Wednesday, February 24, 2016

The Hypnotic Dance of Death

by Alexander Maistrovoy

In my correspondence regarding the events in Cologne, an editor of a Russian newspaper asked a natural but discouraging question. Perplexed, he asked me: “Where were the German men?”

Indeed, for those of us who grew up in Soviet Russia, it would be inconceivable that some drunk young people could publicly mock and harass girls on New Year’s Eve in the very center of Moscow or Saint Petersburg. If they dared to do this, they wouldn’t survive until the morning; they would become “martyrs” and would have their way with 72 virgins in a completely different realm.

Ethical codes, embedded in us on a genetic level, would demand that we intervene on behalf of the women. Especially in a situation where normal adult men were more numerous than the rapists, and the rapists themselves were not terrorists, cyborgs or aliens, but mere street punks.

As it turned out, in Germany, Sweden, Austria and elsewhere, these codes were fatally violated. A great number of strong healthy men, having heard the girls screaming and crying, and having seen the crimes being committed, didn’t do anything to save the victims. In rare cases, the girls were defended by migrants from Eastern Europe or Third World countries.

But this is only the first question in a long line of simple questions. We could expect that women, having learned about the abuse of girls the next day, would be in a fury, since there is an inherent instinct in every normal woman to rescue a child or to protect a girl from an abuse, rape or harassment. Again, genetic codes didn’t work. We heard women blaming the victims and defending the rapists. We heard Henriette Reker, the mayor of Cologne, who claimed that “there’s always the possibility of keeping a certain distance of more than an arm’s length”; Claudia Roth from the Green Party, who accused an “organized mob” on the Internet of “calling for a hunt on non-white people.” We learned about dozens of female journalists who concealed the truth because the rapists were “refugees.” Feminists? We didn’t hear their voices. As we haven’t heard their voices in Sweden, Norway and England, where thousands of girls had long ago been turned into “white meat.”

Instead, all we hear is a subtle mumble, like that of the expert Irmgard Kopetzky, who states that “sexual violence is an issue for people of all ethnic origins.” “Figures show the majority of people carrying out sex attacks in Germany do not come from an immigrant background,” according to her. Andrea den Boer, from the University of Kent, sees the roots of the problem in that “the sex ratio alteration in the young adult population looking also to be abnormal at about 114 boys of that age for every 100 girls.” [sic] Really? In China, Armenia, and Azerbaijan there are also many more boys than girls. Has anyone heard about something similar happening in Beijing, Erevan or Baku? Why, during the revolutions in Romania, Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, were there no cases of gang rape of girls during demonstrations, as it happened in Tahrir Square?

The wider Pandora’s box is opened, the more questions arise. What about politicians? Have any of them, left or right, called it the way they saw it? No. “Sexual harassment is not automatically binding to migration and immigration,” Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven said in Davos. Sure! According to a report by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÅ) 20 years before, in 1996, the highest rates of rape convictions were of individuals born in North Africa and Iraq. They were convicted of rape at rates of 17.5 times higher than the native Swedish rate.

We are speaking about a commonplace situation, typical for the patriarchal Muslim world — for Iraqis, Afghans or Somalis — where a non-Muslim woman is nothing more than a sexual object, an easy and natural prey, a whore. Coptic women in Egypt are constantly subjected to harassment just because they are Christians. The civil war in Lebanon took place not least because of the mass rape of Christian women by Palestinians. How much more for European women who are accustomed to their free dress code and not protected by their families.

If “refugees” ever dared to do the same at home — in Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia — with Muslim girls, they would be buried alive. There are strict and oppressive laws of clan vengeance, and no one dares to harass a woman from another clan or tribe without bringing upon himself an inevitable and cruel punishment. European women have no protection from their families or even the state, with the latter taking the side of the perpetrator. That is why they are doomed.

Why are western politicians paralyzed by fear? Why do only leaders from Eastern Europe dare to tell the truth, such as Miloš Zeman and Bohuslav Sobotka, the President and Prime Minister of the Czech Republic; Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico; and the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán? The issue is not about right or left ideology. Zeman, Sobotka and Fico are Socialists. The issue is about a healthy, normal perception of the world based on genuine European values.

Why did it happen that they were the only leaders who could give both a courageous and adequate response to the reality of this situation? These small countries, squeezed between millstones of formerly great empires and having survived Soviet despotism, now know the value of freedom and dignity. They were vaccinated against universalist ideologies. Yet it is curious that the Czech Republic and Slovakia are the only countries that accept genuine refugees facing a terrible fate — Christians and Yazidis from Iraq — but not mature and aggressive young men heading to Europe for an easy life and “white meat.”

What has happened to the world when men, women, politicians, and the elite betray their daughters and children in order to please newcomers with their baser instincts and a cult of male power?

The answer is sad: the culture of postmodernism has managed to do what couldn’t be achieved even by the Communist propaganda machine. It has degraded the instinct of self-preservation, a natural reaction embedded in humans on a genetic level, the ability to feel compassion and protect a victim – a woman, a girl, a child. An abstract ideology has suppressed the mind and senses.

I left the USSR as a hater of Soviet totalitarianism. Now I realize that the cultural totalitarianism of political correctness has turned out to be much more poisonous.

The Soviet regime dictated harsh rules and established censorship. However, people remained normal human beings. They laughed at authorities, composed jokes about Brezhnev, made satirical films in spite of the censorship, and learned to read newspapers between the lines.

Cultural totalitarianism succeeded much more. It affirmed a relentless self-censorship, turned people into sterile zombies, and exterminated basic senses of responsibility and dignity. It changed the very nature of man, and indeed, it was a unique experiment on their own people.

There is a small carnivorous animal in Siberia – a stoat. It hunts rabbits and hares, which are significantly heavier, faster and stronger than the stoat itself. It doesn’t creep, doesn’t sit in ambush and doesn’t catch its prey on the run. It performs a hypnotic dance of death in front of it — with wriggles, acrobatic leaps and somersaults. The stoat dazzles the prey and, gradually approaching it, then grabs its throat. The rabbit dies from shock. Why does the prey allow the stoat to dazzle and kill it without resisting? Biologists are unable to solve the riddle of the stoat’s hypnotic dance.

Western elites have foredoomed their own people by means of somersaults and acrobatic tricks, and doomed them to the same fate of the unfortunate rabbit. The hypnotic dance of death is gaining momentum.


Hillary's Condescending Attitude Toward Blacks

Ahead of the Democrat South Carolina Primary Feb. 27 (a week after the Republican version), Clinton has been moving to shore up her support among blacks, getting the endorsement of the Congressional Black Caucus, defining her policies she thinks will appeal to black voters. This is necessary for her campaign strategy. Socialist Bernie Sanders has the white millennial vote in the bag. Clinton’s hope is to decisively win in states with high minority populations. But the question of whether she will get the support is different than whether she should get the support, for the politicians' actions show she doesn’t respect black Americans.

At a recent speech in Harlem, Clinton rolled out a litany of proposals. Blacks could have special entitlements through a beefed-up Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education and a progressive Department of Housing. If they didn’t elect her, a “dead broke” white woman, then it would be four to eight more years of “systemic racism.”

In trying to reach black voters, Clinton insulted them to their faces. “This is racism. Hillary is treating blacks as aimless, victimized people who cannot control their destiny and whose best hope depends upon the benevolence of white saviors in the Democratic Party like her,” opined Investor’s Business Daily. “Her crass pandering for black votes lays bare the low view Democrats have of African-Americans. They are counting on them being slaves to their entitlement politics. Maintaining black resentment is the main source of their power.”

Just recall the condescension Clinton showed the outlying Black Lives Matter protesters who talked about her platform with her in August. After listening to their petition, Clinton snapped, “Respectfully, if that is your position, then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with the very real problems.” Combined with her reputation for lying, Clinton’s own worst enemy is her character.


Berlin shows the advantage of a libertarian approach to alcohol consumption

The NSW government has attempted to reduce late-night violence and disorder in parts of Sydney by enforcing early closing of bars and nightclubs.  The measure is very unpopular with the denizens concerned.  We see another way below

IT’S fair to say that Berlin is a city that likes a drink. People wander the streets with a beer in hand day and night, clubs don’t shut from Friday night to Monday morning and fast food shops have a range of brews that would put some Australian bottle shops to shame.

So if there is a link between heavy alcohol consumption and violence, as the NSW Government seems to argue, you’d be entitled to think that this place should be in big trouble.

But it’s really not. And that can mainly be attributed to the difference in how people drink here.

I moved to Berlin from Sydney just under a year ago and noticed it after just a couple of nights. Here, you don’t tend to see the obnoxious binge drinking behaviour that you do from time to time in areas of Sydney — there’s no trays of shots, no loud, public sculling of beers and no vomiting in the street.

Because this is the prevailing culture in Berlin venues, it has become largely self-policing.

There’s no need for bouncers in bars or uniformed police on the streets in most areas of the city because people are trusted to behave. And they generally respond positively to that trust.

Everything starts a little later here too. Most bars don’t really come to life until about 10pm and most won’t close until the last punter has finished their drink. Even then you can buy whatever you fancy from the hundreds of Spätkauf (convenience stores) that line the streets, 24 hours a day.

This all combines to give the sense that people are not rushing to drink as much as they can before last orders, so there’s rarely any hassles getting to the bar and no cramming in drinks, while 24 hour weekend trains make it easy to get home.

It all makes for a much more relaxed atmosphere and, as a result, it’s not at all unusual to strike up a long conversation with a stranger. I’ve yet to see any of these conversations turn sour.

And it’s not just me. Almost everyone you talk to here says they’ve seen little or no evidence of violence on a night out — they feel safe.

Maggie Tang, who moved to the city from Sydney three years ago, is one such example. She believes Sydney could pick up a few tips from her adopted home.

“The major difference is the attitude of trust and freedom towards drinking in Berlin compared to Sydney,” she said.

“Although Berlin is more carefree, it never feels out of control. I think it might have something to do with the legal drinking age (16 in Germany), the openness towards licensing and trading hours and access to transport. Also the binge drinking culture — there is definitely far, far less of that in Berlin.”

Sydney’s lockout laws have become big international news of late and most of the Berliners I’ve spoken to find the restrictions utterly baffling. Franziska Dittrich, who was born in the German capital, described Sydney’s approach as “absolutely ridiculous” and said education was vital.

“Drinking is part of everyday life, but people usually don’t drink as much to get drunk,” she said. “It is much more important to teach people how to drink, like in schools. Show them the danger of it, rather than demonising it.”

She added that Berliners tend to be a little stubborn and that any attempt to change their drinking culture to a more controlled one would be rejected.

“If they tried to introduce something like those laws here, people would ignore it or find a way around it” she said. “For example the smoking ban didn’t work at all in Berlin.”

It seems that the authorities are happy with the situation as it is too. Berlin’s police force don’t even record whether alcohol is a factor in violent crimes

So could the Berlin approach work in Sydney or do Sydney drinkers need tighter legislation because it’s intrinsically a more violent and less safe city?

Numbeo, a website which provides extensive data on cities based on a peer review system doesn’t think Sydney is much more dangerous than Berlin at all. It puts Berlin’s overall ‘Safety Scale’ score (the closer to 100 the better) at 58.86 and Sydney’s at 58.26.

Really, the thing that seems to be stopping Sydney from following Berlin’s lead (aside from the laws) is the attitude of those few who are violent, or who become so when drunk. It’s an element of Australia’s drinking culture that’s proven tricky to change.

When it comes down to it, the main difference between the two is trust. Berlin trusts its citizens to look after themselves and others — and people respond well to it. The question is whether Sydney can do the same — and how its citizens will respond.


A good comment

I doubt that any reader of this site has any idea that I have a younger brother who is at least as conservative as I am.  He doesn't blog but he does occasionally post on Facebook.  I think his comment below deserves a wider audience.  The plebiscite he refers to is a forthcoming referendum on whether Australia should allow homosexual marriage

There is a fierce debate going on over marriage equality in response to an article by Fr Frank Brennnan on the Guardian web site. There are over 500 comments, over 90% supportive of marriage equality, but highly critical of the plebiscite. This is to be expected of a very Leftist publication and its supporters.

I don't really care one way or the other, but support the plebiscite. However I enjoy pointing out Leftist inconsistencies and posted up the following comment.

"I am very concerned about the feelings of our Muslim brothers. After all they believe homosexuality is a mortal sin, and certainly don't believe in same sex marriage. I'm sure they will be very offended, so doesn't that make marriage equality illegal under section 18C of the Anti- discrimination act!?"

It lasted an hour or so and elicited a couple of responses before the moderators took it down as being inconsistent with community values! LOL.  So the Guardian really has no time for debate and free speech, only the pursuit of leftist agendas


Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: