|
Leave print-view
Saturday, April 15, 2006
As some of you may know I quite enjoy going to blogs in which my comments are classed as contrarion. Unfortunately, like the fervent Marxists of old, today's zealous defenders of the faith are just as intolerant of having dissenting opinions appear in their midst. Here's how the feminist version of a Communist show trail takes place: First a commenter by the name of Radfem makes a reference to the Black Version of "The Protocols of Elder" which contains reasoning like the following:
The mania to suntan [and] the new chemical and genetic techniques that they are developing to allow people to have skin coloration is evidence that they feel at deep subconscious levels that something is missing and something is wrong. White people are developing techniques to increase their fertility and give them skin coloration; at the same time you have mass murder on the continent of Africa of Black people, a people who already have melanin pigmentation. You have White supremacy through HIV/AIDS killing tens of millions of people on the continent of Africa. I have often thought that maybe the White supremacy mind or the genetic deficiency state of albinism, that mindset [says], "well, let me kill off all of the people who already have color and then I will develop for myself a way to produce color."
A few commenters and I chime in to point out that bringing this kind of reasoning into a discussion is like quoting "The Protocols" and then the blogowner chimes in:
And as I said, I agree with virtually everything you've posted here. I'm not saying that your work, your experiences, or your insights are not legitimate (and I'd appreciate it if you could try responding to what I say, rather than making up stuff I didn't say and responding to that); on the contrary, I think all three are legitimate.
I am, however, saying that Dr. Welsing's work, despite the fact that discussing it led you to extremely valuable and legitimate insights, is extremely problematic.
No one here has called you a "racist" or a "race traitor," unless I missed something. For the record, I don't think you're a racist,
Shortly thereafter Charles makes his appearance in comments. His mission is to play the role of a modern day Savonarola, or in this case, the prosecutor who presents the case of my ideological heresy. He claims the following:
it is not surprising that White people fear becoming a dominant minority rather than a dominant majority. While dominant minorities may be able to maintain power for extended periods of time, they are much more subject to violence than dominant majorities are. . . .
And what comes out visibly in openly racist rhetoric can often be found floating around the backs of the minds of Whites who are not openly racist. You say you don't sense that fear. Are you really so unfamiliar with racist rhetoric? Or do you merely believe that openly racist Whites are a pure aberation with no connection to the larger White culture?
He's objecting to my comments which disagree with his vision of a racist white populace trembling in fear of the demographic change that is occurring in our nation. To make my point even clearer I respond:
I don't see the Causcasions of Texas, California, Hawaii and New Mexico working themselves into a lather about the changing demographics of their states.
This provides Charles with all the ammunition he requires for his devastating hammerblow which he provides in the summation of, what to me was at the time an unknown prosecution:
Anglo's invented the SATs in an attempt to push back against the terrible Jewish invasion of the Ivy Leagues, and when that failed they invented a need for Montanans in the Ivy League, and a "whole person" standard. When that failed, they "pushed back" by setting a maximum enrollment quota from disproportionately Jewish high schools like Horace Greely in Chappiqua, NY.
So when you say you are all for Anglo's pushing back, I figure that all of that is what you are saying you support, and is what you are saying you don't see how anyone could think it racist. And that again is why I think you are a racist, ardent and avowed, even if you are displeased at having the title stuck next to your name.
Did you catch the ever so subtle tactic of arguing against the strawman? I know it's subtle and you really have to look for it, but apparently when the judge is a tool, or a fool, it can be very convincing:
Well, Charles has persuaded me, at least. Tangoman is banned.
Note the reaction of this innocent bystander, who apparently, has not been getting drunk on the kool-aid:
Hmm. That's the first time I've seen you ban someone based solely on their point of view.
Hang around in the femisphere long enough and this type of crockery passes for regular reasoning. The surprising aspect to all of this is that the Christian fundamentalists and creationists that the feminists mock so severely are actually more tolerant of dissenters in their midst, at least from my own experiences, for I've never been banned on their sites as I, an athiest, argue about the existence of god, and the follies of intelligent design and creationism.
Now, moving beyond this little, completely inconsequential, squall in the blogosphere, the same dynamic of invading the insular little worlds of ideologues is also occurring in the universities of the world. Today, the Sydney Morning Herald publishes an editorial on the Andrew Fraser Affair:
There are lots of academics with a flawed sense of proportion whose views I disagree with, yet I wouldn't dream of suggesting the law be used to silence them. So what's happening to Fraser is quite disturbing. Sure it's rare, but maybe that's only because these days it's rare to hear an unusual view on a delicate subject coming from an academic. . . .
The other great dissenter of the last few years has been Keith Windschuttle who, in his 2002 book The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, challenged the widely held view that genocide had been practised by white people against the blacks in Tasmania. The abuse that Windschuttle has received from academics has been extraordinary.
In the latest issue of Quadrant magazine, Windschuttle has listed some of the personal attacks on him. An historian at Sydney University, Dirk Moses, wondered in 2001 if Windschuttle and two other dissenting writers "experience castration anxiety. That is, a fantasised danger to their genitals symbolised by the [traditional white] national ideal that makes them feel powerful and good about themselves". This statement was published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Aboriginal History.
Some critics have attacked the core of Windschuttle's book by claiming that academic historians never described what happened to the indigenous Tasmanians as genocide. For instance, in Telling the Truth About Aboriginal History, published last year, Associate Professor Bain Attwood, of Monash University, wrote that Windschuttle's "imputation that academic historians have compared the British colonisation of this country to Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews .. is a figment of his imagination".
This is the same Attwood who, in the 2000 collection Reconciliation, wrote: "The severe historical impact the various dimensions of colonisation have had upon Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders . . can and should be called a holocaust."
In 2003 in The Australian, Moses wrote: "No Australian historian contends there was an Australian holocaust." Windschuttle points out that one of those who did actually contend this was Moses himself who, in 2000, in the Journal of Genocide Research, wrote: "Australia has had many genocides, perhaps more than any other country."
Windschuttle and Fraser don't have much in common except that they're probably the two most prominent intellectuals to have challenged conventional wisdom in recent years. The attacks on them make you wonder how widespread low-level reprisals are for less prominent rebels, and whether others stay quiet from fear of suffering the same fate.
Related: Climate of Fear in Academia.
|
