The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Rethinking the White Australia Policy > Comments

Rethinking the White Australia Policy : Comments

By Andrew Fraser, published 28/9/2005

Andrew Fraser calls for the re-establishment of the White Australia Policy on racial groundsv.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 30
  7. 31
  8. 32
  9. All
One hesitates, sighs deeply, and then, with a sad shake of the head, decides that this false, bad, and ugly rhetoric should be challenged. Though it is hard to know where to start.

Is it enough to say that the two last great race-based regimes were Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa? It should be.I grew up in South Africa and know well that 'those whom the gods will destroy, they first make mad." It was mad and it was destroyed, and thank god and men of goodwill.

It should be more than enough to make the banal observation that variablity amoungst people in regard to "cognitive and athletic ability, behaviour and temperament" are found within homogeneous "races" at least as much as between "races". As we all know. As a friend of mine knows, who is showing school teachers how to best work with the 15% of 'white' children with an IQ of less than 85.

But to imply, as Fraser does, that those variables should be the basis for founding public policy, including immigration policy is, well, just so insane as to leave one speechless.

I sincerely hope that one day Mr. Fraser will come to sufficient an understanding of himself to know that he is also a human being, along with the other 6.2 billion of us, "homo"- as in "homogenous" sapiens, rather than some bizarre, frightful, Nietzsche-like übermenschlich/overman.

D. James
Posted by David E James, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 12:22:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is much food for thought here. It is certainly not what we are used to being told. We already know of the hysteria Andrew Fraser’s paper caused among the more precious academics and the media, and I am reasonably sure of the uproar we can expect on these pages. But this extract needs careful reading, and study of the advances in research reported by Fraser, along with all of his references, before anything but emotional and knee-jerk comments can be made.

I am appreciative that Andrew Fraser has pointed the way for us to learn more about an arcane subject whose details are kept from us by the “New Class cadres”
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 12:29:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is a credit to our often maligned universities that they refused to publish such rubbish. Andrew, you bunker yourself down with and armory and lots of tins of baked beans, preparing for the imminent invasion.

Meanwhile, I'll calmly watch my left wing television shows (no doubt on SBS 'eh Andy?), and ultimately be overrun by the peril from within our borders.
Posted by Jude, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 12:46:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't it great when an article like this comes along, and you get all flustered and angry, and then you remember that you can ignore it cause it's just some loser who has no idea what he's talking about?

It always makes me smile.
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 12:52:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Chinese today place a premium on clannish behaviour and downplaying the worth of individual creativity"

According to who?

You really expect me to believe that the entire population of China (how many billion?) conform to this stereotype because they just happen to live or have lived within the borders of land mapped as "China"?
Posted by strayan, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 1:05:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for reminding us of that Spendocrat. I was about to start ranting and raving about how appalling I felt this article was, but ahhhhh. Deep breath!
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 1:50:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For a general understanding of the issues this is a good start:

http://www.redrag.net/2005/09/21/fraser/

For those who have read the essay in more detail- one reference in particular stands out, 'The Color of Crime' which was written by the New Century Foundation a controversial 'think tank' to some, and to others a hate group founded by one Jared Taylor:

http://www.amren.com

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=215#34

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05030/450021.stm

The interesting thing about this report, and you can read it by going to the AMREN site if you so desire. Interesting enough is what the premise of the article revolves around -which seems to be that blacks cause more crime simply because they are black, all based on a reading of crime statistics in America for the most part. Yet to anyone with an even basic knowledge of criminology we must tread carefully when interpreting crime data, not to forget that other factors in crime such as socio-economics, mental health and the like are significant factors in relation to criminal behaviour. Nothing as such appears in Fraser's essay.

For those interested in a critque of Jared Taylor's 'Color of Crime' I suggest you take a look at this:

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-10/19wise.cfm

Whilst there is a general consensus that many criminals have a lower IQ than most, an Australian study into violent crime appears to rate the role of intelligence to crime lower than other factors:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/vda/vda-sec08.html

The implications of this in relation to Fraser's opinions are of course not considered in his essay, but relate to the belief that Africans have lower IQ's and therefore are more criminal in nature- there is no definitive evidence, scientific or otherwise that has proved this, although Fraser would disagree.

In the end people should make there own mind whether Fraser's arguments are free of ideological baggage or not, and whether or not his own political agenda outweights any benifit to he debate on race may indeed have. I am not convinced that his rhetoric makes a strong enough case for any public policy maker to consider
Posted by scooper9, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 2:01:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a white Australian - I sometimes see the huge numbers of asians and Indians in the city and wonder what has become of the country that I grew up in.

But then I stop and consider.

a) Whites were not the first here

b) Some of the most important cultures/concepts of the world
originated from the middle east and asia.

c) The Asians, Greeks and Italians that I went to primary school
with are clearly "Australian" in outlook

d) Big brother - ie there are a s__tload of stupid white
Australians. I see a wonderful sample in the local
cafes, mainly kids on holiday who manage to have entire
conversations using only key phrases from the film
"Clueless". Are other neighborhoods any better?

Like all people away from their home, foreign tourists and students stick together. However my experience is that those who have been here for a while, who have grasped the language, who have made local friends - they are very inclusive. They do mix. They laugh at themselves and they do take on local customs. Sure they may surf less, but that's ok. My "way of life" is not threatened by that.

And this thing about a 5 point IQ difference... Lets look at current policy - in general, the immigrants that Australia accepts speak two languages and have a university degree. In most cases they earned that degree under far tougher circumstances than us locals. Often in a language other than their mother tongue. In fact - it's probably language which prevents mixing more than anything else. In my view. The ability to joke, be witty etc must be significantly hampered when using a non-native language.

Yes I miss the Australia of my childhood, but it never quite existed as I recall it and it had it's own subculture anyway. At the same time we are gaining smart people from groups that have contributed significantly to the world, though mainly in fields other than farming, surfing, footy and cricket.
Posted by WhiteWombat, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 2:11:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know something, Andrew, I couldn't give a rats about genetic/racial/IQ point differences based on race. I'll judge people as I find them, laugh with my crazy, non conformist Chinese neighbours, admire my studious, hard working academically high achieving half black Jamaican nephew, get irritated by my white, silent, unexpressive work colleague and live and let live.
For a while I thought my paranoia about where the world is heading was just that, paranoid and a product of my own age and biases. Reading articles like this one removes that comfort.
I feel a chill, chill wind blowing and I shiver in fear of it.
I don't want to live in a world or a culture where we classify the potential character of newborn babies according to any measure, scientifically proven or not.
Posted by enaj, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 3:03:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia is already 99.9999999999% white to begin with,so who cares if it stays mostly white. Andrew fraser has alot of supporters, I think their like about 85% of the population,thats why he keeps opening his mouth.
Posted by Amel, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 3:40:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amel- if your basing that 85% figure off the A Current Affair poll are you assuming that 85% of our 20 million odd population were watching ACA that night, and that 85% of that 20 million phoned in support of Fraser- I think not.

Interesting enough was a similar poll conducted by Today Tonight I believe produced an opposite effect- either way phone polls on current affairs programs are hardly reliable sources of data.
Posted by scooper9, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 3:45:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amazing. Try saying this out loud while keeping a straight face.

"Organised social and political life in the Western world is largely driven by the psychic power of carefully crafted illusions."

I thought for a while that it might just be the vagaries of editing that caused this article to be so incredible (to the extent that I considered it might actually be a clever spoof), but reading the original confirmed my first impression: this is not a scholarly, carefully balanced analysis, but a piece of inflammatory bunkum that should have the professor stripped of all the trappings of academe. It has absolutely nothing to do with free speech - anyone should be allowed to demonstrate their bigotry in this way - but that he is allowed to do so with acadmic credentials to provide some form of legitimacy, if not credibility, to his views.

These two sentences sum it all up.

"Since the end of World War II a strange alliance of Communists, Christian churches, ethnic lobbies and other pressure groups working through the corporate sector and within the centralised apparatus of state power has set out deliberately to flood the Anglo-Australian homeland with a polyglot mass of Third World immigrants."

"Given the relentless and revolutionary assault on their historic national identity, white Australians now face a life-or-death struggle to preserve their homeland."

These are the words of a rabble-rouser, not a scholar.

I recall reading back in August that a telephone poll on Channel 9's "A Current Affair" recorded that 85% of the 35,000 respondents agreed with the professor's position. That is a real measure of the danger of this form of publicly-funded bigotry.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 3:49:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Drew's article, by and far is an exellent platform to study the lapses in all sphere's of our "Organised life".
I find it offencive and dissapointing just how many labotomized individuals are out there, But as some say ,I sigh, and relax in the notion, their time will come, and armed with the Ideology of Liberalism and Usful Idiot mantra, they will perish with time.
The one subject these people seem to forget in their smugg Cosmopolitan Socialist setting's as they sip another Latee, is Human behaviour, and that natural instinct of survival, all I am saying is they have lost there way, and giving some Circumspect to the Evolutionary doctrine, and Group Evolutionary Doctrine , the Stronges will survive. Read History my Socialist labotomized.
The manner of some of the above commentry and it's Leftis Vitriol,indicates those times are sooner than later.They can praise the Glory of Allah in their own time, not mine and I hope they enjoy the fog and the fruits of MY Labour, it is comming to and end.
Posted by All-, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 4:20:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The thought of someone who considers intelligence to be racially determined having access (and marking) the work of students in a multi-racial university in a multicultural society is to say the least, scary.

Where Fraser's personal opinion begins and where his professional work as a scholar ends no one knows.

He's had more coverage in news media than any academic this year….But apparently this was an evil limitation on his free speech? Go figure...

Thousands of highly qualified academics publish refereed journal articles in the area of race and racism, but this one gets the banana? It just doesn’t make sense.
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 4:31:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear me, Andrew, is All- one of your intellectually superior white types, excellent spelling, grammar, logic and all?
That's the trouble with one race claiming to be better and more civilised than others, they then open their mouths and disprove the theory all by themselves.
Posted by enaj, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 4:40:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Facinating article Andrew. A breath of fresh air from the multi cultist smog that pervades our ruling classes.

Better be careful they don't throw you in gaol though, under some vilification law designed to quell 'incorrect' thinking.

Over educated goons will no doubt sneer and scoff, citing examples of their exotic pets in their multi culti wonderland no doubt.

You are a very brave man, Andrew Fraser, and western societies need more people like you.
Posted by davo, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 4:40:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very brave man indeed. Consider this: let's all assume Fraser is correct. Ethnic australians cause crime, are less intelligent, etc etc. Well what then? Are they to be treated as second-class citizens? Bit remeniscent of the Holocaust ja? Maybe we could send them all back from whence they came...O but hang on, some of them were born here. Some of them are 3rd, 4th, nth generation australians. So at which point do ethnic australians become "white" enough to be regarded as highly as Fraser regards himself?

It's a scientific fact that mixing of races produces more intelligent children. This in itself is a biological reason to promote it.....and proof that Fraser et al are 100% white
Posted by lisamaree, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 5:41:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
self loathing prevails...
Posted by davo, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 5:45:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction "....110%".

My point was from a practical perspective: It's not possible to un-ethnicise australia, considering the ethnic population that's already here. So I'm assuming Davo and All are promoting more selective immigration into australia. I wonder what the criteria for immigration into australia would be. Colour of skin? Criminal record? And what about the existing ethnic population? Or are you just going to keep dreaming and sprouting?
Posted by lisamaree, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 6:27:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to congratulate Andrew fraser on his timely and correct article. Throughout human history, some people have had the courage to provide reasoned arguments against the prevailing orthodoxies, and they have been screamed down as heretics because of it.

The two points which I most agree with is that.

Firstly, Multiculturalism has been an obvious failure in every country which gas been cursed with it. Why we should want to duplicate obvious failure is beyond me.

Secondly, that some ethnic groups are very disproportionately asociated with violent crime. Whether this fact is primarily the rusult of culture or genetics is anyone's guess. But geneticists today are now ruefully admitting that there does indeed appear to be a strong link between genetic makeup and criminality.

The howls of indignation about Mr Frasers argument from the politically exquisite, reminds me of the true story of the priest who refused to look through Galileo's telescope and put his sacred faith to the test. The priest would not stoop to observe what he did not wish to see.
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 7:03:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Heavens above, I can not recall mentioning Skin colour,but while we are on the subject, I would like Drew Fraser critics to NOW file a Racial complaint and advocate the destruction of the following nations. Chinese Nationalism, Japanese Nationalism,Malasian Nationalism,(Yes Recalsitrant) and here we go Arab, Saudi Islamic Nationalism,What about Kosovo Islamic Nationalism,Etc,etc,etc, or even South African Nationalism (Negro)ooooo dear, I forgot, they are not Anglo white's so they must be correct in their racial views,Bugger that Professor for not telling me that, I am embarrased now.
I gather most would despise Racial Apartheid in South Africa,When Mandella was locked up, just seems Ironic they are in favour in the lefti land Multi Culti anti Anglo Utopia, but Racial Apartheid is acceptable if it is Whites (Christian or Jew) being suppressed,Hay and cop this, By their own Blood, hay Good on you. Great job.
Posted by All-, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 7:36:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BRILLIANT ARTICLE!!

To the liberalists in the ivory towers who say it is "false" - It's NO surprise NOT to see you address the content of the article...

I may prefer that the world were not so, but that doesn't mean that it is not so... I am a realist.

I listen to reasoned scientific argument and not to emotive response from those who chose to 'stick their heads in the sand' and prefer that it were not so.

All I say is - address the content of the article or SHUT UP!!
Posted by Thor, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 7:51:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a previously undistinguished Law academic, Fraser makes a pretty ordinary anthropologist. While his appallingly racist ideas will undoubtedly find support among many of this forum's more verbose contributors, he fails to establish any real objective basis for the supposedly innate and/or commonsense understandings of the notion of race itself.

In short, while he makes many pronouncements about the supposed biological underpinnings of what constitutes the cultural category of "race", he provides little authoritative evidence to support them. Like most racists, he conflates phenotype and genotype with ethnicity and culture, and lumps them together in his thinking as 'scientific' - when in fact he's just constructing a personal folk category like any other.

Which is not to say that 'race' (and therefore 'racism') doesn't exist as a powerful and mostly negative force in Australian society - it's just that it is a culturally constructed and arbitrary notion, rather than one which has much explanatory power in biological terms.

Having said all that, I am however of the opinion that Fraser's sloppy article should have been published in a real journal, so that real anthropologists could be bothered giving it the thorough drubbing that it deserves. I very much doubt that comments from us hoi polloi in forums like these carry much weight in the real world.
Posted by mahatma duck, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 8:22:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Congratulations to Onloine Opinion for publishing Fraser's article - free speech is still alive, at least outside our Universities.

That said I am glad Australia is wide open to immigration from many different countries even if that imposes some stress - and I have in mind Samuel Huntington's thesis on (a real) clash of civilisations. I look out every Sunday morning on my congregation (I'm a Christian minister) and I see half a dozen nationalities, black and white and in between and I say praise God who made us all as His image bearers.
Posted by David Palmer, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 9:42:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tip toeing through the posters :)

1/ I have never found any evidence to suggest that there are anything other than 'cultural' differences between races. Intelligence, pre-disposition to crime, are not genetic, they 'may' be cultural. Malay's are 'laid back' and less interested in academic persuits, Chinese are the opposite.
Thats why Malaysia introduced the 'New Economic Policy' which put quota's of malays ahead of Chinese. It was so sensitive it was listed on the '5 sentitive issues' which malaysians were not allowed to discuss under threat of indefinite detention without trial.

2/ That minorites and ethnic groups usually seek to defend and propogate their genetic stock is pretty well a given. There is no suggestion in this of racial superiority or inferiority, its just how people function.

IMMIGRATION POLICY should be always based on social,cultural and political compatability to the host nation, and where needed it should be VERY discriminatory. (but not on skin color)

While I don't take Frasers views hook line and sinker, they do provide a great stage on which to debate important issues of today and yes, freedom of speech :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 29 September 2005 12:12:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The fact that 95%-98% of people in jail in any society are males seems to refute your view that crime and genetics are not linked, David Boaz. The TRA studies (Twins Reared Apart) also confirmed that adopted twins raised by different families had a statistically significant tendency for both twins to become criminals. Finally there is the research of today’s geneticists which also confirm the strong likelihood that genetics and crime are linked. I submit the Australian Institute of Criminology’s own paper “Is There a Genetic Susceptibility To Criminal Acts” (Trends and Issues. October 2003)

Your second point is valid and I do not see anything fundamentally wrong with racism. The desire to live amongst ones own kith and kin is a powerful human need. The ethnic ghettoisation of Sydney is a form of racism inflicted upon Australians but you never hear the Brahmin caste complaining about that. Humans are fundamentally tribal and territorial, no matter what the morally superior tell us, birds of a feather just keep flocking together. And they don’t like it when birds of a different feather come onto their territory.

Neither is there anything fundamentally wrong with discrimination. Just having a national border and calling the people who live within it “citizens” is discrimination.
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 29 September 2005 5:21:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DUCK, for the anthropologically challenged here.....
(yes, I had to look it up too)
"phenotype is the constellation of observable traits; genotype is the genetic endowment of the individual"

Redneck.
I take your point about males in jail, but attibute that to 'maleness' in the genetic sense, not racial. Over-representation of a particular ethnic group in custody is better explained I think by cultural issues which can include religion, that any genetic approach.

On point 2, we always need to bear in mind that real 'racism' is the belief in the superiority of ones own and the inferiority of others on racial grounds. I don't accept that idea, I accept only 'difference'. So, being vigilant against cultural or social 'usurpers' of other ethnic groups toward a prevailing cultural flavor is not in my view 'racism' it is simple common sense.

At every point where we may make a stand on our cultural heritage, it is crucial that we be aware that it is not because 'we' are better, but because we 'prefer' our own cultural flavor, and it may well be better 'for us', but not intrinsically. (though we might argue that for us, some cultures are 'inferior' in terms of some of our values such as the sanctity of life, and our abhorrence to female genital mutilation etc but I'd hesitate to go too far down that pathway.)

Being one of the 'Bible Bashers' here.. its worth noting the following:

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free,
there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

THOR... indeed :)

cheers
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 29 September 2005 7:43:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Professor Fraser seem to know alot about crime and genetics,I think he needs to study and explain why countries like Colombia Venezuela Russia India thaliand Ukraine Indonesia all rank top ten in over all world murder rates . Russia is rank #2 America # 6 and America's population is bigger and America has "Africans" The UK
ranks #18.
RAPES; Canada ranks #3 Australia ranks #4 India#5 Mexico#6 France#8 Germany#9 Russia#10. These countries have very small or no African population what so ever. Australia rank ahead of zimbabwe#13 Spain#12 South Korea#11.
Posted by Amel, Thursday, 29 September 2005 9:04:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Fraser should be commended on putting his ideas - as wrong as they are - out into the public domain. These ideas are best dealt with in the clear light of day.

The last paragraph of his narrative represents nothing less than muted "call to arms" for all right thinking Australians; he evokes the remnant folk memory of a small group born from British stock whose "homeland'and way of life is in peril. He goes on to declare that God helps those who help themselves and the capacity to act may be our only salvation - throw in a few more adjectives, only a little more invective and a spruiker with just a bit of froth at the edge of his mouth and you get a fairly alarming picture.

These are dangerous ideas indeed and need to be condemned.

And there is an alarming subtext to his writing that makes one wonder if his reservations about other races based on rather questionable IQ measures and levels of serum testosterone has any limitations; would he be inclined to extend his prejudice to those with a suitable racial profile but also exhibit a low IQ or higher levels of serum testosterone? - does he have further designs on any other class of people?
Posted by sneekeepete, Thursday, 29 September 2005 9:48:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz – you confuse me sometimes, most of the time it’s ‘what is this guy on about’, but then you come out with some startling rationality. Are you two people using one computer? :)

I must say I’m surprised that there are still claims out there that different races have different IQ levels etc. These sorts of myths were debunked eons ago. It’s depressing that even today there are those out there that feel they can place blame on a whole specific group like this, it shows how far we still have to go.

It’s obvious that anyone who tries to justify racism on scientific grounds will never get very far. It’s also obvious we can’t create a pure white blooded society because, needless to say, the concept is completely ridiculous.

So where are we? Do we really believe we have more of a right to this land than others? I mean…I learned how to share when I was in primary school. I guess a few people missed that lesson.

If you’re worried about crime or whatever, then it’s important to consider the reasons and causes behind why certain groups have higher crime rates (because it’s a genetic impossibility that the tendency is inherent). I don’t profess to have the answers of course, as we are talking about very complex social issues. But it’s obviously not particularly productive to just blame the whoevers (insert minority of your choice).

It’s just too easy a scapegoat, and the answers to problems like crime are never, ever that easy.

Put simply: get over the race thing, it’s unhelpful.
Posted by spendocrat, Thursday, 29 September 2005 10:32:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fraser seems to have no trouble quoting statistics about race but he neglects to define what race actually is. People invariably use facial characteristics and skin colour to define race but forget about dominant and recessive genes. What you see is not what you get. People may look African or European but their genetic background may tell a different story.
The variation between an individual’s apparent race and genetic background is discussed in Bryan Sykes book, “Adam’s Curse”. He notes a number of South American groups thought to be racially pure but have a European type Y chromosome present in the men. With DNA profiling, it is only possible to trace the history of your mother’s mitochondrial DNA or your father’s Y chromosome for men. It is not possible yet to examine a person’s DNA and put them definitively in one racial group or another.
Fraser talks about people being “White” and “Black” but what exactly is he talking about? If the genetic scientists are unable to define race, how can Fraser have a serious discussion about it. I find it appalling that an Associate Professor could write an article so lacking in intellectual vigour. He is simply parroting the fears of the ignorant and displaying his own educational deficiency.
Posted by Rob88, Thursday, 29 September 2005 11:20:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"White" and "Black" are not racial catergories. They are phenotypical characteristics. There is more genetic variation in Black Africa than there is anywhere else in the world. To argue that "Africans" represent some kind of genetically homogenous group because they share a similar shade of skin colour is rediculous. On what basis is Andrew Fraser lumping people together as "African"?
Posted by strayan, Thursday, 29 September 2005 12:28:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
for a bloke that wasnt even born here that fraser fella seems to be taking undue liberties to be putting forth that sort of pro white priviledge argument.

i laughed when i saw him on aca talking to those educated african immigrants who so eloquently disprove his obviously weak theories.

i dunno somehow comparing lions and sheep with black or white people seems a bit stupid to me. i mean the only obvious common demoninator between lion and sheep is their species - mamals. humans, mamals as well, but with lots more in common than not,- the main one being appearance.
Posted by kalalli, Thursday, 29 September 2005 2:45:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew! Andrew! Andrew! Your imperium statement which seeks to subject multiculturalism to a thoroughgoing lustration is causing great consternation in the academic world. You as a professor are supposed to be in lockstep with the faux-sophisticates and elites who are selling us this tosh.

I think it's time that Australia invested in a few re-education camps like they had in Cambodia with Andrew as the first inmate. Just kidding Andrew.

But if you keep questioning the wisdom of our immigration policy you'll be branded a racist. Ooops! I'm a bit late with that one.
Posted by Sage, Thursday, 29 September 2005 3:25:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whether you agree or disagree with the grounds upon which Fraser mounts his case, it is irrational to smokescreen any valid grievances he makes against “multiculturalism.”

Although I am confident that the antinomies within multicultural policy will inevitably undo it, Fraser’s “biocultural” view will certainly not, to say the least, hurry the needed debate along.

Nonetheless, it is important that Fraser is drawing our attention to the RACISM OF ETHNIC MINORITIES in Australia, a fact all too irresponsibly played down and reflected in support for groups like One Nation.

A friend of mine, in an email to Eva Sallis (19/3/2005), President of Australians Against Racism Inc. (www.australiansagainstracism.org), made an analogy with the KKK and the racist gang-violence he’d experienced coming from certain elements of certain ethnic groups, noting that he in no way would generalise such racist bigotry to that ethnic group as a whole, no more than he would take one who attacked the KKK to be in any way vilifying all Christians or Anglo-Celts. Her reply: “Of course you should be worried about Anglophobia – so why increase it by encouraging an environment of mutual fear, ignorance and hostility?”

Sallis acknowledges the existence in this country of those “who are intensely racist towards anglo-Australians” (14/4/2005), yet it is nonetheless hostile to talk about it! Imagine her implication here, that Anglo’s are in part responsible for it, being implied of a non-Anglo! There is a pathological inconsistency going on, and those who we are afraid to criticise – those who translate all criticism into being a generalisation-to-the-whole – reveal only their own predispositions to prejudge.

But even if Sallis wanted to stop treating some as PERMANENT GUESTS and subject ALL members of the community to the SAME critical gaze, she legally can’t. In being so sensitive to difference, multicultural policy reflects nothing more than the ethnic insecurities around which it only fittingly erects barriers to criticism. My friend’s grievance doesn’t count, because although alienated as a “white-trash skip” in western Sydney, such policy discrimination only reflects, as Fraser notes, his predisposition to “a relative lack of ethnocentrism.”
Posted by Skippy, Thursday, 29 September 2005 4:49:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Man it's hard to kill cockroaches.
here is a link to a review of the book the author mentions allot. http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu:7066/articles.php?issue=8&article=bookreview

The nazi's made a big deal about cranial dimension of humans can you can tell how pure/superior, and it seems it's come back in vogue in the racist circles. The main point to make here is the author doesn’t mention what the hard sciences have to say on the matter. Which is race don't exist there are no genetic basis for race based behavior. So while this piece is always going to get some fan mail from those who’s world view it agrees with the reality is it’s not a serious attempt to address any of the issues we face.

I must also make the point that I’m not the first to notice that most people who tell us their race is the best are usually not particularly superior examples of that race!
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 29 September 2005 4:51:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I might also mention you will not find "that God helps only those who help themselves" in the bible however The Quran has some excellent advice for Mr Fraser "Why then argue ye concerning that whereof ye have no knowledge" The family of Imran 3:66
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 29 September 2005 5:03:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who are the academics /historians/ theoticians claimed here that ae apparently angry at Fraser?

I thinks its peculiar that people on this should point towards academics - but never name who they are and what they have written.

From where I stand I think most academics of any calibre have viewed Fraser's writings as substandard and intellectually shallow.

Its not that they are challenged by Fraser, they just don't think he's worth the time.

Read more broadly in these areas and disciplines and you will realize how far down the pecking order Fraser is.

Actually what he presents is personal opinion and the last time I looked academic discourse is still guided by notions of objectivity, excellence and peer review.

That Fraser was charged with the responsibility of marking the papers of students in a multicultural and multi-ethnic university is to say the least, scary.

No matter what your opinions, you should be able to back them up with proof. Fraser provides no proof of his assertions, just good old conjecture dressed up in academic language.

I give him 2 out of ten
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 29 September 2005 6:04:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The fact that the only evidence in the whole article that Fraser uses comes from the statement that "well experience practically everywhere else has shown us.." is laughable considering the apparent intelligence of the man.

As far as I can tell all this essay was meant to do was a rather shabby attempt to regain some credibility for his views expressed in his earlier comments and a rather bemusing attempt to show that his views on race are recognised.

Sadly one thinks that few academics will even bother to respond to this rubbish- and as Windschuttle wrote in The Australian today "Fraser's "racial realism" deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history, along with the ethnic separatist policies that underpin it". I could not have put it better myself.
Posted by scooper9, Thursday, 29 September 2005 9:46:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

(part 1)

I disagree that “anyone should be allowed to demonstrate their bigotry,” for there is no inconsistency in being intolerant of intolerance, which is what Fraser is doing insofar as we can see him as reacting to intolerance.

Such an attitude would leave you no ground upon which to mount an argument against, for instance, those desiring the imposition of sharia law and the abolition of democracy (e.g. Hizbut-tahrir, or sheik Abu Baka who said of the clash between sharia and Australian law: “there is big problem here”). Now there’s Intollerance!

Or take the multicultural legal dilemma surrounding the conference in 2002 held at UWS (Bankstown) entitled: “Islam & Homosexuality: an Islamic, scientific and logical approach”, where sheik Shady invoked sharia precepts regarding the stoning to death of homosexuals, and Keysar Trad and Hanan Dover (lecturer sacked over it) endorsed that anti-discrimination legislation be ignored in relation to homosexuals in the workplace: http://www.zipworld.com.au/~josken/multim~1.htm, http://www.zipworld.com.au/~josken/islamf~1.htm).

Trad actually defends Shady in reply emails at Green Left Weekly: http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/520/520p8.htm, claiming the sheik could not have called for the stoning to death of homosexuals in Australia because in any case “such a penalty COULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED by anyone other than an Islamic court and an Islamic court CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED unless through a Caliph. [And] As there was no such person [in Australia], such a penalty cannot be applied.”

Huh? So one shouldn’t condemn those who hold such views so long as they’re not manifest in concrete law? So we should never attack political viewpoints, for most of these are just proposals for the future? Sounds like Sheik Yassim’s more recent response to Jennie Brockie (Insight) about his alleged “sound bite” on 60 minutes, that he couldn’t have meant homosexuals should be killed because “under the present system it is not acceptable.” He never ruled out the future! Would any journalist let anybody else get away with such madness? (continued below…)
Posted by Skippy, Thursday, 29 September 2005 10:27:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think Andrew Fraser seriously believes what he is espousing.It is all too far fetched and generalised.He is either trying to make money out of noteriety or trying to balance the politically correct scales.I personally know people who were deeply offended by his statements and he needs to have a long look at himself, since when I think of people like Dr Victor Chang,he should hang his head in shame.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 29 September 2005 10:42:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The very fact that Andrew Fraser calls for the re-establishment of our White Australia Policy makes one wonder how he hands the marks out to those who these days would have such a strong argument for not believing in such a re-introduction.

Indeed, because it is miles too late in our multi-cultural history to even think about bringing back such a law, makes one wonder how he has ever become a Professor? Well, at least we could say that our universities are truly democratic if anyone can write a good thesis on such a distasteful subject for these days, and still rise near the top of the ladder.

Not that one has to agree with him, however.
Posted by bushbred, Friday, 30 September 2005 1:56:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To David Boaz. You claimed that there was no evidence for a causal link between genetics and criminality. But I offered you the example of male and female crime differentials which clearly pointed to a different conclusion. You accept the validity of this point yet you refuse to apply the same principle between races. Males and females are genetically different and whites and blacks are genetically different. I put it to you that the principle that genetics affects behaviour and crime susceptibility is therefore the same.

You have stated that culture is a major determining factor in behaviour and in this you and I are in complete agreement. But I would point out that some ethnic groups have very violent cultures which are based upon the social mores of almost lawless societies, in which male codes of honour remain medieval in concept. The idea that such people will divest themselves of their violent and dated values the moment that their big toe hits Australian soil is naïve in the extreme.

The unacceptably high rates of ethnic criminal behaviour, which is plainly obvious to any Australian not blinkered by Quixotic ideology, is almost certainly primarily caused by the cultural values of the crime prone immigrant groups. But would you not agree that genetic susceptability to criminal behaviour may be an exacerbating factor which multiplies this effect? I put it to you that this country would be far better off by reinstituting the White Australia Policy in order to limit the increasing numbers of people from crime and welfare dependent immigrant groups. This will hopefully begin to mitigate the upward effects on our steadily rising crime rates.
Posted by redneck, Friday, 30 September 2005 5:02:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We should condemn discrimination against people that is motivated by a hate for the colour of their necks
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 30 September 2005 8:11:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MODE=CITIZEN in DEMOCRACY

Hi REDNECK...
On the issue of genetic differences, the diff between male and female is much larger I feel than between various races. But I guess the "pre-disposition to crime" should be analysed more deeply. 'Crime' is often just 'survival' (stealing food) but it can also be willful to enrich one's self or ones group or cause. So this resolves down to what I describe as the 3 motivations of humanity.

1/ Survival
2/ Propogation
3/ Gratification

The degree to which these 3 will be present in varying strengths, will be determined by culture and history. The outward characteristics/behavior could easily be confused with 'racial' characteristics, if most people from a particular area manifest the same.

<<I put it to you that this country would be far better off by reinstituting the White Australia Policy in order to limit the increasing numbers of people from crime and welfare dependent immigrant groups>>

Red, you seem to be equating 'whiteness' with 'goodness' and I can't agree with that (if you are) firstly I'm married to an Asian girl and secondly, my 8 yrs with her people convinced me beyond question that there all the phd's that any race could want are just sitting there waiting to be discovered.

I would prefer to urge 2 things

1/ The promotion and upbuilding of our Anglo European (and by default white) prevailing culture and history
2/ The acceptance of others based on social,cultural and political stability criteria. (but skin color is irrelevant)

Point 1 would always be protected, and any hint of 'ethno uppitiness' would be vigilantly guarded against. (e.g. ethnic lobbying to alter the immigration mix along their racial or religious lines)

The concept of us being enriched and blessed by other backgrounds is indeed true, we just don't want to be blessed into non-identity :)

I would expect the same towards me from any other nation I sought to enter.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 30 September 2005 8:54:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck- genetic research into crime has found a link between male and female crime- IE men cause more crime due to higher testosterone levels, although this and other factors work together to influence criminal behaviour.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/vda/vda-sec08.html

One of Fraser's pet references is J P Rushton who believes that lower intelligence in blacks, results in more criminal behaviour. Whilst it is true that intelligence is a factor in crime as the above link will tell you, it rates lower than other factors such as environmental ones. The flaw with IQ testing is that it can be culturally biased- for example Sternberg conducted tests in Tanzania and found that whilst on some tests they did not fair so well, on other cognitive tests they did well.

There is no conclusive evidence that supports the fact that some race's are more criminal than others. Dr Don Weatherburn in a report for the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics wrote regarding biological/genetic influences in crime:

"Thus, while there
is some statistical evidence consistent
with the possibility that there may be
inherited factors in crime, that evidence
is also open to interpretation in ways
which do not implicate genetic factors"
Posted by scooper9, Friday, 30 September 2005 9:46:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sure, Just look at Africa, North and south, That is a place of prosperity and a lovely place to migrate. In London there is a riseing problem, USA, in the last 40 odd years there has been a rising problem, with Sorry Black Negro race, even here in Australia with Aboriginal crime.The lunatic leftoid consiquence.
Sure, like Islam, it does not apply to all involved, but in the last 40 years something has happened, and that is called "Rise of Leftism", or the phenomina of the self perpetuated warm inner Glow, and the Propaganda of Anglo Phobic's perpetuated by Left wing Sub Intellectuals with other Agendas ,what also relates to that is "Total Denial". and the subversive mannor they had gone about it.

It is not Africa or Arab countries we are migrating to,
is it, Why, because they are stuffed, ask your selves Why.The only social security they have is a Bullet or a Rope.
Culture as redneck points out is a major factor, and only the Anti American or Anti semites would promilgate the abstract.

That is not Racism, that is realism, and it is realism that is effecting Australians , Poms, and Americans,Europeans, 1000 dollar wager to Guess the first European Country to enguage in civil war, yes not so abstract now. How long people think the lie will last is a question time will answer, and when it is answered, you already realise what will happen.
The self motiveted Minority ethnic groups take more than they give, then demand more,they have become the racist and within the hoste countries whilst our Elected officials find more ways to supress you and force the population to capitulate.No logical reasoning, But.
How did we get here, well some of the commentry above answers that Question, not much Academic work entered us into Multiculturalism, just Agendas and a Psychopathic Thinker's?
Posted by All-, Friday, 30 September 2005 3:44:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah All, i'd agree that multiculturalists are 'psychopathic'. multiculturalism itself is very self indulgent, and very excessive. It is an attack of the 'white phobics' - xenophobia replaced with a more 'acceptable' anglo(white)phobia.

Looking through some of these comment I'd have to mention the dull expressionless Egytian guy I know (a 21 one year old old man who seems to be in a permanent state of depression - lighten up bro). Oh and the Kenyan I had to endure for two days - there is a time to dance, and a time not to dance. This 42 year old kid danced all day at the most inappropriate times, at first it was funny then it became annoying. And that pelvic thrust was just plain embarrassing.

I find multi culti excessive & patronising. That said, no race is superior to another race. In this sense Fraser cheapens this article by suggesting so. Some cultural groups (or race) are more powerful but not superior.

Anyway I still like to belong to a group (fellow white people), but not of the ruling class variety (they are all boring and robotic).
So my and others clannish instincts could create problems in OZ if acedemics, politicians, priests and employers don't settle down to reality.

I give the article 5 out of ten. Starts off fantastically, then reaches an anticlimax when talking of racial differences and finishes dismally. Still in all multiculti sux
Posted by davo, Friday, 30 September 2005 4:55:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think, Scooper, that you agree that there is a genetic causal link to criminal behaviour. Sex, age, intelligence, family history and hormonal levels all play significant parts in the creation of a criminal personality. All of these factors are either fully or primarily genetically inherited. Cultural values may be more important in creating criminal values, but if negative cultural values are presented as exemplary behaviour to men who are young, immature, not very bright, with thrill seeking personalities who are prone to violence, the likelihood of them adopting criminal attitudes is infinitely greater than for more intelligent and mature men.

I would further submit that this is exactly what is happening to American negroes. Black culture is no longer Jazz or Rhythm and Blues. Black “Rap” music sanctions violence against women, violent criminal behaviour, the solving of disputes with weapons, the glorification of illegal drug abuse, disrespect for authority and the promotion of violence towards white people. The result has been that black women are being murdered by black men at a rate 6 times higher than for their white sisters. Violent criminal behaviour in black areas is so bad that in 1993, Sharon Kelly, the mayor of 90% black Washington DC, asked President Clinton to mobilise the National Guard because the police had lost control of the streets. Though only 12% of the U.S. population, blacks commit more than half of all rapes and robberies and 60% of all murders in the U.S. 1 in every 4 Black males between the ages of 20 and 29 is currently in prison or on probation or parole. Approximately 50% of all black males will be arrested and charged with a serious felony during their lifetime and a black person is 56 TIMES more likely to attack a white person than Vice Versa.

Considering the unacceptably high rates of criminal behaviour perpetuated by blacks in the USA, and regardless whether their high rates of criminal behaviour is genetically inherited or culturally acquired, would you not agree that it would be catastrophic for our society to allow such people to immigrate here?
Posted by redneck, Friday, 30 September 2005 5:17:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

(part 2)

But why Trad refuses to denounce such a “scriptural penalty” in principle is because “AS A MUSLIM I CANNOT DENOUNCE ANY OF THE SCRIPTURAL PENALTIES AND STILL BE A MUSLIM. I can though say that these penalties can only apply when the deterrents are in place and the Caliphate system exists, for example, you cannot penalise adultery unless marriage is easy and affordable for people to enter into. You cannot penalise thieves by cutting off their hands unless you have a welfare state” (a friend’s email 20/7/2005).

Trad says the UWS conference was motivated by the very tension sheik Abu Baka noted. He attempts to appease his fellow bigots by getting them to see that if they just thought of homosexuality as “self-harm,” then they might see that they should “counsel” their homosexual workplace colleagues “with advice that would help them to break away from that self harm” of homosexual acts/lifestyle (http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/520/520p8.htm). “If this advice,” he continues, “is against workplace policy, then you have to determine whether the interest of the person and your principles are greater or the workplace policy”. In other words, if someone (a Muslim in this context) genuinely cares about their homosexual colleague’s welfare and if they genuinely have principles, they would defy anti-discrimination law, seeing it as out of touch with reality and thus not genuinely aligned with people’s welfare.

Nonetheless, Greens Senators Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle were happy to campaign with Trad recently!! (see http://www.stopwarcoalition.org/).

Please, Pericles, don’t arrogantly assume that people who disagree with you have no mind of their own. Fraser’s credentials do not “provide some form of legitimacy, if not credibility,” to what many already know is the case. The ACA poll is not reflective “of the danger of this form of publicly-funded bigotry,” but rather the empirical fact that people want to debate the inconsistencies of multicultural policy. In putting forward an extremely limiting two options, the ACA poll cannot reflect that most people might, for instance, disagree with Fraser on the crime-genetic argument but agree with him on the multicultural one.

Keep an open mind.
Posted by Skippy, Friday, 30 September 2005 5:40:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can any of the white superior chaps show me the genetic profile of the various "race's", are you show us how these variation effect the nature of the "races"?
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 30 September 2005 6:42:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. While the Western world of whites have civilised and settled down, Black Africans in Rwanda and Zimbabwe continued to rape, murder and steal from their fellow man, often singling out whites (i.e. - Zimbabwe and farmers).

2. - Black, male men have 20-30% more testosterone in their systems (I mean sub-saharan blacks) rendering them more aggressive and spontaneous. This is possibly why they never invented the wheel.

3. Aborigines in aus saw simple loincloths as luxuries, never mastered metalwork and had NO form of farming/sustainability whatsoever until white settlement and civilisation. They were in the sub-stoneage. They were NOMADIC. Do you know what NOMADIC means? Whites were NOMADIC 1000 years ago, but within 300 years they had constructed castles and towns, and also had re-mastered metalwork and simple technology. Aborigines did not progress or change in any way for 4000 years, until whites arrived.

4. Think, briefly, about what Africa would be like if there was no contact with Whites at all. Imagine if they were left to their own devices. The Egyptions would possibly have progressed into a modern society, but sub-saharan blacks? Central and southern blacks would not have even developed a written language and would be living in mud huts treating their women as slaves and selling their daughters, while I am sure Europe would not be too far behind where it is today. And for the record - no black man who has not been educated and civilised by whites has EVER invented something signifigant. Only Whites and some asians have been responsible for the absoloute majority of signifigant, world altering discoveries/inventions.

The obvious differences in racial groups is evident in the way some countries advanced far more rapidly than others technologically and socially. Spare me your leftist BS - we are different, god made us this way, let us stay with our own kind and live happily. I dont need to share my western european nation with a group of people who, had it not been for my ancestors, would be living in the near stoneage.
Posted by Uberlegen, Saturday, 1 October 2005 12:14:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck- I agree that there is evidence of male criminality being related to genetics, however it is an interaction of factors that lead to criminal behaviour, not one. Genetic research at this time is far from conclusive as to whether certain races are more criminal than others. A friend of mine who is a biologist remarked to me the other day, that even though some people may have the gene for black hair, it does not mean they will have it.

You make the mistake of ignoring years of serious criminology as does Fraser, that crime itself its influenced by a variety of factors and not one factor may be the sole cause or influence. It is ironic that despite the supposed influx of African immigrants into our nation as Fraser implies our crime rate has far from increased due to the supposedly violent nature of these people. I think you are grasping at straws like Fraser, without actually putting forward any evidence.
Posted by scooper9, Saturday, 1 October 2005 12:36:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ uberlegen: 1. While the Western world of whites have civilised and settled down, Black Africans in Rwanda and Zimbabwe continued to rape, murder and steal from their fellow man, often singling out whites (i.e. - Zimbabwe and farmers).

1.Rwanda before the colonial War and arrival of the Germans was a peaceful place. I guess you watched Hotel Rwanda,so now your historian of African studies.

2.Zimbabwe before the British invasion and colonial War was a peaceful place, history proves that. I think you watch to much Television.Those whites in Zimbabwe are not "single out" the whites you see on T.V. are farmers who stole tribal-ansectoral land.They force blacks families off their land.

3.The violent murder of indigenous australians, commited by invading Australian convicts, sorry colonizers . Who now want to be thought of as civilized people ,who have "settle down" then taught people to live more in this time.
Posted by Amel, Saturday, 1 October 2005 2:26:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You wrote in your previous post that “intelligence” was not as big a factor in criminal behaviour as “environmental factors”. But you would have to agree that while criminal behaviour is concentrated in the disadvantaged class, so is low intelligence. But disadvantaged class people who are intelligent are upwardly mobile, and soon become part of the working class or higher. But unintelligent people stay in the disadvantaged class and commit crimes. Therefore, it is reasonable to deduce that criminals are not criminals because they are poor, they are criminals because they are stupid.

According the noted book “The Bell Curve”, by Richard J. Herrnstein, the average IQ of American negroes is only 85, they are not noted for their academic achievements in schools or universities, and are conspicuous by their absence in the scientific world. You have said that IQ tests culturally disadvantage minorities when measuring intelligence. I admit that you may be correct. But IQ tests are designed to measure cognitive ability for job suitability in Western type cultures. African derived people may have high intelligence in an African pre industrial environment but they do not appear to have the type of cognitive abilities crucial to surviving in the modern Western world.

Uberlegan has correctly stated that African negroes have much higher levels of testosterone than white men, and this hormone is known to be crucial in whether a man is inherently violent or not. And the levels of this hormone in the human body is controlled by genetic factors.

To summarise. Criminals are typically young men with low intelligence and high levels of aggression causing hormones, which makes them prone to violent behaviour and risk taking behaviour. I put it to you that such a description matches the profile of African negro males. Given the catastrophic effects upon social unity which crime can cause any community, are you willing to bet the future welfare of your community that I am wrong, just because you believe there is absolutely no difference between the races other than the undeniable physical ones?
Posted by redneck, Saturday, 1 October 2005 5:54:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amel,
Thank you for your contribution, You have nailed the question,and answered it honestly, putting words in your mouth, but you mean "Tribalism", yes now we are getting somewhere.
I think you realy do not beleive in all that garble of Genoside of aboriginies, but it is a cool weapon of deseption for you to hang on with, as perhaps , you are an interested part of an ethno group, even other non ethno groups that relate to the Genoside or even the stolen generation are the victims of their own perpetuated ignorance. That is the Agendas of the Sub Intellectuals described before.
In Short, Tribalism is the very reason why Multiculturalism is Multicrimminalism, The Lies and deseption it needs to create the impression it is ok, is only acheived by those with Agendas controling the outlets that are meant to protect you, and inform you. That is re-engineering and deseption , and when you have such a massive lie covered up and The Propaganda weapon deployed, you must realise we are in big trouble.
Those that are of hardened Marxist Ideolgies only beleive in what makes them glow and , not what are facts,"Total Denial". Antonio Gramski theories of Social re-order are the Ideologies these Psychopaths follow to achieve their goals. By changing Social definitions.They are the New Gestapo, and the new Fascist Leaders that aspire to control you and your thoughts, and how you live your life, "Communism, Fascism, Islamism", Alarm bells yet, sure something there sounds familiar.
Like I said before, peoples grasp on History , "Not Postmodern Written",is bad, very bad.
Posted by All-, Saturday, 1 October 2005 6:35:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Nitwit Racist AMEL!

Check the latest statistics at the ABS. Even as at the 2001 population census of the 20 million residents in Australia only 8.5 million were Anglo (that includes descendants from the UK as well as
people who were born in the UK). This means that the other 13.5 million are not Anglo as you obviously think, but are a conbination of other Europeans, Asians and Middle-Easterners, and only 7 million of them were born in Australia. Effectively, this means that in less than 50 years Australia has gone from 99% Anglo to just 42%. This is crazy considering that the majority has always been against it. It is a true testament to the extreme Christ-like tolerance that the Average Aussie must have considering there hasn't even been one race riot - and that is in the face of two of these guest ethnic groups becoming our nations crime/drug capitals (Bankstown & Cabramatta).
I know that most of these people, whether from Uk or not are still loyal Australians, but ask yourselves now, anyone whos descendents do not come from the UK or who isn't a native aboriginal (who no doubt feel just as strongly about letting this second wave of huge settlement happen, namely multicultural migration, why does the left always hark on about white settlers when they let their other ethnic mates on mass in the back door. They really care about aboriginal land/health issues), what would you say if half of China, Greece,Italy, Lebanon, Vietnam,Turkey,Suadi Arabia(for gods sake) was ordered by god knows who, against the will of the majority, to demographically change by over half in a 50 year period? I know what the answer would be from not only the expats but the left also. They would totally be on the side of whatever little nationalist movement that was against it. When such groups are white the "dumb" call them Neo-Nazis.
Posted by Matthew S, Saturday, 1 October 2005 7:30:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting that none of the white supremacist/armchair geneticists here has yet managed to state clearly what a "race" is. Come on guys, if it's that obvious a concept it can't be that hard to define...

I won't hold my breath.
Posted by mahatma duck, Saturday, 1 October 2005 8:35:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@All: I think you realy do not beleive in all that garble of Genoside of aboriginies, but it is a cool weapon of deseption for you to hang on with, as perhaps , you are an interested part of an ethno group, even other non ethno groups that relate to the Genoside or even the stolen generation are the victims of their own perpetuated ignorance. That is the Agendas of the Sub Intellectuals described before.

I was going to ask the same question about Africans,crime and genetics.I don't know why such a big deal is being made about "Multiculturalism" since "Navtive"Australians non-white and white get along so well with each other.

@Matthew S:I see you have some statistics,I know you can't give me the real reason behind those stats.I won't ask.

a native aboriginal (who no doubt feel just as strongly about letting this second wave of huge settlement happen, namely multicultural migration, why does the left always hark on about white settlers when they let their other ethnic mates on mass in the back door. They really care about aboriginal land/health issues), what would you say if half of China, Greece,Italy, Lebanon, Vietnam,Turkey,Suadi Arabia(for gods sake) was ordered by god knows who, against the will of the majority, to demographically change by over half in a 50 year period.

Maybe they do,thats up to them. Blacks in South Africa have allowed Indians,Malays, Greeks, plus a large amongnt of Sweds and Germans to set up businesses in South Africa, just recently. Alot of the Diamond mines and Gold mines are run by these people. Ericsson the Swedish mobile phone company does business in South Africa because Africa has one of the fast growing mobile phone purchases. Namibia is a peaceful"African country" it has a multicultural population,they have resolve things, but do you ever hear the good.
Posted by Amel, Saturday, 1 October 2005 9:27:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If whites migrated to the worlds poorest countries en masse, I wonder if in time, that country would still be poor. I doubt it.

Whites seem to prosper anywhere they go, blacks live in poverty anywhere they go (london, the carribean, new york, johhanesburg).
Posted by davo, Saturday, 1 October 2005 11:42:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Matt S- not sure where you actually got your statistics from but I think you are somewhat off in reading that data:

Birthplace
Applicable to all persons (excluding overseas visitors)

In the 2001 Census, 13,629,685 people (72.6%) stated they were Australian-born. This compares with 13,227,996 people (74.5%) in the 1996 Census and 12,719,726 (75.8%) in the 1991 Census.

The number of people born overseas in the 2001 Census was 4,105,444 (21.9%) compared with 3,907,993 (22.0%) in the 1996 Census and 3,688,385 (22.0%) in the 1991 Census.

Of those born overseas, the three main countries of birth in the 2001 Census were:

United Kingdom: 1,036,245 (5.5%)
New Zealand: 355,765 (1.9%) and;
Italy: 218,718 (1.2%).

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@census.nsf/4079a1bbd2a04b80ca256b9d00208f92/7dd97c937216e32fca256bbe008371f0!OpenDocument#Ancestry

As a side issue this is some stats on the sudanese people in Australia based on the last census:
Qualifications
In 2001, of Sudan-born people aged 15 years and over, 45.7 per cent held some form of educational or occupational qualification compared with 46.2 per cent for all Australians. Among the Sudan-born, 26.2 per cent had higher qualifications* and 7.4 per cent had Certificate level qualifications. Of the Sudan-born with no qualifications, 49.9 per cent were still attending an educational institution.

* Higher qualification includes Postgraduate Degree, Graduate Diploma & Graduate Certificate and Bachelor Degree Advanced Diploma & Diploma Level.

http://www.dimia.gov.au/statistics/stat_info/comm_summ/textversion/sudan.htm
Posted by scooper9, Saturday, 1 October 2005 1:10:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Skippy, thanks for taking the trouble to refer to my post on this issue. I had a problem understanding the points you made, perhaps you can help me out.

>>I disagree that “anyone should be allowed to demonstrate their bigotry,” for there is no inconsistency in being intolerant of intolerance<<

My point there was that although I disagree with the tone and purpose of Fraser's paper, I am perfectly comfortable with allowing him to publish it. This was to contrast my position with that of some folk who disagree with the tone and purpose of Fraser's article, and assume that their opinion is sufficient to have it banned from publication, or for him to be censured for writing it. To disagree with this point is to side yourself with those who believe it should not have been published, and the rest of your post doesn't appear to be consistent with this view.

You say later in the post

>>So one shouldn’t condemn those who hold such views so long as they’re not manifest in concrete law? So we should never attack political viewpoints, for most of these are just proposals for the future?<<

Well actually, that was my point. How do you know their views unless they are allowed to publish? How can you attack an idea or a viewpoint if you have no idea what it is? As I said before, in my view anyone should be allowed to flaunt their bigotry, if only to bring it out into the open so that we can see it for what it is.

>>Please, Pericles, don’t arrogantly assume that people who disagree with you have no mind of their own.<<

That was the part that really stumped me. I know perfectly well they have a mind of their own, and I believe they should be allowed to express their views and show the workings of their mind. It puzzles me that my posts come across to you that way.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 1 October 2005 6:31:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello all that support the views espoused by the professor

Guess what? Australia was mostly non-European 220 years ago and will again be so maybe 30 to 50 years from now. (TUFFF!)

And the average IQ and standard of living will be greater than now.

Hello all that dont support the views espoused by the professor

He said it and nothing you can say will change the minds of those that support him.

Bye :O)
Posted by savoir68, Saturday, 1 October 2005 9:44:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The proportion of Australian-born in many of the ethnic enclave suburbs in Sydney is 40% or lower. Given that many of those Australian-born would actually be children in migrant families, the true figure for traditional Australians in those suburbs would be much lower, possibly down around 20%. Many of those would be isolated older people. So the proportion of active traditional Australians in those suburbs is tiny.

http://www.domain.com.au/Public/SuburbReport.aspx?mode=&searchTerm=2134

The older Australians left in those suburbs find themselves living in a foreign culture.
Posted by JH, Saturday, 1 October 2005 11:43:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://shroudedindoubt.typepad.com/bag_of_worms_yet_words/
Posted by All-, Sunday, 2 October 2005 6:12:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Savoir68, you have just confirmed that multiculturalism is suicide by immigration.
Posted by davo, Sunday, 2 October 2005 9:08:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No. davo - on the contrary, you've just confirmed Savoir68's second point.

While we have your attention, would you mind sharing with us what you understand a "race" to be? It's a little damaging to the racist position that none of you - including Andrew Fraser - seems to be able to elucidate what this notion actually is.

I'll give you a hand:

Is it genotype?
Is it phenotype?
Is it ethnicity?
Is it culture?
Is it religion?

Or is it just a label you attach to anyone who's different from you, and to whom you feel superior?
Posted by mahatma duck, Sunday, 2 October 2005 10:58:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Hyperlink above in my last post is an exellent reprisentation of what is mentioned in Drews Post, perhaps not clear, but the battle of Ideologies, and the difference of Subjective argument "Ideological philosophy"Emotional disorder and "The Objective" argument based on impirical facts, Never shall the two meet.
I was not sure the link worked , but it is OK, Please indulge,we might end this war with some real intelligent argument and not a Leftis programed Subjective responce proclaimed and orchestrated by the linguistic corruption of the Noem Chomsky types.It would not matter what truth was on display, it will be denied by those who are logic depraved.
Posted by All-, Sunday, 2 October 2005 11:03:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davo- you wrote:

"If whites migrated to the worlds poorest countries en masse, I wonder if in time, that country would still be poor. I doubt it.

Whites seem to prosper anywhere they go, blacks live in poverty anywhere they go (london, the carribean, new york, johhanesburg)".

Perhaps if they were given the chances that white people had they would not have to live in poverty. Rather ironic it is that blacks were used as slaves in America because white people were too lazy to do those jobs,then they were segregated. In Australia we blame Aboriginals for causing lots of crime, yet of one the major factors underlying indigenous Australian crime is alcohol- alcohol which was introduced by white people.

The same can also be said of standard IQ testing- it favours the white middle class, and of course you then get people such as Fraser using against those to which it is biased against in the first place.
Posted by scooper9, Sunday, 2 October 2005 12:56:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The funny thing is Davo's is a unemployed bogan living in Mcfields. :-)
Can Davo or his fellow neolites offer any demonstrations of their magnificent brain power that gives “white” such high status. Can he show us what it is in our genetics that makes us better? Of course he can’t he is like any other racist no matter what colour, he is simply looking to blame someone else for his own short comings. Some failure in his life maybe it was the little Kim li who got pick before him for the footy team. Maybe it was the Indian girl who turned him down and his mates laughed at him. Whatever it is Davo get over it
Posted by Kenny, Sunday, 2 October 2005 3:36:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

Like you, I disagree with the means by which Fraser makes his case, but instead of letting that invalidate his entire position, I find him justified in responding to the gross imbalances in healthy criticism and issues regarding responsibility in free-speech resulting from “multiculturalism.”

Indeed, this being fundamental to his overall position, the needed perspective the UWS references might offer highlight the irony in the debate on free-speech surrounding Fraser, and thereby the “arrogance” of those who deem academic “credentials” to be of more serious concern in such matters than those of, say, the Muslim sheik.

You see, in outright disagreeing with Fraser, one denies the fact that in practice only whites seriously have to be responsible speakers. The Other’s bigotry is excused as a “response to racism”. Why not Fraser’s?

The Sydney Mardi Gra floats nuns, reverends, and those who innocuously say “poof” on air. In light of the UWS links, don’t you find their having never floated a Muslim to be pathologically treating them as permanent guests?

In light of the possible legal dilemmas arising from “multiculturalism” re Trad’s having to creatively devise a means to appease his fellow sharia law sympathisers to the over-tolerance of Australian law, I implicitly asked you whether you would ban such meetings from happening, say, a second time?

Is it not inconsistent, for example, of a Wassim Dourahei (Hizb-ut-tahir) to claim, on the one hand, that Australia ought to tolerate his organisation’s political views (RE Howard’s refusal to invite him to terror summit), and therefore implicitly heterogeneity, and on the other that this society (indeed the entire planet) ought to transform into a politically homogenous society that is intolerant of criticism, alternative viewpoints, and change, under dogmatic Islamic Sharia law (the UK website shows an intolerance of democracy)?

Since freedom of speech is based on the assumption of tolerance and equal rights, I find no inconsistency in being pro free-speech ONLY for those who are also pro free-speech, since those against it could only be a virus upon its very principles. Do you think sharia law sympathisers are such a virus?
Posted by Skippy, Sunday, 2 October 2005 4:35:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saviour68,

Your inconsistency is in your not ALSO applying "tuff!" to (1) Aboriginal lands rights activists, and (2) the most recent batch of immigrants coming under the "multicultural" program.

Assuming you support "multiculturalism", then it is inconsistent to support, on the one hand, the rights of ethnic minorities to preserve themselves from the threat of "assimilation", and on the other, to reserve "transformation" solely for the UK-European hosts (The "middle" wave of immigrants, the ones who built this nation).

Assuming you want to be consistent, you would either have to make all cultures undergo transformation into a "melting pot," or support the right of preservation for all cultures, in which case you would have to also support the preservation of the the host culture.

Besides, what is wrong with a nation or culture wanting to preserve themselves? Try this on in China, Japan, Suadi Arabia, etc., and you would be against it. Why? Are you a white hater? A racist? The argument about aboriginals being here not so long ago is rediculous : two reasons :-
1) Japanese or Indonesians would now occupy this land instead, and much more detrimentally to the indigenous fauna.
2) Every Western European Nation is undergoing similar demographic changes as well and the natives there are white Europeans, why do they have to be told "TUFF" about not being able to determine their own cultural/ethnic futures?
Posted by Matthew S, Sunday, 2 October 2005 11:46:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Matthew S:Besides, what is wrong with a nation or culture wanting to preserve themselves? Try this on in China, Japan, Suadi Arabia, etc., and you would be against it. Why? Are you a white hater? A racist? The argument about aboriginals being here not so long ago is rediculous : two reasons
I'm glad you made this point,The Chinese have always lived in china-
The Japanese have always lived in Japan and the Saudis always lived in Saudi Arabia.White Australians on the other hand, are Older British immagrants.
If they really wanted to perseve their culture,they should of stayed in Britian . People who are So obsess about perserving their culture should stay with their roots in everyway. And I don't think ethnic people are that crazy about coming to Australia anyway
Posted by Amel, Monday, 3 October 2005 2:34:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wrong again, Scooper 9. The Australian referendum which recognized aboriginal people as Australian citizens was opposed by rednecks such as me because of the realisation of the harm it would do to aboriginal people.

This referendum was actually called the “drinking referendum” by people in the Top End who knew that it would give tribal aborigines the right to drink alcohol. Previous to that, aboriginal people were denied that right by our caring governments which put aboriginal welfare ahead of so called “human rights.”

Rednecks knew that granting aboriginal people drinking rights would be catastrophic to aboriginal society and would make the task of assimilating aboriginal people into modern society almost impossible. Even after the referendum granted full citizenship rights to aboriginals, redneck publicans simply refused to sell alcohol to tribal aboriginals. These publicans were then threatened with court action by government functionaries who traveled (briefly) to remote areas and laid down the law to them, before they scuttled back to the air conditioned fleshpots of Canberra.

So please do not lump Rednecks and Social Progressives (Regressives?)together as “white people”, who share collective responsibility for the predicted problems that did eventuate.

I love how your mob think. You create an endemic problem by your slavish adherence to a moral ideal, then you blame all white people for a ghastly problem that could have been avoided if you had listened to the rednecks in the first place.
Posted by redneck, Monday, 3 October 2005 5:52:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent post, Skippy.

I will take issue again with you Scooper, on your claim that black people are always poor because of white racism.

During the 1950's and 60's, the cause celebre of the "angry young men" was not Refugees, Reconcilitaion or Republic, it was Colonialism. The opinion of the know all educated caste was that white people were "exploiting" black people by ruling them with colonial administrations. The prevailing wisdom had it that when whites gave their colonial subjects Independence, then those former colonies would become prosperous and everybody would live happilly ever after.

This formulae did work with the Asian races when they received Independence. But it most certainly did not work with either the Muslims or the countries ruled by black Africans.

Now, I would love to think that every human on Earth, regardless of the skin colour and social class, had exactly the same level of intelligence as every other human being. But simple observation indicates to me that such an assumption does not bear the weight of critical analysis.

Unless you can think up a reasonable explanation involving "white racism" as to why Asian people prospered, while black and Muslim people went backwards, then you had better get rid of your far from unique "blame the white fella for everything" mindset and start thinking straight.

Here in Australia, racism works quite the other way. White Australians do not recieve the same levels of welfare as aboriginal Australians. They do not recieve the same government funded educational advantages as aboriginals. There are a plethora of social rights from hunting rights, to fishing licenses, to exemptions from Common Law that aboriginal people have over whites. Sooner or later you must run out of trite, politically correct explanations as to why your pet social theories do not work, and instead ask yourself some hard questions that you have so far preferred not to think about.
Posted by redneck, Monday, 3 October 2005 6:27:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I agree with redneck that all races have not evolved equally on average,there are many factors that influence intelligence and we are begining out that their many types of ability and intelligence.Barry Jones for example no one would dispute is an intelligent man along with Kim Beasily.Listening to Barry argueing a point is agonising,he analyises both sides of a topic to the so much,he fails to reach the core issues that persuade us and himself to choose a definite course of action.His common sense detectors that most people have, seem to be less developed.Kim Beasily has a similar way of thinking that we interpret at waffle.They both cannot seem to clarify a point in a few sentences.Barry is definitely not suited to politics and would have made a brilliant scientist.

My point is that because of poverty many races have no had the time to develop intellectually since good nuitrition and time to learn are enormous factors.For every African we have sent $5000.00 in aid and the problem of poverty worsens.There could well be lower genetic ability on average however there have been negros that have achieved in intellectual persuits.

Andrew Fraser generalises too much about all races,Anglos aren't the smartest race.We all have differing abilities that contribute towards society.

I think we need to slow down the pace of ethnic change in Aust for the sake of harmony.I'm seeing too much crime violence hate and we need to far more selective about who we bring here,since once the fighting starts it will tear our country asunder.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 3 October 2005 9:11:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The study of genetics have long since proven that race has absolutely nothing to do with intellectual potential, predisposition to crime or any other subversive behaviour, IQ, whatever. It's all bunk, so there's no point debating it.

Now that you know, hopefully more progress can be made in this thread.
Posted by spendocrat, Monday, 3 October 2005 9:58:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My point is that because of poverty many races have no had the time to develop intellectually since good nuitrition and time to learn are enormous factors.For every African we have sent $5000.00 in aid and the problem of poverty worsens.There could well be lower genetic ability on average however there have been negros that have achieved in intellectual persuits.

Thats complete bulls**t,How about the money western countries make from draining poor countries of their resources.Poverty has not worsen because of money sent.It exsist because of greed.

"I think we need to slow down the pace of ethnic change in Aust for the sake of harmony.I'm seeing too much crime violence hate and we need to far more selective about who we bring here,since once the fighting starts it will tear our country asunder".

"Selective" why don't you just say what you really mean: Keep non-whites out, because Australians are to petty or racist to deal with others. America Britian South Africa Zimbabwe can do the same thing, maybe you'd like an all white population.That would make you feel more comfortable. And I think natives commit far more crimes violence than the new arrivals do
Posted by Amel, Monday, 3 October 2005 9:58:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, Yep and that is an Exellent point, Nowhere so far has any person actually argued for the Right for Australia to exist, and without the libiterian crapp, but base the argument of leftoid mantra of Racism.
The simple explination is that Multiculturalism is the criminal inculcation of Ethnic tribalism, Some leading intellectuals have a romantic notion of the Savage beast. But the one truth and ethical debate , thanks to Liberalism, and Left Psychopaths,to the contry, a Nation can stand on it's own, and that is MONOCULTURALISM, made up of different races, simmilar in cultural Identity and abillity to live under ONE roof as to say. But this is not and has not been the case, as other Ethnic Identities have lattched onto the Libiterian band wagon, and the Left's mantra and 5th column try to fracture and distroy the existance of a once prosperous Nation,Family is the intended target, the intention perhaps is to create a power vacume.
With our Education system full of Marxis cultural brainwashing, do not be supprised that the generational effect ends in the "Antipathy of Intellectual or Academic Epistemology" we have well entered this stage, and it is time to regain the intitiative or we loose it for all time. It will not make any difference if a Person has an IQ of 150 if he is being brainwashed by the dumbo who had his brain lobotamized ages ago. They are now our Dr's Professors, Polititions, Judges, Lawyers, Public servents,etc etc etc. That is Frightening.
Posted by All-, Monday, 3 October 2005 10:02:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Too simplistic Amel.I don't proport to know all the answers as you seem to with a few short sentences.How do you explain the mess Zimbabwe is in now since they have rid themselves of the Anglo ruling class.South Africa is also suffering econmically.The Middle East has received trillions in oil revenue,yet large portions of their populations remain poor and ignorant.No one is stealing oil,we are paying market prices.Real wealth exists in the minds of your people both in skills,intelligence and ethics/morality.

How do you explain that countries like Japan ,Korea,China and now India now making huge leaps economically when many others with billions in aid can't seem to even make a start.

I want to see cold hard analysis of the facts and processes rather than politically correct diatribe that assumes all humans to be equal in all areas of ability.Africans we would all agree are good at running particularily sprinting.They are genetically superior.

I remember seeing film footage of the Northern Ireland religious conflict.The blind hate in the faces of adults and children was palpable.I don't want to see this mentality in Australia no matter what your skin colour.

That is why I say we do a cold hard analysis of all people considering skills intellgence,temperment,assimlation potential when assessing immigration status.

Just to say all races and cultures are equal in all areas is a nonsense.Just speak to people who breed horses for speed or dogs for intelligence.All breeds are not the same.Humans evolved from apes and the same genetic rules determine our lives.

With our increasingly techological complex world we need smarter people to cope and make our societies work.There is no going back to the past since only science and technology that enabled the world pop to spiral out of control,will solve the problems of energy shortages,climate change and pollution.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 3 October 2005 3:14:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WHat a waste of time reading such posts!

The crux is that this Country needs a good airing of the pros and cons of this migration that is forced upon us, if Andrew Fraser can help get this started, so be it.

Migration is causing more problems and little gain in this Country.

That we should be a smarter country and use our intelligence eg. Sweden, Switzerland etc to improve our lives, not by bringing people here who are culturally and in many other ways the opposite of what has made this Country a great place to live in.

There shall be a price to be paid.

Pachelbel
Posted by Pachelbel, Monday, 3 October 2005 8:09:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poor Matthew S.

The truth hurts.
Posted by savoir68, Monday, 3 October 2005 8:33:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"That we should be a smarter country and use our intelligence " not a great deal of that displayed by our redneck poster's just lots of drool from the corners of their mouths. Observational evidence is code for I have no supporting evidence but irrational mob thinking is what I live for.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 1:34:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Has anybody else noted that those opposed to multiculturalism have decidely won this argument?

On one side, the Good Guys (and Gals!) write lengthy articles consisting of reasoned arguments. We ask our opponents reasonable questions which they invariably dodge. On the other side, our opponents, Savoir68, Sneaky Peter, Kenny and Spendocrat are quite plainly unable to counter our logic. All they can do is limit themselves to making posts which are little more than "hit and runs" consisting of high sounding moral pronouncements or sneery one liners.

We have got the snobby little trendies on the run.

Well done, boys and girls. It amuses me that our opponents, who never tire of portraying themselves as intellectually and morally superior to everybody else, can not mix it with ordinary people who are simply well informed and who have a low tolerance for ideological BS.
Posted by redneck, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 8:14:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, redneck, I suspect that most reasonable and enlightened readers are aware of the inherent problems in trying to argue with fools - eventually it becomes hard for an external observer to distinguish the sage from the idiot. Personally, I just tend to read some of the stupid and hateful things that people like to post here, shake my head and think, 'why bother?' - but occasionally I respond, like now.

Most of the time it's probably best to just let the bigots talk quietly among themselves.

What's a 'race', by the way? :)
Posted by mahatma duck, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 8:31:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have long been of the veiw that a contest of ideas is seldom "won" and rarely ever over; redneck seems to thnk this one is done and dusted. Once you reach that position you have surely lost.

I welcome being grouped with Savior, Kenny and Spendocrat - what a splendid bunch of dudes or dudesses.

But returning to red's spray: I have yet to see any examples of posters ( of the left that is )laying claim to intellectual superiority as alleged by redders.

And as for being unable to compete with "our" logic - lets not confuse unable with cant be bothered; I am on the record here as feeling free to opine or argue in any manner I choose once I meet the editors rules: this is not a pissing contest as many of those on the right would like it to be.

And furthermore ( I like the word furthermore nearly as much as I like the word snakewrandgler ) this is not Politcal Science 101 - again lining up a few examples and generalising from the particular is a bit like the Andrew Bolt or Peirs Ackerman school of logic - " all fish swim therefore all that swim must be a fish" - a few examples do not make a case. And I've yet to read much of sense from you red baby

And as for hit and run comments and sneery one liners - these posts for some are an interest and far from a lifes work - if I can make a point on the run I will; if I can craft a sneery one liner that makes me smile I will - thats what I do.

I am Sneeky and I am Peter
Posted by sneekeepete, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 10:08:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Has anybody else noted that those opposed to multiculturalism have decidely won this argument?<<

Only in your dreams, redneck.

>>On one side, the Good Guys (and Gals!) write lengthy articles consisting of reasoned arguments<<

Let's just check on that, shall we?

All- contributed early on:

>>I find it offencive and dissapointing just how many labotomized individuals are out there, But as some say ,I sigh, and relax in the notion, their time will come, and armed with the Ideology of Liberalism and Usful Idiot mantra, they will perish with time.<<

...then followed up with a beauty:

>>I gather most would despise Racial Apartheid in South Africa,When Mandella was locked up, just seems Ironic they are in favour in the lefti land Multi Culti anti Anglo Utopia, but Racial Apartheid is acceptable if it is Whites (Christian or Jew) being suppressed,Hay and cop this, By their own Blood, hay Good on you. Great job<<

...and supported ably by Amel:

>> what is wrong with a nation or culture wanting to preserve themselves? Try this on in China, Japan, Suadi Arabia, etc., and you would be against it. Why? Are you a white hater? A racist? The argument about aboriginals being here not so long ago is rediculous : two reasons I'm glad you made this point,The Chinese have always lived in china- The Japanese have always lived in Japan and the Saudis always lived in Saudi Arabia.White Australians on the other hand, are Older British immagrants. If they really wanted to perseve their culture,they should of stayed in Britian .<<

I have retained the original spelling. Unfortunately I haven't been able to duplicate the spittle marks on their screens and keyboards.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 10:13:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been sitting back for a week or so, reading. Work and real life are far too busy to spend the time responding every day on this site. However, from time to time, I am vexed, so I respond (Hey, Sneek, this is one of my favourites. Remember Commodus in Gladiator?).

What is ‘winning’ an argument? Is it convincing the opposition that your position is correct or better? Alternatively, is it driving the opposition into submission or silence? Either could be perceived as winning. Personally I think in this instance it is more the case that the reasonable see the ‘red’ in the rainbow and dispose of it as it should be – ignored to run out of steam.

The only sad reminder I get from these threads for me is that while slowly moving away from the trees, or race seem to be bending back over into the knuckle-dragging position again. That’s race as an all inclusive, as I do not think there actually is more than one. Really, that’s what science and study tells us. So, whatever you attribute to the ‘black’, ‘asian’ or ‘white man’ must be attributed to all.

(Now it’s time to go play in the abortion and music piracy debates. What a hoot they are!)
Posted by Reason, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 11:41:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its not so hard really, common sense and experience should tell us that social stability and cohesian depend on a core mass of homogenous people.
That, for Australia will mean White Anglo/Euro with a smattering of others of any color.
The last thing we should want is a racial diversity which sees 'almost the same numbers between different racial groups. e.g. Malaysia. I flew into Butterworth near Penang in 69 just as the Chinese/malay race riots broke out. It ain't a pretty piccy.

The national racial mix should never, in my opinion be based on concepts of superiority, but on security and harmony.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 12:05:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Perci, You arguments are a bit on the far side, Perhaps if you read the news paper or the listen to the news, your favoured Version of Ethnicity is enacting the racial removal of White’s in South Africa,Same as in Zimbabwie, I realise even some of the great intellectual minds such as your self find it hard to comprehend reality. It matters not what is mentioned in Publications or in any forum, the real people of Australia suffer the indignity of your Ilk's folly. As is true of Western Societies in general.

Most points in favour of the Argument were only met by spurious assertions and typical Mantra everyone comes to expect with a Post-modern aptitude, and Ethno interest Groups did stand out by the very nature of their argument, right down to the obvious ignorant, and needless to say Perci , Special interest groups.

Perhaps soon the public will hold a Plebiscite on the matter, rest assure you and others, you will not like the answer, nothing what so ever to do with Racism, just Fed up with the lie and the preponderance of supposed Academics and Politicians along with Apparatchiks,supposid Professional's self perpetuated employed and other interest groups hell bent on destroying Australia and Australians.Intentional or not.
Spelling, Well I was not writing a Journal, just relaxing after a few drinks, the mind does wander, You should see the spelling of a Vice Chancellor I have acquaintances with often, after a few drinks, so the attempted insult is brushed off, and I will take greater note. But thanks for the contempt or attempt.
Posted by All-, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 3:22:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some of these Posts,quite Rambling,FULL of cleeshays poor,Spelling etc etc etc,Verry Hard to Read,dont rilly make much cents...

I was thinking of changing my name to "latte sipper", but now I'm considering "leftoid libiterian crapp-artist".
Posted by lisamaree, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 3:41:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Latté or Chardonnay sipping Socialist will do Lisamaree, but not to much you hear. You may not be able to comprehend what it is you are saying.
Dingbat will suffice.
Posted by All-, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 6:08:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck- being well informed is one thing, but actually where you source your information from is another. The media are indeed a good source of information, but at the same time we must take it with a grain of salt so to speak.

If you wish to believe you have won so be it. However you haven't proved anything in particular except prove that 'well informed people' are versed extensively in the use of rhetoric, as was referred to in another post like Piers Akerman and his acolytes.

Where is Andrew Fraser's support in the academic circles then? Apart from Kathe Boehringer his 'long term girlfriend', are all our academics really the 'PC cowards'and race traitors you people think they are? I think the answer lies in the fact that Fraser is another 'crack pot' whose essay will 'go down the dustbin of history'
Posted by scooper9, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 7:43:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is a shame that Andrew Fraser has taken such a one sided view since he does raise important issues that the PC trendoid lefties have virtually stifled debate by screaming racist at anyone with an alternate view.This is a debate that should have been had thirty years ago.

It isn't just about intelligence but also whether or not we can achieve racial harmony in the long term for the good of all.By far the most single important issue is that of language.Your language is your culture.Language unifies countries and we can only have common understanding through it.Our Govts have really dropped the ball on this issue.

It is too late to wind back the immigration clock but recently we have experienced racial and religious intolerance coming from certain Muslim groups.Now some have alluded to protesting in the streets about terrorism.Well it's been 3 yrs since 9/11 and we've had two attacks in Bali on our citizens and still there is no solidarity shown by Muslim groups for Australia or outrage shown against terrorism.Silence only condones the atrocities and if you want to enjoy all that this great country has to offer,you can't have an each way bet.

We all dicriminate in terms of social status,monetary levels,personality,intelligence,looks etc.We prejudge people in a lot more areas than race that can have equally devestating consequences.To be called stupid or a moron has the same effect.Perhaps the PC brigade could have these words banned from our language.

Yes, we should be having a debate about the compatability of races,cultures and belief systems,since our security and future depends upon it.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 1:23:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Mr Mahatma Duck. I would agree with your first premise but disagree with your second premise about who the fools are around here.

I have avoided responding to your question because it was not directed at me, and I am fed up of responding to generally directed questions from people who throw out challenges and then slink away when answered. If you wish to challenge me, please direct your questions directly at me so that I can be sure that you really wish to cross swords with me.

The second reason why I did not respond to your question is because I dislike arguing with fools. I can anticipate your premise. It will be something nonsensical like “There is only one race, the human race, therefore racism is illogical.” While such logic may be semantically correct in one sense, it ignores the fact that there are four definitions (according to my Collins) to the word “race”.

But I will chuck the gauntlet in your face, if only to display to any reasonable reader who are the silly ones around here.

One definition of race is. “A group of animals or plants having common distinguishing characteristics that distinguish them from other members of the same species.”

En guarde.
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 4:54:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So redneck what are common traits of each "race" in humans?
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 8:30:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It should probably be a distinction between so-called "scientific findings" on race distinctions and socio-political merits these “findings” have been estimated for.

Australia was established and is continuing to be a land of racists where nothing might change dramatically if even all Nobel Prizes go to scientists convincing a world that races are really different but not worse or better for these distinctions.
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 5 October 2005 12:08:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the advice All -... is english your second language? anyway, maybe you could take some of my advice: name calling and labelling is easy. Any 2-yr old can do it. An adult that continually spews it out in such a rambling way shows poor ability of self-expression and/or poor breeding (no matter what "race" you may be).

On the topic of white supremacy - I wonder about the objectivity of this argument, eg: "Unless you can think up a reasonable explanation involving "white racism" as to why Asian people prospered, while black and Muslim people went backwards...."

Asians have prospered by whose criteria? economy? population growth? what about China's human rights record?

Race: “A group of animals or plants having common distinguishing characteristics that distinguish them from other members of the same species.”

This probably refers to appearance, but even if someone did "prove" that intelligence was a distinguishing characteristic between races, it's still not a reasonable basis for limitations on Australian immigration. Every culture/race/whatever has differences in intelligence.

If we had opposed multiculturalism 50 years ago, we wouldn't have the current Italian and Greek community (for example), which have successfully integrated into the Australian culture. Same goes for the asian community. Accepting different cultures is a generational thing.
Posted by lisamaree, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 1:27:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that the real point here is the Italians, Greeks and Asians have not so much integrated into our culture, they have changed and enriched our culture. Strong coffee, Chinese take away and pizza are as much Aussie as meat pies and Holden cars. The great strength of modern cultures is their ability to change.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 1:51:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All-, I am becoming convinced that you are in reality the figment of someone's imagination.

No-one - but no-one - could be quite as perfectly-formed as the character you have created as your literary alter ego. He spouts arrant garbage that - let's be honest here - is too over the top for any self-respecting Australian. Austrian, perhaps, circa 1938, but not Australian.

We all know that "on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog", but actually, it is not quite true. You can tell the dog from the way they take great care to be un-doglike in everything they say. They will profess an undying love for cats, for example, or chide their fellow bloggers for their inclination to chase cars.

In the same way, you are just too perfect an example of a bigoted, one-eyed racist to actually be true. I suspect you are in fact a latte-sipping left-wing social studies wonk in an inner-city university, trying in different ways to further your research into the Australian mind. Well hah, I just caught you out!

You are a caricature, aren't you. Go on, admit it.

But in the extremely unlikely event that you actually believe what you "write", I'd like to make the following reply to your last post to me:

>> your favoured Version of Ethnicity is enacting the racial removal of White&#8217;s in South Africa,Same as in Zimbabwie<<

Wrong, on both counts.

>> the real people of Australia suffer the indignity of your Ilk's folly. As is true of Western Societies in general.<<

And the "real people" of Australia in your opinion would be...?

>>nothing what so ever to do with Racism, just Fed up with the lie and the preponderance of supposed Academics and Politicians along with Apparatchiks,supposid Professional's self perpetuated employed and other interest groups hell bent on destroying Australia<<

Oh puhleeeze! Nothing to do with racism? Mate, it oozes from every sentence you write.

But there I go again. Imagining that you are real. Silly me.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 2:30:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thank Mr Redneck for his reply, but it should be noted that I'm trying to engage in a conversation here, rather than a fight. Talk of challenges, gauntlets etc is not compatible (IMHO) with a civilised debate, even if it does come from an eminent member of a superior 'race'.

Now let's look at that definition: “A group of animals or plants having common distinguishing characteristics that distinguish them from other members of the same species.”

Fair enough, I suppose, but how useful is such a broad definition for any practical purpose? Under such a definition the following human groups would constitute 'races':

Women - they are distinguished from men by their genitalia
Blue-eyed people - distinguished from other humans by eye colour
Short people - distinguished by their small stature
Rednecks - distinguished by the colour of their necks
Christians - distinguished by their religious beliefs
Footballers - distinguished by their peculiar forms of bonding sessions
Racists - distinguished by their obsession with categorising people into hierarchical and mutually exclusive groups.
Etc etc.

Hey - I just realised that under Mr Redneck's definition, Australia is and always has been a 'multi-racial' society!

Thanks again for clarifying that, Mr Redneck :)
Posted by mahatma duck, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 2:35:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Mr Mahatma Sitting Duck.

I love it when my opponents do exactly what I anticipate that they will do. Trendy lefties always try to take the moral high ground first and you conformed exactly to stereotype. My challenge to you to engage me in direct debate was portrayed by you as uncivilized behaviour. Which, of course, infers that you are the holier than thou civilized one.

Look sunshine, I am sick and tired of chardonnay sucking intellectuals who think that they are God’s gift to the human race, talking down to me and pretending that they are the font of all knowledge. I am here to hold you and your mates up to the light and see what makes you tick. So far, I have been unimpressed with your ilk’s capacity for reasoned thought and critical analysis.

You asked me “how useful is such a broad definition for all practical purposes?”

Exactly.

You tried to set a semantic trap for me that was so laughably obvious that your intellect must have really come from the shallow end of the gene pool if you thought that I would fall for it. I simply returned the compliment and responded by playing semantic games as well. Two can play sillybuggers. You will have to try harder than that if you want to out think rednecks.

Checkmate.
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 5:14:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the ability to assimilate to one's changing environment is an indication of intelligence, or at the very least, an indication of stronger genetic makeup, then intolerance of change is the INability to assimilate....and the logical conclusion follows.
Posted by lisamaree, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 5:43:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck - I'm not your opponent and this isn't a game. I'm simply trying to assist you in overcoming the prejudice that is evidently impeding your logical processes.

As an avowed racist, you want to attribute all kinds of human deficiencies to the 'racial' categories into which you pigeonhole individual people. I've demonstrated that your definition of what constitutes a 'race' is so broad as to be meaningless in any objective sense. A 'race' is simply a label that you invent in order to categorise people according to your prejudices.

I'm simply saying that 'racial' classifications are pretty well useless in helping to understand human behaviour, which is why the vast majority of social scientists have dispensed with the notion. Additionally, the reification of the notion of 'race' by extremists of all persuasions has been shown to have very negative consequences for those peole who are assigned to categories that are not 'white' or 'anglo' or 'caucasian' or whatever is the label of the month for the superior 'race'.

Additionally, 'racial' profiling can have very nasty consequences for those who are mistakenly categorised as being of the wrong 'race' - like the poor Brazilian sod who was murdered by the British police because he resembled their 'Asian' (i.e. 'Middle Eastern') profile.

Lastly, I'm more of a beer drinker than a chardonnay sipper - though I'm partial to a glass or 3 of a nice Shiraz on a cool night :)
Posted by mahatma duck, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 5:56:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mahatna Duck,

Your argument reminds me of the British 'Council for Racial Equity' - Britain has always been a multicultural, multiracial society?
to jusitfy mass immigration from every corner of the world. Britain, historically only had large amounts of immigrants from neighbouring countries, not Pakistan, Africa, China or wherever ever else the multiculti left dip their fingers.

Australia has always had immigration from one source, which has avoided serious racial tensions thus far. People with blue eyes and brown eyes from they same cultural background (from Britain, Europe whatever) have better compatibilty than people with brown eyes from Pakistan or Sudan.

Duck, you are logically challenged.
Posted by davo, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 6:06:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And notice, too, Redneck, that Pericles, who initiated a discussion with myself, has since totally backed away, failing to reply to my questions.
Posted by Skippy, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 8:15:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Pericles, speaking about dogs and how to recognize them, I don't know if you caught my other post where I mentioned this boxer I saw in the Singapore Botanical Gardens a day or 2 ago... the European guy walking it had to stop while it did a business... then it immediately rolled in it while he was looking elsewhere.. and it just stayed there..shoulder in the poo.... he freaked, wiped it rear and then, with a very upset look, wiped its soiled shoulder....

We all tend to be a bit like that boxer at times... some wallow in 'I'm smarter than all yous' and others in "I couldnt give a damn what you think" and then of course there are we "holier than thou's" :) (or so some might venture to describe us)..

I don't know why its so hard to grasp (by some) the concept of cultural/racial critical mass, and how beneficial such a thing is for stability. I doubt you would disagree with that, but the duck wants to turn it into some ethereal 'but what IS race anyway' when we all pretty much know what it is.

We also know how social/cultural groups tend to try to promote their own interests at the expense of others. Those of us of the prevailing culture should avoid the deliberate marginalization of others purely for gain.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 6 October 2005 12:04:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While your premise infers that there is only one race, the human race. I think that most people can grasp that you have a point, but most people would also acknowledge that there are three principle races (Asian, Caucasian and Negroid) and also that there are many sub groups of those principle races in which different people are undeniably (and at the very least) physically distinguishable from others.

My premise is that there may be very real differences in temperament, intelligence and physical ability between differing racial groups, be they principle groups or sub groups. You claim the exact opposite. Yet your approach is that unless I can prove that you are wrong, then you must be right. Could I remind you that both of us has a premise, and the onus is upon both of us to give reasons why we think our premise is right.

But I at least am prepared to give logical reasons for why I think the way I do. You, and people who think like you, demand that the principle of absolute equality between races must be taken for granted and anyone who proposes differently is a cretinous, uneducated, “extremist”, “Hoi Polloi” redneck. I put it to you that such an argument is intellectually dishonest and a position carefully crafted to prevent intellectual discussion.

If there are differences between races and some of those differences are uncomplimentary to one race or the other, then it is just too bad. Your premise could be equated with the concept of whether one should continue to claim that the Earth is the centre of the universe. It may be true that the Earth is not the centre, but perhaps people should not be told because it might have a serious detrimental effect upon religious belief.
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 6 October 2005 4:59:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>And notice, too, Redneck, that Pericles, who initiated a discussion with myself, has since totally backed away, failing to reply to my questions.<<

Let's have a look at those questions again.

>>Huh? So one shouldn’t condemn those who hold such views so long as they’re not manifest in concrete law? So we should never attack political viewpoints, for most of these are just proposals for the future?<<

It's not the views that need to be condemned, but the intent.

>>You see, in outright disagreeing with Fraser, one denies the fact that in practice only whites seriously have to be responsible speakers. The Other’s bigotry is excused as a “response to racism”. Why not Fraser’s?<<

Why not, indeed.

"The Sydney Mardi Gra floats nuns, reverends, and those who innocuously say “poof” on air. In light of the UWS links, don’t you find their having never floated a Muslim to be pathologically treating them as permanent guests?"

Nope.

>>In light of the possible legal dilemmas arising from “multiculturalism” re Trad’s having to creatively devise a means to appease his fellow sharia law sympathisers to the over-tolerance of Australian law, I implicitly asked you whether you would ban such meetings from happening, say, a second time?<<

Nope.

>>Is it not inconsistent, for example, of a Wassim Dourahei (Hizb-ut-tahir) to claim, on the one hand, that Australia ought to tolerate his organisation’s political views (RE Howard’s refusal to invite him to terror summit), and therefore implicitly heterogeneity, and on the other that this society (indeed the entire planet) ought to transform into a politically homogenous society that is intolerant of criticism, alternative viewpoints, and change, under dogmatic Islamic Sharia law (the UK website shows an intolerance of democracy)?<<

Yep.

>>Since freedom of speech is based on the assumption of tolerance and equal rights, I find no inconsistency in being pro free-speech ONLY for those who are also pro free-speech, since those against it could only be a virus upon its very principles. Do you think sharia law sympathisers are such a virus?<<

Nope.

I trust my answers make as much sense as your questions.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 6 October 2005 8:47:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is what exactly xenophobia and racism mean practically - segregating Australian inhabitants by tribes where non-London-linked are upon generations permitted to only serve pizza to a higher race of not able read and write even their one and own English:

<<

I think that the real point here is the Italians, Greeks and Asians have not so much integrated into our culture, they have changed and enriched our culture. Strong coffee, Chinese take away and pizza are as much Aussie as meat pies and Holden cars. The great strength of modern cultures is their ability to change.

Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 1:51:50 PM>>>>
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 6 October 2005 11:08:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Still haven't provided any actual evidence Redneck. here say and opinion does not count any hard evidence to contribute?
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 6 October 2005 11:12:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To AMEL,

Are you one of the low IQs Fraser was talking about or are you just a racist bigot?
I made the point about Western European Nations (i.e. Britian, Germany, Sweden, Holland etc.) all undergoing similar
MASSIVE demographic changes as well as Australia. You said that Japan has always been Japanese and China has always been Chinese, then since Britian, Sweden, Germany, Holland (forget Australia for the moment) has always also been strictly themselves, then why do they also have to undergoe this similar MASSIVE demographic change also, against the wishes and better judgement of most of their native peoples? This was my point.

How can you possibly think that the white Australia culture is racist and only caring about themselves and their own kind?
This is precisely my point overall. All western nations (especially Australia and Canada) have had a massive immigration/refugee program and multicultural program for half a century now. Western Europeans are the most welcoming, tolerant people on the planet, that is why we are the only nations that have, although unwillingly, undergone these massive demographic/cultural changes. It is only the last wave of immigration (from the thitd world -Asia and Middle east) that has caused any one to be concerned at all. In every western nation we have consistently peacefully stood by while certain diasporas became our crime capitals where racial bashings, murders and rapes happen consistently.
It is only after putting up with such disgraceful, ungrateful behaviour for twenty years now in Australia with Cabramatta/Bankstown that we are finally fed up.
Still, though, to this day, there is no attacks of mobs (like there would be in their countries) on their little communities.
How are we racist and wanting to stay the same when we are the only cultures willing to atlteast try this multiculturalism out.
Only after being kicked in the teeth are we now openly against it.
Posted by Matthew S, Thursday, 6 October 2005 11:19:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Scooper9,

Next time, before you think you are intelligent look closer at the information. You are all alike you so-called "left-wing"
people, you read the first page of everything, go with the first impression, but you vehemently accuse everyone else of doing; you are stuck in a permanent state of

"Guess what? I've just read the first couple of pages of Chomsky and Pilger and they tell me that Walt Disney was really
a war criminal! Now I'll run outside and become an activist.I'll get back to the reading and actual detailed study some other
time. Appearing to be on the MORAL side will make up for intellectual shortness, I think! "

These are the actual numbers, and I grant you that I was out by 1 million or 8%, which isn't much anyway.

The crazy part is that by seeing the "Sudan-born Community" link you should have noticed this before accusing me
of being an intellectual lamehead.

The Australia-born Community
The Community Today

Ancestry
In the 2001 Census, the top three ancestries that Australia-born persons reported were, Australian (4,917,590), English (2,696,780) and Irish-English (918,540).

Of those born overseas, the three main countries of birth in the 2001 Census were:

United Kingdom: 1,036,245 (5.5%)
New Zealand: 355,765 (1.9%) and;
Italy: 218,718 (1.2%).

ADD THE FIGURES YOURSELF :

Australian born who claim UK heritage = 4,917,590 + 2,696,780 + 918,540 = 8,532,910

Overseas born who claim UK heritage = 1,036,245

TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO RESIDE IN AUSTRALIA WHO ARE DESCENDED IN SOME WAY FROM THE UK IS 9,569,155.

As a percentage of the 20 million people who reside in the country this equates to 48%.

Check the link out yourself :
http://www.dimia.gov.au/statistics/stat_info/comm_summ/textversion/australia.htm

I'd say that is a drastic change in any language. And to clarify for the nitwits, it is not about change itself, as the Australian people/culture has proven for over fifty years that they are capable of drastic change, but rather it is about certain types of negative change that we, as a fair and decent society, think we should not have to endure.
Posted by Matthew S, Thursday, 6 October 2005 3:02:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is interesting. We acknowledge that for the notion of a 'race' to have any meaning, its definition has to be so inclusive as to be useless in practical terms. On the other hand, some still insist that we all 'know' what we mean by a race - with Redneck specifying "three principle races (Asian, Caucasian and Negroid)", with " very real differences in temperament, intelligence and physical ability " between them.

Presumably Redneck's 'Asians' include people who trace their descent to that region of the world between the Mediterranean Sea and the Pacific Ocean. Please tell us what aspects in temperament, intelligence and physical ability distinguish them from the 'Caucasians' and 'Negroes'.

Presumably Redneck's 'Caucasians' are those who trace their ancestry to the area between the Atlantic Ocean and the Caucasus Mountains. What are the distinguishing common features of their temperament, intelligence and physical ability, pray tell?

'Negroes' are a bit of a problem, since the word derives from the Latin 'niger', meaning 'black', rather than from a geographical region. Does Redneck's 'Negro race' include, say, Papua New Guinea highlanders and Australian Aborigines, or are they 'sub-races'? In any case, what are the aspects of their temperament, intelligence and physical ability that distinguish them from your other so-called 'races'?

Redneck says that if I disagree with his ideas, then I should provide evidence. I suggest he consults any reasonably contemporary introductory anthropology text book. Failing that, there is quite a good coverage of the debate at Wikipedia.

I note that Redneck hasn't produced any evidence to back his claims at all, other than his own opinions.
Posted by mahatma duck, Thursday, 6 October 2005 3:19:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Matt, what then is the percetage of those who are say from places such as Romania, France, etc whom many of which are considered to be white anyway? I assume that they fit in with the mix of non-anglo's that you discussed in an earlier thread
Posted by scooper9, Thursday, 6 October 2005 3:29:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It isn't entirely clear what your selection of statistics is designed to prove Matthew S., but let me try and help you out a little.

This is an exact quote from the official Australian Bureau of Statistics web site:

Ancestry

Applicable to all persons (excluding overseas visitors)

In the 2001 Census, the three most common ancestries identified with were:

Australian: 6,739,594 people (35.9%),
English: 6,358,880 people (33.9%) and;
Irish: 1,919,727 people (10.2%).

Here's the URL if you would like to check it for yourself:

http://tinyurl.com/dh5wb

What has not been asked for, of course, is that the "Australian" contingent goes far enough back into the past to identify a "source ancestry". So what you have is a volunteered and non-specific answer, that gives you absolutely no statistical ammunition whatsoever. This category could, for all you or I know, consist entirely of fifth-generation Chinese.

The 2001 census counted 18,972,350 people in total, so it is wrong to divide your result into "20 million".

Now, what was the point you were making from all this?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 6 October 2005 3:44:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Mr Mahatma Sitting Duck.

I figured that you were going to go down this route, and that is why I never initially bothered to reply to your open questions that were directed at anybody who would answer them.

The three principle races I named were straight out of the Collins dictionary. So if you have a problem with any of the Collins definitions of the word “race”, please take them up with Collins Publishers, Sydney. Please also note that most people would consider your position, which is based entirely upon the premise that only one race exists, to be worthy more of mirth than serious consideration.

I will remind you once again that there are two premises here which are mutually exclusive. I claim that the differing races appear to have not only different physical characteristics, but also different physical and intellectual skills. You claim that every race and every sub group of races is genetically identical in every way, except for physical characteristics.

I am prepared to argue my premise on it’s merits. But you choose to slither away from justifying your own view. The best that you can do is top tell me to read an anthropology book. It’s exactly what I thought all along. You trendy lefties are all just fakes pretending to be intellectually superior to everybody else. Your pose is nothing more than a fashion statement which indicates your coveted social aspirations.

Hey Sitting Duck! I thought you were going to instruct me in the error of my racist ways? Is this the best that you can do? I think that you may be a bit out of your depth arguing against rednecks. But please keep it up. There are apparently many young who need to be deprogrammed from the anti Australian nonsense being drummed into their heads by the long haired men and short haired women of to day’s Teachers Associations.

You can provide a great service to me by displaying to them how intellectually challenged and intellectually dishonest are the people who hold your particular viewpoint.
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 6 October 2005 6:40:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ummm... redneck, I just tried to engage with your arguments on exactly their merits... You didn't even try to outline your schema of the distinguishing intellectual, physical and temperamental characteristics of the three 'races' that you nominated.

Tip: if you want to appeal to textual sources in a debate about complex sociocultural phenomena, you can do better than the Collins Dictionary. But that's only if you want to be credible.
Posted by mahatma duck, Thursday, 6 October 2005 9:18:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wemahatma duck, Well it seems that educating oneself about racism and talking to knowledgeable people from all walks of life - as well as exposing oneself to the diverse cultural world around us - and then reflecting deeply on this - was all for nothing. All we needed was a Collins dictionary, Allan Jones, some good old sensationist newspaper stories and a gutless personality. I’ve been cheated! (not)
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 6 October 2005 9:55:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Matthew s makes some good points.In France North African Muslims less than 5% of the general pop yet represnt 50% of the gaol pop.The PC brigade will not let the figures for Aust be released and are trying their best to stop the description of criminals according to race be broardcast over the media.Now describing someone as Anglo,Asian or Middle Eastern is discriminatory because a particular group gets mentioned on a daily basis in relation to crime and makes up only 1.5% of our pop.How about we argue specific facts?Now Rainer and Ducky stop picking on Redneck and have ago at me.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 6 October 2005 11:18:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am surprised that such theories still live until today. White supremacy myth was the shadow culture during British and French colonialism “saving Africa from the Africans” and “India from the Indians” type of ideologies. Over the last 2 centuries, the White supremacy was mainly founded mainly on military might and control of natural resources since the great migrations out of West Europe.

Some comments on the theory:

- Where does it leave us with intelligent earlier races such as Nubians, Hebrews, Japanese and Chinese. All these are non-white founders of much earlier and greater civilisations.

- There are levels of intelligence: academic, emotional and social. You can’t compare apples and oranges. Which intelligence are you talking about?

- A basic research rule is to unify the metrics before measuring: meaning, you can’t leave a state full of African Americans with no services and infrastructure and then use the crime stats to judge the race. That’s cheer non-sense! Saudi Arabia has the lowest crime rates in the world due the toughness of the criminal laws, so that makes them the smartest?

- British and French colonialism is accountable for the largest collective killing and races being wiped out. Until early last century the only inter race relation was a master slave! Please re-read American history including civil wars.

‘Racial supremacy’ was used throughout the cycles of civilisations. It was claimed by Romans, Greeks and Even Portuguese when they had their turn in being a super power.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 7 October 2005 10:57:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I not surprised but I am saddened redneck would have happily served in the SS. The inability to counter the direct evidence via DNA that "race" is a silly idea for humanity demonstrates his rather stupid ideas appeal to simpletons. Although it has been clearly shown through DNA studies that there is much variation within so called “races” as there is between random individuals. But why would the rednecks let reality get in the way of their worldview. The one they have constructed to act as a crutch to their own personnel short commings.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 7 October 2005 12:24:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck,
Respectfully, I disagree with your statement:

[There] “may be very real differences in temperament, intelligence and physical ability between differing racial groups”

Taking each in turn:

Temperament – I assume you are talking about the ability of a human to stand stress, maintain a quite disposition and generally be genial. If so, compare Albert Einstein, Ghandi, Confucius, and Nelson Mandela. Further, consider the peaceful protesters in any European city, Tiananmen Square, again India during Ghandi’s era. The self-sacrifice of all ‘races’ during times of war for their fellow human.

Intelligence – Let us consider that China, India and the Middle East all had advanced cultures prior to Europe coming out of the Stone Age, which included astronomy (not astrology), chemistry, physics and literature. In the modern day, we have Nobel prizes in science, literature, philosophy, etc that have been issued to people from every ‘race’.

Physical – Jesse Owens, Lance Armstrong, Tenzing Norgay. Here are three distinct ‘races’ who all achieved physical greatness.

Redneck, given people from all over the globe are capable of matching others from all over the globe – I would disagree with your position. I know you will state that these are aberrations to the norm. However, I would counter that, stating that there is no norm. Perhaps the answer lies more in our similarity than difference.

As to posters examples of criminality. Coming from the field of law, I would point out that there is no firm evidence linking criminality to race. Social and economic reasons, yes. Emotional and Psychological, yes. However, no evidence linking genes or physical makeup to crime.

MatthewS,
“Western Europeans are the most welcoming, tolerant people on the planet”

No, that is not correct. If you had been to many south East Asian towns or African, Indian or dare I say it ‘Muslim’ villages, you would find that many forego the rhetoric and paranoia of the governments in these areas and show hospitality far beyond the western European version in similar small towns. Europeans are generally cold, standoffish and demanding of any visitor – no matter the colour, creed.

Regards,
Posted by Reason, Friday, 7 October 2005 1:09:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MatthewS,

There is still a significant difference between places- cradles of particular nations (England, Ireland, Japan, Israel, France, Spain for instance) and places where statehoods have been established by land-grabbing - Australia, NZ, Canada, Indonesia to a great extent.

Do not accuse me in double-standard while supposing understandably higher inter-nations tensions in that cradles while bearing in mind odds and adds of the US “melting pot” politics reflecting a matter of “one country-one folk”. Not English folk, for sure.
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 7 October 2005 1:26:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for your reasonable and intelligent post, Mr Reason.

So far as physical ability, black people are noted for their physical prowess and excel in some sports such as boxing, basketball and long distance running. But black people do not have the physique to be good swimmers, and so no black person even bothers to compete with Asians or whites in those events. Black people’s skin is superior to white people’s skin in terms of solar protection.

So far as intelligence, according to my book “The Bell Curve” by Richard Herrenstein, the average cognitive IQ for average American whites once set the benchmark "norm" for IQ testing at 100. Today, the most common score for the same test by whites is 103. The most common score for Asians for this test today is 106. But for American negroes it is only 85.

Finally temperament. I think that you would agree that a person’s level of intelligence would have a marked degree upon their personality. People with low intelligence may not be violent, but people from demographic groups handicapped by low intelligence can usually be relied upon to be infinitely more prone to violent, attention seeking, impulsive and anti social behaviour than intelligent people. Violent criminal behaviour is most commonly the pastime of the intellectually challenged, and incarcerated inmates, be they white ,black or Asian, are noted for their low intelligence. Those of us not blinkered by humanitarian ideology, are fully aware that negroes throughout the world are noted for their very high rates of criminal behaviour and welfare dependency. This fact appears to confirm Herrnstein’s view that the average negro is significantly less intelligent than the average white or Asian.

However, Herrnstein makes the point that there are above average negroes who’s intelligence is the equal to or better than the average white or Asian. These negroes appear to have the same pro social behaviour as their white and Asian peers and they also have the same social and financial outcomes.
Posted by redneck, Friday, 7 October 2005 5:37:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My Sincere Apologies Persi, I did not intentionally mean to spike Psychopathic event from you, classic display of Pseudo Intellectualisms and abuse though. Funny. Psychopathology the word you are looking for. Sure you are not Mark Latham? So, I am a white nationalist racist, sorry, Wrong, My marital status is the same as David B, and Mathew, and has been for 14 years, Racism .No. Pro Australian, yes, under the guise only of Australian culture and Laws, (Less Liberalism) Governed by Australians, Not the UN and certainly not Islamic Law. I do appose the flood of Foreign Cultures, from both Demographics and Religious perspectives: This is exacerbated by Political Correctness or” Nihilism” its correct title. If that labels me as Racist, then, I must be. But proud to defend my Country from occupation of any and defend my children’s right for a future, as I’m sure you would.
I am a little confused Persi, Where do your views on racial and or Religious Perspectives lay? , At least I am up front. There is something hiding in that deep thought pattern, Fess up.
Posted by All-, Friday, 7 October 2005 7:40:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TO Fellow Human,

The worst killing ever in colonialist's expansions was when muslims brought their version of things to India, and if you open your eyes you will see that even still today in Sudan the descendants of the original Arab invaders are racially massacering the Negroid/Native population. Today, not centuries ago.

To Reason,

you must be in resonance with some parallel universe if you actually believe that Western Europeans are not the most tolerant cultures on the planet. How do explain the fact that they are, along with US, Australia, NZ, Canada, the most diverse, mixed, with the highest migrant intake of all nations. And, due to the extreme tolerance of the hosts, there is little racial tension apart from that self-generated by certain diasporas. And money isn't the reason for our peace, what of Suadi Arabia and Japan (Koreans who are born in Japan three generations after WWII are still refused citizenship- disgustingly racist and arrogant barbarity)?

To Redneck,

I'm sure the average IQ for whites would have included all whites in the white nations. I wonder how DRASTICALLY the IQ points would stoop for the Asian category if we included ALL ASIANS in ASIA (INCLUDING THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS WHO ARE THE SLAVES THAT ARE BUILDING THE HUGE CHINESE EMPIRE) and not just the tertiary eduacated ones who have migrated to the west.
Have you considered this I wonder? Why is positive racism ok?
Posted by Matthew S, Saturday, 8 October 2005 1:18:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Scooper9,

Yes, generally most Europeans get along well with each other because they have learned to overcome difference after countless wars.
The third world and Mid-East think that war is something westerners can't stomach, war is new to them, old to Europeans. Been there and done that.
And what makes me really angry is by saying this Many believe that I am Racist, when in fact I am merely pointing out that some of the ethnic groups we have invited here have a disproportionate amount of racist thugs or KKK, Nazis that aren't white.
This is the real issue, and those like me are simply not bound by racial barriers, we don't treat people differently because they are not white.
You see, many left-wing people believe that they are good people when infact they are closet assimilationists and tacit white supremicists, because they treat all coloured people like half-witted guests who they don't want to be angry at or indeed tell them when something is wrong, the same way they would if it were a family member.
Just look at how the media treat white public people differnetly from ethnics.
E.G. Frank Sartor gets told to resign for calling his friend "black-arse", John Brodgen stands down over a silly comment, compared to the leaders of the Islamic community such as Keysar Trad, leader of the Lebanese Muslim Association, who is on record at UWS 2002 for telling muslims to ignore discrimination laws and he supprted sheik Shadi's calls for gays to be stoned to death. Sheik Hilaly, the main mufti of the nation, whilst in Lebanon in 2004 praised the 911 murderers. Not to mention every other leader of official Islamic councils in Australia criticizing the governement for not inviting to the terror summit peoeple like Sheik Omran and Hiz-but-tahir leader, who openly support Bin Laden and clearly state that Jews and Christians can not be their friends, let alone their insane policy of forcing the world to submit to Sharia and Islam.
Posted by Matthew S, Saturday, 8 October 2005 1:41:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To MatthewS.

There book “The Bell Curve” was written by two Americans and it deals with the patterns of intelligence and how it affects class structure in the USA. All of the extensive data on cognitive IQ in that book is based research which has been done since 1918. That the average Asian has slightly better cognitive IQ than whites is also confirmed by another book I have on Asian education. This book not only confirms this analysis but noted an odd quirk. It claimed that Asians themselves readily admit that their own race has so far been unable to produce the sort of genius’s (Leonardo, Einstein, Michalangelo) who’s thinking has had profound impact upon the human race. This they presume is due to Asian education systems, which stress rote learning and which do not encourage critical thinking. The book pointed out that Einstein himself was sent to a German military school where rote learning was the norm and where he was considered something of a simpleton.

As for whether racism is right or wrong is a matter of social context. Racism is entirely normal in wartime and one US admiral (“Bull” Halsey) was famous for both his aggressiveness and his highly racist (and imaginative!) comments about the Japanese during WW2. I consider racism to be entirely normal and is most prevalent in those cultures who can usually be relied upon to complain the loudest about white racism. Racism is simply a factor of normal in group/ out group hostility, a hostility which usually manifests itself in the defence of territory. The present condemnation of racism is little more than a social fashion intended to bestow the mantle of intellectual and social superiority on those who claim than no man is inferior.
Posted by redneck, Saturday, 8 October 2005 4:53:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All-, I think your disguise is slipping. Fewer than half your usual complement of spelling errors and non sequiturs in your last post. There are some big words creeping in too - psychopathology, exacerbated, lots of syllables. Do better next time, please.

My theory - that behind the online persona you project here you are in fact a sociology professor gathering material for a paper - is gaining credibility every day. Mind you, in the various race-focussed threads on this forum, within a few weeks you would surely have enough material for an entire book.

Well, professor, it's like this.

Human beings are not, and can never be, perfect. In anybody's definition of the word. I don't expect them to be, nor should you. As such, there will always be a level of personal territorial protection that is determined, even driven, by the aspects of one's personality that react to strangers, differences, colour, religion etc. - highly dependent, as it turns out, on the level of importance the individual attaches to those traits within themselves.

So I can give a stuff about someone else's colour, creed or whatever, but I can see how these characteristics stir up fear and loathing in others. Still don't have a problem with that.

What does get to me is the way some folks, under the guise of erudition or scholarly reputation, wilfully and deliberately stir up these feelings in others, to the point of open antagonism or even violence.

I've mentioned Mosley before in other threads. Go read his work. He was a highly intelligent man, with some very sound and well thought out ideas. But he was also a rabble-rouser, who - through his ability to reach their fear and loathing through his speeches - caused people to do mindless violence unto others.

And that is what I see here, and that is what I am strongly opposed to.

Have a great day.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 8 October 2005 9:14:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Percy, we can understand some of your arguments better when all the cards a laid on the table.
If things were as simple as you would have us believe then the Utopia you aspire would be worth the venture and if academic and science were not hi-jacked it would be easier for the pieces to fall in to place.
I will assert Peter Myers work: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/index.html this represents the academic premise of historical events and Philosophical perspectives, and the Utopian ideology based on the emotional egocentric. Massive read, but have a go.
The host of Drew Fraser’s article on this forum is: John Ray also has an interesting web site and an excellent contribution at. http://users.bigpond.net.au/jonjayray/menu.html : If any, are interested.
For a more radical interpretation of events, and inspiring to a point with over the top rhetoric regarding a religious group. http://www.revilo-oliver.com/index.html .
For a portion of an Ethnic population engaged in Incitements against other Racial or ethnicity you need not look further than the writings of the very substantual contribution of Mohammad: http://answering-islam.org/index.html ;
I hope everyone can Have a nice day
Posted by All-, Sunday, 9 October 2005 7:57:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While it's good to see that redneck's sources extend beyond shock jock radio, tabloid newspapers and the Collins Dictionary, he should be aware that the methodology and conclusions of 'The Bell Curve' have been authoritatively debunked in numerous publications by prominent experts in relevant fields.

Also, he should be aware that, in a book of over 800 pages, only one paragraph is devoted to the actual question of 'race' and how this construct may be related to 'intelligence':

"We frequently use the word ethnic rather than race, because race is such a difficult concept to employ in the American context What does it mean to be "black" in America, in racial terms, when the word black (or African-American) can be used for people whose ancestry is more European than African? How are we to classify a person whose parents hail from Panama but whose ancestry is predominantly African? Is he a Latino? A black? The rule we follow here is to classify people according to the way they classify themselves. The studies of "blacks" or "Latinos" or "Asians" who live in America generally denote people who say they are black, Latino, or Asian--no more, no less (pp. 271)."

This is slightly better than Fraser's position, because at least they acknowledge that they are talking about ethnicity rather than race, but this fact seems to escape latter-day eugenicists who wish to bolster their spurious racist arguments.

For accessible discussions that espose the severe methodological and analytical deficiencies of 'The Bell Curve' redneck should take the time to read Stephen Jay Gould's 'The Mismeasurement of Man' or Jared Diamond's 'Guns, Germs and Steel'. For more technical refutations he should consult any of the dozens of refereed articles published in reputable journals in 1994-95 about this sorry piece of eugenic racist claptrap.
Posted by mahatma duck, Sunday, 9 October 2005 8:20:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Mahatma Sitting Duck.

Just for the record, I do listen to the radio and much prefer books to TV. I have read Jared Diamond’s book “Guns, Germs and Steel” and since there was nothing in that book which related to comparisons between race and intelligence, I gather that is more than you have done.

I have given a reasoned argument why I think that there are differences in the personalities, intelligence and physical attributes of different races. Your position is that all races are genetically identical in every way except some undeniable physical ones. I have supported my premise. When will you stop being just a cowardly critic and support your own premise with a reasoned argument?

All you can do is muddy the water by saying that “The Bell Curve” was debunked by another academic.

You will be pleased to know that I did read an opposing view in “The War against Children” by US author Peter R. Breggin. Peter Breggin is vehemently opposed to any notion that race or criminality is in any way linked. Unfortunately for Peter, he got a little indiscreet. Presumably because he thought that he was preaching to the converted and such people accept without question whatever he writes. In his book, he brags about his success in helping the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) to stop the scientists responsible for the historic Humane Genome Project from initiating a scientific convention entitled “Genetic Factors in Crime.” The NAACP lobbied US congress and demanded that any scientist who submits any information should have any government reserach funding withdrawn from them. Seems they did not want to hear what the scientists had to say.

A similar scientific convention was held in London which excluded both the press and the public. One suspects that what the geneticists obviously already know might be a little topical?

Throughout human history, scientists have had the unenviable task of telling people information which they did not want to know, and which violated the sanctity of prevailing dogma. Looks like it is about to happen yet again.
Posted by redneck, Sunday, 9 October 2005 9:42:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And thank you, All-, for a civilized and readable reply.

There are still some disconnects though.

>>the Utopia you aspire would be worth the venture<<

I thought I had put these cards on the table too, when I asserted "[h]uman beings are not, and can never be, perfect". Surely, a world of imperfect beings cannot by definition be Utopian?

One of the aspects of twentyfirst century civilization that concerns me is that we ("Western" society") have reached a point, financially and intellectually, where some folk actually believe that some form of Utopia is achievable. This tends to lead to the "if only we didn't have all these people around who think differently from us" attitude, and can move easily and quickly from there to "it shouldn't be too difficult, if we all get together, to send them away."

In between these two points is the rabble-rouser, who uses the "they are different" routine, with a couple of riffs from biology, history and statistics, to foment the "we'd be better off without them" movement.

It isn't difficult. It happened in 1930s England, as well as other parts of Europe, and is a singularly unpleasant state of affairs. The only difference that I can see between the Mosleys of the last century and the Frasers of this, is that the former worked on the discomfort of being poor (and out of work), while the latter exploits the innate greed of the comfortably off to want to improve their own position at the expense of others.

Fascinating reading list, by the way. I'm a bit too busy right now to do it justice, but thanks for selecting.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 10 October 2005 8:49:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To MattewS et el

And no response to me – as usual on these pages.

The Australian published news from ID-process in the States where it was disclosed that what any not-full-idiot understood already: ID was a cheating by a pure creationalism some cosmetically changed to avoid US legislation prohibiting teaching GOD DEEDS in schools.

That is what all about in this discussion of WHITE AUSTRALIA, which is a quintessence of everything seemingly new and different as covered of MULTICULTURALISM as it is
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 10 October 2005 1:19:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arguing with redneck is reminiscent of the 'black knight' scene in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' - he doesn't seem to realise when his argument has had its legs chopped off.

"Your position is that all races are genetically identical in every way except some undeniable physical ones".

When did I write that? My argument is that human 'races', when defined in any rigorous way, are next to useless in explaining human behaviour. Additionally, there is more genetic variation within your so-called races than between them, so your genetic argument falls flat.

Glad to hear you've read 'Guns, Germs and Steel', but it seems that you paid as much attention to its central premise as you did to the almost complete absence of 'race' per se as a variable in 'The Bell Curve'. Diamond's point - and he wrote the book partially in response to the idiotic racist reception to 'The Bell Curve' - was that differences in technological sophistication between various human groups (or so-called 'races') are the result of environmental factors (e.g. terrain or the availability of natural resources) rather than differential intelligence.

Finally, it wasn't "one academic" who debunked 'The Bell Curve' - there have been dozens. For a while there in the mid-90s it was nigh on impossible to read an edition of any peer-reviewed social science journal that didn't feature at least one article devoted to refuting Murray & Herrnstein's odious book.
Posted by mahatma duck, Monday, 10 October 2005 2:19:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Science is good Mahatma, it works in all directions, even down to what brand of Cigarettes from a suspect's DNA Print. But it can not determine Culture. Well, Maybe.This suspect is a White male
http://www.dnaprint.com/welcome/press/press_recent/2005/1003/DNAG-NAPA.pdf
Posted by All-, Monday, 10 October 2005 5:49:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Mahatma Sitting Duck.

When did you write it?

That's the problem, Ducky. Hey, I know that I am just a low educated redneck, but I didn't just walk in from the sheep paddock, y'know. I know when somebody is pissing on my leg and telling me that it is raining.

Thank you for admitting that you have made no statement which presents a position that you are prepared to defend. I have not figured out yet if you are being deliberately deceitful or whether your dishonest position has been arrived at by pure unconscious instinct.

The premise that I am prepared to argue and defend is, that there are significant differences in intelligence, physical ability and physical characteristics between the races. If you are arguing against me then you must hold the opposite view. If this is not your position, then state exactly what is your position now. Put forward a premise that you are prepared to defend.

Your position so far has been that of the cowardly critic who finds fault in other people’s premises but who studiously avoids even mentioning his own position. What are you afraid of? Do I detect that you, yourself, know that your belief that all races are equal in every way except physical characteristics can not be substantiated at all? You know that it is based upon nothing more than ideological wishful thinking and you have neither any data nor even a reasoned argument that could back it up.

So, at any cost you simply keep attacking my premise and demanding answers from me, because the last thing that you want is for me to turn the argument around and make you articulate a view that is open to criticism. That is your weakest link and you can bet that I will keep sawing away at it.

State your position now or admit that you are beaten.
Posted by redneck, Monday, 10 October 2005 8:11:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Serves me right for invoking Monty Python, I guess...

My dear redneck/black knight,

Most of the arguments for and against 'race' as you know it are to be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race.

Read it and weep. Explore that section of the site - in fact, begin to explore the whole site, if you dare to have your mind opened.

You'll learn much. - whoops... there goes your left arm.

I point my private parts in your general direction :)
Posted by mahatma duck, Monday, 10 October 2005 10:03:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have got you, haven't I? You are starting to squirm.

You are supposed to be debating with me and displaying through your presumed superior intellect the error of my neanderthal ways and the paucity of my low class opinions. Just saying to me "go and read a sociology book" or "read this web site and weep" is not good enough and it is clearly a last resort argument.

You will not state your own position because you know that it is indefensible. So you are busily chucking smelly red herrings around all over the place in order to keep me from following you into an area which you most definitely do not want to go.

Naturally, I will do the exact opposite.

State your position or admit defeat. Any impartial observer reading these posts can appreciate that it is fair and reasonable for me to ask you what your own position is, and ask you to explain why you regard that position as the correct one. If you refuse to answer, then they will conclude that you, yourself know that you position is untenable.

Yoo hoo, Scooper9, you had better come to the aid of your tag team mate very quickly because he is starting to get very shaky.

If you realise that your own position can not be be sustained in the face of reasoned debate, do you not have the courage to question your own values and attitudes on this matter? Pursuing a Quixotic cause that is based purely upon blind faith and a conviction that the real world must conform to how you think it should be, is not the position of an intelligent person who is capable of objective thought. Admitting privately to yourself that your fashionable cause may be wrong, and being honest enough with yourself to seek objective truth, come what may, is the first step to recifying that.
Posted by redneck, Tuesday, 11 October 2005 4:20:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder what redneck does for a job my bet is a parking attendant. He's got that cold irrational rage against the rest of the world fell about him that only a job like that can bring.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 11 October 2005 8:55:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny you give Redneck far too much credit. He probably works at a laundromat- whites only, no colors allowed there.

Redneck I'll debate you in the other forum and let you self destruct even further into a cesspool of idiocy and fallacies.
Posted by scooper9, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 7:18:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck - all you've done is listed some 'racial' stereotypes based on a definition of 'race' derived from te Collins Dictionary. You've provided no further reliable evidence other than to claim that you have read 'The Bell Curve' and 'Guns, Germs and Steel', but your responses to subsequent comments indicate that, if you have indeed read those publications, then they've gone way over your head.

Your argument is now at the 'black knight' armless and legless stage of rolling around in the mud calling people names.

I think it's time for me to take my own advice about arguing with fools. There's really no chance of educating you, and it's becoming boring.
Posted by mahatma duck, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 7:33:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I hope professor Fraser saw the tv program on Aboriginal "Circle courts"this week on 'Four corners'. they have had great results in stopping repeat offences . its probably worth a try for other young offenders,of different racial groups judging on it's very high success rate .
i think that every council should have a panel of rainbow coloured people representing it's different ethnic groups who's sole purpose is to encourage harmony from the ground up and have the ability to expose and shame those bent on fomenting racial discrimation in their community .
Posted by kartiya, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 9:48:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kartiya, I saw that programme.

What went though my head though was that the success of the system was that it was above all community-based. The elders held a position of respect that has disappeared from society at large, and only persists where there is a genuine sense of belonging.

Our own local "council" sits around deciding whether to plant trees here or there, and how many dog-poop bags to put in the local park. They have about as much respect in the local area (you couldn't really describe it as any form of community these days) as the dog-poop bags; you certainly wouldn't use them as a source of wisdom in dealing with social crimes such as drinking and domestic violence.

What came across most powerfully was the high level of two-way communication between the accused and the circle. Even though there was an accuser and an accused, there seemed to be a "let's solve it" attitude.

So I hear what you say, but I'm afraid that we have become too "sophisticated" and institutionalised in our approach to be able to adopt the model elsewhere. There will always be some jumped-up official busybody claiming some form of higher authority, since that's the nature of the society we have built.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 12:09:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would ask all to not take redneck to task so much.

Words of wisdom are seldom spoken - and seldom recognised. When one who seems to see the reality of the world with clarity comes along, they are generally vilified. Perhaps we should take a moment to review his words and attempt to see the import of his comments – attach an objective rather than subjective view to them. Perhaps we will see more truth in those words than we initially did.

Then again, wisdom can also be learned through allowing the jester to speak and allowing the clown’s views to crystallise and legitimise one’s own.
Posted by Reason, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 1:08:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fence sitter :)
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 1:19:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
redneck , according to the Bible ,we are all born equal so a few more or less points of intelligence and a different colour in a well run and just society will not make any great difference to our overall happiness .no one that i know, not even you, have the ability to say with conviction , one race is more "inferior" than another.
Posted by kartiya, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 3:07:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Umm, not quit right, even if you find floors in Science, you must read the Quran, plainly in that cultural text we are definitely not equal , and it does discriminate, fatally actually. Don’t forget Dhimmi, and the humiliation of the Infidel. Perhaps not science but theology.
Have you read those links Persi?
Posted by All-, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 5:17:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's right, Mahatma Sitting Duck. Run away and hide. I think I will chalk that one up as a "kill."

But you had better keep out of my face in future, because if you try and cross swords with me again,you know that I will chuck the very same question at you that you are just too terrified to answer. My advise to you is to try your tactics on 15 year olds because they will not work on rednecks.

And thank you Kenny for your inspirational post. I see that you are another paragon of virtue who is too intellectually challenged to think up an argument which might support your position.
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 6:09:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The genetic differences between any two randomly selected individuals in one socially recognized population account for 85 percent of the variation one might find between people of separate populations. Put another way, the genetic difference between two individuals of the same race is greater than those between individuals of different races--table sugar may look like salt, but it has more similarities with corn syrup"

scientific american decembre 2003.

interestingly, another article, published in the same issue i think, described that the genetic difference between geographical groups has no correlation to the simple definitions of 'race', based on physical and social definitions that redneck and fraser are relying on.

case in point. a 'black' african american (west african origins) is genetically closer to a white (european), than they are too black east africans or australian aboriginies, even though they bare superficail similarities.
Posted by its not easy being, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 7:13:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It must be fun living in your own little world redneck where your not effected by reality. The last post answered the question that all of us have been asking you. You have simply ignored the question or answered in a infantile way and accused everyone else of not coming up with a valid argument. It's the good old "la,la,la,la,la,la,I can't hear you" playground trick. Your either a kid or someone of below average intelligence with a over stated sense of importance either way you have great deal of growing up to do. You also need to learn what evidence is uninformed personnel opinion doesn’t count. As Cartman say’s “My Mum told me there is a lot of black people in Africa”.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 13 October 2005 8:24:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Conclusion:No successful society shows a spontaneous tendency towards multiculturalism or multiracialism. Successful and enduring societies show a high degree of homogeneity. Those who support multiculturalism either do not know this, or, what is more likely, realize that if they are to transform Western society into strictly regulated, racial-feminist bureaucracies they must first undermine these societies.

This transformation is as radical and revolutionary as the project to establish Communism in the Soviet Union was. Just as every aspect of life had to be brought under political control in order for the commissars to impose their vision of society, the multiculturalists hope to control and dominate every aspect of our lives. Unlike the hard tyranny of the Soviets, theirs is a softer, gentler tyranny but one with which they hope to bind us as tightly as a prisoner in the gulag. Today's "political correctness" is the direct descendant of Communist terror and brainwashing.

Unlike the obviously alien implantation that was Communism, what makes multiculturalism particularly insidious and difficult to combat is that it usurps the moral and intellectual infrastructure of the West. Although it claims to champion the deepest held beliefs of the West, it is in fact a perversion and systematic undermining of the very idea of the West.

What we call "political correctness" actually dates back to the Soviet Union of the 1920s (politicbeskaya pravil 'nost' in Russian), and was the extension of political control in education, psychiatry, ethics, and behavior. It was an essential component of the attempt to make sure that all aspects of life were consistent with ideological orthodoxy which is the distinctive feature of all totalitarianism. In the post-Stalin period, political correctness even meant that dissent was seen as a symptom of mental illness, for which the only treatment was incarceration
Posted by All-, Thursday, 13 October 2005 5:37:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, Mr "Easy." all races are so gentically identical that there is more genetic variation within races than without?

Please name one famous black swimmer.
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 13 October 2005 6:17:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
redneck ,why flog yourself to death in a race you might lose ? better to go out and use your natural ability in a race you will win .
ps , possibly ,had my runner Dad got me up at 5am for years to go swimming i might have won the butterfly too .
Posted by kartiya, Thursday, 13 October 2005 6:53:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am working 10 hours a day on a building site Kartiya, and I get home pretty well exhausted. I have neither the time or the inclination to go back over the 100 or so posts on this thread to figure out where you are coming from.

If you want to cross swords with me on this topic, please go right ahead. But state what your position is first because it will save me a lot of time trying to figure it out.

Old Scooper and Mahatma Sitting Duck appear to have left the arena with their tails between their legs and I am looking for a new victim. But if Scooper comes back, I might have to dump you so that I can get my hands back around his scraggly throat. It is too difficult to fence with two opponents at once because of the accursed 2 posts in 24 hours rule.
Posted by redneck, Friday, 14 October 2005 4:28:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck , all i can say is you had better keep your hard hat on , cheers, kartiya .
Posted by kartiya, Friday, 14 October 2005 8:46:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I havent gone anyone Redneck- I really like your 'violent' assertions- must be some pent up anger building up over those 10 hours of work.But in the immortal words of one very famous children's character, 'Can Redneck fix it, yes he can'.

As for one famous black swimmer- Eric the eel from the Sydney Olympics springs to mind. Sure he didnt win nothing, but he won national fame and our hearts with his efforts- so does this count?

I really love how you need to reassure yourself of how good you are and how you have won etc etc. Are you as a white person feeling a bit insecure
Posted by scooper9, Friday, 14 October 2005 4:53:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee Scooper, did you, Kenny and Mahatma Sitting Duck get all of your liberal values from watching children’s TV shows like “Bob the Builder”, “South Park” and “The Simpsons”? You three keep quoting from these shows to validate your views.

I don’t suppose “Eric the eel” does qualify as a famous champion swimmer. I for one have never heard of him. And if he did not win any races, then I would deduce it was because genetically, black people make lousy swimmers.

As for feeling “insecure”, I think that you are misunderstanding my tactics. Too many trendy lefties such as your self really do feel the need to put on airs and present themselves as the enlightened ones, who are oh, so bloody clever and morally superior. Many young people, eager to present themselves to the adult world as possessing a positive adult image, adopt your values and attitudes as a fashion statement indicating their higher social aspirations. They tend to parrot whatever their trendy social superiors inculcate them with.

My primary goal is to stick a pin in a few inflated ego’s, by pointing out to my educated “superiors”, that even an uneducated tradesman can make mincemeat out of your loopy social theories. It is also to demonstrate to our young, easily led and gullible, that people like you do not have a clue what you are talking about.
Posted by redneck, Friday, 14 October 2005 6:40:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.crystalinks.com/biorace.html

Enough said, I think… oh, no – Wake up redneck….
Posted by Reason, Friday, 14 October 2005 7:27:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mr "Reason".

I do not try to get involved in topics on this site which are already well underway and already have twenty or more replies posted. This is because I don't wish to have to read all the replies first in order to get up to speed on what has already been said.

If you had bothered to read all the posts first before you barged in here with your sneery one liner, you would have discovered that I have already posted information that the geneticists appear to agree with me.

The Human Genome geneticists sponsored a conference in the USA entitled "Genetic Factor in Crime". The NAACP (national Associating for thre Advancemaent of Coloured People) went beserk and pulled out all stops to have the conference banned. They lobbied the US Congress, threatening the withdrawal of "coloured" votes in marginal electorates unless Congress gred to withdraw reseach funding from any scientist who dared to submit evidence to the conference.

A similar conference of esteemed geneticists in London was held in camera with the media and the public pointedly excluded. This appears to me that what the geneticists already know might start the mother of all furores. The evidence that you submitted is interesting, but I will take it with a grain of salt until I can hear what all geneticists agree upon.
Posted by redneck, Saturday, 15 October 2005 4:39:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Thank you for this, thank you for that" but no thank you as understood from the following:

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/97175.php
Posted by MichaelK., Sunday, 16 October 2005 3:41:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck said.
"My primary goal is to stick a pin in a few inflated ego’s, by pointing out to my educated “superiors”, that even an uneducated tradesman can make mincemeat out of your loopy social theories. It is also to demonstrate to our young, easily led and gullible, that people like you do not have a clue what you are talking about."

Come on how do you manage to dress yourself in the mornings. When you don't understand what evidence is then it is easy to fool yourself that you've made a convincing argument, which I assure you, you haven’t. You have not provided any testable proof that supports your contentions. Perhaps we should overhaul our legal system and put redneck in change we could get him to pass judgment on everyone based on whether they look like a criminal or not
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 17 October 2005 11:43:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael, I wonder how much Dr Paul White is behind this, South western Uni Sydney.Don;t forget Mad Dog Maloy Doctor type from the Gold Coast, Qld, there a quite a few academic phonies in Positions that escelate this problem.They are of the pathological antitheses mind set.Fit's well with Islamic psychopathy, and there is the answer, Bingo.
Posted by All-, Monday, 17 October 2005 2:52:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a matter of fact I did just that, Kenny. But what we have here is two mutually opposing premises. Wherease I am prepared to state why I think that the differences between the races is more than just the undeniable physical ones, my opponents, especially you, do not think that they need bother themselves to put an opposing view through a reasoned argument.

People like you accept that all races are genetically identical in every way,purely as a matter of faith. You have zero evidence to back your own position and when pressed, like Mahatma Sitting Duck, all you can do is put on a show of injured dignity and scuttle away

That is why I am winning.
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 4:20:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
REDNEK – winning? Where? In South Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq – or in some British back-yards down under, where “humanity, equity and democracy” – for propaganda round a globe, a law of a white gun-owner --- a practice (see draft of Anti – Terrorist Bill).
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 19 October 2005 12:40:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You mean this link ; http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MCP20051016&articleId=1097

Still wet lettuce stuff, Our legal system will only set them free and give them a high powered weapon, if the Terrorists are lucky, Judge might award them 6 Kg of syntax and detonators courtesy of the TAX payer. You think I’m joking? I wish I was.
Posted by All-, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 3:21:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't worry, Michael - poor old redneck's still doing his Monty Python black knight impersonation. Having had the arms and legs of his 'arguments' chopped off, he's now threatening to bleed on us.

All- "6 Kg of syntax"... would be most welcome around here. Has anybody else noticed that the most voluble racists in these forums are barely literate?
Posted by mahatma duck, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 3:54:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are just a nasty Duck Mahatma. With a little Bill. If your Intelligence was as great and as big as your Ego, you would be an awesome force, But instead, you can only be a tin pot half Witt. Poor little Duck.
Posted by All-, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 4:34:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is a link to just one researcher that has shown whatever body except people like you have long known.

http://news-info.wustl.edu/sb/page/normal/341.html

The evidence is there for all to see without invoking some silly behind close doors crap.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 5:37:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
kenny , thanks for the alan templeton link ,this is the science that must be taught in ALL schools and explained to ALL Australians - now i must go and check the slope of my forehead .
Posted by kartiya, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:00:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
* "Has anybody else noticed that the most voluble racists in these forums are barely literate"?

M duck, I have, but I don't think it’s an educational issue so much as a cognitive glitch in their critical thinking skills.

One can't help but notice that they appear to display an emotional retardation that is totally amputated from any empathic response to common suffering. (besides their own suffering and those they think are their own).

There’s an almost cybernetic style in their writing that prevents them from going beyond particular parameters and triggers in terms of their emotional responses to racism and especially those human conditions that are obviously caused by racism and racialised ideologies.

They appear to fear that if they admit racism exists, they will have to admit defeat. But defeat of what?

If there is a link between literacy and emotional intelligence, it hasn't been explored in formal studies.
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:40:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny.... did you see what Duck said about you ? he called you 'racist' because he said all the racists are barely literate :)

Actually, I find the diversity of opinion and the passion rather heartwarming.

Redneck, your not associated with anything like BLF or its descendants are u ? hope not, they were a pack of ... *beeeep* with Gallagher and his corrupt cronies.

Pericles mentioned the lack of community these days and our cynicism of our elected 'elders'. Perhaps this forum is one manifestation of our desire for community ? In the old days of Israel, all the issues were sorted out at the City Gate, maybe this is our version ?

On the race issue, I don't have much to say. Associating a particular race with crime seems a bit dodgy to me, and I simply repeat that of the various cultures I've observed and lived among, they all have their local equivalents to our own 'types'. The tough farmer, the versatile mechanic, the cunning sales types. Thats why I felt so at home in what in the beginning was a 'foreign culture'.

Some people are very shy by culture, others are extroverted, some are plain arrogant. For Redneck, it would be a worthwhile exercise to see if any group he suspects of 'pre-disposition to crime' is that way among their own group or just when they are among a bigger community of non 'them' racial groups.

In PNG the "Chimbu" are universally villified by all others as "ratbag crimmo's"
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:44:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am once again stipulated to draw your attention to
"Terror by Degree: Knowledge is Power"
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/97175.php

That is what rednecks really achieved by themselves, following into footsteps of the Danish king in his “new clothes”…..
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 20 October 2005 2:21:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
now now BD that is the same kind of logic in the old saying
"All dogs have four legs...my cat has four legs.... therefore my cat is a dog!"

The combination of poor spelling and lazy typing has some good spin offs you have to read more closely to what I'm trying to say. I live for the day when English become phonetic.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 20 October 2005 4:44:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A tipically Australian response: playing words rather than responding to a core issue.

Surely, those born for particular posts need no brain at all but mates to secure a status quo.
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 26 October 2005 12:24:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amel,

I think you forgot to mention south africa(90% black) which is in the top 3 for murder and rape, seychilles also. Australia is about 85% white, arabs are not white. check CIA statistics it says 92%, Id say a more accurate figure is 85-88% white.

could it be their is higher reporting of rape and murder in australia and canada. Russia is about the only dangerous fully white country.

look at japan and iceland the most monocultural countries with really low crime rates.
Posted by hoppa, Sunday, 20 November 2005 12:10:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since when Semits do not belong to a white race?

It seems, half-literal Australian-educated higher-race MANAGERS do not know that even Sri-Lankians belong to Europeadeans.
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 21 November 2005 10:51:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i think that we should bring back the white australia policy. we are a white christian nation. i myself am a athiest. are we going to distroy a great county because of leftest political corectness sh-t,
multiculuralizism dosn't work,where there have been non-whites in australia there has been conflict. Muslims have a holy book called teh koran, it tells 'belivers' to kill 'infedells' (us) and make women were the hearscarf and rape them if they don't do as there suposed to do, their founder and phophet married a 6 year old girl, when she was 9 he raped her, this just shows what a sick and evil religion islam is, we should not allow such people in our county to distroy our forefathers work with non-whites who have no place her
Posted by aussiepride, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 4:51:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It only doesn't work when there are people like yourself one both sides. If you were an atheist you would not be calling Australia a Christian state so I'm guessing your a kid have a laugh or someone who doesn't know what the word means. Pop quiz for you can you tell me where in the Christian bible it says it is okay to work on Sunday's? I understand it may be hard for you maybe you could get your mum to look it up for you.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 24 November 2005 2:58:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew Fraser is a great man with the courage to say what most Australians think. I agree totally with his comments. One only has to look at what has happened to South Africa. Some races are born to lead whilst others are'nt.
Posted by FRIEDRICH, Monday, 12 December 2005 7:07:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
friedrich, the world was battling on in some sort of sustainable balance until us greedy whites decided we were better than the rest .it won't work friedrich ;and sorry in case you didn't notice , we just don't accept fair , honest and good leaders, there's no money in them .
Posted by kartiya, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 9:40:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are different whites-there are different blacks.
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 15 December 2005 11:41:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew Fraser is just another narrow-minded European-descent person who can`t accept that times change. However, I`d like to address the person who wrote about Eva Sallis issues of non-white prejudice and indeed racism.

My friend went to uni with Eva and told me many revealing things about her. True to the persona she projects, she suffers from a self-righteousness which accompanies some forms of obsession.

I don`t disagree with Sallis` general points - I have a problem with the way in which she and others fail to comprehend the deep contradictions in their demands that European-descent people must achieve standards of non-prejudice and non-racism that are blatantly absent in many racial/ethnic groups in the world.

Thus the very real issues of some racial/ethnic groups being unable to deal with a truly pluralistic society because of their own deep and unaddressed prejudices, xenophobia and racism are ignored. Sad to say there is a deep hypocrisy in the attitudes of Sallis and her ilk, probably because they grew up in backgrounds and localities that were privileged despite her playing up her family`s supposed lack of money.
Posted by ForAll, Wednesday, 21 December 2005 2:34:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And for a fitting conclusion, read Professor Andrew Fraser’s response here: http://foxhunt.blogspot.com/

Might take a few minutes to read, it is a big response.
Posted by All-, Thursday, 30 March 2006 4:47:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
he's had his day in the sun, old news really.
Posted by scooper9, Thursday, 30 March 2006 4:53:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Professors' writings...

A simple guy, I suggest that a consensual inter-racial sex is a true example and an inspiring path to a racial harmony.

I am not racist surely…………
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 7 April 2006 11:57:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think he's converted some people, this should not be allowed to continue...www.therealists.com.au, these people are trying to legitimise their argument but there is no place for them in today's Australia...
Posted by jeve, Wednesday, 21 June 2006 8:50:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MICHAEL K ,yes, that's a good fun way to start to solve a world wide problem. Driving around Melbourne today , the theory seems to be working well.
Posted by kartiya, Wednesday, 21 June 2006 11:01:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With all respect to some acting politicians I must admit this idea –interracial sex as a sure way to harmonising the society- had choked me with its naivety because it takes too long if relying on libido only.
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 22 June 2006 12:49:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Okay first things first, please refrain from relating pro conversationist,anti imigration to Nazi policies and the holocaust which our media has very nicely done in getting us to label anything that is not liberal is deemed nazi and evil.

Okay hopefully i can move on now, Lets compare pre multicultralism, (statistics can be easily found) Higher "Australian" birthrates, better education system, lower crimerates, low unemployment, etc. i could go on for hours. The Populate or perish saying was relating to the cold war and the fear of being nuked out of existance, these fears been gone for over 15 years now, why are we still opening our borders to migrants in the thousands, Sure liberals may say we are much better off being multicultral, but thats just a point of view, with no evidence or proof.
Race was barely an issue before multicultralism and people so blindly accept it becuase its morally right and reject any claims its not, mainly becuase its shoved down our throats.
Multicultralism CLEARLY does not work and racial segregation is the only answer, it worked before and IT WILL work again.

I used to think migrants came to australia and adapted to our way of life and where thus ausrtralian, no they come here and try to change us to better suit there way of life, What the? You want to live how you did go the hell back and by god how much its changed with the introduction of multicultralism.

One more thing, please do not give me the few Pro's about multicultralism, i can garantee you, i could give you a list taking you a year to scroll the whole way through.
Posted by onservationist, Friday, 10 November 2006 11:45:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL, are you sober?

“Multicultralism CLEARLY does not work and racial segregation is the only answer, it worked before and IT WILL work again.”

Multiculturalism is a liberal invention to comfort traditional British racism well underlying the very basics of contemporary Australia.

So, it DOES work as doors opened just to those who have no choice but be a chip labour -the most lucky of migrants employed, contributing to prosperity of a higher race of Anglo-Celts (Anglo-Saxons as used worldwide) with Visa-457 or any issued for work-permitting entry to Australia.

"Multiculturalism" works on these inicially-perverted merits perfectly. If you mentioned migrants from no-UK-biologically linked heritage, of course.
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 14 November 2006 11:45:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 30
  7. 31
  8. 32
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy