Posted by Mark Richardson on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 05:25 | #

Regarding Professor Fraser. In 1995 the Racial Discrimination Act was amended in order to allow:

“an academic publication, discussion or debate (for example, discussing and debating public policy such as immigration, multiculturalism or affirmative action for migrants).”

So the law does seem to explicitly allow for Professor Fraser to publish his article - he is supposed to be privileged in this regard because of his academic status.

It is the university administration, therefore, which seems to be using the law as an excuse to censor the law journal.

Posted by Andrew L on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:25 | #

I bet if he deleted Negroid and wrote in, “Anglo”, it would be published on the front page of every newspaper in the world,as well as appearing in every Journal , no doubt.

Posted by Simon on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:23 | #

Mark Richardson- you are guilty of selective cutting and pasting in this instance. If you had bothered to read on you would have found the following needs to be met:

1. This means the act must have been done without spite, ill-will or any other improper motive. Lack of good faith in the context of artistic expression will only be established by “something approaching a deliberate intent to mislead or, if it is reasonably foreseeable that a particular racial or national group will be humiliated or denigrated by publication, at least a culpably reckless and callous indifference in that regard” according to HREOC Inquiry Commissioner Johnston.

2. Exception ‘done reasonably’
This is an objective test. Whether or not the publisher, speaker or artist thought the act was reasonable, it is the ordinary person whose assessment is relevant. The context of the act or publication, community standards of morality and ethics and the impact on the community, on the targeted person or group and on race relations generally are all relevant.

Posted by William on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:35 | #

So what’s the problem? Two academic reviewers and the Editor of a law journal found the article reasonable and measured. Suitable for publication even in Australia.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:09 | #

Simon, thanks for adding greater detail to the points of law - however, it doesn’t make anything any better.

As William points out, the fact that Professor Fraser’s article was peer reviewed suggests that it is written to academic standards.

Therefore, you would expect that it would meet the basic intention to allow academic debate on questions of immigration policy.

If it does meet this intention, then the Deakin University administration is not standing up for academic freedom of speech.

If, on the other hand, a peer reviewed article by Professor Fraser breaches the two legal qualifications you raise, then there is no meaningful academic freedom of speech on these issues.

Either way we have a major problem.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that Professor Fraser’s article could breach the legal requirements. Note that it is only a culpably reckless or callously indifferent view of the consequences of what you are writing which can breach the law.

I doubt if too many articles for university law journals are written in reckless language, or with a callously indifferent intent.

The point I am making here is that Commissioner Johnston has clarified the law in a way which seems to extend what is permissible, rather than restricting it.

Posted by Simon on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:56 | #

Mark- apparently two reviewers refused to agree to publish it initally. It appears, although we cannot be certain that the editor of the Deakin Law review may of sought favourable reviewers in order to save face- that is one thing we may not ever know.

It does not necessarily matter if an article was peer reviewed for it to be an exception to the rule, although we cannot say for certain. Remember there is a test that needs to be met here, whether other people would think the article was reasonable or not, and that would not come down to the opinons of two peer reviewers.

Finally, Fraser himself as a lawyer would have known of the possibility that this would occur. I dare say, this could fit in quite nicely with his desire to manufacture media coverage for himself and his views even further, and that his threat to sue Deakin will be another example of this.

Posted by Andrew L on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:08 | #

No Matter what spinn is on it, It still is the villification Gestapo, Truth dennied, and only publish what propaganda is acceptable to the Ideological Army or you will be shot, well exaggerated there but it is comming, try “villified”, to the ends of the earth.Obviously Drew Fraser is a victim now being a un-beleiver,or a dissident or to educated and is above the Agitprop.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:38 | #

Simon, it’s not the case that two reviewers refused to agree to publish the article initially.

The process in Australia is that academic reviews are supposed to be blind: you aren’t supposed to know whose work you are reviewing.

The first two academics the article was submitted to for review guessed who the author was and for this reason disqualified themselves as reviewers.

Posted by Simon on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:26 | #

Mark- it would not be hard for any potential reviewer not too know in fact who Fraser was:

“The suggestion seems to be that the first reviewers couldn’t do the job because they could identify Fraser’s authorship, but I think you’d struggle to find someone who couldn’t. No, it appears that the editors of the law review, including McConvill, might have gone “shopping” for favourable reviewers”.

The next problem we have is that Fraser’s distributing of his article may only further cause him more legal drama. Its also my belief that he would not at all be unhappy with these proceedings in planning to sue Deakin, he would have known full well the implications of his article.

Andrew L- you give Fraser exactly what he wants, and exactly what he wanted, martyrdom. He knows how to play the media all too well now, and no doubt he has people fooled into the believing he’s some modern day Australian race hero. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:34 | #

Simon:

So, say you are right, Fraser attempting to generate as much media exposure as possible. So what?

Knowing the sensitiviy of this subject I’d want it to be as public as possible to prevent “Star Chamber” type retribution by the multicultist legal system; its harder to attack someone that is supported by public opinion - as I’m sure Fraser is. The institutional/governmental framework is allied against Fraser, I’d cover my butt too.

Besides, I’m sure you know media manipulation is done by most if not all public figures. If such manipulation of the media offends you, perhaps you had better turn off the radio and TV forever.

Posted by Simon on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:49 | #

Geoff- when people try and turn themselves into political martyrs then we have cause for concern. When the initial comments were made, Fraser repeated the claim that he was going to be sacked to the media, despite nothing fromt he university.

He tried to convince the public that Macquarie University had manufactured threats against the students of the university as an excuse to get rid of him, far from it in fact,considering some of those threats originated from the same type of people he sent an email too asking for support.

In the end as said previously, Fraser would not at all be unhappy with the result of this- it gives him more airplay, and more of a chance to become a political martyr for the white nationalist cause. That’s exactly what he wants, and your giving him that status inadvertently and without merit.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:36 | #

Simon:
I don’t buy your interpretation of events.

Futhermore, even if he is a show-man, I admire him. He is standing up for people of European descent - unlike so many other cowards.

I’m with Fraser 100%. Weave your spells on someone else it doesn’t work on me.

Posted by Simon on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:06 | #

Geoff-

what do you make of comments Fraser made on radio that his arguments were weak?

What do you make of comments in the meida that he wishes things would all go away or that he never imagined this would ever happen- he never intended it to be like this?

Do you like Fraser wanted to be a hero- I think your admiration is somewhat misdirected.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 07:19 | #

Simon,

Are you a leftist?  Are you a Jewish ethno-centrist or of some other minority in the West?  What’s your angle?  Rather than try to chip away at Geoff and others’ take on the Fraser story, as you have done at Amren, why don’t you either counter the substance of Prof Fraser’s paper or just come clean with what you personally want to happen to Western Man and the Third World immigrants who are replacing him?

Posted by Andre L on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 07:45 | #

Simon, I had heard the interview with Prof .Dy Burbery and her account was the opposit to what was on the ground in those events at Maquarrie Uni. Even if Drew Fraser was some what Wrong, and I would suggest he is not, The Diversity police and the wets would indeed see he existed no more in Acadeem, There are undoubtably many more Academics, but do not have the intestinal fortitude to state Facts, a common problem in Acadeem, especially when your Massive sallery is threatened if you do not tow the line.
Public support is great, not because of racial motives, but reality, and being Mugged by reality . Realy.

Is that a Templars Fortress in the top picture

Posted by Simon on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:04 | #

Guessedworker-

I could counter the contents of Fraser’s paper but is there really a point? Is this going to make you change your mind at all- of course it won’t.

Anyone who believes in the ‘Color of Crime’ should consider taking a basic lesson in criminology for a start. Scholary studies of which Taylor’s work is not, neither is it peer-reviewed do not support Fraser or Taylor’s assertions.

Should I waste my breath any futher? I have more to say, but fear I will only be shouted down by the free speech hypocrites over at AMREN, thankfully the people here seem at least more together than anything else.

Posted by Simon on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:06 | #

A question for guessedworker also- can you explain why Fraser thinks the research that appears in his article is by his own admission weak?

Posted by Andrew L on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:19 | #

Simon, Most of the resurch in fact was done by his student’s, we had heard from them on Air, The students as well support Prof. Drew Fraser, the students were Ethnic, not anglo, and support the right to publish truth findings, established by case history and statistical data, as well as established fact. JJR love him or not, has a great Biography of what happens in Acadeem if you do not tow the line.
Wether or not you agree, factual infomation is more revealing than Ideological, even if the truth hurts a little.You would think Facts would be the only thing that could exist, but Marx had better plans in subtext and no truth’s, so that must be lie’s then.

Posted by Simon on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:20 | #

Thats news to be Andrew- didnt realise his students were Michael Levin, Jared Taylor and J P Rushton.

Can you clarify who did his research for this article, because since he is not teaching at Macquarie at the moment I fail to see how Fraser himself could have had his students do the research for him.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:39 | #

Simon:

> What do you make of comments in the meida that he wishes things would all go away or that he never imagined this would ever happen

I, of course, did not see those remarks for two reasons 1) I live in the United States and 2) I don’t watch television.

Frankly, I too wish the affair would go away. And as for television - those jackels in the studio can make Stalin look like a hero and Jesus Christ like the devil.

I have only read what Fraser has printed, and noted the backlash from the “authorities.” From what I’ve read Fraser withstood the fire pretty well.

I stand with Fraser. I think if he were in America they’d have burned him by now.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:40 | #

Simon,

You have still not answered my plea for openness.  I asked for your angle - your political or ethnic motivation - because liberals and leftist and members of non-European Caucasian minorities frequently like to take pot-shots at majority EC interest from a concealed vantage point.  I think concealment is a little unfair and, on a free speech blog where all well-argued views are welcomed, unnecessary.  I hope you will feel able to oblige.

On the substance of what you say thusfar, there is no substance.  You appear to support the contention that murder, violent assault and rape are not connected to peak ST rythmicity, aggression, low IQ and impulsivity.  In other words, “a basic course in criminology” will reveal to us that sub-Saharan Africans are no more or less likely than EC’s, for example, to commit violent crime and rape (how about East Asians?).  Such a finding would be wholly contrary to the professional experience of my cousin, for example, who is a murder squad detective in England.  But what is a sample of one!

You also appear to want to refute Prof Fraser’s race-realism by calling into question his probity.  Does this not imply that you are that dying breed, a denier of racial difference ... a Tim Wise acolyte, perhaps (Timothy is a non-EC minority, of course).

You leave us in need of clarity, in the absence of which you might be charitable enough to excuse those Amren readers who were uncharitable towards you.  I trust no one here will be.

Posted by Andrew L on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:48 | #

Sorry Simon, not the latter work, the work that had brought Drew to the media Headlight.

Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 02:42 | #

Andrew- thanks for clarifying that. However, whilst some of Fraser’s students supported his right to teach, none of them expressed support for his comments, only his right to make the comments in public.

Guessedworker-

An Australian report into violent crime rates intelligence as a factor in violent crime, however low on a scale compared to other factors:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/vda/vda-sec08.html

Furthermore, five major studies found no link between race and crime:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti117.pdf

In Britain as well the British Crime Survey in 2001/2002, 2002/2003 found that black people and minorities were more at risk of mugging etc than white people:

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/racial12.htm

In England also there is a higher risk of racist crimes against non-whites:

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/toolkits/rh021501.htm

I think whether or not Fraser actually believes half of what he says is in fact relevant here- even he can see that Rushton and Taylor etc provide weak evidence for his claims- therefore it has a significant effect on his whole argument as a scholarly piece.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 06:02 | #

“An Australian report into violent crime rates intelligence as a factor in violent crime, however low on a scale compared to other factors.” 

Was one of the other factors race, Simon?  No, I didn’t click on the link—don’t need to:  my head’s screwed on frontwards. 

“Furthermore, five major studies found no link between race and crime.” 

Dream on, Simon.  Did I click on the link?  No, no more than I clicked on the link that said the moon was made of green cheese, two plus two equals five, or the sun won’t rise tomorrow—nice fantasy but frankly I haven’t the time at the moment ...

“In Britain as well the British Crime Survey in 2001/2002, 2002/2003 found that black people and minorities were more at risk of mugging etc than white people.” 

If they are it’s at the hands of other non-whites.  Did you actually expect anyone to fall for that, Simon?  No I didn’t click on the link because if I want sophistry and propaganda I can watch Katy Couric and Matt Lauer on the TV morning shows. 

“In England also there is a higher risk of racist crimes against non-whites.” 

But those aren’t committed by whites but by other non-whites.  No, I didn’t click on the link because, frankly, once you see through leftist race-replacement propaganda there’s no need to see it twice.  It gets boring after a while.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 06:37 | #

Simon, the five major studies you mention actually did find higher crime rates among migrant groups - the researchers simply chose to use disadvantage rather than race to explain the phenomenon. In other words, the fact of crime rates being associated with certain migrant groups is admitted, but as a matter of interpretation the reports prefer not to link crime to race.

Also, the paper you linked to did not consider the most obvious example of crime being linked to race in Australia: that of the Aborigines.

For instance, in 1996 the rate of Aboriginal imprisonment was 18 times that of non-Aborigines. And in Western Australia in 1993, 15.6 per cent of the entire Aboriginal population was arrested, compared to 1.7 per cent of the general population (so roughly 1 in every 6 Aborigines was arrested in a single year!).

Again, you could explain this in terms of disadvantage, but then this further raises the question of why disadvantage should be so pronounced amongst one particular race and not others.

Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:22 | #

So Fred why then should we believe Jared Taylor’s ‘Color of Crime’ over other studies?

Ive had a look at Taylor’s study, yet you refuse to even consider the possibility probably because you don’t even want to do so.

And no Fred, those other racist crimes are committed by whites. Same as how Taylor fooled you into believing that crime stats can represent something they are not.

Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:37 | #

Mark- thanks for that. The AIC report into violent crime supports the link between intelligence and crime, however rates it far lower than other factors. Dr Don Weatherburn writing for the Bureau of Crime Statistics in NSW argues that:

“Thus, while there
is some statistical evidence consistent
with the possibility that there may be
inherited factors in crime, that evidence
is also open to interpretation in ways
which do not implicate genetic factors.19”.

Since IQ testing in itself can be culturally biased, and research from others such as Sternberg who through his studies in Tanzania found that whilst some people did worse on standard cognitive testing, on other forms of testing they did in fact do much better.

There is also evidence of harsher treatment before the legal system of non-whites. See Collins, Poynting, Tabar, ‘Kebabs, Kids, Cops and Crime’.

Posted by Andrew L on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:02 | #

Simon , If you live in Sydney, for example, the crime statistics are doctered by leftoid Government’s , (labour), the same exists everywhere in the world as far as crime reports go, they simply deny the fact.

Every day there is a Rape, Murder , Armed robbery, etc etc, and it is not White folk, it is ethnic based crime that the police will not touch, and have not for about 30 years.
NSW 10 thousand reported rape cases, real figuer is 60 thousand rapes in NSW, what is the population of NSW, we have big problems, and refusing or not accepting their is a issue, jump on a train, even walk around Auburn, or Rooty hill, carry a brief case in the City, and walk through Lakemba with a camera, If you survive that , buy Lotto, you are a very luck person.
I assure you .

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:07 | #

Simon,

Please clarify for me whether you are shooting at Prof Fraser because he is, in your view wrong, or because he is a white academic speaking for white (non-Jewish) interests ... or both, of course.

As to the two British studies you raise, you conflate inter- and intra-racial crime as, I think, you did on the Amren thread.  Of course blacks are more likely to be the victims of crime.  They perpetrate it upon themselves.

Low IQ and criminality correlate - the average IQ of Britain’s prison population is 85.  High-peak black ST rythmicity throws violence into the equasion.  So blacks are also the victims of more violent crime.

You will not find statistics of inter-racial crime in Britain because the Home Office refuses to collect them.  Now, why do you think that is, Simon?  Here’s a clue: it isn’t to hide the evidence for violent white racism.

Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:10 | #

Andrew- if you actually had done any research into crime stats in NSW and also on a federal level they have discussed the problems with classifying ethnic crime statistics considering we have a vastly diverse ethnic population, and that it would be the job of the police to judge the ethnicity of the suspect at the start of the process.

I worked in the city for a fair while, and never had a problem. I also go into the city quite a lot for social purposes both day and night and have never had a problem.

See without evidence to back up your claims your argument falls flat. You cannot rely on accusations of ‘doctoring’ to support your argument and unless you have academic proof or something close, it sounds a bit more paranoid than anything else. You claim that:

“Every day there is a Rape, Murder , Armed robbery, etc etc, and it is not White folk, it is ethnic based crime that the police will not touch, and have not for about 30 years”.

Are you suggesting in this statement that only non-white ‘folk’ are rapists,murderers or armed robbers? Thats rather naive and I think you know that.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:21 | #

I am also amazed that you raise the old canard of “cultural IQ testing”.  Is the small cranial capacity of blacks also cultural? I don’t know Mr Sternberg’s work.  Is it so shatteringly significant that it sweeps away at a stroke every one of the 10,000 IQ tests that have been conducted over the last seventy years?  Is he any more reliable than Boas, Gould or Diamond?

Do try to live in the real world, Simon.  We aren’t incapable of understanding why Boas, Gould and Diamond so dislike racial difference.  It destroys the myth of human equality and holds out the possibility of safety for European Caucasians through the ending of the racial onslaught they now face.

Your interest seems likely to me, at least, to lie in frustrating that possibility.  You do not wish the myth of equality to be destroyed, and you do not wish European Caucasians to be safe from destruction themselves.

If this is wrong perhaps you would be good enough to clarify the matter for us.

Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:31 | #

Guessedworker- I think Fraser is is incorrect if that answers your question. I think his arguments are as he admitted himself ‘weak’, and is of low scholarly value as are many of his citations.

Out of interest your reading of that link I posted- where you stated that I conflate inter and intra-racial crime- is that based on a source at all, or as your nickname suggests ‘guesswork’.

The Australia report I cited identifes intelligence as a correlate to prison populations and criminal behaviour. However they do not consider it as a strong enough factor compared to the others they list in the report.

Check some of my previous posts for a bit more information also. Why don’t you email the Home Office or bettter still do some research as to why they do not collect those stats- there are always reasons, and it is less likely to be for the ones you are thinking of.

Posted by Andrew L on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:28 | #

The Facts are to numerous Simon, I did have 4 years in AFP, and have a lot of friends in the Vareous police forces around Australia, I realise from my own experience what you suggest is false, I do understand the art of political exageration and manipulation.
understanding crimminallity would be easy, if the goal posts had not been changed, and the ethnic component, and skin colour does play a major part, Politisizing about the notion is rediculess. A point you make is White Folk, to a limit this is true, but the underpinned problem stemms from Ethnic peargroup , and the socialist policy of destroying the fabric of society and removing the self motivation in favour of the State control society.
I am only 42, and this is not the same Australia I grew up in, the threats are indeed fact not fiction, I can not make you believe if you choose otherwise, but my childrens future and their childrens future depends on reality, and not some prefabricated notion of Marxist anti- theistic theory. Acadeem has become just as perverted and corrupt as any institution, and it is going to take some years to repair the social dammage and reverse the brainwashing that has been passed off as education.
I realy would love to subscribe to your account of Utopia, but it is not real, and that’s the problem.I have to disagree with your points.

Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:52 | #

Where are these facts Andrew? Its all well and good speaking rhetoric you posess and your own experiences, but short of providing actual studies or research for me to consider, how am I meant to assess the validity of what you are saying.

Of course you cannot make me believe- especially since all you have is personal experiences and a few points, without identifying where your points come from.

Certainly political manipulation exists, however to rely on accusations of political mismangement or misinformation does not answer the question. Its a rather weak argument.

Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:02 | #

Guessedworker- rather arrogant to suggest that because does not agree with you, they don’t live in the real world. What gives you the right to privlege your view over another?

You argue that is Sternberg any more reliable than a few others- yet why is Rushton more reliable than others. The only difference being in the credibility of the two.

It comes down to he says/she says. Interestingly enough in your previous post you stated that:

“Of course blacks are more likely to be the victims of crime.  They perpetrate it upon themselves”.

You then added that the reason you believed that the home office does not reveal race crime stats was:

“Here’s a clue: it isn’t to hide the evidence for violent white racism”.

So what in fact is the greater problem- is it black on black crime as you say, or is it violent racist crime by blacks which is apparently covered it up?

Stop asking for me to clarify my position- if you do not get it by now, you will never get it.

If the only argument you have of the critics of Rushton and co, is that they simply want to ignore racial differences I suggest reading some of the critiques. And as for phrenology, most people stopped believing that years ago- so maybe indeed its yourself that should move into the real world, whatever that in fact maybe.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:07 | #

Simon, one place where the ethnicity of those charged with a crime is collected is Norway.

Earlier this year figures for the ethnicity of those charged with rape in the capital, Oslo, were released to the public.

Of the 97 men whose ethnicity was verified who were charged with rape, 72 were non-Western immigrants. This is roughly 75% of the total, despite the fact that non-Western immigrants make up only 14.3% of Oslo’s population.

You can find a link to the original Norwegian news report on these statistics in the article I posted on this at:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1258/

Posted by Andrew L on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:29 | #

I think you can answer your own question Simon, that very reason, not that Facts do not exist, it is how they have been manipulated, and entered.
You would be aware of Police main log books, well you would not be supprised to learn that there is a secondary log sheet with the infomation the Politics of the day dictate reported crime methodology, and isolate catagory of crime.Or reinvent its severity so it is no longer recorded.
The Political system would love you to believe everything is ok, when the opposit is obvious.Acadeem of late is not the place to surch for truth, they along with the Judicial system are the problem. The data you may seek, would only be obtained by an official leak.Not Departmental or political volinteering it. That is the war we are fighting,You would find hundreds and thousands of case history, and depending on how Objective you are, you could answer most of your own questions, without predjudice.
Ben Tilman is a legal eagle is he not, Help.

Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:31 | #

Mark, Guessedworker and Andrew L:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/ethnicity-crime/ethnic-ch6.pdf

this explains in part the resons for why we should collect ethnic crime stats and the limitations on it.

Mark- this report examines the factors underlying indigenous arrest rates:

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/r52.pdf/$file/r52.pdf

Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:39 | #

Andrew- why then don’t you attempt to use your contacts to obtain some leaked information?

It sounds all very secretive and conspiratal to me- and whilst some of what you say maybe true of government, witnessed in such moments as the children overboard scandal, there is less evidence here to suggest a mass cover up of ethnic crime stats, compared to events such as the children overboard affair.

Read my previous post and have a look at the link I left for you.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:06 | #

Simon,

Thanks for replying.  I think it would be useful to narrow the discussion between you and I down somewhat.  I am speaking about England only - not the political state of Britain, not America or Australia.

The problem in England is not black criminality per se.  It is rather wider than that.

The reality is that our political milieu is totally liberal, and within it progressive actors are not subject to constraint.  Liberalism as a distributor of freedom reached its apogee sometime around the beginning of the 20th Century, when Marxisation of the working class self-help movement here began to creep in and the potential for good was lost.

From that point on, liberalism has been prostituted to ever more extreme ends, including of course Communism (and Nazism in Germany) and, in our time, Cultural Marxism and its related Third World immigration.

The chief characteristic of liberalism today is its undemocratic and dictatorial obsession with freedom through equality.

Hence, for example, the thoroughly Marxised liberal establishment - the concentration of power in government and the executive, academia, law and media - can and does dictate terms to the people.  Minority hucksters such as Jewish ethnocentrists - of which I suspect you may be one (but feel free to enlighten me otherwise if that is the case) - can pursue an anti-English, anti-Christian interest completely free from fear of contradiction.

I find that deeply offensive and in need of urgent correction.

If, as an Englishman in my own, ancient homeland, I wish to defend my ethnic interests - or simply point out that the race replacement we are suffering has not been instituted with the consent of the majority - I face a mighty and repressive raft of official or merely liberal-sanctioned obstruction.

In turn, the liberal establishment has done its damnedest to push us along the allotted path.  It presents us with comforting illusions of the alien (“moderate Moslems, friendly and protective blacks etc).  Officially, it claims Britishness is built on “tolerance” and “decency” instead of blood.  Our media will us towards miscegenation.  The existence of race is denied, and so is our existence other than as “mongrels”.  Our private opinions are delegitimised so they have no outlet - most especially no political outlet.  We are imprisoned if we say too much or the wrong thing.

It is a genuine crime against our rights and it amounts to nothing less than a slow genocide, equivalent to the inevitable outcome of a law-enforced right of return of Palestinians to their land in what is now Israel.

So this is the problem, Simon.  We are denied rights to live as we please in our homeland - or even to know and think about the possibility of doing so.  Liberalism has become totalitarian.  And you appear to agree with that development.

That’s why I keep asking about your ethnicity.  If you are of European Caucasian extraction I can have a meaningful conversation with you.  If you are not, then we can agree to differ and leave it at that.

I have by the way, read critiques of Phil Rushton’s work.  He has debated his critics to the point where none are left standing.  I accept his conclusions as overly broad but ostensibly sound.  What’s your argument for East Asian violence and a low East Asia IQ?

Actually, Simon, the world is moving on. Prof Rushton and his critics are being left behind by the latest techniques in genetics.  The discovery of genes for intelligence is now a real-world prospect (yes, that real world again, that leftists so dislike because of its power to shake their precious illusions to pieces).  The problems of African IQ, criminality and violence will, in time, be relocated into the more precise arena of genetic science.

Until that time I will base my view of Africans as psychometrists have revealed them to be and as I see them about me.  The challenge to dispute that is yours, but you have before you a task made impossible by Africans themselves.

Good luck with it.  Maybe you could take the project to Israel and recommend the repeal of the law that that forbids white” Israeli women to marry Falasha boys.

Posted by Andrew L on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:16 | #

It has been done before, with a few , and the system shoots them down in flames. Tim Priest is one, so often the truth comes out, and as outrageous and silly as it sounded, that is deliberate, The Elits sphere control media, Judicial, Political. Pauleen Hanson is a prime point and example of efforts of deseption and Manipulation. Some could write a book on the Elitist fabrication and Manipulation of the system, but people rather believe that they have their interests at heart and that is the Big Conn.
Not many had heard about the race riot’s in WA, reason being it was between, Sudanees and Aboriginal , not good for a political statement, unless it was involving White Anglo Police stand off, but no.
The same reasoning as why Womens libiration groups are not vocal on Islamic issues and rape, it is not PC and does not have a greater priority over the Multicultural disaster, easier to deny it existed than conseed failure.

Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:29 | #

I find it ironic the following statement:

  “If you are of European Caucasian extraction I can have a meaningful conversation with you.  If you are not, then we can agree to differ and leave it at that”.

What exactly does this mean- are you saying that you would not enter into a conversation about your beliefs with any non-white. I was in fact born in Colombia, but was adopted here by white Australians. I have lived in this country for all but 10 weeks of my life.

So now that you know that I am non-white do I still get the freedom of speech to talk with you, or am I not good enough now?

As for Rushton- I guess it comes down to whose left with more credibility doesnt it? In any case, does Rushton have any professional training in genetics?

Posted by Andrew L on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:39 | #

Simon, now you mentioned Baby overboard, I understand what direction you are firing from.That is the best example of political manipulation and left Marxism, you have not read the Senate Enquiry or report, there was a baby thrown overboard, and 2Moslem women died below deck when they set fire to the Boat, the Marxist left did not tell you that in the media.
Paul Shehan’s had put it in book form, It is called the Electronic Whorehouse.
It is The Inquiry report, not editorial notes, of the whole investigation, yes that is what I was talking about how the truth is manipulated and twisted and politisized, Glad you brought the subject up, have a read of the real report, not the ABC Leftoid Media version , Big difference in the Chronology of events. In fact ,hard to realise if they are reporting that event.
Parliametry records would be a good start in finding Objective truth on that subject.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:59 | #

The chief characteristic of liberalism today is its undemocratic and dictatorial obsession with freedom through equality.

So this is the problem, Simon.  We are denied rights to live as we please in our homeland - or even to know and think about the possibility of doing so.  Liberalism has become totalitarian.

______

That was an excellent statement, GW.  It’s going into my “keeper” file.  Simon, when you manage to get out of the double digits let me know and I’ll come back and see about replying to your drivel.  You’re a half-wit.

Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:03 | #

Fred- are you a ‘tard’ in disguise?

Right back at you!

Nice how you cannot avoid insults- I guess it makes up for your lack of an intelligent argument.

Posted by Freddy on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:50 | #

With enemies like Simon, who needs friends?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:15 | #

Simon,

Rushton was subject to a vicious attack by the Canadian academic and political establishment.  I am sure you would agree that, in considering his work, it is important to rigorously separate the totalitarian impulse of the liberal-left from valid intellectual criticism.  The question then is what valid intellectual criticism survives.  None, so far as I am aware.

Rushton’s findings have outlived the left’s aggression. Yes, his r-K scenario, with which I concurr as it happens, is more theoretical.  Yes, his overall scheme is perhaps too broad in the coming age of genetic racial identification.  But the basic premise that we are fitted in different ways psychologically as much as physically by selection for fitness to our macro-environments is sound.

If the left still believes in the tabula rasa it is only as religion.  It strove with all its blind power from the moment E.O.Wilson’s Sociobiology was published in 1975.  But it has lost this debate.  The truth is that Marxism is a lie.  So, just as Franz Boas resorted to lying in his 1910 study of plasticity in negro skull size, so the opposition to Rushton - and MacDonald and Salter - has had to be founded not on empirical finding but on private political ideology.  On obsession in fact.

Now all that is out in the open.  It is time for those who propose equality, be it for reasons of ideology or ethnic interest, to examine their souls.  What do they want with us, anyway?  We only want to be left alone ... not invaded, not transformed into another people, not strictured into a marxist straight-jacket.

Examine your morals.  Ask yourself why you demonstrate such animosity to a people not your own.

Posted by Simon on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:27 | #

Well Guessedworker- how would you change the status quo?

What would be your policy on immigration and related policy areas?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:56 | #

“how would you change the status quo?  What would be your policy on immigration and related policy areas?”  (—Simon)

Deporting people like you the hell out of Australia for starters, Simon, if that could somehow be managed ...

(Hey anyone know the number at the Vatican where we can phone in our nominations for sainthood?  I’m nominating GW—for actually taking the time and trouble to carefully, thoughtfully reply to this guy ... and more than once, no less! ...)

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:05 | #

Simon,

Principally, I would seek by a variety of means to conservatise the liberal milieu so that, over time, a healthy and stable society could develop once again, and manifest its will politically.

We have all lived under liberalism for generations.  It began well enough.  But it has, as I said earlier, degenerated (and been pushed) into the pursuit of impossible ideals.  It is destructive of our very being and, actually, we have no alternative but to destroy it first.

That brings those living among us who are not of us to a certain question: are their interests served by the destruction of Western Man and his civilisation or by his continuity?  It should be possible to welcome those who can honestly answer “his continuity” and who can operate within the broad trammels of his ethnic genetic interests - that is, not seek to derail or defeat those interests - as productive members of his society.  In Salterian terms, they would have to increase its “carrying capacity” beyond the superficial reproductive loss.  The number who might fall into this category would, by my estimation, not be great.

Those who cannot abide us or abide with us must find a future someplace where their presence is productive.  That is a definite must, irrespective of the likely cost in treasure of such an exigency.

Fred, steady on old man.  If I don’t have a problem with Simon you, a man closer to God than I ever will be, certainly shouldn’t.

Posted by Simon on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 08:15 | #

Guessedworker- can you you help me try and understand where your coming from a bit more then. I get the feeling that you feel that non-whites threaten the destruction of western man- white man so to speak.

How does this work as such? How do non-whites systematically or otherwise destroy white identity or white culture as you see it?

Are you suggesting that if they assimilate to white culture then thats okay, if so what actually constitutes white culture as such? There has been some debate in Australia in the last month about Australian values- what are Australian values and what makes them preferential to any other values from other nations that are not white as such?

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:03 | #

Simon,

I realise that “Conservatising the liberal milieu” are hardly words one hears everyday.  They do not hide anything very complicated, though.  One merely has to look beyond the immediate and into the past a little - and also beyond the single issue of race. 

I am not, therefore, saying only that non-whites threaten the destruction of Western Man.  It runs a lot broader than that, though there is no doubt that the preservation of Western Man precludes general non-white admixture.

OK ... liberalism is not simply a collection of ideas preferred by the centre-left and all points east.  It is the water in which we swim: our economic life, our moral life, our political life.  In a way it is everything.

In England, the dominance of liberalism was established at the expense of a similarly all-encompassing Conservative zeitgeist.  This can be dated from the time of the Reform Act of 1832.  Liberalism’s centre of gravity has been migrating leftward ever since, eviscerating Conservatives who followed until they have become quite unable to advocate their own philosophy.

However, in precisely the same way that Christ’s message of love became twisted in the hearts of men into the Inquisition and Witch-burning, so liberalism has become corrupted.  I have written about it most recently here.  If you have a few spare moments it might help to delve into that.

Really, to see where I am coming from you’ve got to be in a position to critique the present advanced state of liberalism.  I do not see in it the heir of the Enlightenment, but the degeneracies of Cultural Marxism.  It is pursuing an absolute human equality through the destruction of the social fabric of the West, sexual and cultural identity, our sovereignty in our own homelands and our actual genetic distinctiveness.

That, alas, is the trajectory.  The mainstream political right cannot detach from it to offer us leadership and a vehicle for our legitimate interests.  Those gatherings of opinion which you see at sites such as Amren or MR are the consequence of a perfect political vaccuum.  In this we are no different to any other society anywhere in the world - for, having no liberal milieu, they are all properly ethnocentric.

Now for assimilation.  I believe the concept is much hyped and with good reason from a liberal-left perspective.  Multiculturalism has most demonstrably failed (as the race-realist right knew it must), and assimilation on the American model is Plan B - indeed, the only game in town.

But assimilation is not a magic formula.  It’s one thing for one adopted Columbian in Australia to enter into the grain of Western life.  It’s another for five million North Africans concentrated in the ancient homeland of the French.

The myth of mass assimilation is built on the truth that like populations assimilate, meaning they inter-marry and become one.  Mass immigrant populations, however, possess their own centre of gravity.  It is a natural law that they will comprehend their interests as an ethny.  In the broadest sense all immigrant ethnic interests run counter to those of native Euros.  Every “distant” immigrant of whatever generation is aware in some corner of his mind that he does not belong to the host, and his deepest fear is that of isolation and failure.

The very wisest of them acknowledge the rights of the majority.  They set aside their own ethnic interest and grant the hosts theirs, to be pursued in peace (Will Barret, for example, an MR blogger who is half-Jewish, is of the persuasion that his interests are served by the survival of Western civilisation - and that requires the survival of Western Man).

In this one sense I think a tolerable assimilation is possible at an individual level.  But it is a narrow door through which to pass, and few will go that way.

The only other long-term basis on which assimilation between distant population groups can be meaningfully achieved is the “final solution” of the browning of the nation - a genocide for the natives which I trust you would not expect them to accept.

Posted by Simon on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:35 | #

Correct me if I am wrong but I fail to see much substance in what Fraser argues in his essay- its merely a reinvigoration of an earlier statement where he said “well experience practically everywhere else shows us…” and that seems to be his only justification for his comments.

Situations in Europe and America are somewhat different- Australia is isolated, we do not have the porous open borders he implies we do. You only have to look at the immigration detention centres to see what happens when you arrived unexpectedly.

Fraser in his essay fails to cite any Australian immigration statistics regarding ‘third world immigration’- which one might expect if he were trying to argue that we are being overtaken by third immigrants.

That for me is one of the concerns of the article- how can you simply argue that because something happens elsewhere it may automatically happen here- he seems to rely more on doom and gloom more than anything else.

Again correct me If I am wrong here- but there is a distinct absence of and Australian criminological material as well, which startles me for someone who is so concerned about Australias future.