|
|
Does Australia’s Muslim problem come mainly from lower-class Lebanese?I reproduce below the first part of a pretty fair article by Dr Tanveer Ahmed, a medical doctor and journalist and also a comedian! He appears to be of Bangladeshi Muslim origins. Dr Ahmed is correct in that Lebanese Christians have for over a century integrated exceptionally well into Australian society and in that many Muslim groups have given no particular problems. He omits to mention however that there have been big problems with Pakistani gang rapists who target and despise Anglo-Australian women
“As the wave of violence spreads from the Cronulla chaos, we must resist efforts from our leaders, the Prime Minister included, to downplay the social significance of the events. It is impossible to deny the significance of race this time, as the Left did after the gang rapes in 2002 or when the Lakemba police station was attacked in 1999. For once people were able to say the word Lebs in polite, bourgeois circles. The word now rings loudly in mainstream Australia. It can take its place in the global vernacular of racial marginalisation, along with Paki in the United Kingdom and nigger in the United States. While the immediate cause of the riots may have been heat, alcohol and a territorial stoush between two groups of hyper-masculine but socially powerless youth, it was still the outward eruption of a simmering problem. The behaviour of some of the drunken louts was a national disgrace. There is no argument there. But, there is a Lebanese problem. It is not an Arab problem, nor is it really a Muslim one. The Lebanese community come from many shades and migrated from all social classes. There are more than a few outstanding citizens like the NSW Governor Marie Bashir or the Victorian Premier Steve Bracks, Their contribution to Australian life has been great. In fact, it is a fairly specific segment of the Lebanese community and a result of the particular migration of poorer farmers and lower class Lebanese Muslims after the civil war in 1975. Their numbers and concentration are greatest in south-western Sydney. There is a rampant anti-social character to some of the youth from this segment which stems from unsuccessful child rearing ... Posted by jonjayray on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 at 07:41 PM in Immigration Comments:2
Posted by Calvin on December 20, 2005, 10:26 PM | # The Muslim problem is that Muslims, although they may indulge in some strategic self criticism, ultimately side with their fellow Muslims. Dr Ahmed is full of shit. In the 21st century being labled a “Leb” or a “Paki” has no real consequences. White people are the new niggers and we can be openly defined as such simply by squealing the word “racist”. Being labled a racist (white nigger) bears real consequences, including loss of employment, reputation and liberty. The class analysis is a hoax. Friction always arise first among the working classes due to the fact that integration is thrust upon the working classes first. Slimey Ahmed tries to subtely blame whites by attributing the “riot” to the effects of heat and beer. The protest was about intimidation of women by Lebanese Muslims and Muslim racist attacks on outnumbered whites. These are Tanveer’s people and Tanveer’s problem. If he and his ilk don’t care to address it. It would behove them well not to bleat when the ethnic group they are targeting does. 3
Posted by Metzger on December 20, 2005, 11:53 PM | # The example you cite of the Pakistani rapists who seem to despise Anglo-Australian women is a good counter to his claim that the problem exists only among poor Lebanese. It’s also a good counter to the argument that economic hardship is the source of racial strife in general. Muslim men despise native Caucasion women for what they percieve as their promiscuity and unchaste style of dress in every Western country that has a significant Muslim population. All throughout Europe as well as in Australia this attitude seems to lead down the same road, to rape. Impovershment fails to explain this.
This seems to be universal among non-whites in majority white nations. Blacks in the United States are particularly bad. Washington, D.C. blacks rallied around Marion Barry, a notoriously corrupt crackhead because whites were hostile to his mayoral canidacy. 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 21, 2005, 02:26 AM | #
Yes they may despise them but they also covet carnally them, or they wouldn’t go around raping them. I don’t claim to understand the rapist mind very well but my guess is men do not ordinarily want to rape women they don’t strongly desire sexually (this thirty-yr-old women’s-lib crap about rape being solely a way for men to exert their power over women is utter tripe just like 100% of the rest of “feminist theory”). 5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 21, 2005, 02:29 AM | # (I meant to put, “they may despise them but they also covet them carnally”—the word order above came out jumbled) 6
Posted by Alexei on December 21, 2005, 02:47 AM | # John, as an expert and an Australian, could you tell us whether the rioting was limited to Muslim Lebanese youth, or Christian Arabs were heavily involved as well? Also, would it be fair to say that Lebanese Christians (I mean those who have been Christian for generations, which I assume applies to most of them) come from more prosperous backgrounds, being as it were a Middle Eastern version of US Episcopalians? 7
Posted by John J Ray on December 21, 2005, 04:00 AM | # The aggresion was exclusively Muslim Christian Lebs hate Muslim Lebs 8
Posted by Alexei on December 21, 2005, 07:27 AM | # Many Muslim youths in France, Australia, Scandinavia, etc., seem to have a personality split that is, I have read, typical of teenagers: boys often admire and fall in love, romantically in the purest sense, with one type of girl, and want to have (rough, even violent) sex with another, such as a reputedly loose girl next door or a female teacher. The split is supposed to heal as boys turn into men but we know well it does not until much later in life (or never) for lots of Western men. But the West has the Christian ideal of marriage, which does not allow for this kind of two-prong libido. The Muslim ideal, it seems, is different. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on December 21, 2005, 07:52 AM | # Yes, Alexei, you’re right. Romantic love is an invention of the European female for the purpose of getting men to making a high childcare investment. Its negative effect comes from the fact that it sets up in opposition to men’s more ancient reproductive strategy (frequent and widespread, instant gratification) but, of course, cannot replace it. It does, however, immoralise instant gratification and leave it only a less than wholesome escape route. Of Muslim attitudes towards women I cannot speak with any authority. My preference would be for the Muslims to practise their morality in their own countries. The sexual mores and dress code which modern Western women espouse is another matter entirely. For here they are contradicting their own evolutionary interest and, accordingly, can no longer get from men what they want (“He won’t commit!”). The causes of this female behavioural change are at least threefold (the pill, feminism and culture war, and the constant media bombardment). 10
Posted by Alexei on December 21, 2005, 08:21 AM | # GW, I was thinking of the husband and wife becoming one flesh as a theological concept, but never mind. There’s a lot to be said about the way women dress and act these days but immigrants from alien cultures are in no position to force their views on that on the majority. Whether Muslim criticism of the West is valid or not is beside the point. As you say, let them practice their morality at home. BTW, Russia is a different case because it has autochtonous Muslim population, not only in the Caucasus (which can be seen as a colony of sorts) but also in the heart of the country, along the Volga and in the South Urals. 11
Posted by marty on December 21, 2005, 08:42 AM | # thanks all you morons for attacking women and children in cronulla. pulling a young girls headscarf off eh? you must be so PROUD 12
Posted by Lurker on December 21, 2005, 09:01 AM | # thanks all you morons for attacking women and children in cronulla. Shooting at churchs, gang rape? you must be so PROUD 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 21, 2005, 10:33 AM | #
Add to that the extremely generous no-strings welfare payments and myriad other benefits automatically doled out to unwed mothers—no questions, no raised eyebrows, no lessons in morality, no explanations of the ideal of two-parent-man-woman child-rearing, and no other admonitions—the government implicitly telling young women they don’t need husbands because the government will replace them. What they don’t tell these unwed young moms is that the government can’t replace a committed man in their lives, a husband, or a dad in their kids’ lives—or, when you get right down to the financial nuts and bolts of the matter, can’t even financially replace a husband and dad in their and their kids’ lives. Government obviously can’t do it. Modern liberal welfare-state governments misleading young women like that is highly immoral, yet liberals are forever claiming to be paragons of morality, aren’t they. In fact, they’re anything but. Marty: no one condones that, what you refer to. But who started it and deliberately brought the whole situation about? Who set up an intolerable situation that makes some go on the rampage in self-defense precisely because no one listens to them in their saner moments? You know perfectly well—it’s the race-replacers in Oz government who’ve brought this situation about. Let them stop replacing whites and restore the racial/ethnocultural status quo ante and no one will be driven to pulling girls’ headscarves off out of pure frustrated outrage. The fault lies with those who’ve pushed people to extreme reactions by not only totally ignoring them but slandering them as something called “racists” (whatever that is supposed to be) every time they’ve opened their mouths calmly seeking redress of grievance. When governments do that, this sort of excess is part of what you get. Of course no one here condones it. 14
Posted by Metzger on December 21, 2005, 01:51 PM | #
No disputing this. However, I have read articles (one posted on this site, I think) where Muslims in Sweden seemed to think that raping white Swedish girls was not nearly as serious an offence as raping Muslim girls would be, as the Swedish girls were “whores”. Lust obviously plays a part, but there has to be something more than lust that is operative here. 15
Posted by ben tillman on December 21, 2005, 04:08 PM | #
Here we see the difference between henotheism and monotheism. Monotheism, like the ethny that takes credit for inventing it, is inherently aggressive and imperialistic. It is intolerant. The stability of the Christianity of the Middle Ages may be due to the Germanization of the faith. See Russell’s Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity Subsequent instability and aggression may be due to the post-Reformation intervention of the original monotheists to reclaim Christianity as a subsidiary of their own corporate religion. The original religion and its other offshoot (Islam) never lost their aggressive, intolerant character: thus the contrast between henotheistic Hinduism and monotheistic Islam. See also Cuddihy’s discussion of henotheism vs. monotheism in No Offense: Civil Religion and Protestant Taste and, more generally, D.S. Wilson’s discussion of religion in Darwin’s Cathedral. 16
Posted by Alexei on December 22, 2005, 03:36 AM | # Ben, we might as well say that the Byzantines Hellenized Christianity and the Russians Slavicized its already Hellenized version. But that’s in the nature of Christianity—it is adaptable to different cultures without loss of substance. Christianity is imperialistic in a way fundamentally different from that of the other monotheisms, Islam and Judaism. Of course it has been used to justify military aggression but the imperialism of unperverted Christianity lies in the imperative to spread the word of truth, not to conquer and force it upon conquered peoples. 17
Posted by Tony on December 22, 2005, 07:59 AM | # Except for the Pakistani gang rapes (they were three brothers I believe and those guys started their raping only days after coming from Pakistan. Before then, people of Pakistani background had never caused any serious trouble nor come into disrepute), the main (and most likely only) ethnic group associated with Islam who have caused conflict within the Australian community have been the Lebanese community. Taking this into account, its unjustifiable to portray Islam as the sole reason for the tensions within our society in Australia. Dr Tanveer Ahmed’s analysis does make a lot of sense as it tries to take into account socio-economic and cultural problems. We don’t see poor white youths raping and pillaging but we ALSO don’t see poor Muslim youths from Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan (except for the one isolated case), Afghanistan, Middle East (except from Lebanon), North Africa, Russia, Central Asia, the Balkans and Western countries. 18
Posted by Guessedworker on December 22, 2005, 08:21 AM | # Tony, read some of the EGI posts cached top left as “Important Issues”. That will tell you loud and clear that white Australians have their own set of interests, and these are distinct and in conflict with the interests of all non-European peoples. Lebanese Muslims might “present”, to use sociology-speak, as the most difficult. But none have European interests and all have their own racial homelands. Europeans deserve to live as they choose and in peace, and not to be the victims of a traitorous bien pensant elite or of a Third World exercising an illegitimate right to invade their living space. 19
Posted by Tony on December 22, 2005, 09:12 AM | #
Is that the same elite who get voted into power? Thank God we live in a democracy. Imagine what a communist dictator would have done!
When Europeans emmigrated to Australia its called colonisation but when non-Europeans emmigrate here, its an illegitimate invasion of our living space? If we are running out of ‘living space’, should we stop ALL immigration (including people from Europe)? I’d be cool with that if you are willing to stop relatives and friends coming to live in Australia from Britain/Europe. What I find the most amusing is fact that Australia, USA, Canada i.e. the New World which has been colonised for less than 300 years can be regarded as a racial homeland to anyone who is white. How long must non-whites live here until they can claim Australia as their racial homelands? Maybe white Australians should go back to the motherland (U.K.) if things get too tense here? 20
Posted by ben tillman on December 22, 2005, 09:43 AM | # Is that the same elite who get voted into power? Thank God we live in a democracy. We don’t. Voting has nothing to do with democracy. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on December 22, 2005, 10:11 AM | # Alan, There is a fundamental difference between lands that are re-populated through conquest and through immigration. Conquest is self-legitimising. If, for example, you were a Jew, would you not regard the land on which Israel stands as belonging, from 1948 onward, to Jews? Understand that no European peoples have been granted democratic rights over the tied issues of immigration and homeland. We have never been asked who we desire to live among us and who not. Now why is that, do you suppose? 22
Posted by Calvin on December 22, 2005, 04:16 PM | # If arabs were invading and conquering Australia militarily I would have no problem. I would assume that this was the result of a superior culture replacing an inferior culture. The problem is, however, that what we have is a demonstrably inferior culture being imposed upon a superior culture. This is happening, because a faction within our civilisation, the intelligentsia, are colluding with minority interest groups in an attempt to rise from a position of influence to a position of de facto power. The purpose of this blog is to alert the majority population to the betrayal of their interests by the treasonous minority. This should lead to a revolution in which the traitors will be anihilated. 23
Posted by Sam on December 23, 2005, 06:14 AM | # Dear all, Just a few things i should point out… the balinese do despise western tourists…... if your white and have pointy teeth you are considered a devil… but they are too busy stealing your money to mention this… so in the mean time they just take pissed idiots money and laugh all the way to the bank… bali is actually a relativly safe place… everyone on MR.com goes on about empirical evidence yet you are more likely to die in a car crash in any western country than you are in a terriost attack in bali… yet i dont hear anyone belabouring the evils of oil companies and car manufactures… will any of you stop crossing the road in light of this new evidence??? The “pakistani brothers” who commited those rapes in sydney were actually from Afganistan… just thought i should point it out…. GW this one is for you… in the wake of the Cronulla riots an AC Neilson poll was taken (they do most major surveys in Aus on public opinion ect….....) 81% of australians surveyed believed positivly in multiculturasim…. sounds like a majority to me??? but maybe they are deaf and blind to…. Ben voting has lots to do with democracy… remember the greeks??? and their version of a direct democracy??? yeah well they tended to vote… LOTS!... but in general i agree… modern day democracy is riddled with corruption, bureauocracy, and an eliet pushing an agenda…. still i would take it over a dictator any day… yes i have actually lived in a country run by a dictator… and no it was not how i would choose to live if i was given a choice…. oh and fred… yes i read Dr Rushtons site.. it was very interesting… i have also just started reading some stuff by Brian Sykes.. have you ever heard of him?? well from what i have read he seems to be arguing that there are infact NO seperate races of people in the world and infact that male agression across all cultures is a result of our “Y” cromosone trying to perpetuate itself… i would be interested to hear if you have read his work and any thoughts you may hav on it…. Merry Xmas all….. Sam 24
Posted by Guessedworker on December 23, 2005, 07:04 AM | # Sam, That is a very lightweight comment but demonstrates, yet again, the difficulty we experience in raising awareness among, essentially, passive minds. That passivity is not only yours and not only liberals’ like you. I have explained that the entire polity (or zeitgeist, if you prefer, or milieu) of the western world is liberal. This means that only liberal thoughts, only liberal questions with liberal answers may arise. If by some wave of a magic wand the polity was Conservatised, only thoughts, questions and answers tending to the entrenchment of stability - and, out of that, freedom - would arise. But we don’t live in a Conservative polity. Question A : “Do you agree with the statement: White Australians should be replaced in their homeland by Third World populations” Question B : “Do you agree with the statement: Australians should aim to live with one another in peace and concord.” Now, I hope you can spot the difference. You’ve missed the point of Rushton completely, btw. He is proving the existence of racial difference. Genetics is doing exactly the same, though many geneticists are very, very nervous about admitting it. Sykes is a canny businessman and, naturally, enough, has nothing to say on this issue. It’s the intellectually tyrannical polity again, you see. We do not live in free times. Try to understand, Sam, that it is our side that loves freedom, not that of liberals. It is our side that is peaceful and devoid of hate. I hope you are capable of developing a greater critical capacity because without it you will never understand the tyranny which liberalism has become. 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 23, 2005, 12:02 PM | #
It would be interesting to see exactly how the poll questions were phrased, in order to understand precisely what that 81% thought they were assenting to. Do you have a link giving the exact poll questions, Sam? Incidentally, Sam, it’s a little curious that you, who are so obviously a dyed-in-the-wool extreme radical left-winger, race-denier, and race-replacement advocate with a mind not only closed but hermetically sealed-shut tighter than a drum, began your visits here by pretending to be an apolitical middle-of-the-road guy with an open mind, here to “learn.” You’re as partisan and as politically committed to extreme radical leftism, totalitarianism, and anti-Euro race-replacement and genocide as they come. You’ve now dropped the former charade since your engagements here have completely blown your cover. Why weren’t you honest in the first place? Were you afraid you’d have less chance of getting us to waste our time with your feebleminded leftist sophistries if we saw from the get-go you were exactly the same as Simon and June Gordon with not a millimeter of daylight showing between any of you? Drop the pretense of open-mindedness next time, will you, Sam, and admit from the start you’re a tough-as-nails extreme political partisan of the totalitarian far left? It’d spare us all a lot of wasted time and effort to be able to just write off the extremist likes of you the moment we encounter you as exactly what you are, no more and no less, from the very first time you open your mouth. As for Sykes, I haven’t seen his stuff but I think his “race-denial” has to do with his being mesmerized by the boob-bait-for-leftist-dupes “clines vs clusters” thing, no? It’s the basis on which David B. at GnXp.com and “Ren” and “Nusapiens” who post comments at Dienekes’ site (and have their own web-sites) and many others try to deny race. It’s already been answered by Arthur Jensen who said using the “clines not clusters” argument to deny race was as valid as using it to deny colors since the rainbow shows continuous non-step-wise variation—yet colors exist. It’s like trying to say that because mixing blue paint and yellow paint gives green paint, blue paint and yellow paint don’t exist. It’s like trying to argue that because Heidi Klum’s and Seal’s baby is a mixture of white and Negro, the white and Negro races must not exist. Is that true, Sam? Does Klum’s and Seal’s baby prove the white race doesn’t exist and neither does the Negro race? As Dienekes said, it’s like trying to claim that because low hills exist, mountains and valleys can’t. It’s like trying to say that because, if you travel from seacoast village to seacoast village down the Atlantic and along the Mediterranean from Normandy to Trieste there’s never a village that doesn’t understand the speech of the neighboring one, French, Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian don’t exist or because, since you can go village by village from the Dutch North Sea coast to the border of Czechoslovakia without finding a village that doesn’t understand its neighbor, Dutch, Plattdeutsch, and Hochdeutsch don’t exist, or the fact that if you go village by village from Warsaw to Moscow you won’t find two neighboring villages who can’t understand each other proves that Polish and Russian don’t exist. Do French, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Hochdeutsch, Polish, and Russian exist, Sam? Or have we just proven by the above sophistry that they cannot possibly exist? If we’ve done that, is it or is it not obvious that by exactly the same sophistry we can disprove the existence of anything—i.e., prove that nothing in the universe exists at all—that the universe is empty, void? Using that same sophistry we can prove rocks don’t exist, trees don’t exist, people don’t exist, water doesn’t exist, the sun doesn’t exist, air doesn’t exist, you and I dont exist—do you see where we can go with that? It’s a piece of sophistry exactly like Zeno’s Paradox trying to “prove” movement can’t exist when we all know it does exist and Zeno’s problem was simply that he didn’t understand summations of infinite series. It’s like trying to claim that because categories may be blurred at the boundaries, categories can’t exist. It’s like trying to claim (in an example given by Richard Feynman in his elementary physics textbook) that because on the microscopic, ultrastructural, molecular, and quantum-mechanical levels you can’t say where a chair ends and the universe surrounding it begins, the chair doesn’t exist. If races don’t exist then neither do any other classifications, categorizations, or taxonomies whatsoever—there are no categories, period—which means there’s no coherence to the universe, nothing exists, and we have pure nihilism: this is the only possibility according to which races can be said not to exist. To understand this, modern genetics aren’t necessary. Anyone in the time of Plato understood it as surely does any honest person today. Modern genetics can only confirm it. Carleton Coon’s racial categories stood and stand on their own without any need of genetic confirmation whatsoever. If they go by the board so does every other categorization. The genetic confirmation of race that’s been forthcoming without need has amounted to gilding the lily. Race-denial is a word-game, a trick, that only the stupidest of the stupid fall for and since no one can truly both be that stupid and, like “Ren” and “Nusapiens,” have their own web-site, there must be some factor other than stupidity and that can only be political motivation, or—like Birch Barlow—wanting to please the Chinese girl in their biology class or something (Barlow’s not actually a race-denier—he admits the existence of race, albeit in a roundabnout way—he’s just a race-replacement advocate: because he’s too nerdy to get a decent-looking white G/F he advocates the total replacement of the white race so he can have an easier time getting a cute Chinese G/F—that’s how his solipsistic/narcissistic mind works: nothing exists in the universe but him). If there are no races how does the government implement affirmative action policies so unerringly? How does it enforce hate-speech and hate-crimes laws so one-sidedly? How does government know who belongs to what race so accurately? If the entire population of Australia were replaced by Negroes from Nigeria, Sykes would claim to be unable to see any change had taken place whatsoever or approve if others who claimed to see a change had indeed taken place called the change a change in something called the “race” of Australia’s popluation? If that one-hundred-percent Nigerian population were completely replaced in turn by Chinamen, Sykes would again be unable to see any change had taken place or agree that it might be reasonable for those who saw a change to refer to the change they saw as one of something called “race”? Of course if “clines” are all there is to it and “clusters” don’t exist Sykes would have to believe his eyes were playing tricks on him if the above thought-experiments were actually carried out in the real world—either that or abandon his moronic politically-motivated sophistries which every one but committed leftists and their clueless dupes sees through like a pane of glass. 26
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 23, 2005, 12:06 PM | # On the “clines vs clusters” sophistry for denying the existence of race, here‘s a log entry from the other day in which Dienekes debunks it (and check out also this other entry of his from a couple of months ago) (all emphasis in the original log entry): Rosenberg’s 2002 study which proved that individuals could be assigned to a genetic cluster which matched exactly their race sparked a lot of debate, since it demonstrated -even though those terms were not used- that “continental geographical origin” maps directly to genetic identity. Serre and Paabo subsequently disputed the claims of Rosenberg, by claiming that clusters become less distinct if a continuous geographical sampling scheme is chosen, as opposed to sampling from distinct populations, and also if an “uncorrelated alleles” models was used. But, as I have explained before, the results obtained by S&P are an artefact of greatly reducing their sample size (to obtain a geographically uniform sample, as opposed to little “chunks” of individuals from different populations). Moreover, the assumption of uncorrelated alleles is no better than the assumption of linked alleles used by Rosenberg. In human populations alleles tend to co-occur, and are thus correlated to some degree. Clusters emerge when one uses a sufficiently intelligent clustering technique, has a sufficient sample size, and a large number of informative markers. Absence of clusters does not prove absence of structure. [1] THE NEW PAPER Now, Rosenberg et al. have published a new article in PLoS Genetics with almost 1,000 loci, which systematically addresses the whole “clines vs. clusters” controversy. This is the knockout punch to the criticism of Serre and Paabo:
and:
Rosenberg et al. studied “clusteredness”, which is 1 if individuals are assigned completely to a single cluster, and 0 if they are equally assigned to all clusters, varied:
and why do such robust clustering results emerge?
and the obligatory (PC-mandated) statement on race, which however does not deny its existence, but claims that the existence of clusters is true, irrespective of one’s definition of race:
Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure Noah A. Rosenberg et al. Previously, we observed that without using prior information about individual sampling locations, a clustering algorithm applied to multilocus genotypes from worldwide human populations produced genetic clusters largely coincident with major geographic regions. It has been argued, however, that the degree of clustering is diminished by use of samples with greater uniformity in geographic distribution, and that the clusters we identified were a consequence of uneven sampling along genetic clines. Expanding our earlier dataset from 377 to 993 markers, we systematically examine the influence of several study design variables—sample size, number of loci, number of clusters, assumptions about correlations in allele frequencies across populations, and the geographic dispersion of the sample—on the “clusteredness” of individuals. With all other variables held constant, geographic dispersion is seen to have comparatively little effect on the degree of clustering. Examination of the relationship between genetic and geographic distance supports a view in which the clusters arise not as an artifact of the sampling scheme, but from small discontinuous jumps in genetic distance for most population pairs on opposite sides of geographic barriers, in comparison with genetic distance for pairs on the same side. Thus, analysis of the 993-locus dataset corroborates our earlier results: if enough markers are used with a sufficiently large worldwide sample, individuals can be partitioned into genetic clusters that match major geographic subdivisions of the globe , with some individuals from intermediate geographic locations having mixed membership in the clusters that correspond to neighboring regions . [Dienekes’ log entry cont’d next comment] 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 23, 2005, 12:07 PM | # [Dienekes’ log entry cont’d] Link [1] For example, some researchers in physical anthropology disputed the existence of races, due to the discordance between different traits, such as the cephalic index, or facial index. W.W. Howells, convincingly proved that once you used dozens of variables you could recreate the racial groups of traditional physical anthropology. However, since the clustering method he used was a simple Euclidean-distance one, he could not assign individuals successfully to major clusters (races). Thus, he accepted the validity of individual populations, but not of geographical aggregates of populations (races). Now that computing power is cheap, we can easily apply a sophisticated model-based approach- similar to the program structure used by geneticists- and assign individuals to their races, and even to smaller-order clusters. 28
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 23, 2005, 12:17 PM | # Here‘s the Dienekes “clines vs clusters” link that didn’t come out in my comment above. 29
Posted by Calvin on December 23, 2005, 02:15 PM | # Sorry to lower the intellectual tone…..... but, I don’t give a fuck whether or not science can or cannot validate the concept of race. I have a right to free association and I choose to freely associate with people who I percieve to be similar to me. These people are individuals of white European ancestry. Jews formed the ADL to defend a murderous paedophile simply because he was a Jewish murderous paedophile. Blacks protested the death of Tookie, a thief and murderer just because he was a Black thief and murderer. If their is no such thing as “race” why don’t the Jews shut up about the holocaust and the Blacks shut up about slavery? BTW, I mean by slavery, of course, their short period of enslavement by Whites and not their historical and ongoing domestic enslavement or enslavement by Muslims. 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 23, 2005, 02:31 PM | # Calvin is one-hundred-percent right, of course. No one needs justification from some pseudo-scientific sophist or permission from some sniveling leftist would-be “intellectual” snob to damn well say whom they want to associate with and whom they want or don’t want to get changed into. 31
Posted by Ben Tillman on December 23, 2005, 07:07 PM | # Jews formed the ADL to defend a murderous paedophile simply because he was a Jewish murderous paedophile. Perhaps the most amazing thing about that incident is that virtually no surviving accounts manage even to correctly state the victim’s age. Mary Phagan was 12 when Leo Frank killed her. The 13th anniversary of her birth occurred between her death and Frank’s trial. Yet she is often referred to as a 14-year-old girl. Ah, the wonders of owning the media! 32
Posted by Metzger on December 23, 2005, 07:32 PM | # Fred, Yes they may despise them but they also covet carnally them, or they wouldn’t go around raping them. I don’t claim to understand the rapist mind very well but my guess is men do not ordinarily want to rape women they don’t strongly desire sexually (this thirty-yr-old women’s-lib crap about rape being solely a way for men to exert their power over women is utter tripe just like 100% of the rest of “feminist theory”).
33
Posted by Sam on December 24, 2005, 04:24 AM | # Fred, alot of what you say makes perfect sence… however you assume too much… for example… a sextant works perfectly… using it properly you will be able to navigate yourself around the world with no worries… unfortunatly it is based on the KNOWLEDGE that the world is flat…. HMMMMMM indeed…. just because something may appear to acuratly describe a certian set of circumstances does not mean that it is wholly correct….. your argument about sophistory would be compelling if it wasnt so semantic…. the nature of philosophy is to question fred… qusestion everything… an entry level book on the nature of philosophy is “the Philosophy Gym” by Stephen Law at review press…. reading it would help you immeasurably…. By the way fred.. there is nothing dyed in the wool about me… yeah i lean left in political persuasion… that doesnt make me blind or stupid… you asked me to read about Rushton and i started to.. no i havent read close to what i need to in order to understant where he is comming from… but im willing to do the reading to better understand what goes on in the world… i am not so insecure as to have to attack people when my world view is challenged, as you seem pre-disposed to doing when something you dont like crops up… On Sykes i hav only just begun reading some of his work… so how you can critique it without ever having read it is beyond me.. i was just asking a question, i wasnt saying that you are a fat, orphaned, balding cripple with down syndrome and two left feet who still shares a room with his brother… that would be mean fred.. it was just a question…. if my questions bother you stop trying to answer them, perhaps then you would sleep better??? no i dont have the question that the AC Nielson poll asked, but i will endevour to get it for my next post and a link to there data analysis…. Merry Xmas all…... 34
Posted by Getafix on December 24, 2005, 11:04 AM | # This is probably what Sam is referring to: NEARLY three-quarters of Australians favour multiculturalism, but support for the concept has dropped over the years, the latest Newspoll shows. The poll printed in The Australian newspaper shows support for multiculturalism has dropped eight percentage points to 70 per cent since 1997. The biggest decline in support has been among coalition voters, those on low incomes and those aged over 50. Support for multiculturalism remains strongest among the young and those earning more than $70,000 a year. 35
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 24, 2005, 11:25 AM | #
Best advice I’ve heard all year. This’ll be the last time I deign to notice Sam’s existence: to bandy words with a race-denier is surely a fool’s errand. Once they determinedly deny races you know immediately they dwell in La-La Land and c’est pas la peine, as the Froggies say. So long, Sam! You’re exactly the same as Simon and June Gordon though for some reason you recoil at hearing it. (Were it not for your guilty conscience you’d be as proud of it as they, instead of pretending to seek justification.) By the way, what “bothers” me isn’t your questions. Those don’t “bother” me at all. The question, “Do distinct races exist?” elicits the answer “Yes, of course—open your eyes man, and disregard the propaganda you’ve heard!” Nothing could be simpler. No, what “bothers” me is wasting my time talking to a marxist who’s dumb as a post and determined not to see plainest truth right in front of his nose so he asks the same questions over and over again thinking by his transparent sophistries to have proven two plus two equals five then actually expecting me to waste more time trying to set him straight when he knows perfectly well he’s here not for that but to assuage a guilty conscience which can never be assuaged because it’s in the wrong and it knows it—that’s what “bothers” me. Fortunately, the surefire remedy for being “bothered” by nonsense the like of yours is simple: See ya! All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.”—Enoch Powell Repatriation ! 1965 Immigration-Holocaust Act : the gift that keeps on giving! 36
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 24, 2005, 11:33 AM | # Getafix, I googled it just now, looking for the actual poll questions, without success. I’d like to see the actual poll questions, if anyone has a link. 37
Posted by Calvin on December 24, 2005, 06:22 PM | # That’s a good point. Were the questions a bit like this: Do you enjoy a wide variety of ethnic food? Do you think that people in fear of their lives should be given refuge in Australia? Aren’t Asian chicks sexy? Or did they sound a bit like this; Do you think that people with no other interest in Australia except intrests based on personal economic advantage should be allowed unrestricted access? Do you want to compete for jobs with a horde of cut-price immigrant labourers? Do you think that the non-wearing a veil is justification for raping a thirteen year old? Of course, you’d also have to take into consideration the facts that any discusion of multiculturalism takes place against a backdrop of massive state funded pro-multiculturalism propaganda and the de facto criminalisation of dissent. “My mind is going Dave. I can feel it. I really can” 38
Posted by Calvin on December 24, 2005, 06:43 PM | # Sorry to double post I’ve probably had a few too many pre-Christmas cognacs, but….. “Support for multiculturalism remains strongest among the young and those earning more than $70,000 a year”, in otherwords those fresh from indoctrination in our “educational” facilities and too young to have yet had the corrective lesson of experience and those whose wealth completely insulates them from the negative effects of mass-immigration, I’d expect that 100% of the, not incosiderable, recent immigrant population would be “supportive” as well. So the people who object to multiculturalism only consist of those who actually know something about it. So that’s okay then! 39
Posted by Matt on December 24, 2005, 11:25 PM | # Has anyone else noticed how every forum here completely loses track from the original posting? 40
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 24, 2005, 11:59 PM | # Why not just stop reading the thread once you lose interest, Matt? 41
Posted by Calvin on December 25, 2005, 04:24 PM | # Matt, its called “diversity”. You should learn to “tolerate” all of the different and divergent extrapolations which “enrich” this blog. Diversity is our strength Matt. You must learn to transcend the one size fits all socialist purview, or else you’ll just turn into another little moralising, liberal bore. If you deign to respond, here’s my reply in advance, “zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz” 42
Posted by james grice on February 19, 2006, 10:00 AM | # hay my names james grice its not just u lebs we need to worry about it nz soly lebs nips africans everyblack fuk is raping our country on 18/2/06 me and my friends were haven some drinks and thse 40 soly came to the door and wanted to come in cus some soly said there was an open house party we said no sorry u cant come in then they got smart thy said hay bro thats a nice bottle of jd there its mine they started heling fuk u white cunts me and my friend fliped out ran out the frunt smashed our beers and said come on we were sreaming say u pussy cunts theres 40 of u there 2 of come on i got a broom and broke it in half i smashed about before they got to me my friend fliped he was kicking punching he took about 20 he got staped and a bottle over the head this is bull shit its war all u black fucks get outta here this is a little song for you all /parasite aust get otta year Next entry: Bondi beach (Sydney) in happier times Previous entry: “Anti-vilification” laws |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 11:37 AM. (go) (view) AnalogMan commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 11:29 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:42 AM. (go) (view) Srakotraqu commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 07:30 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:19 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 06:26 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 02:34 AM. (go) (view) Stephen commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:33 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/21/12, 02:02 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/21/12, 04:46 AM. (go) (view) James Bowery commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 11:17 PM. (go) (view) indian strategy commented in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle' on 05/20/12, 05:17 PM. (go) (view) Bill commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 12:51 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 09:15 AM. (go) (view) Hymie in Afula commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 07:24 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 06:39 AM. (go) (view) Joe commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/20/12, 06:30 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 06:25 AM. (go) (view) Robert in Arabia commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 02:48 AM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by John S Bolton on December 20, 2005, 10:09 PM | #
It sounds like it is a moslem problem, though. There is a class element, but isn’t this all covered under what is to be explained, namely, immigrant hostility? Assisted immigration on net public subsidy can’t help but signify extreme hostility against the net taxpayer and the citizenry. By now, it is becoming quite clear to everyone, that moslem immigration is a terror campaign against the majority, and the net taxpayer in particular. What justification can there be for this vile treason? Look at your depraved officials who scream all men are brothers, all races are equal, at the same time as they move deliberately to set the ethnic groups into maximal conflict. These officials are using immigration as a terror campaign against those to whom they owe loyalty; when their fellow nationals are attacked by foreigners, offcials owe loyalty to them, not to the foreigner! Every official must now shake and squirm under the righteous anger of the people. He must feel fear, not you.