If you think its long-winded, boring and pointless waffle, I can't argue you with you, because if that is what you think, that is what you think. What can I say? No one is forcing you to read it.
However, if you think it is confused, you should say why!
As for what it was trying to achieve, it was to try to remove some of the confusion that exists as a result of the dominance of orthodox economics.
Montreal, having just read Boughs rants and foul mouthed abuse in another thread at someone who dared to call him out on his hypocrisy don’t expect any sort of rational debate here.
This is the real Montreal speaking. Sentinel is using my name here, I am surprised you didn't spot this considering how inane and moronic it is.
I would have at least tried to deal with a few concepts, something Sentinel is incapable of as he is too stupid to understand the issues you raise here.
Sorry, yes, I should have realised that your posts in the past have been intelligently written. If Sentinel has used your name here it clearly shows that he never beleived his charges about "sock puppets" in the first palce, but was just being annoying.
His use of his own sock puppet above, written in the same moronic style as all his other posts, and so blatantly false shows he knows he's lost all credibility.
If he's playing games using other people's user names then I will probably have to introduce further security to require an e-mail address. I've been loathe to do it, because I've wanted to make access as easy as possible.
I have no problem with introducing e-mail verification if it helps stop spammers like Sentinel and BCFG - by the way have you noticed a similar style between the two, or is it just the style of a spammer.
I have refused to participate in any of these discussions if they can be called that, because I stick with the principles stand of "No Platform For Fascist". To be honest, I have been very dissapointed that you provided Sentinel with such a platform to begin with. At least when he was posting comments as BCFG he began by pretending to be a socialist, even if his reactionary politics were clearly to be seen not far below the surface.
You know the argument. Fascists are not like anyone else precisely because they would deny free speech to others if they had the opportunity. Although socialists defend free speech in general, and would debate with anyone, we should not provide the fascists with the oxygen of publicity, and more importantly should not allow them to present themselves as the same as every other political party. Sentinel's posts here show that clearly. They are not rational people.
You should just ban him, and all his sock puppets.
I'm loathe to continue this line of debate, because this post was SUPPOSED to be about Economics. Unfortunately, that is the consequence of people like Sentinel hi-jacking debate with spam.
However, there are important issues raised, which I think the Left has to deal with. In fact, I last week wrote a ltter to the Weekly Worker on this point, and I was discussing it, with comrades from the Socialist Party at the Trades Council meeting last week too.
I understand, of course, the principle of "No Platform". I agree with that position, but its important to understand it correctly. It means that we are in favour of the working class itself acting to prevent the Fascists from spreading their filth. So, I support the recenta ction of posties to refuse to distribute the fascists propaganda.
But, I think the position that some on the Left have adopted of not being prepared to appear on Radio and TV Programmes with the BNP is wrong. Especially, now that Griffin has a platform, he will be interviewed by the media. If the Left does not put someone up to confront them, they are No Platforming themselves not Griffin.
Of course, if the media do not allow socialists to have equal air time then we should call on media workers to simply pull the plug on the fascists, or to black out the newspage. Where possible we should mobilise demonstrations wherever the fascist show their face, and so on.
I don't think that applies here, because as a blog its aimed at a particular audience. No socialist reading this blog is going to be influenced by Sentinel's arguments, such as they are, other than perhaps to be revulsed or amused. He is just wasting his own time. But, allowing him to post serves a useful purpose. By seeing the kinds of argumnts he raises the Left can rehearse its responses to them in replying to them within the class.
Take the argument presented here by Sentinel about the number of Black people involved in crime. We should not simply dismiss that argument as being racist - though of course, the way its raised by Sentinel is racist - when discussing it with workers, but should draw out the logic from it. That is, the vast majority of black people are not involved in crime, so the question of colour does not come into an analysis of why these particular people WERE involved in crime. They didn't commit crime ebcause they were black, but because of some other cause, environment, culture, or whatever. In fact, it opens the door to raising the argument with workers about how to deal with those social and environmental and cultural problems that lead to such violence and other situations.
Of course, you can't do that with a spammer like Sentinel. But, that does not stop rational people commenting here, and holding such discussion.
Well, besides the fact that you do not know what the difference between a weblog and a website is, it is hardly surprising that you don’t know the meaning of the word spam, you are again, of course, way of the mark.
Whilst it is refreshing that you have finally accepted the fact that blacks in the UK dominate the crime rate our worst crimes, the real questions are:
1) Why? Why are blacks so much more predispositioned then whites to commit extreme physical and sexual violence?
2) Why is this the case in every country that non-whites have a sizable presence in?
3) why should we import more non-whites into western countries when we know that one very undesirable result will be the exponential growth in the crime rate of the worst crimes?
I am glad to see your response to Llin. I agree totally with your position here. I also think allowing these people a platform can only do harm to their organisations. The limited BNP success we have recently seen has been achieved by negative publicity rather than them being given a platform. I also think to introduce extra security would be a mistake, you can't let a raving lunatic like Seninel make you drop your principles.
One of the things I admire you for is your willingness to engage with people no matter how incredibly stupid they appear to be, it would be a shame if you changed this approach, though with Sentinel I would call time.
Speaking of the idiot par excellence, as annoying and pointless as Sentinel was, I did credit him with continuing to use his own tag because I expected him to start using other aliases. For me that was his only redeeming feature and did allow for some sort of honest debate. This is why I didn’t entirely buy into your spam argument. Now he has stolen my name I can only say that he is the lowest of the low and that he is now just a spammer, but as I said you can easily spot his contributions. They are unintelligent, unable to deal with the ideas you present in any sort of intellectual way and are built on moronic foundations. It is so easy to spot that all he is doing is highlighting his own stupidity and making the rest of us look good!
So thanks for that.
PS I am finding your series on Economics very illuminating.
Jesus H Christ!! You are CERTIFIABLE Arthur!! You really are demented!!!
You are chatting back and forth your sock puppets like a dribbling madman!! It is bizarre and oh so see through.
Like I said all liars are projectionists and you are the worst of them all - I cite you for using sock puppets and WHAM! its actually me using sock puppets!!!
Do you really think you'd fool anyone real, if anyone real was actually watching this? You get an average of 0 comments after your 15,000 word post rants but now - out of nowhere - you have 4 different people commenting, amazing, and guess what? Not one of them has any profile or blog!!! They just wander around blogsphere blog-less and profile-less!!!
What a crock.
You are the most dishonest weirdo I have come across yet on the extreme left, and trust there are many dishonest weirdo's on the extreme left, as your whole ideology is built on dishonesty - but you really shine out!!!
You try every trick in the book to avoid debate becasue you know that your limited intellect can only spin so many lies beofre you get caught up in the whole web!!!!
- But go on, just for giggles, I will indulge you (and your sock puppet) for a second - what evidence do you have that I imitated your sock puppet?
You are the one caught out! As I pointed out in another thread you used the very same phrase about "long-winded and boring" that you used when you were pretending to be Montreal! You are too stupid for your own good.
So why would you post as Montreal if you really beleived he was me??? Only a moron like you would do that. Then you chose another puppet to contribute more ridiculous crap. Whether its a puppet of your own construction or given the sexual propsensities of BNP members just someone whose arse you've got your hand up doesn't really matter.
“Well, besides the fact that you do not know what the difference between a weblog and a website is, it is hardly surprising that you don’t know the meaning of the word spam, you are again, of course, way of the mark.”…
Well, being as you claim to be an international businessman with businesses in Africa and other parts of the world, I would have thought the first thing you would have been keen to do would have been to defend your professional integrity against a criticism of the technical quality of your work! But, no typical of a spammer, and fantasist you prefer to talk about – the semantics of whether a blog is a website or not, and the true meaning of spam!!!! Tells us all we need to know about your claims in that regard I think. And if you are lying in that regard, which is part of the reason obviously you don’t have the balls to use your real name on your blog or when you post, its almost certainly true of your other claims about military service and so on.
Nevertheless, all of those CLAIMS about yourself, whether they are true or not, tell us what a hypocrite you are. You are the one whose hypocrisy has been set out in the way you claim to be a patriot but spend most of the year overseas; you claim to be in favour of BJ4BW yet, you establish your business in Africa and other parts of the world exploiting foreign workers; you claim to support he Ghurkhas yet, your and your Party are committed to treating them as second class citizens, and encouraging them to go back home, and you wouldn’t even let them join your Party; you condemn the British State for its “fascist” (to use your term) invasion of Iraq and Iran and elsewhere, and yet you volunteer to make yourself the active agent of that State in carrying out those actions; you condemn a tiny fractional percentage of the black population for being involved in sex crimes, yet you refuse to condemn let alone call for the expulsion of that much bigger percentage of the BNP that have been convicted of Gang Rape, Wife Beating and paedophilia.
“Why? Why are blacks so much more predispositioned then whites to commit extreme physical and sexual violence?”…
They aren’t as the figures you have provided previously demonstrate. For example, take Gang Rape. The percentage of black people involved in Gang Rape amounted to a fraction of 1%. So its clear that being Black does not make you prone to gang rape, or that figure would be much higher. So, the fact that a high number of the people convicted were black is not an indication that black people themselves are prone to that crime, only that THESE PARTICULAR people, who happened to be black were prone to gang rape. We would need to know much more about these people as individuals to know why they committed these crimes. Their backgrounds, culture, immediate environment, peer pressure, and so on.
In the same way, we might ask why it is that such a high percentage of BNP members are involved in violent crime, a much higher percentage of the BNP’s membership than the percentage of black people involved in violent crime. We would then look at the culture of the BNP as a fascist Party, its historical roots, the fact that it worships violent organisations of the past like the Nazis, the fact that its leaders state that it will achieve its goals by the use of fists and boots rather than rationality etc.
“Why is this the case in every country that non-whites have a sizable presence in?”…
Good question, but again, a look at the statistics will show that it has nothing to do with colour, because again in all these countries the percentage of the non-white population involved in such activity is very small. So it is clearly something to do not with their colour, but the particular backgrounds of the individuals involved, their environment, the culture they live in, perhaps the hopelessness of their condition, which as I have said before leads to such kinds of behaviour wherever it occurs irrespective of the colour of those involved – e.g. the North Sea oil workers living in poor conditions, with nothing to do and nowhere to go, who admitted there were ten fights a night amongst them, were all white!
In fact, it is as you have said with all of those numerous members of the BNP similarly found guilty of violent crime. There you state that the organisation cannot be held responsible for the actions of individuals. Nor can black or non-white people be held responsible for the actions of a tiny minority similarly involved in violence, in fact a much smaller percentage of their community than those involved in violent crime compose of the BNP. It is, of course, right that those communities, and society as a whole should ask what it is that makes this small number commit these offences, and to address the causes of that. It is similarly right that society and members of the BNP should ask why it is that such a high percentage of the BNP are involved in violent crime, gang rape, paedophilia and other such serious crimes. A start would be if members of that organisation like yourself called for the expulsion of those convicted of such offences, and the expulsion of those like your leader who encourage such acts, by saying that your organisation will achieve its ends by the use of boots and fists and not rationality.
“why should we import more non-whites into western countries when we know that one very undesirable result will be the exponential growth in the crime rate of the worst crimes?”…
Because the percentage of these communities involved in such crimes is so very small, and the benefits that our society gains from the vast majority of those communities coming here far more than outweighs the disadvantages of the miniscule number involved in such crimes. If we really wanted to cut violent crime using your argument the best way would be to get rid of the BNP, which has a much higher percentage of its members convicted of such offences than is the percentage of non-white offenders to their total population.
15 comments:
I have to say that this is somewhat long winded, confused, boring and pointless waffle.
What onm earth were you trying to achieve with this?
If you think its long-winded, boring and pointless waffle, I can't argue you with you, because if that is what you think, that is what you think. What can I say? No one is forcing you to read it.
However, if you think it is confused, you should say why!
As for what it was trying to achieve, it was to try to remove some of the confusion that exists as a result of the dominance of orthodox economics.
Montreal, having just read Boughs rants and foul mouthed abuse in another thread at someone who dared to call him out on his hypocrisy don’t expect any sort of rational debate here.
Boffy,
This is the real Montreal speaking. Sentinel is using my name here, I am surprised you didn't spot this considering how inane and moronic it is.
I would have at least tried to deal with a few concepts, something Sentinel is incapable of as he is too stupid to understand the issues you raise here.
It is very easy to spot his contributions.
Montreal,
Sorry, yes, I should have realised that your posts in the past have been intelligently written. If Sentinel has used your name here it clearly shows that he never beleived his charges about "sock puppets" in the first palce, but was just being annoying.
His use of his own sock puppet above, written in the same moronic style as all his other posts, and so blatantly false shows he knows he's lost all credibility.
If he's playing games using other people's user names then I will probably have to introduce further security to require an e-mail address. I've been loathe to do it, because I've wanted to make access as easy as possible.
Boffy,
I have no problem with introducing e-mail verification if it helps stop spammers like Sentinel and BCFG - by the way have you noticed a similar style between the two, or is it just the style of a spammer.
I have refused to participate in any of these discussions if they can be called that, because I stick with the principles stand of "No Platform For Fascist". To be honest, I have been very dissapointed that you provided Sentinel with such a platform to begin with. At least when he was posting comments as BCFG he began by pretending to be a socialist, even if his reactionary politics were clearly to be seen not far below the surface.
You know the argument. Fascists are not like anyone else precisely because they would deny free speech to others if they had the opportunity. Although socialists defend free speech in general, and would debate with anyone, we should not provide the fascists with the oxygen of publicity, and more importantly should not allow them to present themselves as the same as every other political party. Sentinel's posts here show that clearly. They are not rational people.
You should just ban him, and all his sock puppets.
You should sim
Llin,
I'm loathe to continue this line of debate, because this post was SUPPOSED to be about Economics. Unfortunately, that is the consequence of people like Sentinel hi-jacking debate with spam.
However, there are important issues raised, which I think the Left has to deal with. In fact, I last week wrote a ltter to the Weekly Worker on this point, and I was discussing it, with comrades from the Socialist Party at the Trades Council meeting last week too.
I understand, of course, the principle of "No Platform". I agree with that position, but its important to understand it correctly. It means that we are in favour of the working class itself acting to prevent the Fascists from spreading their filth. So, I support the recenta ction of posties to refuse to distribute the fascists propaganda.
But, I think the position that some on the Left have adopted of not being prepared to appear on Radio and TV Programmes with the BNP is wrong. Especially, now that Griffin has a platform, he will be interviewed by the media. If the Left does not put someone up to confront them, they are No Platforming themselves not Griffin.
Of course, if the media do not allow socialists to have equal air time then we should call on media workers to simply pull the plug on the fascists, or to black out the newspage. Where possible we should mobilise demonstrations wherever the fascist show their face, and so on.
I don't think that applies here, because as a blog its aimed at a particular audience. No socialist reading this blog is going to be influenced by Sentinel's arguments, such as they are, other than perhaps to be revulsed or amused. He is just wasting his own time. But, allowing him to post serves a useful purpose. By seeing the kinds of argumnts he raises the Left can rehearse its responses to them in replying to them within the class.
Take the argument presented here by Sentinel about the number of Black people involved in crime. We should not simply dismiss that argument as being racist - though of course, the way its raised by Sentinel is racist - when discussing it with workers, but should draw out the logic from it. That is, the vast majority of black people are not involved in crime, so the question of colour does not come into an analysis of why these particular people WERE involved in crime. They didn't commit crime ebcause they were black, but because of some other cause, environment, culture, or whatever. In fact, it opens the door to raising the argument with workers about how to deal with those social and environmental and cultural problems that lead to such violence and other situations.
Of course, you can't do that with a spammer like Sentinel. But, that does not stop rational people commenting here, and holding such discussion.
Wow - you really are demented aint ya!!!
You are now counter posting your sock puppet as an alias for another sock puppet!!! And then chatting to you original sock puppet as well?!!!
Like all twisted liars, you are big on projection and this latest stunt is just that.
I don't post with any other ID muppet, as I don't have to.
This is all your own work, yet again.
Well, besides the fact that you do not know what the difference between a weblog and a website is, it is hardly surprising that you don’t know the meaning of the word spam, you are again, of course, way of the mark.
Whilst it is refreshing that you have finally accepted the fact that blacks in the UK dominate the crime rate our worst crimes, the real questions are:
1) Why? Why are blacks so much more predispositioned then whites to commit extreme physical and sexual violence?
2) Why is this the case in every country that non-whites have a sizable presence in?
3) why should we import more non-whites into western countries when we know that one very undesirable result will be the exponential growth in the crime rate of the worst crimes?
Arhtur,
I am glad to see your response to Llin. I agree totally with your position here. I also think allowing these people a platform can only do harm to their organisations. The limited BNP success we have recently seen has been achieved by negative publicity rather than them being given a platform.
I also think to introduce extra security would be a mistake, you can't let a raving lunatic like Seninel make you drop your principles.
One of the things I admire you for is your willingness to engage with people no matter how incredibly stupid they appear to be, it would be a shame if you changed this approach, though with Sentinel I would call time.
Speaking of the idiot par excellence, as annoying and pointless as Sentinel was, I did credit him with continuing to use his own tag because I expected him to start using other aliases. For me that was his only redeeming feature and did allow for some sort of honest debate. This is why I didn’t entirely buy into your spam argument.
Now he has stolen my name I can only say that he is the lowest of the low and that he is now just a spammer, but as I said you can easily spot his contributions. They are unintelligent, unable to deal with the ideas you present in any sort of intellectual way and are built on moronic foundations. It is so easy to spot that all he is doing is highlighting his own stupidity and making the rest of us look good!
So thanks for that.
PS I am finding your series on Economics very illuminating.
Jesus H Christ!! You are CERTIFIABLE Arthur!! You really are demented!!!
You are chatting back and forth your sock puppets like a dribbling madman!! It is bizarre and oh so see through.
Like I said all liars are projectionists and you are the worst of them all - I cite you for using sock puppets and WHAM! its actually me using sock puppets!!!
Do you really think you'd fool anyone real, if anyone real was actually watching this? You get an average of 0 comments after your 15,000 word post rants but now - out of nowhere - you have 4 different people commenting, amazing, and guess what? Not one of them has any profile or blog!!! They just wander around blogsphere blog-less and profile-less!!!
What a crock.
You are the most dishonest weirdo I have come across yet on the extreme left, and trust there are many dishonest weirdo's on the extreme left, as your whole ideology is built on dishonesty - but you really shine out!!!
You try every trick in the book to avoid debate becasue you know that your limited intellect can only spin so many lies beofre you get caught up in the whole web!!!!
-
But go on, just for giggles, I will indulge you (and your sock puppet) for a second - what evidence do you have that I imitated your sock puppet?
Sentinel,
You are the one caught out! As I pointed out in another thread you used the very same phrase about "long-winded and boring" that you used when you were pretending to be Montreal! You are too stupid for your own good.
So why would you post as Montreal if you really beleived he was me??? Only a moron like you would do that. Then you chose another puppet to contribute more ridiculous crap. Whether its a puppet of your own construction or given the sexual propsensities of BNP members just someone whose arse you've got your hand up doesn't really matter.
“Well, besides the fact that you do not know what the difference between a weblog and a website is, it is hardly surprising that you don’t know the meaning of the word spam, you are again, of course, way of the mark.”…
Well, being as you claim to be an international businessman with businesses in Africa and other parts of the world, I would have thought the first thing you would have been keen to do would have been to defend your professional integrity against a criticism of the technical quality of your work! But, no typical of a spammer, and fantasist you prefer to talk about – the semantics of whether a blog is a website or not, and the true meaning of spam!!!! Tells us all we need to know about your claims in that regard I think. And if you are lying in that regard, which is part of the reason obviously you don’t have the balls to use your real name on your blog or when you post, its almost certainly true of your other claims about military service and so on.
Nevertheless, all of those CLAIMS about yourself, whether they are true or not, tell us what a hypocrite you are. You are the one whose hypocrisy has been set out in the way you claim to be a patriot but spend most of the year overseas; you claim to be in favour of BJ4BW yet, you establish your business in Africa and other parts of the world exploiting foreign workers; you claim to support he Ghurkhas yet, your and your Party are committed to treating them as second class citizens, and encouraging them to go back home, and you wouldn’t even let them join your Party; you condemn the British State for its “fascist” (to use your term) invasion of Iraq and Iran and elsewhere, and yet you volunteer to make yourself the active agent of that State in carrying out those actions; you condemn a tiny fractional percentage of the black population for being involved in sex crimes, yet you refuse to condemn let alone call for the expulsion of that much bigger percentage of the BNP that have been convicted of Gang Rape, Wife Beating and paedophilia.
“Why? Why are blacks so much more predispositioned then whites to commit extreme physical and sexual violence?”…
They aren’t as the figures you have provided previously demonstrate. For example, take Gang Rape. The percentage of black people involved in Gang Rape amounted to a fraction of 1%. So its clear that being Black does not make you prone to gang rape, or that figure would be much higher. So, the fact that a high number of the people convicted were black is not an indication that black people themselves are prone to that crime, only that THESE PARTICULAR people, who happened to be black were prone to gang rape. We would need to know much more about these people as individuals to know why they committed these crimes. Their backgrounds, culture, immediate environment, peer pressure, and so on.
In the same way, we might ask why it is that such a high percentage of BNP members are involved in violent crime, a much higher percentage of the BNP’s membership than the percentage of black people involved in violent crime. We would then look at the culture of the BNP as a fascist Party, its historical roots, the fact that it worships violent organisations of the past like the Nazis, the fact that its leaders state that it will achieve its goals by the use of fists and boots rather than rationality etc.
“Why is this the case in every country that non-whites have a sizable presence in?”…
Good question, but again, a look at the statistics will show that it has nothing to do with colour, because again in all these countries the percentage of the non-white population involved in such activity is very small. So it is clearly something to do not with their colour, but the particular backgrounds of the individuals involved, their environment, the culture they live in, perhaps the hopelessness of their condition, which as I have said before leads to such kinds of behaviour wherever it occurs irrespective of the colour of those involved – e.g. the North Sea oil workers living in poor conditions, with nothing to do and nowhere to go, who admitted there were ten fights a night amongst them, were all white!
In fact, it is as you have said with all of those numerous members of the BNP similarly found guilty of violent crime. There you state that the organisation cannot be held responsible for the actions of individuals. Nor can black or non-white people be held responsible for the actions of a tiny minority similarly involved in violence, in fact a much smaller percentage of their community than those involved in violent crime compose of the BNP.
It is, of course, right that those communities, and society as a whole should ask what it is that makes this small number commit these offences, and to address the causes of that. It is similarly right that society and members of the BNP should ask why it is that such a high percentage of the BNP are involved in violent crime, gang rape, paedophilia and other such serious crimes. A start would be if members of that organisation like yourself called for the expulsion of those convicted of such offences, and the expulsion of those like your leader who encourage such acts, by saying that your organisation will achieve its ends by the use of boots and fists and not rationality.
“why should we import more non-whites into western countries when we know that one very undesirable result will be the exponential growth in the crime rate of the worst crimes?”…
Because the percentage of these communities involved in such crimes is so very small, and the benefits that our society gains from the vast majority of those communities coming here far more than outweighs the disadvantages of the miniscule number involved in such crimes. If we really wanted to cut violent crime using your argument the best way would be to get rid of the BNP, which has a much higher percentage of its members convicted of such offences than is the percentage of non-white offenders to their total population.
In line with the warning previously given, further comments that had nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread have been ddeleted.
As it appears that Sentinel intends to continue posting spam comments unrelated to the actual subjects in blogs, I am introducing Comment Moderation.
Once again the BNP fuck it up for eveeryone else.
Post a Comment