|
|
|
Great news on Fraser! Kathe Boehringer, the Head of the Law Department at Macquarie University, has written a spirited defence of her colleague, Professor Andrew Fraser. Here is part of what she has penned: “According to Charles Murray, the well-known author of The Bell Curve, our managerial elites are living a lie in refusing to recognise racial realities. How can governments justify subsidising a hopelessly rigid orthodoxy generated by smugly complacent “scholarly research” that endlessly recycles stale, self-referential ideology? Unless you believe that the doctrine of racial egalitarianism is some sort of secular holy writ, inquiry conducted in its name must produce conformist celebrations of conventional wisdom that become ever more vapid as they are effectively insulated from intellectual challenge.” There’s much more of this very forthright kind of writing in her piece - it’s well worth reading. By the way, you might remember that it was the threat of legal action by the newly arrived Sudanese community which prevented Professor Fraser’s article from being published. Why would a recently arrived group of refugees choose as its first contribution to Australian society the suppression of freedom of academic speech? Perhaps they are worried what people might make of this sort of thing, as reported in today’s Herald Sun. Comments:2
Posted by Mark Richardson on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:29 | # My source? I’d never even seen a Sudanese until a few years ago. They are among the latest wave of refugees into Australia. Are you really suggesting that these people are 4th or 5th generation Australians? As for Mr Hakeem Hakeem, I don’t see why I need to exercise delicacy of feeling toward the Sudanese community at this particular time. Thanks though for the correction - I hadn’t realised there were two separate departments. 3
Posted by Kubilai on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:34 | # rather rash to criminalise a newly arrived immigrant group on the basis of the actions of one person Yeesh!
4
Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:37 | # Well perhaps you need to define ‘newly arrived’- are we talking about people who settled here two weeks ago, three years ago or 10 years ago? See you make the distinction that it is their first contribution to Australian society, yet how do you actually know how long they have been here for- if they had been here for a few years at least, its a bit naive to suggest that this was there first contribution to Australian society. The 2001 census revealed a 49% involvement at a higher education institution for Sudanese people amongst other things- so how can you say they in fact that this is their first contribution to our society? 5
Posted by Kubilai on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:43 | # Simon, why are you ineptly grasping for excuses? Answer GW’s question from before and openly state WHY you are such a proponent and WHAT is your angle. 6
Posted by Geoff Beck on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:49 | # > but its rather rash to criminalise a newly arrived immigrant group on the basis of the actions of one person. That is a most fatuous statement, the <u>Sudanese</u> fellow is suing on behalf of his group’s interest. Perhaps you need to study group evolutionary psychology, Simon. 7
Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:49 | # If you cannot work out my angle by now, you never will- enough said on that matter. Whats your angle, and why are you such a proponent- what sort of questions are those? 8
Posted by Mark Richardson on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:51 | # Kub, Simon has described himself on another thread as a Columbian who was adopted by Australian parents as a baby. Simon, you are grasping at straws when you claim that the Sudanese are a long established community in Australia. I did a 5 second google search and immediately came up with this: http://www.icms.com.au/amep2005/abstract/36.htm It’s about an Adult Migrant English conference being held next week in Melbourne. One of the presentations at the conference it titled “All change: the impact of a new cohort, Sudanese settlers in Australia.” It describes the Sudanese as “a new cohort of learners who arrived quickly, differed from our expectations, and taught us much.” 9
Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:58 | # Mark- you misunderstood what I meant. You wrote: “Why would a recently arrived group of refugees choose as its first contribution to Australian society the suppression of freedom of academic speech?” Wouldnt this statement depend on your classification of newly arrived? How new are they? I made the point of saying that how do you know how newly arrived this particular group is, if for example they have been in Australia for 12 months or so, they may have made other contributions to our society as you say, although how you define contribution to our society is ambiguous. I never claimed that the Sudanese community were long established here- I asked you to define newly arrived, IE how newly arrvied are you referring too. 10
Posted by Mark Richardson on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:02 | # By the way, Simon, if you are a refugee from Sudan in a new country it doesn’t look good to drink drive, have your licence suspended, ignore the law, get drunk again, and smash your car into a group of young school students, seriously injuring three of them. http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Bail-for-school-crash-driver/2005/06/06/1117910234783.html 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:13 | # Get a psychiatrist and an IQ boost, Simon. After that, come back and try again. As things now stand you’re a boring non-entity and apparently an idiot of some kind. 12
Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:17 | # Fred- why dont you sod off back to Stormfront where you belong. Or get back to your wife- no wait, she left you for another woman didnt she? And a black woman at that. 13
Posted by Andrew L on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:51 | # It amazes me how they waffle on about Drew Fraser, but not a mention about a Dr Paul White, or maybe he is a Pro Antitheistic Dr, and a Academic Fraud, yes , that sounds closer to the fact, How many people in Australia who have heard of Dr White, thats right hardly anyone, but he is more dangerous, wrong language, he is an Academic Murder’er as far as education goes.Islamo Fascist anglo. 14
Posted by Kubilai on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:35 | # Simon has described himself on another thread as a Columbian who was adopted by Australian parents as a baby. - Mark Thanks Mark. So in other words, Simon is looking out for his own interests, both personally and ethnically, isn’t he? If the numbers are correct where over 80%(or 88% during a poll) of Australians agree with Fraser’s stance, then one can also tease out the fact he is NOT looking out for the best interest of Australians despite being adopted by native Australians and growing up in Australia. I wonder why that is? 15
Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:48 | # Well then as a white person you are obviously looking out for your own personal interests as well as ethnically. How then do you assume that 80% of Australians were watching one television program- A Current Affair in which the phone poll was based? There are some 19 million Australians and I assure you that not even close to 80% of them would have been watching ACA that nite, not to mention voted at all on the phone poll. Correction as well- there are no such things as native Australians, except the indigenous population. Everyone else arrived at some time or another at a point of history. Just because you share an opinion it does not mean that you are necessarily looking out for the best interests of Australians- how would you know the best interests of Australians? 16
Posted by Kubilai on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:05 | # Simon, your indoctrinated as well as self serving tripe and strawmen have been thoroughly discussed before. No need to rehash these tired “arguments”. I especially love the “no such thing as native Australian, American, Canadian” crap. That’s always a side splitter. I suggest you take Fred’s advice. 17
Posted by Andrew L on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:13 | # Yep, and I’m sure Australia would be a great place for Migrants if Anglo English did not settle, or otherwise Australia might well look like Africa, hmmm, worth a thought Simon, We are not Migrating to those regions are we, no,They are flooding us, so their would be a good explination for that and it would have something to do with Prosperity , and that is deminnishing at a rapid pace.Australians know what is in our best interest as like Americans, or Pom’s, but elititude has removed that from the forum.(For the moment). 18
Posted by Andrew L on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:40 | # Be for you trott out the Aboriginal Genoside word, in 40 thousand years of occuping Australia, why would you think the Native population to be so small, no not white man genoside,No, Tribal wars and self annhilation, the very thing is being introduced by Cultural Apatheid, “Multiculturalism” so its back to the past, just love this progressive Ideological political crapp. 19
Posted by Steve Edwards on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:46 | # “Correction as well- there are no such things as native Australians, except the indigenous population. Everyone else arrived at some time or another at a point of history.” Uh - Simon. Unless you are going to argue that Aborigines evolved out of the soil, or hatched out of boab nuts, I’m afraid they too “arrived at some time or another at a point of history”. 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:01 | # “Uh - Simon. Unless you are going to argue that Aborigines evolved out of the soil, or hatched out of boab nuts, I’m afraid they too ‘arrived at some time or another at a point of history.’ “ (—Steve Edwards) Right. And they displaced Homo erectus, and likely no small number of Neanderthals as well, those meanies! 21
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:04 | # I think it’s best to consider the ethne that founded a nation as its “natives.” This is problematic of course, but no less so than the leftist crap (as Steve pointed out). After all, there was no Australia until white men founded it. Same with America and the Amerinds; people (almost never Amerinds) squawk about how they’re the only “native Americans,” but I find that difficult to process because there was no America until white men founded it. 22
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:07 | # Also, Simon, while you had a minor point, you might have just avoided the soft shoe dance by finding a prior political contribution from the Sudanese of similar importance. Until you do you’re just another angel dancing on the head of the pin. I assert that you’ll find no such contribution. 23
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:19 | # Not a nice article I’ll give you that, but its rather rash to criminalise a newly arrived immigrant group on the basis of the actions of one person. This is a common egalitarian argument, one that on the surface seems to have merit; we can’t judge a group by a single member. First, let’s remember that there’s no judging of any kind allowed; we have to let everyone in without proving themselves worthy, remember? Where’s the evidence that they’re worthy of entrance in the first place? Second, averages matter, and differ significantly by group. Third, it is logically valid to judge a group by the members it produces. If a group enters and stimulates a repression of free speech, the actions of one member of society has set the rule for all, a rule that would not be in place without the group, which presumably would’ve produced another such advocate if the first had been excluded. None of this is intended to give Euros a pass for their spinelessness, I assure you. 24
Posted by Steve Edwards on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:43 | # When immigrants come to our society and then demand extraordinary concessions as conditions of “mutual harmony”, I feel nothing but a deep revulsion and a sense of personal insult - as if we have invited colonisers, rather than immigrants, into our midst. It’s really a stab in the back for them to take advantage of our decency and hospitality, only to lobby for massive crackdowns on our ancient liberties, anti-hate laws, or whatever. In fact, it is downright despicable. The majority of immigrants will stand condemned by their silence if they do not disown their self-appointed “leaders” and inform the government that they do not wish to inflict a multicultural tyranny on their kind hosts. “Not in our name”, and all. 25
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:15 | # It’s really a stab in the back for them to take advantage of our decency and hospitality, only to lobby for massive crackdowns on our ancient liberties, anti-hate laws, or whatever. The committed aggression just by immigrating. Had they taken the time to learn the facts they’d know that the west is ambivalent, at best, about immigration. They don’t care enough to learn the facts. I don’t claim they shouldn’t pursue their own interests, but I do claim they can’t be honestly surprised when their aggression is met in kind. I don’t see how the western paralysis concerning immigration is “hospitality.” Giving a stranger your neighbor’s house without the latter’s permission isn’t hospitality, it’s aggression. This is precisely what our “representative democracies” are up to. 26
Posted by AD on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:49 | # Correction as well- there are no such things as native Australians, except the indigenous population. Everyone else arrived at some time or another at a point of history.-Simon Actually Simon,‘native Australians’ does refer to whites as the nation state Australia was founded by whites which comes with the heritage of the White Australia Policy.Aborigines are native to arnhem land,they have nothing to do with the nation state ‘Australia’.Every immigrant that has come to Australia has done so only because of the white settlement and white society. There was no treaty or agreement signed with the aborigines like there was with the Maori in NZ.White Australian society exists wholly independent of Koori society.They had never used the word ‘Australia’ or seen the continent as a nation.I am all for them having total self rule in the areas they populated pre-1770. How then do you assume that 80% of Australians were watching one television program- A Current Affair in which the phone poll was based? It was 85% with over 36,000 respondents.It is the biggest poll ever on the issue(and almost any Australian issue). Most polls that are taken as gospel have less than 2000 respondents.The majority of white Australians want the white Australia policy put back in place.If you do not think it would pass in a referendum,you are kidding yourself.We don’t want to be race-replaced,just like the Japanese and Chinese dont want to be replaced and have correct immigration laws to ensure they arent. If you want to encourage ‘diversity’,the last place that needs more of it is Australia.Go and lobby the homogenous non-white nations if you want it.Surely China is getting ‘boring’ with just Chinese food.Tell them how much they need kebab stands and Sudanese communities. 27
Posted by Simon on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 03:39 | # AD- since then a lot of things have changed. Links to the PYL, tacit support for a race hate campaign in Toowoomba amongst other things. You only have to look in various issues of the The Australian over the last month to find them. So there is a good chance people’s opinions may have changed about Andrew Fraser by now. You also have the the fact that up until now Fraser’s arguments were never made public, except for one link in the Sydney Morning Herald a while ago. The only people to know what he was on about were those online, those who attended a forum at Mac Uni and Fraser himself. Finally we now see his arguments, and by his own declaration those arguments are weak. If people now had more of the facts, there would be a change in those polling results- and I think you know that as much as the next person should. 28
Posted by Ben Tillman on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 04:45 | # Well then as a white person you are obviously looking out for your own personal interests as well as ethnically. Ordinarily, 50% is not a passing score, but it’s your best effort yet. Yes, we are looking out for ethnic interests. But, no, we are not looking out for our personal interests; in present circumstances, the two levels of interests are at odds with each other. White people are punished for attempting to advance their ethnic interests. We all make enormous personal sacrifices to defend our ethnic interests. 29
Posted by Ben Tillman on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 04:49 | # Finally we now see his arguments, and by his own declaration those arguments are weak. Can you supply a quote in context? 30
Posted by Simon on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 05:14 | # “Fellow academics claim Fraser uses outdated, spurious research from right-wing groups in the USA. On the Triple J program Hack, Fraser himself admitted research to back up his claims was weak. A fellow Law academic who did his PHD at Macquarie says, “Time and time again Drew’s views are politically motivated and are based on unfounded evidence which hasn’t drawn any weight from where. The material is no longer current - it’s ‘unfashionable’ in academic terms if you like.”
33
Posted by Simon on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 06:13 | # Well, I’m tracking down the MP3 of the program so would you like a copy when I find it? 34
Posted by Simon on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 06:34 | # The arguments in Fraser’s article are largely policy. They may or may not be weak. The biological and psychological data, the low IQ and propensity to sexual violence data, a talkative nature and winning personality, these data are solid. 35
Posted by Ben Tillman on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 06:46 | # ...the low IQ and propensity to sexual violence data, a talkative nature and winning personality, these data are solid. ????????????????????????? 36
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 06:48 | # “The material is no longer current - it’s ‘unfashionable’ in academic terms if you like.” (—quoted in Simon’s comment above) What’s unfashionable in academic circles nowadays, Simon, is acknowledgement of the legitimacy of white people defending themselves against genocide. And? ... Your point was? ... How can you cite that seriously as a critique of Fraser’s work, you freaking moron? In Cambodia in 1976 it was unfashionable among ruling circles to acknowledge that people who wore eyeglasses or who had been to school had a right to protest against being hacked to death with machetes and garden hoes. During the forties it was unfashionable among ruling circles in Germany to acknowledge Jews had a right to oppose being herded together in concentration camps to die in their millions. What in the freaking hell does it matter what’s become “unfashionable” among present-day lefty academic circles, you imbecilic absolute intellectual zero? 37
Posted by Simon on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 06:51 | # Fred- your a goose. Least I am attempting to make a better effort to provide evidence which is more than I can say for yourself. Calm down before you blow an artery or something you pompous old cretan. 38
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 06:54 | # I believe you are the stupidest person who has ever come to this site to pick an argument. 39
Posted by Simon on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:11 | # Considering you havent any bothered to put forward your own argument- perhaps you should take the advice that guessedworker left for you. You cant insult someone simply because you disagree with them, otherwise its little wonder that people such as yourself are ignored for the most part in society and passed off as crazy kooks more than anything else. You come across as the most weirdest person I have come across online ever- sad indeed you rely more on personal attacks in attempt to silence free speech, then when it suits you you complain about the free speech of someone like Fraser- Pot Kettle Black. 40
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:12 | # Simon - and what is your arguement exactly? Saying material is academically unfashionable hardly amounts to a refutation of…well anything really. Whats unfashionable today is fashionable tomorrow. 41
Posted by Simon on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:33 | # Lurker- sorry for the confusion. That was something taken from another article, hence the included link. That quote was taken from a Mac uni academic as illustrated in the article. 42
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:00 | # The arguments in Fraser’s article are largely policy. They may or may not be weak. The biological and psychological data, the low IQ and propensity to sexual violence data, a talkative nature and winning personality, these data are solid. LOL. Where are the strong arguments for leftist policy, under which we’ve all been living for decades? Where are the strong arguments that welfare effectively combats poverty? Where are the strong arguments that all groups are equal in all important ways? (the default, if one accepts evolution, is that they are not). Where are the strong arguments that immigrants are assimilating into the west, rather than balkanizing it? Where are the strong arguments that anything the left has to offer is worth a brass tack? Where are the strong arguments that the west should admit the rest in as her own? I await your strong arguments. 43
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:03 | # Fred- your a goose. Least I am attempting to make a better effort to provide evidence which is more than I can say for yourself. Calm down before you blow an artery or something you pompous old cretan. I’m afraid Fred is treating you with the respect you deserve. Your “arguments” are the worst kind of contentless leftist puffery. They don’t even pretend to any kind of logic or merit. 44
Posted by Simon on Sat, 24 Sep 2005 02:34 | # Svigor regarding: “The arguments in Fraser’s article are largely policy. They may or may not be weak. The biological and psychological data, the low IQ and propensity to sexual violence data, a talkative nature and winning personality, these data are solid”. I didnt write that- someone else trying to use my name did that. If you try and click on that name it takes you to a link which doesnt work, whereas my name has my email address to it. 45
Posted by Phil on Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:21 | # you pompous old cretan There was a time when the Left could at least write English. Post a comment:
Next entry: Should immigrants pay lower taxes?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:02 | #
Mark- a correction for your post- Kathe Boehringer is actually the head of the public law department of Macquarie university, not the law department. They are in fact two separate departments.
Out of interest, whats your source regarding the claims that the sudanese who made the legal action were newly arrived? Not a nice article I’ll give you that, but its rather rash to criminalise a newly arrived immigrant group on the basis of the actions of one person.