Showing posts with label Australia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australia. Show all posts

Tuesday, 21 April 2015

A lesson in practical morality

As a keen student of philosophy Pope Francis will be aware of the Socratic precept which defines impractical morality as no morality. And a very fine precept it is too, one that should be emblazoned over the front door of every SJW's* trendy house in the leafy suburbs. The current brouhaha over migrant drownings in the Med brings this to mind. "Fury At Europe As Hundreds Perish" thundered the Guardian, while the Irish Slimes, never one to miss out on an opportunity for self-flagellation, declares the drownings "A Challenge To Fortress Europe".

Don't you just love that?  Fortress Europe.  Good God, if Europe's a fortress I'd hate to see what an open border would look like.  Oh wait, I can!  The Southern border of the USA.

Anyway, back to Pope Francis.  He's been getting into the act big time, arriving at the remarkable conclusion that migrants are 'fellow human beings'.  And that we should 'open our hearts' (and by inference our borders and wallets) to accommodate these 'unfortunate victims'.  Fine Your Holiness. So here's a suggestion.  I know Vatican City (a sovereign State) is small, but there's plenty of room to accommodate a hundred or so of those victims you worry so much about.  A few prefabs in the corner of St. Peter's Square would do nicely. And every morning you could look out and savour the vibrant diversity that you're so keen to foist on the rest of us.

What's that you say? Your guests' friends and relatives might decide to move in as well? And  that your new neighbours might include the noble Islamic seafarers who recently consigned their Christian fellow passengers to a watery grave?  In response I'd say welcome to the real world. Nothing like bringing a manifestation of a problem to one's own doorstep to concentrate one's mind on practical solutions. Yes, practical solutions.  As distinct from preening, bleating, sanctimonious nostrums, geared towards flaunting one's superior morality while doing nothing to resolve the underlying problem.

And very often actually exacerbating the underlying problem. Because it's as sure as night following day that should Europe offer free access to anyone who wants it the Med would be black (whoops) with boats, packed to the gunwales, heading for a life of  plenty courtesy of the European taxpayer. Inevitably the casualties would show a commensurate increase, even with beefed-up rescue resources.  The so-called solution would only make things worse.

But, on the by no means certain assumption that the SJWs actually do want a practical solution, there is one readily at hand.  Guaranteed to work, cheap, and easily implemented.  Deaths at sea eliminated at a stroke. An SJW's dream.  The  exquisitely simple Australian Solution involves intercepting all trafficking vessels and towing them back to their embarkation point (almost invariably Indonesia). In that post I quote an Afghan people smuggler who openly conceded the deterrent effect on smugglers and their clients. Asked if he believed the Abbott government's policy of turning back the boats would work he replied: "Of course it will work, it is working." 

And there should be zero surprise at this.  If  asylum seekers know, and know for certain, that they will be turned back, they will not come.  Even a sociology professor should be able to see this. 

Practical morality of the kind Socrates had in mind.

Pope and other SJWs please note.

* Social Justice Warriors

Monday, 15 December 2014

Oz celebrates diversity

Every dog in the road by now knows about the siege at the Sydney restaurant, which ended with one ventilated terrorist and one dead captive. The terrorist/murderer was "an Iranian-born self-proclaimed Muslim cleric with a lengthy criminal record who is currently free on bail'. The Australian authorities, in their infinite wisdom, granted him political asylum in 1996. Good move lads.  And the Australian courts let him out on bail last Thursday despite his being up on a charge of murdering his wife. More good work guys.

So how come such a charmer got asylum in formerly all-White Australia?  How come he gets treated with kid gloves despite 'his lengthy criminal record'?  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury as Exhibit 1 I offer you the same Tribe that has done the same thing in every White country, with each country ending up like the ants' nest invaded by this guy. Yes, they have toiled, year after year, decade after decade to ensure that the First World gets flooded by the Third World. You can read about some of their star performers here and also about their mysterious inconsistency when it comes to Israel.....the country that attracts their primary loyalty.

And Oz is no exception. The Occidental Observer has published a five-part analysis entitled The War On White Australia. Excerpt: "The history of multiculturalism in Australia (and indeed throughout the West) is in large part an object lesson in how a small but highly organised and motivated group of activists can successfully hijack the demographic destiny of a nation for its own ends. Acknowledging that Australian multiculturalism is first and foremost a manifestation of Jewish ethno-politics, Jewish historian William Rubinstein observed that: “Thus far, any serious questioning of multiculturalism has not resulted in an anti-Semitic backlash; nevertheless, the Jewish community would certainly be exceedingly disturbed by any basic reversal of the commitment to multiculturalism by successive governments.”[i] 

In addition to opening the floodgates to mass non-White immigration, a key part of this Jewish campaign to radically reengineer Australian society in their own interests has been to shut down speech critical of this immigration and multiculturalism — and particularly of the role of Jews in foisting these disastrous policies on a resentful White Australian population."

If the anti-Semitic backlash that Rubinstein fears does indeed occur it will be richly deserved.

Addendum: And right on cue the "Australian" Muslims come out, after a perfunctory nod in the direction of the victims, wailing about the 'potential' for an anti-Islamic backlash. If only!  And again, right on cue, reacting like performing seals to their stimulus, local 'celebrities' rush in to offer their support. "Celebrities and tens of thousands of everyday Twitter users take to social media to show support for Muslim community Australians have flocked to social media to show solidarity with the Muslim community in the wake of the Martin Place hostage crisis ...

Jesus grant me patience.

Friday, 11 April 2014

There's a right way and a wrong way

It's Camp Of The Saints redux.  "A novel written in the early 1970's Camp of the Saints is about France being deluged with an armada of slow moving boats containing millions of the worst that the third world has to offer."   This picture shows rescuers of the Italian Navy helping refugees to climb on their boat near the Italian port of Pozzallo, south of Sicily. Italy has rescued 4,000 migrants from boats trying to reach European shores in the past 48 hours in a deepening immigration crisis.   "This issue is serious and Europe must take it in hand, immediately, because this is not a Mediterranean border but a European border" the Interior Minister said today.

Meanwhile at the Spanish enclave of Melilla thousands more swarm over the fence at the Moroccan border, over-running helpless security forces and  descending into the welcoming arms of the Red Cross...... who berated the guards for firing rubber bullets at the interlopers.  (Relish the prospect of these people arriving at a town near you, especially the guy that appears between 00.17 and 00.20 seconds). And of course at the Greek-Turkish border it's pretty much a case of forming orderly queues to partake of European taxpayers' largesse

And as we know, the vast majority of such arrivals will not be returned, instead will in due course be released. At which point they'll head north, looking for - and finding - richer pickings.  Hands are thrown up by the European 'authorities' and  their shills in the MSM.  'What can we do?'

Well in fact half a world away we can see precisely what can - and should - be done.  An Afghan people smuggler spells it out, saying that people smugglers and their clients were being put off by the prospect of being turned back at sea by the Royal Australian Navy.

Asked if he believed the Abbott government's policy of turning back the boats would work he replied: "Of course it will work, it is working."

And there should be zero surprise at this.  If  "asylum seekers know, and know for certain, that they will be turned back then, they will not come".  Even a sociology professor should be able to see this. The corollary is that when the prospect  is rescue and ultimately European residency they will come. And in ever increasing numbers.  Which is what's happening.

Monday, 11 October 2010

The Tyranny of White Guilt

I've just finished reading The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism, by French philosopher Pascal Bruckner in which he claims that "all of modern thought can be reduced to mechanical denunciations of the West, emphasizing the latter's hypocrisy, violence, and abomination." He shows how Europeans see themselves as "the sick man of the planet" whose pestilence causes every problem in the non-Western world. When the white man set foot in Asia, Africa, or America, death, chaos, and destruction followed. Europeans feel themselves born with stigmata: "the white man has sown grief and ruin wherever he has gone."

Well, maybe he’s over-stating his case. But there’s no doubt that one of the staples of our delusional post-colonial romantic self-flagellation is the myth of the Noble Savage. Coined originally I think by Rousseau in the eighteenth century, it’s characterised by misty-eyed fantasies about early men and women, living in Bambi-like harmony with nature while selflessly looking out for each other. But then the (white) colonialists came along to spoil everything, with their pesky hospitals, colleges, literature and so on.

Of all the delusions supporting the anti-white agenda, this is surely the most egregious. So hopefully I won't bore you by taking a look at the reality of some of those idealised lives.

The American Indians.
We have had it drilled into us now for more than forty years. I remember as a small boy when the Indians in movies were depicted as cruel, whooping, primitive savages, while the heroic cowboys or cavalry (calvary!) always kept one bullet – for themselves – in case of capture. You know, these savages would torture him horribly before his ritual slaughter.

We can look back now at this simplistic, ‘offensive’, ignorant and narrow-minded characterisation. We know this from an endless series of moves, and from the full range of ‘White Studies’ (ugh!) programmes, which show the Indian as being brave, peace-loving and chivalrous.
.
In fact, our unsophisticated 1960s view was far more accurate than that portrayed in Soldier Blue, Dances With Wolves or any of the other myriads of panegyrics to the poor Indian. For the Indian was indeed violent, cruel, savage, merciless and at constant war with his own kind, ever before the white man came to spoil everything.

Warfare was ubiquitous; every major culture area of native North America has produced archaeological, ethnohistorical, osteological, or ethnographic evidence of endless armed conflict and ritual violence.

A few examples:
In the Eastern Woodland cultures, warfare often served as a means of coping with grief and depopulation – itself driven by interminable warfare. Such conflict, commonly known as a “mourning war,” usually began at the behest of women who had lost a son or husband and desired the group's male warriors to capture individuals from other groups who could replace those they had lost.

The captive could be lucky. He could be spared and become the mourner’s new husband.

Or he could be unlucky.

“If the women of the tribe so demanded, captives would be ritually tortured, sometimes to death if the captive was deemed unfit for adoption into the tribe.”

Thomas E. Emerson’s study of Mississippian warfare for the period AD 900--1400 concerns the archaeological recovery of disturbing evidence from mass interments of war captives and/or sacrificial victims. According to the author, recent findings reveal that precontact-era hostilities resulted in the massacre and mutilation of hundreds of men, women, and children. He refers to “intensive and bellicose patterns of internecine warfare involving massive casualties.”
The Indians also demonstrated considerable vision and improvisation in developing methods of torture. Apart from the normal slow death by turning on the spit, specialities included smearing the victim with honey and then tying him (or her) to an ant’s nest. The agonising death throes could last for days before the partially eaten victim expired.

Various studies suggest that such practices were also widespread all over pre-Columbine America, including the Caribbean. Here the Carib Indians exterminated – and consumed – their Arawak enemies, before in turn succumbing to white man’s diseases, the poor dears.

New research coming to light (published in Discovery, September 20, 2010) shows that much of the violence was genocidal. “The entire assemblage comprises 14,882 human skeletal fragments, as well as the mutilated remains of dogs and other animals killed at the massacre site—Sacred Ridge, southwest of Durango, Colo. The unearthed bones and artefacts indicate that when the violence took place, men, women and children were tortured, disembowelled, killed and often hacked to bits. In some cases, heads, hands and feet appear to have been removed as trophies for the killers. The attackers then removed belongings out of the structures and set the roofs on fire.”
Must have been whites who did this, surely? Er, no. This took place about 800 AD.


Native New Zealanders

“There is not a bay, not a cove, in New Zealand which has not witnessed horrible dramas, and woe to the white man who falls into the New Zealanders' hands.”
.

When Felix Maynard and Alexandre Dumas wrote this (in The Whalers) they didn’t have the All Blacks Rugby team in mind. Although the similarities are striking, this, being written about 200 years ago, was referring to the native New Zealanders, the Maoris. And he was right to be apprehensive. Here’s a sample of what he could have expected:
.
“In the meantime, a fellow that had proved a traitor wished to come and see his wife and children. They seized him and served him in like manner. Oh, what a scene for a man of Christian feeling, to behold dead bodies strewed about the settlement in every direction, and hung up at every native's door, their entrails taken out and thrown aside and the women preparing ovens to cook them!”

“On our side, there were eight men killed, three children, and two women, during the siege. They got sixteen bodies, besides a great number that were half roasted, and dug several up out of the graves, half decayed, which they also ate. Another instance of their depravity was to make a musket ramrod red hot, enter it in the lower part of the victim's belly and let it run upwards, and then make a slight incision in a vein to let his blood run gradually, for them to drink.”

“I must here conclude, being very scanty of paper; for which reason, columns of the disgraceful conduct of these cannibals remain unpenned.”

Another Sheriden, Daniel Henry this time, wrote “Calm light airs from the north all day on the 23rd November hindered us from putting out to sea as intended. In the afternoon, some of the officers went on shore to amuse themselves among the natives, where they saw the head and bowels of a youth, who had been lately killed, lying on the beach, and the heart stuck on a forked stick which was fixed on the head of one of the largest canoes. One of the gentlemen bought the head and brought it on board, where a piece of the flesh was broiled and eaten by one of the natives, before all the officers and most of the men.”
.
“One of the cannibals thereupon bit and gnawed the human arm which Banks had picked up, drawing it through his mouth and showing by signs that the flesh to him was a dainty bit. Tupia carried on the conversation: ‘Where are the heads?’ he asked. ‘Do you eat them too?’ ‘Of the heads,’ answered an old man, ‘we eat only the brains.’ Later he brought on board Endeavour four of the heads of the seven victims."
.
Edward Tregear, in The Maori Race (1904) tells us “an English missionary has reported that Pomare, a chief of the Bay of Islands, ate six entire heads. Chiefs' heads are usually dried and perfectly preserved by an ingenious process. Before the feast of victory, each warrior drinks the blood of the enemy he has killed with his own hand. After battle comes the terrible and revolting episode of the cannibal feast. Prisoners taken in the fight were slain in cold blood, except those reserved for slavery – a mark of still greater contempt than being killed for food. Sometimes after the battle a few of the defeated were thrust alive into large food-baskets and thus degraded for ever. As a general rule, however, they were slain for the oven. ”
.

Damn white man – coming and ruining this delightful culinary experience and shoving his so-called civilization down their throats (if you’ll pardon that particular analogy).

And a final delight from Garry Hogg, Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, pp. 197-199

“The warriors, entirely naked, their long black hair, although matted with human gore, yet flowing partially in the wind; in the left hand a human head and in the right hand a bayoneted musket held by the middle of the barrel. Thus, with a song, the terrible expression of which can only be imagined by being heard, did they dance round their wretched victims, every now and then approaching them with gestures, threatening death under its most horrible forms of lingering torture.
.
The captives, with the exception of one old man and a boy who were sentenced to death, were apportioned amongst the conquering warriors as slaves. The tables were laid. About a hundred baskets of potatoes, a large supply of green vegetables, and equal quantities of whale-blubber and human flesh, constituted the awful menu. The old man, from whose neck suspended the head of his son, while the body formed part of the cannibal feast, was brought forth and subjected to torture from the women before the last scene of all.”


In short, the native New Zealanders (and Pacific Islanders generally) were violent bloodthirsty cannibals. Interaction between tribes almost invariably resulted in internecine warfare leading to death on the battlefield, or, if it was your unlucky day, captivity. In the latter case your destiny was to be on the lunch menu for the following day, having first been subjected to the most appalling torture. Another characteristic of these people was the extent to which women and children partook of the torture and general prisoner abuse. This of course was also characteristic of their fellow noble savages on the American continent.

Australia.

In a nutshell, the pre-European Australian aborigines made their contemporary natives in America and New Zealand look like Swedish Social Democrats. I've posted here about what Kevin Rudd called their ‘ancient and proud culture’. Ah yes. If you have the, ahem, stomach, read it. I truly believe that these people were (are?) not fully human.

Africa:

Where to begin, where to end? Does anybody seriously believe in African ‘civilisation’? Well, the answer to that of course is, yes they do. None more so than guilt-crippled white masochists. To them I dedicate the following tiny snippets.
.
In west African there were slave wars, where the coastal African tribes were armed and encouraged to raid in­land and bring their captives to trading ports for sale and shipment. These cannot I suppose, if one is being pedantic, be strictly representative of er, ‘African civilisation’, being as they were, instigated by the white man. But the natives didn’t need much encouragement.
.
The result was a never-ending series of tribal wars and the devastation of immense areas. While some 8,000,000 Africans were sold into the Americas (only about 400,000 into what's now the USA) during the period of slave trade, it has been estimated that at least 40,000,000 more were killed in the wars and raids or died on the voyage. No mercy was shown in any of these encounters, and even the hardened white slavers were shaken by the brutality and savagery displayed by the Africans against one another. (Nothing’s changed in the meantime, then!).
..
Most of African history of course is unknown, as their ‘civilisation’ never got around to inventing reading or writing. Until of course whitey came with his evil ways. We can though get a good sense of the southern and eastern parts of the continent. Due mainly, of course, to the early arrival of whites to this part of the Dark Continent.
.
What they saw did not bring Switzerland to mind.
.
Now, are all you liberals and race-traitors in the back paying attention?

Let’s go!

As every schoolboy knows, Shaka Zulu created a highly centralized, well organized nation-state, with a large and powerful standing army. Then he did what we thought only the evil whites did. He used this army to expand his control! Can you imagine a noble savage doing such a thing?

And he didn’t mess about, creating a waterfall effect of violent tribal displacement and extermination. Refugee groups escaping Chaka invaded the lands of present-day Botswana creating chaos as they tramped westward. The Basotho were pushed into the mountains where they were harassed by cannibals. Setting villages on fire, the Ndebele swept ahead of the Zulu Impi to settle in present day Zimbabwe. Along the way they encountered King Thulare's Pedi empire, which was destroyed and its people wiped out. They then attacked the Mokololo to the northwest. Meanwhile the Xhosa expanded into Khoi-khoi lands, forcing many into the arid Kalahari Desert. The Tlokoa marched from Natal leaving a path of destruction all the way to Botswana. They attacked the Fokeng forcing them west. The Fokeng in turn marched north to the Zambezi River and beyond, where they raided destitute refugees.
.
Fokeng confusing, isn’t it?

All of this was in fact part of a broader series of ghastly massacres in which powerful armies annihilated their weaker neighbours, confiscated their possessions and moved on, knowing full well that if they loitered they too would be attacked by wave upon wave of people advancing from the east. The whole sub-continent was hurled into a maelstrom of destruction, until eventually an estimated twenty-eight distinct clans disappeared, leaving not a trace of their former existence.
.
Oh dear! Who could have imagined?

Anyway, this invariable lead to food supply problems which the victors solved by the simple expedient of consuming their captives. When they ran out of captives to kill and eat, the bodies of the already dead were disinterred and began to appear on the menu. But there are only so many bodies you can dig up, and it wasn’t long before starvation drove them to devouring their wives and children. Having once acquired the taste for human flesh, the cannibals formed themselves into hunting bands and set out daily to replenish their menus.
.
But the end was nigh, as the voertrekkers were heading their way, all set to spoil this pastoral idyll. They have a lot to answer for, them boers.

Conclusions?

Ok, all of this is innocent fun, but there’s a serious side too, one that brings us back to The Tyranny Of Guilt. You might justifiable conclude from what I've written that the noble savages were in fact for the most part grunting dehumanised beasts. Their societies were not comprised of happy hippies harvesting free-range animals who dropped dead naturally, and encounters between tribes were not pipe-smoking love-ins. They killed as many animals as they could, and they killed (and usually ate) as many enemies as they could. Unfortunately —for them— whitey had superior firepower. That’s all.
.
Can you have any doubt, based on what you’ve just read, as to what any of those native leaders would have done, had they only had the white man’s power? As General Phil Sheridan (from Cavan, of all places) said to Red Cloud: “If you had our power and we yours, you’d slaughter every one of us, to the last man, woman and child”.

Hobbes in Leviathan, held that the natural state of mankind is a "war of all against all" in which men's lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Well, that certainly sums up the Noble Savages we discussed. But what about whitey? Is he alone immune to these natural impulses? Surely not. But what whitey has done is to create and develop, over many centuries, an uncanny assemblage of science, philosophy and ethics, supported by complex legislation and an array of supporting governance institutions. These have not been perfect of course, but they have dramatically mitigated the risk of "war of all against all." In whitey’s world, peoples’ lives are assuredly not poor, nasty, brutish, or short. Some non-Western countries are of course successful, and more will be. But they'll make it by adopting Western inventions, medicine, industry, agriculture, communications.

.They understand this perfectly, unlike our lofty academic assholes, lauding the illiteracy and misery of others as they savour their latest Reisling. These academics will tell you that third-worlders want to come here because the capitalist system has corrupted them, and eroded their "Authenticity". Yeah, right. See, if only we had left them in their pure state, they would revel in hookworm and illiteracy.

Gimme a break. For three centuries just about everything that makes life tolerable has come from the West. I know it, you know it, the whole world knows it. And so do the academic assholes. They just don't like it.

We have everything to be proud of - our race indeed represents the March Of The Titans. Don’t let them take that from us.

Sunday, 18 April 2010

QUICKLY NURSE - THE SCREENS!!!

"The horror!, the horror!". I felt like emulating Conrad's Kurtz when I first read the shocking story.

SYDNEY — An Australian publisher is reprinting 7,000 cookbooks over a recipe for pasta with "salt and freshly ground black people."

Penguin Group Australia's head of publishing, Bob Sessions, acknowledged the proofreader for the Pasta Bible should have picked up the error, but called it nothing more than a "silly mistake" by confusing 'pepper' with 'people'.
.
Talking to The Sydney Morning Herald he sobbed."We're mortified that this has become an issue of any kind", adding "why anyone would be offended, we don't know."

Now Bob, you're Penguin's head of publishing, and you're that dumb?
.
They'll be 'offended' because there's lotsa money to be made in being offended. Bob, a whole industry has grown up around seeking out opportunities to be offended, and extracting large sums of spondoolucks from the offenders.
.
You know, it helps ease the pain.

Thursday, 15 April 2010

Rudd's "Abology"

You know of course that the Oz PM Kevin (“Cave-in”) Rudd took some time off from arranging mass immigration of non-whites to make a heartfelt apology to his ‘Aboriginal fellow countrymen’.
.
In a speech to Parliament he almost wept saying "for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry." Mr Rudd said he apologised "especially" to the Stolen Generations of young Aboriginal children who were taken from their parents in a policy of assimilation which lasted from the 19th Century to the late 1960s.
.
According to the BBC “Mr Rudd received a standing ovation from MPs and onlookers in parliament, and cheers from the thousands of Australians watching outside.”

Now I've always been a bit confused by this because, as a dedicated cultural relativist, I always assumed that all cultures were equal. How then did the Stolen Generation suffer so much?

So I decided to spend some time researching the issue to determine just how much those kids suffered. After all, if the PM apologised in such profuse terms, they must have suffered a lot, right?

My main direct source was a book by Lloyd de Mause entitled The Origins of War in Child Abuse. This drew heavily on the work of leading anthropologists who studied the aboriginal culture and he quotes extensively from them.

I read early on that “the early infanticidal childrearing mode of Australian Aboriginals has been arguably the most abusive and neglectful of all tribal cultures”.

My goodness! Who could have imagined?

But surely it can’t be worse than what these innocents suffered under white adoption?

Well, I’ll let you be the judge.

According to the anthropologists who studied them (and who are highly complimentary to their, eh, culture) the Abos had some unusual proclivities. This from Roheim “the children who watched their mothers killing or eating babies suddenly avoided their parents, shrieked in their presence, or expressed unusual fear of them…recounting dreams about animal-man beings with the faces of parents smeared with blood. The fears and dreams get stored in their inner alters as time bombs to be exploded later in life."

Gee! I can't for the life of me imagine why.

Describing it as “a quite favourable picture”, Roheim tells us of “the custom of raping Aboriginal children, eating every second child and making the older children also eat them. Mothers regularly forced their children to eat their newborn siblings in the belief that the strength of the first child would be doubled by such a procedure. Sometimes the fetus would be pulled out by the head, roasted and eaten by the mother and the children and sometimes a big boy would be killed by the father by being beaten on the head and given to the mother to eat

Ok, so the unfortunate victims being reared by their white kidnappers missed out on some tasty baby food. But still, couldn't it have been somewhat upsetting for them to experience this, especially knowing that they themselves might be on tomorrow’s menu?

And not just tasty food. They also missed out on some kinky sex while in white captivity. Such as “the constant masturbation by mother of her children’s penis and vagina while she lies on top of them, twisting and pinching them as we saw was the practice in New Guinea.”

Apparently anthropologists report routine “incessant fondling of infants, masturbation by mothers kissing the boy’s penis, women passing baby boys back and forth over their heads, taking turns sucking the penis, lying on sons in the male position and freely masturbating them at night.”

But don't worry – these experts assure us that these practices are fine. In fact they’re “nurturant”.

And it wasn’t just the boys who missed out. “The mutilation of young girls’ vaginas is also practiced by the Aboriginals, in which old men roll emu feathers with a loop of hair. This device is put into the vagina and then removed, pulling away a large part of the womb. The rest of the womb is then cut horizontally and vertically with a stone knife. When this wound is healed, the girl is then circumcised and made to have intercourse with many young men. The mix of blood and semen is collected and given to frail tribesmen as a fortifying elixir.”

Just in case you think there’s anything wrong with this (have you not heard of cultural relativism, where all cultures are equal?) we have renowned experts like the (in)famous Kinsey and Pomeroy, and indeed the even more (in)famous Margaret Meade to reassure us that “incest between adults and younger children can be satisfying and enriching.”

Well, if they said it, that’s good enough for me. And just in case we get the wrong idea, we’re admonished in closing that “the origins of the very violent personalities of Aboriginals are, of course, in no way caused by genetic differences, only developmental.”

But of course!! My goodness, how could we even consider such a possibility?

Anyway, do you still think old Cave-in’s apology was justified?

See this also.

Thursday, 19 February 2009

Trust the boys from Oz!

[Sadly, several readers have confirmed my doubts about the following post. Should have known that a PC ponce like Rudd wouldn't have said this. Anyway, it was nice while it lasted]

I suppose if there was going to be a backlash against Islamic takeover and the craven capitulation to the multi-culti steamroller it'd come from No Bullshit Land. Now I'm not 100% sure of the authenticity of this as I find it hard to find the original source. But if true, ten cheers for Australia's PM Kevin Rudd for the following:


'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. '

'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom' 'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'

'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.' 'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this.

But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.''If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

Well on ya mate!! Other cringing 'leaders' in the rest of the West please note.

Monday, 9 February 2009

Terrorist implant

THE PATRIOT MICRO CHIP is intended to be implanted in terrorists. The implant is specifically designed to be installed in the forehead.When properly installed it will allow the implanted to speak to God. .
.
.
.




It comes in various sizes:
.

..
.
.

The implantee may or may not be allowed to choose the size. The implant may or may not be painless. Some bleeding and or swelling may occur at the injection site.
.
Best regards,

Australian Defence Force

Saturday, 14 June 2008

The voyage of the Tampa

Who remembers the Tampa saga, where, in September 2001 a boat load of asylum seekers traveled the seas having been refused entry to Australia? If you’re Australian you certainly do, as the incident brought unparalleled odium on that country – often from Australians themselves.

The story really begins in June 2001 when a boat departed from the Cambodian port of Sihanoukville en route for Australia organized by the people smuggler Hasan Ayoub. It had 241 Afghans and Pakistanis on board who had paid between $US5,000 and $US10,000 for their journey. The boat (a siev) was intercepted and most of those detained were found to be carrying Pakistani and Afghan passports, many Afghan documents indicating long term residency of Pakistan.
The asylum seekers would have been able to apply for asylum in Cambodia as that country is a Signatory to the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Only after interception did many of the group apply to the UNHCR for asylum, and then lived in a Phnom Penh hotel under an IOM care and maintenance program while their claims were being processed. Note that only 14 of the 241 (6%) were accepted by the UNHCR as refugees in need of resettlement.
Undaunted, they set off again a few months later in a wooden fishing boat, the Palapa, together with about another 200 Afghans and Pakistanis At dawn on August 24, 2001 it became stranded in international waters about 140 km north of Christmas Island. The Australian rescue authorities had been the first to become aware of the vessel's distress, and for some time attempted to have the Indonesian authorities attend to the rescue as it was the closest landfall.
However, the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t hold up on this occasion, and it was left to a ship – the Tampa - from the pagan, godless free-loving Norway to effect the rescue. The rescue was duly undertaken, and the captain headed for Indonesia in line with standard maritime practice.
You’d now imagine that the ‘victims’ would be ecstatic, having not only been rescued from a sinking hulk, but now heading for the world’s largest Muslim country. Not quite. In fact, when they learned of the destination the put a gun to the captain's head - well, to be precise they put a knife to his throat, and said in effect ‘are you fucking insane? We didn’t pay all that money to land in some Islamic hell-hole – head for the heathen fleshpot of Australia’. They helpfully pointed out, according to Captain Rinnan that ‘there would be dire consequences for safety of ship, crew and passengers if he did not’.
With an offer like that, the captain didn’t have much choice, as the passengers outnumbered the crew by more than 10 to 1. However, the Australians didn’t take too kindly to this and refused them landing rights, thus precipitating the saga of the Tampa. Their Ambassador to the UN pointed out, not unreasonably, "it is important that people understand that Australia has no obligation under International law to accept the rescued persons in to Australian territory”.
But he was confused. Because this wasn’t about international law, this was about getting whitey to pick up the tab. And when whitey, in this case represented by Australia, demurred, the reaction was apoplectic. Australia was vilified throughout the world. The Saudis, taking time out from beheading foreign slaves poverty stricken foreign workers, appealed, I'm not joking, for the Australians to ‘show mercy’. Just to be clear, this is the Saudis asking the Australians to show mercy. One commentator referred to ‘the Australian government's mind-bogglingly brutal and irrational stance’.
The asylum seekers were taken to the Pacific island of Nauru and held there pending a resolution. As usual, thanks in large part to a preening Australian lawyers, most of them eeventually were granted asylum, most in either to Australia or New Zealand, where presumably they’re now established members of Hizb ul Taher, or whatever these fanatics call themselves. Ireland took in a few, who subsequently caused endless trouble.
A few points worth noting:
These ‘unfortunates’ paid, as I mentioned, between $5,000 and $10,00 – each. Extrapolating Afghanistan’s per capita income to Ireland, this would mean a sum of about $700,000 to us. What ever about unfortunate, they certainly weren’t poor.
Australia has a well-defined immigration system (although misguided in that they’re allowing hundreds of thousands of Muslims in) and applicants form, or are supposed to form, an orderly queue while their applicants are processed. What the Tampa people did was, quite simply, queue jump. Or more correctly, given that they had earlier been refused asylum status by the UN, simply forced Australia’s hand by hijacking the Tampa.
Much hand-wringing took place over the imprisonment of the ‘refugees’ while their claim was processed. The UN reported that ‘Australia was creating widespread depression among asylum seekers by holding them indefinitely’. But this is nonsense. They were free to go any time they wished. In fact the Australians would, I'm sure, have provided first class air flights back to Pakistan if the 'refugees' had asked.
Finally, they passed up the opportunity for resettlement in a number of countries on their way, including several Muslim states, setting their sights instead on Australia. Quite clearly they weren’t fleeing from somewhere, they were fleeing to a specific place.
The lesson to draw? Whitey and the West will always get the blame for others’ problems. These wealthy pirates, out to queue jump at best, enter by illegal force at worst, were given a free pass, while the Australians’ reputation was dragged through the mud. And whitey was the main player in this act of self-destruction.

Friday, 18 April 2008

Can't feed 'em? Don't breed 'em

It’s strange to look back and see how, on some things, you’ve traversed the full spectrum on a particular subject. The looming world food crisis is the kind of thing I have in mind.

There is undoubtedly a crisis, riots and turmoil. And it’s going to get worse. To get a real inside view, let’s listen to Greg Barrow of the World Food Programme (WFP) “Food scarcity means an increase in the number of people going hungry''

Wow! Who’d have thought that? Great insight, Greg.

As usual, the reasons adduced in the MSM are the wrong ones, or at least their relative importance is wrong – badly wrong.

The causes of the crisis are many, and vary in different parts of the world. However, the killer cause is, or should be, perfectly clear. Here are the main reasons for the crisis, in ascending order of importance:

* Climate change

* Using food crops for biofuels

* Oil prices (huge increases in fertilizer and transport costs)

* Richer diets in China and India (rising incomes lead to more meat in diet, meat a very inefficient way to produce food)

* Culture (corruption, incompetence)

* Irresponsible breeding

Let’s just focus on the last one, the elephant in the room. The world’s population is growing by leaps and bounds, and almost all that growth is coming from the poorest regions – the ones now experiencing the worst effects of the food crisis. Needless to say, the PC Thought Police won't let us say that. Everyone has the ‘right’ (that word again) to have as many children as he or she wants.

Ok, but if they do they shouldn’t expect the rest of us to feed them. It really is as simple as that. We’re going to be inundated for the foreseeable future with heart-rending images of black women (men as usual nowhere to be seen) with squads of children, begging for assistance. And whitey, who of course will get the blame for this, will also provide all the aid, and will still get the blame after that.

And it won't solve the problem. It'll perpetuate and exacerbate the problem. Just like aid to poor countries undermines the incentive for people to address their own problems, providing enough food to survive will only represent a band-aid, with the crisis scheduled for endless repetition.

There is no solution other than to stop the rapid growth in population. How do you do that? Simple. Let nature take its course. History shows very plainly that, left alone, populations adapt to their sustainable level. That's happened with primitive societies like the bushmen of the Kalahari, Australian Aborigines and Eskimos. They adapted their family sizes to the level of what they could feed. The same happens in the animal kingdom

Pouring emergency food aid into these areas will only perpetuate the misery. It sounds unimaginably cruel to say it, and it marks a slow but consistent 180 degree change in my views, but: ... if you can't feed ‘em, don't breed ‘em. The food/population crisis will only get worse - rapidly - until the validity of that aphorism sinks home.

Friday, 21 March 2008

10% - the Muslim tipping point

Life can become untenable when the Muslim population of a non-Muslim country reaches about 10 per cent, as shown by France, Raphael Israeli, a Jewish expert on Islam says. Professor Israeli told the Herald in Australia that “When the Muslim population gets to a critical mass you have problems.”

Well, fancy that!

He said Muslim immigrants had a reputation for manipulating the values of Western countries, taking "advantage of their hospitality and tolerance", adding that "when the Muslim population increased, so did the risk of violence."


This gets more amazing by the minute!


"Where there are large Muslim populations who are prepared to use violence you are in trouble. If there is only 1 or 2 per cent they don't dare to do it - they don't have the backing of big communities. They know they are drowned in the environment of non-Muslims and are better behaved."

You can see this everywhere.

Professor Israeli said that for France, which has the highest proportion of Muslims in Europe at about 10 per cent, it was already too late. There were regions even the police were scared to enter, and militant Muslims were changing the country's political, economic and cultural fabric, and demanding anti-Semitic and anti-Israel policies.

"French people say they are strangers in their own country. They’ve passed the point of no return. If you are on a collision course, what can you do? You can't put them all in prison, and anyway they are not all violent. You can't send them all back. You are really in trouble. It's irreversible."

He said “some Muslims wanted to impose Sharia (Islamic law) in their adopted countries, and when propaganda did not work they turned to intimidation.” Still more dramatic news.

The Professor has done a lot of research on this subject. To my mind his conclusions are conservative. Muslims will try it on, and use intimidation and similar tactics with a much smaller proportion of the population than 10%.

The answer, needless to say, is not to let them in in the first place. And if we do, any attempt to force feed us their garbage should be fought tooth and nail so that they get the message very early on in the game.

Sunday, 24 February 2008

Check this out

A commentator on the previous post sends me this link:

http://planetirf.blogspot.com/2008/02/daniel-pipes-caught-out-attributing.html

It's from a chap called Ifran Yusuf, who's an Australian 'diversity lawyer' and commentator. It's well worth checking out. Ifran tells us that Pipes misrepresented Australia's HR Commissioner Graeme Innes, the Commissioner saying in effect the expulsions had 'nothing to do with Islam'.

And our diversity lawyer is correct. Innes does agrees that he was turfed out of taxis on about 20 occasions on account of his dog. He also adds that no driver ever mentioned Islam as the reason.

And here's the good bit.

Based on this he concludes that Islam was not the cause!

So all over the West we have Muslim taxi drivers refusing entry to guide dogs, we don't seem to have non-Muslim drivers doing it, yet Graeme Innes seems unable to discern a pattern, simply because he wasn't directly told why.

Isn't this the ultimate in supine dhimmitude? Has this craven capitulation become so internalised even the most blatant facts are shoved under the carpet?

Far from undermining Pipes' comments, this development only underlines the extent of the challenge we face.

Saturday, 23 February 2008

Anti-Islamic counter-attack

Daniel Pipes has some strange views, not least his desire to have the US nuke various countries that don’t find his favour. Even his friends sometimes treat him like the rest of us would the mad aunt in the attic.

However, he runs a very effective organization that keeps an eye on the progress of Islam in the West. Just like Robert Spencer keeps an eye on the jihadists, Daniel covers the, in my view more dangerous, creeping extension of dhimmis status to the (for now at least) non-Islamic world.

In a recent letter he shows how the constant probing of our defenses can be repelled if we unite in opposition. The ongoing refusal of taxi-drivers (especially Somalis – the worst immigrants) is a case in point.

He tracked various news accounts of Muslim cabbies rudely rejecting blind would-be passengers, yelling at them, "No dog, No dog, Get out, get out"; "Get that dog out of here"; and "No dogs, no dogs." The blind find themselves rejected, humiliated, abandoned, insulted, or even injured, left in the rain, dropped in the middle of nowhere, made late for an appointment, or caused to miss a flight.

These include (see image) Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, who has been thrown out of taxis on a number of occasions! And I have no doubt that if anyone said a word to these these savages they'd run squealing to said Commissioner.

Islamist organizations initially responded to this problem by supporting anti-canine cabbies. The Council for Islamic American Relations(CAIR) pointed out how Muslims generally regard dog saliva as unclean. We got the explanation "the saliva of dogs invalidates the ritual purity needed for prayer. People from the Middle East especially … have been indoctrinated with a kind of fear of dogs" and justified a driver rejecting a guide dog on the grounds that he "has a genuine fear and he acted in good faith. He acted in accordance with his religious beliefs."

However, when the police and the courts are called in, the legal rights of the blind to their basic needs and their dignity almost always trump the Muslim dislike for dogs. The Muslim proprietor or driver invariably finds himself admonished, fined, re-educated, warned, or even jailed. The judge who found a cabby's behavior to be "a total disgrace" spoke for many.

CAIR, realizing that its approach had failed in the courts of both law and of public opinion, suddenly and nimbly switched sides. The new CAIR position is that "Islam allows for dogs to be used by the visually impaired."

Really. So why all the fuss then?

Pipes correctly points out that CAIR's capitulation contains an important lesson: When Westerners broadly agree on rejecting a specific Islamic law or tradition and unite against it, Western Islamists must adjust to the majority's will. If you'd like to get a flavour of some more of the treats from Islam that we'd need to guard against, check this post.


He concludes with words of great wisdom and practicality: “ If Westerners stick together, the Shari‘a is doomed. If we do not, we are doomed”.


Quite so, Daniel.

Sunday, 3 February 2008

Australia's aborigine apology

Check this out ("Apology at last", Irish Times, Feb. 2):

"The West Australian Aboriginal community of Balgo… is one of the most depressing places you’ll ever visit. Obese drunken adults sat around a dusty main square, gambling with piles of $50 notes earned through mining royalties or cheques from indigenous art works.

The betting stopped only when a local woman picked up a fist-sized rock to swing at the head of a neighbour. The brawl went on for about five minutes before she was disarmed. The blood spilled was invisible on the red soil.

The ruins of squalid homes, some repaired and cleaned just weeks before only to be destroyed again, sat abandoned and uninhabitable. Children raced among the adults, mucous and fluid pouring from infections in their noses and ears.

The government-paid workers – police and nurses and repairmen – lived in homes protected by giant cages. The teenagers were invisible in daylight, coming out at night to throw stones, drink, or sniff petrol."


The writer could have added that up to 70% of children are subjected to sexual abuse, with many as young as six suffering from VD or AIDS.

A few points of note here. First, this was part of a piece which attributed all of the problems identified to the activities of whites. Second, they gambled $50 notes, ‘earned’ from mining royalties (i.e. they get the money because whites discovered the minerals in virtually uninhabited land). Note that police, repairmen and nurses, all paid by the white government, have to be protected by cages.

So we have the villagers provided with substantial money by the government, who also provide their health, accommodation and policing for nothing. Despite this, the village is a dystopian nightmare. And it’s all the fault of the whites.

Do you spot the causal relationship?

I don’t.

There’s no doubt that the aborigines were treated dreadfully, but does that justify their behaving like animals for generations? They came many thousands of years ago from Africa, and they’re demonstrating typical African characteristics. Is the description of Balbo much different from your typical African village or South African shanty town?

When blacks slide down to the bottom of every metric on every social scale, either in Africa or the West, the response is always the same. The whites are to blame. And we want cash compensation. Now please.

The problem stems from the nature of the Africans (see this). And things will never improve until this indisputable fact is recognized.

And by letting huge numbers of Africans into Europe we're importing their problems here.