Government launches “Immigrants, go home” campaign

[alanjjohnstone]

As i said, it no longer  matters to me if he is correct or not about racial differences. I don’t actually care since it is all relatively academic since we live in a real world where "European" (used as euphemism for white), African and Asian “tribes" do mingle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage  Unless, of course,  he wants government policy determined upon that criteria then it is no longer just his personal inclinations on who he wishes to associate with.    What is it to be? If they are black, send them all back (to where exactly). Ghettoisation and the creation of apartheid-style  bantustans in major cities. Fences and walls erected to keep us apart and separated. Segregated work-places, schools and hospitals. Laws on where we can live, who we can talk to.  Just as we are slowly ending the policeman in our bedroom, it is a return to who you can sleep with, who you can marry. A return to the anti-miscegenation laws of the KKK South and lynchings for transgressors . Will it be the enforced sterilisation of the off-spring of such inter-race relationships to maintain the racially pure "tribe"? Compulsory abortions? 

[Hrothgar]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

""You really are disgusting, aren't you, " If I am, it is because I am holding up a mirror showing you your own reflection. Very early in this thread I stopped being serious, not even half serious. It matters not a whit to me whether you can scientifically prove race. I care not a jot if someone is AB rhesus positive or lactose intolerant. Unlike yourself I have not led a homogeneous life. 

Then this comment speaks for itself.

[Hrothgar]

gnome wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

It matters not a whit to me whether you can scientifically prove race.

But that's the rub; (s)he can't; so far all we have been presented with are prejudiced assertions…

Yes I can, and I have.  You've just not being paying attention and you're ignorant of the relevant science in the area.  You think that race is just skin colour.  It isn't, and moreover, that is not the mainstream scientific position.The prejudiced assertions are emanating from your direction.

[Hrothgar]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Hrothgar,given that you use those categories, in order to communicate with you, I have to deploy them. 

That's not true.  You could reject the categories entirely and communicate with me using your own paradigmic language and expressions.  The reason you can't is because we are still within a racial paradigm and there is a reason for this: race is real.

Young Master Smeet wrote:

While you or I can and will differentiate between lemons and limes, in many countries that distinction isn't recognised, they could still use those words to us, in order to communicate.

Which countries?  Give me examples, please.  I have no doubt there is some truth in what you say, but let's have some specifics.

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Population genetics is very like those colour charts you get on computer programmes for choosing the font colour, at one end there may well be red, and at the other blue. There are no boundaries at any stage, and selecting any section will include a variety of components (which will merge at the edges with any neighbouring sets within arbitrarily drawn boundaries).  There is no essential difference at any point on the scale, merely greater or lesser concentrations of particular traits.

We've discussed this already.  I accept that there is race-mixing at the margins and to that extent, there are therefore 'greys', but even the 'greys' are defined by racial type, which reflects the lingering consequential importance of race as a signifier.  In any case, the vast majority of people in Western societies mix within their own racial group – and I consider that irrefutable.  It's supported by government data.

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I present, btw, the ancestor paradox as a major scientific refutation: there are more people alive than pairs of ancestors to produce them, within relatively recent history (about 20 or 30 generations) we all share common ancestors.

Even if true, that is not a refutation.

[Hrothgar]

ALB wrote:

I wonder if he's a redhead:http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml

Other races can have the recessive red hair gene.  Right, so what is your point?

ALB wrote:

If so, maybe he should join this group so he can associate with people sharing some of the same genes as him (easier to tell at first glance than blood group):http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/redheads-rally-for-ginger-pride-in-edinburgh-1-3040091Oh, I forgot, on his theory, he would already have naturally gravitated towards them.

Given that I live in the same part of the world as they do, yes I might well have naturally "gravitated" towards them.  That's how distinctive races and cultures develop.  

[Hrothgar]

gnome wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I present, btw, the ancestor paradox as a major scientific refutation: there are more people alive than pairs of ancestors to produce them, within relatively recent history (about 20 or 30 generations) we all share common ancestors.

Exactly and its all been said before.  See here, for example:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/government-launches-immigrants-go-home-campaign?page=2#comment-7813

Exactly what?  You really are struggling with this aren't you – the above is not a refutation.  It may well be that homo sapiens share a common ancestry or common ancestors (the two are not quite the same, but I'll leave that particularity aside for the moment).  Personally, I favour the commonality theory as it seems the most probable explanation for our evolution, but that is the whole point: we have evolved, and during that process of evolution, the tree has sprouted branches.  So to point out that, most probably, we have a genetic commonality does not disprove my arguments.

[Hrothgar]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As i said, it no longer  matters to me if he is correct or not about racial differences. I don’t actually care since it is all relatively academic since we live in a real world where "European" (used as euphemism for white), African and Asian “tribes" do mingle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage  Unless, of course,  he wants government policy determined upon that criteria then it is no longer just his personal inclinations on who he wishes to associate with.    What is it to be? If they are black, send them all back (to where exactly). Ghettoisation and the creation of apartheid-style  bantustans in major cities. Fences and walls erected to keep us apart and separated. Segregated work-places, schools and hospitals. Laws on where we can live, who we can talk to.  Just as we are slowly ending the policeman in our bedroom, it is a return to who you can sleep with, who you can marry. A return to the anti-miscegenation laws of the KKK South and lynchings for transgressors . Will it be the enforced sterilisation of the off-spring of such inter-race relationships to maintain the racially pure "tribe"? Compulsory abortions? 

You say that you live in the real world, and I have no doubt you do.  Yet, you overlook that the apartheid you speak of above already exists in abundance.  It may not take on the form it did in the past, but it is there, in soft form.  As a socialist, you believe in the power of will.  Well, witness the will of the majority who have maintained a resistance against your mixed-racial ideology, albeit reflexively rather than consciously.  That frustrates the hell out of you doesn't it?  That people might still have some tiny vestige of independent thought.  The temptation is to put it down to stupefication – false consciousness – and I can understand why, but my central point here is that this lingering tribalism has a much deeper causality.  It is a human impulse and the only way to eradicate it would be via the kind of totalitarian measures that are inimical to socialism.  Now, it would be nice to take a trip down Memory Lane and discuss all the far-Right shenanigans, but that's not my interest or concern.  I am not 'right-wing' and I am not responsible for the activities of the political Right.  I believe that capitalism is all-but dead.  The system is unravelling before our eyes.  I think your left-wing fetishist-reformist love for deracination can only help the capitalists as it makes Western societies easier to govern and control, but still, it's now just a matter of time before the edifice collapses.  So my concern is with what will replace capitalism, not with discursive historical discussions.  In a socialist society, communities could exist autonomously and this, I believe, would be the perfect environment for preserving strong racial identities.  Indeed I believe the preservation of strong identities of a racial kind would almost be a necessity.  I have developed my own system or theory that explains how this might work.  It does bear similarities to National Anarchism, which you referred to earlier in the thread, but the similarities are superficial only as the basic economic system would be co-operative rather than market-based.

[DJP]

a racist scumbag wrote:

In a socialist society, communities could exist autonomously and this, I believe, would be the perfect environment for preserving strong racial identities.  Indeed I believe the preservation of strong identities of a racial kind would almost be a necessity.  I have developed my own system or theory that explains how this might work. 

Well come on then lets hear it.  How are you going to prevent people from mixing, mating and otherwise associating with others who are not in the same "racially pure" group?  Let us hear how your racist utopia would work.

[alanjjohnstone]

"In a socialist society communities could exist autonomously" I believe the word you actually see is autarky.  Socialism is about a world co-operating , realising its  interdependence.  DJP asks how you would ensure a racially pure community. I have given my answer – you would strengthen the state with co-ercive measures to enforce restrictions. Just as national "anarchists" and so-called libertarians do, you can camoflage a dictatorship with fancy words all you want. You would evoke laws to forbid black neighbours, brown class-mates and your ultimate sanction will be violence. You will end up with Jim Crow laws. Dance all you wish but people are  not the narrow minded racists you endeavour to colour them as. Mixed-race people are the fastest growing ethnic minority group  in the UK and, with all mixed categories counted as one sole group, are predicted to be the largest minority group by 2020.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_(United_Kingdom_ethnicity_category)

[Hrothgar]

DJP wrote:

a racist scumbag wrote:

In a socialist society, communities could exist autonomously and this, I believe, would be the perfect environment for preserving strong racial identities.  Indeed I believe the preservation of strong identities of a racial kind would almost be a necessity.  I have developed my own system or theory that explains how this might work. 

Well come on then lets hear it.  How are you going to prevent people from mixing, mating and otherwise associating with others who are not in the same "racially pure" group?  Let us hear how your racist utopia would work.

The entirety of human existence is a story of competing tribal groups, most of it without strong central authorities. Do keep up with the insults though.  It shows that you are a deep thinker.

[Hrothgar]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"In a socialist society communities could exist autonomously" I believe the word you actually see is autarky.  Socialism is about a world co-operating , realising its  interdependence.  DJP asks how you would ensure a racially pure community. I have given my answer – you would strengthen the state with co-ercive measures to enforce restrictions. Just as national "anarchists" and so-called libertarians do, you can camoflage a dictatorship with fancy words all you want. You would evoke laws to forbid black neighbours, brown class-mates and your ultimate sanction will be violence. You will end up with Jim Crow laws. Dance all you wish but people are  not the narrow minded racists you endeavour to colour them as. Mixed-race people are the fastest growing ethnic minority group  in the UK and, with all mixed categories counted as one sole group, are predicted to be the largest minority group by 2020.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_(United_Kingdom_ethnicity_category)

Ah, so you do think racial groups exist after all?  I see that we've caught you contradicting yourself, like your friends.  Did you forget the apostrophes?  Not to worry.  I'm sure you'll have an explanation.  Anyway, mixed-race families are still a small minority and I think that is likely to remain the case for a long time to come.  I do agree with you, however, that demographic trends do not favour the white population.  My answer to that is racial secessionism.The term I am looking for is not autarky.  That's a misrepresentation.  I know you dislike it when people misrepresent your socialism.  You'll have noticed that I have not fallen into that discourtesy.  I have taken the time and trouble to read the SPGB's material and I understand socialism.  It would be nice if you could extend a similar courtesy to me.  You could start by not trying to attach random, abstract labels to what I am saying.  I know it's tempting for you, but it can only reveal your own ignorance.Many different kinds of communities can exist without a state.  It's my assertion that the next stage of human development is likely to be anarchistic in a very broad sense, and I think we have common ground on that point.  Second, I use the term 'autonomous' purposefully.  I am not referring to the idea of people living in mountain retreats and such like.  I am referring to the notion of self-directed communities in which people are part of, perhaps, a global system but organise themselves according to cultural identity and are as self-sustaining as possible.  One of your colleagues has already admitted that some kind of cultural differentiation is a probable outcome of socialism.  I agree, but I hold that culture is escheatable to race, hence in a co-operative society without states, people will tend to organise themselves according to broad racial typologies.  I see nothing sinister about that.  What I do find sinister is that you want to stamp this out and impose your own notions of mixed-racialism: i.e. a society without a meaningful identity, and you react hysterically to anyone who might dare to offer an alternative vision.  You speak of a 'human identity', but that is so broad as to be meaningless.  Certainly I identify as a human being, and that's very important, but I don't see that as my everyday identity or frame of reference, nor can it practicably be so.  That said, I am sure that people like you will want to live in a cosmopolitan environment, and that's fine.  Unlike you, I am not being bossy or prescriptive about what people can or cannot do and should or should not do.  The world is a very big place, and so long as those like myself who wish to live in a more coherent community are left alone to do so, then there need be no quarrel.  That is what I envisage.  I am reasonably confident (though not certain) that in the event humanity moves to a more co-operative economic system, then the majority of people will wish for something similar.

[alanjjohnstone]

“My answer to that is racial secessionism…You could start by not trying to attach random, abstract labels to what I am saying.” Oh, you do that yourself without any help from me. Always a new label from yourself and when very early in this debate i accurately labelled you, oh , how upset you became and the indignant appeals to your own personal originality…yet every message from you confirms the stale old racist ideology presented as something novel. Jack London, the writer, was much the same as yourself, unable to accept the changing world when it came to white supremacy disappearing. He, too, clung to the past, pretending it was the future.    “Unlike you, I am not being bossy or prescriptive about what people can or cannot do and should or should not do.” Let live and let be, eh? Now, why is it I don’t believe you in the slightest. Perhaps it is because you insist upon placing your racial theories in the forefront of your thinking process rather than than trying to achieve a world of mutual co-operation.  Free access to goods and services denies to any group or individuals the political leverage with which to dominate others which has been a feature of all private-property or class based systems through through the control of and restrictions to the means of life. This will ensure that a socialist society is run on the basis of democratic consensus, and yes, if you wish to seclude yourself from those who you claim differ from you in some vague way, you will be fully entitled to. Who, after all,  can force you to live the way you do not wish to. It is not the WSM who advocates control and authority, after all….but yourself. We are the ones who say looks, appearances, cultures, fashions, lifestyles are matters of little concern right now, our pressing needs is socialism to end unnecessary suffering of all peoples, all ages, all sexes. We don’t pick and choose who we seek to liberate, we aim to free everybody  – ” the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex.” as we declared in 1904 and continue to aver. 

[alanjjohnstone]

“Unlike  you, I am not being bossy or prescriptive about what people can or cannot do and should or should not do.”  This is your Big Fat Lie. No socialist has decided you must marry an Indian, No socialist has decreed your best friend has to be West Indian. No socialist has instructed you to love your next door neighbour. No socialist has insisted that you must invite people who do not like you to your birthday parties. No socialist has imposed that the only music you can listen to is opera in the original Italian. No socialist is forcing you to eat from a menu of  pizza, kebabs or Tandoorie. No socialist is forcing you to do anything.  The only person imposing restrictions upon you, is you, yourself. And it is only you who have chosen that these restrictions will also be extended to apply to all others, as well. It is you who desire to limit your own freedom and at the same time deprive others of their freedoms.  http://www.listenlittleman.com/ “You’re not free, little man, and you haven’t the faintest idea what freedom is. You wouldn’t know how to live in freedom.”

[Hrothgar]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

“Unlike  you, I am not being bossy or prescriptive about what people can or cannot do and should or should not do.”  This is your Big Fat Lie. No socialist has decided you must marry an Indian, No socialist has decreed your best friend has to be West Indian. No socialist has instructed you to love your next door neighbour. No socialist has insisted that you must invite people who do not like you to your birthday parties. No socialist has imposed that the only music you can listen to is opera in the original Italian. No socialist is forcing you to eat from a menu of  pizza, kebabs or Tandoorie. No socialist is forcing you to do anything.  The only person imposing restrictions upon you, is you, yourself. And it is only you who have chosen that these restrictions will also be extended to apply to all others, as well. It is you who desire to limit your own freedom and at the same time deprive others of their freedoms.  http://www.listenlittleman.com/ "You're not free, little man, and you haven't the faintest idea what freedom is. You wouldn't know how to live in freedom."

A lie is it?  Well, let's just examine that claim.  You give this long list of things that you say no socialist has said or claimed or done.  Yet, I have not claimed that any socialist has said, claimed or done any of those things.  So your ranting is irrelevant.You then state: "no socialist is forcing you to do anything", but again, I have not accused socialists of 'forcing' me to do anything.  So you are accusing me of lying about something that I have not even said.  What I have stated is that you are being bossy and prescriptive.  Your insults and verbal tirades speak for themselves in that regard.  Would you like me to go over the evidence?  I'd prefer not to, as I don't have the time really, and frankly, I think you've embarrassed yourself enough already.What I have also stated is that the type of ideas that you are defending here (which I maintain are fetishist and nothing to do with socialism) inevitably lead to authoritarian societies.  That doesn't mean I think you are authoritarian.  I accept you at face value.  I am merely suggesting that the ideas you defend have certain consequences that you might not have thought-through fully.  Please refer to any internet news site for the necessary evidence.  I also happen to think that a socialist society (which, by the way, I hope comes about) would disaggregate into discrete cultural groups, and given that I believe culture escheats to race, I maintain that racial typology is near-inevitable.  These assertions have found some limited support on here, albeit highly-qualified in the sense that your colleague refused to accept a link between culture and race, or it may be that he just refuses to admit there is a link.  I do accept that this aspect of my views is largely speculative.  So, in summary I think your accusation that I lied is unfair, but in any case, I certainly wouldn't make such an accusation against you as I would see it as a bit low-brow and no substitute for proper argument.

[Hrothgar]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

“My answer to that is racial secessionism…You could start by not trying to attach random, abstract labels to what I am saying.” Oh, you do that yourself without any help from me. Always a new label from yourself and when very early in this debate i accurately labelled you, oh , how upset you became and the indignant appeals to your own personal originality…

 You haven't accurately labelled me anywhere in this debate. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

yet every message from you confirms the stale old racist ideology presented as something novel. Jack London, the writer, was much the same as yourself, unable to accept the changing world when it came to white supremacy disappearing. He, too, clung to the past, pretending it was the future.

 Funnily enough, I am something of a fan of Jack London, having read his novels and Barltrop's biography of him.  But I am not a 'Jack London socialist', as Barltrop puts it.  I am not a racial supremacist, as Jack London was, but nor am I ambiguous on the racial question, as – for instance – Engels was pointedly.  

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"Unlike you, I am not being bossy or prescriptive about what people can or cannot do and should or should not do." Let live and let be, eh? Now, why is it I don't believe you in the slightest. Perhaps it is because you insist upon placing your racial theories in the forefront of your thinking process rather than than trying to achieve a world of mutual co-operation.

 It's not necessarily that I see any primacy of one tradition over the other.  I have adopted a syncretic position, because I believe co-operation and culture go hand-in-hand. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Free access to goods and services denies to any group or individuals the political leverage with which to dominate others which has been a feature of all private-property or class based systems through through the control of and restrictions to the means of life. This will ensure that a socialist society is run on the basis of democratic consensus, and yes, if you wish to seclude yourself from those who you claim differ from you in some vague way, you will be fully entitled to. Who, after all,  can force you to live the way you do not wish to. It is not the WSM who advocates control and authority, after all….but yourself. We are the ones who say looks, appearances, cultures, fashions, lifestyles are matters of little concern right now, our pressing needs is socialism to end unnecessary suffering of all peoples, all ages, all sexes.

 Well, strictly speaking you do advocate some forms of authority or control.  Or at least, you accept that some form of authority or leadership would need to exist even in a socialist society.  Perhaps especially in a socialist society.  Your ideas would be silly if you didn't.  Of course, I realise you don't believe in leaders (i.e. social class), and neither do I as it happens. I, likewise, envisage some form of authority and control in future societies, even if there are not political structures that resemble nation-states.  Neither of us can say for sure what form social control will take in socialism or whatever broad form of co-operativism exists, but it will be needed. That said, my belief is that people naturally coalesce into tribal groups, something that can work just as easily in self-directed societies as in a hierarchical society, and indeed this is the way human beings have lived for most of our species' existence.   

alanjjohnstone wrote:

We don't pick and choose who we seek to liberate, we aim to free everybody  – " the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex." as we declared in 1904 and continue to aver.

 So do I.  Where have I said otherwise?  But it's easy to say these 'nice' things.  Putting forward concrete ideas that reflect the way human beings really think and act is more difficult.  I prefer to acknowledge the essentialist racial nature of humankind and find a solution that accommodates it.

[Author]

Posts