I’m sorry but that article is complete and utter tripe.

The article begins: “The gang rapes that transfixed Sydney had a racial element. But how did the issue of race come to overwhelm even the crimes?” There you go. That’s why the liberal power elites are upset about these horrific crimes: not that they occurred, but that people are focusing (and rightly so) on the racial aspect.

But that’s how the liberal mind works. When whites commit crimes against non-whites, the issue of race _always_ transcends the crime. But when non-whites commit crimes against whites, the crime is somehow paramount to issues of race. It’s the typical liberal double-standard.

Will Aussie men achieve revenge on the Muslim settler community for these terrible hate crimes? Let’s hope and pray they do. Justice demands it. But if the behavior of those white wimps in Wichita, KS who did _nothing_ while their women were raped and killed by a couple of black savages back in December 2000 is any indicator of the state of the white male today, let’s not hold our breath.

Why call them naive?

Why do I call them naive? I was thinking first of all in general terms of the way that (1) Western countries let all these unassimilable (and in many cases extremely resentful) Third Worlders flood their countries, while (2) telling their young people and their young females in particular never to discriminate against anyone, while (3) young middle-class Western females go about dressed like whores and (4) freely socialize with young non-Western, non-white men. The sexual naivity and carelessness of young white women today is legendary, and puts them at risk even in a homogeneous society, where they constantly put themselves in dangerous situations. In a multicultural society this naivity and sexual liberation is even more dangerous.

Then there were these particular things in the article that made the word naivity come to mind.

“There in the night, LURED FROM HOME BY A BOY SHE TRUSTS, their prey is forced to the ground. Eleven youths surround her. Two rape her before she flees. The attackers go home, back to warm beds in nearby houses where there are sisters and mothers who love them.”

Then there’s this:

“Sitting at home, the mother of one victim can’t hide feelings that she was duped. One of her daughters had gone out with a Lebanese Christian, another had a long relationship with a Muslim of Lebanese background. ‘I had a respect for them. I thought they were quite dignified and I trusted them because of their religion. I got it from my daughter’s boyfriend that Muslims were very, very good family-oriented people and that they look after their own. Unfortunately, that’s all they look after.’”

And this:

“After years of accepting a multicultural society, she now has her doubts: ‘I’d prefer that we make our way through together, but I’m scared for us, I really am.’”

That last quote was what made me add the qualifier “ALMOST” terminally naïve.

Apart from that, it would seem from the story that Australia is even further advanced in liberal sickness and evil than our own country (probably due to the well-known irreligion of that country). The reporter wrote the following:

“Some chose to add racial abuse to their rampage. The teenager raped on August 30 was called an ‘Aussie pig’, told she would be raped ‘Leb-style’ and asked ‘does Leb cock taste better than Aussie cock?’ by three of her assailants. Another girl was asked her nationality and concluded: ‘The world isn’t what I thought it to be - it isn’t safe and females are punished for being Australian.’

“The taunts go both ways. On August 4, 2000, a 14-year-old girl earned a slap across the face when she told one of the gang, masturbating in front of her on an evening train: ‘You wonder why people don’t like the Lebanese.’”

Just to make sure that everyone has gotten this: the reporter is telling us that a 14-year-old girl, responding with what sounds like rather subdued indignation toward a young man who was masturbating in front of her on a train, was giving him a “taunt” which was the equivalent of the gang-rapists calling their victim an “Aussie pig” while they were raping her. That’s taking moral equivilancy to new depths.

On the question of naivete, a few years ago I was travelling in England, and it seemed that almost every other day in the newspapers I saw another story about a young woman’s murdered body being found somewhere. It struck me that Britain was sort of like Long Island—a place where sexual murders seemed routine, with a careless young woman going off with some man and ending up dead, and a little story appears in the paper, and it’s forgotten, as though it were no more significant than the fall of a sparrow.

One day, as we were driving in the outskirts of Colchester, young women, most of them quite attractive, were walking along the side of the road, and I saw this complete naivete and unselfconsciousness in the way they carried themselves, the lack of self-protectiveness, of self-containment. And it occurred to me, there are young women like this getting murdered every week in this country, and no one seems to notice, it hasn’t affected anyone’s behavior, the easy way girls and women carry themselves in public, open to anything. They are defenseless against evil. If a strange man came along and offered them a lift, they would get into his car without a thought. Ever since, those easy-going, unselfconscious English girls have seemed to me like a symbol of Western suicide.

And a second thought. There is a particular type of white female—usually quite naïve and idealistic, often blond—who seems particularly drawn to nonwhite men.

>
There is a particular type of white female—usually quite naïve and idealistic, often blond—who seems particularly drawn to nonwhite men.
>

I know what you are refering to but isn’t “obsessing” about it (i.e. even mentioning it) a sign of one’s own sexual issues (patriarchical jealousy, crude racism, pathology, etc) from the eyse of the left? Not to mention sexism which is even more of a crime—which you are well aware.

What is the answer to this situation?

I know John is speaking ironically, but underneath there is a serious point which I want to answer seriously.

First of all, it is fundamental to liberalism that any opinion about the external world that does not fit with the liberal program must be seen as an expression of some highly unattractive personal defect or even pathology. Anti-liberals must therefore expect such attacks and prepared to counter or ignore them.

On the specific issue John raises, starting in the Sixties (that decade which, as Sonny Bono immortally declared, was “great, but only musically”), it became one the chief techniques of the liberationists to silence any criticism by saying that the critic was suffering from some sexual hangup. This technique, needless to say, was extraordinary successful. Parents, teachers, politicians, all kinds of authority figures, shrank in terror from being thought anything less than sexually happy, adjusted, and fulfilled. It is a deep instinct that people do not like to be thought of as having anything sexually wrong with them. Once again, as with wrongful charges of racism or any other technique of intimidation, conservatives must either be ready to stand the heat or get out of the kitchen. If you are not prepared to defend your position on the merits, and, even more importantly, if you are not ready to parry these ad hominem attacks and expose them for what they are, you might as well stay out of the debate.

But there is something more to be said about this. Traditionalists and social conservatives are the only people in today’s political spectrum who recognize the real importance of sex, understanding that sex is not just about the satisfaction of desires or personal fulfillment, but is central to social and moral order and to human happiness in the true sense. Therefore, when conservatives are attacked for being “hung up” or “reactionary” or “out of step” on sexual issues, what they must do is not defend themselves or retreat from the debate, but rather to demonstrate the true importance of sex as a moral and social concern. In short, they must have a vision of the good, and of how sex fits into it.

The liberal position is that sexual behavior is a personal choice with no social significance, and that therefore people should not talk about it or judge it in any way. The traditionalist position is that sexual morality is central to the well being of individuals and society, and is therefore a legitimate political concern.

The conduct of the victims was naive and the victim’s mother sounded naive. Most of those quoted, not to mention the ineffable authors, struck me however as spiritually disordered.

Thanks for pointing out the “taunts go both ways” passage. I was skimming the piece at that point.

I think “naive” doesn’t go far enough to describe accurately young white women today.

Where are all the men in these cases? No doubt they’re home sitting on the couch guzzling beer and watching television, or maybe working extra long hours at the office.

Thank you Mr. Auster for pointing out that sexual behavior has significance above and beyond personal choice. One of the more interesting things that has emerged in the results of sexual surveys taken by sociologists is that women in committed marriages have expressed the highest level of sexual pleasure. This has even been descibed by the surprised liberals taking the surveys as “revenge of the married ladies.”