04 January 2010

Interesting debate? Angry Anonymous.


I think that is a bit harsh. And angry. Bit like the Daily Mail and the BNP.

I only said this:

Those that doth protest has seemed to be a general rule for highlighting racist opinions in my past.

I have lived in areas with large communities of different races, religions. Polish, Muslim, Ukranian, Welsh, Lancastrian, Sikh and Daily Mail readers. My secondary school was 80% Asian, my cricket team was half and half. Absolutely no problems ever, with anyone. What are you so scared of? Because a lot of these comments are written within the context of fear. Hardly the most constructive emotion.

However, this blog appeals because of its honesty and frank assessment of society, and strong opinions and the ability to voice them, are, at the end of the day, the freedoms that have been fought for generations.


  1. You seem more impressed with your own CV.
    Sorry to disappoint you, it hasnt rung my bell and as you know education is not intellect, I have a far greater knowledge of politics and history than you will ever achieve.

    You wanted an open debate, after you had painted the boundary lines and got your labels at the ready before one could be started, you reek of hypocrocy you dreadful eek.

    If you wish to discuss immigration let us first establish - Chinese come from China, Africans from Africa, Asians/Pakistanis originate from India and Europeans are white and originate in Europe they are the guidelines.

    If you have any objections state your reasons.

  2. I was doing it for transparency. To be open. Yours was the anonymous post not mine. Still don't think I said anything personal to you yet either but hey.

    Now lets be clear "I have a far greater knowledge of politics and history than you will ever achieve." is a particularly good line, I am impressed you complain about ringing ones own bell before grabbing hold of Big Ben (Famous British Landmark) and giving it a bloody great yank.

    But back to the debate, you heard of evolution? That is a good starting point.

    - Every human on earth shares 99% of their DNA with every other human.
    - Humans share 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees.
    - We share 40-50% of our DNA with cabbages.

    I reckon I know which group your in.

    We were all from the same gene pool of African ancestry. Although sometimes I have serious doubts. Serious doubts.

  3. What a sweeping statement about cabbages,dare I say my dear Mr James D. Watson, although in some neurological circles they have been known to classify or grade certain individuals as one of the many varities referring to their IQ such as a Savoy, or in your case a plain green cabbage. But thanks to DNA research we are not that far from a common worm when variations of DNA are taken into account. African ancestry applied to the human gene pool is becoming more debatable and matters little as we are not rehatching the voyage of the "BEAGLE" or debating the double helix. You are avoiding the argument. Do you agree with the ground rules of my first blog? If not I will discontinue the debate.

    Leaving you with my favorite musican.


  4. OK, to accept your narrow labelistic parameters, are Greek's, the cornerstone of European history, white? Or the Spaniards? Or Portuguese? Or is the skin colour irrelevant to you?

    My point in the last post was, if you had read it, that we all are 99% the same, so why all this argument over the 1%?

    Why highlight the differences?

    The second point, is that if we are all from the same ancestry, we are all immigrants. So I tackled the argument twice. Care to continue?

  5. Regarding the human races and there groupings, we could be 99.9 percent closer to some other races in relation to our DNA, that does not mean the dialect you have used with the term "same". This part of your argument exposes your weakness on the variations allowed by DNA. What you state is akin to a ships navigator if one degree out it could be latitude or longitude he would never get to his port of call or destination. This means there is evidence of vast differences on the DNA scale. I dont advocate superior human race groups but it does mean distinct differences, colour being a very small part. Preservationlists might disagree as they to have a strong arguement.

  6. "I dont advocate superior human race groups but..." is always a fine way to start a sentence I find. It has always been an ambition of mine to meet the person who has the ability to be able to do this.

    Care to debate any other valuable points made on this blog, such as positive education or corrupt banking by, erm, white males.

  7. You really are eratic, jumping from one subject to another with girly snipes without a half decent response. On the subject of banking as you should know the banking system has been in the hands of Asiatics or Khazars for over 150 years and I take it you aware the Federal Reserve is a private company and nothing to do with the Federal goverment in the USA like the so called Bank of England in the hands of profiteers/gangsters. Mainly the top 2% of your pyramid. Might I suggest you read up on Social Credit it was a large political party a while back in Canada. This is your first and last warning - dont make anymore snide comments which are out of context about white people. I dont like self loathers.

  8. Using "as you should know" and "I take it you are aware" before a sentence does not somehow give credibility to a point you make whilst assuming you have a deep understanding of my knowledge.

    I will use your own sentence reinforcing techniques and suggest "you should know" you are a nationalist, maybe even supremacist, and once we have all our cards firmly pressed on the table we can have a frank and open discussion on, erm, fascism?