A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

[Searcher08]

I should also clarify that it was jakell, when he really came on board here a couple of months ago who kept making references to his longstanding contacts with White Nationalists and conversations at the British Democracy Forum.

I don't think the insinuation folded into the phrase "longstanding contacts" is fair AD.

Point well taken and it is not my intention to be unfair- but it does get into the uncertainties about him, which have always been within his power to resolve.

BUT *whose* uncertainties, AD?
You frame it as though the uncertainties are an agreed feature of everyone's reality - like a physical rock in front of us - but it is an interpretation, something subjective.

Jakell throws out these vague generalities ala "Of course I was hanging with those White Nationalists and BNP people because I'm an anti-fascist"

Please take a short step back - recently, you expressed an interpretation of my words of 'having close Jewish friends' as "well, that is a typical gambit by Holocaust Deniers" which leaves a guilt-by-association by what is unsaid; leaving aside my emotional reaction, the thing is that was an abstration, a removal of yourself from what I said. Going in the reverse direction is making it more sensory and unambiguous.
You see the expression 'throwing out vague generalities' maps in my mind to the
"Well a Holocaust Denier *would* say that, wouldn't they"

This is structurally more of the same.

but we know for example that he was advertising and expressing support for Keith Preston's site-

Firstly
How do you transform jakell's reply to my clear assessment up thread about Keith Preston's AttackTheSystem site into the above?

Just because I myself think Preston's approach is lucidly written interesting mathematically impossible-to-implement poorly thought through pants, does not mean I agree with yours.

Secondly

NO PLATFORM FOR NOSISTS!

Nosism, from the Latin nos, "we", is the practice of using the pronoun "we" to refer to oneself.[1]
Depending on the person using the nosism different uses can be distinguished:
1 The royal "we" or Majestic plural
2 The editorial "we"
3 The author's "we" or pluralis modestiae
4 The patronizing "we"
5 The non-confrontative "we"
6 See also
7 References

The royal "we" or Majestic plural
Main article: Majestic plural
The majestic plural is the use of "we" to refer to a single person holding a high office, such as a monarch, bishop, or pope.

The editorial "we"
The editorial "we" is a similar phenomenon, in which an editorial columnist in a newspaper or a similar commentator in another medium refers to themself as we when giving their opinion. Here, she or he casts themself in the role of a spokesperson: either for the media institution that employs them, or more generally on behalf of the party or body of citizens who agree with the commentary.

The author's "we" or pluralis modestiae
Similar to the editorial "we" is the practice common in scientific literature of referring to a generic third person by we (instead of the more common one or the informal you):
By adding four and five, we obtain nine.
We are thus led also to a definition of "time" in physics. – Albert Einstein
"We" in this sense often refers to "the reader and the author," since the author often assumes that the reader knows and agrees with certain principles or previous theorems for the sake of brevity (or, if not, the reader is prompted to look them up), for example, so that the author does not need to explicitly write out every step of a mathematical proof.[citation needed]

This practice is also common in philosophy journals and texts, and comments in computer source code.[citation needed]

The patronizing "we"
The patronizing "we" is sometimes used in addressing instead of "you," suggesting that the addressee is not alone in his situation, that "I am with you, we are in this together." This usage is emotionally non-neutral and usually bears a condescending, ironic, praising, or some other connotation, depending on an intonation: "Aren't we looking cute?" This is sometimes employed by health care workers when addressing their patients, e. g. "How are we feeling today?"

The non-confrontative "we"
In distinction to the patronizing "we" is the non-confrontative "we" used in T-V languages such as Spanish where the phrase ¿Cómo estamos? (literally, "How are we?") is sometimes used to avoid both over-familiarity and over-formality among near-peer acquaintances.

Please, unless you are royalty, a newspaper editor, a math paper writer or Hispanic - would you refer to the above as 'I' rather than 'We' - I really object to you speaking as if you are speaking for me.

which is broadly rejected by actual anti-fascists,

Respectfully, I can say what matters is the opinion of the people of this board, NOT your self-defined set if 'actual anti-fascists' .
You are CLEARLY calling jakell a fascist.
If you have a binary logic, then being rejected by people you call 'actual anti-fascists' (black) ENTAILS you call them a fascist. This is double negation, from YOUR logic.

My objecting to your stance on Icke or Atzmon, when other people you would refer to as 'actual anti anti-semites' condemn them means that you refer to me, slad and slim and others that way.

It doesnt matter how much I, or jakell would communicate with you about this, because we run into logical 'double negation' -

For (a hypothetical) example, If I took a stance that completely disagreed with your the validity of your personal peer-groups accepted reference points on gender, then you would label me a misogynist.
The issue is that there is no real world sensory look, hear feel information on which this decision is based.
It is an abstraction process - and abstractions are can quickly become dehumanising.

and that he and ZGB in response to critiques of National Anarchism, expressed a position along the lines of "What is Anarchism, man? This is Anarchism", even though National Anarchism is broadlly and soundly rejected by actual, you know, anarchists.

AD, perhaps you can show me how this is different from the Appeal to Authority fallacy - as I am deconstructing this as saying 'soundly rejected by myself and people like myself"
No one HAS TO respond to your critique about ANYTHING. Nor you mine
- for example I have often critiqued your underlying logic system and reductionist thinking process - you have never responded to or engaged with anything I have written about this and have repeatedly framed my criticism of critical thinking as meaning... I am against it. Quite untrue.

That said, can any of
us (S08 )
really say with certainty what ideology he might be bringing here? Most especially even the broad contours of how he might define anti-Fascism, Fascism, Racism, Homophobia, Misogyny etc?
The "isms" after anti-Fascism above are not gratuitously mentioned, by the way- the substantive critiques of Keith Preston include all of the above.

You have these pre-suppositions:
1 He IS bringing an ideology here
2 That there is an accepted shared meaning for the phrase 'broad contours'
3 That we have shared meanings for all those words

1 is unknowable short of hooking him up to a truth serum
2 and 3 are provably UNtrue.

[American Dream]

No one HAS TO respond to your critique about ANYTHING. Nor you mine .

I'm glad we both agree on that because your pattern of putting words in other people's mouths is out of control. What I said is what I said, not what Searcher claims it to be.

This has been a recurring problem over the years and is to me one of the most alienating things about you besides your semantic tricks of creating frames that attempt to pigeonhole things in the direction you desire- never mind whether you are (unethically) misrepresenting other people's valid concerns.

In addition, your text above is to me riddled with New Age/Human Potential workshop gobbledy-gook.

I urge you to look at your own part in things more- it does seem like you're upset. Maybe if you stopped with what I can only term "dirty tricks", you might find that I say less things that piss you off.


P.S. Any more on this, let's start a separate thread.

[seemslikeadream]

you are the one out of control....your obsessive spamming of this board is out of control .....your obsessive McCarthyism of new people here is out of control....your obsessive belief that you must be the guardian of this board is out of control ....your obsessive belief that everyone has to answer your questions is out of control

why don't you just try and keep one topic one thread rule here like everyone else does...you like rules you keep posting them...

[Project Willow]

The following are not suggestions, or requests, they are warnings. The next infraction means a temporary ban.

SLAD, that's your last post like that. Stop the trolling and bullying.

American Dream, stop posting vague suspicions about people. You do not have the right to interrogate others or demand they outline their ideologies for you. Keep your responses confined to the topic and to what is posted about the topic on this board.

[Searcher08]

No one HAS TO respond to your critique about ANYTHING. Nor you mine .

I'm glad we both agree on that because your pattern of putting words in other people's mouths is out of control. What I said is what I said, not what Searcher claims it to be.

This has been a recurring problem over the years and is to me one of the most alienating things about you besides your semantic tricks of creating frames that attempt to pigeonhole things in the direction you desire- never mind whether you are (unethically) misrepresenting other people's valid concerns.

In addition, your text above is to me riddled with New Age/Human Potential workshop gobbledy-gook.

I urge you to look at your own part in things more- it does seem like you're upset. Maybe if you stopped with what I can only term "dirty tricks", you might find that I say less things that piss you off.

P.S. Any more on this, let's start a separate thread.

No no no - there will be more of this on THIS thread. Coming from someone who partners with Solace in insult and innuendo by proxy, your remarks are rich

I notice that when I attempt to become more specific with you (*which I did above)
, you consistently seem to get upset
and that when I query your criteria (*which I did above),
you tend to become somewhat insulting.

This is General Discussion, not your private forum.
This is a thread includes a discussion about how you characterise people and concepts like fascism.

I am going to deal with each of my points until you answer them.

You said about jakell (to bph)
Point well taken and it is not my intention to be unfair- but it does get into the uncertainties about him, which have always been within his power to resolve.

I replied
BUT *whose* uncertainties, AD?
You frame it as though the uncertainties are an agreed feature of everyone's reality - like a physical rock in front of us - but it is an interpretation, something subjective.

Uncertainties are owned by a person - you cant stick em in wheelbarrow for everyone else to see.
I am only making the point that it is YOUR uncertainty about him.
That does not mean that others agree with you, however you are asserting that people DO.

If so, which ones agree with you? Who else on R>I agrees with your characterisation of jakell as a fascist?



I'm glad we both agree on that because your pattern of putting words in other people's mouths is out of control. What I said is what I said, not what Searcher claims it to be.

That was actually very accurate. It is in the last Firepit thread.



This has been a recurring problem over the years
and is to me one of the most alienating things about you besides your semantic tricks of creating frames that attempt to pigeonhole things in the direction you desire- never mind whether you are (unethically) misrepresenting other people's valid concerns.


AD, Your use of linguistic terms is very inaccurate, not to mention attributing motive to my doing so... you are just doing more 'Well he would say / do that, wouldnt he".

You make assumptions about your meaning and understanding about what this board is about being automatically shared by others at RI. I am pointing out that that is just an unconscious (and inaccurate) assumption.
My questions are syntax-based questions designed to create clarity - if they are answered.
However, you do not answer them - you go 'meta'. You then refuse to answer my questions.

You say:
In addition, your text above is to me riddled with New Age/Human Potential workshop gobbledy-gook.

I say:
Your reply sadly is NOT riddled with an answer to my questions
I happy with what I wrote - it is MY words, rather than other people's Copy Pasta.
You did not respond to my request that you stop using a Royal 'We'.

You said:
I urge you to look at your own part in things more- it does seem like you're upset. Maybe if you stopped with what I can only term "dirty tricks", you might find that I say less things that piss you off.

I say:
Characterising metamodelling - which goes in the direction of sensory-based shared real world clarity (*) when presented with what you have written above -
as 'dirty tricks' is certainly an interesting reframe. It is a linguistic scalpel.

I am not in the least pissed off, just wondering if you will answer my questions which are relevant to this thread.

I notice that you become very evasive when I point out that you dont have a basis of agreement with others, although the 'We / us' language you use asserts you do.
My question is still:
Who agrees with you that jakell is a fascist?

(*) Like "Everything is fucked up!!" ---->"I am pissed off at how much the bill for a new pair of shoes is after my cat peed in them" is the result of metamodelling.

[Searcher08]

The following are not suggestions, or requests, they are warnings. The next infraction means a temporary ban.

SLAD, that's your last post like that. Stop the trolling and bullying.

American Dream, stop posting vague suspicions about people. You do not have the right to interrogate others or demand they outline their ideologies for you. Keep your responses confined to the topic and to what is posted about the topic on this board.

Please see your PM

[American Dream]

Searcher, as you correctly noted, neither of us has to reply to the other at all. I am giving you the courtesy this one last time of a brief reply here.

I'll talk with you about these things by pm or on a different thread, but not here on this thread. If you want to move forward with that, send me a pm.

[Searcher08]

Searcher, as you correctly noted, neither of us has to reply to the other at all. I am giving you the courtesy this one last time of a brief reply here.

I'll talk with you about these things by pm or on a different thread, but not here on this thread. If you want to move forward with that, send me a pm.

If that is the case, it is only fair to point out that jakell need not reply to you at all either.

I wanted to give you an opportunity to answer clearly the questions I have posted but if you do not want to answer them, that is up to you. I think that is a shame as I personally still think they raise some very important points that are directly relevant to the OP.

[jakell]

Why does all this 'different thread' business keep cropping up, it seems like avoidance to me? Far better to deal with shit when and where it occurs IMO. ZGB said something similar earlier with some concrete examples., but still ended up on a 'different thread'

[jakell]

Here's part 3 of Nick Griffin on Question Time. Three more to go and then it's back to the main series:



The first question here is about Nick Griffin's statement that "Islam is a wicked and vicious faith". He doesn't refute this and then quite accurately goes on to list some of the more egregious things written in the Koran.

(there's potential for a comparison of religions in general here, but that's another debate)

He also goes on to list some good points too. When asked about his 'policy' on Islam he suggests he would seek a truce with it and then quite correctly points out the opposition's place in leading the UK into the Iraq war, and that they didn't respect sovereignty, which he (allegedly) would. This was not a bad section from him, but then he blows it slightly by responding that Muslims in Britain should respect that Britain should remain a Christian country. This might play well in America, but Christianity in Britain is weak, and has been for some time, and he seems to be trying to appeal on an issue that most people don't really care much about.

Saeeda Warsi follows on from Griffin and says that his view on Islam seems inconsistent, but it is actually consistent with a nationalist point of view ie respecting a country's sovereignty, and she is falling back on the underlying assumption that the BNP do not mean what they say. She then points out that his extremism is not consistent with Christianity which seems an unsupportable point to me.

After a few other questions, a good one gets asked, and this was "Can the recent success of the BNP be explained by the misguided immigration policy of the Government. (06:20)
The host quite rightly throws this one to Jack Straw (in contrast to the one right at the beginning). He doesn't half wriggle here as he has no easy target this time, Dimbleby quite firmly urges him back on track but he continues to speechify and prevaricate, Dimbleby does this again (I like him here) and Saeeda Warsi saves the day by coming in and pointing out that Jack Straw is being fundamentally dishonest (!)

It was quite apparent that the govenment's immigration policy was a shambles, they opened up the borders unconditionally to migrants from Eastern Europe saying that not many would come. As it turned out, myriads came and settled, so this question is not really about the older and more established racial issues, as Jack tried to turn it into, but purely about immigration per se.

The video ends in the middle of this exchange but Saeeda does mention that a good number of BNP members are 'not racist' which goes against some of the underlying assumptions about the party, and also links up with my 'moderating' point made in the previous post in this series. Coming from her this point is well made.

I'll try and pick this up next time...

[Rory]

The migration of east European nationals to the UK was a resounding sucess for everyone. They brought hard work ethic and, lets not mince our words, good genetic stock to the national gene pool. They are (generally) attractive, intelligent and motivated people whereas that isn't something I would accuse English people of being (with a few exceptions).

[jakell]

The migration of east European nationals to the UK was a resounding sucess for everyone. They brought hard work ethic and, lets not mince our words, good genetic stock to the national gene pool. They are (generally) attractive, intelligent and motivated people whereas that isn't something I would accuse English people of being (with a few exceptions).

Well, I've had a quite few positives to say here about my Slovak neighbours from personal experience, but nothing really relating to genetics (I haven't sampled their genomes yet).

Are you familiar with genetics, or are you extrapolating this from observed phenotypes (which is never a good idea)?

[slimmouse]

The migration of east European nationals to the UK was a resounding sucess for everyone. They brought hard work ethic and, lets not mince our words, good genetic stock to the national gene pool. They are (generally) attractive, intelligent and motivated people whereas that isn't something I would accuse English people of being (with a few exceptions).

Nah. It was a resounding success for the 0.01%, who have succeeded in driving down wages worldwide by immigration policies and "free trade" agreements, such as those also implemented in the UK.

I think theyre probably just people in the end too. Attractive, fit, hard working people are a dime a dozen the world over. Just ask the 0.1%

Meanwhile, any kind of social security that these people happen to recieve whilst wating for their opportunity at "freedom", (namely working for wages that allow them to survive in slightly better surroundings ). is by and large picked up by those competing in the same 99.9% ball park.

Its so obvious it really scares me sometimes.

[Rory]

Purely anecdotal observations. The ones I saw were smarter, better looking and harder working than the English wasters I saw complaining about them, and their benefit scrounging.

[Rory]

I think it's interesting that English people are concerned with immigration when their best moments (and often, best people) are produced/descended from non-english imports.

The country would be dead or dying if not for the Scots, Irish, welsh, French, German, Scandinavian, African, south Asian, Chinese etc..