I received this in an email from the local LibDems – as a joke, I hasten to add.
It does cause me some difficulty. I had to dig deep to get past the second question and avoid voting UKIP, but then found it almost impossible to skip past the Greens to my home as a Lib Dem!!
“he (ferguson) says, himself, that the British were (at least partly) to blame for the deaths of five million Indians in the nineteenth century.
This is an absolutely horrific number…”
Absolutely true, but let’s keep things in perspective. The U.S. has undoubtedly been responsible for many more deaths than that in its pursuit of world hegemony since 1945. For example:
‘An article in Z magazine asks: “When 10 million children die yearly for lack of basic medical aid that the U.S could provide at almost no cost in countries whose economies Exxon and the Bank of America have looted, what can you call it other than mass murder?”‘
http://richa.dod.net/warandpeace/howmanydeaths.htm
What Britain needs, obviously, is an anti-imperialist ruling party now. The BNP, claim to be just that. However, whenever I mention it I am shouted down as a fascist, which seems to confirm my contention, (a) that supporters of the big three parties are all fascists with a guilty conscience, and (b) that the BNP is designed to nauseate anyone who might thing of supporting an anti-imperialist party.
Alfred, you get “shouted down” hereabouts not because you suggest the BNP as a hard state front, but because of your oft-expressed race theories which seem to accord too neatly with the Far Right’s own race ideology. Therefore, there seems to be an inconsistency in your logic.
“Hold your nose and accept some self-proclaimed neo-Nazi racists as your ‘rulers’ because they claim to be anti-imperialist” doesn’t really sound like a contention I’d bother shouting about.
Suhayl,
I take strong exception to your allegation about my “oft-expressed race theories.”
That is a total and offensive lie.
I have no race theories. I have tried to explain to one or two people who might actually be interested something about the genetic basis of human variation.
I have some qualification for that. I graduate in biology with the faculty prize and I obtained a PhD in molecular biology.
I have also state both the dictionary definition of “race” and how a scientist might define the term operationally, which means how it might be defined in a way that allows objective determination of what constitutes a race and what does not.
The fact that cretins hold stupid ideas about race does not alter the reality of human genetic variation. To insult people who talk responsibly on the subject is to show your own bias.
If you think there is no difference between a Chinese and Pakistani, you an idiot. But as you are not an idiot, I conclude that you are disingenuous: in fact talking up the settler interest by accusing those who believe that a country’s immigration policy should be determined on grounds of national interest and democratic intent of racism, race theories, fascism, etc., etc.
There is no apparent basis for further discussion. A futile discussion as it has proved to be thus far.
Alfred, “the national interest” is served by the peaceful arrival of people from other countries and cultures. Not by a barrier mentality which coldly speculates on the ‘mating’ habits of other people and ‘miscegenation’. And you certainly have theories about race (for example your theory that the British race is threatened by genocide); that you attempt to deny this I find almost as peculiar as the theories themselves.
Oh well.
“There is no apparent basis for further discussion. A futile discussion as it has proved to be thus far”
Well, yeah. It’s bound to be if you dismiss people for disagreeing with you. What’s your problem with “the settler interest”, anyway ? It seems an incongruous objection, coming from someone who lives in Canada.
I heard the leader of the BNP on the radio, somewhere in the depths of election night. He stated that because his constituency is full of Africans. it’s not part of England. He’s demented. Why not settle for the simple explanation, people don’t like it because it’s not likeable ?
I haven’t forgotten their Polish Spitfire, either. Such incompetence mitigates my worry over them slightly, and provides a certain amusement, but that’s not the same as credibility.
Alfred, your argumentation makes you resemble Canute, rather than Alfred (The Great). Or rather, Canute’s advisors (Canute himself knew their hubris). Unless one is the Man in the Moon, one cannot hold up one’s hand and halt the tides. And so the world turns…
Alfred, perhaps it would be beneficial to emerge from the mechanistic level and draw the focus outward to the modular.
In other words, arise, Man of Molecules, arise from the electron microscope and gaze upon the face of the world!
The world is smiling.
But as I said, only if one stands on one’s head.
“The world is smiling.
But as I said, only if one stands on one’s head. ”
Or someone else’s, as per Isaac Newton.
If I have seen further than others, it is only because I stand on the head of … what’s that you say, Knud ? “Bloody quicksand” ? Aargh.
technicolor: “Soba I meant that I was *not* suddenly distrustful or suspicious of you, despite Alfred’s suggestions that you work for an organisation which doesn’t exist…”
Sorry, I get it now. My mistake.
Alfred: “He does not mention anyone named Bristow. In fact, he says the Canadian Nazi Party had only one member, named Blaikie. The CJC then spent thousands of dollars hiring an ex policeman to join Blaikie ans work as his bodyguard.”
Right, well I went searching for the Ezra Levant article you were talking about and ended up finding this:
“During the 1980s and 1990s, CSIS — that is, the taxpayers of Canada — helped organize and build Canada’s leading group of white supremacists. Funding, strategy, organization support — all of it came from the government.
Their point man was Grant Bristow. He was one of Canada’s neo-Nazi leaders, who worked as an agent for CSIS. Without Bristow, Canada’s neo-Nazis would have been less-organized, less prominent and more poorly led. Thanks, CSIS.”
http://ezralevant.com/2008/07/csis-canadas-leading-neonazi-o.html
Fascinating. D’you think Griffin is MI5? Cambridge… tap on the shoulder, cup of tea…
“D’you think Griffin is MI5? Cambridge… tap on the shoulder, cup of tea…”
It would be highly amusing if he was, but the BNP don’t need his help to make them look like complete buffoons.
Wouldn’t it be more likely that someone such as the guy who leaked their membership list be secret service or do they prefer to keep such information to themselves?
I don’t know how intelligence services work. Not at all. Honest, guv’nor. Hoping someone here at NWO HQ will tell me at some point.
“I have no race theories. I have tried to explain to one or two people who might actually be interested something about the genetic basis of human variation.”
I don’t think anyone has said that there are no differences in genetic variation among population groups, but I think it is you being disingenuous by saying that you have no theories about race.
As others have pointed out you do talk about “deracination” and “miscegenation” and “British race” which is curious when you also say you agree with Jared Diamond’s view on environment being the difference between those who built aircraft, for example, and those who still live in hunter-gatherer communities.
I think a good article by Diamond on the subject is this one called Race Without Colour in which he shows that “races” could easily enough be attributed to humans but they probably wouldn’t be of much use or they would be completely different from our intuitive concepts of race (you could, for example, make blood groups racial groups but that wouldn’t appeal to so-called “race realists” who obviously want it to be about colour).
http://discovermagazine.com/1994/nov/racewithoutcolor444
Diamond’s main point is that trying to find concordance between genetic variations across “races” is a mug’s game.
Even the example you gave of how only a fool couldn’t tell the difference between a person from China and a person from Pakistan is almost certainly wrong. A person from East Turkestan (or Xinjiang if you prefer) is a Chinese national but could well be mistaken for a citizen of Pakistan.
You might say, “Well I meant Han Chinese. The fact that you use the example of the Uighurs only proves my point that you can tell the difference!”
To which I would say, “Sure! But being able to recognize physical differences in people is quite trivial. Why would you want to base your immigration policies on the way people look?”
And that, I think, is why you are being dishonest because what you are trying to do is portray your views as very reasonable and uncontroversial. But aren’t you saying that you want to talk about immigration in a sensible way while also trying to smuggle race theories in through customs?
You’ve already alluded to ideas that there is a racial basis for a difference in intelligence and how Britain is becoming “deracinated”. So maybe you need to be a bit more clear about what you are saying because I can’t help thinking that what your real concern is is that you think Britain is being “swamped with foreigners” and needs a party just like the BNP minus the stigma of being fascist.
That was as superb a dissection as I could’ve wished for. Angrysoba, those were exactly the points I was about to make this morning (!) – thanks for saving me the trouble!
I’m rather surprised that Alfred (Doctor Alfred, PhD) espouses such ideas when science – including biologists, geneticists, etc. – has long discarded them.
Dogma is antithetical to the scientific method.
Good morning! Am thinking this is site is addictive (not for the first time). I even pulled my internet connection out yesterday, briefly, ouch. Hope they get this election business sorted soon, or I’ll never be able to work again (still, at least I’ll be able to blame it on the NWO)
angrysoba: “But being able to recognize physical differences in people is quite trivial. Why would you want to base your immigration policies on the way people look?”
That’s it!
Thank you very much Suhayl and technicolour.
We’ll have to wait and see what Alfred’s response is as we may have all misconstrued his ideas.
But if that is the case then it may be useful for Alfred to learn that we all read him in a way he doesn’t want to be read.
Yes, I keep hoping I may have misconstrued Alfred’s ideas too, and then you find this:
“What you are advocating is a program to destroy the British. It is a policy of genocide by marginalization, demoralization, and reproductive failure, associated with replacement by an alien population.”
Oh well, as I think I said earlier.
Angrysoba, this is good stuff. thanks.
“But if that is the case then it may be useful for Alfred to learn that we all read him in a way he doesn’t want to be read.”
Yes. For me, he seems very clear on his conclusions, while remaining oddly nebulous on his reasoning. He claims to be a highly trained scientist, but his argument is conducted in a way that I’m fairly sure would not be acceptable among that community – many of his statements seem highly questionable, and he doesn’t respond to any examination, just comes back giving different arguments for the same conclusion – a) the Mau Mau problems in Kenya could have been avoided if ‘the British’ had gone in with orders of magnitude greater numbers. How would that have avoided tension over land-use ? Oh, Canada is empty (the example that first struck me). b) The partial failure of the LoN/UN to solve everything has utterly discredited any idea of ‘co-operation’, therefore all that’s left is Hitler, who was “Darwinian”, in spite of his lack of success (more Galtonian, possibly ? but WTH) … and so on.
(I speak out of annoyance & frustration here – I’ve been trying to chase some of these, and getting nowhere with him. It leaves me feeling played, like the bull chasing the red rag while the significant stuff happens elsewhere. Trivially-falsifiable prediction – he won’t be back on this thread. I wonder if anything’ll change now the election’s finished ?).
But the point in the middle of the distractions isn’t nebulous and doesn’t shift about. He wants everybody sorted into nice neat categories called ‘races’ (questions as to the children of mixed partnerships have been asked several times and not answered), he sees these races as being in a zero-sum game, a beggar-your-neighbour competition; and from that, he’s simply cheering his team on; anything ‘the British race’ can get away with, good for them, and other ‘races’, all very nice so long as they don’t get in the way. Armed violent settlers in Kenya, good. Peaceful settlers in Yorkshire, so bad he can’t even talk with them.
### A REAL CONSPIRACY THEORY FROM ANGRYSOBA ###
Angrysoba ?” Could it be that you have finally realized that, amongst the many fictional myths, there are actually some genuine conspiracies? Your reference to Ezra Levant’s Conservative blog was very interesting. Anybody who clicked on the URL you gave would have seen Ezra’s article headlined
“CSIS, Canada’s Neo-Nazi Organization”.
Is that not just what I have been saying??? As many readers of Craig’s blog know, I also have a problem with CSIS.
In fact just a month ago I commented on Ezra’s blog on another topic critical of CSIS; pointing out that the same Grant Bristow (the CSIS agent provocateur you referred to) had subsequently falsely associated himself with Mr. Preston Manning, Leader of Canada’s opposition. CSIS in the middle of a general election then blew Bristow’s past associations with Neo-Nazis (which Manning did not know of) to the press; thus smearing Manning and perhaps costing him the election. Needless to say, CSIS did not mention that Bristow was actually their agent who they had planted on Manning. Now one might have thought that with his experience of CSIS, Mr. Manning would have been helpful to me. But, retired Canadian politicians do not seem to be noted for their courage. Indeed one of his assistants commented to my daughter that “I’d put him on the spot”. Mr. Manning is Canada’s Prime Minister’s Mentor, and a former leader of the opposition, which is why I contacted him. Here is my two-way correspondence with Mr. Manning:
http://tinyurl.com/PrestonManning
As for the holocaust ?” surely holocaust denial is another conspiracy and a very nasty one too. And then there were the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; another conspiracy (invented by the Tsar’s intelligence services ?” The Okrana). As for Zundel ?” His filth was well publicised in Canada. So Angrysoba there are real conspiracies as well as myths!!
The timing of your comments on CSIS is particularly relevant to me, because on Friday I filed with Police in Canada a serious complaint about CSIS. As you know this complaint is summarized on Chapter 7 of the document that comes up if one clicks on my signature. Of course this is just a summary and the actual complaint I have made is backed by mountains of verifiable evidence.
Roderick, I think the title of Ezra Levant’s article is hyperbolic. It’s accusatory towards the CSIS for its incompetence more than actually attributing neo-Nazi views to them. I don’t say that intelligence agencies never infiltrate extremist groups or that they don’t influence them – I’ve sometimes wondered about Anjem Choudary, for example, but he seems too ridiculous to be taken seriously – but I’d prefer to see each one looked at on their own merits.
Do you have a link to the Ezra Levant blogpost that you commented on, by the way?
As for the other things you mention, I wouldn’t call Holocaust denial a conspiracy. I think it is better described as agenda-driven psuedo-scholarship similar to so-called “intelligent design”. As with intelligent design, Holocaust denial doesn’t really seek to enlighten or clarify and it offers nothing to replace what it rejects. Advocates of Holocaust denial and intelligent design instead affirm a conspiracy, that their ideas are being systematically suppressed by historians, scientists and politicians who presumably have their own interests in not allowing the “Truth” to come out. Many conspiracy theories are of this form.
I’d say that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not so much a conspiracy as a hoax, like the Piltdown Man only far more destructive. Certainly a group of people conspired to produce it and in this case, as you say, those people were members of the Tsar’s secret police.
Angrysoba, on a different note for a moment, when you get a moment, tell me, what’s Japan like? What are your impressions of the country and the city of Osaka? I’ve never been there!
Angrysoba ?”Most people would call the protocols of the elders of Zion a conspiracy. But let’s take the Zinoviev letter which possibly affected the outcome of the 1924 general election ?” was that not a conspiracy? And CSIS’s planting of their supposed neo-Nazi “Agent Provocateur” Bristow on Preston Manning ?” was that not also a conspiracy. And then of course the law recognizes the concept of conspiracy, both criminally and in civil tort.
Angrysoba, I suspect that you have set yourself an agenda of debunking all conspiracies, so that when you come across a real conspiracy you have to call it by another name. Using weasel words ?” very Orwellian of you, Angrysoba!!! With respect to the headline on CSIS, I am simply reporting the URL link that you gave us ?” It says “CSIS, Canada’s Neo-Nazi Organization”. I did not write that headline and call them neo-nazis as you know; My own preference is Stasi. Admit it Angrysoba ?” Many conspiracy theories are indeed myths; but some are not
Er, isn’t a theory by definition something which remains unproven?
That’s ‘hypothesis’, technicolour. ‘Theory’ is something that’s been widely tested, as in ‘The Theory of General Relativity’. Hypothesis precedes theory: you test the hypothesis.
“Angrysoba, on a different note for a moment, when you get a moment, tell me, what’s Japan like? What are your impressions of the country and the city of Osaka? I’ve never been there!”
Well, as I am sure you can appreciate, that’s a pretty big topic and it’s difficult to know where to begin. What aspects of the country or city do you want me to talk about?
Thanks, Angrysoba.
Umn, well, just what kind of internal and external zeigebers Osaka connotes – to you.
Some cities – NYC, for example – have a peculiar spirit which is an accumulation of architecture, situation, linguistics, sound, smells, etc. The music, the stories, of the city, if you like.
You’re in education, right, so the kinds of interactions b/w students and academia – are there particular aspects of this which strike you as being different from Britain? And in what ways? What are the singular things about Osaka, for you, that differentiate it from other Japanese cities and from British cities? What strikes you as ‘different’ when you return there after visiting Britain? What’s the first thing that comes into your head. Japan and Britain are both islands.
So…
“Angrysoba, I suspect that you have set yourself an agenda of debunking all conspiracies, so that when you come across a real conspiracy you have to call it by another name. Using weasel words ?” very Orwellian of you, Angrysoba!!!”
Roderick, I don’t think I have said that conspiracies don’t exist. Of course they do. The Gunpowder plot was a conspiracy. Watergate was a conspiracy. The Zionviev letter was a conspiracy.
I also agree that intelligence services plot and scheme and conspire too. There would be no point in having them if they made all their decisions out in the open as they would be too easy for other intelligence services to anticipate them. And, of course, the crimes of conspiracy to murder, and conspiracy to steal and to kidnap are also on the books because people do plan murders and robberies and kidnappings together.
If you want to we can use the term “conspiracy” for any action involving more than one person planning something with an element of covertness. In fact, that’s probably the actual meaning of the word.
So, yes, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a conspiracy to create a hoax, etc…
But a “conspiracy theory” is something different. Usually, this is an ad hoc theory in which the conclusion comes first and then all the other evidence is slotted around it. Only evidence for the theory is admitted with evidence against being either discarded or bent to fit the theory or it is considered to be fabricated and therefore is evidence in favour of the theory. I think, then, a conspiracy theory is more to do with methodology rather than what it concludes.
As an example, when LHO was arrested for shooting JFK he was shown a picture of himself holding the very rifle used to kill JFK as well as some magazines such as “The Militant” and with the pistol that was used to shoot officer Tippit. This is about as damning as you can get.
A conspiracy theorist, however, will conclude that the photograph is a fake – which is what LHO said also – because it doesn’t square with their preconceived conclusion. And if it is a fake, then it supports the conspiracy theory. (Or if it isn’t a fake then a conspiracy theorist will say that it doesn’t prove he acted alone, which is true).
So, I don’t think I am using weasel words, I am just trying to assess the reasoning process: How do we know there was a conspiracy? How do we know the nature of the conspiracy?
“That’s ‘hypothesis’, technicolour. ‘Theory’ is something that’s been widely tested, as in ‘The Theory of General Relativity’. Hypothesis precedes theory: you test the hypothesis.”
Yes, I think a theory has some kind of predictive and explanatory value. If theory X is correct we can expect Y to happen, for example. And we should be able to explain how we know this from our theory. But a theory usually has many lines of converging evidence. Not only does the fossil record support evolution but so too does pictoral evidence for human selection of animals as well as research into mutations of viruses etc…
A hypothesis is an initial “best guess” or assumption that might only rely on slender evidence and which is usually discarded if something contradicting that evidence is found. But both a hypothesis and a theory should be capable of falsification. (It’s POSSIBLE that evolution could be wrong and if a fossil of a human riding a dinosaur was ever found then it would cause evolution to be on shaky ground. But given the vast amount of evidence that would still remain evolution wouldn’t be discarded. It is, in principle, however, falsifiable.)
I like the approach of Lobster magazine, whose editor cooly – but humanely – tries to analyse the evidence for events, as far as he has access to such evidence and always seems open to doubt and multiple ‘sides’. It doesn’t tend to demonise. He also doesn’t deal in the plainly ridiculous (‘David Icke Riding Dinosaur’-type stories); it’s a serious magazine of ‘parapolitics’. It neither accepts nor discounts out of hand, but weighs the evidence and let’s the reader decide. In the end, that’s the best way.
Well, Osaka is a charmingly ugly city which has no pretensions of being otherwise. People speak much less formally here than they do in Tokyo and Kyoto or in nearby cosmopolitan Kobe in a distinctive dialect called Osaka-ben.
As with most of Japan it is pretty homogenous but it does have a large Korean population and there seems to be a rising interest here in things Korean such as the food, language and popular culture.
Thanks, Angrysoba. Much appreciated indeed. And how are the students, faculty, etc.? What are the people like? How do the interactions differ from those in Britain? I’m just trying to get a flavour, an essence, of the reality of it. A vignette…