Prof. Fraser’s article now online

Posted by Stuka on September 20, 2005, 09:45 AM | #

I am not at all bothered by Australia’s intake of Asians, for instance.  But, as a libertarian, I will always do my utmost to defeat censorship.

The two go hand-in-hand. Mass non-white immigration is always accompanied by regime crackdowns on the rights & freedoms of indigenous white populations. Multiculturalism & multiracialism bring with them Political Correctness, censorship, & persecution. Multiracialism, because it leads to instablity & conflict, becomes an excuse for tyranny.

That said, if you love gooks so much, why don’t you move to Asia? Personally, John, I suspect that like a lot of spineless white guys you are cunt-struck by all the pretty Asian girls. Hence, your enthusiasm for Asian imports.

Posted by Kubilai on September 20, 2005, 10:11 AM | #

Stuka, just what exactly are you trying to say? 

I find your “in your face” approach refreshing and at times, absolutely necessary.

Posted by daveg on September 20, 2005, 12:21 PM | #

I have a topic I would like to see discussed.

I often see the “forces of disruption” use images of Europeans, and in particular European women, to attract viewers and customers.  Magazines, TV, websites, etc. - sex sells, and sex with Euro women sells the best.

This is obviously exploitation.

The question is, should euro-ethnics try to oppose this (which is likely to do nothing), or should they just participate and try to reep the benefit and perhaps influence the images.

For example, lets say a website such as this start adding “personal interest topics” and/or images of european beauty.  Would that not attract more viewer and therefore be benefical?

Now, this blog is probably not the right vehicle, but you get the idea.

For example, Peter Hegre’s nude photography page shows beautiful and tastful nude immages of almost exclusively European nudes.  Isn’t that better that something run by the Russian mafia?

Better euro do this type of stuff, and therefore excercise some control and receive some benefit no?

Posted by Guessedworker on September 20, 2005, 03:06 PM | #

daveg,

If I encourage our readers to research this interesting avenue they might never come back.

Posted by J Richards on September 20, 2005, 03:18 PM | #

Stuka,

Whereas I am not comfortable with the extent to which John Jay Ray supports Asian immigration to Australia and would wish him to consider the merits of Australia with a white vast majority, John is far from a spineless guy.  He is man enough to stand for his convictions and take the heat from both leftists and many white nationalists.

Posted by daveg on September 20, 2005, 03:40 PM | #

Exactly my point GW.

It bothers me to no end that murdoch tabloids (for example) exploit the images of european beauty to get readers, only to then tell them in so many subtle ways that it is their duty to ensure the well being of the rest of te world (but in particular Israel it seems).

Euro’s should at least take some control of the images of their own kind.

I just wonder if this idea is “objectionable” on same basic principle, or if it a legitamate point of discussion.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 20, 2005, 06:27 PM | #

daveg,

Well, notwithstanding the fact that my wife would kill me if I spent my time on MR airbrushing images of female beauty, I think I have to question your reasoning.  There seems to be a basic flaw in it.

Man’s desire for woman and woman’s desire for man’s desire are equal and, of course, complimentary attributes.  But in the West the crowning glory of Man, Woman & Nature is the taming of physical desire - a momentary interest - through the medium, and most remarkable ideal, of romantic love.

I can quite go along with the somewhat sub-Rushtonian theory that the high regard in which Western Man holds Woman is an adjunct of the “K” end of the evolutionary r-K strategy - and thus the foundation for the intense and long-term care of children which is a survival-selected trait.  The way Western men love their women and sacrifice their strictly-selfish sexual interests for them is, I argue, encoded somewhere in their - our - DNA.

This sets up a tension in us, of course, and that explains why races that have evolved under different macro-environmental conditions - such as blacks, Arabs and SE Asians - are so different in matters sexual to us, and in some cases so much more easy-going.  It is not easy to live up to our high ideals.  But it is morally proper and it is evolutionarily fit and we don’t have much choice but to try.

So where does this leave Murdoch’s almost innocent Page 3 girls-next-door and all those much less innocent creatures who do NOT try, but embark upon one or other career in “the sex industry”?  On a slippery slope to hell, quite obviously.  And so are the men to whose sexual interests they pander ... male hell being ultimately, I suppose, loneliness and female hell spiritual destruction.

And that’s the key to the riddle, daveg.  Public female nudity for the purpose of male sexual arousal is evolutionarily negative for us.  Strictly-speaking, it damages men’s capacity to be true husbands and fathers.  It is to be regretted, therefore - even if it cannot for the moment, in this ridiculous liberal age, be stigmatised.

Yes, I am deeply conscious that this all sounds terribly straightlaced.  But our nature is what it is.  Most of the seamier aspects of sex-life are controlled not by Europeans but by aliens or criminals or both, as you correctly say.  By far the best and most effective riposte to them is not to “take control of the images” but to rediscover our higher needs.

It comes down, as so many things do, to fighting liberalism and modernity.  But in this instance, I’m afraid, we are going to be made a lot more sick by the disease before we identify it and start looking for the cure.

Posted by jonjayray on September 20, 2005, 07:53 PM | #

I am amused that none of the comments so far relate to Prof Fraser’s paper but as for my female preferences, all four of the ladies I married have blue eyes and fair skin. 

Your tally, Mr Stuka?

Posted by Mark Richardson on September 20, 2005, 08:34 PM | #

Stuka, I think you’ve lost this site its G rating! Personally, I’ve accepted the fact of John’s attitudes to immigration. He adds other things to the site.

John, thanks for posting Professor Fraser’s paper. I did read it last night. I haven’t commented on it directly yet because there are parts of its theoretical framework I don’t agree with, and I want to respond to these carefully.

GW, a fine comment. I believe that in my generation there was an underlying confusion and disappointment between the sexes precisely because of the disruption of the romantic ideal.

Posted by jonjayray on September 20, 2005, 08:45 PM | #

Mark
You have a site with articles on it separate from your blog.

You might want to think about posting the Fraser paper there in case Bigpond make me take it down

Posted by AD on September 20, 2005, 11:13 PM | #

I have put it online not because I wholly agree with it.  I don’t.  I am not at all bothered by Australia’s intake of Asians, for instance.

To agree with it doesn’t require one to be bothered by Australia’s intake of Asians.Rather,it explains why you,and most ‘anglos’, are either indifferent or welcoming.

In the article,i would like to have seen cited some of the direct effects of non-assimilable immigrants in terms of racially motivated violence/rape on white Australians and the way the apologists somehow justify it as ‘worth it’, but i suppose Professor Fraser had to limit the study because of word length.

Aside from that,it is the best article i have ever read on the White Australia Policy.Another piece of dynamite to blow away the facade.I hope it spreads like wildfire and that Professor Fraser will someday find the time to write a full length book.He is a patriot of the highest order.