LEGO, would you mind answering a question? It's genuine.

What does your ideal world look like? Can you describe the sorts of social and economic structures you think would be in it and perhaps give a brief explanation of why you made those particular choices?

The reason I'm asking is that a large part of your posting seems to be reflexive "lefty" bashing, which tends to confuse the issue.

If anyone else would like to have a go at the question as well, that would be great.

I am not a philosopher, Craig. I am not pushing any ideology except secular democracy, freedom of speech, and the concept that the Australian government realise, that it is in power to look after the interests of Australians. Not the interests of Costa Ricans, Sudanese, Afghans, Nigerians, Tamils, or anybody else.

My country and my entire European civilisation is going to hell in a hand basket because of left wing multicultural idiocy, and it is my job to stop it. I have long warned against the idea of culturally dividing my country, and I have lived long enough to see that I was right. I have always wondered at how many Germans, Russians, North Koreans and Cambodians saw catastrophe coming in their own societies because of socialists, and spoke out about it, but were ignored by their own apathetic populations? The situation in Europe was predictable and avoidable, and it will now take a civil war to sort it out. That is a civil war that the Euros may well lose, the longer they deny reality and put it off.

This is a job that I did not choose. I simply woke up one morning and picked up a newspaper, to find that our socialist enemies were blaming gun owners like myself for the Port Arthur massacre. Since I knew it was all crap, I started hitting back at my tormentors, and my people's enemies, and I have become very good at it.

I think that things are changing, in that the Left is now in retreat. Rather amusingly, far from being Progressives, they have become the new Conservatives and Establishment, desperate to defend a failing status quo ante with censorship and legal Inquisitions, The success of Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, and the anti immigration forces in Europe, which are primarily being led by young European intellectuals, confirms this premise that the pendulum has swung.

Those who defend multiculturalism are now being perceived as old Baby Boomers who never lived out of their 1960's flower child philosophies.

Hi LEGO, I think that you are a philosopher, but because you associate that term with some viewpoints you find uncongenial, you disclaim it. There are very few people who aren't. I do appreciate your taking my question seriously, thank you.

I hope you don't mind if I summarise your post a little, in the interests of clarity. Please correct me if I have your meaning wrong.

1. You feel that you, as an Australian, have first claim on the resources of this country.
2. You feel that successive Governments, influenced by "lefties" have made decisions that are at odds with 1.
3. You feel that because of the influence of "lefties", Government decision-making has become disconnected from the pragmatic realities you perceive.
4. You feel that the influence of "lefties" is so pervasive that it must be fought and that there are few willing to do so.
5. You feel that good data is being (mis)used to support bad conclusions.
6. You feel that there are fundamental qualitative differences between people from different regions that make people from some regions incapable of being part of the secular democracy that you would like to see implemented in Australia.
7. You feel that those who you identify as being of the "left" are driven by a misguided ideological urge to self-abnegation.
8. You feel that the current political model is not an exemplar of the secular democracy you would like to live within.
9. You are of the view that addressing these problems is a matter of urgency and so you are compelled to act as you can to try to make that happen.

Is that a fair summation? Please add to it if you think it's missing anything.

To Craig.

I could probably write 5000 words on what I think is wrong with Australia today, asking me to explain everything is a bit much.

As a child I lived in extreme poverty and I saw with my own eyes the Australian (Liberal) governments give priority to well off immigrants over my own family. The male members of my family were in the worst of it during WW1 and WW2, and that is all the thanks we got. You can bet that this fact had a very marked impression on my present social and political attitudes. Things have not improved today. The Left needs dysfunctional people to be dependent upon government largesse, and then vote for them, and these they import.

Our democratic system has become corrupted, just look at the way the "Labor" and "Greens" are actually opposing a plebiscite on homosexual "marriage." This is aided by a left wing "Liberal" prime Minister who supports homosexual "marriage."

I think that there are good people in all races, but that some ethnicities just happen to be generally not very intelligent and genetically very prone to violent behaviour. Crime statistics prove that this is true. The only explanation that the Leftist Egalitarians offer is that "it is all the white man's fault." This racist excuse has been used for too long.

Leftists are primarily motivated by a puritanical compulsive need to think that they are intellectually and morally superior to everybody else. Their self image is more important to them than the survival of their own white civilisation which they despise but choose to live in.

The tide is beginning to turn against Leftism. They have become the new Establishment, and they have become so arrogant and incompetent that they are stuffing everything up. The white peasant bogans are revolting, and they are being led by people who are sometimes young and obviously very intelligent. Mark Steyn, Nigel Farage, Paul Joseph Watson, Gert Weelders, Hirsan Ali, Pat Condell, and Douglas Murray. These people are powerful writers and speakers and they make the politically correct look like the idiots they are.

Hi LEGO,
Thanks for your reply to my quite personal question. I am sure some variant of your views has been part of human social behaviour for as long as humans have existed. In other words, I suspect they may be based on an instinctual response.

The modern version is based around continental scale differences; you say "my European race", where people from PNG with less exposure to the wider world talk of "wantoks", who share a common "ples tok" (place talk) but the basic model is to distrust those who look or act sufficiently dissimilar. If they make us feel uncomfortable through possessing some form of advanced technology: bronze weapons when ours are stone; a different form of social organisation (look at the old testament and you'll see the worst of God's punishments to the enemies of the Israelites are reserved for those who have different ways of arranging society); esoteric knowledge of any kind.

I think that those people you mention who are manipulating that fear of the other in people who are less capable of arguing articulately are self-serving and very destructive. They aren't alone, the same thing occurs on the other side of politics. Divide and conquer is the standard way of doing political business

I think we really need to move to a way of doing politics that is about cooperation and seeking common ground in the face of genuinely existential threats to our species.

We live in an intimately connected, global world. Putting up walls, whether literal, legal or metaphorical can't be a long-term solution. We have to work out better ways of thinking about differences.

No, LEGO, I’m not making any mistakes.

<<The mistake you made, was dismissing an easily understood relationship with the trite phrase "Correlation does not denote causation.">>

Once again, the relationship needs to be proven independently of the correlation, and in most cases, it’s a third factor or multiple totally unrelated factors causing the two.

http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

<<Any person with high school level mathematics can understand that graphs and statistics are all about understanding the relationships between two factors.>>

Yes, and there’s a relationship between ice cream sales and murder rates. What matters is the causal factor.

<<In addition, your premise is a two edged sword. If you dismiss easily understood relationships between two factors with a trite phrase, then your opponents can do the same thing to you.>>

Of course they can. Which is why I avoid ever doing that.

<<It's pretty hard to pin you down on any position, but I know that if I keep you writing long enough, you will eventually write something I can focus on.>>

For the seventeenth time now, why do you need to? The only explanation is that you need something to distract from the flaws in your arguments by attacking mine. Not to mention the fact that I’ve stated my position on many topics many times before, you just don’t like them because they’re not the ones you need.

<<You are now saying that, "Criminal behaviour is the result of a complex interplay between both nature and nurture.">>

Now? No, I’ve said that plenty of times before:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17092#301780
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310646

I just love how you have this ability to phrase your sentences in a way that makes it appear as though your opponents are getting their arses kick when it's actually the other way around.

<<Well, gee whiz AJ, isn't that what I have been trying to bash into your head for ages?>>

No. In fact, I was the one who had to tell you that:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0

<<Leftists are primarily motivated by ...>>

Leftist: because you can make anything sound like a crazy ideology if you just as an -ist or an -ism.