tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post6190132027165612330..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: A failed experimentUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-52394349387474027182010-12-25T11:40:45.467+11:002010-12-25T11:40:45.467+11:00Alte:
"Yeah, it's a bad long-term strateg...Alte:<br />"Yeah, it's a bad long-term strategy for them, which is why black people (and Aboriginal people, I suppose) have decided to support it. Black people enforce the One Drop Rule now just as strictly as white people once did because it now works in their favor."<br /><br />This reminds me - my American father in law is an academic in the US, he told a class how a genetic ancestry test indicated he was 4% black, 5% east-Asian, 91% white.<br /><br />"Then you're black! You're one of us!" said his black students.Simon in Londonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-50578511308141295612010-12-24T00:39:14.680+11:002010-12-24T00:39:14.680+11:00"The funny thing is Mark, I AM NOT A LIBERAL...."<i>The funny thing is Mark, I AM NOT A LIBERAL.. Lol! Why must people be pigeonholed.</i>"<br /><br />Because "Why must people be pigeonholed?" is a reflection of the LIBERAL mindset.<br /><br />OK, so you're not a "liberal" ... but your thinking is still not free of the "liberal" indoctrination in which we all were marinated.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-53277862356410472212010-12-24T00:26:29.089+11:002010-12-24T00:26:29.089+11:00"Well, thanks for the honest answer. It's..."Well, thanks for the honest answer. It's the one I expected. Liberalism only works if you don't think about the long-term consequences. It requires a "prefer not to think about that" attitude on a mass scale."<br /><br /><br />The funny thing is Mark, I AM NOT A LIBERAL.. Lol! Why must people be pigeonholed.<br /><br /> For the record:<br /><br /> I do not believe in abortion under any circumstances.(I put my money where my mouth is there. At 16 weeks I discovered that I was carrying a baby with a neural tube defect anencephaly- she would die at or soon after birth.I refused an abortion- my baby was stillborn. God Gives life- only he can take it away.)<br /><br />I do not believe in contraceptives.<br /><br />I do not believe in sex before marriage.<br /><br /> I do not support feminism.<br />My husband brings home the bacon and I stay at home looking after the kids.<br /><br />I am a practising Catholic who believes in the transubstantiation, prayer ( I say the rosary) and penance.<br /><br /> I thank God everyday for all that he has given me despite my unworthiness.<br /><br />I am most certainly not perfect and have quite a temper..(just ask my husband)<br /><br />" There but for the grace of God go I"Kathy Farrellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16532126739204105127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-15852456878466748332010-12-21T02:44:00.781+11:002010-12-21T02:44:00.781+11:00Simon,
The modern Oz approach seems to be to appl...Simon,<br /><br /><em>The modern Oz approach seems to be to apply a US-style One Drop rule and treated anyone with any aboriginal ancestry as being Aborigine</em><br /><br />Yeah, it's a bad long-term strategy for them, which is why black people (and Aboriginal people, I suppose) have decided to support it. Black people enforce the One Drop Rule now just as strictly as white people once did because it now works in their favor.<br /><br /><em>It is not as if poverty were found wanting here...</em><br /><br />The problem with Western poverty is that it is so often self-inflicted. Most of the poor in America are Baby Mommas and their children. If you help them, it just encourages their destructive behavior. Whereas someone who was gang-raped and starved in a war zone will naturally receive more sympathy from would-be helpers.<br /><br />Isn't there a point where you have to say, "Okay, we've helped our own as much as we possibly can. All further help would be counter-productive. We can help someone else now." Otherwise, you would never help anyone else. It would just be an excuse for general indifference and selfishness, rather than a moral argument. That would be like someone cutting back on their charitable donations so that they could buy a new big-screen TV.<br /><br />I think we can afford to help other people out. I just think we should be careful about how we do it, and we shouldn't allow ourselves to be treated like Sugar Daddies, or brow-beaten into servitude.<br /><br /><em>Today, the migrants you have and we have would like to perpetuate the same traditions and customs that are enforced in their countries and do not belong to Western culture.</em><br /><br />That's the problem I see, as well. The catechism makes it clear that assimilation is the obligation of the immigrant. They're not supposed to be forming enclaves, or trying to remake their adopted country into the place they fled.Altehttp://www.traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-89854624522840180142010-12-20T23:21:18.443+11:002010-12-20T23:21:18.443+11:00It's pointless to try to determine which, if a...It's pointless to try to determine which, if any, specific religion is true (or, to be more precise, is the fullest known expression of truth) before one has recognized and admitted that atheism -- the denial that there is a Creator-God -- is false.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-62410776143794028292010-12-20T21:51:23.378+11:002010-12-20T21:51:23.378+11:00Ilion:
"to put it another way, does not the r...Ilion:<br />"to put it another way, does not the result we're seeing in real-time of a "lived atheism" count as evidence against atheism?"<br /><br />There are plenty of strong indications that atheism cannot provide a viable moral foundation for any society. Societies where atheism is the guiding principle of the State seem to do very badly.<br /><br />I'd go so far as to say that (most) humans seem to need religion, in some sense, in order to flourish and to self-perpetuate. <br /><br />"Then the women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith<br />And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said 'The Wages of Sin is Death'"<br /><br />That doesn't make any particular religion, or any religion, true. It helps explain why we have religions, that religion of some kind is necessary for humans individually and for human society.Simon in Londonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-72724966321210271182010-12-20T13:50:01.464+11:002010-12-20T13:50:01.464+11:00Simon in London: "And it's debatable whet...<b>Simon in London:</b> "<i>And it's debatable whether Islam might be more conducive to the survival of the species than Christianity;</i>"<br /><br />Those Islamic nut-jobs in Iran *want* to spark nuclear war, because they believe they can thereby hasten the arrival of the Mahdi, due to worldwide social upheaval. <br /><br />Christians know that Christ will return on God’s schedule, and that God cannot be forced. And, for that matter, while we pray for Christ to return, we simultaneously hope that it will be not yet … we have this cross-purposes attitude precisely because we believe that the event will be devastating and will close the door of opportunity for “the lost” to be rescued. <br /><br /><br /><b>Simon in London:</b> "<i>Islam in Africa leads to much lower STD rates than Christianity due to circumcision and the sequestration of women.</i>"<br /><br />And Christian morality <i>lived</i> leads to the total elimination of all venereal diseases. But, since Christianity is in part about freedom - unlike and contrary to Islam - and since not all persons choose to live fully moral lives, STDs will be with us until Christ returns. Still, Christianity leads to hospitals.<br /><br />Human freedom is a part of human flourishing, is it not? Because men are sinful and perverse, that freedom always produces some measure of negative personal and/or social impact.<br /><br />So, which is better, which is more conducive to human flourishing: freedom, with the possibility that some will abuse it? or slavery?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-78513176268811156862010-12-20T13:49:35.835+11:002010-12-20T13:49:35.835+11:00Ilíon: "If Christianity were detrimental to h...<b>Ilíon:</b> "<i>If Christianity were detrimental to human flourishing and to the continuation of our societies (and the species), would that not be at least an indication that Christianity may be false?</i>"<br /><br /><b>Simon in London:</b> "<i>No. Among religions I think Islam in particular is detrimental to human flourishing, but it clearly exists.</i>"<br /><br />I really don’t follow how ‘<i>X exists</i>’ negates or is contrary to ‘<i>X is detrimental to human flourishing</i>.’ And I really don’t see how that ‘<i>Islamic societies haven’t wiped themselves out</i>’ negates or is contrary to ‘<i>Islam may be false</i>’ -- did I not say “<i>And, it [Christianity] *is* necessary [to our civilization's continuance]. Of course, that in itself doesn’t establish that Christianity is true, but it is consistent with the thesis that Christianity is true.</i>” <br /><br />That a metaphysic or philosophy or religion, when it becomes the defining or foundational aspect of a civilization, doesn't result in the suicide of the civilization doesn't tell us much about whether it is true or false (but it is consistent with the thesis that it is true, or true in most of its claims). On the other hand, if a metaphysic or philosophy or religion *does* result in the suicide of the civilizations which adopt it, that's a pretty good indication that it's false.<br /><br />This is similar to the fact that scientific principles and methods cannot tell us whether any particular scientific theory is true, but can indicate to us when they're false.<br /><br />There are many more ways to be wrong (or false) than to be right (or true). It's possible to be almost right; but to be "almost wrong" seems an oxymoron (yet, an interesting phrase).<br /><br /><br /><b>Simon in London:</b> "<i>And it's debatable whether Islam might be more conducive to the survival of the species than Christianity; eg Christianity arguably led to modern secularism and below-replacement fertility.</i>"<br /><br />Damn those mathematicians! If it weren’t for them, teaching everyone that “2+2=4”, we’d not have those folks over there saying that “2+2=5”! <br /><br />One cannot have a heresy unless there is first an orthodoxy for it to be in revolt against. <br /><br />Does not the fact that "secularism" -- or to more properly identify it, the wide-spread societal repudiation of Christianity -- is leading to the self-elimination of all the formerly Christian societies which have turned their backs on Christianity indicate that "secularism" itself is the problem, and is false? Or, to put it another way, does not the result we're seeing in real-time of a "lived atheism" count as evidence against atheism?<br /><br />Now, don't misunderstand me: I am not trying to argue that this by itself -- the social consequences of atheism -- is proof that Christianity is true and that you should convert due to seeing the negative social consequences of atheism. Rather, I am saying that as you do see the negative social consequences of atheism, this ought to prompt you to begin critically examine your present belief that atheism is the truth about the nature of reality.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-88959228729436404842010-12-20T02:26:45.777+11:002010-12-20T02:26:45.777+11:00Ilion:
"if Christianity were detrimental to h...Ilion:<br />"if Christianity were detrimental to human flourishing and to the continuation of our societies (and the species), would that not be at least an indication that Christianity may be false?"<br /><br />No. Among religions I think Islam in particular is detrimental to human flourishing, but it clearly exists. And it's debatable whether Islam might be more conducive to the survival of the species than Christianity; eg Christianity arguably led to modern secularism and below-replacement fertility. Islam in Africa leads to much lower STD rates than Christianity due to circumcision and the sequestration of women.Simon in Londonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-25899226745345459442010-12-20T02:09:35.501+11:002010-12-20T02:09:35.501+11:00... and the whites who were moral and honorable, s...... and the whites who were moral and honorable, such that they would have respected the solemn treaties they had made with my ancestors, were constantly letting themselves be used, via their own tribalism, as tools by the immoral and/or dishonorable whites.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-10766978010617288102010-12-20T02:04:36.625+11:002010-12-20T02:04:36.625+11:00Simon in London: "[the “Irish” thing]"
...<b>Simon in London:</b> "<i>[the “Irish” thing]</i>"<br /><br />My grandmother made it a point that her people were “Scotch-Irish,” rather than Irish.<br /><br /><br /><b>Simon in London:</b> "<i>[speculative “civilizational capacity” of various peoples]</i>"<br /><br />Just two centuries ago, some of my ancestors were wild (and frequently vicious) savages living in the forests, in near-perpetual warfare with their neighbors. And they chose to adopt the practices of “white” civilization -- one of them (speaking generally, I’m not descended from that man) even invented an alphabet (technically, a syllabary) for their language, based on nothing more than the knowledge that whites were somehow able to represent their language by marks on paper. <br /><br />Unfortunately for my ancestors, far too many of the whites lusting after their lands were neither civilized nor (more importantly) moral.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-45842575425816194762010-12-20T01:41:14.304+11:002010-12-20T01:41:14.304+11:00Simon in London: "I don't have Faith, and...<b>Simon in London:</b> "<i>I don't have Faith, and I can't just choose to have Faith.</i>"<br /><br />Why not? Faith isn't something that happens to you against your will -- any more than love is. Both are decisions; both should be rational and evidence-based decisions.<br /><br />Evaluate the claims of Christianity (*) and the evidence for those claims; if you decide that the claims are true, then you've made the first step of faith. The hard part -- the part that leads people to capitalize the word -- is sticking with the rational decision you have made when there is no rational reason to doubt (for instance, contrary evidence previously unknown to you) that you have chosen correctly to believe what your first believed.<br /><br />Certain Evangelical Atheists like to assert that Christianity is contrary to reason and to rationality. Such assertions have no relationship to reality; Christianity has always been about reason (and Reason); but it’s also about Love.<br /><br />(*) Starting with the first claim: “<i>There a Creator-God</i>.” Or, to put it another way, put your atheism to the rational test -- I assure you, it fails. Of course, you can’t take my word for that, you have to put in the work of working through it for yourself; I may be able to help you, if you wish, but you have to see for yourself and then decide to admit that atheism is irrational. <br /><br />To (hopefully) help you with getting started on understanding and evaluating the question of whether God is, may I offer I little something from my own blog: <a href="http://iliocentrism.blogspot.com/2010/01/first-question.html" rel="nofollow">The First Question</a><br /><br /><br /><b>Simon in London:</b> "<i>Which is a problem since I think Christianity is both morally good and necessary for our civilisation and blood to survive.</i>"<br /><br />And, it *is* necessary. Of course, that in itself doesn’t establish that Christianity is true, but it is consistent with the thesis that Christianity is true. Or, to put it another way, if Christianity were detrimental to human flourishing and to the continuation of our societies (and the species), would that not be at least an indication that Christianity may be false? <br /><br />Does not the principle of that last question also apply to, oh, say, atheism and/or materialism? <br /><br />Should we not expect that a true metaphysic ought to contribute to human flourishing? Should we not expect that a metaphysic which is detrimental to human flourishing is false?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-91699884259039475712010-12-20T01:36:50.477+11:002010-12-20T01:36:50.477+11:00"3. Refugee's [sic] are a small number bu..."<i>3. Refugee's [sic] are a small number but they are significant politically</i>"<br /><br />Year after year after year, they add up. And then they have babies. And, if they have been resisting joining *your* culture, they start to demand that you accomodate them.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-20595005111995730982010-12-20T01:33:13.401+11:002010-12-20T01:33:13.401+11:00"I see no point in thrashing a dead horse, he..."<i>I see no point in thrashing a dead horse, here.</i>"<br /><br />Good, 'cause you clearly have nothing to say except more of the same old "liberal" bullshit which is destroying the western societies and cultures.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-27950862887954319152010-12-20T01:31:12.423+11:002010-12-20T01:31:12.423+11:00Simon in London: "I don't have Faith, and...<b>Simon in London:</b> "<i>I don't have Faith, and I can't just choose to have Faith.</i>"<br /><br />Why not? Faith isn't something that happens to you against your will -- any more than love is. Both are decisions; both should be rational and evidence-based decisions.<br /><br />Evaluate the claims of Christianity (*) and the evidence for those claims; if you decide that the claims are true, then you've made the first step of faith. The hard part -- the part that leads people to capitalize the word -- is sticking with the rational decision you have made when there is no rational reason to doubt (for instance, contrary evidence previously unknown to you) that you have chosen correctly to believe what your first believed.<br /><br />Certain Evangelical Atheists like to assert that Christianity is contrary to reason and to rationality. Such assertions have no relationship to reality; Christianity has always been about reason (and Reason); but it’s also about Love.<br /><br />(*) Starting with the first claim: “<i>There a Creator-God</i>.” Or, to put it another way, put your atheism to the rational test -- I assure you, it fails. Of course, you can’t take my word for that, you have to put in the work of working through it for yourself; I may be able to help you, if you wish, but you have to see for yourself and then decide to admit that atheism is irrational. <br /><br />To (hopefully) help you with getting started on understanding and evaluating the question of whether God is, may I offer I little something from my own blog: <a href="http://iliocentrism.blogspot.com/2010/01/first-question.html" rel="nofollow">The First Question</a><br /><br /><br /><b>Simon in London:</b> "<i>Which is a problem since I think Christianity is both morally good and necessary for our civilisation and blood to survive.</i>"<br /><br />And, it *is* necessary. Of course, that in itself doesn’t establish that Christianity is true, but it is consistent with the thesis that Christianity is true. Or, to put it another way, if Christianity were detrimental to human flourishing and to the continuation of our societies (and the species), would that not be at least an indication that Christianity may be false? <br /><br />Does not the principle of that last question also apply to, oh, say, atheism and/or materialism? <br /><br />Should we not expect that a true metaphysic ought to contribute to human flourishing? Should we not expect that a metaphysic which is detrimental to human flourishing is false?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-35186365388421505282010-12-20T00:14:17.928+11:002010-12-20T00:14:17.928+11:00Shylock:
I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not...Shylock:<br />I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,<br />organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same<br />food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,<br />heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter<br />and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If<br />you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?<br />And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the<br />rest, we will resemble you in that.<br /><br /><br />The Merchant Of Venice Act 3, scene 1, 58–68Kathy Farrellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16532126739204105127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-37176771350857343672010-12-19T23:44:08.166+11:002010-12-19T23:44:08.166+11:00< (continued) Today, the migrants you have and ...< <i>(continued)</i> Today, the migrants you have and we have would like to perpetuate the same traditions and customs that are enforced in their countries and do not belong to Western culture. In fact, if you populate Europe with Third World migrants, it will turn into a Third World continent as they want to perpetuate their backward culture which is to be held accountable for their lagging behind in most fields, especially as to the frailty of their respective economies. Europe cannot be the same with different people, simples, really. However, that is up to them if they want to perpetuate it in their own countries, they are definitely entitled to do it, and welcome to it, as far as I am concerned. However, this is about the West, about Europe, North America and Australia. We are white Christian nations (accounting for different ethnicities, but we are still pretty close), and wish to remain so. Even atheists who brag about their alleged triumph will come to regret it as they will find they need substantial numbers of observant people to keep the whole thing going. We have a right and a duty to preserve our respective characters. This is the prerogative of every people on earth, and I mean to contribute toward keeping it that way.Southern Crosshttp://conawakening.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-21453380995516558132010-12-19T23:42:46.064+11:002010-12-19T23:42:46.064+11:00Ilion wrote: “It is immoral to help the foreigner ...<i><b>Ilion wrote: “It is immoral to help the foreigner before you have helped your countryman; it is immoral to help your countryman before you have helped your neighbor; it is immoral to help your neighbor before you have helped your brother.”</b></i><br /><br />These are indeed the basics that have been so often spurned by liberals. Charity begins at home. We have our cohorts of homeless and starved people in Europe too, we must help our kin before we whine about the rest of the world. It is not as if poverty were found wanting here...<br /><br /><i><b>Mark wrote: “The southern Europeans are related but more distantly. So numbers would have had to have been smaller, but it could have been done over time.”</b></i><br /><br />As you said, it is all about a close racial relationship. France absorbed hundreds of thousands of Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Polish people as of the end of the nineteenth century and after the Second World War. Apart from their family names (not always as they have often married French people), there is no telling they used to be Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese or Poles. I am myself three quarters Italian, one quarter French with some Austrian ancestry. I cannot speak a single Italian word (although I do speak German, a nice tribute to my Austrian forebears, no doubt they would roll in their graves if they could hear me maim their language). My loyalty is to France alone, although I am of Italian ancestry, I have no cultural bonds with Italy as my family has fully assimilated (my grand-grandparents immigrated in the 1920s, my grandfather fought in Algeria to be granted French citizenship). I suspect my Italian ancestors would even resent my Lutheran sympathies. And yet, there have been many grievances, my grandparents were not especially well treated by the natives when they arrived. However, they assimilated within two generations (I am fourth generation, my father is half French, half Italian, which means I am considered fully French, although I am often mistaken for a German due to my blonde hair and light complexion, and sometimes, I feel closer to Germanics and Anglo-Celts in terms of culture). When the first significant waves of Northern and Sub-Saharan Africans came in the 1960s, they initially kept a low profile as our official policy was still assimilation. As multi-cult theses gained prominence, and as they were emboldened by their swelling numbers, the third generation spoke out in favour of multi-cult, more often than not with unseemly vehemence or even violence (and they have not quit the habit). The new migrants are simply different. The four aforesaid ethnicities I mentioned were all Europeans, the first three were culturally close to France in languages and religion (Poland too was and is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic), and all with a common tradition of fighting the Turk (well, except for that relapse during Francis I’s reign). They came at a time were the welfare state was still inchoate. They had no choice but to assimilate, and most of them were willing to.>Southern Crosshttp://conawakening.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-59604154013741276102010-12-19T22:10:59.372+11:002010-12-19T22:10:59.372+11:00So you start by saying that illegal refugee's ...So you start by saying that illegal refugee's are treated unfairly. Then you move onto saying immigration is a good thing and there are more important things in life than heritage. Finally you say refugees are only 2%, but you don't address the fact that illegal boat arrivals force other refugees to wait longer for a place.<br /><br />You can dodge all you like on this issue but lets get this straight.<br /><br />1. Large scale immigration is not a "hypothetical" its a current reality. <br /><br />2. You cannot say that large scale immigration isn't happening and at the same time say that immigration is also good or that its not that big a deal. <br /><br />3. Refugee's are a small number but they are significant politically. Should we accept whoever decides to come here, legally or otherwise, on the basis of their escaping a conflict zone or other difficult regime, and on their way skipping many other countries, or not? <br /><br />I must confess I expected a higher level of debate than this. Your argument is weak.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-45745115928210724942010-12-19T20:56:41.543+11:002010-12-19T20:56:41.543+11:00I think that some of you guys need to walk a mile ...I think that some of you guys need to walk a mile in another man's shoes.<br /><br /> As for addressing the points of others here, nobody has acknowledged the fact(or commented on) that boat people make up less than 2% of our annual immigration intake.<br /><br /> Your xenophobic fears are unfounded.<br /><br /><br /> I call things as I see them, and experience them.. I know many African, Chinese and Vietnamese people. They are hard workers, trying their hardest to fit in and make a life for themselves here.<br /><br /> And, some of these people are my good friends..<br /><br />Thankyou for your hospitality Mark, we shall just have to agree to disagree.<br /><br />I see no point in thrashing a dead horse, here.Kathy Farrellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16532126739204105127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-47992624734098573622010-12-19T20:43:18.047+11:002010-12-19T20:43:18.047+11:00Simon in London: "I'm also half Irish, so...Simon in London: "I'm also half Irish, so at least that half isn't very civilised, either. ;)"<br /><br />Ilion:<br />"And Irish is about as “white” as it gets, isn’t it?"<br /><br />Actually, my mother's looks are "black Irish" -jet black hair, blue eyes and a complexion that tans easily. This is probably an expression of the original pre-Celtic racial stock of the British Isles, the people who moved up along the Atlantic coast from Iberia at the end of the last Ice Age while Britain was not yet an island. The look is more common in Wales (qv Catherine Zeta-Jones). Subsequent invaders have been mostly fair/red-haired types from the east and north-east, such as Celts and Germanics. <br /><br />My father is half Home Counties English (mostly Saxon), half Newcastle English (Saxon/Viking cross) so very Germanic in looks. He has blond hair and blue eyes. I have blue eyes and brown hair.<br /><br />IME the more stolid Germanics have a greater civilisational capacity than the wilder (pre-)Celts. Both less so than middle-Easterners and north-east Asians. In a Total Collapse situation such as the end of the Roman Empire, or speculative apocalypses such as the Mad Max movies, the natural reaction of white northern Europeans, is to abandon the cities. I don't think that's the case with several other groups. <br /><br />Ilion:<br />"But, see, one of the great things about Christianity is that no one even can be born into it: everyone *chooses* (or refuses) to be a Christian. You’re still alive, so you have time to change your mind on this question"<br /><br />I don't have Faith, and I can't just choose to have Faith. Which is a problem since I think Christianity is both morally good and necessary for our civilisation and blood to survive.Simon in Londonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-73869948869756271722010-12-19T15:36:48.616+11:002010-12-19T15:36:48.616+11:00Ilíon: "It's probably similar to somethin...<b>Ilíon:</b> "<i>It's probably similar to something which goes on here in the States with respect to having Indian ancestors. In the US -- because the "liberals" have been in control for so long -- even those who have done nothing to deserve status can engage in status-competition if they can position themselves as "victims," and in America, no "victim-card" trumps Indian descent.</i>"<br /><br /><b>Van Wijk:</b> "<i>Added to which is the fact that being white is, like, so not cool.</i>"<br /><br />As I said, the "liberals" -- the willing dupes for the murderous left -- have been in charge for far too long. <br /><br />Not all that long ago, in terms of the culture, and back before “Native Americans” were invented, having recent Indian ancestry was a big social no-no; it was worse than having black ancestry, it was worse that having visible black characteristics. At least, this was so among the elites.<br /><br />But, our elites have since progressed from an irrational white-chauvinism – and in which “whiteness” was a measure of the distance of one’s ancestors from Britain -- to an irrational white-hatred. But, at least, now “white” refers to a general European ancestry.<br /><br />I have both American Indian (coming from three of my grandparents, with the fourth being part-Irish) and Jewish ancestors … just think, if I were “liberal,” I could really play up the victim card, I could even play the old “no Irish need apply” card (which celebrates something that never actually happened).<br /><br /><b>Ilíon:</b> "<i>At the same time, the fixation that some many self-identified traditionalists have with “white civilization” (and fixations on IQ differences between the races) really pisses me off -- as though civilization were a biological/genetic thing. Hell, I’m more civilized (and more intelligent!) -- and, most importantly, more dedicated to Christianity -- than most “pure whites.”</i>"<br /><br /><b>Van Wijk:</b> "<i>A hearty congratulations on your intelligence. If traditionalists are too obsessed with race for you, what alternative do you provide?</i>"<br /><br />Culture, of course -- as is evident in what I wrote and you quoted. And a genuine Christian faith; for “cultural Christianity” won’t do the trick.<br /><br />IF you folk want to save “white civilization,” THEN you, yourself, must choose to become a genuine Christian.<br /><br />For example: <a href="%E2%80%9D" rel="nofollow">Walter Williams</a>, or Justice Clarence Thomas, both of whom are very visibly black men, share more in common with me than do vast numbers of American whites. For, they embrace the elevated culture which originated in Europe, whereas the present-day crop of American whites reject the very idea of there being an elevated culture. Despite the thousands of years of separation since those two and I shared a common ancestor, they are my kin, and most whites are not.<br /><br />===<br /><b>Simon in London:</b> "<i>I'm also half Irish, so at least that half isn't very civilised, either. ;)</i>"<br /><br />And Irish is about as “white” as it gets, isn’t it? My surname may or may not be Irish; I prefer to believe it’s English. All my European ancestors (except the Jewish part) were from the British Isles, and most have been in the States for well over three hundred years. Should I look down on whites whose ancestors are more recent immigrants?<br /><br /><b>Simon in London:</b> "<i>I'm technically an atheist, so you definitely have me beat. :) </i>"<br /><br />But, see, one of the great things about Christianity is that no one even can be born into it: everyone *chooses* (or refuses) to be a Christian. You’re still alive, so you have time to change your mind on this question.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-23568183852513794532010-12-19T14:40:52.724+11:002010-12-19T14:40:52.724+11:00"Excellent comment by Rohan Swee[t!]"
I..."<i>Excellent comment by Rohan Swee[t!]</i>"<br /><br />Indeed.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-47440760187257940092010-12-19T13:18:21.442+11:002010-12-19T13:18:21.442+11:00Excellent comment by Rohan Swee.Excellent comment by Rohan Swee.Van Wijknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-18542023746629159922010-12-19T13:08:17.082+11:002010-12-19T13:08:17.082+11:00People were afraid about the dagos and wops.. unne...<i>People were afraid about the dagos and wops.. unnecessarily back then..<br />It is no different now with the current crop of immigrants.</i><br /><br />Apples and oranges. It has been proven that different ethnicities within the same race can assimilate into a country where that race is the majority. But if both the ethnicity and the race are different from that of the majority culture, assimilation is far more difficult.<br /><br />It should also be noted that the Italians did not come to Australia and begin remaking Australia in their own image, agitating for their own tribe at the expense of others. They became Australians. The same cannot be said of the "current crop."Van Wijknoreply@blogger.com