Tuesday, 3 June 2008

Too much Shiraz in this Socialist


Anyone who regularly reads my blog knows that I generally post one or sometimes two lengthy articles (or “Op Eds”) each week, these average between fifteen and twenty five paragraphs, usually including numerous embedded links to the research I have done whilst compiling the article.

People may not like or agree with what I write, but, when it comes to my opinion pieces I usually provide substantiation for the claims I make and back up what I say.

However, I do not have the time to write lengthy essays on a daily basis so, knowing from the web stats that I have a loyal and growing daily readership, from time to time I post links to interesting or off beat stories I have spotted on other blogs, such as the amazing story of the Ethiopian man with 100 children from John of Gwent’s blog, or various pithy essays from South Africa Sucks.

I don’t pretend that that these are my articles or that I have researched or verified them in any way.

Thus it was with the post I made at the weekend, quoting the first three lines from a Daily Mail article regarding a report which claims that life in modern Britain is more dangerous than the Balkans, I then linked to the Mail website in order that readers could read the rest of the article on Daily mail site.

Given how unlike the majority of my posts that was, you would think that not even my most staunch of critics would suggest that it, in any way represented the general content of my blog. If so, you would have thought wrong. It appears that this blog had come to the attention of a blogger who calls himself Shiraz Socialist, and it seems that he (I assume he's a he) doesn’t think much of it, dismissing me as a “Right wing Nutjob”, and mocking the blog title picture, which he fails to gather is a tad ironic. Which is fine, I am a supporter if free speech and he is entitled to his opinion. However, he then proceeds to use the three line quote from the Daily Mail, and only the three line quote from the Daily Mail as representative of the content of this blog, which anyone who has spent even moments here can see is just not the case.

Shiraz actually states that I use the Daily Mail to “back up” my argument, how can that be given that none of it is my argument?, it is a direct three line quote from the Daily Mail. The only words of mine in the whole post is “read the full news report here”. (oh yes and I changed the word “yesterday” to “Friday” as I posted it on Sunday)

It was a news story, which I linked to as I felt people who read here might find it interesting, I made no suggestion that it was my work or my opinion. In that respect, it is for the mail to substantiate their articles, in the same way as I substantiate mine. Shiraz suggests that the Mail is spinning, however, interestingly, he doesn’t actually say the story is untrue.

Now, I am not one of those bloggers who complains when someone takes the pi$$, that goes with the territory, but frankly if someone is going to criticise my writing, they could at the very least do so by criticising something I had actually written.

The link to the Mail column was right next to a lengthy article of my own about the plight of white boys within our society, and covering various issues from feminism to the Duke Lacrosse travesty however, it seems that might be too challenging for Shiraz who is not ready to take me on regarding my own writing, he prefers to hold me responsible for something written by a Mr. Justin Stares at the Daily Mail.

Shiraz says of me that “She witters and wibbles on ad infinitum,” maybe I did, but not about Justin Stares' article, there were only three lines from that on the blog, which, even to someone of Shiraz's limited horizons is not exactly "ad infinitum".

Shiraz Socialist's 'disingenuousness' is nothing new, but it makes an interesting object lesson in the deceit which comes so naturally the opposition. Isn't this always the way with those on the other side of the debate?, it really appears that they are incapable of arguing their case in an honest way. and seem compelled to resort to lies. Shiraz is no different to all the others, as we see, even in that short piece the poor boy can't resist the usual references to “fascism” they always apply to those of us who don't buy into their fantasy that their multicultural experiment is a success, and of course references to limited “gene pools” and “zog” are straight from the beginner's guide to anti BNP humour, come back when you have learnt to write your own jokes. (I have never been quite sure what, or who, is “zog” anyway!?)

As ever with supporters of multiculturalism, Shiraz's attack is based on a lie, he seeks to mock my writing by holding up as an example something I didn't write. His masters have taught him well, if you can't argue with the truth, tell a lie, and rely on the fact that most people will not notice.

Of course, we are in the state we are today, because Shiraz's masters used the same trick, and have lied through their teeth for the last forty years, it's what they do.

After that I need a drink, but tonight I think I will stick with the Rioja.
________________________
PS: The link to Orwell's Picnic which Shiraz finds it odd to see on my list of interesting blogs and sites, is there because it is an interesting site, and also which has made some pleasant comments about my writing in the past. Hence, Shiraz may need to rethink his prejudices ..uh .... preconceptions.

10 comments:

martin ohr said...

Sarah, you accuse Shiraz of not engaging with your argument, however it's hard not to disagree with Shiraz that you are right-wing racist bigot when you write things like this comparing the 'problem' of white immigrants compared to black:

"Many may not like the numbers of Eastern Europeans coming to Britain seeking work, but, even the staunchest of Euro sceptics must surely acknowledge they are a minor problem, when compared to the alien invasion currently overwhelming our native land. The next time the BBC start a news item about immigration with pictures of Polish shops and Bulgarian fruit pickers, do not be fooled, they are merely putting up a white smokescreen to hide the dark forces which really threaten us. "

Benny said...

Being a leftie blogger is easy. You have the backing of the state and most of the media.

If any of them were still alive you'd also have the backing of nice people like Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ceauşescu and Chairman Mao, not to mention the still living Kim Jong Il and Hu Jintao.

Michael said...

A comment on the post on South Africa that you endorsed:

Complete guff, and obnoxious unthinking guff at that. Lets go from the top:

"But the fact that only about a third of Americans deem it important to vote is horrifying in light of how close you are to losing your Western character."

Congressional and parliamentry democracy is only a mediated form of class rule, ie the rule of capital -all competing nations on the world market must allow capital to be reproduced with an accretion of value extracted from the working class, the global class on the global market with no control over the means of production. The nation state itself is a relativelt modern invention, as is the ideology of nationalism, Italy for example was only invented in the 18th century, Germany has been formed and refomred etc as has britain according to the previous power struggles of elites and the location of economic/military power throughout history. Thus the writer is fundamentally misdiagnosing the problems of bourgeois pseudo-democracy and the lack of faith in it, he mistakes form for content, and his nationalism is misplaced. He is alos hypocritical in that the democracy that he says is so valuable in america has no value for other peoples in the world and other nations.

"revolution in the streets, strikes, civil unrest and the sheer terror and murder practiced by Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC), the white government simply capitulated in order to achieve "peace." Westerners need peace. They need order and stability. They are builders and planners. But what we got was peace of the grave for our society."

Every presently existing society is the product of the prvious revolution. To renounce the cause and product of revolution is to renounce present society's claim to legitimacy, ergo by his own logic the apparteid regime was illegitimate.
As for westerners being builders and planners, historically speaking for the greates part of history eastern and oriental countries have been the most technologoically and scientifically advanced - the rise of capitalism in the west represents but a bare moment in the scope of actual history. 'Westerners' are not a homogenous group, most westerners are working class, the working class does not exercise class power or even plan society directly in any form, so even reduced to a simple numbers game, his assertion is a nonsense.

"Yet Westerners do not admit that the same kind of savagery could come to America when enough immigrants of the right type assert themselves. The fact is, Americans are sitting ducks for Third World exploitation of the Western conscience of compassion."

Unhtinking nonsense and her's why. Again the abstract geographical catergory 'westerner' is conjured up, but this is a side point. Africa is a continent of countries with abject economic posistions upon the world market in relation to the established imperialist countries. Many rely upon single commodity cash crops for example because the division of labour on the world market demands it, just as this creates poverty and instability economicalyl and socially, the privatisation of basic public infrastrucure to extract profits only worsens the basic conditions for the greates mass of people even further, in addition to the generally lower levels of pay. It is in these circumstances that the government - the intermediary between the objective economic forces of the world and its own people - must act agaisnt the interests of the people to please capital and maintain their own priveleged posistion. Using this they can buy off the police and army or use privately hired goons to break working class resistance and self-assertion. All these factors, combined with the arbitrary division of nations following colonialsation has created this legacy, it is nothin inherent to a 'people' it is a real material systemic issue. As for other nations going to pot because of immigration - the entire distribution of all peoples on the whole earth is soley the product of the movement of people. America, Britain etc are all nations of immigrants, be it 50, 500 or 5000 years ago.

Then a few inconsequential paragraphs of drivel motivated by the bogus assumptions we have deconstructed follow, then...

"A television program aired in South Africa showed a town meeting in Southern California where people met to complain about falling standards in the schools. Whites who politely spoke at the meeting clearly resented the influx of Mexican immigrants into their community. When a handful of Chicanos at the back of the hall shouted and waved their hands at them, the whites simply shrunk back into their seats rather than tell the noisemakers to shut up. They didn't want to quarrel."

First off - under present circumstances the greater number of persons needing a public service, the more likely the decline in the quality of provision. Duh. However, this has nothing to do with either race or immigration per se, only aspects of their manifestation. Pointing the finger at racial groups and immigrants is only to shoot the messenger if you will. Why is this? Capitalism is a system of artifical scarcity. For example,on technical grounds a planned production of food could, at present, feed every person on the planet, yet millions die from hunger. ARTIFICIAL scarcity. The same goes for a lot of other goods, including education. Its the system that is failing the people, not the other way around. There is no reason why everyone on earth cannot be housed, clothed, fed, educated and be given fulfilling work and leisure in terms of having the existance of productive forced great enough for this task. Also consider, if this argument leaves you unaffected, even from the logic of capitalism itself present levels of immigration are necessary for the sustaining of the rate of profit. Example: If it weren;t for influxes of immigrants into the western nations wages would not have fallen (Real wages have fallen for 30 years regardless of immigration patterns, but we shall leave that for the moment)as they have. Howver, supposing all the gates into the country were shut up, the smaller pool of labour available for purchase on the market would have decreased and subsequently gone up in value, higher wages would have to have been paid, the rate of profit would have dropped, investment slackens, unemployment re-appears, wages fall, revenues decrease, public spending is cut, public services decline in quality. Like I said, the problem is SYSTEMIC, not based upon the freqiencies of the light waves that rebound of a persons epidermis and are captured by the optic nerve. Sorry if this is a surprise to you.

"When the "majority" took over "
Majority should not have inverted commas around it, the majority was real.

"What would you think of the ritual slaughter of animals in your neighbor's backyard? How do you clean up the blood and entrails that litter your suburban streets? How do you feel about the practice of witchcraft, in which the parts of young girls and boys are needed for "medicinal" purposes? How do you react to the burning of witches?"

Sounds like most of the west only a few hundred years ago! Today of course instead of slaughtering chickens we...slaughter chickens industrially! Instead of witchcraft we have monotheism of various stipes and tarot and hororscopes and medical quacks. And fascists! A society kept in a brutalised state by the workings of the world market and the military economic forces that maintain class rule elements of past societies that are barbaric will live on under conditions of barbarism. Western barbarism is much the same though only at a higher level of development due to its fortunate posistion vis a via the world market since its establishment and so on. We arm the dictarors, we make the landmines, the nuclear bombs, we privatise poor countries industries depriving the poor of water and electicity, the legacy of imperialism etc etc etc. The writer you adore is surely visible as a crank even in your eyes by now!

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Hi Martin

Thanks for your contribution, even if it was a bit silly. It seems that like many on your side of argument, you consider someone to be a "right wing racist bigot" by virtue of the act of telling the truth.

There are various reasons why I do not see European immigration as posing a similar level of threat to our society as third world immigration.

For one thing, from all reports most European immigrants have no intention of staying permanently, which is certainly not the case in respect of third world immigrants.

Also, there is the matter of violent crime, there certainly have been some examples of street crime committed by Europeans, but it is minuscule by comparison to that caused by third world immigration, as I said in a post at the weekend whites would have to amassed 252 teenage victims in the first five months of this year to be achieve parity with non-whites in terms their representation within the community.

Third world immigration is a far greater threat to our, economy well being and physical safety than European immigration. You may consider that racist, but it is also the truth.

Sarah

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Hi Michael

With respect, I submit that it is a little more than “a few” hundred years since Westerners behaved in quite the same way, and it may be down to a gap in my European history but I don't reacall a period in European history when we routinely tortured children to death in order to use their body parts as a medical ingredient.

Source:
http://tinyurl.com/6p6sap
and:
http://tinyurl.com/6la9ly

You have a lot to say, but it strikes me that you know very little about South Africa's history, its demographics, or what has been going on there in the last 14 years, I don't blame you, the news media have been busily suppressing the truth, until they could no longer pretend it was not happening.

If you had asked me six months ago I would have said that within ten years we would see scenes in South Africa which make Rwanda look like a bit of a scuffle. However, I now think it will be much sooner than that. South Africa is a tragedy for all concerned blacks as well as whites.

I plan to post more about South Africa later this month, if you are still arround you might find it informative.

Sarah

Martin Ohr said...

Sarah, it doesn't really seem to be the truth you are after, since you deliberately blur race and national origin, not all european immigrants are white for example.

It's fairly clear from the quote I extracted that your dislike is for black people "... merely putting up a white smokescreen to hide the dark forces which really threaten us." rather than the fact that any particular group of immigrants is from 'the third world'.

In any case you fail to compare like with like, your claim is that problems are caused by non-europeans, whereas as far as I understand recording of incidents by the police is done on the basis of self-defined race. Notwithstanding the fact the both the victims and perpetrators of crime are drawn predominantly from the poorest sections of our communities. Black people are over-represented within the poorest sections of our communities -thanks in art to racists like you.

It seems to me pretty pointless of you to dispute being a racist when who appear to despise black people coming to britain

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Hi again Martin

I don't think I did specifically deny racism, certainly not by your definition, if you want to know what I think about "racism" You might want to read my article "Bullied by their safe word" (there is a link in the list of older posts I am proud of in the right hand column on the blog)

Your assertion that more blacks are deprived than whites is a modern myth but it is factually incorrect, at least when applied to Britain or America.

Given that whites make up 90% of the population, in numerical terms there are far more whites living in poverty and deprivation than blacks. If deprivation were the cause of street crime you would expect to see far higher levels of whites involved than blacks, but you don't.

As to your other comment, given that most third world immigrants are either black or brown, whilst very indigenous Europeans are, then I guess I am more concerned about dark skinned immigrants, but that is more to do with behaviour and culture than anything else.

However, as I have said before, I am not scared of the "r" word. It has been so abused and misused it is now meaningless.

You will consider me a racist whatever I say, merely because I don't subscribe to your dogma. Well so be it, by your definition I am sure most people fail your ideological purity test.

martin ohr said...

it's not about an ideological purity test, far from it. It think it is possible to be on the right and not be a racist, and to be consistent and logical etc; but your ruse -which boils down to, I have nothing against black people it just happens that a lot of the people I despise are black- is a very common one; a bit of consistency in your approach to immigration would make a lot more sense.

You can hardly accuse me of lack of logic if you take crime statistics at face value- they don't begin to understand the complexities of the who and why of criminality.

Your heroes in the BNP are bare-faced racists underneath their smart suits shiny shoes are the same limbs that 20 years ago were kicking the shit out of me and my friends for being jewish, black, gay, socialist whatever.

I'll never give up standing up to them and you for the right to live in britain no matter what colour/race/sexuality we are.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Martin that was the last of your posts that I am going to let through, largely as I do not have time to keep responding to you. I believe in free speech and have granted you yours on my blog. However, if you wish to write further please set up your own blog.

I recommend you read my post "losing Paradise" about a black race, The Fijians, of whom I am very fond, and who face a plight very similar to the native British. However, I object to uncontrolled levels of black and Asian immigration to Britain, because it has changed this for the worst.

As far as taking crime figures on face value, I suggest that you read my post "Lies, damn lies and statistics" and you will see how wrong you are.

As to the poppycock you talk about the "complexities" of crime, there is no complexity to gang rape, 95% of which is committed by non-whites.

There is no complexity to the fact that all the teenagers who have been murdered in London so far this year, were non whites, except the Turkish boy who killed Jimmy Mizen.

That is not a complexity, it is an indictment.

I am not actually a member of the BNP, although I did vote for them this May for the first time, however, they certainly do not advocate violence in any form.

I am sorry if were the victim of violence in the past but statistically whites are far more likely to be the victims of racial crime than the other way round.

Many black and Asian immigrants say that they are fleeing violence, but sadly many bring it with them.

I have granted you the courtesy of a hearing but please do not write again.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

To clarify my last post, all the teenagers killed in shootings and knife crime in London this year were killed by non-whites, other than the Turkish boy charged with killing Jimmy Mizen.