Don Quixote Hap

That doyen of the hard left blogosphere who calls himself “The happy revolutionary” Has been chasing phantoms again. This time he seeks the ectoplasm at AWH, making John Ray as the phantom in his sights, and along the way he cant help but have a go at me as well, but as You will see what he offers us is somewhat less than he thinks it is.

Monday, 22 October 2007

The Gentrification of Racism

Fascism, via other means…

In the Western World, the 20th Century was a battle, above all else, against fascism. It is convenient for some revisionists to suggest it was a battle against socialism – such revisionists invariably confuse the policies of the USSR with those of socialism itself.

hap starts out with a basic error and he does not get much better as he goes along. The battle of the twentieth century was not against “fascism” which was part of the story but it was against totalitarianism of which Haps beloved socialism was as much to blame as the ideologies of the far fight in Germany, Italy and Japan.

Nonetheless, the ideology of the radical right persists in its attempts to
legitimise itself. To that end, the radical right, in Australia, at least, often
eschew the imagery and symbols of the Reich, whilst retaining similar
ideological underpinnings.

Here we see Hap working hard to prove that the collection of fluff under our beds is in fact a Nazi ready to restore the policy and glory of the Reich by stealth, but we have only Hap’s fetid imagination as evidence of his claims here.

Since the vast bulk of people are repulsed by any politics that extols racial and religious discrimination, violence toward minority groups, vulgar Darwinian social and economic policies, and imperialism, it is necessary for the radical right to smuggle their doctrines into the mainstream vie other means.

See It’s a conspiracy Folks jackboots hidden in the cupboards of everyone who might possible be any sort of social conservative.

These ‘other means’ are most frequently libertarianism and conservatism, of different sorts. Science, or at least a cartoonish version of it, is another vehicle for the radical right. Naturally, libertarianism, and even conservatism, are not explicitly and inherently racist. They do provide convenient shelter for would-be flag-wearing jackbooters.

Don’t you just love the damn them with faint praise methodology Hap uses here? What he is trying to imply is that any sort of conservatism IS inherently fachist and by implication racist.

Enter AWH blogger John Ray, he of paedophilic appearance, and with a penchant for pseudo-intellectual justifications for bigotry:

 

Now No matter what the nature of John Ray’s Politics he does not deserve the implication contained in Haps ad-Hominem (nor do I for that matter) But the inhabitants of planet Hap are not interested in honest debate are they? In any case if john Ray were as clearly evil as Hap claims he is then such schoolboy vilification would not be at all necessary.

Not to mention his witless followers, such as the increasingly embarrassing Iain Hall:

Would any responsible adult leave their children alone with either of these men?

I have made Hap my leftist whipping boy of choice of late so I find it hardly surprising that he resorts to vilification in the absence of any real counter argument when I criticise his political opinions . Sadly he is entirely consistent with the entire lack of honour that is inherent in his brand of Leftism.

Both bloggers recently wet their pants with excitement upon learning that Nobel Laureate, James Watson allegedly suggested that blacks were less intelligent than whites, primarily as a result of genes. The work that Watson and Crick undertook in relation to the structure of DNA was undeniably brilliant. Their forays into other areas, such as neuroscience, and eugenics, have been less successful. In any case, Ray and Hall appeared to see in Watson’s comments a ’scientific’ confirmation of their own long-held prejudices. Hall is non-committal (and characteristically irrelevant and illogical) in his conclusions; Ray is more circumspect, and simply cites an article verbatim, rather than offering comment.

I would not presume to speak for John but I found Watson’s comments interesting , he is after all one of the eminent thinkers of our age, Now Hap damns me for being non-committal, which as far as I understand discourse means that I am not necessarily endorsing what Watson was saying and John is circumspect because he likewise offers no specific endorsement, Yet the minion from planet Hap, like so manyof his fellow minions, wants to demonise us anyway. Talk about the weakest argument going.

An Aside on Intelligence
(I will offer a very brief aside on ‘intelligence’, as this concept is not the primary subject of my post. Simplistic nature versus nurture arguments are largely obselete, since these concepts are indiscrete. If we follow the theory of natural selection, ‘nature’ is itself determined by ‘nurture’. Nature in turn may influence the sorts of nurture that one receives. Intelligence testing is predicated on the hypostasised warblings of the psychometricians. It serves a practical purpose for individuals. For instance, a child struggling at school may benefit from IQ testing, in order to establish his or her relative strengths and weaknesses, and ‘learning style’. From IQ testing, we may learn that a child may benefit from greater ‘chunking’ of information, or may benefit from visual cues when presented with verbal stimuli. IQ testing is also a determinant in qualification for ‘disabled’ status. Other than these rather limited uses, I see little merit in IQ testing).

I really hope that some one can follow this very confused definition because as far as I can see it makes bugger all sense. Jangari took me to task on the arguments about the nature and measurement of intelligence within and across discrete populations and his explanations at least made sense Please go to this comment thread to see how an intelligent lefty argues his case.

Why Science, Libertarianism, Conservatism?
When raising the proposition that Hall and Ray have seized upon Watson’s comments as a result of their own racism, we can expect the same nonsense attempts at rebuttal. Namely, the ‘PC’ crowd have stifled freedom of speech, the ‘enlightenment’ tradition demands respect for all science (including, apparently, racist pseudo-science), and that these beliefs are consistent with conservatism and libertarianism.

This is a typical example of Haps rhetorical style, he makes an assertion(see bold above), that he does not in any way back up and then he goes on to argue as if his proposition is self evident and does not require any substantiation. Now as I have written a post on Watson’s comments and several long responses to Jangari my thoughts on this matter are on the record and in the absence of any actual smoking gun evidence Hap goes for the shoot the messenger when the message is not “evil” enough approach.

We need to distinguish carefully between Hall and Ray in this matter. Hall is a credulous fool, but, until stupidity and love of ignorance become a doctrine, he cannot truly be considered an ideologue. Ray, on the other hand, likes to peddle himself as a kind of libertarian. You know, those fun-loving guys who are anti-tax, and pro-guns? (Presumably their utopia is Alabama). Libertarianism, whatever we may think of it, provides some far more respectable positions than anything on the radical, proto-fascist right. Though I don’t agree with the libertarian perspective, it is not obviously racist in any way – see, for example, blogs such as Catallaxy, or Australia’s LDP.

Can this chap write anything about politics that does not almost entirely rely upon the Ad hominem argument? This paragraph is once again all assertion and absolutely no evidence to support those assertions whilst I tend to agree that there are some virtues in a libertarian stand point the point that Hap fails to prove is that the guys at AWH are not the libertarians that they claim to be.

We can see that something like libertarianism provides a veneer of legitimacy to cretins such as Ray, by means of which they can peddle their race-hate.

No we can’t see this at all, at least not from the evidence (for he thus far has offered NONE ) put forward by our friend Hap.

Let us look at some of the evidence by which we can situate Ray, AWH, and their imbecilic followers with the radical right, rather than with the libertarians or conservatives (much less scientists). It goes without saying that Ray is of the school of thought that deems Hitler to have been a ‘leftist’, and repeatedly has said that Marx was a ‘fascist’.

Having got this far without the use of any evidence, and relying almost solely on the insult and the ad hominem I don’t have much faith that Hap is going to provide any evidence to support his claims I love the last sentence in the paragraph above without one shred of evidence Hap claims that John Ray has a particular opinion of both Hitler and Marx. Now given the fact that John is a prolific blogger both within AWH and in his many blogs you think that hap could find some EVIDENCE for such an outrageous assertion? What does he have Nothing, Nada, Nowt. Sadly indicative of his whole argument though.

The Shame File – Fascist Tendencies Revealed
As I pointed out in a recent comments thread, there are several lines of argument that demonstrate the slithering proto-fascist inclinations of Ray and his clique of bedwetting poltroons at AWH:

1. AWH regularly calls for violence against Muslims and other minorities. This has been repeatedly pointed out by myself and other bloggers. This coincides with an increase in rightist, racist violence in Australia and the world. In Australia, asylum seekers are demonised, even whilst blacks are being bashed and murdered.

You know if this were actually the case you think that Hap would have no trouble pointing out specific examples but instead he refers to his own previously stated opinion and that of another far left blogger, Likewise the sad stories of the bashing and murder of two Sudanese men do not actually provide any evidence of AWH doing as he claims. I have seen commenters and authors at AWH advocate a brutal response to Islamic terrorism, but that is a specific response to specific individuals and specific events Not the general calls for violence that Hap claims is so evident at AWH.

Unlike his sycophantic acolytes, Ray himself is sufficiently careful not to openly call for violence against blacks and Muslims. This does not prevent him from trying to provide a ’scientific’ justification for such calls.

As I have said elsewhere I don’t read everything that John writes but I have never seen anything that can be construed as having any justification for any sort of violence.

2. AWH ideology is warmly embraced by white supremacists. On 10/10/2007, disturbed AWH blogger Keef (aka KG) posted, word-for-word, the introduction of a post from another blog. Rather astutely, KG himself did not offer any comment on the diatribe he cited, this latter being a defence of right-wing extremism as regards racial matters.

The link that Hap provides here is to a search result for “the gates of Vienna” references at AWH it goes to a page with thirteen posts containing seven thousand words It is therefore hardly surprising that I could not actually work out exactly which post he is referring to here. Were Hap a barrister this would be the equivalent to making the argument that the murderer is in the room here is the room so he must be guilty. In the absence of specifics we can dismiss this claim without a second thought.

Following the links, we come to the land of Norse myth, pornography, and Aryanism, by way of a nasty Scandinavian blog called the Gates of Vienna. Sure enough, we learn quickly enough why KG cited this post, given that it contains a turgid rant, replete with the following proto-fascist gems:

1. Numerous studies have demonstrated that people tend to prefer their own ethnic group above others. (Author cites one irrelevant study in support of this claim).

2. Guarding your identity is thus a universal human trait, not a white trait. In fact, it is less pronounced among whites today than among anybody else. (Hence the supposed need for a ‘white’ revival).

3. There are no Britons left in Pakistan, so why should there be Pakistanis in Britain?

4. There are not many Dutch people left in Indonesia, so why should the Dutch be rendered a minority in their major cities by Moroccans and others?

5. I suspect future historians will call this era the Age of White Masochism. (Probably not future Iraqi historians).

If you click on the link provided by Hap You get to an empty page so this is yet another example of Hap’s very poor scholarship and his very poor referencing skills. But lets look at his specific quotes (assuming they are real in the absence of any evidence) I have added the Numbers to the quotes above.

1. Human beings do tend to do this but this does not demonstrate evil as Hap suggests .An honest writer would not just deride a reference as Hap does here they would provide a copy of the link and then offer a reason why such studies are either pernicious or wrong. Sadly Hap is not an honest writer.

2. I am beginning top suspect that Hap is a supporter of that fallacious ideology of “whiteness studies” which argues that any person who is a white European is innately evil and that they must forever carry an un redeemable guilt for the wrongs of the past. On planet Hap this means that every other culture can have some pride in its heritage except those that could broadly be categorised as being” white”.

3. Due to the lack of an actual reference to the source of this quote it is impossible to discern the context of this quote and without context this is meaningless.

4. The Dutch are experiencing some rather nasty social problems at present due ,at least in part to their liberal immigration policies so this seems like a reasonable question to ask

5. One of the things that has become clear is that the notions of multiculturalism has not meant that ALL ethnicities have been celebrated and through a mixture of hostility from the MC advocates and timidity from English and western people we have seen nothing but derision for Anglo culture, Now when people are willing to speak up for its virtues Hap and his fellow minions cite that as “proto Fascism”.

 

In amongst the charming banter of the comments thread, and between calls for whites to reconnect with their ‘racial consciousness’, who should turn up, but former member of the Australia First Party, and current member of the Anglo-Australian National Community Council, Darrin Hodges, warmly expressing his agreement with the sentiment of the post.

Link! Where is the bloody Link! Once again Hap argues specific and fails to show his readers exactly what he is referring too. I find this tiresome in the extreme and the link he provides to Hodges (with whom I am entirely unfamiliar) goes to a far left blogger who has a bee in his bonnet about the chap in question. Has Hap never heard of a dispassionate source? Sheesh there is a pattern here and it is far from a pretty one.

In fairness, Hodges’ comments were more moderate than most of those found at AWH by the likes of KG or Tiberius. For a case in point, see the AWH defence of the Cronulla rioters, and deft avoidance of the fact that some of the said rioters distributed white supremacist literature. It is obvious that the AWH crew are the blood-brothers of Stormfront and the like, given that they share the same views on these matters.

Of course only a rabid fool like Hap would read the piece that he cites in the first link as a “defence” of the Cronulla riots. James Ozark sums up the reason that ideologues like Hap are so stupid when it comes to that very sad series of events. (from the first link above)

Of course, the Left is squealing, but the real problem, the ‘root cause’, lies with the Left’s tiny little collective mind: no one is capable of racism, unless they’re white.

James Ozark

But more to the point the comments thread that Hap links to does not by any stretch of the imagination show ANY support for the Neo nazi’s that Hap assures us is there , in fact it shows exactly the opposite, All of the AWH regulars , James, Keith MK and Tiberius are all openly contemptuous of both the whining left and the Neo Nazi’s. Haps final link is to Wikipedia page on the Cronulla riots anyone with any sense does not rate any piece in Wiki much higher than unreliable hearsay and any page that praises Jeremy Sear has to be very suss in my book.

 

Any fight between distinct social groups does not happen without provocation ,there are rituals of bluff and bluster that ensure most conflicts do not get beyond the verbal but the riots at Cronulla were not ,as Hap repeatedly suggests, just conjured out of the air at the behest of a tiny number of Neo Nazis they were a result of a “turf war” about who should have dominance over a contested public space. There was fault on both sides of the ledger, but you would never believe it from the way that Hap tells the story. His version sees it as the antipodean version of Krystal Nacht.

It is therefore clear that, despite AWH’s claims to the contrary, they are drawing water from the same ideological well as our friendly white nationalists, and have ventured far from anything that remotely resembles libertarianism or conservatism. I haven’t the time or inclination to trawl the white supremacist blogosphere, but I’d hardly be surprised if there weren’t more examples of good ‘Anglo-Australian’ nationalists cosying up to AWH.

What the Fuck? Hap has NO evidence, the actual writers at AWH deny supporting the far right white supremacists and yet they are STILL guilty. Aye curumba! Hap would be right at home running one of his beloved Stalin’s show trials with such amazing slight of hand arguments.

3. AWH blogger John Ray openly supports racism. He has written about it numerous times, far and wide across the blogosphere. In fact, the number of blogs that this guy has makes Iain Hall’s shameless efforts seem paltry in comparison.

Writing about something does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that an author “supports “it. I write about “global warming” on a regular basis by Haps logic this means that I support the notion of AGW.

It’s not surprising that the radical right should seek to defend racism, and racialising theories. This fits neatly with their pre-existing prejudices, and provides them with good reasons to oppose any kind of progressive social policy.

But Hap has not made some very necessary connections that would validate his claim above. Namely that AWH is as far towards the right as he claims, that it’s authors have the prejudices that he assumes they do, or that those prejudices are the reasons that they oppose the (so called) progressive social policies.

 

Where do we begin with the racial theories of Ray and AWH? We could start with this AWH post by Ray, where he praises the use of racial categories. Nobody denies that racial categories exist within a given language. We might, however, debate the uses to which they are put. Ray helpfully points out some ways in which generalising on the basis of racial categories may prove useful:

And the generalization: “blacks are very crime-prone so it is safest tokeep away from them” is also a matter of fact and can be useful. And “white flight” shows that most Americans act on exactly that generalization.

‘Fact’, eh? Ray gives his point further clarification here – ‘once we have got to know an individual black person and found him peacable, it would be foolish to continue with avoidance behaviour towards him’. So if I’ve read this correctly, Ray is saying that whiteys should, as a general rule, avoid those awful ‘crime-prone’ blacks, as long as we make room for the exceptions, namely, any individual black person who Ray assesses as ‘peacable’. Noice.

Hap, Context , context!, context! You have not read the piece correctly at all Have a look at Johns paragraph subsequent to the one you quote.

And even Leftists understand that you need to use categories to express yourself. To take just one of zillions of possible examples, the “anti-Fascist” demonstrators against the “BNP ballerina” in London chanted: “We are Muslim, black and Jew, there are many more of us than you”. So categories like “blacks” and “Jews” are fine!

Hap, John’s piece was not about race in particular it was about taxonomy an the way that you minions of the left are happy to use categorisation (taxonomy) when it suits you but cite doing so by anyone on the right as a vicious evil way of thinking.

Pseudo-scholar John Ray is, like his fascist forebears, clearly obsessed with theories of race, having published mild racial theories in some social science journals. One wonders what the editorial board of these journals were thinking.

John is as far as I understand it a retired sociologist and I gather that he has been rather prolifically writing and publishing for all of his academic life so it is hardly surprising that he should write on such topics but as I said before if you write about racism that does not mean that you are advocating for it. Hap must be too ideologically blinkered, or too stupid to appreciate that necessary distinction.

More revealing are Ray’s many crap and hilariously unpublishable articles, most of which consist of an attempted debunking of Frankfurt theorist Adorno (by way of a woeful misreading), coupled with various defences of racism, such as the notion that racism is ‘normal’, and has nothing to do with either authoritarianism or individual neurosis. And down the slippery slide we go…

John is not saying what Hap claims. The paper that he links to in fact argues that that ethnocentrism (racism) is not the result of any disease process nor is it the exclusive province of any particular political persuasion and like any good scholarly paper John actually provides extensive evidence for his conclusions. In no way does John even suggest that racism is in any way a good thing as Hap seeks to imply here.

We might also take note of a 1979 article by Herr Doktor Ray, purporting to demonstrate that South Africa, in the throes of Apartheid, did not display any evidence of white racism. Obviously, there were plenty of non-consciously racist South Africans, but equally obviously, this was hardly universal. According to Ray, however, white South Africans were no more racist than any other white person. He sums up nicely:

In fact because the South African system keeps blacks “in their place”.South Africans might feel more free to be generous in their sentiments towards blacks than members of many English communities would.

We have here a wonderful strategy for combating white racism – just keep the non-whites ‘in their place’.

Like any good reader I have just gone to the paper that Hap cites and ,surprise, surprise it does not do what t Hap claims it does. It sought to consider the attitudes of whites, to blacks in apartied South Africa and the pertinent results are in this table. Sadly for Hap It shows that even under the apartied the majority of whites did not demonstrate the sort of racism that he imagined

The distribution of responses is given below beside each question:

……………………………………………………………………………………………………Yes.?.No

1. Blacks deserve better than they get under the present Apartheid policy…..47 22 31
2. The blacks should be kept as separate as possible from other races……….22.13 65
3. The granting of wide educational opportunities to the blacks would be a dangerous thing…………………………………………………………………………………………………….9..7..84
4. Many blacks would probably be just as good at doing clerical work as white people are……………………………………………………………………………………………………..90..4….6
5. Blacks generally don’t show much inclination to work…………………………… 39 27 34
6. Blacks have been unfairly discriminated against………………………………….36 24 40
7. Blacks are not very hygiene-conscious………………………………………………..55 28 17
8. Drunkenness is one of the greatest problems with blacks……………………..48 20 32
9. Blacks often get into fights with one-another………………………………………..74 17.. 9
10. Given the chance, the black will work as hard as the white man…………….72 11 17
11. It is only because they haven’t had the same chance to get an education that blacks can’t get work………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 37 14 49
12. Blacks are a kind and gentle people………………………………………………….28 35 37
13. The blacks are a rather ugly race……………………………………………………..16 16 68
14. We could learn a lot from the way blacks share with one another everything they’ve got……………………………………………………………………………………………………….59 18 23

We see then some rather surprising things in the distribution of answers given: Everybody knows that the meaning of the Afrikaans word apartheid is “apartness” or “separate development”, yet 65% of our South Africans disagreed with the proposition that the blacks should be kept separate. Only 22% agreed. The “Noes” outnumbered the “Yeses” 3 to 1! Since half of all South Africa’s blacks live in “white” areas anyhow (5), this result would, however, only be surprising to a non-South-African.
John Ray

So instead of being a paper that supports the apartied regime as Hap would have you believe John’s paper is a legitimate academic piece that looks at the attitudes of white South Africans to their black countrymen during the apartied regime.

 

By all means, however, don’t believe my view that Ray is a proto-fascist, who has dedicated his wretched life to peddling race-hate. In an article by Tim Wise, we learn that Ray has lavished:

praise for the “very scholarly” book on IQ by Christopher Brand, an admirer of eugenics (policies to promote selective breeding of “superior people”), and an adherent to the belief that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites.

Again, noice. Wise provides another instructive passage on Ray:

In a more recent essay by Ray, on the opening page of David’s site for October 8th, the author concludes that racism is not always bad, and is a rather natural human instinct, suggesting, “Feelings of racial, national or group superiority are natural, normal and healthy and can as easily lead to benevolent outcomes as evil ones.”

Where exactky is the reference from I read the link and found not mention of John Ray at all , rather Hap links to some left wing piece that does not contain the quotes that Hap cites above. Hey Ho it’s that same patern of sloppy writing aserting ity’s self once again.

Wise is not the first to have noted the proto-fascist tendencies of AWH’s Herr Professor. Ray is the subject of a chapter on academic racism. I’d like to take the liberty of quoting some passages at length, just to make the nature of Ray’s ideology entirely clear:

{…}

I will concede, from the outset, that I am intellectually merely a throwback to old-fashioned high theory and strident leftist. Perhaps a more enlightened soul can advise precisely how Ray’s doctrines exemplify conservatism, libertarianism, or the Enlightenment project.

Clearly, in amongst these turgid attempts to produce biological theories of race, with a good deal of pseudo-psychological quackery, we are dealing with nothing other than an embittered, thorough-going racist, flailing desperately in an attempt to justify his bigotry. The evidence is irrefutable

As I have said in the thread relating to the claims By Watson I just don’t know if there is a difference between the “races” when it comes to intelligence but there is no doubt that some research based on IQ tests does show anomalies that at the very least do not support contentions that there is no difference at all. John’s sin, in the eyes of Friend Hap is to take an interest in this area of sociology. But I see no evidence at all that John is arguing that any difference between groups of people means that there is a clear hierarchy of virtue as a result of said differences. Without this vital element Haps critique does not attain any credibility beyond that of a short trousered schoolboy shouting insults in the schoolyard.

.4. John Ray has lent his support to another noted bigot, disgraced Australian academic Andrew Fraser. Fraser taught at Macquarie University prior to being dismissed for peddling very similar racial theories to Ray, and has a long history of involvement in Australia’s fledgling white nationalist groups. Fraser came to prominence after pursuing the argument that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites. He subsequently found it difficult to receive airtime in academia.

As you’d expect, John Ray claims to be in favour of free speech (except at his blogs, of course), especially where that speech concerns racial bigotry. Ray is also not averse to ignoring the appalling scholarship of his fellow-travellers. One presumes it was in that spirit of community-mindedness that Ray decided to lend his support to Fraser, to the extent of making the latter’s vile defence of the White Australia policy available.

Now Hap complaining about “appalling scholarship’ should by this point in his essay have all readers rolling in the aisles clutching their sides with uncontrollable laughter. Hap, the champion of the very vague reference, is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black here. However having read Andrew Frazer’s paper (while doubting that Hap got much further than the title ) I can see that Frazer is puting a more Nuanced case than Hap would have you believe, a case that is not predicated upon genetics but the sort of culture that we have and what it could become under the sort of “throw the doors wide open” immigration policies advocated by Friend Hap and his Ilk I don’t necessarily agree with Frazer’s analysis but it is by NO stretch of the imagination a “vile defence” of the white Australia policy.

Ray says that his decision to publish Fraser’s work was made because of his libertarian leanings. Nonetheless, as we’ve seen, Ray’s preoccupations appear to revolve around race more than anti-statist censorship. Furthermore, he charmingly defends the article and distinguishes his own views from Fraser’s, saying – ‘I am not at all bothered by Australia’s intake of Asians, for instance.’

Those who support any notion of libertarian values must be prepared to accept that this means that one has to accept that some views that will be put will not nice, for Haps suggestions that John has an excessive focus on these matters must incumber Hap with the obligation to demonstrate that writing on such topics actually dominates Ray’s writing and web publishing. Knowing how prolific John has been in terms of his blogging I some how doubt that the evidence could be found to back up Hap’s assertion here but more importantly Hap has, true to form, not even tried to back up this claim.

In sum, the phenomenon we have before us is an attempt to smuggle in a range of fascist belief systems under the aegis of more respectable right-wing views. Given the tendency of ideologues on the right to demand condemnation from of ‘extremists’ by ‘moderates’, the comrades and I will wait with baited breath for the genuine conservatives and libertarians to see Ray’s racist drivel for what it is, and denounce it swiftly and sharply.

By this point I think I should reiterate Hap’s very poor record as thus far, he has not made his case at all, through consistent quoting out of context, the repeated use of the ad hominem argument, consistently bad use of his hyperlinks and references, we have a very confused and entirely unsubstantiated argument.

 Please understand dear reader that I am not offering any kind of blanket support for John’s opinions, really it is up to him to defend his positions, but I have been caught up and named as a co-conspirator by Friend Hap so I have made the considerable effort to look at Hap’s argument point by point and he fails in the most fundamental ways to make his case.

That which he claims as “proofs”, are nothing of the sort, and yet like some modern Don Quixote Hap is absolutely certain that he has vanquished a vile Giant when in fact all that he has been doing is tilting at windmills from the back of his Rostanate .
Cheers comrades
 And thanks for your perseverance in reading this very long post.