Monday, November 14, 2011

Roebuck disliked his own

Peter Roebuck has died after jumping from his hotel room in South Africa. He had earlier been visited by police after claims of sexual misconduct against boys.

Roebuck was the captain of an English country cricket team, who then moved to Australia to become a cricket commentator. But he did not like Australians. Some of his newspaper columns read very oddly, as they combine the usual kind of sporting analysis with hate filled commentary against native born white Australians.

Here is one example (in which native born Australians are termed "lamingtons" which are a kind of cake popular in Australia):

AUSTRALIA must not be waylaid by nauseating nationalists convinced that the defeat in Perth was caused not by a combination of absent friends and wayward bowling but by a sudden bout of politeness. Nor must it take heed of backslappers arguing that India's celebrations and appealing at the WACA Ground matched Australia's excesses in Sydney.

That is to confuse joy with rage. Likewise, the umpiring was acceptable and even-handed. Only lamingtons imagine otherwise. The game is up for that lot. It is time to move on. It is debatable whether people born in this country should be allowed to vote. It is no achievement to emerge from a womb. They could just as well be in Winnipeg. Australia is best loved by its settlers.

Similarly in an column titled "Lily-livered lilywhites have held cricket back" Roebuck complained that,

Over the years, Australian cricket has been dominated by players of Anglo-Saxon extraction.

But Roebuck thought that there was a progress toward enlightenment in Australia, in which Anglo-Saxons were on the way out:

Australia is advancing. A bright-eyed 17-year-old girl is making her Test debut in Bowral. Aboriginal sides from every corner of the country are taking part in the Imparja Cup in Alice Springs. And a government led by a Mandarin speaker has just issued a formal apology to the first tenants of this vast, hostile continent. It is all part of the same process, a long-awaited and stiffly resisted move towards enlightenment.

Roebuck seemed to get some of his identity from turning against his own tradition. It did not make him a happy man. Those writing his obituaries have struggled to portray him as a man with an anchored sense of self. In one column, he is described in these terms:

Peter Roebuck has jumped to his death in Cape Town, leaving behind the last great mystery of a complex and often tortured life that was full of questions and very few answers...

His life often appeared a long, lonely and ultimately futile attempt to find fulfilment, with plenty of controversy along the way, notably his suspended jail sentence 10 years ago after he admitted caning three young cricketers he had offered to coach.

It was that unedifying court case in Taunton that led many to question Roebuck’s motives when he helped fund the education of promising young cricketers, often providing accommodation for them at his homes in Sydney and Pietermaritzburg...

I worked briefly with Roebuck 12 years ago at the Sunday Telegraph and I have to say I found him the rudest, most prickly and unhelpful colleague I have ever experienced.

Facts rarely featured in his work. But I never got to know him properly and those who did spoke very differently on Sunday.

‘Scatty and focused, brilliant and fallible, muscular yet incredibly fragile, Peter Roebuck was too many men rolled into an irreplaceable one,’ wrote his friend Peter English in a brilliant tribute on the website Cricinfo, to which Roebuck contributed.

‘Individuals like him often sit on the outside, making choices and then fretting over the consequences.

‘In the end it was a wonder he lasted so long, dealing with demons and demonising which shadowed him during his playing days and forever after. Deep down, I think, he knew he would determine his end.’

I can't think of Roebuck as an admirable man. He cut himself off from some of the healthier and sustaining attachments in life with his disloyalty to his own kind.

[Readers: I'd ask that comments be restrained in nature in the light of Roebuck's recent death]

109 comments:

  1. I've experienced this a bit from Brits. To the point i'm very suspcious of them.
    When I used to visit Sydney I was once threatened to have my "fuggan head smashed in" by a Brit in a pub.
    At a bar I was denied service by a young British girl for no reason, again in Sydney.
    At university I had to work with an ex-pat Brit that was incredibly hostile to me and then recently I experienced the same rudness, hostility and terrible service from British airways(who I will try to avoid flying again with)
    I have countless more stories but it will go on a bit that have shaped my perception of Brits.

    Its possibly because im one of the hated "gingers" or "rangas" in Australia.

    So I can say the feeling is mutual now.

    I can say with the younger generation of Brits it has a more disturbingly intraracial aspect to it. They will simply hate you because you are fair skinned.

    Interesting I asked a lot of people around Europe who their most hated tourist group was. Everytime the reply was Brits even in countries where Russian tourists are usually the most disliked due to history.
    I was very proud to say I was Australian and I was received warmly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anon,

    I don't think this was a Brit vs Aussie thing. Roebuck specifically attacked Anglo-Saxons - which he was himself. Similarly, there are plenty of red-haired and/or fair-skinned Brits, so it makes no sense for Brits to attack you on that basis.

    I'm not sure what motivated Roebuck. Perhaps he was overcompensating for criticism he received when he dropped some West Indian players from the Somerset team. Perhaps it was due to his general unhappiness in life. Perhaps it just reflects a certain nihilism amongst the more jaded members of the Anglo political class.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not a cricket fan, never heard of him before this. His racial outlook is unsurprising for a man with such, erm, inclinations. Can't say much more and stay within Mark's guidelines.

    Anonymous, although living in OZ now, I was born in the UK and love redheads. Maybe you just ran into some snotty Brits, like some Brits run into some meathead Australians.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes you are right Mark. I didn't actually mean it as a Brit vs Aussie thing. I was thinking of the English but its true British refers to Scottish , Welsh etc aswell.
    What I was thinking was is that my encounters with specifically Anglo English have been a self loathing and hating of their own kind.
    I'm mostly of English decent and used to think of myself positively as an Anglo saxon.
    The hate is the oppisite of Anglophilia , Anglophobia perhaps I've never heard the term.

    "..there are plenty of red-haired and/or fair-skinned Brits, so it makes no sense for Brits to attack you on that basis."

    If they hate their own based on ethnicity this makes perfect sense.

    "Anonymous, although living in OZ now, I was born in the UK and love redheads. Maybe you just ran into some snotty Brits, like some Brits run into some meathead Australians."

    I've experienced my fare share of redhead hate to know this is the case so I don't buy that.
    A standout moment was when I was in the car with my father when on the radio a presenter called for all redhead kids to be aborted at birth and for the rest to be gased.
    Up until then my father didn't believe me that there was hostility towards redheads.

    So yes I hate my own kind just like Roebuck. I'm the anon who has posted about wanting to leave Australia. I can't stand Anglos either. Though I try to find good in my kind I feel thoroughly betrayed by them. Particularly the women.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The focus on red head jokes etc I find quite preposterous and bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous, I don't disagree about the level of redhead hate. But it's mostly media driven. Anyone who looks beyond the TV knows that for every Richie Cunningham there is a Josh Homme. It wasn't a 'hate' that existed 30 years ago. Redheads were just 'fiery' with a reputation for physicality back then. Now the opposite stereotype is doing the rounds. It'll pass once the morons who engage in it start getting slapped down. I mean, seriously, it is the most groundless form of 'hate' there is.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am a white Canadian of Irish ancestry and I have visited Australia once when I was a merchant seaman. We were in Freemantle and sadly I did not make it into Perth. However, Freemantle was gorgeous.

    I knew that Australia was a part of the Commonwealth just as Canada is but I did not know how Australia felt about that. I was aware that a referendum had taken place in 1999 on whether to become a republic or not, and that was defeated by a narrow margin.

    I did, however, come across several newspapers with leading stories in the headlines about matters pertaining to the Royal Family, which I found odd. Even in Canada one rarely sees in the newspapers any stories having to do with the British Monarchy.

    The question arises sometimes here in Canada about whether or not we should become a parliamentary republic, but no one has seriously tabled this in the House of Commons. Me personally, I hope one day it does. There is absolutely no reason why a new immigrant should be swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen of Britain.

    Will Australia become a republic in the near future?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good to see someone bring up the hatred towards "Anglos" that Roebuck often phlegm specked his so called erudite essays and articles. It was his one constant that he returned to time and again throughout his writing career.

    It makes sense that this sort of person would write for the SMH, be promoted by the ABC and be generally worshipped by self-hating yuppie and dink Ozzies everywhere.

    [Readers: I'd ask that comments be restrained in nature in the light of Roebuck's recent death]

    This attitude is due to your inherent decency, but it is misplaced. There is no place for returning decency when the establishment propagandists are extremely indecent and so full of venom, that they cover up worrying character traits simply because they like a man's writing abilities.

    Setting aside Spanky Roebuck's anti-White vitriol, there is a criminal conviction in his past that should have rung warning bells to his employers, and those who adulate his charitable works programmes.

    The man is cold on the slab, with no change in temperament to that which he had in life. The only difference is he's not breathing, or writing.

    Now is the time to strike since a) you cannot be sued for defamation and b) the cognoscenti needs the truth shoved into their face, warts and all.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am fully in agreement with the bluey anonymous. This "ranga" hatred is insane and despicable. It's one of the only overt racial expressions of irrational hate that is allowable in our society, which should indicate what racism is truly about. Anti-racism is a codeword for anti-White.

    Many of my relatives have red hair and it sickens me when I hear this abuse, in the guise of jokes, with red heads as their target.

    I also agree that the English one meets, not all, certainly do exhibit a strange hatred towards White Ozzies.

    And the English, on the whole, refuse to blame anyone for their predicament excepting Irish or Celts. It was a theme not so long ago at Austers, and still rears its head from time to time, that the Irish ruined England and much scorn is heaped upon them.

    Perhaps that is why the English are so free and easy with their "ginger" hatred. It's the one race they hate more than anything, a hatred in their bones. They'd prefer to wipe themselves from the map, irrevocably change the nature of their own English cricket game emblematic of their culture, rather than one minute tolerate a red-head/Celt on equal terms.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I'm not sure what motivated Roebuck."

    I'm pretty sure what motivated Roebuck was a desire to be different.

    Different, as a contrarian.

    Different, as a sh1t-stirrer.

    Different than your average bonehead cricketer.

    I also reckon his hissy fit after the 2008 Wild Dogs SCG Test against India was motivated by his hatred of seeing happy Aussies, who had just beaten the noble Indians.

    (In the aftermath he has continued to compare the "craven" Aussies to the exemplary Anil Kumble, as if Kumble is the very paragon of cricketing decorum, not a fiercely competitive over-appealer. Why, only one Test after Sydney (Perth) Kumble got Symonds LBW despite Symonds smashing the ball onto his pad, a smash Kumble certainly would have been aware of.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. the English, on the whole, refuse to blame anyone for their predicament excepting Irish or Celts.

    Can you cite an example of an ENGLISH person blaming the Irish? (Auster is, um, not English -- indeed, he scorns England as the Isle of the Dead.)

    I hear more examples of the Brits blaming the Americans for "everything" than the Irish.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tim said,

    "Will Australia become a republic in the near future?"

    I certainly hope not as there's no reason to change. As for new immigrants swearing alligience but not feeling connected to the British history, if they're searious about fitting into our country they won't have a problem with it. If they're not serious then why should we change to accomodate them?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Let's not forget what we know is fact about Roebuck:

    He broke the sanctity of the teacher-student relationship by using his students for his own sexual gratification.

    Look up the judges remarks to the spanking case if you don't believe me.

    Roebuck being allowed into Australia to teach young cricketers and then preach to Australian's via fairfax and the abc is a national disgrace. As is the MSM's reaction to his suicide.

    The Jews have a term for members of tribe who stray-'self-haters'. This is what Roebuck was. He clearly loathed his own behaviour to such an extent it manifested as hatred for theAnglo-Saxon tribe.

    The Australian sporting landscape is better for his passing.

    ----

    Jesse I agree re the Monarchy. Imagine some ghastly politician as Australian President? No thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Can you cite an example of an ENGLISH person blaming the Irish?

    With pleasure.

    You might like to take the week off so you can read the tomes dedicated to the Irish ruining England, all with multiple Poms and ex-pats sticking the boot in.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The 'bluey' again
    Veganista said
    ". It wasn't a 'hate' that existed 30 years ago. "
    This is true I hold on firmly to my memory and photos of growing up in Australia where every kid was blonde or redhaired there was a great sense of homogeneity. In my community at least we were all predominately of English ancestory(you could also play in the streets back then). My younger brother hasn't had this experience his school photos there isn't a natural redhead or blonde to be found.
    Its real evidence of ethnic replacement.

    When I was growing up I had a lot of incidences of irrational hate from mainly female school teachers with upper class English accents.
    I was called a liar and a thief and repeatedly humiliated infront of the other kids.
    On reflection this was the anti irish prejudice that Pat is talking about. Funninly I have not a bit of Irish or Scottish ancestory(there are plenty of nordic redheads)

    However the recent anti-redhead sentiments are not related to the Irish and English rivalry. Most young people have no memomry or knowledge of this rivalry and a lot of people who partake in it are not even English.
    No its entirelly racial and its come about because of Multiculturalism and the cult of non-white worship and white derision . I've been threatened with assault, assaulted, racially abused at jobs. Lost jobs and promotions, Humiliated infront of girlfriends and nearly every sort of REAL racial attack directed at me over my fair skin and redhair by every racial group under the sun including my own.
    Its not just name calling.

    I have had to clean logins off PCs at an inner city company frequented by lebanese examples such as "Aussies are rangas" and "kill all rangas" what relation has this got to do with the Irish and English rivalry. None. Its just pure middleastern hate of Anglo/celts.

    I wont even get into my experience with Africans they hate me as soon as they see me and some even think my pale skin is a choice and refusal to tan which marks me out as a white supremacist.

    What has this got to do with Anglos disliking their own. Well especially with young Anglo girls worldwide they have rejected their own for what is cool and in. Non-whites are cool and in and white ares uncool and horrible people. A lot of this is because of pop culture like R&B, rap and hip hop.

    I once had a beautiful Blonde female English friend who I respected. After a long time of no contact with her I decided to look her up on one of the popular networking sites. What did i find. She was dating a South african Black. Her page was covered with messsages from her and her new friends all Blacks, Arabs and white girls racially ridiculing Redheads and curiously Asian men.

    Then there was a pacific islander I knew that ranted endlessly about rangas and even after I told him off and he apologised he continued to rant endlessly about rangas.

    I can't imagine a Redheaded white guy getting away with this behaviour against minorities and not being hauled off for hate crimes. Hell even try retorting against southern Europeans and they will try to get you for 'racism'

    I was once referred to as a genetic mistake by a female science teacher this was later picked up by the students and one student who said I shouldn't exist I was a genetic disease. To which im grateful that a male science teacher stepped in and said that was not on as the class was devolving into a hate redheads fest.

    This is the reason I won't support liberalism and multiculturalism as long as i'm racial abused in the media and society freely by cowards who think it is an acceptable form or racism.

    Multiculturalism and liberalism has just left our society with infinitely complex new racial feuds.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon,

    You're right that the abuse of redheads is out of control. The dumb blonde jokes are bad enough, but the attacks on redheads are worse - it's treated like some unfortunate disease by some people now. But I'd urge redheads not to take it too much to heart - the truth is that red hair can be very beautiful. Nicole Kidman looks fantastic as a redhead, as does Amy Adams. Ann Margret is another. Prince Harry is very popular right now amongst high school girls - I taught one girl this year whose great ambition was to park out near Buckingham Palace in the hopes of getting to speak to him.

    ReplyDelete
  17. He clearly loathed his own behaviour to such an extent it manifested as hatred for the Anglo-Saxon tribe.

    That's a worthwhile explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Save up for that private school.

    This was never funny.

    Throw the ethnics a bone. Yeah redheads are ridiculous and should be the subject of scorn, so says an Australian state government. A portent of a an unpleasant future.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Its ridicule without content though so it seems hard to believe that anyone is serious about what they say? If people take it too far that just shows how bizarre some people are these days. I'd try not to take it personally Anon as it seems a sad joke that's gone on too long. I have mates who love being red heads. I knew of one ginger haifed girl who was in a bar and someone went directed up to her and shouted in her face 'ranga!'. She just looked at them in a bemused fashion, that's really all that kind of comment deserves in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Can you cite an example of an ENGLISH person blaming the Irish?

    With pleasure.


    Um, that example FAILED completely. Didn't I tell you to cite someone OTHER than Auster, who is not English?

    In that Auster post, "Karen from England" does not blame the Irish for everything that's wrong with England. She rightly said the IRA was a terrorist organization deciated to attacking the British that enjoys wide support in Ireland, but this is hardly the same as blaming the Irish in general for the "English predicament".

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Will Australia become a republic in the near future?"

    I certainly hope not as there's no reason to change.


    Yes there is. The British Royal Family is a degenerate institution. They are all Leftists and all enemies of their own people. They despise white Australians as much as they despise white English people. They cannot save you -- they want to help the Australian elite push you over the cliff -- and they will never, ever form the basis for a revival of traditionalism in Britain or Australia.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Imagine some ghastly politician as Australian President? No thanks.

    Who could be more ghastly or liberal than the revolting Prince Charles? A lover of Islam, a believer in every crazy liberal cause, a man who wants to impose crushing totalitarianism in the name of "the environment", and a man who cheated on his beautiful young wife and treated her like dirt. This is your hero? How is he superior to Julia Gillard who, for all her awfulness, can at least be FIRED when you're sick of her, unlike any British monarch.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This is true I hold on firmly to my memory and photos of growing up in Australia where every kid was blonde or redhaired there was a great sense of homogeneity.

    Well, when I grew up in Australia in the 1960s and 1970s, every kid was brunette, and there were very few blondes/gingers, so the homogeneity was on the basis of skin color not hair color.

    I never experienced any anti-ginger prejudice. The only prejudice I ever heard was anti-Enlgish, from Irish-Australians sneering at "Pommie Bastards".

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Well, when I grew up in Australia in the 1960s and 1970s, every kid was brunette, and there were very few blondes/gingers, so the homogeneity was on the basis of skin color not hair color.

    I never experienced any anti-ginger prejudice. The only prejudice I ever heard was anti-Enlgish, from Irish-Australians sneering at "Pommie Bastards"."

    Are you a redhead? This just sounds unusual that you say you grew up in a community that at the time was exclusively brunette and Australian?
    Sounds like an immigrant community.

    Say you are a redhead you are very lucky to not have experienced any prejudice especially being the only redhead in your brunette community this is also strange. I see you also use "gingers". Redheads almost never refer to themselves as such.

    I'm just getting the impression you aren't a redhead and are ridiculously saying you have never experienced it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. '...Julia Gillard who, for all her awfulness, can at least be FIRED when you're sick of her, unlike any British monarch.'

    Wow. Year 8 Social Studies teachers read this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Well, when I grew up in Australia in the 1960s and 1970s, every kid was brunette, and there were very few blondes/gingers, so the homogeneity was on the basis of skin color not hair color."

    I grew up in Newcastle, Australia in the 70's and 80's and we had loads of redheads and plenty of blonds. Did you grow up in NT?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Fwiw, I have no affection for the British monarchy whatsoever and agree that Charles in particular is a disgrace (trying to be polite here).

    However, our system would only get worse if we were to go down the route of a presidential style republic, which no doubt would also entail some totalitarian bill of rights nonsense.

    People of British heritage love the monarchy thing, especially the oldies, and I'm happy for them in that regard. It's their heritage of which they should be proud. Me not sharing it, nor feeling any affinity with it, does not mean I want a republic.

    Just my 2 cents.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I grew up in Newcastle, Australia in the 70's and 80's and we had loads of redheads and plenty of blonds. Did you grow up in NT?

    Ha, exactly my experience. There were plenty of brunettes at school, I was one, but also plenty of blondes and blueys. My own family is blonde, brunette, and ginger tinged. Quite a normal Celtic array.

    Which reminds me of that Kanazawa post where he pointed out that blonde hair is an indication of youth which he asserts is why it was selected for.

    A lot of Anglo-Celtic kids are blonde in youth and turn brunette in later years.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I grew up in Newcastle, Australia in the 70's and 80's and we had loads of redheads and plenty of blonds. Did you grow up in NT?

    Woollahra.

    Say you are a redhead you are very lucky to not have experienced any prejudice especially being the only redhead in your brunette community this is also strange.

    It is what it is.

    I see you also use "gingers". Redheads almost never refer to themselves as such.

    My hair is not red. It is ginger.

    I'd never heard the term "ranga" before I saw it here recently.

    I'm just getting the impression you aren't a redhead and are ridiculously saying you have never experienced it.

    I have ginger hair, and I don't give a damn if you believe me or not.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I've been pleasantly surprised that the fact that the mass-media have allowed any criticism of Roebuck's antics at all. Might this be the beginning of a backlash against the modern mania for pretending that same-sex kinkiness is morally acceptable and that only "homophobes" (never defined) could object to it?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anti-Ginger bias has a long history in Western Europe documented even in the Middle Ages. The place from which most red-heads' ancestery spring is also the placve where anti-red-headed sentiment runs strongest.

    For some reason, former British colonies, also stock full of red heads, did not adopt that attitude. So it is conceivable that is what Anonymous experienced.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I see you have the same illegitimate fears some Canadians have over whether or not to remove ourselves from the Commonwealth. Nobody in Canada wants a Presidential Republic. We want a Parliamentiary Republic. In other words, we want to keep the same system we have now - a Westminster style of government with a House of Commons and a Prime Minister. We simply want the head of state to be a Canadian, and not the Queen. I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I'm sorry to derail this thread, but is it true Australia will tolerate up to 2500 US Marines stationed on Aussie soil?

    http://rt.com/news/us-troops-australia-china-471/

    ReplyDelete
  34. Yes Tim there will be an increased US presence in Australia but it will be short of a military base. I've got no problem with it considering China is a growing power.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "I'm sorry to derail this thread, but is it true Australia will tolerate up to 2500 US Marines stationed on Aussie soil?

    http://rt.com/news/us-troops-australia-china-471/"

    This isn't good news. Where ever there are US bases there is a spike in African american crime. Gang rape, underage rape and murders.
    Just look at the history of US bases in Japan, Germany and the US itself.

    I advise anyone living near a US army base with a family to move asap.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Bluey here again.

    Homosexuals often exhibit a hatred towards anglo culture. I was at a social gathering once where an openly gay man started listing all the conservative white politicians he thought should die.
    He then started laying into Anglo people specifically focusing his hate and ridicule on Anglo women which he thought of as gullible idiots that deserve any suffering that comes their way.
    I found the mans views revolting.

    "Ha, exactly my experience. There were plenty of brunettes at school, I was one, but also plenty of blondes and blueys. My own family is blonde, brunette, and ginger tinged. Quite a normal Celtic array."

    Its a defining feature of the British ethnicities that there is the most variation in colouring even within the same family.
    This is something that people outside the British collective ethnicity just don't understand.
    Many outsiders assume a family consisting of redheads, blondes and brunettes are all unrelated.

    In my situation im in a relationship with a blonde nordic woman there is a very high chance we will have Redhaired and blonde kids.
    I'm fearful of raising children here when there are enforced stereotyopes with in the media, society and even the government such as lecherous thirdworld men foisted onto blonde and redhaired girls . For redhead boys and girls to feel they are ugly and to have low self esteem and likewise for blonde boys to be encouraged into homosexuality or for blonde girls to feel they are idiots.

    I'm seeing increasing numbers of businesses and corperations that exclusively are run by thirdworld men and filled with their fellow thirdworld men and disturbingly white women.
    I refuse to raise a family in this environment.


    So i wish to move to traditional communities in Scandanavia where there is a high number of blondes and reds exactly the same as the numbers I grew up with in Australia.
    Its not all perfect there anyway ive witnessed with my own eyes the african sex tourists prowling all white Scanadanavian suburbs and molesting women in the cities.
    I'm very worried about the future.
    I prize tradtionalist communities and they are urgently needed for white people worldwide to give us sanctuary from not only foreigners but those of our own kind who hate us and betray us with astonishing glee.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous said,

    "Where ever there are US bases there is a spike in African american crime. Gang rape, underage rape and murders.
    Just look at the history of US bases in Japan, Germany and the US itself."

    Get off it wherever there are young men there will be crime from time to time and the number of incidents are small compared to the number of soldiers involved. Also they're no doubt made much of for political reasons. Soldiers are subject to stricter disciplinary standards and punishments than average civilians so if you want to see crime move into a downmarket tourist, bohemian, or welfare dominated area.

    We're getting a lot of negative comments from an Anonymous of late. I would encourage you not just to throw up negative comments for the sake of getting a reaction as its not constructive.

    ReplyDelete
  38. @jesse
    Thats strange are you a part of the US army?

    "We're getting a lot of negative comments from an Anonymous of late."

    whos we? The US military?

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Get off it wherever there are young men there will be crime from time to time and the number of incidents are small compared to the number of soldiers involved."
    You condone rapes and murder by a foreign powers military. Just some boys having fun right?
    Disgusting.
    Don't take people for fools either everyone knows the military isn't squeaky clean under the surface.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Murders and rapes are illegal and punished by the law. That's what the legal civilian and military systems are there for. You don't disband the military because of occasional crimes by its members in the same way that you don't disband any other utility because of illegalities by its individuals . Arguments about the crime rates associated with US bases are typically used, or exaggerated, by those who don't want the base there for political reasons, does everyone like American “foreign policy”? and consequently are typically without much content given the statistical numbers of soldiers present.

    As for "we" I mean this site. Its very difficult to know who's speaking when people are called Anonymous but there seems a strong temptation for people to add comments like "we're doomed", and "its all pointless", which may come from and express a legitimate concern or distress, but which can also extend to the unconstructive and self indulgent motive of finding pleasure in being negative. We wouldn't want to fall into the second category would we?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Jesse you seem to think the Australian military IS the US military.
    My factual criticism of US military bases has nothing to do with the Australian military.
    Why are you defending the US military in such a knee jerk way.

    Australians have a history of not taking sh!t from US soldiers we have famously brawled with them as far back as the wars when they were forced onto our communities.

    I just don't understand your love affair it seems with "The Army" Even other nations armies!

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Arguments about the crime rates associated with US bases are typically used, or exaggerated, by those who don't want the base there for political reasons, does everyone like American “foreign policy”? "

    I specifically said African American. Its unusually high among them. Its low with the other members of the US military. Its been talked about by posters on VFR, famously the conservative Kelsey grammers young sister was raped and murdered by 3 African americans from the US military.

    Don't deny this.

    ReplyDelete
  43. What are these US military crime rates? The US military is huge so of course there will be some crime committed by its members? You make them out to be like Vikings in a monastery and are suggesting that everyone should run from wherever they are in fear of their lives. Incidentally as far as I’ve heard there will be no US bases in Australia only increased joint training. The US soldiers I’ve met have generally been very polite and they’re well received by the Shoalwater Bay Queensland community where they conduct their largest joint training.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Famously your incident refers to one instance out of an service of well over a million. Many of the these African American soldiers are Christian and I wouldn't be surprised if their behavior was substantially better than your average civilian of any race.

    ReplyDelete
  45. For pity's sake, can't those who again and again post as "Anonymous" identify themselves more specifically? This is supposed to be a serious website, you know, not a 1976-style CB radio station for halfwits with verbal diarrhea.

    ReplyDelete
  46. No. You mistake my attitude to them. I am FOR the military. The army is vital for the defense of nations. Our allies are important.
    I am not for the US exporting west african crime around the world.
    I am also critical of military incompetence.
    When you say the issue is manipulated for political reasons you are correct. The japanese specifically protested against the black marines which were causing the crime. The international liberal media changed that to just the US base in general.
    The fact is the japanese were ok with the US base before the black crime wave. Their placards specifically stated their concerns.

    Its the same everywhere US bases are. PC appears to stop the US from acting on it. In a similar way to how they were unable to stop the fort hood massacre.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Jesse_7 said...
    You seem to be having a bout of the "thats raciss"

    I can produce more crimes as evidence if you want? There are sites that thoughtfully catalogue this stuff.

    I also don't think a person is better just for being a christian. I do have respect for christians that practice what they preach though.

    @A. Redding said...
    Theres is good reason we post anonymously.

    ReplyDelete
  48. US military crime rates seem a rather tenuous issue to base important foreign policy decisions on.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "US military crime rates seem a rather tenuous issue to base important foreign policy decisions on."

    Yes because civilian safety isn't the chief concern of the military. What are they defending again?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous I think you are trying to stir us up.

    However if you really are so obtuse that:

    -You believe Australia should make geopolitical decisions based on US military crime rates.

    -Can't comprehend that military crime should be handled by the MP and local authorities.

    -You cant make up a screen name and need to persist with posting comments anonymously to remain anonymous.

    Perhaps this blog is slightly above your intellectual level?

    ReplyDelete
  51. "So i wish to move to traditional communities in Scandanavia where there is a high number of blondes and reds exactly the same as the numbers I grew up with in Australia."

    Meet you in Sweden. Some lovely little villages. We can go crazy there together. My wife is from over there. I really don't want my children kissing the white-made black arse for evermore. I've had enough of the oestrogen-driven public sorries that only seem to be gaining in momentum.

    BTW does anyone believe that government ministers and members of the scolding classes ever plan to hand over their waterfront properties to the 'traditional owners'? Come on guys you're so sorry aren't you? Being so 'sorry' begs the question. It's traditional land after all.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous said,

    "@A. Redding said...
    Theres is good reason we post anonymously."

    Take a name any name, it doesn't have to refer to your social security number. Give us something to go on or else you’re just an assassin in the dark.

    If black members are causing excessive amounts of crime that's an issue for the military to deal with. Generally speaking they do these kinds of things well though. In Australia our military justice system is very rigorous and reflects the fact that many of the members are pretty tough. We certainly don't get carte blanche when we socialise in military settings and the restrictions on our activities are endless, onerous and tedious with many soldiers considering the activities of the "fun police" excessive. I'm not closely familiar with the situation in America but as was stated maintaining discipline and preventing crime is a basic requirement for organisations and militaries.

    On the other point you can't totally "prevent" an incident like Fort Hood, or a Bradley Manning either for that manner. There's always been the potential for malcontents or traitors in the military and history is full of them. You can minimise it though and encourage the maintenance of a positive group identity and push out or restrict the hostile, strongly non-committed or ideologically opposed members. Bradley Manning had a history of disciplinary breaches and certainly shouldn't have had access to that level of sensitive information, nor neither should any other private soldier. As for the Fort Hood shooter it seems hard to believe that nonone was aware of his attitudes or behaviours prior to the shooting, although I'm not aware of the specifics.

    On the point about the role of the military. It is the role of the police not the military to directly protect people/citizens and uphold the law. As was said the restrictions placed on soldiers by the military when they socialise are many and are in place both to police the members and to maintain a good public image.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The fort hood massacre could of been prevented. The guy was openly extreme. Whats more you could have no Muslims in the military.
    Its just like western security at airports that feels the need to pat down little blonde kids why? because tehy fit the description of terrorists.
    Our nations are hamstringed by equality laws and our enemies run circles around us.
    I was so annoyed when an Australian officer after the deaths of our soldiers by a back stabbing afghanny said "we don't know whos responsible for this" I don't care if they don't hold this view in private. They are acting like the Australian public are fools by saying we don't know.

    "On the point about the role of the military. It is the role of the police not the military to directly protect people/citizens and uphold the law. "

    The police often say its not their role to protect citizenry.

    I just think its funny when the army asks you what your role is and you are supposed to say defending it from threats to the nation.
    The threats are right here. Its not likely any nation will attack the west in a straight up fight they have figured out demographic, economic and propaganda wars are the wests weakness. Indeed demographic change is encouraged in the west! so is the selling out of our economies.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Its a crime to care about ones self and ones own people. That makes you a "racist".
    "Racists" are guilty of caring basically.
    Its not a crime to hate yourself and your people...

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous at 4:26: "The fort hood massacre could of been prevented."

    Equally preventable, I should have thought, are such howlers of grammar ("could of", indeed!) and orthography ("fort hood" in lower case????) as Anonymous - whether singular or plural - achieves here and elsewhere.

    For someone who seems to hate blacks, "Anonymous" does a highly successful imitation of the most blatantly illiterate gangsta-rappers. But if he is indeed an "assassin in the dark", then that would be understandable. With the emphasis on "dark."

    ReplyDelete
  56. @A. Redding said...

    You are quite right my terrible grammar is appalling and even more appaling I hate blacks. I will leave this country out of shame. However to make amends I will assist some blacks to migrate to your country! since you love them sooo much.
    You can then teach them correct english grammar in peace with no terrible bigots around to upset you


    ps (if you could only see my eyes rolling)

    ReplyDelete
  57. "i wish to move to traditional communities in Scandanavia"

    Just based on the history of posts about liberal insanity in Scandinavia on this blog alone, ne might have the impression that "traditional community in Scandanavia" is an oxymoron.

    But good luck with that!

    ReplyDelete
  58. "Just based on the history of posts about liberal insanity in Scandinavia on this blog alone, ne might have the impression that "traditional community in Scandanavia" is an oxymoron.

    But good luck with that!"

    People there only pay lip service to the liberal insanity up there. This is different from the Anglosphere where people speak like liberals and think like liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  59. As regards discrimination against whites in their own countries, this is an integral part of the plan for those who run things. They desire nothing less than world domination, & have always considered white men to be their most formidable enemies, due to their historical adherence to Our Lord's One True Church which they have viscerally hated & opposed since He founded it, & also due to the higher intelligence of whites. There is also the motive of revenge. They have never forgotten that it was the white race that held them in check during the Middle Ages, preventing them from attaining that universal tyranny over all others, which they have always believed to be their birthright. They know that if they can defeat & destroy the whites, then doing the same to the rest will be accomplished quite easily enough. They have written a booklet wherein they describe their plans in great detail which is still available to be read by anyone who is interested, though most think it is a "forgery", having been told this by the supposed oracles of truth on the television. They persecute anyone who dares to oppose them in any meaningful way, one can see this in Bishop Williamson's sufferings. Anyhow, in case anyone is still wondering who "they" are, let him read I Thessalonians 2:14-15, & it will all become clear.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I suppose you mean the Jews. You'd be better off referring to 2 Thessalonians which talks about the Anti-christ.

    ReplyDelete
  61. You'd be better off referring to 2 Thessalonians which talks about the Anti-christ.

    I thought he was talking about one and the same.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Heh heh hey Jesse. Gotta laugh. You're a good bloke.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Considering what Bluey wrote, and considering that he identifies as an Anglo not Celtic, I'm wondering what Mark makes of all this.

    With particualr reference to yet another Pommy pederast White hating bile spewing personage being outed, finally, in our press.

    Given Auster's latest post re the head of the Anglican Church being above ridicule because his forawrd is too beyond the pale to ridicule, what does Mark make of this? That's my question.

    Is there any hope left yet in the Anglo portion of Australia, or must we suffer their silencing, deletions, their Jew worship forever more?

    ReplyDelete
  64. By "forawrd" I meant forward. If you've read the latest Auster posts, as I'm sure you have, then why does Auster not ridicule this re-writing of the Bible by the head of your Church Mark?

    Why are you silent on the matter?

    Auster has been persistent in his ridicule of the Pope and the Catholic Church, he's made it a theme, yet - here we have your leader adulating the re-writing of the Bible and yet you and he see no reason to examine the matter.

    What gives Mark?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Bluey here again.
    I've got a bombshell for you Pat. I have a jewish grandparent. Enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Gota bombshell for you Bluey, my grandmother was Jewish. Kablam!

    ReplyDelete
  67. Pat,

    i) I'm Catholic not Anglican

    ii) You've written some good comments without going into the JQ - I'd request that you continue to contribute at this site that way

    iii) Auster wasn't refusing to criticise the Anglicans. He was arguing that people who are willing to rewrite the Bible to fit in with liberalism are so radical that there is no point focusing on them. Mainstream liberalism, argued Auster, is radical enough to be destructive to society and that's where the focus should be. I found it food for thought.

    Here's Auster's comment:

    "As I've often said, it's not the most extreme aspects of liberalism that threaten us the most, but mainstream liberalism, which in reality is very, very extreme. By itself, mainstream liberalism, which people don't think is extreme but regard as moderate, is enough to destroy our civilization and is destroying it (see this and this). Therefore we should focus our efforts on opposing mainstream liberalism, rather than the conspicuous liberal extremes, such as this risible "Bible.""

    ReplyDelete
  68. bluey again
    interesting did she ever make you matzah ball soup?

    ReplyDelete
  69. That surprises me Mark, that you are a Catholic.

    Letting that rest, this is what Auster said initially:

    When things get this far out, when people start actually re-writing the Bible to make it a liberal/leftist book, they're not worth arguing against in my opinion. Way-out liberals will like this book, others will ignore it.

    It's like what I realized about right-wing anti-Semitism in 2010: the anti-Semites are so self-discrediting and self-marginalizing that only people who share their mania and sickness will agree with them and in the process marginalize themselves. Which means that one doesn't need to argue against them. One can happily ignore them and let them continue in their little world.


    They're not worth arguing against in my opinion, and they're like anti-semites, who express opinions not founded in reason but pathology. That's Auster's opinion. And that's why Auster exonerates the Anglican Church and will continue to bate our Church and find constant flaw with it until it folds.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I'm really confused Pat I thought you were an anti-semite...

    ReplyDelete
  71. interesting did she ever make you matzah ball soup?

    No, her father converted to Catholicism, or so my Dad's story goes.

    She did die on the floor of a heart attack while my gandfather slept the sleep of the drunk in their bed.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I'm really confused Pat I thought you were an anti-semite...

    What's to be confused about? You think that not being a Jew is anti-semitic?

    ReplyDelete
  73. No I just swear I could of seen some anti-semitic rants posted by you here, that were deleted or maybe thats someone else. Then theres your blog...
    Isn't there a Pat Hannagan that is known for his antisemitism on the web?
    I'm happy to be told i'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  74. So what's your definition of anti-semitism anon? I see the Lowy Institute's foreign affairs editor can express opinions that don't take into account Isreal nor Jews, so where have I been anti-semitic? Is preferring your own anti-semitic if it isn't Jewish?

    Show me where I have been anti-semitic and I will show you where I have preferred me and mine.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I'd love to buy into anti-semitism but I have army this weekend. See you Sunday night.

    ReplyDelete
  76. By the way for people who are new to this site "buy into" the debate for me means arguing against it. But anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  77. You've written some good comments without going into the JQ - I'd request that you continue to contribute at this site that way

    Just goes to show Mark, you think it is irrelevant, low even, but there are people who want to keep you on track and observe your blog day in day out waiting for you to step out of line, for which they'll correct you.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Like I said i'm happy to be told i'm wrong on this matter.
    I usually regard anyone that talks at length about jews and splitting hairs over whos white or jewish then blaming them for the white races woes to be have it on the brain and thus an antisemite (anti-jew).
    "Show me where I have been anti-semitic and I will "

    Your blog.

    Antisemites basically waste white peoples time and any chance we will ever be able to identify our real enemies which are pentiful. We are like the Dodo.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Go and enjoy the army Jesse, you aren't defending me nor mine. You think I'm an anti-semite yet I have more so9 called "semite" in me than you and your charlatan new-age Benny Hin joke tv fundamentalist hand on screen tv feel the spirit of the lord joke religion.

    And when they drag you out of some GOP/Democrat/Labor?liberal shithole to express democracy, none of them will mourn you, none of them will assit your kids. You rely on me, my wallet, my sense pf responsibility, my Catholicism, my so called anti-semitism that says and said, we have no need to die for "democracy" or Isreal's right to be an ethno-state. We have us, and that is all, that is what we fight for. And nothing our defence forces have anything to do with our defence.

    ReplyDelete
  80. We are like the Dodo.

    I have never argued that all our problems are Jew related. But I have been resolute in naming Jews who oppose our nation and for that I called an anti-semite, like Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, with nine of their erudition but truth telling and loyalty the same.

    I don't give a damn about anit-semitism.

    ReplyDelete
  81. We are like the Dodo.

    I have never argued that all our problems are Jew related. But I have been resolute in naming Jews who oppose our nation and for that I am called an anti-semite, like Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, with none of their erudition but truth telling and loyalty the same.

    I don't give a damn about anit-semitism.

    Friday, 18 November 2011 8:11:00 PM AEDT

    Correction.

    ReplyDelete
  82. The Antichrist will be a Jew, as they will accept him as their messiah. They would never accept one of the goyim as their messiah. The ascendancy of International Jewry to the pre-eminent position they now hold is God's punishment of the lukewarmness & indifference of so many in His Church, just as He punished the Jews, when they were still His Chosen People in the Old Testament, by giving them up to their enemies, the Philistines, & later the Assyrians & Babylonians. Some good books to read on the subject in general are Comte Leon de Poncins's "Judaism and the Vatican", Fr. Fahey's "The Rulers of Russia", which shows that Bolshevism was overwhelmingly a Jewish movement, Archibald Ramsey's "The Nameless War" & Fr. Pranaitis's "The Talmud Unmasked" which details the horrible blasphemies against Christ & His Holy Mother that are to be found in that accursed book. Fr. Pranaitis was later murdered by the Bolsheviks, in large part because of this book. We are now living in the latter times of the world, & it is prophesied that towards the end of the world, the Jews will be converted, I pray that this will soon come to pass. One other thing; one hundred years ago everyone felt free to discuss the question of Jewish influence, G.K. Chesterton wrote things that would likely result in him being blacklisted today. He certainly wasn't some sort of maniac who eagerly awaited the day that he could lead an extermination campaign against them. Why is it that those are interested in the matter are so characterized today? It seems that the definition of anti-semitism being anything that Jews don't like is quite true.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I just call jews who try to attack white people leftists/liberals/socialists because they nearly always are and they are just like the Black leftists and the White leftists and the Arab Leftists....

    ReplyDelete
  84. One other thing; one hundred years ago everyone felt free to discuss the question of Jewish influence, G.K. Chesterton wrote things that would likely result in him being blacklisted today.

    True. He discussed Zionism for which he was called an anti-semite, and he wrote a fiction based on an Islamic take over of the UK for which he was forgotten.

    ReplyDelete
  85. ""This isn't good news. Where ever there are US bases there is a spike in African american crime. Gang rape, underage rape and murders.""

    In Darwin?

    Don't think anyone will notice. The Marines might actually get more trouble from the colourful locals than they are capable of handing back.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Pat Hannagan, I didn't know that Chesterton wrote a story about an Islamic takeover of Britain, do you happen to remember the title, I'd like to read it if I can find a copy. The way things are going, it's probably a good idea to get as many old books as possible now. Later on they might well be impossible to find. Already, most of the new titles put out for sale are rubbish, they present everything from a Marxist point of view. The history books, if they can be called that, are especially bad, nothing but ridiculous stories of villainous whites pretty much destroying the world. This is "critical theory" at work, you probably already know about it, but for those who don't the idea was to constantly denigrate the remnants of that great civilization that was built by the Holy Catholic Church so that the young people would no longer want follow the ways of their ancestors, that they would see them as monstrous & would be ashamed of them & their accomplishments, it was the creation of the so-called "Frankfurt School", made up of Horkheimer, Adorno & others, "those people" yet again.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Oh, God, are we now going back through the comments for deletion?

    Legally you are not respo9nsible for the comments Mark. There is no reason to delete them.

    ReplyDelete
  88. You know I bring you attention and all you do to repay me is delete anything truth telling.

    Sheeet, I like you Mark but this ...

    ReplyDelete
  89. Pat, you're going to be disappointed - I'm not going to have comments focusing on the Jews at this site and not because I'm worried I'll be persecuted if I do, but because I think it's an error. I'm not discussing this further - I'll be deleting any further comments on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Sorry to the Anonymous inquiring about Chesterton, I was in a bit of a rage when I read your comment and didn't follow through to see that you were genuine.

    The name of the novel was The Flying Inn. It would have to be one of the most perspicacious novels ever written, besides another that I won't name.

    It's not the best Chesterton novel by a long shot but, well, read it and see if he hasn't exactly described the world about us.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I am sincerely sorry Anonymous for being abusive, I have no excuse but my anger which isn't any at all. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  92. That's all right Pat Hannagan, thanks for title, I'll make sure to read it.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Pat Hannagan said...

    ""You know I bring you attention and all you do to repay me is delete anything truth telling.""

    This is a pretty good site for debate Pat. Excluding obvious flame-bait is a small price to pay for otherwise free reign.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Why do you say "his own" instead of 'whites'?

    ReplyDelete
  95. .....other than the fact that you are Australian,gynosupremacist and "traditionalist"?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Interesting comment from Christopher Pearson in today's Weekend Australian:

    In the course of those conversations [between Pearson and Roebuck] he made no attempt to conceal the fact that there was sometimes a heavily sublimated erotic element in his feelings towards his proteges.

    I wonder what Pearson's reactions were.

    ReplyDelete
  97. This is a pretty good site for debate Pat. Yes, it is at that James.

    May I clarify that I wasn't baiting re anything to do with Jews. Perhaps there was an element of baiting re the Anglican Church, not knowing at the time that Mark is in fact a Christian (I had always been under the impression that Mark was an Anglican), but I suppose there are no laws or social denunciations for Anglican baiting like "you anti-Anglican!!!".

    For some unfathomable reason everyone gets hyper touchy whenever the Jews are mentioned, particularly it seems non-Jews.

    As I have said on numerous occasions, I am first and foremost concerned with my own people of which the Jews are not. This is not anti-semitism, this is pro-meism.

    The only reason I somehow found myself amidst last night's debacle was due to someone else raising the subject and me having a joke, which Jesse got I should add.

    Anyway, I know the rules here and will sincerely attempt to not transgress them.

    Back to the subject, Anon points out his being a Bluey and being a Jew is something that is supposed to shock me. Why I have no idea.

    ReplyDelete
  98. In honour of White hating Spanky, the ton is up!

    ReplyDelete
  99. At the risk of opening a can of worms, what's a "gynosupremacist"?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Why do you say "his own" instead of 'whites'?

    Because Roebuck seemed to particularly hate Anglo-Saxons despite the fact that he himself was an Anglo-Saxon. It was something more particular than a generalised hatred of whites.

    .....other than the fact that you are Australian, gynosupremacist and "traditionalist"?

    First, it's odd that you would accuse me of being a female supremacist (I presume that's what you mean by "gynosupremacist".) Second, I don't see how that's connected to my complaint that Peter Roebuck hated Anglo-Saxons.

    ReplyDelete
  101. as an example I knew a blue eyed redy blonde Aussie guy that had a chinese grandfather.
    Is he chinese?

    ReplyDelete
  102. I'm not a jew Pat.

    And neither am I Bluey. If the follow up comment is yours (I wish anonymous commenters would choose an alias) then, no, he's not Chinese.

    Amazing information alert: because I racially/familially choose mine over others does not imply wishing to exterminate others. Nor does it imply notions of racial/familial supremacy.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Alright I'm buying in a bit late. WW2/the holocaust is the reason why people are touchy about raising Jews Pat, not to mention the millennium of anti-semitism directed against Jews in Europe which kicked it off. Today we still have to listen to debate about "international Jewry". Is this in contrast to the local kind? I'd love to buy into this debate but I'm also conscious of Mark's comments and I might take you up on it on your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I don't think Roebuck disliked his own, I think he just disliked tribal allegiances generally. He was a lone wolf as people said.

    In his book he describes having a massive row with Viv Richards in a restaurant. Richards believed his peoples time had come, but Roebuck argued black power was equally bad as white power.

    Personally, I'll miss his writing which I generally enjoyed.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Well if you're a strong individualist, read liberal, you'll dislike all group allegiances. Its just that modern liberalism is generally highly critical of western group allegiances whilst usually staying quiet, if superiorly quite, or encouraging non-western group allegiances.

    Of course regardless of talent there is a mental health cost to being a pure loner all the time, as the references to his moods indicate. There is also a nihilist consequence, if my life doesn't work out/isn't sufficiently interesting/comes into trouble I don't think I can overcome or overcome on my own, then suicide. There is also the moral implication, suddenly moral codes don't seem to apply so much to your personal behavior. He was in the process of being arrested after all.

    ReplyDelete

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