Saturday, February 12, 2011

A babe in the woods

Katie Piper is the Englishwoman who, as a beautiful 26-year-old, embarked on a relationship with a thuggish looking man named Daniel Lynch. When Lynch became possessive and angry, Katie Piper tried to break off the relationship. Lynch responded by raping her and then arranged for an accomplice to throw acid in her face, disfiguring her.

Why revisit this story? Katie Piper has now explained in more detail what happened in the relationship with Lynch. And I was struck by this brief description of her childhood:

Born in Hampshire in 1983, I had an idyllic childhood. My father David owned a barber shop and my mother Diane was a teacher.They doted on my brother Paul, sister Suzy, and me.

As a youngster I was independent and fearless. I never suspected there was any badness in the world. 'You can be anything you want to be,' Dad used to tell me.

There is a clash between the traditional and the modern here. Girls are not naturally independent and fearless. Traditionally they grew up in the protective warmth of the family. Katie Piper had a traditional childhood in this sense and seems to appreciate it.

But she was also raised with very modern expectations. Her father drummed into her that she could be anything she wanted to be, in other words, that the highest good to aim at was that of maximum autonomy.

If you aren't by nature independent and fearless, but need to become so to be fully autonomous, then you might well make a big deal about these qualities. You might see them as signature qualities that you identify with and cultivate.

And if you believe that anything is possible, that you can do anything or be anything you like, then you won't recognise the realities of fallen human nature which do restrict us, including the vices (the vicious behaviour) of others which bring danger to ourselves.

In brief, Katie Piper had been protected as a girl by her secure family life; she made a great deal of being independent and fearless; and she saw the world as perfectly open and unlimited and without the restricting presence of evil or malevolence.

Which left her like a babe in the woods. How could she learn prudence, a "caution or circumspection as to danger or risk," when she saw herself as a fearless woman in a world without evil?

There are Western women being left vulnerable by this lack of prudence. Another Englishwoman, Katie Cullen, lost her life in very similar circumstances to that of Katie Piper. Her mother told reporters that  "She saw only goodness in everyone."

This naivety exists despite the fact that feminists bang on about all men being rapists and/or abusers. The feminist campaigns don't help women much, because they are based on the idea that men as a class use violence against women to uphold a privileged status. Therefore, the idea is pushed that all men are equally likely to attack women. The feminist ads often show middle-class white men as the perpetrators.

So there is little guidance to women in these feminist campaigns about how to evaluate the risk of a particular situation or relationship. And sometimes feminists go further in hindering a sense of prudence in women, by fiercely objecting to any discussion of the issue on the basis that it represents "blaming the victim".  Feminists want to focus on "changing men," in the belief that the cause of violence is a political one so that it's possible to eliminate violence against women through political reform.

I suppose, for the time being, it's up to fathers to try to cultivate the quality of prudence in their daughters (without going so far as to scare them from relationships with men).

175 comments:

  1. Last night I was out in Hornsby, Sydney and there was a large amount of young white girls out in equal numbers were large amounts of ethnic men of all backgrounds. They seemed to flock to these young girls many of them underage like moths to a flame.
    At one point in a scene that has honestly disturbed me I witnessed a young blonde girl that looked twelve as far as I could tell walking off with an African "gangsta" type man that looked in his thirties, giving me a sickening smirk as he walked off.
    The girl herself looked like she was on something as she was acting overly sexual and somesort of delerious drowsiness. This whole scene took place outside a supermarket with families nearby.

    Something was not right about this scene I discussed it with friends who also witnessed it and there was the possibility she was older and dressing younger and/or a prositute. My instinct was that she was most probably underage.

    I really don't want to live in a nation that is reduced to a seedy open air brothel for foreign men.

    (apologies for grammar)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really don't want to live in a nation that is reduced to a seedy open air brothel for foreign men.

    Anon, nor do I. Your response is perfectly normal. What I'd ask you to do is to help to patiently build up a counterculture, so that some time down the track we're in a position to establish healthier community norms for ourself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's obvious that what disturbed you the most was the foreign man, not the fact that an underage girl would be without adult supervision.

    "They seemed to flock to these young girls many of them underage like moths to a flame.">>>sex-starved beast foreigners.

    "African "gangsta"">>>you mean black, right.

    "giving me a sickening smirk as he walked off.">>>I'm taking yo whyte gurl kind of fantasies that some people have.

    "I really don't want to live in a nation that is reduced to a seedy open air brothel for foreign men.">>>For australian men only then ?If not, then the last part is unnecessary.

    I understand that a scene like that is far from pleasing, but forgetting the responsibility that parents have (just as pointed in the article) is what pushes people to only treat the symptoms.

    If you just concentrate on foreigners, you miss the fact that the problem is not in the act, but in the very existence of the opportunity for anyone to do that.
    Girls will always be attracted to bad boys of all backgrounds, only societies that rest on homogeneous values and standards can limit that kind of behaviour.

    Most politicians only have power in mind, values are not needed to achieve a position of power, so don't be surprised that we wouldn't see values at the lower levels.

    Letting politicians off the hook+letting the mainstream media off the hook+letting parents off the hook+letting women and girls off the hook
    =
    The situation you witnessed.

    PS:Your descriptions remind me of feminists describing men in general.Women (sometimes replaced by girls) as victims, men as evil.But in that case, white girls as innocent, foreign men as guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm often amazed how intelligent women will throw their natural caution and common sense out of the window in order to become "free" agents.

    Feminist propaganda is what teaches them they can be "whatever they want to be" and, at the same time, it seems to have robbed them of their critical judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi thanks for replying Mark Its refreshing to not have a knee jerk reaction to my post such as the one from Punintended.
    The real issue that disgusted me was the fact that the man was middle aged. With noticable age lines on his face and the girl was most certaintly 12 or dressing in a manner to appear underage.
    What I witnessed was a pedophile. Kind of puzzled why Pun overlooks this. This wasn't a "bad boy" at all. This was a bad man.

    Or maybe why the situation irked me was because the girl reminded me of a younger version of my own girlfriend who I literally rescued from an foreign con who was threatening her with blackmail for sex. He falsely claimed to be Australian (he didnt even live in the country) He used a false name and lied about being in love with my girlfriend at the time. My girlfriend trusted him despite my warnings that he was a con. Until the day he got impatient with her and dropped the mask confessing he wasnt even in our country and everything was a lie(over the internet which he then threatened her with blackmail if she didn't go along with his sexual requests). To this day I have no idea of his ethnic identity but Im guessing he might of been pakistani.


    (again apologies for the grammar but no apologies for speaking the truth to those who cant stomach it)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous (12 February 4:20 p.m.): I have had the same feeling on several occasions. Apparently, they are going to hold a "party" on the lawn just in front of my house tonight (I live in a student residence). Sodom and Gomorrah on my doorstep, they will probably bring along all their Idols: Alcohol, Fornication, Vulgarity, all gathered around the King of Kings, the Ultimate False God of today's generation; Hedonism. I have also noticed the same phenomenon: Arabs and blacks flocking to white girls (often underage, they say the first sexual intercourse occurs at 17 on average, which is probably grossly misestimated).

    What I'd ask you to do is to help to patiently build up a counterculture, so that some time down the track we're in a position to establish healthier community norms for ourself.

    I agree, Mark, but do you not worry that there might be little, if anything, to salvage from this collective wreck by then, when society is nothing more than flotsam and jetsam? These girls/women are lost for good. I am twenty, and I am a conservative and a Christian; and I would not marry any of these girls, having seen how they utterly lack restraint and wisdom, even though they should change their minds. Someone who shows such casualness and carelessness with their own bodies should not be trusted to build a family (let alone be good mothers) or to engage into a stable, loving relationship (marriage). What they do is not love, it is the anarchic impulse and lust. May God forgive them.

    Girls will always be attracted to bad boys of all backgrounds, only societies that rest on homogeneous values and standards can limit that kind of behaviour.

    Homogeneous values and standards are largely derived from a homogeneous nation...

    white girls as innocent, foreign men as guilty.

    I tend to agree with you they are far from innocent. However, does it mean they are guilty entirely? Men, whether they be foreigners or natives, who fornicate with underage girls (or, simply, out of wedlock) have no moral fibre whatsoever either. Paedophiles should have only two intimate acquaintances: the gallows and the noose.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Also, Mark, thank you for this blog; it is an island, a stronghold of sanity in an ocean of depravity and folly.

    ReplyDelete
  8. do you not worry that there might be little, if anything, to salvage from this collective wreck by then?

    Sure. But we have to hold our nerve on this. It's not all as bad as the Hornsby situation. Where I live there are still lots of respectable families raising another generation of children. Whilst there is still another rising generation it remains worthwhile building up opposition to what is happening.

    Exactly how much a salvage operation can rescue is difficult to predict right now.

    My own attitude is to see what progress can be made over the next five years or so.

    Also, Mark, thank you for this blog

    I appreciate the comment. And thank you for your regular contribution.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So Mark, how do you propose to teach your daughter not to date thugs and foreign "gangstas"?

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous,

    Well I talked to my sister about this. I simply said that behind the exotic difference and strong inital deferrence shown towards her after the relationship became more solid she'd be treated like crap. I think that there's plenty of evidence to support that.

    Punintended,

    Many people in Thailand don't like their country being treated like a brothel. If you're a foreigner you'll likely have weaker ties to the country and therefore feel less of a responsibility to check your behavior.

    Mark,

    Its not a leftist notion to see man as fallen. The idea is that human behaviors are caused by social settings. So if you're nice to someone, ie change the social setting (being suitably aware of the power and economic situations), everyone will be wonderful. Also the liberal notion is to put man and his desires at the absolute centre of the universe. If man is not good then that really undermines the validity of that position. So if I'm good and wonderful others have to be that way also.

    There could also be a bit of white guilt going on in the situation with Katie too. I read a review of a novel in which a one armed black man, after losing his arm in an attack by a white man, took revenge by raping his black friends white wife. The woman realizing what was going on submitted in a bizarre sense of political sympathy for the man. All very foolish to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The feminist ads often show middle-class white men as the perpetrators.

    Umm... plenty of women get attacked by middle-class white men. My best friend was stalked by such a man, and an acquaintance in high school was raped and her mother shot by such a man. I don't get your point with that. Would it all have been okay if the guy had been "middle class white", or are you saying that "middle class white" guys are somehow safer? Maybe they are, I don't really know.

    At any rate, I agree that modern women are generally naive about the risks to their safety. I didn't really understand that for a long time, either.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Punintended wrote,

    "I'm taking yo whyte gurl kind of fantasies that some people have"

    What do you mean by "fantasies"? According to Anonymous, taking an Australian girl was exactly what the African man was up to. That's not our "fantasy"; unfortunately, that's our reality.

    This is the Big Lie in action: just smear reality as a fantasy often and sarcastically enough and see how many people you can intimidate into silence or even belief.

    Not us.

    "I really don't want to live in a nation that is reduced to a seedy open air brothel for foreign men.">>>For australian men only then ?If not, then the last part is unnecessary.

    It's bad enough to see the neighborhood girls abused by neighborhood men.

    It's much worse to see the neighborhood girls abused by a pack of men you don't even know.

    Why? Well, here's one reason:

    Foreign men sleeping with our women is like another man sleeping with your wife. Hospitality toward guests does not extend to the bedroom. There are some things too intimate and too private to share. Sleeping with our women is definitely one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Okay, fair enough. My husband's said similar things before, too.

    I just think we shouldn't change the message from "chase black thugs" to "chase white thugs". Thugs of any color will hurt you, and should generally be avoided. The main problem, in this case (at least, as I see it), is that she was a thug-chaser. That much is evident from her autobiographical article, and the way she behaved with him.

    ReplyDelete
  15. My wife and I have discussed how we have it relatively easy having a son, but no daughter. We both think that raising a daughter well must be incredibly difficult these days. At least with a son we pretty well know what to do, even if we may fall short at times.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Alte:
    "are you saying that "middle class white" guys are somehow safer?"

    Yes, middle class white guys are safer, especially for white girls. And especially middle-class in the Australian-British sense; Americans would often call this "upper middle class". American 'middle class' often includes what we'd call upper working class, and their values may be different from our middle-class ones. Murder ballads like "Lights of LA County", "Gloria's Gone" or "Knoxville Girl" would be very alien to the English middle class.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm upper-middle class, as are most of my friends and family. That's a pretty safe bunch of men regardless of race, if they're from intact, upper-middle class families.

    But women like her avoid such men because they're so safe. Safe isn't sexy. Safe is ZZZZZZZZZ. Seems like she'd gotten bored of the classier thugs, and was moving on to the baser thugs for some additional excitement.

    I've always been too geeky for such guys.

    ReplyDelete
  18. No Alte it's not because the girl got bored it's because she has been trained by the media to see black men as better or at least equal. In fact, maybe several of her girlfriends were black, indian, or asian and she assumed that if the girls were her friends in highschool, why not date a male? I almost made that awful mistake in highschool. Later in life I realized that even my non-white girlfriends weren't my true friends.

    You basically labeled this white girl as a 'bad girl'. I don't entirely disagree, but I am aware that you are a black woman married to a white man and I realize that you want to defend your own.

    Let's face it Alte, you are the black Amy Chua. Amy Chua married a jewish man and is raising her children jewish. I wonder why...oh wait...cuz that's the 'in' to getting into the 'elite' in America.

    Your world and her world is about 'being part of the upper class', climbing the social ladder to the elite.

    You look at the lowerclasses of all races as one big pile of mush to be avoided. You look at the upperclasses of all races as one big mush to become a part of--whatever racial form that may take.

    I don't look at the world like that. I look at the white lower classes and I want to lift them up.
    They are my people and I love them. I want to protect their jobs, I want to have them watch tv shows that will inspire them to become better, I want to give their children the best education, I want them to be proud of their White Racial Heritage. (and if it wasn't for out of control immigration and my bitterness I'd feel that towards all races honestly)

    Besides, statistically white men of any background are safer. The ranking is asian, white, hispanic, then black.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Last Anon, that was very well stated.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous said,

    "Besides, statistically white men of any background are safer. The ranking is asian, white, hispanic, then black."

    That's totally true. You'd also slot middle easterners in somewhere at the bottom. You can't have it both ways, have a black culture, rap and other, which celebrates men as tough, violent and more masculine whilst white guys are geeks and soft cocks and then say "oh white guys are just as dangerous". Even Jesse Jackson has said that if he's in an alley at night, hears a noise and then sees a white face he takes a sigh of relief.

    I'm not an American or black person and haven't been traumatised by the "5 0" but higher rates of black crime violence is so well known a phenomenon that its pointless to deny.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I totally agree with the last Anonymous too. We have to do everything we can for white working class people and not abandon them to do our own thing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Of course you liked it, Van Wijk. She took what I said and rewrote it along with "Alte's not white, but I love white people." Completely ignoring the fact that I wasn't throwing stones at Katie, but was actually addressing what I (wrongly, apparently) assumed was the original topic, that young women nowadays are ignorant of the dangers inherent in their sexual behavior.

    I was pointing out her underlying motivation and her habits, and how that has increasingly desensitized her to the recklessness of her own behavior. Here are the clues that point to it: she's 26 and has had a succession of boyfriends that she describes in unsavory terms ("sleazy types who wanted a trophy girlfriend": the alpha carousel), she hooks up with a tough-guy from Facebook and is sleeping with him within a couple of weeks, her friends don't notice anything unusual about this guy at the start (probably not the first non-white man she's been with) or the speed with which the relationship progresses, etc.

    Besides, statistically white men of any background are safer. The ranking is asian, white, hispanic, then black.

    That's the over-all crime rate by race. I'd be interested in seeing statistics that show the breakdown by race and class.

    Or can we just drop the pretense and acknowledge that you don't really care? That even if black men (as a whole, regardless of class) were less dangerous than white men, it would still bother you that she'd slept with one? At least Bartholomew has the guts to say it out-right, which I can respect.

    If you were truly only concerned with her safety, then you would be promoting the idea that white women date Asian guys. Since they're so safe, and all. As you're not doing that, I'll draw my own conclusions.

    We have to do everything we can for white working class people and not abandon them to do our own thing.

    Although... nobody was saying that. It was a straw man argument, that consisted of misrepresenting my position and classifying me unjustly as a class-whore. Her rhetoric was designed to appeal to you guys, but her logic was weak. You bought into it, though. That says more about you than it does about me.

    I'm not interested in being the foil.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I can agree with the point regardless of whether it was directed at you or not. If white women date asian guys we'll probably have much less of a problem with it I'm sure. I don't want to have to be the butt of somebody's aggressive joke of how many white women they can sleep with. Black rhetoric is very strongly anti-white, asians don't do that, at least openly. Indians often do. Who cares really what they say about us in private. We can be against large scale asian immigration and still recognise that in many respects they make good citizens.

    On the point about class, that’s fine, but aggressive attitudes can still come out in middle class arenas, such as at the universities or in the political field. Arab middle class men are notoriously loud in their politics. We’re all well and truly tired of the chips on the shoulder. Nobody is saying that history was a cruise but we’re tired of the loud collective grievance.

    ReplyDelete
  24. See Katie Piper will be on the speaking tour now and her chief argument will be that she's a victim of "men". The big unmentionable will scarcely be referred to.

    ReplyDelete
  25. So Mark, how do you propose to teach your daughter not to date thugs and foreign "gangstas"?

    a) Try to stay married. The girls who get active at 13 are almost invariably from single mother families.

    b) Not be an absentee father. Think of all the feminists suffering absentee father syndrome, along the lines of Germaine Greer's "Daddy, we hardly knew you".

    c) Try to keep the relationship warm. If my daughter turns against me, she'll try to hurt me by acting in a self-destructive way against my values.

    d) Not assume that the school will instill the right kind of values. They mostly have to come from home.

    e) Not assume that popular culture will instill the right kind of values. In particular, computer usage has to be monitored.

    I'm going to specifically encourage my daughter to do classical dance and/or music as a counterweight. I'll try to pick out some classic novels when she's older (Austen?).

    f) Attend church and attempt to model the values instilled by the church at home.

    g) Make home life something that she would want to emulate.

    h) Trace the family ancestry and history with her. Visit places of significance to the family.

    i) When she is a bit older, bring the feminine virtues into conversation. Praise women who embody these virtues. Criticise women who waste the gifts of love and motherhood.

    j) When she is a bit older, make the family's Anglo identity an open and self-conscious one, a part of the "who we are".

    k) I'll probably get her to read some of essays I've written. I might put them in a little booklet and ask her for her opinion on them.

    I know there are no guarantees with any of this. Still I've met young women from close knit families who have married well. I think a father can make a difference.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks for the a-k Mark, useful for raising a boy, too! :)

    Alte:
    "If you were truly only concerned with her safety, then you would be promoting the idea that white women date Asian guys. Since they're so safe, and all. As you're not doing that, I'll draw my own conclusions."

    If I were east-Asian I would definitely advise east-Asian girls to be wary of lower class white men. I've read too many stories of white men abusing and even murdering their south-east-Asian mail order brides, for one thing.

    Conversely, white girls do sometimes get murdered by east-Asian men, but usually only when they do very risky stuff, like the blonde bar hostesses in Japan, or the hippy mother who left her 15 year old daughter alone in Thailand, the daughter was raped and murdered. Promiscious and risky behaviour by women and girls should be discouraged, whatever the race of the men.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Therefore, the idea is pushed that all men are equally likely to attack women. The feminist ads often show middle-class white men as the perpetrators.

    I think you've got this one wrong Mark. She is not a naive girl. She went looking for danger, it turned her on. Prior to getting the acid thrown into her face she was held captive, abused and raped by her lover. She declined to report the matter to the police She was determined to stay away from him till he sweet-talked her back; that's when he had an accomplice throw acid in her face.

    Just as some men think with their dicks some girls think with their vag-tingles. Price wasn't some feeble minded woman unaware of danger, its just that danger turned her on and she came too close to the tiger.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Social Pathologist is right. She didn't even break up with him because he was an aggressive thug, she broke up with him because he was acting needy and obsessive "stalkerish". And notice that she was planning on breaking up with him because he was acting like a nutcase, but she still went to a hotel with him to have sex. Oh, wait -- she wasn't planning to have sex with him there, they were just going to stay overnight so that she could make her next-day hair appointment. That girl had a whole herd of hyperactive hamsters.

    ReplyDelete
  29. BTW, just wanted to highlight this comment:

    Amy Chua married a jewish man and is raising her children jewish. I wonder why...oh wait...cuz that's the 'in' to getting into the 'elite' in America.

    The father decides how the children are to be raised, not the mother. The buck stops with him, and obviously a Jewish man wants his children to be Jewish. Wouldn't a Christian man want his children to be Christian?

    ReplyDelete
  30. You basically labeled this white girl as a 'bad girl'. I don't entirely disagree, but I am aware that you are a black woman married to a white man and I realize that you want to defend your own.

    Let's face it Alte, you are the black Amy Chua. Amy Chua married a jewish man and is raising her children jewish. I wonder why...oh wait...cuz that's the 'in' to getting into the 'elite' in America.

    Your world and her world is about 'being part of the upper class', climbing the social ladder to the elite.

    You look at the lowerclasses of all races as one big pile of mush to be avoided. You look at the upperclasses of all races as one big mush to become a part of--whatever racial form that may take.


    ITA Anonymous except for one difference. Amy Chua despite raising her kids Jewish does not seem to have an extreme religiousness like Alte does. Alte's extreme religiousness usually speaks to a woman who when she was in her late 20s or early 30s realizes shes about to lose her chance of getting into the upper classes (or upper middle class) because her looks and beginning to fade and history of slutting it up with thugs is a negative for such a goal. Such a woman around age 30 (plus or minus a few years) "suddenly" discovers or rediscovers religion and tries to fool a chump when it comes to her past.

    Anytime I have seen a woman with extreme religiousness like Alte, it's guaranteed that's her history. The end result is that she will divorce her husband for some frivolous reason between 40 and 45.

    Even the pastor at my church is starting to warn the men about this sort of thing. He's getting tired of performing marriages that divorce 10 years later when there's a house and kids. He studied the issue and discovered this pattern.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Except that I started dating my husband when I was 22 and married at 23. So... nice try, but no cigar.

    Glad to see that I'm so fascinating, though.

    ReplyDelete
  32. And... since everyone seems to have missed it: I was upper-middle class before I married, and my parents are upper-middle class.

    And I'm still pretty good-looking. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hm, I was looking for the article about uncautious girls liking "gangsta" types, and I bumped into this Alte-baiting article. Must have lost the thread, sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Alte, I'm going to be really honest with you in the hopes you understand this.

    You come across as if you're hiding something in your past. Your moralizing is far beyond what is necessary for your Catholic faith. That level of moralizing usually only happens when a person is compensating for something in their past that they're ashamed of. You seem very worried about men having premarital sex or masturbating but let female sexual sins (and marital/divorce sins) slide. You seem comfortable with the traditionalist idea that the only time women sin is when they are tricked into it by men.

    This all adds up to you're hiding something in your past. Are you really? I will assume not since I really have no reason to. But your behavior is strange if you don't have some deep dark secrets in your past with these types of sins.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi Mark i'm the first poster in this thread. Thought id just share that over the last 4 days ive been threatened twice by "black" individuals in the street. Seemingly for no reason other than i'm white.
    The first incident was before i witnessed the scene that disturbed me at hornsby westfield i didn't mention it.
    The second incident was just now in the morning. Both incidences involved the guy leering to a cm of my face and sneering at me as i walked past.
    Reasons like this is why i'm relocating to another country. I don't want a criminal record for defending myself.

    (apologies if im cluttering up your blog there just seems no where else to go)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Wow.

    I enjoy coming to this blog to read mature, thoughtful discussion, but the personal (and as far as I can see, unprovoked) attacks on Alte are in extremely poor taste. She(?) did nothing but express an alternative opinion, i.e. that the issue is not so much "foreign men" as it is "female naivety." I don't understand why that warrants a torrent of nastiness.

    ReplyDelete
  37. By the way, as a white woman I wouldn't say Asians are the safest to get with. Most Asian men a) hold the general view that all white women are whores and b) are still heavily influenced by Confucian ideals, which (to quote Wikipedia) state that "women have no dignity and less human rights than men." Domestic abuse is rampant and the women are expected to put up and shut up. Nice.

    ReplyDelete
  38. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356503/Leicester-police-probe-murder-suicide-couple-children-dead.html

    Young mother found dead with her two children 'had once been doused in petrol and beaten by monster partner'
    Aziz, who was described as an ‘abusive monster’, is said to have once poured petrol over Miss Small’s head and tried to set it alight.

    This seems relevent to the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Uni student said,

    "but the personal (and as far as I can see, unprovoked) attacks on Alte are in extremely poor taste. "

    I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous said,

    "Reasons like this is why i'm relocating to another country. I don't want a criminal record for defending myself."

    I've said before I'm in the army and I also have fairly good situational awareness. Because of this I think I can fight or talk my way out of most situations. This might be niave. Nonetheless I feel that this kind of preparation is now required before going out onto certain streets. This is a very unfortunate state of affairs. Because only strength is respected you have to be strong before you can set foot confidently on the streets of your own country.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "You come across as if you're hiding something in your past. Your moralizing is far beyond what is necessary for your Catholic faith. That level of moralizing usually only happens when a person is compensating for something in their past that they're ashamed of. You seem very worried about men having premarital sex or masturbating but let female sexual sins (and marital/divorce sins) slide. You seem comfortable with the traditionalist idea that the only time women sin is when they are tricked into it by men."

    You need to take the time to really read through her blog because this is so off the mark it is actually kind of humorous.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hi Jesse.
    I'm the anon you are commenting on.
    I really respect your army background and training (i have two army mates myself) but i just dont think in some street situations where you are outnumbered, ambushed and not equipped, its enough. I've had many more incidences like this happen in the past from islanders and such. Ive seen police officers surrounded and assaulted by a mob of "youths" and saw the genuine fear in their faces.
    My area trialed ex sas soldiers on the streets for a time to curb violence they seemed to have stopped that (you might be able to guess my location from that)
    basically i have had two incidents of actual "white" aussie thugs threatening me and both incidences i was able to quickly de-escalate the situation and indeed in one ended it with "a have a good one mate"
    With ethnic thuggery the difference is they hate you. They have a chip on their shoulder and you skin colour enrages them. They will fight anyone too even the law.
    The thing that bothers me the most is all these events happen in family areas so its surreal to me to have to ward off foreign thuggery and then see smiling naive looking families at the same time.
    What i feel like honestly is that i can't live and raise a family in this sort of environment. So i now desire to leave the country.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Of course you liked it, Van Wijk. She took what I said and rewrote it along with "Alte's not white, but I love white people." Completely ignoring the fact that I wasn't throwing stones at Katie, but was actually addressing what I (wrongly, apparently) assumed was the original topic, that young women nowadays are ignorant of the dangers inherent in their sexual behavior.

    Piper was assaulted and disfigured by a nonwhite man. If you'd followed the link that Mark provided, you'd have found that Katie Cullen was murdered by a nonwhite. The racial aspect of this phenomenon (and there is a phenomenon of white women being actively hunted by nonwhite men, regardless of the behavior of the former) is fairly obvious. You prefer not to see this aspect because of your own issues with race and with white racial consciousness, as established in our last discussion on the topic.

    I'd be interested in seeing statistics that show the breakdown by race and class.

    Of course you would. But you'd still find nonwhites at the top.

    At least Bartholomew has the guts to say it out-right, which I can respect.

    I recall linking to my own views on miscegenation at TTH during our last discussion. I've been a strident opponent of miscegenation for years; I believe it is destructive to the fabric of society in that those who engage in it think so little of their own people that they're willing to sunder their line from those people forever. Also, most people of mixed race live with identity issues their entire lives, and I believe there is an element of cruelty in producing children who will never be fully accepted by either half of their heritage. Since these children often come to despise the Caucasian side of their line, miscegenation is particularly destructive for the white race.

    So yes, if Piper's nonwhite were upper middle class and nonviolent, I would still have a problem.

    It's interesting that you would want to wade into this topic again, Alte, considering how it ended last time.

    ReplyDelete
  44. uni student wrote,

    "but the personal (and as far as I can see, unprovoked) attacks on Alte are in extremely poor taste. She(?) did nothing but express an alternative opinion, i.e. that the issue is not so much "foreign men" as it is "female naivety." I don't understand why that warrants a torrent of nastiness."

    I would like to see the discussion remain civil as well. It's one of the reasons I like reading this blog.

    I disagree that the discussion became uncivil after Alte's entrance. I think the first incivility was posted by "punintended", which was the third post of the thread. Re-read it, and I think you'll see what I mean.

    Race is frankly an unfamiliar topic for most of us. It's been taboo for so long that I think a lot of people have either forgotten how to discuss it civilly or (like myself) never learned in the first place.

    It's a metaphor I guess for a lot of life these days, and if things keep going in the liberal direction, there will be more topics that we just don't know how to talk about anymore with decency and goodness too. Topics like sex are already pretty much unmentionable if you don't want the conversation to head straight to the gutter.

    We're worse off for it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. For what it's worth, though: I agree with Alte's main point, and I think it was the primary point of Mr. Richardson's post too: women by nature are drawn to strength. Some women are drawn to men who display that strength by attacking other, weaker people. And sometimes, the women get hurt.

    Alte's right, of course, that there are men like that of every race. There are even men like that in every class. It's not like a powerful executive has never murdered his mistress, wife, etc.

    It's just that such men are much more common in certain races and classes than in others.

    If the UK didn't have so many nonwhite immigrants, it would be harder for women like Piper to find thugs.

    It's also true that if Katie Piper weren't chasing after thugs, her chances of getting raped by one would go down dramatically.

    Solution?
    1. End nonwhite immigration and
    2. Instill traditional Christian values in the next generation of women, including a wariness of angry, hateful men.

    ReplyDelete
  46. You come across as if you're hiding something in your past.

    Hey, anon, I've psychoanalyzed your blog comments. You are an unemployed Stasi interrogator, aren't you? C'mon, might as well admit it, we all know it.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "You come across as if you're hiding something in your past. Your moralizing is far beyond what is necessary for your Catholic faith. That level of moralizing usually only happens when a person is compensating for something in their past that they're ashamed of. You seem very worried about men having premarital sex or masturbating but let female sexual sins (and marital/divorce sins) slide. You seem comfortable with the traditionalist idea that the only time women sin is when they are tricked into it by men"

    This bloke's a joke, alright, paigeu..

    He obviously has not read Alte's blog..

    If he had, he would understand that she is a practicing Catholic who adheres to Catholic tenets..

    The shaming language was a hoot though.. lol..

    And for all those wondering about Alte's looks... I have seen pics of Alte.. She is gorgeous. Has the most beautiful green eyes..

    ReplyDelete
  48. "And for all those wondering about Alte's looks... I have seen pics of Alte.. She is gorgeous. Has the most beautiful green eyes.."

    who cares. Constant lip service to "black" people is irritating.

    (I googled the idiom lip service
    "to succeed The company pays lip service to the notion of racial equality but you look around you and all you see are white faces. "
    Multiculturalism is nauseating.)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Jesse 7:
    "I've said before I'm in the army and I also have fairly good situational awareness. Because of this I think I can fight or talk my way out of most situations."

    Unless you're in a unit that emphasises close quarters combat training (SAS, Commandos) I'm not sure army training helps all that much. Situational awareness is good, but I already had that before I joined the army. Bigger muscles are a benefit, and my less weedy appearance may well be some benefit when on the streets at night. The ability to strip an SA80 rifle in 30 seconds is of minimal benefit though. :)

    ReplyDelete
  50. Having said the above, I have been able to defend myself on the street against a pair of white teenagers, probably only 15 years old; one took a swing at me out of the blue 'happy slap' style and I blocked & parried without thinking; they were surprised and raced off. By contrast my wife and a female friend have both been hit by unprovoked 'happy slapper' youths when alone.

    And being in reasonably good shape probably helped me when I ran off a would-be burglar. So it's true that situational awareness & fitness can be beneficial in relatively common situations. I'm under no illusion about my ability to defend myself against serious attack by multiple or armed grown men, but I guess every little helps, and not looking like the weakest target on the street can be a life saver.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anon who is leaving the country,

    According to wiki, Australia is 90% white. Why do you have to leave the country? Why not find somewhere else to live within Australia?

    ReplyDelete
  52. The Social Pathologist wrote:

    I think you've got this one wrong Mark. She is not a naive girl. She went looking for danger, it turned her on.

    Your point has merit, SP. I think I should have framed this post a little differently. I do think that liberalism can encourage naivety: it emphasises the idea of being non-judgemental; open to the other; with evil existing only as failure to uphold such qualities.

    But I think you're right that the fundamental reason Katie Piper was with Lynch is that she was drawn sexually to the fact that he was a dangerous man.

    Which means that the problem is the one I identified in my first post on Katie Piper.

    Sexual liberation was intended to allow women to pursue relationships for sex alone, rather than for romantic love or marriage.

    But that means that there is no reason for women to select on the basis of men being loyal or compatible or intelligent.

    Some "sexually liberated" women will be drawn to dangerous, aggressive men - hence the trend we see in modern culture for young men to "thug up".

    ReplyDelete
  53. attacks on Alte are in extremely poor taste.

    Indeed, that is what I try to convey with my previous sarcastic comment, but Yankees usually do not get British humour! I am somewhat surprised some people seem to be hunting down Alte with methods I have only seen in dubious war films.

    Alte, we may not always agree, but we should always debate in a courteous, civil, Christian fashion. Not by throwings eggs at one another. Best regards, Alte.

    Most Asian men a) hold the general view that all white women are whores

    Well, I am a student as well, and from what I have hitherto seen, I assume the impression is not entirely false. If white women ceased to play the harlots, they would get more respect. How can you respect someone who is throwing away her body and acting as if she were bait to attract big fish? Of course, we should not generalise this, but it is true moral standards have fallen to such lows that such views are no longer surprising. Of course, I entirely agree Asian men are not the fluffy little bunnies some think they are. I greet you as a fellow student! Hopefully you will not rob me of my title here as the youngest commentator ;)

    I recall linking to my own views on miscegenation at TTH during our last discussion. I've been a strident opponent of miscegenation for years; I believe it is destructive to the fabric of society in that those who engage in it think so little of their own people that they're willing to sunder their line from those people forever. Also, most people of mixed race live with identity issues their entire lives, and I believe there is an element of cruelty in producing children who will never be fully accepted by either half of their heritage. Since these children often come to despise the Caucasian side of their line, miscegenation is particularly destructive for the white race.

    Although I believe Alte is being wrongly indicted here, I do agree with this point of view.

    Solution?
    1. End nonwhite immigration and
    2. Instill traditional Christian values in the next generation of women, including a wariness of angry, hateful men.


    The first one would be ridiculously easy to enforce if we had courageous politicians; ban non-Western immigration, scrap naturalisation, pull out of the EU, and confiscate firms who are employing illegal aliens, while expelling all foreign thugs (whatever their offence, after the Swiss fashion) and repatriation programmes for those here. The second solution will only happen in the longer run-as you pointed out-and will take much more time, because we are talking of changing an entire mindset and re-discovering what Christianity is all about: self-control, morality, discipline, restraint, and so on. However, yes, this is what we must do. The task is daunting.

    Some "sexually liberated" women will be drawn to dangerous, aggressive men - hence the trend we see in modern culture for young men to "thug up".

    I would rather remain single until my dying day.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Simon in London said,

    "The ability to strip an SA80 rifle in 30 seconds is of minimal benefit though. :)"

    Useful in the field though.

    Mark said,

    "Some "sexually liberated" women will be drawn to dangerous, aggressive men - hence the trend we see in modern culture for young men to "thug up"."

    If there are no standards then its sort of becomes the case where the pushiest will get the most. So we see physically aggressive behavior, sexually aggressive behavior and also aggressive behavior in business practices. This "there is nothing in the world that matters but strength" view is definitely part of the problem. The left for all their faults do try to impose some standards. The evolution and survival of the fittest types seem to its a virtue not to have any.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Alte you wrecked that bloke!

    Not bad for a girl... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  56. "" This "there is nothing in the world that matters but strength" view is definitely part of the problem.""

    Go talk to working class anglo celtic kids from suburbs like Northcote and you see that they have become much more aggressive than even I was as a kid [and I was a psychotic little brat].

    This is mainly a matter of survival, the AC kids had to become tougher to compete in the newly "enriched" suburbs.

    I have met some cold hard light eyed, light haired nutters aged 20 and under in the last six months.

    The good news is that they live their lives almost as if feminism and political correctness existed on some other planet.

    They don't go to uni, they barely go to school so they don't get brainwashed.

    Many of them have serious attitude problems with women but there seems to be much less hostility towards homosexual activity than I remember from a decade ago when I was on the same streets.

    Seems strange ,might try and write an anthropological-ish article on the experiences of the kids and their views compared to older [but still young-ish] men such as myself.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I hate to have to say it but can we not make this the Alte site? I don't think anyone should be rude to anyone but can we also not sideline this into endless personal discussions?

    ReplyDelete
  58. James its as if we're bringing the jungles to the cities. So much for civilisation it would seem.

    ReplyDelete
  59. The father decides how the children are to be raised, not the mother. The buck stops with him, and obviously a Jewish man wants his children to be Jewish. Wouldn't a Christian man want his children to be Christian?

    If the father wanted his children to be Jewish then he would have married a Jewish woman. A Jew is the child of a Jewish woman. A gentile can convert to the Jewish faith but cannot become a Jew and most Jews do not accept gentile onverts to the Jewish faith as ethnically Jewish.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "Sexual liberation was intended to allow women to pursue relationships for sex alone, rather than for romantic love or marriage.

    But that means that there is no reason for women to select on the basis of men being loyal or compatible or intelligent.

    Some "sexually liberated" women will be drawn to dangerous, aggressive men - hence the trend we see in modern culture for young men to "thug up"."

    Women have always been naive about men. In the past their fathers selected their prospective husbands and vetted them pretty thoroughly. Young people have always been strongly influenced by sexual attraction in the selection of partners.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I don't know, Jesse. There appears to be an untapped market for an Alte site. I thought having one blog would satisfy that, but apparently a second might be necessary, if Mark wants his readership to be able to concentrate on the subject at hand. Perhaps we could call it "The Audacity of Being Alte", and everyone could go there to vent, speculate, fantasize, and obsess over me. A sort of Alte release-valve for those so entirely overwhelmed by my presence.

    By the way, as a white woman I wouldn't say Asians are the safest to get with.

    Hmm... That might be true. I must admit that I have next-to-no experience with Asians, so any commentary regarding them is pure speculation on my part.

    Aziz, who was described as an ‘abusive monster’, is said to have once poured petrol over Miss Small’s head and tried to set it alight.

    Acid... petrol... these seem more like a Muslim-thing than a black-thing. I've never heard of a black man throwing acid in a woman's face before; they're more likely to beat her up Chris Brown-style. No sources mention David being Muslim, so I wonder where he even got the idea from. There are sources saying that, "Unknown to her, Lynch had previously been jailed for throwing boiling water into a man's face." It's such an odd thing to do.

    The racial aspect of this phenomenon (and there is a phenomenon of white women being actively hunted by nonwhite men, regardless of the behavior of the former) is fairly obvious.

    But I've never denied that such incidents happen. Racially-motivated violence is a reality. What I am disputing is whether it is the primary driver in this instance. This looks more like stalker-thug-craziness to me.

    It's just that such men are much more common in certain races and classes than in others.

    Agreed. Although we can debate the causes of the disparity ad nauseam, the disparity exists.

    According to wiki, Australia is 90% white. Why do you have to leave the country? Why not find somewhere else to live within Australia?

    I had the same thought. Moving away from Australia is rather pointless, if crime and ethnic-violence are your main concerns.

    Best regards, Alte.

    Same to you! And I get your humor.

    ReplyDelete
  62. It's interesting that you would want to wade into this topic again, Alte, considering how it ended last time.

    It is rather pointless, isn't it? As both sides are arguing primarily from faith.

    Although I believe Alte is being wrongly indicted here, I do agree with this point of view.

    Hmm... Well, obviously I don't agree, but I find the topic interesting nevertheless. The Catholic Church espouses the same teachings about religious intermarriage as you guys do about racial intermarriage. With the same reasons and the same complications. The main sticking point is one of degree: It's obviously wrong for a Catholic to marry a Muslim, but what about marrying a Protestant or a non-practicing Catholic?

    I suppose that's similar to the conundrum: What to do with the mixed-race people who are already here? Cull them from the population somehow? Who do we define as mixed-race, and how do we test for it? Who are they to marry, as any marriage they enter into will be a mixed-marriage, by very definition? Are we to simply resign ourselves to 50% or more of the minority population remaining unmarried, or less depending upon where we draw the racial lines? Are we then prepared for the resulting increase in social anarchy? Are some mixed-marriages better or worse than others? If we promote the idea of racial purity, do we forbid mixed-marriages that do not involve white people?

    Furthermore, does banning mixed-race marriages actually reduce the number of mixed-race couplings, or does it merely increase the illegitimacy rate? Is the solution to separate the whites from non-whites in separate countries? Would this have the unintended consequence of weakening whites due to the fact their populations are declining too quickly for them to maintain a viable state, even if their fertility increased dramatically? Would they simply end up being overrun by their neighbors within a generation? One could say that our current state is precisely the result of such a phenomenon: white people separated themselves into their own states, failed to reproduce in sufficient rates, and are now holding the wolf by the ears in regards to immigration. And so on.

    But... this is all derailing from the original topic, again. Interesting stuff, but I'm not really sure if I want to debate it because we will all quickly lose our nerve.

    ReplyDelete
  63. If the father wanted his children to be Jewish then he would have married a Jewish woman. A Jew is the child of a Jewish woman. A gentile can convert to the Jewish faith but cannot become a Jew and most Jews do not accept gentile converts to the Jewish faith as ethnically Jewish.

    Oh yes, I forgot that Jews aren't true patriarchs because they pass their ethnicity and religion on through the maternal line. Perhaps because they were so often enslaved? Matrilineal descent tends to arise among slaves because the women bear so many illegitimate children, and the paternal lines are blurred or unknown.

    I suppose Muslims are a better example.

    ReplyDelete
  64. It's obviously wrong for a Catholic to marry a Muslim, but what about marrying a Protestant or a non-practicing Catholic?

    “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians, 6:14, KJV). On that basis, I would say it does not seem wrong for a Catholic to marry a Protestant, as the next few lines make clear, this regards the fellowship of believers with Christ, which equally applies to Catholics and Protestants, although I take it that it would be extremely difficult for them to marry (whose church? Whose sacraments? Whose doctrines?). It would be obviously wrong for a Christian to marry a Muslim or an unbeliever according to this passage. Non-practicing Christians are much more of a riddle. Perhaps we should first define was a practicing Christian is. As far as I am concerned, a practicing Christian: (a) attends church services regularly, if not weekly, (b) actively practices Christ’s teachings, (c) has faith in Christ and God, (d) prays regularly. Needless to add there are few practicing Christian if we accept my definition.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I concur with Southern Cross. Traditional conservatives choose your mates wisely and don't try to ''save'' a liberal on your own. Pray to God and do other things first. A lot of men and women have been 'ruined' in a sense. Are they lost forever? Maybe not. But they are infected and remember this. By the way Anonymous stop attacking Alte. What's with the whole ''moralizing'' accusation? You're doing the liberal tactic of projecting liberal failure to somebody else. Typical. Maybe you're the one who had so much sex and divorced 10 years later. Or maybe you're talking of libertarians in general. Also good thing James. I'm 18 and I think I will homeschool my children or send them to school. Shelter them from liberalism. It seems it worked on those aggressive working class kids. =)

    ReplyDelete
  66. Oh definitely homeschool! It is wonderful, and so good for the children.

    Southern Cross,

    Catholics have to marry in the Catholic Church, for their marriage to be valid. There's an apostolic letter concerning the subject, and you will see that it is still something the Church generally frowns on, although it is rampant in practice: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19700331_matrimonia-mixta_en.html

    The problem is that if a Catholic marries a non-Catholic, the chances are raised that the Catholic spouse and the children will be led away from the Catholic Church to a non-Catholic one. Also, non-Catholic spouses tend to weaken the traditions and liturgical practices of the Church, as they import their own Christian culture into the Mass (one sees this very strongly in America). Or children might be raised in a house with excessive criticism directed at the Church, which might taint the children's appreciation with it.

    I just brought it up as I saw a direct parallel with what Van Wijk wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Traditional conservatives choose your mates wisely and don't try to ''save'' a liberal on your own.

    Precisely.

    I'm 18

    Gosh, you beat me! I really thought I was the youngest commentator on this blog! Alas, I have seen two more years than you!

    Catholics have to marry in the Catholic Church, for their marriage to be valid.

    Yes, Alte, I was aware of this when I wrote "whose church?", I sought to imply that a marriage between a Protestant and a Catholic would be impossible unless one of the potential spouses converts to the other spouse's denomination. This is a very tricky issue among conservatives and traditionalists as we tend to be more serious in our religious allegiances, although at the end of the day we are all Christians (I confess I have some sympathy for Irenicism).

    children might be raised in a house with excessive criticism directed at the Church, which might taint the children's appreciation with it.

    I do not think there is any correlation, really.

    I just brought it up as I saw a direct parallel with what Van Wijk wrote.

    I am much more flexible than Van Wijk on interracial marriage; I usually tend to avoid generalization of any sort (although generalization may be useful in certain circumstances, as even Edmund Burke admitted). On principle, I believe people should try and marry with fellow members of the national community or within a given tradition. There are strong ingrained attitudes to interracial marriage, of course, many people will not openly say they would not marry someone of a different race, lest they be labelled as racists and xenophobes, but this is often the case, including among some of my leftist friends. There is a natural instinct for preference towards one's own kin. This does not mean all mixed-race couples are always meant to fail or are not stable, loving relationships. This can happen. For all I know, certain mixed-race couples may be successful as long as there is no ambiguity and if one tradition's supersedes the other spouse's (to avoid schizophrenia) and, since this tradition tends to be the husband's, I would suggest that an interracial marriage between a white man and a black woman is clearly better than one between a black man and a white woman. So, I am not generalizing here, and I totally oppose any ban on interracial marriage, both on the grounds that if I instinctively dislike the idea, I cannot generalize about all these marriages and it would be almost impossible to enforce, anyway. Culture (defined as a set of traditions including history, language, religion, customs, social conventions, loyalty to one's nation), not race nor ethnicity (although relevant indicators), seems to me to make more sense, so I do not have such a rigid attitude to interracial marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I think it is largely a cultural difference. In Germany, a minority population is considered "better integrated" if they intermarry with the natives and adopt the local culture and habits (which is much easier for women, as you note). So, there is much suspicion of the building of parallel societies (i.e. ethnic ghettos, like with the Turks), as opposed to the American ideal of cultural and physical segregation (i.e. "multiculti"). Consequently, banning intermarriage would be self-defeating for Germany, as it would increase segregation and ghetto-formation (as we've seen with the Muslims), and increase racial strife (in a country without purity-rules, mixed people tend to form a natural buffer).

    However, because of the sheer number of immigrants and the ethnic/racial makeup of those immigrants, Germany's integration system has been completely overwhelmed. Hence, the attempt at American-style "multi-culti", which was a humongous flop. Of course, it's a flop in America, as well.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I'd just like to say to both Southern Cross and Elizabeth Smith that your comments are of a very high standard.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Thinking about it some more, I suppose the "moderating effect of mixed-people" is the reason that I was under attack in this thread. I experience something similar at sites like Abagond's (black liberal politics), where the population becomes incredibly annoyed whenever I offer dissent. I frequently get told, "You're just saying that because your husband is white." But if the accusation is true and I'm saying something "just because I'm black" or "just because my husband or mother is white", then it implies that a person cannot evaluate a situation independent of their own racial adherence (which is probably true but irrelevant, as I will now prove).

    This is a strange argument (in the proud Sophist tradition) to me because the opposite is then also true, by implication. Obviously, their own argument is then equally faulty because its logic is tilted in the opposite direction. This implies that the truth lies somewhere in-between, which is probably the case. So dialectic (the search for truth) would require both opinions to be discussed and debated.

    Of course, without me -- and to a lesser extent, Liz -- around, it would be much easier to create an echo chamber where everyone just repeats the argument over and over, heaping praise and congratulations all around. But that sort of thing tends to be preferred by people with poor logic and debating skills, so resorting to it is always an intellectual concession. A lack of dissent decreases the academic rigor of the argument, and generally leads sites to atrophy into a wild-eyed fringe. We can see that happening at the Spearhead, where the moderates and dissenters have been shoved out, and it's turned into a bit of a loony-bin in the comment section. It's even more obvious as the authorship has stayed more moderate while the commentariat has moved to the extreme.

    It is for this reason that I encourage people of all religious (or no religious) adherence to contribute to my own blog, despite the Catholic focus. As long as they generally behave themselves, they enrich the conversation. I suspect this is the reason that my blog is increasing in readership so rapidly, and the same goes for Mark's blog.

    Besides, controversy can be good for Google-rankings. It led to an immediate spike in my stats yesterday, which will soon move me up the Google search-result list again. I suspect Mark got a similar bump.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Alte,

    You say the "sheer audacity of being Alte". Personally I don't think being black or half black is that big a deal, if that's what you're referring to. So I'd just hope we can move on.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Actually, I was just trying to think of something snazzy that would be similar to "The Importance of Being Earnest".

    ReplyDelete
  73. I think it is largely a cultural difference. In Germany, a minority population is considered "better integrated" if they intermarry with the natives and adopt the local culture and habits (which is much easier for women, as you note). So, there is much suspicion of the building of parallel societies (i.e. ethnic ghettos, like with the Turks), as opposed to the American ideal of cultural and physical segregation (i.e. "multiculti"). Consequently, banning intermarriage would be self-defeating for Germany, as it would increase segregation and ghetto-formation (as we've seen with the Muslims), and increase racial strife (in a country without purity-rules, mixed people tend to form a natural buffer).

    Maybe. I cannot deny than my own national culture strongly influences the thrust of my thought; for example, as a Frenchman, I am generally less wary of economic dirigisme when it appears to be a serious option (which combines with pure conservatism, i.e. expediency in economic matters as opposed to systemization). In practice, interracial marriage could work on a small scale, I assume. Except we are talking of millions of (mostly) inassimilable immigrants (in Europe’s case as in America, why Americans swagger around while gloating over Europe’s plight, which is their own to an extent, has always been a puzzle for me). Even Asians, who often tend to be praised for reasons that usually escape me, have a strong propensity to flock together and form ghettos (“Little Chinas” blossom in virtually every major Western city, from Paris to Sydney), and you will also notice they frequently use their language, including in restaurants or shops. They function as an imperium in impero, and this is especially dangerous, for we do not know about their loyalties. In Germany, Turks are not exactly noted for their willingness to assimilate to German culture and way of life, there have been many attempts at setting up schools with Turkish-language lessons (just as there are “Algerian culture” lessons in some French schools, including in Arabic, which is a direct violation of article 2 of our Constitution). I think multi-cult, i.e. separating different strata of society and segmenting them into hermetic compartments, is especially dangerous, for it creates states within the state. However, we also run the risk of being culturally overwhelmed and changed in (insidious) ways by significant influxes of immigrants melting in our midst. Both systems seem incredibly dangerous to our culture. In fact, I am neither in favour of Fichte’s or Renan’s definitions of what it takes to be a member of the national community. Perhaps, this is a direct consequence of my caution toward generalized systems. I do believe individuals do vary here, of course, we are fundamentally shaped by our ethnicity, gender and various individual characteristics, but not to the same extent; some identities just stay, however hard you try to whitewash the whole thing (no pun intended). It is clear that few Muslims ever slough off their Islamic tenets entirely (something retaining some of them in an unconscious fashion, which usually is manifest to any accustomed eye and ear). Again, Alte, I am definitely and firmly against a ban on interracial marriage, because some successful examples may exist. However, most foreigners would be better off if they had stayed in their own countries, because most of them still seem unable to stomach Western culture, and I am not prepared to back down on this.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Ultimately, I believe that culture matters more than ethnicity or race, even though they are relevant in their own ways and in spite of my belief that ethnic homogeneity should be maintained in Western countries (which does not mean we cannot accept ethnic minorities, but we certainly should not grant them citizenship, except in really extraordinary circumstances (e.g. exceptional devotion to country), nor let them overrun us or impose their alien ways upon us, and they should be a clear numerical minority; there are already more than 4 million Turks in Germany, and probably 15-20% of France’s population is non-white). This is the gist.


    However, because of the sheer number of immigrants and the ethnic/racial makeup of those immigrants, Germany's integration system has been completely overwhelmed. Hence, the attempt at American-style "multi-culti", which was a humongous flop. Of course, it's a flop in America, as well.

    Exactly: numbers are the issue (except for Islam which is naturally, pathologically incapable of understanding our ways, not to mention bowing to them). Multi-cult has been no more successful in France than it has been elsewhere. It is really compelling that it took so long for Angela Merkel, David Cameron and (fairly recently) Nicolas Sarkozy even to pay lip service to the idea that multi-cult may have just failed. This is a dismal failure, and on that I assume we all agree.

    I'd just like to say to both Southern Cross and Elizabeth Smith that your comments are of a very high standard.

    Thank you very much, Jesse, although I do not know if I am truly deserving of the compliment.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Southern Cross,

    I think we are generally in agreement on this subject. Always a pleasure, especially as you don't balk at my traditional wall-of-text, and respond politely in-kind. Incidentally, we're discussing distributism on my blog, and you may be interested.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Hey Southern Cross, you're the same age as me! :)

    I think the assumption re: Asian men stems from the stereotype that they're weaker/more submissive than men from other races. Unfortunately you don't have to be a big man to beat up women. In fact you could argue that a feeling of inferiority heightens misogyny.

    On the other hand, I don't think this applies to Asians who have been brought up in Western culture. I agree with Southern Cross' evaluation that culture matters more than ethnicity or race. That's why for me assimilation will always be the best policy. Adapt or go home, or better yet, don't come in the first place! If they're to live in a Western country they need to be Westernised, and if they lose their ethnic identity in the process, well, that's the price they pay. I would not go to live in a foreign country without being prepared to adapt to the native culture. I don't see why we shouldn't expect the same of others.

    By the way, as a victim of feminist brainwashing I've ended up the opposite to a sleep-around and instead am terrified of men (and especially sex!) Thanks a lot, femi-nazis. Now I'll still be a virgin by the time I'm 85.

    ReplyDelete
  77. When it come to multiculturalism it really matters how you define success. The argument behind it is that its successful merely by there being a wide range of different people in your country. So its successful because of its existence and its also a moral good in itself. The argument of whether its actually good for the country or not doesn't seem to be closely examined.

    ReplyDelete
  78. The idea of trusting a father or other man to weed abusers is laughable. Men are incredibly naive about other men. Every time I prosecute a man for violence against a woman, a dozen men come out of the woodwork (no matter how open-and-shut the case) to say silly things like, "Why, I've known Harry for years and he's never shown any hint of violence around me." There are certainly naive women in the world as well, but women are far more likely to pick up the warning signs that a man is likely to be violent towards women. We have years of experience, starting from puberty, dealing with the harassers, the wolf-whistlers, the gropers, leering men, intrusive men, etc. Though there is no foolproof way to identify an abuser, women tend to be fairly good at separating the wheat from the chaff.

    Although there are certainly plenty of black, male abusers, I don't think race is at all a valuable proxy for identifying abusive men (and yes, I am a white woman who has dated black men in the past). My mother taught me to recognize disrespectful behavior, which is the best predictor of abuse. I knew it was a huge red flag if a boy or a man overrode my will, refused to take no for an answer, tried to order me around, expressed general misogynist ideas, etc. Certainly such behavior is more common in some subcultures in others. I wouldn't date a "gangsta" type, but I would also be wary of dating a white American college student who plays American football and belongs to a fraternity, or a conservative religious man whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim (sorry!) It's not that we liberals aren't discriminating; it's just that we discriminate based on different criteria than you.

    I would also teach my daughter not to appease men who try to bully her. Appeasing a bully just encourages more bullying. The best way to stay safe is not to put up with bad behavior from men (although, of course, there may be situations where compliance with someone violent is the best strategy).

    Simply giving control over one's safety to some male authority figure is a silly way to try to achieve safety and, besides, what kind of life would that be?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Southern Cross,

    "Ultimately, I believe that culture matters more than ethnicity or race, even though they are relevant in their own ways and in spite of my belief that ethnic homogeneity should be maintained in Western countries"

    I appreciate your attempt at reconciliation, which is a sign of love. We should be careful though never to lose sight of the truth.

    You say that culture matters more than race. But where does culture come from?

    Isn't this like saying that manhood matters more than maleness? It might be true but the former cannot exist without the latter. The latter is fundamental.

    So it is with race. Without the white race, you simply cannot get European civilization.

    That's not to say that you cannot have civilization without the white race; there are, and I am sure, will be many nonwhite civilizations. They just won't be European.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Finally, you also say that you are "firmly against a ban on interracial marriage."

    Look, I don't take any pleasure in telling people not to do obviously foolish things either, but sometimes it has to be done. Do you have any idea what a black-white miscegenated neighborhood looks like?

    I do: I live in one. It is cruelty to the next generation, and it must stop. If that takes a law, fine. Let's get it passed.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Maggie wrote,

    "It's not that we liberals aren't discriminating; it's just that we discriminate based on different criteria than you."

    Well, now that you've admitted that non-discrimination is necessarily discriminatory, do you have a timetable on your recantation?

    ReplyDelete
  82. What's with the whole ''moralizing'' accusation?

    The Bible is what is with the "moralizing" accusation. The Bible warns us against those who excessively display their piety and (supposed) morality.

    As a Christian who is not Catholic I find the idea promoted by Kathy and others that the Catholic Church can produce sinless people laughable. That's because Jesus Christ as expressed in the Bible is the source of my faith not the Pope or the pagan-like Mary worship that happens in the Catholic Church.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Maggie said,

    "Every time I prosecute a man for violence against a woman, a dozen men come out of the woodwork (no matter how open-and-shut the case) to say silly things like, "Why, I've known Harry for years and he's never shown any hint of violence around me."

    Oh dear a feminist prosecutor. So does your career advance with every weak rape or domestic violence case you put forward to prosecture? Please give us a glimpse behind the veil. Its nice to know that men are so niave about other men, maybe they're just trying to help out a mate and their views should be given weight accordingly? Are women less niave about their girlfriends?

    Its nice to know that we have impartial people operating the levers of justice.

    ReplyDelete
  84. In previous Posts ,you have made it quite clear that,when pressed, you are familiar with(and generally opposed to) the concepts of female-hypergamy,female pedestalization and sexual/romantic self-delusion.And,yet...Honestly,is there any point at which you will acknowledge your groveling to women?Or are you waiting for Jesus to point it out to you?

    ReplyDelete
  85. "I find the idea promoted by Kathy and others that the Catholic Church can produce sinless people laughable."

    So do I Anon... Because, the Catholic Church CANNOT produce sinless people. No one here ever said that they could.

    It never ceases to amaze me how some people deliberately twist the meaning of something that another person has said to suit their own agenda..

    To wit (I said)
    "If he had, he would understand that she (Alte) is a practicing Catholic who adheres to Catholic tenets.."

    This does not mean that she does not sin... I sin, everyone sins.

    Nobody is perfect.

    It means that Alte is a follower of the Catholic faith. She is a believer. She like me, and the rest of the practicing Catholics of the world are all sinners, trying our darndest to do better..

    Catholics confess their sins to a priest and if they are sincerely sorry for their sins then they are forgiven.. We resolve to do better, but inevitably we will at some stage fall again.

    If Catholics were sinless we wouldn't need confession. :D

    ROFL!!

    ReplyDelete
  86. Mark Richardson wrote:

    "Attend church and attempt to model the values instilled by the church at home."

    Fair enough, but there are a lot of atheists around the place who would choke on this counsel. Does the advice mean "Attend church whether one accepts the religion or not, since the positives of church attendance for anyone - believer and unbeliever alike - will outweigh the negatives"?

    I, for one, would have no problem with such advice, being old-fashioned enough and cynical enough to appreciate religion's secondary value as a civilising agent. In fact I (as an Australian) strongly suspect that America's much-touted high national rate of church attendance derives, and has derived for generations, much more from fear of loneliness out in the 'burbs than from actual theological conviction.

    Am just curious to find out more about what Mr. Richardson is driving at with this comment of his.

    Talking of religious experience in the States, Eisenhower once said, "Our government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith - and I don't care what it is!" (This could've been intended cynically, but I don't think it was, since Eisenhower took the trouble to get baptised as a Presbyterian while in the White House.)

    ReplyDelete
  87. Culture (defined as a set of traditions including history, language, religion, customs, social conventions, loyalty to one's nation), not race nor ethnicity (although relevant indicators), seems to me to make more sense, so I do not have such a rigid attitude to interracial marriage

    Except that race and ethnicity are the primary vehicles of culture, so you're back where you started.

    If we promote the idea of racial purity...

    I see she still indulges in Nazi-speak.

    Of course, without me -- and to a lesser extent, Liz -- around, it would be much easier to create an echo chamber where everyone just repeats the argument over and over, heaping praise and congratulations all around.

    I agree with this. You learn far more from your adversaries than from your friends. But not all adversaries are equal in quality, and not all argue in good faith. If a certain level of honesty is not achieved, it won't matter if opposing views abound. Most of our enemies simply dismiss us as racist and no real discussion takes place.

    But debate is just that, a way to hone your own arguments and bring them to their logical conclusion. Liberals in America bray endlessly about the need for "dialogue," but if such a dialogue took place we would only be left with the stark reality of just how different we are, and we'd see our need to separate that much more clearly. It shouldn't be assumed that those you debate with are not your enemies.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Except we are talking of millions of (mostly) inassimilable immigrants (in Europe’s case as in America, why Americans swagger around while gloating over Europe’s plight, which is their own to an extent, has always been a puzzle for me

    Probably the same group who thinks America is an idea rather than an actual nation created by a specific group. It's also partially a reaction to Europe's hugely arrogant leftism.

    Even Asians, who often tend to be praised for reasons that usually escape me, have a strong propensity to flock together and form ghettos (“Little Chinas” blossom in virtually every major Western city, from Paris to Sydney), and you will also notice they frequently use their language, including in restaurants or shops.

    Indeed. It's almost always worse when you get near military towns, with the seemingly endless numbers of Asian women. When a soldier brings home an Asian wife, she's usually allowed to bring the whole immediate family for "cultural reasons."

    On the other hand, I don't think this applies to Asians who have been brought up in Western culture.

    If the current state of "Asian America" is what passes for assimilation, it won't work any better than multicult will. Amy Chua, who takes such fierce pride in being Chinese and doing everything "the Chinese Way," was born in Illinois. Once-removed nationalism. True assimilation requires a certain abasement toward the host country, a stripping of identity that all current immigrants will resist, so it's going to be war either way. Hopefully we have the stomach for it.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Bartholomew asks:

    Maggie wrote,

    "It's not that we liberals aren't discriminating; it's just that we discriminate based on different criteria than you."

    Well, now that you've admitted that non-discrimination is necessarily discriminatory, do you have a timetable on your recantation?


    I don't understand this comment. I never said "non-discrimination is necessarily discriminatory." I also don't understand what I am supposed to be recanting.

    I think conservatives often erect a strawman that liberals are incapable of seeing distinctions among people. But that's far from true. There is nothing about being a liberal that prevents one from making judgments about people or even cultures. I make judgments all the time! (For example, right now I am thinking that Bartholomew doesn't seem too bright.)

    But we discriminate on an individual basis, as opposed to broad brush strokes. I would never assume that being black makes a man dangerous (or even that being conservative makes a man dangerous). I never avoided men based on race -- I looked at attitude. How does this person treat his mother? How does he talk to me? How does he talk to other women? What are his attitudes about social issues? To what degree does he glorify any swaggering machismo? Does he exhibit possessive or jealous qualities? Is he controlling? And yes, I would look at his culture. Does he come from a culture or a religious background that views women as second-class citizens -- and, if so, does he still hold those views?

    I will say my experiences dating black and Asian men were positive, as has been my experience married to a white man of working class background and Catholic upbringing.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I see she still indulges in Nazi-speak.

    I see she's still German.

    What else do you call anti-miscegenation laws than an attempt to promote racial purity? That is their express purpose. I fail to see what you're on about.

    ReplyDelete
  91. To the person who asked about me being a feminist prosecutor, I am happy to answer any questions from "behind the veil."

    Of course, you assume being a feminist equates to bias. You have a ridiculous, cartoonish view of feminism. You think it means I believe "all" men are abusers and "all" women are pure as the drive snow.

    As a feminist, I take people as individuals. I don't assume based on sex that an individual has a particular characteristic. I firmly believe that women can and do rise to the same heights of nobility, courage, and self-sacrifice as men -- and the same depths of depravity. I have, in fact, prosecuted women as well as men for domestic violence, child abuse, false report, and sexual crimes.

    My view is considerably less biased than that of the anti-feminist who assumes that women routinely make up stories about violence, that women in general are overly emotional and therefore unreliable, that women are morons or callous bitches who bring abuse on themselves, etc. etc.

    ReplyDelete
  92. "What else do you call anti-miscegenation laws than an attempt to promote racial purity? That is their express purpose. I fail to see what you're on about."

    Maybe you are a bit ignorant but miscegenation during the "stolen" generation is regarded as "racism".
    Why is miscegenation evil if its breeding "blacks" out but it is good if it is breeding "whites" out.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Maggie,

    My question was do you stand to get promoted if you push forward weak rape or domestic violence cases? I've seem some damn dog cases in the courts that should have never gotten there in the first place. The only explanation for why they're prosecuted is the sisterhood agenda.

    Now seriously, women need protection right? The full protection of the court. So lets look at rape, a rather difficult case to prove in "date rape" or similar scenarios, how are you going to offer such protection unless you put up cases that can't win on an objective basis? If you just wait for the strong cases men will be out there getting away with murder right?

    So while you're out there fighting the good fight men are facing rubbish cases that ruin their careers and finances even if they're acquitted.

    Of course that's if they're acquitted. Maybe reasonable doubt is too high a hurdle to jump for something like rape. It would make your job so much easier if it was just the balance of probabilities so you should probably start pushing for that.

    Why do we have so many feminist prosecutors these days? Is it that you like having the power of the state behind you? So much for the fat southern prosecutor the new stereotype should be the feminist harridan.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I think we are generally in agreement on this subject. Always a pleasure, especially as you don't balk at my traditional wall-of-text, and respond politely in-kind. Incidentally, we're discussing distributism on my blog, and you may be interested.

    This is reciprocated, Alte. I have already had a look at your statements on distributism, although I did not comment, I usually am in broad agreement with the concept, which has very conservative overtones, incidentally. Local communities and localism versus state and nationalism, this seems pretty close to the conservative idea of a fitting society.

    On the other hand, I don't think this applies to Asians who have been brought up in Western culture. I agree with Southern Cross' evaluation that culture matters more than ethnicity or race. That's why for me assimilation will always be the best policy. Adapt or go home, or better yet, don't come in the first place! If they're to live in a Western country they need to be Westernised, and if they lose their ethnic identity in the process, well, that's the price they pay. I would not go to live in a foreign country without being prepared to adapt to the native culture. I don't see why we shouldn't expect the same of others.

    Greetings, fellow student! I am still wary of the propensity our society has systematically to praise Asians for their spotless assimilation into Western society; they still constitute many gated communities where only Asian languages, especially Chinese, is spoken, only Asian food is consumed and sold, and so on. However, it is only fair to admit they do not constitute the same threat as Islam in that they do not try to proselytize or force their cultural norms upon us. Although Confucianism has been disparaged in some previous comment, there is much to be commended in this philosophy, including elements close to Christianity, such as an unflinching commitment to order and authority (which could match Paul’s statements and those of a range of Church Fathers and foremost figures of Christianity, such as Martin Luther), an emphasis on community and groups instead of the deadly cult of the Individual Westerners practice, and a rejection of materialism. Of course, this does not mean that I am in favour of massive Asian immigration (or rather, considering the present extent, colonization), but this certainly goes a long way toward explaining how it is that Asian citizens tend to be law-abiding, less represented in crime statistics (which are manifestly underestimated as many offences and crimes, notably rape, go unreported for half of them according to some guesstimates) and have an ethos centred on hard work and thrift. However, we do have many differences and I would rather have these people help to develop their own countries/localities than coming to our shores. Asian people, even though they are brought up in Western countries, usually are not brought up in Western culture as their parents tend to retain most of their country’s traditions, speak their language at home and maintain close links with the country they left. Assimilation is even more difficult in this world where communications are so well developed you can live in an Asian microcosm while physically living elsewhere. The West is first and foremost our cultural area and should remain so, you cannot do the same things with different people in this area. It appears to be Mr Caldwell’s main thesis in “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe” and I certainly hope to lay hold of one copy soon enough.

    ReplyDelete
  95. By the way, as a victim of feminist brainwashing I've ended up the opposite to a sleep-around and instead am terrified of men (and especially sex!) Thanks a lot, femi-nazis. Now I'll still be a virgin by the time I'm 85.

    I understand this, the clueless feminists have done a fine job of bamboozling everyone and cramming their heads with tosh, however, this should not put you off as far as men are concerned. We are not a bunch of barbarians! Well, not all of us, that is. I have always behaved in a gentlemanly fashion with women/girls. You may still be a virgin (and so am I), but at least you have not thrown away your body to the first stranger, and it does tell a lot about you: people who respect their own bodies tend to respect their fellow humans more. Levity in sexual matters tends to show two things: (1) people do not respect themselves enough to ask themselves the questions and ponder the consequences, (2) they are driven by pleasure alone (hedonism), and this shows a patent lack of self-restraint and discipline, beside de-sacralizing sex and making it into a physical, almost beastly thing, instead of an expression of love. Really, this is something you should not be ashamed of, on the contrary, it shows you value yourself. We must be about the last people of our generation to refrain from carousing and fornicating, but never mind. Since when are majorities systematically right?

    appreciate your attempt at reconciliation, which is a sign of love. We should be careful though never to lose sight of the truth.

    You say that culture matters more than race. But where does culture come from?

    Isn't this like saying that manhood matters more than maleness? It might be true but the former cannot exist without the latter. The latter is fundamental.

    So it is with race. Without the white race, you simply cannot get European civilization.

    That's not to say that you cannot have civilizationwithout the white race; there are, and I am sure, will be many nonwhite civilizations. They just won't be European.


    Bartholomew (and also Van Wijk who addressed the same issue in a later comment), culture is a bigger whole than race/ethnicity alone, it also includes loyalty to one’s community (whether it be national or otherwise), a common historical inheritance, similar values, and so on. However, I am sure—and I may very well be responsible for this because of the somewhat awkward way I put it—that ethnicity (and race) are part of this common cultural inheritance (did I not formerly write that you cannot have the same culture with different people?). Of course, I entirely agree that being white is a pre-requisite for being a European (in the same way that feathers are a pre-requisite for birds). However, this does not mean that (preferably tiny) groups of ethnic minorities cannot live in Europe as assimilated groups and enjoy some rights, except they cannot be considered "full" Europeans, but only "partially, culturally European" non-Europeans. They would be a bit like metics in Ancient Greece (after the Athenian fashion), except they should be treated in a more respectful manner as long as they do not bring along their ways, customs, language, and abide by the law. This is where I believe that culture (a broader notion) trumps ethnicity in that non-Europeans (again, provided that they should be very few and aware of the respect and obedience they owe to the local dominant culture) could co-exist with overwhelming European majorities without having a claim to being Europeans. I have never heard of Chinese who are no ethnic Chinese. We do agree, although I have perhaps stretched the notions a bit too far or have not explained them properly, and I willingly confess this is my fault.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Finally, you also say that you are "firmly against a ban on interracial marriage."

    Look, I don't take any pleasure in telling people not to do obviously foolish things either, but sometimes it has to be done. Do you have any idea what a black-white miscegenated neighborhood looks like?

    I do: I live in one. It is cruelty to the next generation, and it must stop. If that takes a law, fine. Let's get it passed.


    Bartholomew, I have already written about my scepticism toward interracial marriage and the schizophrenia it generally implies, however, I do not believe a ban on interracial marriage would be practicable or indeed successful on purely expedient grounds.

    It means that Alte is a follower of the Catholic faith. She is a believer. She like me, and the rest of the practicing Catholics of the world are all sinners, trying our darndest to do better..

    Catholics confess their sins to a priest and if they are sincerely sorry for their sins then they are forgiven.. We resolve to do better, but inevitably we will at some stage fall again.

    If Catholics were sinless we wouldn't need confession.


    Right, I disapprove of the person who condemned Roman Catholicism in harsh terms, wrongly likening devotion to Mary as a “pagan-like worship” (which is so ridiculous to anyone conversant with theology that I will not expatiate on the topic), however, I have always been hugely sceptical of confession to a priest. God knows all, surely we can directly confess to Him our sins and ask for His forgiveness. And, yes, we are all sinners. However, this is only one observation, I do not mean to start a religious debate here! We are all Christians at the end of the day (I have already admitted to having Irenicist leanings).

    Except that race and ethnicity are the primary vehicles of culture, so you're back where you started.

    Please see what I have written in my reply to Bartholomew (who pointed out the same thing). I am aware I might not have made myself clear, words, alas, often fail to keep pace with my thoughts.

    Probably the same group who thinks America is an idea rather than an actual nation created by a specific group. It's also partially a reaction to Europe's hugely arrogant leftism.

    Quite right, Van Wijk, but we are in the same near-death throes, we should rather be mutually supportive (as Westerners) instead of putting spokes in one another’s wheels. Besides, many in Europe disapprove of the ambient, pervasive leftist atmosphere and would gladly restore sanity, both in economic and moral matters (and the two often intermingles). Furthermore, America has its fair share of leftist loonies, too.

    Indeed. It's almost always worse when you get near military towns, with the seemingly endless numbers of Asian women. When a soldier brings home an Asian wife, she's usually allowed to bring the whole immediate family for "cultural reasons.”

    We have the same mechanism here. I believe 69% of all legal immigration to America is about family reunification. The figure says it all.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Jesse,

    I am writing to respond to your question about being a feminist prosecutor. I should clarify that while I was a prosecutor for many years, I am now in private practice, defending cities and private companies that get sued. Still I think I am qualified to provide some answers.

    First, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that "women need protection" and therefore, if women are to be independent and outside the authority of a male protector, then the State basically HAS to step in and bring rubbish cases. Otherwise, guys are going to know they can get away with things if "he said-she said" cases aren't prosecuted. So, in your view if I understand correctly, society pays for female independence by bringing unfair cases against men. Is this basically what you are getting at?

    In response, I would note that men need protection too. A large percentage of cases I prosecuted involved male victims. Assaults, muggings, hazings, elder abuse, sexual assaults on young boys, etc. Violence against women is not the only kind of crime that involves some prior relationship between victim and perpetrator, nor is it the only kind of crime that involves one person's word against the other.

    Credibility determinations are the nature of the beast throughout the criminal justice system (and throughout the legal system) -- and they have been throughout history in the Anglo-Saxon world long before feminism became popular.

    You asked about whether prosecutors get credit for pushing through poor cases. It really depends on the office, and the circumstances and what you consider a poor case. I have known of offices that automatically push through any claim made by a victim, though I am not aware that those offices were particularly feminist. Most prosecutors, however, want a good conviction rate so they are less likely to push a crappy case through. I don't see it as a feminist question so much as an issue of how a particular office chooses to pursue the business of prosecuting.

    I think you also had some question about why women or feminists are often prosecutors. I would say criminal law in general is about 50/50 male-female where I live. Non-criminal legal practice tends to be much more male-dominated. I personally enjoy both. Private law firms can be tough for women given that most families still expect women to be the primary caretakers of their young children (which can interfere with the long hours required), and given that the client base is male-dominated. I have a lot of male clients, but I don't ask them to dinner or go golfing with them or join their fantasy football groups, the way my male colleagues do. I have managed to develop good relationships with male clients by doing good work, but it is a little harder to establish the personal rapport. So that's probably why criminal law seems more appealing for a lot of women. Plus, we are used to making less money!

    ReplyDelete
  98. Does the advice mean "Attend church whether one accepts the religion or not, since the positives of church attendance for anyone - believer and unbeliever alike - will outweigh the negatives"?

    I didn't really have that in mind. It was a reminder to myself really that I need to inculcate a church culture within my own family, something I have only done patchily to date.

    I don't think attending church works well when it becomes too obviously hypocritical. Children recoil in this situation. If dad embodies some of the church values in his out-of-church life it's more likely to impress his children.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Maggie is a liberal/leftist, a feminist prosecutor and an individualist (libertarian). Ironically I'm reading "1984" (first time in my life btw) and it's a wonderful read. It was "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley and my Philosophy class that got me wondering into the whole idea of worldviews.

    "As a feminist, I take people as individuals. I don't assume based on sex that an individual has a particular characteristic."

    By freeing the individual from the community and society you have destroyed the individual. How can you be a "feminist" if you don't believe females/woman exist as different? You can only deconstruct can you not? By constantly undermining the base of a society you don't allow for it to exist. By denying truth and mistaking multi-layered vision of reality where streams are coming out of the same river you fall for the belief in progress (aka advancing towards collapse and self-destruction), relativism and others. What if this freedom is no freedom at all but leads to slavery? What if rights lead to chaos and instability or better yet an appearance of stability (with a lot of willpower and indoctrination to keep the system alive)? Would you sacrifice everything because of the individual? You know this is kind of ironic because I keep thinking role-reversal, discrimination lawsuits and other things. What if the one thing the individual wants is to reject liberalism? Isn't democracy a weak and bad form of government?

    "Of course, you assume being a feminist equates to bias."

    It does. Everyone is biased.

    "Liberals in America bray endlessly about the need for "dialogue," but if such a dialogue took place we would only be left with the stark reality of just how different we are, and we'd see our need to separate that much more clearly."

    Dialogue to them just means the opposite. It's meaning goes like this "Shut up and listen to my rules and how I frame the discussion honey-muffin!"

    "Bartholomew, I have already written about my scepticism toward interracial marriage and the schizophrenia it generally implies, however, I do not believe a ban on interracial marriage would be practicable or indeed successful on purely expedient grounds."

    I have been thinking about this for the past few weeks. My idea is to marry either the race of my father or mother and have another child (I know this is bad but here it goes...) by fertility clinic for the race that I didn't marry.

    "Does the advice mean "Attend church whether one accepts the religion or not, since the positives of church attendance for anyone - believer and unbeliever alike - will outweigh the negatives"?"

    Only if the church is not teaching heresies or another different factor.

    ReplyDelete
  100. I have been thinking about this for the past few weeks. My idea is to marry either the race of my father or mother and have another child (I know this is bad but here it goes...) by fertility clinic for the race that I didn't marry.

    Yes, this is a good illustration of the schizophrenia characterizing most of these marriages.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Maggie wrote,

    "But we discriminate on an individual basis, as opposed to broad brush strokes."

    Are you sure about that? Earlier you had written,

    "I would also be wary of dating a white American college student who plays American football and belongs to a fraternity, or a conservative religious man whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim (sorry!)"

    Because discriminating against white, religious, athletic men is a good example of judging people as...individuals?

    No it isn't. How can we explain this blatant contradiction between your stated principles and your practices?

    Well, either
    a.) You're lying about your principles or practices

    or

    b.) You don't understand your principles or practices.

    Feel free to talk it through with us.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Maggie,

    If prosecutors push poor cases society suffers and a poor case is one that doesn't have a strong chance of winning. I was being slightly sarcastic in my earlier comments about women needing protection and was implying that if any road to the desired outcome can be seen as acceptable then we're in dangerous territory.

    Prosecutors have a lot of power and you calmly suggest that each prosecuting office should be able to pursue its work however it sees fit. This discretion opens the door to the pursuit of political agendas backed with the power of the state. If you have a low win loss record that is nothing compared to the havoc that can be caused to an individual's life. You might say "well what about the havoc to the victim"?. Well with many of these rape or domestic violence cases they are essentially victimless crimes. If I deliberately brush across the erogenous zone of a women while passing her on the street I have committed a sexual assault. In common parlance that means I'm a rapist. I would say that such conduct is highly objectionable and should possibly/arguably be illegal but it isn't rape and the damage to the victim is much less than rape. Such a prosecution would appear in the statistics though as a sexual assault (rape) prosecution which could be used in arguments to femminist lobbies about how much the state is doing to protect women.

    There are people here who are highly apprehensive of the powers of the state. You yourself admit to a political focus and that you also have a great deal of discretionary power. We're not convinced that you use it appropriately. This is not cool. I was at an army dinner once where there was a public prosecutors function in a nearby conference room. As part of the formal dinner the battalion colors were unfurled an this was conducted according to a drilled ceremony. The public prosecutors came out to watch the drill and started heckling anti-army slogans. These were our public prosecutors, not hippie protestors, and in their minds it was perfectly acceptable for them to engage openly in political conduct and condemn another government body. Power without responsibility, or with an inflated sense of righteous purpose, is very scary.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Yes, this is a good illustration of the schizophrenia characterizing most of these marriages.

    No, it's a good illustration of Liz spending too much time with people who make her feel like she needs to split herself in half to please them. Childbearing is part of a sacred covenant, it's not something you plan like a dinner menu. There's nothing wrong with you, that you should torture yourself with atonement. Get married to a Christian man who loves you and that you respect, make babies with him, cherish your family.

    ReplyDelete
  104. No Alte, the difficulties of being from a mixed race background are real and I'm sure you'd accept that. If we have to create a new cultural norm, the mixed race person, that will provide a useful frame, but in the absence of that people are left wondering "to what tradition do I belong? Am I this am I that, what are my influences and what should I do if they are contradictory"? These are not small but real things. The "just be yourself" argument ignores that we are made up of many influences and backgrounds. Indeed it is not helpful and is a non answer to people who are looking for a strong sense of self.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Alte said,

    "No, it's a good illustration of Liz spending too much time with people who make her feel like she needs to split herself in half to please them"

    It sounds like you're referring to us here as well as perhaps her parents. I don't understand, you find yourself on a conservative blog and spend a considerable amount of time implying or saying that we're racist. Alte yes, race is a factor, a factor not the only one. It influences you and me and everyone. Should we deny our race to embrace yours? Should we pretend that it doesn't matter? What would you have us say?

    ReplyDelete
  106. I think:

    1) You're being unloving toward Liz. Not everything is political and sometimes you should just try to relate to people as actual persons, rather than as mere objects to be positioned for breeding. You guys are driving her batty, she's obviously eager to please you, and she's still quite young and impressionable.

    2) I was addressing the idea that she should aim to have "one each", as some sort of atonement for her racial "deficiencies". There's a point where anti-miscegenation just gets downright ridiculous. Her comment passed that point.

    3) In the real world -- where I live and outside of the "mental masturbation land" of the internet, women such as Liz are rare and valuable, regardless of her "racial makeup". The mere fact that she isn't a raging slut and doesn't think men are human scum already puts her in the top 25%. That she's young, eloquent, conservative, and passionate bumps her up again considerably. Unless she looks like troll... the world will be her oyster.

    Let's not kid ourselves here, Liz is a catch. If she didn't know it before, now she does. I know you don't want to admit that, for political reasons, but I have no such compunction. So... yeah: Be yourself, girl. There's nothing wrong with you, and there are a lot of things right with you.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Alte,

    You're overstating the case. I'm sure that Liz is a catch and I'm also sure that she can speak for herself.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Of course she can speak for herself, and I wouldn't be surprised if she comes on here and defends you guys against my criticism. :-)

    I just think... sometimes we get off into these theoretical discussions and it's like pure geekdom. We talk about people like they're chess pieces rather than human beings, and that can adversely affect the people reading what we write.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Elizabeth,

    You ask how I can be a feminist if I do not view women "as different." Regardless of my view, however (and I don't accept that you have quite stated it accurately), the fact remains that women are generally categorized and treated by the world at large "as different." Much of feminism is a response to that fact. When Gloria Steinem was asked why she views society through the prism of gender, she responded that it is society that views her through the prism of gender.

    You asked about freedom turning into slavery when it degenerates into anarchy and chaos. I agree, of course, that there are necessary limits to freedom for the sake of maintaining an orderly and civil society. Many of the distinctions between social liberals and social conservatives come about based on how we go about creating a balance between freedom and order, and how much freedom we are willing to sacrifice for the sake of order. And whether sacrificing a particular freedom actually will make the world safer and more orderly.

    And, yes, I understand that some people may WANT less freedom. Imagine a woman who wants to give up her right to vote or drive and place herself under the rule of a male authority figure. She has every right to allow some man to make important decisions for her, and she certainly should be free to advocate that other women do the same, and to try to convince society that women should be deprived of equal rights. I would have no right to interfere with her way of life or her advocacy of certain ideas -- but I would have a right to call her a damn fool and to fight her views tooth and nail.

    Hope that's responsive. to what you were getting at.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Bartholomew,

    I am not seeing where I contradicted myself. I think you can take someone as an individual while also taking his cultural background into account. EXAMPLE: When I met my husband, I was wary that his Roman Catholic upbringing might mean that he would have certain attitudes consistent with what the Church teaches (and which would have affected our life together). It turns out that he disagrees with the Church in which he was raised. So, while his membership in a particular group (Roman Catholics) raised questions for me, his individual beliefs and behaviors trumped his membership in a particular group.

    Nuance, Bartholomew, nuance.

    I also would never take race as a proxy for someone's attitudes because they don't really correlate. It seems like a poor proxy for determining who is likely to be violent.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Jesse, You are quite right that prosecutors have quite a bit of discretion and that they can be arrogant, powerhungry jackasses, or they can be foolish and make mistakes.

    But it is not as though prosecutors act without constraint. in the U.S., we always talk about "checks and balances." As a prosecutor, you can only bring a charge if it fits something that the lawmakers have deemed a crime. If your reading of the law is wrong, you then have to face a judge who will dismiss your case. And then, if you survive that, you still have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty and should be found guilty. Moreover, if you really go off the rails, you could find yourself facing a professional ethics panel that could censure you, suspend your license to practice law, etc.

    That said, none of these things are a guarantee against injustice. The "system" is only as good and as fair as the very fallible people in it. I don't think there is any solution that will guarantee perfect fairness.

    I can't speak to the example you gave about feminists wanting to equate intentional non-consensual brushing of a woman's erogenous zone with rape. I have just never heard of that, so I don't know what is being advocated or the rationale for it. Of course, I think that the system should distinguish between minor and major offenses, and what you describe sounds like a minor sexual offense. It is unacceptable but it is not rape.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Maggie as far as I know there is no minor or major sexual assault in Australia. There is aggravated sexual assault, but I believe that refers to minors, people with special vulnerabilities or cases with heavy violence. Whether the offense is minor or major is considered as a part of sentencing but not in the offences definition. If you look up wiki you'll see that sexual assault in the UK is merely unwanted touching that is "sexual" in nature, ie of the erogenous zones and with sexual intent. This is also the case in Australia and I imagine in the US too.

    If you expand sexual assault to include all nonconsensual or non accidental erogenous zone touching, you’ll have watered down the concept to an almost meaningless level and also widely expanded the net of who can get caught. As you know in America
    such a conviction can put you on a sexual offenders list.

    Here is an example of a female reporter in Cario being sexually assaulted.

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8211824/us-reporter-was-sexually-assaulted-in-egypt

    We have no idea from the facts whether she was stripped naked or merely had her ass grabbed. It is clarified that she "wasn't raped" but no additional info is given.

    What we're left with is a traditional offence, rape, with all its stigma, being applied to a new offence, sexual assault, which people aren't quite sure what its meaning but also that its less than rape. The feminists who expanded the offense of sexual assault are happy to include the traditional stigma, as it serves to fuel community outrage, but as I've said they've its also now a catch all. There is no crime of "rape" I believe in many jurisdictions in Australia only sexual assault.

    You admit that prosecutors have a lot of power and that ultimately it comes down to the quality of the people applying it. That's what so scares conservatives. The legal system has become a political arena for interested groups and one of the most motivated political group in the courts are the feminists. The general public largely hasn't paid attention to this because the vast majority of people won't be in the courts regularly. Which means that should you actually land in court you could be horribly stung. These offences are so broad in their potential application that the discretion of the prosecutors is now more important than ever, there being plenty of evidence to show that they're politically motivated.

    What we're getting into with the sexual assault and domestic violence areas is criminalising conduct that takes place in everyday life. If someone pushes their partner in a particularly heated argument that is domestic violence. If someone even creates an apprehension of imminent violence as you know that is an assault. When it comes to sexual assault the moment after the women withdraws consent, should the touching be continued, that is sexual assault. This is all just fodder for people with a political axe to grind, or for people who don’t really care about the consequences of their prosecutions.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I see she's still German.

    Oh, is it Tuesday already? M-W-F you're as American as apple pie, while T-Th-S you're the Germanest German who ever walked the Rhineland. Sounds like a good scheme, if you can get it.

    You're being unloving toward Liz. Not everything is political and sometimes you should just try to relate to people as actual persons, rather than as mere objects to be positioned for breeding.

    Nice dodge. In one swoop you get to sidestep the obvious and real difficulties that come of being mixed-race, while portraying us as a bunch of meanies for making an issue of it. I've told you before that I honestly don't think you see what we see, you don't see miscegenation's innate capacity for destruction, and this remains the case. The decisions that lead to these consequences are made in the real world, not an internet forum, and they are observed in there as well.

    ReplyDelete
  114. However, this does not mean that (preferably tiny) groups of ethnic minorities cannot live in Europe as assimilated groups and enjoy some rights, except they cannot be considered "full" Europeans, but only "partially, culturally European" non-Europeans.

    That's true as far as it goes. But their numbers would be so small as to be statistically insignificant. How many of these people would be willing to leave their homes if their prospective host made it plain that people of their ethnic makeup were only welcome in very small numbers? And how many of the ones who did come would begin agitating for their tribe after a few generations?

    ReplyDelete
  115. The reason why I possibly want to have a child in a fertility clinic for the race I didn't marry (bad I know...) is because when I look at my father, which is one race, and my mother, which is another race, I just keep thinking what will happen after he's gone and dead. What will happen to his and her blood. The family line. Sometimes I do go batty over this and for that I'm sorry. I don't believe in 1000% racial purity but there must be some common definition for race and a core that is 'pure' in a sense. My father and mother have even suggested that I marry a good Christian man of the same mixed racial makeup as me to keep the blood mixed (more focus on the Christian part thought...).

    ReplyDelete
  116. I don't understand, you find yourself on a conservative blog and spend a considerable amount of time implying or saying that we're racist.

    Do we define "racism" in terms of pointing out differences between races or in terms of hierarchy? So far, no-one here has tried to argue that there is a racial hierarchy (except Thordaddy, perhaps), nor is it relevant to ask the question. As far as I am concerned, I could not care less whether there exists a hierarchy, the only thing I care about is that there are significant differences, we are simply not the same. People of different races and ethnicities have created widely different civilizations over time. I have respect for foreign civilizations, especially Asian civilizations or Ancient Zoroastrian Persia before it became a hotbed of Islam. However, their civilization only fits their own people. This is why I also reject all attempt at propagating the "human rights" (whatever that means) gimmick: our culture is not universal, nor should it strive to proselytize. Western culture is good for Western people. Period.

    In the real world -- where I live and outside of the "mental masturbation land" of the internet, women such as Liz are rare and valuable, regardless of her "racial makeup".

    Alte, you are quite right to stress this. There are scarcely any more women who do not throw away their bodies to the first stranger interested and do not sleep around as a "God-given" right to a depraved way of life. The point I want to make is that I do not hate people who have another skin colour and a different culture, I just defend the right of my civilization to perpetuate itself within a given territory. I happen to have Asian friends, and I try not to judge people on their looks. I do not deny it is somewhat difficult sometimes. Acknowledging differences is evidence of love and mutual respect, unlike the right-liberal itch for turning us into calculating robots, cogs of an infernal machine-society with no feelings and no identity, idiots to be used, to work and consume, to row in order for the trireme of the liberal elite to sail further into the abyss of madness they are leading us into. It would be quite un-Christian to hate people, the more so on the sole basis of their race. However, all the evidence is here that we are different, this is why we should live in different countries, not to infringe upon one another’s notion of civilization. I can try as hard as I want, but my sympathies always fly to my kin first, and one does not fight nature.

    ReplyDelete
  117. We talk about people like they're chess pieces rather than human beings, and that can adversely affect the people reading what we write.

    I do not, Alte, that is precisely why I refuse to generalize on interracial marriage, because individuals might prove me wrong. Although the general rule remains (that miscegenation generally brings a myriad of tricky issues, notably identity-related issues), there is always room for exceptions, because individuals simply differ, however, the offspring cannot be considered fully something or something else, because they have become in-betweens. The more so our society is so obviously biased in favour of non-whites; I would wager, without the slightest doubt, that the PC brigade would do anything to brainwash the children (at all levels) and tell them to stick to the identity of their non-white parent, extolling the latter’s culture and so on. Again, I am far from having a pure ethnic make-up: I am virtually 70% Italian, 25% French and 5% Austrian, all of which are culturally close to some extent (keeping in mind the Italian part is from Venetia, which makes me look like an Austrian, besides, my French ancestry springs from the northern part of the country). However, I feel 100% French, simply because everyone have been assimilated down to my grandfather who earned his French naturalization by fighting for France in Algeria (on my father’s side, the French side, my grandfather fought in Indochina and was a resistant during WWII, harbouring a British paratroop and sabotaging German ordnance at some point, he was in his teens). They all have conservative leanings. Then, I assume this was made possible because these countries are culturally close, the more so since France was made by Frankish (i.e. Germanic) tribes.

    That's true as far as it goes. But their numbers would be so small as to be statistically insignificant. How many of these people would be willing to leave their homes if their prospective host made it plain that people of their ethnic makeup were only welcome in very small numbers? And how many of the ones who did come would begin agitating for their tribe after a few generations?

    Of course, they would have to represent no more than, say, 5% of overall population, and 5% would have to encompass ALL ethnic minorities (which would split them and prevent any concentration of alternative power). If they were so few, there would be virtually no problem for several reasons, the first being that they would not feel their numbers are sufficient to try and take over, therefore, they would be more likely to abide by our rules. Obviously, they would simply lack the numbers to agitate. When they arrive in droves, problems begin: they form enclaves where they speak their language, practice their religion, isolate themselves from the dominant culture, and develop a strong animosity toward native people and the native way of life. In tiny numbers, they might be cowed into obedience and abstain from proselytizing, and would lack the numbers to form significant enclaves that are typically places for cultural reproduction. If they begin agitating, there is always that flight home.

    ReplyDelete
  118. That is what we should do: systematically expel foreign criminals, or foreigners who made seditious/anti-native statements (like that Australian imam who likened Australian women to “uncovered pieces of meat”, which is hardly surprising; we all knew he liked them wrapped up, although they often happen to wear outrageously “sexy” lingerie beneath their black ghost raiment), forbid entry for foreign criminals, forbid family reunification in all circumstances, no rights for illegal aliens (dissolve all the groups who try and help them), confiscate firms who employ illegal aliens, and a complete revamp of naturalization laws (ban naturalization, except in extraordinary cases: when the applicant (a) is from a culturally close culture, e.g. German immigrants to America, (b) has shown exceptional devotion to the country). After this, pass laws to make all benefits and perks accessible only to nationals, and immigration would virtually grind to a halt. This is easy, really, we just have to find someone who will have the guts to implement this agenda.

    My father and mother have even suggested that I marry a good Christian man of the same mixed racial makeup as me to keep the blood mixed (more focus on the Christian part thought...).

    They are probably right, I would also stress Christianity. Nonetheless, please accept my regards as a fellow conservative and my congratulations for your lucidity: as Alte pointed out, there are scarcely any reasonable, virtous women left.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Southern Cross said,

    "... with no feelings and no identity, idiots to be used, to work and consume, to row in order for the trireme of the liberal elite to sail further into the abyss of madness they are leading us into".

    It really is a pleasure to read your comments Southern Cross.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Gez sorry that was Jesse 7 I posted again as Ivan.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Oh, is it Tuesday already? M-W-F you're as American as apple pie, while T-Th-S you're the Germanest German who ever walked the Rhineland. Sounds like a good scheme, if you can get it.

    LOL. Sure is.

    I've told you before that I honestly don't think you see what we see, you don't see miscegenation's innate capacity for destruction, and this remains the case.

    Not really, no.

    I just keep thinking what will happen after he's gone and dead. What will happen to his and her blood.

    I really have no idea what you're talking about. He lives on in you. That's sort of the point of having children.

    Do we define "racism" in terms of pointing out differences between races or in terms of hierarchy?

    I would say, neither. I think I would put "racism" in the same group with "sexism", "materialism", "classism", etc. I would define it as the tendency to assume that you know all about a person or situation merely by knowing their race, gender, property, class, whatever. People are more complex than that.

    Some of the comments I read on here about race are basically verbatim to what I hear on other sites about other people the commenters blame for all the evil in the world. If only we could get rid of the black people, if only we could get rid of the women, if only we could get rid of the men, if only we could get rid of the Christians, or the foreigners, or the liberals, or the conservatives... it's all the same stuff, just cut-and-paste.

    I'm all for a conservative discussion, and I find politics fascinating and am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the topics with a group of people with an unusual but interesting viewpoint. But then it just sort of melts down intellectually after a while, on threads like these. It's a new sort of Progressivism: we can create Utopia if we just get rid of the people who are inhibiting its creation.

    I just don't see the world that way. It's fallen, and it won't get up. Let's make it tolerable for ourselves and our children, push for sensible policies and sound government, do what you believe is right, and keep going until you die or Jesus comes back. Otherwise it just descends into: There's nothing wrong with our group, it's the other group that is all wrong! Here's the thing, though: everybody feels that way.

    When I saw the initial post, I thought it was an interesting chance to talk about women's stupid dating decisions. But it turned out that nobody cared about the actual story, other than using it as a prop to complain about black men again. That's sort of boring and pointless. Copy-paste-copy-paste... repeat.

    It's like the way the PUA's go on and on about fat or ugly women. The rhetoric is identical. Every time a story involves a black man the line is "it's because he's black!", just as they take every opportunity to point out that a woman is unattractive. Of course there's often an aspect of that to the story, but there are other aspects that might be worthy for discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Maggie wrote,

    "It turns out that he disagrees with the Church in which he was raised."

    In other words, he's not really a Catholic.

    The fact remains that you wouldn't marry traditional, white, Christian men. The fact remains that I wouldn't marry anyone but a traditional, white Christian woman.

    Once you're satisfied that he is none of the above, only then do you get to know him as an individual and decide his suitability.

    Likewise, only once I'm satisfied that she is one of the above, do I get to know her as an individual and decide on her suitability.

    You discriminate upon group differences for the same reason everyone does: because you can't sit down and have a cup of coffee with all 1 billion odd eligible singles on earth.

    It requires some pretty rough, wide-sweeping generalizations to cut that list down to a more manageable few dozen or so.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Alte said,

    "When I saw the initial post, I thought it was an interesting chance to talk about women's stupid dating decisions. But it turned out that nobody cared about the actual story, other than using it as a prop to complain about black men again."

    We've discussed the element of the woman's dating decisions alreatdy and this is the second time we're looking at this issue.

    Every group has strengths and weakness', however, it shouldn't be racism to suggest that one group has weaknesses and it shouldn't be required of correct conversation that any background or racial aspect be ignored or off limits for discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Alte exactly what makes you different from a farleft liberal. You sound exactly the same.
    Stop defending black men when there are crimes they commit in the name of "race". No one should be beyond reproach. Currently blacks have no mainstream critcism despite exhibiting unprecendent racism against another ethnic group "whites" I can't think of another period in history where an ethnic group has been bombarded with such racial charged sexual propaganda intended to humiliate. Not to mention the actual hyperviolent racialy charged sexual crimes blacks seem to commit in all nations in ridiculously high numbers.
    Not all black men are like this but it seems they certainly have a green light to be like this considering criticism of them has become virtually outlawed.
    If you are in support of this you are an oppressor and free thinking people wont stand with you.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Jesse,

    I never said that.

    Just look to the comment above this one for an e.g. of what I'm talking about. Only someone who is drinking some serious kool-aid and completely ignorant of history would write something like that.

    I may not agree with all of what Southern Cross wrote (although I agree with most of it), but I can at least give him the credit for sounding perfectly sane. Apparently... that's a stretch for some people.

    At any rate, it's boring. I come here for the insightful articles and commentary, including about race and immigration. Not for that sort of stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Alte everything i said was factual. You are infact ignorant.
    I'm starting to realise you are a just another chip on the shoulder ,lefty ,mixed black woman that believes she is conservative because she is wealthy.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Also what ignorance of history. This is our current history in the present. Are you referring to some sort of past history where "black" Africans were oppressed by Australians? Didn't happen. Australia has no such history. Or maybe you are referring to a collective white guilt in history that Australians are responsible for what other countries did to Africans. No doesn't sit.
    How is this not racism really.
    Fact is you can't reply to me because your debating skills are soft and you have an extremely biased view of history.

    ReplyDelete
  128. "I'm starting to realise you are a just another chip on the shoulder ,lefty ,mixed black woman that believes she is conservative because she is wealthy." ..ROFL.


    Hey Alte? I'm a bit short on cash right now, how about lending me a few grand?

    Chicken feed... for a wealthy woman such as yourself..Bwwwhhhhaaaaaaaa!

    I don't usually come here for the laughs, but I have been getting a few the past couple of days.

    Sheesh.....Have to change now. Spat coffee over myself (and my desk ) when I read that comment from anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  129. "Kathy Farrelly said..."

    *yawn*
    more lip service
    here here defend that sista bird brain.

    ReplyDelete
  130. @Elisabeth Smith
    It seems to me that “1000% racial purity” is 10 times greater than totally pure. This might qualify as extreme paranoia. I can understand why you go batty.

    You really think a future husband wants to father one child by you and accept a turkey baster father for the other child? BATTY!

    ReplyDelete
  131. Alte said,

    "I never said that".

    What the quote I attributed to you or my comment?

    On the directly above anonymous' quote I generally agree with it. Black people are one of the most hypersensitive and politically immune from criticism groups out there. This hypersensitivity is prevalent whether the criticisms are legitimate or not.

    You said,

    "At any rate, it's boring. I come here for the insightful articles and commentary, including about race and immigration. Not for that sort of stuff."

    Every time you put in a snide comment you invite a response.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Some of the comments I read on here about race are basically verbatim to what I hear on other sites about other people the commenters blame for all the evil in the world. If only we could get rid of the black people, if only we could get rid of the women, if only we could get rid of the men, if only we could get rid of the Christians, or the foreigners, or the liberals, or the conservatives... it's all the same stuff, just cut-and-paste.

    So your argument comes down to equivocation, and rests on the assumption that both "extremes" are equally incorrect. We hear the same thing from mewling centrists who insist that Christians are just as bad as Moslems, and the Right is just as bad as the Left. But if the two sides are in fact not equally incorrect, the argument fails.

    The fact is that whites are not culling blacks. White men are not targeting black women for rape on a massive scale in order to lash out at the black race. Whites do not consider most of Mexico to be white lands unjustly stolen. Whites are not shaking down nonwhites for their money and a greater and greater share of power.

    But you don't stop there. You go on to argue that, since both "extremes" are equally incorrect, the answer must lie in the middle (another centrist article of faith), which in the case of race is embodied by your own person. Far from admitting that miscegenation has some damaging aspects, you breeze past and imply that being mixed race is actually an elevated state of being which allows you to see more clearly than either side. You've awarded yourself all the fat and none of the calories.

    Ultimately, your views on this subject are self-serving. If you were to say something or claim a point of view because your husband is white, you'd never be able to identify it as such.

    ReplyDelete
  133. People are more complex than that.

    This is why I persist in saying culture (again a broader whole than just race or ethnicity) seems more relevant. Loyalty to one's culture, a feeling of belonging (and behaving in a way that demonstrates it) seem to matter more. I am sorry to say I have seen white people act as idiotic baboons, overindulging in binge-drinking, sleeping around and treating smart people with contempt, as if stupidity was a goal in itself. By contrast, even though we did not have the same skin colour, I know of some black people who spoke in civil terms, showed wisdom and calmness as well as self-restraint. Even though these people cannot be ethnic Europeans (this is a fact of nature), in some ways, they behave in a more European fashion than many natives. In that, I share Peter Hitchens' opinion that race should not be the main criterion. I assume you will agree with this, Alte. I have seen too many Europeans speak blasphemy or ridicule religion in contrast with non-ethnic Europeans who sometimes paid more respect and reverence to church buildings (e.g. Asian tourists), and I am sorry to say I sometimes feel closer to Christians whose race or ethnicity is different from mine than to fellow French people who behave as if they had half a brain, spit on my religion, know nothing of the history that should bind us (the bond is therefore all but severed), and live as if they had regressed to the point of "the state of nature" described by Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau. I am also a localist, not a nationalist. In this regard, my opinion is closer to those held by Alte and Jesse. I want no utopia (utopias always descend into socialist dystopias and anarchy), and I certainly do not think than my own ethnic group is without blemish, very far from it. Surely we have moved beyond the point of mere tribalism, already exposed by Edmund Burke, himself of Irish extraction, but as fine a patriot as any in eighteenth-century England and a man of impressive piety and wisdom.

    Alte exactly what makes you different from a farleft liberal. You sound exactly the same.

    Again, Alte is right: the lunatics are running the asylum. If Alte is a far-left liberal, then I am the Queen of England. This is ridiculous, really. If you want to engage into genuine bashing of far-left liberals (and I certainly understand the urge), there are plenty of forums where you will find genuine Marxoid creatures, but I have hardly seen any around here.

    I may not agree with all of what Southern Cross wrote (although I agree with most of it), but I can at least give him the credit for sounding perfectly sane.

    Thank you! I am under the same impression as you; some people here (the anonymous person who branded you a “far-left liberal”) are just barking mad and completely paranoid.

    ReplyDelete
  134. The fact is that whites are not culling blacks. White men are not targeting black women for rape on a massive scale in order to lash out at the black race. Whites do not consider most of Mexico to be white lands unjustly stolen. Whites are not shaking down nonwhites for their money and a greater and greater share of power.

    Of course. This is a fact, and it explains why people are better off when they live in their own cultural environment, this is why multi-cult is dangerous, because our norms widely differ. However, we should be perfectly honest in stating that white people are far from faultless, on the other hand, some black people may be polite and law-abiding, there is absolutely no contradiction here. Generalizations are un-conservative and do not help to build a constructive debate. The fact is that we agree our countries should be homogenous, but it does not mean this would solve all problems in a trice. I see absolutely no contradiction here.

    But you don't stop there. You go on to argue that, since both "extremes" are equally incorrect, the answer must lie in the middle (another centrist article of faith), which in the case of race is embodied by your own person. Far from admitting that miscegenation has some damaging aspects, you breeze past and imply that being mixed race is actually an elevated state of being which allows you to see more clearly than either side. You've awarded yourself all the fat and none of the calories.

    Well, I have already said I disapprove of miscegenation as a rule, and yet I do agree you cannot base everything upon race. Again, some non-ethnic European people have arguably been behaving in more European ways than many of these louts you see in some British city centres, and they are perfectly white and indigenous, this does not make them any less despicable, and they are a pain in the back of law-abiding locals, including indigenous people. You simply cannot generalize about everything.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Southern Cross said,

    "However, we should be perfectly honest in stating that white people are far from faultless, on the other hand, some black people may be polite and law-abiding, there is absolutely no contradiction here"

    Its rather embarrassing to say to a contributing and civilised person of foreign background, and there are many of those, that you'll never be a local, whilst at the same time giving support to any yobbo conduct from the natives.

    I hate to say it but its the blaize attitude to the future of many Australian natives that has allowed this immigration situation to develop. They didn't cause this immigration situation, it was the activist middle class, government and business interests who did that, nonetheless they'd rather get drunk on the beach than do anything serious about it

    ReplyDelete
  136. Its rather embarrassing to say to a contributing and civilised person of foreign background, and there are many of those, that you'll never be a local, whilst at the same time giving support to any yobbo conduct from the natives.

    Exactly. This is why I refuse to do so. These people may not be ethnic Europeans, but they have earned a measure of respect for their discipline. We need to be absolutely honest and fair about this. Nobody is going to be impressed by blind dogmatism.

    I hate to say it but its the blaize attitude to the future of many Australian natives that has allowed this immigration situation to develop. They didn't cause this immigration situation, it was the activist middle class, government and business interests who did that, nonetheless they'd rather get drunk on the beach than do anything serious about it.

    Amen to that. Many Westerners still are lenient toward colonization, we have seen it coming and people have done nothing. When they start whingeing and complaining, someone should remind them they were too busy carousing and sleeping around to realize we were being colonized even then. Remind them they accepted Muslim colonization because they were cowards or could not be bothered to do anything, that they much rather slouched on the couch and watched silly shows and brain-dead propaganda on the boob tube instead of getting out there and protesting their treatment at the hands of the liberal elite. We need to separate the wheat from the chaff among ourselves, or make sure these people are disciplined and brought back into civilization.

    ReplyDelete
  137. "Again, Alte is right: the lunatics are running the asylum. If Alte is a far-left liberal, then I am the Queen of England.
    Thank you! I am under the same impression as you; some people here (the anonymous person who branded you a “far-left liberal”) are just barking mad and completely paranoid."

    Oh yes we can't bring an actual arguement to discussion so we will just call people insane EVEN if all they present is reailty and facts.
    This is the behaviour of the farleft.

    By the way if this is actually what you believe you are in for a rude awakening...

    ReplyDelete
  138. "We need to separate the wheat from the chaff among ourselves, or make sure these people are disciplined and brought back into civilization."

    Its very clear you are the chaff. Considering you label people who protest "barking mad". You are a hinderance to any movement.

    Both your points in that post are negative to European Australians. One you deem the yobs unfit for support. Then two you declare its their own fault.
    Am I now a yob because i criticise you is it my own fault now for being in this situation?
    Are non-white Christians better than the Australian working class simply because they have a more appealing appearance to you. (non-white christians regularly get blind drunk in cities around Australia, this is ok right? They aren't offensive yobbos after all.)

    ReplyDelete
  139. Anonymous said,

    "Both your points in that post are negative to European Australians. One you deem the yobs unfit for support. Then two you declare its their own fault."

    If people choose to spend the bulk of their time in meaningless or semi destructive pursuits whose fault is it? Unfortunalty the yob culture is well advanced in Aus, UK and the US.

    ReplyDelete
  140. "
    If people choose to spend the bulk of their time in meaningless or semi destructive pursuits whose fault is it? Unfortunalty the yob culture is well advanced in Aus, UK and the US."

    How can you be certain of this? I know of a person who catagorically fits yob culture and is an Astrophysicist at Sydney uni. He is also pioneering new math formula.
    My point was that in all western countries the working class haven't been able to protest mass immigration and multiculturalism. They are typically called insane, nazis, bigots etc we have all heard this before.
    I've spent several years living in a more Australian area than my previous residency near Sydney. For some reason my ethnic and Australian friends seem to think of me as a "bogan" who "gets drunk and wastes his time on destructive pursuits" despite the fact i rarely if ever drink, Most of my past times are intellectual and I don't watch sports unless its a national game. Also one of my major life goals is to start a young family with my partner. Indeed this is all I ever see "yobs" doing , working hard and starting young families.
    In contrast my ethnic and Aussie friends who ridicule me, do get blind drunk virtually every day. Party non-stop and then think having a family anywhere in there twenties and thirties is insane stupidty. Many of these are apparently conservative christians too.
    So no I think the Australia stupid yobo stereotype is just that an elitist stereotype.

    Political Islam and the left are both doing very well because to them the End justifies the means.
    With conservative/traditionalists it seems you are scared to death of the means (you are fearful of being called things) or in typical christian fashion the means have to be so morally clean that the result is you have no momentum to your movement.

    Now I await to be called a nut.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Anonymous said,

    "So no I think the Australia stupid yobo stereotype is just that an elitist stereotype."

    If only that were true. I will admit that working class families are more likely to have kids at a younger age. Also the middle class are by no means free of this and they have many problems, they holiday whenever they can, turn over partners at a dizzying speed, are generally self indulgent and often remarkably incompetent.

    We have a situation in the West where our work ethic is semi shot. Many corporations work their people hard but the public service has totally raised the white flag and is known today as the "cushy" working/career option. Unionized labour makes a virtue of idleness and the introduction of the ever shrinking working week seems to be a widespread western goal.

    When people do work they do so for only two reasons, status and money. A deficit of either seems to give permission to do next to nothing at all.

    We have widespread immigration in the west because in part there are seen to be a whole host of jobs that white people won't do. From picking lettuce, to acting as cleaners, to many others. So we think we can bring in people to do our crap jobs while we party and are then somehow surprised when our societies seem to change.

    Immigrants come to our countries because, (with the exception of America and Mexicans, although that is also an enforcement issue) at the end of the day we let them.

    On the issue of working class criticisms being silenced by allegations of racism, that is true. However, every obstacle can be overcome if you're willing and everything is too hard if you're not really committed.

    ReplyDelete
  142. "We have widespread immigration in the west because in part there are seen to be a whole host of jobs that white people won't do. From picking lettuce, to acting as cleaners, to many others. So we think we can bring in people to do our crap jobs while we party and are then somehow surprised when our societies seem to change."
    Again this is anti-Australian sentiment wether you don't intend it.
    The fact of the matter is young Australians are blocked from applying to work these undesirable jobs even if they want to. The roles are taken by these immmigrants. You only have to go to many local ~99% Aussie suburbs coles or woolworths to see the entire working staff are immmigrant indians etc.
    What do the young Aussie people do for work then?
    Maybe this desire not to work dirty jobs applies to the upper middle and upper class of Australia only.
    I've personally cleaned toilets and have had to endure being told as a young Australian that i should "clean toilets everyone has to do it at one point" ad nauseum.

    Your whole arguement is basically the propaganda fed to us to legitimise mass immigration.

    ReplyDelete
  143. "wether you don't intend it."

    Wether you mean it or not it should read.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Anonymous said,

    "Again this is anti-Australian sentiment whether you don't intend it."

    That is totally incorrect. There are many Woolies were white people work. I'm a member of the army reserve and that is certainly employment available to all. You are just employing wishful thinking if you think that the curse of illdiscipline and the "shirk ethic" isn't widespread amongst white people.

    ReplyDelete
  145. I'm a member of the army reserve and that is certainly employment available to all.

    So a young white aussies should join the army? Become cannon fodder to defend the multiculturalists Australia.
    Its funny because this same advice is given to sort out ethnic crime. Send them to the army.

    Its true I did see among the 20 or so Arab staff at coles one young blonde guy.

    As far as ill discipline goes ive been asked constantly wether I was in the military when people question my effieceny on the job. Which i have to reply never. I've also had a fair number of ethnic managers insinuate im a lazy Alcoholic despite pulling the weight of every immigrant worker in the role.
    So I get the impression its expected of me to work at a miraculous rate and be thought of as less than dog **** by my fellow "Australians" because i'm hilariously a white Australian. This is one of the reasons i'm leaving this place.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Anonymous said,

    "Become cannon fodder to defend the multiculturalists Australia."

    What a lot of rubbish, you're obviously not keeping up with the casualty rates in Australia nor aware of the great pride of serving soldiers. Also in the Australian Army Reserve deployments are voluntary and we don't go to Afghanistan. Its your country pal. If you want a piece of it get somewhere in it.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Jesse
    Why does every answer to every problem from you and another poster who said he was in the army. Seem to be join the army. What about the elderly women and children are they all going to join the army.
    Your answer to street violence was join the army.
    Your answer to unemployment is join the army.
    Our society and civilisation has gone to the dogs if its reduced to some military bone heads fantasy of the strong surviving and the weak perishing because they "didn join the army"
    "If you want a piece of it get somewhere in it."
    I want to leave like i said.
    Maybe I'll throw you a rope when you are neck deep in thirdworld strife. Please be grateful though unlike expat Brits fleeing Britian and Californians fleeing California.

    ReplyDelete
  148. However, we should be perfectly honest in stating that white people are far from faultless, on the other hand, some black people may be polite and law-abiding, there is absolutely no contradiction here.

    Strawman. No one has even implied that whites are faultless, but they are your people.

    Generalizations are un-conservative and do not help to build a constructive debate.

    This is nonsense. Individuals behave in certain ways, but so do groups. And when it comes to matters of national survival, group behavior is enormously important. (When applied to crime it's called profiling, and profiling works.) You simply cannot judge millions of people by their sparkling individual personalities. I work with more blacks than you probably know, and one or two of them are among my favorite individuals, but if I were to speak to them candidly of the black crime rate in America and its anti-white nature, they would quickly circle the wagons and come to the defense of their own kind. Where you and I differ is that I understand that these individuals ultimately don't matter when it comes to the massive upheavals that the West is likely to see in the near future. My people come first. Hatred is not implied in that statement, though wariness is.

    Honestly, you seem more concerned with matters of the spirit than national survival, and perhaps this is why you didn't see what Alte was actually getting at when she said what she did. Still, you are far more advanced than I was at your age, and I hope you continue to advance.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Become cannon fodder to defend the multiculturalists Australia.

    I have to agree with this. I'm a veteran myself and served in Iraq during the invasion, but now I think that young men should be actively dissuaded from enlisting in the military. Those getting their heads blown off in Iraq and Afghanistan are there not to kill the enemy and advance the interests of the West, but to win the hearts and minds of an alien people who are very adept at manipulating them to get what they want. In essence, the foreign wars we are now prosecuting are wars fought for the sake of multiculturalism. They've dragged on as long as they have precisely because they are based on lies. We keep waiting with baited breath for the Arabs to turn into Jeffersonian republicans, and the Arabs keep reminding us that they are Arabs and that there is not god but Allah.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Anonymous said,

    "Why does every answer to every problem from you and another poster who said he was in the army. Seem to be join the army"

    If I go on about the army a lot that's because I'm proud of it. It works for me, for others its the church that works for them, for others again it will be something else. Whatever keeps you constructive, helps you deal with the issues facing the world today and allows you to contribute (to the men and society not just the multicultural state), is good.

    Van Wijk said,

    "Become cannon fodder to defend the multiculturalists Australia.

    ...I have to agree with this. I'm a veteran myself and served in Iraq during the invasion, but now I think that young men should be actively dissuaded from enlisting in the military."

    This attitude is not uncommon in the military. All I can say is that the casualty rates in many armies are too high, I don't know if the Oz army is just smaller, operates in safer areas, or for whatever reason, but their casualties are proportionally lower.

    The army's business is war fighting and business is good. Insurgencies have always been fought with the idea of winning over the locals. Malaysia was no different, any revolt you can think of wasn't different. If you just want to go through and start fire bombing villages well we don't do that now, and we never really did that in the West. If that cramps the options available well so be it, it still isn't the Somme. There are pros and cons to this strategy, and yes we were able to pull out of Iraq leaving a stable enough government when people said we couldn't.

    You know Van Wijk that guys fight to get on deployments. Whether this is just bravado, a desire for medals or extra money, soldiers have to be dissuaded from going and army recruitment rates are always up in wars because people join to serve not just to train. At the end of the day if such a mission only serves to put another line on the banner if you ask me that's reason enough. Personally I think its much more than that, you give these people half decent countries and that's your excuse to close the door, as well as having one less asshole peddling weapons against you. Should we really need an excuse? No, but this is the world we live in.

    I certainly don't say the army, especially the regular army is easy, without it though I'd feel I be lining up with the rest of the metrosexuals to sell out.

    Finally the veterans in our society will make themselves counted. It was world war one veterans who stood up to the communists in Australia in the 30's, although violence never really got out of hand, and the same again in Germany in the 20's, (with obviously less desirable final results). WW2 veterans provided the backbone of the resistance to communism during the cold war. Being tough and purposeful means that you can better serve your nation.

    Last story. During the Cronulla riots in Australia I was training with the commandos the weekend prior. They were all passing around their phones saying "its about time", (the message for the demonstration was passed around via text message). These are your ultimate muscle should the shit hit the fan. I know that if I need to I can call up my army mates and we'd be on the streets.

    Nonetheless I'm just a reservist and not a reg and so I hope I don't come across as patronising.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Van Wijk said,

    "They've dragged on as long as they have precisely because they are based on lies"

    No insurgencies go quickly. How long were the British Army in Northern Ireland? Nonetheless they're certainly winnable and you can definitely close them down. I've said this before, the majority of Afghanis, over 60% want us to stay and for Western backed security to be enforced. This is down from a much higher number. In any insurgency the vast majority of people will be just bystanders hoping to keep out of it as best they can. You only need a relatively small number of war fighters willing to intimidate the locals to keep it going.

    ReplyDelete
  152. reailty (sic) and facts.
    This is the behaviour of the farleft.


    We are now waiting for your reailty (sic) and facts. If you believe we are on the far-left, you wait until you have met a genuine Marxist. Not sure where you will put him, though, considering conservatives are already on the far-left according to you. Perhaps he would be somewhere beyond Alpha Centauri.

    Its very clear you are the chaff. Considering you label people who protest "barking mad".

    You twist my words as if I had said people who protest are "barking mad" whereas it only pertained to the paranoid fringe. Because you are part of it does not mean everyone is. Twisting other people's words is very popular on the far-left, by the way.

    Are non-white Christians better than the Australian working class simply because they have a more appealing appearance to you. (non-white christians regularly get blind drunk in cities around Australia, this is ok right? They aren't offensive yobbos after all.)

    If that is what you think, I recommend that you should (re-)read what I wrote. Idiots are idiots at the end of the day, whatever their skin colour. As for "appealing appearance", you clearly have not read my statements on interracial marriage. People are responsible for their own lives. Do not try to shift the responsibility of your actions onto others. Nowhere have I said non-white Christians are systematically better, I only said some of them might be, considering their actions. So what? I still feel strongly for my fellow whites, even though I deplore the behaviour of a good many of them.

    protest mass immigration and multiculturalism

    I have been protesting both, except I do not see Marxists everywhere (I rather see a complete lack of ideology and systematization). Oh, and I have better things to do than get drunk on the beach, which is an un-Christian pursuit: "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18, KJV).

    Your whole arguement is basically the propaganda fed to us to legitimise mass immigration.

    None of us is advocating it, and I am especially well known for my fierce, constant opposition to it in my academia. Forsooth, you would be aware of it, had you read any of my comments on this blog.

    This is one of the reasons i'm leaving this place.

    And where are you going? Canada? The United States? Britain? Sweden? It is far worse over there.

    Strawman. No one has even implied that whites are faultless, but they are your people.

    No, Van Wijk, the anonymous who replied to my comment (and Jesse’s) has been saying all the while white people are only passive victims. The truth is white people had this coming to them, they witnessed the development, and did nothing. Of course, they are my people, why do you think I am saying this? The idea behind this criticism is to point out our defects and improve. I may be aggravated at how many whites behave, but I am still willing to help them get out of this dead-end.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Southern Cross said,

    "I may be aggravated at how many whites behave, but I am still willing to help them get out of this dead-end"

    Of course.

    ReplyDelete
  154. This is nonsense. Individuals behave in certain ways, but so do groups.

    Perhaps, but you leave no room for exceptions, and I know of some non-white people who are quicker to defend us than some whites (of the liberal species). You fully well know there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of white liberals who would do everything in their power to tear down the very bases of our civilization and demean white people and brand them as responsible for all the world's woes. I am only saying some white people behave like primitives, overindulge in harmful substances, are too busy partying (especially students, and I know what I am talking about as I live in a student residence) to care for us, for our civilization, for what it means, and for its defence. Now I have never said this is a majority (although such depravation is rife within the younger generation), but we certainly need to bring back these people. My criticism aimed to make this clear; we acknowledge the defects, correct them, and move on. We agree on almost everything, but I will not generalize, simply because there are some rare exceptions, and the Lord would not have smitten Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone if He had found but one righteous person in their midst. Nowhere have I denied that groups matter, this is precisely why I oppose immigration (not only mass immigration, but the very concept of immigration); because it creates separated compartments within a same territory, with different cultures, values and goals, resulting in an eventual outburst of violence.

    Honestly, you seem more concerned with matters of the spirit than national survival, and perhaps this is why you didn't see what Alte was actually getting at when she said what she did. Still, you are far more advanced than I was at your age, and I hope you continue to advance.

    Possibly. What do you think she meant? All issues are moral at bottom, even economics, this is why we should have a systematized conservatism with very precise doctrines, or at least a core of doctrines around which there would be leeway for different takes and enough margin to adapt to changing circumstances. Creating (reviving, really) an articulate, yet understandable to the greater number, conservatism will make it easier to express our opinion and let people see what we stand for. We need a political party to do so, whether you are or not in favour of democracy (some people have openly advocated monarchy, and I must say this is not entirely uncongenial with my own ideas, although it should take into account differences in ethnic traditions), we will need to make our presence felt and be visible. In order to do so, we must have consistent doctrinal bases first, this is why “matters of the spirit” seem relevant to me. Precisely because a Western conservatism could muster people around an ideal and therefore trigger the renewal of our civilization. At present, I fail to see how we could achieve national survival, considering people are deep in slumber while our elite is actively shedding all things Western to replace them with foreign (preferably Mohammedan) idols, or shackling people by keeping them busy at the mall while playing chess with their pals. People need to get a grip, and this will not be achieved if you cannot present them with a credible, articulate alternative. Anyway, thank you for the compliment, I certainly try to improve.

    In essence, the foreign wars we are now prosecuting are wars fought for the sake of multiculturalism.

    I agree. If I may, I would also add UN rules make it impossible to wage a genuine war, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  155. If you see insurgencies as more like police actions in many ways, than wars, you'll see how excessive violence can be counter productive. If we still let the UN set our rules of engagement well more fool us.

    ReplyDelete
  156. "Van Wijk said..."
    Its not that just that I think simply being in the army makes you cannon fodder. Its the situation currently. In my view most of the western world has put forces in the middle east away from defending their own home countries. While the Muslims from the middle east and Africa trickle into our home countries committing Murder and rape against us with political protection. Just look at Britian Muslims abusing and assaulting dead and wounded soldiers returning home. Setting up pedophile rings. Its embarrassing that western countries haven't let in not one trojan horse but millions.
    I'm not a military strategist but it looks like a deliberate strategy on the part of the Muslims. To be in our countries while the military is bogged down in theirs.

    @ Jesse
    "I've said this before, the majority of Afghanis, over 60% want us to stay and for Western backed security to be enforced. "

    Who really gives a **** what they think they aren't us they are foreigners. Going back to what I said of course they want us there, they are killing westerners and tieing us up in that region so the army our "protectors" aren't around.

    "If you believe we are on the far-left, you wait until you have met a genuine Marxist."

    Yes they pretend to be Conservatives and even neo-nazis. Like I said before the End justifies the means. I was simply highlighting rudely I admit that people here seemed to be not only talking like farleftists but supporting their destructive agenda.

    "None of us is advocating it"

    It is what they say Australians don't want to work so bring in more foreigners. Which stops Australians from filling those positions. This is an alliance of business and multiculturalists (communists) though.

    "has been saying all the while white people are only passive victims."

    I was simply defending them. I do agree that their Acquiescence has contributed to the situation of the west indeed some went along with it but many that went along with it were our enemies in the first place. The point is even if they had or do fight it they are powerless. You do know what happens to most people who start verbally protesting this they get attacked, lose jobs etc.
    We never got a referendum or vote on mass immmigration it was simply forced on us by both parties.

    "And where are you going? Canada? The United States? Britain? Sweden? It is far worse over there."
    Thats my business but I do intend to keep in contact with Australia mostly for holiday trips.

    Personally I do not have some huge love affair with whiteness. I love Europe, Europeans and European culture. I think most of my philosphy comes from when some one attacks "white" people I look in the mirror and realise hey thats me. I wish others would realise and think like this.

    I think western countries for too long have not experienced the feeling of ethnic genocide. Like the rest of the world routinely has. We have had it very good for a long time. If mass immigration and multiculturalism(communism) isn't stopped we will experience what the rest of the world has never forgotten that different tribes kill and wipe each other out.
    Multiculturalism was a mistake that will end in great tradegy.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Anonymous said,

    "Going back to what I said of course they want us there, they are killing westerners and tying us up in that region so the army our "protectors" aren't around."

    People in a war zone don't think in such conspiratorial ways. Also its not the army's job to stop immigration, they’d just be sitting in the barracks and training if they were home.

    "Multiculturalism was a mistake that will end in great tragedy."

    I fear the great tragedy will be the gradual extinction of western civilisation. Also that we won't go out with a bang but with a whimper. I do think that people are starting to wake up to this now though. As an Aussie you'd know that "sustainable immigration" was a big issue at the last election. It'll only get bigger.

    ReplyDelete
  158. People in a war zone don't think in such conspiratorial ways. Also its not the army's job to stop immigration, they’d just be sitting in the barracks and training if they were home.

    I know they don't its our leaders job. So the conspiracy is connected to our leaders. They do conspire too there are immigrant recruitment centres in foreign muslim countries.

    Soldiers back at home do get let out in the community. From soldiers I do know that are here they are quick to defend against attacks from Ethnics in the community. Especially if its a sibling that is being bullied. They also humourously taunt arrogant lebanese in public. If they were all here the number of occurences of hostile middleasterans etc bumping up with military personal would increase.
    I also consider that our leaders have an uneasiness about allowing the army to be idle while multiculturalism and mass immmigration is on full steam ahead. You can probably guess why.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Mate that's a weak argument if ever I've heard one.

    ReplyDelete
  160. It still stands that our military is overseas when the conflict that affects us is here.

    ReplyDelete
  161. "Mate that's a weak argument if ever I've heard one."

    Also why is it weak? Its not as if the war is stopping terrorist attacks in western countries. If anything it increases them. If terrorist attacks wanted to be stopped you'd block Muslims at airports instead of ridiculously screening aussie families.

    ReplyDelete
  162. the End justifies the means

    If you had had any knowledge of intellectual, doctrinal conservatism, you would have never dared say such a thing. "The end justifies the means" has been a socialist motto since the 1930s, and a "justification" for the imposition of the welfare state. It shows you have no reverence for established order, authority and that you believe you can demean yourself, using dubious ways, pretending to act for a greater cause. In fact, you are no better than our foes if this is what you are ready to do. This is simply not moral, nor, therefore, Christian. No more need to be said: you go around, slapping people and telling them what you think they are as if you had any idea, and yet I am by now convinced you are unable to define conservatism in clear terms. This proves I was right to write we need to build a systematized conservative doctrine before we roll on our sleeves and get to work. Otherwise, we will have people around claiming to be conservatives while they really are adherents of a nationalism with revolutionary overtones. You should read Edmund Burke, sir, it would doubtless enlighten you as to the genuine nature of conservatism, instead of raving and speculating on people you do not know.

    ReplyDelete
  163. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Anonymous,

    Despite my harsh rhetoric I do actually have substantial sympathy for your position. If you grow up in a working class suburb in Sydney you'll see increasing numbers of immigrants, the Lebanese amongst them being potentially quite violent and aggressive. In such an environment any "war" seems not to take place in a distant land but on each street corner. I don't have an immediate answer for this. I've generally found that if I'm relatively respectful of foreigners, without being weak, they'll leave me alone. If I need to fight though I'm more than willing to regardless of the consequences. Most people in my experience don't actually want to fight but merely live their lives, consequences violence whilst a possibility isn't a daily occurrence in my reality. However, everyone has buttons and its generally pretty easy to push them and merely living your life in a free and unconcerned manner can be provocative to some people.

    We all need security as a basic in our lives. This is the role of the police and the legal system to provide. If someone starts something I'll be willing to call the police. If some illegal action takes place I'll be willing to be a witness in a court. If you know many police you'll know that they're sympathetic to your position. The "powers that be" that direct and control can actually be not that relevant in many instances and our legal system is still fair.

    Its not our job though to clear the Lebanese out of our neighborhoods. We all have to obey the law, which allows for self defence by the way, and its only permissible to go outside that in extremis. We all have rights even the Lebanese, and this is one of the reasons our societies have been so successful. I'd take up matters in the political realm rather that look for soldiers to help me with the baseball bat solution. The political realm, isn't just that of distant parliaments but the raising of community consciousness' to let representatives and other people know that we have certain expectations. This doesn't take place over a short time but is a long haul of creating expectations. Democracy isn't perfect but we the citizens have more power here than anywhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  165. "If you had had any knowledge of intellectual, doctrinal conservatism, you would have never dared say such a thing. "
    I don't care I'm not christian. I never defined what I was. You bag of bluster
    and don't you dare call me a nationalist(socialist).
    The End justifies the means is a term used by ALL. Including christians.
    Another source explains the phrase as meaning: "Anything is acceptable if it leads to a successful result." First use in the United States: "Diary" (1657) by Michael Wigglesworth (1631-1705), American clergyman and poet.


    I was simply refering to the fact you can't even be open about your aim and goals because you are so worried about appearing morally clean but its a moral cleanliness being defined by your opposition.

    ReplyDelete
  166. “I don't care I'm not christian. I never defined what I was. You bag of bluster
    and don't you dare call me a nationalist(socialist).”


    You clearly are no conservative for very obvious reasons; conservatives advocate a moral order that can only be derived from God (the Law and the Gospel), entire swathes of our legal system (even though many liberals do not realize this) are direct applications of biblical rules. Conservatives MUST be Christians in order to be genuine conservatives, otherwise there is no basis for any moral order. Although some have claimed to base it upon emotions, this is wide off the mark, and only an excuse for people to continue indulging themselves. You would do well to cease lecturing everyone on doctrinal matters you are manifestly ignorant of. You would also do well to stop insulting people and you should behave in a civil manner if you wish to lend any cogency to your point. Your constant referral to working-class people shows you are obsessed by class, an attitude that you may remember is directly derived from Karl Marx. Conservatives are in favour of a strong social hierarchy with a leadership of responsible elites distinguished by their intellectual abilities, more on this can be learnt from Benjamin Disraeli’s writings. You are no conservative, sir. Again, stop lecturing people on matters you do not fully grasp.

    The End justifies the means is a term used by ALL. Including christians.

    This is obviously incorrect. If any end compels us to violate one of the commandments (for instance), it is immoral, and therefore, we must refrain to carry out the act that would cause us to dodge it. We must find other ways, compliant with basic moral rules, and this is possible if you rack your brains instead of following the easy path as you seem to do. Your “morals” (or, rather, the lack thereof) is directly derived from Machiavellian thought, which is adverse to Christian morality. Now you may not care as you are no Christian, but conservatives do. Some ends are not worthy pursuing if it means we must lose our souls in the process.

    Another source explains the phrase as meaning: "Anything is acceptable if it leads to a successful result." First use in the United States: "Diary" (1657) by Michael Wigglesworth (1631-1705), American clergyman and poet.

    Because some isolated, recondite cleric or intellectual said this does not make it any more legitimate or true than someone claiming the earth is flat.


    I was simply refering (sic) to the fact you can't even be open about your aim and goals because you are so worried about appearing morally clean but its a moral cleanliness being defined by your opposition.

    No. There are very different ways to act in order to save the day. Again, you only have to mull it over, and find ways. You may not care about being morally clean (that is, to the best of our ability as fallen beings), but I do.

    ReplyDelete
  167. "Southern Cross said..."
    haha everything you said was a joke. Conservativism being exclusive to Christianity. This is as funny as you sky god worshipers saying im insane. Irony you should look it up.

    The end justifies the means is a saying so intwined in our culture its used by many a christian. I'm sure medieval christians had no qualms with starving besieged people to death.

    Still you don't understand what i'm talking about anyway. You are afraid to use un-PC language because you are scared. What Scott Morrison said recently is the Ends justifiying the means. He thinks their can be benefit from an anti-muslim campaign. People like you wont ever do this because you don't want to offend or whatever reason you have. You are a hinderance to Europeans everywhere especially those that aren't part of your exclusive country club. Stop claiming association with me thanks.
    I'll happily defend those christians with humility.

    ReplyDelete
  168. "Conservatives MUST be Christians in order to be genuine conservatives"
    This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard in my entire life. So conservative Muslims etc aren't conservatives. Conservativism isn't the sole ownership of christians and I do have a nice moral code that is cleaner than any christian I have ever met in my life. It is infact derived from it. Without the sky god.

    ReplyDelete
  169. No more can be said, sir. You obviously do not have a clue about either Western conservatism (which you so grossly amalgamate with Muslims, the revolutionary streak within Islam is the very opposite of conservatism) or manners (or, for that matter, spelling and grammar). I see no attempt on my part can have any effect on you. Therefore, I will stop wasting my time with you. Have a nice stay in cloud cuckoo land.

    ReplyDelete
  170. "Have a nice stay in cloud cuckoo land."
    Says the invisible sky god worshiper.

    ReplyDelete
  171. I agree with you, Mark, insofar as parents need to teach their daughters how to protect and defend themselves from rape.
    Other than that point, I think your opinion is sorely misguided. Let me explain why:
    Rape is an evil act committed by evil, violent men.
    Women, like all humans, should be able to live freely, independently, without having to fear attack by violent sociopaths (of any gender). Yes, people must be prudent, but it's never a woman's 'fault' that she was raped (or a man's, yes, men are victims of rape, too). It is always the fault of the rapist. Murderers are at fault for murder. Thieves are at fault for theft. Rapists are at fault for rape.
    How do you propose we stop murder? By never leaving our houses without an armed escort, and certainly never allowing anyone in to our houses? No? That won't work?
    Sure, if a person is in a situation where they fear they could be murdered, they should leave if possible. But fear of murder doesn't (or shouldn't) keep us confined to a box.
    Whether you intended it or not, your post implies that Katie was raped and attacked with acid because she believed she could 'be anything she wanted to be'. So you're saying that women should avoid pursuing any nontraditional goals, otherwise they will be the victims of rape. Then you attack feminists for trying to change men, as in, the men who are rapists. You attack feminists for wanting to solve the problem at its root, as opposed to solving it by keeping women barefoot in the kitchen.
    Uh-huh.
    If I didn't believe in "the realities of fallen human nature" before, I sure do now.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Then you attack feminists for trying to change men, as in, the men who are rapists.

    The feminist idea is that rape is used as a tool of the patriarchy to keep women subordinated. Therefore, feminists like to emphasise the idea that it is men in general who are responsible for rape. Their "solution" is to attack masculinity and male culture, as they identify these things with the patriarchy.

    That is not solving things at the root. It is an ideological attack on the ordinary man.

    It is not, in fact, an easy thing to solve the problem of rape at its source. A man who deliberately sets out to attack and rape a woman is choosing to commit a crime. So the question then becomes, how do you stop individuals from acting criminally.

    It's not enough to educate, as many criminals will already know that society regards what they are doing as morally wrong.

    You can try to keep family life strong so that as many people as possible have secure childhoods. You can have punishments to act as a deterrent.

    But some individuals will still choose to act criminally. I just don't think there is a utopian solution that will finally abolish crimes such as rape or murder. You just have to try to have a well-ordered society with an effective system of law and order to try and minimise the occurrence of crime.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.