Phillip Jensen, and the urgent need to give 'scientific' racism and the white Australia policy a fair hearing ...

(Above: nostalgia for angry Sydney Anglicans).

The pond remains trapped in Melbourne but no matter how far you run, you can never hide from the Sydney Anglicans, and so to a Sunday meditation.

With Michael Jensen presumably still suffering from writer's block, it's been left to Phillip Jensen to take up the slack at the generally angry Sydney Anglicans website, and he comes up with a beauty thanks to the completely meaningless juxtaposition of 'libertarianism' and 'censorship' in the header Libertarian Censorship.

Jensen is agitated that all the good kinds of censorship have been removed, and all the bad forms of censorship continue, but it was this little bit of the jeremiad that particularly caught the eye:

Universities are not immune to this problem of censorship. The contributions of Professors H.J.Eysenk in the 1970’s and Andrew Fraser in 2005, may not be to our liking but their arguments were not given a fair hearing in our universities.

Say what? Is this the sort of contribution that Jensen thinks hasn't been given a fair hearing?

Given the relentless and revolutionary assault on their historic national identity, white Australians now face a life-or-death struggle to preserve their homeland. Whether effective resistance to their displacement and dispossession can be mounted is another question. Unlike other racial, ethnic or religious groups well-equipped to practice the politics of identity, white Australians lack a strong, cohesive sense of ethnic solidarity. As a consequence, ordinary Australians favouring a moratorium on non-white immigration cannot count on effective leadership or support from their co-ethnics among political, intellectual and corporate elites. On the contrary, our still predominantly Anglo-Australian rulers are indifferent; some profit from, and others actually take pride in their active collaboration with the Third World colonization of Australia. None of the major parties, indeed, not one member of the Commonwealth Parliament, offers citizens the option of voting to defend and nurture Australia's Anglo-European identity. The problem, in short, is clear: The Australian nation is bereft of a responsible ruling class.

That's Andrew Fraser proposing that Australia return to the White Australia policy, and there's a lot more at his wiki here.

Are Sydney Anglicans having a hard time recruiting from people of colour? How do the Jensenists explain to African people that they can turn to Christ (and bash gays) but buggered if they can turn up in Australia?

As for the tobacco funded Eysenck - smokers, please die so I can continue my research - presumably Jensen is deeply attracted to Eysenck's notion that blacks are genetically dumber than other races (wiki him here).

Amusingly a Jensen also crops up in academic discussions of Eysenck's work:

If the geneticist doctrine were true, that is to say if there really had accumulated a gene pool of low intelligence among black Americans (and perhaps also among the Irish, as Eysenck suggested), then there would be only two methods of dissipating it. The first and most obvious method would be by launching a social campaign to encourage miscegenation. The fact that this solution, logical though it is, has never been advocated by Jensen, Eysenck or any previous adherent to the geneticist doctrine, says a great deal about the elitist and exclusive ideological character of that doctrine.

The only other method of solving the problem would be the method advocated by the Oxford historian, Edward Freeman, during a lecture tour of the United States less than a century ago: 'The best remedy for whatever is amiss in America would be if every Irishman should kill a Negro and be hanged for it' (vide Marshall, 1968, p. 159). (and a lot more in pdf form here in Andrew M. Colman's 'Scientific' Racism and the Evidence on Race and Intelligence).

Miscegenation, hurrah. What do we want, and when do we need it? Miscegenation, miscegenation now!

We keed, we keed, as did Colman, but what sort of fair hearing would Phillip Jensen propose be afforded to 'scientific' racism? Has he advised African friends of angry Sydney Anglicans that they might well be genetically inferior?

The rest of Jensen's piece is the usual bleat about how Christians are being persecuted. They can't set up an anti-abortion club at Sydney University, they can't even say they're Christian!

Sadly, most Christian students learn in first year not to mention their existence let alone their views in class, and Christian ministries often face attempts by the university to restrict or remove them from campus.

Oh sweet absent lord, the persecution of hapless innocent Christians, prevented from going about the business of persecuting sluts, harlots and whores who might turn to abortion when they should instead become single mothers living on welfare.

The Sydney University Evangelical Union cast out into the wilderness - how pesky they were back in the day, and filled with Jensenists - and no SCM, and presumably even worse, no creationism in science classes! Strange days indeed.

Thank the absent lord we've now got funding for that great big controversial 'libertarian secularist' school chaplain program, and soon enough we'll be hearing the howls of disenfranchised Christians forced to attend a weekly class in secular atheist ethics (with a short introduction to paganism, and Greek and Roman gods). In your dreams, secularists ...

There are certain subjects that are taboo in public discussion, and to raise them is to be marginalised and labelled. To question migration policy is to be called a racist.

Yes, bring back the White Australia policy!

To question Islam is to be attacked as ‘Islamophobic’.

Yes, even when the Islamics rabbiting on about pornography on the internet and the role of women in the world and the evils of gays sound awesomely similar to the average angry Sydney Anglican!

To oppose homosexual marriage is to be labelled ‘homophobic’.

Yes, since we all know that gays are evil sinners destined for an eternity in hell, unless they repent and become chaste, or perhaps learn - through Anglican approved shock therapy - how to love women, at least those women willing to submit to men, as they should.

To question abortion ethics is ‘an affront to women’s rights’.

Because dammit, women should submit to men, and enough of this jibber jabber about their right to have a say over their bodies. If a Sydney Anglican tells a woman what to do, then by golly they'd just better do it ...

These are not arguments but vilification, yet liberal secularists are at the forefront of their use.

Liberal secularists? And then it suddenly dawned on the pond why 'libertarian' turned up in the confused header. Jensen seems to think that 'libertarian' and 'liberal' are interchangeable words. The only other time 'lib' gets a run is in this sentence:

Today’s dominant, liberal minded secularists demonstrate their hypocrisy by rejoicing in their free speech while censoring the public square.

Uh huh. You might wonder why - if liberal-minded hypocritical secularists are so successful in censoring the public square - they haven't managed to shut up yabbering, blathering angry Sydney Anglicans, but that would be a failure to recognise the deep persecution complex the paranoid Anglicans have cultivated.

Furthermore to hold a religious view dismisses and discounts you from public discussion.

Yep, Jensen being published on the intertubes to a potential audience of billions isn't a public discussion. It's a private discussion amongst a few chums. And perhaps that's just as well, perhaps he should be discounted, at least until he clearly explains how 'libertarian' and 'liberal' are somehow synonymous.

And then it all gets too silly for words, mere petty and petulant name-calling:

To secularists, democracy is not the rule of the people but the rule of ‘right thinking’ people i.e. non-religious people.

Uh huh, but you could flip that, and sound just as silly:

To angry Sydney Anglicans, Christians, Islamics, Scientologists and other religious fundamentalists, democracy is not the rule of the people but the rule of ‘right thinking’ people i.e. religious people.

Hmm, come to think of it, that's not as silly as it sounds, when you remember the right-thinking Christian right in the United States, and their determination to impose their 'right thinking' on the world (matched only in perniciousness by right-thinking Islamic fundamentalists and right-thinking cultish Scientolgists).

Not to worry, I don't think we've reached the bottom of Jensen's persecution complex:

It matters not whether your opinion is based on reason or whether or not your religion has informed your reasoning on a subject – just by virtue of your religious commitment your opinion is to be ignored.

That's as opposed to ignoring the views of libertarians or perhaps liberal secularists, whose opinions should be ignored ... because they're a bunch of angry atheists destined for hell, goddam 'em all.

The impression is given that only religious people are biased by their beliefs and morality or only religious people try to ‘impose’ their values on others.

Sigh, more of the suffering and the impositions!

Those nattering women with their idle chatter of rights, and gays wanting to get married and pretend they're people, how dare they impose their values on innocent Christians. What happened to a couple of thousand years of witch and homosexual bashing, burning and persecution? Where did it all start to go wrong? Must be the fault of libertarian women and gays.

Now how about a snappy final par ...

When Tony Blair was Prime Minister he was stopped by media advisors from answering questions about God and admits that civil servants prevented him from finishing a speech with: “God bless you.” Now that is powerful censorship – when the most powerful man in a nation cannot say “God bless you”!

Oh dear. What was the speech that was ruined? Was it about ten ways to sex up a dossier, and launch a war in the middle east which would kill thousands? Was it to explain how Britain was only 45 minutes away from WMD disaster? Was it the one where Blair announced "And now fellow crusaders, it's time to fuck over Iraq, God bless 'em, and tiny Tim, and you, and one and all?" (ah remember the good old days and 10 ways to sex up a dossier?)

Naturally it doesn't occur to Jensen that Blair - apart from invoking his god to bless useless wars and deregulate banks - would in a sensible and balanced society attempt to speak for everyone, no matter their god, and not just indulge his own deluded notion that he was some kind of killer crusading Christian.

Must we all end up like fundamentalist flag-waving raving ratbag American Christians?

But of course Jensen wants Blair to mention god, so instead of wasting time on secularism, everybody can get down to a decent argument about the Catholic v. Anglican god, and which bunch are destined to hellfire for all eternity ...

You know, like Michael Jensen did in 20 Theses on why the Reformation is not over.

20. There is still need to maintain a separation between the Church of Rome and the churches of the Reformation.

No reason to go to hell with the heretics!

There is of course much more in the Phillip Jensen jeremiad.

Hideous, degenerate, violent, malicious, sick-minded abuse of women, children and animals in pornography gets a serve, which isn't of course the same as angry Sydney Anglicans giving submissive women and decadent gays a really hard time.

And the media cops a pounding - but if the Anglicans hadn't dropped a bucket load of cash with their greed in the GFC, they could have bought a couple of seats on Fairfax, and each day we'd be treated to the Sydney Fairfaxamentalist Christian Mining Herald ...

But enough already, this is a recommended, guaranteed entertaining read, and if you reel away, wondering whether the white Australia policy and scientific racism is the way forward, clearly you have a lot of work to do before you can join the Sydney Anglicans ...

(Below: but would the average angry Sydney Anglican pass the dictation test - including the capacity to distinguish between liberal and libertarian - and so be allowed to stay in a white Australia?)