» Union leader Derek Simpson endorses @EdMilibandMP in this week's @NewStatesman. I'd like to see a proper debate first. 1 week ago

» RT @monkeyhotel: Met 3 people who vote tory today - they all listen to Phil Collins in a totally non-ironic way. Draw your own conclusions 1 week ago

» Hilarious! RT @Jessica_Asato: This must be the most awesome GOTV I have seen yet. http://bit.ly/bpJgc3 1 week ago

» Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos and Burma here I come! all by train and buses! Glorious. 1 week ago

» Time to get ready to catch my flight. All - I'm out until the end of March in S.E. Asia. Away from the madness! Don't miss me too much. 1 week ago

More updates...


  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • Highlighting HBV
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
    • Women Uncovered
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Route 79
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    How many people has multiculturalism killed??????


    by Sunny on 12th November, 2009 at 8:22 PM    

    I was going to make a joke the other day, going by some of our more rabid commenters, asking how many people will right-wingers attribute to being killed by the evil ideology of multiculturalism. Already, socialism has killed millions upon trillions of people by virtue of the fact Hitler called his ideology ‘national socialism’ (they share words see! guilty!).

    I thought surely some of our readers could come up with a figure. Sure it was a silly joke but… Oh wait. I just spotted this on Melanie Phillips’ blog: ‘Multiculturalism kills‘. It’s nice that sometimes other people do my work for me.


         
            Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Humour, Media, Religion






    98 Comments below   |   Add your own

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. David O'Keefe — on 12th November, 2009 at 11:27 AM  

      Your channeling Melanie Phillips! Have you considered taking a holiday? visiting your GP? Booking yourself into the priory?

      I'm concerned about you.

    2. John — on 12th November, 2009 at 11:31 AM  

      To give a vaguely serious answer I'd say probably “some”. Not lots. Victims of terror is a bit vague, would we really have fewer terrorists if we were less diverse in cultural terms? It might be possible to shift the behaviour of the broad mass of ethnic minorities, but I'm unconvinced it would make the extremists less extreme. If by 'multiculturalism' they mean 'immigration', they should say so.

      Others, though - women who die because they haven't learnt enough English to communicate with their doctor, or speak to the police about what their husband is doing to them, or young african children who social workers are too nervous of cultural imperialism to recognise as abused when they are 'treated for possession'. Again, “some”.

    3. dave — on 12th November, 2009 at 11:34 AM  

      how many people were killed on 7/7

    4. dave — on 12th November, 2009 at 11:37 AM  

      how many people were killed on 7 / 7 ?

    5. Sunny H — on 12th November, 2009 at 11:39 AM  

      David I'm concerned too :(

    6. Sharon — on 12th November, 2009 at 11:48 AM  

      May I just remind you that the British People were not consulted about multiculturalism!

      It may not have caused millions of deaths but it has caused our country to suffer non the less. Even Gordon Brown has now admitted that our public services are under severed strain. We are supporting a vast army of people who were invited purely for the Labour vote and for no other reason.

      If migration had been properly controlled we would be in a much better position financially and employment wise.

      And no, immigration has done nothing for the country but made it one almighty mess!

    7. Fojee Punjabi — on 12th November, 2009 at 11:59 AM  

      ROLF! :D

      HAR HAAAR!

    8. A.C. — on 12th November, 2009 at 12:45 PM  

      Since you ask Sunny, you can include all the girls who have been killed for 'honour'. The 'honour' or izzat system is not native to the UK, it was imported by immigrants from different cultures.

      Multiculturalism (with a capital M) is the code which the left adopted to get those groups onside, by protecting them from criticism of their lifestyles and practices. That extended even to criticism of the bad and wrong parts of those cultures, like forced marriage, cousin marriage and honour based violence.

      Come on now, we've all seen the sketch in Goodness Gracious Me where Nina Wadia comes to a women's refuge fleeing a murderous husband, and the white woman working there refuses to get involved because it's 'their culture'. The GGM team were making a satirical point about the dangers of Multiculturalism, and that was 10 years ago.

      Maybe you didn't get the satire?

      Anyway, it's safe to say that if a more robust defence of British marriage practices had been made since the 1970s, we might not have seen the deaths of:

      Rukshana Naz
      Heshu Yones
      Nuziat Khan
      Rexhap Hasani
      Tulay Goren
      Banaz Mahmod
      Samaira Nazir
      Arash Ghorbani-Zarin
      Mian Shahid Mehmood
      Anita Gindha
      Surjit Athwal

      They are just a few of the names that come to mind. The police estimate approxmately 12 honour killings a year in the UK.

      What did Multiculturalism do to save the lives of any of those young people?

      I expect an answer, seeing as you are such a Multiculturalism fanboy…

    9. A.C. — on 12th November, 2009 at 12:46 PM  

      Since you ask Sunny, you can include all the girls who have been killed for 'honour'. The 'honour' or izzat system is not native to the UK, it was imported by immigrants from different cultures.

      Multiculturalism (with a capital M) is the code which the left adopted to get those groups onside, by protecting them from criticism of their lifestyles and practices. That extended even to criticism of the bad and wrong parts of those cultures, like forced marriage, cousin marriage and honour based violence.

      Come on now, we've all seen the sketch in Goodness Gracious Me where Nina Wadia comes to a women's refuge fleeing a murderous husband, and the white woman working there refuses to get involved because it's 'their culture'. The GGM team were making a satirical point about the dangers of Multiculturalism, and that was 10 years ago.

      Maybe you didn't get the satire?

      Anyway, it's safe to say that if a more robust defence of British marriage practices had been made since the 1970s, we might not have seen the deaths of:

      Rukshana Naz
      Heshu Yones
      Nuziat Khan
      Rexhap Hasani
      Tulay Goren
      Banaz Mahmod
      Samaira Nazir
      Arash Ghorbani-Zarin
      Mian Shahid Mehmood
      Anita Gindha
      Surjit Athwal

      They are just a few of the names that come to mind. The police estimate approxmately 12 honour killings a year in the UK.

      What did Multiculturalism do to save the lives of any of those young people?

      I expect an answer, seeing as you are such a Multiculturalism fanboy…

    10. MarieOdile — on 12th November, 2009 at 12:53 PM  

      multiculturalism doesn't kill people, people do.

    11. quantum_singularity — on 12th November, 2009 at 1:29 PM  

      Guns don't kill people….People kill people….

    12. Don — on 12th November, 2009 at 2:37 PM  

      It's the interface of the weapon and the person that kills people. Is multiculturalism a weapon?

    13. Peta — on 12th November, 2009 at 3:07 PM  

      I'm thinking I'd like to buy some people a history book for christmas…..opps sorry I forget multiculturalism killed Santa!

    14. Shatterface — on 12th November, 2009 at 3:17 PM  

      So socialism never killed anyone - because Hitler wasn't a socialist?

      Rather overlooking Stalin and Mao aren't you?

    15. Kulvinder — on 12th November, 2009 at 3:48 PM  

      What did Multiculturalism do to save the lives of any of those young people?

      I realise trying to ask for rational arguments is somewhat pointless against people who essentially want to rant at their computer screens (ill be honest; the more people froth the more i laugh), but arguing:

      Multiculturalism (with a capital M) is the code which the left adopted to get those groups onside, by protecting them from criticism of their lifestyles and practices.

      and putting forth the notion that a television sketch, which is against such murder and whose cast weren't, as far as im aware, against the idea of multiculturalism is what? im unsure what exactly the point was?

      The 'left' started the idea of Multiculturalism - incidently if you're going to capitalise the m, why not go all the way and capitalise the L in 'left'; because at the moment you seem to be against the people to the left of you rather than, you know, 'THE LEFT'

      but n e way

      the left started this code to protect minorities from criticism and as way of example you point out a minority written and acted television show that was critical of exactly the issue we're discussing.

    16. Kulvinder — on 12th November, 2009 at 3:58 PM  

      May I just remind you that the British People were not consulted about multiculturalism!

      You've been consulted numerous times, with a maximum intervening period of five years.

    17. persephone — on 12th November, 2009 at 4:00 PM  

      “The 'honour' or izzat system is not native to the UK, it was imported by immigrants from different cultures. “

      That's not factually right.

      Its not multiculturalism that killed the women you stated but a wider desire to control behaviour to protect honour that transcends all else. A few examples:

      Honour killing also happens in Christian communities in the Mediterranean and other regions. Honour killing was only abolished as a specific category in Italy in 1981, and murders in the name of honour still occur in the country. In 2006, Bruna Morito was shot six times in the face by her brother for bearing a child outside marriage.

      In Brazil, men could be acquitted for murdering their wives up until 1991 - until then wife killings were considered to be noncriminal 'honor killings'. In just one year, nearly eight hundred husbands killed their wives. Even in 1991, a lower court ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court and acquitted Joao Lopes for the double homicide of his wife and her lover.

      Similarly, in Colombia, until 1980, a husband legally could kill his wife for committing adultery.

      Even within the Middle East, honour killing is not restricted to Muslims. In Yemen, a Jewish father killed his daughter after a rebuke from the rabbi for her extra-marital pregnancy, and in Palestine, in 2005, Faten Habash was beaten to death with an iron bar, wielded by her Christian father because she wanted to marry her Muslim boyfriend.

      Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov said that honor killings were perpetuated on those who deserved to die. He said that those who are killed had “loose morals” and were rightfully shot by relatives in honor killings. He did not vilify women alone but added that “If a woman runs around and if a man runs around with her, both of them are killed.

      Cruelty and censure of unmarried mothers in the Industrial schools and Magdalen Laundries in Ireland even into the 1960s.

      And lastly, for those who want to banish the Koran:

      The Bible: Lev 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

    18. Shatterface — on 12th November, 2009 at 4:14 PM  

      Just so I can keep up, are you pro- or anti-multiculturism this week Sunny?

      Because a couple of weeks back on Liberal Conspiracy you were claiming you personally brought multi-culturalism down.

    19. douglas clark — on 12th November, 2009 at 4:26 PM  

      Have all the rabid lunatics gone to bed yet?

      A UK government invited people to emigrate to the UK, reversing a policy of emigrating from the UK. There were cheap fares to Canada and Australia for people willing to go. And I'd think, correct me if I am wrong, you could more or less emigrate to any part of the Commonwealth, back then.

      The corollary of that is that immigrants had to fight for equal rights when they came here, perhaps replacing some of our white emigrants. Y'know the sort, they sign their posts 'ex-pat', and claim a right to lecture us about what it means to live here. Their addresses are frequently the last redoubts of racists and pseudo nostaligists.

      South Africa, Spain (wtf?) and France.

      There is a diaspora of hateful, nasty Brits,

    20. Jimmy — on 12th November, 2009 at 4:27 PM  

      Really?

      I think you’ll find it was never on any manifesto let alone even mentioned as a policy, hence the revelations of Neather that it was done by deliberate deception and stealth.

    21. Jimmy — on 12th November, 2009 at 4:28 PM  

      Really?

      I think you’ll find it was never on any manifesto let alone even mentioned as a policy, hence the revelations of Neather that it was done by deliberate deception and stealth.

    22. douglas clark — on 12th November, 2009 at 4:32 PM  

      persephone,

      So?

    23. douglas clark — on 12th November, 2009 at 4:39 PM  

      Jimmy, I have not a scooby what your post is about or who it is directed at.

    24. Sunny H — on 12th November, 2009 at 5:55 PM  

      multiculturalism eated my hamster daddy!!

    25. Sunny H — on 12th November, 2009 at 5:57 PM  

      multiculturalism, most scandalously, also killed pricess diana!!

      I'm surprised the Daily Express haven't picked up on that yet.

    26. keith — on 12th November, 2009 at 6:02 PM  

      On a lighter note and just to bring some humour into this.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0n88tZQc4Q

    27. marvin — on 12th November, 2009 at 7:33 PM  

      Many of Hitler's policies were far more socialist in nature than anything else. The National Socialists were the first with the minimum wage.

      It's estimated that 100 million have died in the name of Communism however. Good old Marx. Revolution 'by any means necessary'. Jolly good.

      How many have died from multiculturalism? It's all a very funny joke of course because nobody, zero, have died from these policies. It's not like we've got thousands of young men who are living apart from and hating mainstream society whom pose a national security threat is it! No… We all know that 7/7 attacks had nothing to do with it. Simply an expression of liberal progressive outrage at the toppling of a dictator of a country in the middle east…

      And all the race riots and tensions in recent years, where black, asian and white youths have been murdered has nothing at all to do with a chasm of understanding between the groups. Nothing!

      That British Muslims were found be the most radicalised in the Western world is a real triumph of multicultural philosophy! Who needs American style integration! Pah! We're all sooo much better off in our cultural, religious and ethnic groups, all separate, What could possibly go wrong!

      Good comment John…

    28. Sunny H — on 12th November, 2009 at 8:59 PM  

      It's estimated like 50 gazillion have died from multiculturalism.

    29. FlyingRodent — on 12th November, 2009 at 10:34 PM  

      Well, you just have to sit back and laugh, don't you? Suggest to our Speak Youre Branes pals that crime springs from any other cause than despicable individual evil and the government's unwillingness to execute some sense into the prison populace, and you'll get a load of waffle about personal responsibility and PC, touchy-feely attitudes.

      Sling in a narrative that conveniently fits the sorry list of half-assed prejudices and lazy received wisdom that is modern right wing thought, and suddenly we must understand the causes of crime.

      Basically, if a woman murders her handicapped daughter, it must be because she's an evil, callous bitch - unless, of course, we can tie the murder to Broken Britain via harrassment by the local neds. Then we can understand root causes just fine. If a bloke murders his wife, it must be because he's a murderous, contemptible fiend, unless he's from India in which case the woman was killed by multiculturalism itself.

      “Having your cake and eating it,” this tactic is usually called. I'd expect it from a bunch of five-year-olds.

    30. douglas clark — on 12th November, 2009 at 11:30 PM  

      marvin,

      Well done.

      Your insight does you proud.

      Hitler wasn't really a bad chap after all? And Uncle Joe was worse?

      Fuck me. I never knew that.

      Can I just suggest that you are a tad off topic here?

      Still, if you keep in time, your goose stepping will win you prizes on the Aryan version of Strictly Come Dancing!

    31. Reza — on 12th November, 2009 at 11:40 PM  

      “And Uncle Joe was worse?”

      Yes he was.

    32. douglas clark — on 13th November, 2009 at 12:10 AM  

      Reza, Thanks for your contribution. In an alternate reality, had Barbarossa not happened, it is hard for me to see exactly how the UK would be a home for you. A Nazified Europe would not, I suspect, have been exactly welcoming to an Iranian. It is worth recalling that it was, largely, the Russians that beat Hitler.

    33. Reza — on 13th November, 2009 at 12:56 AM  

      Douglas

      Please don't put words in my mouth.

      Various estimates suggest that Hitler was responsible for the murder of around 11 million people.

      Similar estimates put Stalin as being responsible for the murder of 20 million people.

      These are estimates, however, if you look at the ranges, you'll see that most historians believe that Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler.

      On that basis, I believe that Stalin was worse.

      However, both Stalin and Hitler were extremely evil people.

    34. soru12 — on 13th November, 2009 at 1:17 AM  

      'Thanks for your contribution. In an alternate reality, had Barbarossa not happened, it is hard for me to see exactly how the UK would be a home for you.'

      The UK would have been fine: it's just Germany would still glow slightly when seen form space. It's ironic that for all the people he killed, Stalin probably still saved net lives, if the alternative was a pissed off Churchill with nukes…

      On topic: multiculturalism, to the extent it exists (however you define it) has presumably killed some people. That's a consequence of things that exist, actually change the behaviour of governments and people. I rather think that if the government had spent a few years (until recently) pursuing an official policy of madmelism, that figure would be a fair bit higher…

    35. Reza — on 13th November, 2009 at 1:22 AM  

      Marvin, A.C. & John

      You all gave tangible examples of how multiculturalism has been responsible for killing people.

      Have you noticed how no one has attempted to refute your examples?

      As qidniz would say “welcome to Leftistan”.

      It’s always the same pattern. Sunny posts an inarticulate snipe at a view he disagrees with. His hangers-on all agree with him. But neither he nor his hangers attempt to evidence their view or refute the opposing view.

      I’m reminded of the SWP cretins at university, who would hang around outside of campus selling newspapers to each other. I once approached them about some banner or another and they all turned towards me and chanted in unison, ensuring that they didn’t have to hear another viewpoint.

      “Welcome to Leftistan”. Indeed.

    36. Boyo — on 13th November, 2009 at 2:07 AM  

      Sunny, are you deliberately stupid? The Ally G of progressive blogerz? Just because Hitler called it “national socialism” doesn't mean that people claim deaths from socialism are to do with Hitler. Stalin, Mao anyone? Pol Pot?

      And yes, multiculturism is as much an “ism” as anything else, and has a lot on common with other utopian ideas aimed at engineering society - it results in a bloody mess. Sure, the victims might not yet number more than a few hundred, but hey - we've a whole future to look forward to of communal violence. Aren't we the lucky ones.

    37. cjcjc — on 13th November, 2009 at 2:24 AM  

      I am more interested in the idea of “pseudo-nostalgists”.

    38. douglas clark — on 13th November, 2009 at 2:46 AM  

      Reza,

      We are reduced to discussing the relative evils of dictators are we? Approximately 16 million Russian soldiers died so you and I can comment here.

    39. douglas clark — on 13th November, 2009 at 2:58 AM  

      Soru 12,

      So, I take it you are a huge fan of the Heroes of Telemark? As far as I know England had no nuclear programme and didn't obtain a nuclear capability until the 1950's, whereas young Adolf was working on one. The glow from outer space might just as credibly have been coming from the sites of our major ex cities.

    40. cjcjc — on 13th November, 2009 at 3:00 AM  

      That's true, though I'm not sure what that has to do with the evils of Stalin - who, you may recall, had a non-aggression pact with Hitler from 1939-1941.

    41. Reza — on 13th November, 2009 at 3:02 AM  

      Douglas

      Approximately 16 million Russian soldiers died defending their country and on the orders of a mass murdering monster of a brutal political system that would kill anyone who refused to fight.

      They didn't do it for us.

      And we all know what the Russians did to central and eastern Europe after the war.

      An apologist for Stalin is no better than an apologist for Hitler.

      I spend a fair bit of time in the Czech Republic. I know people who’d rip your throat out for defending Stalin.

    42. Boyo — on 13th November, 2009 at 3:09 AM  

      I'm not sure Czechs would rip anyone's throat out - they're a pretty passive people ;-)

    43. douglas clark — on 13th November, 2009 at 3:17 AM  

      Reza,

      I am making no apology for Stalin. I am merely pointing out to you that the reality of WW2 was that it was the Russians that won victory in Europe. And, I'd have thought that the Russians fought just as much out of patriotism as ideology. Though, come 1945 or so, the latter became more part of the end game than the former. Make of that what you will.

      You astonish me with your global reach. I'm surprised you have the time to comment here whatsoever.

    44. Reza — on 13th November, 2009 at 3:38 AM  

      Douglas

      “I am making no apology for Stalin.”

      Then forgive me for assuming you were. You certainly appeared to be doing so.

      “…the reality of WW2 was that it was the Russians that won victory in Europe.”

      There is a lot of truth in that statement.

      “You astonish me with your global reach. I'm surprised you have the time to comment here whatsoever.”

      I spend around 20 weeks out of the UK every year. Mainly work, except for when I'm visiting my pretend family in Iran.

      Boyo

      “I'm not sure Czechs would rip anyone's throat out - they're a pretty passive people…”

      It's true. I meant it metaphorically.

      A Czech colleague once told me of his grandmother’s experiences during and after WW2.

      After the Sudetenland was annexed, German soldiers moved in to her town and overnight she and all other Slavs became second-class citizens in their own country. However, during the whole occupation she didn’t hear a single shot fired. The German soldiers were arrogant but disciplined, maintaining law and order.

      When they were ‘liberated’ by the Russians, the Czechs came out into the streets and cheered the Russian soldiers. That evening, they brought out their hidden stocks of slivovice (plum brandy) to celebrate with the liberators. That evening the celebrations turned ugly, as the Russian soldiers began raping the Czech women. One of the men who tried to intervene was shot.

      The following day, some senior Russian soldiers arrived. A brave Czech man told them what had happened. They asked him to point out the perpetrators, which he did.

      The Russians knelt the perpetrators in the town square and ordered the townspeople, including children, to watch as they were shot.

      That was the first time my colleague’s grandmother heard a gun fired in the war.

    45. Fojee Punjabi — on 13th November, 2009 at 3:58 AM  

      LOL @ Boyo :D

      Bravo.

    46. douglas clark — on 13th November, 2009 at 3:59 AM  

      Reza,

      It wasn't all as hunky dory as your colleague makes out:

      The Czech Skoda munitions works made tanks for the Panzer legions, and the country was broken up into districts. The Czech monuments were taken down, streets and plazas renamed for prominent Nazis, and the singing of Czech songs forbidden. The Slovak region under Czech Nazi and Roman Catholic Priest Josef Tiso was second only to Germany in enacting anti-Semitic laws. Over 70,000 Slovak Jews died in concentration camps.

      The Czechs responded with guerilla activity, underground resistance, and uprisings. A Special Operations Executive Operation dropped Czech agents into Prague, where they murdered SS Deputy Protector Reinhard Heydrich in 1942. The entire town of Lidice was executed in reprisal; the men locked in the town church and burned to death. The women and children were sent to a concentration camp.

    47. persephone — on 13th November, 2009 at 4:30 AM  

      “You astonish me with your global reach. I'm surprised you have the time to comment here whatsoever.”

      “Reza” is a veritable globe trotting, immigrant Iranian pharmacist married to a European lady with dual heritage children but against UK multiculturalism, UK immigration and Islam in general. And despite being a scientist he thinks that a scientific debate on genetics is 'ugly' and immigrant countries are all sh*tholes but tells his children that they may be related to Persian leaders from said countries.

      I have not met any Iranians that fit that (…engineered) profile.

      And neither have members of my family who lived in Tehran during the era Reza claims to be from. I have also not met what Reza calls a 'Metropolitan elite' from North Tehran who are as rabidly fundamentalist as claimed by Reza. And they never refer to themselves as the Metropolitan elite either.

      P.S. Nick, sorry “Reza”, if you think this is an ad hominem remark then you need to appreciate that leaders are subject to such scrutiny as are heads of legal of political parties. It comes with the job.

    48. persephone — on 13th November, 2009 at 4:35 AM  

      Douglas

      My response was in reply to AC's comment about honour being imported by immigrants. Its part of a wider mindset of a woman as a chattel and vessel of honour for normally, a male and to protect patrilineal descent.

    49. Jai — on 13th November, 2009 at 4:59 AM  

      Excellent comment about “Reza”, Persephone. My thoughts exactly.

      “Reza” is a veritable globe trotting, immigrant Iranian pharmacist

      Speaking of “Reza's” alleged background as a Pharmacy graduate, an observation about his recent claim that this would enable him to “pull rank” over Ravi Naik in relation to the topic of genetics:

      In reality, the component of the Pharmacy degree syllabus that deals with genetics is minimal, and doesn't even remotely compare to the extent to which degrees like Medicine cover the subject.

    50. douglas clark — on 13th November, 2009 at 5:01 AM  

      persephone,

      Thanks for your reply. My rather cryptic comment was based on the fact that all your examples were not indigenous to the UK.

      It is rather disheartening to have to argue against this sort of thing, a neo Victorianism if you will, when I'd rather hoped we'd put these kinds of ideas behind us.

    51. Reza — on 13th November, 2009 at 5:19 AM  

      No, no, no, no Douglas!

      Stop putting words in my mouth.

      I’m not saying for a moment that life was good under the Nazis. I’ve visited Terezin with my kids, and wept at the drawings made by Jewish children transported there.

      I’ve also visited the moving Lidice memorial. (I pass near Lidice whenever I go to the CR).

      The Nazis were evil, evil, evil.

      What I’m saying is that the Soviets were also evil.

    52. douglas clark — on 13th November, 2009 at 5:37 AM  

      Reza,

      I am not putting words into your mouth! All I am saying is that your colleagues' example seems to meet this criteria:

      You can't generalize anything from the testimony of a single witness!

      Anyway, we are not really disagreeing here are we? I refer you back to what I said to you earlier:

      We are reduced to discussing the relative evils of dictators are we?

    53. Reza — on 13th November, 2009 at 5:57 AM  

      Persephone

      You've promoted me! I'm no longer a BNP stooge. I'm Nick Griffin himself.

      How honoured you must feel, to have the leader of Britain’s foremost whites-only-racist-socialist party debating with you on a little leftie blog with a “south Asian tinge”.

      Was it a joke, or are you really a cretin?

      Clearly, Jai is beyond redemption, nervously spending his days trying to find ‘holes’ in my ‘cover’ story. So far without success.

      But you Persephone. Are you for real?

      Do you really think that someone would go to the extent of lying about their background in order to spread dissent by commenting on a poxy little blog like this?

      Don’t flatter yourself. If I was an agent-provocateur from an ‘organisation’ with an agenda to spread misinformation then clearly there would be better places to do that than PP.

      I’m here for the same reason I once spent a couple of months on MPACUK. On MPACUK I learned how real Muslims think. Here, I’m learning how ‘ethnic minority’ lefties think, together with their pro-multiculturalist, competitive altruist white supporters.

      It helps me understand what this country is up against, and how it can be countered.

      If I were to go into politics, it wouldn’t be a political party you’d recognise.

    54. Reza — on 13th November, 2009 at 6:13 AM  

      Douglas

      No we're not disagreeing, however, we're not merely “discussing the relative evils of dictators”.

      I am discussing the relative evils of political systems. Communism is every bit as evil as Nazism, and resulted in comparable misery for the people affected by it.

      The story from my (pretend) Czech colleague gave me an interesting perspective on life under occupation by Nazis then Communists. That’s the only reason I put it here.

    55. soru12 — on 13th November, 2009 at 6:37 AM  

      @Douglas

      wiki is reasonable on UK WWII nuclear weapons:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Alloys
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_River_Labora...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Agreement
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Energy_Act_...

      With america in the war and running the Manhattan project, you get a bomb a few months after berlin falls. Without the US in the war, but Roosevelt providing all the financial and material help to the UK he could get away with, that might have been a year later. With the US completely isolationist, Berlin still glows by 1948 or so. Something truly bizarre like a US invasion of Canada would be needed to stop it outright.

      In short, the invasion of Russia was an irrelevant sideshow - Hitler had already lost WWII at a time Stalin still counted him as an ally.

      Of course, not only would Churchill's bomb have been developed in Canada, they invented multiculturalism (as an extension of the previous 'biculturalism' that acknowledged the existence of Quebec).

      So maybe mad Mel doesn't actually, as some people think, come form another planet. She just comes from the alternate time-line where a nuclear-armed Canada conquered the world…

    56. Jai — on 13th November, 2009 at 6:53 AM  

      How honoured you must feel, to have the leader of Britain’s foremost whites-only-racist-socialist party debating with you on a little leftie blog with a “south Asian tinge”.

      Was it a joke, or are you really a cretin?

      …..But you Persephone. Are you for real?

      Do you really think that someone would go to the extent of lying about their background in order to spread dissent by commenting on a poxy little blog like this?

      Don’t flatter yourself. If I was an agent-provocateur from an ‘organisation’ with an agenda to spread misinformation then clearly there would be better places to do that than PP.

      The problem with this pitiful attempt at denial is that, for example, Lee John Barnes, the BNP's legal director and someone very closely affiliated with Nick Griffin, already has an extensive track record of commenting on this website.

      Clearly, Jai is beyond redemption, nervously spending his days trying to find ‘holes’ in my ‘cover’ story. So far without success.

      “Reza” reminds me of “Comical Ali”, who appeared on Iraqi television making grandiose statements about how successfully Saddam Hussein's administration was defending Iraq against Coalition forces……while American tanks could be seen rolling across central Baghdad outside his window.

    57. Jimmy — on 13th November, 2009 at 7:35 AM  

      It clearly says at the top of the comment “in reply to Kulvinder”

    58. Jimmy — on 13th November, 2009 at 7:37 AM  

      “May I just remind you that the British People were not consulted about multiculturalism!”

      Kulvinder: “You've been consulted numerous times, with a maximum intervening period of five years.”

      ———————

      Really?

      I think you’ll find multiculturalism was never on any manifesto let alone even mentioned as a policy, hence the revelations of Neather that it was done by deliberate deception and stealth.

    59. marvin — on 13th November, 2009 at 9:32 AM  

      Douglas you got offended because I pointed out that wow, actually, yes, fuck me, National Socialism is at least partly based on … socialism. And a whole mish mash of ideologies and delusions.

      And? That makes me a nazi? Get a grip Douglas. I'm used to better comments than that from you. And yes, the resulting deaths from Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot exceed fascism. I think it's worth pointing out, since people think that communism actually a really good idea, when actually it's ruthless and anti-human. A bit like fascism. All shit ideologies IMO.

      And frankly this constant back and forth with mr anti-Islam all Muslims are wrong Reza and Saint Jai and the gang and their apparent exposés - well it's getting pretty boring now. How about we all try to cut out the ad hominen attacks. Most people here are pretty intelligent and have more in common than in difference I'd suspect.

    60. Leon — on 13th November, 2009 at 10:15 AM  

      So few people appear to understand what Multiculturalism really is…but you know ignorance has never been a barrier to having a vocal opinion.

    61. Boyo — on 13th November, 2009 at 11:28 AM  

      Leon, please enlighten us.

      My understanding is - multiculturalism = inverted imperialism with the possibly unintended (but not necessarily undesired) consequence of bourgeois entrenchment.

      Multiculturalism was intended to “spice up” the dull old England the Andrew Neather's and Guardianistas so despised - you couldn't get a decent curry, let alone a decent cleaner. And those wretched, ungrateful working class oiks kept voting for Thatch.

      Multiculturalism celebrated all cultures. You could have curries, kaftans and ganga and everyone would rub along wonderfully. If you were wealthy (which oddly they term middle class) it was great! Of course you didn't actually expect multiculturalism to go further than that - culture was about the Sunday papers, not religion, rights, belief. The oiks didn't actually have a culture, so what did it matter…

      The imperialistic thing being, of course, that you expected all cultures to fit your own. As for the entrenchment - well you could call any oik that protested immigration was really about undermining the bargaining power of the working class “a racist”.

      Perfect!

    62. Kulvinder — on 13th November, 2009 at 2:40 PM  

      I think you’ll find multiculturalism was never on any manifesto let alone even mentioned as a policy, hence the revelations of Neather that it was done by deliberate deception and stealth.

      The fact the actual word may or may not have been on a manifesto is irrelevant; democracy in this country doesn't depend on three political parties, rather the will of the people.

      If you think this issue is so contentious that its worth a substantial amount of votes you're free to either stand for election or even start your own political party with the abolition of multiculturalim its central aim.

    63. Kulvinder — on 13th November, 2009 at 2:40 PM  

      I think you’ll find multiculturalism was never on any manifesto let alone even mentioned as a policy, hence the revelations of Neather that it was done by deliberate deception and stealth.

      The fact the actual word may or may not have been on a manifesto is irrelevant; democracy in this country doesn't depend on three political parties, rather the will of the people.

      If you think this issue is so contentious that its worth a substantial amount of votes you're free to either stand for election or even start your own political party with the abolition of multiculturalim its central aim.

    64. persephone — on 13th November, 2009 at 2:40 PM  

      “Are you for real?“

      With your BNP (rose) coloured specs on I can understand why you think I am unreal. Going by the BNP propaganda I should be one of those asians who align myself with the BNP when it comes to muslims/Islam, out to decimate anything indigenous and should also be a leftie. The reality is that I am not the only asian on this site who does not fit that BNP constructed profile.

      It's also interesting that the commenters whom we believe to be constructed asians are also the ones trying to strenously prove asianness by way of an asian language and asian name. Unfortunately that does not cut it if the rest of what they say is a mismatch or a messy contradiction.

      Constructing profiles of how you think groups of people should be is a precarious business. And those who think in terms of such profiling are also in favour of its near cousin – identity.

      “poxy little blog”

      You spend a prolific amount of time commenting on it so it must be of inordinate importance to you.

      “How honoured you must feel, to have the leader of Britain’s foremost whites-only-racist-socialist party debating with you”

      Honoured is not how I feel. This is more a reflection of how you want others to feel.

    65. MaidMarian — on 13th November, 2009 at 3:44 PM  

      AC - 'What did Multiculturalism do to save the lives of any of those young people?'.

      Nothing - why should it, and in what form?

      What you and most of the others who get a chip on their shoulder about the M word seem to misunderstand is that Multiculturalism and integration are not exclusive concepts. Many on both sides of this debate may well wish that they were, but it is quite possible to be both distinct and well-adjusted.

      Looking at the comments on here that are critical of the M word, I would hazard a guess that one particular religion is what the critics have in mind? There may well be a reasonable case on that point, though I still do not see how by definition Multiculturalism and integration are exclusive.

      For what it is worth, I do wish the left had not got quite so tied up with identity politics, and the unholy alliance it struck over Iraq in 2003 was folly of the worst kind.

      But to say that Multiculturalism killed people is silly - like saying that the Mail is responsible for race murders. The Mail is, of course, as white-British as they come - but I could name at least six muslims I feel I have more in common with than I do Jan Moir.

      John - 'women who die because they haven't learnt enough English to communicate with their doctor, or speak to the police about what their husband is doing to them, or young african children who social workers are too nervous of cultural imperialism to recognise as abused when they are 'treated for possession'.' That sounds the exact opposite of a multicultural vision - or am I missing something?

      Multiculturalism is not, should not and can not be about protecting people from their stupidity or bad choices. The things that you are talking about are the private sphere. Surely multiculturalism has to be about civil society.

      If people of particular cultures wish to exclude themself from civil society, no one and no idea should force them?

      Presumably what some are getting at is that the M word has made people more fearful of causing offence and there being some sanction? Possibly that may be true, and I could certainly name a small number of people who feel that they have some entitlement due to skin colour etc. I indeed have some sympathy and would go as far as saying that there probably is a bit of an offence industry. But surely that has more to do with any number of factors in individual cases, not the M word per se? Unless you are telling me that everyone should act in the same way.

      Granted, some such as Reza make clear that their prejudices should be shared by all and that private decisions, such as who to marry should be essentially subject to his approval. I disagree. I am no fan of Multiculturalism, but neither am I a fan of the lazy characterisations I see on here.

      Screaming, 'look how awful multiculturalism is,' at people who refuse to live a multicultural life seems a bit odd as a debating point.

    66. MaidMarian — on 13th November, 2009 at 3:49 PM  

      Reza - 'Please don't put words in my mouth'

      Given your record on putting words into other people's mouths that has about as much force as Jordan asking me to put my chest away.

    67. MaidMarian — on 13th November, 2009 at 3:53 PM  

      Apologies - that last sentence should have read::

      'Screaming, 'look how awful multiculturalism is,' ABOUT people who refuse to live a multicultural life (LIKE CERTAIN MUSLIMS) seems a bit odd as a debating point.

    68. Boyo — on 13th November, 2009 at 11:43 PM  

      Although I've never read all Reza's comments, as a recent immigrant himself I think it's unreasonable to smear him “BNP”.

      However, as he disagrees with you he must be, right? With thinking like this no wonder we are in such a… pickle.

    69. Ravi Naik — on 14th November, 2009 at 3:17 AM  

      Although I've never read all Reza's comments, as a recent immigrant himself I think it's unreasonable to smear him “BNP”.

      He wrote this:

      So that’s your answer isn’t it? Race replacement. Only when the indigenous British become a minority can your bitter, revenge-motivated Utopia come to pass. Then you’ll get even. For colonialism. For the fact that the culture and values of your parents or grandparents weren’t the ones that created this advanced society. For the fact that this country is a far better place to live than the backward sh*t-holes most of your ancestors hail from. For all the sins of ‘whitey’. You’ll get even.

      He is not a recent immigrant. He is a BNP racist posing as such.

    70. LibertyPhile — on 14th November, 2009 at 3:54 AM  

      Ravi Naik

      I don’t know Reza and have read only a handful of his comments, but his remarks that you reproduce above, not withstanding their crudeness (bluntness), would strike a chord with many people who are not BNP, who are not fascists, and do not believe in any respect that any human being is more or less superior than any other based on any biological feature. [I hesitate to use the word “race”]

      With regard to “multiculturalism”, has anybody mentioned “Partition” or the Ottoman Empire, which I think demonstrate that multiculturalism only works under some form of dictatorship? Remove that and you have trouble.

    71. MaidMarian — on 14th November, 2009 at 4:32 AM  

      LibertyPhile - I'm sorry, but did you just suggest that the Ottoman Empire was multiculturalism in action?

      That is a joke, yes?

      You will be telling me next that contemporary China shows how communism works.

    72. LibertyPhile — on 14th November, 2009 at 5:20 AM  

      Yes, it was multiculturalism in action. In this case one culture was obviously dominant and playing the dictatorship role.

      The Balkans can be added to the examples of how “multiculturalism” doesn't work and how the stuggles that ensue kill large numbers of people.

    73. Boyo — on 14th November, 2009 at 5:32 AM  

      Yes, the Ottoman Empire was an excellent example of a multicultural society, and was used by Christopher Caldwell to illustrate its disadvantages - not least that cultures were attracted to settle not because they admired Ottoman civilisation and wanted to participate in it, but because it was weak and easily exploitable.

      As a good contemporary example of how the Progressive Left misrepresents multiculturalism, Caldwell cites Tariq Ramadan's appropriation as a cheer-leader when Ramadan has never actually been anything of the sort - he argues instead that the West provides the opportunity for Muslims to practice purer Islam, not to integrate.

      It was much the same with the Ottomans and the Chinese - Westerners settled there and exploited these societies for themselves, not out of any kind of admiration

    74. Boyo — on 14th November, 2009 at 5:34 AM  

      No, I don't think that qualifies him Ravi: we all have our own ancestors, don't we?

    75. soru12 — on 14th November, 2009 at 5:44 AM  

      LibertyPhile - I'm sorry, but did you just suggest that the Ottoman Empire was multiculturalism in action?

      Multiculturalism, like 'liberal', is one of those words that means one thing, plus also other things historically related to that first meaning, plus also the logical opposite of the first thing, and then some other things logically related to that.

      For example, in this thread alone, it has been used of:

      1. The Ottoman empire, where different cultural groups had different legally-enforced dress codes
      2. The US army, where everyone has the same haircut.

      If you didn't know much about the internet, you might think that would cause people to stop using the word…

    76. Ravi Naik — on 14th November, 2009 at 6:50 AM  

      No, I don't think that qualifies him Ravi: we all have our own ancestors, don't we?

      Boyo, when he says “backward sh*t-holes most of your ancestors hail from”, it is clear that he doesn't consider his ancestors as coming from outside Britain, thus showing he made up this story about being an immigrant himself. And his language is used by BNP supporters and racists. If you think that language is acceptable and you keep defending him, then you are no better than him.
      br>

      That is a joke, yes? You will be telling me next that contemporary China shows how communism works.

      You would think that Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Britain were the most troubled nations in the world. I do prefer a more comprehensive model that motivates immigrants to assimilate and integrate to the mainstream culture rather than alienate, but this demonisation of multiculturalism is ridiculous, and comparing to the Ottoman empire (I guess it is a coincidence that it was a Muslim Empire) is just amusing.

      he argues instead that the West provides the opportunity for Muslims to practice purer Islam, not to integrate

      The only part that I feel prevents integration is the use of niqab and the mindset behind that. But this concerns a very small minority. I do not understand the histrionics behind the majority of Muslims practising their own religion in Europe.

    77. persephone — on 14th November, 2009 at 6:54 AM  

      It is unreasonable if:

      - you believe in the fallacy of him being an immigrant.
      - what is written is consistent, accurate & therefore credible
      - BNP common messaging, phrases & other saleable language are not being used
      - there was balanced debate and no overriding hatred
      - I did not have experience of my family living & having Iranian friends

      And those are a lot of 'if's'

      Is it reasonable, even if being in a 'pickle' (whatever you mean by that) means we have to accept bigotry and untruths?

    78. douglas clark — on 14th November, 2009 at 7:19 AM  

      soru12

      You are right. The Germans were nowhere as near to creating a nuclear bomb as I had thought. That's the trouble with thinking movies contain facts - 'The Heroes of Telenark' - in this case.

    79. Fojee Punjabi — on 14th November, 2009 at 7:47 AM  

      Erm, where is Sunny?

      The very people he's supposed to be debating with have him running scared… anyone with any conviction in their beliefs would have stayed the course and stood up for their ideals… where are you, Mr Hundal?

      Cat got yer tongue, Fella?

    80. douglas clark — on 14th November, 2009 at 10:17 AM  

      Fojee Punjabi,

      What is there left to discuss?

      I have agreed with Soru12 that the Germans weren't as close to a nuclear weapon as I'd thought. Which, apart from the ongoing discussion across almost every thread about whether you are who you say you are - and I have my suspicions about you - seems to have been the only content of substance.

      Perhaps we could have a special thread where we all try to prove our identity….

      The first pretendy Scot that says 'Hoots Mon!' is my bags….

      The thread is dead.

    81. Fojee Punjabi — on 14th November, 2009 at 10:38 AM  

      HA @ having suspicions about me… you people have far too much time on your hands if you have the luxury of giving a flying one about what lil ol' me thinks I tell ya!

      But I'll leave you with this: the Prince of Darkness is a gentleman

    82. MaidMarian — on 14th November, 2009 at 10:50 AM  

      FP - You are Sunny Hundal and I claim my £5.

    83. douglas clark — on 14th November, 2009 at 11:15 AM  

      Fojee baybee. Well, you hit the radar. Well done. This is for you:

      http://tinyurl.com/yde67nc

      Or, then again, not.

    84. Don — on 14th November, 2009 at 11:28 AM  

      the Prince of Darkness is a gentleman

      Damn, you're Mandelson? You never know who you're talking to round here these days.

    85. Boyo — on 14th November, 2009 at 11:31 AM  

      I'm not here to defend Reza, and I don't have time to read all his posts…

      On the issue of Muslim integration, well I suppose I'm largely with Tariq - Islam may integrate but it will not assimilate. That means Europe will change before Islam does (indeed it has already - who would dare “insult” the Prophet in the supposed land of the free these days?). Countless polls testify to the increasing (not decreasing) radicalisation of the Muslim population. There's no going back - what we have to ask ourselves instead, if we believe in liberal democracy (with an emphasis on liberal) what we need to do to ensure the effects of Islamic conservatism are limited.

      As a European, it is worth reflecting that we were embroiled in centuries of bloody conflict to achieve the kind of tolerance we have (until recently) enjoyed - ie, by limiting the power and influence of the church. Speaking as a liberal therefore, the increasing influence of Islam (which is embarking on its own bloody centuries of reform as we speak, and partly in our backyard) in Europe is therefore essentially to be mourned — it is literally a step back. This is not to comment on the relative virtues or otherwise of Islam, simply the impact of an unreformed religion on freedom and equality. Why supposed liberals, from Sunny to George Galloway, cannot see this continues to sadden, if not surprise, me.

    86. Boyo — on 14th November, 2009 at 12:40 PM  

      My goodness, having back on this thread it appears we have “proven” that Hitler's invasion of the USSR was a “sideshow” and it was somehow that, thanks to an, ahem, nuclear-armed Canada, berlin would have “been in ashes in 1948.”

      You Tube has a lot to answer for.

      Er… golly. I don't know really where to start, although I think Soru (and his selective sources) may have missed a thing or three…

      Without the distraction of the USSR, the Nazis would have had plenty of time to develop their own bomb, which I bet would have turned London to ash before 1948.

      Roosevelt's support to the UK was always limited - thank heavens for Pearl Harbour! - and I doubt it would have extended to funding British development of an atom bomb, let alone all the other resources required - even with the know-how it still took us about 10 years post WW2 (can't be bothered to wiki) to develop a bomb of our own, and only then with US support. Does anyone really think the US would have allowed the UK to develop a bomb they did not have…?

      Truth is, had the Nazis not attacked the USSR, chances are the U-Boat campaign would have starved us in to submission as it nearly did anyway in 1943, and given the resources expended on the Soviet invasion, by 1944 the Nazis would have had enough materiel to mount a sea-borne invasion in the event they were worried about our (non-existent) bomb.

      One last thing - the Germans only lost in Russia thanks to major miscalculations on the part of Hitler, eg Stalingrad, and the failure of the Japanese to attack from the East, thus freeing up the Siberian regiments who saved Stalin's bacon. So the war was far from lost when Hitler invaded - had the Germans defeated the USSR, as they very nearly did, it would have been game over, chances are for a 1000 years.

      What silliness.

    87. Fojee Punjabi — on 14th November, 2009 at 2:45 PM  

      douglas, Marian:

      I'm somewhat insulted by the implication that I am Mr Hundal… negga weren't on the streets slingin' wit' me when times was tough- he weren't there when Holy Smokes went legit.- he's not the voice of the “progressive generation”… I am ;)

      MWUAHAR HAAAR! :D

    88. A Councillor Writes — on 14th November, 2009 at 3:43 PM  

      Coo - Achronia, excellent.

      You'll have to excuse me, boyo, but the four points made above are all a bit dodgy from the evidence base we have.

      1. The Brits had a very good A-bomb project in the shape of “Tube Alloys” which was stopped in 1943 and was a fair bit behind the US but was vastly cheaper and doing some very high quality work on plutonium and separation. The problem with the Uranverein was that it wasn't highly regarded, Physics was regarded as “Jewish Science”, Germany's programme fell far short and had materiel problems. Maybe a bomb by 1950 for the Germans, if they were lucky, possibly around the same time for the Brits. Problem is, the Brits have a delivery system - the Lincoln. The Germans don't, OK, they probably have the A9/A10 or the A4b[0] by 1946 but they haven't got the carry capacity for a first generation nuclear warhead..

      2. US support to the UK was actually fairly decent once Lend-Lease got going, the problem was some of the material wasn't much cop. However, there was nowt for free out of that and it would have continued war or no war. It might not have survived a Democrat loss in 1944.

      3. 1943 was the key turning point of the Battle of the Atlantic, mainly because the Liberator enabled the UK/US to close the Mid-Atlantic gap. However, you can't just say “oh, stuff that would have gone on Barbarossa could have gone on U-Boats”, there's a lead time and a capacity for those beasties. There is, of course, an interesting point about what might have happened when the Type XXI reached mass production in 1945.

      4. Germany was never going to “beat” Russia in Barbarossa in the same way that Operation Sealion would never work. The only way it could have worked would have been by failure of Soviet Political Will and that wasn't going to happen with Uncle Joe in charge. The Germans were at the end of their logistics in 1941 and 1942 - further advance would have been nearly impossible. The massive industry of the Urals and the oil of Baku were too far away. The Japanese, having had their butts spanked at Khalkin Gol by Zhukov in 1939 were not going to attack.

      5. There's a famous cartoon by David Low with Hitler and Stalin walking together arm in arm along the new Soviet-German border with the caption - “someone is taking someone for a walk”. There is a thesis that Stalin was planning to attack Germany at some point in 1942-3. That could have been interesting with the whole Soviet Tank Corps with T34's and the Germans still with Panzer III and IV's.

      No, I didn't write an undergraduate dissertation on the Nazi economy, honest.

    89. douglas clark — on 14th November, 2009 at 3:43 PM  

      Boyo,

      Why didn't the Japanese invade? I'd suspect it was because they were commited to a war against America, but I could be wrong….

      I'd have thought the turning point in WW2 was the attack on Pearl Harbour and it's consequences……

    90. Boyo — on 14th November, 2009 at 11:22 PM  

      Well i disagree with a councillor (not necessarily the evidence but the insight - this is the problem with what-ifs: huge discursive mountains are built out of evidential molehills. Yes, there was tube alloys for example, but the thought that the UK which could barely arm its troops could afford to develop an a-bomb before the Nazis is wishful thinking. Ditto the Barbarossa argument - I was arguing against the proposition that the war was lost before the invasion, which is plainly balderdash). In any case, I'm sliding down that slope and have, you know, life things to do!

    91. A Councillor Writes — on 15th November, 2009 at 12:59 AM  

      Douglas three reasons

      1. Most of the treasure trove that is modern East Siberia and Primorsky Krai, just wasn't known about by either side in the 1930's. The “Northern Resource Area” just wasn't as lucrative as the “Southern Resource Area” was for the Japanese.

      2. It's huge and Japan had a manpower shortage for garrisons etc. There were areas of China nominally under Japanese control but really just the towns and the patrolled railway lines.

      3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol - 3:1 casualties against the Russians who if anything had two more years of tank development. Japanese tanks weren't very good.

      June 22, 1941 was one of the key turning points of the war and Pearl Harbour was another - although the German declaration of war on the USA was after Pearl Harbour. But imagine D-Day with say, 100 more German divisions and a big chunk of the Luftwaffe on the West Wall if there's no Barbarossa. Germany still goes down, probably in 1946 after a number of nuclear strikes.

      Boyo - the German economy was in a worse state that the British one, they were effectively in a form of autarky (like what the BNP propose, quelle surprise) with competing corporate/political interests. Get rid of Grofaz and get Speer running the economy and you'll get a bomb a lot quicker, but the delivery system still won't be there. They also have poorer scientists, not brilliant supplies of Uranium and a heavy water problem. Britain has Canada :-) The Japanese were further forward than the Germans.

      As for Barbarossa, if OKW had known how many divisions the Russians actually had, they'd have never allowed an invasion.Sheesh, can you imagine a winter time Battle for Moscow - it would make Stalingrad look like childs play.

    92. douglas clark — on 15th November, 2009 at 3:37 AM  

      Fascinating discussion. I can see the point about a lack of manpower, that is a very good call indeed. I can also see the point that claiming barren territory is not exactly what you'd want to do.

      And, without cheating, y'know looking up Google, I have to admit that I couldn't name a Japanese tank. Whereas Panzers and Shermans come to mind without difficulty…

      You are right to say that the German declaration of war on the USA was after Pearl Harbour, but we are only talking about a month here, December 1941 -v- January 1942.

      Dunno if the invasion of the UK would have been successful or not. The exposure of the German forces on the English Channel would have caused, I think, serious attrition. Still, I suppose you could toss a coin in the air when it comes to this sort of speculation.

    93. Tom — on 15th November, 2009 at 3:17 PM  

      I think you'll find a minimum wage was introduced in Britain (Wages Councils) in 1909 by Winston Churchill.

    94. keith — on 15th November, 2009 at 5:02 PM  

      This is very revealing.

      http://www.wanttoknow.info/warisaracket

    95. Shahzad Alikhan — on 17th November, 2009 at 12:14 AM  

      I dunno how many it's killed, but its embodiment in the ethnic make up of NHS staff has certainly saved a few.

    96. douglas clark — on 17th November, 2009 at 12:32 AM  

      Shahzad Alikhan,

      Point.

    97. Abdul Abulbul Emir — on 18th November, 2009 at 5:19 AM  

      Boyo - the German economy was in a worse state that the British one, they were effectively in a form of autarky (like what the BNP propose, quelle surprise)

      Not so Councillor according to Mrs A.

      She is always reading Adam Smith and Lord Keynes and says:

      This stuff about the German economy being rubbish is a nonsense Abdul.

      Germany ended the war with very little debt. Not like us Brits, That dear Lord Keynes had to go begging to Uncle Sam for a hand out.

      Adolf knew how to fund a war you know. He also spared his people the humiliation of asking America for money. The Yanks were only too ready to give it to them anyway.

      makes you think doesn't it Abdul.

      Peace be upon the followers of Adolf. Smart cookies.

    98. marvin — on 19th November, 2009 at 8:57 AM  

      If your definition of multiculturalism is parallel cultures living side by side, totally separate from one another, then I guess you could say a victim of this failure of integration with mainstream society and it's values would be this poor woman who seems to have her hand hacked off and possibly an attempt at her head too in East London.



    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.