Category: Australian Politics
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, December 1, 2014 at 12:17 PM
A few weeks ago Daniel sent a request to Frank Salter, author of On Genetic Interests, to consent to be interviewed for MR Radio. He was then in the process of a double-session interview with Red Ice. We hope he might be interested in a more intellectually demanding approach to his thesis in OGI and his hopes for European peoples in the West. He was unavailable.
In anticipation of a positive reply from Dr Salter I had scribbled down some questions – heads of discussion, really - which I hoped to put before him. It is unlikely that they will be asked in that form now. I thought they might be of interest to readers all the same, duly embroidered with some of my own understandings which would have emerged in the discussion.
1. Academics, science and politics
Dr Salter, you describe your profession as that of a political scientist and ethologist engaged in studying the motivational and organisational aspects – the laws that are at work, if you like - in human group dynamics. In the process you have afforded us all some unique insights into normative human behaviour, most particularly in the central thrust of On Genetic Interests. Purely for myself, I would like to thank you for that; and I’m sure very many others with our politics would feel the same.
(a) Can I begin by asking how you see yourself and your work? Is an ethologist like you, with his basis of work with empirical data, fundamentally of the humanities or the sciences? How do your politics, which are clearly quite nationalist, influence your selection and formulation of research projects? Do you have to make additional efforts to function as a disinterested researcher, while your peers down the corridor in the politics and sociology faculties are quite free to operate as de facto campaigners for progressive causes?
(b) More than a decade since the death of Stephen J Gould, and with the Sociobiology Study Group a forgotten entity, what is your assessment generally of the state of truth-speaking in the biological sciences, in particular about human difference? Would you say that the era of strict censorship has passed, and academic freedom now obtains? Or has the focus merely moved from a rigid control on what can be studied to a more subtle but no less widespread control of how studies can be framed, how results can be presented, and so forth?
(c) What kind of reception have your conclusions had among your academic peers? For example, has EGI, as a concept, been discussed by, or even incorporated in the thinking of, other political scientists with your ethological focus, or that of evolutionary biologists and psychologists, or even sociologists?
2. Politics and the public discourse
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, September 21, 2014 at 07:11 AM
Posted by DanielS on Friday, August 8, 2014 at 03:51 AM
Fratricidal tendency, boding against race as a practical organizational concept, issues one of the most significant challenges to advocates of people of native European descent.
To intervene and ameliorate fraternal relations, perhaps, or to argue more thoroughly as to why race is not the proper group membership concern.
It is prima facie an acute issue to deal with and one that would require some of our top guns to handle properly - the likes of Dr. Lister and Frank Salter. Their help and more, of course, is needed in addressing this matter which we have all felt too closely to handle rationally by ourselves. What I mean by “fratricidal tendencies” is something quite general - antagonism of those closely related, ranging from irresponsible negligence to literal fratricide and war between our closely kindred people.
As we are so invested and investing in these people, the pursuit of remedy to these conflicts has created our most painful and destructive moments, where we did and gave our best to people who betrayed us - we became enemies to ourselves.
Posted by Robert Reis on Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 01:50 AM
Texas Arcane: Kwanstainia, UKandia, Kanookistan, and the OZealands
By Robert Reis
I was led to Texas Arcane by a link at http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/ .
What follows are excerpts from Texas Arcane’s ruminations at his http://vault-co.blogspot.com/ since 2007.
He has enlightened me and caused me to think about the world in new ways.
Extensive quotations are place between parallel lines, e.g. ===.
Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, September 12, 2008 at 06:04 PM
Back in 2005, the New South Wales Labor government attempted to bring in a religious hate speech law. Former MR contributor Steve Edwards joined the campaign to thwart the plan with this article. It was published in Policy, the journal of the right-liberal Centre for Independent Studies.
The campaign was successful, though Steve took the opportunity to write a further piece for Policy six months later, this time on the Danish Cartoons Affair.
The hate-speechers went away to lick their wounds. But they are believers in the political ratchet, and they didn’t give up. Now the proposal is back, prompting Steve to return once more to the pages of Policy. Here is his new article.
THE TROUBLE WITH RELIGIOUS HATRED LAWS
Religions and their followers should receive no special protection from spoken hostility, argues Steve Edwards
reedom of speech and conscience are invaluable and timeless principles. Thomas Paine summarised them crisply in the eighteenth century, in the introduction to The Age of Reason:
Governments should play very little or no role in determining what people are allowed to say and hear, regardless of whether this may be ‘offensive’ to the traditional enemies of liberty—primarily religious fanatics—or to those of a weaker ‘moderate’ disposition who would passively give up ‘their’ freedom (and ours too) to buy a little peace and quiet. Yet today there are few legal or moral principles that have come under greater sustained attack.
Under the guise of maintaining ‘religious harmony,’ Western governments are being pressured by a worldwide coalition of United Nations bureaucrats, third-world tyrannies, and ‘progressive’ academics and think tanks into passing legislation with the aim of criminalising the ‘vilification’ and even ‘defamation’ of religions—mainly Islam—and their followers. The instigators of this global confederacy are not arguing for anything particularly new or interesting, yet their goal would reverse hundreds of years of intellectual development in the pursuit of an unnecessary and unattainable ‘social peace,’ signed on the terms of theist zealots. As freedom of speech and conscience arguably provided and still provide the foundations of limited, anti-despotic government—and indeed the necessary breathing space for some of the most important social advances in the past two centuries, with entire nations and even civilisations climbing out of obscurantism and penury—it could be argued that the Enlightenment legacy itself is now under threat.
The list of people who have been prosecuted or censored for various speech crimes against religion and religious believers has grown at an impressive clip in recent years.
In 2005 and 2006, British National Party leader Nick Griffin was twice placed on trial, at great expense to himself and to British taxpayers, for ‘inciting racial hatred’ through comments he made in a speech that Islam was ‘a wicked, vicious faith.’ In the wake of Griffin’s subsequent acquittal, then-chancellor Gordon Brown said ‘mainstream opinion in this country will be offended by some of the statements that they have heard made,’ and called for a tightening of Britain’s ‘racial hatred’ laws.(1)
In 2006, the Swedish foreign minister, Laila Freivalds, resigned after it was discovered that her department had pressured a web-hosting company into shutting down a site that was about to display a set of anti-Muhammad cartoons.(2)
In 2007, a demonstration planned to take place in Brussels to promote the ‘single aim of preventing Islam becoming a dominant political force in Europe’ was banned by the city mayor, Freddy Thielemans, on the pretext that to allow the rally, organised by a coalition called Stop the Islamisation of Europe, to go ahead would ‘disturb public order.’(3)
Posted by Guest Blogger on Thursday, March 16, 2006 at 11:35 PM
It was too much even for the journalist from the Melbourne Age:
Confused? Well, yes. Were the Vietnamese choir and African dancers supposed to represent Victoria or Scotland or something else altogether? And what if Tanzania and Vietnam were to sign such an agreement. Would they mark the occasion with a bagpipe rendition of Waltzing Matilda?
Posted by jonjayray on Sunday, February 26, 2006 at 09:39 AM
Preachers of hate were targeting vulnerable young Muslim men, posing serious problems for Australia, the federal Liberal frontbencher responsible for multiculturalism said yesterday. Throwing strong support behind Peter Costello’s call to Muslim Australians to obey domestic laws or else, Andrew Robb said only education and jobs would stop the young male Muslims from falling prey to extremists. Responding to angry retorts that Mr Costello’s comments reflected an anti-Muslim bias, he said the Islamic community should not ignore its problems.
Posted by jonjayray on Friday, February 24, 2006 at 01:08 AM
Prime Minister John Howard has defended Treasurer Peter Costello’s comments about Islamic extremism that have angered the Muslim community. In a speech to the Sydney Institute last night, Mr Costello said anyone not prepared to accept Australian values, and who had citizenship of another country, should not remain an Australian citizen. He said anyone who believed Islamic sharia law could co-exist with Australian law should move to a country where they felt more comfortable.