With genuine reluctance, I find myself obliged to ban Larry from St Louis from commenting on this blog.
I am extremely happy for people to comment on this blog who disagree with my views. It makes it much more interesting for everybody. I wish more people who disagree would comment.
But Larry has a different agenda. His technique is continually to accuse me of holding opinions which I do not in fact hold, and which he thinks will call my judgement into doubt.
Take this comment posted by Larry at 9.35 am today:
I’ve re-read your post on the Russian spies, and once again you’ve proven to be a complete dumbass.
I predicted Russia claiming (in some minor way) those idiots. You didn’t. You thought it was a conspiracy.
You’ve once again self-indicted.
In fact my view on the Russian spies was the exact opposite of what Larry claims it was. As I posted:
I don’t have any difficulty in believing that the FBI really have discovered a colony of Russian sleeper spies in the United States.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/06/those_russian_s.html#comments
This is not Larry being mistaken – remember he claimed he had just re-read my posting. It is rather indicative of a very deliberate technique he has used scores of times, that of claiming I hold an opinion which he believes will devalue my other arguments in the mind of other readers, when I do not in fact hold that opinion.
He most often – indeed daily – does this with reference to 9/11. He tries to divert almost every thread on to the topic of 9/11 and to insinuate that I am among those who believe that 9/11 was “an inside job”. In fact, I am not of that opinion and never have been.
I have put up with this now for months, but Larry’s activities have become so frenetic and are so counter-productive to informed debate, I am not prepared to put up with it any more. I am also deeply sucpicious of the fact that he is able to spend more time on this blog than me, and to post right around the clock (often as with this one at 9.35am – think about it – what time is that in the US?).
Anyway, sorry Larry, your derailing days are over.
.
“Which assumptions were both grotesquely ignorant and racist.”
Oh, but he isn’t taking any responsibility for saying it himself, is he ? Just passing it on, like, you can’t touch him for it.
Attacked by irrelevance, again – has anybody read Christopher Brookmyre’s “Invasion of the Unsinkable Rubber Ducks” ? Good title, I feel.
In Lincolnshire, people use the term, ‘duck’ (pron. ‘dook’) as a term of affection. A little like “hen” in certain parts of Scotland. What is it about ornithological referents?
Perhaps, in Antarctica, physisists, geologists, climatologists and molecular biologists who fall in love with each other call each other, “penguin”. Could this represent a linguistic infantilisation of the dinosaurs? What would a bird-hipped Tyrannosaurus Rex think about that, one wonders?
“Eh, bud. Who are you callin’ a budgie? Are you talkin’ ta me? You lookin’ at me…??”
Amidst the inane babble, Stephen Jones’ comment achieves intelligibility:
“—–“Macaulay’s rationale for recommending a European education for the Indian elite was in no way racist. It made certain sincerely held assumptions about the superiority of western science and philosophy “——-
Which assumptions were both grotesquely ignorant and racist”
But not perspicacity.
Normally it would delight me to see Liberal opinion trashed here or anywhere else, but for once I find myself in the Liberal camp. But whether Newtonian physics or David Hume’s epistemology are inferior in some general sense to the ideas dominating the thought of the Indian elite almost 200 years ago seems a question impossible to resolve. If, however, one judges on the basis of practical validity it is Stephen, surely, who is grossly ignorant and, in wishing that Indians had been denied the fruits of Western science, racist too.
But the whole argument about the rights and wrongs of Indian education under the British seems pointless since India would have been westernized whether the British had done it or not. India, at the time of the creation of the British Indian Empire was a feebly and corruptly governed collection of petty states that would have fallen under the domination of, if not by Britain, then one of the other Western or westernized powers, including had others not acted before them, Japan, America or China.
What could be discussed is (a) Macaulay’s sincerity which is grotesquely impugned by the Avatar Singh’s fraudulent quotation; and (b) whether westernization of India has redounded to the benefit of the British now that India has nukes and intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of carrying those nukes as far as London.
But there is important point to be understood about Avatar Singh’s comments, which has not I believe thus far been taken sufficiently seriously. Though they may be considered no more than imbecile rantings, Singh has here urged the military conquest of Britain. For Craig Murray to tolerate such comments ?” not that I suggest he does, even if they may be dismissed as insane, seems tantamount to treason. For this reason, it seem necessasry for Craig Murray to delete calls for the armed conquest of Britain from his website as soon as their presence comes to his attention.
For others here, if they are British subjects, to support such raving as sensible commentary on imperialism (mostly cut and pasted from loony websites) seems somewhat treasonable too. I believe the penalty of beheading for treason was abolished in the UK in 1973. Nevertheless, a life sentence would not be fun.
So on the one hand it would be ignorant and racist to deny the fruits of Western Whatnot to India, and on the other, now they have them we must be terrified that they’re going to use them to nuke us.
I think we in the UK have more urgent concerns. I was startled to hear the reporting of Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller’s comments to the war enquiry just now. Is the whole of the Establishment queueing up to let us know they always thought it was a rubbish idea, now it’s too late ?
“Are you calling my pint’s girlfriend a chough ?”
I remember ‘ducks’ as an endearment, I’ve been trying to place it. N. Staffs, I think, when I was a kid there.
Small, fluffy, unthreatening, edible; hmm. And then there are the Gooses Who Say Boo. Penguins … well, who can say what that much winter might do ?
“…the armed conquest of Britain”.
Does anyone take this seriously, Alfred? It fits in with your “genocide’ / “ethnic cleansing” narrative, which is why I criticised avatar singh for being the other side of your coin.
Amidst all this humourless inanity, it is Britain, must one remind one, who has troops in various war-zones in faraway countries and in these past few years it is Britain (on the coat-tails of Big Brother USA) who has launched aggressive wars against nations far away. ‘The Reds are coming!’ was the old incantation. So now, is it ‘The Desis are coming!’? Or even, ‘The Budgies are coming!’
Richard,
To a Penguin, a penguin is beautiful.
Famous (and very cold) Zen master
Of course, the difference b/w ‘duck’ and ‘hen’ is that in demotic the former is applied to both sexes, which makes sense given the gender of hens (assuming chickens have only two genders; please note that this itself is a moot and possibly controversial point).
In fact, tonight I feel like invading England. It’s only 95 miles away, due south, by road. Less as the crow flies (but since I’m neither crow, duck nor hen…) Beware, Carlisle! Be very ware! Any takers?
“Beware, Carlisle! Be very ware! Any takers?”
The camels are coming, hurrah, hurrah !
(I nicked that from a technical manual on programming, if it helps).
I’ll have a word with my old mate Euan Huzami.
Here in Lancaster, there are still peole who will tell you how there are no old buildings because bloody-stupid Charlie’s army burnt them all down when he besieged the castle. The museum will tell you that’s a rubbish story, it never happened, but when did that stop anyone ? (they’ll go on to tell you it did actually happen about 20 years earlier, in the course of some other foolishness).
But if you bring enough poultry, of course, it could all be different. A slow and confusing journey, but there’ll be a drove road not too far off into the hills. People did that, too, walked their beasts right down from the Highlands into the south of England.
Speak softly and carry a big duck.
Oh, but I forgot to say – watch out on your way down. On your right hand, a quiet town called Whitehaven, on your left you see quaint peaceful Rothbury … Beg to report, Sah, the natives are turning ugly. What on _earth_ is going on ? Someone runs amok shooting people, and now they’ve got *twenty* people arrested on suspicion of helping him ?
Alfred: You write some fascinating thoughts about self regulation of humans, particularly of the variety native to their country for some generations.
ok, I’m willing to grant for the moment that any gap left in a land’s carrying capacity left vacant by the indigenous population will be filled, if government allows, by immigrants. We must then assume that France has not increased its population by a full 100% with immigrants, only by dint of the fact that the UK is more accommodating to such immigrants.
The office for National Statistics (ONS) puts the figure for those born overseas as about 8.3% at the start of the decade, twice what it was 50 years ago. You must be suggesting that the load bearing potential of this UK island has never been reached, and is only being fulfilled with immigration, while that of a lot of the rest of Europe is not.
Whether a genuinely imploding indigenous population really is keeping the fairly steady growth that has been seen since WW-II, because vast immigration (and the subsequent offspring thereof) has been keeping the trend afloat, I’m not so sure… I’ll have to look at some more statistics to be convinced. I’ll grant it’s possible.
*
All the same, and despite reading what you argue about food supply and its subtle effects on decision making, I have to admit to hesitancy in concluding that food prices determine proliferation in a human brood to the extent you imply. (I’m not sure ‘fertility’ is the right term, because it’s a choice now, not the level of fertility, that is the determining factor.)
The cost of housing, the amount of work a couple will jointly have to put in in order to make a reasonable living, the cost of health care, the average wage, the economy, the strength of unions to protect jobs – all these things play much greater in the consideration of the stability of a prospective family, than a 20% swing in the price of rice and various other staples. It’s not an unknown phenomenon by any means for the rate of pregnancy to rocket up in times of war and crises, when one might anticipate food supplies to be particularly precarious. The survival of one’s line appears to assume more importance in times of stress.
I’ll agree that another Krakatoa might mean a substantial cost in the price of food – which, in real terms, has substantially _decreased_ in the past few decades. If a deep concern about the perceived cost of eating was at the bottom of decisions about getting pregnant, we should have seen the precise opposite in reproductive patterns in that same time. But concerns about another Krakatoa is far from uppermost in the considerations of your typical very small family while pondering an expansion – or indeed any food-cost boosting event as a point of concern at all. Even the general cost of living doesn’t get much of a look in.
*
You didn’t remark on my reference to the film Idiocracy – it was only partly in jest that I suggested you consider the reasons it offers for demographic shifts. What do you think of Clinton’s reform of welfare, so that only the first two children of welfare recipients would be eligible? (I don’t think this was directly related to his “three strikes and you’re out!”, but the principle might be the same.)
You mention massive medical intervention, but while those totally incapacitated are kept alive, it’s not as if they reproduce that often. And even in rare cases when they do, it’s not that they had a congenital problem which necessitated the medical intervention. Exceptions include those with Down’s Syndrome, and I do worry about that. Such individuals are as predisposed to reproduction as anyone else, but the offspring are guaranteed to carry the same characteristics. Should they be allowed to, and create a dependent group in the population? This is related to your ‘interesting question’ section. Personally, I don’t think so.
Screening, gene technology and so on can certainly prevent any undesirable characteristic from taking hold, and this is an old argument. Where would it end, if everyone wanted their child engineered to be above average in all respects, and will indeed be so, depending on what one could afford? Sheesh… as if the class divide were not already wide enough!
*
Your thoughts on carrying capacity with regards to technology and the limits achievable are sound, but how are such considerations ever to be given even a nod, while religious zealots must apparently be given as serious a hearing for public consideration as evolutionary biologists?
*
Been all over the shop here, hope I didn’t miss anything I was really supposed to address.
I suppose someone ought to warn France of the 100% increase in population they should look out for, and the locals get busy unless they want outsiders to fill the space. But in all seriousness, I don’t think the world capacity for humans is more than 1/10th what it is right now, particularly if all aspire to the lifestyle even of the most eco-conscious westerner. Requiring perpetual growth in an economy as a long term plan, and indefinite global growth in humans, is currently heading us down a path to total extinction in the blink of an evolutionary eye. Worrying about the genetic makeup of any particular country is, to coin a phrase, rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic. Have you read Leakey’s “The Sixth Extinction”, btw? Picked that up well over a decade ago, I’m surprised people are only just talking about it.
To have a population limited directly by access to food is a seriously undesirable situation. After the ensuing die-off, the over-exploitation of the land will have reduced its future “carrying capacity”.
It’s a weird old world that Alfred seems to inhabit; scary too. Maybe he should revise the mathematical aspects of his education in science, to help him get things more in proportion.
“Maybe he should revise the mathematical aspects of his education in science”
I think it’s about belief, rather than science. He’s insisting that he’s right, rather than considering the possibility that he might not be.
The “population of France” thing was revealing – he backs his argument up with figures that 30 seconds digging can show to be very badly wrong. Someone who’s trying to get scientific – earn a Ph.D, for example (he does know this, you see ?) – would have to revise their thought if the numbers turn out to be v. dodgy. Someone who’s preaching a belief would come up with different stuff to continue to insist it’s the true belief. I leave it up anyone who’s interested to make their own decision as to which he did, if there’s anyone that still hasn’t lost the will to live.
It is a scary world. Even the Indian nukes thing – it’s good to “give them” the tech (they should have copyrighted the number zero, eh ?), then it follows that You Have To Get Them Before They Get You – makes sense if you’ve got some weird fascination with that there’s got to be Unending Conflict and won’t entertain any thought of anything else.
I also think that – to a true missionary, someone who shows why they’re not acepting the arguments given is an opportunity; they’re showing what has to be done to resolve those doubts. So you show them the reasoning, and if it’s any good then, bingo ! they see why they have to agree with you. You don’t just get rude at them, or you’ve blown the chance. So he’s not trying to convince other people. So perhaps he’s trying to convince himself ? It’s always the same – he says things that look completely horrible, but he’s always ready to prove that he’s allowed, it doesn’t make him a Bad Person. Perhaps he’s worried about it, really ?
It reminds me of eddie re: the Iraq Body Count thing, where he finally explained his reasons for identifying with New Labour and how that made him want to do whatever he could to make them look good and swamp anything that made them look bad, so that seemed a good enough reason for him to repeat one and gloss over the other. (In his opinion, anyway, I never followed his reasoning about why he thought the cases in point did that, but never mind that now, the point is that he did).
Which is not to suggest that “faith” necessarily has to be like that – Oliver Cromwell, ladies and gentlemen :- “I beseech you in the Bowels of Christ, pray consider it possible that you may be mistaken”. (I could get Buddhist on the perils of “attachment” here ?) I’ve never seen anything that could make up my mind one way or the other as to whether he could take his own advice, btw.
But of course, I have my biasses, too. That is, firstly, a thing that’s important to remind myself of, and secondly, an invitation to dig the hole deeper by quoting it with no reference to my other points.
yes, one wonders whether silence is rightly taken for monumental lack of interest in, say, the relentlessly tedious whispers of holocaust revisionism (i’m not sssaying, you know, anything sspecific, jusst asking, that’s allowed, issssn’t it?). Or whether silence is taken for aquiescence. No more arguments? Yes! I must have persuaded them with my devastating combination of random insults, family anecdotes, lengthy digressions and suggestive non-sequiteurs! What? They’re still muttering about facts?
I think Richard’s right; it has to be about belief. And I suppose if you have a freaky world view you do tend to want other people to share it. I myself, for example, have often tried to persuade people that fishfinger sandwiches are best with ketchup *and* mayonnaise, but it’s strange how few of them will even contemplate the idea, insisting instead on the supremacy of melted cheese (I ask you), ketchup alone or, in one case, thinly sliced cucumber.
And now I know that at least one person, somewhere, will use that fishfinger sandwich to prove that there’s genocide in Leicester. It obviously does take all sorts, as my mother often says.
—–“Yeah, and I’m talking about the spurious one, which no one here seems to have the wit or integrity to acknowledge is a piece of hateful Anglophobic propaganda. “——–
Actually, it’s a fairly accurate description of the effect of his reforms. It is ironic that the Hindu and Buddhist revival was the result of Westerners, particularly Olcott and Blavatsky though the influence of Muller was immense, telling the Indians that in fact there culture was quite capable of standing up to the much vaunted western variety, and as the Panadura debate proved in 1879 was also quite capable of demolishing the Christian spokesmen through force of logic.
—-“And now I know that at least one person, somewhere, will use that fishfinger sandwich to prove that there’s genocide in Leicester. It obviously does take all sorts, as my mother often says”——-
I would have thought encouraging people to eat fish fingers was a crime against humanity comparable with genocide.
To a duck, a duck is a duck.
Zen master (very wet)
Stephen, you have completely overlooked the sandwich element of the process which makes all the difference. Ketchup *and* mayonnaise…try it..you know it makes sense…and according to a book I once read the fish don’t need fingers anyway…
to a duck, a duck is?
trying to find content of Panadura debate, no luck but read some interesting history so far when I should be (cough) working.
Actually I made some chronological errors in my post. The Panadura debate was held in 1873 and not 1879, and it was the debate that influenced Olcott, who arrived in Ceylon in 1880, not the other way round.
The bit I found most amusing was the Christian priest conducted the debate in fluent Pali and Sanskrit. The only problem was scarcely anybody in the audience could understand him, and when his Buddhist opponent spoke in colloquial Sinhala he wiped the floor.
of course I have my biases too, and I find I seem to quite like them, so certainly it is worth examining them and trying not to get attached to them. Thanks Richard.
There was a beautiful Indian man at my bus stop yesterday, talking loudly of love in an accent like a Yardie while looking like a Sufi, by the way.
“to a duck, a duck is?” technicolour
Now that is Descartes.
Ah yes, the (fish)oil paintings of the cold masters. Something to think about during those long cold months, while you stand there with an egg balanced on your toes …
I spin, am I therefore a mouse ?
Fishfinger sandwiches, that’s /truly/ freaky; if you start proclaiming that I’m too stupid to eat them, I may very well have to consider nuking you before you contaminate my precious bodily fluids. Which there is my bias, of course, he tweaks a prideful streak. But now – I think I praised “Making Light” before now for its discussions ? I’ve just bumped into a reference to an old thread there, on Bullying, which is very long and full of chewiness. I might be gone for a while …
Which came first, descartes or the horse ?
Glenn,
On the relationship between food and population in Britain, history provides a useful perspective. Until the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1849-52, the population of the British Isles was essentially limited by the quantity of food produced within the Isles. Until that time, there would have been few who doubted Thomas Malthus’s contention that population tends always to grow faster than the supply of food, with the consequence that population is continually checked by malnutrition or outright starvation. The only way, Malthus believed, that this sad state of affairs could be avoided would be through the widespread indulgence in what he, and at that time the World, called vice, i.e., contraception, abortion, and sexual practises incapable of leading to conception.
Since the repeal of the Corn Laws, three things affecting the British population and its means of existence changed:
first, Britain became heavily dependent on imported food. By the 1880’s 45% of the grain consumed in Britain was from abroad. This dependence on imported food explains the significance of the war in the Atlantic during both World Wars. Had Germany managed to sink enough ships carrying food from the New World to Britain, there would have been either mass starvation in Britain, or an early British capitulation;
second, vice in Britain, as Malthus defined it, became hugely popular, so much so that not only does every right-minded liberal consider it vicious to condemn it, but it has become a prominent component of the school curriculum;
third, since the Second World War, Britain began to import people to combat labour shortages and union power.
The process began on a significant scale in the early 1960’s when Enoch Powell, as Minister of Health was responsible for recruiting large numbers of immigrants from the West Indies and elsewhere to fill approximately one-third of all National Health Service positions. The rate of immigration has continually increased since then, particularly during the last ten years when the Blair-Brown governments deliberately sought to change the ethnic and cultural composition of the British population through mass immmigration.
Thus, it is evident that whereas until the middle of the nineteenth century the limit to the British population was essentially determined by the domestic food supply, it has since depended on the availability of food only insofar as access to foreign sources has been physically constrained (as during German war-time blockades) or subject to financial limitation (as when dependent on America’s post-war Lend-Lease program). At the lower end of the wealth spectrum, inadequate nutrition probably has continued to exert a negative effect on reproductive rate, although the effect is modified with sometimes perverse consequences by welfare programs.
But so long as Britain has physical access to foreign markets and the means to pay, there is essentially no upper limit to population. It would be possible for example to accomodate the entire world, except the farmers, in England, without necessarily creating a food shortage. The population density would be high, approximately 50% higher than in Hong Kong (here’s something for ballon boy and stat’s wizz, Richard Robinson, to check), but I’ve never met anyone from Hong Kong who complained about overcrowding there.
So I don’t disagree with your contention that fertility of the British population is, today, largely a matter of choice. However, Britain’s dependence on foreign supplies has several important implications of which I will mention two:
first, Britain’s capacity to divert food from throughout the world to satisfy her needs, means restricting the availability of food to those without the financial means to compete with British consumers. So as long as starvation or malnutrition exists anywhere in the World, Britain eats at a cost to the poorest of the Earth. The relation between population and food supply continues to exist, but it is now a global relationship. Where wealth exists the relationship is no longer apparent, where poverty exists the relationship is exacerbated;
second, Britain is vulnerable to a global food shortage, and much more so than nations that remain self-sufficient in food. Today, China, Africa and India, where several billion people still must survive on a dollar or two a day, export large quantities of food to the rich countries including Britain. It seems unlikely, however, that governments of most of these countries would allow food exports to continue during a major famine. Thus populations that exist above the carrying capacity of their territory may be particularly hard hit during a world food shortage.
Re: “The office for National Statistics (ONS) puts the figure for those born overseas as about 8.3% at the start of the decade, twice what it was 50 years ago.”
This number has changed greatly during the last decade with huge impact on particular urban populations.
Re: “The cost of housing, … the cost of health care, the average wage, the economy, the strength of unions to protect jobs – all these things play much greater in the consideration of the stability of a prospective family, than a 20% swing in the price of rice and various other staples.”
Thing is, though, people don’t eat rationally even in times of scarcity, and they very rarely buy unprocessed staples such as rice. Thus it is not the price of staples that counts but the price of things people actually eat. The poorer you are the more likely it is that you live on potato chips and candy bars, which is not only unhealthy but extremely expensive relative to the price of rice and flour. The family of my great grandmother, refugees from the Highland Clearances, are said to have survived during the Crimean war largely on bread, jam and tea. It would have been more sensible to forego the jam and tea and supplement the bread with milk and cabbage. But, being human, they were not entirely sensible.
Re: “It’s not an unknown phenomenon by any means for the rate of pregnancy to rocket up in times of war and crises, when one might anticipate food supplies to be particularly precarious.”
Yes, a good instinctual response. It overloads the carrying capacity of the habitat and causes a population crash. But those who did most to cause the boom and bust are most likely to be represented in the succeeding though much reduced generation (cf. David Lack, the Natural Regulation of Animal Numbers).
“You didn’t remark on my reference to the film Idiocracy”
I missed it, the movie I mean. I haven’t been to the cinema since “Amadeus” and I don’t own a television set.
Re: “You mention massive medical intervention, but while those totally incapacitated are kept alive, it’s not as if they reproduce that often.”
I don’t think this is necessarily the case. The occasional shot of penicillin can compensate for a severely defective immune system, and thus allow unimpaired reproduction resulting in an increase in the genetic load of succeeding generations. It is not difficult to think of many other examples.
Re: “Screening, gene technology and so on can certainly prevent any undesirable characteristic from taking hold, and this is an old argument. Where would it end, if everyone wanted their child engineered to be above average in all respects …”
I thought among the middle class all children were above average anyway!
Re: “as if the class divide were not already wide enough!”
An unfortunate result of meritocracy. With a decent class system, the human potential of all classes will be comparable.
Re: “Your thoughts on carrying capacity with regards to technology and the limits achievable are sound, but how are such considerations ever to be given even a nod, while religious zealots must apparently be given as serious a hearing for public consideration as evolutionary biologists?”
Religious doctrine seems to be another good adaptive strategy, although it can backfire, as with Catholics in Italy, Ireland and Quebec who, contrary to Church teaching, have taken to vice with enthusiasm and now have fewer children than godless disbelievers.
Re: “I suppose someone ought to warn France of the 100% increase in population they should look out for, and the locals get busy unless they want outsiders to fill the space.”
Sarkozy has already warned the French people to intermarry with the immigrants or face extinction.
Re: “I don’t think the world capacity for humans is more than 1/10th what it is right now”
The world’s current carrying capacity must be at least equal to the current world population, although the carrying capacity may be declining, perhaps precipitously, in which case we’ll have a population crash. Nothing to worry about there – its just how life works, how the adapted get sorted from the maladapted!
Re: “Worrying about the genetic makeup of any particular country is, to coin a phrase, rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic.”
That’s where I think you are very seriously wrong. If you want to transform humanity into a tame animal that lives peacefully according to the dictates of the International Panel on Climate Change, the UN, etc., then one thing you need do is provide everyone with a sense of security. The last thing you should do is say, oh screw the Brits, they had their time in the sun, now its time for them to move over and make way other folk, because if you do that you may well instigate a war driven by the instinct for survival, the most powerful incentive to human action that exists.
Virtually all wars, are motivated by clan, tribal or national fears and rivalries. Therefore, the best way to ensure global stability is to guarantee the survival of all people in their traditional homelands. And when I say survival, I mean survival as they are: Brits with British faces, Vietnamese girls with beautiful Vietnamese noses, and all the rest.
To a biologist, incidentally, the variety of humanity is a source of unending delight and fascination. To make us all the same color and shape and emotional and intellectual composition would be a catastrophe.
And yes I read Leakey’s “The Sixth Extinction” when first published in paperback – full of interesting facts.
“the best way to ensure global stability is to guarantee the survival of all people in their traditional homelands. And when I say survival, I mean survival as they are: Brits with British faces, Vietnamese girls with beautiful Vietnamese noses, and all the rest.” Alfred
Aint never happened, aint never gonna happen. So, Indians, Pakistanis etc would have to split themselves into at least sixty pieces and return one piece to Persia, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Mongolia, Greece… Hmn. That’s a good idea.
And the Roma would have to go back to Sindh/ Rajasthan and al the countries in between there and Spain/ Scotland/ Bulgaria.
And the Greeks would have to go back to Central Asia.
And the Syrians, to France and Persia and Italy.
And you, Alfred, to the Highlands of Scotland and Leicester and Devon.
And me to Beverley, home-town of Philip Larkin. Now that IS a good idea.
“Brits with British faces”.
What, like Linford Christie? Or Julie Walters? Or David Baddiel? Or Benny Hill?
Please, don’t worry about war, Alfred, unless you want to make up to Iraq and Afghanistan somehow. Or about the beautiful noses of Vietnamese girls, they will always exist in your dreams. And that’s the way it should be, don’t you think?
Suhayl said,
“…the armed conquest of Britain”.
Does anyone take this seriously, Alfred?”
From someone who, it appears, has called for the murder of British citizens (see link I provided above), why would you not take it seriously?
“it is Britain, must one remind one, who has troops in various war-zones in faraway countries and in these past few years it is Britain (on the coat-tails of Big Brother USA) who has launched aggressive wars against nations far away.”
I need no reminding by Suhayl. I have been an opponent Britain’s wars against Iraq and Afghanistan from the outset, but I am not a traitor and I don’t advocate anti-British terrorism.
By attempting to trivialize the racists statements made by Avatar Singh about the English, Suhayl provides cover for those who call anti-racism racism. His position might be clearer if one were to rework Avatar Singh’s libellous statements about the English and call residents of the Indian sub-continent parasitic bastards using their sweatshops, their call centres, their hives of IT workers — all employing the precious English language and the fruits of the European renaissance, which they have stolen from us — to rob the English people of their jobs, etc.
The perverse habit of calling anti-racism racism is well exemplified by Stephen Jones’s comment which asserts that Thomas Macaulay’s minute on Indian education and government (which held that Indians needed a westernized education if they were to hold their own as a self-governing people in a westernized world) displays “ignorance and racism.” Curious, really, to characterize someone recognized as being among the most learned Englishmen of his time, as ignorant. But that is to digress.
Quite contrary to Stephen Jones, Avatar Singh’s defamatory lies are designed to show Macaulay a racist who wished to hold Indians in permanent servitude to Britain.
So which is it? Was Macaulay a racist, as Stephen Jones asserts, because he wanted to westernize Indian education as a necessary preliminary to self-government or would he have been a racist if, as Avatar Singh falsely asserts, he opposed Westernization of Indian education in order that Indians remained in permanent servitude? Or was he a racist simply because he was a “paleface,” to use a term employed by one of Suhayl’s co-apologists for Singh.
One other thing, am I the only person here to be struck by the extraordinary humbug displayed by those who enthusiastically encourage the defamatory liar Avatar Singh to hold forth on a thread devoted to the ethical justification for denying access to the defamatory liar Larry?
But then humbug is always a mark of the ruling group, and lib-lefties have unquestionably gained the ascendant in Britain today, with consequences likely to be to the everlasting detriment of the British people.