Please note, how Lyn Benders article is written in the style of the self righteous evangelical social crusader, where the concept of racism has attained the status of the Only Deadly Sin.

Lyn thinks that for Australians to be concerned about the serious social and financial problems caused by the self importation of people from different cultures, religions, and races, is just "racism". For Lyn, the rejection of racism trumps everything, because she apparently believes that racism is the root of all evil.

We must reject "racism". Nothing else matters. Lyn even gets worked up on the idea of "unconscious racism". This, it appears, is an unacceptable Thoughtcrime.

Does this sound familiar? Substitute "apostasy"" for "racism" and "heretic" for "racist" and you can get an idea. Or substitute "capitalism" for "racism", and "capitalist" for "racist", and you get an insight into the sort of fundamentalist mindset that Lyn is suffering from. Lyn is another one who thinks that morality must be absolute and carved into stone. 50 shades of grey can not exist outside of the subject in her bedside novel.

Not surprisingly, given her absolutist mindset, the religious concept of endless guilt is evoked by Lyn to denounce the white Australian racist sinners. We all must feel guilty, according to the gospel Lyn, because our racist forebears committed unspeakable crimes against humanity. They did this because they were racist sinners. Only by repenting our racist attitudes, avoiding thoughtcrimes, and by making devotions to the concept of racial equality, can we save our black souls.

The only thing missing is a chorus of singing angels.

Moral puritans who wrapped themselves in a white cloak of moral sanctity, and damned anyone who was not a Paragon of Virtue, were once treated by the educated class with sarcasm, wit, and outright hilarity. It is a sad fact today, that the descendents of Voltaire, Jefferson, and Orwell that now infest our university Artz departments are more inclined to agree with moral Puritanism, instead of grasping the concept that critical analysis and reasoned thought trumps ideology every time.

I am more than happy to be demonised as a racist by the left. It is their compassionate policies that has led to 1000 plus drowning. I don't want tens of thousands of muslims (though they aren't a race) creating more ghettos in our nation. They will bring families out here with generations of unemployed. The left who created this problem will blame it on the 'racist '. The left have messed up the aboriginal people severly (while wasting billions) and will create the same problems with their 'compassionate ' anti Christian anti Western views.

Meanwhile many old people can't get hospital appointments, have to line up behind illegal immigrants for hours to sort out pensions, can't get nursing homes funded, white girls are unsafe in many city suburbs etc tec.

My best friends are aboriginals, africans, asians, south africans but I am happy for the left to label me racist. I know my attitudes are not nearly as dangerous as their naive and stupid dogmas.

If you want a mental image that typifies the Labor border policy, just imagine 50 odd Tamil men women and children left for the sharks because the patrol boats were overwhelmed by the flood of illegal immigrants.

Lego and runner
I subscribe to your demolition of Ms Bender's well-intentioned but deluded opinions. However, as in all these debates, you are wrong to designate her as "left". I am an "old leftie", and I find her views as misguided and dangerous as you do.
Ms Bender: If you do not have a completely closed mind, please consider the possibility that we are as well intentioned, and that your policies make bad situations worse.

I was going to write a lengthy post, but LEGO has summed up the issues with this article very well.

But I'll add:

Lefties should billet out all refugees until they can stand on their own two feet. Instead of using the tax payer as their own personal bank account, lefties should financially support all refugees until they can financially support themselves.

The continuous use of the collective pronoun "we" insinuates that people today are responsible for the sins of the past. This opens up many questions and inquiries. According to modern sociological theory, race doesn't exist; it is a "social construct". Therefore, if there are no biological or genetic ties to the past, then why should white people be responsible for the past?

If race can be used in the collective sense of "we" in order to take responsibility for other people's actions of the same race, does this apply to all races? If whites must feel guilt for the past, then, applying this approach consistently, all other races must feel guilt every time some one of their race does something questionable. Can all blacks be blamed for the killing of the British soldier recently? Can all Aboriginals be blamed when my friend was smashed with a beer bottle in the face by an Aboriginal? According to the logic in the article, yes. Not only that, considering there's been thousands on wars, invasions, and migrations since the dawn of time, every person of every race would have to feel guilt for the past.

But, in all honesty, no lefty would blame all non-white people for the actions of a few. In lefty land, only whites can feel guilt for the past. This is blatant racism

I don't have any issues with 'genuine' refugees (of whom there are in all probably precious few). What I do have a problem with, as do most Australians, is the wholesale invasion by all and sundry when 'fixing' the issue is relatively straightforward. Few if any countries allow zillions of illegals to descend on their borders in the manner to which we've become accustomed, and which ALP & LNP politicians assure us 'they are doing everything in their power to address. CRAP, not one of them could run a p*ss up in a brewery !! On the other hand, the proposal as suggested by Big Clive has been tried and proven in many countries. Guess some things are just too simple for our lamebrained elected officials. Any 'legitimate' refugee can get a visa for $80 & even allowing for a business-class airfare (thats a tad more comfortable than a leaky boat), they can come here for under 10% of what they pay people-smugglers. Point is that system has actually been proven to WORK consistently over many years, whereas the moronic red-headed witch has proven she hasn't a clue & the equally clueless RAbbott is still urinating in the wind. Whoever they represent, it sure isn't the people of Australia.

Leslie

'However, as in all these debates, you are wrong to designate her as "left". I am an "old leftie", and I find her views as misguided and dangerous as you do. '

fair enough Leslie and thanks.

the lack of compassion shown for those who have been waiting in refugee camps only to have their ploaces taken by an illegal immigrant is amazing. It is also very racist by their own definitions.

Like usual with the author of this type of refugee propaganda anyone who disagrees is a racist.

Now to get very controversial - The boat that sank and all previous sinkings I have NO sympathy at all for them EXCEPT the children who were recklessly put in a situation whereby they died by there parents greed.

They passed through many safe countries on there journey, in those countries they would have been under UN protection which is a tent some food and water. GREED bought them here because unlike Germany and other countries who give them food stamps and like $32 we give them MUCH more they are guaranteed money and housing free medical and legal representation. Unlike in Malaysia and Indonesia who give them nothing.

Also Quote "$217 per week" wrong the charities look after them as well and that cost is hidden but paid by the taxpayers.

TPV are a start at least then we won't have to support them for life.

So now do we understand the Anti Genocide "Mantra", Lyn Bender sees this as a race problem, fair enough so do I, Anti Racist is a code word for Anti White:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dpeMuUQQkc

The Human Rights & Equal Opportunities Act is interesting, particular the section that states 'Australians are not a race'. Context makes it clear that application is 'white persons of anglo-saxon ancestry') Interestingly almost the exact wording is found in comparable laws in the UK, the US, Canada & the Irish Republic. It begs the question 'HOW' ??

Philip S,
Notice that Lyn and her ilk don't expect Indonesians or Malaysians to care for these "refugees" but see it as an absolute obligation of White people and ONLY White people. She then makes outrageous statements vilifying my ethnic group and my gender and suggesting that "our" treatment of Aboriginals renders us indebted to all non Whites, that White "Racism" is an eternal crime which transcends time and place.
No more, there's no need to argue, no need to quote statistics or discuss anything at all with the likes of Lyn Bender, we're fed up, the "R Word" is just a justification for acts in support of genocide, when someone uses that racial slur just fire back:
"In your opinion I'm a racist, you're just saying that because I'm White, Anti Racist is just a code word for Anti White".

Its been said with some justification that the most racial persons on this planet are the very ones making all the noise about racism supposedly committed against them. Unfortunately that sort seems to have the knack of getting the ear of educated idiot do-gooders. The 'she'll be right mate' attitude has a lot to answer for.

I now understand why so many people around the world say that Aussies are nothing but a bunch of drunken, racist bigots. So a few poor people risk there lives to come to this very very rich country for a better life and all these fat Aussie wowsers are so mean to share with them all there riches. Most have travelled for thousands of miles, through storms, heat, shark infested waters to come here and all you racist do is abuse them. I think many of you people would rather they die in the sea then make it here eh? None of you have the guts to admit it here on this page have you.

I myself came from eastern Europe and I received taunts until I sat a man on his back for his racist remarks to me. And like the coward and his mates were, he didn't have the courage to take me on. Yet many other Aussies welcomed me and my wife and kids here, most were from other countries originaly anyway! Doesn't say much for Aussies born here does it? Surely not all Aussies are not racist, surely not?

misanthrope,

43 000 people is not "a few" neither is the estimated nearly 2000 people drowned, or the $10bn spent on processing, keeping them and legally settling their claims.

Praxidice,
I've posted Trotsky's definition of Racism on here many times, that's the final word on the matter as far as I'm concerned.
A racist holds the view that the majority is politically correct or righteous, but that the majority is being held back or outraged in some way by an identifiable group or section of the community.
Targeted groups may be identified by any communal factor or a combination of several, ethnic heritage, religion, political allegiance, economic position relative to the elite and so forth.
I'd be safe in saying that most people of good conscience would agree that the tipping point, the danger sign would be when the target group is politicised by the elites and their agents to gain or shore up support for the powerful at the expense of the disenfranchised.
I've read a good chunk of the propaganda put out by the more repressive regimes of the 20th century and even Lyn Bender would acknowledge that the politicisation of a target group starts small, articles in obscure publications, speeches to small invited groups then it literally snowballs from there.
I've also posted evidence of public speeches where Australian regime actors have called for violence against White Men, against "Bogans" and "Rednecks", where politicians have used the "Redneck", "Ocker" or "Bogan" stereotype to justify the shortcomings of multiculturalism and the need for stronger measures to deal with these groups.
Prax there's no such thing as "reverse" Racism, there's only racism and as Ms Bender points out it has only one aim, to gain consent of the majority at the expense of a minority to reinforce elite privilege over the whole.

misanthrope - You as a criminal are lecturing people.

Firstly - To quote you "I received taunts until I sat a man on his back for his racist remarks to me." That sir is assault a criminal offense. More brawn than brains.

Secondly - To quote you "None of you have the guts to admit it here on this page have you." You further show your ignorance you have made a statement without reading what people have said, because if you go to page 2 To quote me "The boat that sank and all previous sinkings I have NO sympathy at all for them EXCEPT the children who were recklessly put in a situation whereby they died by there parents greed."

In future please activate brain before applying fingers to keyboard.

misanthrope

I don't believe there is any significant opposition to 'genuine' refugees, however there is widespread opposition to the wholesale illegal invasion to which we've been subjected for years. Everyone in the country would have friends from 'funny' countries who have come in the front door with a proper visa. Presumably your entrance to Australia was likewise a legitimate one mit visa. The vast majority of these people have contributed to their adopted country and as such are well respected. That said, its a totally different situation with boat people who sneak in the back door. No other country on the planet would accept that and why should we ??

Please, please people - we need to become truly intolerant, rabidly racist and completely ungenerous and GET THAT MESSAGE OUT THERE so no-one wants to invade our shores ... While we're about it, start a re-location fund for those who are so unhappy with their citizenship they seek to undermine the security and social cohesion of our truly lucky country.

I can only shake my head in wonderment and hope my grandchildren are not fighting a civil war in 20 - 30 years time

It beggars my belief that there are people in this country - born and bred, that believe Australia as a sovereign Nation has no right to choose who comes here as a migrant or not. Madness!

Misanthrope,
Yup, and now having fled a repressive multicultural system you're nominally part of a target group again unless you submit to Ms Bender's way of thinking, do you see how mad these people are and how brutal any form of multiculturalism is?

Misanthrope,

This isn't just a question of helping a few thousand people in desperate trouble.

If the asylum seekers are genuine refugees, then why do they destroy their travel documents? I except the Sri Lankan Tamils who came here directly and might have never had them, but the others have passed through several countries to get to Australia. They never could have done this without travel documents. Since our capacity to help is not unlimited, the help should go to people we definitely know are refugees.

There are 5 billion people in the world who live in countries poorer than Mexico, the source of large-scale illegal immigration to the US. We aren't responsible for their plight, and there is no way that we can help all of them. If we open our borders to everyone who just wants a better life, or even just everyone who claims to be a refugee, then we will soon make Australia as poor, populous, and environmentally degraded as the countries that the asylum seekers are risking their lives to escape. You may be able to hightail it back to Eastern Europe, where they have a tougher attitude, but the people who were born here don't have that option.

If you think this is just scaremongering, then consider the situation in Western Europe. The UK had half a million asylum claims between 1997 and 2004, not counting dependants who arrived later. About 23% of them were found to be genuine, including after appeal. Another 14% were granted exceptional leave to remain, sometimes for humanitarian reasons, but often because there was no prospect of successfully deporting them. All the rest, with 314,000 claims, had their claims rejected. A failed asylum seeker only had a 24% chance of being deported, so all the others managed to stay in Britain.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/108

Misanthrope
First as refugees, I question the history of the Tamils, they immigrated from India to Sri Lanka. After 200years there, they waged a 20year, terrorist war(Tamil Tigers,) against The Sri Lankan people for a separate state,(country). In other words they
sought to divide Sri Lanka into two. Now they come to Australia as
immigrants maybe in a couple of generations they will decide to divide this country in two. Why should we trust them?

All around the world we see two tribes,(sects,religious groups,ethnic groups etc.) waging Civil wars over control of countries(territories). Israel and Palestine being one almighty
Territorial dog fight, just as an example. Syria being another. Sudan another and so on.
Why should you ask white Australia to set their children up for civil war to divide this country up in future generations. The middle Eastern man interviewed by Liz Hayes on 6ominutes last Sunday's
Four Corners Program said Britain was 4th on his loyalty list.

We let people into our country when they swear allegiance to this country and this country’s people, but it is obvious that
they lie when they take this oath. And since this oath of Allegiance is required to become a citizen of Australia they should admit that they have become a citizen by lying and do not give
their first loyalty to this country and the people of this country at all but to the people(tribe)from their old country.

The above are my, not unreasonable objections, to immigration.
You either come on board as a totally loyal Australian or you do not come on board. keep sailing.

Another thing, we are not responsible for, is the overpopulated religious quagmires that these people have made of their countries by their irrational beliefs why should we keep bailing them out of a situation made by themselves.

And yes, religious groups are tribes or races, when they will not marry outside of their religion. Bloodline donates immediate tribe, sect, group or race.

It always worries me when I see any material written by a 'health care professional' when they seek to lecture us all on our own personal attitudes and belief systems. Myself, I believe it smacks of a form of 'behaviour modification', a mentally intrusive system practiced by some of the old Psychiatric Centres back in the days of the infamous 'Admission Centres'. Where many of these 'ologists' wished to refine, or modify our beliefs, into thinking and acting in a fashion similar to their own ?

Hi there MISANTHROPE...

I'm of the opinion that you possess little or no understanding of the 'Aussie' mentality, notwithstanding you that claim too ? Most of my friends, generally have a pretty well balanced and moderate attitude when it comes to these illegal boat people. All of them including myself, believe it's our moral responsibility to accept those, where it's been determined, their lives are in genuine and immediate peril, and without our assistance could well suffer at the hands of their previous homeland government(s).

We also contend, it's our arrant right to protect the integrity of our own sovereign borders, notwithstanding anything to the contrary that the United Nations or anyone else for that matter, might claim differently !

That MISANTHROPE, is not racist ! Perhaps 'mate' you should check your facts a little more thoroughly, before you shoot your mouth off !

Hi Misanthrope.

If you know a lot of people around the world that say that Aussies are "nothing but a bunch of racist bigots", then those people have just committed an act of racist bigotry themselves. It is just ama-a-a-a-azing. You indirectly declared that racism is wrong, and then you say that you agree with people who have racist attitudes towards Australians.

Boing. Boing. Boing. Have you ever heard the term "a contradiction in logic?"

As a racist myself, could I welcome you and your friends into the club?

You say that you are from Eastern Europe. Hey, no racism there, right? Wrong. Multicultural Czechoslovakia divides into two monocultural societies because the Czechs and the Slovaks prefer to keep their distance from each other. Hitler made himself popular in Eastern Europe by getting rid of the Jews and Gypsies, the Romanians ethnically cleansed the ethnic Germans after WW2, and let's not even mention Yugoslavia.

Australia now has the highest proportion of citizens born outside of the country of any other nation state. That this massive shift in ethnic demographics has been achieved without bloodshed, should be perceived as a demonstration of how tolerant Australians are.

I don't know which country you came from, Misanthrope, but could I suggest a scenario here? Now, if in your old country, your people were facing the same level of immigration as Australia is doing right now, including people just lobbing up and demanding entry, what would your own people be saying about that? Especially if the new arrivals were creating serious social problems, had social values diametrically opposed to your own, and created ethnic ghettoes with high levels of violent criminal behaviour and endemic welfare dependency?

Would they be happy about it? Or would they be incensed that they were becoming strangers in their own land?

You know, Misanthrope, I think that all human beings are the same in one way. They don't like people of a different group invading their territory en masse. Especially if the new arrivals create problems and the locals are stuck with the bill to support them.

It is interesting that refugee policy and the
plight of asylum seekers continues to inflame
passions on both sides of politics, nearly
12 years after the Tampa incident.

I've just finished reading one political observer's
summation of Australia's refugee policy and it
sums things up rather well. The author tells us that:

"Australia's refugee policy is symptomatic of a
political preparedness to pander to short-term
electoral interest over tenable long-term planning,
much less humanitarian concern. With a federal election
looming and an incumbent government needing to pull a
political rabbit out of a hat, it is hard to see how
things could improve, indeed, the likelihood is that
the politicking at the expense of asylum seekers will
only get worse... our politicians' nonsensical and
frequently inhumane remarks about asylum seekers are
partly, if not largely based on what they believe
Australians want. If the brutal logic of deterrance of
"stopping the boats" wasn't a vote-winner and didn't
represent an advantage in the opinion polls, surely
the political discourse would be different."

In other words as the author points out - we are part of
the problem. Perhaps it is time we became part of the
solution.

We've been told time and time again by a variety of
experts that compared to other refugee-hosting countries
Australia receives a very small number of asylum applications
and we are in no danger of being "swamped."

We've all heard previously that we are a signatory of the
UN Refugee Convention and are in breach of Article 31, every
time we load men, women and children onto a bus at
Christmas Island and then transport them and "detain" them
for indefinite periods of time. Which countless health-care
professionals have advised that indefinite detention leads to
irreparable mental damage and ultimately in some cases, to
suicide.

Instead of playing political games - why don't we just rip
up the Convention - and let the world see us as we really
are? At least that would be honest.

I think Lynn shows what a racist nation we are with the responses here being the same tired, racist tripe we have heard over and over again.

1. we don't own the borders of the world, nor the oceans and we cannot stop one person leaving home or one person coming here by sea.
2. the cost is because we choose to jail people for years on end for no reason at all and pay foreign prison companies to do it.
3. the cost is because we choose to build prisons in remote areas rather than hostels in cities like we used to.
4. we are slaughtering human beings for no reason and gloating because people drown is repulsive.

When OLO allow such filth to be put up as fact they degrade us all.

Lexi

u should of noted one of your previously backed leaders last night saying simply that Howard was right and I was wrong. If Latham has the humility to humble himself surely Gillard/Rudd and supporters should also.

"These people are not illegal. They are entitled to come to our shores asking for help". Not strictly true - if they come to Australia via safehavens such as UN refugee camps and/or third countries (such as Indonesia or Malaysia) they are NOT entitled to come to our shores uninvited (ie without a visa) as they are not fleeing "under fire" or threat. They ARE jumping the queue - ahead of those that are still awaiting settlement from UN refugee camps.

More needs to be done to speed up the repatriation of refugees in UN camps - including to Australia. A more systematic approach is needed in getting refugees to Australia (from camps) and located in areas where they have the medical, housing, education etc support they need given their special circumstances.

This support should not come at the expense of providing these facilities to Australians - it is just a legal quirk that the homeless single mothers are not entitled to the same consideration for housing that asylum seekers are entitled to. Housing is a human right.

Lexi - So you have posted an extract from something, sorry to disillusion you but it is an opinion from someone just as there are lots of opinions here.

Misanthrope - Just so people understand your view I will re post your comments to someone from a previous thread. Quote

"Marilyn Shepherd, you say you're sick of all this condemnation of these hapless boat refugees, so am I. We should double our aid to them, in an effort to make sure there journey across to us, is safer. Therefore it would encourage many more of them to come, and inspire them to exercise a greater degree of safety when they make this very dangerous crossing to Australia. There should be many more patrol boats to meet them and ensure safe passage for them all.

Marilyn, as you well know this is a very large, and deserted country in most parts. So we could well accommodate many millions more of the boat refugees. Another way, would be to levy a $Dollar a day, on every persons wages, purely to aid these very desperate refugees, for a period of initially 5 years. And review it each year, and if necessary, increase it to $2 or $3 per day even more if required.

I'd say most true Australians wouldn't mind in the least, to put there hand in there pocket to help these very desperate people. I believe most Labour voters would agree to this measure."

WRONG, Economic invaders are one of the main reasons Labor will be decimated at the next election. Most Australians don't want them, genuine refugees yes - Economic invaders NO

Scratch, there is no such law and never has been. The law is that everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution and the convention says clearly they do not have to stay in the first country to apply to the UNHCR.

The fact is under the law it is SIGNATORY STATES who generally assess refugee claims, not the UNHCR and the UNHCR has not got a country so they can't protect anyone.

The camps might have assistance from UN agencies but people in those camps by law have no right to come here as they already have the protection of a state.

For god's sake is it asking too much for morons to read the law before spouting racist crap?

Philip there is no such thing as an economic invader unless you count the 130,000 people on 457 visas.

We are not being invaded by refugees though and your ignorance is truly astounding.

1. we pay the UNHCR a paltry $50 million a year to help millions of urgency cases in the world and spend $2.3 billion jailing a few thousand here.

Misanthrope glad to see you are so welcoming of uninvited gate crashers.

I need some where to stay for a few years. I'll be round to move into your front room. I know you won't mind feeding me as well, I'll have spent my money on the boat fare.

Oh & don't go insulting me, or I'll put you on your ass, with a bloody nose. You won't find me gutless, just the opposite, so watch your self.

Just remember, what's yours is mine, & don't you forget it, or does that only apply to those who were stupid enough to let you in in the first place.

Dear runner,

Why do you assume I ever backed Latham?
Again, you're making wrong assumptions
and allowing your own prejudices to come
through. I thought Latham a basket-case,
and certainly did not support him.
The same way that I find Mr Abbott
not worthy of support. He may well be a
great father and husband, but that does not
qualify him to be a PM.

I found Latham's statement about
the Coalition's policies on
asylum seekers - the least intelligent
thing he said all evening on "Q and A."
It was interesting that Malcolm Turnbull
did specify that they would turn the boats
back only when and if it was "safe," to do
so. Now Turnbull is an intelligent man
and he knows that dingy leaky boats are never
going to be "safe." They'll probably get
scuttled anyway before they get a chance to
send them back.
This gives the Coalition
the loop-hole they need - when they have to
explain why their policies don't work
if and when they get into government. Just like
Howard's "core" and "non-core" promises.
Politics is a dirty business. It makes the dirt
in my garden look so clean.

Dear Philip S.,

Just to clarify things for you:

The author who wrote the article I cited
earlier is a psychologist - therefore her
article is written from her professional
judgement. It's more then just an "opinion."

Cheers.

More drowning at sea, by people who invite themselves, and in so doing, push legitimate refugees further down the UNHR, waiting list!
Now, we have reinstated the Howard Pacific solution and still the boats come! Sometimes as many as three a day.
Temporary visas?
Well, given that has resulted in many gaining permanent residency, hardly a proven roaring disincentive success.
If however, arriving uninvited on a leaky boat simply resulted in automatic compulsory repatriation.
This currently highly lucrative trade in human misery, and the endlessly repeated drowning outcomes it creates, would simply cease.
But particularly if we, say, doubled our refugee intake.
Which by the way, is already one of the most generous RESETTLEMENT intakes in the world.
We need to completely control this intake, least we import the very problems, that led to these crisis situations in the first place!
Other than that, the money we could save with a vastly different approach, and an implacable resolve to control our humanitarian intake, rather than have it decided for us by an organised predatory criminal element, and the scum of the earth!
Could be invested into giving those looking here for a viable future, instead, able to create a better one, in their respective homelands.
Rhrosty.

Good old Marilyn, the moral bellwether of the immigration debate.

Over 90% of the illegal boat-people are muslims; here are some of your non-invading refugees Marilyn:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/sydney_muslims_tell_60_minutes_the_near_beheaded_lee_rigby_was_a_dog/

Cohenite, most asylum seekers in Australia are from China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Fiji, Nepal, Malaysia, Lebanon, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Syria, Bangladesh, Turkey, Nigeria and South Korea with even quite a few deserters from Israel.

Most of those from muslim countries are minority Christians and the rest are not muslim nations at all.

Why OLO allows such rancid racist attacks on innocent people is beyond me.

Joe,

Why does grog consume their culture so?

That's the problem isn't it.

Their communities drown in a sea of booze, with the accompanying dysfunction.

How can the rest of us help them?

Or do you reckon they should all move to the cities - and all will be solved.

Marilyn Shepherd - I thank you for your very good posts and attitude to these very poor boat people. I agree it must be terrible to arrive here in this huge country and be confronted by the ugly face of racism. Also, by physical threats made to me by that silly person Hasbeen, who wouldn't know what it's like in a country where you fear every sound at your door You see Marilyn in my old country the security polis they never ever knocked, they just knocked your door from it's hingeses and stormed in with guns, even if you've done no wrong? In my old home Elbasan, with only 75 thousand people when I was there, over 600 battle tanks was nearby for a country of only over 3 million people. Government said for attackers from outside our country, no for us inside our country they were there fore!

But that's no problem for little men like this Hasbeen with his threats because that's what they did back in my old home. Well listen you very ignorant man,you're nothing, nothing compared to what we all had to deal with back in the 1950-1960 and part 1970, man woman and children had greatest fear for there lives. Me, I'm a surviver under the first 23 years of my life you silly silly little man with your stupid threats ?

I very much applaud you Marilyn Shepherd for your bravery in front of some of these people who've never known what real fear is in there own homes. Still they say Australia is lucky country, I still think it is, and I love Australia, even though theres much racism in the country still.

No Marilyn, you are wrong; the vast majority of boat people are muslim.

If you think otherwise link to an authoritative source because I do not accept your pronouncements.

And being critical of islam is NOT racist Marilyn because islam is not a race.

I have no problem with refugees of any ethnic background; some of my friends are Pacific Islanders and I train in gyms with Sudanese guys but I draw the line at massive immigration by muslims; only a complete fool would ignore what has happened in every European nation which has sizeable numbers of muslims,see:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/A3YQANdvvbY

You are a bigot Marilyn and blinded by your moral superiority to the real danger that islam presents.

It should also be stated at every opportunity that the deaths of 100's if not 1000's of boat-people lies firmly at the feet of the Gillard/green government.

Sorry about the comment above - wrong thread.

Good onya, Marilyn - although you're battling uphill with this mob : )

I second Poirot.

Bravo Marilyn!

We should correct misinformation that's being
swallowed hook, line, and sinker by our
chattering masses. As I've cited previously,
Australia's refugee policy is symptomatic of a
political preparedness to pander to short-term
electoral interest over tenable long-term
planning. No one seems to have - humanitarian concerns.
Politicians base their remarks and policies largely
on what they believe Australians want and that's a
very sad reflection on all of us.

Nearly 12 years since the Tampa incident - and nothing
much has changed.

Dear o sung wu,

I understand your feelings very well.
My parents also knew what a knock
on the door meant. I was born in
Australia, however I still remember
our next door neighbour coming and
telling my mother that he would call
the police if she could not control my
little brother. Apparently he'd had a fight
with the neighbour's little boy (who as it
turned out started the fight).

Mum very
calmly told the neighbour that she
believed in not interfering in children's
fights. Because they resolved their own
fights very quickly while adults stayed angry
over them. Mum also said that after having
been interrogated by the Soviet secret police she wasn't
frightened of any threat he could come up with.
She politely bade him "Good Afternoon," and
closed the door.

Strong and valid point O Sung Wu, but lost on Hasbeen and his/her mates.

Marilyn Shephard you are a coward who dodges questions.

On many occassions I have asked you how many is too many. You have never once answer my simple question.

Now that the numbers of illegal immigrants has topped the 30,000 per annum as was predicted and our humjanitarium intake has topped 20,000, I ask you again how many is too many?

I really don't expect you to have an answer. You are an abuser of rational people. Your attitudes have caused the drowning of childern and women. Are you happy with that? Can you sleep with that on your consciense at night?

On many occassions I have asked you how many is too many. You have never once answer my simple question.
imajulianutter,
I have asked indigenous OLO'ers quite a few times how they feel about being invaded again.
There's a deafening silence. Is it because they can see what's coming & they already know that the "new" invaders won't be as apologetic & provide compensation as the previous lot, us.

Marilyn Shepherd, Lexi,Poirot, o sung wu, Kipp

By letting all these different races in here we are
setting Australia up for civil war and ethnic cleansing
as soon as the numbers of one tribe or the other get big
enough to try to wrest control of all, or part of the country.

Which as shown by all of history they will inevitably do.

If you want some examples of the history list I will once again
give you the examples if you want, although I have listed them
quite a few times before on this forum.

I will also make a prediction, and that is that there will
inevitably be a bloody civil war in the United States of America
in maybe 20-30years time. The growing tribal numbers of Mexicans
and Africans will ensure that. Whoever wins will have control
of some of the most lethal military capability in the world.
That is if other things don't spiral into a World War before the civil war.
happens.

Daily Telegraph Feb. 9 2010

Sydney has Australia's largest proportion of Middle Eastern-born residents, but in a city of more than four million people they still number only about 120,000. Undeniably the community is disproportionately represented in criminal activity.You only need to go to the jails to see what NSW prison's officers have come to call their "Gaza Strip".

The Age August 20, 2012

SUDANESE and Somali-born Victorians are about five times more likely to commit crimes than the wider community, a trend that must be addressed to prevent Cronulla-style social unrest, police warn.

Australian Institute of Criminology report.

"Research reveals that certain source countries for the Australian immigration program produce criminals at a rate far exceeding their population proportion."

The Age Feb 30 2007

A young rapist who attacked a 63-year-old woman and three teenagers in three days has been jailed for 24 years. Hakeem Hakeem, 21, the father of a two-year-old boy, blinked, but showed no emotion when Justice Murray Kellam imposed sentence. Justice Kellam said the crimes, which he described as horrific, violent and debauched, took place about a month after Hakeem arrived in Australia as a refugee from Sudan.

Herald Sun Feb 4 2007

Denmark's Government this month issued a report suggesting migrants from non-Western countries cost the state $3.5 billion a year, while those from the West contributed $450 million in taxes. It added that by toughening up its immigration laws in 2001, mainly to deter immigrants from poorer and Muslim countries, Denmark saved itself $10 billion over 10 years, largely in social security payments.

“Now that we can see that it does matter who comes into the country, I have no scruples in further restricting those who one can suspect will be a burden on Denmark,” Integration Minister Sren Pind declared.

National Crime Authority discussion paper on Asian Organised Crime.

"The Committee's focus on Asian organised crime reflects the considerable community interest in the topic. This interest was heightened by the murder in September 1994 of Mr John Newman, the member for Cabramatta in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly."

The do-gooders are out in force.

Even Bob Carr disagrees with them:

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2013/06/09/1226660/835253-meet-the-press-transcript.pdf

Bob, that paragon of virtue and leftie morality says this about the boat-people:

"Let’s analyse what’s going on here, and that is we’ve got a people smuggling racket that’s entrenched. And people are coming here, not now as a result of persecution, but because they’re economic refugees who’ve have paid money to people smugglers. There’s been a spike in people coming from Iran, for example – none of them are claiming persecution. It’s the economic pressure of the sanctions in Iran, and the squeeze on living standards. People in these circumstances think if we give $10,000 to a people smuggler in a port in Indonesia, he will get us into Australian waters. That is the essence of this. It’s the essence of it."

In the process Australia has handed over control of its borders to Indonesian based criminals and in all likelihood government, a government which Australia has fought wars against in the recent past, cost 100's of lives has spent the best part of $20 billion and for what?

So sanctimonious pests can blame everyone except themselves, and a motley crew of parasites can profit financially from the boat-people industry and crow about their moral superiority.

Despicable.

I think the 'boat people' started out a decade ago as genuine refugees fleeing persecution in their home countries. But times have changed, and while there are still many genuine refugees in the world, far too many of the 'boat people' have become opportunistic chancers who are paying criminals money to get a leg into Australia. According to many commentators, they are coached on how to answer questions put to them by our over-worked custom staff, having previously discarded their identity documents.
Once they are here, I would like to think we are compassionate enough to not tow them back out to sea, but they can be asked to treat us fairly in return.
I like Abbott's plan to put them on a work-for-the-dole scheme without any access to family reunion measures or real employment until they have identified themselves accurately so appropriate security checks can be carried out.
We are being played like a piano, and it's time for that to stop.

Wellllll... I am not going to be popular, basically I am a let them come kind of guy. But then we helped 'cause lots of the crappy problems that even the economic refugees try to run from.

I would rather have my tax dollar helping people then shooting at them, i.e instead of spending dollars going over there shooting people, spend it here on infrastructure to house people. I know, weird huh :)

That aside, didn't I read the other day that some 90% are genuine refugees.'

Anyway, doesn't matter anyhoo. In 30 years of voting, no local, state or federal hopeful pollie I have voted for has gotten in, so it's not me. You voters put 'em there you have reaped what you have sown and similarly when you put Abbot etal in this coming September.

Valley Guy,
For your sake I hope you're still young enough to experience the ignorance of your mentality.
Without a single exception the likes of you are the first ones to come running crying for help from yes, you guessed it, those whom you condemn now.

You are a bigot Marilyn and blinded by your moral superiority to the REAL DANGER THAT ISLAM PRESENTS. (Now that's an excellent example of bigotry).

"It should also be stated at every opportunity that the deaths of 100's if not 1000's of boat-people lies firmly at the feet of the Gillard/green government" (Or those Governments that invaded their countries in the first place, or supported the dictators they earlier helped to put in place or bribed as required).

Refugees are not the problem. They are the symptom of another problem.

Unfortunately rache judging by the problems they are causing throughout Europe, once their numbers reach a certain level, they are a "symptom" that is likely to kill or injure you & your descendants.

"....they are a "symptom" that is likely to kill or injure you & your descendents."

Yeah, rache,

"Apparently" even just the thought of them can make you paranoid.

.....seems that symptom has already taken hold around here.

can make you paranoid.
Poirot,
might I suggest you look up the thesaurus & learn the difference between paranoia & reality because that paranoia came from the reality so many do-gooders refuse to accept.
We ARE ALREADY swamped with people whose sole interest is to get us under the yoke.

BBC News Oct. 17 2010.

Attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany have "utterly failed", Chancellor Angela Merkel says. She said the so-called "multikulti" concept - where people would "live side-by-side" happily - did not work, and immigrants needed to do more to integrate - including learning German.

Cologne, Germany. The Turkish prime minister tells crowd to resist assimilation.

Cologne, Germany -- A crowd of 16,000 expatriate Turks cheered Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan at a vast indoor auditorium in Germany on Sunday as he told them to resist assimilation into the West. He said that Turkish immigrants in Germany should teach their children Turkish before allowing the Germans to teach them German.

BBC News. Feb 5.

David Cameron strode firmly into a debate where many politicians tread timidly. In his view, such caution is part of the problem. In frank language he made abundantly clear he believes multiculturalism has failed.

Yahoo News Feb 11 2011

– French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared Thursday that multiculturalism had failed, joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it. "My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," he said in a interview when asked about the policy which advocates that host societies welcome and foster distinct cultural and religious immigrant groups.

BBC news

Speaking at Georgetown University, Spanish prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar said, “Multiculturalism divides our societies, debilitates our societies, multiculturalism does not produce tolerance, nor integration”. The best way to integrate societies and promote integration, he said, is for laws to be administered equally to everyone, irrespective of ethic origin or religion.

Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso has called Japan a “one race” nation.

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

Multiculturalism is exactly like Socialism. How many times does it need to fail before the Marilyn Sheppard and Poirot clones in this world figure out that it is a bad idea?

NEWSFLASH

In southern India:

“COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, October 12 (UNHCR) – The UN refugee agency on Wednesday began repatriating Sri Lankan refugees from southern India by ferry, adding a new dimension to its voluntary return programme for civilians who fled the island nation before a long conflict ended in 2009…By the end of September, UNHCR had helped 1,493 Sri Lankan refugees (466 families) return home to the north and east… The returns are mainly from India (1,448) while small numbers have also come back from Malaysia, Georgia and the Caribbean island of St. Lucia. Last year, a total of 2,054 Sri Lankan refugees returned home compared to 800 the previous year.
http://www.unhcr.org/4e959c759.html

Meanwhile in the southern ocean: The Australia navy has intercepted another boatload of asylum scammers.
And, the usual advocates and allied lefties are spinning the usual fibs.

Okay, SPQR,

You get an extra five points for using the the term "lefties....but I'm afraid you lose ten points because you omitted "do-gooder".

(See individual's post above and cohenite's earlier post for instruction)

The Labor government has already killed about 1200 illegal immigrants by drowning. At which point do they start taking responsibility for their actions?

Poirot,

<<You get an extra five points for using the the term "lefties....but I'm afraid you lose ten points because you omitted "do-gooder">>

No it was deliberate, it seems to imply that you guys are well intentioned--and I'm not buying a bar of that!

[With the notable exception of o sung wu who is usually pretty close the mark –this time he’s selected the wrong side]

Actually my "wind vanes" would be a better description of how I view you and Lexi. Whenever I find an issue that I have little or no grounding in. My first step is to scan the thread to see if either you or Lexi has posted on it.If either of you have –I can dispense with hours of research – I need only take the opposing view and I’m 100% assured of being correct.

Hahahahahahahaha choke, hack, gasp.

Stop it SPQR, you're killing me.

Still waiting for Marilyn to prove the majority of boat-people are not muslims.

Perhaps the burqa girls, Poirot and Lexi can help her.

Don't forget to wear your blue ties girls.

The hell with lefty & dogooders Poirot, how many points do I get for long haired radical rat bag greenie. Surely that has to get a higher score, as well as being closer to the truth.

Oh hell I forgot the smelly bit. How could I ever forget that bit, after getting with in a hundred meters of some of the Fraser Island greenie protesters, after they had been there a week or two?

It's my belief there's no racism involved simply because we wish to halt these illegal boat people, and protect our borders. Those who support their cause only wheel out this 'racism' epithet purely to underpin their argument.

I don't believe any moderate or reasonable person on this Site would ever deny sanctuary to a genuine refugee who's fleeing for his life. However, all and every claim MUST be carefully examined and thoroughly investigated, by either ASIO or the Federal Police Force, and not taken merely on the word of the applicant ?

Further, it should also be made abundantly clear, and widely promulgated - you arrive without any proper documentation - constitutes an automatic ground for immediate deportation. If the failed applicant can't be deported, because his country of origin either can't be established or they won't take him back, that's OK - Gaol ! They MUST be made aware of the risks of any deceptive conduct !

Personally, I do not believe any lousy politician, on either side, in this damn hick country of ours, has the GUTS to implement any policy remotely resembling the processes as I've described above.

Interestingly, every ANZAC Day we pat ourselves on the back, as the proud descendants of our inordinately brave, and courageous Diggers, who protected this huge country from certain invasion !

Yet we can't even stop theses ILLEGAL economic immigrants, invading our shores, who laughingly exploit all our hard won Social benefits !

I'm so so ashamed of what this once great country has turned into !

In conclusion, I notice someone herein, has 'managed' to write an altogether ridiculous thread, attributing to my own sobriquet of; 'o sung wu' ? How you did it, I don't know. Be assured, I don't appreciate it, my 'boofheaded' friend' !

Hasbeen

There is no shortage of 'greenies' in my community, most of whom would be considered ratbags because they tend to send the system up whenever the opportunity arises, however daily showers are the norm & only a few are longhairs. For what its worth, I'm not aware of one 'Greens', queer, or islamic supporter in the whole community. Funny thing about those wont to do the tea-towel bit, seems they only feel comfortable in big cities. Maybe the proximity to Centrelink is a prime concern ??

o sung wu

Your missive is spot on, except possibly in respect of investigation by ASIO / Federal Police, I'd prefer any prospective migrants to be vetted by the Embassy in Jakarta, far better for legitimate would-be migrants to get a visa & travel via regular airline than risk life and limb on a leaky boat. That works for yankeeland and other countries so whats stopping our clowns from adopting it ??

Here's a link that gives things from another perspective:

http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/asylum-seekers-the-story-that-doesn't-get-told-20130412-2hpcm.html

As the author tells us:

"The vitriol and anger levelled at asylum seekers is astounding.
Putting their lives at risk to come here on a boat that
does not make them lazy, dishonest, welfare cheats or
criminals. It makes them desperate."

More valid points include:

"No one is advocating people smuggling but it is the smuggler
and the corrupt officials in the countries they depart from that
must be targeted. Border security is important but it is
organised crime and drug smugglers who pose the real risk.
Illegally staying in Australia is a problem but under the law
asylum seekers are not illegal. The real illegals are those
who overstay tourist visas and simply never leave, or people
who lie and come in on the wrong visa class, such as people
who come on student visas and work or run businesses."

"Watch "Border Security." These are the real criminals."

"We have no problem accepting British families who migrate here
"for the weather." Or foreign retirees who come to spend the
rest of their days enjoying the Australian "lifestyle."

"But a boat load of desperate people who just want safety,
democracy, first world freedom, education, and a chance
at a better life are demonised like rabid dogs.
Shame, Australia."

Perhaps we do need to see pictures being shown of dead bodies
in the water, of women, children, men, desperate people who
have drowned. Seeing visually the images just might have some
effect on those who so anonymously come up with such
awful anger, and bile, and personal insults,
on public forums such as this one.

As Madeline Albright, the former US Secretary of State,
once warned, (I've adapted her saying here)
"There's a special place in hell for people
who don't help one another."

Lexi

Few if any Australians have issues with 'genuine' refugees, however its clear that the majority are far from convinced boat-people are in fact legitimate. Surely there must be a way to verify their bona-fides without relying on the word of politicians or the snouts which profit from public handouts ?? What do you consider is wrong with the Big Clive proposal to invoke exactly the same 'sorting out' process that has worked well in every other country that has employed the system ?? Surely it must be better to avoid the leaky boat nonsense and let legitimate refugees travel via infinitely safer aircraft. Obviously that excludes Indonesian airlines which have a worse safety record than the boats.

To: LEXI & HASBEEN...

I've noticed a thread that has appeared in this topic, that has been attributed to me, vide my sobriquet of 'o sung wu'. Be it known, all the comments made therein, that have purported to have come from me, are patently wrong !

LEXI, I noticed in a response from you, you'd provided a degree of commiseration and support for some of the comments as stated therein. Thank you for that, but it's wholly undeserved (regrettably).

HASBEEN...I also saw some turgid rhetoric directed at you, for some imagined slight, you've obviously given out apparently ? I believe you're aware of both the colour of my language and my brand of politics by now, and if I had anything to say to you, it would be stated without ambiguity or any equivocation whatsoever. I'm sorry if you believed it had came from me HASBEEN !

Indeed, I apologise to you both.

Hi PRAXIDICE...

Your point is good. I didn't think of that ? My only rider, would any of them at our Embassy be sober enough to make an accurate call ?

From what I've heard from a former Foreign Affairs Security Officer, there's an abundance of spirituous liquor available (free of all duty)at all Aussie Embassies abroad.

I dunno mate, I'm over seventy now, I don't think I'll ever see my country the way it was ? Moreover, I don't think even the Federal Coalition, with all their best endeavours, will manage to halt this invasion. There's just too many of them now ? And it really saddens me.

Part 1
Lexi - with regard to the link you provided.

So 1 story about a genuine refugee does not make the other 43,000 genuine.

The UN said most are economic refugees.

You posted similar rubbish on another thread "How to stop the boats"
Your link
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/02/13/inside-australias-waiting-room-why-they-board-boats-in-indonesia/?wpmp-switcher=mobile

The following are all quotes from the link provided by Lexi that prove the refugees are ECONOMIC refugees.

Part 2
You failed to reply properly before lets try again

1)Quote. "the 60-year-old Hazara farmer He spent 13 years in Iran before embarking on the trip to Australia. He had to leave his wife, two daughters and four sons behind in Iran." ** Note he was safe in Iran.**

2)Quote. "Hamad is older and has lived in Iran for most of his life. He travelled to Indonesia via Turkey, where his family is now living." ** Note he was safe in Turkey.**

3)Quote. “It is difficult for us to afford our lives in Indonesia,” they said. Abdul told us that people develop psychological problems because life is so meaningless. ** They want to come to Australia because we give them money Indonesia do not **

4)Quote. "His damning assessment highlighted the lack of engagement the Hazaras have with the country that has given them protection. Australia is the prize". ** Note he was safe just wants a better life **

5)Quote. "I don’t have a lot of money and I have to send money to my family. There is no work here." ** If that is not an economic refugee I don't know what is. **

6)Quote. "We heard several stories about police officers and prison guards demanding money, sometimes as much as $4000." ** Safe problem was police corruption **

7)Quote. "They estimated only 10-15% of the Hazara asylum seekers in Cisarua were travelling in family groups and that there are very few women. All the rest are single men." ** To me this indicates the family are in Iran, Turkey or another safe country, just waiting for the family reunion documents **

8) With these quotes they complain about the conditions (note no riots) BUT when put in the same situation but better conditions they riot and cause millions of dollars damage.
1)Quote. “One year I’ve been living here. It’s not a camp, it’s a jail.”

2)Quote. "The bathroom is no good. All the time it is wet … we have to sleep on the floor."

Dear Philip S.,

I shan't be responding to you any further.
You have a problem comprehending things
that have previously been explained to you.
I supplied you with various links the last time
explaining the situation of the Hazzaras in Iran
and how "safe" they were. You did not accept that
and kept on quoting me the same nonsense.
You don't seem to understand that people spend
years in certain areas before they can move on.
You have no concept of the life of a refugee
and what they have to go through.

All you get out of anything - is "See they are
economic refugees," Yeah, that's why they
get on leaky boats and drown at sea.
Very intelligent!

o sung wu

I concur with your assessment of the LNP, they are no smarter or more trustworthy than the ALP rabble, thats why I believe the tried & proven Palmer proposition is the only viable one. Dunno about the embassy drunks, your post is the first I've heard of it although its not an area I know anything about. My first impression is that heavy drinking wouldn't be the done thing in an islamic country but anything is possible.

For what its worth, I think I've got a decent mob of very cranky people together with the objective of teaching a few local authority heads for whom they work. If things work as we expect, we intend taking to task other politicians who think they are exempt from accountability. This boat-people business is clearly one where one has to wonder who is scratching whose back. If, as it appears, the vast majority of Australians have a deeply seated suspicion that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, then the matter needs to be debated by the sheeple and not simply decided behind closed doors by people most of us don't trust as far as we could throw them.

Lexi,
let's have a little hypothetical here. If an Australian was broke in Indonesia & he boarded a boat & arrived here what do you think would happen to him? Would he be put up in a 3star motel in Cairns ?
If an Australian were to sail from Darwin to Indonesia without clearing Customs & paying huge registration to leave Australia & he returned here do you know what would happen to him ? He'd have to pay import duty on his on boat which he bought in Australia & he'd pay big fines as well. Seems a lot easier for agenda driven soldiers of religion.

Lexi - Why don't you admit you are wrong, one spent 13 years in Iran now wants to come to Australia he is 60 YO in Australia he will soon get the pension for life in Iran Nothing that equals ECONOMIC refugee in anyone's mind EXCEPT refugee advocates or do gooders.

Quote "The author who wrote the article I cited earlier is a psychologist" SO what have you heard of misdiagnosis happens a lot.

To quote you "I shan't be responding to you any further." That to me is surrendering your arguments as invalid and having no substance in fact.

It has also to be noted you still fail to answer other peoples questions, are you afraid of the truth.

Marilyn Shepherd - Quote "We are not being invaded by refugees though and your ignorance is truly astounding." I will pass the last bit back to you - your ignorance is truly astounding.

By any chance is your real name Ian Rintoul?

Misanthrope - What happened did it get too hot so fail to come back?

Officer Poirot of the etiquette police back with your usual garbage.

Philip.s It's you that talk all the garbage, because nobody believes in what you say. Not only that, but by your comments and other remarks, you prove you know little about all the boat people, their problems and the plights that they have to face in their home country. That's why they switch off much of what you said I'm afraid. You have not personally faced any of these dangers confronted by these poor refugees. If you did, you would have a much softer heart for them and the problems they have to face. You are a spoilt, greedy person I'm afraid, Philip S.

misanthrope - Just rattling your chain to bring you back, there are a lot of comments directed to you that you were afraid to answer, could that be because you actually have not facts to back up what you say and are unable to dispute what others have said.

To quote you "It's you that talk all the garbage, because nobody believes in what you say." - Obviously mathematics was not your best subject, if you check there are only about 4 people on your side the rest are against or dispute what you say.

To quote you again "but by your comments and other remarks, you prove you know little about all the boat people" By yours you show a complete opposite view to the majority of Australians.

To quote you again "You have not personally faced any of these dangers confronted by these poor refugees." Do you mean the ones who pay thousands of dollars to jump the Queue? I wish I had $9,000 to spare.

Philip S you would be very surprised at what I know about wanting to escape a bad country where fear is with you every day of your life.
But i'm now very exhausted and I have other work I must now do. At least you don't abuse or threaten me like some who have done to me.

Misanthrope, you made a racist statement on page 3 where you said that you agreed "with people around the world who think that Aussies are just drunken racists."

Could you please explain why Australians should allow people like yourself to come to our country, who have contempt for Australians, and hold racist opinions about us, and presume to tell us how to run our own successful country? If the society which us "drunken racists" created is so racist and awful, please feel free to return to your own country where your own people are not drunken racists.

We Australians enjoy being lectured by people who fled their own failed societies, and who now want to tell us Australians who created a successful society what we are doing wrong.

I will repeat my post on page 4 which you dodged.

If your previous country had experienced the same level of legal and illegal immigration which Australia has experienced in the last 40 years, such that the population demographics in certain areas had changed so much that your own people were feeling like they were strangers in their own country. And, if some of the newly arrived groups had a very negative effect upon the safety of your own people that cherished rights were being eroded to counter surging criminal behaviour, riots, and even terrorism. And, the new arrivals were helping themselves to your increasingly insolvent and unsustainable welfare system.

Would your own people welcome them with open their arms? Or, as I suspect, your own people are no different to the "drunken, racist Australians" that you despise but want to live with, and they would be just as concerned about new arrival lobbing up in boats in their tens of thousands?

Do your own people have some sort of genetic aversion to racism which makes them a race genetically unique to us, or are they just like the "drunken, racist" Australians?

Dear LEGO,

Didn't any of your ancestors come on a boat to this
great nation of ours?
Most everybody else's did. You seem to overlook
that fact. And the Australians who have made this
country as great as it is have included people
from many places and cultures. You also seem to
forget that as well. Australians' interests are
far more complex than those who insist on seeing
all discussion through a fixed ideological
viewfinder.

When was it decided that all concerns, issues,
policies and pre-occupations of this country had to
be divided into either a left/right dogfight or a
"them" and "us" one?

I had always thought that Australians were rarely
vicious, spiteful, or dangerous. That we're just not
that angry a people. And, that we sit down and discuss
our problems and work them out as we've always done
in the past. Or do you believe that there are only
a certain select group of "real" Australians - and
everyone else who lives and works here is irelevant.
Especially those who linguistically and visibly
appear to be "different."

That would be very sad indeed.
I hope that this is not the case.

Hi Lexi.

Your premise appears to be, that since my ancestors came to Australia by boat, than anyone who wants to come to Australia should just come here and we should be happy about that. Australia is a sovereign nation, Lexi, and every sovereign nation has a border to control immigration. You may dream of an Aquarian world with no borders, but you are dreaming the Impossible Dream.

Identifying your opponents ideology in order to figure out where he is coming from, is critical to countering his arguments. Your premise that people need not divide into opposing and competing groups seems to mark you indelibly as another "world saver" who thinks that everyone is equally nice, it is just a few nasty people who make it bad for the majority.

This is like President Kennedy's applauded speech where he stressed the commonality of the human race. "We all want what is best for our children, we all breath the same air." But that famous picture of Muslim toddlers dressed as suicide bombers seems to dispel that Aquarian ideal. Human beings are tribal and territorial, Lexi. Any ideology which can not accept that, is going to fail. There is always going to be "them and us."

I am an Australian, and I have just as much right to define my cultural identity as an aborigine, a Zulu, or a Muslim. Wherever the North European people have gone in this world, Lexi. they have created successful and functioning societies which are the envy of the world. I have as much right to preserve my successful culture as an aborigine or a Muslim has to preserve their failed ones.

The non discriminatory immigration programs in all of the western world have been unmitigated social catastrophes for the Western world. The "racists" predicted that the importation of certain ethnicies and religions would result in spiralling crime rates, endemic ethnic welfare dependency, race riots, terrorism, ghettoisation, demands for separatism, and severe restrictions on our cherished civil liberties in order to combat these problems. And do you know what, Lexi? The racists were right all along

I see that Labor's border policy is killing people in greater numbers. Now they are looking for a second boat to sink in a week.

At this rate Labor is killing more illegal boat people in a week than Howard had come to Aus in a year.

SM,

You and your Party must actually come up with
more than inane slogans and rhetoric. Nobody
believes that you'll be able to "Stop The Boats,"
by sending them back to Indonesia. Your Pacific
Solution was briefly successful due to global
conditions at the time,
not due to any of your policies. Which
by the way cost the country a fortune, did
irreparable mental damage to people, including
women and children, and most of the asylum seekers
ended up being allowed to stay in Australia anyway.
So stop talking nonsense and simply repeating your party
mantra. I'm surprised you didn't bring
the carbon tax into it.

Dear LEGO,

As I stated earlier, I'm not advocating people smuggling
and of course border security is important. Illegally
staying in Australia is a problem, but under our law
asylum seekers are not illegal and they have every right
to ask for asylum and then be assessed by the proper
authorities. The real illegals are those who overstay
tourist visas and simply never leave, or people who lie
and come in on the wrong visa class, such as people who
come on student visas and work or run businesses.

I don't believe that we should demonise a boat load of
desperate people because of some of our suburban problems.
Not all boat people are Muslims and not all Muslims are
fundamentalists. I don't believe in tarring everyone in
any group with the same brush due to the actions of a few.
That does not allow for individual differences. We need
to take a closer look at what's causing some of our
problems. Drugs, crime, unemployment, lack of infrastructure
and adequate transport, and discrimination,
might all be things that
contribute to these complex issues.
Education would help,
scare mongering certainly does not.

Dear LEGO,

I forgot to add the following link that might
clarify a few things for you:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/tragic-legacy-sievx-fatal-sinking-20091019-h38e.html

It may help confirm as the link points out that,
"asylum seekers arriving by boat are not a threat to
Australia, their numbers are insignificant, they are
not illegal and they usually make Australia a better
place as the Sievx survivors have done.

Shadow Minister,

You're blaming Labor for the recent asylum seeker
boats sinking is
shameful. Have you forgotten Tampa and Sievx?
Read the link I provided for LWGO. I might make you
realise that neither political party has something
to be proud of regarding the asylum seeker issue.

Lexi - asylum seekers are not illegal

maybe not, but economic opportunists don't fit any current definition of 'refugee' . Popular opinion (rightly or wrongly) appears to be very much against economic opportunists, and there is every reason to believe most boat people fit that category. Among other issues, there is no reason whatever for genuine cases to avoid getting a proper visa. Whatever, Australians are TOTALLY within their rights to query whether or not we are being had a lend of. The more do-gooders rant and rave, the more suspicious the sheeple become of their motives. I see nothing wrong with the Clive Palmer approach ... would-be immigrants are either legitimate cases or they are not, 'genuine' cases get a visa, everyone else rack off hairy legs.

cont'd ...

My apologies to LEGO for the typo I made of his name.
I was concentrating on the post to Shadow Minister.

Hi Lexi, am sorry, but I am not interested in debating with links. I only have 350 words to counter your arguments and turn you away from the Dark Side.

Lexi, there are 7 billion people on planet Earth, and except for the populations on a score of (mostly European settled) countries, every single one of them could legitimately claim that they are refugees under Australia's ridiculously lax "refugee" laws. Every single human being on planet Earth who lives in a grossly overpopulated, multicultural, fourth world sheethole knows that if he makes it into any western country, he is set for life. And that is why they are coming. They know that we are suckers.

We as a people do have the sovereign right to exclude people from our society who are going to cause us very serious financial and social problems. Those serious social and economic problems are already manifest and are only a portent for things to come. Australians wonder why people like yourself, Julia Gillard, and the misnamed Labor Party care more about foreigners than they do their own people? With the clear example of societal breakdown and insolvency already clearly self evident in Europe, we also wonder why you are so determined to emulate failure and destroy the prosperous and safe society you choose to live in?

You say that all Muslims are not fundamentalists. If they are not fundamentalists, then they are not Muslims. Could you please tell us which major branches of Islam believe in the separation of church and state? Which ones do not believe in Sharia Law? Which ones do not believe that apostates and homosexuals should be put to death. Which ones believe that Islam can be criticised? Which ones believe that a raped woman should not be punished? Which ones believe that Islam should not be spread by Jihad?

Cmon, Lexi. You have to answer those questions to support your false assumption.

You are now claiming that individuals can not be judged by their group associations.

Do you believe in moderate Nazis? How about moderate Ku Klux Klan members?

Lexi,

To the contrary, No one believes the fantasy that you are weaving. All but a small fringe believe that the pacific solution worked.

Dropping the illegal immigration from 4000 p.a. to less than 100 p.a. does not correlate to the 25% drop in refugees worldwide. Similarly, the increase from 100p.a. to todays rate of 40 000 p.a. corresponds only to the removal of the pacific solution.

It takes competent politicians to create competent policy, and idiots to remove it.

Great post, Lego. Astute, cogent and well argued.
Now watch, Lexi will act as if she hasn't adsorbed a word of it --talk about teflon coated!

Hi SPQR

I have noticed that Lexi does tent to go off at a tangent to what her opponents are saying and she stresses moral arguments when logic and reason fail her.

I think that I just scored a bullseye with my last post and Lexi does not know how to respond. Her position is a humane one, but my position is that as an Australian, her humanitarian ideals are supposed to be directed primarily towards her own people, not everybody else's people. Otherwise, the term "Australian" does not define social inclusion and community, it is just a term for a geographic address.

I think Lexi is a fairly typical leftie. Educated by the long haired men and the short haired women of our state education departments to think that nationalism and patriotism are the ideals of the cretin class, and taught to think that her own culture is manifestly evil, she has become an easy convert to the causes of the western self loathers who hate the society they choose to live in.

Fortunately, we have the glaring example of Europe to display to her the consequences of failing to support her own culture.

I have a funny feeling that she is sitting in a dark corner at the moment, because she is a smart girl and she knows that my argument makes sense. With a bit of luck we might be able to get her to take off her ideological blinkers and start thinking straight.

YoooHooooooo Lexi. Where arrrrrrre Youuuuuuuuu?

Dear LEGO,

My apologies for not responding to you sooner.
I've had computer problems.

A few things need to be clarified here.

Firstly, I come from a Liberal voting family.
My background is a conservative one. And I do not
belong to any political party. I vote on policies
that make sense to me, as I imagine many Australians
do. I also think that Australians are remarkably
diverse. We have voters of all persuasion, city
and country folk, very young and very old, gay and
everything else. We should invite everyone's view
and, within the limits of defamation and good taste,
we should allow them all to be heard.
I don't believe in making our concerns, issues, policies,
and pre-occupations of this country to be divided into
a left/right dogfight.

I don't believe in labelling people simply because their
views don't agree with mine. I think that Australians
are far more complex than those who insist on seeing
all discussions through a fixed ideological viewfinder.

Now back to the topic of asylum seekers.
We are signatories to the UN Refugee Convention which
obligates us to assess applications for asylum from people
seeking it. Compared to other refugee-hosting countries
Australia receives a very small number of asylum
applications and we're in no danger of being "swamped."
We do have set criteria on which asylum claims are
assessed. Most asylum seekers who've come by boat
have in the past been found to be genuine cases.

I've had my say on this topic. I'm not interested in
sweeping statements
and arguments on an emotion level rather than a mature
intelligent one - so I shan't be responding
to you any further.

I shall leave you to continue with your kindred spirits
who have the wisdom to see things your way.

Cheers.

The title of this thread has been niggling me - reminding me of something that I couldn't put my finger on.

But, it just occurred to me.

We've all known someone who regularly utters the phrase "I'm not being nasty, but..." - before launching into something exquisitely "nasty".

Well, "We're not racist.....", has exactly the same psychological intonation.

Just sayin'.......

Dear Lexi

Re your comment about 'professional psychologist' - perhaps you remember a few years ago when 'professional psychologists' dragged up 'repressed memories' and Fathers were accused and prosecuted for 'raping' their daughters fome early childhood until late teens. The daughters could not actually remember the events, but 'profesional psychologists' were able to 'recover' these 'repressed' memories. Luckily for us, that fad from one of the most dangerous professions in existence was consigned to the dustbin of history - but not before several men had their lives utterly ruined. The utterances of 'professional psychologists' are not worthy of being considered more than 'opinions' than the utterances of anyone else, in fact in a lot of cases they should be dismissed as 'hogwash'.

I hope you're wrong Cody, because I hope to be one of those professionals in a few years.I don't recall the topic you're discussing, but I have heard of other "recovered memory" stuff that turned out to be no more than a fevered imagining.

It's important to be able to distinguish between clinical practitioners, counsellors and academics. Just as in any field, those at the coal face are dependent on those in back rooms to provide them with the cognitive tools with which to practice. Unlike most fields though, there is often no clear understanding of mechanisms, just some observational research and rules of thumb. Having spoken to practitioners in the past, very often they are torn in two directions. Firstly they want to make sure they can cover their bums by showing that they used the most current consensus model for the particular problem being treated and secondly, especially relevant to the subject of sexual abuse, they identify strongly with their patients, and have often chosen the field because of some experience of their own or someone close to them.

I suspect that a great deal of what you are talking about comes from the second of those imperatives winning out, with the practitioner becoming a participant in the creation of fantasies. If they had remained at arm's length, as is professionally proper, they would have been more able to critically evaluate what they were hearing against known reality.

My interest isn't in clinical practise (I'm a lousy listener, naturally gifted with strong tongue and jaw muscles and no that's not a chat-up line) but in the academic research and modelling of social interactions. Hopefully some really rigorous and testable understandings will come along within the next few years.

Out of interest, were you aware that Kevin Rudd's wife is a registered psychologist (or at least, she was)? It's not surprising that he seems to be able to play head games so effectively and effortlessly. She's lovely in person, I've met her a couple of times while waiting to vote.

I'm afraid you are about 500 years too early Antiseptic if you are hoping to find anything other than a bunch of charlatans not only in the psychology practice, but even more so in that back office you mention. It is doubtful, but perhaps the profession could come of age, & some use in that time.

Those are the ones you are about to study under so be very careful. In my experience most doing those courses come out with a lot of jargon, & even less understanding, & definitely less common sense than they started with.

You only have to look at their total failure with criminals to see that. Come to think of it, perhaps you will fit in well. From another thread I detected a stronger sympathy for criminals then victims in your posts.

The bit about Ruddies wife is interesting. Now we know who manufactured the completely false persona that Rudd presents that managed to get him elected to a position for which he was not only totally unsuitable, but incapable of undertaking.

This could be represented as false pretenses, as could much of the discipline you will be studying.

Hi Lexi. I hereby forgive you for not responding quickly enough, and for any other sins you may have recently committed. And I can understand why you don't want to cross swords with me, I suppose I have to be a bit blunt when I deprogram lefties.

Now to give you a psychology lesson.

You said that you do not label people you do not like. This is nonsense. The claim by the left that they do not prejudge, label or stereotype anyone is simply an irrational slogan which lefties routinely parrot without ever thinking about it.

"Prejudice" literally means "to pre judge." Making judgements about people is an everyday occurrence in human interaction. Everybody labels others, especially those that they don't like. And as for stereotyping, stereotyping is essential for forming concepts so that people can think. If I was to say to you that "there is a bird sitting on a car", you would form a stereotype of a bird and a car in your mind to form the concept.

Saying that "people must not stereotype" equates exactly with saying that "people must not think."

If you think otherwise, Lexi, then I am going to amuse myself pointing out to you every time you violate your own moral values and prejudge, label and stereotype, yourself.

Finally we get to the topic of country shopping asylum seekers. People do have a right under UN mandate to claim refugee status in Australia. But most Australians do not consider these people as genuine refugees and we are sick and tired of our stupid government pretending that they are. We consider them to be economic refugees who are fleeing priest and mullah ridden societies. And they are fleeing the consequences of their own cultures inability to get their populations under control and create prosperous societies.

Hi Hasbeen

Your criticism of psychology, which implied it was invalid because it did not help criminals, is not valid because you are unaware of the history of psychology and the effect that Socialist philosophies have had on it.

Socialists believe that all humans are equal in every way. Historically, this was meant to apply to human classes as well as races, and socialists believed that a disadvantaged class person was no different from a noble. They believed that class differences were created only by privilege and discrimination. An example of this mindset was the novel "Pygmalian'" (My Fair lady) in which the author (George Bernard Shaw) displayed that a Cheapside flower girl was indistinguishable from a princess, provided that she had nice clothes and elocution lessons from Rex Harrison.

This concept was advocated by socialist academics in the psychology discipline, who began what was called the "Behaviourist school" of Psychology. This school of academic psychological thought sought to prove that genetics and human instincts had no part to play in behaviour, and that all behaviour was learned. But their attempts to "educate" disadvantaged class children into Mensas failed dismally.

The socialist Behaviourists also believed that they could "condition" criminals to abandon crime, and an example of their failure is illustrated in the move "A Clockwork Orange." This school of socialist psychological thought is considered today to be rather potty, although the Behaviourists did not give up without a fight.

The differences between the Behaviourists and the more modern Cognitive psychologists was meant to be resolved, once and for all, at a great debate involving eminent behavioural scientists from several ivy league universities. Unfortunately, things got a bit heated, and this debate turned rather famously into an all out brawl between several of the distinguished scientists who left the auditorium nursing black eyes and bloody noses.

Dear LEGO,

Prejudice is an irrational, inflexible attitude
towards an entire category of people. The word
lirerally means "prejudged." The key feature of
prejudice is that it is always rooted in
generalisations and so ignores the differences among
individuals. Therefore someone who is prejudiced
against Arabs, asylum seekers, and others, (Lefties),
will tend to have a negative attitude towards these people
in the belief that all Arabs
and asylum seekers, and others, share the same supposed traits.

Like ethnocentrism, stereotyped thinking is an almost
unavaidable feature of social life. Some people tend
to think in terms of general categories, if only to
enable them to make sense of the world by simplifying
its complexity.

The essence of prejudiced thinking, however, is that the
stereotype is not checked against reality. It is not
modified by experiences that contradict the rigid image.

Another consistent feature of prejudiced thought is that
it is irrational - illogical and inconsistent.

For example, prejudiced people often believe mutually
contradictory statements about groups they dislike.
For example, most people who disliked Jews for keeping
to themselves also disliked them for intruding too much.
Clearly prejudiced people are not concerned about genuine
group characteristics, they simply accept any negative
statement that feeds their existing hostility.

In one study, it was found that people who were prejudiced
against one minority group tended to be prejudiced against
others. Nearly three-quarters who disliked Jews also
disliked such people as the Bajorans, the Crumencians, and the
Delakovians. Some prejudiced people even urged that members of the
latter groups be expelled from the country. As it happens
however all these names were fictious names. This demonstrates
the irrationality of prejudice, it shows that prejudiced people
may be hostile toward groups they could never have met or even have heard of.

See you on another thread.

I'm willing to stick around to find out if you're right Hasbeen, but just because the spirit is willing...

So I'll have to make the most of what's available. I do hope that your prognostications are unfounded, but if it turns out that the profession is as hopelessly inept as you say, I'll look at my options.

I discovered last night, while playing with my preferences that I am apparently qualified for entry to medicine, which was quite a surprise and not something I want to take on at 50, but it means that there are no studies I am excluded from. Perhaps I should do that mechatronic engineering degree I was planning on before my marriage broke down?

Nah, I already know how machines work and the details of control systems are boring. Psychology it is, with a soupcon of advanced stats and whatever else I find intriguing. Any ideas folks?

LEGO, behaviourism is not completely dead. It may be less than illuminating at the individual level, but in group dynamics it is still very important. Cognitive and perceptual factors are undoubtedly important, but they often follow behavioural responses and are tacked on as justifications rather than being causative of interactions. It's what I expect will lead to the most useful analyses of group dynamics, since it removes the problematic and imponderable focus on cognition in complex interactions.

At least, I think so...

Julia Gillard, the Australian PM regularly refers to those who disagree with her as "misogynists" and "nut jobs". What do you about that?

Hi Lexi.

Prejudging people is an everyday occurrence. I am certain that the next time you throw a party, you are not going to invite the Hells Angels? You are prejudiced against the Hells Angels because you are aware of their criminal activities and you judge them collectively according to their group reputation.

Stereotyping is an unavoidable feature of thinking, Lexi. Your own premise, which claims that "some people think in general categories", is a stereotype of a general category which you call "some people". Your implication is, that you think that what "some people" do is wrong. You have just prejudged "some people" with a negative generalisation.

Bingo.

A stereotype does not need to be completely accurate, only accurate enough to form a concept. You could say that "some people" could not be a real concept because it specify how many people, or what kinds of people, make up your concept of "some people." But it does not have to. Like any stereotype, it only has to form a generalised concept in a person's mind of "a group of people who think in generalities."

Now, if you think that prejudice is wrong, what do you think of Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members?

You have claimed that most Muslims are not fundamentalists. You have just made a prejudgement. Your prejudgement is a positive one, but it is still a prejudgement. The only time that people like you scream about prejudging, is when somebody like me makes a negative generalisation about a group of people that you want to defend. If I said that Italians have a flair for design, you would not scream that I was prejudging them. But if I said that Italians have a weakness for corruption, you would stand on your dignity and say I was prejudging.

So, your position really comes down to, you can say nice things about entire groups of people, but you can't say bad things about entire groups of people. Unless, of course, they are Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, or Hells Angels.

Lexi, such a position is intellectually insupportable.

Lego

You just made my day! I live/work on a very remote mine site and your last post will make me laugh for the whole night! I love people like Lexi though; they are like those big springy toy things of the 1980s, they don't really have any purpose in life - but gosh they are fun to push down a flight of stairs.

:-)

Come on fellers, you're being a bit rough on Lexi.

She is a lady who just wants to see the best in people, all people. Well all people but liberal party people. It would be a great world if every one was as kind.

Yes our Lexi is very kind, but she & others like her can be dangerous. Their desire to see only the good in people can & does blind them to the danger some groups are to our society, & the well being of future generations.

We are going to need some pretty hard headed people to take the necessary action to prevent us becoming a future Lebanon, or Syria, with so many already, who will not accept our way of life. Lexi & others like her are going to resist this action, until the situation becomes bad enough for them to believe the truth.

It may be too late already. Perhaps we are going to have to hope Oz grown Muslim girls are going to demand the same lives of the majority, although that could be a cause of even more friction.

Dear LEGO,

You state that I would not invite the "Hell's Angels,"
to a dinner party and that makes me "prejudiced," is
a cracker.

It's obvious that we don't mix in the same
social groups.

I don't know any "Hell's angels," to be
able to invite them. But then,
I can't invite George Clooney
either, or Brad Pitt and Angelina. That
does not mean that I am somehow prejudiced
against them.
You're really talking nonsense here. Hollow arguments.
Proving my point of general categories to enable you
to make sense of the situation by trying to simplify
its complexity.

And, your reference to "some" is equally lame.
Because the reference itself indicates "individuality"
as opposed to an "entire" category of people. I am only referring
to "some," people afterall. Not to "all" people. Therein lies
the difference.

I'm not the one with the
inflexible attitude towards an ENTIRE group of people.
I am not the one whose arguments are rooted
in generalisations thereby ignoring the differences
among individuals. I don't believe that all asylum seekers
share the same traits.

Your summations are too vague and sweeping in their scope.
And you simply prove the point that I am making - that
"some" people are psychologically more prone to prejudiced
thinking than others.

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill not
easily acquired. You appear to be arguing on an emotional
level - not a mature intelligent one. A more effective
approach would be for you to actually use the word "some,"
in regards to asylum seekers. It would have more chance
of winning you points.
No one likes or supports a dogmatic, illogical or weak debater.
Argue to win.

Good luck.

Dear Hasbeen,

What a honey of a man you are,
always ready to barrack for me.
Thank You.
BTW: I'm not anti-Liberal. I just
don't want Mr Abbott as a PM.
Now Malcolm Turnbull - that's a
different story. ;-);-);-);-)

Sociopaths argue to win, not logical, mature and intelligent people, and sociopaths argue to the point of logical absurdity, Lexi, which is exactly and precisely what you are doing. Logical, mature and intelligent people engage in debate to seek a closer truth, not hide behind jargon when it suits them, and then scoring points with polysyllabic flatulence.

Dear Cody,

The ultimate authority must always rest
with the individual's own reason and
critical analysis.

We all have a continuing obligation to work
on our attitudes. Every day we hear of
grievances in connection with which ethnic
background, or some similarly irrelevant
difference, is blamed. It is of course, the
height of arrogance to believe that we are
superior to others, yet this attitude is hard
to eradicate.

Sometimes our suspicious approach to those
who seem different appears to be heightened
by media presentations that distort and
aggravate incidents. At times this almost
appears malicious. I recently heard of an
infuriated theatre attendant who became
irritable by a migrant who was unsure where
to line up, "Why don't you learn how we do
things here?" she shouted in exasperation at
the bewildered victim. Such absence of
courtesy and understanding is inexcusable
and should prick the conscience of all of us.
Incidents such as this can provoke defiance and even
a desire to retaliate. Our aim should always
be to behave with respect towards others, and to
encourage this in all people.

I've been abused in the most disgusting and personal
terms, but that just goes with the territory on a
public forum such as this one. Subsequently I make
a note of the poster and usually tend to ignore
their posts in the future because I know that the
chance of having a sensible discussion about issues
will be lost. I don't believe in mud-slinging.

What we need is a more positive, open and compassionate
approach to differences in opinion.

Sadly, your last post to me runs short of the mark.
You come across as an abusive, illogical and weak debater.
But do keep trying.

Dear Lexi

You are still maintaining that it is wrong to prejudge groups of people. But when I asked you what you thought of Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members, you dodged the question. When I asked you if you would invite Hells Angels to your next party, you responded with a red herring. Conclusion? You know it is OK to prejudge people you don't like, and if it is OK to prejudge people you don't like then- - - -?

And you are fully aware that you would be crazy to invite the Hells Angels. But you won't admit you are clearly wrong.

Lexi, I can tell more about my opponents real intentions from the questions they dodge and prevaricate on, than what they really say. From your artful responses and issue dodging, I know that you are fully aware that prejudging is valid, but you can never admit it. Because if you did, you know that it would undermine your entire humanitarian argument. So you will keep on performing mental gymnastics and claim that black is somehow white, because you don't know what else to do. Lexi, if you have to go to such lengths to defend your ideology, isn't it time to re-examine your ideology?

Next, you are still claiming that stereotyping is wrong. Even though you have claimed that it is wrong to think of groups of people in terms of generalities, and then planted your foot right in your mouth by saying that "some people think in generalities".

Lexi, you have just prejudged a generalised group of people that you have identified with the label of "some people."
You have just validated my premise that stereotyping is essential to the act of thinking.

I can see it. Antiseptic can see it. Cody can see it. Hasbeen can see it. Even poor old Poirot is probably wincing, looking askance at you, and giving you the hairy eyeball, if you say that you can't see it.

I am glad that Lexi is on your side, Poirot.

<<I can see it. Antiseptic can see it. Cody can see it. Hasbeen can see it. Even poor old Poirot is probably wincing, looking askance at you>>

Yeah I see it too.
(not real sure about Poirot though, she only has one, jaundiced eye--she doesn't pick-up much these days)

Gentlemen,

Thank You for this robust discussion.

It has been a real eye-opener (no pun intended).

.....and SPQR can see it too, Lexi.

I suppose you are letting us know that you are heading for the hills with what remains of your dignity. OK. Well at least you have learned a few things, Lexi.

1. Those racists whom your side stereotypes as cretins can out think you.
2. The concept that stereotyping and prejudging is PC wrong, is just a stupid slogan that you have accepted without ever thinking about it.
3. If you claim that stereotyping and prejudging is wrong again, we are going to recognise it as a weak link in your argument, and you can bet that we are going to saw away at it again for all it is worth.

As your psychologist, may I congratulate you on being an interesting case? I will forgo my fee this time, but if I have to keep pointing out the contradictions in your logic, I may have to charge you next time.

Lego,

You will never have an intelligent or reasoned argument with Lexi. I think she’s a Pollyanna like eccentric

Her responses on controversial topics are always the same and are not her forte. She also said once that on a particularly heavy topic that it was making her feel sick. But why does she pursue? She has nothing of substance in her responses, she will say she has been insulted, accuse you of having no intelligence or debating skills, plus she always FEELS (no thinking) she is being insulted, yet she also accuses people of being emotional. It’s a broken record in the style of text-book preamble. I think she does a lot of copy and pasteing. Plus she usually ends off under the delusion that she has won the debate.

I’ve noticed since I put it to her quite a while back that she doesn’t debate, and ever since she has inordinately accused people of not having debating skills. Heck she even used the word “shiite” at least once which I have used. This is totally out of her character. But then she also comes back with “you don’t know me”. I think she has a complex.

She responded only to the positive half of Hasbeens’s post. He also mentioned that she is likely to be a danger to society.

My take is if you cannot judge, you can’t analyse. What are we without judgement? Lexi’s off with the pixies.

This does not make me a not nice person just for using my critical faculties. But too nice is too much for me. (I have a distrustful instinct for extremely nice people.) I find I just can’t respond to her inane posts anymore. She creeps me out.

Some people will always be in denial because they just like to live on their own planet.

LEGO,

While you're giving out free psychological advice, you might like to pop Constance on your couch and have a tinker around inside 'er psyche.

She pops by OLO once a month, seemingly for the sole purpose of giving Lexi a serve - and to fire of a few drippy pot-shots in the direction of Poirot.

Sort it out can you.

Cheers

: )

The obvious solution is for lexi and Poirot to flutter off on their pixie wings and land in a muslim country, live as a woman in the country and report back if they can in a year or so's time.

No need to do that, cohenite.

It's much simpler to just avoid the "oi, oi, oi" resonating from the rumpus room containing the "We're not racist" brigade.

Although it's worth popping in sometimes just to get a realistic handle on the latest version of Aussie insularity and paranoia.

And to hear cohenite extend his inanity by uttering his famous, yet predictably boring, line, "Picked out your burqa yet, Poirot?"

Hi Poirot.

Thank you for telling me that Lexi is already under treatment from Constance for her delusive state. And after reading Constance's list of Lexi's symptoms, I agree with her prognosis.

Now, lie on the couch and I will see if I can treat your particular delusion.

To begin with, your stereotype of your opponents is wrong. You are prejudging us to all be racists who are pretending to be non racists. That is completely wrong with me. I am definitely a racist. I used to be an anti racist, but I became aware of a fundamental contradiction in the "anti racist" argument. That is, that everything that ever went wrong with every dysfunctional race was all the fault of the white race.

Now, Poirot. My culture can not indoctrinate me to recognise racism everywhere and then think that I am too dumb to see it myself in the so called "anti racist" argument. Forced to choose between two racist arguments to explain minority dysfunction, I was obliged to dispense with my cultural conditioning and instead rely totally upon dispassionate logic and reason. Logic and reason force me to conclude that different races have different physical and mental attributes that gave each race (or ethnicity) an evolutionary advantage in the particular environments they evolved in.

My opponents can be a diverse lot. But central to their thinking, is the very noble one of desiring to end all human conflict. But they are using an ideology based upon flawed logic.

They have convinced themselves that every human is equal in every way. Which is funny, because many of those who advocate this ideology are the biggest snobs around. This nonsensical Egalitarian logic, has become an identifying characteristic of a brahmin caste of educated people. This caste seems to have a compulsive need to think that they are smarter, more morally pure, and therefore superior than the low born people they despise.

And that is why Constance and I and I are having so much trouble treating people like you. We can't attack your attitudes without attacking your positive self image.

LEGO,

I already knew "you" were racist.

By all means go right ahead. Constance will be a superb crony if your quest is to make a once-a-month incursion onto OLO to slap Lexi with a wilted celery stalk.

On the whole, I couldn't give two hoots what you believe (as in it's not particularly interesting to me). I only dropped by on this occasion as I noted that Constance thought it would be a great opportunity to clamber up and join you on your soapbox in order to facilitate her latest broadside to Lexi.

She's rather fond of parachuting into threads for that explicit purpose.

Ho Hum.......

Dear LEGO,

While your opinions are appreciated
my reason for leaving is that I would
have preferred to keep our discussion
focused on a more professional level.

Dear Constance,

You've obviously given a great deal of
thought to what you post. And much as
I'm flattered by all this attention, you're
really giving me more credit and
attention than I deserve.

Dear cohenite,

Let's keep our discussion focused on
the real issues at hand here.

Dear Poirot,

Thank You

Dear Poirot.

If you already knew I was a racist, then my fame must be preceding me.

Thank you for introducing me to Constance, I think I have finally found my soul mate. You wouldn't have her address would you? I would like to send her some roses and invite her to "Orpheus in the Underworld, the next time it plays at the Opera House.

Dear Lexi.

The best way to keep a discussion focussed on a professional level is to answer the crucial questions submitted by your opponent, and to at least make some attempt to respond to the issues your opponent has raised. If you dodge questions, pretend to stand on your dignity, and start prevaricating, then your opponent already knows that they have you beat.

Dear LEGO,

In order to have someone answer your questions
you must first argue in a logical manner and not
stoop to personal insults in order to be taken
seriously. Sound reasoning will conquer unreasonable
generalisations every time. Also if you don't
respect another persons point of view even though it
may differ from your own you must be prepared to be deemed
pig-headed and to be susequently ignored.

I was not aware that this was some sort of competition.
I don't look upon discussions on this forum as something
to be "won." I enter into discussions in
good faith and look forward to thoughtful, intelligent
responses.

However it appears from some of the responses on this thread
that reasonableness is a rarity. This can be seen
not only from this discussion but also from
the recent one that Alan Austin has put up. Still I guess,
for him that goes with the territory. He's an excellent
example of showing us all that the art of reasoned, intelligent,
debate is a skill not easily acquired. He's acquired it in spades.
You've still got a lot to learn. But don't give up.
Education is the key. Once you are able to view things
from a viewpoint of objectivity you may have better success.
In the meantime - try reading more from a variety of sources,
not only from shock jocks and the Murdoch press
and do your research prior to posting.

All The Best, and may you have better success with others
that you hope to influence.
May they take you more seriously.

Dear Lexi

Would you invite the Hells angels to your next party?

What do you think of Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members?

If you are too frightened to answer these questions, Lexi, then it is obvious even to Poirot that you already know that your "prejudging is wrong" premise is invalid.

If you argue from a position that you know is invalid, then you will lose your credibility. Your opponents will know that you are prepared to lie to defend your position.

If you have to lie to protect your position, then you have adopted the debating tactics of the Creationists, and the Flat Earth Society, and no one will take you seriously anymore. You will become a figure of fun, and people will laugh at you.

When people start laughing at you, you have lost any hope of convincing anybody of anything.

I once had a Lego set, what a useless toy; just to keep the child silent.

Dear LEGO,

Would I invite the Hells Angels to
my next party?

I've already answered that question in a
previous post. No. because I don't know
any. Although, as my husband reminded me -
we did come across a bikie funeral a few
months ago at the Springvale Cemetery.
There were bikies from everywhere present.
Interstate, et cetera. All in honour of
a young family man whose nick-name
was "Steel." We stayed for the entire
funeral. It was truly awesome. A very moving
ceremony with lots of Harleys. Sounded like
jets when they took off.

What do I think of Nazis?
They controlled Germany from 1933 to 1943.
And under Adolf Hitler were responsible for
concentration camps, gas chambers and a
global war.

What do I think of the Ku-Klux-Klan?
They were Secret societies active in the Southern
States of the US who saw the rise of former
slaves as a threat to the dominance of
the white man in the South. The Klan
instituted a progam of illegal activities
in all parts of the South.

If you're interested in finding out more on these
topics - go to your local regional library.
There's heaps of books and
any librarian will be more than pleased to help
you.

As for your reference to humour?
Well, we're all thrown curve balls in the form
of people and situations. Having a sense of
humour helps, to grow through
such challenges.

Cheers.

Islam, coming to a suburb near you:

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/syrias-civil-war-spills-over-in-sydney/450/

As I have said, women who support islam either do not know what they are talking about or are quislings.

In either case their grasp of reality is problematic.

Thanks for your dreamy invitation, Lego - very charming. The title alone makes me feel like taking up Greek mythology.

LEGO and Constance....

Now that's a match made in.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YceUokaMIk

To Constance.

I see what you mean about Lexi.

To Lexi.

Congratulations, Lexi. Nice stonewalling job you did there. The questions I submitted to you, were designed to make your realise that your claim that it is "wrong to prejudge people" is clearly nonsensical, and that making judgements about people and groups of people is an everyday occurrence.

But rather than acknowledge self evident reality, you chose the path of the true ideological zealot and prevaricated.

Trust is the basis of all relationships, Lexi, even on a debate site. When faced with an opponent who simply refuses to acknowledge a clearly self evident truth, and who will do anything to avoid facing the truth, then I know that further discussion is pointless.

I divorce thee. I divorce thee. I divorce thee.

Off you go now. Feel free to go out into the garden and dance with the fairies.

I've always harbored the suspicion that Ajay and Poirot were actually one and the same person or at the very least twin siblings.

Though on reflection, Arjay is a little more level headed.

Don't pay any mind to SPQR folks - he's got a bit of thing about Poirot, and turns up out of the blue wherever she roams to give a little light-hearted and inane commentary.

Perhaps he should join LEGO and Constance in the underworld for their next performance of the Can-Can (see my youtube link above)....a bit of buffoonery and irreverent satire is just the ticket for people who take themselves oh-so-seriously.

Dear cohenite,

I don't know any women who support Islam.
I do know some women who happen to be
Muslims and their grasp of reality is
probably better than yours.

Dear Constance,

Ah yes, - Greek Mythology.
Much can be learned from it.
Look up "Medusa."

Dear LEGO,

From all of your posts it appears that
you really do see the world in very rigid
and steretyped terms. I feel sorry that
you feel so threatened by so much.
Still, if it makes you feel better you go
right ahead professing your "superiority,"
(chuckle). We all can see that your life
is only tolerable when you can look down
on someone else. Be they Muslims or
asylum seekers, or anyone else. You need an
audience and victims. We'll you've found a
soul-mate in Constance. She will satisfy
all your needs, I'm sure.

Dear Poirot,

Loved the link.
Glad to see that you're not taking any of this
seriously either.

Actually, Lexi....I just found another link to SPQR and the Can-Can.

Some while ago, he and I explored the proposition that he had in fact mis-nammed himself after "Senatus Populusque Romanus".

I suggest that perhaps he should go under the tag SBQR - "Senatus Burlesque Romanus"

I don't think I convinced him though : )

Dear Poirot,

Great stuff!

As Cicero stated:

"Damnant quod non intellegunt."

@ Lexi,

<<As Cicero stated ...>>
Well, I guess we should be thankful for small mercies, at least it wasn't New Matilda this time, just some old Greek!

Maybe he would have been Greek....

If he hadn't actually been Roman.

Stay out of this Poirot I set the trap for Lexi and you walked straight into it-darn!

He lived in Rome, yes --but he was Greek--and was referred to as "the Greek"!

Hmmm! on second thoughts you might be right, Poirot.
Anyway, we'll chalk it up to you.

So that's Poirot: 1
And SPQR: 2003819100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Dear SPQR,

It's better to base your answers on knowledge
not numbers. ;-);-);-).

Just goes to show that you can't study Classical history while rehearsing the Can-Can scene in Orpheus.

You would have loved the PC version of "Orpheus in the Underworld" that I saw 10 years ago as a matinee, Poirot.

The scene where "public opinion" criticised Orpheus for allowing the devil to take his wife for a dirty weekend in Hell, had a singer made up to look like Pauline Hanson singing "Please exlaaaaaain, please explaaaaaaaaaaain!"

It was a cracker. Brought the house down.

Dear Lexi

I take it you and I are not going out on a date anytime soon then? Perhaps one day you will grow up and realise there is no talent more deceptive, more deceitful, or more dangerous than fluency . . . Adieu . . .

Dear Cody,

I wish that I could give you a great big hug.
Adieu to you too. And Thank You for your
civil post.

See you on another discussion.