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.
.
If you look closely – very closely – at Tony Blair’s nose, you will see that while at first glance it appears average, on closer inspection, in fact it resembles the proboscis of Pinocchio.
I feel Alfred might be putting forward some sane sides of the dreaded subject. People are worried to debate what kind and amount of immigration would be best and what could be undesireable for their homelands. The commercial pressure is to not give it a thought, let labour move and reap profits. I dont have a firm position on the issues, i feel these modern times are different to any in history, and ideally every human should be equal and free to move across the world. I do sympathise with people wishing to protect their own tribal characters, especially when they wish no ill on others, the promiscuous world perhaps, other than some boundaries for their kin to persist within.
Yes, crab, I agree, but the problem is, Alfred often provides an excellent and measured historical anaylsis of the problems but then draws completely inappropriate conclusions/ solutions. That’s the rub with much of Alfred’s argumentation. One cannot but agree with a whole lot of what he says but not with his conclusions. Well, I speak for myself, of course.
Hey, Suhayl, if people ever had stayed put they wouldn’t even have got to those alleged homelands, we’d all be overcrowding East Africa. (Heh. Did you ever read Stand on Zanzibar ?)
Come to that, did you ever read Steve Bell on cartooning Mr. TB ? An interview long time back, I can’t remember where (the aGuinard, I guess). He said that the trick to making it work was to focus on his Evil Left Eye. Once you’ve heard that, it even works for photos (though the distinction seems to be fading these days, he’s becoming a goblin).
“because he was a “paleface,” to use a term employed by one of Suhayl’s co-apologists”
That’s *funny*.
“I do sympathise with people wishing to protect their own tribal characters, especially when they wish no ill on others, the promiscuous world perhaps, other than some boundaries for their kin to persist within”
That brings into focus for me a vague idea that’s been nagging at me for awhile. A lot of what Alfred says, perhaps (I Am Not An Anthroplogist) is more feasible when applied to, for example, the few remaining “uncontacted” people hiding behind the quieter trees of the Amazon Basin (if there are any left by now), defending their patch against the neighbours, keeping their population under control by sending the young males out to cull each other, not expanding out of their ‘homeland’, and unpopulated bits in between the patches where they can agree to have their battles without trampling anyone’s gardens, all very nice and tidy and stable.
“Alfred often provides an excellent and measured historical anaylsis of the problems but then draws completely inappropriate conclusions/ solutions.”
Suhayl,
Come on, Suhayl, be specific. what is so inappropriate in concluding that if the British are threatened with being swamped out of their small and crowded homeland it is only reasonable that they should want to restrict the rate of immigration.
Or are you trying to insinuate that I have a swastika tatooed on my forehead?
That reminds me a little of Mrs Thatcher’s “swamping” phrase back in 1979. But a swastika? No. Unless it be the original Hindu symbol, of course, whcih has a quite different connotation.
Well, it’s actually quite difficult now to get into the UK (legally) to live ‘forever’ unless you’re an EU national or unless you’re really quite rich – but of course Brits can go to France or Spain or Portugal to live, so one can’t really have it both ways, as it were. Brits also work all over the Middle East and Far East. It’s a labour market issue, an issue of capitalism. I’ve already discussed this before. We are all at the mercy of the corporations and the banks.
Hey – this thread is catching-up with the 9/11 one! Does that mean something? I don’t know.
People ‘wishing to protect their own tribal characters’; bless. It’s nice, I think, that the ‘tribal character’ of the Brits largely consists of:
gardening
football/rugby/cricket
barbecues
children
cookery
music
DIY/home improvements
and possibly a vague desire to live by the sea.
I do think it’s a tribute to our fine media, and their tenacious pursuit of the vulnerable, that people use this word ‘immigration’ as though it meant something. Like the Daily Express use of the word ‘ethnics’; just simple, unfocussed, meaningless stuff.
Crab, I agree, commercial pressure to move to work to live is one thing; appalling. But a Polish worker, say, who’s had to come to the UK to work is not an immigrant; and the Polish workers are also going home again. Having tried to generate fear and resentment of Polish people, the media are now trying to generate fear and resentment of immigrants, or ‘ethnics’ ie, anyone who looks like an immigrant. The fact that they may have been born in Leicester is irrelevant.
Alfred’s conclusions and language encourage such an outlook; hence his insistence on appearances (the ‘British face’) rather than on facts. And now he’s warning of a Brit ‘war’.
Anyway. Suhayl, are you insinuating that Alfred has a swastika tattooed on his forehead? Because I find it unlikely myself: I mean, it would surely make shopping etc quite difficult?
Alfred, I think care and attention toward an economically, environmentally and culturally beneficial immigration rate for all places, balanced against the ideal of free movement, would be one thing provided by a proper state, one which was not dominated by the military, industrial, commercial and financial persuasions which combine to create such a mess out of life.
Our problems are immense, Environmental catastrophy, Computerised Warfare, Sick social planning, souless employments and economic schemes, all to maintain some ravenously wealthly and manipulative companies and organisations, which in turn maintain the masses in follysome struggles. The stress which surplus immigration could put on culture at these times seems diminutive to me compared to the wars and terror nightmares and stupid adverts and dreamless kids and ruthless adults.
Write well about how to deal with the big problems, not why to make bigger problems out of little ones.
Parts of the media, I should have said. And even then, this talk of ‘war’ and ‘genocide’ is really reaching the skirts-over the-windmill extreme end of the extreme. Alfred, I said it before and I say it again, you should come and visit.
Otherwise, time for bed, and I think my appetite for this circular Alfred is generally sated. Liked that website, Richard! Goodnight.
‘night technicolour 🙂
such good advice
Write well about how to deal with the big problems, not why to make bigger problems out of little ones.
Suhayl said:
“That reminds me a little of Mrs Thatcher’s “swamping” phrase back in 1979. …”
Oh, I thought you might actually answer the question.
But you’re like Sam Johnson’s Poll who was, “all wiggle waggle and never could be categorical.”
It’s axioms all the way down :-
I say “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”
Alfred says “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”.
(Let’s call the whole thing off).
“Life” works however it works, both in the world we have now and in the much-impoverished one that would follow such a disaster. Life _is_ what works [1], even if it consists mainly of mutant cockroaches – not everybody would scrabble for the last scraps with bows and arrows.
The creation of the need to adapt to a disaster is not an argument in favour of that disaster.
[1] I just remembered Gregory Bateson’s tautological paraphrase of Darwin. “That which survives, survives longer than that which does not survive”. Well, it makes me grin.
Technicolor said: “‘Brits with British faces.’ What, like Linford Christie? Or Julie Walters? …”
Nah, I was thinking more of Julie Christie (born in Assam!):
http://tiny.cc/w0ts2
And Liz Taylor: a perfect example of the Welsh housewife.
But Lynford Christie, I’ve heard of him: very speedy fellow? Can’t be a real indigenous Brit!
Oops, mustn’t say that. All animals are equally fast, although some are more equally fast than others.
It is said that the Internet is a place where people may listen only to what they already believe, and speak only with those with whom they aready agree. Such cannot be said of this conversation. But if at times has been a little bruising, it may have been worthwhile, nevertheless.
It appears this page is about to disappear from view, as I must also. So cheers, Richard, Techie, Clark – you bugger you still owe me an apology, Stephen, Crab, Suhayl — sorry about the last ding: unkind I suppose but deserved I thought, though no personal disrespect intended (I am sure that a man as articulate and well informed as you will do much to uphold the British tradition of direct speech, albeit improved with a tact and polish with which the British, in general, are not notably well endowed), and Glenn, as before, a good talk. To Craig, if you are still abroad, a safe and pleasant journey home.
Yep, we true Brits all look like horny old female film stars.
“Oops, musn’t say that”. Of course you can snigger about ‘black’ people running faster, tee hee, Alfred. Roger Bannister, Seb Coe, Paula Radcliffe; nothing – you should see that Trevor MacDonald on the track. Well you wouldn’t, because he’s just a blur, darling, top speed of 90 when he gets going. It’s because of the melatonin, don’t you know.
What fun it has been. I wonder if Suhayl will accept your necessary apology. Otherwise, good luck with it, Alfred – and always remember, ketchup *and* mayonnaise.
“‘black’ people running faster”
“I don’t have to run faster than the cheetah, I have to run faster than *you*”.
I picture you as looking a bit like Amanda Barrie, Richard, am I right?
“I picture you as looking a bit like Amanda Barrie, Richard, am I right? ”
In some respects, mate, in some respects.
The thread’s disappearing off the edge like a dragon in a Mediaeval map of the world! There’s only so much one can say about pineapples and mangoes.
Pamela Anderson proved that she can run quite fast when she’s being chased through a bookstore car-park by an insane comedian.
and we can deduce that ‘Suhayl’, as an indigenous Yorkshire person, is actually a busty 5’2 blonde called Hayley. You didn’t think that photo was fooling anyone, did you, Suhayl?
Interesting find. Wonder what it might mean. Check out 8th July 2007 2129 hrs and 15th July 2007 1902hrs.
http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/photo-uk/3018/Attn-Craig-Oldfield-Steve-Barlow-Neil-Barker-Ben-Newsam
‘Melanie Hayley’, if you please, technicolour. Though the stats are accurate. Ah! You saw thru’ the mask and the hat!
He used to claim to be a photographer, right enough. But http://www.myspace.com/acidmod/photos/2139734 is funnier. Could it be ?
o good, i found the thread again. in the absence of new posts, why has it disappeared off the front page? are the pineapples growing?
i’m so delighted that i have the genes of at least three separate ‘races’ in my veins, by the way, even if one of them is teutonic. the latter has left me with an obvious choice between goose stepping (well, it’s in the blood) or loving the world like Goethe. Hard one, eh?
Yes, it’s odd, technicolour, the photos keep elongating. Pretty soon, a single, castrated pineapple will fill the entire screen.
What, Richard, Northern Soul and the 1st Mod Revival of 1978-9 (the originals being those of the 1960s)? Secret Affair, The Lambrettas, The Merton Parkas, The Jam, et al? Two-tone, ska, etc. I like a lot of Mod music – so that would be annoying, if it were.
But the thread I linked to suggested that some guys were sharing chat about how they were messing with various websites. Interesting how the names of posters who have appeared here en masse on CM’s site in the past month or so also appear there. Namely:
Craig-Oldfield-Steve-Barlow-Neil-Barker-Ben-Newsam
Yes indeed, the Neil-and-Ben-and-Craig-and-Steve Show. Shlobalob! Wee-eed!
Suhayl. I can’t actually find the bits you pointed too, but, yeah, I remarked a few days back on the pineapple thread, I saw Barker/Oldfield doing that stuff 15 years ago. The other 2 names are new, and they had another crony or 2 then, but wtf, it’s not news. Just depressing.
You know I’ve said, several times, you don’t need to hypothesise big bad organisations becasue there are people who’ll egg each other on to make out that random harrassment and aggression is amusing for it’s own sake ? case in point.
But, see how reticent he is about exactly where he is in the world ? “Surrey” seems like a viable explanation for that, to me, I wouldn’t like to have to admit it either.
Or perhaps he’s been jilted by a molecular biologist, and is gazing soulfully at the penguins ?
Mainly, it’s just such an cringeworthy photo.
But I don’t really care that much, it’s fairly tedious any road up. I’m going to go out the pub & listen to Roger Wilson sing his songs & play his guitar & hopefully his fiddle. Which is much pleasanter.
Alfred: It sounds like you’ve gone, which is a bit of a shame – I’d hoped to continue our discussion! Ah well, next time you find occasion to visit this blog, I hope we can do so.