Undermine WHOSE liberty? The liberty of this lawyer and others who like to sneer at and denegrate Australians who have the temerity to believe that they should have had some input in the matter of importing people with no connection to Western culture, and with no intention of taking part in it? A group, of which 85% are on our welfare when they haven't contributed anything, and never will in most cases, contribute to? People who adhere to a system that definitely opposes ANY freedom?

Where is the PUBLIC voice of all these ".. many 'secular' and 'moderate' Muslims in our community (speaking) their minds openly and without fear of retribution"? The Muslims in Australia are an UNKOWN quantity because they are allowed to lie to protect themselves and Islam, particularly when they are in the minority.

The problem for Vladimir Vinokurov is that ALA Geert Wilders actually know about the truth of Islam. He does not. He is also living in the past with his "For decades the bulk of them (migrants) have integrated successfully into our liberal society." (The liberal society is wrong too. Despite attempts to change us, we are still a relitavely conservative society). Decades later, that is simply not true of Muslims.

VV: we lock up all of the Muslims here from fear that some of them might be extremists,

No, of course not. Muslims in Australia cost the Government too much in looking after them now. Not to mention the extra Security Measures that have been put in place to protect non-moslems.

The best course of action would be to expel all moslems from Australia.

A number of well known moslem imams & moslem spokespersons have expounded many, many times, "There are 'no' moderate moslems. There are only moslems."

I should imagine that would also translate to, " There are no 'radicle" moslems," only moslems," equally.

Dear Jayb,

<<The best course of action would be to expel all moslems from Australia.>>

And who will be next?

This article is full of the usual homilies and wishful thinking but as we know it's a game of percentages, it's only when Muslims make up about 5% of the population that they really start to assert themselves.
We can see the true face of Islam in places like Blacktown, Dandenong and Broadmeadows where around one in three residents are Muslim, I'm sure I don't even have to go into details since simply naming those suburbs is enough.

Here are your "moderate" law abiding Muslims:
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/616137/muslims-sharia-law-uk-baroness-Baroness-Cox-theresa-may
"Moderate" Islam and Muslim culture are the pathways to criminality in Muslim youth, the brutality of life in a Muslim gang leaves young people susceptible to the lure of Salafists and recruiters for military Jihad.

Yutsie: And who will be next?

Any immigrant, Naturalized or not, who has committed any serious crime in Australia, with no recourse to any pansy lawyers. Do their time then, on a plane & OUT. Scrimple.

Taking your points, one by one, Vlad.

The Australian parliament does have a sovereign right too exclude from our country any person, or identifiable group of people, who's value systems are so diametrically opposed to the mainstream culture, that they can never even partly assimilate.

Sporting Shooters got "collective punishment" when Martin Bryant shot dead 35 people in Port Arthur, but no one from the loony left or the dhimmie wits worried about that.

Australia is not proposing to lock up all Muslims yet. That will only happen when the Muslims start a civil war complete with numerous acts of terrorism. To prevent that, Australia can at least postpone, or possibly even prevent the problem by preventing the immigration of any more Muslims.

Could you please tell me what "moderate Muslims" believe? Do they believe that apostates should not be murdered? That Islam can be criticised? That those who fight for Islam are not the highest grade of Muslim? Well, if they believe in any of those things, Vlad, they are not Muslims.

Islam is a violent and dangerous creed. Their holy scriptures revel in the idea of killing infidels and spreading Islam through force. Making stupid statements which are contrary to self evident reality will hardly win you any debating points.

Many Muslims may be law abiding, but who's law are they abiding? No matter how you decorate the truth, the fact remains that Muslims are very disproportionately represented in very serious crime. NSW's biggest investigative police unit is the Middle East Organised Crime squad, and that to police a mere 2.2% of the population.

Many Muslims may be fleeing civil wars created by extremists, but that does not mean that they disagree with the extremists or oppose the aims of the extremists. One man's extremist is a Muslim's most devout defender of the faith.

I am not sure what Muslims have "enriched" Australia with. Unless you count car theft, ram raids, terrorism, race hate rape packs, very high levels of welfare dependency, the intimidation of female teachers, and endless shootings in the Muslim suburbs of Sydney.

This is the worst article in world history & shows clearly why the LNP struggles for relevance today when their Menzies House "conservative" think tank produces such drivel. Australia is the least successful Multi Culti nation in world history. Has the LNP learned nothing from Pauline Hanson? They won the last election with 3 words "stop the boats". More of the same will be even more popular.

Any politician or public servant who does not deal with islam adequately will leave themselves open to class actions for damages. Ditto for ALL advocates of Multi Culti & islamic migration. islamic ghettos lower property values by as much as half & action WILL be taken.

ttbn, spot on,

Jayb, correct,

Yuyutsu, ANY other racial, religious or ethnic group that refuses to, or has a demonstrated problem with assimilating.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2015/07/06/4266149.htm

http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/fugitives-gino-and-mark-stocco-have-been-arrested/story-fns0kb1g-1227585300170

Northern Italian migrants, no problem. Southern Italian migrants from Sicily & Calabria? 100 years of organised crime by a MORE than tiny minority of "problem children".

Jay Of Melbourne, correct again.

Geert Wilders advocates banning the Koran, preventing preaching in any language but Dutch, prohibiting the construction of new mosques, and changing the Dutch constitution to remove equality before the law and assert the primacy of Christian and Jewish values.

Vladimir is quite right: these are not the policies of someone who support freedom, and it is absurd that this man should be model for a party that claims to advocate “liberty”.

Dear Jayb,

Exactly, and who will be deciding what's a serious crime? YOU, of course, together with Imacentristmoderate.

So when you run out of murderers and paedophiles and even ordinary thieves and crooks, you will, in order to catch those who fail to assimilate but so far escaped your net, make "Failing to celebrate Christmas" and "Failing to drink beer" serious crimes and Whoosh, there I find myself on a plane to the place I escaped several decades ago.

Well no thanks, I'd rather keep the Muslims - while I don't like the crime-rate they bring, I feel overall safer and more cushioned with them than without them and trust them better, them together with myself, Mr. Opinion's Chinese (not as many as he claims, but still), Rhian, David F. and all other freedom-lovers to use their voting power to block your "Christmas Act" and "Beer Act" in the senate.

Who are you anyway to claim ownership over this whole of God's blessed continent?!

Rhian,
You're correct, however Wilders and ALA are Zionist mouthpieces, their first priority is creating good public relations for Israel in the west, the second is the Neocon agenda of democratising the Middle East to protect Israel.
Tactically Wilders and his followers are pushing "Diversity minus Islam" to absorb support from disillusioned conservatives and Liberals but they don't have the interests of Australians at heart, their priorities are Israel, Israel and Israel.

Yutsy: So when you run out of murderers and paedophiles and even ordinary thieves and crooks,

No that's all we need to get rid off. Oh! maybe a few supporters of those Criminals, like their Wives & kids. But that's about as far as we need to go. I'd throw in Drugos, but that's just me. That's a type we don't want here either.

You are trying too hard to push the extreme. An old tied ploy.

My wife grew up next to Lakemba, she does not recognise it today.
I suggest that the author goes and reads the Aust Liberty Allience's
manifesto. I did and found it quite level headed.

Also he needs to look into what has happened in the Netherlands.
France is probably worse and will soon turn into an Islamic country.
Much of Paris' districts are already Islamic.
They do not have "Middle Eastern Crime Squads there, as it is no longer
part of France. They do not have police at all, just Islamic Sharia patrols.

If I had my druthers I would deport everyone who swore the oath of
allegiance on the Koran because they knew it has a clause that
allows to lie to infidels if it advantages moslems.
The same should apply in courts.

I suspect that Jay of Melbourne has been fed a pup probably by moslems
as I have seen nothing to suggest that the Jews have any connection to ALA.
By the way there has been a spoof web site setup using their name.

Here is the link to the ALA's manifesto.

http://tinyurl.com/qf2uauo

It does read a bit like all things to all men but it makes a good start.

It is not "merely because of their religious background" -- it is because of their religious beliefs AND their actions.

Islamic theology makes it very clear that the only proper relationship between Muslims and infidels is one of supremacy and underdog, of master and servant, of "best of people" and "lower than animals" (according to the Quran). Perhaps our Muslim lovers (Yuyutsu) here could point out exactly where Muslims treat non-Muslims as equals? Has anyone noticed what is happening in Malaysia and Indonesia?

As to "presumption of innocence", Muslim theology has no concept. Non-Muslims are by definition guilty of the horrible crime of "disbelief" which condemns them to sadistic torture by Allah herself in the afterlife and third-class status in this life.

The idea that "the vast majority of Australian Muslims are law-abiding" is meaningless. Substitute 'Australian Muslims' for any other term or group and the same could be said (except for maybe 'criminals'). The vast majority of left-handed, bald japanese are law abiding.

All Australian Muslims have no problem with the hate and violence in the Quran. They also will not condemn the evil deeds of Mohammad, so attacking others, plunder, rape, torture, murder, enslaving men women and children are not really wrong, it only depends on who is doing it to whom. Thus, by definition, all Muslims adhere to an extremist ideology.

As far as I know, athiests, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc will all condemn these vile deeds, no matter who does them. Only one religion is intellectually corrupt, making morality relative to who does it.

Note also that these refugees and immigrants did not stand up for the rights of non-Muslims in their own countries, neither did they fight the so-called extremists, so why should we think they will resist evil, when evil is inherent to their beliefs? Do foolish Westerners ever wonder why the so-called "moderate" Muslims can't win over the extremists? Perhaps it is because the extremists have the Quran and hadith on their side.

Oh yes, Muslim immigration has gone so well in other countries, so lets bring a million of them to Australia!

Dear Kactuz,

You claim that: "All Australian Muslims have no problem with the hate and violence in the Quran."

Do you know them all? How many of them did you ask?

Yes, I'm aware that the Quran allows them to lie to you - but to proceed from that and conclude that *everything* they say is the opposite, like in the synthetic "island of liars", is a major logical fallacy.

It may well be that your understanding of the Quran is the correct one, historically and scientifically, that it truly reflects the evil intentions of its authors (although Muhammad, peace be upon him, was not one of them!), but does it truly imply that all Muslims like it and have no problem with it?

You assume, on no real grounds, that Muslims are not humans, because had they been humans then they would be struggling with the violent ideas of the Quran. I believe that most of them DO struggle and do have a problem with the Quran, at least with some parts of it, and find themselves suffering a very uncomfortable conflict.

Fortunately, Muslims, including our very own Grateful, can now resort to Sheikhs and Imams, especially of the Sufi tradition, which interpret the Quran differently and non-violently. You could make a scholarly claim that they are wrong, you could even claim that they aren't real Muslims and wrongly consider themselves as Muslims, but why?

Sure, some Muslims are violent and dangerous - and they should be killed, but I suspect that your true motivation is not the protection of your body, nor even of your property, but rather the protection of your decaying culture; that you would like to force everyone to assimilate because you realise that your own culture is neither attractive nor spiritually fulfilling enough to entice people peacefully.

Yutsie: Fortunately, Muslims, including our very own Grateful, can now resort to Sheikhs and Imams, especially of the Sufi tradition, which interpret the Quran differently and non-violently. You could make a scholarly claim that they are wrong, you could even claim that they aren't real Muslims and wrongly consider themselves as Muslims, but why?

Yes I read & saw on TV the very grateful moslems at their conference on singing the Australian Anthem. Very interesting, eh.

Let me illiterate my earlier post;

A great number of well known moslem imams & moslem spokespersons, in Australia & all over the World, have expounded many, many times, "There are 'no' moderate moslems. There are only moslems."

<I should imagine that would also translate to, " There are no 'radicle" moslems," only moslems," equally.>

It's understandable that the ALA should want to tell us what liberty means, but its manifesto statement about liberty, on my reading, focuses pretty much on why liberty is a preferable term to freedom, giving these reasons:

(1) People have different ideas about what freedom means
(2) Liberty means the absence of coercion
(3) Liberty is absolute
(4) Laws in a democracy can limit freedom

The problem here is that we can substitute freedom for liberty, or liberty for freedom, in any of these assertions without any empirically useful change of meaning (see, in relation to (4), http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-13-number-6/democracy-does-not-ensure-liberty; https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-democracy-and-liberty).

Reason (3) is particularly problematic, whether you infill it with liberty or freedom. The idea of a prescription being absolute carries a hint of Kant’s categorical imperative, which might be interpreted in this context to mean that if liberty is absolute for me, I should want it to be absolute, i.e., unconditional, for everyone. This does not sit well with limiting absolute liberty to people within particular historically contingent national borders, nor with identifying groups or classes of people to which it does not apply.

I don't think it matters. We all know what we mean by liberty or
freedom and we will only be arguing about semantics.

Well, certainly, Bazz, I don't think there's any useful empirical distinction to be made, as the manifesto seems to.

If 'we all know what we mean' refers to our myriad individual understandings, then it's no doubt the case.

Collectively, though, it depends on who 'we' are. If it were true in most general terms, there would be no disagreement in any domain between the priority to be given to one freedom over another. Disagreement over hot-button issues like abortion or euthanasia, for example, are often essentially about contested claims to freedom (or liberty).

Yuyu,

Actually it is the hadith not the quran that permits lying for the sake of Islam and takiyyah is more of a shia concept than that of sunnis.

No, I don't know all Muslims, obviously, but being Muslim implies an acceptance of the morals and precepts in the Quran and of the teachings and example of Mohammed. So, I see no logical problem with my statement.

When did I say that Muslims are not human? Of course they are, and they should have the same rights as you and me, no more and no less. However, they have no right to abridge my freedoms and opinions, or to not ever be offended.

To be honest, I have no idea why Muslims cannot reflect on the moral issues in the Quran or the evil deeds of their prophet. I have asked Muslims about these issues but the answers are pathetic and evasive. It seems that, for Muslims, words really don't mean anything and moral standards are dependent on time and place. I don't accept that!

You say that many Muslims are uncomfortable with the teachings in the Quran. Fine, so please indicate a link to a situation of this nature. Show me where a Muslim expresses discomfort with the hate and violence in the Quran or the evil deeds of their prophet. My experience is that some Muslims may say these are 'troubling' in private but will never express such doubts openly.

I am not sure about killing "violent and dangerous" Muslims. You do it because I am really not into the bloodshed thing.

And last but not least, it is not my culture. My dislike of Islam pales in comparison to my disgust with our leaders and nomenclatura. The West (in general terms) has lost its way and has become a cesspool of filth, irrationality, perversion and vacuous dogma masquerading as virtue and intelligence. It deserves everything that will happen to it, because we (collectively) have spit in the face of nature and logic.

That is enough for now. You take care.

jay

Ya know Lasxpriate, us ordinary folk don't look that deep into the problem. It's no wonder "Navel Gazers" have a high suicide rate. They have a tendency to get their knickers in a knot over the simplest of thing they can't come to grips with.

Really, who cares if there is a difference, to "Navel Gazers," on the "meanings" of Liberty & Freedom. Us ordinary folk know what we mean to one another & we don't get all huffy about it.

Dear Kactuz,

OK, I can live with this minimalistic definition:

1. All Muslims are bad and dangerous.
2. Bad and dangerous people should be expelled.
3. The fact that one was born to a Muslim father does not necessarily make them a Muslim.
4. The fact that one believes in Allah does not necessarily make them a Muslim.
5. The fact that one happens to fast on Ramadan, abstain from alcohol and pork, give charity, pray 5 times a day and make a pilgrimage to Mecca, etc., in itself doesn't qualify them as a Muslim.
6. Those who doubt the Quran are not Muslims (even if they are too afraid to expose their doubts publicly).
7. Those who fail to interpret the Quran in a violent way (including those who fail to interpret it at all because they haven't studied it) are not Muslims.

Fine. What it boils down to is that those who believe without doubt that the Quran is true and calls for violence, are dangerous and should be expelled as a measure of self-defence.
(but feel free to replace 'Quran' with any other book)

Grateful can stay, we need more people like him and his Sufi Sheikh!

---

Dear Jayb,

Call it "freedom" or "liberty", I don't care: No child (nor an adult for that matter) should ever be forced to sing anything.

Dear yutsie,

Call it "freedom" or "liberty", I don't care: No child (nor an adult for that matter) should ever be forced to be a moslem or be subject to any form of discrimination for not being a moslem. As non moslems are subject to in moslem countries. do it not?

Dear Jayb,

Absolutely so, yet it reminds of St. Francis:

O God, give us the serenity to accept what cannot be changed,
The courage to change what can be changed,
and the wisdom to know the one from the other.

By living in a democracy, the state is assumed to operate in my name and so I am obliged to prevent all evil that is done in my name. I am not similarly obliged to actively prevent all evil that is done by others.

yutsie: . I am not similarly obliged to actively prevent all evil that is done by others.

So, if you knew about an islamic terrorist attack in Australia you wouldn't act to prevent it? Considering that you as a moslem (or moslem supporter) would consider non-moslems as haram anyway.

yutsie: O God, give us the serenity to accept what cannot be changed,

Are you intimating here that Australia becoming moslem is inevitable?

It'll be a cold day in Hell when that happens.

Dear Jay,

A non-Muslim Muslim-supporter considers him/herself as haram??

According to the minimalist definition of "Muslim", which I think is agreed between myself and Kactuz, I am not a Muslim-supporter (nor am I a Muslim), so while I personally, though not obliged, would still try preventing terrorist attacks if I can, I cannot speak for them.

Regarding "serenity to accept what cannot be changed", I referred to the treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim countries, nothing else!

No, I don't believe there's a chance of Australia becoming Muslim. Sydney perhaps could become an exception one day, but then the rest of Australians will leave it and build a big wall around it.

a moslem (or moslem supporter) would consider non-moslems as haram anyway.

Is there a problem with the way that’s worded? We are considered as harem by moslems.

Yutsie: Sydney perhaps could become an exception one day, but then the rest of Australians will leave it and build a big wall around it.

& fill it with water. ;-)

Dear Jayb,

<<Is there a problem with the way that’s worded?>>

As worded: "Considering that you as a moslem (or moslem supporter) would consider non-moslems as haram anyway.", anyone who is either a Muslim or a Muslim-supporter considers non-Muslims as haram.

So a person who is not a Muslim, but is a Muslim-supporter considers non-Muslims as haram, but being a non-Muslim he must consider himself/herself as haram. Interesting...

Oh, I see where you are coming from. OK.

Yutsie: but being a non-Muslim he must consider himself/herself as haram. Interesting.

I have no problem with being haram. It's a load of doodoo by a loony tunes religion anyway that has no business being in Australia. islam is incompatible with Australian values. Any sane persons values for that matter.

Dear Jayb,

Rather then starting a new discussion of what "Australian values" and/or "sane values" are, I simply say this:

Whatever values they hold is none of mine or your business, as long as they do not harm or threaten us.

To the extent that they do physically threaten us, we may in self-defence remove their bodies away from us (either to a far-off land or back to the elements) - but that would be the only grounds to do so, not their values, whatever they may be.

So true. https://www.youtube.com/embed/wq_lhlIn1e0

Yutsie: Whatever values they hold is none of mine or your business, as long as they do not harm or threaten us.

But it is my business when they start making un-Australian demands.

islamic values do & will harm us if Australians don't act now to stop & reverse this islamic stealth invasion of the West.

Remember, any refusal of an Islamic demand made on the West accepting & adopting their Islamic values is an attack & declaration of War on islam.

According to them they have the rights to defend themselves against this refusal. Let's not go through the Chapter & Verse thing again we have done that all before. We've all seen it.

That's why there is such a ground swell against moslems occurring in Australia at the present time. Most Australian people have woken up to what's going on. The Politicians are still catching up, unfortunately.

Here is a conundrum for you.
Anyone either belonging or having sympathy to ISIS should not be
employed by an airline or an airport.

If the Isis group is believed to have many sympathisers but who
are not active members should they be employed by the airline or airport ?

How do we sort out those that are sympathisers and those who are moderate.

When you have made the decision would you fly in or out of an airport
of a moslem country or an airport that employs moslems ?

If it turns out the German aircraft was bombed by an ISIS sympathiser
then this question will have to be at the top of IATA's to do list.
Australian airlines do employ moslem baggage handlers. I have seen them.
Think about that next time you board an aircraft.

'Australian airlines do employ moslem baggage handlers

Yeah Bazz and our rational secular world is more likely to sack an air hostess for wearing a cross than to 'discriminate' against a baggage handler.

Wilders has said,

"Islam is not a religion, it's an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture." Elsewhere he calls Islam fascist.

Of course, it's possible for Islam to be all four and, in fact, given that its roots are in the stunted culture of desert raiders, and its main principle is that nothing in its book can ever be questioned, it certainly verges towards the fascist.

Many ideologies derived from the Enlightenment are mainly secular, but any religion can throw up (so to speak) any sort of ideology. Some very humanitarian ideologies, after all, have sprung at different times, from Christian roots, Quakers and Franciscans, for example.

But religion can obviously also throw up some extremely reactionary ideologies, or ideological interpretations of scriptures/surahs/myth etc. As well, religion can be exploited to justify the most fascist and reactionary beliefs and practices, as we have seen over the past eighty years.

So I would slightly disagree with Wilders: Islam IS a religion, AND it has spawned an ideology, the fascist ideology used and developed by the Waffen-IS as a faithful interpretation of it. Islam is a backward religion, totally out of step with the modern world (which is perhaps why its adherents are so pissed of with the West). It has produced a backward and reactionary ideology now being promoted and implemented by the Waffen-IS. And it springs from a backward, predatory and stunted culture.

But forgive the sinner, not the sin - Muslims need our support to help them understand the exigencies, and opportunities, of the modern world, should they abandon their backward views. But of course, there's is the problem, perhaps the great problem of the 21st century - with what to replace such an all-encompassing set of unquestionable rules and crackpot certainties and justifications for the most brutal crimes ?

In other words, how to replace the barbarisms of Islam with humane ideologies, and welcome ex-Muslims into the modern world with open arms ?

Joe

Loudmouth: In other words, how to replace the barbarisms of Islam with humane ideologies, and welcome ex-Muslims into the modern world with open arms ?

It's a nice sentiment Joe. It just ain't ever gonna happen. That's what all these do-gooders are dreaming off. They think that moslems will come to Australia, see what a wonderful free life we lead & turn from their violent ways. Again, It just ain't ever gonna happen.

They have come here to convert, by force, if necessary, the infidel Australian.

A few years ago I returned to Vietnam. I met one of the old VC Commanders. He said we may have won the War but what we got was not what we fought for(Communism.) The same will happen in Australia in 50 years if we are not careful.

Dear Joe,

So what if the opportunities of the modern world are not really that exciting? What if others won't rush to kiss the hem of your pants in gratitude? What if their retarded culture, or anything in between, is more fulfilling than yours?

The only thing that should be expected (and enforced) of Muslims, is to stop their violence towards the rest of society.

Serious and complex security issues have been raised here, such as whether to trust Muslims or ex-Muslims as baggage-handlers in airports: the discussion here should indeed focus on security issues rather than on values, culture and/or religion, which are everyone's private matter.

The better culture shall win - whichever it is going to be, we just need to ensure that it will win fairly by capturing the hearts of people rather than their throats.

Hi Yuyutsi,

Yes, I'll take what you say

"What if their retarded culture, or anything in between, is more fulfilling than yours?"

more seriously when I see shots of Waffen-IS going into battle on donkey-carts rather than Toyotas. Not likely ? No, indeed.

Even the Waffen-IS ARE in this world, using its latest technologies, piggy-backing on the achievements of the West, and they know it. Fair enough, all the world is quite entitled to what all the world has devised, I certainly don't begrudge anybody access to any of that.

But to cherry-pick across technologies, to use what one's enemies have developed and know that such artifacts (video-cam, mobile phones, apps, the latest type of explosives, probably sword blades from Sheffield) could never be devised, never in a million years, from within one's own culture, religion or ideology - must be irritating.

But I suppose they can take out their frustrations raping yet another Yazidi ten-year-old. Boy or girl, it probably doesn't matter.

Joe

Yutsie: The better culture shall win - whichever it is going to be, we just need to ensure that it will win fairly by capturing the hearts of people rather than their throats.

And what, may I ask, in your humble opinion, is, "the better culture" islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Animism, Secularism or Atheism. Or any other, pray tell?

Dear Jayb,

It is hard to tell and different cultures could prevail as they suit different times and places.

What is clear, is that the Western consumerist culture has been a failure. It was supposed to bring happiness, comfort and freedom, but instead it brings ever more stress - and families crumble and break down under this stress and the youth turn to drugs.

People are time-poor: while there is no formal slavery, most people are forced to work longer hours to service their mortgage. The technology which promised to save time, takes longer to service than the time it saves. With the family structure gone, people are isolated, insecure and have to fend for themselves alone in every area of life, with only government left to rely on in times of trouble, a government which happily continues to undermine the family in order to assert its hegemony. Most people don't even know their immediate neighbours and children are not allowed outdoors and must be driven around for every need and whim.

This culture discourages free and independent thinking by constantly bombarding people with external impressions. One cannot do their regular shopping without being exposed to rough and loud adolescent non-music (which is actually an African import in origin, beating their war-drums on the one hand and crying fie for being enslaved on the other) to prevent them from hearing their own thoughts.

Yes, one may become accustomed to it, but if you step out and look at the Western culture objectively, you find that it is overall even more pushy than, say, the Islamic culture.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I don't think a single whinge of yours is actually true, and you might need to backup your jeremiad with some figures. Amongst the people I mix with, they seem to be as happy as, if not happier than, the adults and families of my childhood. No society will ever be 'perfect', but most definitely ours is more open and easy-going than average.

And pushy ? No, that's not something I've ever noticed as a general trait - maybe the reverse. If you mean by that word, something like 'demanding', no I don't recall ever being given the option of surrender or get beheaded in Australia, not yet anyway. Now, THAT would be 'pushy' :)

Oh, and my neighbour just brought my bin in :)

Joe

Hmmm... That didn't answer the question, it was a deflection.

yutsie: Yes, one may become accustomed to it, but if you step out and look at the Western culture objectively, you find that it is overall even more pushy than, say, the Islamic culture.

So you would prefer an Islamic culture. that's nice. There are plenty of places where you could practice that out to your hearts content, if you don't like Western Culture.

Loudmouth: Amongst the people I mix with, they seem to be as happy as, if not happier than, the adults and families of my childhood.

I agree. the only ones that seem to be unhappy are the yuppie PC's & Greeny type people. Not enough Dole I suppose.

My bin was brought in yesterday, but then, I put the neighbours out because they forgot. The missus has a whinge about something & that makes her happy. I dunno, I wasn't listening, that makes me happy. ;-)

'What is clear, is that the Western consumerist culture has been a failure. It was supposed to bring happiness, comfort and freedom, but instead it brings ever more stress - and families crumble and break down under this stress and the youth turn to drugs.'

true to a degree Yuyutsu however Islam like Secularism twists many facts to fit their narrative. Many muslims are happy to operate in the drug trade. They are no freer from lust, greed, rape and in fact many times display even less self control than others despite their outward piety. In many Western nations muslims see raping white girls as a sport as they are only sluts in their eyes anyway. The family structure of one husband and four wives might work well for a few individuals but is really just slavery for the women. Yes capitalism appeals to greeds and gets many unsavoury outcomes. Compared though to Islamic nations it is heaven. Why do you think so many muslims want to come here.

Jayb, i hear you but western culture was happier, healthier, wealthier & less pushy when almost all of us were practising christians.

runner quite correct, but capitalism worked better when almost all of them were christians it has been corrupted by communism recently & needs repair.

islam & communism = slavery; enlightened, conservative, protesting christians = freedom & democracy:

//western culture was happier, healthier, wealthier & less pushy when almost all of us were practising christians//

Good one, imperformingmarvellousparody. When the Black Death swept through Europe in the mid 14th century, religious fervour increased: it didn't save people from the plague (antibiotics are effective against plague bacteria; prayer is not). It did encourage them to carry out mass exterminations of Jews, gypsies, lepers, beggars and foreigners... the usual suspects. So much for strong Christian belief making people less pushy.

Historically, the stronger Christian belief in days gone past was hopelessly ineffective in the fight against devastating diseases like smallpox, the plague, syphilis, diptheria, etc. Diseases that you don't hear about people dying of any more (especially smallpox). Thanks to medical science, rather than prayer. Mary Baker Eddy was an idiot. When we figure out how to beat cancer, it's going to be because of scientific research, not because we've all got together to sing 'He's Got the Whole World in his Hands' and praise Jeebus.

When I first came to Australia, it was not a Western-consumerist culture. I was in fact attracted and excited by the fact that Australia was behind the rest of the world (and neighbours then still knew each other).

However, it since caught up.

And I am partly to blame, because the immigration department was looking for educated young people who would come and lead Australia to "progress" and while I didn't believe in that concept, I still had to make a living, so I was part of an aggregate of people that "advanced" Australia to where it is now.

It used to be a nice place. I can't tell whether this was due to Christianity because there were other Christian places, America for instance, and contrarily look there, oh dear...

Though Christmas is not on my calendar, I favour its religious aspects. However, at some stage, like bright white snow that melts into filthy brown slush, Christmas turned into an ugly consumerist "xmas".

So just as Australia is not purely a Western-consumerist society, nor are the Muslim countries purely Muslim. To complicate things, there is not one but many Muslim cultures (Lebanese are not Yemenite and Persians is not Indonesians) and they all have an eye on the West so even while on a break between a beheading and a rape, they drink... Coca Cola.

Suppose I were to take Jayb's advice and move to a Muslim country - what if then they, as Australia had before, swiftly convert to combine Western-consumerism and I'm left to endure both Westernism and Shariah at once? Runner is right, they too do drugs, they too are slaves to greed, lust and especially anger.

Well, the better culture shall win. I won't make any further guesses.

And here we should welcome our next Young-Australian-of-the-year, a Muslim:
http://www.australianoftheyear.org.au/honour-roll/?view=fullView&recipientID=1419&year=1960

Yutsie: (and neighbours then still knew each other).

Most of us still do. It's only in the Yuppie & Feral Suburbs that they don't.

Yutsie: America for instance, and contrarily look there, oh dear...

Please don't compare America with Australia. Anyway, it's only the Mid West Bible Belt that has the Religious Christian Weirdos. Australia maybe mostly Secular but it's Secular based on Christian Values.

Yutsie: Well, the better culture shall win. I won't make any further guesses.

You have avoided answering my question. And what, may I ask, in your humble opinion, is, "the better culture" (In order of appearance) Animism, Hinduism, Judism, Buddhism, Christianity, islam, Secularism or Atheism. Or any other, pray tell? Would you like to give a "straight," one or two word answer instead of a deflection.

yutsie: And here we should welcome our next Young-Australian-of-the-year, a Muslim:

Token moslem to appease moslems & Yuppies. Even total nutters are known to do really good stuff. They just get noticed for any bad stuff they do not the good.

Dear Jayb,

My ideal culture does not exist today, nor will it exist for 1000's of years to come, so you present me with the difficult question of choosing between lesser-evils.

Due to the Kali-Yuga age in which we live, each and every culture including those you mentioned, is beset with violence, greed, envy and lust, not necessarily in their theory, but in practice.

We should also pay attention to the word "better", which has at least two different meanings: one means "easier, more convenient and comfortable", the other means "more righteous, more virtuous".

All cultures are generally comfortable for those who spent their formative years in them. This does not necessary make them more virtuous.

I think we can agree that secularism is a failure. It is quite comfortable, especially for those who grew up in it and have the money, but it leads nowhere but the grave (well not even that because cremation is cheaper).

...and it's a winner. It even wins over many Muslims, Christians too.

So I've been thinking over this question for the last days and I take back what I wrote:

The better culture isn't going to win, not in the short term anyway. it's the more convenient culture that is winning, the one which requires no effort, no discipline, the culture of victim-hood where energy dissipates in a free fall.

Yes, one may glorify and reminisce the local religious-born culture, which is the Christian one in the case of Australia, but when facing its reality objectively, how much of the British/Australian culture was in fact religious? Yes they went through the motions and churches were the centre of social life, but they were rigid and coercive and often outright violent. The British inflicted horrific tortures on those who strayed, including the Australian convicts: was that "Christian"?

Same goes to Judaism and Islam and even Hinduism, my own faith. Pure religion is the same everywhere, only the cultures that form around it are different. Due to the dark age we live in, they have all been weighed in the balances and were found wanting.

Yutsie: We should also pay attention to the word "better", which has at least two different meanings: one means "easier, more convenient and comfortable", the other means "more righteous, more virtuous".

Deflection!! Navel gazing? The common meaning of the word in this case.

I'll try to make it easy for you. Given a choice of only two Cultures, islam or Christianity. Which would you choose?

Hinduism like Buddhism is a way of life rather than a Religion per se. They both have their local deities or spirits depending on the local peoples beliefs.

Dragging up what happened & how bad different Religions were hundreds of years ago is not a valid argument. I know Christianity had one final big bad fling 70 years ago & another small one 25 years ago but they weren't indicative of the whole of Christianity across the World.

We are only concerned with what is happening in the present. What is happening with islam is being taken World wide with the invasion of Western Countries by moslems. These people will take their violence & hatred of infidels with them wherever they go.

Hinduism, Buddhism & Christianity are a dam side more peaceful than islam any day of the week.

Dear Jayb,

Yes, you are trying to make it easier for me, but your question is still ambiguous because there is not one but many Christian cultures, same for Muslims.

Is the culture of the American Bible-Belt Christian?
Is the European culture Christian?
Perhaps the Italian or the Spanish, the South American or the Russian cultures?
Why, you probably won't find a culture more Christian than the Greek Orthodox!

No, you say, what you mean is only secular Australia that is based on Christian values.

What a myth! The primary Australian culture is essentially British and the British tradition has always been to pay a lip-service to religion, then do what you want.

Then comes Islam, where everyone blames everyone else of being un-Islamic. Did you realise for example that the Kurds are also Muslims? Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvzRfwEMNeU and tell me how is their culture different from the Australian (except they don't have "xmas")?

Sufism also comes under Islam - tell me what's wrong with http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=24961&lan=en&sp=1 ?
You know what - I actually find it superior to the dull mainstream Australian culture. BTW, Sufis are bitterly persecuted by Daesh, also by Iran.

The solution for Islamic violence is not Christianity, but Sufism - far better than joining either the Bible-Belt or the drug culture!

In conclusion, all I can say is that I prefer the best of Christians over the worst of Muslims and the best of Muslims over the worst of Christians.

- And I sincerely think you do the same!

--- --- ---

Briefly, as per Hinduism and Buddhism being a way of life, the same can be said about them as Christians and Muslims. I met people in Singapore who identify as "Buddhist" but have no idea who Buddha was!

Yutsie: your question is still ambiguous because there is not one but many Christian cultures, same for Muslims.

As usual you are looking too deeply into the question as a means of avoiding answering directly. Although I did get an answer of sorts. Sufism which is basically islam.

I will attempt to narrow down the parameters for you. Given a choice of only two Cultures, in an Australian setting, islam, based on a Middle East Culture & Traditions or Australian Christianity, based on a British Culture & Traditions.

Which one of the two would you choose?

Now I know that you are not stupid, but you have, so far, avoided, deflected & delved way too far into the Question. Please take the Question , as asked, in it's simplest form without trying to read into it all sorts of problems.

By the way, there is a beautiful Hindu Temple being built near where I live.

Dear Jayb,

OK, so by "islam" you refer to the predominant (male-chauvinistic, etc.) Middle-Eastern culture and by "Australian Christianity" you refer to the (legalistic/punitive/patronising, etc.) British culture and traditions. Strange naming, but let it be.

Between the two I have already chosen the lesser-evil of the "Christian" culture by the very fact that I came here and not there.

Here at least, I can use my democratic rights to try and change it.

(and it's also unlikely that I would be able to worship in a Hindu temple in those areas of the Middle-East)

Yutsie: Here at least, I can use my democratic rights to try and change it.

& What, may I ask, would you like to change it too? A system Caste Culture like they have in India maybe?

Well yesterdays European results should liven up the debate.

12000 plus Middle Easterners coming to Australia. Where will the next Terrorist attack be? One of the Passports found on a Terrorist shows he recently came through Greece from Syria.

France has closed it's Boarders. Australia should too! Now!

Dear Jayb,

The caste system was misunderstood and highly abused in India.
It was meant to DESCRIBE an existing and natural situation, not to enforce it.

Now the Western culture takes the other extreme by introducing the false thesis as if all people are unnaturally equal.

The caste system categorises people according to their varying degrees of ability to take responsibility. This in turn is related to one's spiritual development, but we don't need to get into the spiritual aspect in order to understand the concept of differences in people's abilities to be responsible.

The lowest level, the Shudras, can only do simple jobs and require constant supervision.
The next level, the Vaishyas, are merchants or craftsmen. They are characterised by their ability to perform a day's work without supervision.
The next level, the Kshatriyas, are energetic leaders, administrators and warriors. They are also able to take responsibility for others and for the long term.
The highest level are the Brahmins. Their responsibility goes beyond the single lifetime, so their focus is on eternity, which is why they are no longer interested in riches, success, influence or the day-to-day management of society. They may still teach and advise.

This is just an observation of human nature.

India made three mistakes:
1. The invention of even lower castes, of "untouchables". This has no religious or factual basis.
2. Setting rigid boundaries and isolation between the castes, where in fact it is a continuum.
3. Ignoring the possibility of change: while it is usual that one's level of responsibility is hereditary and goes in the family, this is not always so and over time, when several generations are held to be of a particular caste, the differences between one's historical family-caste and one's actual ability, keeps increasing.

Thus, I have no intention to repeat India's mistakes and try to introduce a formal caste system in Australia. Any such classifications already exist by nature, not by decree.

(continued...)

(...continued)

Our current political "leaders" aren't leaders at all, they are Shudras or Vaishyas at best, whereas only Kshatriyas are fit for the job. That's why we are in such a mess.

Once you understand that castes are natural, you also find it stupid to expect everyone to vote and have their vote count the same. Shudras don't know what they want, Vaishyas only care for their immediate profit and Brahmins accept whatever comes without prejudice: only Kshatriyas take natural interest in the state's affairs, so ideally only they should vote. I'm not suggesting to introduce caste-discrimination, but firstly voting should not be compulsory and secondly one should prove some level of dedication in order to vote. One could, for example, be required to pass a test to prove knowledge and understanding of the political-issues, or to fast the day before the polls, thus nearly all remaining voters would be those who care enough - that's the Kshatriyas.

---

So back to your question, Jayb, what I do like to change, is to make participation in society voluntary. A society that forces itself on everyone who happens to live-on-the-land, is unacceptably violent.

This is especially true when society forces itself on Brahmins, who are more responsible and more knowledgeable than the leaders and can take care of themselves better without the trappings of society. It is despicable when Brahmins, on whom rests the spiritual welfare of the world, are made subject to the rule and whims of Kshatriyas (if even that). When that happens, Brahmins who are benevolent in nature and are there to bless the land will curse it instead.

Unlike India's mistake, there should be no attempt to define who is a Brahmin, etc., for instance according to one's family. This will never work. Period. Instead, everyone should be free to leave society, but since doing so would be quite uncomfortable for the lower castes which are guided by everyday practicalities, the only ones who would actually be liable to leave would be the Brahmins and then only if they find that society is operated on unrighteous principles.

Wow! No wonder India is so F#(d up & it all depends on who can pay whom otherwise nothing gets done. India is an extremely corrupt Country.

Indians in Australia are very hard working, but they will rip you off as soon as look at you. You probably won't like that observation but it par for the course anyway. IGA as an example.

What you describe seems great in theory but as usual it never ever works that way. Communism is a great theory too but it just didn't work either. Pure Capitalism would have us back into the Feudal System. It's close to what you have described as your Ideal. Democracy is also a great theory & doesn't exactly work the way it's supposed to either. It's better than any of the alternatives though.

Dear Jayb,

Yes, I don't like that observation, but I know it's true.

Human nature.

Now unlike Capitalism, in the Feudal System people were not free to leave, which makes a world of difference. Also, my ideal is pretty different from Capitalism: once a country is ruled by competent Kshatriyas rather than by Vaishyas (who would necessarily be corrupted by being given more responsibility than they can handle), the ruling class will initiate all sorts of welfare programs - take for example Pharaoh of Egypt (the one from the bible) who (with Joseph as deputy) built huge store-houses of grain during the fertile years so that the masses can be well-fed during long draughts. This is an example of long-term responsibility typical of Kshatriyas... not of the Australian government...

And just think of it, such a simple step that is still within the parameters of democracy where everyone is allowed an equal vote, can bring about a responsible regime: all it takes is to condition voting on some moderate effort to prove one's seriousness and responsibility, to prove that one doesn't just vote because they've been told to, or because the candidate is their friend's uncle, or because they will end up with an extra $20/week. One shouldn't have to be rich or own land or be of a "good" family in order to vote. Anyone who cares enough can, for example (obviously subject to medical exemption), fast the day before elections to prove theirs is a serious and responsible vote.

So you are saying that educated people, as Australian people mostly are, & such as my self a, Fitter/ Turner/ Boilermaker/ Electrician/ Electronics/ Computer Tech/ Educator, & a few others besides would not be able to vote because I'm not in the CEO type Class.

Is that right?

Anyway back to the subject.

Dutch MP calls for removal of all mosques in Netherlands. Member of Dutch Parliament: "We want to clean Netherlands of Islam".

Dutch MP Machiel De Graaf spoke on behalf of the Party for Freedom when he said, "All mosques in the Netherlands should be shut down.

Without Islam, The Netherlands would be a wonderful country."

So would Australia. There would be no more High Security State.

Do you agree with that statement?

Dear Jayb,

Being a CEO has a little correlation with one's ability to handle the duties of a CEO responsibly and ethically, so deciding one's caste (that is, one's level of responsibility) on the basis of profession or position in a company is as futile as deciding it on the basis of one's family. Instead, everyone including the cleaner should be able to vote provided they prove their seriousness about it.

In practice however, only true Kshatriyas will be likely to make the required effort.

---

I don't think that Australia will be a wonderful country if it expels/rejects people lightly or impulsively without due deliberation that considers both the security issues and the moral issues.

I can comment on the moral aspects, but I am not a security expert.

As far as security is concerned, our sole legitimate concern should be to protect Australians from terrorist attacks - not to "clean Australia" of anything.

Whether removing some or all Muslims is the only available option to protect ourselves, either according to the minimalist or the maximalist definition of 'Muslim', I leave that for the experts (who must be Kshatriyas). In any case, it should only be done as a last resort.

If we do as proposed by Machiel De Graaf, then we could indeed no longer be a High Security State, but the danger is that we could then instead become [even more a] Low Moral state - and this is bound to reflect on our lives in so many other ways.

Yutsie: (who must be Kshatriyas).

Who gets to decide who is a Kshatriyas?

Britain went through this stage about 200 years ago. We have evolved since then. Unlike India, most Australians are highly educated & don't live in filthy slums. Your system is very much open to corruption by the very moral people who do the deciding. Eg; If the person is a PC Greenie then anyone who wasn't of their view would not get a vote. People who run the "Conversation" site as another example.

Australia has a good Voting System. The in this Country people are moral enough to vote any way the prefer. I find your System deplorable.

Yutsie: I don't think that Australia will be a wonderful country if it expels/rejects people lightly or impulsively without due deliberation that considers both the security issues and the moral issues.

Ok, let me put it this way. Expel those immigrants who are bereft of morals. Eg; Followers of islam & criminals.

I once lived in a Country where I could go where I liked in safety. Now I can't. What has changed? The whole sale import of people who follow islam, who bring the problems they fled from with them. That's what's changed.

Is Australia under threat from these people. I'll say it is.

Something has been missing from this debate. Our Potential Terrorist friends have been strangely silent on this one.

Dear Jayb,

Who gets to decide who is a Kshatriyas? Everyone can decide for themselves - that's the whole beauty!

You don't need to have money or land or title, you don't need to belong to the right family or clan or race or party: all you need is to want to vote strongly enough to make some moderate sacrifice that is not extraordinary or beyond your ability. Kshatriyas BY NATURE are more interested in politics and public affairs than others, so they are more likely to be willing to make that sacrifice.

Neither Britain nor India (nor any other country I know) ever had such a system.

Currently in Australia, many people only vote because they have to, then they cast donkey or random votes; vote as a favour for whoever their friend tells them; vote based on shallow slogans without studying the actual agendas; or vote for whichever party promises to leave them with a few more $$'s ASAP.

<<Expel those immigrants who are bereft of morals. Eg; Followers of islam & criminals>>

I think we were there already, back in page 5. If we take the minimalist definition of "Followers of islam" then I agree - but that would not include such people as our Grateful or the Young-Australian-of-the-Year candidate, Arman Abrahimzadeh.

<<
Is Australia under threat from these people. I'll say it is.

Something has been missing from this debate. Our Potential Terrorist friends have been strangely silent on this one.
>>

This should not become an ideological debate, but rather a highly technical one, among security experts, based on rational and informed risk-assessment and considering all options and solutions, including their side-effects.

Would your ideal System allow women as equals? Those that don't qualify for your ideal, would they just be slaves to your Kshatriyas? of no real worth & not share equally in the spoils of the realm?

Yutsie: Everyone can decide for themselves - that's the whole beauty!

So bogan, without a clue because they are stoned out of their head on drugs, pissed as farts or just brain damaged from banging their heads on a brick to Heavy Metal Music or maybe they are sitting in Lygon Street sipping on their Latte waving the pinky & looking down on common folk decide they are Kshatriyas & they can be one.

Yutsie: Currently in Australia, many people only vote because they have to, then they cast donkey or random votes; vote as a favour for whoever their friend tells them; vote based on shallow slogans without studying the actual agendas; or vote for whichever party promises to leave them with a few more $$'s ASAP.

I find your opinion of everyday Australians isn't very PC in fact it down right arrogant. Not appropriate & so on & so forth & I'm quite offended by your opinion of everyday Aussies. Especially as it's coming from a religious base that most Australians regard as just plain silly.

We who suffer from “Islamophobia” are often referred to as “haters”. I would like to set the record straight. While there may be many amongst us who do hate Islam, as I do, and perhaps many who also hate Muslims, that is not our main concern.

The majority of Muslims seeking a new life in the West are fleeing war torn countries in the Middle East, or famine in North Africa, and we may sympathize with their desire to find a better life in a Western democracy. Unfortunately they are, perhaps unknowingly, carriers just as dangerous as carriers of a deadly disease, such as smallpox or ebola, and their immigration should be strongly resisted.

In France and Sweden, and in Australia, Islamic terrorists are mainly second or third generation. The first generation, mainly not speaking the local language, understandably find assimilation hard going. They hardly know which way is up, tend to stay in Muslim communities, attend the local Mosque, and raise their kids as devout Muslims. The local Imam, the Koran, and in fact the whole community argues against assimilation. The second generation know that they are despised in the wider community, find solace in the Koran, and rebel.

Islam is perhaps the world's fastest growing religion. Historically, however, it grew through the application of terror, as ordered by Mohammed himself. We can only guess how many hundreds of millions died, as Islam spread across North Africa, and eastward through India and Indonesia. People converted, rather than having their throats cut, their children enslaved and their wives raped.

Most of us sympathize with the desperate people seeking a new life in Europe – how could we not, but we should not let them in. It's not even because we have a better way of life, but that our systems are incompatible, and any attempt at assimilation can only lead, eventually, to disaster.

Dear Jayb,

Where did I ever suggest that anyone be slave to *my* Kshatriyas?

May I remind you that the very first thing I wrote on this topic was:

"The caste system was misunderstood and highly abused in India.
It was meant to DESCRIBE an existing and natural situation, not to enforce it."

All I do is to observe human nature: one is either a Kshatriya or one isn't, just as one could have have blue eyes and the other has green eyes. Left-handed people would naturally write with their left hand, but I would never ever suggest to forbid them to write with their right hand if they so wish. One could "decide" that they have blue eyes, but that wouldn't change their eye-colour...

Nature isn't PC, never been. I just observe the way things are.

---

Dear Bob,

Understandably,

<<The second generation know that they are despised in the wider community, find solace in the Koran, and rebel>>

But why should they be despised in the first place?

I might be afraid of them - it's natural to be afraid of being blown up.
I might want to see them dead so that I don't have to die prematurely and/or lose my freedom - that's also understandable.
Yet none of this makes me despise any of them.

Yes, the problem requires a solution.
But despising others only aggravates the situation and is not a part of a sensible solution.

"Islamocritica" is perhaps a better description of the position of many of us on OLO. "Islamophobia" is far too misleading: we don't fear Islam, but like any other ideology or religion in the modern world, it should be analysed - deconstructed - and criticised.

As an Islamocritic, I'm as ready to assess or analyse Islam as any other ideology, such as, for example, Marxism, to which I adhered for many years, in its various forms.

Post-Enlightenment, we try to understand the world around us, we do not simply take it for granted or take the word of priests or imams. The search for understanding has been a long and painful struggle in the West, ever since many great and courageous thinkers like Leonardo or Machiavelli or Erasmus started questioning the Old Order five hundred year ago. We know now that blood flows around the body, pumped by the heart, that the earth orbits around the sun, and a multitude of similar momentous notions. We don't now believe in natural social hierarchies, but most of us do believe that all people should have equal rights and the power to change governments by peaceful means.

As long as any group of people still believe that all knowledge has been laid down in a book put together by other people hundreds or thousands of years ago, never to be questioned, then those people are out of step with the phenomenal intricacies of modern knowledge and the constant elaboration of that knowledge - as it always will be elaborated, built on, 'improved'. And the key to that expansion of knowledge in every field is the ability to question, analyse, re-assess, pose alternatives, 'deconstruct' - and to 'deconstruct' everything, to assess and re-assess all received knowledge.

So people have the choice between accepting what they are told, and questioning everything that passes for knowledge. Medical knowledge, for example, is supposed to be doubling every twenty years or so. So, I hope, it will be every twenty years, or less. The world is not standing still -it never has stood still, and never will.

Joe

Yutsie: Where did I ever suggest that anyone be slave to *my* Kshatriyas?

True, but that hasn't stopped the real life situation in India, has it? Babies making bricks & hauling steel through mud for starvation wages & living in hovels or on the street.

Yutsie: "The caste system was misunderstood and highly abused in India. It was meant to DESCRIBE an existing and natural situation, not to enforce it."

If you say so, but never-the-less that's what has happened. That's why you are here & not there in your Idealist Society.

Loudmouth: "Islamocritica" is perhaps a better description of the position of many of us on OLO. "Islamophobia" is far too misleading:

Yes, you are right. I don't & never have hated the people (moslims) but I do intensely dislike their Religious Dogma. I dislike other Religious Dogma also. However ones that calls for the elimination of all people except those that do not believe & uphold their particular Dogma need to be greatly feared.

Dear Jayb,

You are spot on, on both counts.

I am sorry for India, the home of so many great saints and sages and the land of so many miracles, but also a home for so much crime, corruption and misery. I am a Hindu by faith, not an Indian.

Er, Yutsie you didn't answer the questions fully.

Would your ideal System allow women as equals?

Those people that don't qualify for your ideal, would they just be low paid workers to your Kshatriyas?

Would they be considered as of no real worth & therefore not share equally in the spoils of the realm?

Dear Jayb,

My ideal system? Ideally there should be no system!
An ideal society would not have a system, people in an ideal society would just live in accordance with their good nature, but as I said, this does not exist in this era and cannot exist for 1000's of years to come.

Thus all I proposed for now was a limited improvement on the current version of democracy.

Regarding women's equality, why would you even ask such a question? Women can set an example for men and there were and still are female spiritual masters who reached all the way to God!

We are all identical in essence - for we are God, yet no two of the humans through which we operate are equal to each other.

Those people who are inclined by their nature to perform only simple tasks, will offer their services accordingly: nobody has to tell them to do it, it's their own choice. They are as worthy as anyone else, they are still divine in nature, it's only that in this particular lifetime they happen to serve in a different role (and that role can change too, as for example in the case of Rabbi Akiva who started his life as a poor illiterate shepherd until the age of 40, only to end them as one of the greatest Rabbis of Judaism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akiva_ben_Joseph).

Yutsie: Those people who are inclined by their nature to perform only simple tasks, will offer their services accordingly: nobody has to tell them to do it, it's their own choice.

Ok, but will they get paid like they do in India, just a few cents a day, or will they receive a substantial wage, say equivalent to a Tradesman, CEO, Doctor or Lawyer? The reason I ask this is like, Well nobody likes flies or Ants but without them the entire Worlds Natural System would fail & everything would die. So the flies & ants & the people who do the simple tasks, end up being "the" most important piece in the whole puzzle & therefore, are worthy of a high remuneration.

Yutsie: They are as worthy as anyone else,

Hmmm... by this I guess your answer to my question should be, yes.

Yutsie: it's only that in this particular lifetime they happen to serve in a different role (and that role can change too,

So what happens if I don't believe in another lifetime. I believe, "When ya dead, ya dead." you return to the basic elements of the Universe & beyond. As Newton said, "Mater cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another."

Dear Jayb,

The moment you talk about wages, you refer to something less than ideal, to some compromise or an intermediate solution. It is so unfortunate that in our age we cannot sustain our life without money.

The correct reason to do work is not in order to be remunerated. It is that, try hard as we want, we are unable to stop and not-do anything, thus if we fail to do what is right for us, then we would necessarily do what is wrong for us!

The Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 18, Verse 47, says:

It is better to engage in one's own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another's occupation and perform it perfectly. Prescribed duties, according to one's nature, are never affected by sinful reactions.

http://asitis.com/18/47.html

---

Suppose you don't believe in another lifetime: what difference would that make? Believe what you will, if you haven't completed your journey, then you would still have to come back to complete it.

Newton was correct (to a certain extent - later Einstein demonstrated that matter CAN be created from energy and destroyed into energy): your body goes to the elements, so you will never get it back, but you could still get a different one.

Hindus and Buddhists work very hard over several lifetimes in order to not have to return back to this world (those of other religions do so as well, but without knowing it). Now if you are of the view that all it takes to never return is just to jump off a tall building, that simple, then why aren't you doing so? With such a pessimistic view, that whatever you do will all be lost with no lasting consequences and not even remembered, then what difference does it make whether you live or die?

Yutsie: It is better to engage in one's own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another's occupation and perform it perfectly. Prescribed duties, according to one's nature, are never affected by sinful reactions.

& That's the big problem in India, isn't it? Segregation of the Classes. The Class above looks down on the Class below. Girls can marry up & improve themselves. Men can't. Why is it considered a sin to improve ones self? Why is it that illegal immigrants, including Indian come, to Australia to improve their economic status.

Yutsie: Hindus and Buddhists work very hard over several lifetimes in order to not have to return back to this world (those of other religions do so as well, but without knowing it).

Reincarnation is a load of crap. When ya dead, ya dead. That's it. No coming back as anything.

It's your Religions belief. It's not really true. There is/are no God, Gods or Spirits. They are all a figment of mans imagination so as to control other men & to give primitive men an explanation of the World around them.

Dear Jayb,

It is very wrong to use knowledge in order to control others. The Hindu scriptures and spiritual masters keep repeating: control thine own mind and thine own senses - not police others.

Unfortunately, even the best teachings can be distorted when the human mind falls prey to desires and unfortunately we also see this in India.

Segregation of classes and looking down on others is not ordained by Hindu scriptures. While I dispute the idea as if improving one's economic status is tantamount to "improving ones self", it is not a sin to improve oneself, quite the contrary and it is not a sin to try to improve one's economic status using ethical means.

However, only Vaishyas have by their nature this strong urge to improve their economic status, so if you have such an urge then you are probably a Vaishya. If two people marry where only one of them is eager to gather wealth, there arises the danger of discord in the family.

---

"When ya dead, ya dead" is a a tautology, but can you ever die?

Your body dies and your brain dies with it. Understandably, you may not like the idea of this ultimate disability - not being able to know what's going on, not being able to do anything about it, not being able to enjoy pleasures, not even to think, just being there doing nothing, just as you probably are every night when in deep sleep. So you may contemptuously call this state "death", but only your body is dead, your abilities are dead, but nothing ever happened to you, the one who once had those abilities and now hasn't.

Since at some point in time (around when your body was born) you acquired those abilities, what's so strange about this which already happened once, happening again in the future?