Was The G-20 Summit A Disaster For Australia?

Robyn Dixon writes for the LA Times:

The adolescent country. The bit player. The shrimp of the schoolyard.

For Australians it’s not so bad — most of the time — to be so far away, so overlooked, so seemingly insignificant as to almost never factor in major international news. The lifestyle makes up for it.

But occasionally, there’s an awkward, pimply youth moment so embarrassing that it does sting. Like when 19 of the world’s most important leaders visit for a global summit and Prime Minister Tony Abbott opens their retreat Saturday with a whinge (Aussie for whine) about his doomed efforts to get his fellow Australians to pay $7 to see a doctor.

So I surfed over to news.com.au and did not get this impression at all. According to the Robyn Dixon article, what matters for a country’s foreign policy is impressive speeches and meddling in other countries affairs. For me, a foreign policy consists of protecting your borders and abstaining from the affairs of other countries.

I guess American dipolomat Victoria Nuland is the epitome of the big-time foreign player, telling Ukraine who should be in their government. To me, that’s cringe-worthy.

I’ve lived about 12 years of my life in Australia and for most people I knew, Australia was the lucky country. It’s not as optimistic and open-hearted a country as America.

Look at Dixon’s lead: “The adolescent country. The bit player. The shrimp of the schoolyard.”

Do you think she would write this about a new black country, even one that considerably under-achieved Australia (as all majority black countries do)? She would only feel free to disparage such a country if it were white.

Dixon writes: “The Group of 20 summit could have been Australia’s moment, signaling its arrival as a global player, some here argued. But in all, the summit had Australians cringing more than cheering.”

So if Australia had made a splashy Global Warming treaty and committed its troops in some pointless overseas combat, then it could have arrived as a global player?

As far as the summit having Australians cringing more than cheering, that applies to Australians left of center, not those right of center, who are just fine with what happened (if you read the Australian press).

Dixon writes:

It was a classic example of what Australian author and journalist Peter Hartcher calls the “pathology of parochialism” in a recent book, “The Adolescent Country.” Hartcher argues that the nation’s politicians rarely miss a chance to trump important foreign policy matters of long-term national interest to score cheap domestic political points.

“The big matters are commonly crowded out by the small,” he argues. “International policy is used for domestic point-scoring.”

Who is this Peter Hartcher? He’s apparently a big fan of George W. Bush and Middle East adventurism, writing in 2005:

Until now, US presidents have been content to live with this stronghold of tyranny in the Middle East in the service of stability. This has been one of the manifestations of the school of realism in US foreign policy. George Bush reminded us again yesterday in his State of the Union address that he is no realist. He is an idealist and that means he is a revolutionary.

Last month, in his inaugural address, Bush made a case against tyranny that was so powerful and seemed so brimful with purpose that dictators around the world grew concerned: “We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.”

…Hartcher believes that Australian politicians have lately squandered opportunities to strengthen the country’s global position at the time of a major global power shift.

“The great crises that threaten Australia’s national prosperity come from abroad,” he wrote. “So do the grandest opportunities. But the reflex in Australia’s national politics is that where these biggest stakes come into competition with the smallest, the small are the ones that very often win.

“Measured against its potential today and its needs tomorrow, Australia is seriously underperforming and it is underperforming because of the pathology of parochialism.”

Considering how the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan turned out, I’d say Australia would be better off sticking to its parochial concerns.

Peter_Hartcher_Yair_Miller_Alan_Carolyn_Dershowitz_015

I sure hope that the leading people who want Australia to pursue a more international foreign policy line aren’t Jewish.

Crikey posts: “Hartcher’s article fits into a long line of Australian journalists and politicians taking free, Zionist lobby trips to Israel and miraculously returning with glorious tales of Jewish heroism, Palestinian violence and Zionist democracy. Crikey’s Margaret Simons investigated this tradition in January and revealed a number of participants on the trips failed to disclose the all-expenses paid jaunts (to its credit, the Herald acknowledged Hartcher’s free holiday.)”

Posted in Australia, Whites | Comments Off

The Decline Of France

F. Roger Devlin writes:

Eric Zemmour is a well-known French author and television personality. Of Algerian-Jewish origin, he may seem an unlikely spokesman for French tradition, but he has emerged in recent years as a prominent scourge of ideological orthodoxy. He is unquestionably the most prominent mainstream French commentator who speaks candidly about race.

This role comes with a price. In 2011 he was convicted of “incitement to racial hatred” for pointing out that most drug dealers in France are blacks and Arabs. He was again convicted of the same offense for maintaining that employers should be able to hire as they see fit (i.e., to “discriminate”). This year, he has been prosecuted for remarks about the criminal behavior of ethnic gangs.

His latest book, The Suicide of France, was released on October 1st and immediately became the top seller in France, displacing a tell-all memoir by President François Hollande’s former mistress. The book is a year-by-year chronicle of France’s dissolution–everything from harmful legislation to pop songs and movies that reflect or promote decline.

One of Mr. Zemmour’s principle themes is the role of free markets in promoting a present-oriented consumerist mentality that has squandered France’s moral capital. However, he also laments the loss of will by native Frenchmen and their displacement by mostly-Muslim immigrants. He has clearly struck a chord among those who are angry at the psychological capitulation of the past 40 years.

Posted in France, Race | Comments Off

All Honorable Men Are Slaves To Higher Ethical Values

In Orthodox Judaism, we often speak about “eved HaShem” aka a slave of God. It’s a good thing.

Judaism has complex views on slavery.

In his book, Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, Tom Sunic writes:

…[George Fitzhugh] understood that each honorable person in a given social circumstance must be a slave to higher ethical goals. A slave does not only mean a physical slave, subject to physical torments on the part of his master; it could be a highly cultivated person or a leader who decides to become a slave to his Promethean self-ascribed intellectual goals…

Black slavery was to Fitzhugh a matter of fact; a social bond necessary for black Americans, who due to their incapacity to equally participate in free trade and cut throat competition, are far better off in farm bondage in the South, supervised by a paternalistic white farmer, than working for a Northern white crook who pontificates about human rights and strips them of human dignity.

From Wikipedia:

George Fitzhugh (November 4, 1806 – July 30, 1881) was an American social theorist who published racial and slavery-based sociological theories in the antebellum era. He argued that “the negro is but a grown up child”[1][2] who needs the economic and social protections of slavery. Fitzhugh decried capitalism as spawning “a war of the rich with the poor, and the poor with one another”[3] – rendering free blacks “far outstripped or outwitted in the chase of free competition.”[4] Slavery, he contended, ensured that blacks would be economically secure and morally civilized.

Fitzhugh practiced law and was a painter for years, but attracted both fame and infamy when he published two sociological tracts for the South. He was a leading pro-slavery intellectual[5] and spoke for many of the Southern plantation owners. Before printing books, Fitzhugh tried his hand at a pamphlet titled “Slavery Justified” (1849). His first book, Sociology for the South (1854) was not as widely known as his second book, Cannibals All! (1857).

Fitzhugh differed from nearly all of his southern contemporaries by advocating a slavery that crossed racial boundaries. Writing in the Richmond Inquirer on 15 December 1855, Fitzhugh proclaimed: “The principle of slavery is in itself right, and does not depend on difference of complexion”, “Nature has made the weak in mind or body slaves … The wise and virtuous, the strong in body and mind, are born to command”, and “The Declaration of Independence is exuberantly false, and aborescently fallacious.

Posted in Blacks, Judaism, Slavery | Comments Off

Mark Twain: The Worst Loneliness Is To Be Not Comfortable With Yourself

I’ve struggled with feelings of loneliness throughout my life. This webinar explores the topic better than anything I’ve heard before.

Alexandra Katehakis: * What does it feel like in my body to be alone now? Am I lonely because there is nobody out there to reflect back to me? Addicts tend to have a difficult time being alone. People grow up with the TV as a babysitter because being alone with loneliness and despair is untenable. Part of recovery is learning to tolerate that feeling of loneliness.

* Human being are sexually gregarious. We’re wired for connection. When that does not happen early on, certain brain-body connections are not made in a robust way and that will leave a person chronically depressed and lonely. We then try to get into relationships and we hope that we will find that one person who will put their finger in the dam of that loneliness. Initially in love, that works. We find the one person who saves us because they are reflecting what we did or did not get in infancy. We’re constantly seeking to repair in relationship what we did not get as children. This is embedded in our most primitive brain, the limbic system, the part of the brain responsible for emotions. Because our brains are encoded in a particular way, we’ll choose someone who can’t come through for us.

* Being alone and enjoying your own company is a sign of mental health.

* When you are alone, do you need distraction? Can you tolerate silence or does it raise your anxiety?

* When loneliness is constant, it hearkens back to childhood when neglect and abandonment were the landscape of life. When the child looks for attunement from the mother, and doesn’t get it, the child’s brain is encoded that it is alone. When the infant is neglected, that can lead to a lifelong depression and feelings of abandonment, neglect and loneliness.

After a divorce, some children complain they could never figure out who they were because they did not have a father reflecting back to them with any regularity.

If your parents abandoned you, you are likely to have problems with loneliness.

How do you deal with that hollow feeling of emptiness you have all the time?

That creates a personal identity when we internalize the parent and we can go out into the world and feel we’re ok because we were told we were ok. That attunement with a parent emotionally regulates a child and let’s him know he’s ok.

* Some people say they’re fine when they’re alone. Their insecurities get kicked up when they date. None of us have issues when we’re alone. When we start communicating with another and we’re not getting our needs met and we don’t communicate explicitly what our needs, we’ll feel we’ll never get our needs met. It’s infantile desire to have your mind read. Part of being an adult is communicating your needs. If someone ignores your needs and has no interest in meeting your needs, you probably should not date them.

LUKE: “I remember this one woman I dated in 1995, she was a few years older than me. I took her to Stephen S. Wise temple one Shabbos morning but did not drop her off at her apartment. Instead, I dropped her off on Wilshire Blvd, a few blocks away, because I wanted to get to Aish Ha Torah for mincha. She later complained and used that as the reason why she wouldn’t go out with me again. I ran into her about 17 years later. My God, she was scary. She’d not just hit the wall, she’d been destroyed. I never treated her like a treasure and I dodged a bullet. In those halcyon years, I messed around with many women older than me, women I had no intentions of marrying, but the break-ups did at times rip my heart out when they did the breaking up, and I shed tears.”

* There’s something in my childhood, in my earl wounding, that may never get repaired by my partner and by my elderly parents. It’s part of the structure of my autonomic nervous system.

Posted in Addiction, Psychology | Comments Off

The Nazis Used To Be Zionists

I thought the Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933 and headed towards exterminating the Jews, but now I read that they were initially Zionists who made it easy for German Jews to move to Palestine.

The world is a complicated place.

Of all groups of Jews I’ve known or read about, German Jews seem the best. If Hitler had harnessed them instead of persecuting them, he would likely have developed nuclear weapons and won the war.

From Wikipedia:

The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: “transfer agreement”) was signed on 25 August 1933 after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. The agreement was designed to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine. While it helped Jews emigrate, it forced them to temporarily give up possessions to Germany before departing. Those possessions could later be re-obtained by transferring them to Palestine as German export goods.

Hanotea (Hebrew: הנוטע), a Zionist citrus planting company, applied in May 1933 for the ability to transfer capital from Germany to Palestine. Hanotea served to assist German Jews’ immigration to Palestine as part of the Zionist endeavor. In a deal worked out with the German government, Hanotea would receive money from prospective immigrants and use this money to buy German goods. These goods, along with the immigrants, would then be shipped to Palestine. In Palestine, import merchants would then buy the goods from the immigrants, liquidating their investment. This arrangement appeared to be operating successfully, and so paved the way for the later Haavara Agreement. Connected to Hanotea was a Polish Zionist Jew, Sam Cohen. He represented Zionist interests in direct negotiation with the Nazis beginning in March 1933.

The Haavara (Transfer) Agreement was agreed to by the German government in 1933 to allow the Zionist movement, in the form of the Haavara company to transfer property from Germany to Palestine, for the sole purpose of encouraging Jewish emigration from Germany. The Haavara company operated under a similar plan as the earlier Hanotea company. The Haavara Company required immigrants to pay at least 1000 pounds sterling into the banking company. This money would then be used to buy German exports for import to Palestine.

The Haavara Agreement was thought among certain circles to be a possible way to rid the country of its supposed “Jewish problem.” The head of the Middle Eastern division of the foreign ministry, Werner Otto von Hentig, supported the policy of concentrating Jews in Palestine. Von Hentig believed that if the Jewish population was concentrated in a single foreign entity, then foreign diplomatic policy and containment of the Jews would become easier.[5] Hitler’s support of the Haavara Agreement varied throughout the thirties. Initially, Hitler criticized the agreement, but shortly reversed his opinion, and continued to support it, in the face of opposition, through 1939.[6]

After the invasion of Poland and the onset of World War II in 1939, the practical continuation of the Haavara agreement became impossible. In 1940, representatives of the underground Zionist group Lehi met with von Hentig to propose direct military cooperation with the Nazis for the continuation of the transfer of European Jews to Palestine.[7] This proposal, however, did not produce results.

Posted in Israel, Nazi, Zionism | Comments Off

How About The Death Penalty For The Crime Of Being In The United States Illegally?

I suspect America’s 20-million plus illegal immigrants would quickly self-deport if we started executing some of them. If we shot, say, 30 illegal immigrants, and then 20 million deported themselves, think about how many hundreds of legal American citizens would keep their lives because they would not be victims of violent crime by illegal aliens?

When it comes to the rights of infiltrators vs citizens, I side with American citizens.

I for one am not willing to role over and play dead while an alien people overrun my country.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off

The Los Angeles Public Library Has Blacklisted Kevin MacDonald

I can find none of his books listed at LAPL.org.

Posted in Kevin MacDonald | Comments Off

How Is Putin’s Intervention In The Ukraine Any Different From America’s Monroe Doctrine?

From Wikipedia: “The Monroe Doctrine was a US foreign policy regarding Latin American countries in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention.”

Russia is understandably annoyed with western governments interfering with Ukraine, which is Russia’s next door neighbor.

America would not put up with Russian or Chinese intervention in Mexico or Central America.

As Tom Sunic wrote in his book Homo Americanus:

The Monroe Doctrine, as [Carl] Schmitt notes, was basically a unilateral decision. “It is not a treaty signed with other European countries.” It is very general in its wording and can be interpreted at will by its architects, while providing America with an astounding weapon to counter hostile interests… “Other nations can never extract anything from America by means of this doctrine; America can always demand anything from any political actor, whatever it desires.”

Posted in russia | Comments Off

How Can Euro-Asian Males Build Self-Esteem?

Mixed race kids have it much tougher in life because they don’t have a clear identity and a clear in-group. So they have a lot more mental problems.

Post:

Being Eurasian Male has completely destroyed my self-esteem and sense of self-worth. I realize I’m letting the racists win too easy, the ultimate psych-op to defeat your enemy solely through propaganda without firing a single shot. But what can I say it worked. And whenever I go out and see the huge WMAF AMWF disparity with my own eyes, it serves as empirical proof that all my self-loathing is justified. I feel like I’m objectively the least valued, desired, wanted category of male.

I should also mention that I myself am the offspring of a White Dad and Asian Mom, and no I don’t consider them particularly bad, but I do resent them simply for belonging to the class of WMAF. And it does make me take WMAF all the more personally.

Basically I can’t even function anymore, and I kind of take a why bother attitude? Why bother trying to make money, when all the money jobs in STEM and business require you to be good at math? I can work my butt of to be good at math, and a great engineer/computers/science/tech/business , and people will just say ‘oh hes Asian’ like that explains everything. So why even bother trying to succeed?

My only solution now is to live off my WMAF parents for life, since they committed the crime of race-mixing anyway, and thus now have to take care of their Down Syndrome mutant.

I don’t really have an Asian-American community to fall back on besides the internet.

How do I boost my self-esteem against the seemingly overwhelming statistical evidence telling me, I’m the worst?

I don’t know what this guy is talking about. Elliot Rodger was a good well-balanced person despite having an Asian mom and white dad.

Anon replies: “Consider the role misogyny and living in a misogynistic society plays in your frustration self-described resentment about stuff like the interracial dating disparity. Where do you end and where do other people begin? (Where does what other people think about you end and where does what you think about yourself begin? Where does other people’s happiness end and where does your own begin? What about other people’s choices and your decision to make them a reflection on yourself or your race?)
It isn’t just about “letting the racists win too easy” though it is clear you have a lot of internalized racism that you still need to work through.
You are making a choice, conscious or subconscious, to decide that the WMAF AMWF “disparity” (women as a commodity?) is “empirical proof that all my self-loathing is justified. I feel like I’m objectively the least valued, desired, wanted category of male.”
So talk to someone trained to work with this baggage and explore it. Why is that proof that you are not desirable? Why is your self loathing “justified”? Really explore it. Pick it apart. Is there really an objective, statistical correlation with Asian women’s dating preferences and your value as a human being? And why are you putting it on that?”

Responds:

This is why in my personal life I concentrate much of my fire against my own Asian Mother, since her quest for her own happiness lead directly to my own birth and thus there is no separating our self-interests.
Its true that other than my own WMAF mother, I don’t have any power to judge other AFs. This leads many to assume that my own WMAF parents are especially bad and that I’m unfairly judging WMAF couples by my own bad experience. I would argue its the other way around. That my own parents are just fine, but my negativity towards contemporary WMAFs colors my resentment toward my parents.
As far as misogyny goes, I think there is a huge amount of misogyny among the vast majority of WMAF relationships I read about on the internet. In which the white man is usually looking for a submissive Geisha, since he can’t handle the rude feminist women of the West.
I would ask you, if psych tests suggest Asian men are the least desirable, and the huge WMAF AMWF disparity seemingly acts as a confirmation, why wouldn’t it destroy my self-esteem and value as a human being?

Jared Taylor writes:

There are two levels on which one can oppose miscegenation: for one’s own family, and for everyone else. For my own family, as I once put it, I want my children to look like their grandparents, not like Anwar Sadat or Whoopi Goldberg or Fu Manchu. This is partly for unabashedly esthetic reasons; I like the way white people look, and that’s reason enough to want white children.

It is a near-universal human desire for people to want to see themselves rather than strangers in their children. (Of course, in contemporary America, as Steve Sailer has observed, only Jews are allowed to express it.)

Thus Lowri Turner is a blonde British woman whose second marriage was to a man from India. She already had two blond children, and now got a new daughter. You would think it had occurred to her that this time around her children would not look like here, but no:

[W]hen I turn to the mirror in my bedroom to admire us together, I am shocked. She seems so alien…

I didn’t realize how much her looking different would matter and, on a rational level, I know it shouldn’t. But it does.

Evolution demands that we have children to pass on our genes, hence the sense of pride and validation we get when we see our features reappearing in the next generation.

With my daughter, I don’t have that…

Even admitting to having mixed feelings about her not being blonde and blue eyed, I feel disloyal and incredibly guilty.[ “I Love My Mixed Race Baby—But Why Does She Feel So Alien?” London Daily Mail, July 12, 2007]

People of other races are no different. Most black people want black children and Asians want Asian children. When people imagine what it would be like to be a parent they imagine children who look like them.

The Taylors—and their forebears—have been white for thousands of years. Suddenly to produce one who wasn’t would be as strange as joining Al Shabaab or apprenticing myself to a snake charmer.

Most people who can have children of their own do so rather than adopt. That is because they understand instinctively that family is about genetic closeness.

And most people who adopt would rather adopt a child of their own race. One reason is that they don’t want to stick an obvious “I was adopted” label on their children—but another is that they feel instinctively closer to people of their own race.

Posted in asians, Miscegenation, Whites | Comments Off

‘Buy The Toxic Assets!’

I enjoy listening to Econ Talk by my former UCLA professor, Russell Roberts, the famed economist who helped inspire my conversion to Orthodox Judaism.

Roberts is a model interviewer. Listening to him reminds me of all the long talks we had after class. Everything he talked about achieving back in 1989, he had done so.

From EconTalk.org: “Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about Zingales’s essay, “Preventing Economists’ Capture.” Zingales argues that just as regulators become swayed by the implicit incentives of dealing with industry executives, so too with economists who study business: supporting business interests can be financially and professionally rewarding. Zingales outlines the different ways that economists benefit from supporting business interests and ways that economists might work to prevent that influence or at lease be aware of it.”

The same thing would apply to Jews, for instance. If Jews are dominant in the media, it should be assumed that this power will be used in Jewish interests.

An excerpt from Luigi’s essay:

If everyone in that network is drawn from the same milieu, the information and ideas that flow to policymakers will be severely
limited. A revealing anecdote comes from a Bush Treasury official, who noted that in the heat of the financial crisis, every time there was a phone call from Manhattan’s 212 area code, the message was the same: “Buy the toxic assets.” Such uniformity of advice makes it difficult for even the most intelligent or well-meaning policymakers not to be influenced.

Posted in Economics, russell roberts | Comments Off