A Few Words with American Men

At Lawrence Auster's VFR the case of a 35 year old nurse is discussed. She got "romantically" (this is probably my most-loathed Americanism among countless much-loathed Americanisms) involved with an Iranian asylum seeker seven years her junior. She tried to break it off with him after he failed to pay the instalments for the refund of the 3,000 GBP (no less) he stole from her bank account. For that, he stabbed her to death 130 times in the face and neck.

Again: Here we have a mature, educated and (judging from the one picture at VFR) very attractive woman who embarks on a relationship with an unsavoury grease ball 7 years her junior. She had been unfazed by the abysmal record of relationships between European women and Middle-Eastern (read: Muslim) men. She considered it a serious relationship. She obviously granted him access to her bank account. She even didn't break off with him after she caught him stealing, only after he failed to pay for the refund. One of the commenters at VFR says:

"I just don't get what is in the minds of these women? Is it really just overwhelming liberal/ ideological tendencies that draw them to men whom they should know will do nothing for them then bring probable heartache or even death itself?"

We traditionalists need to come up with convincing answers to these questions because there are legions of young, single men in America thinking the same thing and the Gamers are ready and standing by to give them what they want. The Gamers will say it is inherent to woman's nature to seek danger and excitement and male dominance rooted in biological evolution, so learn to be dangerous, exciting, and alpha, or else you are doomed to a miserable, single existence. At the very least, this is a coherent, rational sounding explanation to the average guy, and it has some truth to it, notwithstanding the broader materialist/nihilist worldview to which it appeals. With the Gamers confidently announcing exegesis on these types of phenomena we can't be left scratching our heads.

The Gamers never made much sense to me. They are trying to explain away the fact that American men voluntarily gave up their rights and their duty in the name of political correctness and are now whining about being discarded as "beta males". Worse, to justify it, they are searching for "a coherent, rational sounding explanation", while committing a serious fallacy. How can it be biologically "inherent to woman's nature to seek danger and excitement" in male dominance when human life had been at all times about raising children in safety -- freedom from physical threats and starvation, which is about the opposite of the female yearning alleged by the Gamers? Do unemployed Muslim grease balls fit into such a pattern of providing for the mutual offspring in every aspect? Good joke!

Yes, traditionalists need to come up with convincing answers to these questions indeed. What about a little bit of ... traditionalism? Forty years of "emancipation", forty years of being able to make "choices" have proven that women are, by and large, unable to make sane, reasonable choices. They need the strict guidelines of a traditionally organised society under male rule.

What went wrong? Social stigmata have been removed from our consciousness as unjust. Obviously, justice and fairness is a concept alien to the female mind. While the original idea was, for example, to de-stigmatise a poor little wench who had been seduced by one ruthless male predator and born an illegitimate child, womanhood in general took it as an invitation to have as many illegitimate children as they liked. While the original idea was to de-stigmatise divorced women -- How could one to be expected to know what suffering laid behind anything like that! -- they took it as an invitation to discard their marriage vows as irrelevant. While the original idea was, for example, to do away with something as evil as social, religious or racial boundaries, womanhood in general took it as an invitation to embark on a "relationship" with any bum who happened to catch their undiscerning fancy. I could quote more examples. You get the general idea?

Women need to be married young within their peer group, getting a divorce ought to be considerably impeded; and parents ought to get their guts back to tell their children: "THAT IS NO COMPANY FOR YOU!"

I, as a German, see quite a few typically American traits which have very probably aggravated the status quo and while I am trying not to be judgemental, this ought to be addressed. For once, I don't think the degree of materialism at our end is quite that high. That is not a good or bad thing per se, materialism is a healthy notion and can be, without doubt, constructive, and idealism extremely destructive. In fact, German idealism has led us disastrously astray, historically. However, recognising such cultural differences may be helpful and it just is a fact that good looks of a woman don't seem to be considered here all that much as a marketable item. I see friends and the daughters of friends who have, for better or worse, chosen men far below any reasonable expectations they objectively had. The only one who married a seriously rich man did it for love (and paid a high price for it), but by and large those marriages worked out as well as one can possibly expect in a society without rules. Then there is the American body cult. And while I admire the polish of American women (I have profited from it by buying as-good-as-new designer clothes at Ebay) it has a flipside as well. If some breast implants on two legs with remarkable credentials of American dentistry in what might once have been a pretty girl's face and an artfully dishevelled blond mane on top are considered a paragon of American beauty, something stinks. Not to speak of the organised sexual child abuse that goes by the euphemism of "child beauty pageants" and which for some reason makes me mad beyond anything else.

Does anybody seriously think that FATHERS want their little girls to strut their stuff like that? And can it in any way be considered ethical, or even useful, to base a woman's market value on that and JUST that?

Dear American men, get a grip on reality. If you want to save your home and the West, you don't need to be blown to smithereens by an Islamist bomb in some remote country. Go home and tell your wives as a first step that you expect a decent dinner, a clean house and a smiling face if you come home after a day of work providing for her and your children's livelihood. Tell your daughters that they are not (NOT!) to dress like sluts, that "sexy" is a no- and "popular" a rather doubtful standard. Tell your children that you expect them to keep up some degree of societal quality, that people are only very theoretically all the same and that Salsa classes are not the right place to meet somebody for a lasting commitment. And then go and give some spine back to your sons who have been in the meantime emasculated by generations of feminists (not all of them female) kindergarten workers, teachers, psychologists, therapists and other assorted scum of the earth. Just as a couple of first steps.

I, personally, think it's too late, but I couldn't keep my big mouth shut.

To Russia Without Love Redux

The case of the 7-year-old little Russian boy who was sent back as unwanted is, in a sad way, very interesting and eye-opening.

Artur Lukyanov (I prefer this version of phonetic transcription), the man who was hired to pick him up at the airport has a blog, which is worth reading. If his English is really self-taught (as the saying goes), it's remarkable. In an interview with CNN, Lukyanov tells how he had stumbled once before across a Russian-American adoption disastrously gone wrong.

Several years ago, he said he was hired by an American couple by the last name of Pavlis.

"They just wanted to see some sites," Lookyanov recalled. "They also asked me to drive them to a hospital to pass an adoption examination for their boy."

Lookyanov said he spent two days working with Irma and Dino Pavlis. He said he took them and their adopted Russian son Alex to McDonald's and ate with them.

"Two months after I saw them in Moscow... I learned that by accident this boy died," Lookyanov said.

A month after the adoption, six-year old Alex was dead due to blunt force trauma to the head, news reports at the time said. There was evidence that his adoptive mother had punched him in the stomach.

A court sentenced Irma Pavlis to 12 years in prison for manslaughter. She reportedly served five.

Lookyanov's brushes with failed adoptions have left him reeling, physically shaking as he discussed the cases.

There are additional details in the Internet:

Less than two months after his arrival, Alex Pavlis' promising life ended tragically. The 6-year-old was beaten to death by his adopted mother [sic!].

Irma Pavlis, 34, of Schaumburg, Ill., was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the December 2003 death. During her trial, she said she loved the boy but that he was mentally unstable and suicidal. Although she recently was sentenced to 12 years in prison, the repercussions of the case continue, both in the United States and in Russia.

Yeah, no doubt she "loved" the boy. I guess that's an "Illinois mom" to the American media, to whom no detail is ever too cheesy or too cynical.

But back to the case of little Artyom, which is full of fishy details, which may be, or may be not, attributable to lousy journalism. For one, is it so easy to get a 7-year-old Unaccompanied Minor on an international 10-hour-flight? His Russian passport, on which he allegedly travelled, was in a sealed envelope in his backpack. He couldn't speak Russian. Did he forget all of it during the seven odd months in America? He couldn't write, which implies that he wasn't numerate either. How could he then attack his "aunt" when she asked him to correct his maths? Did they teach him just maths and not how to write? So the adoptive "mother" sought advice from psychologists but never arranged for the boy to meet one? The adoption agency contacted the woman in March when everything seemed to be fine with the child. She then even expressed wishes to adopt a second child. The ten-year old boy Logan is sometimes refered to as Hansen's child, then again as her sister's child.

I guess for some time to come I'll will be quite sick at the sound of words and idioms like "I don't want to judge", "love", "mother", "mom", "I can empathize with", "wants to have a family/child", "my heart goes out", "our thoughts and prayers", "tragic", "heartbreaking" and some more.

Tough luck he isn't a puppy!

By now, everybody will have heard of the 7-year-old adopted boy who was placed on a flight back to Moscow by this "Tennessee mom". (Don't get me started now on disgusting American euphemisms!)

The boy may well have been a violent nutcase and she can blame the adoption agency and the Russian officials for dishonesty as much as she wants. They probably were. I am not even insisting that it was her duty to undergo therapy and all the excruciating processes other, responsible, adoptive parents choose to undergo. (Well, it WAS her duty, but I am not insisting on it for argument's sake.) However, nothing changes the fact that she put a helpless, troubled little boy alone on a 10-hour- flight and arranged for a stranger she found via the Internet, and who could have very well have been a fiend , to pick him up at the other end to drop him off like an broken bit of merchandise. So the child was too much fuss for her. Alright, but ist seems that even getting rid of him in a halfway decent manner was too much fuss for her.

I did quite an extensive Internet search and I found countless sheer and undiluted expressions of disgust at the "adoptive mother's" behaviour, even more expressing stern disapproval but granted her "good intentions" in the first place and that they could relate to her because they experienced similar problems with their own adopted child and -- worst -- those "I don't think we can judge unless we have gone through the same blah blah blah ..." relativists. Right! I guess you can't judge a mass murderer or a paederast until you've killed a few and raped at least one child. Gosh, DO I hate "ordinary people".

Neighbours in the rural town of 20,000 said Hansen [the adoptive mother] was a loving mother who found she could not cope with a violent child.

Linda Austin said: 'We knew there were problems but she tried her best. I think she is getting the raw end of the deal.'

Another neighbour added: 'Torry desperately wanted a child of her own, but she just found this boy uncontrollable.'

I wonder what they'd said had the skank abandoned a puppy. We've yet to see a snappy slogan like "A child is for life, not just Christmas".

However, what I did NOT see in the course of my Internet search, was one single challenge of the fact that here we have a case of a "single mom" (Did I say that you oughtn't to get me started on disgusting American euphemisms?) as an "adoptive parent". Incidentally, previous adoption failures have increased Russian officials' wariness of adoptions to the U.S. In 2006, Peggy Sue Hilt of Manassas, Virginia, was sentenced to 25 years in prison after being convicted of fatally beating a 2-year-old girl adopted from Siberia and 2008, Kimberly Emelyantsev of Tooele, Utah, was sentenced to 15 years after pleading guilty to killing a Russian infant in her care.

Does anybody see a pattern there?

Or here?

A Florida woman left her adopted Guatemalan kindergartener in the airport immediately after bringing him to the United States (he remained in foster care until she sought, and regained, custody of him 16 months later).

I guess we can at least be grateful that they didn't call her a "Florida mom".

What can one expect from a woman with a crappy name like "Torry Ann"? (I sometimes think that every single cliché is true.) What from an "adoptive grandmother" who makes "cute" statements like the one saying that her daughter "only wanted to have a family". And nobody laughs that old bag out of the door and tells her, as her daughter isn't married, that, no, she can't.

Is there really a scenario all that easily imaginable, where a married couple would do that to a child? That they would have rejected professional help? That they would have come forward with simpering bullshit like they "only wanted to have a family"? As if that would explain, let alone excuse, anything.

Women simply don't have the moral fibre, strength, reliability, integrity, maturity and devotion to be trusted with the sole care for a child. It's bad enough what they are doing to their birth children, so it's sheer and utter madness to indulge their whim "to have a family" and let them adopt. If they are unable to form a stable relationship with a man, how can they be trusted to form one with a child?

America, you have a lot of problems. You have a radical leftwinger in the White House, massive economic issues and God knows what consequences your immigration policy will have. But the worst you are doing to yourself is feminism. Why? Because it goes straight at the heart of any intact society -- the family.

What happened to the little boy is bad enough, but what is worse is the fact that nobody seems to notice that adoption rights for unmarried mothers stink.

Fatherless Generations

In an entry from Monday, The moral development of women, Female Misogynist discusses the integral moral and ethical blindness from which the female sex is suffering. In the comments section she pointed me at yet another entry's comments with the following information regarding German history:

In his Back to Patriarchy, Daniel Amneus said:

"One cannot help thinking of George Kennan's theory that the enormous number of fatherless families created in Germany by the slaughter of World War I was a principal cause of the rise of Naziism, a system satisfying the fatherless child's pathetic search for a father-surrogate with whom he could find himself in sympathetic resonance."

Item: if anyone knows where in George Kennan's work he presented this theory, please let me know.

So in Europe between the World Wars, we had a generation growing up without fathers, a circumstance which consistently leads to delinquency, and a couple of dictators playing father figure to the masses who had been deprived of real fathers. And we all know where that led.

This is a challenging thought, and, no doubt, explains a lot of the woes we are discussing here. But can it be applied 1:1 to German history?

Some data first: Wikipedia has the following figures for WWI-casualties. My brief exerpt below covers the deaths shown as the percentage of the population (military and civilian) and it is everybody's own guess how many male deaths it includes. Apart from one notable exception, which I will discuss below, the figures for the relevant countries are more or less within the same range. Notabene that in the theatre-of-war-countries the civilian losses were much higher and would thus lower the male contingent within the allover percentage.

United Kingdom 2.19%: The United Kingdom stayed safely clear from all dictatorial temptations. How much other woe was caused by the absence of so many men is beyond the scope of this entry.

France 4.29%: Well, France is France. No dictatorship, BUT...

Italy 3.48%: VERY second rate dictatorship, I'd say, and: Italy is Italy...

Bulgaria 3.41% / Romania 9.07% / Kingdom of Serbia 16.11%
The Balkan: The same applies basically to the Balkan. The overproportional number of civilian deaths in Serbia and Romania was due to food shortages and epidemics. Would all those countries have fared better without the loss of so many men? Certainly. Decisively better? I am not sure.

Russian Empire 2.08%: I do not think that the rise of Communism had much, if anything, to do with the losses of male lifes in WWI, but with the fact that Russia was a huge, backward country with a population still deeply steeped in the Middle Ages.

Ottoman Empire 13.72%: The overproportionally lage percentage comes from the huge civilian losses caused by famine, disease and the Armenian Genocide. Still, the military casualties were, with 771,844 deaths and 400,000 wounded, huge. Yet the Ottoman Empire developed later into the only country within the Islamic world that adopted, even if only partially, some modernism, Western values and institutions. Why that is so certainly calls for further questioning.

Austria-Hungary 3.05% / German Empire 3.82%
Nazi Germany: It shouldn't just be asked why Germany adopted a dictatorship, but why Germany adopted a dictatorship whose singular goal was the destruction of the Jewish people. I know that some Jews are deeply offended by the following, although I fail to see why and it's nothing but a fact: Germany would very probably have won WWII had it not invested its main resources into murdering the Jews of Europe. But then, WWII would have made no sense without that goal. It was only ostensibly about righting the (real or perceived) wrongs following WWI. Germany's way to the Holocaust was not a freak of history. In his epochal book "Ideology of Death. Why the Holocaust happend in Germany" John Weiss (a gentile, by the way) bursts that bubble.

The Holocaust happened in Germany, historian Weiss argues, because "the special nature of German and Austrian history" gave an utterly racist form of anti-Semitism "immense power." Weiss examines anti-Semitism's "Christian legacy" in Europe; the role of Martin Luther; the weakness of countervailing Enlightenment ideas in Germany and Austria-Hungary; and the central fact that, throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, "racism was increasingly used by upper-class reactionaries, middle-class nationalists, and lower-class populists as a weapon against the growing influence of democratic liberalism, economic modernization, and calls for social reform." Weiss reviews the rise of the Nazi movement and its fuhrer, Hitler's relationships with German elites, German (and Austrian) involvement with the death camps, and the postwar efforts of many German leaders (often with Allied support) to hide their prewar racial attitudes.

(From a Booklist review at Amazon.)

I do not think that a fatherless generation could have caused all that. Furthered it? Certainly. But caused? No.

However, I agree thoroughly with the last part of Female Misogynist's quote:

And now we have a large percentage of Americans and Europeans without fathers. And it seems that the Islamic world is willing to offer father figures, ones with a sinister agenda that is nonetheless at least not weak and feminine.

But then, post-Sixties lawlessness or better: prostitution of the law and general moral decline in the West has played a major role here. If I think of all the many German war-widows, many of them destitute refugees from the former German Eastern provinces, who have brought up their children, now in their Sixties and early Seventies, to be functioning, stable and upright citizens, I can not believe in a DECISIVE role of fatherlessness pre-Sixties. But then, those women had still internalized the values of the patriarchal society and were not spoilt rotten -- rather the reverse.

Of course, one can discuss now how many of the leading figures of the so influential and so destructive "68"-movement, who are of exactly that generation, had been fatherless, but that would be fodder for yet another entry.

This entry ends here and the picture below has only marginally to do with it. I happened to find it while I looked for WWI-casualty figures at Wikipedia:

A German prisoner helps British wounded make their way to a dressing station near Bernafay Wood following fighting on Bazentin Ridge, 19 July 1916, during the Battle of the Somme. Yep, evil white men oppressing helpless womyn.

All Rights for Everybody

SPON tells us about yesterday's Christopher Street Day in Berlin and can't, of course, RESIST to pepper the report with lots of juicy photos.

"Stück für Stück ins Homoglück - Alle Rechte für Alle" [something like "step by step towards homo-happyness -- all rights for eveybody, and no, that is NOT a joke] is the motto of this year's Christopher Street Day (CDS) parade in Berlin. Up to 250,000 people are partying in the capital, according to the organizers.

The parade, which is the 31st of its kind, took off at the Kurfürstendamm [Berlin's boulevard landmark]. Tenthousands of gays, lesbians and transsexuals started out at 12.30h with 55 floats or banded together on foot towards Siegessäule, where the final rally will take place.

Numerous participants were wearing colourful costumes and brandishing rainbow-banners. The organizers are demanding the inclusion of the protection of homosexuals in the constitution.

(Mixed times in the original!)

Berlin's (openly gay) mayor Klaus Wowereit with Renate Künast, a prominent Green politician.




Oppressed gay men are having at last (for the 31st time) some innocent fun.

Those are, mind you, the MSM-approved pictures.

Here we have some from the renowned daily Süddeutsche Zeitung under the header "Bunt als Lebensgefühl" [something like: "Multicolour as a way of life"]:


This is a picture from the Hamburg 2005, not of the Berlin 2009 event because, so we can only presume, this year's pictures from Berlin weren't swinish enough for the quality journalism for which the Süddeutsche stands.

Homosexuals against "right wing extremism": "Bend over Skin[head]", the placard says.

One can now be, as I am, disgusted by those pictures and the depravity of the media, and I have yet to find a single critical account of this debased spectacle pretending that it's the outcry of an "oppressed minority". On second thought, however, it may be not all bad. It will cure the odd wellmeaning liberal from the false perception that homosexuals are doing, as one often hears, "no damage". Wellmeaning liberals, who have never seen homosexuals save the nice, middle class, quiet, sober, unobtrusive couple from next door, tend to think that. I was once one of them. After all, those inoffensive mild excentrics have a nice house with a garden and wouldn't a child better grow up there than in an orphanage, and why shouldn't they have a sort of civil union so that the surviving one will get his "widower's pension"? It would only be fair and do no harm, won't it?

And then one sees those pictures, hears those strident demands for equality and one starts to think. There hasn't been any discrimination against homosexuals for decades, neither legal nor factual. Yet now they are demanding the inclusion of the "protection of homosexuals" in the constitution. What does that imply? They are saying it quite openly: All rights for everybody. Now a man demands to be able to legally "marry" a man based on the principle of "legal equality". Next he wants to "marry" a minor. Why not? Doesn't the setting of an age of sexual consent limit the "legal equality" of minors and, not to forget, of those who would like to have sex with them? I am talking rubbish? The Green Party has never credibly renounced their goal to legalize sex with minors, a party that once took off as a pro-homosexual, pro-immigration, feminist, enviromentalist and pacifist organisation with a few old "blood and soil" Nazis thrown in who have long left or died out. Based on that logic from hell, they could as well demand that a blind man must be granted a driving license. All rights for everybody!

Homosexuals are a minority that should be accepted and respected by the majority were it not for the fact that they see themselves as a pressure group hell bent not just on equality but on replacing the majority. They are known to form "rope teams" and thus claim a societal and political importance based on nothing but their, to all "normal" intents and purposes, unimportant sexual orientation. They, as I wrote in an earlier entry, are claiming an importance they don't possess and an attention they don't deserve. In that, they are demonstrating a frightening affinity to Islam in our Western culture, an affinity that, not so amazingly, transcends matters of politics and mentality to fulfill itself somewhere very real in North Africa.

Islam's Intolerance is the Fault of the West

Now, as the question why young men with a "migration background" beat German pensioners to a pulp, is safely and satisfactorily answered, the question why young men with a "migration background" beat homosexuals to a pulp needs similar processing. This is done by one Hans Peter Pökel who is introduced as somebody who "does research in the field of gender images in the classical Arab literature" and who "works at the institute for Semitic and Arabic studies at the Freie Universität Berlin" in yesterday's Tagesspiegel, a major Berlin newspaper, considered to be on the more conservative side of the political spectrum. Arab sexuality, Pökel says, is...

...paradoxically ... very much Westernized. With Colonialism, Victorian prudishness was imported to the Orient and there was that mixture of fascination and disgust with the allegedly sensually-wimpish, lascivious Orient. This is a cliché that is fought in Arab countries even today by showing specific strictness and turning sexuality into a taboo generally. And the prosecution of homosexuals is very often quite cruel. For that, the authentic Islamic tradition can hardly be hold responsible, but those who are aiming to see their own rejection justified by the religious sources.

But hey! Pökel can more than just blame the West ex cathedra for some less-than-perfect circumstances in Muslim countries. Muslims really, deep down and when nobody is looking, are very tolerant of gay sex because...

...the penetrating man is even today not really seen as homosexual, a view that is, by the way, not typical Islamic, but part of the culture in the entire Mediterranean. An adolescent is not seen as a man and therefore sex with him is not seen as anything blameworthy. But he will become taboo as soon as the first sign of a beard becomes visible and he will then be expected to marry.

Yes, you are reading this right. This scholar of Arabic studies is not just justifying sex with children, but taking it as a positive sign of tolerance towards homosexuals in Muslim societies.

So we know now, that the reason for the hanging, stoning and flogging of homosexuals (and presumably for the hanging, raping, flogging and stoning of little girls, women and generally everybody who has somehow caused the wrath of the basically tolerant Mullahs, not to speak of the decapitations and mutilations) is not Islam, "but those who are aiming to see their own rejection justified by the religious sources". I am sure Pökel (whose name equals the German word for "pickle" and generates most appropriate Google ads) can explain as well why our own "Westernized" sexuality and prudishness does NOT hang homosexuals but allows something like that...

... and then vilifies those who say that a lifestyle illustrated by the above pictures does nothing to further the cause of homosexual "families".

How absolutely debased and rotten to the core is a man... correction: is a medium... correction: is a society whose media publishes a justification of sex with children with the ultimate goal of excusing Islam of what it is.

To be fair, judging from Pökel's qualifications, it must have taken the Tagesspiegel and editor-in-charge Andrea Dernbach some time until they found somebody in the deepest bilges of academia ready and willing to forward something like the above.

---

First posted here. Read the still topical earlier entries at Roncesvalles: Volker explains what makes the world go round, Islam Is Mercy and If the Mullah Isn't Watching....

The selective politically correct perception of who makes victim fodder

The North British Person has got an excellent didactic play on political correctness for us:

TV contestant's racist views leave parents on a tide of bad PR
FERGUS SHEPPARD MEDIA CORRESPONDENT (fsheppard@scotsman.com)

IT WAS simultaneously a nightmare for any parent and a demonstration of the extraordinary power of reality TV in modern Britain.

A middle-class Edinburgh couple yesterday found themselves forced into the unfamiliar world of public-relations spin control as a row over their daughter's racist remarks on television came to the doorstep of their Georgian home.

David Buchanan, father of 18-year-old Lucy Buchanan, enlisted Edinburgh PR firm Profile Plus to issue a statement which amounted to a "wholehearted" apology for their daughter's conduct.

Lucy, a former pupil of the £19,662-a-year St Peter's School in York, won a place on a Channel 4 reality show in a gap year before going to Bristol University.
[...]
Lucy - who lists her hobbies as lacrosse and shooting - gave her fellow contestants camped on the South Pacific islands of Motoraku and Rapota a crash course on her views on society.

She said Britain was home to "way too many cultures", adding: "Britain is a complete mess. I just don't appreciate people coming into our country and taking over our culture." In another aside, the teenager declared: "I'm for the British Empire and things. I'm for slavery, but that's never going to come back."

The Buchanans were forced into defending their daughter as journalists descended on the family home. Mr Buchanan is understood to be an IT executive while his wife, Nicola, is a former model.

In his statement, Mr Buchanan said: "Lucy has been brought up in a loving and caring home, she has been privately schooled, as is already known.

"By definition, she has had advantages in life, which mean that she has been cosseted in a way that for most children is simply not available to them. It is our firm belief that Lucy, as a naïve teenager, made these silly and very unfortunate remarks on the back of her excitement at being on Shipwrecked."

The statement claimed Lucy had been "challenged" by teammates on the show, a process which had altered her views over five months of filming.
[...]
Mr Buchanan added: "We hope that on Lucy's return she will be afforded the opportunity to use this life experience in a positive way to demonstrate that she can act as an ambassador for change and moderation."

Lucy's trenchant views have extended to more than race. She has also described fat people as "disgusting", calling for them to get their stomachs stitched, and branded lesbians "sinister".
[...]
The Commission for Racial Equality said it was monitoring Shipwrecked.

Campaign group Anti-Slavery International actually backed Channel 4's decision to screen Buchanan's remarks, arguing they illustrated how little slavery was understood.

Group spokeswoman Beth Herzfeld said: "These sorts of comments and the cavalier attitude to slavery clearly show a lack of recognition that slavery does continue to exist, as well as an understanding of what the transatlantic slave trade involved."
[...]

We are living in a culture of envy. If Lucy'd attended, say, the local comprehensive, nobody would have given a damn. The fact that the article revels oh-so-subtly in the details of her privileges ("Lucy - who lists her hobbies as lacrosse and shooting...") makes it a perfectly vile bit of journalism.

The parents are spineless morons,
1) because they apologised for their daughter's opinions,
2) because they let their daughter, whose education they obviously intended to be elitist, prostitute herself at such a crappy TV show,
3) because they are using politically correct lower-middleclass-isms like "caring" and "privately schooled", which, so I suspect, are anathema at the school for which they forked out all that money.

So The Thought Police Commission for Racial Equality is monitoring Shipwrecked. What sort of importance do they grant the bimbos in a pathetic travesty like Shipwrecked? Besides, apart from the slavery bit, which was pretty brainless (Yeah! Too bad about all those school fees...!) Lucy didn't say anything about race and made perfectly good points and I doubt that her views extend to her duskier class mates at St Peter's from the former colonies, which would prove that it's really about culture and not about "race". (I may be wrong.)

Did it ever occur to those moronic parents that their "cosseted" daughter who, according to her father "made these silly and very unfortunate remarks on the back of her excitement at being on Shipwrecked" that she made these remarks not out of "excitement" but PRECISELY BECAUSE SHE WAS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HER LIFE EXPOSED TO THE REALITY OF YOB-LIFE?

I have been at the receiving end of quite some aggro for similar views to those Lucy espressed on fat people.

That is, I can understand that it is vile and unfair to discriminate against people who can't do anything about their condition, be it colour, handicap or whatever. Fat people CAN. At least the vast majority of them. Why are they still mollycoddled and protected as "victims" by the politically correct brigade? To quote myself: After holocaust survivors, cancer survivors, rape survivors, abuse of various sorts survivors, we now have - obesity survivors! The terminology reveals the agenda: "Something bad has happened to me; it must be someone else’s, preferably the men's, doing".

By standing up for fat women, feminism [incidentally another ideology of envy] creates a perverted system of female solidarity. Fat women get encouragement, support and even acclaim for an unhealthy lifestyle. Feminists WANT women fat. They want to proselytize women who feel that they are ugly or potentially rejected by men. These are the first and easiest prey for an ideology that fosters men-hating.

It's not men who force their views on women; it's a women-shaped society that forces its views on women and it is not beyond feminists to fish even at the very bottom of that self-made foodchain.

Thank you for your acclaim. I think that was rather good, too.

And lesbians... who would care what they are doing if it were behind closed doors. I wouldn't and, so I presume, Lucy wouldn't either. Hell, I don't even WANT to know what sort of activities people prefer behind closed doors. It's the fact that so many of them are aggressively flaunting their sexuality, which makes them (and homosexuals) so unpalatable. They are cramming their sexuality down our throats, and we, who don't share such proclivities, are supposed to like it -- and AGAIN in the name of the new tin god political correctness.

Not to mention the disgusting hypocrisy of all those who are now appalled that a yobbo-programme, designed to be sensationalist, turned out to be just that and are targeting the young woman instead of the makers of that cynical bit of taste- and soul-corrupting dirt.

All that said, the article, in all its political correct righteous outrage, misses entirely the probably most crucial point, namely that Whites were rather gifted amateurs when it came to enslaving people and the professionals were (and, worse still ARE) people of various Middle Eastern and North African extraction who enslaved Whites as well.

But to say all that is, of course, racist. And it might, mind you, hurt the overdeveloped sensitivities of the followers of the "Religion of Peace".

The politically correct perception of who makes victim fodder and who doesn't is pretty selective.

A list of titles at amazon.com for further education:

Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800 (Early Modern History) by Robert C. Davis

White Gold: The Extraordinary Story of Thomas Pellow and Islam's One Million White Slaves by Giles Milton

They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America by Michael A. Hoffman

White Slaves, African Masters: An Anthology of American Barbary Captivity Narratives by Paul Baepler

Race and Slavery in the Middle East: A Historical Enquiry by Bernard Lewis

Women Can't Do Wrong and Children Have No Lobby

Today, Patsy Ramsey, the mother of murdered child beauty queen JonBenet, made the frontpage of Google news by dying from ovarian cancer.

I take this welcome opportunity to engage in one of my occasional anti-American rants. They usually happen when I am overwhelmed by the guilt of being a self-hating German and ranting about American shortcomings usually helps. (That was sarcasm, by the way.) This time it's about the sick, perverted American cult of "proms", "beauty pageants" and "children's beauty pageants". The difference is that the former lets a sixteen-year old girl look like a 30-vear old hooker, while the latter lets a four-year old girl look like a 30-year old CHEAP hooker.

Whether the unspeakable Ramsey woman killed her child or not is not for me to judge. To me, a mother who pimps her little girl to pose "sexily" in revealing outfits in front of a bunch of sick paederasts after she has lumbered her, true to form, with a pretentious, crappy name like "JonBenet" for life, has killed her child's soul anyway long before its physical death.

Aren't any feminists or child protection groups out there fighting this sort of degenerate spectacles? But I guess they are too busy fantasising about an all-dyke society and how to reduce men to sperm-donor status and and are unmovedly watching when tiny girls are victimised for their mother's need for vicarious fame and not-quite-so-vicarious profit.

Women can't do any wrong and children have no lobby.

Yes, my non-American reader, "beauty pageants", those for children included, are a multi-billion business and the girl below is not older than six. She can't be older because she was six when she was mudered by some pervert. Or rather, the pervert killed what her mother hadn't killed before.



"Love, purity and joy" said the inscription on JonBenet's tombstone, just those three things the little girl surely did NOT possess anymore when she died.

I remember having once read about the "Münchhausen-by-proxy-syndrome", a condition that lets mothers clandestinely make their children sick, or their sick children even sicker, to get attention and praise for their "care". Children are known to have died from this.

Only women are suffering from this "syndrome". If men were largely guilty of this, nobody would have bothered to introduce a special medical condition, fancy name included.

It would have been simply called "Evil".

Udderly Incredible

My first reaction was to assume this is an April fool's jest, but I am afraid, reality has beaten travesty once again. The Age from Australia reports:

The bottom line in kids' books is udderly unreal
By Chee Chee Leung
April 1, 2006


Different look: Publishers simply rejected the bare-bottomed baby by Ann James.

CHILDREN'S book illustrator Terry Denton is no stranger to controversy. Over a 25-year career, he's contributed to popular books featuring nose picking, dog poo and runny vomit.

But it is not just excrement that can raise eyebrows. When he was illustrating an American school reader a few years ago, Denton was asked by a US publisher to redraw a picture of a multi-race couple. Denton's drawing of a black person married to an Hispanic was for some reason deemed inappropriate. He was asked to draw a black couple instead.

Denton is one of a growing number of Victorian illustrators who say restrictions on educational books for children have intensified as the publishing market expands globally.

One highly successful book was not accepted in the US because it showed a bare baby's bottom. Another illustrator was asked not to draw any udders in a book about cows.

Illustrators have been asked to avoid showing uncut loaves of bread and freestanding wardrobes because they might be unfamiliar to American readers.

Others report being given strict ratios about the gender and multicultural balance of characters, but without too much physical detail.

"(Large) lips on any blacks are completely out, the eyes on any Asian child have to not look Asian at all and the colour for any black child has got to be the softest brown," explains Craig Smith, who drew the udderless cows.

"It's unreal, that's what I think the most despairing thing is. It means a book does not necessarily reflect what kids patently see around them, they see a cleaned-up version."

Fellow illustrator Roland Harvey, who abandoned an educational project several years ago because of what he believed were excessive demands, described it as political correctness gone mad.

"It's not only gone mad, I think it's completely irrational … to start to think that portraying a race in a true and honest way is somehow derogatory or demeaning."

At Thomson Learning Australia, Lee Walker has overseen the removal of genitals from a mouse, nail polish from children's hands, and skull and crossbones from pirates' clothing. "And we Photoshop out cows' udders all the time."

Ms Walker, publishing manager in Thomson's primary division, agrees there are now more changes applied to illustrations to suit the international market, especially the "overly politically correct" US market, but she sees it as "just part of the business".

"From a cost perspective, it's easier," she said. "I'm sure all of us feel a little bit challenged sometimes because we might not necessarily agree, but … we would always put our market first."
[...]

GUIDELINES FOR ILLUSTRATORS FROM A US PUBLISHER

■ Avoid stereotypes such as females as peripheral/helpers to active/leading males, or senior citizens as infirm, with canes, doddering.

■ Elderly people should be shown as active members of society; unless relevant to text they should not be shown in wheelchairs.

■ Show mothers involved in outside employment (not in aprons in kitchens).

■ Show African-Americans in positions of power, not just in service industries.

■ Show African-Americans and other people of colour with a range of skin tones. Hair texture should vary from straight to curly.

■ Do not stereotype Asian people with glasses, bowl-shaped haircuts, or as intellectuals.

■ Never use slanted lines to illustrate Asian eyes.

■ No large groups of people without an appropriate ethnic mix and male/female ratio.

■ No "help the disabled" pictures — show disabled people doing for themselves and others.

■ Show many types of family grouping. Take care not to imply that one-parent homes are broken.

I wouldn't mind political correctness so much, if they'd put a bit more emphasis on the "correct" bit. I mean, one-parent homes ARE broken, aren't they? Of course not for the Andrea-Dworkin-type feminists who would like to keep a couple of choice males as semen-donors only (and are NOT laughed out of the door or institutionalised in America), but whose standards and values are they applying there?

Yes, they ARE rather idiots, those political correct "Amis", aren't they?

Now to the ratio bit: A couple of months ago there was a poster campaign for day school launched by the government here (yes, dear reader, in the former country of poets and philosophers most children are attending school only long enough to be back home for lunch). One poster showed one boy and two girls, of which one was Asian and the other one, if I remember correctly, two girls of which one was not White either. And that in a country with a non-White population percentage in the low single figure range and the ratio of boys is not reduced to semen-donor level (yet).

(Big thanks to KEWIL who found that!)

But OF COURSE fat is no disease!

It's a character flaw!



This grossly fat child, not all that amazingly stuffing the mouth of the poor dog with some object, wasn't freed from captivity by the witch from Hänsel und Gretel who force fed it to have a nice juicy roast, but removed from foster care back to a mother who had allowed that child to become such a monstrosity in the first place.

February 21, 2005 Update: ISAA is delighted to announce that Dakota Main was returned to his mother on Saturday, February 19, 2005. ISAA believes that it was the lobbying efforts from the public -- from you -- that made the difference in this weight-related child removal to foster care. ISAA sends its heartfelt congratulations to Dakota (why do the children of those idiots always have to have such crappy names?), his mother and his family in friends.

Don't I just LOVE those American euphemisms! "Late-term abortion" is the butchering of a living, healthy, mature child as long as it hasn't completey passed the birth canal, "affirmative action" it's what they call sheer and undiluted racism nowadays and the removal of a child from a mother who had allowed her perfectly ordinary child child to become a fat monstrosity with a high potential for diseases, not to mention the laughing stock among the children in the neighbourhood (yes, children are, in spite of the worst efforts of their parents, mostly cruel little bastards and extremely non-PC) they call "weight-related child removal".

Cute!

Behind this case of child-abuse an organisation called ISAA - International Size Acceptance Association is lurking, just another one of those "ITSEVERYBODYELSESBUTNOTMYFAULT" organisations that do more damage to society than Al Quaida, NOI, PETA and the Communist Manifesto together.

No doubt, telling women that fat is beautiful goes down very well with the lazy and slovens -- and is akin to prescribing tranquilizers to a person who suffers from the squits so that he (or rather she) doesn't mind anymore shitting her pants.

Click HERE to read another, related, blog entry about McDonalds, The Father (or is it "Mother"?) of All Evil.