# What is racism?



## wayneL (13 January 2009)

Going off at a tangent from the "Paki" thread.

What is racism?

Is racism any sort of mention or thought of differences in race/culture as seems to be in the PC brigade? (actually race is an obsolete concept, it does not exist)

Or is racism only a negative manifestation of the above.

For instance, consider these two statements:

1/ I find black women extremely attractive

2/ I think all black women are ugly

Is one or both statements racist?

For instance when I meet people for business or socially of different "races", I always think "Here is a middle eastern person", or "here is a black person"; whereas no such thought enters my head when I meet a white person... unless they have an accent, then the thought is "here is a German" or whatever.

Though I "notice" the difference, I make sure that it doesn't affect my judgement of them.

In one sense this is definitely racist, but on the other hand I really enjoy these people's company if they are nice people, and enjoy the differences in culture etc. It's positive.

In this sense I think everybody is racist (even though race doesn't exist) and I could name all sorts of scenarios like this to prove it.

Quite different to automatic discrimination/disadvantage due to how someone looks, ie negative racism, which of course is detestable.

It is also different to disliking certain cultures because of their customary practices eg Islam. Not liking Muslims, though often labeled as racism, is nothing to do with race at all. (in itself an irrational concept given the broad spectrum of Islamic ideology. Most Muslims I have met are perfectly charming and peaceful people)

Thoughts?


----------



## Stormin_Norman (13 January 2009)

racism is an attitude. not a word. banning words is stupid. banning attitudes is impossible.

ask my wog and paki mates.


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

> Re: What is racism?



fear


----------



## Old Mate (14 January 2009)

Racism is out of control in my opinion. In the sense that just about any reference to any person's background is immediately labeled as racist. Oh but only if you're white apparently. Different rules for difference races... Was that observation racist?


----------



## nunthewiser (14 January 2009)

Old Mate said:


> Racism is out of control in my opinion. In the sense that just about any reference to any person's background is immediately labeled as racist. Oh but only if you're white apparently. Different rules for difference races... Was that observation racist?




is white 

also a curry munching burmese desendant bogan 


i am so confused

I should also add that i am the white sheep of the family whereas apart from my mother my whole entire family , uncles, cousins , auntys are black/brown ....

now i am totally confused as am i allowed to call my family black or is there a more non racially upsetting accepted word ?


----------



## wayneL (14 January 2009)

> is white
> 
> also a curry munching burmese desendant bogan
> 
> ...




Me too. Apparently we're all just bog standard bogun homo sapiens.

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/debunking-biological-theories-of-race

Curry.... Yum


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Not liking Muslims, though often labeled as racism, is nothing to do with race at all.




Bullsh*t.


----------



## GumbyLearner (14 January 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> is white
> 
> also a curry munching burmese desendant bogan
> 
> ...




Interesting points you raise there nunthwiser.

Has anyone ever thought about the use of black as an adjective?

Black Plague
Black Market
Black List

I think racism is just treating someone different than others solely because of their race. But it could apply to lots of other things as well religous beliefs, age, gender etc... 

I think there must be good and bad people in every race. Its my choice to befriend people regardless of there race. But racists may fear (just like cuttlefish mentioned earlier) getting to know others either due to a persons appearance or religous belief. Rather than discerning for themselves through communication or logic to determine the character of a person, they just close there mind and classify everyone according to their own general views of a particular race. Basically its sort of like contortionist yoga, where a person must place their head up their own backside. Because thats the enlightened world that many racists want people to live in.


Not that this my answer as to what racism is but I would call it close-mindedness.

On the other hand, I can appreciate where WayneL is coming from. The PC language-freak thought police will try anything to deconstruct a person or the English language for that matter. Its got to the stage where people are too scared to have a laugh or enjoy a joke about the beautiful differences we all have in this world. Certainly of lot of this crap is peddled by unemployable academic radicals who have never had to work for a living and on many occassions elitist cry-babies who spent their entire academic life with their head buried in a book by Foucault or Derrida. 

Just my opinion, no offence intended!


----------



## wayneL (14 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Bullsh*t.




Care to expand on this thought?

Islam encompasses quite a few different peoples:

Arabs
Persians
Slavs
Indons
Chinese
Indians/Pakistanis
Blacks
even some Anglos

... as does Christianity et al


----------



## disarray (14 January 2009)

its a different dynamic between the individual and the group. a single person is a totally different beast to one in a wider social grouping.

the solo aussie in the street behaves differently at the pub with his mates. the muslim at work behaves differently at the mosque at friday prayers.

the important thing is to judge the individual on his / her own merits the first time you meet them. then you can decide whether you like or dislike them.

its no problem to label / criticise groups of people though because the dynamic is different. but people would rather just lump everything in together because its easier that way and requires less thought. imo.


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Care to expand on this thought?




You're an intelligent person Wayne .... read what you wrote.




			
				WayneL said:
			
		

> Not liking Muslims, though often labeled as racism, is nothing to do with race at all.





Hi how are you .. my names Wayne... nice to meet you.

Hi ... I'm Aamil.

Oh ... thats an interesting name ... are you Muslim by any chance?

Why yes! I am!

Ok well f*ck off then because I HATE you.... but I'm not racist or anything ...


----------



## wayneL (14 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> You're an intelligent person Wayne .... read what you wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You're missing one important point... Islam is not a race, it's a religion.

Look at the word *RACE*-ism.

I didn't say it wasn't discrimination, it is. But it is not racism.


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> You're missing one important point... Islam is not a race, it's a religion.
> 
> Look at the word *RACE*-ism.





wahahah you make me laugh.

What was that about the thought police and mincing words? ... 


So whats it called when someone announces their religion and you decide that you hate them from that point on based on their religion ... I've never been taught the word for that one - inform me.


----------



## nunthewiser (14 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> wahahah you make me laugh.
> 
> What was that about the thought police and mincing words? ...
> 
> ...




bigot?

big⋅ot   /ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled Pronunciation  [big-uht] Show IPA Pronunciation  

–noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.


----------



## So_Cynical (14 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> You're an intelligent person Wayne .... read what you wrote.
> 
> 
> Hi how are you .. my names Wayne... nice to meet you.
> ...




Cant u just be nice to him, smile, shake hands and carry on with non 
offensive conversation...while all the time thinking.

I really don't like Muslims....but i do like your Kebabs and Chicken Borek,
just wish u didn't force women to wear black tents etc.


----------



## wayneL (14 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> wahahah you make me laugh.
> 
> What was that about the thought police and mincing words? ...
> 
> ...




Jesus cuttlefish,

You're normally fairly sensible. WTF?

I don't know what you call it. It is discrimination for sure.

But let's look at the dictionary definition

rac⋅ism
   /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. 	a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. 	a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. 	hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

It doesn't say anything about religion or culture, ergo, it is not racism.

Bigotry, religionism, creedism.... I don't know.


----------



## wayneL (14 January 2009)

A bit of Googling later, I believe the correct term is *Religious Discrimination*.


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Jesus cuttlefish,
> 
> You're normally fairly sensible. WTF?
> 
> ...




Then *why* use it to justify a _'political correctness is stupid' _debate?



> It is also different to disliking certain cultures because of their customary practices eg Islam. Not liking Muslims, though often labeled as racism, is nothing to do with race at all. (in itself an irrational concept given the broad spectrum of Islamic ideology. Most Muslims I have met are perfectly charming and peaceful people)




Wayne - what exactly then is your point in the above paragraph?

So not liking people because they are islamic is ok ... but its cool to be friends with them as well?

Or are you genuinely trying to explore the microcosm of the word racism as opposed to political correctness and bigotry in general ... and if so ... to what purpose?

For what its worth, I am in agreement about a lot of aspects of the political correctness debate - I think people need the freedom to express themselves and explore their differences without fear of being labelled racist because of a poor choice of words - and I also think that if people choose (and are privelidge enough to) to live within a certain government/legal system then they should accept it and not ask to be treated differently because of race or religion.


----------



## slim pickins (14 January 2009)

wayne you said there is no such thing as race.... so why are you concerned about racism. by that logic racism doesnt exist.

hating muslims or christians is bigotry. some think it is acceptable to do this because islam or christianity is a choice as oppposed to race which you are born with.

this is certainly one argument. 

however with imporoving medical procedures it is no longer necessary to be black or aisan because with enough surgery you can significantly alter your outward racial characteristics. look at michael jackson.

i personally would not care if i was discriminated against by poeple of other races and religions. if they dont like me, fine, not interested in them and i dont need their religion


----------



## disarray (14 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> So not liking people because they are islamic is ok ... but its cool to be friends with them as well?




you can dislike a social construct without automatically disliking the individual who follows it.



> hating muslims or christians is bigotry




but hating islam or christianity isn't. there needs to be a seperation of the individual from the social grouping, but that doesn't happen, people just lump everything in together then get hyper sensitive about anything that touches any part of the subject.


----------



## wayneL (14 January 2009)

I'm not justifying anything dude. It's an exploration of the topic of "what is racism".

It's important to get the terminology correct so we don't mix up other things such as religious discrimination, ageism, sexism, whateverism, as racism.

It is obvious that discrimination based on age and sex is not racism. I think it equally obvious that discrimination based on religion, which can take the form of discrimination against Islam, Judaism, Catholics against protestants and visa versa, Hare Chrishna or whatever, is not racism.

Let's take your example earlier and twist it around a bit.

I meet this white Anglo Saxon Male (same as me) that I've known for years. But this time I notice he is wearing a robe and a long beard.

Hi John have you converted to Islam by any chance?

Why yes! I have!

Ok well f*ck off then because I HATE you.

To consider that racism is totally absurd... ludicrous.

It was a simple point I made to discern racism from other forms of discrimination, to keep the discussion on track. Unsuccessfully it seems.


----------



## Sean K (14 January 2009)

Jeesh Cuttlefish, you've gone off on a bit of a tangent here.

Wayne is correct imo, religious discrimination hasn't anything to do with being racist, which he's clarrified in the dictionary definition. 

Racism is more about discrimination against someones ethnicity I feel. It's more often has negative connotations but can be positive too.

It is important to get the definition correct in such a debate.


----------



## wayneL (14 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> wayne you said there is no such thing as race.... so why are you concerned about racism. by that logic racism doesnt exist.




Mate it was just a spin off thread from the Prince Harry thing.

Though race doesn't exist biologically, it still exists as a social construct. 

The emotional reactions to questions of race are ample evidence of that.


----------



## slim pickins (14 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Though race doesn't exist biologically, it still exists as a social construct.




i dont really understand.. why does race not exist? its in our DNA and manifests itself in our physical appearance


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

:bricks1:

Ok ... I get the point ... to some extent ...

I'll respond more if I think I've got something sensible to say ... - which at this hour I probably won't. :  (its probably mid morning for Wayne ...).


----------



## Sean K (14 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Though race doesn't exist biologically, it still exists as a social construct.



I thought it would be biological. Aren't Melanesians a 'race' of people. A Melanesian who grows up in Melbourne is still a Melanesian aren't they? A Melanesian Australian perhaps? If I saw that person on the street I would automatically assume that they would prefer to go fishing and sit under a coconut tree and drink Kava all day than want to be a lawyer and play Aussie Rules, for example. I would say it's in their blood. Is that racism?



I tell you what, racism is alive and well in Peru.


----------



## wayneL (14 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> i dont really understand.. why does race not exist? its in our DNA and manifests itself in our physical appearance



Well I'm not a biological scientist, but I suppose that the genetic differences that manifest in skin colour and other physical differences aren't great enough to classify humans into races.

For instance in the equine world, An Arab is physically different from a Thoroughbred. They are officially different breeds. However, Thoroughbred are genetically 100% Arab, as it is from this stock from which they are selectively bred for speed. 

Furthermore, a Clydesdale is markedly different from a Trakhener, but both are just a bloody horse and not genetically different enough to separate as sub-species. 

Anybody more _au fait_ want to add?


----------



## blehgg (14 January 2009)

I would have though racism encompassed discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, or country of origin.

But I think there is a "religionism"....

Its still an 'ism ~ common courtesy and respect is all that is needed.... which u would think would be easy..... but obviously isn't to some people....

I like the comment before ~ Racism = Fear ~


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Furthermore, a Clydesdale is markedly different from a Trakhener, but both are just a bloody horse




I think I detected a bit of horseism coming through in those comments ...


----------



## doctorj (14 January 2009)

Unfortunately, racism seems to be anything a non-white person says it is, regardless of intent, context or audience.


----------



## wayneL (14 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> I think I detected a bit of horseism coming through in those comments ...




hahaha horseism is rife. 

Arab = Bloody Arabs
Warmblood = Dumb-blood or bloody carthorses
Thorougbred = brainless idiots

etc.

STAMP OUT HORSEISM


----------



## noirua (14 January 2009)

doctorj said:


> Unfortunately, racism seems to be anything a non-white person says it is, regardless of intent, context or audience.



Racism seems to be, word, decision or action by a person of one race or creed, against another race or creed that is not their own. This being of a solely racial nature.
This can be complicated by one dominant race in a situation employing a person of the race or creed, for instance, of those others who are employed. He or she being made the manager or employer in their stead.  Thus that person acting racially against his/her own by the design or otherwise of her/his employers.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> *So whats it called when someone announces their religion and you decide that you hate them from that point on based on their religion* ... I've never been taught the word for that one - inform me.



It is called *intolerance* and the adjective is *intolerant*. 

Racism is another thing but some, particularly the ones who try to think for minority groups, confuse it with other unrelated things as has been done above in red.


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> It is called *intolerance* and the adjective is *intolerant*.
> 
> Racism is another thing but some, particularly the ones who try to think for minority groups, confuse it with other unrelated things as has been done above in red.





Well 'intolerants' are a subset of racists then from everything I've seen.


----------



## wayneL (14 January 2009)

Is there such a thing as Learnerdriverism.

If not, I've just invented it.


----------



## GumbyLearner (14 January 2009)

Here's a joke I want to share :

Q. What do you call a black guy flying a plane?
A. A pilot you stupid racist.


----------



## tigerboi (14 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> You're missing one important point... Islam is not a race, it's a religion.
> 
> Look at the word *RACE*-ism.
> 
> I didn't say it wasn't discrimination, it is. But it is not racism.




i knew it wouldnt be long before the "your wasis" crowd fell into this,as pointed out islam is not a race which some still do not get...

best policy is to hate everyone !... wogs,spics,jews,arabs,blacks,skips(im so offended)krauts,wetbacks,gooks

then you cant be accussed of discrimination...


----------



## Buddy (14 January 2009)

tigerboi said:


> i knew it wouldnt be long before the "your wasis" crowd fell into this,as pointed out islam is not a race which some still do not get...
> 
> best policy is to hate everyone !... wogs,spics,jews,arabs,blacks,skips(im so offended)krauts,wetbacks,gooks
> 
> then you cant be accussed of discrimination...




Yes, hate everyone, and especially truckies.


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Jesus cuttlefish,
> 
> You're normally fairly sensible. WTF?
> 
> ...





Fair enough - in the cold light of day I see that I was heading off on a tangent last night.  

My 'fear'  was that the thread would be hijacked to become a justification for being racist.  i.e. if we water down the definition of racisim enough then nobody is racist.

But I acknowledge that they are different things (discrimination based on religion vs ethnicity).


----------



## Calliope (14 January 2009)

We are all victims of racism. I had to burn my Irish and Polish joke books.


----------



## Agentm (14 January 2009)

kennas said:


> I thought it would be biological. Aren't Melanesians a 'race' of people. A Melanesian who grows up in Melbourne is still a Melanesian aren't they? A Melanesian Australian perhaps? If I saw that person on the street I would automatically assume that they would prefer to go fishing and sit under a coconut tree and drink Kava all day than want to be a lawyer and play Aussie Rules, for example. I would say it's in their blood. Is that racism?
> 
> 
> 
> I tell you what, racism is alive and well in Peru.




absolutely its a racist view.. no question at all


----------



## tigerboi (14 January 2009)

Buddy said:


> Yes, hate everyone, and especially truckies.




yep car drivers as well


----------



## Buddy (14 January 2009)

tigerboi said:


> yep car drivers as well




And while we're at it, include bike riders.

But seriously folks, have a look at this.  
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5512401.ece
Is this racist?  I think so. So lets now hear some words of outrage from all those who want to cut off Harry's nuts. I suspect the silence will be deafening.

What irks me about all the hoo ha over Harry and others, etc, etc, and things that people say, is that it's all a storm in a teacup driven by idealic PC morons.  I will continue to exercise MY RIGHT to call whoever I please, whatever I please.  Especially when they are w%$kers. And like the old saying goes.... sticks and stone can break my bones but words will never hurt me.  Catch me if you can.


----------



## Sean K (14 January 2009)

Agentm said:


> absolutely its a racist view.. no question at all



Or, is what I described 'Culturism'.

Wish I could be sitting under a coconut tree drinking kava all day.....


----------



## nunthewiser (14 January 2009)

kennas said:


> Wish I could be sitting under a coconut tree drinking kava all day.....




buy a laptop


----------



## glenn_r (14 January 2009)

kennas said:


> Or, is what I described 'Culturism'.
> 
> Wish I could be sitting under a coconut tree drinking kava all day.....




I thought Kava tasted more like Dettol mixed with muddy water but it does mellow you out nicely...


----------



## IFocus (14 January 2009)

Was there an issue with racism before the Poms ruled the world..........was Genghis Khan a racist?


----------



## wayneL (15 January 2009)

Buddy said:


> And while we're at it, include bike riders.
> 
> But seriously folks, have a look at this.
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5512401.ece
> ...




Racism? Hmmm Both English and Scots are and admixture of Briton, Gallic and Teutonic blood... all "Caucasian". The same "race".

I'd call it Nationalism.


----------



## rederob (15 January 2009)

Racism? 
Amongst superior beings, the practice of ensuring others come second.


----------



## GumbyLearner (15 January 2009)

Racism

A few examples off the top of my head.

Refusing to hire a person for a job because of their race.

Refusing to serve a customer in a store because of their race.

Refusing to provide a service to a person because of their race.

Excluding a person from going swimming at the beach, travelling on public transport, use public facilities/amenities because of their race.

Segregating people and restricting their movement through government regulation or otherwise because of their race.

All of the above examples mentioned involves somebody discriminating against
another person because of their race.

It is called racial discrimination.

In Australia (also the UK have similar laws) -> The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 gives effect to Australia's obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. 

Its major objectives are to promote equality before the law for all persons, regardless of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin, and make discrimination against people on the basis of their race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin unlawful. 

Heres the link to the HREOC homepage

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/about/legislation/index.html#rda

and here's the link to the Australian law as following the UN charter

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/047A676463437A9BCA25748F0007000A/$file/RacialDiscrim1975_WD02.pdf

I welcome any disagreement as to the semantics of my posts. But its always good to read up on these kind of things!


----------



## wayneL (15 January 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Racism
> 
> A few examples off the top of my head.
> 
> ...




I think that's a very fair summary. But going back to DocJ's comment:



doctorj said:


> Unfortunately, racism seems to be anything a non-white person says it is, regardless of intent, context or audience.



It's also whatever the lunatic far left jobsworths say it is too. To construe someone's nickname (Sooty) as racist is just alarmingly ludicrous.

Is it not a fact that this person's face is somewhat darker than his friends in the club? Friends often pick on a distinguishing feature and make a nickname out of it. eg, Stickman, Tubs, Schnozzle, Bluey etc. Are these names weightist, nosist and hairist?

On another UK forum someone was asking (rhetorically) if it was possible to speak to a real human on a bank's enquiries number.

I wrote, "Yes, but they all speak Hindi or Urdu and live elsewhere." A statement of actually fact with no malice implied. Of course I was immediately howled down as a racist! WTF!

As you know, I am not one to shrink away from confrontation and immediately went on the front foot and extracted an admission that it was not a racist or even malicious comment. Nevertheless I was forced to defend myself from the accusation.

This is a sign that things are out of balance. 

In a free society (hmmm) we should not be prevented from making accurate and impartial observations. 

What these extreme left wing social engineers need to understand is the Law Of Unintended Consequences. All this "reverse racism" is serving to actually increase racist feelings amongst their own constituency, the working class.

In Britain, the allegedly racist British National Party is disturbingly on the rise in working class and deprived areas as they fee the sting of racism against them in their own country.

We need racism legislation, but things have gone waaaay too far.


----------



## mayk (15 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> We need racism legislation, but things have gone waaaay too far.




Agree. It is just an extreme overreaction to the racial segregation days of the past. The pendulum has to swing to the extreme left, before going back to its equilibrium (neutral) position.


----------



## wayneL (15 January 2009)

FWIW - A poll from the daily Mail:


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 January 2009)

Racism is always having to say you are sorry.

gg


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2009)

A Brisbane disk jockey has been attacked by the usual suspects for criticising Muslim women who wear the Islamic hijab in public. No doubt he is not very bright, but he said religion was not good enough reason "to be covered from head to toe". He has been accused of "a clear case of intolerance" "trying to incite more bigotry" etc.

I would have thought that the reason Muslim women are wearing this gear (which must be very uncomfortable) is because their men make them. The anti free-speech bigots would be far better employed trying to free them from their bondage.


----------



## Whiskers (23 February 2012)

I got the following in an email recently. Can't say I dissagree with it. The x was a picture of Michael Richards.​*I have been wondering about why Whites are racists, and no other race is......*








*Proud to be White*​ 
*Michael Richards, better known as Kramer  from TVs Seinfeld does make a good point.* *This was his defense speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act.  He makes some very interesting points....*​ 
*“There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, tc... And then there are just Americans.  *
*You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.  You call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman'.... and that's OK..*​ 
 *But when I call you, Ni**er, Coon, Towel Head,  Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, Paki, Indian or Chink **-**you call me a racist.*
 
*You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you... so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?*

*You have the United Negro College Fund. Martin Luther King Day... Black History Month**…**  Cesar Chavez Day. You have Yom Hashoah.  You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi. *​ 
*You have the NAACP.  You have BET.... *​ 
*If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists.  If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists. *​ 
*If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.*​ 
*If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance'OUR lives, we'd be racists.*​ 
*We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.  Wonder who pays for that??*​ 
*A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.*​ 
*If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know - we'd be racists.*​ 
*There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US ..  Yet if there were 'White Colleges', that would be a racist college.*​ 
*In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights.  If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.*​ 
*You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it.  But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.*​ 
*You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black or Indian drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.*​ 
*I am proud.... But you call me a racist.*​ 
*Why is it that only whites can be racists??*​ 
*There is nothing improper about this e-mail..  Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on.  I sadly don't think many will.  That's why we have LOST  most of OUR RIGHTS  in this country.  We won't stand up for ourselves!*​ 
*BE PROUD TO BE WHITE!*​ 
*It's not a crime YET**.... **but getting very close!*​ 
*It is estimated that ONLY 5%*​ 
*of those reaching this point in this e-mail, will pass it on.*​ 
I don’t know who decided 5%   ?? I think most will.​ 









​


----------



## Miner (23 February 2012)

I think racism is purely a sign of ignorance and most cunningly cultivated political word to suit at site.

When you are in South Africa. calling a white is not a racism. But in USA calling any thing black is a racism. So do not call Black coffee. 

In Australia - racism is a joke. Aboriginals can call you White Fella. You suck and no racism there. But you call an aborigine is a racism. No black or white. So we are calling them Indigeneous. This is a racism by politics.

Come to Britain - call Paki a racist slur. But it is a joke too. 

Come to Canada specially where I am now - racism is not so much seen or felt. You have druggists who are of all colours. No one call you by your nationality or even ask. Still the undercurrent if you are English then they will hate you. There are lot of Sikhs originated from India. They have formed their own colony where White Canadians are treated as foreigners. That is also a racism but politically you can not say so. Also a subdued racism considering most of white Canadian formed British Columbia and came from England.

South Africans hate Australians and vice versa - is racism or fanatism. 

You disallow Burqah in Australia and that is racism . But in Saudi during Ramadan you can not eat or drink . You will be executed probably. That is by Islam and not a racism.

To me Racism is in one's mind and as some one said. It is expression of own fear.


----------



## Julia (23 February 2012)

Miner said:


> South Africans hate Australians and vice versa - is racism or fanatism.



I've known a lot of South Africans and have never once found that.  They fit in here really well.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 February 2012)

Racism is never having to say you are sorry.

gg


----------



## McLovin (23 February 2012)

Julia said:


> I've known a lot of South Africans and have never once found that.  They fit in here really well.




In London there is a fairly big divide between South Africans and Australians. That said, one of the best friends I have from my time over there is South African. I don't what the source of the tension was but it's noticeable.


----------



## wayneL (24 February 2012)

McLovin said:


> In London there is a fairly big divide between South Africans and Australians. That said, one of the best friends I have from my time over there is South African. I don't what the source of the tension was but it's noticeable.




Cricket, Rugby and both groups like to make their presence felt.

(IMO)


----------



## Nutmeg (24 February 2012)

People do not like or dislike "races".  They like or dislike forms of behaviour.  That's what culture is: a form of exhibited behaviour.  That I find a certain form of behaviour repugnant - say, the double standard with which women are treated in many Islamic cultures - is entirely reasonable because I do not accept as legitimate the basis that informs treating women differently.  That is my culture.


----------



## Bill M (24 February 2012)

Nutmeg said:


> say, the double standard with which women are treated in many Islamic cultures - is entirely reasonable because I do not accept as legitimate the basis that informs treating women differently.  That is my culture.




I am a bit s l o w what does the above exactly mean? Please translate.


----------



## Nutmeg (24 February 2012)

Bill M said:


> I am a bit s l o w what does the above exactly mean? Please translate.




I hope you're not being serious.  However, if you are, try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_rights_in_Afghanistan

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...-should-shock-West-into-seeking-regime-change


----------



## Bill M (24 February 2012)

Nutmeg said:


> I hope you're not being serious.  However, if you are, try:




Gotcha, I misunderstood your statement. So you think women should be treated equally, thanks, so do I. But why are women executives being paid less than males in the same job in Australia? Is that racism? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?


----------



## Nutmeg (24 February 2012)

Bill M said:


> Gotcha, I misunderstood your statement. So you think women should be treated equally, thanks, so do I. But why are women executives being paid less than males in the same job in Australia? Is that racism? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?




You're barking up the wrong tree.  My point is that people do not respond to "races".  They respond to behaviours.  Muslims share certain behaviours which, when exhibited in liberal western societies in varying degrees, westerners react against with revulsion.  They are not "racist" against Muslims because of their skin colour.  They just don't like a lot of the behaviour that, rightly or wrongly, they have come to associate with Muslims.


----------



## Miner (25 February 2012)

Julia said:


> I've known a lot of South Africans and have never once found that.  They fit in here really well.






McLovin said:


> In London there is a fairly big divide between South Africans and Australians. That said, one of the best friends I have from my time over there is South African. I don't what the source of the tension was but it's noticeable.




Folks

I stand corrected (no regret vs apology word mincing here) and let me expand my statement earlier made.

I should have stated that many of the South Africans or many of the Australians etc. Generalisation was inappropriate and sorry for that oversight.

Having said that, I do agree that I have met many South Africans who are extremely friendly to Australians and vice versa. We need to take a deep note on the definition of 'Australians' and 'South Africans'. I have noticed many people originated from SA love to call themselves as Africanas than SA. But I still struggle to see that we in Australia call ourselves as Australians and then divide to call Italians, Indians, English, Greek etc. Fortunately no matter how you look like, in Canada and USA I found people are very proud to call themselves as Americans and Canadians (to some less extent however and unless you live in British Properties in Vancouver )


Until I went to work in a remote large gold mining project in Western Australia , I always used to share the same view what both of you stated. 

In that mine  - I saw how bitterly  some of my colleagues hated some of very respected and knowledgable colleagues have just because of their nationalities.  One of very knowledgable colleague left a large mining project (traded in ASX so do not want to name) just because he was cornered by his fellow colleagues. I asked those colleagues and the reply came "We do not want any SA" here. As far as I was concerned I found the SA colleague was honest and extremely knowledgable. 

 More I grew older and penetrated deeper into the socieity I learnt more. 

Working for some of the large EPCM companies in Perth I noticed the same in reverse direction. One of my previous superiors in an EPCM company gradually replaced many good Australians by South Africans (Africanas) because he felt comfort zone. Since he took over 8 out of 10 new recruits happened to be people of SA. 

May be a sheer coincidence and not a racism.

Having said that, I also noticed that generally the Underground Miners from SA have much better skills compared to their counterparts in Australia. It is more so because of they have had more opportunities to develop mines in SA than we in Australia have in past 100 years or so. That also explains some reasons of perceived racism - from FEAR of losing power and position. 

To conclude I still remember one of my ex colleagues' famous statement  who was also the HR Manager of the mining contractor in Perth. He used to call  himself as the most racist. It was because as per him, he hated equally both  black or white. I have not found such an honest statement .


----------



## Julia (25 February 2012)

Miner, Afrikaners are a distinct ethnic group, different from British South Africans.


> Afrikaners (including the distinct Boer subgroup[6]) are an ethnic group in Southern Africa descended from Dutch (including Flemish), French and German settlers whose native tongue is Afrikaans: a Germanic language which derives primarily from 17th century Dutch, and a variety of other languages.[7]
> 
> Their ancestors were Dutch Calvinists, with smaller numbers of Frisians, English, Germans and French Huguenots, and with minor numbers of other European groups (such as Dutch Jews, Scandinavians, Portuguese, Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, Scots, Irish, Polish).
> 
> ...


----------



## pixel (25 February 2012)

Julia said:


> Miner, Afrikaners are a distinct ethnic group, different from British South Africans.
> [...]
> South Africans of British descent are considered a separate ethnic group from Afrikaners, and their first language is English.



 Which brings us into Nationalism, which isn't any more ethical than racism.
It seems that humans have an innate need to "belong". Be it a family, a tribe, a nation, ... 
On second thoughts, replace "humans" by "most animals". If you've watched "Meerkat Manor" you'll know what I mean.
All through their development, it's been tough going, finding food and shelter, safety in the group that gives their offspring a better chance of survival. Any external group/ horde/ tribe poses a threat, intent on expanding into "our" territory.

Subconsciously, that kind of "Us vs Them" manifests itself in both racism and nationalism. And the bigger the dung heap a group has managed to collect, the greater their feeling of superiority, hubris, elitism, being "the Chosen Ones"; which then leads to contempt of all of "Them", called by derogatory names like Barbarians, Natives, Infidels, Heathen,..., and destined to be conquered, enslaved, exterminated. 

In that sense, the source of a derogatory "Ni99er", "B00ng", "Ding0", ... lies right next door to turf wars between "Families" in various Underbellies, Bikie gang warfare on a small scale, and the Crusades, Conquistadores, and Colonisation in a larger context.

Think about it, next time you hear "Britannia Rules the Waves", or "Deutschland Uber Alles."

PS: As an Eagles supporter, I hate the Magpies. But that's OK. Everybody does. :


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 February 2012)

nunthewiser said:


> buy a laptop




jeez I miss the nun

gg


----------



## Calliope (4 March 2012)

Nutmeg said:


> You're barking up the wrong tree.  My point is that people do not respond to "races".  They respond to behaviours.  Muslims share certain behaviours which, when exhibited in liberal western societies in varying degrees, westerners react against with revulsion.  They are not "racist" against Muslims because of their skin colour.  They just don't like a lot of the behaviour that, rightly or wrongly, they have come to associate with Muslims.




I would say that the people who branded Gueant "racist' are the real racists.


> FRENCH Interior Minister Claude Gueant, a hardliner close to President Nicolas Sarkozy, came under fire today for the second time in a month for comments deemed racist by liberals.





> "We don't want foreign town councillors making halal food obligatory in canteen meals .... or regulating mixed bathing in swimming pools," Gueant told an audience near Nancy in eastern France.






> "for us all civilisations are not of equal value."
> "Those which defend humanity seem to us to be more advanced than those that do not," he said, stressing the need to "protect our civilisation".



Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ks/story-e6frfku0-1226288334367#ixzz1o61MYvAb


----------



## pixel (4 March 2012)

Calliope said:


> I would say that the people who branded Gueant "racist' are the real racists.



 Absolutely, Calliope;
and the "liberals" that criticize him for stating the bleeding obvious aren't liberal at all. They are advocating cultural suicide. Tolerance of other people's views can only extend across people who maintain the same tolerance in return. Beyond that, it becomes self-defeating.
A number of European countries are gradually waking up to this fact. High time, we did too.


----------



## DB008 (11 November 2012)

*'If they take offence that's their choice:' Greg Ritchie defends accusations of racism'*



> Former Test batsman Greg Ritchie has defended himself against claims of racist and anti-Muslim comments at a Brisbane Test luncheon, refusing to apologise and saying: "If they take offence that's their choice."
> The ex-Australian player and television personality was attacked for using the forbidden "k-word" during a lunchtime speech at the Brisbane Cricket Ground Trust members dining room on day one of the first Test against South Africa on Friday. He also made disparaging remarks about Islamic people in the address, South Africa's Sunday Times reported.




Link - http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/if-they-take-offence-thats-their-choice-greg-ritchie-defends-accusations-of-racism-20121111-2963p.html


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 December 2015)

Racism is knocking or bagging someone of a race or creed other than your own. For example we can bag the crap out of Tony Abbott or Julia Gillard but if they were Muslim, Aboriginal, Japanese, Chinese or Touch ya knees then that is racism. Know the difference.


----------



## Tisme (2 December 2015)

Wysiwyg said:


> Racism is knocking or bagging someone of a race or creed other than your own. For example we can bag the crap out of Tony Abbott or Julia Gillard but if they were Muslim, Aboriginal, Japanese, Chinese or Touch ya knees then that is racism. Know the difference.




I thought it was a word used by people who are losing their argument .... bigot is the fallback word and both are exclusive domains of fair skinned peoples.


----------



## Craton (2 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> I thought it was a word used by people who are losing their argument .... bigot is the fallback word and *both are exclusive domains of fair skinned peoples*.




Lol, if you've ever spent time with our indigenous folk, you'll know that neither word has exclusivity rights.


----------



## pixel (2 December 2015)

This picture says it all:


----------



## SirRumpole (2 December 2015)

pixel said:


> This picture says it all:
> 
> View attachment 65186




Yep, very true. How can we be proud of something that is an accident of birth and not a personal achievement ?


----------



## trainspotter (2 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yep, very true. How can we be proud of something that is an accident of birth and not a personal achievement ?




Skin colour is not a lifestyle choice


----------



## SirRumpole (2 December 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Skin colour is not a lifestyle choice




I think I know what you mean and you are right, but where you decide to live and how much you want others to pay for it is a lifestyle choice. Agree ?


----------



## Tisme (3 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think I know what you mean and you are right, but where you decide to live and how much you want others to pay for it is a lifestyle choice. Agree ?




How come the minority skin colour in this world is blamed for vast majority non white skinned people's predicaments? The ratio get really out of kilter when you knock out the olive skinned races.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> How come the minority skin colour in this world is blamed for vast majority non white skinned people's predicaments? The ratio get really out of kilter when you knock out the olive skinned races.




By minority skin colour you mean whites I presume ?


----------



## luutzu (3 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> How come the minority skin colour in this world is blamed for vast majority non white skinned people's predicaments? The ratio get really out of kilter when you knock out the olive skinned races.




Maybe because they, you guys , have the biggest baddest sticks and God told you (and your ancestors) that using it every where is doing God's work. Taking on the burden of civilising the barbarians and savagges, if you will.

But that's only the past 500 years. Before that, well OK, the Olive skinned Greeks and Romans... but on the other side of the world the Yellow peril were doing similar deeds too. 

So yes, it's not fair that the world's ill are all blamed on the White folks... others have done it, the yellow guys or the brown indian guys might soon want to try to... but til then... White Christian people - what's wrong with you 

Wait a minute... aren't we blaming all the world's ill on the Muslims? Terrorism and stuff? The White people just go over there to keep the peace


----------



## trainspotter (3 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think I know what you mean and you are right, but where you decide to live and how much you want others to pay for it is a lifestyle choice. Agree ?




No ... that is "system abuse".


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> How come the minority skin colour in this world is blamed for vast majority non white skinned people's predicaments? The ratio get really out of kilter when you knock out the olive skinned races.




Probably because historically that minority has held the majority of power, and used it to suppress the minority.

I think racism is linked to tribalism, it's something that we are all guilty of to some extent, and need to come to grips with and move past it.


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2015)

pixel said:


> This picture says it all:
> 
> View attachment 65186




I think it's pretty silly to say you are proud of your race, I mean it's not an achievement, you were just born that way.

I can understand why people who have grown up being descriminated against might take a defensive position and say they are proud to be their race, but really that's just a defensive position where they are making it clear they are not ashamed of their race so your taunts won't affect them.

In most cases, A white guy saying he is proud of being white would seem silly to me, surely he would have other personal attributes he could be proud of, why would the colour of his skin inspire pride?


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Probably because historically that minority has held the majority of power, and used it to suppress the minority.




True, but it (Whites/Romans) have gained that power by superiority in science and technology which we have then used to benefit not only ourselves but other races as well, even if they don't like to admit it, eventually. Thre was obviously a lot of subjugation beforehand.

Racism appears to me to have stemmed from this technology gap. People with the technology tend to think those without it are inferior. People without the technology tend to resent those that do have it and don't trust them.

Both sides need to meet in the middle somewhere.


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> True, but it (Whites/Romans) have gained that power by superiority in science and technology which we have then used to benefit not only ourselves but other races as well, even if they don't like to admit it, eventually. Thre was obviously a lot of subjugation beforehand.




Yeah, but when you think about it the scientific achievements had nothing to do with race, there is nothing about the scientific method that prevents other races from making advances, the accumulation of power in Western Europe and then later in the USA, stemmed from the climate of these regions and their ability to support large populations, with a enough food production that a certain percentage of the population could develop specialisation trades.

When land can be easily farmed you need a smaller group dedicated to food production, this allows other people to dedicate time to arts and science, and it creates a positive feed back loop of progress, also due to the war mongering nature of Western Europe in the past, a large portion of this excess production was dedicated to weaponising scienctific advances and constructing mobile armies and navies from which they could conquer other lands.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Yeah, but when you think about it the scientific achievements had nothing to do with race, there is nothing about the scientific method that prevents other races from making advances, the accumulation of power in Western Europe and then later in the USA, stemmed from the climate of these regions and their ability to support large populations, with a enough food production that a certain percentage of the population could develop specialisation trades.
> 
> When land can be easily farmed you need a smaller group dedicated to food production, this allows other people to dedicate time to arts and science, and it creates a positive feed back loop of progress, also due to the war mongering nature of Western Europe in the past, a large portion of this excess production was dedicated to weaponising scienctific advances and constructing mobile armies and navies from which they could conquer other lands.




I'm not arguing with that, you seem to think I was saying that white races ARE superior. 

I'm saying that if Africans had developed technology instead of Europeans, they (the Africans) would now be the racists and the Europeans would be the downtrodden.


----------



## Tisme (3 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> Maybe because they, you guys , have the biggest baddest sticks and God told you (and your ancestors) that using it every where is doing God's work. Taking on the burden of civilising the barbarians and savagges, if you will.
> 
> But that's only the past 500 years. Before that, well OK, the Olive skinned Greeks and Romans... but on the other side of the world the Yellow peril were doing similar deeds too.
> 
> ...




personally I would have just said "that's cricket"


----------



## Tisme (3 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not arguing with that, you seem to think I was saying that white races ARE superior.
> 
> I'm saying that if Africans had developed technology instead of Europeans, they (the Africans) would now be the racists and the Europeans would be the downtrodden.




But they didn't and whitey did (after the Muslims gave them all the knowledge of the universe and the Chinese had moved on from industry, 2 millenia before, to more important things like planting rice).

The Xanthochroi race must have something going for it to do what it does so well. I'm thinking it's the deep winters with nothing to do but exercise the brain and get fat.  It must be because fair skinned Australians don't seem to do much except ....well they don't seem to do much.


----------



## DB008 (3 December 2015)

White hetrosexual male (preferrably married) - the biggest racist in the world right now...


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> ....well they don't seem to do much.





Alcohol, computer games and "reality" TV, what more could you ask for ?


----------



## pixel (3 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I think racism is linked to tribalism, it's something that we are all guilty of to some extent, and need to come to grips with and move past it.




Racism IS the ultimate form of tribalism. It's been a key survival mechanism for Millions of years of evolution.
Look at alpha males in many herds/ family clans. Dominant males fight interlopers for the right to mate; if the interloper wins, he services the hinds. Quite often, the new male will even kill the most recent litter in order to sire his own brood as fast as he can.

Early humans were no different, especially in tribal situations where the environment would sustain only a limited number of families or tribes. Remember Solomon and his harem of Hundreds? A clear leftover from the animal kingdom. As the tribes grew larger, the alpha male could no longer service *every *female in his tribe. But he could use myths and "divine truths" instead. Make enough loot from raids into neighbours' territory, then surround yourself with a bunch of shamans that swear that you are the chosen one and every member of the tribe that acknowledges you as Alpha Male will bask in the same grace of being Chosen. 
Of course, every tribe was "Chosen" and superior to all other neighbouring tribes. The priests and shamans vouched for that; they even started to write it down on stone tablets, which they used to  point at the literal truth of their god's unquestionable word. Any doubters were clobbered with the tablets - which gave rise to the practice of "stoning" that survived in some primitive tribes until this very day.


----------



## luutzu (3 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> personally I would have just said "that's cricket"




Yes. That would be succinct (see, I know the concept. Application is something else  ). But as with all engineers and their formulae and equations, it does not capture the entire argument.

Namely, Cricket only include the British Empire. That would leave out the other White Christian empires who were equally busy at work taking on the burden. So there's the French, the Dutch, Spaniards, Portugese... taking it to the coloured folks and also taking on each other now and again.

So Cricket, my dear McFly, is only about one third correct.

In short, you're wrong.


----------



## luutzu (3 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I think it's pretty silly to say you are proud of your race, I mean it's not an achievement, you were just born that way.
> 
> I can understand why people who have grown up being descriminated against might take a defensive position and say they are proud to be their race, but really that's just a defensive position where they are making it clear they are not ashamed of their race so your taunts won't affect them.
> 
> In most cases, A white guy saying he is proud of being white would seem silly to me, surely he would have other personal attributes he could be proud of, why would the colour of his skin inspire pride?




Well put there crusader (as in, crusading against religious nuts and also anti-religious nuts; not as some might consider the job of soldiers. Ey, can't be too careful and upset Q to Australia's 00s).


----------



## luutzu (3 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> True, but it (Whites/Romans) have gained that power by superiority in science and technology which we have then used to benefit not only ourselves but other races as well, even if they don't like to admit it, eventually. Thre was obviously a lot of subjugation beforehand.
> 
> Racism appears to me to have stemmed from this technology gap. People with the technology tend to think those without it are inferior. People without the technology tend to resent those that do have it and don't trust them.
> 
> Both sides need to meet in the middle somewhere.




Yes, but conquest aren't always achieved through superior technology or more enlightened/learned people and culture. You just need to be superior at weapons of war, use it well and take people's country and all their stuff 

Rome didn't gain supremacy through superior tech or higher learning against Carthage. From the intro that I read of Polybius' Rise of the Roman Empire... Roman naval ships, well there weren't much of a navy to speak of, and Roman culture and science were generations behind Carthaginians and the Greeks. But they managed to lose a few major battles, re-engineered the ships and improve their naval strategies and tactic. Took over Carthage; got Hannibal up their behinds for some years until they managed to razed Carthage to the ground and salt it just in case.

Once that's done, they took over the entire Mediterranean and absorbed all its cultures, learning and scientific advances. The grains from Egypt and other goods over the empire then build its marble cities. 

Same with Genghis and his descendants - the Khans eventually get absorbed by the culture it conquered. All the technical know-how the Mongolian has was strong horse, good riders, strong bow and arrow and a silk armour undercover that stops enemies arrows a bit. That and giving enemies the Plague. 

Same case with Manchurian and China's Ming. 

Maybe there's some good news in our modern time then. The West got bunker loads of arms and nukes... if the world don't end after all these wars and the next big one, there will actually be a thousand year peace.


----------



## pixel (3 December 2015)

It's not so much the technological (or cultural) superiority that makes a tribe/ race/ nation racist, but the *presumption *of superiority over all other similar tribes/ races/ nations.
In ancient times, it was "Our god has chosen us, so we have the right to take your land and women."
With Rome, it was the unshakable belief in SPQR that led to "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam." Unluckily for the Carthagenians, the presumption of Rome's military superiority proved true.

When the tribes grew even larger and conquered peoples were forged into nations, Nationalism raised its head. But there is not the slightest fundamental difference between "We are the chosen people", "Britannia rules the waves", "God is an American", and "Deutschland uber alles"? Each is, in its basic presumption, the expression of a superiority complex that implies every other group must be inferior. And if it blocks *OUR *access to riches - "milk and honey", precious metals, spices, etc - the inferior alien deserves to be conquered, killed, or enslaved.

Has humanity made progress from those primal instincts? For a short while, it may have appeared that way: Post-War political leaders realised that Nationalism, aided by military overkill capacity, must lead to global annihilation. For a while, tolerance of alternative ideas may even have sparked a glimmer of hope on a global scale. Even the Pope acknowledged that Protestants, Anglicans,* even women and gays! *were God's children and worthy of recognition (well, almost! as long as they know their place and don't aspire to become priests or cardinals...)

However, the increasing population density is bringing us back to the early tribal environment of limited space, limited resources at street level or suburb level. Result: Bands form around a small number of alpha males who instill a sense of cohesion and belonging in their members. And turf wars start again on street level, inside suburbs, or along footy club boundaries.
Differentiation into groups and fighting - be it ritualistic or to the last drop of blood - seems to be ingrained in the human DNA. Today's men and women represent the survivors of Millions of years of natural selection. The ideals and admonitions of a tiny group of "enlightened" idealists won't change ingrained thought patterns of 7 Billion.

We may call ourselves Homo Sapiens, but deep below, subconsciously, we're still members of the animal world.


----------



## Tisme (4 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> Yes. That would be succinct (see, I know the concept. Application is something else  ). But as with all engineers and their formulae and equations, it does not capture the entire argument.
> 
> Namely, Cricket only include the British Empire. That would leave out the other White Christian empires who were equally busy at work taking on the burden. So there's the French, the Dutch, Spaniards, Portugese... taking it to the coloured folks and also taking on each other now and again.
> 
> ...





The Poms and Scots started the industrial revolution back in abt 1700, which necessitated a raw material and commodity inflow, thus the trading companies and empire building. It took the rest of Europe at least another 100 years to get with the program which ultimately resulted in the first industrial war in 1914.

The difference with the British Empire and the rest was that they gave the countries they conquered the rule of (common) law, good government and parliament (even Japan after WW2), rather than despotic and canonical rule of law. They also have a well chronicled history to justify the progression of and give precedence to their political and legal systems


----------



## trainspotter (4 December 2015)

This is racism ...





And not when someone calls someone else a descriptive name as per this website ... this is discrimination 



> Saying the “N” word is the one & only thing a Black person can get away with doing that a white person CANNOT get away with saying.




http://www.onyxtruth.com/2014/06/03/the-n-word/


----------



## luutzu (4 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> The Poms and Scots started the industrial revolution back in abt 1700, which necessitated a raw material and commodity inflow, thus the trading companies and empire building. It took the rest of Europe at least another 100 years to get with the program which ultimately resulted in the first industrial war in 1914.
> 
> The difference with the British Empire and the rest was that they gave the countries they conquered the rule of (common) law, good government and parliament (even Japan after WW2), rather than despotic and canonical rule of law. They also have a well chronicled history to justify the progression of and give precedence to their political and legal systems




I thought European imperialism started soon after Columbus found his way to India? He's an Italian, funded by the Spanish monarch right? There's a few famous explorers before him but I think they were more into mapping new routes to actual India and the Middle East for trade purposes (at first).

Britain came later into the game but seem to be more successful. Particularly when those rebels in the American colonies took over, declare independence and start kicking Spanish control and influence out of Florida and its coasts; spread towards the new frontiers and take half of a Spanish colony known as mehico; take over the colony named after King Phillips (the 2?) and setting up puppets and clients all across South Americas until very recently.

The Yanks may not it that you see their handy work as that of British imperialism - even though that is true.

Australia or New Zealand, or India and the Middle East, Burma and most of South East Asia... yea, you can claim those to be Britannia's.

---

Well yea, can't argue that all empire colonized others to bring them into modern civilisation and closer to God. Many of them actually went to meet their new God right away too. Even little Napoleon has his code of justice or something comparable to British common law and high ideals right?

I mean, Genghis Khan, so we're told, have said to a Vatican delegates to his capital that he, the Great Khan, is God's punishment for Western debauchery. So God send him and his horsemen all over the world to bring them back into the right path. Same with imperial Japan and its plans for the backward and sick Asians; same with the weren't-sick imperial China; same with the mini-imperial Vietnam and their plans for the native South of Hue before the French got involved with their own missions.

So that's from the enlightened people's perspective. Not sure the natives like it that much though - common law or no common law, they'd probably like their old backward ways of life just fine before most of them were dead.


----------



## Craton (4 December 2015)

Um, trainspotter. Aren't those pics depicting genocide?

I'd have thought the word racism included discrimination as well as a whole plethora of ideologies with genocide being one of these.


----------



## trainspotter (4 December 2015)

Craton said:


> Um, trainspotter. Aren't those pics depicting genocide?
> 
> I'd have thought the word racism included discrimination as well as a whole plethora of ideologies with genocide being one of these.




Nope ... you can discriminate against people of the same coloured skin/age/handicap/whatever.

Hitler was racist as he was consistently anti- Semite. He believed the Germans or Arians to be a superior race. 

Racism has many categories and sub categories


----------



## Craton (4 December 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Nope ... you can discriminate against people of the same coloured skin/age/handicap/whatever.
> 
> Hitler was racist as he was consistently anti- Semite. He believed the Germans or Arians to be a superior race.
> 
> ...




Splitting hairs, gotcha...


----------



## Tisme (4 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> I thought European imperialism started soon after Columbus found his way to India? He's an Italian, funded by the Spanish monarch right? There's a few famous explorers before him but I think they were more into mapping new routes to actual India and the Middle East for trade purposes (at first).
> 
> Britain came later into the game but seem to be more successful. Particularly when those rebels in the American colonies took over, declare independence and start kicking Spanish control and influence out of Florida and its coasts; spread towards the new frontiers and take half of a Spanish colony known as mehico; take over the colony named after King Phillips (the 2?) and setting up puppets and clients all across South Americas until very recently.
> 
> ...





The poms had common law way before Columbus sailed the ocean green in 14 hundred and 93 

I thought Columbus was a Genoan and therefore a Milanese Spaniard? Italy wasn't around then was it?


----------



## Tisme (4 December 2015)

Practical racism from the other day in sunny Gold Coast:

http://bit.ly/1O5qx4S


----------



## luutzu (4 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> The poms had common law way before Columbus sailed the ocean green in 14 hundred and 93
> 
> I thought Columbus was a Genoan and therefore a Milanese Spaniard? Italy wasn't around then was it?




A Sopranos episode show how Italians all love Columbus and celebrate the US Columbus Day. If you can't learn history from TV, where else do you learn it? Books?

But yea, tomayto, tomarto. All Olive and White people look the same to me


----------



## Tink (5 December 2015)

Good to see History running in this forum, because they aren't in our public education system.

Chaos in our public education system.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851

_Everywhere in the West today we see the decline of the great universities, and the death of education in general. 
Instead of proper teaching and learning, we find indoctrination, propaganda, political correctness, and grown up cry babies who throw hissy fits about everything that does not strike their fancy._


----------



## bellenuit (6 December 2015)

Tink said:


> _Everywhere in the West today we see the decline of the great universities, and the death of education in general.
> Instead of proper teaching and learning, we find indoctrination, propaganda, political correctness, and grown up cry babies who throw hissy fits about everything that does not strike their fancy._




You can say amen to that quote. Universities in the West have succumbed to political correctness in a big way when many are preventing ideas being discussed because certain groups demand a "safe space" in which to pursue their studies. By "safe space" they do not mean safe in the physical sense, but safe in the sense of being in an environment where ideas they find confronting are not given air, even though they are under no compulsion to take part in or even attend such discussions. Recently there have been a plethora of attempts to prevent secular people, moderate and ex-muslims speaking on campus because they may discuss issues that make certain groups uncomfortable (muslim and some left wing student bodies). 

Here is a prime example from London's Goldsmith University. Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born secularist and human rights activist, commentator and broadcaster. She is spokesperson for Iran Solidarity, One Law for All and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. She was invited by the University's Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society (ASH) to give a talk on Blasphemy and Apostasy. The University's Islamic Society (ISOC) tried to prevent the event taking place and when unsuccessful, went out of their way to disrupt it.

It is worth listening to what Maryam had to say and ask yourself is that hate speech. You can see the intolerant attitude of ISOC attendees from about the 12 minute mark. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1ZiZdz5nao

After the event (which I urge you to view in its entirety), ISOC took to their Facebook page to “_categorically condemn the vile harassment of our members (both male and female) by the ASH_.”

The group claimed the ASH invited Namazie, whom they referred to as “_a notorious islamophobe_,” to speak at the event, “_despite our polite request for them to reconsider._” The ISOC’s statement added: “_The university should be a *safe space* for all our students. Islamophobic views like those propagated by Namazie create a climate of hatred and bigotry towards Muslim students.

“Muslim students who attended the event were shocked and horrified by statements made by Namazie, and peacefully expressed their dissent to the disrespectful cartoons shown of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

“These students were subsequently made subject to unnecessary bullying, abuse and violence by the ASH society and security staff. Some students were even forcibly removed from the event._”

What makes matters worse, Goldsmiths Feminist Society also waded into the debate and released a statement saying it “_stands in solidarity_” with ISOC, and further supported the group in “_condemning the actions of the ASH._”

Listen to the talk and judge for yourself.

*Muslim students from Goldsmiths University’s Islamic Society ‘heckle and aggressively interrupt’ Maryam Lamaze talk*

http://www.independent.co.uk/studen...ckle-and-aggressively-interrupt-a6760306.html

Related to this and also worth reading:

*The Shame and the Disgrace of the Pro-Islamist Left*

http://quillette.com/2015/12/06/the-shame-and-the-disgrace-of-the-pro-islamist-left/


----------



## wayneL (7 December 2015)

bellenuit said:


> You can say amen to that quote....
> 
> ...
> Related to this and also worth reading:
> ...




I can't get my mind around the irony of the PC left, who generally disdain Christianity in favour of so-called humanism in our own culture, being such strong supporters of fundamental Islam in western society.

It is so morally and intellectually incongruent, I can't get my mind around it; It's like the intention is to destroy our own culture.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> I can't get my mind around the irony of the PC left, who generally disdain Christianity in favour of so-called humanism in our own culture, being such strong supporters of fundamental Islam in western society.
> 
> It is so morally and intellectually incongruent, I can't get my mind around it; It's like the intention is to destroy our own culture.




The Left see themselves as protectors of what they see as downtrodden minorities.

 I've seen it myself on this forum when some who are strident critics of Christianity still manage to find excuses for equally arcane expressions of Islamic silliness.


----------



## Tink (7 December 2015)

Thanks, bellenuit. Amen to that too.

Wayne, you have said what I have been trying to say. THANK YOU.

Just to add, in Victoria, our Premier has banned Christmas Hymns in State Schools.


----------



## Tisme (7 December 2015)

Another blatant racist act by Coca Cola = they pulled it after social media decide what was right for the aboriginals and apparently this is colonialism: 

“This type of publicity is an act of discrimination and racism,” Elvira Pablo, an indigenous lawyer, said at a press conference in Mexico City on Wednesday. “It is a comment on our type of life and an attempt to put a culture of consumerism in its place.”

So little thanks for Coke after giving them all the opportunity for diabetes and obesity.

The same mob that invented Santa via Haddon Sundblom 


http://www.mutoworld.com/_uimages/PinUp_Santa.jpg

http://www.americanartarchives.com/sundblom_coke_lhj_dec50.jpg


----------



## bellenuit (7 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The Left see themselves as protectors of what they see as downtrodden minorities.




The incongruence comes when there are minorities within the minorities. So some on the left who see Muslims in general as a downtrodden minority and offer their support, fail to see the minorities within Muslim societies who are downtrodden by the majority Muslims, such as Christian sects, non-mainstream Muslims, homosexuals, atheists, apostates and of course women in general. 

There are many on the left whose support for the underdog is entirely dependent on who the "overdog" is. So long as blame can be attributed to the West, the US in particular, they are behind the cause. But they are completely silent when blame is attributable to one of their "favoured" minorities. The silence of the Western feminist movement to the barbarities committed against women in Islamic societies is a prime example.


----------



## luutzu (7 December 2015)

bellenuit said:


> The incongruence comes when there are minorities within the minorities. So some on the left who see Muslims in general as a downtrodden minority and offer their support, fail to see the minorities within Muslim societies who are downtrodden by the majority Muslims, such as Christian sects, non-mainstream Muslims, homosexuals, atheists, apostates and of course women in general.
> 
> There are many on the left whose support for the underdog is entirely dependent on who the "overdog" is. So long as blame can be attributed to the West, the US in particular, they are behind the cause. But they are completely silent when blame is attributable to one of their "favoured" minorities. The silence of the Western feminist movement to the barbarities committed against women in Islamic societies is a prime example.




Some people may be more complicated than the Left/Right classification. Some might support or argue a point because they believe it's the right thing to do; some may take a position because they know enough, are informed enough, to take that position.

Example. When ISIS murder reporters and countless other innocent people en mass; people are outraged and horrified and find it unacceptable... some may find such killings wrong and immoral simply because it's killing people, not because it's ISIS that does it so it's wrong.

I think the world would be a better place if we have more objective people who does not condone any sort of violence or murder, by any group using any sort of weapons.

If we keep picking sides, not only will violence and war keep going round in circles, we cannot seriously claim ourselves to be moral or objective.

How many millions Afghani and Iraqi died since 2001? 4 or 5 millions so far? How many wounded? How many more will die due to lack of food and water and medical care because their infrastructure and livelihoods got caught in the crossfires?

Millions of people died, millions more made homeless and dislocated... and the only things we hear from "our" leaders is the war was a "strategic blunder". But that's the past, let's now chase ISIS to the gates of hell in Syria, draw the former evil empire into it and let's hope we all only get to blow up terrorists with no airforce and not each other's jets - that may start a nuclear World War and we obviously are doing everything we can to prevent that.

But yea, it's all Islam's fault. Dam crazy religion. Teaching their followers to hate those who take over their country, killing their people directly or indirectly causing their death, propping up dictators and stealing their resources.


----------



## Boggo (7 December 2015)

And she is a member of congress !!!!!!


----------



## wayneL (7 December 2015)

bellenuit said:


> The incongruence comes when there are minorities within the minorities. So some on the left who see Muslims in general as a downtrodden minority and offer their support, fail to see the minorities within Muslim societies who are downtrodden by the majority Muslims, such as Christian sects, non-mainstream Muslims, homosexuals, atheists, apostates and of course women in general.
> 
> There are many on the left whose support for the underdog is entirely dependent on who the "overdog" is. So long as blame can be attributed to the West, the US in particular, they are behind the cause. But they are completely silent when blame is attributable to one of their "favoured" minorities. The silence of the Western feminist movement to the barbarities committed against women in Islamic societies is a prime example.




Eggsackadackly! Those very things that liberals (not as in the Liberal Party) have fought so long and hard for, they want to P155 away in supporting medieval barbarity.... because it's a minority?

Just what the actual f###????


----------



## Tisme (7 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> Eggsackadackly! Those very things that liberals (not as in the Liberal Party) have fought so long and hard for, they want to P155 away in supporting medieval barbarity.... because it's a minority?
> 
> Just what the actual f###????




If they crave the satisfaction of doing good deeds for the cro magnons, maybe they should take in a temperamental bull terrier and give it a home, care and a few stray children to destroy ...same effect, but putting the costs where they belong.


----------



## Value Collector (7 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> I can't get my mind around the irony of the PC left, who generally disdain Christianity in favour of so-called humanism in our own culture, being such strong supporters of fundamental Islam in western society.
> 
> .




I think what is causing you confusion is that most Humanists are openly against religion and want to restrict the influence of religion in schools and on governments etc, which makes you think they want to forcibly abolish all religion. So when you see them step in and defend the rights of muslims, you think this is a contradiction.

What is really happening is that most humanists are pro religious freedom, even more so than most religious people, and they don't want members of one religion having their religious freedom trashed in favour of another.

For example, If you want to ban new mosques being built, then you need to ban new churches also, if you want to ban Muslim faith schools, you need to ban Christian ones.

I hate religion, I wish people would abandon all superstition in favour of rational thought, however I believe its peoples right to believe what they want, and as long as they are not harming anyone, and keep it out of government and schools, then I support their right to have and practice a religion, so protestors calling to ban mosques do not have my support, people can build as many churches or mosques as they like, as long as its not government subsidized.

I actually support religious freedom more than the religious people here, I mean they only want freedom for their brand, I want everyone to have religious freedom, so long as its not infringing on the rights of others.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I actually support religious freedom more than the religious people here, I mean they only want freedom for their brand, I want everyone to have religious freedom, so long as its not infringing on the rights of others.




Fair enough on the surface, but then you have to make a judgement as to whether religion is infringing on the rights of others.

e. g. do you consider that merely by being brought up in a religious family is affecting a persons right to "freedom *from* religion" ?

IMO joining a religion should be like joining the army, you have to be of a certain age to get in, it must be a totally voluntary choice, and you are not browbeaten by your family to "join their club".

Some religions seem to think that they own for life all those whose parents belong to their club, and it's not just Muslims :- Catholics, Jehova's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons all think that their children must follow the path or be damned for life, and afterwards.

That is the worst form of psychological brainwashing practised by religious cults.


----------



## Tink (8 December 2015)

As I have said, our country was built on our Christian Heritage.

Christmas has been here a lot longer than your political correctness,
If they are offended by Christmas songs, and feel the need to destroy Christmas for the children, banning hymns from schools, they need to grow up.

The Communists are here, welcome to North Korea.


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I think what is causing you confusion is that most Humanists are openly against religion and want to restrict the influence of religion in schools and on governments etc, which makes you think they want to forcibly abolish all religion. So when you see them step in and defend the rights of muslims, you think this is a contradiction.
> 
> What is really happening is that most humanists are pro religious freedom, even more so than most religious people, and they don't want members of one religion having their religious freedom trashed in favour of another.
> 
> ...




No.

My confusion is in the observation that secular aspects of our notionally Christian society are subjugated in favour of the expression of religious minorities.

For instance the absurd (and ambiguous) banning of Christmas hymns in Victorian state schools. On the face of it not unreasonable if you want to remove religious from school. But in actuality, it expressly refers to the Christian religion. 

Is it then reasonable to ban the observance of Ramadan in schools, ban the hijab, or anything symbolic of one's faith? 

The religions of the Asian far East, Buddists, Taoists etc, have coexisted... and even participated in the secular cultural aspects of or Christian tradition (Just like atheists/humanists). Even the Afghani Muslims that have been here for generations haven't batted an eyelid.

It is only the open expression of fundamentalist Islamism which has caused the stupid left to start banning our own culture.


----------



## Craton (8 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> No.
> 
> My confusion is in the observation that secular aspects of our notionally Christian society are subjugated in favour of the expression of religious minorities.
> 
> ...




I am gobsmacked that our "leaders" are doing this. We are a Christian culture and if anyone doesn't like it, too bad!

Banning hymms and nativity scenes and the like is just cowtowing to some rose coloured view of I don't know what. Banning our culture from expression is refuting who we are and I simply can't believe that we are allowing this to happen. Our "leaders" need a good, swift kick up the backside, bloody morons.


----------



## Value Collector (8 December 2015)

Tink said:


> As I have said, our country was built on our Christian Heritage.
> 
> Christmas has been here a lot longer than your political correctness,
> If they are offended by Christmas songs, and feel the need to destroy Christmas for the children, banning hymns from schools, they need to grow up.
> ...




I have no problem with a few secular type Christmas songs at the end of the year (eg jingle bells and rudulph the red nose reindeer etc), but I do have a problem with trying to highjack schools to spread overtly religious messages. 

The Australian version of Christmas is not really religious anyway, Santa, reindeer, presents, trees etc are not from the Bible, Christmas is about family, presents, prawns and beer where I come from, I can't remember a time that Jesus was relevant to any celebration I have attended.

As for hymns, unless they are part of a broad based religious education course where a range of religions are taught I am against it, keep your Christian Mythology in your faith schools.


----------



## Tisme (8 December 2015)

Craton said:


> .............Banning our culture from expression is refuting who we are and I simply can't believe that we are allowing this to happen. Our "leaders" need a good, swift kick up the backside, bloody morons.




same argument the cut throats would use.

If you watch the Muslim women who go on shows like QANDA, etc there is an obvious cat that got the cream attitude that comes with them .... almost as if to say "you are looking at the obedient women who's God given misogynistic men folk will inherit this nation and there's nothing you can do about it". Never see much of the men who have so little regard for their bridal breeders they even marry the pre teen heifers off to physically grown men (the mental ages is obviously that of a child) e.g.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-injuries-days-arranged-marriage-Yemen.html


----------



## Value Collector (8 December 2015)

Craton said:


> I am gobsmacked that our "leaders" are doing this. We are a Christian culture and if anyone doesn't like it, too bad!
> 
> Banning hymms and nativity scenes and the like is just cowtowing to some rose coloured view of I don't know what. Banning our culture from expression is refuting who we are and I simply can't believe that we are allowing this to happen. Our "leaders" need a good, swift kick up the backside, bloody morons.




No we are a secular democracy, religion is for sunday schools, not public schools.

No doubt you would be against Muslim teachings of Muhammad in schools being taught as fact, I would be just as offended by teachings of Jesus.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> No doubt you would be against Muslim teachings of Muhammad in schools being taught as fact, I would be just as offended by teachings of Jesus.




There is a difference between science and morality. What's wrong with teaching children to respect their fellows and treat others as they would like to be treated ?

It doesn't have to have a Bible or Christian wrapping, Jesus's teaching were mainly ones of civil courtesy towards others (why do you take offence at that ?), and I see no problem teaching those values without promoting any particular religion.


----------



## Value Collector (8 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> .
> 
> 
> Is it then reasonable to ban the observance of Ramadan in schools, ban the hijab, or anything symbolic of one's faith?
> ...




You don't ban people observing their faith, you ban the school from leading religious teachings, and making students observe a faith.

eg, you don't ban the hijab, you ban schools teaching children that they must wear the hijab, you don't ban students from observing Ramadan, but you ban schools from teaching students that they must do Ramadan.

For example, students can Pray if they want, I have no problem with that, But teachers should not be leading classes in prayor. 

Students can sing hymns at lunch if they want, but teachers should not lead children to sing overtly religious hymns.


----------



## Value Collector (8 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What's wrong with teaching children to respect their fellows and treat others as they would like to be treated ?
> 
> .




Nothing, But that alone has nothing to do with religion, There is plenty of secular reasons for that, you don't have to appeal to any middle eastern mythology to teach that.



> It doesn't have to have a Bible or Christian wrapping, Jesus's teaching were mainly ones of civil courtesy towards others (why do you take offence at that ?), and I see no problem teaching those values without promoting any particular religion




Jesus said some good things, he also said some rubbish things, there is no reason to appeal to him as an authority, Just teach non religious morality.


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> No we are a secular democracy, religion is for sunday schools, not public schools.
> 
> No doubt you would be against Muslim teachings of Muhammad in schools being taught as fact, I would be just as offended by teachings of Jesus.




Its a grey area. We are notional a Christian democracy. The Lords Prayer still recited in parliament with Xmas and Easter statutory holidays. Christianity is part of our very culture. 

I'm not a christian as such and while I think the lords prayer is probably inappropriate in parliament these days, I have no problem with the teaching of Christianity as a historical component of our culture (but agree with you indoctrination). Singing of few hymns, which one can opt out of, isn't really indoctrination.

But like I say, it's a grey and fuzzy line.


----------



## Value Collector (8 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> I have no problem with the teaching of Christianity as a historical component of our culture (but agree with you indoctrination).




Neither do I, Just like there is no problem with teaching some of the Greek or Roman myths while teaching about their history, or teaching some of the Hindu myths when learning about India.

However, teaching a religion as fact and giving preference to one religion over another is clearly out of line in modern secular Australia.



> Singing of few hymns, which one can opt out of, isn't really indoctrination.
> 
> But like I say, it's a grey and fuzzy line.




People that say things like that normally would flip their lid if they heard a school was making kids sing Islamic songs and Islamic prayors

I see them as being the same thing, both are not things that should be done in school.


----------



## CanOz (8 December 2015)

Tink said:


> As I have said, our country was built on *our Christian Heritage.*
> 
> Christmas has been here a lot longer than your political correctness,
> If they are offended by Christmas songs, and feel the need to destroy Christmas for the children, banning hymns from schools, they need to grow up.
> ...




Maybe YOU'RE Christian heritage is a better way to put it. Australian Christians are becoming a rare breed that doesn't breed enough, so get used to non-Christian immigration, you need it. Otherwise who's going to pay for your pension, health care etc.?

If public schools have multiple religions, i agree, why should kids of other religions be subjected to Christian only content? This makes no sense.


----------



## CanOz (8 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> Its a grey area. We are notional a Christian democracy. The Lords Prayer still recited in parliament with Xmas and Easter statutory holidays. Christianity is part of our very culture.
> 
> I'm not a christian as such and while I think the lords prayer is probably inappropriate in parliament these days, I have no problem with the teaching of Christianity as a historical component of our culture (but agree with you indoctrination). Singing of few hymns, which one can opt out of, isn't really indoctrination.
> 
> But like I say, it's a grey and fuzzy line.




Parliament is possibly the worst example of 'multi-cultural', since the whole concept is based on the Westminster system from the old country, the old Christian country. How long has it been since they stopped singing god saved the Queen. We sang that in school when i was a kid. 

I think the grey fuzzy line will only be getting fuzzier.

The ironic thing is that the bible likely says something about embracing all other cultures (I'm guessing), but when it comes down to losing their precious customs, they be like 'no way', not on my watch!


----------



## McLovin (8 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> Its a grey area. We are notional a Christian democracy. The Lords Prayer still recited in parliament with Xmas and Easter statutory holidays. Christianity is part of our very culture.
> 
> I'm not a christian as such and while I think the lords prayer is probably inappropriate in parliament these days, I have no problem with the teaching of Christianity as a historical component of our culture (but agree with you indoctrination). Singing of few hymns, which one can opt out of, isn't really indoctrination.
> 
> But like I say, it's a grey and fuzzy line.




I'd go as far as to say the reading of the Lord's prayer is unconstitutional. 



			
				s116 Australian Constitution said:
			
		

> The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.




The standing orders require the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House to recite the Lord's prayer (a protestant version of it too, I might add. Which no doubt has its origins in the anti-Catholic sentiment of the late 19th/early 20th century in Australia). How is that not imposing a religious observance? Or if that doesn't make the cut because the standing orders are not law, how does it not amount to a "religious test"?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (8 December 2015)

All of these arguments about religion in schools can be avoided if kids are taught how the mind works, from a young age, using established science.  

Once the workings of the mind are understood at a really deep level, interest in religion _tends _to subside.  Understanding true spirituality* is extremely difficult.  The literature is so unbelievably nuanced and subtle.  Once understood, the practice is even harder.  But really, you can do that in your own time... if you want.

Even if you just showed this video, the penny might drop.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ubasw7drI

*[what I call true spirituality, which may in fact have no basis!  But for me, at the moment, it seems like there's possibly something to it].


----------



## Craton (8 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> No we are a secular democracy, religion is for sunday schools, not public schools.
> 
> No doubt you would be against Muslim teachings of Muhammad in schools being taught as fact, I would be just as offended by teachings of Jesus.




I've no issue with religion being taught at school as long as the pupil has the choice of which religion to study or can opt out instead. 

I do have an issue that our society having its roots and was built on a Christian faith, can't express that fact for fear of upsetting someone. Too bad I say, this is the way it is, deal with it.

For children, what I would like to see is that kids make their own mind up whether to study or believe in a religion. Did that with my kids, they checked it out (religious study and attending mass, going to Christian groups) and to their credit gave it a fair go for a couple of years. Both decided it wasn't for them. Funny that.


----------



## Craton (8 December 2015)

McLovin said:


> I'd go as far as to say the reading of the Lord's prayer is unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> The standing orders require the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House to recite the Lord's prayer (a protestant version of it too, I might add. Which no doubt has its origins in the anti-Catholic sentiment of the late 19th/early 20th century in Australia). How is that not imposing a religious observance? Or if that doesn't make the cut because the standing orders are not law, how does it not amount to a "religious test"?




Thanks for that McLovin, always wondered why we had that prayer in there.


----------



## Value Collector (8 December 2015)

Craton said:


> I've no issue with religion being taught at school as long as the pupil has the choice of which religion to study or can opt out instead.
> 
> .




Why waste school time though, do it at church.



> I do have an issue that our society having its roots and was built on a Christian faith, can't express that fact for fear of upsetting someone. Too bad I say, this is the way it is, deal with it.




People are free to practice their faith however they want, can you give me an example of where people are being denied religious freedom?



> For children, what I would like to see is that kids make their own mind up whether to study or believe in a religion.




I feel the same, but even still there is no need to have it in schools, and especially not just if you are just focussing on one.

I would be happy with a history class that spent say 2 weeks on the history of each religions and how their mythology developed, but not a religious class that taught a religion as a real thing and was getting children to practice it.

eg I have no problem with the kids learning about the Aztecs, but teaching kids that their gods were real and should be worshipped is just wrong. I see Christian mythology as no different to any other mythology.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 December 2015)

McLovin said:


> I'd go as far as to say the reading of the Lord's prayer is unconstitutional.




I'm not a lawyer, you may be, but it seems to me that funding religious schools could be unconstitutional.

Has this ever been tested as far as you know ?


----------



## Tink (9 December 2015)

CanOz, this has nothing to do with me. 
This has to do with Australia and our History, which I have stated many times in here.

As Wayne has said, 

_Its a grey area. We are notional a Christian democracy. The Lords Prayer still recited in parliament with Xmas and Easter statutory holidays. Christianity is part of our very culture. _

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture

The lies and propaganda that gets pushed through by the left, is unbelievable.
_
"The most effective way to destroy and denigrate people is to deny and obliterate their understanding of their own history" George Orwell_

Agree, Craton.
This has been a part of Australia as far back as I have known, where Christmas songs and Hymns have been sung throughout this country, including nativity scenes etc.
If they don't like it, bad luck.

VC, spoken like a true commo, think and walk like I do.
That is not freedom. 
That is Communism.

As I have said, our Universities started in Monasteries.


----------



## Value Collector (9 December 2015)

No Tink, I said I stand up for people's rights to think and walk however they like, as long as they are not harming anyone or infringing the rights of others.

I said people can have what ever beliefs they want, they just can't force those mythologies onto others.

You are more "commo" than me Tink, you are the one trying to instill an idea of a national religion, and trying to turn children into little brain washed robots by instilling that "one true religion" into schools.

My concept of religious freedom and freedom from religion has nothing to do with forcing ideas onto people, that's what you are trying to do.


----------



## Tink (9 December 2015)

Really?

Like you do with your anti traditional views?

You are pushing your own beliefs and religion on others, with your own social engineering, brainwashing the children.


----------



## Tisme (9 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> No Tink, I said I stand up for people's rights to think and walk however they like, as long as they are not harming anyone or infringing the rights of others.
> 
> I said people can have what ever beliefs they want, they just can't force those mythologies onto others.
> 
> ...




Good luck with that policy when raising kids. 

I'm not sure some religious (read e.g. Anglican) doctrine isn't of benefit creating a reinforcing boundary that children can identify with. Running a household based on freedom of expression and/or lack of institutional limitations can be tricky and I would guess very time consuming for parents.

Of course there is the situation where even the best of parenting and christian teaching still produces ratbags, which only proves that God does, indeed,  have the sh1ts on with some people.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 December 2015)

FYI



> Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. Section 116 also provides that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. The product of a compromise in the pre-Federation constitutional conventions, Section 116 is based on similar provisions in the United States Constitution. However, Section 116 is more narrowly drafted than its US counterpart, and does not preclude the states of Australia from making such laws.
> 
> Section 116 has been interpreted narrowly by the High Court of Australia: while the definition of "religion" adopted by the court is broad and flexible, the scope of the protection of religions is circumscribed. The result of the court's approach has been that no court has ever ruled a law to be in contravention of Section 116, and the provision has played only a minor role in Australian constitutional history. _Among the laws that the High Court has ruled *not* to be in contravention of Section 116 *are laws that provided government funding to religious schools*, that authorised the dissolution of a branch of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and that enabled the forcible removal of Indigenous Australian children from their families.
> _
> Federal Governments have twice proposed the amendment of Section 116, principally to apply its provisions to laws made by the states. On each occasion””in 1944 and 1988””the proposal failed in a referendum.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_116_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia


----------



## Value Collector (9 December 2015)

Tink said:


> You are pushing your own beliefs and religion on others, with your own social engineering, brainwashing the children.




Firstly, I have no religion.

Secondly, Me saying you have no right to force a state religion based on your Christian mythologies is not the same as me pushing my own beliefs on others.

it like if you are hitting people with your stick, and I say "Stop hitting people with your stick, you have no right to hit people with sticks" I am not denying you the right to have a stick, I am just saying you can't go around waving it at people, keep your stick to yourself.


----------



## Value Collector (9 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> Good luck with that policy when raising kids.
> 
> I'm not sure some religious (read e.g. Anglican) doctrine isn't of benefit creating a reinforcing boundary that children can identify with.




You don't need middle eastern mythologies to raise polite well behaved children, there is plenty of secular reasons to be good.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Secondly, Me saying you have no right to force a state religion based on your Christian mythologies is not the same as me pushing my own beliefs on others.




Why don't you tell the same thing to the Wahabis who want Sharia law enforced on us and who have already done it in other countries around the world ?


----------



## Value Collector (9 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Why don't you tell the same thing to the Wahabis who want Sharia law enforced on us and who have already done it in other countries around the world ?




I would say the same thing, do you honestly think I would support sharia law?

Tink's beliefs are more closely aligned with them the Wahhabis, both tink and the Wahhabis think theocrasy is a good thing, and people who support religious freedom are the devil.

look at how anti my ideas Tink is, and then take a moment to honestly look at my Ideas, all I am calling for is the freedom to choose a religion or have no religion and for people to be free from having a religion forced on them, but tink can't stand the idea of people being free to live without a state religion.

Tink like freedom of speech, but only if it aligns with her views, and she seems to be against freedom of thought.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Tink like freedom of speech, but only if it aligns with her views, and she seems to be against freedom of thought.




Don't know about Tink being against "freedom of thought". There is a natural Conservatism in religious people just as there is in some political people, relating to "fear of the unknown", and the idea that if something isn't broken then don't try to fix it.

People who want "progress" as they see it need to point out where traditional religious or political values are broken, and certainly areas like treatment of women and homosexuals are things that religions need to change in a modern society, however there are traditional values like the nuclear family which in my humble opinion are worth preserving and should not be tossed out with the bathwater.

Anyway, this is probably more appropriate in the Religion thread as it has nothing to do with racism.


----------



## Craton (9 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Anyway, this is probably more appropriate in the Religion thread as it has nothing to do with racism.




Even though posters have skewed a little off track, I think it relates because we were discussing the impact of our Christian culture on other races and their religions. In fact I'd say that the people being offended by our hymms, nativity scenes and the like are racists. 

They have come into our culture and are offend by it?

Well excuse me for not giving a fig. When in Rome buddy!


----------



## SirRumpole (9 December 2015)

Craton said:


> Even though posters have skewed a little off track, I think it relates because we were discussing the impact of our Christian culture on other races and their religions. In fact I'd say that the people being offended by our hymms, nativity scenes and the like are racists.




Not really, Christianity is a religion, not a race. They are offended because it's not their religion, but as you say, tough luck to them. 

Their kids should not have to attend hymn singing if they don't want to but neither should schools be afraid to celebrate what we have been traditionally celebrating for centuries.

Anyway, I believe the Koran regards Jesus as a prophet of God so I don't see why Muslims should object to a bit of celebration for him.


----------



## Value Collector (9 December 2015)

Craton said:


> Even though posters have skewed a little off track, I think it relates because we were discussing the impact of our Christian culture on other races and their religions. In fact I'd say that the people being offended by our hymms, nativity scenes and the like are racists.
> 
> They have come into our culture and are offend by it?
> 
> Well excuse me for not giving a fig. When in Rome buddy!



It's not the hymns of nativity scene themselves that offends me, feel free to have a nativity scene at your church, home, front lawn, even at any privately owned business, my local westfields has a nativity scene right now, I have no problem with that.

But, I will be offended if a nativity scene appears at a school or government building or is government funded, because public schools should not be teaching children religious myths are facts or teaching them to practice a certain faith, if the nativity scene was part of a broader program teaching children about many religions it might be ok, but certainly not giving one religion a special place.

If you want to learn and practice Christian mythology, that's fine, but why force it on others.


----------



## Value Collector (9 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Not really, Christianity is a religion, not a race. They are offended because it's not their religion, but as you say, tough luck to them.
> 
> Their kids should not have to attend hymn singing if they don't want to but neither should schools be afraid to celebrate what we have been traditionally celebrating for centuries.
> 
> Anyway, I believe the Koran regards Jesus as a prophet of God so I don't see why Muslims should object to a bit of celebration for him.




not all Christian sects celebrate Christmas, so even other Christians would take offence, even the cross which is the symble of Christianity, offends some brands of Christian who believe Jesus was killed in a stake, not a cross.

That's the problem with teaching religion, it's a quagmire none of the sects agree, that's why there is 10,000 types of Christian, so picking one to teach is silly.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> It's not the hymns of nativity scene themselves that offends me, feel free to have a nativity scene at your church, home, front lawn, even at any privately owned business, my local westfields has a nativity scene right now, I have no problem with that.
> 
> But, I will be offended if a nativity scene appears at a school or government building or is government funded, because public schools should not be teaching children religious myths are facts or teaching them to practice a certain faith, if the nativity scene was part of a broader program teaching children about many religions it might be ok, but certainly not giving one religion a special place.
> 
> If you want to learn and practice Christian mythology, that's fine, but why force it on others.




Maybe it would be a good idea if Christian and Muslim kids celebrated together at each others festivals ? Might bring them together instead of alienating one side. 

I don't think this should be a Federal/State policy, the schools should be able to decide for themselves from the following options

* no religious celebrations at all

* traditional celebrations with opt out for those parents that don't want their kids to attend

* multi faith celebrations where all are welcome.


----------



## Value Collector (9 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe it would be a good idea if Christian and Muslim kids celebrated together at each others festivals ? Might bring them together instead of alienating one side.
> 
> I don't think this should be a Federal/State policy, the schools should be able to decide for themselves from the following options
> 
> ...




I have no problem with kids learning about a range of religious celebrations, I would want there to be a minimum of 10 though, and not give any of them credibility, teach them as a cultural interest thing, as I said I am not against learning about religions, I am against schools preaching to kids, and favouring one religion.

It's probably best to wait until high school level and make it part of the history studies, my year9 history class did a whole semester on religions, it was really interesting, and learning that there was many religions and learning the history behind them coming about really took the shine of them, which was good


----------



## Tink (10 December 2015)

_Schools should not be afraid to celebrate what we have been traditionally celebrating for centuries._

And that is the bottom line, Rumpole, in my view.

VC, Christmas has been here long before your Political Correctness and Victim mentality.
Our Christian Culture, which you have enjoyed and are enjoying, all these years, and now you are complaining.
Your own agenda of not wanting to hear about families, children, happiness and all things associated with Christmas.
The reason for the season.

If you want to live in China or North Korea, where no singing is allowed, off you go.
Don't try and transform this country into that.
That is exactly what they do there.

Well said, Craton.
_Well excuse me for not giving a fig. When in Rome buddy!_

-------------------------

_- The betrayal foretold by Orwell, which came into being by force in the Soviet Empire, is coming into being by consent, in the West_


----------



## Value Collector (10 December 2015)

Tink said:


> _Schools should not be afraid to celebrate what we have been traditionally celebrating for centuries._
> 
> And that is the bottom line, Rumpole, in my view.
> 
> ...




Lol, as I said Tink I am fine with celebrating the secular Aussie version of Christmas, eg family children happiness Santa presents prawns wine beer etc I love Christmas, just don't preach your religion to children, stick to the secular version.

Christians are more like North Koreans than atheists, both north Koreans and Christians worship a dead leader who the believe had supernatural powers, and both want to force school kids to sing songs about and worship this dead leader,

And by the way we are not in Rome, this is Australia a secular democracy, if you want to live in a Catholic state perhaps you need to move closer to Rome.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Lol, as I said Tink I am fine with celebrating the secular Aussie version of Christmas, eg family children happiness Santa presents prawns wine beer etc I love Christmas, just don't preach your religion to children, stick to the secular version.




If you want your secular festivities at a certain time of the year it might be polite, or even honest to acknowledge  their origin, or abandon them altogether.


----------



## Tisme (10 December 2015)

I wonder how much one's race composition dictates their predisposition to certain religious doctrines. 

It would be interesting to find out if religious custom has resulted in changes to racial qualities and explain why there are so many zombie people around the mediterranean who are, like moths to a flame,  eager to hand over their self control to obvious nonsense rituals and laziness.

We see it in our own backyard here, a mindless obedience to a religious notion, questionable IQ, have no compunction in displaying that by wearing the prescribed clothing even to christian celebrations, witness to the unconverted, have a universal closed minded response to criticism of their beliefs, stuck in the past ..... fricken Collingwood. 

VC you are in denial, it's pretty obvious you are challenging yourself to break from the ties that bind. AS Rumpole suggests you might like to give some recognition of the reason behind Christmas celebrations, without getting too cute about pagan dates and ockerism. Our head of state is the keeper of the faith .... can't deny, can't object and can't wipe away the truth that we enjoy the fruits of the pragmatic generational past who did believe in a white australia guided by hands off Anglican Jesus Christ.


----------



## Value Collector (10 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If you want your secular festivities at a certain time of the year it might be polite, or even honest to acknowledge  their origin, or abandon them altogether.




You mean the pagan winter solstice celebration from which most of the Christmas symbolism was derived.

To be honest there is nothing religious about the way most Aussies celebrate Christmas, its moved past that.

The bible actual speaks against cutting down a tree, bringing it into your home and decorating it with gold because what we now call a Christmas tree is a pagan tradition, Many other examples also.

The fact is celebrating at that time of year goes across many cultures, and if we didn't have something to celebrate, were would have to invent something.

the things tink mentioned eg family, happiness, children are not owned by Christians, they are very secular things worth celebrating, and you don't need to referenece middle eastern mythology to do it.

If you want to teach kids the real historical origin of each of the traditions I am fine with that, using it as an opportunity to preach to kids one religion is wrong.


----------



## bellenuit (10 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> You mean the pagan winter solstice celebration from which most of the Christmas symbolism was derived.
> 
> To be honest there is nothing religious about the way most Aussies celebrate Christmas, its moved past that.
> 
> ...




I don't have time to look it up at the moment, but I believe the fat white bearded Santa in the red suit originally came from a Coca Cola ad.


----------



## Value Collector (10 December 2015)

bellenuit said:


> I don't have time to look it up at the moment, but I believe the fat white bearded Santa in the red suit originally came from a Coca Cola ad.




True story.


----------



## Value Collector (10 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> True story.





Lol, and linking the discussion of Race + Religion and influence of Art, Some Christians have a have time coming to grips with the fact that Jesus (If he existed at all) was not white, He was Middle eastern.


----------



## Tisme (10 December 2015)

Islam messing with soldiers and social media minds:

http://www.shortlist.com/news/wounded-british-soldiers-muslim-message-goes-viral


----------



## SirRumpole (10 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Lol, and linking the discussion of Race + Religion and influence of Art, Some Christians have a have time coming to grips with the fact that Jesus (If he existed at all) was not white, He was Middle eastern.




Would you call Jews "white" ?

Benjamin Netanyahu looks pretty white to me.


----------



## Tisme (10 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Would you call Jews "white" ?
> 
> Benjamin Netanyahu looks pretty white to me.




There's Jews and then there's Jews. Jesus descended from David and all the way back to Adam and the almighty so he was a real Jewboy.

Then are the wannabe Jews, like the Paradesi and European (off whitey) Ashkenazi Jews who think they are white...especially when they play Irish characters in American shows  But we all know what whitey really is don't we


----------



## wayneL (10 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> There's Jews and then there's Jews. Jesus descended from David and all the way back to Adam and the almighty so he was a real Jewboy.
> 
> Then are the wannabe Jews, like the Paradesi and European (off whitey) Ashkenazi Jews who think they are white...especially when they play Irish characters in American shows  But we all know what whitey really is don't we




No, what is it?


----------



## SirRumpole (10 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> No, what is it?




They are the ones with the superior culture


----------



## Value Collector (10 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Would you call Jews "white" ?
> 
> Benjamin Netanyahu looks pretty white to me.




We are talking about early Jews from the middle eastern tribes, they would have looked more Arab than white.



Tisme said:


> Jesus descended from David and all the way back to Adam and the almighty.
> 
> D




Cool story bro, needs more dragons.

(I do realise that the bible does actually contain dragons and unicorns)


----------



## luutzu (10 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> We are talking about early Jews from the middle eastern tribes, they would have looked more Arab than white.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It does? Dragons and unicorns? No way.

Btw, just reminded me how in Vietnam, all the statues and drawings and book illustrations I saw of the old kings and emperors... all of them look just like Uncle Ho. 


back to Jesus: One of them look like a terrorist.


----------



## luutzu (10 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> They are the ones with the superior culture




Sooo... Asians are White? haha


----------



## luutzu (10 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> There's Jews and then there's Jews. Jesus descended from David and all the way back to Adam and the almighty so he was a real Jewboy.
> 
> Then are the wannabe Jews, like the Paradesi and European (off whitey) Ashkenazi Jews who think they are white...especially when they play Irish characters in American shows  But we all know what whitey really is don't we




I couldn't tell the difference between a Jew and an Arab. If you tell me the guy i Jewish, I'd believe you... if you say he's Arab, I would believe it too.


----------



## luutzu (10 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Would you call Jews "white" ?
> 
> Benjamin Netanyahu looks pretty white to me.




Heard that in Israel, the White Jews considered themselves more superior to the Arab Jews. White tend to be from Russia or other part of Europe; the Arab Jews are still Jewish but been around the Arab states too long they're not as superior.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> Sooo... Asians are White? haha




So, what aspect of Asian culture do you consider superior (I know you were having a joke but I'm prepared to admit that there are some aspects of our secular Anglo culture that may be deficient).


----------



## Value Collector (11 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> It does? Dragons and unicorns? No way.
> 
> H]




Lol, yep dragons and unicorns, doesn't seem like a historical document when you get to those verses huh, lol

Look at this Christian try and jump through mental hoops to explain the fire breathing dragons, he try's to say what the meant were dinosaurs, his logic still means men walked with dinosaurs, but to get around that he claims the world isn't billions of years old, it's only 6000 - 10,000

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4WiExWRLyuo[/video]

In other videos they claim the unicorns were actually meant to be rhinos, but rhinos have two horns, and are from Africa, not the Middle East, so their logic is agin flawed.


----------



## Tisme (11 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> No, what is it?




Ask Luutzu


----------



## luutzu (11 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So, what aspect of Asian culture do you consider superior (I know you were having a joke but I'm prepared to admit that there are some aspects of our secular Anglo culture that may be deficient).




I know more about Western culture than Eastern so can't really say. I don't really know what is Western or Eastern  culture or value to be honest. Beside the holidays and the food, they're all the same to me.. or at least one culture can't claim exclusivity to it.

But one thing, and this may be just a stereotype since I don't know White families, and don't really know any Asian family beside my own and the relatives... but maybe one aspect I think Asians are more preferable to me would be the Confucian aspect of respecting your elders.

But then too much of that isn't good either. We can't listen and follow orders just because the parents want it that way... but then I don't like kids who treat their parents as though they're equal and so talk back etc. But that's probably true across all cultures.


----------



## luutzu (11 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Lol, yep dragons and unicorns, doesn't seem like a historical document when you get to those verses huh, lol
> 
> Look at this Christian try and jump through mental hoops to explain the fire breathing dragons, he try's to say what the meant were dinosaurs, his logic still means men walked with dinosaurs, but to get around that he claims the world isn't billions of years old, it's only 6000 - 10,000
> 
> ...




Yea, it'd be a fairytale when it contain dragons and unicorns. 

Actually, I haven't seen a kids' book that contain both dragon and unicorn - that'd be a bit too unbelievable, haha


----------



## luutzu (11 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> Ask Luutzu




nice try McGregor.


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2015)

Is there any evidence exactly what colour the ancient Israelites were?


----------



## Value Collector (11 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> Is there any evidence exactly what colour the ancient Israelites were?




DNA evidence would be an indicator that could be looked at, also ancient artworks where they depict themselves as being dark skined, but there would be no reason to believe the Israelites were western Europeans.

The popular images of Jesus being a white man didn't show up until centuries later as the artwork and names of characters etc were westernised, John, James, Thomas etc were not the original names of the apostles if you hadn't already guessed.





Here is an ancient mural of Moses,


----------



## luutzu (11 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> DNA evidence would be an indicator that could be looked at, also ancient artworks where they depict themselves as being dark skined, but there would be no reason to believe the Israelites were western Europeans.
> 
> The popular images of Jesus being a white man didn't show up until centuries later as the artwork and names of characters etc were westernised, John, James, Thomas etc were not the original names of the apostles if you hadn't already guessed.
> 
> ...





Next you're going to tell us the Romans didn't speak with an English accent either. 
And I thought only Hollywood do these stuff.

So what were John, James, Thomas in their original? Saul is Paul I take it?


----------



## Value Collector (11 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> .
> 
> So what were John, James, Thomas in their original? Saul is Paul I take it?




Well no one knows for sure since the original texts weren't written till about 100years after the events, but in the original texts they were as follows.

Y'hochanan = John .
Mattithyahu = Matthew 
Ya'aqov = James .
Bar-TÃ´lmay = Bartholomew
Judah = Jude / Saint Jude .
Yehuda = Judas Iscariot .
Cephas / Kephas = Peter.
Tau'ma = Thomas .
Andrew = Andrew.
Phillip = Phillip .


----------



## Knobby22 (11 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Well no one knows for sure since the original texts weren't written till about 100years after the events, but in the original texts they were as follows.
> 
> .



Not true.

Mark was written between 55AD and 70AD. The writing is very simple. He was an ordinary man.  Note, no genealogy or birth narrative and was written in Greek. In the early Church he is described as mark the Evangelist and it is said he was a friend of St Peter.

Luke on the other hand was written much later by a highly educated man in the 80s or 90s around Asia minor.
Matthew, was also written independently a the same time. In Anticoch or Damascus.
They are both based on Mark.

Some scholars say they were written earlier as they don't mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD70.

John is probably about 100 years old and is quite different.


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> DNA evidence would be an indicator that could be looked at, also ancient artworks where they depict themselves as being dark skined, but there would be no reason to believe the Israelites were western Europeans.
> 
> The popular images of Jesus being a white man didn't show up until centuries later as the artwork and names of characters etc were westernised, John, James, Thomas etc were not the original names of the apostles if you hadn't already guessed.
> 
> ...



Thanks

I was just questioning the assumption there were similar to the folks of today when they could easily have been either darker or lighter.


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2015)

Next question: How white do you have to be to be white?

What about the Greeks, Spaniards, Southern Italians etc. Are they white?

If so, why aren't the Turks white?

And, in this Orwellian world, can blacks be white? (It certainly seems whites can be black )

If some Indians are Aryan, does that mean they're white, or are white Aryans actually brown?


----------



## Value Collector (11 December 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Not true.
> 
> Mark was written between 55AD and 70AD. The writing is very simple. He was an ordinary man.  Note, no genealogy or birth narrative and was written in Greek. In the early Church he is described as mark the Evangelist and it is said he was a friend of St Peter.
> 
> ...




Some were younger some were older, either way my point holds they were written by anonymous authors decades after the events, so we don't know what the real names of the apostles were or even if they existed.



> Although some scholars disagree, the vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70.




that puts it around atleast 40 years after the events were said to have happened, which is a persons life time in those days, could you imagine writing a story about events that happened in the 1970's that had been passed by word of mouth, how accurately would you get names and events recorded.


----------



## Value Collector (11 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> Next question: How white do you have to be to be white?




I guess it depends what it is you are describing.

When I say Jesus wasn't white, I mean he most likely didn't look like the western European artworks like this.


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2015)

Is Spain Western Europe?


----------



## Value Collector (11 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> Is Spain Western Europe?




Yep, But I don't think the Jesus or the Israelites were Spanish either, lol.

I don't think there is a need to complicate it, the western European (and that from America etc) artwork show a Jesus with very white skin, it's fair to say that he didn't fit that popular image.

So the host of the news program I linked who claimed Jesus was white, is wrong.

If you listen to the Mormans, the American Indians are Jews, and Jesus traveled to America. So maybe Jesus looked like this.


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2015)

What I'm trying to get to Tisyou, is - define white. Seems to be a fuzzy line there.


----------



## IFocus (11 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> Next question: How white do you have to be to be white?
> 
> What about the Greeks, Spaniards, *Southern Italians* etc. Are they white?
> 
> ...





I have heard the Northern Italians talk about the Southerns as blacks they didn't seem to consider them to be white.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> What I'm trying to get to Tisyou, is - define white. Seems to be a fuzzy line there.




With a lot of mixed race marriages these days there seems to be no dividing line.

There are a lot of people claiming to be of aboriginal descent who look as white as anyone else. There must be some benefits to them doing that.


----------



## Value Collector (11 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> What I'm trying to get to Tisyou, is - define white. Seems to be a fuzzy line there.




if I had to define white skin, I would probably say "white skin, is skin which in its natural state has little or no pigment" 

Offcourse though, the spectrum of skin colours that exist include probably over a 1000 shades, the closer the last few hundred generations of your ancestors lived to the equator the darker your skin colour will be in general. 

Scandinavians for example are very light, they are  considered white in almost anyone's opinion, as you move lower eventually the bulk of people would probably be described as olive skin and then darker as you move lower and lower, "races" don't really exist scientifically, we are all the same species, just evolved to suit different amounts of UV light rays.

It's a bit like lining up 100 people, with a anorexic person at one end, and a morbidly obese person at the other, and 98 people in between all with slightly increased weight as you go along, if you asked people to mark where the skinny people end and the optimal weight begins and where the fat people start, you would get all different opinions from everyone, but most would agree the anorexic is skinny and the fatty is over weight.

Trying to draw exact lines gets a bit silly, it's a bit light saying, "tell me the hour that baby become a toddler" or "tell me the hour that the boy became a man"


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2015)

I thought olives were green? Or black?

Anyway => http://www.labyrinthina.com/did-he-walk-the-americas.html



> An Anthropologist, Archaeologist and Geologist who attended the University of Illinois circa 1915, and graduated from UCLA contining graduate studies in Geology and Anthropology, Lucile Taylor-Hansen had a passion. For more then 40 years she collected and compiled a plethora of Native American oral histories recalling a *fair-skinned *bearded prophet who spoke 1,000 languages, healed the sick, raised the dead and taught in the same words as Jesus.
> 
> Remembered by such names as Viracocha in ancient Peru, Kate-Zahl to the Toltec, Tlazoma (Tacoma) to the tribes of the Pacific Northwest, Azoma, Mahnt Azoma and the Morning Star in North American and Mexico, the same legend is recalled throughout the Americas according to tribal lore. Known as the Healer, the Prophet, the Miracle Worker, God of the Dawn Light, the Wind God, the Teacher, and the White-Robed Master, although the names were different, the legends are sung the same: In Polynesia they tell of three great ships that sailed from the West. Moving across the water there appeared a *fair-skinned man in a long white garment,* brown hair and golden beard. When He reached land the people saw that His robe was dry. Thus they knew He was a God. Scholars ascribe this legend to the 1st century AD. Among the Toltec of central Mexico there lived a Prophet with gray-green eyes and golden sandals. With 12 disciples He taught the people His religion of peace. The Mound Builders of North America told of a great Healer who could raise the dead and heal the sick. He walked among the people, hands raised in blessing. A mysterious cross graced each palm. Such are the stories whispered by the Holy Men and Keepers of the Legend for nearly 2,000 years.




Now I'm not trying to prove he was white or that any of it actually happened. I actually don't care, just testing the assumption he was darker because he was middle eastern. There is a better than good chance he was dark, but who knows.


----------



## Value Collector (12 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> I thought olives were green? Or black?
> .




Yep, but Africans aren't really black either are they, and American Indians aren't really red, and Asians aren't really yellow. these are just terms were use to try and define slight differences in skin tone. I think you are wrapping yourself around the axles a bit here.



> An Anthropologist, Archaeologist and Geologist who attended the University of Illinois circa 1915, and graduated from UCLA contining graduate studies in Geology and Anthropology, Lucile Taylor-Hansen had a passion. For more then 40 years she collected and compiled a plethora of Native American oral histories recalling a fair-skinned bearded prophet who spoke 1,000 languages, healed the sick, raised the dead and taught in the same words as Jesus.




Do you have any other supporting research to back those claims?

Seems like a story the Mormon church would construct to try and give credit to their claims that Jesus Visited America.




> Remembered by such names as Viracocha in ancient Peru, Kate-Zahl to the Toltec, Tlazoma (Tacoma) to the tribes of the Pacific Northwest, Azoma, Mahnt Azoma and the Morning Star in North American and Mexico, the same legend is recalled throughout the Americas according to tribal lore. Known as the Healer, the Prophet, the Miracle Worker, God of the Dawn Light, the Wind God, the Teacher, and the White-Robed Master, although the names were different, the legends are sung the same: In Polynesia they tell of three great ships that sailed from the West. Moving across the water there appeared a fair-skinned man in a long white garment, brown hair and golden beard. When He reached land the people saw that His robe was dry. Thus they knew He was a God. Scholars ascribe this legend to the 1st century AD. Among the Toltec of central Mexico there lived a Prophet with gray-green eyes and golden sandals. With 12 disciples He taught the people His religion of peace. The Mound Builders of North America told of a great Healer who could raise the dead and heal the sick. He walked among the people, hands raised in blessing. A mysterious cross graced each palm. Such are the stories whispered by the Holy Men and Keepers of the Legend for nearly 2,000 years.




Again, are you aware of any real evidence for this stuff, where are you getting this from?



> There is a better than good chance he was dark, but who knows




There is actually a better than good chance that he didn't exist at all, and this whole discussion might be as silly as us trying to decide the colour pattern of the rainbow serpent. As I have said, if he existed, where are the artworks made of him during his life, the fact we have no art of him until over 100years after his death is a real blow to credibility, such a powerful figure would have inspired art works, where are they?

However there is no reason to believe if he did exist he would have be white, the explaination for that popular image is simply that the people that made those artworks lived in societies of light skinned people and made the images to represent what they saw as being a handsome character.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 December 2015)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> There is actually a better than good chance that he didn't exist at all,




The majority of historians disagree with you, most agree that Jesus existed, although the details of his life are pretty sketchy.



> Nevertheless there is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically,[5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][2]:168–173 While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.[16][nb 8][18][19][20] Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.[21][22]
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus


----------



## Value Collector (12 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The majority of historians disagree with you, most agree that Jesus existed, although the details of his life are pretty sketchy.




that's like saying historians agree Santa existed, because St Nick is a historical figure and the santa character was inspired by him.

The fact is even if the Jesus story was inspired by a real guy, you can't say the bible character "Jesus" existed.

I have done a fair bit of research on the topic, and when they say "Most historians agree jesus existed", the evidence is really, really, really thin, all they can really say is that most likely the story of john the Baptist is somewhat true and there was a baptism, But they are using the Bible as evidence.

There is no evidence outside the bible (that I have heard off) of Jesus. I really want to see some documents or artworks or writings from his enemies etc that came about during his life (not 70 years later), feel free to point me in the direction of where I can find them.

the fact there is nothing from when he was meant to have lived is evidence against him being a real person in my opinion.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> There is no evidence outside the bible (that I have heard off) of Jesus. I really want to see some documents or artworks or writings from his enemies etc that came about during his life (not 70 years later), feel free to point me in the direction of where I can find them.




You might actually try reading the article quoted before being so dismissive.



> _Roman historian Tacitus referred to 'Christus' and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[38] The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe.[39] The Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,[40] although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various different grounds.[39][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]
> 
> Classical historian Michael Grant wrote that:
> 
> ...


----------



## Value Collector (12 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You might actually try reading the article quoted before being so dismissive.




I have read it before.

You are talking about documents written 80years after Jesus died.

You might actually try reading my post quoted below before being so dismissive.



> I really want to see some documents or artworks or writings from his enemies etc that came about during his life (not 70 years later), feel free to point me in the direction of where I can find them.





___________________________________

I will ask you this, 

Does / Did Santa Claus exist? (eg, North pole guy, with a toy factory, annual global present delivery, with reindeer, makes lists checks twice, belly like a bowl full of jelly etc)

If the existence of St Nicolas doesn't stop you saying Santa claus is a myth, then even if there was an eccentric Jewish rabbi that inspired the Jesus myth, it shouldn't stop you saying Jesus didn't exist.

----------------------------------

I think you missed the most damning piece of the historical Jesus argument, the scholars are saying that because they think its unlikely Christians would have made up the part where their leader is killed and where their leader submits to john the Baptist, the stories are likely to be true.

That's their strongest piece of evidence, which to me is very weak and not real evidence at all.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I have read it before.
> 
> You are talking about documents written 80years after Jesus died.
> 
> You might actually try reading my post quoted below before being so dismissive.




I really would like to see a colour photograph of Captain Cook's landing at Botany Bay before I believe that he was there.

You can ask for whatever evidence you like, but expecting the Romans to write about what to them would have been a minor figure and one of their enemies during his lifetime is unrealistic.

Argue it out with professional historians, they seem to disagree with you.


----------



## Value Collector (12 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I really would like to see a colour photograph of Captain Cook's landing at Botany Bay before I believe that he was there.
> 
> .



obviously a colour photo is to much to ask, but artwork of cook made during his life, documents about him from during his life, documents written by him etc.

I don't think its to much to ask for just one piece of art work showing jesus that was made during his life, or one document written by or about him during his life.

Why are the only things that exist about him show up decades after his death? we have plenty of Jewish art from that time, when jesus was said to have lived there is jewish art showing bible characters from the Old testament such as moses, why didn't anyone make some art of Jesus?



> You can ask for whatever evidence you like, but expecting the Romans to write about what to them would have been a minor figure and one of their enemies during his lifetime is unrealistic.




He would have meant a lot to a lot of people, some one would have had to record something during his life, remember this guy is meant to be a god, there is plenty of smaller figures who were recorded.



> Argue it out with professional historians, they seem to disagree with you




As I said, read what they are taking as proof, even they admit the evidence is scant and they are using the bible as evidence, but the bible is the claim not the evidence.

and its one thing to say a man existed that inspired the legend, its another thing to say the legend itself is a historical figure.

-------------------------------------

you didn't answer my question on santa, is "Santa Claus" an historical figure in your opinion?


----------



## SirRumpole (12 December 2015)

> Why are the only things that exist about him show up decades after his death? we have plenty of Jewish art from that time, when jesus was said to have lived there is jewish art showing bible characters from the Old testament such as moses, why didn't anyone make some art of Jesus?
> 
> You can ask for whatever evidence you like, but expecting the Romans to write about what to them would have been a minor figure and one of their enemies during his lifetime is unrealistic.
> He would have meant a lot to a lot of people, some one would have had to record something during his life, remember this guy is meant to be a god, there is plenty of smaller figures who were recorded.




Jesus was a Semite but he was starting a separate religion from that of the Old Testament so he would have been seen as an underminer of the old ways and a maverick by a lot of people who would have shunned him and would not have included him in the culture of that time evidenced by the fact that they chose him to be crucified rather than a thief, so it's not surprising that there is little literature about him during his life.

The fact that  nothing of written testimony during his lifetime survives but he has now reached the distinction that he has when as you pointed out there were a lot like him in the time shows that it's more likely than not that there was truth behind the legend.


----------



## Value Collector (12 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Jesus was a Semite but he was starting a separate religion from that of the Old Testament so he would have been seen as an underminer of the old ways and a maverick by a lot of people who would have shunned him and would not have included him in the culture of that time evidenced by the fact that they chose him to be crucified rather than a thief, so it's not surprising that there is little literature about him during his life.
> 
> The fact that  nothing of written testimony during his lifetime survives but he has now reached the distinction that he has when as you pointed out there were a lot like him in the time shows that it's more likely than not that there was truth behind the legend.




He had lots of followers, something should have survived, especially if he is a God trying to spread a message that did so many miraculous things, eg bringing people back from the dead, feeding thousands of people, etc etc

If he wasn't a God, then he wasn't Jesus from the Bible, so Jesus from the bible isn't an historical person.

------------------------------------------

Can you answer the question.

Is Santa (north pole, reindeer, toy factory, list maker and checker etc) a historical figure?

If not why not? there is more evidence for st Nicolas than there is for Jesus, why are you happy to say the Jesus character is a historical person but not santa.


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Yep, but Africans aren't really black either are they, and American Indians aren't really red, and Asians aren't really yellow. these are just terms were use to try and define slight differences in skin tone. I think you are wrapping yourself around the axles a bit here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I didn't make those claims, just lifted off google for a point. I don't support it. Read for comprehension VC.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> He had lots of followers, something should have survived, especially if he is a God trying to spread a message that did so many miraculous things, eg bringing people back from the dead, feeding thousands of people, etc etc
> 
> If he wasn't a God, then he wasn't Jesus from the Bible, so Jesus from the bible isn't an historical person.
> 
> ...





The Santa Claus comparison is ridiculous.

Jesus lived in a time of insurrection and had just been executed for speaking out against the State so it's hardly surprising that people were not going to extol him in writing and risk the same fate untill things had cooled down.

Again, professional historians disagree with you, so take it up with them.


----------



## Value Collector (12 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The Santa Claus comparison is ridiculous.
> 
> Jesus lived in a time of insurrection and had just been executed for speaking out against the State so it's hardly surprising that people were not going to extol him in writing and risk the same fate untill things had cooled down.
> 
> Again, professional historians disagree with you, so take it up with them.




Jesus lived and preached for years plenty of time for a record.

Historians are saying that it's likely a st nick version of Jesus lived, eg a man that inspired the stories, but that in no way means the bible version existed, you are trying to say they think Santa existed when really they are just saying there was likely to be a st nick


----------



## Value Collector (12 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> I didn't make those claims, .




I didn't say you did.


> just lifted off google for a point




You made me think you were a closet Mormon for a minute and that you actually thought it was plausible that Jesus travelled America converting Indians.


----------



## luutzu (12 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The Santa Claus comparison is ridiculous.
> 
> Jesus lived in a time of insurrection and had just been executed for speaking out against the State so it's hardly surprising that people were not going to extol him in writing and risk the same fate untill things had cooled down.
> 
> Again, professional historians disagree with you, so take it up with them.




Saw in "the Life of Brian" that there's a teacher and prohet on every corner in those days of Jesus (yes I know it's a Monty movie ). He's apparently the best among them and his followers kept on spreading his teaching until Constantine thought it convenient to take Christianity onboard as a State religion.

I think I heard it from Chomsky that Christianity was, up until it became the new Roman Empire's State religion, was the religion of the poor and the oppressed - that's why it attracted so many followers. Once its in power, it then serve the state and its aims so rises those cathedrals and marble statues and heavy handed suppression of other "cults".

Kinda like modern day capitalism.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> Saw in "the Life of Brian" that there's a teacher and prohet on every corner in those days of Jesus (yes I know it's a Monty movie ). He's apparently the best among them and his followers kept on spreading his teaching until Constantine thought it convenient to take Christianity onboard as a State religion.
> 
> I think I heard it from Chomsky that Christianity was, up until it became the new Roman Empire's State religion, was the religion of the poor and the oppressed - that's why it attracted so many followers. Once its in power, it then serve the state and its aims so rises those cathedrals and marble statues and heavy handed suppression of other "cults".
> 
> Kinda like modern day capitalism.




Capitalism has always been about plutocracy and the rule of the rich. Communism started off with the rule of the poor and now its a worse plutocracy than capitalism, how many millionaires in China and Russia now compared to the poor condition of the masses ?

So Communism is more like Christianity, power devolves to a few unelected (or shonkily elected) cadres and cardinals.


----------



## luutzu (12 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Capitalism has always been about plutocracy and the rule of the rich. Communism started off with the rule of the poor and now its a worse plutocracy than capitalism, how many millionaires in China and Russia now compared to the poor condition of the masses ?
> 
> So Communism is more like Christianity, power devolves to a few unelected (or shonkily elected) cadres and cardinals.




True. Can't argue with that.

I'm glad we're in Australia where it take a few years before technology and political moves up north came on down. Give us some time to maybe learn a thing or two and avoid their mistakes.

Though an Abbott does happen now and then.


----------



## Tink (13 December 2015)

As I said, Santa Claus is Saint Nicholas, which is all Christianity, and yet you persist with your religious/Christian persecution, as was going on in that time.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25726&page=3&p=892355#post892355

Wayne, black is white, man is woman, an orange is a tomato, a triangle is a square, in this double speak.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29219&page=11&p=887689#post887689
-------------------------

_- The beautiful and the sacred are connected._


----------



## qldfrog (13 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> True. Can't argue with that.
> 
> I'm glad we're in Australia where it take a few years before technology and political moves up north came on down. *Give us some time to maybe learn a thing or two and avoid their mistakes.*



And yet the lessons on muslim migration in Europe do not seem to be understood by a few here, even after 30 years of experiences on various modesl: multiculturalism, integration, unlimited welfare etc with similar disastrous results
, but here in Australia, this time, it is and will be different 
Too easy, I could not resist Luutzu.
Never confuse racism with experience and knowledge.
In any case, have all a great Christmas.
Note that I did not use the PC horrible "festive season" .Next I will follow Fox news....


----------



## SirRumpole (13 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So Communism is more like Christianity, power devolves to a few unelected (or shonkily elected) cadres and cardinals.




I shouldn't have singled out Christianity of course, all religions are the same, power over the many by the few.


----------



## Value Collector (13 December 2015)

Tink said:


> As I said, Santa Claus is Saint Nicholas, which is all Christianity, and yet you persist with your religious/Christian persecution, as was going on in that time.
> I]




Hahaha, so Saint Nicholas lived at the North Pole and had a toy factory? Has flying reindeer? Makes annual global toy deliveries to the his day? Works with elves? Keeps track of behaviour and sleeping patterns of children? 

The mythical "Santa Claus" is not the same person as "Saint Nicholas". 

No wonder you are religious tink, you seem to have trouble separating myth from reality.

The reason I am comparing Jesus the bible character to Santa, is because even if Jesus was based on a real person, the Bible stories are myths that grew over time and would not relate to his life at all, and the stories about Jesus are so mythical eg born of a virgin, died and came back to life, raised the dead, turned water into wine etc that we can say that guy from the stories didn't exist, just like Santa didn't and doesn't exist.

To the point that "most historians agree there was a Jesus, they are not talking about a supernatural man doing miracles, just that there was a man or a few men who the stories were based on.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> To the point that "most historians agree there was a Jesus, they are not talking about a supernatural man doing miracles, just that there was a man or a few men who the stories were based on.





Once again you move the goalposts, you started off by saying Jesus didn't exist now you say he did but the stories about him aren't true.

On the second point you are of course on much firmer ground. There is no evidence apart from anecdotal that he performed miracles or actually said what people say he did, so it's a matter of what people want to believe, and you obviously don't which is fine.


----------



## Value Collector (13 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Once again you move the goalposts, you started off by saying Jesus didn't exist now you say he did but the stories about him aren't true.
> 
> .




No I didn't I actually said there is a chance he didn't exist, here is my exact quote



> There is actually a better than good chance that he didn't exist at all, and this whole discussion might be as silly as us trying to decide the colour pattern of the rainbow serpent.




And when I say I there is a good chance he didn't exist, firstly I am talking about the character as described in the Bible Myths, Just like if I said Santa doesn't exist.

You then linked an article which talked about historians saying there probably was a man or a few men the myths were based, which not only do they not really have much evidence beyond the bible, but they have nothing from during his life, So I don't think it's good evidence anyway, but even if we accepted that, its not really Jesus the bible character is it?

If all you want me to accept is that there was a man or a few men that preached some things and got killed, and then over time a mythical story was based on them, that's fine but I can't accept it because the evidence isn't there and its irrelevant anyway because as I said the man is not the myth.



> On the second point you are of course on much firmer ground. There is no evidence apart from anecdotal that he performed miracles or actually said what people say he did, so it's a matter of what people want to believe, and you obviously don't which is fine




There is myths and legend stories about all sorts of people that may have been based on real people, eg King Arther and the Knights of the round table, some have evolved into myths involving slaying dragons and wizards etc,


----------



## Value Collector (13 December 2015)

Maybe I am wrong after all, Jesus is actually here.

ditch the catholic church tink, pack your bags, your lord and saviour is here.




and he has a lot of followers, over 100,000 that's probably more than the original Jesus had during his life.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> There is myths and legend stories about all sorts of people that may have been based on real people, eg King Arther and the Knights of the round table, some have evolved into myths involving slaying dragons and wizards etc,




Yeah all that's fine, but if Jesus was as insignificant as you try to pretend then it's more amazing to me that anything about him survived at all let alone for 50+ years after his death when all those who knew him would most likely be dead.

Why was he just not forgotten like all the other preachers of the time ?


----------



## Value Collector (13 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yeah all that's fine, but if Jesus was as insignificant as you try to pretend then it's more amazing to me that anything about him survived at all let alone for 50+ years after his death ?




As far as we know nothing has survived of the original Jesus if he existed, that's my point.

If the Jesus guy existed and actually traveled round feeding 1000's of hunger people, raising people from the dead, doing magic tricks like water into wine and gaining 1000's of followers, then there should be at least 1 piece of evidence about him that was created during his life.

But we have nothing accept stories that didn't get actually written down for decades after his life, by people that never met him. It seems to me there is a good chance that these are myths that were built up over time spread by mouth growing a little with each telling before they made it to paper. much like the popular Santa myths



> when all those who knew him would most likely be dead.
> 
> Why was he just not forgotten like all the other preachers of the time




because the stories got popular, lots of camp fire stories last for decades especially religious ones, Christianity isn't the only myth in town, look at Islam its ideas are just as tenacious but that doesn't mean they are real or the stories actually happened.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> As far as we know nothing has survived of the original Jesus if he existed, that's my point.
> 
> If the Jesus guy existed and actually traveled round feeding 1000's of hunger people, raising people from the dead, doing magic tricks like water into wine and gaining 1000's of followers, then there should be at least 1 piece of evidence about him that was created during his life.




And you expect these things to survive centuries of war, pillaging, destruction, earthquakes, floods etc when the original documents would only be bits of papyrus and would have had to have been secreted from the Romans and no doubt his followers would have fled the area and put the 'evidence' who knows where.

Maybe a few stories got inflated over the years but I'm prepared to stay agnostic about the whole Jesus issue and say that there is more to the stories than you give credit for considering their longevity and the fact that Christianity eventually took over the Roman empire. I don't think that you can just write that off to a few myths.


----------



## luutzu (13 December 2015)

qldfrog said:


> And yet the lessons on muslim migration in Europe do not seem to be understood by a few here, even after 30 years of experiences on various modesl: multiculturalism, integration, unlimited welfare etc with similar disastrous results
> , but here in Australia, this time, it is and will be different
> Too easy, I could not resist Luutzu.
> Never confuse racism with experience and knowledge.
> ...




Yea, would be hard to resist too if I were you.

But I'd be wrong too.

It's not Muslims or Refugees or welfare recipients that drain the European economies. It's the reverse Robinhood tax and policies that steal from the public and give it to friends and masters that does it.

Then when the masters of the universe crash the world, putting it into near economic collapse... public money were used to bail them out. And where does the gov't get those money? From China and eventually from the bankers that were bailed out, of course.

Then in an economic recession, where people were laid off, where small business can't complete with "free trade" imports, where domestic demand is weak or non-existence beside the absolute essentials (many of which has been privatised)... the dear leaders go for Austerity.

But of course it's not the hundreds of billions that were used to bailed the bankers and friends that did it; nor the privatisation; or the gutting of social services and training... it's the poor and the refugees and them Muslims.

---

People all born naked and weak. It's only natural that they want to grow up and do something "great" with their lives.

When there are no opportunities, no training available; when the masters of man thought it'd be to the "national interests" that public resources are invested in the top crust and merchant of death... and the people become poor, have little choice but do menial work and either accept their fate, pray for a better life in the next...

Anyway, the buck doesn't stop at the head of states... it apparently stuck at the feet of those who try to climb out of poverty but the rope's too short to reach them. Serve them right for being poor and not paying taxes so that a proper ladder could be built... wait, they do pay their taxes to the full.


----------



## Value Collector (13 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> And you expect these things to survive centuries of war, pillaging, destruction, earthquakes, floods etc when the original documents would only be bits of papyrus and would have had to have been secreted from the Romans and no doubt his followers would have fled the area and put the 'evidence' who knows where.
> 
> Maybe a few stories got inflated over the years but I'm prepared to stay agnostic about the whole Jesus issue and say that there is more to the stories than you give credit for considering their longevity and the fact that Christianity eventually took over the Roman empire. I don't think that you can just write that off to a few myths.




Why wouldn't evidence survive, I am only asking for 1 piece, plenty of evidence for others during that time survive. Eg we have plenty of Jewish artworks that were made during jesuses life time depicting Old Testament bible stories, I linked a photo of a mural of Moses a few pages back.

Do you give credit to other myths that have longevity, or just the Jesus story, eg, what about the rainbow serpent story of the aboriginals? Or Noah's Ark? Or the Moari God the fished up the New Zealand land mass from the bottom of the ocean with a hook? 

I mean the fact that a Roman emperor got converted from one sets of god my to another God myth doesn't mean the
The new god myth has any more credibility. To this day people are still converting to different religions, it doesn't make them true.

By the way if I said Noah's Ark didn't exist, and you say "well maybe there was real Noah who built a raft with a few animals on it survive a flood" I would say that's not Noah's ark is it, so Noah's ark didn't exist.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Why wouldn't evidence survive, I am only asking for 1 piece, plenty of evidence for others during that time survive. Eg we have plenty of Jewish artworks that were made during jesuses life time depicting Old Testament bible stories, I linked a photo of a mural of Moses a few pages back.




As I said before, Jesus was a maverick to the Jews. He was never part of the Jewish religion and still isn't today.

There is no reason why the Jews would have put him in artwork or written anything about him during his life. It was up to his followers or their descendants to write the story.


----------



## Value Collector (13 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> As I said before, Jesus was a maverick to the Jews. He was never part of the Jewish religion and still isn't today.
> 
> There is no reason why the Jews would have put him in artwork or written anything about him during his life. It was up to his followers or their descendants to write the story.




And as I said, surely some record, even a record from his enemies would have survived, he had a lot of followers and apparently has amazing powers.

If he didn't have amazing powers, then it's not Jesus of the bible any way.

I won't keep talking the same topic over and over except to say that if you are happy to say Santa Claus doesn't exist even though you know st Nicholas existed, you should be just as happy saying Jesus (the bible character) didn't exist.

The fact a guy or guys may have existed in the flesh who inspired the myth is a red herring when the question being asked is if you believe the actual character from the story is real or mythological.

Most children over the age of 8 know Santa as described doesn't exist, I find it laughable that so many adults think Jesus did.


----------



## Value Collector (13 December 2015)

Ask your self this, the guy you claim existed "Jesus" do you think he actually

Was born of a Virgin?
Was the son of a God?
Raised people from the dead?
Raised himself from the dead?
Cured diseases that were incurable ?
Turned water into wine and multiplied loaves and fishes etc?

Because if he didn't, he is not "bible Jesus" that we are talking about


----------



## SirRumpole (13 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Ask your self this, the guy you claim existed "Jesus" do you think he actually
> 
> Was born of a Virgin?
> Was the son of a God?
> ...




I make no comment on any of this, what I'm saying is that Jesus was a historical figure. You say you think he never existed I'm saying that historians disagree with you.



> And as I said, surely some record, even a record from his enemies would have survived, he had a lot of followers and apparently has amazing powers.




I refer you again to the writings of Tacitus a Roman historian who mentioned Jesus and his execution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ


----------



## Tisme (13 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> What I'm trying to get to Tisyou, is - define white. Seems to be a fuzzy line there.




If I give that information will you use it for good or evil?


----------



## Tisme (13 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> As I said before, Jesus was a maverick to the Jews. He was never part of the Jewish religion and still isn't today.
> 
> There is no reason why the Jews would have put him in artwork or written anything about him during his life. It was up to his followers or their descendants to write the story.




I was of the opinion he was actually a Jewish rabbi and he was so good at knowing the whole kit and caboodle of the Hebrew Bible he pi55ed off the  old boy club priests, especially after doing things like giving them a serve at the local synagogue after 40 days in the desert and giving the money changers the flick from the temple.


----------



## Value Collector (13 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I make no comment on any of this, what I'm saying is that Jesus was a historical figure. You say you think he never existed I'm saying that historians disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Was this historical figure born of a virgin?
Rise from the dead?
Cure diseases?
Raise people from the dead?
The son of a god etc?

If not, we are talking about different people? I am talking about the Jesus figure from the bible

You are talking about an eccentric Jewish rabbi who may or may not have existed and who may or may not have been executed.

As I said don't have a problem with saying a guy or serveral guys might have existed that inspired the story, but to accept it as fact I would want an account of him or some art work or artifact that was produced during his life.

An account decades later is not good enough, 

Did Tactius Meet Jesus? Or is he just repeating camp fire stories?


----------



## SirRumpole (13 December 2015)

> If not, we are talking about different people?




Not necessarily, he may have done some of the things attributed to him for all I know, other things may be exaggerations.

Neither you or I were there so we can't say what happened.


----------



## luutzu (13 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Not necessarily, he may have done some of the things attributed to him for all I know, other things may be exaggerations.
> 
> Neither you or I were there so we can't say what happened.




I thought it's when witnesses are no longer around, when listeners weren't there, that you say what happened did indeed happen, 

Aren't you and VC saying the same thing?

That maybe there was a Jewish guy name Jesus, or a few of them, way back then who say some pretty deep stuff that Paul and Peter later put down and add a few extra salt and pepper to glorify that Son of God.

Since they were the chosen disciple of the Son of God, who may one day far far far into the future came back to Earth... you peasants better be nice to uncle Paul over here in case he tells the big man on you.

So the Bible's Jesus does not exists - can't exists because you can't walk on water or come back from Roman's handy work. But a Jesus, the smart son of a carpenter, may have existed and may have preach etc., just you know, he's not "the Jesus".


----------



## Value Collector (13 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Neither you or I were there.




Neither were the people that wrote the stories decades later.



> Neither you or I were there so we can't say what happened




Exactly, but why would you believe something so extraordinary, on no evidence at all except the documents making the claim, that weren't even written by eye witnesses.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and we don't really have any evidence he even existed except for texts written about him decades after he was said to have died.

You wouldn't accept any other claim of that type.


----------



## Value Collector (13 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> So the Bible's Jesus does not exists - can't exists because you can't walk on water or come back from Roman's handy work. But a Jesus, the smart son of a carpenter, may have existed and may have preach etc., just you know, he's not "the Jesus".




Exactly, and when some one is talking about "The Jesus" and they say there is a good chance he never existed, Saying "Historians disagree with you" is a red herring, because they are talking about some guy or guys who may have inspired the stories.

And at the end of the day, there is pretty much no evidence for the inspiration guy anyway, and historians are just pulling apart the religious texts and saying "well modern Christians probably wouldn't have written this into the story, maybe there is some truth to it" but if you ask me, the bible is the claim not the evidence, it requires independent evidence, which just isn't there.

And did I mention Millions of dollars has been spend trying to uncover evidence for Jesus and its never been found.

Any one interested should do some research and come back to me with what they think the best evidence for the existence of Jesus is, I think you will find yourself holding an empty sack.

Discussion of Jesus starts at 1.40


----------



## Tink (14 December 2015)

_The mythical "Santa Claus" is not the same person as "Saint Nicholas". _

And that is  what I said, but Saint Nicholas is the reason for Santa Claus, even with all the baloney you write in here.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=25726&page=3&p=892314&viewfull=1#post892314

Now back to Christmas and the Carols, that you are trying to ban, that have been going on for centuries.


----------



## Tisme (14 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Any one interested should do some research and come back to me with what they think the best evidence for the existence of Jesus is, I think you will find yourself holding an empty sack.




This is a core problem with the preposition. If you were a Christian you would consider Jesus not only walked the walk, but also lives on in both his believers and non believers..... you are snookered anyway you try to wiggle out of it VC....you have been "pwned"! 

And because you and every other heathen out there (including those that worship false prophets, icons, etc) tilt at windmills it just reinforces the great love Jesus must have in not putting his vengeful God uniform on and smiting the bejesus out of you and your Godless brethren.  He allows you to be do what you do and say, because you amuse him and serve to illustrate to the believers the persona of a person who goose steps down the path to eventual perdition.... you are 4ucked VC. 

You know that the Mormons own the Ancestry geneology site and they are ultimately looking for the messianic gene that will not so much prove the existence of Jesus, but that the high priestess Mary Madge did have an emmaculate conception of her own, a seemingly unique family trait of the first born Carpenter family men. I would suspect they must have the original samples to be able to carry out the comparo.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> An account decades later is not good enough,




It is for some...

Anyway I think we owe an apology to the Thread Starter for the outrageous hijacking of a reasonable question he posed.


----------



## Tisme (14 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It is for some...
> 
> Anyway I think we owe an apology to the Thread Starter for the outrageous hijacking of a reasonable question he posed.




True

Of course racism is predicated on offending someone's opinion about the importance of skin colour that is disagreeable with your own.

Take my appreciation of industrious whitey. Sure there were other peoples who played around the fringes with wheels and fire, but all for comparative nought until the Nordic races decided that didn't like the Romans and their mafioso protection racket anymore and set themselves on the evolutionary track to glorious wars and technology. A slow start to begin with, but by 1066 the things were gaining traction, the church of Rome was busy fermenting it's own Vietnam war with Turkey, while up in the boonies the Godwinson and Conqueror boys were ramping up their family argument over an inheritance that would eventually result in the greatest empire, technological revolutionaries and rule of law givers the world will most likely ever see.

Once upon a time Australia was populated, in the main, with those same British stock and supplemented with the socially retarded micks from Ireland (who found great comfort in the arms of the local aboriginal women it seems). Then along came a vowel challenged foreigner Jerzy Zubrzycki who gave the educated classes something to bang on about instead of their boring conservatism and the next thing we know we have Al Grassby in 1972 giving out the combination to the migrant locks WTF! Most of the silent generation still have nightmares about that, in silence of course.

And that's the history of the modern world right there, done and dusted.

Where are the homelands of the white people you ask...they are Nordics:


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

Tink said:


> _The mythical "Santa Claus" is not the same person as "Saint Nicholas". _
> 
> .




Exactly, that's my point all along.

The Mythical version of Jesus written about in the bible is not the same as the real Jesus (if one existed), so it is perfectly correct to same, Jesus didn't exist (although I normally say "Probably" didn't exist, just to avoid making a positive claim which would be impossible to prove, like trying to prove the lochness monster doesn't exist)

I will answer your other point in the religion thread.


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> This is a core problem with the preposition. If you were a Christian you would consider Jesus not only walked the walk, but also lives on in both his believers and non believers..... you are snookered anyway you try to wiggle out of it VC....you have been "pwned"!
> 
> And because you and every other heathen out there (including those that worship false prophets, icons, etc) tilt at windmills it just reinforces the great love Jesus must have in not putting his vengeful God uniform on and smiting the bejesus out of you and your Godless brethren.  He allows you to be do what you do and say, because you amuse him and serve to illustrate to the believers the persona of a person who goose steps down the path to eventual perdition.... you are 4ucked VC.
> 
> You know that the Mormons own the Ancestry geneology site and they are ultimately looking for the messianic gene that will not so much prove the existence of Jesus, but that the high priestess Mary Madge did have an emmaculate conception of her own, a seemingly unique family trait of the first born Carpenter family men. I would suspect they must have the original samples to be able to carry out the comparo.




answer in religious thread


----------



## Tink (14 December 2015)

Well in my view, your indoctrination in schools is more damaging to children, than Christmas songs.
So I disagree.

_black is white, a man is a woman, an orange is a tomato, a triangle is a square, in this double speak.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29219&page=11&p=887689#post887689_


----------



## Tisme (14 December 2015)

Seeing as this is the racism thread I was thrilled to receive this in my inbox this morning:




> This cannot be right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I wonder if any of it is true?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> Seeing as this is the racism thread I was thrilled to receive this in my inbox this morning:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The $4.8 million salary was stated in this report

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-...post-ceos-multi-million-dollar-salary/5514682

Muslim or not, that's far too much for that position. The PM gets half a million.


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

Tink said:


> Well in my view, your indoctrination in schools is more damaging to children, than Christmas songs.




and what exactly is my indoctrination?

would you want your kids singing songs preaching other religions? if not you should understand why we don't want your religion preached on us

Please put any response into the religion thread.


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The $4.8 million salary was stated in this report
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-...post-ceos-multi-million-dollar-salary/5514682
> 
> Muslim or not, that's far too much for that position. The PM gets half a million.




How does it compare to CEO's of other Logistics companies of similar size.

Is it performance related? In my opinion them skimping on the quality of management to save a few bucks would be a mistake.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> How does it compare to CEO's of other Logistics companies of similar size.
> 
> Is it performance related? In my opinion them skimping on the quality of management to save a few bucks would be a mistake.




Maaate, read the sodding article !



> In contrast, the head of the US Postal Service was paid $550,000 in 2013, despite running a company with 19 times more staff and 11 times the revenue.
> 
> The head of France's postal service, La Poste, was paid $1.06 million for running a service with 268,000 employees.
> Australia Post CEO Ahmed Fahour speaks to Radio National
> ...


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Maaate, read the sodding article !




We aren't in those countries.

I am talking about other Australian logistics companies, because its with them that we are competing with for talent.

For example what's the Boss of Toll holdings earning.

edit

I just looked it up, The Toll boss earned $4.9M last year.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> We aren't in those countries.
> 
> I am talking about other Australian logistics companies, because its with them that we are competing with for talent.
> 
> ...




Sounds like he is grossly overpaid as well.


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Sounds like he is grossly overpaid as well.




It pales in comparison to some others, Bob Iger Ceo of The Walt Disney Company earned $44.5 Million last year, But the Ideas he has had have set the company up to earn probably 50 Billion over the next 5 - 7 years, so as a share holder I don't mind


----------



## wayneL (14 December 2015)

Been thinking about this racism thing (notwithstanding that race might not be a valid construct).

If we define racism as the recognition and different treatment of different races, is all racism bad? Can there be neutral and good racism?

Governments implicitly endorse such a concept with land rights, indigenous recognition in the  constitution, affirmative action etc (whether or not these are truly for the greater good or not).


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> If we define racism as the recognition and different treatment of different races, is all racism bad? Can there be neutral and good racism?




I guess it comes down to fairness, is it fair to judge an individual based on their "race" or "ethnicity", rather than more relevant factors.

Google defines racism as - the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

That sort of belief would lead to all sorts of unfairness, giving advantages to one race and disadvantages to others.


---------------------

In regards to native title, I don't think its a race thing, as much as it is recognition that some of the lands of Australia were already owned prior to British settlement.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Google defines racism as - the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
> .




I think it is the definition of the words "inferior" and "superior" that are the problem, not whether particular races have particular characteristics.

If you compare Western Europeans to Indigenous Australians and say that the Europeans are superior because of their technology then you also have to consider the adverse effects of that technology, and while the aboriginals did not embrace technology they survived without creating pollution or nuclear weapons so the judgement of superiority in that comparison is a matter of opinion rather than fact.


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think it is the definition of the words "inferior" and "superior" that are the problem, not whether particular races have particular characteristics.
> 
> If you compare Western Europeans to Indigenous Australians and say that the Europeans are superior because of their technology then you also have to consider the adverse effects of that technology, and while the aboriginals did not embrace technology they survived without creating pollution or nuclear weapons so the judgement of superiority in that comparison is a matter of opinion rather than fact.




Its not so much that, its about making determinations about individuals based on your preconceived notions of what you think are characteristics of that race.

Eg, saying something like "Preference of university positions for technology related fields should be given to White Western Europeans not Aboriginals, Because White Western Europeans are better at Technology stuff"

Basing decisions such as that on race will lead you to unfairness, because candidates who may prove to be very worthy students were not be considered for spots in preference of less worthy ones simply because the decisions are being made on race, rather than other more valid attributes of the person.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Basing decisions such as that on race will lead you to unfairness, because candidates who may prove to be very worthy students were not be considered for spots in preference of less worthy ones simply because the decisions are being made on race, rather than other more valid attributes of the person.




By the same argument, all  "special advantages" for those of certain races must be racist because it implies those races are not good enough to compete on merit ?

eg housing only for aboriginals or job quotas for minorities are racist ?


----------



## Tisme (14 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think it is the definition of the words "inferior" and "superior" that are the problem, not whether particular races have particular characteristics.
> 
> If you compare Western Europeans to Indigenous Australians and say that the Europeans are superior because of their technology then you also have to consider the adverse effects of that technology, and while the aboriginals did not embrace technology they survived without creating pollution or nuclear weapons so the judgement of superiority in that comparison is a matter of opinion rather than fact.




I do wonder if humans burnt out lots of fauna and flora in the 70k years they have been in Oz


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> By the same argument, all  "special advantages" for those of certain races must be racist because it implies those races are not good enough to compete on merit ?
> 
> eg housing only for aboriginals or job quotas for minorities are racist ?




Some of them could be considered racist, But they are generally a blunt tool used to try and correct pre-existing problems.

I don't necessarily agree with such things in all cases, But I can see why such programs have been adopted.

for example say in an industrial town, X group makes up 30% of the population, but only 1% of the job roles in middle management or above are going to X group even though it can be shown that there are willing and able individuals, but they are being overlooked because of racial stereotypes.

Now I am generally against law makers stepping in, But some rule maker stepping in and saying "Look, you are going to have to do something about your system it's is not allowing X Group to advance their careers, you have to start working towards at least 15% of management being from X group.

obviously such a rule is not Ideal, but it is one way to fix existing problems in areas that are really bad.


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> I do wonder if humans burnt out lots of fauna and flora in the 70k years they have been in Oz




We probably did, but I doubt it would come close to the extinction caused by humans in Western Europe over the last 70,000 years, Western Europe is unrecogniseable to how it would have looked 1000's of years ago.


----------



## qldfrog (14 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That sort of belief would lead to all sorts of unfairness, giving advantages to one race and disadvantages to others.
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> ...



true for native title
but in that case you would agree that indigenous specific welfare or help is a clear manifestation of racism, to be deemed so inferior to the rest of Australian that you need special treatment or help, based on a % of recognised native blood whether you are born in sydney or in a NT bush, with a surgeon dad or a single mother on welfare.
as you can read thru, I am firmly against race based discrimination, positive or not as positiove discrimination is obviously straight discrimination against the "others" whatever colour of skin, place of birth or footy team they supports


----------



## luutzu (14 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> True
> 
> Of course racism is predicated on offending someone's opinion about the importance of skin colour that is disagreeable with your own.
> 
> ...




I think you missed about 5 continents there McGyver. 

The White skin condition has spread all over Mother Earth.


----------



## luutzu (14 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Exactly, and when some one is talking about "The Jesus" and they say there is a good chance he never existed, Saying "Historians disagree with you" is a red herring, because they are talking about some guy or guys who may have inspired the stories.
> 
> And at the end of the day, there is pretty much no evidence for the inspiration guy anyway, and historians are just pulling apart the religious texts and saying "well modern Christians probably wouldn't have written this into the story, maybe there is some truth to it" but if you ask me, the bible is the claim not the evidence, it requires independent evidence, which just isn't there.
> 
> ...





Were those the millions on examing the Shroud of Turin? Or that's another attempt at not feeding the poor?

I remember watching those docu way back then where scientist/archeologist go searching the bottom of the Red Sea for evidence that Moses and the Hebrew walked it. I remember the evidence they came up with was they've found some pot and broken plates or utensils dating back to around those time - so I guess conclusion was the sea did part and they didn't kinda sail over it or something.

Anyway, might go back watching DaVinci Code to see how the female lead there was descended from Christ again.


----------



## luutzu (14 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> Been thinking about this racism thing (notwithstanding that race might not be a valid construct).
> 
> If we define racism as the recognition and different treatment of different races, is all racism bad? Can there be neutral and good racism?
> 
> Governments implicitly endorse such a concept with land rights, indigenous recognition in the  constitution, affirmative action etc (whether or not these are truly for the greater good or not).




That kind of policy might better be termed "social engineering" rather than racism, or affirmative action as they call it.

Racism is negative. I get what you're saying - that not all policies or decisions based on race are bad or negative. That's true. But we don't call a racist someone who can define race and know the different skin tone between the races right? Right?


----------



## luutzu (14 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The $4.8 million salary was stated in this report
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-...post-ceos-multi-million-dollar-salary/5514682
> 
> Muslim or not, that's far too much for that position. The PM gets half a million.




PM get half mil for now. Once he retire, pension for life plus an office somewhere with two staffer (from memory)... then all those juicy consulting jobs from corporations his policy and his gov't was accidentally of the same mind (for the good of the country of course). 

Bill and Hilary together earn something like $20Million last year from speaking fee.    One could buy a lot more wisdom at 1% the cost.


----------



## luutzu (14 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think it is the definition of the words "inferior" and "superior" that are the problem, not whether particular races have particular characteristics.
> 
> If you compare Western Europeans to Indigenous Australians and say that the Europeans are superior because of their technology then you also have to consider the adverse effects of that technology, and while the aboriginals did not embrace technology they survived without creating pollution or nuclear weapons so the judgement of superiority in that comparison is a matter of opinion rather than fact.




There's a joke about the civilised guy working hard all year, saved up over two so he can take a few weeks off... 

But then that kind of lifestyle meant no gun or gunpowder to shooo the civilisers away right?


----------



## luutzu (14 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> It pales in comparison to some others, Bob Iger Ceo of The Walt Disney Company earned $44.5 Million last year, But the Ideas he has had have set the company up to earn probably 50 Billion over the next 5 - 7 years, so as a share holder I don't mind




yea but AusPost loses money under him though.

But I guess it's no big deal compared to those banking CEOs who bankrupted their company but walked away with some $160 million and some $200 million pay in their last year.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> There's a joke about the civilised guy working hard all year, saved up over two so he can take a few weeks off...
> 
> But then that kind of lifestyle meant no gun or gunpowder to shooo the civilisers away right?




Survival of the fattest maybe ?


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

qldfrog said:


> true for native title
> but in that case you would agree that indigenous specific welfare or help is a clear manifestation of racism, to be deemed so inferior to the rest of Australian that you need special treatment or help, based on a % of recognised native blood whether you are born in sydney or in a NT bush, with a surgeon dad or a single mother on welfare.
> as you can read thru, I am firmly against race based discrimination, positive or not as positiove discrimination is obviously straight discrimination against the "others" whatever colour of skin, place of birth or footy team they supports




As I said it's a blunt tool, but sometimes it's chosen to try and rectify pre exisiting problems. I am not an expert of government welfare programs though,


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> Were those the millions on examing the Shroud of Turin? Or that's another attempt at not feeding the poor?
> 
> I remember watching those docu way back then where scientist/archeologist go searching the bottom of the Red Sea for evidence that Moses and the Hebrew walked it. I remember the evidence they came up with was they've found some pot and broken plates or utensils dating back to around those time - so I guess conclusion was the sea did part and they didn't kinda sail over it or something.
> 
> Anyway, might go back watching DaVinci Code to see how the female lead there was descended from Christ again.



Here is an interesting video about bible claims and archeology by James Randi.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxEJHO8KIXY[/video]


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> yea but AusPost loses money under him though.
> 
> But I guess it's no big deal compared to those banking CEOs who bankrupted their company but walked away with some $160 million and some $200 million pay in their last year.




I don't know the Australia post story, but I know it's a difficult business, just because it's losing money under him now doesn't mean he is not performing, he might be in the middle of a great turn around, who knows, it's up to the board to decide.

Also, Australia post has certain services it must run that lose money, so again a small loss or a break even might be a big victory for their business model.


----------



## Tisme (15 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Here is an interesting video about bible claims and archeology by James Randi.
> 
> [video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxEJHO8KIXY[/video]




What else would we expect from a Jewish man, who has to deny the messiah has come.


----------



## Tisme (15 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> .
> 
> Google defines racism as - the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
> 
> .




The audacity of that snippet is to admit to different races, which biologically kind limits the argument to appearance.

There's a misconception out there that white people propagated racism and spread it like a disease around the world. That suggests that places like Japan never had a caste system where the true natives were considered poisoned in the blood. Just because a nation of Arabic- Alpine Spaniards decided to act like dicks and infest the world with Catholicism and drug running doesn't mean white people are the root cause.


----------



## Value Collector (15 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> What else would we expect from a Jewish man, who has to deny the messiah has come.




He isn't Jewish, He is an atheist.



Tisme said:


> The audacity of that snippet is to admit to different races, which biologically kind limits the argument to appearance.




Well Biologically there is no such thing as "Races" among humans, So it is limited to appearances generally.


----------



## luutzu (15 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Survival of the fattest maybe ?




Maybe the leanest with the biggest sticks? haha
You get fat and lazy after the deed's done.

But given the nukes and other less deadly weapons that's out there, maybe no one win after the game's over.


----------



## luutzu (15 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Here is an interesting video about bible claims and archeology by James Randi.
> 
> [video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxEJHO8KIXY[/video]




We all need a Disneyland don't we?

I thought there were maybe some political aspect to them and their Nazareth-Disneyland there. but looked it up and Nazareth seems to be within Israel and not the West Bank. So guess money and religion is still fine.

Heard last year some archeologist was saying how in Israel they've "discovered" a city or town where King David was. There were the odd bits of potteries etc. pointing to a King David... and sooo they clear the entire village off of Palestinians and build a King David theme park on it.

Man, the Bible, Koran and I guess all other religious texts can really be use to justify anything. Want to gas or use biological weapons... god has done it to free "his people" etc. etc.


----------



## luutzu (15 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I don't know the Australia post story, but I know it's a difficult business, just because it's losing money under him now doesn't mean he is not performing, he might be in the middle of a great turn around, who knows, it's up to the board to decide.
> 
> Also, Australia post has certain services it must run that lose money, so again a small loss or a break even might be a big victory for their business model.




Yea I don't know the details of AusPost too, just read a few articles and headlines.

It looks to be setting up to fail and then privatise. Just like the US Postal or the Uk's Royal Mail... so I heard.

Agree that services like AusPost doesn't need to make money or profit in the way that other businesses or finance define profit. It's supposed to provide an essential service to the community. But you know, that's how they want to measure it and define usefulness or not so it'll go sooner or later.

Can't have it compete against Tolls or Asciano or something.

If it was managed properly, not sure why it couldn't change its model a bit, still provide the usual mail delivery as well as cargoes and logistics.


----------



## Tisme (15 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> He isn't Jewish, He is an atheist.
> .




No he's a Jew through and through... that's what they do as the original human decepticons, tell fibs and parade them as humanitarian truths.


----------



## wayneL (15 December 2015)

Is Jewish a race?


----------



## SirRumpole (15 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> Is Jewish a race?




Jewish (Semitism)  like Islam or Christianity is a religion not a race.


----------



## Value Collector (15 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> No he's a Jew through and through... that's what they do as the original human decepticons, tell fibs and parade them as humanitarian truths.




Are you even familiar with his work? He is James Randi, he is a skeptic who has devoted his life to debunking con artists.

You should look up some of his stuff on you tube, he is a great guy, he put up a million dollars for anyone that could prove they had super natural talents.


----------



## Value Collector (15 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> Is Jewish a race?



As I mentioned earlier their is no such thing as race, it's just artificial categories we place people in based on the colour of their skin and the region their ancestors were from.

How ever on the point of Jews, like Muslims, Islam and Judaism are both religions, however it's also a cultural thing that they attach some ethnicity to.

Eg I have heard people describe them selves as being Jewish, but then say they are atheist, and I have also seen people of Jewish back grounds descriminated against because of racial distinctions attached to being a Jew, even though they are not actually practicing the religion.

You can attack things like people's religion and other aspects of their culture and still be racist if the reason you are attacking that thing is because you have a problem with their race.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> As I mentioned earlier their is no such thing as race, it's just artificial categories we place people in based on the colour of their skin and the region their ancestors were from.




There must be genetic differences that determine differences in appearance, skin pigment etc.


----------



## Tisme (15 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Jewish (Semitism)  like Islam or Christianity is a religion not a race.




Well if that's the case their would have been no need for Israel being set up after WWII. 

Judaism is the religious and nation side of Jews. Jewsihness is passed through the maternal side so their is an implied biological identification.


----------



## luutzu (15 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There must be genetic differences that determine differences in appearance, skin pigment etc.




We're all one race: the Human Race 


I think skin colour will eventually adapt to the environment - so after a couple thousand generations, White Australians will start to have brown babies, haha. I guess it's not that funny...


----------



## SirRumpole (15 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> I think skin colour will eventually adapt to the environment - so after a couple thousand generations, White Australians will start to have brown babies, haha. I guess it's not that funny...




We are supposed to be going Green aren't we ?


----------



## luutzu (15 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> We are supposed to be going Green aren't we ?




oh yea, supposed to.

Regarding skin colour... there's some white people I know with lots of freckles... I guess their gene does try seeing they've been here a while.


----------



## wayneL (15 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> As I mentioned earlier their is no such thing as race, it's just artificial categories we place people in based on the colour of their skin and the region their ancestors were from.
> 
> How ever on the point of Jews, like Muslims, Islam and Judaism are both religions, however it's also a cultural thing that they attach some ethnicity to.
> 
> ...




But you just explained (correctly Imo) that there's no such thing as race.


----------



## Value Collector (15 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> But you just explained (correctly Imo) that there's no such thing as race.




Yes, biologically races don't exist, but as I said we have constructed these artificial categories based on skin colour and region of ancestory which we call "races", and it is the stereotyping based on these artificial catorgories which we call racism.

For what ever reason, a certain portion of us humans will dislike, mistrust or fear members of one or more of these "races" (artificial), and we will tend to group them all together and make snap judgements about them.

They may even lash out at part of the groups culture, under the cover of saying "I am not being racist, xyz is not a race" but really the reason they are attacking xyz might stem from their dislike, mistrust or fear of people from that racial group and wanting to keep members of that group away.

It's not always the case, but sometimes it is.


----------



## Value Collector (16 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There must be genetic differences that determine differences in appearance, skin pigment etc.




Offcourse there is genetic differences but they are actually very slight, we are all the same species/race, the genetic differences are nothing but slight adaptions based of where your ancestors lived for the past 1000 generations or so.

It wasn't that long ago that we left Africa and started spreading around the world, before that we would have all looked very similar, we have not been separated for long enough for us to diverge enough for us to be considered separate species, fertile individuals from any "race" can mate with fertile individuals of any other "race" and produce viable offspring, that shows we are the same species.


----------



## Value Collector (16 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> I think skin colour will eventually adapt to the environment - so after a couple thousand generations, White Australians will start to have brown babies, haha. I guess it's not that funny...




Only if we all started living out doors, refused sun protection, and stopped treating skin cancer.

Evolution of this type would need natural selection to be selecting the darker skin tones, eg us white guys would have to be getting skin cancer and dying before we could mate, or suffer some other affliction due to our light skin that caused us to have a lower rate of individuals surviving and pass on their genes.

As long as we have sun protection, eg clothing  and we have access to shelter eg buildings we should be ok


----------



## Value Collector (16 December 2015)

Here is a very good explanation of part of what I have been trying to say.

I think it would interest both Wayne and Rum pole, it's only a short video, but explains why scientifically races in humans aren't really a thing.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zPK-1k_pDAE[/video]


----------



## SirRumpole (16 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Here is a very good explanation of part of what I have been trying to say.
> 
> I think it would interest both Wayne and Rum pole, it's only a short video, but explains why scientifically races in humans aren't really a thing.
> 
> [video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zPK-1k_pDAE[/video]




Fine, thank you.

In one of your other posts you mentioned species, which of course all humans are the one species, like dogs are all the one species, but there are demonstrably different breeds of dog that can interbreed with each other, as difficult as that may be for some 

So we can't just say "all dogs are the same" because in some ways they are, but different breeds have different characteristics not just in appearance but also in behaviour and susceptibility to certain diseases. 

So maybe there is a parallel between breed and race but that's not to say that one dog is "superior" to another, they may just have different attributes due to their line of evolution.

So I have a problem with your statement



			
				Value Collector said:
			
		

> Offcourse there is genetic differences but they are actually very slight, we are all the same species/race,




I don't think you can equate species and race, they are different metrics. Species = dog, race = breed.


----------



## bellenuit (16 December 2015)

Sorry, i haven't had time to do other than give this a cursory look, but it seems pertinent to recent discussions on this thread (and the religion threads)

*SCIENCE tells us what Jesus looked like!*

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/science-tells-us-what-jesus-looked-like/


----------



## Tisme (16 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Fine, thank you.
> 
> In one of your other posts you mentioned species, which of course all humans are the one species, like dogs are all the one species, but there are demonstrably different breeds of dog that can interbreed with each other, as difficult as that may be for some
> 
> ...




Melbourne Cup would be interesting if they ran different breeds, rather than the temperamental thoroughbreds.

Of course Thomas Morgan and his troupe of flies might also have something to say about no biological differences between breeds.

THinking of riding a cockhorse to banbury cross


----------



## Value Collector (16 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Fine, thank you.
> 
> In one of your other posts you mentioned species, which of course all humans are the one species, like dogs are all the one species, but there are demonstrably different breeds of dog that can interbreed with each other, as difficult as that may be for some
> 
> ...




No, dogs are not all the same species, for example a wolf and a fox are two separate species there are a few species of dogs actually.

wolves and foxes are both dogs, in the same way humans, chimps and gorillas are all apes.

But the point is, when it comes to genetic differences between "races" of human, the differences are so small that they pale in comparison to the natural differences between individuals. So much so that pretty much any stereotype you try and forge from a racial perspective will be wrong.

For example the average intelligence of the races is so close that there is basically no difference, how ever the intelligence of individuals among all the groups varies dramatically, so if you got an Asian and a whit guy and tested their intelligence, and one was an iq of 130 and the other 100, that difference would not be based on race, it's based on the natural variation among species.


----------



## Tisme (16 December 2015)

bellenuit said:


> Sorry, i haven't had time to do other than give this a cursory look, but it seems pertinent to recent discussions on this thread (and the religion threads)
> 
> *SCIENCE tells us what Jesus looked like!*
> 
> https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/science-tells-us-what-jesus-looked-like/




Nonsense stuff. You only have to visit New York to see what Jews look like e.g.

Widows peak;
4rse half way up their back;
Gold teeth;
Sun starved pallid skin or full on monotone sallow sepia colour;
Speak with "sch" in front of every second word;
Big curved sausage honker with a hump half way down that eventually becomes bigger than their heads as they grow older;
John Lennon spectacles;
Forehead 2/5s of the head rather the 1/3 like most gentiles;
Gravitational large rubber lower lips and heart shaped top lip; or frog mouth lizard lips;
Big lobeless ears, set down near the jawline that want to be wing nuts;
Plastic covers on chairs and lounge suites;
high cheek bones;
Often bug eyed and their eyelids droop at the sides.

Stars Wars came close with the all star original Jewish cast and characters like this:


----------



## Value Collector (16 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> Melbourne Cup would be interesting if they ran different breeds, rather than the temperamental thoroughbreds.
> 
> Of course Thomas Morgan and his troupe of flies might also have something to say about no biological differences between breeds.
> 
> THinking of riding a cockhorse to banbury cross




You are offcourse talking about "breeds" here, ie a line of animals that has been purposefully bred by humans to contain certain characteristics, human "races" were not formed this way, and when you randomly select individuals from around the world, we are genetically very similar as was mentioned in the video I up loaded, there is less difference between an African and a Native American than there is between two chimps from different part of the forest.


----------



## Tisme (16 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> You are offcourse talking about "breeds" here, ie a line of animals that has been purposefully bred by humans to contain certain characteristics, human "races" were not formed this way, and when you randomly select individuals from around the world, we are genetically very similar as was mentioned in the video I up loaded, there is less difference between an African and a Native American than there is between two chimps from different part of the forest.




Yeah, but you can't trust research and yarns from a jewish controlled media. Jewish facts in the modern era date back to Walt Disney, Donald Duck in particular, a deliberate crack at eugenics and racial distinguishment.... 


Did I tell you I had my gene test done and I'm hoping the X% middle eastern in me is messianic? How cool would that be and it would explain my intelligence otherwise lack there of


----------



## wayneL (16 December 2015)

Well congratulations to Bill Leak and The Australian, for calling out the egregious intellectual minnow, Amanda Wise and that appalling propaganda rag, not even fit for use as toilet paper, The Guardian.

The ridiculous example these asinine leftist activist culture destroyers set for what is laughingly categorized as political correctness, exemplifies the worst manifestation of the 'lets get offended' industry.

Shame on Ms Wise for such unwarranted accusations of racism and shame on the Guardian editors for letting such tripe see the light of day.

(today's The Oz, page 4)


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So maybe there is a parallel between breed and race but that's not to say that one dog is "superior" to another, they may just have different attributes due to their line of evolution.
> 
> .




As I was trying to explain in my other post, what we call "Races" today, are so genetically similar that there is nothing to be gained by trying to classify pros and cons about each one, because to the variation between individuals is much greater than the average difference between races.

For example, Lets say on average X race has an IQ of 130 and Y has as average IQ of 129, you can't judge any future people you meet of either race because both will still have individuals ranging from extremely low levels through to extremely high levels.

There did actually used to be other races of humans, they have actually become extinct now though, all that remains are homo sapiens.

Here is an interesting video on evolution and classifications.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> As I was trying to explain in my other post, what we call "Races" today, are so genetically similar that there is nothing to be gained by trying to classify pros and cons about each one, because to the variation between individuals is much greater than the average difference between races.
> 
> For example, Lets say on average X race has an IQ of 130 and Y has as average IQ of 129, you can't judge any future people you meet of either race because both will still have individuals ranging from extremely low levels through to extremely high levels.
> 
> ...





OK, I'll believe you !

Thanks for the info.


----------



## Tisme (17 December 2015)

wayneL said:


> Well congratulations to Bill Leak and The Australian, for calling out the egregious intellectual minnow, Amanda Wise and that appalling propaganda rag, not even fit for use as toilet paper, The Guardian.
> 
> The ridiculous example these asinine leftist activist culture destroyers set for what is laughingly categorized as political correctness, exemplifies the worst manifestation of the 'lets get offended' industry.
> 
> ...




That's what we get when we have politicians who want to be elected and afraid to offend their multicultural constituents. So the sensitive types out there get to be mice that roared.

I have no sympathy for News Corp, they made and continue to make great copy out of sensationalising politicians and civic leaders who don't use the correct language and quick to brand them as wanting.


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2015)

Tink said:


> _The mythical "Santa Claus" is not the same person as "Saint Nicholas". _
> 
> .




Well, turns out a lot of the St Nicholas stories might be mythical also, Crazy stories.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2016)

Don't know if this is the right thread, but...

Would you read Mein Kampf by Hitler ?

The book is being published again after 70 years.

Personally I think it is a historical document and there should be no shame in reading it.

What do others think ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-...s-to-german-bookstores-after-70-years/7078054


----------



## McLovin (9 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Don't know if this is the right thread, but...
> 
> Would you read Mein Kampf by Hitler ?
> 
> ...




It's been available for sale outside Germany since it was written. I think I remember my school library had a copy. It's not particularly interesting.


----------



## pixel (9 January 2016)

McLovin said:


> It's been available for sale outside Germany since it was written. I think I remember my school library had a copy. It's not particularly interesting.




It's unlikely to become a bestseller. Those few surviving idiots that still mourn his passing will have saved a copy; plenty were picked up by members of the Allied Forces and sent home.
Anybody else, except for some Historians, won't get much pleasure out of reading it. You won't find a drier, more boring rant full of twisted logic. It's so dull and dry, you could send a copy to Queensland after a cyclone, or right now to Northern UK, to mop up those flooded paddocks and towns. Two copies might be enough to turn the English Channel into a land bridge between Britain and the Continent.


----------



## pixel (9 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> What do others think ?
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-...s-to-german-bookstores-after-70-years/7078054




Brief commentary to ABC's report:

Politically, today's population should be sufficiently well educated not to be swayed by the rants. 
(Always excepting the lunatic fringe that has been, and will continue to be, stuck in the old rut.)

Therefore, I reckon a reprint needn't be suppressed. A ban would amount to another case of thought control in a vain attempt of enforced Political Correctness. Let people see how one man's insanity could infect an entire Nation, when the citizens at the time failed to read and think about the consequences of his manifesto.

Incidentally: The translation of "Mein Kampf", offered as "My Struggle" in the ABC article, isn't quite on target. In the context, "My Battle" or "Get Up and Fight!" would be more appropriate.


----------



## wayneL (9 January 2016)

pixel said:


> ...boring rant full of twisted logic.




It couldn't be any worse than The Guardian, surely? :


----------



## pixel (9 January 2016)

wayneL said:


> It couldn't be any worse than The Guardian, surely? :




... or Donald Trump, comng to think of it


----------



## Value Collector (9 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Don't know if this is the right thread, but...
> 
> Would you read Mein Kampf by Hitler ?
> 
> ...




I have tried to read it, it's a bit like the bible, it's very hard to read the full text, after a chapter you find yourself realising there is a lot better things you could be reading.

I do however have an original German print version in book collection, along with a mint condition hitler youth knife and some other artefacts, it's  just a facinating part of human history.


----------



## luutzu (10 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I have tried to read it, it's a bit like the bible, it's very hard to read the full text, after a chapter you find yourself realising there is a lot better things you could be reading.
> 
> I do however have an original German print version in book collection, along with a mint condition hitler youth knife and some other artefacts, it's  just a facinating part of human history.




There's a TV series based on, I think, Phillip K Dick's alternate history of the world if Japan and Germany had won WW2 - *The Man in the White Castle* I think it's called.

Saw a bit of it and it could be interesting. With Hitler aging, the US being divided between Japan and Nazi Germany...


----------



## luutzu (10 January 2016)

pixel said:


> It's unlikely to become a bestseller. Those few surviving idiots that still mourn his passing will have saved a copy; plenty were picked up by members of the Allied Forces and sent home.
> Anybody else, except for some Historians, won't get much pleasure out of reading it. You won't find a drier, more boring rant full of twisted logic. It's so dull and dry, you could send a copy to Queensland after a cyclone, or right now to Northern UK, to mop up those flooded paddocks and towns. Two copies might be enough to turn the English Channel into a land bridge between Britain and the Continent.




That dried ha?

You read it? Wow. I remember it's a very thick book, with small print too.


----------



## pixel (10 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> That dried ha?
> 
> You read it? Wow. I remember it's a very thick book, with small print too.




yup, it took me quite some time to get through it; but I did want to know what all the fuss had been about. What better way than to borrow a copy (from the son of a Lutheran pastor, no less  ) and get the goss first hand, rather than trust my Elders who had been personally involved. Whether for or against, they couldn't help but have a biased opinion.

Incidentally, since you mentioned the Bible in this context: I did notice a few parallels between the two. Not only were they the two books most likely to be found in every German bookshelf during the 12 years the 1000-year Reich lasted; but they were probably also the two books least read and understood by their owners. Furthermore, they both present a case for their protagonists to be "The Chosen People", a view presented at an intermediate time (7th Century AD if you didn't guess) for yet another People by yet another "Leader".
The realisation of those parallels greatly contributed to my turning agnostic bordering on atheism.


----------



## Tink (13 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Don't know if this is the right thread, but...
> 
> Would you read Mein Kampf by Hitler ?
> 
> ...




No, I haven't read it, Rumpole,  but like most girls, read 'The Diary of Anne Frank'.

In saying that, my grandparents overseas took in, and hid a few people through that time.


----------



## Ves (13 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Would you read Mein Kampf by Hitler ?



I read it when I was in my early 20s.  I don't remember it in great detail, but I remember the first part (or Volume) was more auto-biographical in nature and a lot more interesting to read.

The second Volume on the NS movement was, as others have said,  fairly dry, mainly because it required a lot of historical knowledge (which admittedly I didn't have nearly enough and probably still don't).

In all honesty,  it never struck me as a "dangerous book."  If anything it's a good example of how convincing and charismatic he was at the time to a lot of people.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2016)

Who is responsible for this ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-25/aurukun-teachers-evacuated-for-second-time/7444630


----------



## Tisme (25 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Who is responsible for this ?
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-25/aurukun-teachers-evacuated-for-second-time/7444630




From Tarzan's Grip all the way down to unleaded petrol?


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> From Tarzan's Grip all the way down to unleaded petrol?




Makes you wonder if governments should up stumps and leave it to the residents to sort out their own problems.


----------



## Tisme (25 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Makes you wonder if governments should up stumps and leave it to the residents to sort out their own problems.




Probably be howls of protest form the arabic brigade that it is unfair to allow aborigines to kill each other, while prohibiting them killing everyone else.


----------



## pixel (25 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Who is responsible for this ?
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-25/aurukun-teachers-evacuated-for-second-time/7444630




From as far back as I can remember, right to the day I turned 18, my parents knew they would be held accountable for everything I might mess up. So they made sure I was aware of the concept of "your action = your responsibility." And on the few occasions when I slipped up, they accepted their responsibility for my actions, but most definitely made me share the experience by "feeling" the consequences.

I guess it worked. I still can stuff up with the best of them. But when I do, I don't blame Tarzan's Grip, Jack Daniels, or Johnny Walker.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2016)

pixel said:


> From as far back as I can remember, right to the day I turned 18, my parents knew they would be held accountable for everything I might mess up. So they made sure I was aware of the concept of "your action = your responsibility." And on the few occasions when I slipped up, they accepted their responsibility for my actions, but most definitely made me share the experience by "feeling" the consequences.
> 
> I guess it worked. I still can stuff up with the best of them. But when I do, I don't blame Tarzan's Grip, Jack Daniels, or Johnny Walker.




I assume you are saying it's the parent's fault and I agree.

Maybe it's time to put the parents in gaol along with their kids.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 August 2016)

Banana throwing woman banned for being racist. She appeared to be a whitey so there must be a mistake.


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2017)

Supposing somebody puts on a theme party with famous singers you love, as the theme:

A white man dresses up as Stevie Wonder, making his skin dark and a black man goes as Bruce Springsteen,  making his skin light. 

Which one is racist?


----------



## Tisme (9 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> Supposing somebody puts on a theme party with famous singers you love, as the theme:
> 
> A white man dresses up as Stevie Wonder, making his skin dark and a black man goes as Bruce Springsteen,  making his skin light.
> 
> Which one is racist?




That's a no brainer....Stevie Wonder of course


----------



## dutchie (9 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> Supposing somebody puts on a theme party with famous singers you love, as the theme:
> 
> A white man dresses up as Stevie Wonder, making his skin dark and a black man goes as Bruce Springsteen,  making his skin light.
> 
> Which one is racist?



Obviously the white man (because he's white).


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2017)

But what's racist about it?


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 October 2017)

Racism is not what is said or done but whom it is is said or done to and if they take offence.


----------



## crackajack2 (9 October 2017)

dutchie said:


> Obviously the white man (because he's white).



Hey go and live in london. No white people there. lol


----------



## crackajack2 (9 October 2017)

crackajack2 said:


> Hey go and live in london. No white people there. lol



Actually go and live in Melbourne or Sydney not many white people there either lol


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2017)

I'm offended cracka.

Arrest that man,  Ms Triggs!


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2017)

I'm of course leading to this BS

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...e/news-story/c5b300bb641cc84d376cbe57492cb044


----------



## IFocus (9 October 2017)

Is there a history of rampant racism lets say 300 years of blacks against whites?

Is there a history of blacks dressing up as whites mocking their low intellect? 

For what it's worth I am ambivalent but understand the sensitivity of the issue for some.


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 October 2017)

Maybe racism is any words or actions that offends any person or group of people of a different skin colour. If one sees that as racism then potentially anything could be offensive.


----------



## moXJO (9 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> Supposing somebody puts on a theme party with famous singers you love, as the theme:
> 
> A white man dresses up as Stevie Wonder, making his skin dark and a black man goes as Bruce Springsteen,  making his skin light.
> 
> Which one is racist?



Blackface is more a Yankee thing. People get outraged here off the back of it.

When I was seven I was told by my primary school teacher to: "go pick up 1000 bits of rubbish you little black c.unt". He was an outright racist old prick when I was unlucky enough to come in his field of vision.

Was called dirty f.ucking abo and every other name by adults. Chased off peoples front yards (council strips) like I was niggering up their property or something. I pity the guys who were actually aboriginal, it must have been hell. All this while I was under 12.
Had an older Italian friend and they use to spit in his beer at the pub for being a "wog".

Can't say I gave much of a shi.t though. Funny thing is my bloodline goes too the first fleet on my mothers side.
It does affect your trajectory in life. I learnt how to box and never had a problem again.

Honkeys don't get it. It could happen in front of my white friends and it was basically invisible to them. Shame you crackers are becoming the minority now.
You guys will eventually learn what racism is first hand via the ridiculous anti white guy cr.ap coming out.


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2017)

moXJO said:


> Blackface is more a Yankee thing. People get outraged here off the back of it.
> 
> When I was seven I was told by my primary school teacher to: "go pick up 1000 bits of rubbish you little black c.unt". He was an outright racist old prick when I was unlucky enough to come in his field of vision.
> 
> ...



Totally get that Mo.

What you experienced was denigration,  true racism.

That in the article seemed to me to be more honouring Yunupingu.

How can that be racist.  Am I wrong?


----------



## luutzu (9 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> Supposing somebody puts on a theme party with famous singers you love, as the theme:
> 
> A white man dresses up as Stevie Wonder, making his skin dark and a black man goes as Bruce Springsteen,  making his skin light.
> 
> Which one is racist?




What black guy would ever dress up as Springsteen?


----------



## SirRumpole (9 October 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Maybe racism is any words or actions that offends any person or group of people of a different skin colour.* If one sees that as racism then potentially anything could be offensive*.




Indeed so, which is why "offend" and "insult" should be removed from 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.



> (a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
> 
> (b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 October 2017)

Actual racism is becoming less and should be extinguished. The lingering bad smell of a past European colonisation that didn't treat the native inhabitants with equal human rights. The native inhabitants would have reacted aggressively to the Europeans just as tribal boundaries were attacked and defended among themselves. Communication would have made coexisting impossible at the beginning.


----------



## moXJO (9 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> Totally get that Mo.
> 
> What you experienced was denigration,  true racism.
> 
> ...





wayneL said:


> How can that be racist.  Am I wrong?



Personally I think its bs. If it isn't mock insult I don't see the issue.  Welcome to generation snowflake.


----------



## luutzu (9 October 2017)

Dove got itself into a bit of trouble with an ad showing a black woman turning into a white woman... who then turn into a Jewish woman then into an Asian[?]

Reading too much into an ad that simply want to sell soap I reckon.


----------



## Tisme (10 October 2017)

moXJO said:


> Blackface is more a Yankee thing. People get outraged here off the back of it.
> 
> When I was seven I was told by my primary school teacher to: "go pick up 1000 bits of rubbish you little black c.unt". He was an outright racist old prick when I was unlucky enough to come in his field of vision.
> 
> ...





Where was that?

I don't remember much racism, especially overt racism when I was a kid in WA. The ones who came in for stick were the English kids who tried to exert their superiority. Otherwise we just spent time time with peers who suited our happy play time, regardless of how they looked. Childhood racism was like asthma and fat kids back then ... rather rare.


----------



## moXJO (10 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Where was that?
> 
> I don't remember much racism, especially overt racism when I was a kid in WA. The ones who came in for stick were the English kids who tried to exert their superiority. Otherwise we just spent time time with peers who suited our happy play time, regardless of how they looked. Childhood racism was like asthma and fat kids back then ... rather rare.



Na 70- early 80s were bad. It was nsw just out of Sydney.
The overt stuff slowed a lot in the late 80s and by early 90s there were only a few pockets and aussie bashing became a thing.
But before that, it amazed me how people acted. 

If you are white its a lot harder to notice. But asian,wog and blackie would have all experienced something different. Asians are still copping it now. I  was in town the other day when a couple of guys were shoving a young asian guy around and throwing racial slurs.


----------



## luutzu (10 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> Where was that?
> 
> I don't remember much racism, especially overt racism when I was a kid in WA. The ones who came in for stick were the English kids who tried to exert their superiority. Otherwise we just spent time time with peers who suited our happy play time, regardless of how they looked. Childhood racism was like asthma and fat kids back then ... rather rare.




Your school was all-White or what?


----------



## basilio (10 October 2017)

*Black Crime Rates: What Happens When Numbers Aren’t Neutral*





By Kim Farbota




DanHenson1 via Getty Images


370
There is a common conservative narrative that indicates the disproportionate incarceration of black people is not the result of systemic racism, but rather of shortcomings within the black community.

It is also common to hear the supposedly neutral statement that “black people commit more crimes than white people.” This “fact” is used to justify a belief that black people have a natural criminal propensity, or that a “culture of violence” is to blame for problems faced by black people in America.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-your-st_b_8078586.html


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 October 2017)

In Australia. Remember that boy Dylan Voller in the holding cell with a spitting on people problem and the spit hood?  He was white and it was not racism. Skin colour has nothing to do with the majority of incarcerations and I say majority because we can't rule out the possibility of bad apples in law enforcement for corruption etc. I assume law enforcement personnel are trained to deal with the person and not their skin colour. If there is a high proportion of black skinned people being incarcerated it has nothing to do with skin colour. Commit the crime and do the time.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 October 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> If there is a high proportion of black skinned people being incarcerated it has nothing to do with skin colour. Commit the crime and do the time.




It's hard to say. Maybe a lot of black kids in Australia are brought up on the "black armband" mentallity of being disposessed by whitey and therefore anything they take back off him is fair game.  There must be a spectrum of responsibility  where some people prefer to blame others and seek revenge and others just get on with life.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's hard to say. Maybe a lot of black kids in Australia are brought up on the "black armband" mentallity of being disposessed by whitey and therefore anything they take back off him is fair game.  There must be a spectrum of responsibility  *where some people prefer to blame others and seek revenge and others just get on with life.*



Yes that is likely reasoning along with unemployment. Shoe on the other foot would reveal perpetuated resentment of white fellas to varying degrees. It is great to see businesses making a concerted effort to open doors. Gotta wanna live in present world though.


----------



## Tisme (10 October 2017)

luutzu said:


> Your school was all-White or what?




Depends what you consider white. It was certainly a mix of first gen kids from/who were e.g. Yugoslavia, Italy,  Dutch, Spain, England, aboriginals, Australian. Asians and negros (sic) were still more or less banned.


----------



## Tisme (10 October 2017)

moXJO said:


> Na 70- early 80s were bad. It was nsw just out of Sydney.
> The overt stuff slowed a lot in the late 80s and by early 90s there were only a few pockets and aussie bashing became a thing.
> But before that, it amazed me how people acted.
> 
> If you are white its a lot harder to notice. But asian,wog and blackie would have all experienced something different. Asians are still copping it now. I  was in town the other day when a couple of guys were shoving a young asian guy around and throwing racial slurs.





I think WA was less inclined because it had high rates of migration in my childhood. It did develop  a gang culture based on suburbs rather than ethnicity.


----------



## crackajack2 (10 October 2017)

who cares rascism died years ago, just some people want to keep stirring the pot. Sad really.


----------



## wayneL (10 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> I think WA was less inclined because it had high rates of migration in my childhood. It did develop  a gang culture based on suburbs rather than ethnicity.



And Rocks and Skegs

The Morley Boys were my lot, mostly whitefella. We had the Embleton Boys next door,  mostly blackfella.

Apart from the odd border skirmish,  we got on pretty well and often drank together.

It was the local skinheads that gave us all grief.... The heathen spawn of £10 Poms.


----------



## IFocus (11 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> And Rocks and Skegs
> 
> The Morley Boys were my lot, mostly whitefella. We had the Embleton Boys next door,  mostly blackfella.
> 
> ...




Morley Boys did my apprenticeship with one


----------



## Tisme (11 October 2017)

wayneL said:


> And Rocks and Skegs
> 
> The Morley Boys were my lot, mostly whitefella. We had the Embleton Boys next door,  mostly blackfella.
> 
> ...





Midland


----------



## basilio (16 January 2018)




----------



## moXJO (16 January 2018)

basilio said:


>




They probably should have done a bit of background checking before putting him to air.


----------



## tech/a (16 January 2018)

What is Racism

Not allowing Aussies to celebrate
Australia Day on 26/1


----------



## luutzu (16 January 2018)

tech/a said:


> What is Racism
> 
> Not allowing Aussies to celebrate
> Australia Day on 26/1




There are more days in a year than 26th Jan. Pick another one. 

For the stuff that's been done carrying out that day's original mission, getting asked to celebrate the national day on any other day that doesn't coincide with that day of liberation... that's getting off quite lightly.


----------



## Tisme (16 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> There are more days in a year than 26th Jan. Pick another one.




They did that already, a 100 years ago,  and it was still inappropriate because it was one of the 365 days in the calendar


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2018)

It shouldn't matter to Aboriginies what days Australia Day is celebrated, as they didn't have a calendar when the Brits landed. As I understand they are objecting to the white "invasion" and any day that celebrates that would be offensive to them. They want A.D. cancelled completely.


----------



## tech/a (17 January 2018)

It’s racist

Aussies arn’t celebrating the day of the first landing
We are celebrating our great country,it’s people and 
Lifestyle. Aboriginals are Australians and more than 
anyone they should celebrate the country and people
In it.

S/R is right it doesn’t matter what day Australia Day is 
Celebrated it will always be offensive to some. 
“ They “ don’t want it celebrated at all.

I’m sick of spineless  whingers who just want to take
And give back nothing to their country. That includes
The Aboriginals who have received an apology,been given
Countless millions,have more concessions and liberties 
Than any of us,have been given millions of Hectares of land
And royalties from that land.Yet they squander,whinge,
Complain and keep lobbying for more and more.

Not celebrating Australia Day is racist and I don’t care
What day it’s celebrated on as long as its in the summer
and we can enjoy the day in the weather we all love.

All aboriginals and all races who love and embrace this
Country and it’s people are more than welcome.


----------



## Tisme (17 January 2018)

tech/a said:


> It’s racist
> 
> Aussies arn’t celebrating the day of the first landing
> We are celebrating our great country,it’s people and
> ...




I never predicted these days would become the racist vehicles under the guise of, e.g. the Greens, they have become; it's obviously in small minded bigots (e.g. Greens) interest to polarise and segment the nation along the lines of ethnicity and  lifestyle choices.

Not that I have anything against people's choices to join e.g. the Greens, afterall our new egalitarian nation should be happy 'tards have a club to join....... probably subsidised by taxpayer money


----------



## basilio (17 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> I never predicted these days would become the racist vehicles under the guise of, e.g. the Greens, they have become; it's obviously in small minded bigots (e.g. Greens) interest to polarise and segment the nation along the lines of ethnicity and  lifestyle choices.
> 
> Not that I have anything against people's choices to join e.g. the Greens, afterall our new egalitarian nation should be happy 'tards have a club to join....... probably subsidised by taxpayer money




Your so, so right as usual Lord Tizzy.  Such an elegant sprinkling of Big Mac Goebells style whoppers,  little snippets of sparkly poison and the tidbits of lovingly wrapped dogs faeces.

On form and on track. I think with a few more exchanges like this we should  achieve the Final Result of a pure ASF forum unsullied by racist, xenophobic , government subsidized , retard Greens  and of couse their fellow travellers.

All we need then is a bunch of Donald Trump/Blair Cottrell clones.  Reckon you could  (dog) whistle up a posse ?


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It shouldn't matter to Aboriginies what days Australia Day is celebrated, as they didn't have a calendar when the Brits landed. As I understand they are objecting to the white "invasion" and any day that celebrates that would be offensive to them. They want A.D. cancelled completely.




A.D is already cancelled. It's now C.E. (Christ Exited). 

Pretty sure the Aborigines have a calendar before the Brits drop by and give it to them  [funny but then not funny]. That's unless a calendar is defined as based on the Sun, divvy up into 12 months with Latin names and a couple of Roman Emperors'.

People who live on the land know the season without needing a calendar.


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2018)

Nice display of racism from Mundine today.


----------



## Tisme (17 January 2018)

basilio said:


> Your so, so right as usual Lord Tizzy.  Such an elegant sprinkling of Big Mac Goebells style whoppers,  little snippets of sparkly poison and the tidbits of lovingly wrapped dogs faeces.
> 
> On form and on track. I think with a few more exchanges like this we should  achieve the Final Result of a pure ASF forum unsullied by racist, xenophobic , government subsidized , retard Greens  and of couse their fellow travellers.
> 
> All we need then is a bunch of Donald Trump/Blair Cottrell clones.  Reckon you could  (dog) whistle up a posse ?




Just stating the facts. You can look it up yourself if you are bothered


----------



## Tisme (17 January 2018)

wayneL said:


> Nice display of racism from Mundine today.




That's not racism ... that is the exclusive enclave of Anglos


----------



## Tisme (17 January 2018)

I think the worst kind of racists are the ones who masquerade as social revolutionaries. In OZ they are invariably offspring of migrants trying to shed the guilt of their struggle to be equal to the people who built this once great nation..... you know burn it down and hope a pluralist phoenix, sans any British ethics and history, will rise from the ashes. 

Can't be done of course, because the British system of rule of law has its roots in inviolable Greco/Roman pedigree.... until of course, that is all revised to suit the neo racists.


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2018)

tech/a said:


> Aussies arn’t celebrating the day of the first landing
> We are celebrating our great country,it’s people and
> Lifestyle.




So in theory it wouldn't matter if the date was changed to May 8.





------------


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So in theory it wouldn't matter if the date was changed to May 8.




As I said, any day that celebrated or even referred to, the arrival of the white man in Australia would be condemned by some. You just can't please some people.


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> As I said, any day that celebrated or even referred to, the arrival of the white man in Australia would be condemned by some. You just can't please some people.




So don't celebrate that, As tech said its about celebrating whats great today and the work put in to get us here, and that can be celebrated on any day.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So don't celebrate that, As tech said its about celebrating whats great today and the work put in to get us here, and that can be celebrated on any day.




Ah yes, but you see it is the whites that did that work and the indigenous would be offended by that.


----------



## sptrawler (17 January 2018)

Racism comes in all colours.

https://thewest.com.au/sport/boxing...-white-boy-says-anthony-mundine-ng-b88716802z


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Ah yes, but you see it is the whites that did that work and the indigenous would be offended by that.




Can we really blame the Aborigines if they're a bit upset at the White people? 

Australian politicians, like most of its TV personalities, are practically all White. Its corporations and executives, again, practically all White. Its landlords, OK, some Chinese and lots of Asians... The national language is proper White English with a hint of convict accent, and for some reason some White folks still think their country and religion is lost and stolen.

Imagine being White and tell the Aborigines you've lost stuff and have thing stolen from you.


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> That's not racism ... that is the exclusive enclave of Anglos




I know Asians. So you White guys aren't that special there either qwailo.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Australian politicians, like most of its TV personalities, are practically all White. Its corporations and executives, again, practically all White. Its landlords, OK, some Chinese and lots of Asians... The national language is proper White English with a hint of convict accent, and for some reason some White folks still think their country and religion is lost and stolen.




That's what you get when certain people give it a go and don't sit around waiting for things to happen.  

There are things in our history that we should not have done, as there are in everyone's history, but it wasn't done by the people of today.

Should we blame today's Japanese for the Kokoda trail or the bombing of Darwin ?


----------



## tech/a (17 January 2018)

Currently it’s 26/1
When it’s changed as long as it’s in summer so we can do beach Barbies pools and party 
Celebrate then
But it still won’t be good enough
We will be celebrating!!


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That's what you get when certain people give it a go and don't sit around waiting for things to happen.
> 
> There are things in our history that we should not have done, as there are in everyone's history, but it wasn't done by the people of today.
> 
> Should we blame today's Japanese for the Kokoda trail or the bombing of Darwin ?




I'm not up to date with our gov'ts Aborigines Affairs, but I'm willing to bet that it's not all give and more give and give and sorry and give. 

Not saying nothing has been done. There are programs that I'm aware of somewhat. But judge these by its results. 

I mean, if White Australians in the bush are still getting jack, imagine the darker Australians who's "known" to be lazy and drunk and this and that. 

BUt I guess that's their problem for "deciding" to live in the bush instead of having a million bucks for a house in the outer rim.


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Ah yes, but you see it is the whites that did that work and the indigenous would be offended by that.



??? Are you sure whites are the only workers, I am pretty sure this country has be built by a people from all races and cultures.

And as you can see in that video, they are fine with Australia Day, they just want he date changed.


----------



## Tisme (17 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> I know Asians. So you White guys aren't that special there either qwailo.



Dammit


----------



## Tisme (17 January 2018)

tech/a said:


> Currently it’s 26/1
> When it’s changed as long as it’s in summer so we can do beach Barbies pools and party
> Celebrate then
> But it still won’t be good enough
> We will be celebrating!!





If they change it, the 26th will always be the elephant in the room ..... I think we should delete 26th of Jan and substitute it with 32nd in between the 25th and the 27th? Everyone would be happy then


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That's what you get when certain people give it a go and don't sit around waiting for things to happen.
> 
> There are things in our history that we should not have done, as there are in everyone's history, but it wasn't done by the people of today.
> 
> Should we blame today's Japanese for the Kokoda trail or the bombing of Darwin ?




btw, heard on radio ABC that there's plans for today's Japanese defence force to train in Darwin with the Yanks. A politician or two says... hmmm... ahhh... I don't know about that. 

If people blame the current, later, generations for their forefathers' deeds... then tell them to go somewhere and do their things. 

I have a feeling that most don't directly point the fingers to today's generation though. Just maybe ask they don't celebrate it or act as though it didn't happen.


----------



## sptrawler (17 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> I'm not up to date with our gov'ts Aborigines Affairs, but I'm willing to bet that it's not all give and more give and give and sorry and give.
> 
> Not saying nothing has been done. There are programs that I'm aware of somewhat. But judge these by its results.
> 
> ...




You're probably right, we are to blame for all of the Aboriginal outcomes, they're responsible for none of the outcomes.
We can give them more affirmative action, it hasn't worked in the past.
We can give them more welfare, that hasn't worked in the past.
We can take them away from abusive domestic situations, that hasn't worked in the past.
We can pay them to go to school, that hasn't worked in the past.
We can set up Aboriginal industries i.e Wiluna orange plantation and the emu farm, that hasn't worked.
http://www.riverblueholdings.com.au/gallery15.html

Maybe we should just give them all a house? I've seen what they do to them, but I guess we just don't fix them up enough times.

Maybe you could give a few suggestions, that haven't been tried and failed?


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2018)

sptrawler said:


> You're probably right, we are to blame for all of the Aboriginal outcomes, they're responsible for none of the outcomes.
> We can give them more affirmative action, it hasn't worked in the past.
> We can give them more welfare, that hasn't worked in the past.
> We can take them away from abusive domestic situations, that hasn't worked in the past.
> ...




You and I are not to blame. Gov't policies are.

How do we know our honest pollies aren't telling lies about "doing everything we can" to help the Aborigines. Just they don't help themselves at all."?

How do we know them saying that is not at all the same as them saying "the poor (White, brown, yellow) people are poor and need help" because they're lazy, do drugs and want to live off of handouts". 

But yea, sure, let's give more taxcuts to the rich and corporations so that they can make us all rich by giving us work to do.


----------



## sptrawler (17 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> You and I are not to blame. Gov't policies are.
> 
> How do we know our honest pollies aren't telling lies about "doing everything we can" to help the Aborigines. Just they don't help themselves at all."?
> 
> ...




I grew up in country W.A and have known and still do know a lot of Aboriginals, those that choose to work are given work willingly.
Most people know that if they are employed, they become constructive members of society, if they aren't working and just hanging around trouble follows. 
It really isn't any different whether they are black, white or any other colour, unemployed people have a lot of time to fill in.
As for pollies telling lies, I don't think so, I know first hand the Wiluna projects failed from lack of workers.
You can't make people work, that is called slavery, you can offer them work, but if they refuse it what can you do?
I know everyone thinks it is lack of opportunity, but from my experience, it is a lack of work ethic.
Just my opinion


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2018)

sptrawler said:


> I grew up in country W.A and have known and still do know a lot of Aboriginals, those that choose to work are given work willingly.
> Most people know that if they are employed, they become constructive members of society, if they aren't working and just hanging around trouble follows.
> It really isn't any different whether they are black, white or any other colour, unemployed people have a lot of time to fill in.
> As for pollies telling lies, I don't think so, I know first hand the Wiluna projects failed from lack of workers.
> ...


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2018)




----------



## luutzu (17 January 2018)




----------



## sptrawler (17 January 2018)

And is any of the presentations, saying not enough is being spent?

Like I said a couple of posts back, give suggestions on how to fix the issue, if you think there is an answer.

I'm sure you will find they have been tried, it isn't as though people like the situation.
But it is difficult to reverse a persons situation, if they aren't interested in participating.
You can put in place plans, ideas, reward systems, if the participant isn't interested, it won't work.


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2018)

sptrawler said:


> And is any of the presentations, saying not enough is being spent?




The interview with Warren Snowdon there says a bit about it.
Life expectancy averaging 47 years; suffering from diseases the Third World even managed to got rid of etc. etc.

Capitalism have a big middle man. Budget $1 to the end users and they'd be lucky to get 10 cents on it.

Believe the media and politicians about other groups being helped but their hate and gene refuses to be thankful or help themselves and soon enough we find ourselves being targets.

Just ask the working poor, disabled and White Trump voters.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Life expectancy averaging 47 years; suffering from diseases the Third World even managed to got rid of etc. etc.




Some Aborigines don't want to take white man's medicines because that would be an admission of weakness on their part, and because they are afraid of saying "thank you" to the whiteys for making them better.

It's about culturalism, the idea that one's own culture is superior to others. If they don't take the medicines, they have no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## sptrawler (17 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> The interview with Warren Snowdon there says a bit about it.
> Life expectancy averaging 47 years; suffering from diseases the Third World even managed to got rid of etc. etc.




Yes they do have a low life expectancy, they do have a lot on dialysis, most have type two diabetes, they do spend most of their money on alcohol.

How do you stop them from spending their money, on what they want to?
Do you make it so they can't buy alcohol?
Do you limit, what they can spend their welfare money on?
Do you make them go to work?

Everyone knows the problem, and Warren Snowdon can make money telling everyone there is a problem, nobody seems to give an answer.

Of course there's a problem, give a few answers to the problem, that haven't been tried.


----------



## sptrawler (17 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Capitalism have a big middle man. Budget $1 to the end users and they'd be lucky to get 10 cents on it.
> .




That isn't exactly true, the middle man doesn't get their welfare payment, that is why they are trying to introduce the welfare card.
To ensure that they spend the majority of their welfare on food, not alcohol.

I think you really need to load up the car, and go for a holiday to the outback. 
Places like Docker River, where the only reason they exist is because the Aborigines want them, therefore they are the custodians of the Town.
They get housing provided, really expensive electricity provided and services provided.
You would think, they would be little islands of Aboriginal culture.


----------



## sptrawler (17 January 2018)

These kids should be at home, not in the City at night, doing staged hitting practice. Can't wait to see how they perform, when they have extra height and weight.

https://thewest.com.au/news/crime/teen-gang-well-known-to-city-business-owner-ng-b88717691z


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Some Aborigines don't want to take white man's medicines because that would be an admission of weakness on their part, and because they are afraid of saying "thank you" to the whiteys for making them better.
> 
> It's about culturalism, the idea that one's own culture is superior to others. If they don't take the medicines, they have no one to blame but themselves.




Maybe watch that John Pilger doco.

But yes, it's completely their faults. Kinda like it's poor people's fault for being poor. 

Not sure why poor struggling families are always struggling. I mean, the government always said that tax cuts and corporate welfare handed to other people are supposed to make poor people rich, but because of their laziness, the sick and the poor always remain poor.

In Australia, corporate tax cuts has been reduced. yet, the average aussie still haven't gotten a proper raise. Lazy bums. 

Likewise, the Aborigines have everything given to them but they spend it on booze, petrol sniffing, getting in the way of police batons and punching fists; choosing to stay on reservations.

Anyway.


----------



## sptrawler (17 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Maybe watch that John Pilger doco.
> 
> But yes, it's completely their faults. Kinda like it's poor people's fault for being poor.
> 
> ...



Lots of people of all colours and races, grow up in poverty, not all of them choose to stay that way.
Likewise, lots of people grow up in wealthy families, yet choose the path of drugs, alcohol and poverty.
Life is about choices.
I know a person, he was a workmate, who grew up in probably the lowest socio economic area of Perth, did an apprenticeship and is now a CEO  of a top 200 company.
I know an Aboriginal, that I did my apprenticeship with, who is now known as a legend, in the Town he lives in.
I didn't know that until last weekend when, I bumped into someone who came from the same Town, we were trying to find common aquaintances to talk about.

The real issue is, it is harder to get on the treadmill of life, than to just sit on the poverty of welfare.

Like it or not, Australia offers both options, most Countries don't.


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Lots of people of all colours and races, grow up in poverty, not all of them choose to stay that way.
> Likewise, lots of people grow up in wealthy families, yet choose the path of drugs, alcohol and poverty.
> Life is about choices.
> I know a person, he was a workmate, who grew up in probably the lowest socio economic area of Perth, did an apprenticeship and is now a CEO  of a top 200 company.
> ...




Yes. THere are those who was born poor, work hard and make it to the top. And vice versa.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't take some responsibility for their fate. 

Just that there is a balance. 

We can't blame the poor for being so because they refuse to work hard. Can't praise the rich for being so because they work a lot harder, or smarter. 

I know plenty of smart but poor and struggling people. Same as plenty of rich idiots who just can't be poor no matter how hard they try. 

If an Aborigine kid is born into poverty in the middle of Uluru, or Perth, it's going to take a miracle for that kid to find the resources or even the inspiration to achieve [name your definition of great success]. 

We're all born equal. But research have found that after about grade 3, live diverges for kids based on their parents income and social environment. 

That doesn't mean all kids from poor families won't make it to the top Fortunes/BRW Rich List or whatever. Just it's going to be a lot tougher. 

There's even a book on this. Can't remember the title now. 
Two guys having the same IQ. One from a trailer park the other from a family of lawyers and bankers [or something like that].

Guess which one ended up heading Project Manhattan and which one live in a trailer park because his single mum was so poor he can't afford to pay a low uni fee after he was awarded a scholarship.


----------



## sptrawler (18 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Yes. THere are those who was born poor, work hard and make it to the top. And vice versa.
> 
> I'm not saying that people shouldn't take some responsibility for their fate.
> 
> ...




At least in Australia there is a welfare system, that saves those who can't make it, most Countries don't have that.
The problem we have is, a lot of people don't realise it is a safety net, it isn't supposed to be a lifestyle choice for those who don't want to work.
It has to be paid for by those who pay taxes, it isn't money made from magic.


----------



## sptrawler (18 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> If an Aborigine kid is born into poverty in the middle of Uluru, or Perth, it's going to take a miracle for that kid to find the resources or even the inspiration to achieve [name your definition of great success].




It isn't going to take a miracle, if an Aborigine kid born in Uluru or Perth shows some determination to learn, they will be given more assistance than anyone, to break the cycle of dependence is paramount.
The problem is the peer pressure, to follow the well trodden path.


----------



## sptrawler (18 January 2018)

Iuutzu, maybe you should go to a suburb near where you live, and do a bit of social work.
Then give some feedback.


----------



## Kerway (18 January 2018)

In my experience, culture is the main factor as to why one nation has a successful economy and others are less successful. The economic success of Germany and Japan are good examples of successful nations because their people possess a strong work ethic and honesty in their dealings with others.

On a micro level, I believe ones "upbringing" equates to culture on a macro level. Thus the upbringing of Aboriginal people tends to prevent them succeeding economically rather than them being lazy or work shy.

I am not sure how this conflict of cultures can be resolved. We cannot force people to integrate so that we all eventually behave the same way.

Perhaps "supporting" the Aboriginal population until such time that it integrates with the rest of Australia is the "price the rest of us have to pay" for making our culture the "required" norm here.


----------



## sptrawler (18 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Guess which one ended up heading Project Manhattan and which one live in a trailer park because his single mum was so poor he can't afford to pay a low uni fee after he was awarded a scholarship.




It has only become a recent phenomena, where uni students didn't expect to have to work their way through Uni.
Most Uni students in the 1970's 80's and 90's had to have jobs to pay their way through.
Actually single mums pensions only came about in the 1970's, before that single mum's, just had to suck it up.
This is the problem with a welfare state, all of a sudden everyone wants a piece of it, and want to abuse those who have to pay for it.


----------



## sptrawler (18 January 2018)

Kerway said:


> In my experience, culture is the main factor as to why one nation has a successful economy and others are less successful. The economic success of Germany and Japan are good examples of successful nations because their people possess a strong work ethic and honesty in their dealings with others.
> 
> On a micro level, I believe ones "upbringing" equates to culture on a macro level. Thus the upbringing of Aboriginal people tends to prevent them succeeding economically rather than them being lazy or work shy.
> 
> ...




Could you give a time line, that would be acceptable to the Aboriginal population?

By the way Kerway, nice to see you posting , look forward to your input.
Have you been in Australia long?


----------



## luutzu (18 January 2018)

sptrawler said:


> It has only become a recent phenomena, where uni students didn't expect to have to work their way through Uni.
> Most Uni students in the 1970's 80's and 90's had to have jobs to pay their way through.
> Actually single mums pensions only came about in the 1970's, before that single mum's, just had to suck it up.
> This is the problem with a welfare state, all of a sudden everyone wants a piece of it, and want to abuse those who have to pay for it.




When the White Australia policy was in place, did it include White Aussies plus Aborigines but not other races?

There are laws and regulations to prevent abuse of welfare. So if a person lie or cheat, then sure, fine them or whatever.

But to say that welfare is bad because people want it. Why wouldn't people want it if they need it? Heck, we gave money away to plenty of those who don't need it and splurging it on financial speculations, high end luxury goods and tax avoidance experts. 

There are many ways people can contribute to society other than working at any job. 

It might serve a society better if the young and the elderly don't have to be out there "working" and getting exploited. If they want to work, sure... but this thing about working is marvellous when it pays crap and could change lives for the worst.

Maybe kids should just sit around, think and read and wonder what they want to do with their lives. That would better serve the community than getting a job at Maccas for a few bucks, send profits to shareholders. 

Or maybe a senior person don't have to work. Spend time with the grandkids or just enjoying life a bit after all the years of work. 

We all pay our same share of tax either way. It always go to those with cash and good connections anyway.


----------



## luutzu (18 January 2018)

Kerway said:


> In my experience, culture is the main factor as to why one nation has a successful economy and others are less successful. The economic success of Germany and Japan are good examples of successful nations because their people possess a strong work ethic and honesty in their dealings with others.
> 
> On a micro level, I believe ones "upbringing" equates to culture on a macro level. Thus the upbringing of Aboriginal people tends to prevent them succeeding economically rather than them being lazy or work shy.
> 
> ...




What? 

You know your history from your fantasies or what?

So all Germans and Japanese, or most of them, are hardworking and deal honestly with people. that's the secret to their success? 

I guess that must have skipped the WW2 generation in those countries then?

Maybe do a race swap like they swap wives on TV. Oh wait, we have examples of good/bad, lazy/hardwork etc. etc. among all the races.


----------



## luutzu (18 January 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Iuutzu, maybe you should go to a suburb near where you live, and do a bit of social work.
> Then give some feedback.




I have worked with Social Workers. 

They're always hard at work asking the gov't for a bit more grant so they can help a few more kids. 

The cash that's given to help the disadvantage is so small they're not even crumbs.


----------



## sptrawler (18 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> When the White Australia policy was in place, did it include White Aussies plus Aborigines but not other races?
> 
> There are laws and regulations to prevent abuse of welfare. So if a person lie or cheat, then sure, fine them or whatever.
> 
> ...




Sorry obviously, my opinion that welfare should be for those who are trying, and not for those who aren't.
Doesn't fit in, with your welfare because everyone deserves it ideology, I'll tap out.
Obviously you have more skin in the game, than me.


----------



## luutzu (18 January 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Sorry obviously, my opinion that welfare should be for those who are trying, and not for those who aren't.
> Doesn't fit in, with your welfare because everyone deserves it ideology, I'll tap out.




No one wants to be on welfare. 

To get people off of it, create jobs and opportunities for them. They'll then get off of it themselves without being asked or given dirty looks.

Guess who else is getting welfare but don't believe they do. Any property investor. Every investor come to think of it.

What is negative gearing but a closeted form of welfare payment? And is it good or bad for society?

Oh ey, you got money for more than one house to live in. Poor you. Here's your tax back because you've made losses on your property investments. Take it bro, it's on the house. 

And oh, when you finally make money on the property, we'll only consider half of it a profit. And btw, you can further claim against those profits by buying more bad investment to negate it. 

But sure, it's the kids and the grannies that's abusing the system and getting welfare.


----------



## Tisme (18 January 2018)

sptrawler said:


> You're probably right, we are to blame for all of the Aboriginal outcomes, they're responsible for none of the outcomes.
> We can give them more affirmative action, it hasn't worked in the past.
> We can give them more welfare, that hasn't worked in the past.
> We can take them away from abusive domestic situations, that hasn't worked in the past.
> ...




I think we can find ourselves guilty of lumping all part aboriginals into the one basket. Sure there are plenty of them who seize on the mischievous opportunity to blame the white side of their gene pool for their lack of success, but there are plenty of others and full bloods who actually participate well in the workplace and community.

We could just as well find any skin tone examples of indolence, welfare sponging, dispossession, mental health, drug & alcohol abuse, child abuse etc. Putting the spotlight on aboriginals may reveal a truth, but if we did the same to other ethnics in the country how different would it be and what measure do we apply to each.

WE can't underestimate the human disease and whether we like it or not, there are many people out there who gravitate to drama, to poverty, to victim status, to crime, etc where they find a certain stability of continuity and surety.


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2018)

Kerway said:


> In my experience, culture is the main factor as to why one nation has a successful economy and others are less successful. The economic success of Germany and Japan are good examples of successful nations because their people possess a strong work ethic and honesty in their dealings with others.
> 
> .



Geography has a lot to do with it.


----------



## tech/a (18 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> No one wants to be on welfare.




Really!!!!!!!!!!!

Work ------or Govt Handouts.

1000s take Govt Hand outs.
Many more 1000s Rort the Social welfare system

Claiming Stress/any number of injuries. Not to mention Work Cover.
I had one Caucasian guy work 1 day--strain his back he is on the Dole 3 yrs later and his work cover claimed expenses are $87,000. I've seen him surfing
running around on the beach with mates/lifting a canoe onto his roof racks by himself---cruisey life! I Know of at least 5 cases. Just settled a stress claim for $30,000.

Single parent when both live together.(I know of 4 couples myself)

Working and still getting the dole.(Cash) Know of the above 4 doing this also.


Wow !! Luutzu---come out from under your Green Rock and have a look.


----------



## wayneL (18 January 2018)

tech/a said:


> Really!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Work ------or Govt Handouts.
> 
> ...



Exactly, 

I gross about 5 1/2k a week as a farrier. But I get screwed by taxes and having to swim in deep fiscal waters. I know families where nobody works that have a better lifestyle than me. Nice house,  new Kluger every three years etc.


----------



## Kerway (18 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> So all Germans and Japanese, or most of them, are hardworking and deal honestly with people. that's the secret to their success?




I did start my post with "in my experience". I have dealt with citizens of both countries in a business context and found this to be the case. I firmly believe that their work ethic, loyalty to their employer and willingness to work together are a significant contributor to their economic success.

Germany has stood out in Europe and Japan in East Asia in relation to their success in business.


----------



## sptrawler (18 January 2018)

tech/a said:


> Really!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Work ------or Govt Handouts.
> 
> ...




The pendulum is swinging away from welfare bludgers, I do know some pretty well, they live five to a house but "my Gov" is giving them a lot of grief.LOL


----------



## tech/a (18 January 2018)

We must be in different countries because the Govt I know 
Do absolutely zilch


----------



## sptrawler (18 January 2018)

No, trust me, the screws are being applied, mostly due to data matching.


----------



## moXJO (18 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> No one wants to be on welfare.



Yeah they do. I know people who have been on the dole all their life. Some have cash in hand jobs, most think it's their right.
I also knew plenty on workers comp back in the 90s. They actually sent the scheme broke and it had to change in 2000. You could rort it for big money.
In one family 6 people were on it.

People like to rort money from the government. And there are plenty of lazy bastards.


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2018)

Kerway said:


> I did start my post with "in my experience". I have dealt with citizens of both countries in a business context and found this to be the case. I firmly believe that their work ethic, loyalty to their employer and willingness to work together are a significant contributor to their economic success.
> 
> Germany has stood out in Europe and Japan in East Asia in relation to their success in business.




Maybe they work with military precision, shall we say. 

Can't generalise from the few people you work with to an entire race. 

On an individual level, sure, hard honest work, in a team, don't know about loyalty to employers as that depends on the kind of employer they have... but on an individual level, all those would play a big part in a person's economic success. 

On a national level, you're talking a whole lot more than sweat, tears, toil and team work mate. 

For one, you'd need a well funded, easy/cheap access to quality education. You'd need proper infrastructure like roads, bridges, the internet, power supply.

Then you'd need a well armed military to secure and source your own natural resources; or can liberate it from elsewhere. 

Then you'd need them to be strong enough that no other power comes in to try and free your people.

But sure, it's hard work as a team that does it.


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2018)

moXJO said:


> Yeah they do. I know people who have been on the dole all their life. Some have cash in hand jobs, most think it's their right.
> I also knew plenty on workers comp back in the 90s. They actually sent the scheme broke and it had to change in 2000. You could rort it for big money.
> In one family 6 people were on it.
> 
> People like to rort money from the government. And there are plenty of lazy bastards.




There are rorters and freeloaders out there, and they ain't all welfare/CentreLink cheats or fake sickies. 

If the gov't don't want people to cheat them, give them opportunities for work where they could feed their family without needing to cheat. 

That and design the system where those who don't need to, but still does, cheat... catch them.

I don't have that much love for insurers to be honest. They never cover anything where they'd have to pay any significant amount anyway. So when they get "rorted", suck it up.


----------



## Macquack (19 January 2018)

wayneL said:


> I gross about 5 1/2k a week as a farrier.



Geez, at that rate, looks like the next set of slippers for my mustang will be retreads.


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2018)

tech/a said:


> Really!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Work ------or Govt Handouts.
> 
> ...




Then catch them. Fine them etc.

There are tax cheats, should we not have tax because there are some people cheating it?

There are corrupt and fradulent CEOs and businesses. Should we ban all businesses and private enterprise?

This is how propaganda work. Got to be careful what we're being led into.

They tell you about true cases of cheats and undeserving welfare recipients. Show examples of how hardworking, honest decent people are being played for suckers by these cheats. 

What is the solution they're proposing? 

Let's cut it. No, not cut it to those who rort the system; cut it for everyone.


----------



## tech/a (19 January 2018)

So you retract your comment 
“ No one wants to be on welfare” ?


----------



## wayneL (19 January 2018)

Macquack said:


> Geez, at that rate, looks like the next set of slippers for my mustang will be retreads.



Retreads are the same price, unless it's a therapeutic job.


----------



## Tisme (31 January 2018)




----------



## Tisme (2 February 2018)

It's OK ...she's not white skinned nor anglo = double OK


----------



## wayneL (2 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> View attachment 86114
> 
> 
> It's OK ...she's not white skinned nor anglo = double OK



Those whitefella bastids,  absolutely racist for making her feel uncomfortable for being there.


----------



## sptrawler (5 February 2018)

Kalgoorlie race problems seem to be worsening.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-...s-pelted-with-bricks-and-rocks-on-job/9356698

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...lia-day-a-symptom-of-a-deeper-problem/9391298

When the penal system, isn't seen as a punishment, you really do have problems.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 February 2018)

sptrawler said:


> When the penal system, isn't seen as a punishment, you really do have problems.




When people don't have basic decency , then you have a problem.


----------



## luutzu (5 February 2018)

What's black and doesn't work?



Decaf, you racist. 


- from me bro.


----------



## Tisme (18 March 2018)

For too long white people have had it their own way, science has suffered:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11422-017-9854-9



> The hope for multicultural, culturally competent, and diverse perspectives in science education falls short if theoretical considerations of whiteness are not entertained. Since whiteness is characterized as a hegemonic racial dominance that has become so natural it is almost invisible, this paper identifies how whiteness operates in science education such that it falls short of its goal for cultural diversity. Because literature in science education has yet to fully entertain whiteness ideology, this paper offers one of the first theoretical postulations. Drawing from the fields of education, legal studies, and sociology, this paper employs critical whiteness studies as both a theoretical lens and an analytic tool to re-interpret how whiteness might impact science education. Doing so allows the field to reconsider benign, routine, or normative practices and protocol that may influence how future scientists of Color experience the field. In sum, we seek to have the field consider the theoretical frames of whiteness and how it might influence how we engage in science education such that our hope for diversity never fully materializes.


----------



## Tisme (25 March 2018)




----------



## noirua (15 April 2018)

Posted for historical reasons only
----

Enoch Powell's @rivers of Blood' speech in 1970:


*Rivers of Blood - (Enoch Powell, Birmingham April 20 1968)*


*Fifty years on, what is the legacy of Enoch Powell’s ‘rivers of blood’ speech?*
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/14/enoch-powell-rivers-blood-legacy-wolverhampton









Enoch Powell
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/8616174/enoch-powell

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell

Pamela Powell: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-support-sustained-enoch-powell-a8058331.html


----------



## Tisme (16 April 2018)

Dammed bots!



> *NOW ROBOTS ARE ‘RACIST’ MOAN SJWS*
> 
> 
> October 14 2017
> ...


----------



## Tisme (9 July 2018)




----------



## Tisme (9 August 2018)

Geting ready for his Whitlam Inst speech, Sothphommasane has a sook,


https://theconversation.com/soutpho...-of-media-exploit-racism-to-make-money-101090


----------



## basilio (11 January 2019)

*Just to let everyone know he isn't a racist.*

 
* Trump ally Steve King: I don't know how 'white supremacist' became offensive term *

The Republican congressman says the diverse Democratic party appears to be ‘no country for white men’

Tom McCarthy

 @TeeMcSee 
 
 Email 
Fri 11 Jan 2019 06.19 AEDT   Last modified on Fri 11 Jan 2019 06.50 AEDT





Steve King attends a rally to highlight crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, in September. Photograph: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call,Inc.
A nine-term Republican congressman and close ally of Donald Trump known for making racially provocative statements said in an interview published Thursday that he did not understand why the phrases “white nationalist” and “white supremacist” had “become offensive”.

Congressman Steve King, who has represented his rural Iowa district in Washington since 2003, made the remarks in an interview with the New York Times.

“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” King said. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”

In the same interview, King expressed a sense of racial alienation at the swearing-in of the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, which includes a record number of women and people of color, as well as the first Muslim American and Native American women elected to Congress.






“You could look over there and think the Democratic party is no country for white men,” King said.

King, who has forged personal alliances with far-right, anti-immigration groups across Europe, has a long track record of making statements widely perceived as racist, although he denies the charge.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/10/steve-king-race-language-white-supremacist-offensive


----------



## wayneL (11 January 2019)

The Guardian is racist, not qualified to comment.


----------



## basilio (11 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> The Guardian is racist, not qualified to comment.



Really Wayne ?

The fact that you are clearly incapable of recognising when a news source reports* exactly *what a person said and somehow say the news source is racist beggars belief.

Nah Not really.. You'll follow Trump to the ends of the earth, over the cliff and into his top bunk.
Your convinced he is *The Great White Hope of Western Civilization. *
Touching really. Such devotion..

*Republicans slam Rep. King for what they call racist remarks*
WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday criticized a fellow GOP lawmaker for making what they said were “racist” comments.
 Rep. Steve King of Iowa was quoted in The New York Times saying,* “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”*
 The comment drew a denunciation from members of House Republican leadership.
 Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, the No. 3 Republican, said King’s remarks were “abhorrent and racist and should have no place in our national discourse.”
 Another Republican, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, tweeted, “This is an embrace of racism, and it has no place in Congress or anywhere.”
 King later issued a statement saying he is neither a white nationalist nor a white supremacist.
 “I reject those labels and the evil ideology that they define. Further, I condemn anyone that supports this evil and bigoted ideology which saw in its ultimate expression the systematic murder of 6 million innocent Jewish lives,” he said. “Under any fair political definition, I am simply a Nationalist.”
 Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 House Republican, also weighed in.

 “It’s offensive to try to legitimize those terms. I think it’s important that he rejected that kind of evil, because that’s what it is, it’s evil ideology,” he said.

 In 2014, Scalise apologized after he was found to have addressed a white supremacist group in 2002 founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Scalise said he didn’t know of the group’s racial views.
 It’s not the first time some Republicans have denounced King, nor the first time King has said his intent is to defend “Western civilization.”

 “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies,” he tweeted in 2017. Then he doubled down on CNN, telling the network, “I’d like to see an America that’s just so homogeneous that we look a lot the same.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0cd4f7926f2_story.html?utm_term=.cdfe26c68d0b


----------



## wayneL (12 January 2019)

Just follow the antiwhite racism on Twitter mate. It is overt, frequent and allowed.

It is unreasonable, unintelligent and monumentally hypocritical.

You clowns are actually creating racism


----------



## rederob (13 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> You clowns are actually creating racism



I never knew one could be simultaneously coulrophobic and racist.
Good to know .


----------



## wayneL (14 January 2019)

rederob said:


> I never knew one could be simultaneously coulrophobic and racist.
> Good to know .



That might have been clever if it wasn't a non sequitur and a non argument.


----------



## rederob (14 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> That might have been clever if it wasn't a non sequitur and a non argument.



It was pointed squarely at you, seeing you appear to be frightened of clowns.


----------



## wayneL (14 January 2019)

rederob said:


> It was pointed squarely at you, seeing you appear to be frightened of clowns.



I love real clowns.

However, you seem to be having trouble with colloquial English idiom (potential tautology notwithstanding ), highlighting the non sequitur.


----------



## rederob (14 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> I love real clowns.
> 
> However, you seem to be having trouble with colloquial English idiom (potential tautology notwithstanding ), highlighting the non sequitur.



I made a deliberately pointed comment.  Your ego will deal with it accordingly.


----------



## rederob (14 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> I love real clowns.
> 
> However, you seem to be having trouble with colloquial English idiom (potential tautology notwithstanding ), highlighting the non sequitur.



Inference: "*clowns are actually creating racism*". 
Idiomatic translation: it is the stupid people who instigate racism.
In your statement, you have set yourself apart from these "clowns".
Your inference was not in relation to circus clowns, unless you want to logically shoot yourself in the foot.
It does not seem unreasonable to infer that you do not like stupid people because they instigate racism.
Using idiom, that can translate to "I fear stupid people as they create racism."


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2019)

Science vs political correctness ?

Racism vs science ?

Prof Watson doesn't appear stupid to me.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01...-watson-stripped-title-race-comments/10712588


----------



## noirua (14 January 2019)

Is racism only such if it is against persons who are in your country? If they are elsewhere with none in your country is it OK to discuss them in a racist manner? Problem coming from all this appears when they do arrive and carrying on as before.

I met a comedian who travelled over from Ireland and went to Scotland, England, USA, Australia and NZ. He said he had to alter his jokes depending on where he was. Even his party songs. He'd be lynched otherwise. From this does it mean a person needs to become a good actor and just pretend? He got used to telling jokes about the Irish. Especially the true one when they built an overflow pipe to a lake that came out about 5 metres above the highest point it ever reached. Never mentioned in England that all the calculations were done by an Englishman.

So many people act or pretend they are not racist. Maybe as a Judge did say, "You don't have to like a person". If a person lives in a town where all are Aussies going way back it is easy to say, I'm not racist. If you live in an area where people in large numbers from other countries arrive speaking mainly there own first language and living quite differently to Aussies it becomes more of a test. Especially for elderly people who find it more difficult to adapt.

I've lived in several countries and of course the favourite for an American is to pretend they don't no where Australia is. Maybe a town in Alaska. Or in Canada smiling when an Englishman says I come from London, England.  Or in London pretending to an Aussie they didn't know they don't drink certain lagers exported there from Australia.  It's natural for a country to prefer bad news from abroad that makes them seem better and look down on them a bit. The UK likes Aussie fires that seem to cover most of Australia and storms that reek havoc. High temperatures and droughts so bad that all animals are dying.

Gone slightly off subject there, but there you goes.


----------



## rederob (14 January 2019)

noirua said:


> Is racism only such if it is against persons who are in your country? .



That is so racist .
 Seriously, I don't know how people want to define it.  But if you knew an American had professed his hate for "x" and had an arsenal to solve the problem, I cannot see national borders preventing anyone calling him/her/other "racist".
My personal view is that if one regards people of another race as "inferior" and makes comments to that effect which could not be reasonably sustained, then they are likely to have racist tendencies.
I am sure everyone has their own yardstick for *assessing *the reach of racism.


----------



## wayneL (14 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Inference: "*clowns are actually creating racism*".
> Idiomatic translation: it is the stupid people who instigate racism.
> In your statement, you have set yourself apart from these "clowns".
> Your inference was not in relation to circus clowns, unless you want to logically shoot yourself in the foot.
> ...



Misrepresentative sophistry is not an argument rederob, especially if you have to bludgeon language into submission with a cricket bat.

I stand firmly behind my comment.


----------



## rederob (14 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> Misrepresentative sophistry is not an argument rederob, especially if you have to bludgeon language into submission with a cricket bat.
> 
> I stand firmly behind my comment.



I deal with logic in an argument and have no care for your opinions.


----------



## wayneL (15 January 2019)

rederob said:


> I deal with logic in an argument and have no care for your opinions.



That is objectively false. 

A/ you keep stalking my posts

B/ you use specious argument


----------



## rederob (15 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> That is objectively false.
> 
> A/ you keep stalking my posts
> 
> B/ you use specious argument



Get over yourself.
Your posts are illogical and filled with word salad.
You seems clueless here.


----------



## IFocus (15 January 2019)

Wayne......you are in a hole.....stop digging


----------



## wayneL (15 January 2019)

I will be proven on the right sideof history. 

No holes to be seen mt Marxist friends


----------



## Darc Knight (15 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> I will be proven on the right sideof history.
> 
> No holes to be seen mt Marxist friends




You are the only thing standing between us and total anarchy. We salute you Wayne!


----------



## sptrawler (15 January 2019)

I certainly hope, this isn't just going to become another Trump thread.


----------



## sptrawler (15 January 2019)

On the subject, can racism, be against whites? 
If it is, can it be reported?


----------



## SirRumpole (15 January 2019)

sptrawler said:


> On the subject, can racism, be against whites?
> If it is, can it be reported?




Racism against whites is simply minorities getting their own back for perceived misdeeds, just as radical feminism is simply a revenge game against males as is the LGB's cries of "homophobia" against anyone who dares to criticise them.


----------



## sptrawler (15 January 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Racism against whites is simply minorities getting their own back for perceived misdeeds, just as radical feminism is simply a revenge game against males as is the LGB's cries of "homophobia" against anyone who dares to criticise them.



Oh that's good good, next time I'm given a serve, I will tell them that.

My wife availed herself of a wash room, on the Perth rail line, an aboriginal girl about 10 years old, asked my wife what she was doing in her Country.
It is obviously getting weird.


----------



## PZ99 (16 January 2019)

wayneL said:


> I will be proven on the right sideof history.
> 
> No holes to be seen mt Marxist friends




Mt Marxist... that's the name of the wall right?


----------



## Bill M (16 January 2019)

Racism can be from any one group of people to another although racism against whites doesn't occur much here in Australia. Put it this way, as an older Australian I have never been able to not enter or do something due to what and who I am, a white Caucasian. On the other hand I have lived overseas for long periods of time and I have felt the evil presence of racism over there.

*Racism is so wrong on every level.* One group of people thinking they are more human than the other group. Thinking they are more entitled, or should have a better job, or should be in charge, or should get more and are willing to commit crimes against the minority group to achieve this purpose.  Some people in power  (like police) would even do corrupt acts just so the locals look up to them more. I'm mostly talking about developing countries where it is the norm for government officials to be corrupt.

We here in Australia are supposedly first world country, with laws that apply to each person equally. A corrupt Police Officer would lose their job should they cross the line. Yet with all the protections all people have there are some old fashioned closet racists around the would like to ignore history and turn back the hands of time. It wasn't uncommon back in the 70's when a higher position job would come up where perhaps a Indian person was going to apply for it and in the locker room some of boys would say to the one of the interview panel guys, "I hope that little black c**t doesn't get that job". No respect back then, no laws to stop that, it was terrible in a workplace like that.

The world would be a much better place if all humans across the globe were treated equally. You know right now there are many nationals of countries who still can't travel overseas because of the passport they hold and the country they come from because our Western Governments treat them differently to other more lucky passport holders. In other words our Western Governments won't even issue them a tourist visa. What an absolute crap house world we live in. And to think some people want to continue this inequality is just insane.

Racism is evil, it has never worked and it never will. It always ends with many people being losing their lives. In some cases, millions of lives. Peace everyone, and hope for a better world.


----------



## qldfrog (16 January 2019)

You say:
Put it this way, as an older Australian I have never been able to not enter or do something due to what and who I am, a white Caucasian.
Are we living in the same country:
Can i as a white male eat a dugong?
My son get the same amount of study help as an aboriginal boy?
There is a legal or supposed to be legal discrimination based on race heresupposely for the good, the positive discrimination so liked by us liberals..


----------



## qldfrog (16 January 2019)

But except for that, i  agree with the rest of your post☺️


----------



## rederob (16 January 2019)

qldfrog said:


> You say:
> Put it this way, as an older Australian I have never been able to not enter or do something due to what and who I am, a white Caucasian.
> Are we living in the same country:
> Can i as a white male eat a dugong?
> ...



At school my son got more help than aboriginal students because he needed it.
Is it "*discrimination*" you are talking about?  Like why there are so many women who are federal Ministers of the Crown....


----------



## qldfrog (16 January 2019)

rederob said:


> At school my son got more help than aboriginal students because he needed it.
> Is it "*discrimination*" you are talking about?  Like why there are so many women who are federal Ministers of the Crown....



It would be if this was only based on his skin colour and not his personal level of problems
Abstudy is a separate scheme with different criteria based on a skin colour, it is discrimination.
In the usa, an asian kid needs to reach a higher score to enter a university course than an "african american", do you find that fair?
This is racism in my view as much as the old SA segregation..or even USA in the 50s
ps what about the dugongs or other endangered sea turtles, slaughtered in qld, all good to kill based on your origins?
The trouble with this bipolar world is that there is no point arguing proving anything.a population brainwashed into a binary view of the world...


----------



## rederob (16 January 2019)

qldfrog said:


> It would be if this was only based on his skin colour and not his personal level of problems.



That is still not "racism".  Please check a decent dictionary.  
I agree with you about speed boats killing dugong, and sea turtles dying due to polluted oceans - we should be collectively ashamed.


----------



## Ann (16 January 2019)

This thread is not something which holds a massive interest for me. For myself I take each person as I find them and chose to educate my children in a very multicultural school in order for them to be able to relate to the person not the colour, religion or ethnicity.  Both my adult children are kind, understanding and respectful of others. I think their schooling was a great enhancer to them both.

Now I am coming onto this thread to voice a concern which may in time have serious repercussions for a particular ethnic group. Nearly every day I am being phoned by people who either have or are adopting an Indian accent. The calls are those which are meant to dupe you into a scam. The last call I received was about the NBN, saying they had been trying to contact us and if we didn't respond immediately the internet would be cut off the following day. Fortunately my son was around and I handed it to him. It was a scam call, like all the others. I have known a few people who have been seriously duped and lost quite a bit of money and have had much distress caused by scams like this. I am wondering how long it will take for all the bad experiences people are having with scammers with Indian accents, to flow through into normal society and find profiling and a divide begins to happen?


----------



## rederob (16 January 2019)

Ann said:


> Now I am coming onto this thread to voice a concern which may in time have serious repercussions for a particular ethnic group. Nearly every day I am being phoned by people who either have or are adopting an Indian accent. The calls are those which are meant to dupe you into a scam.



That's so funny Ann.
Last week I got a call from a Chinese person saying I was going to jail for something or rather unless I paid a lot of money to fix the problem.  I wish I had recorded it - it was clearly meant to frighten other Chinese-speakers who may have done something that fell into their catch-all net - I was laughing, but I realise this sucks-in so many gullible people..
Ten years ago a business colleague (with a Masters qual.) was scammed by Nigerians to the tune of $20000 - I was in utter disbelief .
Last year the Irish were up to their old tricks again, local to us.
Meanwhile, because I did some consumer surveys a number of years ago (never again ), I get a daily stream of emails from across the world with any number of embedded scams.  I'm not to keen on "unsubscribing" as once the process sent me somewhere and locked-down my PC.


----------



## Ann (16 January 2019)

rederob said:


> That's so funny Ann.
> Last week I got a call from a Chinese person saying I was going to jail for something or rather unless I paid a lot of money to fix the problem.  I wish I had recorded it - it was clearly meant to frighten other Chinese-speakers who may have done something that fell into their catch-all net - I was laughing, but I realise this sucks-in so many gullible people..
> Ten years ago a business colleague (with a Masters qual.) was scammed by Nigerians to the tune of $20000 - I was in utter disbelief .
> Last year the Irish were up to their old tricks again, local to us.
> Meanwhile, because I did some consumer surveys a number of years ago (never again ), I get a daily stream of emails from across the world with any number of embedded scams.  I'm not to keen on "unsubscribing" as once the process sent me somewhere and locked-down my PC.




 The early days were more about get-rich-quick schemes a la the Nigerian scams. (I also knew someone who I used to buy electrical goods from, he got caught and lost all his money and his business to that scam. He seemed such a nice man too.) With those money scams my immediate thought was "if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is" so they were easy to avoid. Now they are doing the tech stuff that most of us have no idea about and it is always with an Indian accent for us. I have no idea about the NBN, I bang my ears to tech stuff like that and could easily be dragged into a scam. Although, these days anything tech, I just say they will need to talk to my son. I do like a good flick past!


----------



## qldfrog (17 January 2019)

rederob said:


> That is still not "racism".  Please check a decent dictionary.
> I agree with you about speed boats killing dugong, and sea turtles dying due to polluted oceans - we should be collectively ashamed.



What a condescending dumb reply.
So having privileges based only on your ethnicity is not racism? 
Thanks Joe for the ignore function


----------



## noirua (17 January 2019)

Remembering something that happened way back it does sometimes make me wonder if those who say they are absolutely not racist are really fooling themselves.

_ A person was head of a government department and prided herself in the number of ethnic minorities who worked there. Also the number promoted to more senior roles. After many years went by one of them rose to a higher position of authority than her. She immediately went on sick leave and never returned, taking early retirement.

There are some who see themselves as equals and not at all racist but see themselves as just a little more equal in espousing their views of pretence._


----------



## rederob (17 January 2019)

qldfrog said:


> What a condescending dumb reply.
> So having privileges based only on your ethnicity is not racism?
> Thanks Joe for the ignore function



You should educate yourself better so you do not make basic mistakes in an argument.
For example, dugongs are prospering in the Torres Strait where most are being taken on cultural grounds, while the same cannot be said for the remainder of the eastern coast of Queensland.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2019)

rederob said:


> You should educate yourself better so you do not make basic mistakes in an argument.
> For example, dugongs are prospering in the Torres Strait where most are being taken on cultural grounds, while the same cannot be said for the remainder of the eastern coast of Queensland.




So we can end up with one law for some and another law for others ? Indigenous people can kill and eat wildlife for "cultural reasons" while others cannot ? So maybe the Japanese can kill whales because it's part of their culture ?

Once you get into cultural laws our society start to break apart, and peculiarities of particular cultures are condoned, like child/arranged marriages which reasonable people should be vocally opposed to but we just let it slip by.


----------



## rederob (17 January 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So we can end up with one law for some and another law for others ? Indigenous people can kill and eat wildlife for "cultural reasons" while others cannot ? So maybe the Japanese can kill whales because it's part of their culture ?
> 
> Once you get into cultural laws our society start to break apart, and peculiarities of particular cultures are condoned, like child/arranged marriages which reasonable people should be vocally opposed to but we just let it slip by.



The big difference is that Australia's indigenous peoples were brilliant custodians of the land and seas, never taking more than they needed *and *their practices went back tens of thousands of years.  
Conflating cultural practices beyond survival/ecological sustainability is a distraction.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2019)

rederob said:


> Conflating cultural practices beyond survival/ecological sustainability is a distraction.




But they no longer need to kill endangered species to survive, so maybe it's the indigenous people who need the education.


----------



## rederob (17 January 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> But they no longer need to kill endangered species to survive, so maybe it's the indigenous people who need the education.





SirRumpole said:


> But they no longer need to kill endangered species to survive, so maybe it's the indigenous people who need the education.



Then get the States/Territories to change their legislation.
(I tried to dig deeper to what science/data was available specifically relating to the Torres Strait as there does not seem to be much hunting elsewhere.  Drew a blank - but lots of emotional arguments.  My bigger concern in the TS relates to a chance that whatever might now be happening is literally feeding a small black market.)


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2019)

rederob said:


> The big difference is that Australia's indigenous peoples were brilliant custodians of the land and seas, never taking more than they needed *and *their practices went back tens of thousands of years.
> Conflating cultural practices beyond survival/ecological sustainability is a distraction.



Oh really? Megafauna anyone?


----------



## sptrawler (17 January 2019)

Well there are obviously some deep seated emotions involved, when someone on a morning tv show, puts it out there.

https://thewest.com.au/news/austral...tralia-day-rant-splits-viewers-ng-b881076974z

From the article:
_Boney used this morning’s show to rant about how she didn’t want to celebrate Australia Day because she saw it as the “turning point” for the treatment of indigenous Australians._

_“I can’t separate the 26th of January from the fact that my brothers are more likely to go to jail than they are to go to school,” she said on this morning’s show.

“Or that my little sisters and my mum are more likely to be beaten and raped than anyone else’s sisters or mum._


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2019)

sptrawler said:


> _“I can’t separate the 26th of January from the fact that my brothers are more likely to go to jail than they are to go to school,” she said on this morning’s show.
> _



_
_
There is no discrimination in Australian schools as far I know.

If Aboriginal kids don't go to school its much more likely that their parents don't send them than any other reason.
_



			“Or that my little sisters and my mum are more likely to be beaten and raped than anyone else’s sisters or mum.
		
Click to expand...


_
By their aboriginal fathers/husbands ?


----------



## sptrawler (17 January 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> There is no discrimination in Australian schools as far I know.
> If Aboriginal kids don't go to school its much more likely that their parents don't send them than any other reason.
> By their aboriginal fathers/husbands ?




I think that is the real problem, they perpetrate the actions, but blame their oppression for it.

That is why it is so difficult to address, no matter what we do, unless they want to change their behaviour nothing will change.
We could change the date of Australia Day, we can change the name of everything in Australia, we can give them more money, but at the end of the day they have to take responsibility to change their behaviour toward each other.
It is a difficult cycle to break, just a truly sad situation, people have got to want change before you can bring it about. IMO


----------



## SirRumpole (18 January 2019)




----------



## wayneL (18 January 2019)

Interesting discussion, especially the last few minutes


----------



## sptrawler (21 January 2019)

I don't know if this is the thread to post this item, but it does show how difficult it is to deal with certain groups of people.
The shop owner last week, grabbed a kid who he says steals on a regular basis, the aftermath is quite exciting.
By the way this is an old established suburb of Perth, it isn't in the outback somewhere.


https://www.9news.com.au/national/2...ner-attacker-after-detaining-young-shoplifter

I hope this sort of behaviour doesn't become the norm, it will certainly discourage people from operating shops.


----------



## Bill M (21 January 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I don't know if this is the thread to post this item, but it does show how difficult it is to deal with certain groups of people.
> The shop owner last week, grabbed a kid who he says steals on a regular basis, the aftermath is quite exciting.
> By the way this is an old established suburb of Perth, it isn't in the outback somewhere.
> 
> ...



I saw the video. It is clear to me that everyone that caused the damage is on CCTV and can be identified. The question is WHY isn't the Western Australian Police arresting all those perpetrators? When your own Police force doesn't do something then that is the bigger problem. You need to ask the Police why they aren't doing something about it.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2019)

Is this really racism ?

I don't think so.

When people talk of Indigenous cricket tournaments (exclusive by definition) , a simple statement of fact acts as a red flag to the SJW's.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01...ts-ok-to-be-white-banner-at-big-bash/10750974


----------



## sptrawler (30 January 2019)

The vocal minority at it again, with the support of the 5 minute media.

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainmen...ley-following-racism-row-20190129-p50u9y.html


----------



## wayneL (30 January 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Is this really racism ?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> ...



In the face of the current anti white racism,  it is not a racist statement, especially when the "perps" are more than happy to state that it is also okay to be black/brown/or whatever.

"I have a dream... "


----------



## rederob (30 January 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The vocal minority at it again, with the support of the 5 minute media.
> https://www.smh.com.au/entertainmen...ley-following-racism-row-20190129-p50u9y.html



?
Yumi said "you're sounding quite racist..." and rightly never backed down.  *Yumi never said KAK was a racist* but instead suggested one could join the dots to her spoken words as to the direction KAK was heading down.
Unfortunately KAK began her argument with an unverified claim that the marchers had done "zippo" on issues which were not part of the "invasion Day" theme.  To begin, it was in irrelevance.
It was also poor form to blame indigenous communities for poor policing, and worse still to suggest the marchers would be better off policing themselves, which was the implication.  It's equivalent to proposing that if I joined any march I should instead be combating domestic violence .
Commentators who lead with their mouth are asking for it to be smacked - not real smart KAK .


----------



## Darc Knight (30 January 2019)

rederob said:


> ?
> Yumi said "you're sounding quite racist..." and rightly never backed down.  *Yumi never said KAK was a racist* but instead suggested one could join the dots to her spoken words as to the direction KAK was heading down.
> Unfortunately KAK began her argument with an unverified claim that the marchers had done "zippo" on issues which were not part of the "invasion Day" theme.  To begin, it was in irrelevance.
> It was also poor form to blame indigenous communities for poor policing, and worse still to suggest the marchers would be better off policing themselves, which was the implication.  It's equivalent to proposing that if I joined any march I should instead be combating domestic violence .
> Commentators who lead with their mouth are asking for it to be smacked - not real smart KAK .




Is that all she said "you're sounding quite racist."??? I had 4BC/2GB on yesterday at lunchtime, the Chris Smith show (same guys who had Ian Plimer on his radio program). They were calling for KAK to sue Yumi Stynes. People (like @wayneL . ) were calling in swearing. The biggest beat up I've heard. I thought Yumi Stynes must've alleged KAK was a paedophile or something.


----------



## wayneL (30 January 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Is that all she said "you're sounding quite racist."??? I had 4BC/2GB on yesterday at lunchtime, the Chris Smith show (same guys who had Ian Plimer on his radio program). They were calling for KAK to sue Yumi Stynes. People (like @wayneL . ) were calling in swearing. The biggest beat up I've heard. I thought Yumi Stynes must've alleged KAK was a paedophile or something.



Nice to be living in your head rent free, Darcy.


----------



## sptrawler (30 January 2019)

rederob said:


> ?
> Yumi said "you're sounding quite racist..." and rightly never backed down.  *Yumi never said KAK was a racist* but instead suggested one could join the dots to her spoken words as to the direction KAK was heading down.
> Unfortunately KAK began her argument with an unverified claim that the marchers had done "zippo" on issues which were not part of the "invasion Day" theme.  To begin, it was in irrelevance.
> It was also poor form to blame indigenous communities for poor policing, and worse still to suggest the marchers would be better off policing themselves, which was the implication.  It's equivalent to proposing that if I joined any march I should instead be combating domestic violence .
> Commentators who lead with their mouth are asking for it to be smacked - not real smart KAK .



I was more making reference to the way the media, blow up what in reality is a very small issue, I feel the public would be better served by the media highlighting and promoting a positive signal, rather than constantly looking for the opportunity, to highlight the negative aspects of indigenous reality.
Everyone knows their plight is severe, changing the date of anything wont change the reality, just reinforce that they have every right, to continue on the same self destructive path.
The media would do far better getting of their ar$es, and going out and finding good news stories, of indigenous individuals who have broken the self destructive cycle and show there is a way to improve their lot.
Just my opinion.


----------



## qldfrog (31 January 2019)

I listen a lot the local aboriginal and country music radio fm here in Brisbane, and there are wonderful positive radio show hosts,  but indeed some segments and too many of them are pure victimising rants ,fake history which can only lead to hate and racism, while whole population are kept under welfare and worse in a welfare mentality.if the street is dirty, you clean it.if the house is broken, you repair it..we are first responsible of our own destiny, irrespective of colour or status...


----------



## sptrawler (31 March 2021)

This article makes you feel proud to be Australian, both parties understand that what was seen as acceptable behaviour 20 years ago, isn't today.
So what do they do, apologies, express their regret and move on still friends. 
Great story and great Aussies, it is their attitude that makes Australia special.








						Kamahl responds to Daryl Somers's regret over Hey Hey humiliation
					

The much-loved Malaysian-born entertainer recently opened up about the hurt and humiliation he experienced while appearing on Hey Hey It's Saturday.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## Macquack (1 April 2021)

qldfrog said:


> I listen a lot the local aboriginal and country music radio fm here in Brisbane, and there are wonderful positive radio show hosts,  but indeed some segments and too many of them are pure victimising rants ,fake history which can only lead to hate and racism, *while whole population are kept under welfare and worse in a welfare mentality*.if the street is dirty, you clean it.if the house is broken, you repair it..we are first responsible of our own destiny, irrespective of colour or status...



While you are having a go at the "whole population" of indigenous Australians, I am going to have a go at your "average" english language skills  which allows you to get away with saying some very  vague statements.


----------



## IFocus (1 April 2021)

sptrawler said:


> "that what was seen as acceptable behaviour 20 years ago"




SP it wasn't acceptable 20 years ago, just the power imbalanced allowed for the cringeworthy behaviour.

Kamahl said he was humiliated that's a bad thing surely?


----------



## qldfrog (1 April 2021)

Macquack said:


> While you are having a go at the "whole population" of indigenous Australians, I am going to have a go at your "average" english language skills  which allows you to get away with saying some very  vague statements.



I can see the propaganda is working well  english is not my native language and i am a dirty invader


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2021)

IFocus said:


> SP it wasn't acceptable 20 years ago, just the power imbalanced allowed for the cringeworthy behaviour.
> 
> Kamahl said he was humiliated that's a bad thing surely?



It was not acceptable when viewed from a 2021 perspective I agree but reality is this took place during the 1980's and 90's on a TV show which was extremely entrenched in Australian culture at the time.

There'd be very few in Australia at the time who could honestly say they'd never seen the program at least once and it was widely assumed in unrelated contexts that pretty much everyone would "get" any passing reference made to the show and its segments and characters without needing further explanation. It was as entrenched as Richie Benaud commentating the cricket and Molly Meldrum with music, indeed Molly ultimately ended up as part of the Hey Hey cast.

Literally millions had the opportunity to call it out when it went to air, it was one of the most watched programs on TV at the time and aired nationally. It wasn't something which happened behind closed doors that pretty much nobody knew about.

I agree it was wrong, extremely so, but it's at least plausible that Daryl and the others were genuinely ignorant, having attitudes which reflected society at the time. Ignorance isn't good but it's a different thing to intentional malice.

Go forward a third of a century from now and no doubt someone will look back at some of what's currently being aired on TV at present and point out how completely unacceptable it is. A key difference though is that it's much harder to say you didn't know in 2021 versus saying you didn't know in 1987. Very much harder.


----------



## noirua (18 July 2021)

Battle of Bamber Bridge - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





			https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-80d50a1a4bb58b929f079f681880b702
		

Battle of Bamber Bridge England

Jun 24, 1943 – Jun 25, 1943

On this day in 1943 black American soldiers faced off with white American Military police during World War II on British soil. Yes you read correctly black American soldiers had to fight their own white American soldiers, while in England, where they were fighting for the world.

Why? Because the English town of Bamber Bridge in Lancashire was not segregated so they treated the black soldiers like all other races, aka blacks were free to eat, drink anywhere, BUT back in America segregation of blacks and whites still existed. So essentially the American army went to someone else’s country and demanded they adopted America’s racist practices

So when the American Military police found out that their own black American soldiers were drinking at the same pubs as white people they went in to arrest them. The people in the town got mad about the treatment of the black soldiers and decided to then turn their pubs into “BLACKS ONLY DRINKING PUBS” the very opposite of what was taking place in America with their WHITES ONLY businesses.

Of course, this pissed off the American military so guns went blazing, and when word spread back at camp that black soldiers had been shot, scores of men formed a crowd, some carrying rifles and by midnight more American military police arrived with a machine gun-equipped vehicle, so the black soldiers had no choice but to get rifles from British stores while others barricaded themselves back on base, so now it was American white soldiers versus American black soldiers. This lead to the death of one soldier, injury of 7, and 32 convictions.

Back in America, the battle was hushed up because they didn’t want the country to find out that they were fighting their own soldiers which would anger the black population and weaken the morale in the country.

Tarquin Smythe - Quora


----------



## noirua (18 July 2021)

__





						History of the Jews in England (1066–1290) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## wayneL (9 September 2021)

Recently, a white woman in a monkey mask and other white people abused and assaulted a black candidate and his security detail in an election campaign.

But wait....

The black man is California governor candidate, Larry Elder (and from the 'hood bro), representing the Republican Party, and his white attack is a Democratic Party supporters.

Therefore, this cannot be racism, as Larry is a black white supremacist.

(And this is why aliens won't visit us)


----------



## noirua (28 February 2022)

Two people shot at historic Indianapolis Jewish Community Center, police say
					

Indianapolis police say two people were shot and wounded at a Jewish community center on Hoover Road on Saturday afternoon.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## Investoradam (1 March 2022)

rederob said:


> ?
> Yumi said "you're sounding quite racist..." and rightly never backed down.  *Yumi never said KAK was a racist* but instead suggested one could join the dots to her spoken words as to the direction KAK was heading down.
> Unfortunately KAK began her argument with an unverified claim that the marchers had done "zippo" on issues which were not part of the "invasion Day" theme.  To begin, it was in irrelevance.
> It was also poor form to blame indigenous communities for poor policing, and worse still to suggest the marchers would be better off policing themselves, which was the implication.  It's equivalent to proposing that if I joined any march I should instead be combating domestic violence .
> Commentators who lead with their mouth are asking for it to be smacked - not real smart KAK .



Yumi didnt want to discuss the data and also went to usual tatic of the moronic left of claiming white privileged card.
masicaly meaning Yumi didnt want to discuss **** and just go to the usual idiot left self righteous stance and not discuss the stats about the domestic abuse in the indigenous  communities


----------



## Investoradam (1 March 2022)

noirua said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...







__





						Expulsions and exoduses of Jews - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




cant be an accident every time. maybe a con continued pattern of behavior .
i mean the russian rovultion, Lenin, Trosky and Stalin are good examples of dictators or even the Rothchild banking system of the ponzi  debt based worthless paper money that all bar 5/6 countries are forced to trade in


----------



## rederob (1 March 2022)

Investoradam said:


> Yumi didnt want to discuss the data and also went to usual tatic of the moronic left of claiming white privileged card.



Yumi's mother is Japanese.
Care to explain your claim of Yumi's "white privilege" in light of that fact?


----------



## basilio (6 March 2022)

Perhaps the question of Racism is being approached from the wrong direction.

Why not consider the supreme value of the White Race as the guiding light in this conversation.  Far simpler really. And in the larger picture check out European Renaissance

FAECES FOR WHITE FACES – By Mike Walsh​Mike Walsh May 20, 2017 FAECES FOR WHITE FACES – By Mike Walsh2017-05-21T06:42:02-04:00






If on opening your recently bought book you find many pages blank you have every right to be upset. Yet, this is what happens constantly in terms of race awareness. The pages of books, newspapers and periodicals, are stuffed with race mixing propaganda. Yet, there is no alternative perspective allowed: Even scientific comment negative about race-mixing is illegal.
Here is an interesting and proven scientific fact: ‘Segregation ethnic-sameness) is found in over 450 species but multiculturalism (cultureless) is found only in one; the ethnic-European species.’
Any media that published this scientifically proven truth would find itself denounced as ‘racist’. This phenomenon is unique to the world of ethnic Europeans.




On the other hand, Japanese, Jewish, African or Chinese media depict and promote same race relationships. Only in the world of ethnic-Europeans do we find adverts and articles perversely promoting race-mixing propaganda. Even allowing for the sub-culture known as liberalism there should be open debate.
Throughout history there is profound judgement against race mixing or amalgamation of religious or cultural differences.. This may come as a great surprise to ethnic-Europeans born post-1970s. There is virtually nothing in the history of the world’s diverse peoples and religions that promotes race or religious amalgamation.




Yet, undeniably, the entire focus of modern media is the opposite to all that is natural. Irrationally, their tarnished golden rule appears to be that if anything is unnatural then it is okay to promote it.
It is faeces for faces but only if the human faces are ethnic-European. For this reason, what Hitler described as a sewer’s contents, is constantly splashed into our faces.
The wellspring of human values is being poisoned. Race mixing, same-sex coition, paedophilia, cultural values, art and entertainment, real education and much more are debased by media.




Race-mixing propaganda is a dirty game. A newly published book, ‘Europe Arise’ is an ethnic-European antidote to the liberals’ race-mixing agenda.
Budget priced ‘Europe Arise’ is a beautifully illustrated book compiled by Michael Walsh. The handy book is a mini-encyclopaedia of race awareness quotes, advice, inspirational comments and reviews. Most importantly, ‘Europe Arise’ explains how best to protect oneself if you are racially aware enough to gravitate towards pro-White activism.









						FAECES FOR WHITE FACES - By Mike Walsh - EURO·FOLK·RADIO
					

If on opening your recently bought book you find many pages blank you have every […]




					eurofolkradio.com
				












						Home
					

EUROPE RENAISSANCE is a friendly non-political news platform. Its undertaking is to create awareness of the achievements and aspirations of Europeans wherever they are. Its purpose is to provide ne…




					europerenaissance.com


----------



## noirua (23 July 2022)




----------



## noirua (23 July 2022)




----------

