FAO ascan

Post Reply New Topic

it was intended more to annoy you. most of my errors are because of the speed i type, though they are errors nonetheless.



this one's more codarac but....Why do europeans have so few kids

this is one of my favourites: 'Don't mention Islam'

here's another:Which of these two races has the more extreme racism?

this one a bit of a sideshow:soldiers of both sides honored



er, yeah the issue is that of racism - what you are referring to is one group combatting another to control limited resources, that racism (or perhaps more accurately tribalism) would emerge as an ideology out of this is secondary, if not tertiary. Modern racism is also a specifically working class ideology resulting from there being more people to work than there is work to be done....in a capitalist economy that is. Your ideology stems from this, something your own arguments testify to, but do not address the core of the problem. You simply end up performing a violent and brutal outburst born out of your own theoretical impotence. Again, irrespective of whether or not there are migrants, there will be white people unemployed. The liberal ideology of multiculturalism was born out of the need to maintain internal political stability while maintaining a capitalist economy - a capitalism which has moved beyond the nation state to become global. The problem arising from this is that the state (something which few liberals will say), which exists as a tool of the ruling class to enforce its interests over the exploited class has to intensify in terms of strength and grow in size. This includes the enforcement of immigration policy - it is very likely true that if a thoroughly free market were put in place, the border controls were dropped and no other protections were put in place around white european jobs a great deal of violence would ensue over the massive drop in living standards experienced by whites. This, however would change not a thing.



cheap labour for capitalists.



what political ends, or is this, as it seems to be, simply a vague suggestion of a conspiracy theory?



that's rather more to do with western imperialism in general and US imperialism in particular encroaching on the middle east. The stated goals of Al Qaeda are to drive the US and Americans out of Muslim nations, remove the US military from Saudi Arabia and Muslim holy sites, destroy the state of israel and topple the pro-west dictators established/supported by the US (including Saddam Hussein).

ooh, look, you guys might have some common ground!



self evident to you. this is, of course, 'aided' by your particular ideological world view.



what is unworkable? the planned economy? If it's unworkable then why did the UK use it in order to produce the necessities for defeating Nazi Germany? If it's unworkable how did a Stalinist bureaucracy, well known for its inefficient and crude management of the planned economy, beat back the Wehrmacht after having not only about two-thirds of its heavy industry capacity captured by 1941 but huge swathes of its tanks and aircraft destroyed. They did this by moving 2,500 major factories, brick by brick, machine by machine, and around 16 million workers away from the front, rebuilt their armed forces and give Hitler a b***h slapping he didn't live to receive. Not that I'm of Stalinism, being a Trotskyist and all.




around about 1917?



Yes, large corporations sell individual shares because it allows one indivdual or group thereof to control a company without holding a majority of shares, as the thousands of individual minor shareholders don't or cannot attend AGM and board meetings. It also greatly assists with the whole Thatcherite 'we're all middle class now line'.



Equality is a binary condition - you cannot have greater equality or lesser equality among individuals. Remember Animal Farm - All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. You are either equals or you are not. So far as equality in the uk goes your socio-economic group is the primary indicator oif life-expectancy, future illness including cancer and heart disease and future earnings (not an exhaustive list) relevant article here. By 'practically' do you mean 'in practice' or 'almost but probably not quite'. If the former I would put forward the above point on socioeconomic group as an at hand rebuttal.



At no point have i denied the possibility of 'social mobility' in capitalism - but ot say that this is the direct result of hard work is to pretty much explicitly claim that those who do not rise do not work hard which is erroneous. Your parents were also lucky to have lived through a period in which capitalism could afford to provide pensions and other benefits as a result of a massive growth in global trade between the late 40's and today, as well as other benefits. This will quickly disappear as the current recession continues and profitability drops.



this system is the thing which generates the conditions the 'less fortunate' live in. And Marxism is well and truly up to date thank you very much! I hope to have demonstrated how its application is both more accurate and more relevant than the points you have raised.

All you've done is remind me of several threads I've contributed to. I've made my point, and you appear to have made yours. Just because you've got the last word in does not indicate that I accept you've "won". I usually engage with a WP discussion for a day or two, then just drop out to concentrate on other tasks.


Use of the word "ideology" seems to suggest I subscribe to some formal doctrine, in a similar way to you and the writings of Trotsky or Marx. This is completely false. My opinions are based on evidence from numerous sources, and I cannot be labelled Nationalist, Conservative or anything else because I do not subscribe to all the essential tenets of any one of those. My view of the world places the interests of myself, relatives and friends first, followed by the interests of other indigenous British folk. That's not to say the fate of others doesn't concern me, but that concern is more related to how their fate impacts on my own situation. To specifically address your racism point, I do not hold any racist beliefs in a strictly ideological way. What you view as racism in me is partly me describing a view consistent with the hierarchy of those whose well-being I value most. It is also because I acknowledge what is scientifically indisputable, and what can be confirmed by anyone with normal eyesight, that is that indigenous human beings from different parts of the world have quite distinct characteristics. More significantly, to you at least, I also have no respect for political correctness, and see no reason why I shouldn't refer to foreigners using any name I wish, and that includes making jokes about them based on racial stereotype. What makes them so bloody special that I can't make a joke about them? Thus, despite holding a completely rational view of the world, I am a "racist".

In further rejecting your claim of ideology on a broader scale, I stand by my assertion that distrust of those who are different (what may be desribed as racism) is a primary feature, in that it is innate, and has been held by humanity for millions of years. Skin colour is just one facet of that, however, as in human evolutionary terms its wide range of shades is most likely something that's come about only within tens of thousands of years and I've read that facial features are probably more important as their variation would have stretched back much further. But I digress.


Significantly more will be unemployed if you have an open immigration policy. You seem to have problems recognising degrees of severity, TLC.


It's been quite widely publicised. A quick search found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:H2g2bob/Labour_Party_immigration_scandal

And yes, part of the motive was cheap labour, but that's because those capitalists you so hate pay the corporation tax that fund benefits and the general profligacy of the Labour party. Simply put, it was a big scam that allowed that idiot Brown to say he'd ended boom and bust.

So let's deal with the above before we address anymore of your post.

it is fairly safe to assume silence or the absence of a rebuttal as conceding the point, at least on a forum - it is not necessary for you to accept anything, it is perfectly acceptable to say 'i'll get back to you on that'. Unless and until you can offer a rebuttal, however, my point/s stand.



no, I acknowledge that i speak form an ideological position - for one to diasvow that they speak from an ideological position is ideology at its purest! Every ideology that disavows its own status as ideology draws on something else for its own legitimisation - monarchs claim to be appointed by god, capitalists claim the market functions in accord with human nature (usually with reference to self-interest) and is therefore the best, or least bad, of economic systems. The only 'formal doctrine' that a racist could abide by is that different 'races' have different physical and psychological characteristics - I quote: "indigenous human beings from different parts of the world have quite distinct characteristics." the point is not that different characteristics exist, the point is that racists leap from this or that physical feature to assign varying psychological characteristics which not infrequently include dishonest, violent, dangerous, predisposed to committing rape, murder or being paedophiles - for which no evidence is offered whatsoever, merely a crude correlation between the prevalence of crime and violence within a specified population - as though someones skin colour predisposed them to burglary or crime rather than the conditions of intense poverty and unemployment which drive them to desperate acts to subsist.




first of all that is a variation of the 'no true scotsman fallacy'. Second of all you fail to acknowledge the basis upon which you assess evidence. Third, you can be labelled those because they are fairly accurate definitions of your ideological position, the most accurate being that of a racist. The very disavowal of being ideological is ideology at its purest.



again and again, the question is over how you define 'indigenous British folk', from your posts on this forum I can only conclude that deifinition is white, born in britain



But you will call for the deportation of asylum seekers back to some of the most barbaric and violent regimes ever seen if you hold the opinion that it is in the interests of 'myself, relatives and friends first, followed by indigenous British folk.'



again! This is ideology at its purest!



you reject my claim of your being ideological by reasserting your ideological position? No comment.



no, any capitalist organisation must remain competitive in the market - to do this they must also keep costs to a minimum, including labour. Without cheap labour coming into the country those businesses that can will simply move their organisations, with the jobs, abroad where they can keep overheads down and be more competitive. Those that can't will largely stagnate or be swept away by the competition with foreign goods and services. So, within capitalism, you can either enforce an isolationist policy which will ravage the economy driving unemployment and inflation through the roof and deny access to some of the most basic necessities including oil and gas forcing those enterprises that can to move abroad, or, you can strike a balance between allowing the entrance of cheap labour sources to maintain growth, jobs and profitability. The obverse of this being the necessity for an ideology to maintain political cohesion within the nation-state, that being Liberal Multiculturalism, which you are correct for rejecting as false and dangerous - but for the wrong reasons. So, the point I was and have been making is that those measures you have implicitly and explicitly expressed not only will not work but will have precisely the opposite effect - of a massive increase in 'white' unemployment and a equally massive decrease in living standards, and, I suspect, your answer would follow the same logic of anti-semitism: that we have not been thorough enough, that we must be more aggressive in our policy - all of which departs on a fractal trajectory until the comon ruin. As happened under Herr Hitler's economic policies.

You also seem to be having trouble understanding the basic functioning of the capitalist economy.



see, not diffcult to provide references is it? Though the one you gave was pretty bad I had a little scout around, the liberal papers didn't touch it, which doesn't surprise me.

Hold on, cheap labour wasn't part of the motive it was the primary motive, you say yourself Brown wanted to be able to say he'd ended boom and bust, Brown being the exchequer for a Thatcerhite party they sought out to make the market as unrestricted as possible - how is it any surprise that this would include the free movement or unrestricted access to labour, especially cheap labour?

Don't get me wrong, I have no intention of defending a government that, amongst other things, went hand in glove with the US to a colonial war which has called over 1 million individuals - but to claim deception over this seems a little bit much.

now hows about addressing the other points? Or must I take silence as conceding the point?

Evidently that is not the case.


Is that so? Well, the problem here is the word "ideology" and its use with regard to the general content of your posts since you've been here. I've qualified my comments (see above) with regard to that. It might be best to drop the word because I fear it connotes more to you than it means to me. The point I'm making is that what you see as "racism" is not a conscious decision to be racist. I suggest that to not be "racist" requires the conscious will to overcome basic human instinct, and that is as difficult as avoiding the urge for sexual satisfaction. You will have as much success forcing the population to be celibate, as you will in stopping them being "racist", because you will not rid them of their unease at foreigners from a different continent populating their community anymore than you will their wish to copulate. I'll add at this point that I don't contend that sexual urges should be satisfied on non-consenting individuals, or that "racism" should involve physically assaulting people. Instead, "racism" needs to be recognised as a perfectly normal human capacity as much as sexual desire.


That really goes without saying, TLC, although I'd extend that to others with one parent who was indigenous.


Yes, I would. I won't see my country destroyed because of decisions based on emotion.


You're thinking too literally, again. Pure free-market global capitalism will be as bad for us as would be your socialist revolution. As with many things, the best practical solution is somewhere in between. It won't be perfect, but it will work. Finding that balance will always be a work-in-progress. To consider just one part of that -- the cheap labour -- remember that there is a minimum wage limiting exactly how cheap those people are, and that there is another option for providing more to work at that lower limit, and that is by stopping the education of those over 15 who really shouldn't be in full-time education. Yes, you need to educate the best full-time to be engineers, doctors and scientists, but the majority could hold down a full-time job, whilst studying on day-release, or evening classes, just like was done 30 years ago. But I concede that may not be a longterm solution.


I would agree that the system currently used by western nations could see us destroy ourselves, eventually. However, I would hope that we can modify things over time to prevent that happening. Or rather, if I had any genetic investment in the future I might hope that. The system we've used, based on capitalism, has worked up to now probably better than any other system would have. The rational approach from here is to identify the shortcomings of the system and the threats it faces, then modify it with regard to that. You suggest the completely irrational actions of seizing private property with rule by dictatorship of the proletariat. I wouldn't trust the proletariat to get past page 3 of the Sun, let alone govern the world.


Patience is a virtue, TLC. We've not yet adequately covered the first few points.

that borders on being a non-sequitur.



Your response is to quibble over semantics and to suggest I drop a word whose usage you don't understand? Allow me to assist:

the wikipedia entry - " An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a 'received consciousness' or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought (as opposed to mere ideation) applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought."

To continue, let us add Marx's words in Kapital 'Sie wissen das nicht, aber sie tun es' - "They do not know it, but they are doing it": Ideology is by definition (to a Marxist certainly) something which is not consciously chosen and, more often than not, not consciously acknowledged as structuring an individual's view of the world - it arises almost exclusively out of the material conditions of an individual's existence. To identify one's ideology it remains largely a matter of utilising Lacan, precisely the concept of point de capiton - 'the quilting point', the French used to make quilts wherein the entire item was held together at one point by a button - remove the button the material collapses into it's component parts; in ideology it is a single concept or image which holds the entire edifice together.

To a Marxist this quilting point is a belief that Communism is the final stage of human development and the only one in which actual freedom and equality could be practiced.

To a racist the idea is of the foreign agent who disrupts the natural harmony of a givfen social body - in Germany it was the Jew: greedy, deceptive who plotted against the people of Germany for his own gain - removing this foreign object (ultimately by their extermination) was the means by which Germany could be returned to a condition of peace and economic productivity where rather the interests of capital and the interests of the worker would 'naturally align.' Today, for the modern racist, this 'quilting point' is the immigrant, someone who makes a conscience choice to move to the western world in order to steal jobs, lower wages, steal, rape, murder, terrorise and impose sharia law and foreign culture. I need only point to your posts on this forum to evidence how you have frequently expressed this view.

Is that helpful?



Once again, every ideology beyond Marxism seeks to assert itself as being in tune with the laws of God/Nature/Human Instinct (delete as appropriate. I thank you for evidencing my point.



ah, I see, so you would put the interests of one racially defined group over another even when it would likely lead to the deaths of the latter - again thank you for your assistance.



Thank god! I thought you were going to suggest national socialism at this point!



Well you acknowledge yourself that this isn't a long term solution, and there will always be demand for cheaper labour - and many migrants do not know of there legal rights and are paid well below minimum wage; the cleaners spoken of here are fairly characteristic- employed below minimum wage, when they take action aganist this, the university decries them as illegal immigrants and claims not to have known they were so until that point.



yes, yes, have you not got something I haven't heard before?



If I seem impatient it is only due to the concern that you are simply dodging the issue.

No, as is clear from my post, my response was to identify a problem in communication between us, as to a devout Marxist like you the word “ideology” carries a load of baggage with it that I’m not necessarily aware of. The fact that you had to produce two paragraphs in an attempt to define the word adds weight to my opinion that its use is best kept to a minimum. And anyway, the remainder of my paragraph you quoted from deals with “racism” (in the context used to describe what you observe and ascribe to ideology) which I state is in fact innate (something that can be backed up scientifically). Therefore, if we must use the word ideology then raw “racism” is clearly not part of that anymore than basic sexual desire is. “Racism” and sexual desire are some of the basic materials on which an ideological framework must act. They are not, in the basic form, a component of the ideology themselves as they are innate tendencies. That doesn’t, however, preclude racism in a more structured form being part of an ideology.


But we rely on scientific evidence to understand our world, and human behaviour, these days, TLC. Most rational people have no need to invoke the gods. And just because someone once said …”every ideology beyond Marxism seeks to assert itself as being in tune with the laws of God/Nature/Human Instinct” it doesn’t follow that anyone who does that is in fact defending an ideology.


As would most other people, although few would admit it. It’s simply a logical extension of putting your family first, and like I said, doing this kind of thing is genetically programmed as the default position.


Just because something isn’t a long-term solution in itself, doesn’t mean that it can’t be part of a transition to something more enduring. As for the cleaners, I don’t see how that’s relevant.


I’ve no need to dodge anything, TLC. I look forward to tackling the other points in due course. In the interim, I think it useful to concentrate on the points we are currently dealing with, in order for me to get a better grasp of how your mind works. So, if your reply could minimise the use of the word “ideology”, and address the practicalities of dealing with our innate capacity for “racism” without invoking the dubious writings of Marx or Trotsky, then that would be great.

Most impressive. If you would like the content from your conversation in the other thread moved here, please let me know and I will happy to oblige. And my thanks to you both.


M.

ok, to begin I think it might help us both if I simply blow this whole 'racism is innate' thing out of the water. In this study Wedekind and Penn at Utah University found that Humans (and not only humans, this type of behaviour has been observed in other animals and plants) have evolved with a genetic preference for genetically dissimilar mates - this occuring because it leads to offspring with more robust immune systems especially. The only driver for selsecting similar mates are cultural - not genetic.

Yes. Yes we do don't we?



if you don't understand the manner in which I use a word I have no problem being asked to clarify my meaning - my problem is that I be asked to drop this term simply because the other doesn't understand it's useage. It is no 'attempt', I produced two parargraphs (which includes examples I might add) in order to avoid any possibility of future misunderstanding.



ah, but if you can remove the claim to a 'scientific' basis are you not simply left holding a piece of pure ideology?



a) the question then is what is the long term solution?
b) you said there were other ways of lowering wages and seemed to be saying that migrants worked for the NMW - my counterpoint was that this is not the case and many if not most migrant workers are paid well below the minimum wage. A friend of mine, who isn't a migrant worker but is a UK citizen, was in fact paid below NMW when she was 16 by a fairly well known chain of sports retailers - the justification? There were plenty of other people willing to do the job in her place - if she didn't like it she knew where she could go....



Dubious writings? ascan I was not aware you were familiar with their work. Pray do tell, what is it you find dubious? If you could tell me what that is ( maybe even provide title and page number? ) then perhaps I could do what I can to remove any misunderstanding.

Errr, yeah, being a Marxist how likely do you think it is that I'll stop being one just because somebody else finds it 'dubious'?

now then, those other points.....

You've pulled one piece of research from the net using Google, then asserted that it demonstrates something that it clearly does not. The evolutionary process may have selected for mating preferences that favour genetically dissimilar partners based on one group of genes, as in the paper linked to, but that is part of a broader picture whereby selection would have also favoured putting the interests of those who may share a larger portion of your genes above those who are very genetically different. Those greater genetic differences are manifest as, for example, facial features and skin colouration. Within that context it would follow that distrust of those who appear different to your own group would be useful, as they'd be likely to put their interests before yours. Naturally, that would be moderated by the benefits of mutual cooperation and the possibility of sex. This mirrors what we see today in that generally we tolerate those who are different living amongst us until it seems those individuals who are the newcomers are starting to take liberties. For a fuller description of selection you could read Dawkin's book "The selfish gene", or for the genetics of different populations Oppenheimer's "Out of Eden". Both are quite readable and have no political agenda.


Obviously science allows us to continually discover more of how our world functions. Keeping abreast of that allows an individual to make informed choices, and perhaps modify how they view certain things. That's reasonable behaviour that can be debated and is open to scrutiny, not slavish adherence to the dogma of an antiquated political "ideology". You see, "ideology" in the way you've described it, apart from the obvious misuse to describe innate tendencies, seems too inflexible to describe something such as that.


I'm not so arrogant as to state that I know a long term solution. I think anybody who can claim that with certainty is being rather foolish. I have, however, suggested a few small steps towards something better. As for the migrant workers, I don't doubt some are paid less than the minimum wage, but for the majority of employers it's really not worth the risk. To all intents and purposes, unless dealing with the black economy, employers are adhering to the minimum wage.


I have on occasion read assorted bits and pieces, TLC. It strikes me as something written for another age.


Not yet. The main sticking point is this "racism" business. As I see it, the situation is that your political dogma tells you "racism" is always a conscious decision that is unreasonable and bad -- just as the religous dogma of a certain faith tells them they'll get 72 virgins after they've blown up an aircraft full of Americans. My view is based on reason, and is that "racism"(as in what you see in me) is innate, rational, and beneficial. Racism, as in a structured set of political principles, is "ideological" and part of a conscious decision to be racist that may extend into something that's only rational as far as serving political ends are concerned. Of course, it is also rooted in and gains traction from the ubiquitous distrust of foreigners within the population that's been genetically selected for.

So, I contend that this "smash racism" sloganeering can only reach its logical conclusion when all those individuals capable of free thought and expression are locked up in gulags or buried in pits with a bullet in the skull. History tells us that this is the result of far-left idealism with no regard for the realities of human nature. I would suggest that it is better to accept that people are "racist", allow people the freedom to associate with those of their own race, encourage discussion of scientific work relating to differences between populations, and discourage mass immigration whilst maintaining a legal framework that accepts every citizen as equal before the law.

What, an article (from a peer reviewed journal ) is less credible because it was easy to find? hmmm, not sure I follow your logic there. Please, do me a favour and stop trying to sodomise the work of a scientist - Dawkins has already refuted the position you put forward here, primarily in "but that is part of a broader picture whereby selection would have also favoured putting the interests of those who may share a larger portion of your genes above those who are very genetically different." (I don't think I can put it much better than this article here). I swear I've already coverd this before with Codarac - by that logic, as we share about 98% of our genes with them, we would be caring for chimps and the great apes only slightly less than our immediate relatives. There comes a point where you have to draw an abitrary, socially constructed and ideological line of demarcation between who does and who does not count as part of 'the group' (I quote: "My view of the world places the interests of myself, relatives and friends first, followed by the interests of other indigenous British folk. "



mhmm, mhmmm, I see, a hypothetical question - what if non-migrant workers don't want to do the same work for less money? For example, BA staff voted, I believe, 92% in favour (with an 80% turnout) of strike action over pay and cuts?



Yes, the future (sorry, a little cheesy but you set that up so nicely!)

Now, if you only have a vague and passing familiarity with their work how is possible for you to identify when a Marxist is being dogmatic or not? Or are you simply throwing that old red-herring that flies through the air yet has never hit its intended target?



do me a favour and read what i write - go back and look at the part i quote from Kapital "they do not know it, but they do it"; my precise point was that it does not need to be a conscious choice, in fact is frequently not a conscious decision.



it never fails to amaze me when an individual of the Right will use the cry of equality and freedom of those they attack so frequently in order to attack them again. "History tells us that...." tells us what? That Stalin was a bloody handed pogromist? You know who were the first to be locked up and/or killed by both the Stalinists and the Nazis? The Bolsheviks. Yeah bullet in the skull? Pot meet kettle, you forgot about Dachau, Auschwitz et al I suppose?

If you really love science and reason so much please stop bastardising it for political ends. And now i ask that you address the other points - or shall i take your silence as a concession?

But I never said that, did I? It refers to one set of genes and smell only, it doesn't lend any support to the point you were making. That doesn't mean it's less credible per se, just that it was a poor choice to support your claim.


I don't have the Selfish Gene with me as I borrowed it from someone else when I read it, so I can't verify if your article accurately represents the situation. Be aware that that book describes one way of looking at evolution and outlines a possible mechanism very well. It doesn't deal too much with the specifics of what we're discussing, so you need to use the mechanism to draw your own conclusions. Anyway, my argument is not what's tackled in that link and does not include chimps just because we share 98% of their DNA -- a fallacy I suggest you educate yourself away from. We are considering the context whereby for most of human evolution we would have lived in extended family groups as hunter-gatherers. Selection would have produced traits that favoured the survival of a small group which would contain a relatively high proportion of very close relatives. That would include being able to recognise members of the group, as well as those who were not members. This, I suggest, accounts in part for what you call "racism" today. I could probably think up a few other mechanisms, too, where those who were different would be excluded. How valid they'd be, I don't know, but I'm reading some more books at present so I may find out. But going back to your quote above, there would have been no need for hunter-gatherers living in a group of say 40 to resort to ideology in order to define who were group members. If they didn't recognise a person they weren't part of the group. Now, recognition is not necessarily instant; it's possible groups living very close together would have had similar characteristics, so a conscious effort may have often been required (just as it is in some circumstances for us today). I suggest with the "racism" thing that as those of a different race are so dramatically different from us that immediately those innate alarm bells start ringing. Obviously there's a conscious rational side to the "racism" too, as the motives of an interloper 100,000 years ago would have been unclear. The same reasoning applies today, as different races have different cultures that influence their actions, and by avoiding people of a certain race we reduce the risk of coming to a sticky end.

Also, if you look at another part of the site you linked to you'll find this (I've highlighted relevant bits):



http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002882.html

There is clearly an argument to be made for an innate component to racism. I don't claim what I've described is necessarily correct, but it's an attempt at an explanation from the evidence available to me, and that evidence also tells me that even if I'm incorrect, then another mechanism involving genetics is likely and that a component of racism is likely to be genetic.

But putting that all to one side, why shouldn't an individual prefer to associate with those of his own race? Isn't that what you object to? If it isn't then can you outline specifically what you object to with regard to my views on race?


Be more specific. Give some more context.


I was thinking more like for a hundred years ago... oh well.


I'm not bastardising anything. Remember, it's your "ideology" that seeks to legitimise theft and consign freedom of association, thought and speech to history. My view is that people should be free to think, say and associate with who they want. I'm merely using the best evidence available to argue my point. Your position is basically that Marx or Trotsky said so, and that's that. If you can think beyond that then produce an argument that convinces me that having my property confiscated, being forced to mix with people I don't want to associate with, and having my opinions censored will benefit me? You are the politician, not me, TLC.


In due course. You've not really stated your full position. We know you want to "smash racism", and that you think I'm a racist. We know that you're a devotee of Marx and Trotsky; what qualifications do you believe Marx and Trotsky held that render them the supreme arbiters of right and wrong? Why do you really believe my views on race are so foul? Aren't I entitled to an opinion? Should all opinions contrary to Marx, Trotsky and you be "smashed"? Should those who hold the opinions be "smashed", as well?

nope, prior to mentioning that article you had made no indication as to what research you were drawing on. I was fairly confident (in my lay knowledge of the subject) that there was no study to support the idea of xenophobia having a genetic or biological basis - Dawkins refutes the use of his kin selection himself, I haven't read Oppenheimer but so far as i can tell it is simply describing the shared genetic background of the modern day inhabitants of the UK - he states primarily from the Iberian peninsula I believe.



So you take science and put your personal spin on it? In what way are you qualified to do that and what evidence do you have to support it? If it doesn't address what we are discussing then why bring it up? Or am I correct in inferring that you have taken Dawkins hypothesis of Kin Selection and used it to attempt to justify your own xenophobia?



oh dear, you caught me making Washburn's fallacy, how embarrassing.



Wait, are you saying that you start out with an idea then approach scientific studies looking for a basis for this idea? I thought you approached this scientifcally not ideologically.



that is deeply contradictory. you appear to say:
a) there is an argument for innate racism based upon genetics and adaptation
b)if this is incorrect then racism is possibly based upon genetics



errr, I believe I did with the BA workers - hows about this the cost of living has increased 16% but real-value of wages have increased only 4%, so there is 12% of value a working indivdual cannot purchase (in food, clothing, paying bills); will they simply accept this or will they seek to redress the imbalance in order to at least maintain their standard of living?



If you know little of Marxism how could you possibly comment - as a matter of fact it is in the very defence of those freedoms that I am a Marxist, and it is to end the intrusion and theft of capital upon and from the working class that I am one also. You really need to learn to distinguish between Stalinism and Trotskyism.



again no, Marxism is a method of approaching defined problems - not the dogmatic repitition of catechisms you appear to accusing me of.

It may not benefit you! And no-one is attempting to breach you right to free association, who you spend your time with in private is your business. Exactly how is directly engaging with your opinions censoring them????? I don't have any indication of what socioeconomic background you are from, what conditions you live in, what work you do etc etc so I can't make any assessment thereof. However, if you'd only address the issues you raised around the planned economy for which I offered counterpoints we may actually be able to get into this!



no, those weren't the points I was looking toward. I was asking for a continuation on the topic of the planned economy which you are so insitent about not returning to.
I have never even claimed Marx or Trotsky to be the supreme arbiters of who gets what flavour ice cream - they developed a method, I am trying to apply it.
Why so foul? I need only point to the results of anti-semitism, anti-islamism, racial violence across europe and north america and could go back to the slave trade with North America, the various pogroms of the last couple hundred years etc etc. Racism has never advanced humanity one inch. It has fequently dragged humanity into the blood and gore of barbarism.
Yes you are entitled to an opinion, there's also nothing to say it must be held safe from any critical approach.
No, that is not necessary, 99.99% of erroneous opinions are discarded by those with a critical and inquiring mind.
The rest remainder probably think themselves Owls with lasers for eyes.

Now, the planned economy.....

But still the link you provided (the scent one) in this case wasn't of much use. And no matter how confident you are the fact remains that it's fairly widely held that xenophobia has some genetic basis -- much of human behaviour does. Even the fact we are here arguing this has a genetic component to it. Also, at the same site as you last linked to, I provided a quote from another page where it was acknowledged that xenophobia may have some kind of innate basis -- in other words is genetically controlled.


Only within the context of Sailer's argument at Vdare.


It deals with the movement of our ancestors out of Africa and how this movement across the continents can be plotted geographically and even dated using genetics. This is possible because the majority of people once settled in an area have generally stayed put. I recommended it not to really prove any specific point in this thread, but because I thought it might open your eyes to how useful genetic differences are, and how physical differences correlate with those genetic ones.


It's not a case of putting spin on anything. To explain very simply, the book in question describes an evolutionary mechanism. It would be impossible to catalogue every possible example of how that can be applied because almost everything we do or are has a genetic component. Moreover, in most circumstances it is impossible to ascertain exactly what proportion of a certain behaviour is cultural, and what has been genetically determined. The book provides the knowledge with which to undertake an informed consideration of the possibilities. I think this is where you have the problem: you want something black and white, something prescriptive. Some choose the bible, you choose Marx. Life's not so simple.

And you'll find it's Hamilton's theory of Kin selection, not Dawkin's.


No I am not saying that. I am saying what I've read on this subject (clearly significantly more than you) has left me with the impression that racism has a genetic component, and that I've learned of various mechanisms that could explain the phenomenon. The description I've given in the quote seems plausible but I realise there are other situations that could give rise to the same thing and that if I spent a while thinking about that then I could possibly provide other examples that fitted the principles outlined by Dawkins in the selfish Gene. I realise, though, that my knowledge is limited by what I've read, and I hope that by reading further I can gain more knowledge in order that I may have a better understanding of which of those mechanisms is most relevant. Your attitude is: "Racism is cultural because my ideology tells me so -- prove otherwise". My attitude is "from the literature I've read it seems that racism probably has both a cultural and genetic component and I wish to find out more about how that genetic component functions". Which is the most reasonable position?


If racism has an innate component then that component has to be genetically controlled, unless you're invoking god (I really hope you're not as I fear there'd then be no end to this). But anyway you're misrepresenting what I've written. I'm stating that my description of the details of the mechanism may be incorrect, not the overall genetic basis for the argument. It's the details that are uncertain.


Preferring association with those of your own kind, and talking openly about differences between people does not involve violence and oppression. Stopping people freely associating and speaking openly does. You're proposing the violence implicitly, not me. I don't seek to lock someone up for opening a club to whites only, or smash their door down in the middle of the night for expressing an opinion. These are the actions you need to enforce your "smash racism" idea.


Up until recently it saved us (the western world) from radical Islam, TLC.


Just like Marxism should be.

I'll deal with the non-race related stuff later.

I'll add that in order to move this discussion on we need to wrap up this racism section otherwise we'll be here until next Christmas. In order to achieve that, as I've detailed my position and allowed you to attempt to pick holes in it, I feel it's reasonable that you detail yours with regard to racism more thoroughly. In particular by addressing why you believe reasonable views like mine should be suppressed, and how you make the huge jump from me expressing opinion -- with no endorsement of violence -- to engaging in slavery and barbarism. Once we've wrapped this up we'll move on...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! !! !! !! !! !! !!

ITS YOU WHO WON'T WRAP UP THIS RACISM RUBBISH!! !!

MY POSITION IS THAT RACISM IS AN IDEOLOGY WHICH HAS NOTHING TO OFFER HUMANITY - YOU HAVE NOT OFFERED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESES THAT RACISM IS INNATE, THE LINK YOU OFFERED DOES NOT SUPPORT IT, YOU HAVE ONLY SPECULATED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY. EVEN IF SUCH EVIDENCE WERE TO BE FOUND RACISM WOULD STILL BE REJECTED AS A POLITICAL IDEOLOGY BECAUSE IT HAS NO VALID BASIS ON POLITICAL ECONOMY. WHAT IF IT WERE FOUND THAT THERE IS A GENETIC BASIS IN HUMANS FOR MASS MURDER? SHOULD WE SIMPLY ACCEPT THAT THIS IS HUMAN NATURE AND LET THEM GET ON WITH IT?
RACISM HAS HAD OVER 5 CENTURIES TO DO SOMETHING POSITIVE - TO THEN CLAIM IT HAS SAVED US FROM 'RADICAL ISLAM' IS POSSIBLY THE MOST ABSURD THING I HAVE HEARD THIS DECADE! THEY HAVE NOT THE MEANS, THE WILL NOR THE GOALS TO THREATEN THE WEST - THEY HAVE ONLY SET OUT TO REMOVE THE WEST IN GENERAL AND THE US IN PARTICULAR FROM ISLAMIC COUNTRIES AND IS ALREADY MASSIVELY ON THE DECLINE.

CALLING MARXISM 'DOGMA', A 'BIBLE' ETC ETC MEAS ABSOLUTE DIDDLY SQUAT FROM SOMEONE WHO HASN'T TAKEN ANY TIME TO ACQUAINT THEMSELVES WITH IT - WOULD YOU CALL THE WORK OF QUANTUM PHYSICISTS HOCUS POCUS AND REJECT IT WITHOUT TAKING THE TIME TO STUDY THE BASICS? WOULD YOU REJECT THE WORK OF KANT BECAUSAE SOMEBODY ELSE TELLS YOU HE ONLY WRITES ABOUT SHEEP BUGGERY? YOU ATTACK ME FOR NOT HAVING READ AS MUCH REGARDING GENETICS THAN YOU, THEN ATTACK ME FOR APPLYING THE METHOD DEVELOPED BY SOMEONE WHO'S WORK YOU HAVE NOT READ YOURSELF????

I'VE BEEN VERY GENEROUS IN ARGUING OVER AND OVER THIS POINT - UNLESS YOU ARE COURTEOUS ENOUGH TO RESPOND ON THE OTHER ISSUES I SEE NO REASON TO CONTINUE TO BE SO ACCOMODATING.

TLC, human behaviour is controlled by cultural factors (as in controlled by interaction with others and the environment) as well innate tendencies (as in genetically controlled). Frequently both play a part to varying degrees. It is not possible to prove racism is completely innate (genetically controlled) any more than it is to prove it is completely ideological (in other words cultural). I have attempted to point you in the right direction, and although I can't prove anything, even your sources do not deny a genetic influence. You see, the default for behaviour is that there is a genetic component because everything we are is controlled by our genes. It would be completely ridiculous to suggest that evolution has had no influence on our capacity to be racist, anymore than to suggest it has had no influence on us arguing this point or you losing your temper. And why do you insist on bringing political ideology back into this? I'm interested in finding out about how and why things work the way they do; not what political ideology tells me I should think.


I too have devoted some time to this, TLC. My presence here shows courtesy enough. I've not tackled the other issues yet because if we tackled it all together it would just be a mess of claim and counter claim going back and forth, even worse than it is now. And I'm not a multi-tasker, anyway. In fact, to return to courtesy, I have gone to some lengths to explain my position, but you've not done the same. You don't seem to want to think logically. I've asked you to explain why my views on race will lead to barbarism, slavery etc, when I've never even suggested violence. You obviously have a problem with my opinions as you delight in calling me a racist. So just explain why people like me are such a threat to society.


I was suggesting that prior to mass-immigration this kind of thing wasn't a problem. We were happy being racist then, and you could walk down the streets of London without some recent immigrant trying to "pop a cap in your arse" for "dissing" him, and you could get on the tube without fear of being blown to bits. True, there was the IRA, but in comparison to the terror unleashed by immigration from different continents, the IRA weren't so bad.


Well, would you like to elaborate a little on how you'd apply Marxism to our modern world? You could bring in some of the other outstanding points, but it would be best to concentrate on a few at a time. I suggest you take a long walk, then a large glass of scotch before writing.