Some more fun and games while I was waiting for the narcissistic ‘victory dance’ that unfortunately didn’t happen this time...

At least not where I was concerned, anyway:

"Not talking to me Rodney? Oh, well, I guess I am a bit of a handful." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#330490)

Or a tamed-down version of it at least.

<<Our democratic system has become corrupted, just look at the way the "Labor" and "Greens" are actually opposing a plebiscite on homosexual "marriage.">>

Quotation marks: because it can’t REALLY be marriage now, can it?

That topic has been done to death on OLO now and the reasons against a plebiscite have been cited many times. They’re all sound. I don’t hear you complaining about all the other changes parliament makes without asking us first. What about when the Howard government changed it in the first place?

The ‘anti-democratic’ accusations are unfounded.

<<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.>>

You still won’t say how you have controlled for environmental factors. That’s because you haven’t. It is simply imperative to your worldview that some races be inferior. Nothing more.

<<The only explanation that the Leftist Egalitarians offer is that "it is all the white man's fault.">>

Fault has nothing to do with it.

<<This racist excuse has been used for too long.>>

There’s nothing racist about it, because it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with majority status. I’ve mentioned this many times before but, of course, that makes no difference to you now does it?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17092#301897

You just repeat the same old shonky half-truths and hope no-one notices.

<<The tide is beginning to turn against Leftism.>>

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

Human beings are tribal and territorial, Craig. That is part of our DNA. The desire to live among ones own people, people with whom you feel kinship, and with whom you feel safe with, is a cultural universal. Just look at how Australian suburbs are being ghettoised right now to see the truth of that.

There is not a race, religion, or culture on planet Earth which wishes to become a minority within its own claimed territory by people from another race, religion or culture. That too is a cultural universal. It is not just limited to “racist” redneck white people.

After WW2, educated people sought a philosophy which would spare humankind from any more serious wars like WW2, which killed 55 million people. Their "solution" was simply Socialism by another name. It was based upon a fallacy, that all humans are created equal and that social inequalities results only from the exercise of unjust privilege.

The reality is that Mother Nature is no egalitarian. People are unequal in intelligence. And they are born that way. Just as they are born with different potentials for height, physical attractiveness, artistic flair, athletic prowess, musical talents, and other traits. Although subsequent experience shapes this material, no amount of political correctness can make individuals with widely divergent mental aptitudes into intellectual equals.

The educated elites idea to Save The World entailed mixing up white civilisation with wholesale immigration from Third world societies. The Asians are smarter and more racist than white people, and they never bought that stupid idea. Fifty years of multiculturalism and it has been nothing but a catastrophe for white society. With Europe now necessarily becoming ever more racist, paratroopers patrolling their streets, journalists and scores of ordinary people being gunned down, run over, and blown up, how you can still believe in this fairyland fantasy is beyond me

There was very little that was socialist in post WW2. There was a shortage of labour and huge demand for goods and services, both here and elsewhere in the world. Socialism was regarded with deep suspicion due to its association with both the Fascists and the Communists.

There was a generally egalitarian model within the Western world, although the fear of facing another war and even worse, another Great Depression, made State control of much of the economic activity something that was seen as essential. I guess having an adult male population that had spent several years in the military made that a lot easier.

The rise of Western Fabianism started in the late 50s and early sixties, as a reaction to the lifting of the stringently controlled economic conditions of the preceding couple of decades and to the sense of impending doom that was a part of the Cold War. The people who'd been to war now had kids and they wanted to give them a chance at a life they hadn't had.

I was born in 63 and it was still a part of my early life, even up in PNG.

You're right to say that Mother Nature isn't egalitarian, but the human species is a group species. We have only been successful to the extent that we cooperate. Every time we have let self-interest be the main guiding principle for social organisation it's ended badly. Have a think about it for yourself.

The other thing about humans is that we are excellent adapters. We have colonised every part of the globe and we did it with the same basic technology for a million years. Our ability to adapt those basic tools to new applications in new environments is what made us the dominant mammalian species and arguably the dominant species period.

The problems in Europe are a short-term thing. They will not last and overreacting to short-term problems isn't adaptive.

LEGO, you might enjoy this.

https://youtu.be/bILldpGbVf0

It's Milton Friedman on the roots of the welfare state.

Hi AJ.

I "phrase my sentences like I am kicking your arse" because I am doing just that. While ever you persist in your dishonest "debating" tactics of never submitting a position you need to defend, then I know that you know your position is wrong. And you know and that my position is right. You are not debating, you are desperately trying to stifle debate.

You have criticised the obvious connection between low intelligence and criminal behaviour with the trite phrase "correlation does not denote causation", as if this is as immutable as the Law Of Gravity, and it is always the case. Most people can understand that correlation can denote causation and I have given two examples of that. Keep it up. You are on a hiding to nothing on that one.

You have stated that "Criminal behaviour is the result of a complex interplay between both nature and nurture." Oh? Exactly what do you mean by "nature"? Is the "nature" you are talking about "genetics"? If so, are you finally admitting that genetics and crime are linked? If not, then what the hell do you mean by "nature"?

I have never used the word "inferior" when describing other races. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Leftist humanitarians like yourself blame white people for the social dysfunctions of every other race. Your excuse for this obvious racism is that "it has everything to do with majority status." Excuse me? Are you suggesting that the white race is always responsible for minority dysfunction in European societies, just because the whites are in the majority? Well, at least you suggesting that racism can be justified. But if you can justify racism towards white people for any reason, how are you not a racist yourself?

Is it OK to be a racist if you have a good reason?

To Craig Minns.

Your premise appears to be, that humans must adapt their thinking to consider themselves as all equals and brothers to create world peace. This is almost identical to the old Socialist promise that if we built world wide, classless, Socialist states where everybody was equal, there would be no war because "workers would not kill workers." Crime would disappear, and there would be no need of police forces, because everybody would be equal, and therefore everybody would only take "according to their needs".

It was a nice theory, but it did not work in practice. Human beings are tribal and territorial, and that is in our DNA. You can no more use "rational" arguments to make human beings "adapt" to thinking that everybody is their brother, than you can use rational arguments to convince teenagers to refrain from sex to prevent overpopulation.

The reason that Socialism failed, was because it thought that it could dispense with the deep instinctive drives which powers much of human behaviour, and replace it with pure rationalism. It treated human being as if they were robots who could simply be reprogrammed to conform to whatever rationale a non elected committee thought should be the new standard of human behaviour. What is "rational" anyway? There is nothing "irrational" about robbing a bank if you need money.

If humans were rational beings, there would be no wars, obesity, diabetes, music, poetry, beauty pageants, drug addiction, sport, or overpopulation. Hardly anybody would be killed on our roads because everybody would obey the road rules.

That is just one reason why your premise is wrong. Another is that the human race has doubled in my lifetime, and competition for resources is the prime reason for human group hostility. Consider the South China Sea or Kuwait. Another is that, your ideology is an exclusive white protestant/atheist European academic ideal. Most of humanity considers it utterly ridiculous, and the Euros are beginning to think twice about it also. Lastly, the idea that everybody is equal has taken a real bettering lately, especially in white European countries. Reality bites.