(...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.