Category: Social liberalism

First anniversary of the Norway commemoration of the King David Hotel bombing

On 22 July, 2011, Israel commemorated the 65th anniversary of the King David Hotel’s bombing in Palestine, by exploding bombs in Oslo, killing 8, and shooting dead 69 on Utøya Island. Israelis picked Norway for the celebrations because she had increasingly become sympathetic toward Muslims and in favor of a Palestinian State. Professor Ola Tunander concurred that only a State-level entity equivalent has the capability of pulling off such an operation, and this wouldn’t be the Norwegian administration slaughtering relatives on Utøya Island. Tunander knows Israel did it, but to avoid the heat, hinted at it, saying that some have suggested it was Israel’s handiwork. Given Tunander’s academic credentials, the mainstream media decided to keep Tunander’s analysis and the Israeli condemnation of it out of the Anglosphere.

At first it wasn’t clear whether the mysterious individual blamed for the attacks, Anders Behring Breivik, was a scapegoat or patsy. But the cues were there though overlooked by many. One clue was Anders Breivik’s amazing beard, capable of changing within seconds.

Source of these pictures. You know it’s not lighting. Breivik was all smiles for the cameras, in sharp contrast to his being camera shy on 22 July, 2011, when he evaded being filmed on CCTV all the way through his hours-long drive to the seat of the government and then to Utøya Island, and he also managed to avoid being captured on any of the hundreds of cell phones on Utøya Island.

Continued...

Posted by R-news on Sunday, July 22, 2012 at 01:35 PM in European Nationalism,  Far Right,  Global Elitism,  Liberalism & the Left,  Marxism & Culture War,  Media,  New Right,  Political analysis,  Popular Culture,  Psychology,  Social liberalism,  That Question Again,  White Nationalism,  World Affairs
Comments (18) | Tell-a-Friend

A small challenge to the JQ guys

This news report - “Fatherless babies in fertility revolution” - is a classic product of liberalism’s dessication.  It ascribes to fatherhood and the nuclear family no significance or worth beyond that of a blind, accidental permutation.  Its social malignity is almost too obvious and too tawdry to have to explain to the liberal mind.  The liberal mind, in any case, is not listening.  The liberal mind has no thought for the health and stability of children.  It is consumed by the pursuit of the unfettered will.

The most relevant parts of the report, from the Telegraph, I reproduce below the fold.

However, in doing so I am not only seeking to critique liberalism and spread the socially conservative gospel.  I want to air the question of whether liberal idealism or Jewish ethnic interest underpins leftward developments of today’s kind.

I don’t doubt that homosexual “rights” had a creative push from Jewish sources because they furthered the classic Jewish interest of weakening the host.  At the same time it is as plain as day to me that the pursuit of the unfettered will, as it is embedded in and expressed by advanced liberalism, provides sufficient explanation for the “fatherless baby”.  Jewish adumbrations on equality are not wholly necessary to today’s outcome, and it can be argued that they are peripheral at most.

The question is important because realism on the JQ is as needy among conventionally-minded Conservatives as breadth of understanding is to the harder edge of Nationalism.  Really, it comes down to a question of modern ideological parentage.

Contributions from the floor, as always, are warmly invited.  My feeling is that the hard men will have all the good songs, but the politically-minded are probably nearer the truth.

The Telegraph report said:-

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, December 10, 2006 at 06:45 PM in Social liberalism
Comments (15) | Tell-a-Friend

Liberalism and the slippery slope

I intended to write a post on the ramifications of sexual liberation (or the sexual “revolution”) in terms of its impact on our mores in the future. This is a subject which is broached quite often although the arguments in favour of greater liberation are never considered in the fullest sense of their real long term consequences.

The legalisation (or intended legalisation in the case of many American states) of Gay “marriage” was a massive step in the relentless march of liberal sexual morality (and this has occurred despite popular resistance to it - as with all the other cherished ideals of the liberal project). The question however is, how much further is this going to go? Have we gone far enough? Have we now permitted absolutely everything under the sun or are there still limits which gnaw away at the concept of the “sovereign” individual (and those limits therefore deserve to be destroyed because the individual is “sovereign”)?

Continued...

Posted by Phil Peterson on Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 09:06 AM in Liberalism & the Left,  Libertarianism,  Marxism & Culture War,  Social Conservatism,  Social liberalism
Comments (29) | Tell-a-Friend

The Spectator’s Khrushchev moment

It has now been fifty years since Nikita Khrushchev stood up to denounce Stalin’s crimes and to tell his comrades a few uncomfortable but undeniable facts about mass executions and show trials. Perhaps to commemorate this occasion, the Spectator decided to engage in its own act of timely truth-telling, and dedicated a whole issue to “Sex and Society”.

Timely this is, but dangerous also under the current climate. Ross Clark got right into the spirit of the moment, with an article that pretended to discuss what he termed the new morality:

It was John Major who came a cropper while trying to restore the nation’s moral values: his ‘back to basics’ campaign was mocked to death before it had really got started. Yet Mr Major’s attempt to influence the nation’s morals was nothing compared with that of Tony Blair, who has overseen a Sexual Offences Act, a law against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, the introduction of civil partnerships for gay couples, and a gambling Bill. Moreover, Mr Blair seems to have got away with it.

Continued...

Posted by Alex Zeka on Friday, March 3, 2006 at 05:07 PM in Social liberalism
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend

Exclusive: Queen “probably” approves

Continued...

Posted by Alex Zeka on Friday, December 23, 2005 at 12:10 PM in Social liberalism
Comments (21) | Tell-a-Friend

Charles Murray’s latest

Just a small excerpt in case people reading here have not seen the article yet.  Apologies if it has been mentioned here previously and I have missed it.  In dealing with the causes of the impoverished and criminal black American underclass Murray points out that it’s not all genetic.  Black behaviour was once a lot better than it now is

“Why has the proportion of unsocialized young males risen so relentlessly? In large part, I would argue, because the proportion of young males who have grown up without fathers has also risen relentlessly. The indicator here is the illegitimacy ratio—the percentage of live births that occur to single women. It was a minuscule 4% in the early 1950s, and it has risen substantially in every subsequent decade. The ratio reached the 25% milestone in 1988 and the 33% milestone in 1999. As of 2003, the figure was 35%—of all births, including whites. The black illegitimacy ratio in 2003 was 68%. By way of comparison: The illegitimacy ratio that caused Daniel Patrick Moynihan to proclaim the breakdown of the black family in the early 1960s was 24%. 

But illegitimacy is now common throughout the population, right? No, it is heavily concentrated in low-income groups. Perhaps illegitimacy isn’t as bad as we used to think it was? No, during the last decade the evidence about the problems caused by illegitimacy has grown stronger. What about all the good news about falling teenage births? About plunging welfare rolls? Both trends are welcome, but neither has anything to do with the proportion of children being born and raised without fathers, and that proportion is the indicator that predicts the size of the underclass in the next generation”.

Posted by jonjayray on Sunday, October 9, 2005 at 07:02 PM in Social liberalism
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend

A thought-provoking article on the baby drought

It’s time someone praised and defended reckless teenage girls and young women who behave badly, dress provocatively, engage in risky sex, and get pregnant. They are the normal ones. The rest of us are the deviants. They are behaving in the most natural way. The rest of us are mutants.

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Monday, August 15, 2005 at 02:11 AM in Social liberalism
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend

Loss of culture in England

I had always assumed from the many horror-stories about the British underclass told by Anthony Daniels (“Theodore Dalrymple”) that he was mainly talking about blacks.  He never mentions race at all but I put that down to the sort of inhibition about mentioning race that is understandable in people of Jewish origins.  Since his work as a prison doctor seemed to be the main source of his stories and since the black contingent in British jails is huge, I thought I could read between the lines.

But now I wonder.  I read constant reports in The Times and elsewhere about what an alcoholic jungle city-centres in Britain have become after dark and I note other reports such as this—where young British women aim to get “shitfaced” regularly—and this —where we read of the beautiful and talented Charlotte Church: “For her, an average night out involves downing her favourite “Cheeky Vimto” cocktail - a double port mixed with a sugary vodka-based alcopop, so named because it tastes like Vimto chewy bars - before leaving her house, then topping it up with another 10 double vodkas.”

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Tuesday, July 5, 2005 at 09:59 PM in Social liberalism
Comments (16) | Tell-a-Friend