Quote:


By "get over it" I was not referring to those affected by the Stolen Generation. I was saying that we need to get the bugger over being afraid to talk about race. The Stolen Generation was not broached within that paragraph at all.

Quote:


You're partially right here, but the second part of this statement is incredibly wrong. Westerners -- White people -- are indeed incredibly insecure about themselves. They have been encumbered with an incredible onus that they believe with the most sincerest of conviction; that they are responsible for all of the evils in the world today. It is wrong to suggest that any racial group tends to exhibit general, behavioral characteristics; every group that is, except for white people themselves. White people, or as many more bumptious Aboriginals like to designate them, the white dogs, the white front bottoms, have left behind them a trail of destruction, death and suffering whereever they have been known to have existed throughout history. Through seeming wizardry, the white dogs have utilitzed primitive 19th century extractive technologies to denude entire continents of their natural resources and left these continents nugatory soils as the backbone of their economies after granting them independence. The white dogs are responsible, and only responsible, for the enslavement, conquest and genocide of noble and innocent peoples. There is something innately wicked about the white dogs, in the minds of some of the most extreme whites. For that there is nothing to be proud of and everything to scrutinize and reject. Cultural heroes -- bigots. Cultural practices -- insensitive, antiquated, not suitable or 'pluralist' enough for the new, multicultural society. Bloodline -- immaterial or non-existent. Breed it out.

Yes, this may be hyperbole, but in many respects, it is true. Whites are really the only people in the world who have not only forgotten that the rest of the human race (not including themselves) is essentialy at its core duplicitious, self-interested and parochial, but   that their own dispossession, or in the most extreme cases, their own destruction via miscegnation, is something not only to celebrate but to accelerate. I would like to remind you that this is unprecedented in the entire history of the world. Staggering and incredible, it is like the Frankish Knights at Tours laying to the soil beneath their feet their shields and allowing the Moorish cavalry to hack them to shreds, all while painted with beaming, cheerful countenances.

Whites are insecure or indifferent where other peoples would rise from their chairs in outrage. You're right. Insecure and needing other people to feel superior to, however? No. For some, there is a feeling that they are in fact the best, but it is not motivated by any underlying insecurity. It's normal. Feeling as if your people are the best and your culture is the brightest is fundamentally human. Some whites feel this way, but many, many more Japanese feel this way than most whites do. Even peoples who have never truly achieved anything of any significance feel this way; and attempt to create flimsy justifications for why they do. The 'discipline' of Afrocentrism is basically founded upon taking credit for the achievements of non-African cultures that happened to have been located in Africa. Egyptians? Black! That old myth of Egyptians landing in Greece and founding Greek civilization? Yeah, because the Egyptians were Black thus, Blacks were responsible for the creation of Western Civilization! You would be amazed at how many Black people actually believe this, but the point is it is an example of a people -- even one so bereft of any meaningful impact upon history -- attempting to assert that they are in fact the chosen ones, the greatest ones. What you are describing is normal. However, what you fail to recognize is that white people are at present the least guilty of this 'shortcoming'. Even for a few you would most greatly suspect to be, what they usually are really saying (obviously in a much less respectful fashion) is that "we like our culture the way it is and don't really think it's that much of an enrichment to see women walking around with veiled faces because it is alien, discomforting and something we feel we could never really adjust to (or want to)" or "all other peoples in the world have or currently demand the right to have their own culture evolve as they see fit. Why is it not okay for us to want or have the same?"

Even if that is not the case, the previously discussed shortcoming isn't really a shortcoming. Even if you live in some sh!t hole-in-wall, you can be sure you'll still be on the side-lines at some inconsequential local football match trying to beat you chest harder than the other side, asserting that, where you live, and that your team, is in fact, the best. Don't forget what you are. I for one embrace my primate heritage.

Thanks for your comprehensive replies, Imperium.

You're saying that, globally, there's a cultural game of King of the Castle going on, where each race struggles to maintain its superiority - so much so that in a few years Pakistanis will have taken over Great Britain and be using Nelson's column for cricket practice.

Well, maybe... What you're forgetting is that civilization is about ideas - not blood. Women in headscarves are just as capable of being citizens as women without. Of course, we know what those scarves represent: the spread of Islam.

And this is the fear I'm talking about. Your posts are about white dying culture, teetering on the brink of oblivion. I don't think it's that black and white. This is the ideology of fear - an ideology that has always been exploited by political zealots everywhere: from Hitler to Mugabe.

I guess it must be strange for someone used to a white-Anglo culture to visit somewhere like Auburn in Sydney and see the Turkish Mosque, the kebab shops, the Vietnamese two-dollar shops, the Lebanese and Islander groceries, Indian spice shops, etc, etc, etc.

This is seen by some as a threat to a "white" way of life. Others see it as the spread of a more global, cosmopolitan and open society. I see it as a sign of confidence - that we're comfortable enough in our own skins to be able to cope with difference.

Sort of. Australia tried the "populate or perish" line, but then settled on a program of immigration. It did this for its own survival in an Asian region. We can't join the EU (as the Liberal Party wanted to do in the late 1980s). Australia is an Asian-Pacific country with a black, indigenous history. This is reality. It would be ridiculous  to attempt to create an Aparteid state in Australia, or some white outpost of a dying empire.

We aren't a multicultural society because of some leftie-academic ideal. The Liberals, under Malcolm Fraser, created the basis of multicultural policy. Back in the 1980s, we still had a manufacturing sector with a need for labour. Multiculturalism was established because the Menzies policy of assimilation at the time did not work with the new influxes of largely Asian people.

The feeling that you're doomed to non-existence is an existential question. "Our" culture and heritage have changed so much over time, and with contact with so many different cultures that, really, there is nothing timeless or "unique" about it.

Civilization has changed since Rome, thank God.

I think you're arguing, in a post-colonial world, for a return to a colonial world. It's not possible. Sure, Kipling and Nelson would be turning in their graves, but the world's moved on. I'm sure Mao would be turning in his grave at the notion of a capitalist China. India and China are the newly emerging super-economies. We're not the British Empire anymore.

Personally, I don't think we need to talk about race - particularly in the biological, eugenic way the Nazis thought about it. Culture is different. Culturally, there is little difference in a second or third generation Asian person to a white person. Likewise, in the Third Reich, there was often no discernible difference between Germans and non-practicing Jews. Jewish WWI war heroes were sent to the gas chambers along with the rest.

This fear of biological contamination of "pure" blood is a complete myth. It represents a lack of confidence in your own values, and highlights a deep-seated fear of difference.

I can understand this fear, but I don't share it. I've met people with more love, courage and compassion in "other" races than I've ever met in a Neo Nazi.

And this fear I mention relates to this thread on Aboriginal culture. Aboriginals didn't just "die" off to make way for the progress and prosperity of white people. Their culture was systematically erradicated because of the fear we had - obviously have -  of difference. Like lions, we killed the cubs of the previous generation in order to fill our territory with our own offspring.

The difference, after the "black line" days, is that we saught to breed it out, and then culturally assimilate it. Hence, the rise of "Aboriginal culture" threatens those who wanted to see it dead and buried.

I can see a lot that's good about Western civilization but, to be honest, I really can't see what's great or noble about a white "bloodline." This, to me, is just Nazism - and like I said - is the cause of the very problem you're seeking to address.

Quote:


This is the common 'culture-shortcut' argument that is utilized to get around what in reality, primarily accounts for differences in civilizaitons; the underlying biological structures of the people that create those civilizations. It is absurd to suggest that civilization has absolutely no relation to who we are and how we behave; such a proposal is almost like saying that cultures just fall out of the sky randomly and whoever happens to find them first gets them. Come on now -- civilization is about concepts, but who creates and applies concepts? People do. And what people are like is in large part determined by their genetic code. What kind of civilization perhaps,  created by a group of people entirely afflicted by 'blood' (DNA) with severe mental retardation be like? Extreme example, but perfect for this point.  There are plenty of factors that determine how a civilization will turn out; how we are wired to behave being one of them, perhaps the most important of them. I am tired of having to make this argument over and over again because you seem to ignore it every time.

Quote:


Precisely, and many people don't want that here. Why should they?

Quote:


There is nothing wrong with calling alarm when it may be legitmate to do so. The replacement of White culture and White people with some foreign inheritor will not only be unfortunate for the reasons I have already laid forth, but in many places things will become much worse in ways that you will not even deny. Let us take the United States for example -- a country that is currently being inundanted with Mexican immigrants both legal and illegal that are simply transforming regions for the worse. Mexicans bring with them all of the attendant problems that plague Mexico (they themselves are the reason for these problems) -- high rates of illegitmacy, criminality, premature high school departure, etc. This doesn't even include the relational problems that tend to arise in multiracial societies. Things don't get better with new, nationally born generations either. To suggest that it is always silly to be fearful when your suspect your government may just be creating through its policies a society that is considerably crummier than what was there before and to object to this is just another progressive tactic used to silence debate, by making the progressive (who is himself not loath to fearmongering) appear level headed and rational, while presenting his opponents as alarmist and paranoid.

Quote:


In what way, really, are ethnic enclaves and ultimately fractured peoples all living under the same roof examples of an open and cosmpolitian society? When certain groups are allowed to reach a population level of a certain amount, they therefore have the ability to forego the choice to interact that much with people unlike them. And that is what happens. When left to themselves, and when able to do so, people prefer and choose the company of people like themselves. The new multicultural, multiracial ethos hasn't really changed this that much. We're more fractured, less trusting (look up the Robert Putnam studies if you're interested -- would like to remind you that this particular researcher tried to hide his research after it turned out it didn't reveal what he wanted it to); afflicted by the very sorts of things you would expect to spring up when you deliberately make a society less related to itself, less literally like a family. This does not sound like openness to me. It doesn't sound like confidence either. We're less confident in ourselves to allow it to happen, and besides the fact that people appear so over the moon by the fact that you can get Lebanese food and Chinese food in the same food-court (!!!!!!) the effect of multiracialism and multiculturalism on a lot of citizens really just concerns having more places not to purchase real-estate in if affordable, though other effects depend upon the immigrant group you're dealing with and the people who are ending up with them in their neighbourhoods.

Quote:


That's like saying because the particular paintings of an artist are influenced by a multitude of previous artists, therefore, there is nothing original within his work. There is little to nothing that exists within the world today that is truly an original creation; are completely original thoughts even possible? Western civilization, like any other, is an amalgamation of various things, many endemic to the West, some introduced via other cultures. It is the mixture itself that is unique and special.

Out of space, continued in next post

Would stealing them be the answer?

"A 13-YEAR-OLD Aboriginal boy who savagely raped an elderly woman in her home and tried to indecently assault another is an example of a system failing indigenous youths, a Victorian magistrate says.

In a passionate submission to a national inquiry into the massive over-representation of Aboriginal youths in the criminal justice system, Latrobe Valley magistrate Edwin Batt said boys like the recently sentenced Victorian rapist faced court all too often."


He said that 100 per cent of young people that appeared before him did not go to school.

casterate the rapists

Oh. I thought he meant caste-rate.

As in "very low caste, possibly an octoroon. Protruding forehead, flattened nose, evidence of biological contamination of the lowest order."

Big Donger wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 10:34am:


As Paddy said to the hitchhiker who wanted to go to Dublin. "I wouldn't start from here'.

Similarly, I would change the point from which the sitution is to be changed.

Everyone in this country is largely responsible for his lot. Except remote area Aborigines. They are inplicitly treated like some sort of protected species, with a lesser ability to direct their own lives.

I would remove children from families that do not feed them, do not send them to school, do not look after them. I would reintroduce penalties for drunken and isorderly behaviour (quitely removed some years agoi bcause Aborigines were caught out by it in grossly disproportionate numbrs.) The penalty is removed but of course the runken and disorderly behaviour by Aborigines has grown steadily.

I would shame Aboriginal 'elders' for keeping their 'people' in squalor and ignorance. I would not pay them to sit in the dust, piseed out of their minds.


Afetr 200 years, there is no excuse for Aborigines in remote areas living they way they do. If they want to be stone age people, they do not need welfare money. They can roam, hunt, fish and let the world pass by. If they want welfare, they need to join the socity that provided it. Have a shower, get a haircut, get  job.

Would any of you give your kids money just so he can stay in his room and get pissed in front of the tele week in, week out? And blame you for the stink in his room?