Sunday, October 11, 2015

The Bendigo protests

Overseas readers might be particularly interested to learn about events yesterday in Bendigo, a regional city here in Victoria with about 100,000 residents.

One of the unusual things about Bendigo is that despite being largely Anglo-Celtic in demographics, it is being fought over by the world's religions. It has a magnificent Catholic Cathedral; a great Buddhist Stupa is being built there; and the council recently approved a proposal to build a mega mosque. Why Bendigo? It's difficult to fathom, given the small number of Buddhists and Muslims in the area (there are supposed to be about 35 Muslims in Bendigo). Presumably both groups envision that they will one day expand in a major way into the area.

The local residents did not object to the Great Stupa but there has been a campaign to stop the mega mosque. Yesterday a protest rally of about 1000 faced off against a counter-protest of about 500, with almost 500 police separating the two groups:

Here is a picture of some of the pro-mosque supporters:

You can see that there is something of a class divide here. The three women above look like well-heeled, middle-class types. I don't think, though, that they are deep thinkers. The woman in the middle is holding a placard saying "Church, Stupa, Mosque - What's the difference really?" which is an extraordinarily blase approach to a serious issue.

After all, there are two possible outcomes. One is that the Muslims who come to the mosque will gradually be influenced by liberalism and adopt liberal values. The other is that they won't and that middle-class Australian liberals will find themselves submitting to Islam instead. I'm guessing that the three women have never really considered the second option.


  1. Peter Hitchens: "It wasn't because we liked immigrants, but because we didn't like Britain."

    Same dynamic is going on here. Those pushing 'diversity' against fellow whites should be made to go and live in it---- on their own and NOT involve others in it who don't want any of it.

    Diversity just means chasing down the last white person. Enough of this.

  2. Good ol' Peter Hitchens, a man sorely in need of more influence.

  3. I'm guessing that the three women have never really considered the second option.

    They have no good reason not to have considered it, 14 years post-9/11. If what you describe ends up being their fate, these three women get exactly what they ask for and deserve.

  4. Three upper class looking Celtic/Germanic(white)women who want Muslim men moving into their area. Muslim men who totally reject the feminism that these women believe.

    Mark, can you explain this about Celtic/Germanic women? Swedish and other Scandinavian Germanic women vote for the leftist parties that are bringing in their black and muslim rapists. Are these Australian women so starved for dominant men that they want the non-feminist Muslim men to move there? Is that the real motivation? What causes these Celtic/Germanic women to work directly against there own people?

    Or is it a class thing. Do those 3 upper class women think only poor stupid whites oppose muslim invasion? Do those 3 women so hate the poor and working class of their own ethnic group that they will side with muslims?

    Can someone explain the thinking of these White(celtic/germanic) women?

    1. Steve, you've asked the right questions. I don't have a definite answer. It is possible that such women secretly want more dominant men, but I don't think that's really it. I suspect it has more to do with what happens when you adopt a primary or fundamental belief about moral reality and what then has to be accepted as secondary beliefs. I'm not sure I can explain this adequately, but if your moral belief system includes the idea that there should be no discrimination based on race or ethnicity, then you aren't going to want to accept that this can't work because some cultures are incompatible with your own - to make your moral belief work, you will commit to the belief, or even to the hope, that by nature everyone is really seeking out a liberal lifestyle in a liberal world, if only they would be allowed to do so by those nasty stigmatising conservatives. It is a lame approach, as it involves blinkering your own mind, but it isn't easy for people to jettison the beliefs that make meaning of reality for them.

    2. I think you hit the nail on the head. It's taboo to point out that Muslims are not going to support and uphold liberal western worldviews and society, because that's an intolerant perspective, and intolerance is forbidden (for certain groups). And yet this conflict of fundamental cultural natures is a truth based in simple observable reality.

      In a society that is supposed to desire a multitude of differences and "enrichment", pointing out some of those obvious differences and why they are a problem has become a rebellious action.

    3. Hi Mark, you wrote: “if your moral belief system includes the idea that there should be no discrimination based on race or ethnicity, then you aren't going to want to accept that this can't work because some cultures are incompatible with your own.”

      I think this presupposes, or second-guesses (in their thinking), that everyone else (well, at least Anglos) 'should' and ‘must’ also think like them (which is why we see so much twitterati hand-wringing these days). Therefore, the Muslim man is really a nice guy and what those conservatives say about him is just a mean stereotype (and probably racist, if you follow their application of the term). These people will do anything to prove themselves right, no matter the cost.

      Ultimately, I find this troubling, for it is premised on “man is basically good.” Any Bible believing Christian or Conservative will say that man has a propensity toward evil (sinful nature) and that life is about striving to live by moral order upon which restraint, moderation and virtue may be built. I have a Christian friend who (oddly enough) tries to argue that radicalisation of Muslim boys in Western Sydney is the government’s fault for ghetto-ing them. I would argue they will radicalise themselves or be radicalised regardless of context. The rise and spread of Islam in the 450 years prior to the First Crusade tells us they are driven by a religious, theocratic barbarism. The religious drive for the Global Caliphate, in my opinion, tells me that you cannot de-radicalise Muslims. You would have to rip the religion out of them. That may (at best) happen if the guest assimilates to the host country values. And no-one can force that – the impetus has to come from an inner drive of the guest. The guest has to want to assimilate, and history tells us that Islam cannot, by decree, do this – (see link below). When two diametrically opposed cultures converge, and a critical mass is reached, one will rise and one will fall. If there are any well-adjusted, well-assimilated Muslims in Australia, they would be apostate and in the minority of a minority group. (There have been surveys which demonstrate the number of US Muslims who are sympathetic to Sharia, etc.).

      Anyway, to get back on track, I think we are seeing the side-effect of atomised lives and atomised thinking, elevation of self, all premised on the notion we can all be one big happy (but disconnected) socialist commune. Interestingly enough, that is built on destroying religion and family – cultural Marxism in full flight.

      All of this is built on pride and envy – two attributes the Bible condemns heavily.

      Here's an interesting read:

      All the links in this article are worth reading too!