On Thursday, 18 February 2016 14:15:03 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/02/16 13:56, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:56:54 +0000, RayL12 wrote:

I will liken it to the term, 'Half-cast'. There is nothing 'half'
about such people. Indeed, they are both of whatever nationality or
township the parents are from.

These people should be promoted to serve as ambassadors, their hearts
and minds being of both.

I remember having an interesting conversation with a fellow patient in a
hospital waiting room about 25 years ago. I've never forgotten it. He
told me that when a black person and a white person couple-up and 'make a
baby' then the offspring of that baby, even a thousand generations into
the future, will never, ever be of pure blood again. And if you think
about it, that's true. Funny thing was, the bloke who told me this (can't
remember how we got onto the subject after all this time) was himself
black; black as the ace of spades. It just goes to show "racism" isn't
solely a white trait, much as the BBC would like to portray it as such.

Since we are all in fact Africans originally,

That isnlt relly true though, africa didn't exist at that time and there;s evidence that a scandinavia and russia was were those resident in the UK came from.
it also had something to do with milk and when humans were able to digest milk into adulthood, as there were peoples that couldn't digest milk as adult that I think came from what is now russia.


it does call into question
what pure blood you are in fact talking about.

Have to go back to how blood came to be in types / groups.

On 18/02/2016 15:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Oh you ignorant tit. It is the left wing liberal who curtails freedom
of speech.

As we are seeing on university campuses up and down the land.

Quite easy to explain, that. The usual right wingers invite some prat with
extreme views that they have no real interest in - and are perfectly aware
is a looney. Knowing full well it will get a reaction from others. So they
can bleat on about freedom of speech etc.
When they don't actually give a damn about any freedoms - except their own.


At uni we had the NF come along to give a speech.
A vote was held to decide if freedom of speech applied to the NF and the
vote was yes they could speech.
Then we voted to exercised our freedom not to listen and left the
meeting. Its a shame its more difficult to do that on usenet.

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:04:49 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Be interesting what you'd define as 'pure blood'?

Dave, if I could only go back in time and ask that black guy, I would.

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 15:05:59 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Oh you ignorant tit. It is the left wing liberal who curtails freedom
of speech.

As we are seeing on university campuses up and down the land.

Quite easy to explain, that. The usual right wingers invite some prat with
extreme views that they have no real interest in - and are perfectly aware
is a looney. Knowing full well it will get a reaction from others. So they
can bleat on about freedom of speech etc.
When they don't actually give a damn about any freedoms - except their own.

If you look into it you'll be amazed how unpolitical the majoroty of current studetns are compared to 10+ years ago. Cultrally and anyhting to do with gender gets them going but little else other than student fees.

On 18/02/2016 15:19, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:15:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Since we are all in fact Africans originally, it does call into question
what pure blood you are in fact talking about.

Well that's the prevailing dogma, isn't it? If any evidence showed up to
contradict it, it would doubtless be buried PDQ. In fact it's probably
already happened!


Its not dogma its based on proper science.
You can find all the genetic data used if you look.
Its not like climate change where the data is cleaned up and fixed
before anyone gets to see it.

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 15:25:09 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:04:49 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Be interesting what you'd define as 'pure blood'?

Dave, if I could only go back in time and ask that black guy, I would.

How do you know the guy was black ?
anyway what is the link between blood type and skin colour is there a direct link ? Seems little evidence to prove it as it's believed humans statred with the A blood group.
Skin colour comes from melanin not blood type.

http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/cou...df/hsc0306.pdf

page 4
IfAdamandEvewereboth
AABB
,theycouldhaveproducedonlychildren
thatwerethedarkestNegroidcolorationpossible,andthe ythemselveslikewise
wouldhavebeenNegroid.That(barringgeneticmutations) wouldhavepro


won't copy and paste so...
according to the above the first couple could't have been pure black or pure white.

On 18/02/16 15:19, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:15:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Since we are all in fact Africans originally, it does call into question
what pure blood you are in fact talking about.

Well that's the prevailing dogma, isn't it?

NO. its what DNS suggests. No dogma about it really.

If any evidence showed up to
contradict it, it would doubtless be buried PDQ. In fact it's probably
already happened!

Paranoid delusional tinfoil hate wearer.



--
He who ****s in the road, will meet flies on his return.

"Mr Natural"

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 07:45:39 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

How do you know the guy was black ?

Couldn't help but notice, Dave. It was kind of obvious.

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:43:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 18/02/16 15:19, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:15:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Since we are all in fact Africans originally, it does call into
question what pure blood you are in fact talking about.

Well that's the prevailing dogma, isn't it?

NO. its what DNS suggests. No dogma about it really.

If any evidence showed up to contradict it, it would doubtless be
buried PDQ. In fact it's probably already happened!

Paranoid delusional tinfoil hate wearer.

Rubbish - potentially at any rate. You may choose to believe there was
only one original 'Eve' in the heart of Africa, but I'm not at all
convinced. And I *have* studied the science!

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
Oh you ignorant tit. It is the left wing liberal who curtails
freedom of speech.

As we are seeing on university campuses up and down the land.

Quite easy to explain, that. The usual right wingers invite some prat
with extreme views that they have no real interest in - and are
perfectly aware is a looney. Knowing full well it will get a reaction
from others. So they can bleat on about freedom of speech etc. When
they don't actually give a damn about any freedoms - except their own.

Oh it's a *conspiracy* you mean? I thought you didn't believe in those.

I doubt most would consider it a conspiracy. Just students being students.

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
At uni we had the NF come along to give a speech.
A vote was held to decide if freedom of speech applied to the NF and the
vote was yes they could speech.
Then we voted to exercised our freedom not to listen and left the
meeting.

All of which is perfectly correct. Of course these days, either they'd
be banned, or if not, some fascist left-wingers would feel justified in
deciding that while all animals are equal, some are more equal than
others.

I know you right wingers love to hurl names around, but best if you know
what they mean first.

Collins GEM English Dictionary
fascism [fash-iz-zum] n. right-wing political system characterized by
state control and extreme nationalism. ˜fascist adj., n.

--
*I believe five out of four people have trouble with fractions. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:43:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 18/02/16 15:19, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:15:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Since we are all in fact Africans originally, it does call into
question what pure blood you are in fact talking about.

Well that's the prevailing dogma, isn't it?

NO. its what DNS suggests. No dogma about it really.

If any evidence showed up to contradict it, it would doubtless be
buried PDQ. In fact it's probably already happened!

Paranoid delusional tinfoil hate wearer.

Rubbish - potentially at any rate. You may choose to believe there was
only one original 'Eve' in the heart of Africa, but I'm not at all
convinced. And I *have* studied the science!

And have you studied the movement of people over the centuries? The idea
you'd find any Englishman with 'pure blood' is ludicrous.

--
*The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The usual left wingers invite some prat with extreme views that they
have no real interest in - and are perfectly aware is a loony. Knowing
full well it will get a reaction from others. So they can bleat on about
freedom of speech etc.

When they don't actually give a damn about any freedoms - except their own.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
At uni we had the NF come along to give a speech.
A vote was held to decide if freedom of speech applied to the NF and the
vote was yes they could speech.
Then we voted to exercised our freedom not to listen and left the
meeting.

All of which is perfectly correct. Of course these days, either they'd
be banned, or if not, some fascist left-wingers would feel justified in
deciding that while all animals are equal, some are more equal than
others.

I know you right wingers love to hurl names around,

PCTKB in the extreme. But you probably call it a kettle of colour.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Richard wrote:
You could read up about the monster raving looney party too. Or UKIP
which is pretty well the same, but with even fewer working brain cells.

It's what's known as free speech and choice. Something right wingers
would abolish given half a chance.

Oh you ignorant tit. It is the left wing liberal who curtails freedom of
speech. Did you not read the linked article in the original post?

Why would I read any article linked to in a thread like this? It's obvious
what it says by who started the thread.

WTF? I had actually credited you with a semblance of intellect and
integrity. How can you comment on something you have not bothered to read?
So my assessment of you being an ignorant tit was spot on.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:43:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 18/02/16 15:19, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:15:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Since we are all in fact Africans originally, it does call into
question what pure blood you are in fact talking about.

Well that's the prevailing dogma, isn't it?

NO. its what DNS suggests. No dogma about it really.

If any evidence showed up to contradict it, it would doubtless be
buried PDQ. In fact it's probably already happened!

Paranoid delusional tinfoil hate wearer.

Rubbish - potentially at any rate. You may choose to believe there was
only one original 'Eve' in the heart of Africa, but I'm not at all
convinced. And I *have* studied the science!

And have you studied the movement of people over the centuries? The idea
you'd find any Englishman with 'pure blood' is ludicrous.

And if we all originated from there, have you ever stopped to wonder why all
the fairer skinned people moved out of Africa?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
hgww wrote:
Of course it is. Socialism and marxism seek to destroy the state in
order that something 'better' will emerge.

True of marxism but not socialism.

You have to remember you're talking to turnip. He can only see in black
and white.

That is essentially what I was saying in a lot more words.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 18 February 2016 14:15:03 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 18/02/16 13:56, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:56:54 +0000, RayL12 wrote:

I will liken it to the term, 'Half-cast'. There is nothing 'half'
about such people. Indeed, they are both of whatever nationality or
township the parents are from.

These people should be promoted to serve as ambassadors, their
hearts
and minds being of both.

I remember having an interesting conversation with a fellow patient in
a
hospital waiting room about 25 years ago. I've never forgotten it. He
told me that when a black person and a white person couple-up and 'make
a
baby' then the offspring of that baby, even a thousand generations into
the future, will never, ever be of pure blood again. And if you think
about it, that's true. Funny thing was, the bloke who told me this
(can't
remember how we got onto the subject after all this time) was himself
black; black as the ace of spades. It just goes to show "racism" isn't
solely a white trait, much as the BBC would like to portray it as such.

Since we are all in fact Africans originally,

That isnlt relly true though, africa didn't exist at that time

The location did.

and there;s evidence that a scandinavia and russia
was were those resident in the UK came from.

But where did those come from.

it also had something to do with milk and when humans were able
to digest milk into adulthood, as there were peoples that couldn't
digest milk as adult that I think came from what is now russia.

But that may well have been evolutionary change
after they had left what we now call africa.

Just like the appearance stuff and skin color clearly was.

it does call into question what pure
blood you are in fact talking about.

Have to go back to how blood came to be in types / groups.

That is a different matter entirely.

On 18/02/2016 19:42, Richard wrote:

And if we all originated from there, have you ever stopped to wonder why
all the fairer skinned people moved out of Africa?

They didn't.

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:10:26 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

Looking to a dictionary for a definition of fascist seems a bit pedantic
to me. A good working definition is to say that a fascist is one who
uses violence or intimidation of the threat of either to advance
political ends. Anyone who says that such can't be found at both ends of
the political spectrum has their head up their arse.

Churchill warned us that the Fascists of the future would call themselves
anti-Fascists. Very far-sighted bloke, Churchill.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Richard
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
At uni we had the NF come along to give a speech.
A vote was held to decide if freedom of speech applied to the NF and
the
vote was yes they could speech.
Then we voted to exercised our freedom not to listen and left the
meeting.

All of which is perfectly correct. Of course these days, either they'd
be banned, or if not, some fascist left-wingers would feel justified in
deciding that while all animals are equal, some are more equal than
others.

I know you right wingers love to hurl names around,

PCTKB in the extreme. But you probably call it a kettle of colour.

Looking to a dictionary for a definition of fascist seems a bit pedantic
to me.

More fool you.

A good working definition is to say that a fascist is one who uses
violence or intimidation of the threat of either to advance political
ends.

Mindlessly silly when plenty of non fascists do that.

You clearly wouldnt know what a real
fascist was if one bit you on your lard arse.

Anyone who says that such can't be found at both ends of the political
spectrum has their head up their arse.

So your definition is completely stupid.

"Hilo Black" wrote in message
...


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Richard
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
At uni we had the NF come along to give a speech.
A vote was held to decide if freedom of speech applied to the NF and
the
vote was yes they could speech.
Then we voted to exercised our freedom not to listen and left the
meeting.

All of which is perfectly correct. Of course these days, either they'd
be banned, or if not, some fascist left-wingers would feel justified
in
deciding that while all animals are equal, some are more equal than
others.

I know you right wingers love to hurl names around,

PCTKB in the extreme. But you probably call it a kettle of colour.

Looking to a dictionary for a definition of fascist seems a bit pedantic
to me.

More fool you.

A good working definition is to say that a fascist is one who uses
violence or intimidation of the threat of either to advance political
ends.

Mindlessly silly when plenty of non fascists do that.

You clearly wouldn't know what a real
fascist was if one bit you on your lard arse.

Anyone who says that such can't be found at both ends of the political
spectrum has their head up their arse.

So your definition is completely stupid.

Do **** off Wod, you nymshifting prick.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Looking to a dictionary for a definition of fascist seems a bit
pedantic to me.

It is pedantic to expect a word to be used correctly?

A good working definition is to say that a fascist is
one who uses violence or intimidation of the threat of either to
advance political ends.

So you reckon you are the arbiter of what a word means?

Anyone who says that such can't be found at
both ends of the political spectrum has their head up their arse.

And those who use words without even vaguely knowing what they mean simply
ignorant.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 18/02/16 19:42, Richard wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:43:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 18/02/16 15:19, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:15:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Since we are all in fact Africans originally, it does call into
question what pure blood you are in fact talking about.

Well that's the prevailing dogma, isn't it?

NO. its what DNS suggests. No dogma about it really.

If any evidence showed up to contradict it, it would doubtless be
buried PDQ. In fact it's probably already happened!

Paranoid delusional tinfoil hate wearer.

Rubbish - potentially at any rate. You may choose to believe there was
only one original 'Eve' in the heart of Africa, but I'm not at all
convinced. And I *have* studied the science!

And have you studied the movement of people over the centuries? The idea
you'd find any Englishman with 'pure blood' is ludicrous.

And if we all originated from there, have you ever stopped to wonder why
all the fairer skinned people moved out of Africa?

They didn't.


--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 18/02/16 20:10, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Richard
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
At uni we had the NF come along to give a speech.
A vote was held to decide if freedom of speech applied to the NF
and the
vote was yes they could speech.
Then we voted to exercised our freedom not to listen and left the
meeting.

All of which is perfectly correct. Of course these days, either they'd
be banned, or if not, some fascist left-wingers would feel justified in
deciding that while all animals are equal, some are more equal than
others.

I know you right wingers love to hurl names around,

PCTKB in the extreme. But you probably call it a kettle of colour.

Looking to a dictionary for a definition of fascist seems a bit
pedantic to me. A good working definition is to say that a fascist is
one who uses violence or intimidation of the threat of either to
advance political ends. Anyone who says that such can't be found at
both ends of the political spectrum has their head up their arse.

Fascism is strong authority imposed by a centralised power. It is
precisely an analog to communism, and socialism except the people
imposing it are generally better educated and more military, rather than
bureaucratic, in their background.

It is slightly more honest than socialism or communism, in that no
pretence of it being good for 'the people' is made. Instead its fairly
obviously good for the Fascists. However it is often part of nationalism
so it's held to be good 'for the country' rather than the loftier
blatherskite of socialism or communism, which is seen by its vapid
adherents as 'good for the world, or the planet'.



--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:10:26 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

Looking to a dictionary for a definition of fascist seems a bit pedantic
to me. A good working definition is to say that a fascist is one who
uses violence or intimidation of the threat of either to advance
political ends. Anyone who says that such can't be found at both ends of
the political spectrum has their head up their arse.

Churchill warned us that the Fascists of the future would call themselves
anti-Fascists. Very far-sighted bloke, Churchill.

Well he'd seen it all in Germany before the war: Nazis and Communists
fighting each other. Hard to tell the difference.

Doesnt make the communists fascists. We have different words for a reason.

"bm" wrote in message
eb.com...

"Hilo Black" wrote in message
...


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Richard
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
At uni we had the NF come along to give a speech.
A vote was held to decide if freedom of speech applied to the NF and
the
vote was yes they could speech.
Then we voted to exercised our freedom not to listen and left the
meeting.

All of which is perfectly correct. Of course these days, either
they'd
be banned, or if not, some fascist left-wingers would feel justified
in
deciding that while all animals are equal, some are more equal than
others.

I know you right wingers love to hurl names around,

PCTKB in the extreme. But you probably call it a kettle of colour.

Looking to a dictionary for a definition of fascist seems a bit pedantic
to me.

More fool you.

A good working definition is to say that a fascist is one who uses
violence or intimidation of the threat of either to advance political
ends.

Mindlessly silly when plenty of non fascists do that.

You clearly wouldn't know what a real
fascist was if one bit you on your lard arse.

Anyone who says that such can't be found at both ends of the political
spectrum has their head up their arse.

So your definition is completely stupid.

Do **** off Wod, you nymshifting prick.

Go and **** yourself, gutless.

On 18/02/16 22:45, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:10:26 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

Looking to a dictionary for a definition of fascist seems a bit pedantic
to me. A good working definition is to say that a fascist is one who
uses violence or intimidation of the threat of either to advance
political ends. Anyone who says that such can't be found at both ends of
the political spectrum has their head up their arse.

Churchill warned us that the Fascists of the future would call themselves
anti-Fascists. Very far-sighted bloke, Churchill.

The Big Lie surrounds us.

The Inconvenient Truth is of course a mightily Convenient Lie.
Freedom fighters impose new theocratic dictatorships.
Having defined religion as the opium of the people, latter day
socialists now seek to introduce a religion of their own, called
political correctness.



--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 17:51:21 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 07:45:39 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

How do you know the guy was black ?

Couldn't help but notice, Dave. It was kind of obvious.

You met him or have a photo of him :-0

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 18:20:47 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:43:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 18/02/16 15:19, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:15:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Since we are all in fact Africans originally, it does call into
question what pure blood you are in fact talking about.

Well that's the prevailing dogma, isn't it?

NO. its what DNS suggests. No dogma about it really.

If any evidence showed up to contradict it, it would doubtless be
buried PDQ. In fact it's probably already happened!

Paranoid delusional tinfoil hate wearer.

Rubbish - potentially at any rate. You may choose to believe there was
only one original 'Eve' in the heart of Africa, but I'm not at all
convinced. And I *have* studied the science!

And have you studied the movement of people over the centuries? The idea
you'd find any Englishman with 'pure blood' is ludicrous.

Of course it is because English didn't exist at the time.
And whatever pure blood is meant to mean, there's also a reason we haven't all got the same hair or facial features, and I dont; believe we all came from one adam and eve in africa.

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 17:43:17 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


NO. its what DNS suggests. No dogma about it really.

I think we had problems with our DNS server a couple of days ago too.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"bm" wrote in message
eb.com...

"Hilo Black" wrote in message
...


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Richard
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
At uni we had the NF come along to give a speech.
A vote was held to decide if freedom of speech applied to the NF
and the
vote was yes they could speech.
Then we voted to exercised our freedom not to listen and left the
meeting.

All of which is perfectly correct. Of course these days, either
they'd
be banned, or if not, some fascist left-wingers would feel justified
in
deciding that while all animals are equal, some are more equal than
others.

I know you right wingers love to hurl names around,

PCTKB in the extreme. But you probably call it a kettle of colour.

Looking to a dictionary for a definition of fascist seems a bit
pedantic to me.

More fool you.

A good working definition is to say that a fascist is one who uses
violence or intimidation of the threat of either to advance political
ends.

Mindlessly silly when plenty of non fascists do that.

You clearly wouldn't know what a real
fascist was if one bit you on your lard arse.

Anyone who says that such can't be found at both ends of the political
spectrum has their head up their arse.

So your definition is completely stupid.

Do **** off Wod, you nymshifting prick.

Go and **** yourself, gutless.

Blimey, i'm out of the killfile, things must be getting tough for our
ancient ozzie troll.
How long do you think you have left John James, Simon Brown, Jacko,
Simon263, John Chance, Ratsack, Hank, kshy, JHY, Blano, Santo Brown, hqhy,
Jim Thomas, Sam Thatch, Hanny Z, 78lp, John Jackson, Ranger, jack, Mike
Lander, 879, prick

Just so we know how long to put up with your repetitive ****.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
..

Looking to a dictionary for a definition of fascist seems a bit
pedantic to me.

Looking to a dictionary for a definition of any word may well seem pedantic
to someone who doesn't have a clue what that word actually means;
but is determined to use it, nevertheless

A good working definition is to say that a fascist is
one who uses violence or intimidation of the threat of either to
advance political ends.

While a good working definition for somebody who's actually got a clue
is that a fascist is one who uses violence or intimidation or the threat of
either to advance primarily nationalistic ends in an authoritarian state.

Authoritarian Nationalism - with all elements of society subservient to the
interests of the nation state, is the primary defining characteristic of fascism.

Whereas Marxism or socialism:are essentially Internationist in nature.
Class doesn't recognise state boundaries and in theory at least all men
are considered brothers, regardless of their nationality or race. Although
the fact that Stalin was paranoid and surrrounded by hostile states put the
brakes on that aspect somewhat.

As to the "violence or intimidation of the threat of either", i.e. coercion All states
no matter how liberal or benign must retain some capacity for violence and
intimidiation in order to be able protect themselves from the revolting peasants
should the need ever arise. Same as corporal punishment in public schools up
until a few years ago in fact; only on a larger scale.

Frankly to believe otherwise, betrays a naievity which would be enviable in an
eleven year old schoolgirl In the 1950's.


michael adams

....

"Richard" wrote in message
...

And if we all originated from there, have you ever stopped to wonder why all the fairer
skinned people moved out of Africa?

Early men were hunter gatherers. Basically as soon as
early humans developed sufficient intelligence to outwit
local prey they were able to breed and survive at a faster
rate than their prey; and so would soon run out of food.
So basically they needed to spread out. Eventually out of
Africa. But prior to this any fair skin mutants,
who would eventually have an advantage in Northern climes,
who were born to such people will have died in infancy;
certainly before they ever reached breeding age.


michael adams

....

On Friday, 19 February 2016 10:11:21 UTC, michael adams wrote:
"Richard" wrote in message
...

And if we all originated from there, have you ever stopped to wonder why all the fairer
skinned people moved out of Africa?

Early men were hunter gatherers. Basically as soon as
early humans developed sufficient intelligence to outwit
local prey they were able to breed and survive at a faster
rate than their prey; and so would soon run out of food.
So basically they needed to spread out. Eventually out of
Africa. But prior to this any fair skin mutants,
who would eventually have an advantage in Northern climes,
who were born to such people will have died in infancy;
certainly before they ever reached breeding age.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...enisovan-cave/

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
And have you studied the movement of people over the centuries? The
idea you'd find any Englishman with 'pure blood' is ludicrous.

Of course it is because English didn't exist at the time. And whatever
pure blood is meant to mean, there's also a reason we haven't all got
the same hair or facial features, and I dont; believe we all came from
one adam and eve in africa.

I've no opinion on that. It was the 'pure blood' statement which was just
plain silly. You're more likely to find that in some extremely remote
tribe than in the UK.

--
*Taxation WITH representation ain't much fun, either.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , michael adams
wrote:


Authoritarian Nationalism - with all elements of society subservient to the
interests of the nation state, is the primary defining characteristic of
fascism.



I'll explain that carefully if I ever see a victim of the sort of
fascist behaviour you apparently wish to whitewash. I'm sure it'll be a
great comfort.


"Fascist", and now "whitewash".

Is there no end to this series of meaningless clichés which you
appear to have at your disposal ?

Although having progressed from an eleven year old schoolgirl
of the 1950's, to a 21 year old Young Conservative of the 1960's
is progress of a sort, I suppose.


michael adams

....

On 19/02/16 10:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , michael adams
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
.

Looking to a dictionary for a definition of fascist seems a bit
pedantic to me.

Looking to a dictionary for a definition of any word may well seem
pedantic
to someone who doesn't have a clue what that word actually means;
but is determined to use it, nevertheless

A good working definition is to say that a fascist is
one who uses violence or intimidation of the threat of either to
advance political ends.

While a good working definition for somebody who's actually got a clue
is that a fascist is one who uses violence or intimidation or the
threat of
either to advance primarily nationalistic ends in an authoritarian state.

Authoritarian Nationalism - with all elements of society subservient
to the
interests of the nation state, is the primary defining characteristic of
fascism.

Whereas Marxism or socialism:are essentially Internationist in nature.
Class doesn't recognise state boundaries and in theory at least all men
are considered brothers, regardless of their nationality or race.
Although
the fact that Stalin was paranoid and surrrounded by hostile states
put the
brakes on that aspect somewhat.

I'll explain that carefully if I ever see a victim of the sort of
fascist behaviour you apparently wish to whitewash. I'm sure it'll be a
great comfort.

I am not whitewashing anything. Merely explaining what Fascism ACTUALLY is.

Crooks who make no bones about being nationalist crooks, as opposed to
socialists who are internationalist crooks pretending to be good men.


Their methods are of course identical.

--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...enisovan-cave/

What's of interest there, is that the name "Denisovan" has
been given to a Siberian branch of Neanderthals.

In the opinion of some people at least maybe "Harrovian"
might have been more suitable.

Except that its already been taken.


michael adams

....

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 19/02/16 10:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , michael adams
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
.

Looking to a dictionary for a definition of fascist seems a bit
pedantic to me.

Looking to a dictionary for a definition of any word may well seem
pedantic
to someone who doesn't have a clue what that word actually means;
but is determined to use it, nevertheless

A good working definition is to say that a fascist is
one who uses violence or intimidation of the threat of either to
advance political ends.

While a good working definition for somebody who's actually got a clue
is that a fascist is one who uses violence or intimidation or the
threat of
either to advance primarily nationalistic ends in an authoritarian state.

Authoritarian Nationalism - with all elements of society subservient
to the
interests of the nation state, is the primary defining characteristic of
fascism.

Whereas Marxism or socialism:are essentially Internationist in nature.
Class doesn't recognise state boundaries and in theory at least all men
are considered brothers, regardless of their nationality or race.
Although
the fact that Stalin was paranoid and surrrounded by hostile states
put the
brakes on that aspect somewhat.

I'll explain that carefully if I ever see a victim of the sort of
fascist behaviour you apparently wish to whitewash. I'm sure it'll be a
great comfort.

I am not whitewashing anything.

They're fighting amongst themselves, now.

Result !


michael adams

....