saying: 'I did him in! I saved all of you!'


A secret report by the ten doctors who attended Stalin in his last days which has lain unread and unpublished for 50 years reveals that Stalin suffered severe haemorrhaging from his stomach - a fact expunged from the official record at the time, perhaps because it suggested that he had been poisoned by someone slipping rat poison into his drink at that final dinner.


Most significantly, Stalin's death took place on the very day that the order for the 'holocaust' was due to be given.





“More significantly, Churchill himself was a well known, and well documented anti-Semite, probably as anti-semitic as Hitler.”



Although there is still much debate on that I personally think he was (a little known fact is that his family was heavily in debt to the Rothschild’s – thanks to his father.)



But either ways he was still right!!!!





“Stop. There we go, that’s the legitimacy of all this crap you are regurgitating. I knew you’d have to resort to it at some point. The old Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”



Stop. There we go!!!



Yet again you fail to comprehend what is written!!!



That article, published in The Australian is by the respected author of Asian history Ian Buruma in RESPONSE to Asian anti-Semitism!!!!



You clown!!!



And I had already said:



“Here is another little fact of how the principle players in the game of international finance operate and are perceived as they do”



HOW THEY ARE PERCEIVED!!!



That is why the author signed off the article as thus:

“This was good for the Jews of Shanghai. But the very ideas that helped them to survive continue to muddle the thinking of people who really ought to know better by now.” – because it was what the JAPANESE BELIEVED!!!

GOOD GOD MAN!!!



“A forgery produced by the Nazis and proven beyond doubt to be such”

JESUS H CHRIST!!!

YOU ARE SO IGNORANT IT IS unfathomable!!!

“The original source has been clearly identified as an 1864 book by Maurice Joly entitled The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu…

The current belief is that the forgery was initiated and authorized by factions of the Russian aristocracy opposed to the political and social reforms initiated by the previous Tsar (Alexander II). The fabricated document was intended to convince the antisemitic Tsar Nicholas II not to allow any additional reforms, since all reforms would be playing into the hands of this just-discovered "secret Jewish plot". Once the Russian Revolution began in 1905 however, the use of the forgery changed”

This document was in existence at least 55 years before the Nazis even existed!!!

And it was used by the Tsarist secret police – at least 14 years BEFORE THE NAZIS EVEN EXISTED!!!!

But you think the Nazis forged it!!!

Still, given everything else no real surprise!!!!





“And as a socialist even he didn’t claim that Russia was socialist!!!!! Precisely my point.”

Wrong again, ‘boffy.’!!!



“The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was a constitutionally socialist state that existed in Eurasia from 1922 to 1991.

The name is a translation of the Russian: Союз Советских Социалистических Республик?·i, tr. Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik,

On December 28, 1922 a conference of plenipotentiary delegations from the RSFSR, the Transcaucasian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the Byelorussian SSR approved the Treaty of Creation of the USSR and the Declaration of the Creation of the USSR, forming the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”

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

Guess who was in office at the time and until 21 January 1924 and presided over this name change and subsequent state?

That’s right – Lenin!!!



“All Marxists? Now that’s not true is it?

Yes its absolutely true.”

Errr, nope:

En Marcha
Organ of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador
December, 1997

Stalin: Builder of Socialism

The Building of Socialism

The peoples of the world and, subsequently of the former USSR, evaluate ever more highly Stalin's historical role. The work of the Party and the masses, under Stalin's leadership, is a beautiful and victorious example of the superiority of socialism {…}
After Lenin's death, Stalin continued and developed the planned policy for the construction of Socialism, which could be summed up as follows:

1. To develop an independent economy, based on the internal market and on the union of industry with the peasant economy of the country, which unfolded to the maximum the development of industry to the degree of the resources that the country possessed.

2. To lead the economy in a planned manner, taking into account the necessities existing for it and constantly developing the reserves.

The fulfillment of these lines permitted the raising of the USSR to the level of an industrialized country. In 1938, socialist industry occupied first place in the world in its pace of development and in technique it surpassed the principal capitalist countries. This is one of the demonstrations of the superiority of socialism over capitalism, which in the decade of the 1930s was undergoing a tremendous economic crisis, which led millions of workers in the capitalist world to unemployment.

http://www.mltranslations.org/Ecuador/Stalin.htm



“There’s the answer. The people you are quoting are not Marxists but followers of Stain – a National Socialist.”

No muppet, they are the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador!!!!



“The revolution he led was for all intents and purposes bloodless.”

Here is a bit more education for you:

“The Cheka (ЧК - чрезвычайная комиссия Chrezvychaynaya Komissiya, Extraordinary Commission Russian pronunciation: [tɕɛ.ka]) was the first of a succession of Soviet state security organizations. It was created by a decree issued on December 20, 1917, by Vladimir Lenin and subsequently led by an aristocrat turned communist Felix Dzerzhinsky.[1] After 1922, the Cheka underwent a series of reorganizations.

From its founding, the Cheka was an important military and security arm of the Bolshevik communist government. In 1921 the Troops for the Internal Defense of the Republic (a branch of the Cheka) numbered 200,000. These troops policed labor camps, ran the Gulag system, conducted requisitions of food, liquidated political opponents (on both the right and the left), put down peasant rebellions, riots by workers, and mutinies in the Red Army, which was plagued by desertions[2]…

At the direction of Lenin, the Cheka performed mass arrests, imprisonments, and executions of "enemies of the people". In this, the Cheka said that they targeted "class enemies" such as the bourgeoisie, and members of the clergy; the first organized mass repression began against the libertarian Socialists of Petrograd in April 1918…

Experts generally agree these semi-official figures are vastly understated.[12] W. H. Chamberlin, for example, claims “it is simply impossible to believe that the Cheka only put to death 12,733 people in all of Russia up to the end of the civil war.”[13] He provides the "reasonable and probably moderate" estimate of 50,000[5], while others provide estimates ranging up to 500,000.[14][15] Several scholars put the number of executions at about 250,000.[16][17] One difficulty is that the Cheka sometimes recorded the deaths of executed anarchists and other political dissidents as criminals, 'armed bandits', or 'armed gangsters'. Some believe it is possible more people were murdered by the Cheka than died in battle.[18]

Lenin himself seemed unfazed by the killings. On 12 January 1920, while addressing trade union leaders, he said:

"We did not hesitate to shoot thousands of people, and we shall not hesitate, and we shall save the country." [19]

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

There is your socialist for you – a bloody mass-murderer of the workers!!!!



“I don’t give a toss what he thought he was doing, what he was ACTUALLY doing was opposing everything that socialism stands for, everything that Lenin and the Bolsheviks stood for let alone, everything that Marx stood for. That’s why Marxists then opposed him, and he murdered them. Its why Marxists ever sine have opposed him, and those who follow him.”

As seen above, some Marxists do not oppose him!!!



“In other words it was an anti-socialist doctrine”

Your fellow Marxists disagree!!!



“A statement of fact, an anti-socialist elite that looked to protect their vast material privileges obtained by exploiting the workers, and who could only maintain themselves in power by huge political force”

Ha ha ha!!!

Another Socialist disaster you want to distance yourself from!!!!

And one I will be looking at soon as I have business in Havana.



“What is this supposed to prove????? The Cuban National Socialists use the name of Socialism. So what?”

So yet another failed nation is based upon your failed ideology!!!!



“And yet I’ve shown that you have a very poor grasp of history attributing causes to effects even when those causes actually happened after the effect they were supposed to have caused”



Oh you mean that entire bit where Russia didn’t get any aid till 1943? And the US didn’t enter the war till December 1942? Or where the turning point of WWII was 1941?!!!!


Ha ha ha!!!!







“No I take the piss out of you, because you make it so easy, and its not worth trying to have a rational conversation with someone whose intelligence is as limited as yours is. And no that’s not a frivolous comment, you really don’t seem to understand how truly unintelligent you are, and in that I have to feel sorry for even you, because you are the product of a failed educational system.”



Well having proved you wrong at every step you can choke on those words now muppet!!!






“I don’t know them because in nearly every case they are WRONG. Like your long diatribe about the role of US support for the USSR at the crucial turning point of the War in the battle of Moscow, a turning point you described as being after the US had entered the War, but which in fact happened in 1941, before the US was even involved!!!! An event in history you seem to have completely confused with the Battle of Stalingrad!!!!”



Ha ha ha ha !!!!!






“Except as proved above they are NOT facts. The same is true of your statement about Soviet weapons being LARGELY provided by the Allies, whereas even on the basis of the facts you eventually provided they clearly did not, amounting to only a small fraction. Then we have you relying on forged documents such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and vast swathes of similarly made up material.”



That’s it – keep digging!!!!!





“Well a lot of what for you pass as facts, but which as I’ve shown above turn out to be far from facts. As I said, you wouldn’t know one if it bit you on the arse.”



WOW!!!!





“And I point you back to the fact that they were National Socialists not Communists.”


Yeah, they were all Nazis – even the Chinese!!!






“I don’t think I said I predicated anything, but I did PREDICT”



Another oxymoron, moron!!!!







“No its not. Tell us how it contradicts the quotes…”

The quotes say this will go on for a long time – you say a year!!!



“I did grow up during the 1950’s so I know first hand. I didn’t say that things weren’t hard, I said they were getting better, and that is true the facts prove it, not just in the GDP figures{…}They are not unsourced. I gave the source from Wikipedia when I first quoted them. Do try to read more carefully”

These figures usually go up every year in any case.

But if I am in a poorly paid job and can only save £10 a week toward a £500 holiday, after the second week I will have doubled my savings and again after a month but I will still be nowhere wealthy!!!





“Except, you conveniently cut out from this quote, the following,

“Seasonal farm workers were paid 1p an hour more than minimum wage, he told the MPs, but with piece work they could earn as much as £7.50 an hour.”

Not at all – it’s ludicrous.

I have worked on may farms and piece work is known as contract and only the very fit can earn good money – and often lose when it rains off or equipment fails etc and they have no pay.



“Except as I’ve shown above in point after point, you get important historical dates wrong, you cite as causes events which happened after the effects they are supposed to cause, you accept people’s own description of themselves as being valid without question, you cite forged documents as though they were true, you leave off parts of quotations where they contradict what you want to say and so on ad infinitum. I have no need to resort to desperate measures because time and again you defeat yourself.”

Except that you are wrong aren’t you!!!!!



“More than enough for the British exploiting landlord who was the one who received it!!!”

Another immigrant, incidentally.



“No its, not. The landlord got £150,000 in rent. The woman got £20,000 in benefits for her and the rest of her family…”

YES IT IS – YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO PROOF!!!



“I don’t need to I’ve already made my point with the story you quoted. Give us another, and I’ll pull that apart too.”

YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO PROOF!!!



“Not particularly. There’s no enjoyment in defeating intellectual minnows. I’m used to arguing with right wingers who at least can put up a decent intellectual argument.”

You are joking!!!!



“Only in a very restricted sense, which will be removed if they are amnestied.”

In a very real sense and they will still be criminals if amnestied because there is no mandate for it.



“And the impact of Third World immigration on western nations is a matter of record.”

It may be, but it doesn’t show that all those immigrants are criminals does it? Yet that is what you pretend to be the case.”

Nowhere have I said that.

But if you were using a babysitting company where it was a fact that at least even one in a hundred were violent criminals and I doubt you would let them into your home or near your family.



“But, you didn’t answer the question did you? So, I think we know what that means, don’t we. It means you oppose them not because they are illegal, but because they are immigrants.”

You didn’t answer it either – and like I say an amnesty would have no mandate and would not be valid.



“This is an organisation that shot a bloke in the head in cold blood six times just because he had the wrong skin colour…”

Because they thought he was a suicide bomber, actually.



“No as I said you IMPLIED it.”

Nope – just presented facts muppet!!



“these are facts and the huge and disparate impact on crime these people have is real.” implying again that this huge and disparate effect could only be the result of a huge and disparate number of immigrants, when in fact even the figures you have presented show that not to be the case.”

You are mental!!

Each report even TELLS THE disproportionate effects of ethnics on crime

- Read again:


"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."

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/1-latest-news/27877.html



"Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily...

The study is the first where the crime statistics have been analyzed according to ethnic origin.

Of the 111 charged with rape in Oslo last year, 72 were of non-western ethnic origin, 25 are classified as Norwegian or western and 14 are listed as unknown...

Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year."

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



"a 1998 Justice Ministry survey on crime, which found that immigrants were over-represented by an average of 46 per cent. In addition, the recent publication of a report from the Copenhagen police shows that 47.5 per cent of prisoners on remand for serious crimes such as murder, attempted murder and rape come from immigrant backgrounds."

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/1-latest-news/28210.html



“Illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war, says a new report from Family Security Matters that estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. and about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population”

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/february/0222_illegals_report.shtml



"According to a new study from the Crime Prevention Council, Brå, it is four times more likely that a known rapist is born abroad, compared to persons born in Sweden. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects."

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article327666.ab



"Blacks were almost three times more likely than Hispanics and five times more likely than whites to be in jail."

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/jails.htm



"About half the US nation’s 2.2 million prisoners are black. With only 36 million of us, that’s an astounding 3% of African Americans, counting all ages and both sexes, languishing behind bars, with a roughly equal number on probation, parole, house arrest or other court supervision. Almost one in three 18-year-old black males across the board is likely to catch a felony conviction, and in some communities nearly half the black male workforce under 40 have criminal records"

http://www.blackcommentator.com/146/146_cover_dixon_ten_worst.html



“A Sunday Herald Sun survey of 400 cases at magistrates' courts across Melbourne found 14 per cent of offenders came from the Horn of Africa and the Middle East -- many of them refugees -- about 20 times the representative proportion of the population.”

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,21166482-661,00.html





“You have called for the end of Britain as a Sovereign state, its absorption into a Socialist European Federation and the end of life as we know it in Britain, and now tacitly concede that at best, Britain would only be designated as an “administrative area” and then you have the front to say you haven’t called for the destruction of Britain at all?!

But, I haven’t called for the destruction of Britain”

JESUS CHRIST – YES YOU HAVE!!! – FOR THE REMOVAL OF EVERYTHING WE KNOW AS BRITAIN!!!



“I’ve shown you above how the press make up stories or manipulate the facts.”

Nope – you made bold statements without evidence!!!



“I will try to explain in terms that your tiny brain might understand using the above example.

Suppose there were here 100 rapes. Of these according to the above 68 would have been committed by someone from an ethnic minority. Suppose that the number of people from an ethnic minority is 10,000 then that 68 amounts to 0.68% of that population.”

Get this into your tiny mind – a country like Denmark has only has mass Third World immigration in the last 10-15 years but in that short space of time the Third Worlder’s have manage to dominate crime – especially rape and violence – and have pushed up the crime rate not supplanted it as the indigenous criminals have not stopped!!

All of this is in massive disproportion to their numbers!!!

Sinking in at last???!!!




“What an amazing stupid question “What proportion of black people do these defendants constitute” when the answer is clearly 80%.

Are you innumerate as well as illiterate??????”

You didn’t ask what proportion of the population, you only asked what proportion of defendants – and its 80%!!!

Again, you are wrong!!



“That’s no reason to blame all black people is it?”

Its good reason not to let any more in!!!!



“You asked what they think now, not what they thought then. The fact is most think now, what a big mistake, as they can’t get a Council house to live in.”

That is the councils fault.



“Of course, its proof unless you want to say that people on the Right aren’t human beings.”

Again no proof – needed really as most on the right oppose homosexuality to some degree.



“No, because as you’ve just admitted its “superficial, and unsubstantiated old codswallop”.

What???!!

And all that footage was faked too, was it?!!



“But, as you’ve now admitted still workers, so you lose again.”

Err, nope – they are criminals.




“What a confused person you really are. There was a restriction of non-white immigration into Australia until 1973, so clearly it hadn’t been going on for “the best part of a century” as you claim.”

Me confused!!

Priceless!!

Look again:

"The White Australia policy is a term used to describe a collection of historical policies that intentionally restricted non-white immigration to Australia from 1901 to 1973"

It ran for 72 years!!!! Best part of a century!!!!



“The point is that after 1973, Australia was not flooded with migrants from poor parts of Asia as a result”

Yes it was and that is why it went to a points system!!!



“In fact, one reason the North went to War with the South was in order to obtain for itself all those black workers”

Certainly not to free them!!!



“No they wanted anybody. These people moved because a) they were persecuted – many were Jews, and b) they had more opportunity to move than people from Africa or very poor countries.”

Really?

“The Statue of Liberty symbolizes the willingness of the United States to open its doors to immigrants. As the Statue was taking shape the U.S. was experiencing a long period of increased immigration. This trend and policies supporting it continued until immigration reached a peak in the decade between 1900 and 1910 during which almost 1 million immigrants per year entered the country. However, the composition of immigrants began shifting after the American Civil War. Before the war, most immigrants were from western Europe and the British Isles. During the 1870s immigrants from southern and eastern Europe became much more common. Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans were also coming to the U.S., particularly the West Coast.

The "older immigrants" from Protestant western Europe felt threatened by the rising tide of immigrants from the more Catholic southern and eastern European countries and the immigrants from Asia. Organizations were formed urging laws to restrict immigration. A succession of laws were passed adding restrictions to immigration policy. A literacy test for immigrants was passed and became law over the veto of President Woodrow Wilson. Emergency legislation in 1921 imposed a quota system, limiting the number of immigrants from Europe to 3 percent of the number of foreign-born members of that same nationality in the U.S. during the 1910 census. Then in 1924 the U.S. passed the National Origins Act. This act further limited immigration by reducing the allowable number of entries to 2 percent and by using the 1890 census as the base, further discriminating against the newer immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, favoring immigration from northwestern Europe, and barring immigration from the Far East. This law prevented many eastern Europeans from immigrating to the United States during World War II. It was only repealed in 1965.”

http://web.missouri.edu/~brente/immigr.htm



“You said Britain wouldn’t let the US take them in. You said.

“Thats because the US didn't mean it and Britain wouldn't let them.”

Ermm, read it again:

You said: "The US had a motto “Bring Me Your Starving and Huddled Masses”. Yet, the populations of Africa etc. did not move en masse to the US, nor did they move to Britain prior to the introduction of Immigration Controls."

I said: “Thats because the US didn't mean it and Britain wouldn't let them.”

Get it now?!!!



“As I said, not astronomic is it.”

Its historic and a very large number for a small country – it had never happened before.



“I’d suggest you enrol for a maths class when you sign up for some history lessons.”

You are joking mate!!!



“Yes, it did and it does. You repeatedly called me an idiot, you repeatedly called me a liar, but it was you that was the idiot, and you that was the liar. You lost this argument, but rather than admit you had lost you lied to try to pretend that something different had been said. Thoroughly dishonest like all your politics and method. Lying is how I described it. Lying is what it was.”

You started with the insults muppet – I personally don’t like them, hence you will see I never initiate them – but I will reciprocate after a while.



“Like your repeated inane repetition of “You’re an idiot” you mean. The trouble with people like you is you can dish it out, but you can’t take it.”

I would gladly say anything I have said here to your face. No problem.



“Or before, as we’ve seen with your lack of concern for the truth, for facts or anything else required for a serious intellectual debate. Which is why having been shown up for what you are you resort to threats of violence.”

You have been disgraced over the last posts!!!

And as I said, no threats – that is what would happen.



“You are the one who began the nauseating “You’re an idiot” and accusations of lying. But, I can understand why no one bothers discussing with you in the pub…”

Again, pure groundless fantasy – and then a long pointless rant.

I am not even slightly interested in hearing about the men you met in pubs.



“There is no missing link.”

What the hell is this crap?

“Fossil records indicate this subtribe branched from the common ancestor with the chimpanzee lineage about 3 to 5 million years ago.”

The missing link is still uncontested by mainstream scientists!!!



“No its not, because the sequencing of the genome is not fallible. Its been done 100% no question. You don’t understand the difference between sequencing and DNA evidence. I’d read up on it if I were you before you make more of a fool of yourself.”

Jesus Christ man – they only understand 3% of it!!! Read it again!!!

“You've probably heard of a molecule called DNA, otherwise known as "The Blueprint Of Life". Molecular biologists have been examining and mapping the DNA for a few decades now. But as they've looked more closely at the DNA, they've been getting increasingly bothered by one inconvenient little fact - the fact that 97% of the DNA is junk, and it has no known use or function! But, an usual collaboration between molecular biologists, cryptoanalysists (people who break secret codes), linguists (people who study languages) and physicists, has found strange hints of a hidden language in this so- called "junk DNA".
Only about 3% of the DNA actually codes for amino acids, which in turn make proteins, and eventually, little babies. The remaining 97% of the DNA is, according to conventional wisdom, not gems, but junk.
The molecular biologists call this junk DNA, introns. Introns are like enormous commercial breaks or advertisements that interrupt the real program - except in the DNA, they take up 97% of the broadcast time. Introns are so important, that Richard Roberts and Phillip Sharp, who did much of the early work on introns back in 1977, won a Nobel Prize for their work in 1993. But even today, we still don't know what introns are really for.”

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/04/04/133634.htm



“Chromosomes are compact linear entities in the nucleus of the cell. They are composed mainly of DNA, some RNA, and proteins called histones. People have been created with 23 matched pairs (46 total) of chromosomes. Years ago, scientists discovered that only about three percent of the human genome (the complete set of DNA inherited from the father and mother) is comprised of genes--about 35,000 of them. The remaining 97 percent was given the unscientific title of "junk" because secular biologists felt that over evolutionary time the DNA had lost its function. This useless DNA was the foundation for the secular argument that the genome was not designed.”


http://www.icr.org/article/revealing-purpose-junk-dna/



“DNA may be the building block of life, but the vast majority of it in nearly all species is apparently useless. The human genome, for example, is made up of 3 billion base pairs of nucleotides arranged in the well-known double helix, yet only 3 per cent of that works as functional genes. The other 97 per cent has been written off as junk. But remarkably, junk DNA may turn out to be as important as genes - if not more so.”

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825262.600-the-word-junk-dna.html



“The human genome, the 3.15 billion-letter instruction book for our cells, seems pretty elegant. But it turns out to be chock-full of typos, gibberish, repetitions and redundancies, and scientists don't know why.
"Junk DNA," some call the residue, and it takes up an amazing 97% of our genome.”

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-6832905.html



“No its not, because the sequencing of the genome is not fallible. Its been done 100% no question. You don’t understand the difference between sequencing and DNA evidence. I’d read up on it if I were you before you make more of a fool of yourself.”

A fool of myself!!!

Priceless!!!



“No you misrepresented it – repeatedly – to try to hold up your position that the weather in Winter in Spain is not that good.”

Ha ha ha!!

I provided a link to a weather chart!!!



“You obviously have neither studied”

Its pretty bloody obvious you haven’t muppet!!!



“There’s nothing conspiratorial about it! The First World war was fought because Germany wanted to get its hands on a share of the world markets and sources of raw materials that Britain monopolised. At the end of WWI it was obvious to all politicians that the question hadn’t been resolved, and that there would be another War. As for the support of the Nazis by big business that is a matter of historical record. Its why those same big business men were put in charge of the National Economic Council.”



Well it goes against the grain of ‘conventional’ history.




”You said “But, they did produce better planes, better tanks” – and again, you were wrong.

No I wasn’t.

”The best tank of the war was the German King Tiger. It had no rival and the Russians couldn’t ‘defeat it.”

That’s one tank out of many. Overall as the links showed the Soviet Tanks were superior.”

You didn’t say ‘overall’ what you said is above!!!



“Except, of course that you – the great military historian – completely got your dates wrong. At the time when the USSR was rolling Nazi Germany back in 1941, the US wasn’t even in the War!!!! And as I’ve shown that military equipment that you told us was LARGELY provided by the US, was no such thing, not least because at that point they weren’t in the War!!!!”

Choke on your ignorance – there again for all to see!!!



“So, the USSR produced twice as many tanks as germany, and that 12,000 tanks provide amounted to only around 10% of total USSR tank production!!!!!”

The Germans were fighting multi-front war whilst being bombed and strategically isolated – while the USSR was enjoying massive aid – food too!!




“It doesn’t matter the point is that Soviet scientists developed them.”

If they really had they would have been used.



”Besides, there is much evidence to suggest that he plagiarized this theory from his wife.”

Yeah right.”

There was some for you in the last post.



“The history of mankind says different, particularly the long peaceful history of many North American Indian tribes that lived for thousands of years with each other in peace, prior to European settlement. In itself clear evidence that it is class society which creates the kinds of divisions and economic competition that leads to wars.”

Pure fantasy.



“There's even grimmer news in the recent scholarship. In September, the journal Nature published incontrovertible evidence that many southwestern Indians practiced cannibalism in ancient times. This was suspected for years, given the frequency with which butchered and cooked human bones turned up in archaeological digs. But some scholars believed this was proof of nothing more than rituals whose meaning is now lost, or perhaps the execution of people thought to be witches. Just because the Anasazi were tossing dismembered body parts into cooking pots doesn't necessarily mean they were also eating them, right?{…}

Last year saw the publication of the groundbreaking book Man Corn: Cannibalism and Violence in the Prehistoric American Southwest, by Arizona State University's Christy Turner II, a longtime advocate of the cannibalism theory. It was an important work, but some scholars decided to ignore it. "I was just at an archeological conference," said UCLA's Steven A. LeBlanc in the Los Angeles Times. "There were tenured professors there who said they were not going to read Christy's book. They don't want to think about it." But now scientists have found human fecal remains containing proteins that could only have gotten there from the consumption of human flesh. There hasn't been much of a response from the naysayers yet, except to recycle the familiar claim that the ancestors of today's Indians didn't do these things, because there's no mention of cannibalism in their oral traditions.”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_19_52/ai_65805908/pg_2?tag=content;col1



“According to ethnohistorian James Axtell, there is abundant evidence that the Native American practice of scalping existed long before Europeans arrived.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping#North_America



“One of the least discussed subjects in the voluminous literature on sla-

very in North America is the enslavement of African Americans by Native

American tribes. For various reasons—some pertaining to scholarly ne-

glect, others to the politically sensitive nature of the issue—this topic

tends to arouse reactions of incredulity or denial. On a popular level, it

is simply a non-issue. Just to mention a recent case, Ken Burns's tele-

vision documentary series on the Civil War, broadcast in the United States

in 1991, did not contain a single word on African slaves living among the

Indians, or on Indian troops fighting on the side of the Confederacy.

Even among historians and anthropologists, the consensus seems to

be that Native American slaveholding either was too marginal a phe-

nomenon or is too controversial a subject to warrant exhaustive treat-

ment. Specialized monographic treatments of the issue are few, and it

hardly ever is discussed in general historiographies of slavery in North

America.1 Nonetheless, we cannot ignore the historical record: Native

Americans did enslave black people and made them work for them”

http://www.bartlconsult.de/bc/papers/Bartl%201995.pdf



Actor Don Cheadle’s ancestors were slaves owned by Native American Indians, and look at the surprise on his face when he finds out!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aW08mfhc1Y&feature=PlayList&p=CBF7397DD4D7C611&playnext=1&index=1



“There is little universal commonality among Native Americans. To consider Native Americans all to be the same would be to stereotype them. There is, however, a few areas of commonality:

1)All Native Americans have Mongolian ancestry from Asia

2)All Native Americans had a profound understanding and close relationship with nature

Beyond that ... they were different. Only relative few tribes lived in tipis, Not all tribes raised corn. Not all tribes wore feathers. Not all tribes were peaceful, nor were all tribes warlike.”

http://www.fourdir.com/chapter_3_native_american_cultures.htm



“Yes, I’ve got a dog and he’s fine with other dogs, and he’s fine with cats.”

That’s because they are socialist pets!!



“Who cares? The point is that animals act violently because they need to eat, not because they are innately violent.”

Only that they are as well – like the fox in the Chicken coop who kills all the chickens when he can only eat one.

But your ludicrous fantasies of animal harmony is best illustrated with this amazing video shot in the wild showing animals doing what they do best – violent competition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM



“The food was guarded by British troops. You couldn’t have defeated them on your own. It would have to be a collective effort. That effort would have meant the need to overthrow the State, a Capitalist State. Having done that you would have had to put something in its place, or else as happened on many occasions with failed uprisings the British State would have overwhelmed you and strung you up”

If everyone refused to pay tax what do you think would happen? Or if only 20% refused?

Anyway, better to die on your feet then live on your knees.



“Yes, of course they do when their land is the only thing they have, the only chance they might have of providing for themselves in the future. And as I’ve said, your idea of everyone walking a hundred miles to the sea to fish is ridiculous, as is your idea of a million people feeding themselves from poaching.”

We were hunter-gathers for quiet some time Muppet!! Lots of us!!!



”Err, yes you did, liar.

“As for people such as Stalin or Mao, I’d say that they were mass murders, who were forced to engage in such activity...”

”You say they were forced to mass murder so therefore they were victims too.”

Total distortion as usual. You cut off the quote, because the ret of the sentence puts it in context”



You said what you said – face it.



“Bloody hell my dog has a better grasp of semantic logic. All dogs are animals, not all animals are dogs. Get the idea. The Canaries is a part of Spain, Spain is not the Canaries. I suppose being as you think that less than 1% of a population is the same thing as the whole population its no wonder you can’t understand the basics here. Just because something applies to the Canaries you can’t extrapolate it as applying to the whole of Spain. It is not characteristic of the whole. Get it!”

When all is said and done – there is still a siesta in Spain – like I said.




“Well given my obvious intellectual superiority over you here”

Ha ha ha!!!



“No just proving that English people can do it just as easily as Spanish people so there’s nothing irreconcilably Spanish in it.”

We do not have a siesta in England – so why bother??!!



“So go on. Now give us one of these “irreconcilable differences” you say separates British from Spanish!!!!”

Look muppet, after re-reading it a few times you are starting to get there, but still not quite:

I said it was “one small example in workplace variance”!!!!!



“The physical evidence IS there. I’ve shown you the scientific evidence, the DNA record proves it beyond doubt. The only people who deny it are Creationists like you, people who reject science because it contradicts their bigotry and prejudices, people who simply grab at whatever fragment of a fact they can get their hand on to try to shore up their prejudices and beliefs, who even tell us that something that happened in 1941 was the effect of something that didn’t happen until 1943!!!!”

Oh yes – your 1941-43 thing!!!!




“Oh dear how many times do you have to be taught simple semantics? Remember all dogs are animals, not all animals are dogs????? All chimps and apes are primates, not all primates are chimps and apes. You said we were descended from Chimps and the other apes. We are NOT.”

You haven’t got a clue, have you!!!



“No its not, if that were the case then every individual would form their own race!!!!!!! Why, because the differences between individuals within any group are greater than the differences between groups. There are no separate races only one human race.”

This proves it:

"We have constructed a first-generation CNV map of the human genome through the study of 270 individuals from four populations with ancestry in Europe, Africa or Asia (the HapMap collection). DNA from these individuals was screened for CNV using two complementary technologies: single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping arrays, and clone-based comparative genomic hybridization. A total of 1,447 copy number variable regions (CNVRs), which can encompass overlapping or adjacent gains or losses, covering 360 megabases (12% of the genome) were identified in these populations."

As it always did – look at the last bit:

“A total of 1,447 copy number variable regions (CNVRs), which can encompass overlapping or adjacent gains or losses, covering 360 megabases (12% of the genome) were identified in these populations”

Get it now??!!



“Makes no sense. All the serious studies that have been done show that apart from the statistical outliers pretty much the whole of the variations in intelligence within the normal distribution are explained not by genetics”

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 recognized 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 affects 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/



“There are racial and ethnic differences in Blood type and composition{…}

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. We compile and maintain this database through often times confidential sources. Every Blood gathering entity in the world must gather this information to stay in business, but almost every one of them is afraid to publish the racial and ethnic differences in Blood type, given the emotionally charged political climate.”

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



“No its not that wouldn’t make any sense. The genetic differences between you and me will on average be greater than the differences on average between British people as a whole, and say Chinese people as a whole. That is what the statistics show that is what they mean.”

You are proven wrong again above!!



“It turns out he has black genes too”

Irrelevant.



“No, they disagree with the science behind it.”

Really, because it’s already been proven.



“Which just shows that the reason can’t be genetic doesn’t it?????”

What???!!



“The reason is obviously to do with the backgrounds of those boys, the sociological conditions, the aspirations of the community in which they live, the attitude of the boys to school – after all boys underperform compared to girls now – probably because in today’s society they think its easier to be a multi-million pound footballer, and so on. And as the report only talks about Afro-Carribean Boys, and not girls that view is further reinforced that this can’t be a genetic phenomenon.”

One report in three does – you ignored the other two where it includes all blacks!!!



“But, there was no factual basis. Watson did not provide any argument based on facts, just speculation and anecdote.”

Have a little read of the Bell Curve in that link – all proven!!!



“And you don’t understand economics either. Its quite possible to identify that countries have a potential to develop even if they are not experiencing rapid growth at the moment. The point being that the ground is being laid for such rapid growth in the future. That is what all those references from respected journals like the Economist were saying, and thereby proving my point.”

Clearly you don’t!!!!




“Sounds like a bit of penis envy too me.”

You have a non-productive and functionless role in society.



“I thought you were the expert on this!”

Tribe: An often nomadic cultural group with a common language, economy, religion, and government

Nation: A typically sedentary sovereign cultural group with all of the elements of a tribe but which owned or controlled specific territories



“Yes, you have. As I said, you have turned to that argument as a diversion”

Nope it was my only point!!!



“But, this was irrelevant to the point at issue”

Nope – you were wrong!!!



“You don’t understand history, you don’t understand maths and certainly not statistics, you don’t understand economics, you don’t understand the law, you don’t understand scientific principles, you don’t understand logic or semantics, you confuse and conflate historic events, you explain events by reference to other events that happened two years later and so on.”

CHOKE ON YOUR IGNORANCE!!!

YOU WERE WRONG ON ALL OF IT!!!!





“What is the point of me wasting my time arguing with someone who understands so little about anything?”

A very transparent caveat.

But one you should really take!!

How much lower can you go?

How much further can you embarrass yourself?

How much more ignorance will you reveal??!!!!

Arthur Bough said...

Its getting boring replying to the mindless drivel you keep putting out so rather than replying to the whole catalogue of mistakes, and because I've got better things to do at the moment I'll just once again rip apart sopme of the more obvious mistakes from the beginning of your post. I'll deal with the other crap later.

I've already shown in my last post that you confused 1943 for 1941, the Battle of Stalingrad with the Battle ofr Moscow, that you attributed the Soviet victory in 1941, to the US entry into the war which took place AFTER that victory had already been won.

But, lacking the brains to lie down when you've been ko'd you get back up like a punch drunk fighter for more punishment.

You say,

"In your twisted world....the turning point of WWII came in 1941;"

Let's see what others have to say.

"Operation Barbarossa remains the largest military operation, in terms of manpower, area traversed, and casualties, in human history.[23] The failure of Operation Barbarossa resulted in the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany and is considered a turning point for the Third Reich."

See: Operation Barbarossa

So obviously Wikipedia share that "twisted world" too then.

Do they say that the Soviet victory was due to the aid "largely" provided by the US to the USSR, or was due to the US keeping the Japanese busy in the Pacific freeing up the Soviet troops from Siberia? No. They actually say,

"German war planners grossly underestimated the mobilization potential of the Red Army: its primary mobilisation size (i.e. the total of already trained units that could be put on a war-footing in short time) was about twice as large as they had expected. By early August, new armies had taken the place of the destroyed ones. This fact alone implied the failure of Operation Barbarossa, for the Germans now had to limit their operations for a month to bring up new supplies, leaving only six weeks to complete the battle before the start of the mud season, an impossible task. On the other hand, the Red Army proved capable of replacing its huge losses in a timely fashion, and was not destroyed as a coherent force. When the divisions consisting of conscripts trained before the war were destroyed, they were replaced by new ones, on average about half a million men being drafted each month for the duration of the war. The Soviets also proved very skilled in raising and training many new armies from the different ethnic populations of the far flung republics. It was this Soviet ability to mobilise vast (if often badly trained and equipped) forces within a short time and on a continual basis which allowed the Soviet Union to survive the critical first six months of the war, and the grave underestimation of this capacity which rendered German planning unrealistic."

"The German High Command grossly underestimated the effective control the central Soviet government exercised. The German High Command incorrectly believed the Soviet government was ineffective. The Germans based their hopes of quick victory on the belief the Soviet communist system was like a rotten structure which would collapse from a hard kick.[81] In fact, the Soviet system proved resilient and surprisingly adaptable. In the face of early crushing defeats, the Soviets managed to dismantle entire industries threatened by the German advance. These critical factories, along with their skilled workers, were transported by rail to secure locations beyond the reach of the German army. Despite the loss of raw materials and the chaos of an invasion, the Soviets managed to build new armaments factories in sufficient numbers to allow the mass production of much needed war machinery. The Soviet government was never in danger of collapse and remained at all times in tight control of the Soviet war effort.

The Germans treated Soviet prisoners with brutality and exhibited cruelty toward overrun Soviet populations. The effect of this treatment instilled a deep hatred in the hearts and minds of the Soviet citizens. Hatred of the Germans enabled the Soviet government to extract a level of sacrifice from the Soviet population unheard of in Western nations.

The Germans underestimated the Soviet people as well. The German High Command viewed Soviet soldiers as incompetent and considered the average citizen as an inferior human being. German soldiers were stunned by the ferocity with which the Red Army fought. German planners were amazed at the level of suffering the Soviet citizens could endure and still work and fight.

A further reason for the German defeat was the underestimation of Soviet technical and productive capacity.
"


(empasis added) ibid.

You calim that you never said most of the equipment was provided by lend-lease, but you did as I showed in my previous bog, you said it was "largely" provided by that means. Now you want to backtrack and selctively quote to give the impression that you didn't say that.

This is just one example, of the way your blog is historically false, and you entire method based on fraudulent quoations. I thought I'd shown that you are innumerate in my last post, but clealry you want to be embarrassed and shown up to be a morin further. I''l do that later when I've attended to a few other more important matters.

Arthur Bough said...

Just to expose another lie from your response while I have five minutes.

You say,

"You said: “Then tell us what it actually was that they gave what amounts that allowed this to happen!”

And so I did, presenting Russian evidence of the aid – and it was enormous aid – truly remarkable – but that’s by the by – the point here is, yet again, you have to lie to create a dual reality in which you are right.

Of course, you don't say what this lie is do you? What lie is it. I gave the figures and unlike you, I gave sourced references fom reputable sources showing, not only could the explanation for the Soviet defeat of the Nazis in 1941, which was as Wikipedia says, the turning point in the War, not have been due "largely" to US aid, because at that point the US was not even in the War, but the total aid received although in global figures large, certainly was not large in comparison to the Soviet production, and was small compared with the aid recieved by Britain - in fact only a third of what Britain received despite the fact that the USSR wsa doing most of the fighting, had a much larger population, and a much larger territory to defend. In fact, as the data I gave showed the aircraft supplied according to the figures you gave amounted to only 14% of Soviet Aircraft production, and the tanks provided amounted to only about 10% of total Soviet tank production.

So, its you once again that's lying, and that facts once agin show it.

The Sentinel said...

Arthur, you detachment from reality is genuinely disturbing; I really do meant that. All of your absurd contentions have been thoroughly discredited, and in quite some detail and you have been irrefutably proven wrong on most of your bold statements but you still persist on continuing your ludicrously ignorant rants – against all the evidence.

Bold statements of yours like:

““But, as I’ve shown that your argument was false, because you wanted to explain the USSR’s defeat of Hitler in 1941, by reference to US supplies that didn’t begin until 1943, its all a bit irrelevant isn’t it? (1941-3)”

Are easily refuted by evidence, in this case the fact that the supplies stated on March 11, 1941 even before the Nazis invaded.

“The Government of the United States and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in order to provide for the orderly disposition in their mutual interests of the undelivered articles which were in inventory or procurement in the United States, prior to the cessation of active military operations against the common enemy, for the purpose of providing war aid to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the act of Congress of ~1arch 11,1941, as amended, agree as follows:

Article l

All articles and services undertaken to be provided by the Government of the United States under this agreement shall be made available under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of the act of Congress of March 11, 1941, as amended, and any acts supplementary thereto.”

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/documents/document_2.htm

The fact that you cannot admit that your wrong shows your complete lack of integrity.

But then, you didn’t even know there was any US aid to the USSR in the first place.

And you were wrong on every contention even down to the fact the USSR eastern troops were freed up by the escalating Japan-US conflict and the fact that they were used in the Battle of Moscow, contrary to another of you bold statements. Also it was proved in detail that the turning point of the war was in 1943 etc (even arguing against the evidence of the jewishvirtuallibrary.org) and, in yet another absolutely bizarre and absurdly ignorant bold statement you claim that the Nazis forged the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion” even though NO-ONE has ever claimed that before as they were used by the Tsarist Secret police 14 years before the Nazis even existed!!!!

What a complete farce.

You do not even any idea of what your supposed comrades really think about the USSR and say that Lenin believes he wasn’t presiding over a socialist state when he was in power at the time it was named as a socialist state – the USSR.

Even your amazingly deranged fantasies of non-violent and non-competitive animals was easily demolished as was your equally ridiculous PC fantasies of North American Indians living peacefully for thousands of years when the reality is, of course, that some were peaceful but some were not. Some were scalpers, some were slave-owners, and some were cannibals, as proved.

You have no integrity at all, and as I have said many times before, and I will say for the last time now: You are desperate and totally detached from reality.

Anyone can read the above posts (the last four in particular) and see that you have been torn to shreds by detailed evince and that you have lied and contorted whilst wearing you ignorance like a badge at every turn.

Everyone can see it – and they can see just how wrong you are and how you cannot admit to it.

And so there nothing at all you can say now that remotely has any merit or creditability, and quite obviously anything further from you will just be more absurdities and lies, and so therefore any further engagement with you is a complete waste of time.

And so this is my last word to you and I will not be reading anything further from you nor will I even be checking at all, you can waste your own time from now on but not mine – I’m off to Havana for a couple of weeks of business and sunshine. Besides, you really do not need anyone else involved to continue in your fantasy world, you are in it alone in any case.

In the unlikely event that anyone else is reading this ‘debate’ – if you want the truth just look back objectively over the last posts and you will see it all laid out – in detail and with strong evidence,

As for you Arthur – you are a pointless and irrelevant ‘debater’ and a time thief of the worst magnitude.

But, as they say, there is no fool like an old fool.

Arthur Bough said...

You say statements like yours such as,

““But, as I’ve shown that your argument was false, because you wanted to explain the USSR’s defeat of Hitler in 1941, by reference to US supplies that didn’t begin until 1943, its all a bit irrelevant isn’t it? (1941-3)”


”Are easily refuted by evidence, in this case the fact that the supplies stated on March 11, 1941 even before the Nazis invaded.”

But, you haven’t refuted that evidence have you?

I’d recommend that instead of just trying to snatch pieces of information to support your prejudices you first try reading properly the documents you cite. So if we take the document you cited, we find that it doesn’t actually represent what you make it out to represent.

Lend lease

If we look at when that document was signed we find that it says,

“This agreement shall take effect as from this day's date.
In witness whereof the undersigned, duly authorized by their respective Governments, have signed the present agreement in duplicate in Washington on the 15th day of October 1945.”

Again you show that you cannot research facts honestly, you have a slapdash attitude to research and the facts, and cannot present facts honestly. Moreover, it shows that you frequently do not even understand what you are reading. As this document was not signed until 1945 it could not possibly be an agreement to supply materiel in March 1941. And for another good reason. Until June 1941, the USSR had a pact with Nazi Germany, and consequently the US would certainly NOT have been supplying it with materiel. In fact, the Act of Congress of March 1941, to which it refers was the Act of Congress that allowed the US to begin Lend-Lease to the Allied Powers. It is not an Act of Congress to supply to the USSR for the reasons stated above i.e. the USSR was not one of those powers, but was part of a pact with the enemy of those powers!!!!!
In fact, if you had done your research properly you would have known that Lend-Lease did not start to the USSR until AFTER the German attack on the USSR in JUNE 1941 under the pre-lend lease agreement, which ran from 22nd June to 30th September 1941. A proper lend-lease agreement was not signed by the USSR with the US until 1st October 1941, the first protocol period, which ran until 30th June 1942.
But, the shipments were small during this period. As I have already demonstrated the Lend-lease from the US to the USSR amounted to only a third of what was provided to Britain. As a per capita basis that is around 15th of the aid supplied to Britain. In addition as I’ve shown the actual supply of materiel in the whole period up to the end of the war although large in total was small in proportion to the USSR’s production. Only 14% of aircraft, and only 10% for tanks, for instance.

”The fact that you cannot admit that your wrong shows your complete lack of integrity.”

But, the facts show that I am not wrong, that you have a cavalier attitude to the facts, and that you can’t read documents properly.

”But then, you didn’t even know there was any US aid to the USSR in the first place.

A look back shows that not only did I know that there was aid to the USSR, but that, unlike you I could date its commencement correctly after June 1941, but that I also showed that contrary to your contention that it was this aid which was “LARGELY” responsible for the USSR’s military equipment, it formed only a small percentage of the USSR’s military equipment. I could hardly make that point if I did know that there was such aid in the first place!!!! Once again the way you lie and distort with alacrity is demonstrated.

”And you were wrong on every contention even down to the fact the USSR eastern troops were freed up by the escalating Japan-US conflict and the fact that they were used in the Battle of Moscow, contrary to another of you bold statements.”

As Captain Mainwaring would say, “You’re in the realms of fantasy here, Jones!!!!”.

1) Operation Barbarossa began in June 1941. The Soviets had defeated it by December 1941. The attack on Pearl Harbour did not take place until December 1941, and the US did not enter the War until after that. So your statement about ” escalating Japan-US conflict” is as factually accurate as all the other evidence you provide in your ridiculous rants.

The Wikipedia quotes showed that the USSR had already defeated Japanese imperialism at the Batlle of Khalkin Gol – See: : Khalkin Gol and it was due to this defeat that Japan decided to focus its efforts further South and eventually to attack Pearl Harbour, because they felt that the US was an easier target than the USSR.
” Under the then unknown Georgy Zhukov, the Soviets won a crushing victory at the Battle of Khalkhin-Gol (known in Japan as the Nomonhan Incident). Defeat persuaded the Japanese to expand into the Pacific, where they saw the United States as a weaker opponent than the Soviet Union. If the Japanese had not lost at Khalkhin Gol, they may never have attacked Pearl Harbor.”
See: here .
Secondly, the wikipedia article also shows the reasons why the USSR defeated the Nazis.
“The Soviets also proved very skilled in raising and training many new armies from the different ethnic populations of the far flung republics. It was this Soviet ability to mobilise vast (if often badly trained and equipped) forces within a short time and on a continual basis which allowed the Soviet Union to survive the critical first six months of the war, and the grave underestimation of this capacity which rendered German planning unrealistic."
“In fact, the Soviet system proved resilient and surprisingly adaptable. In the face of early crushing defeats, the Soviets managed to dismantle entire industries threatened by the German advance. These critical factories, along with their skilled workers, were transported by rail to secure locations beyond the reach of the German army. Despite the loss of raw materials and the chaos of an invasion, the Soviets managed to build new armaments factories in sufficient numbers to allow the mass production of much needed war machinery.”
“Hatred of the Germans enabled the Soviet government to extract a level of sacrifice from the Soviet population unheard of in Western nations.

The Germans underestimated the Soviet people as well. The German High Command viewed Soviet soldiers as incompetent and considered the average citizen as an inferior human being. German soldiers were stunned by the ferocity with which the Red Army fought. German planners were amazed at the level of suffering the Soviet citizens could endure and still work and fight.

A further reason for the German defeat was the underestimation of Soviet technical and productive capacity."
See: Operation Barbarossa
Not a single mention there of it being due to US lend-lease materiel, not a mention there of it being due to the US freeing up Soviet troops on its Eastern border. Why, because they do not have such a cavalier attitude to the facts as you. They know that lend-lease during that period to the USSR was minimal. They certainly know that it couldn’t be due to US conflict in the Pacific with Japan as you state, because that conflict didn’t begin until AFTER the battle of Moscow had been won by the USSR, and the Nazis forced into retreat!!!!!!
By the way, in your previous response you said,
“Nowhere have I said that these troops went on to the ‘defense of Moscow’
You obviously can’t even remember what you HAVE said, because now you claim,
”And you were wrong on every contention even down to the fact the USSR eastern troops were freed up by the escalating Japan-US conflict and the fact that they were used in the Battle of Moscow, contrary to another of you bold statements.”

Schizophrenic or what????????

”Also it was proved in detail that the turning point of the war was in 1943 etc (even arguing against the evidence of the jewishvirtuallibrary.org)”
You said that my statement that the turning point of the War was the defeat of Barbarossa in December 1941 represented my “twisted” version of reality. The fact is as stated by Wikipedia,

”The failure of Operation Barbarossa resulted in the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany and is considered a turning point for the Third Reich.”

(ibid).

Simple as that. That is the mainstream historical view so however you want to try to twist it such a view can hardly be described as resulting from my twisted view of reality can it.

”and, in yet another absolutely bizarre and absurdly ignorant bold statement you claim that the Nazis forged the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion” even though NO-ONE has ever claimed that before as they were used by the Tsarist Secret police 14 years before the Nazis even existed!!!!”

What????? No one has ever claimed that the “Protoicols of the Elders of Zion” is a forgery!!!!!! Are you delusional or what?????

” The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion, Library of Congress's Uniform Title; Russian: "Протоколы сионских мудрецов", or "Сионские протоколы" ; see also other titles) is a tract alleging a Jewish and Masonic plot to achieve world domination. The Protocols has been proven by respected international scholars, both Jewish and non-Jewish, to be a forgery, a fraud and a hoax, as well as a clear case of plagiarism.”
See: Protocols of Zion
The Protocols also became a part of the Nazi propaganda effort to justify persecution of the Jews. It was made required reading for German students. In The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry 1933–1945, Nora Levin states that "Hitler used the Protocols as a manual in his war to exterminate the Jews":
Despite conclusive proof that the Protocols were a gross forgery, they had sensational popularity and large sales in the 1920s and 1930s. They were translated into every language of Europe and sold widely in Arab lands, the United States, and England. But it was in Germany after World War I that they had their greatest success. There they were used to explain all of the disasters that had befallen the country: the defeat in the war, the hunger, the destructive inflation.[52]
Hitler refers to the Protocols in Mein Kampf:
... To what extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic. [...] the important thing is that with positively terrifying certainty they reveal the nature and activity of the Jewish people and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims.[53]
Hitler endorsed it in his speeches from August 1921 on, and it was studied in German classrooms after the Nazis came to power. At the height of World War II, the Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels proclaimed: "The Zionist Protocols are as up-to-date today as they were the day they were first published."[37] In Norman Cohn's words, it served as the Nazis' "warrant for genocide".

I rest my case..
As I said, I’ll get back to demolishing the other crap when I have time, but its obvious just from these parts of your argument just how little concern for the facts you have. That is typical of your dishonest method. The rest of your arguments are even worse than the rubbish you’ve come up with here.

Arthur Bough said...

Just to expose another lie.

To my comment about lend-lease -
“No I don’t. You say this sum is unparalleled in history. It was in fact, only a third of the lend-lease provided to Britain.”

You say,

"Absolute rubbish!!!

In fact,

"A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to nearly $700 billion at 2007 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China."

The 11.3 billion to the USSR is as I said about a third of the 31.4 billion sent to Britain. Again you lie through your teeth, and that doesn't take into consideration that the population of the USSR was about 5 times that of the UK.

Arthur Bough said...

I've just been skimnming the other crap in your 15,000 word diatribe, and I have to say that it is pretty all beneath contempt let alone any rational person's response.

The good thing is that having produced such a large swathe of unreasonable garbage no one will actually bother to read it, thereby saving themselves such a waste of their time.

The Sentinel said...

Yip – I knew you would have some more lunatic fantasy drivel to add to your collection and so I thought I would come back and finish you off again.

Although everything I said stands – that your detachment from reality is shocking and that you are a time thief – I am still going to just keep ripping apart your stupid and ignorant fantasies each time you post them – starting with this latest load of crap, and then any other ludicrous and desperate crap you post in response when I come back form making some money and enjoying the sun in socialist workers paradise Cuba.

Amusingly you have left most of your absurdities well alone, you know like the perfectly peaceful North American Indians, two people having a nap in England being the same as the Spanish siesta, your idiotic remarks over the enormous and disparate impact of Third Worlder’s on western crime (again, facts that you didn’t know before I educated you) and Churchill being wrong about the Jewish impact on the Bolshevism and the revolution and all the dozens of other stupid, ignorant and baseless utterances that have shown you for the muppet you are.

And amazingly you think these below are your strong points!!!

Oh well, here we go again:


“As this document was not signed until 1945 it could not possibly be an agreement to supply materiel in March 1941”

Ermm, right.

It was signed on 15th October 1945 – four months after the end of the war. Do you think it might have been a retrospective document?

Or in your crazy world was the US supplying Lead-Lease aid to the USSR ONLY after the war had long ended???!!!

Do you think the title of the document may have given away its purpose?!!

“AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE U. S. S. R. ON THE DISPOSITION OF LEND-LEASE SUPPLIES IN INVENTORY OR PROCUREMENT IN THE UNITED STATES”



“In fact, if you had done your research properly you would have known that Lend-Lease did not start to the USSR until AFTER the German attack on the USSR in JUNE 1941 under the pre-lend lease agreement”

Like I have said all along, you are a bare faced twisted liar.

Remember these – yet more of your absurdly wrong bold statements:

“But, as I’ve shown that your argument was false, because you wanted to explain the USSR’s defeat of Hitler in 1941, by reference to US supplies that didn’t begin until 1943, its all a bit irrelevant isn’t it? (1941-3)”

“In this case you explain events in 1941, by events which were not to happen until 1943!!!! That is typical of your method in general, and as I expose the rest of your arguments to be fraudulent I’ll simply refer to (1941-43) as a shorthand of where you repeat this fraud.”

You are a clueless liar. Pure and simple.



“But, the shipments were small during this period. As I have already demonstrated the Lend-lease from the US to the USSR amounted to only a third of what was provided to Britain.”

Again you are so very wrong – as has been very carefully explained to you, the vast bulk, the overwhelming bulk of US aid to Britain was in the form of loans – not material goods.



“A look back shows that not only did I know that there was aid to the USSR, but that, unlike you I could date its commencement correctly after June 1941”

No liar – a look back shows us that you thought it commenced two years later – and you thought that as such it was irrelevant!!!!

“But, as I’ve shown that your argument was false, because you wanted to explain the USSR’s defeat of Hitler in 1941, by reference to US supplies that didn’t begin until 1943, its all a bit irrelevant isn’t it? (1941-3)”



“but that I also showed that contrary to your contention that it was this aid which was “LARGELY” responsible for the USSR’s military equipment, it formed only a small percentage of the USSR’s military equipment. I could hardly make that point if I did know that there was such aid in the first place!!!! Once again the way you lie and distort with alacrity is demonstrated.”

And again you are so very wrong.

Firstly remember yet another of your bold statements (so many I know!) challenging me to give evidence of any aid to the USSR:

“Then tell us what it actually was that they gave, what amounts that allowed this to happen!”

Because clearly you didn’t have a clue!!

And now there is the reality, as I have said many times, that that aid was largely responsible for the USSR’s military production (and a major reason it did not collapse at all):

I know you won’t accept reality from any source, but in any case this is from a Russian source – Pravda in fact, the former official organ of the USSR:

“Soviet propaganda tried to diminish the importance of the American help. Back in those years, it was said that the Soviet Union had produced 30,000 tanks and 40,000 planes since the middle of 1943. Well, as a matter of fact, this was true. However, one has to take into consideration the fact that lend and lease deliveries were made to the USSR during the most difficult period of the war - during the second half of 1942. In addition, the USSR would not have been capable of producing its arms without the lend-lease agreement: The USA shipped 2.3 million tons of steel to the USSR during the WWII years. That volume of steel was enough for the production of 70,000 T-34 tanks. Aluminum was received in the volume of 229,000 tons, which helped the Soviet aviation and tank industries to run for two years. One has to mention food deliveries as well: 3.8 million tons of tinned pork, sausages, butter, chocolate, egg powder and so on. The lend-lease agreement provided orderlies with 423,000 telephones and tens of thousands of wireless stations. Deliveries also included oil distillation equipment, field bakeries, tents, parachutes, and so on and so forth. The Soviet Union also received 15 million pairs of army boots.”

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/9941_roosevelt.html


And here are a couple more nuggets of truth from for you to choke on:

“For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that fewer than 20 new locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1944 nearly half the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. US supplies of waterproof telephone cable, aluminum, and canned rations were also critical.”

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/lend-lease%20-%20significance/id/5226269


“The author makes a clear case that the program was a major factor in the survival of the Soviet Union and the victory over Nazism.{…}

In two particular areas the help was indispensable. With major agricultural regions of the Soviet Union under enemy occupation, and the unsatisfactory system of distribution and transportation, to say nothing of mismanagement, the Soviet state had more than a nodding acquaintance with famine. Without Western aid, during the war the Soviet population would have been in danger of sharing the fate of those trapped in Leningrad and the earlier victims of collectivization. Even with the American aid, many Russians died from lack of food. Equally important was Lend-Lease’s contribution to transportation. It would have been impossible for the Red Army to move the masses of troops and supplies on the primitive roads to the front lines without American Studebaker trucks, which also served as the launching pads for the dreaded Soviet rocket artillery.

Besides weaponry and food, Lend-Lease provided the Soviet Union with other resources, ranging from clothing to metals. With the start of the Cold War, Lend-Lease became a forgotten chapter in Soviet history and was only revived after glasnost. Now, thanks to Russian researchers and this excellent study, the West will have access to the real story. Lend-Lease provided vital help for the Soviet Union when the country was in desperate straits and made a significant contribution to the final victory.”

http://www.historynet.com/russias-life-saver-lend-lease-aid-to-the-ussr-in-world-war-ii-book-review.htm

Starting to sink through your thick, sick skull?



“Operation Barbarossa began in June 1941. The Soviets had defeated it by December 1941. The attack on Pearl Harbour did not take place until December 1941, and the US did not enter the War until after that. So your statement about ” escalating Japan-US conflict” is as factually accurate as all the other evidence you provide in your ridiculous rants.”

You really are stupid – I mean it’s not just an act is it?

The escalating Japan-US conflict that LED to the war LED to the USSR being able to remove hug numbers of troops from the east to the west – to the defense of Moscow actually:

“During the autumn, Stalin had been transferring fresh and well-equipped Soviet forces from Siberia and the far east to Moscow (these troops had been stationed there in expectation of a Japanese attack, but Stalin's master spy Richard Sorge indicated that the Japanese had decided to attack Southeast Asia and the Pacific instead). On 5 December 1941, these reinforcements attacked the German lines around Moscow, supported by new T-34 tanks and Katyusha rocket launchers. The new Soviet troops were prepared for winter warfare, and they included several ski battalions. The exhausted and freezing Germans were routed and driven back between 100 and 250 km (60 to 150 miles) by 7 January 1942.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Patriotic_War#Soviet_counter-offensive:_Winter_1941




“By early December {1941}, freshly mobilized reserves[95] allowed the Soviets to achieve numerical parity with Axis troops.[77] This, as well as intelligence data that established a minimal amount of Soviet troops in the East sufficient to prevent Japanese Kwantung Army from the attack,[96] allowed the Soviets to mount a massive counter-offensive that started on December 5 along 1000 km front and pushed German troops 100-250 km west.[97]”

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





“Not a single mention there of it being due to US lend-lease materiel, not a mention there of it being due to the US freeing up Soviet troops on its Eastern border.”

The detailed facts, as even admitted by the Russians and a former USSR official organ at that – are above - choke on them!!!



“AFTER the battle of Moscow had been won by the USSR, and the Nazis forced into retreat!!!!!!”

Temporally – as you well know having been given the evidence before – the first one from the jewishvirtuallibrary.org – who maybe just might be more inclined to play down any Nazi successes then play them up!!!

Its just more delusional fantasy from you to perpetuate your own sense of righteous!!!


“By spring 1942, the Germans had stabilized their front in a line running roughly from Leningrad in the north to Rostov in the south. There were a number of salients in the line where Soviet offensives had pushed the Germans back, notably to the northwest of Moscow and south of Kharkov, but neither was particularly threatening. In the far south the Germans were in control of most of the Ukraine and much of the Crimean, although Sevastapol remained in Soviet hands along with a small portion of the Kerch peninsula.

The Germans were confident they could master the Red Army when winter weather no longer impeded their mobility. There was some substance to this belief: while Army Group Center (Heeresgruppe Mitte) had suffered heavy punishment, 65 percent of its infantry had not been engaged during the winter fighting, and had been rested and reequipped. Army Groups North and South had not been particularly hard pressed over the winter{…}

Blau finally opened as Army Group South began its attack into southern Russia on June 28, 1942. The German offensive started well. Soviet forces offered little resistance in the vast empty steppes and started streaming eastward in disarray. Several attempts to re-establish a defensive line failed when German units outflanked them. Two major pockets were formed and destroyed: the first northeast of Kharkov on July 2 and a second, around Millerovo, Rostov Oblast, a week later{…}

The initial advance of the Sixth Army was so successful that Hitler intervened and ordered the Fourth Panzer Army to join Army Group South (A) to the south. A massive traffic jam resulted when the Fourth Panzer and the Sixth both required the few roads in the area. Both armies were stopped dead while they attempted to clear the resulting mess of thousands of vehicles. The delay was long, and it is thought that it cost the advance at least one week. With the advance now slowed, Hitler changed his mind and re-assigned the Fourth Panzer Army back to the attack on Stalingrad.

By the end of July, the Germans had pushed the Soviets across the Don River. At this point, the Germans began using the armies of their Italian, Hungarian, and Romanian allies to guard their left (northern) flank. The German Sixth Army was only a few dozen kilometers from Stalingrad, and Fourth Panzer Army, now to their south, turned northwards to help take the city. To the south, Army Group A was pushing far into the Caucasus, but their advance slowed as supply lines grew overextended. The two German army groups were not positioned to support one another due to the great distances involved.

Besides being a turning point in the war, Stalingrad…”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/Stalingrad.htm



“{the}successful Soviet defense of the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) in the Russian S.F.S.R. during World War II. Russians consider it to be the greatest battle of their Great Patriotic War, and most historians consider it to be the greatest battle of the entire conflict. It stopped the German advance into the Soviet Union and marked the turning of the tide of war in favour of the Allies.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/562720/Battle-of-Stalingrad



“By mid 1942, the German invasion had already cost Russia over six million soldiers, half killed and half captured by the Germans, and a large part of its vast territory and resources. With the help of its arctic winter, it stopped the exhausted Germans just before Moscow and pushed them back a bit. But in the summer of 1942, when Russia was still very weak from its tremendous losses, the German military was again ready to demonstrate its formidable fighting force.”

http://www.2worldwar2.com/stalingrad.htm



“Nowhere have I said that these troops went on to the ‘defense of Moscow’


You obviously can’t even remember what you HAVE said, because now you claim,


”And you were wrong on every contention even down to the fact the USSR eastern troops were freed up by the escalating Japan-US conflict and the fact that they were used in the Battle of Moscow, contrary to another of you bold statements.”

Schizophrenic or what????????”



Not at all – nowhere did I say it – but it was true in any case as we have seen yet again above – and as we have seen yet again you were completely wrong again with yet another of your ludicrous bold statements:

“The first is that Operation Barbarossa began in June 1941!!!!! So, your argument that the Siberian troops could be sent to defend Moscow, because the entry of the US meant they didn’t need to defend the East against Japan is complete and utter rubbish, because the US did not enter the War until 18 months later!!!!!”

Idiotic or what????????????



“You said that my statement that the turning point of the War was the defeat of Barbarossa in December 1941 represented my “twisted” version of reality. The fact is as stated by Wikipedia,

”The failure of Operation Barbarossa resulted in the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany and is considered a turning point for the Third Reich.”

Of course it did – eventually!!

But only after massive US aid to the USSR as we have seen, the ability of the USSR to move massive amounts of troops to the west from the east because of the coming conflict with the US, the onset of extremely harsh winters, the multi-front war pressing Germany, etc etc

But the turning point of the war was certainly NOT 1941 but in 1943 – as everyone but an idiot like you knows.

It’s not even me you are arguing with its William L Shirer, the BBC, jewishvirtuallibrary.org and Churchill amongst many, many others!!!!

Churchill’s famous contemporary speech makes it plain when he thought the war had turned:

"The Germans have received back again that measure of fire and steel which they have so often meted out to others. Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

—Lord Mayor's Luncheon, Mansion House following the victory at El Alameinin North Africa, London, 10 November 1942.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=388



But he was yet to witness the loss of the battle of Stalingrad – when just about every contemporary source and every historian thereafter places the turning point of the war – 1943!!!!

Probably the best contemporary source and WWII chronicler was William L Shirer:-

“The historian William L. Shirer, in his history of World War II, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, summarised the importance of the Battle of Stalingrad with these words:

“Coupled with El Alamein and the British-American landings in North Africa it marked the great turning point in World War II. The high tide of Nazi conquest which had rolled over most of Europe to the frontier of Asia on the Volga and in Africa almost to the Nile had now begun to ebb and it would never flow back again. The time of the great Nazi blitz offensives, with thousands of tanks and planes spreading terror in the ranks of the enemy armies and cutting them to pieces, had come to an end.”

http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/stalingrad.htm




“Besides being a turning point in the war, Stalingrad…”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/Stalingrad.htm




Here a few more sources:

“The Battle of Stalingrad was a battle between Nazi Germany and its allies and the Soviet Union for control of the city of Stalingrad in Southern Russia. The battle took place between 17 July 1942 and 2 February 1943, during World War II.

The results of these operations are often cited as one of the turning points of World War II. “

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


“The defeat at Stalingrad threw Hitler's offensive in the Soviet Union into disarray, and was a turning point in the war in Europe”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/2/newsid_3573000/3573003.stm



“The Battle of Stalingrad is considered by many historians to have been the turning point in World War Two in Europe.”

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_of_stalingrad.htm



“What????? No one has ever claimed that the “Protoicols of the Elders of Zion” is a forgery!!!!!! Are you delusional or what?????”

I think it is you who is delusional – well just a warped liar really.

You claimed it a forgery produced by the Nazis in yet another of your ridiculous and bold statements:

“A forgery produced by the Nazis and proven beyond doubt to be such”

And of course now you are trying desperately now to backtrack when you have actually bothered to find out that yet again, you are so very wrong.

And, as you well know I had already provided this as evidence –

““The original source has been clearly identified as an 1864 book by Maurice Joly entitled The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu…

The current belief is that the forgery was initiated and authorized by factions of the Russian aristocracy opposed to the political and social reforms initiated by the previous Tsar (Alexander II). The fabricated document was intended to convince the antisemitic Tsar Nicholas II not to allow any additional reforms, since all reforms would be playing into the hands of this just-discovered "secret Jewish plot". Once the Russian Revolution began in 1905 however, the use of the forgery changed”

Once again you are revealed as a very strange, very warped twisted liar.



“I've just been skimnming the other crap in your 15,000 word diatribe, and I have to say that it is pretty all beneath contempt let alone any rational person's response.”

Again the fact that you are full of arbitrary shit can be revealed by your bold statement that there 15,000 words; and the rest is subject to record – before, just as now you have been consistently demolished and exposed for the silly, ignorant, deluded and bitter old fool you are.

And I will gladly rip apart any further of you absurdities you decide to vomit up, at my leisure.

Arthur Bough said...

We have 12,000 words of bollocks, which I systematically took apart. We then had 15,000 words of evasion, misrepresentation bluff, bluster and endless yet pointless quotes that you clearly don’t understand, or which simply demonstrate yet again your propensity for reproducing forged and unreliable material like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, we have you refusing to refute the evidence I have given and instead claiming that I have given no proof, and you accuse me of being a time thief. It is you that is the time thief, fortunately its only your own time that your are stealing because no one else is listening to the drivel you come out with. Now you fill another 3,500 words not with replies to points raised but with more drivel and bravado to make up for the fact that your method has been shown for the fraud that it is. I didn’t need to waste my or other people’s time doing that by dealing with all the nonsense in your 15,000 words because there was nothing in that which I hadn’t already demolished in my previous reply. It was only necessary to expose you by showing that your statement that my claim that the Battle of Moscow was a turning point in the War, was as you put it “twisted”, was just an illustration of the fact that you begin with a preconceived prejudice and will not admit when the facts disprove it, and that your method of argument is simply to dismiss the position of others as in some way based on a lie. But, the simple quote from Wikipedia, which stated that the Battle of Moscow, the defeat of the Third Reich, was indeed a turning point in the War, was all I needed to do that. Yet, still you refuse to admit you were wrong. Why is it that I’m not surprised? Let’s rip apart anything approaching an argument that you’ve put in your latest trash can of ideas.

”Although everything I said stands – that your detachment from reality is shocking and that you are a time thief “

Like the idea that the failure of Barbarossa was a turning point in the War? A statement confirmed for all to see by Wikipedia? Time thief, who is it that wrote firstly a 15,000 diatribe of meaningless Spam, made up of references to documents as reliable as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Who was it that followed that up with a 15,000 swamp of invective, even more spam, evasion of argument, misrepresentation and accusations of failure to present proof in place of evidence to disprove the facts that were presented. No you are right I’m not going to waste my time or anyone else’s replying to that garbage. Certainly not in one go. I have better things to do.

”I am still going to just keep ripping apart your stupid and ignorant fantasies each time you post them – starting with this latest load of crap, and then any other ludicrous and desperate crap you post in response when I come back form making some money and enjoying the sun in socialist workers paradise Cuba.

Again typical bravado and bluster from someone who can’t present a logical argument and who relies on misrepresentation. Cuba is very nice, but certainly not socialist, certainly not a workers paradise. But, then as we’ve seen understanding political systems is not one of your strong points.

”Amusingly you have left most of your absurdities well alone, you know like the perfectly peaceful North American Indians, two people having a nap in England being the same as the Spanish siesta, your idiotic remarks over the enormous and disparate impact of Third Worlder’s on western crime (again, facts that you didn’t know before I educated you) and Churchill being wrong about the Jewish impact on the Bolshevism and the revolution and all the dozens of other stupid, ignorant and baseless utterances that have shown you for the muppet you are.”

Except, rather than relying on the kind of bluff and bluster you resort to here I showed by reference to the facts, and by logical argument that not only had you misrepresented on many of those things what I had said, but the arguments you had given were clearly wrong. For example, you claimed that 80% of the black population had been responsible for offences when in fact the figures that you had yourself presented showed that that was not true. Your failure to understand even basic maths put together with your bigotry led you into making a thoroughly bogus and ridiculous statement.

”And amazingly you think these below are your strong points!!!”

Not at all. I focussed on what you present as YOUR strong points rather than waste time dealing with all the myriad other mistakes and absurdities in your posts, because in doing so I could simply show that your method is both crude and dishonest. By doing so it removes the need to reply to the rest of your 15,000 words, which are even more baseless, because they rely on the same method.

”It was signed on 15th October 1945 – four months after the end of the war. Do you think it might have been a retrospective document?

Or in your crazy world was the US supplying Lead-Lease aid to the USSR ONLY after the war had long ended???!!!”


But, I never claimed that it was!!!!!! Again, you demonstrate that not only did you not understand the document you cited, but you didn’t understand my response to your use of it – or more likely you did, but simply as you have done throughout tried rather crudely to misrepresent it. How could I be arguing that this document ONLY referred to supply of material to the USSR after the War had ended when I then went on to present you with the facts of what actual lend-lease arrangements were put in place in 1941 between the US and USSR.

The whole point was to show that yet again you used a document, which either you didn’t understand or else you used fraudulently, or probably both. You seized upon a date in that document March 1941, and tried to make out from that that showed when aid had started to be sent to the USSR. Such a claim was ridiculous for anyone that understands history and politics. March 1941 was simply the date that Congress passed the acts that enabled lend-lease to the allies. The 1945 document you quoted was merely a document detailing the terms of payments to be made for the materials supplied under that Act. Its nothing more. Aid could not have been supplied to the USSR under that agreement in March 1941 as you claimed because in March 1941, the USSR was not an “Ally”, it was in fact a member of a pact with the enemy of those Allies. Moreover, in March 1941 the USSR was not at War, three was no need for such aid.


“In fact, if you had done your research properly you would have known that Lend-Lease did not start to the USSR until AFTER the German attack on the USSR in JUNE 1941 under the pre-lend lease agreement”

”Like I have said all along, you are a bare faced twisted liar.”

Why is it that people with such little intelligence as you are always the ones who are so confident that there ignorant statements are absolute truths? Why is it that you are always so easily proved wrong.

Let’s show how much of a bare faced, twisted lie this statement is shall we?

”American deliveries to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases:
· "pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941 (paid for in gold)
· first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941)
· second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)
· third protocol period from 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1944 (signed 19 October 1943)
· fourth protocol period from 1 July 1944, (signed 17 April 1945), formally ended 12 May 1945 but deliveries continued for the duration of the war with Japan (which the Soviet Union entered on the 8 August 1945) under the "Milepost" agreement until 2 September 1945 when Japan capitulated. On 20 September 1945 all Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union was terminated.”

So yet again we see exactly who its is that is the bare faced, twisted liar. In fact, the first convoy to make deliveries to the USSR under lend-lease didn’t arrive until the end of August 1941.
“But, the shipments were small during this period. As I have already demonstrated the Lend-lease from the US to the USSR amounted to only a third of what was provided to Britain.”

”Again you are so very wrong – as has been very carefully explained to you, the vast bulk, the overwhelming bulk of US aid to Britain was in the form of loans – not material goods.”

Total bollocks yet again.

”Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II, particularly in the early years when the United States was not directly involved and the entire burden of the fighting fell on other nations, notably those of the Commonwealth and, after June 1941, the Soviet Union. Although Pearl Harbor and the Axis Declarations of War brought the US into the war in December 1941, the task of recruiting, training, equipping U.S. forces and transporting them to war zones could not be completed immediately. Through 1942, and to a lesser extent 1943, the other Allies continued to be responsible for most of the fighting and the supply of military equipment under Lend-Lease was a significant part of their success. In 1943-44, about a fourth of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft (in particular transport aircraft) comprised about one-fourth of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles and ships.
Even after the United States forces in Europe and the Pacific began to reach full-strength in 1943–1944, Lend-Lease continued. Most remaining allies were largely self-sufficient in front line equipment (such as tanks and fighter aircraft) by this stage, but Lend-Lease provided a useful supplement in this category even so, and Lend-Lease logistical supplies (including trucks, jeeps, landing craft and, above all, the Douglas C-47 transport aircraft)were of enormous assistance.”

See:” Lend lease

“but that I also showed that contrary to your contention that it was this aid which was “LARGELY” responsible for the USSR’s military equipment, it formed only a small percentage of the USSR’s military equipment. I could hardly make that point if I did know that there was such aid in the first place!!!! Once again the way you lie and distort with alacrity is demonstrated.”

”Firstly remember yet another of your bold statements (so many I know!) challenging me to give evidence of any aid to the USSR:

“Then tell us what it actually was that they gave, what amounts that allowed this to happen!”

”Because clearly you didn’t have a clue!!

No, because I wanted you for once to provide some evidence to back up you ludicrous assertions! And when you did provide some evidence it proved you WRONG! Yet, having been proved wrong you simply go on repeating it.

”And now there is the reality, as I have said many times, that that aid was LARGELY responsible for the USSR’s military production (and a major reason it did not collapse at all):”

But it wasn’t was it. 14% of aircraft, and 10% of tanks. And that is the total amount of supplies of aircraft and tanks during the whole War. The supplies in the crucial period during 1941 the period when fighting on its own the USSR for the first time in the War cased the first German defeat, for the first time in the War caused Germany to retreat, did not begin arriving until the end of August, and were only a small part of the Soviet equipment.

”I know you won’t accept reality from any source, but in any case this is from a Russian source – Pravda in fact, the former official organ of the USSR:

“Soviet propaganda tried to diminish the importance of the American help. Back in those years, it was said that the Soviet Union had produced 30,000 tanks and 40,000 planes since the middle of 1943. Well, as a matter of fact, this was true. However, one has to take into consideration the fact that lend and lease deliveries were made to the USSR during the most difficult period of the war - during the second half of 1942.”


But, we were discussing the reasons for the defeat of the Nazis by the Soviets in the Battle of Moscow in 1941 not the supply of material in the second half of 1942!!!! A defeat, you claimed was due to a) the role of the US in the Pacific, when in fact, at that time the US was not even in the War in fact as Wikipedia makes clear the US did not really begin fighting until 1943 and b) the role of lend-lease which you claimed was LARGELY responsible for Soviet military production. You can’t explain that defeat by any of the facts you have presented here, yet you continue to argue that case, you continue to present those facts as though they are answering that case, and you continually change the basis of the argument.

”The escalating Japan-US conflict that LED to the war LED to the USSR being able to remove huge numbers of troops from the east to the west – to the defence of Moscow actually:”

Yet, despite the quotes you have given the fact remains that the Soviets had already defeated the Japanese two years earlier at Khalkin Gol, and it was that crushing defeat that led them to believe that the US was an easier target, and led them to attack Pearl Harbour! And despite the fact, of the quotes you have given about the fact that troops from the East were sent to the defence of Moscow they were sent precisely at the time when even according to the quote you have given here the Germans were already “exhausted and freezing”. Those troops no doubt helped to finish the job off, but as the quote from Wikipedia states, the real reason for the German defeat was

”“The Soviets also proved very skilled in raising and training many new armies from the different ethnic populations of the far flung republics. It was this Soviet ability to mobilise vast (if often badly trained and equipped) forces within a short time and on a continual basis which allowed the Soviet Union to survive the critical first six months of the war, and the grave underestimation of this capacity which rendered German planning unrealistic."
“In fact, the Soviet system proved resilient and surprisingly adaptable. In the face of early crushing defeats, the Soviets managed to dismantle entire industries threatened by the German advance. These critical factories, along with their skilled workers, were transported by rail to secure locations beyond the reach of the German army. Despite the loss of raw materials and the chaos of an invasion, the Soviets managed to build new armaments factories in sufficient numbers to allow the mass production of much needed war machinery.”
“Hatred of the Germans enabled the Soviet government to extract a level of sacrifice from the Soviet population unheard of in Western nations.

The Germans underestimated the Soviet people as well. The German High Command viewed Soviet soldiers as incompetent and considered the average citizen as an inferior human being. German soldiers were stunned by the ferocity with which the Red Army fought. German planners were amazed at the level of suffering the Soviet citizens could endure and still work and fight.

A further reason for the German defeat was the underestimation of Soviet technical and productive capacity."

See: Operation Barbarossa
“AFTER the battle of Moscow had been won by the USSR, and the Nazis forced into retreat!!!!!!”

”Temporally – as you well know having been given the evidence before – the first one from the jewishvirtuallibrary.org – who maybe just might be more inclined to play down any Nazi successes then play them up!!!

Its just more delusional fantasy from you to perpetuate your own sense of righteous!!!”


It was the first time since the beginning of the War that Germany had been defeated by anybody. It came at a time when all of the Allies had effectively been defeated or forced back into their bunker by Germany, or else as in the case of the US had not even entered the War, and as Wiki says, the US did not properly start fighting in Europe until 1943. In short, the USSR was fighting alone against the massed ranks of the Axis Powers. It not only faced those powers, but due to the criminal National Socialist politics of Stalin it also faced opposition from within the ranks of its own national minorities. Just 20 years after the revolution there also remained remnants of the old exploiting classes prepared to fight alongside the Nazis or as Fifth Columnists within the USSR. That is why it was as Wiki says a turning point in the War. Not the ONLY turning point, but a turning point for sure, and as the first one, probably the most significant one. Had Germany succeeded then the other turning points probably could not have occurred.

“{the}successful Soviet defense of the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) in the Russian S.F.S.R. during World War II. Russians consider it to be the greatest battle of their Great Patriotic War, and most historians consider it to be the greatest battle of the entire conflict. It stopped the German advance into the Soviet Union and marked the turning of the tide of war in favour of the Allies.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/562720/Battle-of-Stalingrad


All true, but the fact is that the German attempt at an advance here was an attempt at an advance having already been defeated and forced back after the defeat of Barbarossa. Had barbarossa succeeded none of this would have been necessary.

“Nowhere have I said that these troops went on to the ‘defense of Moscow’

You obviously can’t even remember what you HAVE said, because now you claim,


”And you were wrong on every contention even down to the fact the USSR eastern troops were freed up by the escalating Japan-US conflict and the fact that they were used in the Battle of Moscow, contrary to another of you bold statements.”

”Schizophrenic or what????????”

”Not at all – nowhere did I say it – but it was true in any case as we have seen yet again above – and as we have seen yet again you were completely wrong again with yet another of your ludicrous bold statements:”

Absolutely, bloody amazing. There it is in black and white just above your statement. Here again you have gone at great length to give us quotes about Russian spies advising about the removal of the Japanese threat and so on, and yet you deny you have made that statement. Bonkers.

“The first is that Operation Barbarossa began in June 1941!!!!! So, your argument that the Siberian troops could be sent to defend Moscow, because the entry of the US meant they didn’t need to defend the East against Japan is complete and utter rubbish, because the US did not enter the War until 18 months later!!!!!”

”Idiotic or what????????????

Yes, I agree an absolutely idiotic statement to make. It was made because I was replying to a 12,000 word diatribe, cutting and pasting text, and dealing with various bits of a rambling, often incoherent argument. But, when I had time to proof read what I had written I spotted the obvious mistake, and wrote a correction to it. It is symptomatic of your dishonest method that several days after that correction was made, a correction that was made even before you ha made your original reply of 15,000 words you quote from the uncorrected version.

Thoroughly typical of your dishonest method or what????

“You said that my statement that the turning point of the War was the defeat of Barbarossa in December 1941 represented my “twisted” version of reality. The fact is as stated by Wikipedia,

”The failure of Operation Barbarossa resulted in the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany and is considered a turning point for the Third Reich.”


Of course it did – eventually!!

So to say that it represented a turning point in the War can’t be described as twisted then can it?????? So your assertion to that end was not only wrong, but typical of your method of argumentation wasn’t it??????

“What????? No one has ever claimed that the “Protoicols of the Elders of Zion” is a forgery!!!!!! Are you delusional or what?????”

”I think it is you who is delusional – well just a warped liar really.…



Once again you are revealed as a very strange, very warped twisted liar.”


Really? Yet, it was you that produced as evidence a document, which you presented as good coin, that was itself based on the Elders of Zion forgery. Who was it that reproduced in vast quantities this known forgery, who was it that made it centrepiece in their propaganda, who was it that that referred to it in Mein Kampf? And now you try to do the same by putting forward as evidence a document that is based on that forgery, and trying to tell us that this evidence can be taken as worthwhile supporting evidence!!!! And no doubt just as here you want to deny the role of the Nazis in spreading that forgery around the world, as though such an act is not just as much an act of forgery as that of whoever might have originally produced the document, you will deny any responsibility for the evidence based on it, which you now bring forward!!!!

It’s the same as the fraudulent evidence you have given in every other instance – the report on the woman from Acton, which deliberately distorts the facts about the Benefits she was getting, and even after I have shown to be false, you continue to defend without any attempt whatsoever to bring forward evidence to challenge the facts I have given. Its like your statement that 80% of blacks were involved in committing an offence when the quote you had given yourself actually stated the contrary. Its like the quotes you have given on DNA, which you clearly don’t have the intelligence to understand which disprove your ridiculous racial theories, and yet, which you continue to reproduce at length as though they did. Its like the way you take my quotes and misrepresent them so that you can argue against something I never said. As I said, a waste of time, and thoroughly dishonest.

“I've just been skimnming the other crap in your 15,000 word diatribe, and I have to say that it is pretty all beneath contempt let alone any rational person's response.”

Again the fact that you are full of arbitrary shit can be revealed by your bold statement that there 15,000 words;

I copied it into Word and ran a Word Count.15,287 words actually, so I was being generous to you. That’s the difference between us. I actually check facts before making statements. You make statements then seek out any old fact that might support it. And if there are none you use some other fact, which you misrepresent or like the Daily Mail and the other racists you just make it up.

Have fun in Cuba, don’t worry about the sharks. But, if you meet one I’ll be routing for the shark.

Arthur Bough said...

Just while I've got a couple of minutes I'll demolish another of your misrepresented documents - that relating to Sutton's "Wall Street and the Bolsheviks".

This quote deals succinctly with the innuendo you were making - the common one about a Jewish-Bolshevik Conspiracy.

"'The question now in the readers' minds must be, were these bankers also secret Bolsheviks? No, of course not. The financiers were without ideology. It would be a gross misinterpretation to assume that assistance for the Bolshevists was ideologically motivated, in any narrow sense. The financiers were power-motivated and therefore assisted any political vehicle that would give them an entree to power: Trotsky, Lenin, the tsar, Kolchak, Denikin — all received aid, more or less....

Neither was aid restricted to statist Bolsheviks and statist counter-Bolsheviks. John P. Diggins, in Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America,4 has noted in regard to Thomas Lamont of Guaranty Trust that

"Of all American business leaders, the one who most vigorously patronized the cause of Fascism was Thomas W. Lamont. Head of the powerful J.P. Morgan banking network, Lamont served as something of a business consultant for the government of Fascist Italy."

Lamont secured a $100 million loan for Mussolini in 1926 at a particularly crucial time for the Italian dictator."


See: here

The following also deals succinctly with the various other anti-semitic conspiracies you have put forward.

"However, none of the above statements can be supported with hard empirical evidence. The most significant information is contained in the paragraph to the effect that the British authorities possessed "letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world dominion." If indeed such letters exist, then they would provide support (or nonsupport) for a presently unsubstantiated hypothesis: to wit, that the Bolshevik Revolution and other revolutions are the work of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.

Moveover, when statements and assertions are not supported by hard evidence and where attempts to unearth hard evidence lead in a circle back to the starting point — particularly when everyone is quoting everyone else — then we must reject the story as spurious.
There is no concrete evidence that Jews were involved in the Bolshevik Revolution because they were Jewish.
There may indeed have been a higher proportion of Jews involved, but given tsarist treatment of Jews, what else would we expect? There were probably many Englishmen or persons of English origin in the American Revolution fighting the redcoats. So what? Does that make the American Revolution an English conspiracy? Winston Churchill's statement that Jews had a "very great role" in the Bolshevik Revolution is supported only by distorted evidence. The list of Jews involved in the Bolshevik Revolution must be weighed against lists of non-Jews involved in the revolution. When this scientific procedure is adopted, the proportion of foreign Jewish Bolsheviks involved falls to less than twenty percent of the total number of revolutionaries — and these Jews were mostly deported, murdered, or sent to Siberia in the following years. Modern Russia has in fact maintained tsarist anti-Semitism.It is significant that documents in the State Department files confirm that the investment banker Jacob Schiff, often cited as a source of funds for the Bolshevik Revolution, was in fact
against
support of the Bolshevik regime.
5
This position, as we shall see, was in direct contrast to the Morgan-Rockefeller promotion of the Bolsheviks.The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles.What better way to divert attention from the
real
operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?"


See: here

The Sentinel said...

Oh dear oh dear, yet another collection of bizarre twists, ignorant assertions and outright lies.

And very tragically, you are now claiming to word count posts – very odd and sad if true and very odder and sadder if it’s just another attempted face saving lie.

But anyhow:


“I didn’t need to waste my or other people’s time doing that by dealing with all the nonsense in your 15,000 words because there was nothing in that which I hadn’t already demolished in my previous reply.”

You were ripped apart again. Here is a random selection of just 5 of your WWII absurdities demolished:


1) Huge German troop numbers tied down by partisans.

YOU’RE ABSURDITY:

“As for Europe, this had long since ceased to be an arena of battle, and in fact, Germany had all the advantages of its client regimes in Norway and France in supplying it, and as fortresses and staging posts from which to attack the Allies. Far from there presence their being a drain it was a positive advantage!”


THE TRUTH:

Hundreds of thousands of German troops were bogged down in security and anti-partisan duties to the detriment of the combat theatres.


THE EVIDENCE:


Just with France:

“The historian Robert Paxton estimated the number of active resistants to be "about 2% of the adult French population [or about 400,000]", going on to say that "there was no doubt, wider complicities, but even if one adds those willing to read underground newspapers, only some two million persons, or around 10% of the adult population, seem to have been willing to take that risk."[38] The postwar government of France officially recognised 220,000 men and women.[39]”

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

This tied down inordinate amounts of German fighting troops.


“inflicted massive damage on infrastructure and tied down German troops across France. The Resistance could far more easily neutralise railways, industrial sites and power stations than Allied air power, and their intelligence networks, at first lightly regarded by the British, were of decisive importance. Between June 1943 and May 1944 nearly 2,000 locomotives were destroyed. In October 1943 alone, over 3,000 attacks were recorded on the railways, 427 resulting in heavy damage, with 132 trains derailed. In the South West such sabotage was so effective that by June 6th 1944 it took 3 days to travel from Paris to Toulouse!”

http://libcom.org/history/articles/spanish-resistance-in-france-1939


And this caused inordinate material, logistical and military damage.


In Yugoslavia:

“Tito set up a rival guerrilla army, eventually had 150,000 men, enough to tie down 15 Axis divisions”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,807165,00.html


In Norway:

“The Norwegian resistance movement played an important part in World War Two. The people who fought in the Norwegian resistance had a number of major advantages over the Germans - a long coast line with vast amounts of the country uninhabited. Norway also had a long border with neutral Sweden which could be easily crossed. In such an environment, a focused resistance movement could do great harm to an occupying army.
The Norwegian secret army (known as Milorg) {…} In 1944 , the number of people in Milorg stood at 32,000”

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/norwegian_resistance.htm


And then there was Poland, Greece, Belgium, Holland etc etc


2) The enormous impact of Allied aid on the USSR’s ability to produce, fight and survive.



YOU’RE ABSURDITIES:

“The huge production of Russian aircraft and tanks had nothing to do with Allied Aid whatsoever{…}

Rubbish you can’t make tanks and aeroplanes without steel, you can’t make steel without coal and iron and so on. All of those things were produce in the USSR. The US and the Allies could not hope to produce a fraction of the needs of Russia’s huge population"{…}

"But, as I’ve shown that your argument was false, because you wanted to explain the USSR’s defeat of Hitler in 1941, by reference to US supplies that didn’t begin until 1943, its all a bit irrelevant isn’t it? (1941-3)”


THE TRUTH

The USSR could not have even produced arms without allied aid, let alone transported any production anywhere. Without Allied aid the USSR would have collapsed.


THE EVIDENCE


“Soviet propaganda tried to diminish the importance of the American help. Back in those years, it was said that the Soviet Union had produced 30,000 tanks and 40,000 planes since the middle of 1943. Well, as a matter of fact, this was true. However, one has to take into consideration the fact that lend and lease deliveries were made to the USSR during the most difficult period of the war - during the second half of 1942. In addition, the USSR would not have been capable of producing its arms without the lend-lease agreement: The USA shipped 2.3 million tons of steel to the USSR during the WWII years. That volume of steel was enough for the production of 70,000 T-34 tanks. Aluminum was received in the volume of 229,000 tons, which helped the Soviet aviation and tank industries to run for two years. One has to mention food deliveries as well: 3.8 million tons of tinned pork, sausages, butter, chocolate, egg powder and so on. The lend-lease agreement provided orderlies with 423,000 telephones and tens of thousands of wireless stations. Deliveries also included oil distillation equipment, field bakeries, tents, parachutes, and so on and so forth. The Soviet Union also received 15 million pairs of army boots.”

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/9941_roosevelt.html


And here are a couple more nuggets of truth from for you to choke on:

“For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that fewer than 20 new locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1944 nearly half the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. US supplies of waterproof telephone cable, aluminum, and canned rations were also critical.”

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/lend-lease%20-%20significance/id/5226269


“The author makes a clear case that the program was a major factor in the survival of the Soviet Union and the victory over Nazism.{…}

In two particular areas the help was indispensable. With major agricultural regions of the Soviet Union under enemy occupation, and the unsatisfactory system of distribution and transportation, to say nothing of mismanagement, the Soviet state had more than a nodding acquaintance with famine. Without Western aid, during the war the Soviet population would have been in danger of sharing the fate of those trapped in Leningrad and the earlier victims of collectivization. Even with the American aid, many Russians died from lack of food. Equally important was Lend-Lease’s contribution to transportation. It would have been impossible for the Red Army to move the masses of troops and supplies on the primitive roads to the front lines without American Studebaker trucks, which also served as the launching pads for the dreaded Soviet rocket artillery.

Besides weaponry and food, Lend-Lease provided the Soviet Union with other resources, ranging from clothing to metals. With the start of the Cold War, Lend-Lease became a forgotten chapter in Soviet history and was only revived after glasnost. Now, thanks to Russian researchers and this excellent study, the West will have access to the real story. Lend-Lease provided vital help for the Soviet Union when the country was in desperate straits and made a significant contribution to the final victory.”

http://www.historynet.com/russias-life-saver-lend-lease-aid-to-the-ussr-in-world-war-ii-book-review.htm


3) Italian and axis “assistance” to Germany


YOU’RE ABSURDITY:


“Moreover, you speak as though Germany was fighting this War on its own. You emphasise the role of the Allies, but say nothing about the Axis Powers, which also attacked the USSR and other parts of the world. There had been 200,000 Italian Troops in Russia, along with Rumanian and Hungarian armies for a start. And, of course the Italians were the first forces in North Africa.”


THE TRUTH:

The Italians were a disastrous liability.

THE EVIDENCE:


“In October, Italy invaded Greece but within days were repulsed and pushed back into Albania, where a stalemate soon occurred.[60] Shortly after this, in Africa, Commonwealth forces launched offensives against Egypt and Italian East Africa. By early 1941, with Italian forces having been pushed back into Libya by the Commonwealth{…}

The Germans soon intervened to assist Italy. Hitler sent German forces to Libya in February and by the end of March they had launched an offensive against the diminished Commonwealth forces. In under a month, Commonwealth forces were pushed back into Egypt with the exception of the besieged port of Tobruk. The Commonwealth attempted to dislodge Axis forces in May and again in June, but failed on both occasions. In early April the Germans similarly intervened in the Balkans, invading Greece and Yugoslavia; here too they made rapid progress, eventually forcing the Allies to evacuate after Germany conquered the Greek island of Crete by the end of May.[62]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#War_breaks_out_in_Europe


4) North Africa and the German troop surge.


YOU'RE ABSURDITY:


“Except, of course they were already there. Rommel already had control of much of North Africa!!! It was the Allies who had to get troops there to launch an assault.”


THE TRUTH:

The British were already there – and so were the Italians – it was the sheer ineptitude and incompetence of the Italians that forced the Germans into the theater.


THE EVIDENCE:

“Fighting in North Africa started with the Italian declaration of war on 10 June 1940. On 14 June, the British Army's 11th Hussars (assisted by elements of the 1st Royal Tank Regiment) crossed the border into Libya and captured the Italian Fort Capuzzo. This was followed by an Italian offensive into Egypt and then in December 1940 by a Commonwealth counteroffensive, Operation Compass. During Operation Compass, the Italian Tenth Army was destroyed and the German Afrika Korps, commanded by Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, was dispatched to North Africa, during Operation Sonnenblume, to bolster the Italian forces and prevent a complete Axis defeat.”



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



5) Turning point of the war.


YOU'RE ABSURDITY:


“And I also educated you on the turning point of the war: 1943.

Except, of course, brilliant military historian that you are you got the date wrong by two years. The turning point was the Battle of Moscow in late 1941, before the US was even in the War!!!!!”


THE TRUTH:

It is an almost universally accepted fact of history that the turning point of the war was in 1943 – specifically after Stalingrad and in conjunction with El Alemein.


THE EVIDENCE:


Churchill’s famous contemporary speech makes it plain when he thought the war had turned:

"The Germans have received back again that measure of fire and steel which they have so often meted out to others. Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

—Lord Mayor's Luncheon, Mansion House following the victory at El Alameinin North Africa, London, 10 November 1942.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=388

But he was yet to witness the loss of the battle of Stalingrad – when just about every contemporary source and every historian thereafter places the turning point of the war – 1943!!!!

Probably the best contemporary source and WWII chronicler was William L Shirer:-

“The historian William L. Shirer, in his history of World War II, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, summarised the importance of the Battle of Stalingrad with these words:

“Coupled with El Alamein and the British-American landings in North Africa it marked the great turning point in World War II. The high tide of Nazi conquest which had rolled over most of Europe to the frontier of Asia on the Volga and in Africa almost to the Nile had now begun to ebb and it would never flow back again. The time of the great Nazi blitz offensives, with thousands of tanks and planes spreading terror in the ranks of the enemy armies and cutting them to pieces, had come to an end.”

http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/stalingrad.htm




“Besides being a turning point in the war, Stalingrad…”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/Stalingrad.htm


“The Battle of Stalingrad was a battle between Nazi Germany and its allies and the Soviet Union for control of the city of Stalingrad in Southern Russia. The battle took place between 17 July 1942 and 2 February 1943, during World War II.

The results of these operations are often cited as one of the turning points of World War II. “

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



“The defeat at Stalingrad threw Hitler's offensive in the Soviet Union into disarray, and was a turning point in the war in Europe”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/2/newsid_3573000/3573003.stm



“The Battle of Stalingrad is considered by many historians to have been the turning point in World War Two in Europe.”

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_of_stalingrad.htm


And here are just a random three of your other absurdities demolished:


1) North American Indians:


YOU'RE ABSURDITY:


“The history of mankind says different, particularly the long peaceful history of many North American Indian tribes that lived for thousands of years with each other in peace, prior to European settlement. In itself clear evidence that it is class society which creates the kinds of divisions and economic competition that leads to wars.”


THE TRUTH:


North American Indians may inhabit special place in your PC fantasy world, but in reality they are just as prone to competition and violence.


THE EVIDENCE:


“There's even grimmer news in the recent scholarship. In September, the journal Nature published incontrovertible evidence that many southwestern Indians practiced cannibalism in ancient times. This was suspected for years, given the frequency with which butchered and cooked human bones turned up in archaeological digs. But some scholars believed this was proof of nothing more than rituals whose meaning is now lost, or perhaps the execution of people thought to be witches. Just because the Anasazi were tossing dismembered body parts into cooking pots doesn't necessarily mean they were also eating them, right?{…}

Last year saw the publication of the groundbreaking book Man Corn: Cannibalism and Violence in the Prehistoric American Southwest, by Arizona State University's Christy Turner II, a longtime advocate of the cannibalism theory. It was an important work, but some scholars decided to ignore it. "I was just at an archeological conference," said UCLA's Steven A. LeBlanc in the Los Angeles Times. "There were tenured professors there who said they were not going to read Christy's book. They don't want to think about it." But now scientists have found human fecal remains containing proteins that could only have gotten there from the consumption of human flesh. There hasn't been much of a response from the naysayers yet, except to recycle the familiar claim that the ancestors of today's Indians didn't do these things, because there's no mention of cannibalism in their oral traditions.”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_19_52/ai_65805908/pg_2?tag=content;col1



“According to ethnohistorian James Axtell, there is abundant evidence that the Native American practice of scalping existed long before Europeans arrived.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping#North_America



“One of the least discussed subjects in the voluminous literature on sla-

very in North America is the enslavement of African Americans by Native

American tribes. For various reasons—some pertaining to scholarly ne-

glect, others to the politically sensitive nature of the issue—this topic

tends to arouse reactions of incredulity or denial. On a popular level, it

is simply a non-issue. Just to mention a recent case, Ken Burns's tele-

vision documentary series on the Civil War, broadcast in the United States

in 1991, did not contain a single word on African slaves living among the

Indians, or on Indian troops fighting on the side of the Confederacy.

Even among historians and anthropologists, the consensus seems to

be that Native American slaveholding either was too marginal a phe-

nomenon or is too controversial a subject to warrant exhaustive treat-

ment. Specialized monographic treatments of the issue are few, and it

hardly ever is discussed in general historiographies of slavery in North

America.1 Nonetheless, we cannot ignore the historical record: Native

Americans did enslave black people and made them work for them”

http://www.bartlconsult.de/bc/papers/Bartl%201995.pdf



Actor Don Cheadle’s ancestors were slaves owned by Native American Indians, and look at the surprise on his face when he finds out!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aW08mfhc1Y&feature=PlayList&p=CBF7397DD4D7C611&playnext=1&index=1



“There is little universal commonality among Native Americans. To consider Native Americans all to be the same would be to stereotype them. There is, however, a few areas of commonality:

1)All Native Americans have Mongolian ancestry from Asia

2)All Native Americans had a profound understanding and close relationship with nature

Beyond that ... they were different. Only relative few tribes lived in tipis, Not all tribes raised corn. Not all tribes wore feathers. Not all tribes were peaceful, nor were all tribes warlike.”

http://www.fourdir.com/chapter_3_native_american_cultures.htm





2) the protcols of the elders of zion forged by the Nazis


YOU'RE ABSURDITY:


“A forgery produced by the Nazis and proven beyond doubt to be such”


THE TRUTH:


This document was in existence at least 55 years before the Nazis even existed!!!

And it was used by the Tsarist secret police – at least 14 years BEFORE THE NAZIS EVEN EXISTED!!!!



THE EVIDENCE:


““The original source has been clearly identified as an 1864 book by Maurice Joly entitled The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu…

The current belief is that the forgery was initiated and authorized by factions of the Russian aristocracy opposed to the political and social reforms initiated by the previous Tsar (Alexander II). The fabricated document was intended to convince the antisemitic Tsar Nicholas II not to allow any additional reforms, since all reforms would be playing into the hands of this just-discovered "secret Jewish plot". Once the Russian Revolution began in 1905 however, the use of the forgery changed”



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



3) Immigrantion and Third World impact on ‘western’ crime rates


YOU'RE ABSURDITIES:


“I’ve already stated that the fact that SOME people from a migrant community MIGHT – even where the facts haven’t been made up, or manipulated – have been involved in crime, doesn’t at all mean that all, or even a large number ARE involved in crime. The point is that you take these stories about isolated examples, and turn them into a statement about ALL migrants.”



”these are facts and the huge and disparate impact on crime these people have is real.” implying again that this huge and disparate effect could only be the result of a huge and disparate number of immigrants, when in fact even the figures you have presented show that not to be the case.


THE TRUTH:


A Huge and dispropoatinet effect on crime by immigrants, most notabely of Thrid World origin and most notably for rape, gang rape and violence.



THE EVIDENCE:



"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."

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/1-latest-news/27877.html

"Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily...

The study is the first where the crime statistics have been analyzed according to ethnic origin.

Of the 111 charged with rape in Oslo last year, 72 were of non-western ethnic origin, 25 are classified as Norwegian or western and 14 are listed as unknown...

Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year."

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


"a 1998 Justice Ministry survey on crime, which found that immigrants were over-represented by an average of 46 per cent. In addition, the recent publication of a report from the Copenhagen police shows that 47.5 per cent of prisoners on remand for serious crimes such as murder, attempted murder and rape come from immigrant backgrounds."

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/1-latest-news/28210.html


“Illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war, says a new report from Family Security Matters that estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. and about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population”

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/february/0222_illegals_report.shtml


"According to a new study from the Crime Prevention Council, Brå, it is four times more likely that a known rapist is born abroad, compared to persons born in Sweden. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects."

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article327666.ab


"Blacks were almost three times more likely than Hispanics and five times more likely than whites to be in jail."

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/jails.htm


"About half the US nation’s 2.2 million prisoners are black. With only 36 million of us, that’s an astounding 3% of African Americans, counting all ages and both sexes, languishing behind bars, with a roughly equal number on probation, parole, house arrest or other court supervision. Almost one in three 18-year-old black males across the board is likely to catch a felony conviction, and in some communities nearly half the black male workforce under 40 have criminal records"

http://www.blackcommentator.com/146/146_cover_dixon_ten_worst.html


“A Sunday Herald Sun survey of 400 cases at magistrates' courts across Melbourne found 14 per cent of offenders came from the Horn of Africa and the Middle East -- many of them refugees -- about 20 times the representative proportion of the population.”

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,21166482-661,00.html



“For over a decade there has been concern expressed about the growth in Australia of organised criminal activity by Vietnamese{…} Similar concerns have emerged in Canada note#69 and the United States. In 1992, a United States Senate subcommittee reported”

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/australia/docs/ncaaoc3.html


“Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture. His remarks angered community leaders, who accused him of ignorance and failing to provide support for black-led efforts to tackle the problem.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/apr/12/ukcrime.race


"AUSTRALIA is set to drastically reduce its Sudanese refugee program this year.

With growing community concern about the behaviour 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


"Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) chief Jørn Holme said the greatest anti-terrorism challenge facing Norway is its own citizens, particularly second generation immigrants...

Specifically Holme said it was vital to gather those in the danger zone and find them employment..."


http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1207224.ece


"Immigrants behind 25% of Swedish crime

Immigrants in Sweden are four times more likely to be investigated for lethal violence and robbery than persons born in Sweden to Swedish parents, the National Council for Crime Prevention said on Wednesday.

Immigrants were also three times more likely to be investigated for assault and five times more likely to be investigated for sex crimes.

Among foreigners suspected of offences, those from North Africa and Western Asia were overrepresented."

http://www.thelocal.se/2683/20051214/


In over 80 per cent of UK gang rape cases, the defendants are black.

http://www.newstatesman.com/199811200011


There are five times more young blacks in prison then whites.

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


And as for the rest:


“Time thief, who is it that wrote firstly a 15,000 diatribe of meaningless Spam, made up of references to documents as reliable as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?”

I didn’t write 15,000 words at all muppet and you are so obsessed with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in fact you are the only one to make reference to them at all, and yet you have no absolutely idea of their history – thinking that the Nazis produced them even though they were touted around at least 14 years before the Nazis existed!!!



Here is your first reference of many in your obsession:

“No it hasn’t its been asserted by you, and as you’ve pointed out just because you assert something doesn’t make it true. Your last statement is false. You claim that the list you cited was created by the Frankfurt School. Firstly, this has all the hallmarks of those fabrications so loved by Nazis such as the Protocols of he Elders of Zion”



“No you are right I’m not going to waste my time or anyone else’s replying to that garbage. Certainly not in one go. I have better things to do.”

And so do I – but because I know my facts, history and that I am are right it takes me only a few minutes to tear apart your demented nonsense; as we can see above and in every post.


“Cuba is very nice, but certainly not socialist, certainly not a workers paradise”

As proven, some of you’re fellow comrades think it is.



“For example, you claimed that 80% of the black population had been responsible for offences when in fact the figures that you had yourself presented showed that that was not true”

Another easily exposed lie.

Here is the evidence:

In over 80 per cent of UK gang rape cases, the defendants are black.

http://www.newstatesman.com/199811200011


What you said: “The vast majority of black males have not been charged with gang rape.”


What I said: “But 80% of everyone who had was black.”


You just cannot stop lying!!!!


“Not at all. I focussed on what you present as YOUR strong points rather than waste time dealing with all the myriad other mistakes and absurdities in your posts, because in doing so I could simply show that your method is both crude and dishonest. By doing so it removes the need to reply to the rest of your 15,000 words, which are even more baseless, because they rely on the same method.”


You have been thoroughly ripped apart and you know it – and even for someone as accomplished as you at it, there must be only so many lies and bullshit you can come up with.



“How could I be arguing that this document ONLY referred to supply of material to the USSR after the War had ended when I then went on to present you with the facts of what actual lend-lease arrangements were put in place in 1941 between the US and USSR”


Maybe because you are a very confused muppet who had this to say:



“As this document was not signed until 1945 it could not possibly be an agreement to supply materiel in March 1941”



“You seized upon a date in that document March 1941, and tried to make out from that that showed when aid had started to be sent to the USSR. Such a claim was ridiculous for anyone that understands history and politics. March 1941 was simply the date that Congress passed the acts that enabled lend-lease to the allies.”


Yet again another pointless lie – this is what you thought before I educated you:

“But, as I’ve shown that your argument was false, because you wanted to explain the USSR’s defeat of Hitler in 1941, by reference to US supplies that didn’t begin until 1943, its all a bit irrelevant isn’t it? (1941-3)”



“Aid could not have been supplied to the USSR under that agreement in March 1941 as you claimed because in March 1941, the USSR was not an “Ally”, it was in fact a member of a pact with the enemy of those Allies. Moreover, in March 1941 the USSR was not at War, three was no need for such aid.”


Aid was being supplied to any country with a conflict with Japan and the USSR was still fighting the Japanese at the up until April 13, 1941 – my enemies enemy is my friend being the motivation. Others, like China got aid and help like the “flying tigers” etc etc


“Why is it that people with such little intelligence as you are always the ones who are so confident that there ignorant statements are absolute truths? Why is it that you are always so easily proved wrong.”


You haven’t done it once old man!!!!


“No, because I wanted you for once to provide some evidence to back up you ludicrous assertions! And when you did provide some evidence it proved you WRONG! Yet, having been proved wrong you simply go on repeating it.


”And now there is the reality, as I have said many times, that that aid was LARGELY responsible for the USSR’s military production (and a major reason it did not collapse at all):”

But it wasn’t was it. 14% of aircraft, and 10% of tanks. And that is the total amount of supplies of aircraft and tanks during the whole War. The supplies in the crucial period during 1941 the period when fighting on its own the USSR for the first time in the War cased the first German defeat, for the first time in the War caused Germany to retreat, did not begin arriving until the end of August, and were only a small part of the Soviet equipment.”

Ha ha ha.

The evidence is very clear:

“However, one has to take into consideration the fact that lend and lease deliveries were made to the USSR during the most difficult period of the war - during the second half of 1942. In addition, the USSR would not have been capable of producing its arms without the lend-lease agreement: The USA shipped 2.3 million tons of steel to the USSR during the WWII years. That volume of steel was enough for the production of 70,000 T-34 tanks. Aluminum was received in the volume of 229,000 tons, which helped the Soviet aviation and tank industries to run for two years.”

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/9941_roosevelt.html


“For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that fewer than 20 new locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel.”

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/lend-lease%20-%20significance/id/5226269


“Besides weaponry and food, Lend-Lease provided the Soviet Union with other resources, ranging from clothing to metals. With the start of the Cold War, Lend-Lease became a forgotten chapter in Soviet history and was only revived after glasnost. Now, thanks to Russian researchers and this excellent study, the West will have access to the real story. Lend-Lease provided vital help for the Soviet Union when the country was in desperate straits and made a significant contribution to the final victory.”

http://www.historynet.com/russias-life-saver-lend-lease-aid-to-the-ussr-in-world-war-ii-book-review.htm



“But, we were discussing the reasons for the defeat of the Nazis by the Soviets in the Battle of Moscow in 1941”

You need to check the meaning of the word defeat – the advance was temporarily halted.


“You can’t explain that defeat by any of the facts you have presented here”


The temporary halt was due to the onset of winter more then anything else – as has been carefully explained to you before.


“And despite the fact, of the quotes you have given about the fact that troops from the East were sent to the defence of Moscow they were sent precisely at the time when even according to the quote you have given here the Germans were already “exhausted and freezing”. Those troops no doubt helped to finish the job off”

The quotes actually tell you what happened – obviously:

“The new Soviet troops were prepared for winter warfare, and they included several ski battalions. The exhausted and freezing Germans were routed and driven back between 100 and 250 km (60 to 150 miles) by 7 January 1942”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Patriotic_War#Soviet_counter-offensive:_Winter_1941


“By early December {1941}, freshly mobilized reserves[95] allowed the Soviets to achieve numerical parity with Axis troops.[77] This, as well as intelligence data that established a minimal amount of Soviet troops in the East sufficient to prevent Japanese Kwantung Army from the attack,[96] allowed the Soviets to mount a massive counter-offensive that started on December 5 along 1000 km front and pushed German troops 100-250 km west.[97]”

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

There was no job “finished off” you just don’t get it at all do you??!! It was just a temporary halt to the offensive!!! It continued again after the thaw!!!!!


“That is why it was as Wiki says a turning point in the War. Not the ONLY turning point, but a turning point for sure, and as the first one, probably the most significant one.”

What year was that again? 1941 or 1943??!!!


“All true, but the fact is that the German attempt at an advance here was an attempt at an advance having already been defeated and forced back after the defeat of Barbarossa. Had barbarossa succeeded none of this would have been necessary.”


The battle for Moscow was just that – a battle – the loss of a battle does not result in a defeat – though of course you know nothing of it at all.


“Absolutely, bloody amazing. There it is in black and white just above your statement. Here again you have gone at great length to give us quotes about Russian spies advising about the removal of the Japanese threat and so on, and yet you deny you have made that statement. Bonkers.”


I didn’t make the statement – you assigned it too me – I might have done anyway, but the point is you made it up and assigned it to me!!! And then ridiculed your own invented statement and then found it was true!!!!!

Nuts!!!!


“The first is that Operation Barbarossa began in June 1941!!!!! So, your argument that the Siberian troops could be sent to defend Moscow, because the entry of the US meant they didn’t need to defend the East against Japan is complete and utter rubbish, because the US did not enter the War until 18 months later!!!!!”

”Idiotic or what????????????


“Yes, I agree an absolutely idiotic statement to make. It was made because I was replying to a 12,000 word diatribe, cutting and pasting text, and dealing with various bits of a rambling, often incoherent argument. But, when I had time to proof read what I had written I spotted the obvious mistake, and wrote a correction to it. It is symptomatic of your dishonest method that several days after that correction was made, a correction that was made even before you ha made your original reply of 15,000 words you quote from the uncorrected version. “

It’s idiotic because those troops did do exactly that!!!!


“So to say that it represented a turning point in the War can’t be described as twisted then can it??????”


Another silly little lie – you are trying to say 1941 was THE turning point of the war – the point at which the Nazis were effectively defeated -– in fact you said it:

“Except, of course, brilliant military historian that you are you got the date wrong by two years. The turning point was the Battle of Moscow in late 1941, before the US was even in the War!!!!!”



“Really? Yet, it was you that produced as evidence a document, which you presented as good coin, that was itself based on the Elders of Zion forgery.”

Really, where is that then?


“And now you try to do the same by putting forward as evidence a document that is based on that forgery, and trying to tell us that this evidence can be taken as worthwhile supporting evidence!!!”

Tweedle dee tweedle dum rubbish.

You have brought up the Protocols of the Elders of Zion consistently – not me – I have not used any such thing as evidence, as you well know.

You are desperately trying to maneuver out of your absurd contention that the Nazis forged it.


“I copied it into Word and ran a Word Count.15,287 words actually, so I was being generous to you. That’s the difference between us. I actually check facts before making statements”

How very, very sad and bizarre.

Arthur Bough said...

Oh dear, Alzheimer's or what?

You pad out your post with simple repetitions of quotes I've already destroyed. Yet again you seek to justify events that happened in 1941 with facts that pertained to the second half of 1942 even according to the quotes you gave.

And you wonder why you end up writing 15,000 words of crap. And yes, I did a word count, because I wanted to be ready for when you inevitably even denounced my statement on that to be a lie, which is your stock answer to everything.

Either that or your ridiclulous schoolboy attempts to distort what I've said, for example over animals, or North American Indians.

And you can't run away from the fact that you quoted as good coin a document which based itself on the Protocols. Nor can you get away from the fact that it was the Nazis that reproduced and circulated in vast numbers that same forged document.

I'll look at the other crap in your latest load of garbage later, but just on the North American Indians we see another example of how you misuse facts and documents. Cannibalism has been practiced by most peoples around the world. It has most often been associated with paying homage to the dead, basically eating your ancestors. There is nothing in it that NECESSARILY implies violence or warfare. But, it HAS also been part of that too in pre-slave societies where it wasn't possible to use people as slaves.

None of that changes hte fact that for thousands of years North American Indians were able to live in peace with each other. The fact that hostilities might break out very occasionally does not change that description does it, at least not for any sane person.

The agreements between different tribes and nations over what could and could not be done, permission to cross hunting grounds, to fish, and even to hunt at certain times are very well docuemtned by anthropologists.

And no one said that the North American Indians were homeogenous did they!!! In fact, the latest evidence is that the first natives came from France, and got their during the Ice Age when ice flows were low enough in the Atlantic to allow them to cross by hugging the ice flows and hunting as they went across. That has been confirmed by DNA sequencing, and from ethnographic studies of hunting techniques, tools and art.

As I said, I've already replied and dealt with much of what you have regurgitated here. I'll look at the rest when I have time and inclination.

The Sentinel said...

Yip - thoroughly exposed yet again!!!

The facts speak for themselves - you are a clueless liar.



"And you can't run away from the fact that you quoted as good coin a document which based itself on the Protocols."

So you keep saying, but are unable to evidence it.



"Nor can you get away from the fact that it was the Nazis that reproduced and circulated in vast numbers that same forged document."

And you are unable to get away from you're absurd and ludicrously ignorant contention that the Nazi forged the Protocols of The Elders of Zion!!!!

As you put it "“A forgery produced by the Nazis and proven beyond doubt to be such” - are you now ready to admit that you know nothing and the Nazis DID NOT FORGE this document, nor indeed has anyone credible EVER accused the Nazis as doings so???!!!



"but just on the North American Indians we see another example of how you misuse facts and documents"

Or in reality use them to show what a deluded idiot you are!!



"Cannibalism has been practiced by most peoples around the world. It has most often been associated with paying homage to the dead, basically eating your ancestors."

Is it really?

"Other cultures participated in endo- and exo-cannibalism for similar reasons, such as The North American Indians, known as the Iroquoian. They believed that sacrificing and consuming the bodies of their enemies would satisfy their war god and lead to their spirit being transferred and absorbed into their own bodies. The absorbed spirit was believed to empower the cannibal with the attributes of the dead person"

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/cannibalism/2.html



"There is nothing in it that NECESSARILY implies violence or warfare. But, it HAS also been part of that too in pre-slave societies where it wasn't possible to use people as slaves."

I think the evidence above speaks for itself.

As does the scalping and as does the slave owning:



"None of that changes hte fact that for thousands of years North American Indians were able to live in peace with each other. The fact that hostilities might break out very occasionally does not change that description does it, at least not for any sane person."

And any sane person would know that the North American Indians are not some sort of god-like PC ideal and that as such their behaviour was followed the same pattern as the other humans on this planet.

Some were peaceful, some were not, just like the rest of us - NO DIFFERENT TO TO ANYONE ELSE - and so your fantasy of them living in peace with each other for thousands of years in some sort of idyllic paradise is just more of your insane, deluded fanatical PC rubbish.


"Despite these struggles, the remarkable diversity of pre-Columbian America is beginning to emerge. Some Indians were noble, others ignoble; some were generous, others greedy; some ate buffalo meat, others had a taste for human flesh. Covering this up is the surest way to deny American Indians their humanity. It turns them into nothing more than totems of identity politics."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_19_52/ai_65805908/pg_3?tag=content;col1


“There is little universal commonality among Native Americans. To consider Native Americans all to be the same would be to stereotype them. There is, however, a few areas of commonality:

1) All Native Americans have Mongolian ancestry from Asia

2) All Native Americans had a profound understanding and close relationship with nature

Beyond that ... they were different. Only relative few tribes lived in tipis, Not all tribes raised corn. Not all tribes wore feathers. Not all tribes were peaceful, nor were all tribes warlike.”

http://www.fourdir.com/chapter_3_native_american_cultures.htm



"And no one said that the North American Indians were homeogenous did they!!!"

No they didnt weirdo - so why are you???!!



"As I said, I've already replied and dealt with much of what you have regurgitated here. I'll look at the rest when I have time and inclination."

You have been ripped apart again, as you have over every post - face it!!!

Arthur Bough said...

"And you can't run away from the fact that you quoted as good coin a document which based itself on the Protocols."

”So you keep saying, but are unable to evidence it.”

Now you are just lying in the most ridiculous manner. In your 12,000 word exegesis you wrote,

”Here is another little fact of how the principle players in the game of international finance operate and are perceived as they do (Jacob Schiff was a major player in the financing of the Bolsheviks):” (NB. I’ve already given previously evidence showing that these claims about Schiff are very dubious and lack corroborative evidence. They appear to be rather like the evidence of WMD in Iraq, one group of intelligence agencies quoting as evidence statements by other agencies without anyone actually having the original documents or proof).

You then went on to quote the following:

“Japan was able to defeat Russia in 1905 only after a Jewish banker in New York, Jacob Schiff, helped Japan by floating bonds. So The Protocols of the Elders of Zion confirmed what the Japanese already suspected: Jews really did pull the strings of global finance.

The Australian

Could it be any clearer you argue that the Russian Revolution was a conspiracy between Jewish Bankers, Wall Street and Bolsheviks, in other words the classic lie perpetrated by the Nazis. You support your contention with a document, which you then put forward as being support for this nonsense about Jews controlling global finance. But, yet again we see your propensity to use the first document that comes to hand which you believe will support your case even when that document in reality does the very opposite!!!!! That was the case with the 1945 document, for instance which you claimed PROVED that US shipments began to the USSR in March 1941, and which I have shown to be a completely false assertion on your part. It was true of the Pravda account of shipments in late 1942 that you presented as explaining events in 1941, and so on.

A glance at the actual document you referenced here by Ian Buruma again proves the exact opposite of your assertion. Buruma begins by describing the Protocols for what they are a forgery, and ties that in with the circulation of myths in Asia now about a Jewish World conspiracy. In other words, Buruma is criticising the very conspiracy theory you are trying to present us with!!!!!!

He begins,

”A CHINESE bestseller titled The Currency War describes how Jews are planning to rule the world by manipulating the international financial system. The book is reportedly read in the highest government circles. If so, this does not bode well for the international financial system, which relies on well-informed Chinese to help it recover from the present crisis.”

In other words he gives short shrift to the kind of nonsense you are peddling.

He goes on,

”The common conflation of the US with Jews goes back to the late 19th century, when European reactionaries loathed America for being a rootless society based only on financial greed. This perfectly matched the stereotype of the rootless cosmopolitan Jewish moneygrubber. Hence the idea that Jews run America.
One of the great ironies of colonial history is the way in which colonised people adopted some of the same prejudices that justified colonial rule. Anti-Semitism arrived with a whole package of European race theories that have persisted in Asia well after they fell out of fashion in the West.”

Again damning the very ideas you are quoting him to substantiate!! And though those “race theories” have gone out of fashion with all intelligent people like Buruma, they are of course still being peddled by the ignorant, and bigoted like yourself.
So yet again you show your unerring ability to put forward documents that you distort and misrepresent or else are too thick to understand that shoot you in the foot.
And you have the nerve to then claim that you have not put forward an argument that uses as its evidence a known forged document!!!!! Amazing. That’s as brazen as your claim that you hadn’t claimed that the Soviets had brought Siberian troops who had been freed by US involvement in the Pacific to fight in Moscow in 1941, even when your statement saying precisely that was there reproduced on the page!!!! Incredible!!!

”And you are unable to get away from you're absurd and ludicrously ignorant contention that the Nazi forged the Protocols of The Elders of Zion!!!!”

If you want me to say that it was actually the Okhrana who first forged the Protocols not the Nazis fine, if that makes you happy. It doesn’t change the facts does it? If someone produces some plates for forging ten pound notes and leaves those plates and equipment around, and you then run off millions of notes, I think you’ll find the police will hold you to be as guilty of forgery as they do the person who first made the plates!!!! The fact is that it was the Nazis who reproduced a known forged document in thousands of copies and distributed them throughout Europe and other parts of the world. It was the Nazis who made them a central part of their propaganda and so on.

And today you use those same Protocols as supporting evidence for that Nazi lie about a Jewish-Bolshevik Conspiracy for world domination!!!!! But, we have seen the way you use other documents that have about as much legitimacy, or the way you use documents relating to events in late 1942 or 1943, to explain events that happened in 1941, we’ve seen you use a document from 1945 and try to pass it off as though it were a document from March 1941, we’ve seen you refer to the news story from December 2008 that the US Economists had said the recession began in December 2007, and try to pass it off as those economists actually saying that IN December 2007 and on and on and on, a whole sack full of instances in which you mangle the meaning of documents, misrepresent them and so on to try to justify your increasingly bizarre arguments.

We’ve seen that you quoted a statistic that 80% of defendants for a particular offence were black, and when I asked you what percentage of the black population these defendants constituted you again called me an idiot, and said “80%”. Yet, this statistic like most if not all the statistics and facts you present was in fact an obvious lie. The figure was as it said black people constituting 80% of defendants, not 80% of black people BEING defendants. You clearly have as much regard for statistical facts as any other facts; you have as much of a grasp of basic maths as any other area of knowledge. We’ve seen you declare in relation to my statement that your post was 15,000 words, again, an accusation that I was lying, and then when I demonstrated that I had run a word count on it, instead of apologising for calling me a liar, you resort to further abuse calling such diligence and attention to the truth “sad”. And that about sums up your approach, you have a set of bigoted ideas in your noggin that no amount of facts or truth will dislodge. You have as this statement shows no interest in the truth. For you, it is just an inconvenience that gets in the way of your bigotry. Looking for the truth to you is “sad”. Instead you prefer to just look for made up stories in the Daily Mail or stories from dubious sources on the web that might “affirm” your bigotry, and when you can’t find them you simply grasp at something which you can misrepresent, misdate or manipulate in some other way that you hope people won’t notice among the vast swathes of crap you write. And, of course, as with the story of the woman from Action you referred to that is the method used by the racists and the racist press, who hope that the bigoted ill-educated readers have as much regard for the truth as you do, have as much grasp of history or maths or science as you do. And when those lies such as that you reproduced about the Protocols or that you reproduced about the woman from Acton are challenged what is your response? Do you change your mind, do you provide proof that the stories were true? No, of course not. We are still waiting for you to provide one single bit of proof that the woman in Acton could have received £170,000 in benefits, one bit of proof that my evidence of the maximum benefits she could have received was false. And your response? Deathly silence, because you know the story is false, you know you can provide no evidence to the contrary!

You then go on to give another example, of your method. You have taken a comment made as part of a discussion on something, and then taken that comment out of the context in which it was made, and go on an exegesis that distorts and misrepresents the context and meaning of what it was that was being said. Having done that you then continue in the same vein taking individual sentences and twisting their meaning.

What was the context of the discussion of North American Indians? I had put it to you that given your hostility to immigrants coming to Britain, you should have had the same attitude to Britain’s invasion and colonisation of foreign lands. Shouldn’t the people of those lands have had the same right to live in peace as you argue Britons should have? Your reply was that those invasions were nothing more than Man’s normal competitiveness and desire to conquer. Given that context, the history of European colonisation, the continual wars that have occurred since the dawn of class society, the comparison with the life of the North American Indians, and my statement that they lived in peace with each other for thousands of years can be understood. Nowhere have you shown that the conflicts between those Native Americans were in any way similar to the wars of so called civilised societies. As far as I am aware there is no evidence of any Native American tribe or nation setting out to conquer, enslave or colonise another tribe or nation, and none of the evidence you have given demonstrates that either. Where you have given evidence of slavery it is in relation to the slavery of back people. But, black people only went to the US as slaves in the first place. That history is fairly recent in comparison to the history of the North American Indians I was describing. I said they lived in peace for thousands of years, and you are talking about a situation that could only occur in the last few hundred years, and something that can also be explained in terms of behaviour learned as a result of the contact with Europeans during that period.

It was in this context that I also related the studies concerning animal species, which showed that the violent, competitive nature you believe to be natural is also a conditioned behaviour that develops due to the environment in which such species have to exist. That is there have been several experiments with a wide range of animals to show that provided sufficient food is provided even carnivorous animals can be brought up, and conditioned not to attack their normal prey. In other words it is a learned behaviour not an innate characteristic. Anyone who watches “The Dog Whisperer” on TV can attest to that.

Moreover, Professor A. Gehlen in fact conducted one of the studies, which proved this, under the Nazi regime. See Der Mensch pp39-40 and Portmann “Die Zoologie und das neuest bild des menschen” p14. The Nazis tried to direct anthropology towards the study of “unchangeable biological characteristics” of “racial substances” and the like, of the kind you argue for. Scientific truth showed itself stronger than these charlatan appeals even though the Nazis had massive state power behind them. As Gehlen concludes from his studies what is distinctive about man is precisely his capacity for adaptation, his capacity to create a second nature in the culture which forms the only framework in which he can live. As Ashley Montagu puts it in his book “Direction of Human Development” and also in Malinowski’s “A Scientific Theory of Culture” p209, competition is a tendency which is not “innate” but socially acquired. And as others have noted, of all the higher mammals it is the very biological nature of man, which makes him more disposed to co-operation, solidarity etc. than to competition. Man is a social being not just in the sociological sense but in the biological sense too. He is born in the weakest state of all the higher mammals, least protected and least capable of self-defence. Anthropo-biology considers Man to be an embryo prematurely born, one of the reasons for his greater adaptability thanks to socialisation, in fact its now thought that this is one of the features that leads to the creation of Modern man as a species. (See Portmann “Die Zoologie und das neueste bild des menschen pp74-76 and La barre “L’Animal humain” pp5051)

And as I pointed out experiments with animals have shown that through conditioned reflexes, far reaching alterations in the environment have the effect of abolishing aggressive tendencies which were once thought to be “unchangeable”. Its been shown that its possible to get cats and rats to co-operate peacefully provided you start the training early enough, and provided the obtaining of food is based on co-operation. As Zing Y. Kuo put it “Genesis of Cat’s Responses to the Rat, in Journal of Comparative Psychology Vol II 1931 p35, “Nothing is more natural for the cat to ‘love’ the rat. And if one insists that the rat has an instinct to kill the rat, I must add that it has an instinct to love the rat too. In behaviour nature is what can be built in and not what is supposed to unfold from within. In the same journal Loh Seng Tsai came to a similar conclusion in his article “Peace and Co-operation among Natural Enemies”. Both are quoted by the eminent American anthropologist Ashley Montagu in his book Direction of Human Development see pp 34-5, 35-8. See: Montagu

Langois even undertook similar experiments with perch that were presumed to be cannibalistic and showed they could be trained not to be. Montagu concluded,

“Slight changes in the environment are sufficient to change the behaviour of creatures from a cannibalism that was erroneously thought to be instinctive to social behaviour that is cio-operative.” Op cit p44.

Now if you want to claim that Man is not as capable of adaptation and changes of habits as are perch, rats, and cats be my guest!!!

"Cannibalism has been practiced by most peoples around the world. It has most often been associated with paying homage to the dead, basically eating your ancestors."

”Is it really?”

Yes.

And W. Arens in his book “The Man Eating Myth”, exposes a number of these stories, about cannibalistic behaviour of warring peoples and shows them to have been based on evidence that was unreliable. And just as an easy reference the following quote showing how dangerous it is to infer European values on to other peoples, and why its dangerous to even use terms such as “war” without using the specific context.

”The Crow also fought wars with other tribes. Plains Indian tribes treated war differently than European countries did. They didn't fight over territory but instead to prove their courage, and so Plains Indian war parties rarely fought to the death or destroyed each other's villages. Instead, their war customs included counting coup (touching an opponent in battle without harming him), stealing an enemy's weapon or horse, or forcing the other tribe's warriors to retreat. So the Crow sometimes were enemies of neighbouring tribes like the Sioux, Shoshones, and Blackfeet, and other times they were allies. The Europeans who first met them were surprised by how often the Crow tribe fought with their neighbours, yet how easily they made peace with each other when they were done fighting.”

See: Crow

In fact, the American anthropologist Eleanor Burke Leacock building on the work of the 19th century American anthropologist Lewis Morgan conducted large scale investigations of the Iroquois Indians, and her picture is considerably different from the picture you try to present.

"There is nothing in it that NECESSARILY implies violence or warfare. But, it HAS also been part of that too in pre-slave societies where it wasn't possible to use people as slaves."

”I think the evidence above speaks for itself.

As does the scalping and as does the slave owning:”


But, as the above quote clearly states I have not said that there was never ever any violence between North American Indians. The point is that for thousands of years they lived in peace with each other with no innate need to fight. Of course, conflicts can occur that result in fighting just as they can within a family, but that doesn’t demonstrate the kind of innate drive to fight motivated by competition that was the basis of your argument. In fact, one thing that all the accounts of the first meetings of Europeans with the North American Indians shows, and which the quotes about the Crow, demonstrates above, is that the Indians had no conception of property or land ownership to fight over. And slave holding only arises at a stage of society where productivity has risen to a level whereby slaves can be held. That’s why prior to that time, people captured in combat are either eaten, or just as frequently absorbed into the tribe, particularly where the tribe is running low on numbers. And that is part of what I originally said, competition, which leads to warfare and conquest is a function not of some innate characteristic of man, not something in his genes, but is a function of class society, or else of a competition over scarce resources. Far from it being Man’s human nature to engage in the kind of war of all against all that was your original assumption that began this diversion from the original discussion, the history of Man in the creation of morals etc. is a history of co-operation, of compassion, empathy and sympathy. And we now know from the work of modern genetics that these basic human values are not something artificial, or something that Man has to impose upon himself or even that he has to aspire to due to some religious belief, but are part of our genetic make-up inherited from our evolutionary past. It is a result of what Dawkins describes as the “Selfish Gene”. That is it is not a struggle of individuals that is the basic mechanism through which evolution takes place, but through the struggle to ensure the reproduction and survival of the genes of the species. That is why humans as much as any other animal are programmed in their genes to act co-operatively and altruistically. It is only the environment and the conditions in which we find ourselves that cause us to diverge from that natural behaviour.

”And any sane person would know that the North American Indians are not some sort of god-like PC ideal and that as such their behaviour was followed the same pattern as the other humans on this planet.”

Except it clearly didn’t which is why they didn’t understand the culture of the European settlers, didn’t understand their concept of ownership etc.

"And no one said that the North American Indians were homogenous did they!!!"

”No they didnt weirdo - so why are you???!!”

Would you like to show where I said that?????

Arthur Bough said...

A Nice little article explaining why genetically the idea of separate "races" is nonsensical.

Jonathan Marks

The Sentinel said...

Just more waffle and lies from you, again easily ripped apart.



"Could it be any clearer you argue that the Russian Revolution was a conspiracy between Jewish Bankers, Wall Street and Bolsheviks"

What you fail to undestand is that I didn't write any of that stuff - respected and professional academics and authors did.


"A glance at the actual document you referenced here by Ian Buruma again proves the exact opposite of your assertion. Buruma begins by describing the Protocols for what they are a forgery, and ties that in with the circulation of myths in Asia now about a Jewish World conspiracy. In other words, Buruma is criticising the very conspiracy theory you are trying to present us with!!!!!!"

Jesus F***ing Christ - he finally falls in!!!

That is what I have told you all along!!!

Bloody hell you are hard work!!!

That is why - and you even quote it again - I said that it is the way it is perceived when events such as those occur.

It was you who got on your ignorant high horse yet again with this:

“Stop. There we go, that’s the legitimacy of all this crap you are regurgitating. I knew you’d have to resort to it at some point. The old Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

And I explained all of this to you very carefully posts ago with this:

"Stop. There we go!!!

Yet again you fail to comprehend what is written!!!

That article, published in The Australian is by the respected author of Asian history Ian Buruma in RESPONSE to Asian anti-Semitism!!!!

You clown!!!

And I had already said:

“Here is another little fact of how the principle players in the game of international finance operate and are perceived as they do”

HOW THEY ARE PERCEIVED!!!

That is why the author signed off the article as thus:

“This was good for the Jews of Shanghai. But the very ideas that helped them to survive continue to muddle the thinking of people who really ought to know better by now.” – because it was what the JAPANESE BELIEVED!!!

GOOD GOD MAN!!!"



"And today you use those same Protocols as supporting evidence for that Nazi lie about a Jewish-Bolshevik Conspiracy for world domination!!!!! "

Not even close.

I use facts to prove that there was a disproportionate Jewish influence on Bolshevism and the evidence already presented proves the Wall Street and bankers influence. You added the "Conspiracy for world domination" bit in on your own, for no apparent reason.


"A high percentage of ethnic Jews in comparison to the percentage of the total population took an active part in Bolshevik movement and revolutionary leadership before the revolution and for years after[12][13] - see details below. Most of these Jews were hostile to traditional Jewish culture and Jewish political parties, and were eager to prove their loyalty to the Communist Party's atheism and proletarian internationalism, and committed to stamp out any sign of "Jewish cultural particularism".
Of the 21 members of the Central Committee (CC) of the Bolshevik party in April 1917 [14], three were of Jewish descent: Lev Kamenev[15][16], Grigory Zinoviev[15][16], and Yakov Sverdlov[15][17]. Of the thirteen committee members who, during the historic meeting on October 10, 1917, agreed for the necessity of armed revolution (leading to the October Revolution), six were Jewish: Zinoviev, Kamenev, Leon Trotsky, Moisei Uritsky[15][18], Sverdlov, and Grigory Sokolnikov[15] – although Kamenev and Zinoviev opposed the revolution, and Trotsky abstained).[19]

Of the 25 Bolsheviks who worked alongside Lenin as members and candidate members of the Politburo of the Central Committee from August 1917 to 5 March 1918 (between the 6th and 7th congresses)[14] there were six ethnic Jews: Adolph Joffe[20], Kamenev, Sokolnikov, Trotsky, Uritsky, and Zinoviev. Concurrently, there were eleven Russians (Bubnov[21], Bukharin[22], Kiselyov[23], Krestinsky[24], Milyutin[23], Oppokov[25], Preobrazhensky[26], Sergeyev, Stasova[27], and Yakovleva[28]), two Latvians (Berzin[29][30] and Smilga[30]), two Ukrainians (Muranov[31] and Skrypnyk[32]), two Georgians (Dzhaparidze[33] and Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky[34]), the Finnish-and-Russo-Ukrainian Alexandra Kollontai[35][36], and one Armenian (Shahumyan[37]).

Of the 22 Politburo Bolsheviks working alongside Lenin from 8 March 1918 to 17 March 1919 (between the 7th and 8th congresses)[14] as members or candidate members there were seven ethnic Jews: Joffe, Mikhail Lashevich[38], Sokolnikov, Sverdlov, Trotsky, Uritsky, and Zinoviev. Concurrently, there were nine Russians (Bukharin, Kiselyov, Krestinsky, Oppokov, Sergeyev, Alexander Shlyapnikov[39], Vasili Shmidt[40], Stasova, and Mikhail Vladimirsky[41]), three Latvians (Berzin, Smilga, and Stuchka), one Ukrainian (Petrovsky[42]), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and one Georgian (Stalin)."

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



"That was the case with the 1945 document, for instance which you claimed PROVED that US shipments began to the USSR in March 1941, and which I have shown to be a completely false assertion on your part."

You havent shown anything, you have just said it - you have not proved when aid began.

Certainly, you did not think it started untill 1943 and you still have egg all over your face over that!!!


"It was true of the Pravda account of shipments in late 1942 that you presented as explaining events in 1941, and so on."

You truly are an idiot - what events of 1941!!!

A temporary halt in the German advance!!!!



"If you want me to say that it was actually the Okhrana who first forged the Protocols not the Nazis fine, if that makes you happy."

Yes it does make me happy because you were grossly wrong and you need to come to reality if there is point in you even typing at all.

But that document dates further back then the Okhrana, it was just the first popular use.



"And today you use those same Protocols as supporting evidence for that Nazi lie about a Jewish-Bolshevik Conspiracy for world domination!!!!!"

Again, this is just pure fantasy - I produced articles showing the PERCEPTION created by Jewish banks such as Schiff and the Rothschilds - and other evidence showing the Jewish composition of the Bolshevik leadership - NOTHING to do with these protocols.

And I have also procduced the evidence known of thier forgery.

You are completely of kilter as usual.


"But, we have seen the way you use other documents that have about as much legitimacy, or the way you use documents relating to events in late 1942 or 1943, to explain events that happened in 1941, we’ve seen you use a document from 1945 and try to pass it off as though it were a document from March 1941,"

All nonsense, as I have proved in the previous post.



"We’ve seen that you quoted a statistic that 80% of defendants for a particular offence were black, and when I asked you what percentage of the black population these defendants constituted you again called me an idiot, and said “80%”."

Yet another lie:-

You asked actually: "What proportion of black people do these defendants constitute" - as you well know.

And the answer is the proportion of black people these defendants constitute is 80%.

But the figure itself that 80% of defendants in UK gang rape cases are black does not seem to suprise or shock you at all.

One can only assume you have no daughters.


"No, of course not. We are still waiting for you to provide one single bit of proof that the woman in Acton could have received £170,000 in benefits, one bit of proof that my evidence of the maximum benefits she could have received was false. And your response? Deathly silence, because you know the story is false, you know you can provide no evidence to the contrary!"

No, "we" (are there now more then one of you??!) are waiting for you to prove that she didnt.

A reputable paper has reported that she has and to my knowledge they have not been sued or ordered to print a retraction so the onus is on you - you say the story is false, prove it.



"As far as I am aware there is no evidence of any Native American tribe or nation setting out to conquer, enslave or colonise another tribe or nation, and none of the evidence you have given demonstrates that either"

Jesus Christ.

Just this evidence tells you that they not only fought each other, not only ate each other but had a God of War too!!!!!

"Other cultures participated in endo- and exo-cannibalism for similar reasons, such as The North American Indians, known as the Iroquoian. They believed that sacrificing and consuming the bodies of their enemies would satisfy their war god and lead to their spirit being transferred and absorbed into their own bodies. The absorbed spirit was believed to empower the cannibal with the attributes of the dead person"

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/cannibalism/2.html


The God was called "Aireskoi" and was an exclusive deity for war - now why would that be?


"Where you have given evidence of slavery it is in relation to the slavery of back people. But, black people only went to the US as slaves in the first place."

And again, it was something you didnt know about.

But of course, slave owning Indians is fine - it was the evil white man who forced them, was it not?

"In the ancient Near East, as in Asia, Europe, Africa, and the pre-conquest Americas, various forms of slavery and servitude almost certainly emerged long before they were systematized by laws or legal codes"

http://www.yale.edu/glc/forum/davis.html


"I said they lived in peace for thousands of years"

And you were wrong.

They has a God of War; they fought each other; they scalped, they ate thier enemies and they took slaves.

"Two Indian tribes resided in North Georgia in the 1500s. By the late 1600s the Cherokee and Creek began to compete for resources and fought a battle on the mountain near Slaughter Gap. The Creek lost, ceding Blood Mountain to the Cherokee, who considered it a holy place."

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



"It was in this context that I also related the studies concerning animal species, which showed that the violent, competitive nature you believe to be natural is also a conditioned behaviour that develops due to the environment in which such species have to exist. That is there have been several experiments with a wide range of animals to show that provided sufficient food is provided even carnivorous animals can be brought up, and conditioned not to attack..."

Conditioned essentially means brain washed.

And as I have said all along this is not the natural state of animals.

Bears can be conditioned to dance and juggle and elephants to ride bikes - do they do this in the wild? No.

Why? Because it is not their natural behaviour,

The natural behaviour of many animals is violent competition.



"And no one said that the North American Indians were homogenous did they!!!"

”No they didnt weirdo - so why are you???!!”

Would you like to show where I said that?????"

Why did you bring that up?

Arthur Bough said...

Have you just decided to say anything now, whether it has anything even bearing resemblance to the truth or not. You told us that the Bolsheviks were financed by Wall Street bankers, you gave us quotes from Winston Churchill no less about the preponderance of Jews in the Bolshevik Party and so on. The thrust of your argument is clear for anyone who reads it. No you are trying to backtrack on it, but even as you backtrack you still find yourself having to stick with those arguments.

So in response to my point,

"Could it be any clearer you argue that the Russian Revolution was a conspiracy between Jewish Bankers, Wall Street and Bolsheviks"

You write,

”What you fail to understand is that I didn't write any of that stuff - respected and professional academics and authors did.”

So, you should tell us then why did you quote their arguments in your defence, if you actually believe that what these “respected and professional authors” wrote was in actuality just an anti-semitic conspiracy????? This is like you saying about my statement that Hitler was a Capitalist politician, “Funny, he though he was a socialist, a national socialist”, and then claiming that you made this statement for absolutely no purpose at all!!!!! That you didn’t say it as a rebuttal to my statement that he was a capitalist politician!!!!!!

Let’s look at what you actually said about Buruma’s article in the Australian compared with what you want to backtrack to now after I have exposed your misuse of it.
You originally said,

“Here is another little FACT of HOW the principle players in the game of international finance OPERATE and are perceived as they do”

So clearly, despite the position you want to backtrack to now, what you said here had nothing to do with you exposing some conspiracy theory. It is you advancing that very theory. You say that this is a FACT of HOW they do OPERATE here. The and are perceived to do so is tagged on in this context as meaning, and every body knows this IS HOW they OPERATE. That was the truth of what you said, it is what followed on logically from your argument that the Bolsheviks were financed by Wall Street bankers. Its what followed on from your numerous quotes about Jewish Bankers like Schiff financing Trotsky and others, and from your long quotes about Churchill outlining the role of Jews in the Bolsheviks, and your further defence of those positions.

Now that I have exposed those documents for what they are you still want to claim that you only brought them forward because they were by respected academic authors – but why unless they supported your argument – but now want to claim that you disagreed with these authors and supported Buruma’s critique all along, because you only wanted to show how the actions of these Jewish bankers were PERCEIVED.

You write,

”HOW THEY ARE PERCEIVED!!!

That is why the author signed off the article as thus:

“This was good for the Jews of Shanghai. But the very ideas that helped them to survive continue to muddle the thinking of people who really ought to know better by now.” – because it was what the JAPANESE BELIEVED!!!

GOOD GOD MAN!!!"


Good God indeed. How can you put this forward with a straight face. You try to tell us that you brought forward Buruma’s article to show that you didn’t believe the conspiracy theory, and yet you introduce that quote with telling us that it is about a FACT of how “HOW the principle players in the game of international finance OPERATE”. So if you are telling us that it is a fact then far from challenging that myth, you are propounding it aren’t you?

”I use facts to prove that there was a disproportionate Jewish influence on Bolshevism and the evidence already presented proves the Wall Street and bankers influence. You added the "Conspiracy for world domination" bit in on your own, for no apparent reason.

But, you’ve just been telling us that you didn’t believe the conspiracy theory, that that was why you quoted Buruma’s article, even though you introduced that article by telling us that it was about a FACT of how those Jewish Bankers operate. And yet again you reinforce that that is what you were really about rather than exposing that myth, by again repeating the allegations about disproportionate Jewish influence on the Bolsheviks, an influence I have already given evidence to show is itself a complete fallacy. Whether you include the “Conspiracy for world domination” into that or not really has no bearing on the argument. You put forward the standard Nazi conspiracy theory of an alliance of Jewish Bankers and Bolsheviks as the explanation for the Russian Revolution. You back it up with quotes from assorted ant-semitic documents, you tried to use Buruma’s article in that context, but failed to understand that it was in fact arguing the direct opposite of the point you were trying to make. Now you’ve been exposed as normal you try to bullshit your way out of it!

"A high percentage of ethnic Jews in comparison to the percentage of the total population took an active part in Bolshevik movement and revolutionary leadership before the revolution and for years after[12][13] - see details below. Most of these Jews were hostile to traditional Jewish culture and Jewish political parties, and were eager to prove their loyalty to the Communist Party's atheism and proletarian internationalism, and committed to stamp out any sign of "Jewish cultural particularism".


Of the 21 members of the Central Committee (CC) of the Bolshevik party in April 1917 [14], three were of Jewish descent: Lev Kamenev[15][16], Grigory Zinoviev[15][16], and Yakov Sverdlov[15][17]. Of the thirteen committee members who, during the historic meeting on October 10, 1917, agreed for the necessity of armed revolution (leading to the October Revolution), six were Jewish: Zinoviev, Kamenev, Leon Trotsky, Moisei Uritsky[15][18], Sverdlov, and Grigory Sokolnikov[15] – although Kamenev and Zinoviev opposed the revolution, and Trotsky abstained).[19]

Of the 25 Bolsheviks who worked alongside Lenin as members and candidate members of the Politburo of the Central Committee from August 1917 to 5 March 1918 (between the 6th and 7th congresses)[14] there were six ethnic Jews: Adolph Joffe[20], Kamenev, Sokolnikov, Trotsky, Uritsky, and Zinoviev. Concurrently, there were eleven Russians (Bubnov[21], Bukharin[22], Kiselyov[23], Krestinsky[24], Milyutin[23], Oppokov[25], Preobrazhensky[26], Sergeyev, Stasova[27], and Yakovleva[28]), two Latvians (Berzin[29][30] and Smilga[30]), two Ukrainians (Muranov[31] and Skrypnyk[32]), two Georgians (Dzhaparidze[33] and Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky[34]), the Finnish-and-Russo-Ukrainian Alexandra Kollontai[35][36], and one Armenian (Shahumyan[37]).

Of the 22 Politburo Bolsheviks working alongside Lenin from 8 March 1918 to 17 March 1919 (between the 7th and 8th congresses)[14] as members or candidate members there were seven ethnic Jews: Joffe, Mikhail Lashevich[38], Sokolnikov, Sverdlov, Trotsky, Uritsky, and Zinoviev. Concurrently, there were nine Russians (Bukharin, Kiselyov, Krestinsky, Oppokov, Sergeyev, Alexander Shlyapnikov[39], Vasili Shmidt[40], Stasova, and Mikhail Vladimirsky[41]), three Latvians (Berzin, Smilga, and Stuchka), one Ukrainian (Petrovsky[42]), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and one Georgian (Stalin)."

Bolshevism


And again you show the way that either you simply do not understand statistics and mathematics, or else use it in a way you hope others will be fooled by. Just as you tried to portray the fact that 80% of defendants were black was the same as 80% of black people being defendants, in the same way that you presented as ASTRONOMIC the immigration and emigration figures for Sweden, when in fact they amounted to less than 1% of the population, so you misrepresent that statistics in relation to Jewish involvement in the Bolsheviks. You quote the figures provided by Wiki, but Wiki says, ” A high percentage of ethnic Jews in comparison to the percentage of the total population took an active part in Bolshevik movement”

But, a look at the actual statistics shows what this means. It does not mean that a majority or even a high percentage of those that took part were Jews does it? Only that a bigger percentage of Jews took part compared to other groups of the population. Given that there were far more non-Jews that still meant Jews would be a minority, and they were. And as the wiki quote says, ” Most of these Jews were hostile to traditional Jewish culture and Jewish political parties, and were eager to prove their loyalty to the Communist Party's atheism and proletarian internationalism, and committed to stamp out any sign of "Jewish cultural particularism".

In fact, given that all of these people were atheists to describe them as Jews is itself a misnomer. The term Jew refers to someone of the Jewish religion. There is no Jewish “race” as you would put it, which is why there are Jews amongst all of the ethnic groups that you would describe as races, black, yellow and white. If you are an atheist you clearly aren’t part of the Jewish faith, so you aren’t a Jew.

But, as I said I have already quoted you the refutation of this argument.

” "However, none of the above statements can be supported with hard empirical evidence. The most significant information is contained in the paragraph to the effect that the British authorities possessed "letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world dominion." If indeed such letters exist, then they would provide support (or nonsupport) for a presently unsubstantiated hypothesis: to wit, that the Bolshevik Revolution and other revolutions are the work of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.

Moveover, when statements and assertions are not supported by hard evidence and where attempts to unearth hard evidence lead in a circle back to the starting point — particularly when everyone is quoting everyone else — then we must reject the story as spurious.

There is no concrete evidence that Jews were involved in the Bolshevik Revolution because they were Jewish.

There may indeed have been a higher proportion of Jews involved, but given tsarist treatment of Jews, what else would we expect? There were probably many Englishmen or persons of English origin in the American Revolution fighting the redcoats. So what? Does that make the American Revolution an English conspiracy? Winston Churchill's statement that Jews had a "very great role" in the Bolshevik Revolution is supported only by distorted evidence. The list of Jews involved in the Bolshevik Revolution must be weighed against lists of non-Jews involved in the revolution. When this scientific procedure is adopted, the proportion of foreign Jewish Bolsheviks involved falls to less than twenty percent of the total number of revolutionaries — and these Jews were mostly deported, murdered, or sent to Siberia in the following years. Modern Russia has in fact maintained tsarist anti-Semitism.It is significant that documents in the State Department files confirm that the investment banker Jacob Schiff, often cited as a source of funds for the Bolshevik Revolution, was in fact against support of the Bolshevik regime.

This position, as we shall see, was in direct contrast to the Morgan-Rockefeller promotion of the Bolsheviks.The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles.What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?"


Here



"That was the case with the 1945 document, for instance which you claimed PROVED that US shipments began to the USSR in March 1941, and which I have shown to be a completely false assertion on your part."

”You haven’t shown anything, you have just said it - you have not proved when aid began.

Certainly, you did not think it started until 1943 and you still have egg all over your face over that!!!


Yes I did, you are lying again. I have several times given the dates of when the US began the lend-lease and pre-lend-lease shipments to the USSR. I have also told you that the first convoy didn’t reach the USSR until the end of August 1941!!!! As for 1943, you are lying again. I made a statement in one post about 1943 that I immediately corrected before you even replied to it. The fact that you try to use the uncorrected version of that post shows again the dishonesty and desperation of your method. I continued to refer to 1943 for a different reason, which is that you have confused and conflated the Battle of Moscow in 1941 with the Battle of Stalingrad in 1943. IN addition I have referred to 1943 for another reason, which is that as Wiki confirms, and as I had said previously the US did not begin real military operations in Europe until 1943, because it took it that long to get all of its forces up to strength.

The fact is that you tried to argue that US shipments began to the USSR in March 1941 – a time when the USSR was actually in a pact with Germany – you fraudulently used a document from 1945 that just happens to mention March 1941 – which it had to do because that is when Congress passed the Lend-Lease legislation! – and grabbed at that date to try to prove your original assertion. It is typical of the way you have fixed ideas in your head that you seek out material to back up whether that material does or does not, and the way you then misdate, misrepresent and manipulate that material to try to prove your point. But yet again your dishonest method has been exposed.

"It was true of the Pravda account of shipments in late 1942 that you presented as explaining events in 1941, and so on."

”You truly are an idiot - what events of 1941!!!

A temporary halt in the German advance!!!!”


The event we were actually discussing!!!! You had raised the issue of Operation Barbarossa. I pointed out that the USSR had actually defeated Germany in that operation at a time that it was effectively fighting Germany on its own. I pointed out that it had quickly responded to the loss of large amounts of industrial production in the German advance, by relocating that production and then outproducing the Germans, both in the quantity of arms and the quality of those arms. I argued that they did this DESPITE the reactionary nature of Stalin’s National Socialist political regime, which was a testament to the advantages of production under nationalised and planned relations of production, in a society where the workers after the revolution still felt that in some way that property was theirs. You responded by arguing that this was all a mirage that the weapons the USSR was using etc. was LARGELY provided by the US. I then produced the facts to show that this was not the case, and you then backtracked to say that what you meant was that the USSR was provided with other material that allowed them to concentrate on military production. But, as I’ve shown the attack began in June and had been defeated by December. The first convoy to reach the USSR did not arrive until the end of August, so in the period between then and December when the Germans were defeated its impossible that sufficient equipment or other material could have been delivered for it to make up the majority of equipment, and the facts you have given demonstrate that. You quoted an article from a recent issue of Pravda that speaks not of deliveries in that crucial period between June and December 1941, but speaks of the deliveries made during the second half of 1942!!! A year after the outbreak of hostilities, and six months after Barbarossa had been defeated!!!

And you want to present this defeat as a mere temporary halt in the German advance, but it wasn’t was it. As Wiki says.

” Despite these successes, the Germans were pushed back from Moscow and were never able to mount an offensive simultaneously along the entire strategic Soviet-German front again.
The failure of Barbarossa resulted in Hitler's demands for additional operations inside the USSR, all of which eventually failed, such as continuation of the Siege of Leningrad, Operation Nordlicht, and Battle of Stalingrad, among other battles on the occupied Soviet territory.
Operation Barbarossa remains the largest military operation, in terms of manpower, area traversed, and casualties, in human history. The failure of Operation Barbarossa resulted in the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany and is considered a turning point for the Third Reich.”

There doesn’t seem anything temporary in that description of the defeat to me!!!!
See: Barbarossa
Nor in Wiki’s description of the causes of Germany’s defeat is there any mention of the causes you try to cite.
See: Causes
"If you want me to say that it was actually the Okhrana who first forged the Protocols not the Nazis fine, if that makes you happy."

”Yes it does make me happy because you were grossly wrong and you need to come to reality if there is point in you even typing at all.

But that document dates further back then the Okhrana, it was just the first popular use.”


But, I wasn’t grossly wrong and the fact is that it WAS the Germans who took this known forged document, and reproduced it in the thousands of copies and made it central to their propaganda. Who first forged it is immaterial to that fact.

"And today you use those same Protocols as supporting evidence for that Nazi lie about a Jewish-Bolshevik Conspiracy for world domination!!!!!"

”Again, this is just pure fantasy - I produced articles showing the PERCEPTION created by Jewish banks such as Schiff and the Rothschilds - and other evidence showing the Jewish composition of the Bolshevik leadership - NOTHING to do with these protocols.”

Bullshit. Now that I have exposed the fraudulent way in which you used Buruma’s article you want to backtrack on your original position, because you know its untenable. You were not talking about PERCEPTION as you know claim but about FACTS. You said,

“Here is another little FACT of HOW the principle players in the game of international finance OPERATE..”

That’s not you putting forward Buruma’s article as attacking those conspiracy theories. That is you fraudulently trying to use it to back up those theories, of you trying to tell us that these stories about Jewish Bankers are FACTS that those theories tell us the truth of HOW they do OPERATE.

”And I have also produced the evidence known of their forgery.”

You only went off on to the origin of the Protocols as a diversion from the fact that it was the Nazis who reproduced them in their thousands and made them the centre of their propaganda. It was your normal response of trying to protect the Nazis from criticism.

"But, we have seen the way you use other documents that have about as much legitimacy, or the way you use documents relating to events in late 1942 or 1943, to explain events that happened in 1941, we’ve seen you use a document from 1945 and try to pass it off as though it were a document from March 1941,"

”All nonsense, as I have proved in the previous post.”

You proved nothing of the kind. Instead like someone with Alzheimers you simply reproduced all the documents at length that I had already destroyed. You presented no new argument whatsoever.

"We’ve seen that you quoted a statistic that 80% of defendants for a particular offence were black, and when I asked you what percentage of the black population these defendants constituted you again called me an idiot, and said “80%”."

”Yet another lie:-

You asked actually: "What proportion of black people do these defendants constitute" - as you well know.

And the answer is the proportion of black people these defendants constitute is 80%.”


Are you just an uncontrollable liar or just really, really, really bad at maths???????

Of course, these defendants DO NOT constitute 80% of black people. Let me make this simple for you.

According to this article in the Guardian the number of Gang Rape cases on the database was 2000. In fact, the Guardian gives a figure of only 40% of assailants being black but for now let us stick with your 80% figure. That means that the number of black defendants is 80% of 2000, which is 1600 people. But, 1600 people certainly is not 80% of the black population as you again state above. In fact the Black population of Britain is around 3.6 million. Let’s say 3 million for the ease of calculation. 80% of 3 million is 2.4 million rather more than the 1600 figure for actual defendants. Now what percentage is that 1600 of the black population? It is in fact far from your 80% figure. It is 0.053%. Rather a difference wouldn’t you say?

”But the figure itself that 80% of defendants in UK gang rape cases are black does not seem to suprise or shock you at all.

One can only assume you have no daughters.”


The fact that someone like you can go around saying that 80% of the black population is involved in gang rape really does shock me!!!!! The fact that someone like you can go around believing that they are some genius who knows everything, and making pronouncements on everything when with every pronouncement you simply demonstrate what a poor grasp of anything intellectual you have really astounds me!! The fact that you start from a thoroughly bigoted position, and snatch at any fact, any statistic, understood, but more frequently not understood, misdated, misrepresented, and manipulated to justify that position that no longer surprises me, because it has been your whole method throughout.

"No, of course not. We are still waiting for you to provide one single bit of proof that the woman in Acton could have received £170,000 in benefits, one bit of proof that my evidence of the maximum benefits she could have received was false. And your response? Deathly silence, because you know the story is false, you know you can provide no evidence to the contrary!"

”No, "we" (are there now more then one of you??!) are waiting for you to prove that she didnt.

A reputable paper has reported that she has and to my knowledge they have not been sued or ordered to print a retraction so the onus is on you - you say the story is false, prove it.


I have. I’ve given you every single Benefit that this woman could have been entitled to, and in fact I even threw in the Disablement Benefit that she probably wouldn’t have received because there was no report that she was disabled. I have given the proof of the benefits she could receive. If you challenge that show me what additional benefits she could have received that I haven’t listed. You can’t because you know there are none. I proved you wrong, I proved the story you quoted wrong, admit it or give the evidence of what Benefits she could have received to come to £170,000. If you weren’t and aren’t lying prove it.

"As far as I am aware there is no evidence of any Native American tribe or nation setting out to conquer, enslave or colonise another tribe or nation, and none of the evidence you have given demonstrates that either"

”Jesus Christ.

Just this evidence tells you that they not only fought each other, not only ate each other but had a God of War too!!!!!

"Other cultures participated in endo- and exo-cannibalism for similar reasons, such as The North American Indians, known as the Iroquoian. They believed that sacrificing and consuming the bodies of their enemies would satisfy their war god and lead to their spirit being transferred and absorbed into their own bodies. The absorbed spirit was believed to empower the cannibal with the attributes of the dead person"

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/cannibalism/2.html”


But I’ve already showed you that their concept of fighting is completely different to that of the Europeans. I cited the example of the north American Indians as I said in contrast to your statement that colonising other countries was simply an expression of some innate human competitive instinct. Anthropology is replete with examples of Europeans or researchers from developed societies imposing the values of their own times and cultures on to primitive peoples. Titles such as Chief or King are frequently in the literature used in the way they are used in our own societies whereas more detailed studies have shown that they had completely different meanings in these primitive societies. As the example of the Crow and other Plains Indians showed these conflicts had nothing to do with some innate competitive instinct. There is nothing in the quote that you repeat here that says otherwise.

"Where you have given evidence of slavery it is in relation to the slavery of back people. But, black people only went to the US as slaves in the first place."

”And again, it was something you didn’t know about.”

Even were that true, what would be the relevance. I’m sure there are lots of things I don’t know about I’m not and have never claimed to be omnipotent. I leave that kind of Megolomania to you and Hitler. As It happens I did know about Native Americans owning slaves, but it was irrelevant to my point, which was about how they lived together for thousands of years BEFORE European settlers or any black Americans were there. That’s why I didn’t mention it. Again we see your method of taking some event that occurs later in history than the event or phenomenon that is being discussed.

”But of course, slave owning Indians is fine - it was the evil white man who forced them, was it not?”

No, where did I say that? Now your lying by putting words in my mouth.

"In the ancient Near East, as in Asia, Europe, Africa, and the pre-conquest Americas, various forms of slavery and servitude almost certainly emerged long before they were systematized by laws or legal codes"

http://www.yale.edu/glc/forum/davis.html


Absolutely, and where have I ever said differently? In fact, the Old Testament stories such as that of Moses are examples of that process. The story of Moses is a story about the formulation of such property laws, which is what the Commandments are. And its clear that these societies had by that time developed to a stage where slave holding becomes possible i.e. they had become class divided societies. That is precisely what I had said. You will only find examples of the kind of competition as the basis of war and conquest you describe in those societies that have developed to that stage.

"I said they lived in peace for thousands of years"

”And you were wrong.

They has a God of War; they fought each other; they scalped, they ate their enemies and they took slaves.”


Not in the context in which the comment was made I wasn’t. As the quote in relation to the Plains Indians shows their concept of War is not the same as that of a European. You simply impose your words and concepts on to their culture. Moreover, the holding of slaves is as I said a recent phenomenon and can in no way relate to my comment about the way they lived for thousands of years, as opposed to the recent few hundred years you are citing. Slave holding is impossible prior to the development of society beyond a certain level. Unless, labour productivity has reached a level whereby the slave can produce MORE than is required for their own existence then slave holding cannot occur, because it would be pointless. The slave would only produce what they consumed, and the point of having a slave is that they produce to provide for the slave owner. Such a condition only arises with fairly settled agriculture. It doesn’t apply to hunter-gatherers, which is what the North American Indians were for all those thousands of years.

"Two Indian tribes resided in North Georgia in the 1500s. By the late 1600s the Cherokee and Creek began to compete for resources and fought a battle on the mountain near Slaughter Gap. The Creek lost, ceding Blood Mountain to the Cherokee, who considered it a holy place."

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


Again I am talking about things that happened 20,000 years ago and you are trying to disprove it by giving us quotes about things that happened just 500 years ago!!!!!

"It was in this context that I also related the studies concerning animal species, which showed that the violent, competitive nature you believe to be natural is also a conditioned behaviour that develops due to the environment in which such species have to exist. That is there have been several experiments with a wide range of animals to show that provided sufficient food is provided even carnivorous animals can be brought up, and conditioned not to attack..."

Conditioned essentially means brain washed.

No it doesn’t it means that behaviour is learned, and it is learned as a result of interaction with the environment. A Cat is no more brainwashed as a result of learning to obtain food by co-operating with a rat, than it is brainwashed by learning from its parents and other Cats, to kill the rat.

”And as I have said all along this is not the natural state of animals.

Bears can be conditioned to dance and juggle and elephants to ride bikes - do they do this in the wild? No.

Why? Because it is not their natural behaviour,

The natural behaviour of many animals is violent competition.”


Only because that is the environment in which that behaviour is conditioned. That is the point. Change the environment and a different behaviour results. And if animals can learn to do that, can adapt their behaviour then so too can Man. Man is not a naturally competitive animal, he is co-operative. The first human societies as hunter-gatherer societies had to be co-operative, because they could not have survived otherwise. That is why consanguineous families were the natural form of family. Its why such societies saw children as not being the children of any individual but the children of the entire gens, and were brought up as such. Its only the transformation of society into class society that changes that, which is why as a result of the emergence of class society the consanguineous family begins to disappear in favour of the monogamous family. It is that environmental change which brings about competitive behaviour, if you want to say that humans become brainwashed to become competitive then so be it, but that is the unnatural behaviour not co-operation.

"And no one said that the North American Indians were homogenous did they!!!"

”No they didnt weirdo - so why are you???!!”

”Would you like to show where I said that?????"

”Why did you bring that up?”

To show that yet again you lie by putting words into people’s mouths.

Arthur Bough said...

This comment about the Cherokee shows how alien warfare was to them.

"Warfare was considered a polluting activity which required the purification of the priestly class before participants could reintegrate into normal village life."

See: Cherokee

The Sentinel said...

I really don't know why you bother its just one lie, one miscomprehension and one more ignorant bold statement after another - all easily ripped apart and exposed.



“Here is another little FACT of HOW the principle players in the game of international finance OPERATE and are perceived as they do”

So clearly, despite the position you want to backtrack to now, what you said here had nothing to do with you exposing some conspiracy theory. It is you advancing that very theory. You say that this is a FACT of HOW they do OPERATE here."

All desperate waffle with your own emphasis added - or distorted more like - on my comments without acknowlement as such.

I know you are immensely stupid and slow on the uptake so here it is once more for you in a nutshell:

1) Wall Street demonstrably financed the Bolsheviks, that book is carefully referenced, and of course, despite your ignorant and absurd contentions, not once is the Protocols of the Elder of Zion used as a 'source.' In fact it was written by the same author as "WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER" another carefully researched and fully referenced work, with, again - unsurprisingly - no reliance on the Protocols of the Elder of Zion! And quite clearly the author is politically objective.

2) Jews were disproportionately represented in the Bolshevik organisation as already evidenced.

3) Wall Street bankers - and especially major players such as the Jewish Schiff, did, in fact manipulate the situations and outcomes of many events through finance. Just one example was 'Japan was able to defeat Russia in 1905 only after a Jewish banker in New York, Jacob Schiff, helped Japan by floating bonds' as evdiecned - it was you who started your hysterical and ignorant fantasy that this all based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, when in fact the article, whilst citing that factual example, was in response to the causes of the widespread belief in that document (in Asia) -i.e the behaviour of said bankers.

Startiting to filter through your fat head now?

And the machinations of international financiers, principally Jewish banking houses such as the notorious Rothschilds is well documented - one more famous example is this:


"In June 1815, when the Battle of Waterloo was being fought, other speculators watched Rothschild's stocks in an attempt to guess who would win. Shortly after the battle ended, and long before anyone else knew who was the victor, he began selling stocks. Everyone assumed this meant Napoleon had won and Europe was lost. Panic selling ensued. When prices crashed, Rothschild bought everything in sight and made a packet."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15520913.300-waterloo-windfall.html


And this one:

"The news that the bankers Rothschild are to withdraw from the gold market, in which they have been a major player for two centuries, has been hailed as the end of an era.

In one sense, of course, it is. This was the company that smuggled gold coins across the English Channel to finance the Duke of Wellington's advance through France to his final triumph at Waterloo over Napoleon (who, it turned out, had also borrowed money from the Rothschilds)."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-rothschild-story-a-golden-era-ends-for-a-secretive-dynasty-756388.html

And this statement is very revealing:

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."


Mayer Amschel Rothschild



"Now that I have exposed those documents for what they are"

What are you on about?

Your absurd contention that the Nazis forged the Protocols of the Elder of Zion, which even you - a vastly ignorant knucklehead - had to admit was not the case?

Or maybe the article that you thought was based upon on the Protocols of the Elder of Zion?

Or maybe the book that you thought was based upon the Protocols of the Elder of Zion?

You really are a very odd and confused man, and you have proved nothing but your endless ability to lie and waffle.



"Just as you tried to portray the fact that 80% of defendants were black was the same as 80% of black people being defendants"

A lie that has been exposed time after time, but once more here it is:

You asked actually: "What proportion of black people do these defendants constitute" - as you well know.

And the answer is the proportion of black people these defendants constitute is 80%.

But once more, the figure itself that 80% of defendants in UK gang rape cases are black does bother you at all - it is all just figures to be used in demented games.

As I said, one can only assume you have no daughters.



"The fact that someone like you can go around saying that 80% of the black population is involved in gang rape really does shock me!!!!!"

Again, another barefaced lie as already proven several times, but once more:

What you said: “The vast majority of black males have not been charged with gang rape.”

What I said: “But 80% of everyone who had was black.”



"The fact that you start from a thoroughly bigoted position, and snatch at any fact, any statistic, understood, but more frequently not understood, misdated, misrepresented, and manipulated to justify that position that no longer surprises me, because it has been your whole method throughout."

Facts are facts fathead.

And on Third Worlder's massively disproportionate effect on crime here are the facts:

"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."

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/1-latest-news/27877.html

"Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily...

The study is the first where the crime statistics have been analyzed according to ethnic origin.

Of the 111 charged with rape in Oslo last year, 72 were of non-western ethnic origin, 25 are classified as Norwegian or western and 14 are listed as unknown...

Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year."

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


"a 1998 Justice Ministry survey on crime, which found that immigrants were over-represented by an average of 46 per cent. In addition, the recent publication of a report from the Copenhagen police shows that 47.5 per cent of prisoners on remand for serious crimes such as murder, attempted murder and rape come from immigrant backgrounds."

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/1-latest-news/28210.html


“Illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war, says a new report from Family Security Matters that estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. and about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population”

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/february/0222_illegals_report.shtml


"According to a new study from the Crime Prevention Council, Brå, it is four times more likely that a known rapist is born abroad, compared to persons born in Sweden. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects."

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article327666.ab


"Blacks were almost three times more likely than Hispanics and five times more likely than whites to be in jail."

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/jails.htm


"About half the US nation’s 2.2 million prisoners are black. With only 36 million of us, that’s an astounding 3% of African Americans, counting all ages and both sexes, languishing behind bars, with a roughly equal number on probation, parole, house arrest or other court supervision. Almost one in three 18-year-old black males across the board is likely to catch a felony conviction, and in some communities nearly half the black male workforce under 40 have criminal records"

http://www.blackcommentator.com/146/146_cover_dixon_ten_worst.html


“A Sunday Herald Sun survey of 400 cases at magistrates' courts across Melbourne found 14 per cent of offenders came from the Horn of Africa and the Middle East -- many of them refugees -- about 20 times the representative proportion of the population.”

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,21166482-661,00.html



“For over a decade there has been concern expressed about the growth in Australia of organised criminal activity by Vietnamese{…} Similar concerns have emerged in Canada note#69 and the United States. In 1992, a United States Senate subcommittee reported”

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/australia/docs/ncaaoc3.html


“Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture. His remarks angered community leaders, who accused him of ignorance and failing to provide support for black-led efforts to tackle the problem.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/apr/12/ukcrime.race


"AUSTRALIA is set to drastically reduce its Sudanese refugee program this year.

With growing community concern about the behaviour 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


"Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) chief Jørn Holme said the greatest anti-terrorism challenge facing Norway is its own citizens, particularly second generation immigrants...

Specifically Holme said it was vital to gather those in the danger zone and find them employment..."


http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1207224.ece


"Immigrants behind 25% of Swedish crime

Immigrants in Sweden are four times more likely to be investigated for lethal violence and robbery than persons born in Sweden to Swedish parents, the National Council for Crime Prevention said on Wednesday.

Immigrants were also three times more likely to be investigated for assault and five times more likely to be investigated for sex crimes.

Among foreigners suspected of offences, those from North Africa and Western Asia were overrepresented."

http://www.thelocal.se/2683/20051214/


In over 80 per cent of UK gang rape cases, the defendants are black.

http://www.newstatesman.com/199811200011


There are five times more young blacks in prison then whites.

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




” A high percentage of ethnic Jews in comparison to the percentage of the total population took an active part in Bolshevik movement”

But, a look at the actual statistics shows what this means. It does not mean that a majority or even a high percentage of those that took part were Jews does it? Only that a bigger percentage of Jews took part compared to other groups of the population."

Jesus F***ing Christ!!!

That is what I said all along you silly little man!!!!!

DISPROPORTIONATE!!!!!

This is what I said: "I use facts to prove that there was a disproportionate Jewish influence on Bolshevism and the evidence already presented proves the Wall Street and bankers influence. You added the "Conspiracy for world domination" bit in on your own, for no apparent reason."



"Yes I did, you are lying again. I have several times given the dates of when the US began the lend-lease and pre-lend-lease shipments to the USSR. I have also told you that the first convoy didn’t reach the USSR until the end of August 1941!!!!"

No you silly little man, you are lying yet again!!!

This is what you said:

"But, as I’ve shown that your argument was false, because you wanted to explain the USSR’s defeat of Hitler in 1941, by reference to US supplies that didn’t begin until 1943, its all a bit irrelevant isn’t it? (1941-3)”

"So your assertion that “” It was largely due to massive Allied aid.” is not true, especially as the USSR defeated Hitler in 1941, and that aid did begin until 1943."


And no 'correction' at all!!!

You are such a twisted liar it is unbelievable!!!

YOU HAVE NO INTEGRITY WHATSOEVER!!!!]



"The event we were actually discussing!!!!"

Yet another lie - I was talking about the entire war and the turning point thereafter, as you well know.



"You responded by arguing that this was all a mirage that the weapons the USSR was using etc. was LARGELY provided by the US."

Yet another lie.

I said Russian victory was largely due to Allied aid - not the weapons the USSR had were largely supplied by the Allies - as you well know.

You said that the Russian victory was due to "the superiority of Russia’s planned economy"

I said: "It was largely due to massive Allied aid."

You then said: "Clearly, not true {...} The huge production of Russian aircraft and tanks had nothing to do with Allied Aid whatsoever"

And again you say: "So your assertion that “” It was largely due to massive Allied aid.” is not true, especially as the USSR defeated Hitler in 1941, and that aid did begin until 1943."

And these are the facts that prove I am right in my assertion:

“Soviet propaganda tried to diminish the importance of the American help. Back in those years, it was said that the Soviet Union had produced 30,000 tanks and 40,000 planes since the middle of 1943. Well, as a matter of fact, this was true. However, one has to take into consideration the fact that lend and lease deliveries were made to the USSR during the most difficult period of the war - during the second half of 1942. In addition, the USSR would not have been capable of producing its arms without the lend-lease agreement: The USA shipped 2.3 million tons of steel to the USSR during the WWII years. That volume of steel was enough for the production of 70,000 T-34 tanks. Aluminum was received in the volume of 229,000 tons, which helped the Soviet aviation and tank industries to run for two years. One has to mention food deliveries as well: 3.8 million tons of tinned pork, sausages, butter, chocolate, egg powder and so on. The lend-lease agreement provided orderlies with 423,000 telephones and tens of thousands of wireless stations. Deliveries also included oil distillation equipment, field bakeries, tents, parachutes, and so on and so forth. The Soviet Union also received 15 million pairs of army boots.”

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/9941_roosevelt.html



“For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that fewer than 20 new locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1944 nearly half the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. US supplies of waterproof telephone cable, aluminum, and canned rations were also critical.”

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/lend-lease%20-%20significance/id/5226269




“The author makes a clear case that the program was a major factor in the survival of the Soviet Union and the victory over Nazism.{…}

In two particular areas the help was indispensable. With major agricultural regions of the Soviet Union under enemy occupation, and the unsatisfactory system of distribution and transportation, to say nothing of mismanagement, the Soviet state had more than a nodding acquaintance with famine. Without Western aid, during the war the Soviet population would have been in danger of sharing the fate of those trapped in Leningrad and the earlier victims of collectivization. Even with the American aid, many Russians died from lack of food. Equally important was Lend-Lease’s contribution to transportation. It would have been impossible for the Red Army to move the masses of troops and supplies on the primitive roads to the front lines without American Studebaker trucks, which also served as the launching pads for the dreaded Soviet rocket artillery.

Besides weaponry and food, Lend-Lease provided the Soviet Union with other resources, ranging from clothing to metals. With the start of the Cold War, Lend-Lease became a forgotten chapter in Soviet history and was only revived after glasnost. Now, thanks to Russian researchers and this excellent study, the West will have access to the real story. Lend-Lease provided vital help for the Soviet Union when the country was in desperate straits and made a significant contribution to the final victory.”

http://www.historynet.com/russias-life-saver-lend-lease-aid-to-the-ussr-in-world-war-ii-book-review.htm





"But, I wasn’t grossly wrong and the fact is that it WAS the Germans who took this known forged document, and reproduced it in the thousands of copies and made it central to their propaganda. Who first forged it is immaterial to that fact."

OK liar - the games up, even you must see that!!!

You claimed the Nazis forged the document:

“A forgery produced by the Nazis and proven beyond doubt to be such”



"Are you just an uncontrollable liar or just really, really, really bad at maths???????

Of course, these defendants DO NOT constitute 80% of black people. Let me make this simple for you."

Yeah, I think 'we' all know the answer to that inverse luancy!!

You asked actually: "What proportion of black people do these defendants constitute"and the answer is the proportion of black people these defendants constitute is 80%.

You are confusing a question you maybe meant to ask but didn't with reality - again.



"I have. I’ve given you every single Benefit that this woman could have been entitled to, and in fact I even threw in the Disablement Benefit that she probably wouldn’t have received because there was no report that she was disabled. I have given the proof of the benefits she could receive"

You made reference to some email you claim to have received - that is not proof by a long chalk.



"But I’ve already showed you that their concept of fighting is completely different to that of the Europeans."

Beautiful.

Pure PC lunacy!!!



"Even were that true, what would be the relevance"

Becasue the real facts in this 'debate' are all news to you - you have predicated everything you say on profound ignorance.



"As It happens I did know about Native Americans owning slaves, but it was irrelevant to my point"

Bullshit.



"No, where did I say that? Now your lying by putting words in my mouth."

Try this: "but it was irrelevant to my point, which was about how they lived together for thousands of years BEFORE European settlers or any black Americans were there." - the implication is obvious.

And it is entirely relevant as the Iroquois were not the altruistic angels you ludicrously try and make them out to be!!!


The fact is that some tribes of the Iroquois took slaves as war booty!!!



"Absolutely, and where have I ever said differently?"

Good - so you accept that the Iroquois kept slaves long before evil old whitey turned up.



"Not in the context in which the comment was made I wasn’t. As the quote in relation to the Plains Indians shows their concept of War is not the same as that of a European"

What a load of nonsensical, lying crap!!!

War = killing = same end result.



"Unless, labour productivity has reached a level whereby the slave can produce MORE than is required for their own existence then slave holding cannot occur, because it would be pointless. The slave would only produce what they consumed, and the point of having a slave is that they produce to provide for the slave owner. Such a condition only arises with fairly settled agriculture. It doesn’t apply to hunter-gatherers, which is what the North American Indians were for all those thousands of years."

Pointless waffle - the Indians, as proved, were just as violent and warlike as everyone else with the added distinction of some tribes being cannibals into the bargain.

FACE IT - YOU WERE WRONG ONCE AGAIN!!!



"Again I am talking about things that happened 20,000 years ago and you are trying to disprove it by giving us quotes about things that happened just 500 years ago!!!!!"

Jesus F****ing Christ!!!

You are so warped!!

You said "North American Indian tribes that lived for thousands of years with each other in peace, prior to European settlement" and this event occured long before European settlement!!!

Get it now fathead???!!



"No it doesn’t it means that behaviour is learned, and it is learned as a result of interaction with the environment"

Wrong again!!!

"Classical Conditioning (also Pavlovian or Respondent Conditioning) is a form of associative learning that was first demonstrated by Ivan Pavlov [1] . The typical procedure for inducing classical conditioning involves presentations of a neutral stimulus along with a stimulus of some significance. The neutral stimulus could be any event that does not result in an overt behavioral response from the organism under investigation. Pavlov referred to this as a Conditioned Stimulus (CS). Conversely, presentation of the significant stimulus necessarily evokes an innate, often reflexive, response. Pavlov called these the Unconditioned Stimulus (US) and Unconditioned Response (UR), respectively. If the CS and the US are repeatedly paired, eventually the two stimuli become associated and the organism begins to produce a behavioral response to the CS. Pavlov called this the Conditioned Response (CR)."

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

In short - BRAIN WASHING!!!!!



"Only because that is the environment in which that behaviour is conditioned. That is the point..blah..blah..blah.."

More stupid pointless waffle.

FACE IT YOU WERE WRONG AGAIN!!!

As everyone knows - most animals natural behaviour manifests itself in competition and violence and more often then not both!!!!



"To show that yet again you lie by putting words into people’s mouths"

What the hell are on you about now weirdo!!!!



This comment about the Cherokee shows how alien warfare was to them.

"Warfare was considered a polluting activity which required the purification of the priestly class before participants could reintegrate into normal village life."

And this comment says that it wasn't:

"Other cultures participated in endo- and exo-cannibalism for similar reasons, such as The North American Indians, known as the Iroquoian. They believed that sacrificing and consuming the bodies of their enemies would satisfy their war god and lead to their spirit being transferred and absorbed into their own bodies. The absorbed spirit was believed to empower the cannibal with the attributes of the dead person"

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/cannibalism/2.html



And just out of interest, how many words did you last post contain??!!!

Arthur Bough said...

You keep printing your obvious lies and I’ll keep exposing them. You keep demonstrating your lack of intelligence, and we’ll keep laughing at you. Let’s begin with your most obvious lie now repeated several times, which also demonstrates what a moron you really are. The question of the 80% of the black community that you claim are guilty of gang rape. I wrote,

"Just as you tried to portray the fact that 80% of defendants were black was the same as 80% of black people being defendants"

To which you responded

”A lie that has been exposed time after time, but once more here it is:

You asked actually:
"What proportion of black people do these defendants constitute" - as you well know.

And the answer is the proportion of black people these defendants constitute is 80%.”


Any intelligent school child knows that the first statement you quote from me above, is exactly the same in meaning as the second!!!!! But, just to expose the way you lie, distort and misunderstand even basic concepts let’s take that second statement, and give the details. In order to answer the question ”"What proportion of black people do these defendants constitute" we need to know two things how many defendants, and how many black people are there. I have given the answer to both. According to the Guardian article there were 2000 cases. According to the Guardian the number of black defendants in these cases was only 40 odd percent, not the 80 per cent you claimed, but to be generous I have retained your 80% figure. Let me be even more generous, and say that this 2000 figure is the number of actual rapes not the number of defendants, and so we will assume that in total there were say 10,000 defendants. If of these 80% were black that gives 8,000 black defendants. That is the first figure that the above question requires an answer to. The second is the total number of black people in Britain. Again I have given that figure, and again to be generous to you I have taken a figure of just 3 million as opposed to the actual figure of around 3.6 million.

So to answer the question we take the total number of defendants and divide it by the number of black people, and multiply by 100 to get a percentage figure. If we do that we get 8,000 divided by 3 million multiplied by 100, which equals 0.27%!!!! That is being as generous to you as I could possibly be, and yet we still find that the figure is microscopically small, in contrast to your claim that these defendants constituted 80% of all black people!!!! As I said, you are a moron. You don’t understand basic mathematics even when it has been explained to you several times in words and numbers that a 12 year old could understand. But, its because you continually operate on this level of misunderstanding that you repeat this mistake over and over again. Either you are incredibly thick or else you persist in this lying over statistics simply to maintain your argument. The same was true of your statement about Swedish immigration and emigration. You told us that the figures were “historic”, yet in reality even on the basis of your own figures they amounted to around 0.5% for emigration, and 0.7% for immigration!!!!! You do the same thing when you speak of Jews. You take the fact that some Jews were Bolsheviks and some were bankers and turn this into the Bolsheviks being dominated by Jews. In fact, Jews were a minority of both bankers and Bolsheviks.

”But once more, the figure itself that 80% of defendants in UK gang rape cases are black does bother you at all - it is all just figures to be used in demented games.

As I said, one can only assume you have no daughters.”


Another example of your lack of intelligence and understanding of statistics. According to the Guardian article there were 2000 cases of gang rape. To be generous to you again I am assuming this was 2000 in one year, though that isn’t made clear in the article. If we take a British population of 60 million, divide that in two to get a figure for females of 30 million, and then take a figure of just a quarter of that to arrive at a figure of women in an age group where gang rape would be most likely we arrive at a figure of 7.5 million. So if I had a daughter the chance of her being gang raped is 2000 in 7.5 million or put another way a 0.027% chance. Put in context the number of people injured in car accidents in 2007 was more than a hundred times greater.

” Casualties caused by car accidents decreased in 2007 by 4 % and became 247,780,”

See: Road Acciddents

So, if I was going to worry about anything as far as my daughter was concerned it would be the far more likely event that she was killed or injured in a car accident caused by some British driver than that she was going to be gang raped by some black person!!!!! I might be more worried were I black, of course, because as the Guardian article pointed out half of the girls who were gang raped were black.

Again I could stop there because it tells us everything we need to know about your lack of intelligence, your manipulation of statistics, and your blatant lying, but let’s go on, and expose the other lies and idiocies you have perpetrated.

“Here is another little FACT of HOW the principle players in the game of international finance OPERATE and are perceived as they do”

So clearly, despite the position you want to backtrack to now, what you said here had nothing to do with you exposing some conspiracy theory. It is you advancing that very theory. You say that this is a FACT of HOW they do OPERATE here."


”All desperate waffle with your own emphasis added - or distorted more like - on my comments without acknowledgement as such.”

What is distorted???? I took your statement, and everyone knew it was your statement so why would I need to acknowledge it, and emphasised those words, because they gave the true meaning of what you were saying in contrast to your attempt to backtrack on what you were saying by trying to con people into the idea that you were only talking about the way Jews were PERCEIVED, and for which purpose you omitted that part of your statement, and di so precisely because it DID show that that was what you were trying to do!!!!!

”I know you are immensely stupid and slow on the uptake so here it is once more for you in a nutshell:”

Just what I’ve already shown in this post demonstrates exactly who it is that is stupid, and who it is that’s lying. You seem to forget that most of the people who read this blog are intelligent people. They are not the kind of duffers you perhaps get away with your bullshit with. I’m happy for them to read the way you continually expose yourself for what you are. The longer I can keep you doing that the better as far as I’m concerned. The anti-semitic bilge you repeat below is another example.

”1) Wall Street demonstrably financed the Bolsheviks, that book is carefully referenced, and of course, despite your ignorant and absurd contentions, not once is the Protocols of the Elder of Zion used as a 'source.' In fact it was written by the same author as "WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER" another carefully researched and fully referenced work, with, again - unsurprisingly - no reliance on the Protocols of the Elder of Zion! And quite clearly the author is politically objective.”

I never said that this book used the Protocols as a source. I said that it was you that tried to use Buruma’s article in a distorted way that appeared to support your conspiracy theory that used the Protocols as a reference. You wrote,

” Here is another little fact of how the principle players in the game of international finance operate and are perceived as they do (Jacob Schiff was a major player in the financing of the Bolsheviks):

“Japan was able to defeat Russia in 1905 only after a Jewish banker in New York, Jacob Schiff, helped Japan by floating bonds. So The Protocols of the Elders of Zion confirmed what the Japanese already suspected: Jews really did pull the strings of global finance.”


The facts are quite clear here. Having painted us a picture, one you again paint below, of Jews being prominent Wall Street bankers, and of being Bolsheviks you give this quote from Buruma’s article with the intention of using it to suggest that all of these conspiracy theories you have set out were facts. Nowhere here did you actually even say that the Protocols were a forgery, and you cut out of the quote from Buruma those bits which undermined the case you were trying to present. But, if we take those parts of your post which you presented as facts, for example the quotes from Churchill, or your statement above about Schiff being ” a major player in the financing of the Bolsheviks” I have already showed them to be false. Churchill’s argument was shown to be based on distorted evidence, and the one fcat we do know is that far from Jacob Schiff being a major player in financing the Bolsheviks as you claim, he actually OPPOSED financing for the Bolsheviks!!!! We know that from a document in the possession of the CIA!!!!!

”2) Jews were disproportionately represented in the Bolshevik organisation as already evidenced.”

What does disproportionately mean here? Especially when as has been stated those “Jews” did not consider themselves Jews but Atheists, and when they opposed the basis of Jewish Culture?

”3) Wall Street bankers - and especially major players such as the Jewish Schiff, did, in fact manipulate the situations and outcomes of many events through finance. Just one example was 'Japan was able to defeat Russia in 1905 only after a Jewish banker in New York, Jacob Schiff, helped Japan by floating bonds' as evdiecned - it was you who started your hysterical and ignorant fantasy that this all based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, when in fact the article, whilst citing that factual example, was in response to the causes of the widespread belief in that document (in Asia) -i.e the behaviour of said bankers.”

But, Schiff was NOT involved in financing the Bolsheviks as you claim. In fact, he opposed finance for the Bolsheviks. I didn’t say that it was all based on the Protocols, I said that you had used Buruma’s article, which speaks of the Protocols in a wholly false way to try to justify your anti-semitic conspiracy theory. You have tried to back track on your position, whilst leaving open the main anti-semtic thrust of that argument by using weasel words such as “Perceived”, when it was quite clear that your statement was presenting statements as though they were facts, not just perceived as such. That you are presenting a case not against non-Jewish bankers, not about how those non-Jewish bankers PERCEIVE the actions of Jewish bankers is illustrated by your further long diatribe against the Rothschilds whose activities are well-known to all students of history.

But, as the quotes I have given in response to you previously show it was not primarily Jewish bankers who financed the Bolsheviks, but the non-Jewish Morgans and Co, who, of course, also financed the Bolsheviks opponents. They were out to make a buck, and wanted to try to be on the side of whoever won, so that they could exploit Russia. It didn’t take long for them to decide that their real interests lay not in supporting the Bolsheviks, but in trying to overthrow them. And its no secret that Lenin courted some of these Capitalists. His most successful venture down that road was with the Head of Occidental Petroleum, Armand Hammer, who agreed to invest in Russia to exploit the oil wealth, and who tried to get other US Capitalists to do the same. Why because for Hammer it was a potential source of huge profits, for Lenin, they needed Capital to invest in the terribly backward Russian economy, they needed specialists to make up for the fact that Capitalism had not provided many under Tsarism, and finally they needed to quickly produce consumer goods for their people. That was a fundamental part of the new Economic Policy. You are not telling any Marxist anything new here, these things have long been known and discussed as part of the tactics and strategy for economic development.

"Now that I have exposed those documents for what they are"

”What are you on about?”

What I’m on about is that yet again you have been exposed for misrepresenting documents in order to try to make them support your argument when in reality they don’t. I’ve actually lost count of how many documents you have done that with now, but it is clearly a fundamental part of your dishonest, lying method.

”Your absurd contention that the Nazis forged the Protocols of the Elder of Zion, which even you - a vastly ignorant knucklehead - had to admit was not the case?”

But the Nazis DID forge the Protocols. The fact that they were not the first people to do so is irrelevant. The fact is that they were the ones who did so on a vast and global scale as a fundamental aspect of their propaganda and ideology. You then brought forward a series of quotes along the same lines, including putting forward a document – your manipulated version of Buruma’s article – which itself was made to look like it verified the Protocols hence “So The Protocols of the Elders of Zion confirmed what the Japanese already suspected: Jews really did pull the strings of global finance.” But, of course, what I demonstrated was that in putting forward this document with its reference here to the Protocols confirming what was suspected, you completely distorted what Buruma was saying i.e. that he was criticising the very ideas you had put forward there, and the ideas you extend here with your babbling about the Rothschilds. That is he was criticising the people like you who perpetuate those myths about Jews controlling world finance and so on.

It was not Buruma’s “document” I was criticising, but the document YOU put forward purporting to be what Buruma was saying, just as you had misrepresented all those other documents such as the 1945 document between the US and the USSR, which you misrepresented as being a document from March 1941!!!!

But, just as with the 80% of black people being guilty of gang rape, or your historic numbers for Swedish immigration and emigration that turned out to be just fractions of 1%, we see again the way you either don’t understand numbers or else lie about them, or probably both. You take the fact that some Jews are bankers and turn that into Jews as a whole manipulate the world financial system. You take the fact that some Jews were Bolsheviks, and turn that into Jews controlled the Bolsheviks. And of course, as the Nazis did you then connect the two fallacious statements together to be Jews, and Bolsheviks and Banking Finance are all part of some conspiracy. Completely mindless nonsense. But, then we’ve seen also with your totally ignorant and religious attitude towards even the most well-established scientific theories such as evolution, you do not proceed on the basis of any intellectualism, any reference to evidence or logic, but purely on the basis of your bigotry.

"The fact that you start from a thoroughly bigoted position, and snatch at any fact, any statistic, understood, but more frequently not understood, misdated, misrepresented, and manipulated to justify that position that no longer surprises me, because it has been your whole method throughout."

”Facts are facts fathead.”

Not in your hands they aren’t. For you they are something to be manipulated completely out of shape to fit your argument. Here we have another example.

”A high percentage of ethnic Jews in comparison to the percentage of the total population took an active part in Bolshevik movement”

”But, a look at the actual statistics shows what this means. It does not mean that a majority or even a high percentage of those that took part were Jews does it? Only that a bigger percentage of Jews took part compared to other groups of the population."

”Jesus F***ing Christ!!!

That is what I said all along you silly little man!!!!!

DISPROPORTIONATE!!!!!”


But, you don’t understand, or else simply misrepresent the significance. If a particular group constitutes just 1% of the population but has 2 members of an organisation of 100 then that is also DISPROPORTIONATE, it has twice as many members as its proportion of the population, but