RSS
One of the first pieces I ever published on VDARE.com, on September 4th 2001, was about Australia’s policy towards illegal immigrants. Titled “Nice Guys Get Illegal Immigrants,” that piece reported on the Tampa incident.
Tampa was a small Norwegian cargo ship that had rescued 438 illegals, mostly Afghans, from an Indonesian fishing boat—owned by people smugglers, of course—that had foundered on its way to Australian territory.
The Australian government took a firm line. An international incident involving Australia, Norway, and Indonesia followed.
As my title indicated, the point of my article was to predict that the Tampa illegals would eventually be allowed to settle in Australia. In fact New Zealand took a third of them. Of the others, many were settled in Australia (I can’t find precise numbers), but others were repatriated to Afghanistan when the Taliban government fell.
The Tampa incident led to implementation of the “Pacific Solution,” under which Australia paid small, poor nearby island nations to accommodate illegals in camps while refugee claims were investigated.
The Pacific Solution has undergone some modifications and name changes, but is still the basis of Australian policy towards illegals today.
Australians seem stubbornly resolved that right of settlement in their country should be determined by them and their representatives, not by people-smuggling criminal gangs.
To their great credit, Australia has continued to apply its immigration laws firmly, refusing settlement rights to illegals except where claims to refugee status meet a high standard of proof.
As Prime Minister John Howard said at the time of the Tampa incident: “We cannot surrender our right as a sovereign country to control our borders. We cannot have a situation where people can come to this country when they choose.”
That approach is very shocking to immigration romantics in Australia and elsewhere. Monday’s New York Times ran an op-ed by Roger Cohen, a stalwart defender of the Indonesian crime cartels huddled masses yearning to breathe free:
SYDNEY, Australia — The Australian treatment of refugees trying to reach this vast, thinly populated country by boat follows textbook rules for the administering of cruelty. It begins with the anodyne name for the procedures — “offshore processing” — as if these desperate human beings were just an accumulation of data.
Note please that Australia is “thinly populated” for a very good reason: most of the place is uninhabitable.
It continues with the secrecy shrouding what goes on “offshore” in the tiny Pacific island nation of Nauru and on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea, where a total of more than 1,350 people languish with no notion of how their limbo will end, where they will go or how to get answers to their predicament. Under the Australian Border Force Act of last year, disclosure by any current or former worker of “protected information” is punishable by up to two years in prison.
It goes further with the progressive dehumanization of people — dubbed “illegals” without cause — who are caught in this Australian web under a policy now dating back almost four years. They are rarely visible. They are often nameless, merely given identification numbers. Women and children are vulnerable in squalid conditions where idleness and violence go hand in hand.
While I’m trawling my archives, I may as well link to a piece I wrote back in October 2000 scoffing at news outlets putting scare quotes around the i-word. [Who Are You Calling “Illegal”? National Review Online, October 17th 2000.] Why don’t they listen?
The refugees are consistently demeaned, as when the conservative immigration minister, Peter Dutton, said this month that they could not read and would somehow contrive at once to steal Australian jobs and “languish in unemployment queues” — a statement that prompted Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to call Dutton “outstanding,” no less.
Turnbull, who came to office with a reputation for being from the more progressive wing of the conservative Liberal Party but has proved beholden to the hard-line right, faces an election in early July. Clearly both he and Dutton reckon casting the marooned of Nauru and Manus Island as threats to Australia will play well with voters.
Beyond electoral calculations, people are dying. Last month, a young Iranian refugee, Omid Masoumali, self-immolated on Nauru and died in a Brisbane hospital. Soon after, a 21-year-old Somali refugee, identified only as Hodan, set herself on fire and was taken in critical condition to Brisbane. Their acts were reflections of the desperation and exhaustion inflicted by Australia under a policy that was supposed to be temporary, has not been thought through, and places people in conditions of hopelessness.
Perhaps “offshore processing” was supposed to afford the government plausible deniability. Australia would pay billions of dollars to poor Nauru and poor Papua New Guinea to take a big problem off its hands. But in reality there can be no plausible deniability. On the contrary, by any ethical standard, the policy engages Australian responsibility for cruelty.
Dutton even suggested that human rights advocates bore responsibility for the self-immolations by giving asylum seekers “false hope.” He said the government was “not going to stand for” people trying to twist its arm. Well, a dead person cannot do that, of course.
True: but when a person tells you, “If you don’t do as I wish, I’ll kill myself,” the choice before you is either to clearly assert your own autonomy or to surrender your will to his.
“We don’t see the boats, we rarely see a human face and there is a black hole of accountability,” said Madeline Gleeson, a human rights lawyer and the author of the recently published book Offshore. She told me, “The international community does not understand how outrageous this policy is, how far from basic human standards and how shot through with violence and sexual abuse.”
The government argues it is keeping the country safe from terrorism, preventing a proliferation of Australia-bound boats that could result in deaths on a scale seen in the Mediterranean, and ensuring its immigration policy remains orderly. In the current fiscal year, the country has offered to take in 13,750 people under its Humanitarian Program, and committed, exceptionally, to a further 12,000 from the Syrian and Iraqi conflicts (a handful of them have been processed). But it has vowed that nobody in Nauru or on Manus Island will gain admission to Australia.
Australia’s “offshore processing” is falling apart and must end. The Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea ruled in April that the Australian-funded detention center on Manus Island was illegal. In Australia, only retroactive legislation enacted after a lawsuit was filed provided legal support for a policy that was in effect pursued illegally since 2012.
This country’s history includes the long and unhappy chapter of its White Australia policy under which a vast land mass was portrayed as under threat of invasion by uncivilized “natives” from across Asia. Politicians like Dutton are playing scurrilously on similar fears.
The White Australia policy was an effort to maintain Australia’s character as a European settler nation. In 1926, when my father went to Australia, the population was 5½ million. China and Imperial Japan at that time had populations of 320 million and 80 million respectively; and “uncivilized” is not an inappropriate descriptor for Warlord China. Was the White Australia policy unreasonable?
A nation of immigrants, short of agricultural labor, Australia has benefited when it has overcome its fears, as with the admission of Vietnamese “boat people” in the 1970s. As Steven Glass, an international lawyer, observed in introducing Eva Orner’s new movie, “Chasing Asylum,” “What, exactly, are we scared of?” Even women raped and impregnated on Nauru have been treated as if they are security threats.
A word here about Australian women raped and impregnated by immigrants might have been in order …
Bring those stranded in Nauru and on Manus Island, many of whose refugee claims have already been deemed legitimate, to Australia. Treat them with humanity as their demands for permanent settlement are assessed. Scrap a policy that shames a nation with its pointless cruelty. [Australia’s Offshore Cruelty by Roger Cohen; NY Times, May 23rd 2016.]
(((Roger Cohen)))
Fuck'm; keep right on doing it until they pass a law making it explicitly illegal. As African-Americans are fond of quipping, "Ain't no fun when the rabbit got the gun, huh?"
Problem solved!
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1430688
Murdoch’s outlets support a (relatively) restrictive policy in Australia, while here in the states they are cheerleaders of the immivasion.
That is not the case from what I can see. Ever browse news.com.au?
Claims made over the years that NewsCorp support conservative positions are belied every day in it's papers' contents.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1430718
Murdoch’s outlets support a (relatively) restrictive policy in Australia, while here in the states they are cheerleaders of the immivasion.
That is not the case from what I can see. Ever browse news.com.au?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1430836
This is my cure for the Greek economic crisis. Let the EU and others pay Greece to settle all these “poor refugees”. Instead of just giving them bailout money to repay previous bailout loans.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1430871
Globalism is imperialism administered onto oneself. A kind of auto-imperialism.
Jews use media, academia, Hollywood, and government to take over minds of silly gentiles. These gentiles think the Highest Good is ‘diversity’ and opening nation to foreigners, especially blacks. They think homo collaborators of globalism are the nicest and most wonderful people. They think it’s great to worship and to be ruled by Jewish elites.
Thus, they welcome their own demise without knowing it.
Old Imperialism required the imperialists to use ships and arms to conquer other lands.
New imperialism of globalism is demanded by the very people of the nation. The very people of the nation have had their minds altered by media, academia, hollywood, and celebrity culture. They welcome invasion.
So, globalist imperialism doesn’t even have to try to invade. The people invite invasion.
It never ceases to amaze me the level of paranoia when it comes to Jewish conspiracy theorists.
So, I would imagine you do not characterize yourself as a "silly gentile". How do YOU know YOU are not being "flim-flammed"? What makes YOU the judge to characterize tens of millions of Americans as in essence being easily manipulated?
"Thus, they welcome their own demise without knowing it."
So, what are YOU personally doing to open up the eyes of people? To what extent are you in the public eye to reveal this Jewish plan? Because, if you are not front and center, then you are part of the problem by encouraging this "invasion" to continue.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1430987
You mean like “we will pay you 10.000 euros per each refugee you will settle in Greece?” ROTFL. You really don’t see the problem with saying this to _Greeks_?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431201
Australia is neither a successful nor an imitation-worthy case. What begun and thrived as a White ethnostate has been socially degraded and fiscally stretched by deliberate intakes from what Gavin McInnes calls, The Turd World. In 2016 it is not boats bearing invaders that are the main problem but the endless airline flights loaded with the low-IQ inbred detritus from Africa, the Middle East, South America and other uncivilizeable trash locales. There are numerous no-go areas in every Australian city, Turd World rape & welfare culture is the main lifestyle of choice for these new arrivals, Cultural Marxism reigns across this stifled land and the nation formerly known as Australia is becoming a dark imitation of the US and Europe. The downfall is engineered and administered by those members of an (((inbred Levantine tribe))) who are also responsible for the ethnocidal immigration policies of other Western Nations. Furthermore, for every single ‘immigrant’ there are 20 – 30 ‘family members’ that await ‘reunion’ with their freshly-minted new Australian citizens. Democide is the matter of course in every city and town. It is of course illegal to utter such truths in the land downunder.
The elites figured that if they stopped a few hundred illegals on boats Australians would be too stupid to notice a couple of hundred thousand legal immigrants every year. And Australians were indeed that stupid.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431237
And then, presumably, exclude Greece from the Schengen area and build a big wall along its border? OK, I get it, you don’t like Greeks, but wouldn’t it be cheaper and easier to just pay Turkey to “take care” of the human flotsam and jetsam?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431298
That is not the case from what I can see. Ever browse news.com.au?
No, I’m just going by what I’ve heard from (right wing) Aussies
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431301
New imperialism of globalism is demanded by the very people of the nation. The very people of the nation have had their minds altered by media, academia, hollywood, and celebrity culture. They welcome invasion. So, globalist imperialism doesn't even have to try to invade. The people invite invasion.
“Jews use media, academia, Hollywood, and government to take over minds of silly gentiles.”
It never ceases to amaze me the level of paranoia when it comes to Jewish conspiracy theorists.
So, I would imagine you do not characterize yourself as a “silly gentile”. How do YOU know YOU are not being “flim-flammed”? What makes YOU the judge to characterize tens of millions of Americans as in essence being easily manipulated?
“Thus, they welcome their own demise without knowing it.”
So, what are YOU personally doing to open up the eyes of people? To what extent are you in the public eye to reveal this Jewish plan? Because, if you are not front and center, then you are part of the problem by encouraging this “invasion” to continue.
You're right. It's the Eskimos who got the real power and they flimflammed into thinking it is the Jew.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431305
Only a matter of time before the (((Tribal loudspeaker))) becomes the topic of two dozen fainting-couch editorials.
Fuck’m; keep right on doing it until they pass a law making it explicitly illegal. As African-Americans are fond of quipping, “Ain’t no fun when the rabbit got the gun, huh?”
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431307
Despite the perception of environmentalism as a leftist cause, our elites have set environmental concerns aside with their project to treat both Australia and the United States as continent-wide boomtowns/refugee camps for random diversity trash from around the world, with the depletion of natural resources and built-up capital from the last century that policy causes.
If they really believed the environmentalist propaganda about sustainability, they would instead run these developed English-speaking countries as assets that need careful management to keep their value over the long term.
But who talks about planning for, say, the 22nd Century these days? Even transhumanists with their prattle about “living forever” can’t seem to think past the year 2045.
They will see limited machines taking more of certain types of work from people.
IBM's Watson is impressive, but it still has to be reprogrammed for any new task, relies on a huge amount of storage, and consumes an enormous amount of energy, far more than a person proficient at similar tasks.
The dreams of the 'trans-humanists' (being uploaded to a simulation or incorpated in a cyborg with unlimited longevity) won't be realised in any time-frame before things collapse in many places. I don't think they will ever be possible.
There are basic relations between storage and manipulation of information and required energy.
Bits (binary digits, for those who forget the etymology) don't exist, but their representation does, and each requires electric power.
For a complex simulation, the power requirements are impossible.
Even if laser signals in optical comptuting can directly feed the signals into the circuits, they require synchronization and ... electric power.
Optically-driven computing has made little progress apart from connections between chips, although I am aware that there is much work on optical logic gates and so on.
From the world of fiction, I was a regular buyer and reader of the Brit. mag., Interzone.
In their golden age, to me (I loved the old issues with Ballard and other good stories, which I sometimes found in second-hand book shops, and I gather the earlier letterhead or A4 had many good collages and so on, never found one of those), but to me their golden age was the mid-to-late 80s and early 90s), I loved it.
I do not recall the relevant title nor the author's name, but one (among many) that I really loved, opened with the words 'There has been a nano-castrophe'. Sorry to the writer, I have been forced to move around more than I would like, I do not have that copy on hand to check.
A nano-machine plague has overrun life on Earth. The nanos have a mutual higher self-organisation. For reasons of their own, they decide to revive the people who have had their heads frozen and placed in storage, the revivified heads are placed in self-propelled, head-sustaining capsules, and proceed to go for death by each other in the sky of the dead Earth.
Something of the image as metaphor, and for 'trans-humans', not the only one from Interzone in those days, many great stories.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431370
The option (from the IMF) that is playing out now is for Greece to sell their assets and natural resources, essentially ENDING Greece.
(1) More refugees being invited to Greece by "enterpreneurs", in order to get more money from UE
(2) refugees being counted two or three times (in order to get more money from UE)
(3) refugees being counted even if they would escape (because of schengen) to Germany.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431486
We should have “taken care of them” at sea.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431487
It never ceases to amaze me the level of paranoia when it comes to Jewish conspiracy theorists.
So, I would imagine you do not characterize yourself as a "silly gentile". How do YOU know YOU are not being "flim-flammed"? What makes YOU the judge to characterize tens of millions of Americans as in essence being easily manipulated?
"Thus, they welcome their own demise without knowing it."
So, what are YOU personally doing to open up the eyes of people? To what extent are you in the public eye to reveal this Jewish plan? Because, if you are not front and center, then you are part of the problem by encouraging this "invasion" to continue.
—-So, I would imagine you do not characterize yourself as a “silly gentile”. How do YOU know YOU are not being “flim-flammed”?—-
You’re right. It’s the Eskimos who got the real power and they flimflammed into thinking it is the Jew.
Again, what are YOU personally doing to open up the eyes of people?
"If he is a patriot, he would be in a bind. If he says he is Irishman before Christian, he would be saying that his tribal/national loyalty trumps his loyalty to God. He would be saying his nation is more important than God, the Lord of all that is, as revealed by Jesus."
No, the Irishman would say he is Irish and Catholic. Each has its separate loyalties. He would not be saying anything unless he specifically explained that one or the other loyalty is more important.
"If he is Christian first, he should feel closer to an African Christian or Chinese Christian or Mexican Christian than with fellow Irishmen(especially if they are not Christian)."
Actually, he would feel closer to his fellow human beings, those who are Irish AND those who are Christian.
"To be a good Christian, one must favor foreign Christians over one’s own kinsmen, especially if they are not Christian."
Who makes this argument?
"So, Jewish loyalty to God is inseparable from the idea of God’s loyalty to the Jews. Jews believe that God favors Jews above all other people or that God has a special mission for Jews."
You make the error in believing ALL Jews believe in the same things or practice their faith in the same manner.
"This is why white folks must formulate a new religion that arrives at a special covenant between God(or some higher being) and the white race."
Must, huh. Are white people able to make their own decisions when it comes to race? Or, are they in essence required to adhere to YOUR criteria?
"But there is another way. There can be a Covenantism for the white race. All it requires is the prophet who will make it happen. The seeker on the quest who receives the covenant between God and the white race."
Are YOU that prophet?
"Who will play the role of prophet in this time when the white race is screaming for a new spiritual vision?"
SOME whites, not the white race. Do you speak for every white? Who granted you that position?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431531
The power of Jews derives from the bonding of their ethnicity, history, & territoriality with higher spirituality and sacredness.
Just consider…
Suppose there is an Irish Catholic. Suppose you were to ask him… “Are you Irishman first or Christian first?”
If he is a patriot, he would be in a bind. If he says he is Irishman before Christian, he would be saying that his tribal/national loyalty trumps his loyalty to God. He would be saying his nation is more important than God, the Lord of all that is, as revealed by Jesus.
But then, if he were to say his primary loyalty is to God of Christianity, it’d mean he would have to favor fellow Christians from all over the world over Irishmen who are atheist or agnostic. If he is Christian first, he should feel closer to an African Christian or Chinese Christian or Mexican Christian than with fellow Irishmen(especially if they are not Christian).
Thus, there is a divide between one’s ethnic self and spiritual self for a Christian. To be a good Christian, one must favor foreign Christians over one’s own kinsmen, especially if they are not Christian.
This problem simply doesn’t exist with Jews. To ask the question, “Are you Israeli first or Jew first?” is almost pointless. According to Jewish culture, God has a special covenant with the Jewish people. So, Jewish loyalty to God is inseparable from the idea of God’s loyalty to the Jews. Jews believe that God favors Jews above all other people or that God has a special mission for Jews.
So, there is no divide between ethnic loyalty and spiritual loyalty among Jews. As an ethnic Jew, he identifies most with fellow Jew on the basis of blood and soil. As a spiritual Jew, he identifies with fellow Jews on the basis that God has a special love and destiny for Jews.
This is why white folks must formulate a new religion that arrives at a special covenant between God(or some higher being) and the white race. White folks think the choices are only Christianity, atheism, neo-paganism, or converting to Reform Judaism.
But there is another way. There can be a Covenantism for the white race. All it requires is the prophet who will make it happen. The seeker on the quest who receives the covenant between God and the white race.
And then, whites will no longer face the Christian dilemma of choosing between ethnicity and spirituality. To be a good Christian, one has to favor universal love over ethnic loyalty.
In contrast, to be a good Jew, one must favor Jews over gentiles since God Himself said Jews have a special destiny and must survive and carry on AS JEWS in accordance with the Covenant.
White folks must find a way to bind ethnicity and spirituality into a single formula. It can be a blend of European paganism and monotheism. After all, even if there is only one God, who is to say He has a special mission and destiny ONLY for Jews. Jews came to believe such because they had the vision and imagination to make it so.
Well then… it only takes vision and imagination to forge a similar covenant for white European folks. Who will play the role of prophet in this time when the white race is screaming for a new spiritual vision?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431567
Just consider…
Suppose there is an Irish Catholic. Suppose you were to ask him… “Are you Irishman first or Christian first?”
If he is a patriot, he would be in a bind. If he says he is Irishman before Christian, he would be saying that his tribal/national loyalty trumps his loyalty to God. He would be saying his nation is more important than God, the Lord of all that is, as revealed by Jesus.
But then, if he were to say his primary loyalty is to God of Christianity, it’d mean he would have to favor fellow Christians from all over the world over Irishmen who are atheist or agnostic. If he is Christian first, he should feel closer to an African Christian or Chinese Christian or Mexican Christian than with fellow Irishmen(especially if they are not Christian).
Thus, there is a divide between one’s ethnic self and spiritual self for a Christian. To be a good Christian, one must favor foreign Christians over one’s own kinsmen, especially if they are not Christian.
This problem simply doesn’t exist with Jews. To ask the question, “Are you Israeli first or Jew first?” is almost pointless. According to Jewish culture, God has a special covenant with the Jewish people. So, Jewish loyalty to God is inseparable from the idea of God’s loyalty to the Jews. Jews believe that God favors Jews above all other people or that God has a special mission for Jews.
So, there is no divide between ethnic loyalty and spiritual loyalty among Jews. As an ethnic Jew, he identifies most with fellow Jew on the basis of blood and soil. As a spiritual Jew, he identifies with fellow Jews on the basis that God has a special love and destiny for Jews.
This is why white folks must formulate a new religion that arrives at a special covenant between God(or some higher being) and the white race. White folks think the choices are only Christianity, atheism, neo-paganism, or converting to Reform Judaism.
But there is another way. There can be a Covenantism for the white race. All it requires is the prophet who will make it happen. The seeker on the quest who receives the covenant between God and the white race.
And then, whites will no longer face the Christian dilemma of choosing between ethnicity and spirituality. To be a good Christian, one has to favor universal love over ethnic loyalty.
In contrast, to be a good Jew, one must favor Jews over gentiles since God Himself said Jews have a special destiny and must survive and carry on AS JEWS in accordance with the Covenant.
White folks must find a way to bind ethnicity and spirituality into a single formula. It can be a blend of European paganism and monotheism. After all, even if there is only one God, who is to say He has a special mission and destiny ONLY for Jews. Jews came to believe such because they had the vision and imagination to make it so.
Well then… it only takes vision and imagination to forge a similar covenant for white European folks. Who will play the role of prophet in this time when the white race is screaming for a new spiritual vision?
Huh? Where do you get that?
The first clause of that is the root of the Christian universalist problem. Though I concede it took the better part of two millennia for that particular mind virus to really alter the direction of Christendom.
For the first couple of centuries after conversion it went well enough with the existing, but geographically and culturally limited, multiculturalism of Romanitas as a civic and imperial identity. That identity more or less morphed into "Christendom", the sometimes one, sometimes two cultures that projected the identities of Christian Rome and Christian Constantinople right through the Middle Ages and into early modernity, and provided the emerging peoples, feudalish holdings, and emergent national states with, again, a supranational but culturally limited common identity [or two contending ones].
Many have argued with cause that the emergence of Protestantism went along with the emergence of nationalism, and I don't mean to challenge the merits of that case. But Protestantism eventually expanded the universalist element of Christianity, which to me seems almost an inevitable albeit long term outcome of a word-based, individualist approach to the religion. Catholicism's first centuries of missionary effort outside Europe seemed far more tied to the specific cultures of the Catholic imperial powers and to the crusade against Islam, and the modern progressive/multiculturalist church a positive latecomer to the universalization of Christianity. That's doubtless a pretty weak thesis on the details of church doctrine and governance, but it still to me seems to capture something of the last 500 years.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431591
Just consider…
Suppose there is an Irish Catholic. Suppose you were to ask him… “Are you Irishman first or Christian first?”
If he is a patriot, he would be in a bind. If he says he is Irishman before Christian, he would be saying that his tribal/national loyalty trumps his loyalty to God. He would be saying his nation is more important than God, the Lord of all that is, as revealed by Jesus.
But then, if he were to say his primary loyalty is to God of Christianity, it’d mean he would have to favor fellow Christians from all over the world over Irishmen who are atheist or agnostic. If he is Christian first, he should feel closer to an African Christian or Chinese Christian or Mexican Christian than with fellow Irishmen(especially if they are not Christian).
Thus, there is a divide between one’s ethnic self and spiritual self for a Christian. To be a good Christian, one must favor foreign Christians over one’s own kinsmen, especially if they are not Christian.
This problem simply doesn’t exist with Jews. To ask the question, “Are you Israeli first or Jew first?” is almost pointless. According to Jewish culture, God has a special covenant with the Jewish people. So, Jewish loyalty to God is inseparable from the idea of God’s loyalty to the Jews. Jews believe that God favors Jews above all other people or that God has a special mission for Jews.
So, there is no divide between ethnic loyalty and spiritual loyalty among Jews. As an ethnic Jew, he identifies most with fellow Jew on the basis of blood and soil. As a spiritual Jew, he identifies with fellow Jews on the basis that God has a special love and destiny for Jews.
This is why white folks must formulate a new religion that arrives at a special covenant between God(or some higher being) and the white race. White folks think the choices are only Christianity, atheism, neo-paganism, or converting to Reform Judaism.
But there is another way. There can be a Covenantism for the white race. All it requires is the prophet who will make it happen. The seeker on the quest who receives the covenant between God and the white race.
And then, whites will no longer face the Christian dilemma of choosing between ethnicity and spirituality. To be a good Christian, one has to favor universal love over ethnic loyalty.
In contrast, to be a good Jew, one must favor Jews over gentiles since God Himself said Jews have a special destiny and must survive and carry on AS JEWS in accordance with the Covenant.
White folks must find a way to bind ethnicity and spirituality into a single formula. It can be a blend of European paganism and monotheism. After all, even if there is only one God, who is to say He has a special mission and destiny ONLY for Jews. Jews came to believe such because they had the vision and imagination to make it so.
Well then… it only takes vision and imagination to forge a similar covenant for white European folks. Who will play the role of prophet in this time when the white race is screaming for a new spiritual vision?
Europeans are christian whether they like it or not because christian ideology formed the basis of European civilisation. That is why there has been a concerted effort to stop anyone who does not go to church every week identifying as christian. It isn’t a new religion that is required but the balls to stand up to those who define christianity as merely so much ritual.
Really? So, Europeans have no choice in this matter? Who gave you the authority to dictate these matters?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431617
You're right. It's the Eskimos who got the real power and they flimflammed into thinking it is the Jew.
So, anonymny, you really can’t make up your mind as who to blame. I thought it was only minorities and women who played the victim card.
Again, what are YOU personally doing to open up the eyes of people?
“If he is a patriot, he would be in a bind. If he says he is Irishman before Christian, he would be saying that his tribal/national loyalty trumps his loyalty to God. He would be saying his nation is more important than God, the Lord of all that is, as revealed by Jesus.”
No, the Irishman would say he is Irish and Catholic. Each has its separate loyalties. He would not be saying anything unless he specifically explained that one or the other loyalty is more important.
“If he is Christian first, he should feel closer to an African Christian or Chinese Christian or Mexican Christian than with fellow Irishmen(especially if they are not Christian).”
Actually, he would feel closer to his fellow human beings, those who are Irish AND those who are Christian.
“To be a good Christian, one must favor foreign Christians over one’s own kinsmen, especially if they are not Christian.”
Who makes this argument?
“So, Jewish loyalty to God is inseparable from the idea of God’s loyalty to the Jews. Jews believe that God favors Jews above all other people or that God has a special mission for Jews.”
You make the error in believing ALL Jews believe in the same things or practice their faith in the same manner.
“This is why white folks must formulate a new religion that arrives at a special covenant between God(or some higher being) and the white race.”
Must, huh. Are white people able to make their own decisions when it comes to race? Or, are they in essence required to adhere to YOUR criteria?
“But there is another way. There can be a Covenantism for the white race. All it requires is the prophet who will make it happen. The seeker on the quest who receives the covenant between God and the white race.”
Are YOU that prophet?
“Who will play the role of prophet in this time when the white race is screaming for a new spiritual vision?”
SOME whites, not the white race. Do you speak for every white? Who granted you that position?
No, I'm the prophet of THE Prophet. I await his or her coming.
Like John the baptist to Jesus.
When THE Prophet appears, I shall sprinkle some water on him.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431624
“Europeans are christian whether they like it or not because christian ideology formed the basis of European civilisation.”
Really? So, Europeans have no choice in this matter? Who gave you the authority to dictate these matters?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431628
When TV did some HBD subject.
Some more HBD stuff:
He later admitted that he knows darn well that blacks are superior in sports.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431716
Blacks kick white butt in sports & turn white girls to jungle fever.
White race is getting cucked.
White girls also grow up to porny Rap music. White boys worship black athletes.
Jews spew interracial porn everywhere. Millions of black African men flood into Europe to steal white wombs of white women raised on PC and Negrophilia.
True Right must spell this out and call for safe white racial space from black thuggery. White freedom and white male pride cannot coexist with blacks.
Whites have a choice: Jim Crow or Willie Horton. Necessary Evil vs Total Evil. Submitting whites to the dominance of black savagery is evil to the core. It is the Detroitization of the West.
So, are those tens of millions of white Americans who exercise their liberty to live their lives other than what you pronounce "anti-white"?
See, that's why people like 5371 are sheep to the slaughter for anointing you as their spokesperson.
"No, I’m the prophet of THE Prophet. I await his or her coming."
At least we all know what we are dealing with here.
Matthew 7:15--Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
It no longer seems to work in boxing. Hollyfield was the last great black heavyweight champ, Tyson (Michael, not Fury) before, I am sure there will be more to come, but it has been some time.
Personally, if watching boxing, I prefer lower weight divisions, and Paquiau gets my vote for the toughest and most interesting in recent years, although his career is almost over.
Of course, there are NFL and NBL, Yugoslavia would beat any team from the latter at its peak, unfortunately, the place was ripped apart by the USA, NATO and the EU just then, so all we got to see was the rump Yugoslavia (Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia at the time), they did well.
BLM-style jerks whine about the lack of black quarterbacks. Perhaps it is just from a shortage of black people with the skills and temperament to do well at the top level in that position?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431724
Brooks Johnson who, in the Brokaw video says racial differences are a myth in sports, later admitted he was just telling a white lie to be ‘anti-racist’.
He later admitted that he knows darn well that blacks are superior in sports.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431772
Roger Cohen. The name says it all. Would this Jew write an article condemning Israel for its treatment of African illegal aliens? I doubt it.
Abandoning the ‘white Australia’ policy was the Aussies biggest mistake.
Note how Israel has not abandoned its ‘law of return’ Jewish only immigration policy.
Oh, they do - all the time.
Go read _Forward_.
go read _Haaretz_.
you're not very good at basic reading. No wonder we have no problems running circles around you.
Lieberman as Defense Minister. We might even see Kfir Battalion trunchions on illegal-Sudanese heads in South Tel Aviv.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431805
You should Google ‘The Jewish war against white Australia’.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431808
I can’t help but look at that picture of those stupid old white people and just shake my head in despair and disbelief. Assuming they are not Jews, I have to wonder if the white race does not have some kind of suicide gene in its DNA. You would never see, say, Japanese people do this. Don’t these seniors want their grandchildren to have a future? To inherit the same type of country they grew up in? What’s wrong with these people?
Simple questions--Must all whites be in lockstep with your philosophy about racial matters? Do whites have any freedom whatsoever to decide for themselves what is their own personal racial policy?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431812
Again, what are YOU personally doing to open up the eyes of people?
"If he is a patriot, he would be in a bind. If he says he is Irishman before Christian, he would be saying that his tribal/national loyalty trumps his loyalty to God. He would be saying his nation is more important than God, the Lord of all that is, as revealed by Jesus."
No, the Irishman would say he is Irish and Catholic. Each has its separate loyalties. He would not be saying anything unless he specifically explained that one or the other loyalty is more important.
"If he is Christian first, he should feel closer to an African Christian or Chinese Christian or Mexican Christian than with fellow Irishmen(especially if they are not Christian)."
Actually, he would feel closer to his fellow human beings, those who are Irish AND those who are Christian.
"To be a good Christian, one must favor foreign Christians over one’s own kinsmen, especially if they are not Christian."
Who makes this argument?
"So, Jewish loyalty to God is inseparable from the idea of God’s loyalty to the Jews. Jews believe that God favors Jews above all other people or that God has a special mission for Jews."
You make the error in believing ALL Jews believe in the same things or practice their faith in the same manner.
"This is why white folks must formulate a new religion that arrives at a special covenant between God(or some higher being) and the white race."
Must, huh. Are white people able to make their own decisions when it comes to race? Or, are they in essence required to adhere to YOUR criteria?
"But there is another way. There can be a Covenantism for the white race. All it requires is the prophet who will make it happen. The seeker on the quest who receives the covenant between God and the white race."
Are YOU that prophet?
"Who will play the role of prophet in this time when the white race is screaming for a new spiritual vision?"
SOME whites, not the white race. Do you speak for every white? Who granted you that position?
“Are YOU that prophet?”
No, I’m the prophet of THE Prophet. I await his or her coming.
Like John the baptist to Jesus.
When THE Prophet appears, I shall sprinkle some water on him.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1431945
It would be nice and simple if they were Jews but they’re more likely to be christians.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432034
Really? So, Europeans have no choice in this matter? Who gave you the authority to dictate these matters?
When I started commenting, I began every comment with ‘I think..’
Young people are losing their christian heritage but many institutions are still based on christian mores – the confession, for instance, very difficult to convict without.
You didn't begin this comment with "I think", so you're not fooling anyone. One more time...So, Europeans have no choice in this matter? Who gave you the authority to dictate these matters?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432035
But your solution would mean either:
(1) More refugees being invited to Greece by “enterpreneurs”, in order to get more money from UE
(2) refugees being counted two or three times (in order to get more money from UE)
(3) refugees being counted even if they would escape (because of schengen) to Germany.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432098
Abandoning the 'white Australia' policy was the Aussies biggest mistake.
Note how Israel has not abandoned its 'law of return' Jewish only immigration policy.
>>>Would this Jew write an article condemning Israel for its treatment of African illegal aliens? I doubt it
Oh, they do – all the time.
Go read _Forward_.
go read _Haaretz_.
you’re not very good at basic reading. No wonder we have no problems running circles around you.
Lieberman as Defense Minister. We might even see Kfir Battalion trunchions on illegal-Sudanese heads in South Tel Aviv.
In any case it doesn't stop Israel from deporting them and building its walls and fences.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432252
No, I'm the prophet of THE Prophet. I await his or her coming.
Like John the baptist to Jesus.
When THE Prophet appears, I shall sprinkle some water on him.
Corvinus loves water sports, if you had promised to sprinkle something else on him he would have announced himself as THE prophet.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432325
White race is getting cucked.
White girls also grow up to porny Rap music. White boys worship black athletes.
Jews spew interracial porn everywhere. Millions of black African men flood into Europe to steal white wombs of white women raised on PC and Negrophilia.
True Right must spell this out and call for safe white racial space from black thuggery. White freedom and white male pride cannot coexist with blacks.
Whites have a choice: Jim Crow or Willie Horton. Necessary Evil vs Total Evil. Submitting whites to the dominance of black savagery is evil to the core. It is the Detroitization of the West.
“Whites have a choice: Jim Crow or Willie Horton. ”
So, are those tens of millions of white Americans who exercise their liberty to live their lives other than what you pronounce “anti-white”?
See, that’s why people like 5371 are sheep to the slaughter for anointing you as their spokesperson.
“No, I’m the prophet of THE Prophet. I await his or her coming.”
At least we all know what we are dealing with here.
Matthew 7:15–Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432351
“Europeans are christian whether they like it or not because christian ideology formed the basis of European civilisation. That is why there has been a concerted effort to stop anyone who does not go to church every week identifying as christian. It isn’t a new religion that is required but the balls to stand up to those who define christianity as merely so much ritual.”
You didn’t begin this comment with “I think”, so you’re not fooling anyone. One more time…So, Europeans have no choice in this matter? Who gave you the authority to dictate these matters?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432357
“I can’t help but look at that picture of those stupid old white people and just shake my head in despair and disbelief. Assuming they are not Jews, I have to wonder if the white race does not have some kind of suicide gene in its DNA.”
Simple questions–Must all whites be in lockstep with your philosophy about racial matters? Do whites have any freedom whatsoever to decide for themselves what is their own personal racial policy?
In any case whites can have freedom to decide for themselves what their racial policy should be. But doesn't common sense and basic human instinct suggest such a policy should be pro-white and advantageous to whites rather then the reverse? Please kindly explain to me how making a white country like Australia LESS WHITE is a good thing for WHITES?
Now imagine this. You are a white person living in Australia. YOU MUST CHOOSE;
1,000,000 white immigrants from Europe or 1,000,000 black immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa. Again, YOU MUST CHOOSE one group or the other.
So which group do you choose sport?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432360
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus.”
The first clause of that is the root of the Christian universalist problem. Though I concede it took the better part of two millennia for that particular mind virus to really alter the direction of Christendom.
For the first couple of centuries after conversion it went well enough with the existing, but geographically and culturally limited, multiculturalism of Romanitas as a civic and imperial identity. That identity more or less morphed into “Christendom”, the sometimes one, sometimes two cultures that projected the identities of Christian Rome and Christian Constantinople right through the Middle Ages and into early modernity, and provided the emerging peoples, feudalish holdings, and emergent national states with, again, a supranational but culturally limited common identity [or two contending ones].
Many have argued with cause that the emergence of Protestantism went along with the emergence of nationalism, and I don’t mean to challenge the merits of that case. But Protestantism eventually expanded the universalist element of Christianity, which to me seems almost an inevitable albeit long term outcome of a word-based, individualist approach to the religion. Catholicism’s first centuries of missionary effort outside Europe seemed far more tied to the specific cultures of the Catholic imperial powers and to the crusade against Islam, and the modern progressive/multiculturalist church a positive latecomer to the universalization of Christianity. That’s doubtless a pretty weak thesis on the details of church doctrine and governance, but it still to me seems to capture something of the last 500 years.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432493
You didn't begin this comment with "I think", so you're not fooling anyone. One more time...So, Europeans have no choice in this matter? Who gave you the authority to dictate these matters?
I think Europeans are christian whether they like it or not because christian ideology formed the basis of European civilisation. That is why there has been a concerted effort to stop anyone who does not go to church every week identifying as christian. It isn’t a new religion that is required but the balls to stand up to those who define christianity as merely so much ritual.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432511
“The international community does not understand how outrageous this policy is, how far from basic human standards and how shot through with violence and sexual abuse.”
I suppose the humanitarian thing to do would be to let the violent and sexual abusers through so that they have access to a wider range of nonimmigrant victims?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432736
Another ‘Cohen’ arguing for the destruction of White nations. Is this parody?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432744
Oh, they do - all the time.
Go read _Forward_.
go read _Haaretz_.
you're not very good at basic reading. No wonder we have no problems running circles around you.
Lieberman as Defense Minister. We might even see Kfir Battalion trunchions on illegal-Sudanese heads in South Tel Aviv.
Yeah, I’m “sure” they do.
In any case it doesn’t stop Israel from deporting them and building its walls and fences.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432777
Simple questions--Must all whites be in lockstep with your philosophy about racial matters? Do whites have any freedom whatsoever to decide for themselves what is their own personal racial policy?
Are you a Jew? You sound like one.
In any case whites can have freedom to decide for themselves what their racial policy should be. But doesn’t common sense and basic human instinct suggest such a policy should be pro-white and advantageous to whites rather then the reverse? Please kindly explain to me how making a white country like Australia LESS WHITE is a good thing for WHITES?
Now imagine this. You are a white person living in Australia. YOU MUST CHOOSE;
1,000,000 white immigrants from Europe or 1,000,000 black immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa. Again, YOU MUST CHOOSE one group or the other.
So which group do you choose sport?
Are you anti-human? You sound like one.
"In any case whites can have freedom to decide for themselves what their racial policy should be."
Exactly!
"But doesn’t common sense and basic human instinct suggest such a policy should be pro-white and advantageous to whites rather then the reverse?"
No, it's not common sense or basic human instinct, given the fact that definitions of "pro-white" and "anti-white" are utterly meaningless and that whites historically have lived with, married, and pro-created with non-whites.
"Please kindly explain to me how making a white country like Australia LESS WHITE is a good thing for WHITES?"
Ask those whites who look at humanity rather than race.
"Now imagine this. You are a white person living in Australia. YOU MUST CHOOSE; 1,000,000 white immigrants from Europe or 1,000,000 black immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa. Again, YOU MUST CHOOSE one group or the other."
I don't have to choose anything. Your hypothetical is racial masturbatory material. I choose Europeans, and you say "That's what I thought, they are the civilized group". I choose Sub-Saharan African, and you get all girly mad and say "Just what I thought, you're anti-white".
Not playing your sick little game.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432783
Funny to watch Corvanus flail about, all spergy and earnest and malicious. “WTF are you to take your own side in a fight? Roll over and die damn you!”
Course in the Jews’ back yard in (((Israel))), they’re having none of it.
Dirty up your own back yard, open-borders Jews. Why should we take you diaspora Jews advice, when Jews in the Jewish ethno-state do the opposite?
Maybe instead of doing what Jews say to do, we should do what Jews do; close our own borders, and tell others (say, Jews) to open theirs.
Fig leaf for de English-speaking goyische kopfs. They don’t take their own advice. Or give it, in their own language.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432809
Why a bunch of Mexican owned New York City Jews should have any say in the demographic make up of Australia is a mystery to me.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432866
Elba springs to mind as an appropriate Island prison.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432871
We should probably consider setting aside Diversistans for (supposed) honkeys like Corvanus and those who want to live with them. No way normal folks should have to put up with them. Of course, that just won’t do for the Corvanus types.
That’s what’s most telling about them; a place for everyone is no good. There must only be a place for them. Everyone else must be destroyed, displaced, dispossessed.
Project much?
"No way normal folks should have to put up with them."
You have little clue what is normal.
"Everyone else must be destroyed, displaced, dispossessed."
According to pro-white, or pro-black, or pro-Jew, or...
Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432872
In any case whites can have freedom to decide for themselves what their racial policy should be. But doesn't common sense and basic human instinct suggest such a policy should be pro-white and advantageous to whites rather then the reverse? Please kindly explain to me how making a white country like Australia LESS WHITE is a good thing for WHITES?
Now imagine this. You are a white person living in Australia. YOU MUST CHOOSE;
1,000,000 white immigrants from Europe or 1,000,000 black immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa. Again, YOU MUST CHOOSE one group or the other.
So which group do you choose sport?
“Are you a Jew? You sound like one.”
Are you anti-human? You sound like one.
“In any case whites can have freedom to decide for themselves what their racial policy should be.”
Exactly!
“But doesn’t common sense and basic human instinct suggest such a policy should be pro-white and advantageous to whites rather then the reverse?”
No, it’s not common sense or basic human instinct, given the fact that definitions of “pro-white” and “anti-white” are utterly meaningless and that whites historically have lived with, married, and pro-created with non-whites.
“Please kindly explain to me how making a white country like Australia LESS WHITE is a good thing for WHITES?”
Ask those whites who look at humanity rather than race.
“Now imagine this. You are a white person living in Australia. YOU MUST CHOOSE; 1,000,000 white immigrants from Europe or 1,000,000 black immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa. Again, YOU MUST CHOOSE one group or the other.”
I don’t have to choose anything. Your hypothetical is racial masturbatory material. I choose Europeans, and you say “That’s what I thought, they are the civilized group”. I choose Sub-Saharan African, and you get all girly mad and say “Just what I thought, you’re anti-white”.
Not playing your sick little game.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432884
That's what's most telling about them; a place for everyone is no good. There must only be a place for them. Everyone else must be destroyed, displaced, dispossessed.
“Funny to watch Corvanus flail about, all spergy and earnest and malicious.”
Project much?
“No way normal folks should have to put up with them.”
You have little clue what is normal.
“Everyone else must be destroyed, displaced, dispossessed.”
According to pro-white, or pro-black, or pro-Jew, or…
Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1432887
Spergy and earnest. You sound like Glenn Beck. I rest my case.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433069
“Do you have a cite for that?”
Ass.
http://www.allmusic.com/album/ass-mw0000745047
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433075
Ass.
The Badfinger album?
http://www.allmusic.com/album/ass-mw0000745047
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433195
Precisely. Australia’s supposed hard line on illegal immigration is just a smoke screen. In reality population replacement is happening here on a scale that would horrify even the Swedes.
The elites figured that if they stopped a few hundred illegals on boats Australians would be too stupid to notice a couple of hundred thousand legal immigrants every year. And Australians were indeed that stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Australia
You can also check out this Australian government site:
https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/migration-trends13-14-glance.pdf
As it shows, if you exclude South Africa - where I suspect that the numbers are largely made up of white people leaving SA when ANC took power - none of the above areas figure in the supplied list of countries of significant migration to Australia. The highest on the list is Iraq with around 40,000. That is, 1 in 600 of the Australian population. Egypt and Turkey supply slightly lower numbers, and Iran about 25,000. No country in South America, or Africa with the exception of SA figures in the list.
One might argue that this is historical, and that current migration is different but once again the facts do not bear it out. The top countries supplying migrants to Australia are India, China, UK, Philippines, and Pakistan. Australia is, in my view (and I live in one of the leafy suburbs of Melbourne), well on the way to becoming an (South and East) Asian country, not one largely populated by people from any of those areas named above. Incidentally, it is noteworthy that Pakistan is the only significantly Muslim country in the list.
Australia's migration priorities are based on two major factors: skills and family connections.
Australia has taken around 13000 refugees per year until recently when that number has increased to around 20000. Additionally, Australia has recently taken a few (<1000 per year) Chinese immigrants with "millionaire visas".
As to asylum seekers, the Red Cross site provides a statement of the facts.
http://www.redcross.org.au/asylum-seekers-refugees-facts.aspx
The number of asylum seekers (by boat or air) is and always was small, and relatively few come from South America, the Middle East (except Iran where the education level is on the whole pretty high - coming ahead of China, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Macedonia, Serbia, for instance), or Africa.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433237
Are you anti-human? You sound like one.
"In any case whites can have freedom to decide for themselves what their racial policy should be."
Exactly!
"But doesn’t common sense and basic human instinct suggest such a policy should be pro-white and advantageous to whites rather then the reverse?"
No, it's not common sense or basic human instinct, given the fact that definitions of "pro-white" and "anti-white" are utterly meaningless and that whites historically have lived with, married, and pro-created with non-whites.
"Please kindly explain to me how making a white country like Australia LESS WHITE is a good thing for WHITES?"
Ask those whites who look at humanity rather than race.
"Now imagine this. You are a white person living in Australia. YOU MUST CHOOSE; 1,000,000 white immigrants from Europe or 1,000,000 black immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa. Again, YOU MUST CHOOSE one group or the other."
I don't have to choose anything. Your hypothetical is racial masturbatory material. I choose Europeans, and you say "That's what I thought, they are the civilized group". I choose Sub-Saharan African, and you get all girly mad and say "Just what I thought, you're anti-white".
Not playing your sick little game.
Someone who loves other chilren more than his own, is immoral in my eyes. Someone who is loves more humanity than his own people, is immoral in my eyes. It’s not that I hate other people, or that I wish them bad; simply I love my people more and I have duties towards them first, and only then towards others. Just as I would be immoral to save other children when my own are drowning.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433303
Murdoch gave a speech at a dinner in Sydney, in 2014, to mark the 50th anniversary of his daily, The Australian, and he castigated the Government for not opening the borders to anyone who wished to turn up.
Claims made over the years that NewsCorp support conservative positions are belied every day in it’s papers’ contents.
Murdoch cares about power and money. Nothing else.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433319
Derbyshire, how about you suggesting to NYT to tell Israel: “Open Those Borders to Native Palestinian it expelled?”
Australia had always been a Zionist Jewish colony. The ships bringing White British convicts to settle in Australia that arrived at Sydney Harbor in 1890s were owned by Rothschild family.
Australian-born media tycoon, Zionist Rupert Murdoch owns 67% of Australian press.
Australian prime minister Malcolm ‘Moishe’ Turnbull is 101% Zionist Jew and a great friend of Israel.
Former Australian foreign minister Robert John (Bob) Carr (born 1947) in book ‘Diary of a Foreign Minister‘ has claimed that Australia’s foreign policy is controlled by pro-Israel Jewish lobby groups.
Bob Carr has produced text messages between him and former prime minister Julia Gillard. “The public has to know how foreign policy gets made, especially when it appears the prime minister is being heavily lobbied by one interest group with a stake in the Middle East (Israel),” said Carr.
Bob Carr also blasted former prime minister and foreign minister, Kevin Rudd, country’s richest politician who is married to a wealthy Jew. Carr calls him a loudmouth who was disliked by foreign policy elites and many in Labor Party.
Carr says he told Julia Gillard to step down from party leadership to save her own reputation.
Carr has described former Israeli ambassador to Australia, Yuval Rotem, as the “cunning Yuval” and Israeli foreign minister Avidgor Lieberman, as “gloomy” and “taciturn” in his book. He has also blasted two Jewish MPs, Mark Dreyfus and Michael Danby, as the “falafel faction”.
https://rehmat1.com/2014/04/13/diary-of-a-fm-jews-control-australia/
I am not quite sure how it happened, a quirk of the Unz site, but my apparent reply to you a little earlier was not intended, it was meant for advanced atheist. I would hope that the Unz mods remove the one that was addressed to you in this case, since it was a double-post, I assure you I did not go through the process of making the same post twice, even copying and pasting. Annoying to me.
As for Malcolm Turnbull being Jewish! Absolute rubbish.
What is to be gained by the pollution of the UR comments under the thoroughly disgraced name of Rehmat?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433378
Please take note of the date of John D’s first essay on this issue:
September 2001. The lefties have been bitching and moaning about this issue for fifteen years now.
We are currently enduring another national election. This is the sixth election where this issue is making headlines. The leftist media – that is, the mainstream media – can’t stop themselves from talking about it. And in all that time, public sentiment hasn’t changed one iota – it runs at about 80% support for taking a strong stance against people entering the country illegally – I call it ‘aggressive supplication’: ‘we are refugees – you have no choice but to take us in, you will take us in, or you are evil and we will harm ourselves’.
The problem was solved in 2001. The lefties came to power in 2007, undid the solution and the problem came back – as a result of which over 1,000 people, including children, died making the crossing to Australian territory. A new government came to power in 2013 and solved the problem again. And the lefties are still bitching and moaning about it, and threatening to undo the solution.
I don’t know how to explain this monomania. They just will not stop.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433402
Australians: Life is too good here! We want more violent crime! We want a decreased sense of safety in our communities and gangs of creepy hostile foreigners staring at us when we’re out walking NOW!11!!!
On May 10, 2016, Israeli Judge Amnon Cohen again denied extradition of Malka Leifer for her being a mental patient – the Jewish lesbian teacher who is facing charges in Australia of 72 counts of raping girls. Watch video below.
Malka Leifer, 47, who taught at an Orthodox Jewish girls school in Melbourne Australia fled to the Zionist entity and has been harboured there ever since. A married woman with 8 children, she escaped with 5 of her children 6 years ago, and the courts in Israel have refused to extradite her.
Whilst her husband was travelling, she had underage sex in the home with children aged from 5 – 12. One of the minors attempted suicide after the rape. She approached the school administrators and raised AUD $100,000. She stole AUD $20,000 and left Australia in March 2008. Extradition proceedings were started in August 2014. It is inconceivable how she has been able to stay in Israel for 8 years. Why she hasn’t been sent back to Australia where they can decide if she is fit for trial, according to the laws of the country in which she committed the crimes, and victims are ready to testify. If she truly needs psychiatric treatment, shouldn’t it be according to Australian law?
Israel’s tourism industry has long portrayed the country as heaven for the LGBT community. However, Mike Hamel, who is on the board of Israel’s National LGBT Task Force, a NGO, doesn’t agree with government PR.
“If Israel is a heaven for the LGBT community, it’s because of the community, the organizations that are working very hard to make it a good place for LGBT people to live. It’s not because of the government policies. It’s in spite of the government policies,” he said.
https://rehmat1.com/2016/05/12/israel-heaven-for-lesbian-rapist-of-72-girls/
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433448
We want to be threatened and harassed by fundamentalist Muslims for not following Sharia law when we’re down at the pub drinking a pint! This is not who we are!!!!111
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433453
Are you playing the role of Sally Struthers? “My people” are human beings–white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American. God loves humans, who are his own people. Why do you hate God?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433513
There is no way the ‘trans-humanists’ will see their goals realised by 2045.
They will see limited machines taking more of certain types of work from people.
IBM’s Watson is impressive, but it still has to be reprogrammed for any new task, relies on a huge amount of storage, and consumes an enormous amount of energy, far more than a person proficient at similar tasks.
The dreams of the ‘trans-humanists’ (being uploaded to a simulation or incorpated in a cyborg with unlimited longevity) won’t be realised in any time-frame before things collapse in many places. I don’t think they will ever be possible.
There are basic relations between storage and manipulation of information and required energy.
Bits (binary digits, for those who forget the etymology) don’t exist, but their representation does, and each requires electric power.
For a complex simulation, the power requirements are impossible.
Even if laser signals in optical comptuting can directly feed the signals into the circuits, they require synchronization and … electric power.
Optically-driven computing has made little progress apart from connections between chips, although I am aware that there is much work on optical logic gates and so on.
From the world of fiction, I was a regular buyer and reader of the Brit. mag., Interzone.
In their golden age, to me (I loved the old issues with Ballard and other good stories, which I sometimes found in second-hand book shops, and I gather the earlier letterhead or A4 had many good collages and so on, never found one of those), but to me their golden age was the mid-to-late 80s and early 90s), I loved it.
I do not recall the relevant title nor the author’s name, but one (among many) that I really loved, opened with the words ‘There has been a nano-castrophe’. Sorry to the writer, I have been forced to move around more than I would like, I do not have that copy on hand to check.
A nano-machine plague has overrun life on Earth. The nanos have a mutual higher self-organisation. For reasons of their own, they decide to revive the people who have had their heads frozen and placed in storage, the revivified heads are placed in self-propelled, head-sustaining capsules, and proceed to go for death by each other in the sky of the dead Earth.
Something of the image as metaphor, and for ‘trans-humans’, not the only one from Interzone in those days, many great stories.
There has been a nano-catastrophe.
Tired + slight hangover + phone key system = spelling errors.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433517
Well, the solution to this problem is simple. Roger Cohen and his kinsmen should just welcome an unlimited number of refugees from around the world, including Muslim countries, into Israel.
Problem solved!
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433619
You want “violent crimes” – contact your local Israeli consulate office.
On May 10, 2016, Israeli Judge Amnon Cohen again denied extradition of Malka Leifer for her being a mental patient – the Jewish lesbian teacher who is facing charges in Australia of 72 counts of raping girls. Watch video below.
Malka Leifer, 47, who taught at an Orthodox Jewish girls school in Melbourne Australia fled to the Zionist entity and has been harboured there ever since. A married woman with 8 children, she escaped with 5 of her children 6 years ago, and the courts in Israel have refused to extradite her.
Whilst her husband was travelling, she had underage sex in the home with children aged from 5 – 12. One of the minors attempted suicide after the rape. She approached the school administrators and raised AUD $100,000. She stole AUD $20,000 and left Australia in March 2008. Extradition proceedings were started in August 2014. It is inconceivable how she has been able to stay in Israel for 8 years. Why she hasn’t been sent back to Australia where they can decide if she is fit for trial, according to the laws of the country in which she committed the crimes, and victims are ready to testify. If she truly needs psychiatric treatment, shouldn’t it be according to Australian law?
Israel’s tourism industry has long portrayed the country as heaven for the LGBT community. However, Mike Hamel, who is on the board of Israel’s National LGBT Task Force, a NGO, doesn’t agree with government PR.
“If Israel is a heaven for the LGBT community, it’s because of the community, the organizations that are working very hard to make it a good place for LGBT people to live. It’s not because of the government policies. It’s in spite of the government policies,” he said.
https://rehmat1.com/2016/05/12/israel-heaven-for-lesbian-rapist-of-72-girls/
I noticed that story shortly after she fled, doubtless with top-level govt. connivance, on both sides of the flight.
Kudos to you for bringing the result up on this thread, ugly and predictable as the result is.
Haven for the LGBT community? Well, 1, there is no such thing, and 2, I doubt it extends beyond Tel Aviv and Haifa.
I really wanted to visit Syria, before the current destruction and crazy destabilisation began.
Before I met Israelis on overseas travels (many years earlier than the attempted destruction of Syria), I also wanted to visit there one day, but every experience I had with them was bad.
They are so exclusionary if you are not Jewish. It was a shock to me! Perhaps, if I had appeared to be useful ... glad that I did not!
The details of one are too ugly to describe, although I was not the victim, I feel bad to this day about what they did. I should have gone to the police immediately, or called them, but I didn't work out what happened until it was too late.
However, you must be aware that your co-religionists do the same kind of things as those Israelis.
I know the degree varies by region.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433624
Australia had always been a Zionist Jewish colony. The ships bringing White British convicts to settle in Australia that arrived at Sydney Harbor in 1890s were owned by Rothschild family.
Australian-born media tycoon, Zionist Rupert Murdoch owns 67% of Australian press.
Australian prime minister Malcolm ‘Moishe’ Turnbull is 101% Zionist Jew and a great friend of Israel.
Former Australian foreign minister Robert John (Bob) Carr (born 1947) in book ‘Diary of a Foreign Minister‘ has claimed that Australia’s foreign policy is controlled by pro-Israel Jewish lobby groups.
Bob Carr has produced text messages between him and former prime minister Julia Gillard. “The public has to know how foreign policy gets made, especially when it appears the prime minister is being heavily lobbied by one interest group with a stake in the Middle East (Israel),” said Carr.
Bob Carr also blasted former prime minister and foreign minister, Kevin Rudd, country’s richest politician who is married to a wealthy Jew. Carr calls him a loudmouth who was disliked by foreign policy elites and many in Labor Party.
Carr says he told Julia Gillard to step down from party leadership to save her own reputation.
Carr has described former Israeli ambassador to Australia, Yuval Rotem, as the “cunning Yuval” and Israeli foreign minister Avidgor Lieberman, as “gloomy” and “taciturn” in his book. He has also blasted two Jewish MPs, Mark Dreyfus and Michael Danby, as the “falafel faction”.
https://rehmat1.com/2014/04/13/diary-of-a-fm-jews-control-australia/
Rehmat,
I am not quite sure how it happened, a quirk of the Unz site, but my apparent reply to you a little earlier was not intended, it was meant for advanced atheist. I would hope that the Unz mods remove the one that was addressed to you in this case, since it was a double-post, I assure you I did not go through the process of making the same post twice, even copying and pasting. Annoying to me.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433663
There are almost 200 countries in the world. Are predominantly White first world countries the only safe ones in the world? How many countries are there between Afghanistan and Australia? In fact, there is even a big ocean.
- Cohen has been on a mission since at least September.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433671
White race is getting cucked.
White girls also grow up to porny Rap music. White boys worship black athletes.
Jews spew interracial porn everywhere. Millions of black African men flood into Europe to steal white wombs of white women raised on PC and Negrophilia.
True Right must spell this out and call for safe white racial space from black thuggery. White freedom and white male pride cannot coexist with blacks.
Whites have a choice: Jim Crow or Willie Horton. Necessary Evil vs Total Evil. Submitting whites to the dominance of black savagery is evil to the core. It is the Detroitization of the West.
‘Sports’ is an exaggeration. Sure, it has been true for sprinting, for a while, in boxing, and, from a different genetic background (west and north Africa, not east), men’s distance running. European and east Asian women remain very competitive in women’s mid- to long-distance events.
It no longer seems to work in boxing. Hollyfield was the last great black heavyweight champ, Tyson (Michael, not Fury) before, I am sure there will be more to come, but it has been some time.
Personally, if watching boxing, I prefer lower weight divisions, and Paquiau gets my vote for the toughest and most interesting in recent years, although his career is almost over.
Of course, there are NFL and NBL, Yugoslavia would beat any team from the latter at its peak, unfortunately, the place was ripped apart by the USA, NATO and the EU just then, so all we got to see was the rump Yugoslavia (Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia at the time), they did well.
BLM-style jerks whine about the lack of black quarterbacks. Perhaps it is just from a shortage of black people with the skills and temperament to do well at the top level in that position?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433736
On May 10, 2016, Israeli Judge Amnon Cohen again denied extradition of Malka Leifer for her being a mental patient – the Jewish lesbian teacher who is facing charges in Australia of 72 counts of raping girls. Watch video below.
Malka Leifer, 47, who taught at an Orthodox Jewish girls school in Melbourne Australia fled to the Zionist entity and has been harboured there ever since. A married woman with 8 children, she escaped with 5 of her children 6 years ago, and the courts in Israel have refused to extradite her.
Whilst her husband was travelling, she had underage sex in the home with children aged from 5 – 12. One of the minors attempted suicide after the rape. She approached the school administrators and raised AUD $100,000. She stole AUD $20,000 and left Australia in March 2008. Extradition proceedings were started in August 2014. It is inconceivable how she has been able to stay in Israel for 8 years. Why she hasn’t been sent back to Australia where they can decide if she is fit for trial, according to the laws of the country in which she committed the crimes, and victims are ready to testify. If she truly needs psychiatric treatment, shouldn’t it be according to Australian law?
Israel’s tourism industry has long portrayed the country as heaven for the LGBT community. However, Mike Hamel, who is on the board of Israel’s National LGBT Task Force, a NGO, doesn’t agree with government PR.
“If Israel is a heaven for the LGBT community, it’s because of the community, the organizations that are working very hard to make it a good place for LGBT people to live. It’s not because of the government policies. It’s in spite of the government policies,” he said.
https://rehmat1.com/2016/05/12/israel-heaven-for-lesbian-rapist-of-72-girls/
Malka Leifer sounds like a hot date for Julia Ioffe and Masha Gessen.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433748
How can I love or hate an imaginary entity? I am atheist. My people are those who share the most genes with me, and who share the most of my culture. My cousin over my compatriots, my compatriots over other Slavs, other Slavs over other Europeans, other Europeans over the rest of humanity, rest of humanity over non-humans if they exist.
It figures.
"My people are those who share the most genes with me, and who share the most of my culture. My cousin over my compatriots, my compatriots over other Slavs, other Slavs over other Europeans, other Europeans over the rest of humanity, rest of humanity over non-humans if they exist."
That is YOUR personal preference. Must all whites adhere to it, or do they have the liberty to choose for themselves what is their position on racial and ethnic matters?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433749
On May 10, 2016, Israeli Judge Amnon Cohen again denied extradition of Malka Leifer for her being a mental patient – the Jewish lesbian teacher who is facing charges in Australia of 72 counts of raping girls. Watch video below.
Malka Leifer, 47, who taught at an Orthodox Jewish girls school in Melbourne Australia fled to the Zionist entity and has been harboured there ever since. A married woman with 8 children, she escaped with 5 of her children 6 years ago, and the courts in Israel have refused to extradite her.
Whilst her husband was travelling, she had underage sex in the home with children aged from 5 – 12. One of the minors attempted suicide after the rape. She approached the school administrators and raised AUD $100,000. She stole AUD $20,000 and left Australia in March 2008. Extradition proceedings were started in August 2014. It is inconceivable how she has been able to stay in Israel for 8 years. Why she hasn’t been sent back to Australia where they can decide if she is fit for trial, according to the laws of the country in which she committed the crimes, and victims are ready to testify. If she truly needs psychiatric treatment, shouldn’t it be according to Australian law?
Israel’s tourism industry has long portrayed the country as heaven for the LGBT community. However, Mike Hamel, who is on the board of Israel’s National LGBT Task Force, a NGO, doesn’t agree with government PR.
“If Israel is a heaven for the LGBT community, it’s because of the community, the organizations that are working very hard to make it a good place for LGBT people to live. It’s not because of the government policies. It’s in spite of the government policies,” he said.
https://rehmat1.com/2016/05/12/israel-heaven-for-lesbian-rapist-of-72-girls/
Rehmat,
I noticed that story shortly after she fled, doubtless with top-level govt. connivance, on both sides of the flight.
Kudos to you for bringing the result up on this thread, ugly and predictable as the result is.
Haven for the LGBT community? Well, 1, there is no such thing, and 2, I doubt it extends beyond Tel Aviv and Haifa.
I really wanted to visit Syria, before the current destruction and crazy destabilisation began.
Before I met Israelis on overseas travels (many years earlier than the attempted destruction of Syria), I also wanted to visit there one day, but every experience I had with them was bad.
They are so exclusionary if you are not Jewish. It was a shock to me! Perhaps, if I had appeared to be useful … glad that I did not!
The details of one are too ugly to describe, although I was not the victim, I feel bad to this day about what they did. I should have gone to the police immediately, or called them, but I didn’t work out what happened until it was too late.
However, you must be aware that your co-religionists do the same kind of things as those Israelis.
I know the degree varies by region.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433800
They will see limited machines taking more of certain types of work from people.
IBM's Watson is impressive, but it still has to be reprogrammed for any new task, relies on a huge amount of storage, and consumes an enormous amount of energy, far more than a person proficient at similar tasks.
The dreams of the 'trans-humanists' (being uploaded to a simulation or incorpated in a cyborg with unlimited longevity) won't be realised in any time-frame before things collapse in many places. I don't think they will ever be possible.
There are basic relations between storage and manipulation of information and required energy.
Bits (binary digits, for those who forget the etymology) don't exist, but their representation does, and each requires electric power.
For a complex simulation, the power requirements are impossible.
Even if laser signals in optical comptuting can directly feed the signals into the circuits, they require synchronization and ... electric power.
Optically-driven computing has made little progress apart from connections between chips, although I am aware that there is much work on optical logic gates and so on.
From the world of fiction, I was a regular buyer and reader of the Brit. mag., Interzone.
In their golden age, to me (I loved the old issues with Ballard and other good stories, which I sometimes found in second-hand book shops, and I gather the earlier letterhead or A4 had many good collages and so on, never found one of those), but to me their golden age was the mid-to-late 80s and early 90s), I loved it.
I do not recall the relevant title nor the author's name, but one (among many) that I really loved, opened with the words 'There has been a nano-castrophe'. Sorry to the writer, I have been forced to move around more than I would like, I do not have that copy on hand to check.
A nano-machine plague has overrun life on Earth. The nanos have a mutual higher self-organisation. For reasons of their own, they decide to revive the people who have had their heads frozen and placed in storage, the revivified heads are placed in self-propelled, head-sustaining capsules, and proceed to go for death by each other in the sky of the dead Earth.
Something of the image as metaphor, and for 'trans-humans', not the only one from Interzone in those days, many great stories.
Catastrophe, of course, the original did not have such a bad error:
There has been a nano-catastrophe.
Tired + slight hangover + phone key system = spelling errors.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433950
Cohencidence
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433955
A few more years and sinking the boats will be the standard response. If it is not then society as we know it will be overwhelmed and anarchy will prevail. This will happen much sooner than we think.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1433970
“I think Europeans are christian whether they like it or not because christian ideology formed the basis of European civilisation. That is why there has been a concerted effort to stop anyone who does not go to church every week identifying as christian.”
Forget about not going to church every week, most Europeans never go to church at all period. Most Europeans can not recite a single bible verse or recite all of the ten commandments off the top of their heads without a google search.
Not being a Muslim or a Jew does not automatically make a White person a Christian. Agnosticism and Atheism are not branches of Christianity.
And what about European Gentiles who are Homosexuals, would you call them Christians as well?
Everyone behaves according to social mores that they picked up when they grew up. Where did first and even second generation atheists get their social mores from? The family. The idea that people stop being christian in outlook the moment they stop attending church is part of the grand narrative of 21stc west intended to break up any sense of cohesion that Europeans as an ethnic group have. Semites - Jews and Arabs and by extension Muslims, who are very often from an Arabised population, are 'allowed' to have an over-arching ethny-based religious signifier. Christians are not allowed that, even though christian people still live together in areas where they are as much a community as any Jewish or Muslim community. Plus, double irony, the humanitarianism of christianity is being turned against Europeans as a mandate for accepting millions of non-Europeans into Europe. But, christianity welcomes people into christianity it doesn't welcome other religious groups colonising previously christian territory.
Europeans, as a people, need no qualifying adjectives. Non-European peoples who migrated to, and inter-married in, Europe are the adjective-qualified Europeans.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434002
Are you anti-human? You sound like one.
"In any case whites can have freedom to decide for themselves what their racial policy should be."
Exactly!
"But doesn’t common sense and basic human instinct suggest such a policy should be pro-white and advantageous to whites rather then the reverse?"
No, it's not common sense or basic human instinct, given the fact that definitions of "pro-white" and "anti-white" are utterly meaningless and that whites historically have lived with, married, and pro-created with non-whites.
"Please kindly explain to me how making a white country like Australia LESS WHITE is a good thing for WHITES?"
Ask those whites who look at humanity rather than race.
"Now imagine this. You are a white person living in Australia. YOU MUST CHOOSE; 1,000,000 white immigrants from Europe or 1,000,000 black immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa. Again, YOU MUST CHOOSE one group or the other."
I don't have to choose anything. Your hypothetical is racial masturbatory material. I choose Europeans, and you say "That's what I thought, they are the civilized group". I choose Sub-Saharan African, and you get all girly mad and say "Just what I thought, you're anti-white".
Not playing your sick little game.
Its amazing the mental gymnastics you go through to rationalize your weird and bizarre views sport. I can’t help but notice you never did answer any of my questions either. That is a telling comment right there. I guess being pro-white and being a white person who prefers other whites makes me “anti-human”. Actually it makes me very human. Your pie-in-the-sky- horse manure views on races and immigration have no place in the real world although I suspect you would impose them on other whites if you could. Unless, alternatively you are Jewish and are playing the old pro-diversity, (except in Israel), Jewish game.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434005
Project much?
"No way normal folks should have to put up with them."
You have little clue what is normal.
"Everyone else must be destroyed, displaced, dispossessed."
According to pro-white, or pro-black, or pro-Jew, or...
Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.
What is sad is that your pro-humanity, is actually Anti-white race. If you are a white person who is NOT Jewish that is really pathological. If You are non-white or Jewish then you have a hidden agenda.
"I can’t help but notice you never did answer any of my questions either."
Actually, I did answer your questions.
"I guess being pro-white and being a white person who prefers other whites makes me “anti-human”.
You can't even define clearly what is "pro-white" and "anti-white".
"Your pie-in-the-sky- horse manure views on races and immigration have no place in the real world..."
Tens of millions of whites share my view on race and immigration. What makes YOUR view so damn special that ALL whites must honor it, lest they be labeled "anti-white"? Why do you hate personal liberty?
"Unless, alternatively you are Jewish and are playing the old pro-diversity, (except in Israel), Jewish game."
It's not a Jewish game, it's a European game. Remember, they invaded the world and invited the world. In America, European groups intermarried, which was unheard of in the mother land. If anything, those English who married Germans, or those Irish who married Italians, they are the original "anti-whites".
"What is sad is that your pro-humanity, is actually Anti-white race."
Except you acknowledged that whites have freedom to chose for themselves what non-whites they associate, marry, or procreate with. Are you reniggin'?
"If You are non-white or Jewish then you have a hidden agenda."
The only agenda I have is expose your nonsensical anti-white meme. Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434008
Jews have been expelled for much less from dozens of countries during the last 2000 years. I am sure investigators of Jewish history wonder how it is going to work out this time..
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434066
interesting that this guy (Cohen) is not demanding that Israel open its borders to immigrants of all types, Christians, Muslims Hindus, not just Jews. But that won’t happen will it pal?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434089
Claims made over the years that NewsCorp support conservative positions are belied every day in it's papers' contents.
They support neocon positions, but then there’s nothing remotely conservative about neocons.
Murdoch cares about power and money. Nothing else.
However, he has taken suitable revenge by marrying Jerry Hall (hard to imagine why she is in it, maybe the Dirty Digger really has hidden charms, maybe to spite exes, maybe it is like that horrid Kissinger quote: power is the ultimate aphrodisiac).
Anyway, she is beyond child-bearing age, so it won't further complicate squabbling among his dynastic successors.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434145
That was a nightmare period in Australian history, when we were a happy, prosperous, stable and peaceful society. No sane person would want to return to that.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434149
Almost every word of this down to the and and is utter trash and sick nonsense. Australia is one of the few First World Countries which has an immigration intake to roughly make up for dysgenic breeding by its longer established ethnic groups and the ageing of prosperous populations.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434167
Why doesn’t Israel take them all in? Oh wait I forgot they aren’t Jews… Funny how these Jews like Cohen call for Western nations to destroy themselves with importation of third world savages but hold firm on Israel remaining a Jewish state. F*cking hypocrites.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434170
How many pieces has Roger Cohen written about Israel and Palestinians, immigrants, and/or refugees, especially from Africa? What line does he take? As a sympathetic friend of Israel’s realism I nonetheless wonder about Jewish displacement activity to avoid facing their possible embarrassment over Israeli policy and practice.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434174
Caveat lector. He knows nothing of Australia. It is some sort of irrelevant prejudice which is speaking here.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434178
Abandoning the 'white Australia' policy was the Aussies biggest mistake.
Note how Israel has not abandoned its 'law of return' Jewish only immigration policy.
There was no way the White Australia policy could have been maintained so it wasn’t a mistake. And in fact it has turned out very well in terms of quality (and age) of the population despite some mistakes like letting in a lot of Lebanese (of whom the worst crook is nephew of a Christian priest) in the late 70s. Absent the former slave PoCs and Latino cheap labour Australia does very well.
Listen up, all you who are not Australian. There is absolutely no way an Australian is capable of doing what a Japanese can do without difficulty!
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434181
The elites figured that if they stopped a few hundred illegals on boats Australians would be too stupid to notice a couple of hundred thousand legal immigrants every year. And Australians were indeed that stupid.
Total rubbish. If you are a non Australian reader of this be warned: that is paranoid nonsense.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434188
I expect to see the NY Slimes championing white genocide.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434192
Australia had always been a Zionist Jewish colony. The ships bringing White British convicts to settle in Australia that arrived at Sydney Harbor in 1890s were owned by Rothschild family.
Australian-born media tycoon, Zionist Rupert Murdoch owns 67% of Australian press.
Australian prime minister Malcolm ‘Moishe’ Turnbull is 101% Zionist Jew and a great friend of Israel.
Former Australian foreign minister Robert John (Bob) Carr (born 1947) in book ‘Diary of a Foreign Minister‘ has claimed that Australia’s foreign policy is controlled by pro-Israel Jewish lobby groups.
Bob Carr has produced text messages between him and former prime minister Julia Gillard. “The public has to know how foreign policy gets made, especially when it appears the prime minister is being heavily lobbied by one interest group with a stake in the Middle East (Israel),” said Carr.
Bob Carr also blasted former prime minister and foreign minister, Kevin Rudd, country’s richest politician who is married to a wealthy Jew. Carr calls him a loudmouth who was disliked by foreign policy elites and many in Labor Party.
Carr says he told Julia Gillard to step down from party leadership to save her own reputation.
Carr has described former Israeli ambassador to Australia, Yuval Rotem, as the “cunning Yuval” and Israeli foreign minister Avidgor Lieberman, as “gloomy” and “taciturn” in his book. He has also blasted two Jewish MPs, Mark Dreyfus and Michael Danby, as the “falafel faction”.
https://rehmat1.com/2014/04/13/diary-of-a-fm-jews-control-australia/
You ought to sack a few of the outsourcing lads in Islamabad. It isn’t a good look to have them obviously destroying your Comments’ credibility with so much made up nonsense.The Rothschilds owned the ships bringing in the convicts in the “1890s” (sic) !!! Convicts were transported to Sydney from 1789 to the 1840s. The last transportation to any Australian colony occurred about 1860. And if the Rothschilds did own the 1790s transports – so what? Really, what would follow from that?
As for Malcolm Turnbull being Jewish! Absolute rubbish.
What is to be gained by the pollution of the UR comments under the thoroughly disgraced name of Rehmat?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434196
“And now, O ye Cohens, this commandment is for you.
Behold, I will corrupt your seed and spread dung on your faces.”
Malachi 2:1,3 (Holy Bible, King James Version, save non-translated “priests” = cohens)
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434235
It isn’t white genocide. It’s white suicide. We have no-one to blame but ourselves.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434238
[There was no way the White Australia policy could have been maintained]
Listen up, all you who are not Australian. There is absolutely no way an Australian is capable of doing what a Japanese can do without difficulty!
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434288
I don’t know why you capitalise homosexuals.
Everyone behaves according to social mores that they picked up when they grew up. Where did first and even second generation atheists get their social mores from? The family. The idea that people stop being christian in outlook the moment they stop attending church is part of the grand narrative of 21stc west intended to break up any sense of cohesion that Europeans as an ethnic group have. Semites – Jews and Arabs and by extension Muslims, who are very often from an Arabised population, are ‘allowed’ to have an over-arching ethny-based religious signifier. Christians are not allowed that, even though christian people still live together in areas where they are as much a community as any Jewish or Muslim community. Plus, double irony, the humanitarianism of christianity is being turned against Europeans as a mandate for accepting millions of non-Europeans into Europe. But, christianity welcomes people into christianity it doesn’t welcome other religious groups colonising previously christian territory.
Europeans, as a people, need no qualifying adjectives. Non-European peoples who migrated to, and inter-married in, Europe are the adjective-qualified Europeans.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434291
The elites figured that if they stopped a few hundred illegals on boats Australians would be too stupid to notice a couple of hundred thousand legal immigrants every year. And Australians were indeed that stupid.
It is always good to argue from a factual base. Here is a Wikipedia page that I believe is largely correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Australia
You can also check out this Australian government site:
https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/migration-trends13-14-glance.pdf
As it shows, if you exclude South Africa – where I suspect that the numbers are largely made up of white people leaving SA when ANC took power – none of the above areas figure in the supplied list of countries of significant migration to Australia. The highest on the list is Iraq with around 40,000. That is, 1 in 600 of the Australian population. Egypt and Turkey supply slightly lower numbers, and Iran about 25,000. No country in South America, or Africa with the exception of SA figures in the list.
One might argue that this is historical, and that current migration is different but once again the facts do not bear it out. The top countries supplying migrants to Australia are India, China, UK, Philippines, and Pakistan. Australia is, in my view (and I live in one of the leafy suburbs of Melbourne), well on the way to becoming an (South and East) Asian country, not one largely populated by people from any of those areas named above. Incidentally, it is noteworthy that Pakistan is the only significantly Muslim country in the list.
Australia’s migration priorities are based on two major factors: skills and family connections.
Australia has taken around 13000 refugees per year until recently when that number has increased to around 20000. Additionally, Australia has recently taken a few (<1000 per year) Chinese immigrants with "millionaire visas".
As to asylum seekers, the Red Cross site provides a statement of the facts.
http://www.redcross.org.au/asylum-seekers-refugees-facts.aspx
The number of asylum seekers (by boat or air) is and always was small, and relatively few come from South America, the Middle East (except Iran where the education level is on the whole pretty high – coming ahead of China, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Macedonia, Serbia, for instance), or Africa.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434357
Far far more non-Muslims migrate to Australia than Muslims. India, China, UK, and Philippines are our major sources of migration. Please stick to the facts! Muslims form 2.2% of the Australian population and, incidentally, Muslims have lived peacefully in Australia since the 1860s.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434366
Shortage of farm workers in Australia? Many farms could not afford to employ such and instead the wife and children lend a hand. As for Dairy Farmers they have almost gone into oblivion. The supermarkets, e.g. Coles, Woolworths, have become the centers for sale of milk and they manage to obtain what they require at such a cheap rate that it put Dairy Farmers by the score out of farming. Droughts are causing a large spate of suicides by farmers. No food for the cattle or sheep. The superabundance of kangaroos is o help as they are grass and green eating animals.
As for the White Australia Policy, it was necessary as for one thing thousands of illegal Chiese were raking in the gold – for the Hong Kong Triads. At least one place had 10,000 illegals for ten years, mining by pick and shovel, most of the gold there, taking it to Cooktown to hand over to the Hong Kong Triad. So history says, many were cannibalized by certain Aboriginal tribes.
Most of the gold taken out of Mt. Morgan, full of the yellow fortune, was used by the British to found British Petroleum.
Today Rothschild has connections with Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, owns the Reserve Bank of Australia.
As for Malcolm Turnbull, P.M., the record shows he worked for Goldman Sachs, is a share-holder and indeed is of Jewish descent, married to a Roman Catholic, a favorite Jewish practice.
Yes, the ‘Illuminati’ has Australia in its clutches, in some form or other.
But then he spoils it with nonsense. I know Malcolm Turnbull and his wife's sort of Catholic family and I believe Malcolm when he said thatt his imaginative mother told him she had some Jewish ancestry but that he doesn't know or care if it's true. (He was brought up a nominal Presbyterian who married his Catholic wife in an Anglican church. Make of those actual facts what you will, together with his now being nominslly Catholic who dissgrees with the Vatican line on IVF, embryo experimentation etc). The commenter might have tried making something out of PM Malcolm Fraser's mother having been Una Wolff but that Malcolm became a strong critic of Israeli lobbying through Jewish communities. Facts can be difficult to make sense of can't they?
Other nonsense includes Rothschild "ownership" of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Not just rubbish as fact but showing complete ignorance of the legal constitution of the RBA. And Malcolm Turnbull does not own shares in Goldman Sachs fwiw.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434382
Listen up, all you who are not Australian. There is absolutely no way an Australian is capable of doing what a Japanese can do without difficulty!
Very cute! Crediting you with something gnomic which was worth unravelling I would reply that, amongst modern civilised countries [I'm not even looking at Africa] Japan and Australia would be close to opposite ends of a spectrum of many socio- political characteristics and traditions and Japan (“a Japanese”) maintains many of the good (especially) characteristics or at least strains and traits of its ancient isolated (from the West and indeed Eurasia) pre Meiji Revolution society. That my grand nephews and nieces have excellent manners as well as all winning scholarships I attrubute in part to their charming Japanese grandparents though they see them for only a few weeks a year. I haven’t time to elaborate but I predict that the two very – extremely- different prosperous countries will, in 50 years time, prove to be two of the greatest medium to large size survivors of meretricious democracy and the other forms of viable though imperfect forms of government (the Chinese models in particular, and also the sclerotic bureaucracy of the EU).
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434440
As for the White Australia Policy, it was necessary as for one thing thousands of illegal Chiese were raking in the gold - for the Hong Kong Triads. At least one place had 10,000 illegals for ten years, mining by pick and shovel, most of the gold there, taking it to Cooktown to hand over to the Hong Kong Triad. So history says, many were cannibalized by certain Aboriginal tribes.
Most of the gold taken out of Mt. Morgan, full of the yellow fortune, was used by the British to found British Petroleum.
Today Rothschild has connections with Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, owns the Reserve Bank of Australia.
As for Malcolm Turnbull, P.M., the record shows he worked for Goldman Sachs, is a share-holder and indeed is of Jewish descent, married to a Roman Catholic, a favorite Jewish practice.
Yes, the 'Illuminati' has Australia in its clutches, in some form or other.
This commenter knows something about Australia – or maybe has just picked up some stuff on the www.
But then he spoils it with nonsense. I know Malcolm Turnbull and his wife’s sort of Catholic family and I believe Malcolm when he said thatt his imaginative mother told him she had some Jewish ancestry but that he doesn’t know or care if it’s true. (He was brought up a nominal Presbyterian who married his Catholic wife in an Anglican church. Make of those actual facts what you will, together with his now being nominslly Catholic who dissgrees with the Vatican line on IVF, embryo experimentation etc). The commenter might have tried making something out of PM Malcolm Fraser’s mother having been Una Wolff but that Malcolm became a strong critic of Israeli lobbying through Jewish communities. Facts can be difficult to make sense of can’t they?
Other nonsense includes Rothschild “ownership” of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Not just rubbish as fact but showing complete ignorance of the legal constitution of the RBA. And Malcolm Turnbull does not own shares in Goldman Sachs fwiw.
Mr Derbyshire _ whom I otherwise enjoy reading -occasionally riffs on matters Australian and is very blinkered in his views . I don't think he's been anywhere near the place but has firm views probably based on Australians he may have met in Asia ( Thailand ? )and ( with the possible exception of the late Peter Dawson ) cares little for the nationality .
To be fair he regularly admits to having the as the predictable English viewpoint on various disreputable groups such as Irish and Roman Catholics and Johnny Foreigner in general which are typical of his age and class background
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434445
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Australia
You can also check out this Australian government site:
https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/migration-trends13-14-glance.pdf
As it shows, if you exclude South Africa - where I suspect that the numbers are largely made up of white people leaving SA when ANC took power - none of the above areas figure in the supplied list of countries of significant migration to Australia. The highest on the list is Iraq with around 40,000. That is, 1 in 600 of the Australian population. Egypt and Turkey supply slightly lower numbers, and Iran about 25,000. No country in South America, or Africa with the exception of SA figures in the list.
One might argue that this is historical, and that current migration is different but once again the facts do not bear it out. The top countries supplying migrants to Australia are India, China, UK, Philippines, and Pakistan. Australia is, in my view (and I live in one of the leafy suburbs of Melbourne), well on the way to becoming an (South and East) Asian country, not one largely populated by people from any of those areas named above. Incidentally, it is noteworthy that Pakistan is the only significantly Muslim country in the list.
Australia's migration priorities are based on two major factors: skills and family connections.
Australia has taken around 13000 refugees per year until recently when that number has increased to around 20000. Additionally, Australia has recently taken a few (<1000 per year) Chinese immigrants with "millionaire visas".
As to asylum seekers, the Red Cross site provides a statement of the facts.
http://www.redcross.org.au/asylum-seekers-refugees-facts.aspx
The number of asylum seekers (by boat or air) is and always was small, and relatively few come from South America, the Middle East (except Iran where the education level is on the whole pretty high - coming ahead of China, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Macedonia, Serbia, for instance), or Africa.
I take issue only with your statement that Australia is well on its way to becoming an Asian country, partly because that is almost meaningless in the context of what Australia already is, as changed by small numbers of generally modern quite well educated immigrants from very different Asian sources most of whom are coming to Australia for something their home countries don’t afford them.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434454
Murdoch cares about power and money. Nothing else.
He did seem to care a little about being cuckolded by Anthony Blair over Wendy Dung.
However, he has taken suitable revenge by marrying Jerry Hall (hard to imagine why she is in it, maybe the Dirty Digger really has hidden charms, maybe to spite exes, maybe it is like that horrid Kissinger quote: power is the ultimate aphrodisiac).
Anyway, she is beyond child-bearing age, so it won’t further complicate squabbling among his dynastic successors.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434483
You stated that whites have liberty to choose what is their racial policy. You recognized this “bizarre view”, which in reality is normal.
“I can’t help but notice you never did answer any of my questions either.”
Actually, I did answer your questions.
“I guess being pro-white and being a white person who prefers other whites makes me “anti-human”.
You can’t even define clearly what is “pro-white” and “anti-white”.
“Your pie-in-the-sky- horse manure views on races and immigration have no place in the real world…”
Tens of millions of whites share my view on race and immigration. What makes YOUR view so damn special that ALL whites must honor it, lest they be labeled “anti-white”? Why do you hate personal liberty?
“Unless, alternatively you are Jewish and are playing the old pro-diversity, (except in Israel), Jewish game.”
It’s not a Jewish game, it’s a European game. Remember, they invaded the world and invited the world. In America, European groups intermarried, which was unheard of in the mother land. If anything, those English who married Germans, or those Irish who married Italians, they are the original “anti-whites”.
“What is sad is that your pro-humanity, is actually Anti-white race.”
Except you acknowledged that whites have freedom to chose for themselves what non-whites they associate, marry, or procreate with. Are you reniggin’?
“If You are non-white or Jewish then you have a hidden agenda.”
The only agenda I have is expose your nonsensical anti-white meme. Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434670
“How can I love or hate an imaginary entity? I am atheist.”
It figures.
“My people are those who share the most genes with me, and who share the most of my culture. My cousin over my compatriots, my compatriots over other Slavs, other Slavs over other Europeans, other Europeans over the rest of humanity, rest of humanity over non-humans if they exist.”
That is YOUR personal preference. Must all whites adhere to it, or do they have the liberty to choose for themselves what is their position on racial and ethnic matters?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434674
However, he has taken suitable revenge by marrying Jerry Hall (hard to imagine why she is in it, maybe the Dirty Digger really has hidden charms, maybe to spite exes, maybe it is like that horrid Kissinger quote: power is the ultimate aphrodisiac).
Anyway, she is beyond child-bearing age, so it won't further complicate squabbling among his dynastic successors.
Yes, Ruperteau has finally found someone that not even a turkey baster can fecundate.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434729
How dare the useless NY Times make comment on something they know NOTHING about! And by the way, what a dumb, crooked-speak, lying newsrag!
Remember also what the super-A-hole, Rupert Murdoch, said at the airport; “You cannot run the world from Australia”.
Yeah Rupert, stay the hell away from here. We can’t stand TURNCOATS.
It’s bad enough we have a Goldman Sachs PM, but you? Holy dooley!
The Yanks may like you and the other TURNCOATS, but we who you left behind, say, “TO HELL WITH YOU RUPERT, and TO HELL WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES, that icon of Mammon, and the whores of America who work for you!
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1434917
But then he spoils it with nonsense. I know Malcolm Turnbull and his wife's sort of Catholic family and I believe Malcolm when he said thatt his imaginative mother told him she had some Jewish ancestry but that he doesn't know or care if it's true. (He was brought up a nominal Presbyterian who married his Catholic wife in an Anglican church. Make of those actual facts what you will, together with his now being nominslly Catholic who dissgrees with the Vatican line on IVF, embryo experimentation etc). The commenter might have tried making something out of PM Malcolm Fraser's mother having been Una Wolff but that Malcolm became a strong critic of Israeli lobbying through Jewish communities. Facts can be difficult to make sense of can't they?
Other nonsense includes Rothschild "ownership" of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Not just rubbish as fact but showing complete ignorance of the legal constitution of the RBA. And Malcolm Turnbull does not own shares in Goldman Sachs fwiw.
Spot on .
Mr Derbyshire _ whom I otherwise enjoy reading -occasionally riffs on matters Australian and is very blinkered in his views . I don’t think he’s been anywhere near the place but has firm views probably based on Australians he may have met in Asia ( Thailand ? )and ( with the possible exception of the late Peter Dawson ) cares little for the nationality .
To be fair he regularly admits to having the as the predictable English viewpoint on various disreputable groups such as Irish and Roman Catholics and Johnny Foreigner in general which are typical of his age and class background
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1435018
It figures.
"My people are those who share the most genes with me, and who share the most of my culture. My cousin over my compatriots, my compatriots over other Slavs, other Slavs over other Europeans, other Europeans over the rest of humanity, rest of humanity over non-humans if they exist."
That is YOUR personal preference. Must all whites adhere to it, or do they have the liberty to choose for themselves what is their position on racial and ethnic matters?
When speaking in abstraction, yes, they should have the liberty to choose for themselves. In practice, however, no. Below is my explanation, starting from the least to the most important points.
You see, when I am stating my position on racial and ethnic matters, I am constantly being called a “racist” because of my stated preferences. Why then I should give someone the “liberty to chose” when I am denied the same liberty?
The second point is that if someone’s position is “we should bring as many Arabs and Africans to Poland in order to increase diversity” then this position is directly in conflict with my stated preference of living in homogenous Poland, where Arabs and Africans may be just tiny, insignificant minority.
The third point is that, of course, morality is irrational and I have no free will to choose what morality feels “right” (to choose what actions feel “moral”). Though in abstraction I understand that this morality is arbitrary and others may have other different morality, this does not matter. I feel that my position is moral and the “other” position is immoral, just as I feel that my position on sex with underage girls (i.e. no to sex) is moral and paedophile’s position is immoral. No rational argument may change it; since morality is irrational, there is no real rational reason to demand that I should respect other moralities and positions which I find abhorrent.
The position that “I feel no particular connection to whites” state by white person is immoral in my view, period.
In abstraction and in practice, yes. People can choose to exercise their liberty in a society, realizing that other people’s individual liberties may be affected in a positive or negative way. Thus, citizens of a society have willingly chosen to lawfully forgo unfettered liberty for the benefit of the group. In this manner, individual liberties and group liberties are delineated. That’s how society works.
You still maintain your personal liberty to decide for yourself whether or not to follow the rules or laws. There is always “coercion” in a society. That is a feature, not a bug. No one has unfettered liberty in a society; rather, they have personal liberty. Feel free to continue exercising your personal liberty and find like minded people to exercise your group liberty to try to change things.
“Why then I should give someone the “liberty to chose” when I am denied the same liberty?” You do have the personal liberty to chose. You can choose to live where you want free from non-whites. You can choose not to interact with non-whites. You can choose to call non-whites names.
“The second point is that if someone’s position is “we should bring as many Arabs and Africans to Poland in order to increase diversity” then this position is directly in conflict with my stated preference of living in homogenous Poland, where Arabs and Africans may be just tiny, insignificant minority.”
There will always be competing, individual preferences in a majority-rules society. There is always “coercion” in a society.
“The third point is that, of course, morality is irrational and I have no free will to choose what morality feels “right” (to choose what actions feel “moral”).”
Morality is decidedly NOT irrational. It has been well-established throughout the centuries by human beings, either by codified laws or be religious edicts. Moreover, you have the individual free will to chose what is and what is not immoral. You have the individual free will to chose to join groups to push for rules and laws that ultimately decide what is and what is not normal. That is how society works.
“I feel that my position is moral and the “other” position is immoral, just as I feel that my position on sex with underage girls (i.e. no to sex) is moral and paedophile’s position is immoral.”
Again, because we live in a society where morality is both a personal decision and a group decision, sometimes our personal liberty will be suppressed. It does not mean, however, one cannot exercise that personal liberty. We realize there will be positive or negative consequences. That is how society works.
“No rational argument may change it; since morality is irrational, there is no real rational reason to demand that I should respect other moralities and positions which I find abhorrent.” See, you are exercising your personal liberty! You do not have to respect those individual preferences. But, since you live in a society where rules and laws are made, your personal liberty may find itself in direct conflict with those expectations. You then have a decision to make, work to change those laws with other people who share your individual preferences, or work to change your own individual preferences. That’s what liberty is all about!
“The position that “I feel no particular connection to whites” state by white person is immoral in my view, period.”
See, you are exercising your personal liberty! Except, I did not take this position.
Let us assume that YOUR stated preferences became law. What about the liberty of those individuals who oppose those stated preferences? Would they not be in the same position as you are in now by claiming their individual liberty was being suppressed? What advice would give to them? Must all whites thus adhere to your stated preferences? What would YOU do in this situation?
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1435068
White Australia is being ethnically cleansed in the manner similar to that which has degraded and destroyed the UK. The venal and mendacious governments from Left to Right and back again are naught but the ethnocidal whores of the anti-White parasitic (((Tribe))) that are so keenly waging their war on White Australians while fondling their own inbred fantasies of a greater, racially pure jewish ethnostate. The keen reader will obtain much wisdom from a careful reading of Brenton Sanderson’s series of definitive essays on the Jewish War on White Australia published in the Occidental Observer. has also referenced these articles in this thread.
The yuan-denominated genocide of White Australians is a matter of record. While acting as an oversized aircraft carrier for the suicidal U.S. empire, Australia has entered its terminal social and cultural phase with the forcibly introduced ‘culture’ of Hollywoodian psychopathologies. Australian womanhood once the pioneers and shieldmaidens of Western Civilization in that Great Southern Land are reduced to a mongrelizing, whining, faux-Amerikan slut-fest with a Princess-complex out of proportion to their negligible, odious and uncultivated persons.
The most recent generation of men are largely devoid of classical manly virtues. The Australian ethos of nation-builders, warriors, scientists and keen sportsmanship is well nigh extinct. Pierced, tattooed, hairy-faced and with the simian mannerisms of their ‘groid pop idols they lurch from loud nasally vocal outbursts of MSM-Amerikanese to fervent outlays of personal debt as a sign of incipient ‘manhood’. Always arriving but never quite getting there…
White Australia is being killed, pushed up and over the ethnocidal precipice by manufactured fiscal crises and deliberately planned and executed White Genocide. Australians are being replaced with the filth of this planet and the hapless populace does not even have the arms to lawfully defend themselves.
So extreme is this degradation of White Australians own survival that there is not even the merest hint of an attempt to stem their own genocide by establishing a White-only in another part of the continent. No echoes of Mr Harold Covington downunder. Alas.
None dare call it conspiracy even as the disobliging chorus of (((MSM))) imbecility strives to wipe out dissent.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1435224
“When speaking in abstraction, yes, they should have the liberty to choose for themselves. In practice, however, no.”
In abstraction and in practice, yes. People can choose to exercise their liberty in a society, realizing that other people’s individual liberties may be affected in a positive or negative way. Thus, citizens of a society have willingly chosen to lawfully forgo unfettered liberty for the benefit of the group. In this manner, individual liberties and group liberties are delineated. That’s how society works.
You still maintain your personal liberty to decide for yourself whether or not to follow the rules or laws. There is always “coercion” in a society. That is a feature, not a bug. No one has unfettered liberty in a society; rather, they have personal liberty. Feel free to continue exercising your personal liberty and find like minded people to exercise your group liberty to try to change things.
“Why then I should give someone the “liberty to chose” when I am denied the same liberty?” You do have the personal liberty to chose. You can choose to live where you want free from non-whites. You can choose not to interact with non-whites. You can choose to call non-whites names.
“The second point is that if someone’s position is “we should bring as many Arabs and Africans to Poland in order to increase diversity” then this position is directly in conflict with my stated preference of living in homogenous Poland, where Arabs and Africans may be just tiny, insignificant minority.”
There will always be competing, individual preferences in a majority-rules society. There is always “coercion” in a society.
“The third point is that, of course, morality is irrational and I have no free will to choose what morality feels “right” (to choose what actions feel “moral”).”
Morality is decidedly NOT irrational. It has been well-established throughout the centuries by human beings, either by codified laws or be religious edicts. Moreover, you have the individual free will to chose what is and what is not immoral. You have the individual free will to chose to join groups to push for rules and laws that ultimately decide what is and what is not normal. That is how society works.
“I feel that my position is moral and the “other” position is immoral, just as I feel that my position on sex with underage girls (i.e. no to sex) is moral and paedophile’s position is immoral.”
Again, because we live in a society where morality is both a personal decision and a group decision, sometimes our personal liberty will be suppressed. It does not mean, however, one cannot exercise that personal liberty. We realize there will be positive or negative consequences. That is how society works.
“No rational argument may change it; since morality is irrational, there is no real rational reason to demand that I should respect other moralities and positions which I find abhorrent.” See, you are exercising your personal liberty! You do not have to respect those individual preferences. But, since you live in a society where rules and laws are made, your personal liberty may find itself in direct conflict with those expectations. You then have a decision to make, work to change those laws with other people who share your individual preferences, or work to change your own individual preferences. That’s what liberty is all about!
“The position that “I feel no particular connection to whites” state by white person is immoral in my view, period.”
See, you are exercising your personal liberty! Except, I did not take this position.
Let us assume that YOUR stated preferences became law. What about the liberty of those individuals who oppose those stated preferences? Would they not be in the same position as you are in now by claiming their individual liberty was being suppressed? What advice would give to them? Must all whites thus adhere to your stated preferences? What would YOU do in this situation?
For example, you cannot say "if you kill other people, they may kill you", because there is no logical connection between "I kill other people, therefore they can kill me" (or, in fact, there is nothing logical in wishing own survival, we are just born this way that we want to preserve ourselves).
You cannot say "if people can kill others, society would not work", because why I should care about society?
In that sense morality is not rational. If by rational you mean "it is rational because this kind of morality best suits large societies and that;s why it evolved", then OK, though I disagree with using "rational" in that sense (because then you would argue "it is rational than people have hair and five fingers"). If by rational you mean "it is rational because it is traditional", OK, but again I disagree with using "rational" in that way (because you could then argue "it is rational that clap our hands to show approval).That's what i meant by saying "in theory I agree other have this liberty, but in practice I want to limit this liberty".Modified your quote by adding (A), (B) and so on
Imagine that my stated preference is, instead of preference of living in majority-white country, a preference for abolishion of slavery. Therefore (B) is irrevelant; I find this other people's preferences (to have slaves) as immoral, and therefore I'd find it a moral imperative to deprive them of their "liberty" to do immoral things. As for (C) , in abstract way yes, but that does not change a thing from my point of view. As for (D), my advice would be change your preferences to suit mine.
Going back to actual preference "living in majority-white Polish country" note that I can give other advice (D) move to other countries, while their advice (move to country majority-white Polish ) is impossible, because there is only one Polish-majority country in the world.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1435375
In abstraction and in practice, yes. People can choose to exercise their liberty in a society, realizing that other people’s individual liberties may be affected in a positive or negative way. Thus, citizens of a society have willingly chosen to lawfully forgo unfettered liberty for the benefit of the group. In this manner, individual liberties and group liberties are delineated. That’s how society works.
You still maintain your personal liberty to decide for yourself whether or not to follow the rules or laws. There is always “coercion” in a society. That is a feature, not a bug. No one has unfettered liberty in a society; rather, they have personal liberty. Feel free to continue exercising your personal liberty and find like minded people to exercise your group liberty to try to change things.
“Why then I should give someone the “liberty to chose” when I am denied the same liberty?” You do have the personal liberty to chose. You can choose to live where you want free from non-whites. You can choose not to interact with non-whites. You can choose to call non-whites names.
“The second point is that if someone’s position is “we should bring as many Arabs and Africans to Poland in order to increase diversity” then this position is directly in conflict with my stated preference of living in homogenous Poland, where Arabs and Africans may be just tiny, insignificant minority.”
There will always be competing, individual preferences in a majority-rules society. There is always “coercion” in a society.
“The third point is that, of course, morality is irrational and I have no free will to choose what morality feels “right” (to choose what actions feel “moral”).”
Morality is decidedly NOT irrational. It has been well-established throughout the centuries by human beings, either by codified laws or be religious edicts. Moreover, you have the individual free will to chose what is and what is not immoral. You have the individual free will to chose to join groups to push for rules and laws that ultimately decide what is and what is not normal. That is how society works.
“I feel that my position is moral and the “other” position is immoral, just as I feel that my position on sex with underage girls (i.e. no to sex) is moral and paedophile’s position is immoral.”
Again, because we live in a society where morality is both a personal decision and a group decision, sometimes our personal liberty will be suppressed. It does not mean, however, one cannot exercise that personal liberty. We realize there will be positive or negative consequences. That is how society works.
“No rational argument may change it; since morality is irrational, there is no real rational reason to demand that I should respect other moralities and positions which I find abhorrent.” See, you are exercising your personal liberty! You do not have to respect those individual preferences. But, since you live in a society where rules and laws are made, your personal liberty may find itself in direct conflict with those expectations. You then have a decision to make, work to change those laws with other people who share your individual preferences, or work to change your own individual preferences. That’s what liberty is all about!
“The position that “I feel no particular connection to whites” state by white person is immoral in my view, period.”
See, you are exercising your personal liberty! Except, I did not take this position.
Let us assume that YOUR stated preferences became law. What about the liberty of those individuals who oppose those stated preferences? Would they not be in the same position as you are in now by claiming their individual liberty was being suppressed? What advice would give to them? Must all whites thus adhere to your stated preferences? What would YOU do in this situation?
Hey, are you trying to say “of course you have right to choose raping underage girls, but you must realize this will affect this girl individual liberty?”
Except that if other people have position “bring more Africans to Poland” then my choice becomes severely limited. Therefore, my position is that I prefer to limit their choice, because I value more my position than theirs (because i consider their position immoral.
It is definetely not rational. You cannot deduce morality from law of physics; morality is what you feel, you just need to have inborn assumptions what is wrong and right. Try to convince me, using only logic, that killing other people is wrong.
For example, you cannot say “if you kill other people, they may kill you”, because there is no logical connection between “I kill other people, therefore they can kill me” (or, in fact, there is nothing logical in wishing own survival, we are just born this way that we want to preserve ourselves).
You cannot say “if people can kill others, society would not work”, because why I should care about society?
In that sense morality is not rational. If by rational you mean “it is rational because this kind of morality best suits large societies and that;s why it evolved”, then OK, though I disagree with using “rational” in that sense (because then you would argue “it is rational than people have hair and five fingers”). If by rational you mean “it is rational because it is traditional”, OK, but again I disagree with using “rational” in that way (because you could then argue “it is rational that clap our hands to show approval).
That’s what i meant by saying “in theory I agree other have this liberty, but in practice I want to limit this liberty”.
Modified your quote by adding (A), (B) and so on
Imagine that my stated preference is, instead of preference of living in majority-white country, a preference for abolishion of slavery. Therefore (B) is irrevelant; I find this other people’s preferences (to have slaves) as immoral, and therefore I’d find it a moral imperative to deprive them of their “liberty” to do immoral things. As for (C) , in abstract way yes, but that does not change a thing from my point of view. As for (D), my advice would be change your preferences to suit mine.
Going back to actual preference “living in majority-white Polish country” note that I can give other advice (D) move to other countries, while their advice (move to country majority-white Polish ) is impossible, because there is only one Polish-majority country in the world.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1435408
“Hey, are you trying to say “of course you have right to choose raping underage girls, but you must realize this will affect this girl individual liberty?”
No, I was not saying this. You know better than that. Those who believe they have the personal liberty to engage in such heinous actions will find themselves prosecuted before the fullest extent of the law.
“Except that if other people have position “bring more Africans to Poland” then my choice becomes severely limited.”
Yes.
“Therefore, my position is that I prefer to limit their choice, because I value more my position than theirs (because i consider their position immoral.”
Then, as I suggested, find like-minded people who will work to make your preference a reality.
“It is definetely not rational. You cannot deduce morality from law of physics; morality is what you feel, you just need to have inborn assumptions what is wrong and right. Try to convince me, using only logic, that killing other people is wrong.”
Morality is what individuals have derived from the rules of a society, which may be based on religious and/or secular principles.
“For example, you cannot say “if you kill other people, they may kill you”…”
Actually, a society may mandate this action. A person who commits murder may be put to death based on the severity of their conduct.
“You cannot say “if people can kill others, society would not work”, because why I should care about society?”
Don’t care about society, that is your personal liberty. Except that line of thinking is unrealistic. Society would be brutal and harsh and chaotic if its members enabled everyone to have unfettered liberty. Liberty means you have the right to live your life in a manner prescribed by the liberty of other people living in that society through rules and laws. That is how society works.
“In that sense morality is not rational. If by rational you mean “it is rational because this kind of morality best suits large societies and that;s why it evolved”, then OK, though I disagree with using “rational” in that sense (because then you would argue “it is rational than people have hair and five fingers”). If by rational you mean “it is rational because it is traditional”, OK, but again I disagree with using “rational” in that way (because you could then argue “it is rational that clap our hands to show approval).”
You can disagree all you want. Morality is shaped by the citizens of a defined area. It has always been that way. People’s personal preferences are limited.
“As for (D), my advice would be change your preferences to suit mine.”
You have the personal liberty to make that request. But in a society, the personal liberties of all citizens are decided by its members. If you prefer that Poland by majority-white, work toward that end. Your fellow countrymen and countrywomen may feel differently, which is their personal liberty.
I said that i agree in abstract sense that people should have liberties, however in practice I am against liberties which conflict with my own (i.e. I will act to limit their liberties).
You first stated that I am wrong, because other people both should have liberties in abstract sense and in practice, and now you are advising me to work against liberties which conflict with my own (i.e. you said that in practice I am right to say that in practice I should be against other people liberties w.r.t. mass immigration). So what is your position after all? That I should work for limiting other people's liberties, or not, because first you stated NO (i.e. you stated that in practice I should allow other people also should have rights to have views and act on them even though they conflict with mine) and then you say YES (i.e. you stated that I should have worked to limit other liberties, that is: I should be in practice against their liberties).
Then you proceed to say that morality is rational because it is based on society rules (i.e. you mean that it is society which determines what is rational and what is not), and I should work toward changing society rules toward my own personal preferences, which means that ultimately you think rationality of morality depends on subjective preferences, i.e. is irrational and subjective.
It seems to me you do not really understand what "rational" means. You confuse different issues: e.g. whether morality can be reasoned and is rational, or is it subjective? It seems to me that you also confuse behaviour (what i do) , morality (what I think is moral to do) and rules (what society made legal). YOu seem to think that "logic" means "what people think".
Especially I find amusing that I say "prove logically that action X is moral" and you say "society may mandate X". What it has to do with anything? Society may mandate that everyone should wear only underwear in public. Does that means wearing underwear is moral? Society may mandate slavery. Does that mean that you would argue "because society mandates slavery, it means slavery is moral"?
"Moral" is about how you are judging other people's actions. It is not about laws of society, because otherwise you would be unable to argue "this law is immoral and I have to change it". It is not about customs, it is not about liberty.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1435739
Mr Derbyshire _ whom I otherwise enjoy reading -occasionally riffs on matters Australian and is very blinkered in his views . I don't think he's been anywhere near the place but has firm views probably based on Australians he may have met in Asia ( Thailand ? )and ( with the possible exception of the late Peter Dawson ) cares little for the nationality .
To be fair he regularly admits to having the as the predictable English viewpoint on various disreputable groups such as Irish and Roman Catholics and Johnny Foreigner in general which are typical of his age and class background
I’m a bit sorry to have given occasion in replying to a commenter’s rubbish for a (mild) criticism of JD, whom I like. I know he has taken the trouble in the past to check his Australian facts with me because, as you say, his personal knowledge is not great snd his (sympathetic) interest intermittent. I think he shares an Anglo-Australian (not least Midlands and latterly Irish) delight in the irreverence of Barry Humphreys, Clive James …. but quaere Germaine Greer as a bit perversely over the top.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1435743
No, I was not saying this. You know better than that. Those who believe they have the personal liberty to engage in such heinous actions will find themselves prosecuted before the fullest extent of the law.
“Except that if other people have position “bring more Africans to Poland” then my choice becomes severely limited.”
Yes.
“Therefore, my position is that I prefer to limit their choice, because I value more my position than theirs (because i consider their position immoral.”
Then, as I suggested, find like-minded people who will work to make your preference a reality.
“It is definetely not rational. You cannot deduce morality from law of physics; morality is what you feel, you just need to have inborn assumptions what is wrong and right. Try to convince me, using only logic, that killing other people is wrong.”
Morality is what individuals have derived from the rules of a society, which may be based on religious and/or secular principles.
“For example, you cannot say “if you kill other people, they may kill you”...”
Actually, a society may mandate this action. A person who commits murder may be put to death based on the severity of their conduct.
“You cannot say “if people can kill others, society would not work”, because why I should care about society?”
Don’t care about society, that is your personal liberty. Except that line of thinking is unrealistic. Society would be brutal and harsh and chaotic if its members enabled everyone to have unfettered liberty. Liberty means you have the right to live your life in a manner prescribed by the liberty of other people living in that society through rules and laws. That is how society works.
“In that sense morality is not rational. If by rational you mean “it is rational because this kind of morality best suits large societies and that;s why it evolved”, then OK, though I disagree with using “rational” in that sense (because then you would argue “it is rational than people have hair and five fingers”). If by rational you mean “it is rational because it is traditional”, OK, but again I disagree with using “rational” in that way (because you could then argue “it is rational that clap our hands to show approval).”
You can disagree all you want. Morality is shaped by the citizens of a defined area. It has always been that way. People’s personal preferences are limited.
“As for (D), my advice would be change your preferences to suit mine.”
You have the personal liberty to make that request. But in a society, the personal liberties of all citizens are decided by its members. If you prefer that Poland by majority-white, work toward that end. Your fellow countrymen and countrywomen may feel differently, which is their personal liberty.
Frankly, I feel like we are talking past each other.
I said that i agree in abstract sense that people should have liberties, however in practice I am against liberties which conflict with my own (i.e. I will act to limit their liberties).
You first stated that I am wrong, because other people both should have liberties in abstract sense and in practice, and now you are advising me to work against liberties which conflict with my own (i.e. you said that in practice I am right to say that in practice I should be against other people liberties w.r.t. mass immigration). So what is your position after all? That I should work for limiting other people’s liberties, or not, because first you stated NO (i.e. you stated that in practice I should allow other people also should have rights to have views and act on them even though they conflict with mine) and then you say YES (i.e. you stated that I should have worked to limit other liberties, that is: I should be in practice against their liberties).
Then you proceed to say that morality is rational because it is based on society rules (i.e. you mean that it is society which determines what is rational and what is not), and I should work toward changing society rules toward my own personal preferences, which means that ultimately you think rationality of morality depends on subjective preferences, i.e. is irrational and subjective.
It seems to me you do not really understand what “rational” means. You confuse different issues: e.g. whether morality can be reasoned and is rational, or is it subjective? It seems to me that you also confuse behaviour (what i do) , morality (what I think is moral to do) and rules (what society made legal). YOu seem to think that “logic” means “what people think”.
Especially I find amusing that I say “prove logically that action X is moral” and you say “society may mandate X”. What it has to do with anything? Society may mandate that everyone should wear only underwear in public. Does that means wearing underwear is moral? Society may mandate slavery. Does that mean that you would argue “because society mandates slavery, it means slavery is moral”?
“Moral” is about how you are judging other people’s actions. It is not about laws of society, because otherwise you would be unable to argue “this law is immoral and I have to change it”. It is not about customs, it is not about liberty.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1436087
“I said that i agree in abstract sense that people should have liberties, however in practice I am against liberties which conflict with my own (i.e. I will act to limit their liberties).”
And there are people who are against liberties which conflict with their own. Thus, in a society, there is a process by which those liberties are ultimately decided.
“You first stated that I am wrong, because other people both should have liberties in abstract sense and in practice, and now you are advising me to work against liberties which conflict with my own (i.e. you said that in practice I am right to say that in practice I should be against other people liberties w.r.t. mass immigration). So what is your position after all?”
You have your own personal liberties. Find people who share similar ideas. Work within or outside the system to change them. I made this abundantly clear in the last post.
“That I should work for limiting other people’s liberties, or not, because first you stated NO (i.e. you stated that in practice I should allow other people also should have rights to have views and act on them even though they conflict with mine) and then you say YES (i.e. you stated that I should have worked to limit other liberties, that is: I should be in practice against their liberties).”
Again, in any society, there is observably no such thing as unfettered liberty. People in a society willingly agree that their personal liberties may be limited. It does not mean, however, that they have to abide by the decisions made by the society. They are mindful, however, of the consequences.
“Then you proceed to say that morality is rational because it is based on society rules (i.e. you mean that it is society which determines what is rational and what is not), and I should work toward changing society rules toward my own personal preferences, which means that ultimately you think rationality of morality depends on subjective preferences, i.e. is irrational and subjective.”
Morality depends on what individuals determine is right and wrong, who in turn agree collectively as to what is right and wrong. A person individually determines what is right and wrong using reason. That is being rationale. However, those in opposition may view the thought process as being irrational; thus, there are debates and conflicts, which may lead to a resolution or continued strife. Thus, each group believes one another is “immoral” and/or “irrational”.
“Society may mandate that everyone should wear only underwear in public. Does that means wearing underwear is moral?”
In that particular society, based on the preferences of the group as a whole, yes. That is how society works. If one does not prefer this mandate, that it is in opposition to their personal liberty, then he/she should work to change it.
“Does that mean that you would argue “because society mandates slavery, it means slavery is moral”?”
It is moral according to those individuals who believed collectively that slavery is moral. It may not be moral according to the standards employed by those who disagree. That is why people worked feverishly to change people’s opinions about slavery. In the States, the abolition movement gained steamed in the 1840’s and 1850’s, which led to a Civil War in part over this issue.
““Moral” is about how you are judging other people’s actions. It is not about laws of society, because otherwise you would be unable to argue “this law is immoral and I have to change it”. It is not about customs, it is not about liberty.”
Morality is how one views something, which in turn may lead people to propose a law to make it a policy.
You: " Must all whites adhere to it, or do they have the liberty to choose for themselves what is their position on racial and ethnic matters"
ME: "When speaking in abstraction, yes, they should have the liberty to choose for themselves. In practice, however, no."
TO which you replied that people should have liberty even in practice, and then proceeded to advise that I should work to limit other people's liberties, that is, you agreed with my initial answer that I would not give the liberties to other people _in practice_. After all, when asking whether I think that all whites should have liberty to choose, and then saying that i should have give them this liberty not just in abstract but also in practice, you meant to say that I should NOT work to limit their liberties, while now you are saying that in fact i SHOULD work to limit their liberties.
EOT on that.
AS fot the rest. Just two points.
(A) Morality is not established through reason
YOU: " A person individually determines what is right and wrong using reason.",
I disagree. A person FEELS what is right and wrong, and this is established by many experiments (i.e by designing two hypothetical situations which are, by all logic, the same, yet people judge them to be morally different, while having problems to explain why).
I do not use my reason to determine that murder is wrong. I FEEL it, and then I may simply use my reason to justify my intuitive feeling. Sometimes I FEEL something is immoral, though I cannot give any reason for my feel (e.g. safe sex using between brother and sister, when one of them is infertile). That's why I say morality is irrational - that you simply FEEL something is moral/immoral, and you have some basic moral intuitions, not that you reason something is right/wrong. Laws of society does not mean anything, as you, in fact, readily admit - see below.
(B) Laws and rules of society are not source of morality, but rather morality is source of laws and rules.
YOU:"Morality is decidedly NOT irrational. It has been well-established throughout the centuries by human beings, either by codified laws or be religious edicts." That is, you claimed that source of morality are laws and edicts. However you later said that I may consider laws to be immoral. That means that laws cannot be source of morality, but rather that morality is source of laws and rules, which means you cannot argue that morality is rational because there are established "laws. I don't know how can you still not see this point.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1436298
And there are people who are against liberties which conflict with their own. Thus, in a society, there is a process by which those liberties are ultimately decided.
“You first stated that I am wrong, because other people both should have liberties in abstract sense and in practice, and now you are advising me to work against liberties which conflict with my own (i.e. you said that in practice I am right to say that in practice I should be against other people liberties w.r.t. mass immigration). So what is your position after all?”
You have your own personal liberties. Find people who share similar ideas. Work within or outside the system to change them. I made this abundantly clear in the last post.
“That I should work for limiting other people’s liberties, or not, because first you stated NO (i.e. you stated that in practice I should allow other people also should have rights to have views and act on them even though they conflict with mine) and then you say YES (i.e. you stated that I should have worked to limit other liberties, that is: I should be in practice against their liberties).”
Again, in any society, there is observably no such thing as unfettered liberty. People in a society willingly agree that their personal liberties may be limited. It does not mean, however, that they have to abide by the decisions made by the society. They are mindful, however, of the consequences.
“Then you proceed to say that morality is rational because it is based on society rules (i.e. you mean that it is society which determines what is rational and what is not), and I should work toward changing society rules toward my own personal preferences, which means that ultimately you think rationality of morality depends on subjective preferences, i.e. is irrational and subjective.”
Morality depends on what individuals determine is right and wrong, who in turn agree collectively as to what is right and wrong. A person individually determines what is right and wrong using reason. That is being rationale. However, those in opposition may view the thought process as being irrational; thus, there are debates and conflicts, which may lead to a resolution or continued strife. Thus, each group believes one another is "immoral" and/or "irrational".
“Society may mandate that everyone should wear only underwear in public. Does that means wearing underwear is moral?”
In that particular society, based on the preferences of the group as a whole, yes. That is how society works. If one does not prefer this mandate, that it is in opposition to their personal liberty, then he/she should work to change it.
“Does that mean that you would argue “because society mandates slavery, it means slavery is moral”?”
It is moral according to those individuals who believed collectively that slavery is moral. It may not be moral according to the standards employed by those who disagree. That is why people worked feverishly to change people’s opinions about slavery. In the States, the abolition movement gained steamed in the 1840’s and 1850’s, which led to a Civil War in part over this issue.
““Moral” is about how you are judging other people’s actions. It is not about laws of society, because otherwise you would be unable to argue “this law is immoral and I have to change it”. It is not about customs, it is not about liberty.”
Morality is how one views something, which in turn may lead people to propose a law to make it a policy.
So, in other words, you agree with my original statement that while in ABSTRACT SENSE i agree that other have their liberties, in PRACTICE i may work to limit their liberties. After all, my initial statement was an answer to your question:
You: ” Must all whites adhere to it, or do they have the liberty to choose for themselves what is their position on racial and ethnic matters”
ME: “When speaking in abstraction, yes, they should have the liberty to choose for themselves. In practice, however, no.”
TO which you replied that people should have liberty even in practice, and then proceeded to advise that I should work to limit other people’s liberties, that is, you agreed with my initial answer that I would not give the liberties to other people _in practice_. After all, when asking whether I think that all whites should have liberty to choose, and then saying that i should have give them this liberty not just in abstract but also in practice, you meant to say that I should NOT work to limit their liberties, while now you are saying that in fact i SHOULD work to limit their liberties.
EOT on that.
AS fot the rest. Just two points.
(A) Morality is not established through reason
YOU: ” A person individually determines what is right and wrong using reason.”,
I disagree. A person FEELS what is right and wrong, and this is established by many experiments (i.e by designing two hypothetical situations which are, by all logic, the same, yet people judge them to be morally different, while having problems to explain why).
I do not use my reason to determine that murder is wrong. I FEEL it, and then I may simply use my reason to justify my intuitive feeling. Sometimes I FEEL something is immoral, though I cannot give any reason for my feel (e.g. safe sex using between brother and sister, when one of them is infertile). That’s why I say morality is irrational – that you simply FEEL something is moral/immoral, and you have some basic moral intuitions, not that you reason something is right/wrong. Laws of society does not mean anything, as you, in fact, readily admit – see below.
(B) Laws and rules of society are not source of morality, but rather morality is source of laws and rules.
YOU:”Morality is decidedly NOT irrational. It has been well-established throughout the centuries by human beings, either by codified laws or be religious edicts.” That is, you claimed that source of morality are laws and edicts. However you later said that I may consider laws to be immoral. That means that laws cannot be source of morality, but rather that morality is source of laws and rules, which means you cannot argue that morality is rational because there are established “laws. I don’t know how can you still not see this point.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1436368
“TO which you replied that people should have liberty even in practice”
There is liberty in the abstraction and in practice.
“and then proceeded to advise that I should work to limit other people’s liberties”
You have your own personal liberties. Call them preferences if you want. Find people who share similar ideas. Work within or outside the system to promote those preferences. In this case, personal liberties are limited, which is feature, not a bug, of a society. As I stated clearly, there is no such thing as unfettered liberty in a society.
“that is, you agreed with my initial answer that I would not give the liberties to other people in practice.”
Which, in effect, you are limiting one’s personal liberty, which is a function of the collective group in a society that desires to promote an certain agenda.
“After all, when asking whether I think that all whites should have liberty to choose, and then saying that i should have give them this liberty not just in abstract but also in practice, you meant to say that I should NOT work to limit their liberties”
No, what I said is that you should find people who share your personal liberty and work to promote them in a society, realizing that those personal liberties may not come to fruition through rules or laws.
“while now you are saying that in fact i SHOULD work to limit their liberties.”
You will always work to limit one’s liberties if your own personal liberties are “superior”.
“I disagree. A person FEELS what is right and wrong, and this is established by many experiments (i.e by designing two hypothetical situations which are, by all logic, the same, yet people judge them to be morally different, while having problems to explain why).”
No, a person rationalizes what is right and what is wrong. There certainly is emotion involved, but one then reasons it out by crafting an logical position.
“I do not use my reason to determine that murder is wrong. I FEEL it, and then I may simply use my reason to justify my intuitive feeling.”
Then what you have left is an opinion based on emotion. Which is not on the same argumentative level as a person who is able to give reasons as to why something is moral or immoral.
Person 1—I feel X is wrong. I don’t know why, I just feel it. I can’t give a reason for it.
Person 2—I feel X is wrong because (reason 1) and (reason 2).
Clearly, the position taken by Person 2 is more rational and more reasonable.
“That’s why I say morality is irrational – that you simply FEEL something is moral/immoral, and you have some basic moral intuitions, not that you reason something is right/wrong.”
Laws of society does not mean anything, as you, in fact, readily admit – see below.
“Laws and rules of society are not source of morality, but rather morality is source of laws and rules.”
Actually, they both work together. Laws and rules are the RESULT of morality, which is what is right and wrong according to people in a given society.
“That is, you claimed that source of morality are laws and edicts.”
Correct.
“However you later said that I may consider laws to be immoral.”
Yes.
“That means that laws cannot be source of morality…”
Yes, laws are the source of morality. People may have differences as to what is and what is moral ad immoral.
“but rather that morality is source of laws and rules.” Yes, morality is the source of laws and rules. Morality, as determined what is right and wrong by people in a given society.
Again, they both work together.
I won't discuss with you. You are either not understanding what I am saying, or I, because I am not native speaker, I am unable to say clearly what I mean.
I do not understand why you are saying "Work within or outside the system to promote those preferences. In this case, personal liberties are limited, which is feature, not a bug, of a society". I do not care nor I was talking about the society and its rules. Moreover, saying "work towards limiting other personal liberties and this is a feature not a bug" MEANS you are saying "in practice you should not give other people liberties". In PRACTICE _MEANS_ what you are actually doing, not about what you think. If you say that you should work toward limiting other people's liberties, no matter what are your reasons for that, you are effectively sayint that IN PRACTICE you are not about giving other their liberties. WHich was my position all along.
Second," Clearly, the position taken by Person 2 is more rational and more reasonable." is not an argument at all about whether morality is rational. Yes, person 2 may appear rational, but it does not mean that morality is rational. Consider the example:
Person 1. I like chocolate because it tastes good
Person 2. I like chocolate because it contains magnessium, which is good for my brain
Person 2 appears more rational, but it does not mean liking chocolote is actually rational. Moreover, Person 2 only appears rational, since he should then explain why it preferes things which are good for its brain?
"Laws are the source of morality. People may have differences as to what is and what is moral ad immoral." AND "Laws are results of..."
You have just stated a contradiction and showed circular reasoning. If laws are THE source of morality, then you cannot say law is immoral. How, if your objective measure of morality is the law?
EOT from me. I see no further point in discussion with you, as I will gain nothing from further discussion.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1437376
There is liberty in the abstraction and in practice.
“and then proceeded to advise that I should work to limit other people’s liberties”
You have your own personal liberties. Call them preferences if you want. Find people who share similar ideas. Work within or outside the system to promote those preferences. In this case, personal liberties are limited, which is feature, not a bug, of a society. As I stated clearly, there is no such thing as unfettered liberty in a society.
“that is, you agreed with my initial answer that I would not give the liberties to other people in practice.”
Which, in effect, you are limiting one’s personal liberty, which is a function of the collective group in a society that desires to promote an certain agenda.
“After all, when asking whether I think that all whites should have liberty to choose, and then saying that i should have give them this liberty not just in abstract but also in practice, you meant to say that I should NOT work to limit their liberties”
No, what I said is that you should find people who share your personal liberty and work to promote them in a society, realizing that those personal liberties may not come to fruition through rules or laws.
“while now you are saying that in fact i SHOULD work to limit their liberties.”
You will always work to limit one’s liberties if your own personal liberties are “superior”.
“I disagree. A person FEELS what is right and wrong, and this is established by many experiments (i.e by designing two hypothetical situations which are, by all logic, the same, yet people judge them to be morally different, while having problems to explain why).”
No, a person rationalizes what is right and what is wrong. There certainly is emotion involved, but one then reasons it out by crafting an logical position.
“I do not use my reason to determine that murder is wrong. I FEEL it, and then I may simply use my reason to justify my intuitive feeling.”
Then what you have left is an opinion based on emotion. Which is not on the same argumentative level as a person who is able to give reasons as to why something is moral or immoral.
Person 1—I feel X is wrong. I don’t know why, I just feel it. I can’t give a reason for it.
Person 2—I feel X is wrong because (reason 1) and (reason 2).
Clearly, the position taken by Person 2 is more rational and more reasonable.
“That’s why I say morality is irrational – that you simply FEEL something is moral/immoral, and you have some basic moral intuitions, not that you reason something is right/wrong.”
Laws of society does not mean anything, as you, in fact, readily admit – see below.
“Laws and rules of society are not source of morality, but rather morality is source of laws and rules.”
Actually, they both work together. Laws and rules are the RESULT of morality, which is what is right and wrong according to people in a given society.
“That is, you claimed that source of morality are laws and edicts.”
Correct.
“However you later said that I may consider laws to be immoral.”
Yes.
“That means that laws cannot be source of morality…”
Yes, laws are the source of morality. People may have differences as to what is and what is moral ad immoral.
“but rather that morality is source of laws and rules.” Yes, morality is the source of laws and rules. Morality, as determined what is right and wrong by people in a given society.
Again, they both work together.
Corvinus,
I won’t discuss with you. You are either not understanding what I am saying, or I, because I am not native speaker, I am unable to say clearly what I mean.
I do not understand why you are saying “Work within or outside the system to promote those preferences. In this case, personal liberties are limited, which is feature, not a bug, of a society”. I do not care nor I was talking about the society and its rules. Moreover, saying “work towards limiting other personal liberties and this is a feature not a bug” MEANS you are saying “in practice you should not give other people liberties”. In PRACTICE _MEANS_ what you are actually doing, not about what you think. If you say that you should work toward limiting other people’s liberties, no matter what are your reasons for that, you are effectively sayint that IN PRACTICE you are not about giving other their liberties. WHich was my position all along.
Second,” Clearly, the position taken by Person 2 is more rational and more reasonable.” is not an argument at all about whether morality is rational. Yes, person 2 may appear rational, but it does not mean that morality is rational. Consider the example:
Person 1. I like chocolate because it tastes good
Person 2. I like chocolate because it contains magnessium, which is good for my brain
Person 2 appears more rational, but it does not mean liking chocolote is actually rational. Moreover, Person 2 only appears rational, since he should then explain why it preferes things which are good for its brain?
“Laws are the source of morality. People may have differences as to what is and what is moral ad immoral.” AND “Laws are results of…”
You have just stated a contradiction and showed circular reasoning. If laws are THE source of morality, then you cannot say law is immoral. How, if your objective measure of morality is the law?
EOT from me. I see no further point in discussion with you, as I will gain nothing from further discussion.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1437684
“I, because I am not native speaker, I am unable to say clearly what I mean.”
That may be the case.
“I do not understand why you are saying “Work within or outside the system to promote those preferences. In this case, personal liberties are limited, which is feature, not a bug, of a society”.
You want Poland to remain only for Polish people. That’s fine. There are other Polish people who may feel differently, who may desire to have immigrants live and work in Poland. Find people who agree with your position. Work within the political system legally and peacefully, or work outside of the political system violently, to achieve your goal. Regardless of the outcome, someone’s personal liberty will be limited, whether it be you or your opposition, when it comes to the issue.
“Moreover, saying “work towards limiting other personal liberties and this is a feature not a bug” MEANS you are saying “in practice you should not give other people liberties”.”
No, it does NOT mean that. It means people in a given society have liberties. Those liberties were decided upon by the majority of the people in that society. Some personal liberties may be expanded upon, or limited, or outright banned.
“If you say that you should work toward limiting other people’s liberties, no matter what are your reasons for that, you are effectively sayint that IN PRACTICE you are not about giving other their liberties. WHich was my position all along.”
Again, there is no such thing as unfettered (complete) liberty in a society. Personal liberties, or preferences if you will, are ALWAYS in competition. You don’t “give” people liberties, you work toward deciding what liberties will be found in a society. A person does not have to follow what society says about certain liberties. A person can continue to exercise that personal liberty, or preference, regardless of the law, mindful of the consequences. If Society A bans chocolate because the majority of citizens there believes it is dangerous, you still have the personal liberty to eat it, realizing it is against the law and realizing there will be consequences. You still have the personal liberty to challenge the law by finding like-minded people to exercise the group liberty to question that decision.
“Person 1. I like chocolate because it tastes good
Person 2. I like chocolate because it contains magnessium, which is good for my brain”
Actually, both are rational. There is no appearance that one or the other is more rational.
“Moreover, Person 2 only appears rational, since he should then explain why it preferes things which are good for its brain?”
Because Person 2 is simply clarifying why he likes chocolate.
“You have just stated a contradiction and showed circular reasoning.”
There is no contradiction. Morality—what is right and wrong—is determined individually, who then find like-minded people who share those beliefs. Together, they form laws reflective of what is right and wrong. Laws therefore reflect what is believed to be right and wrong by the majority members of that society.
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/ny-times-to-australia-open-those-borders/#comment-1438707