continued

5. Population birth rate differentials. Where population differentials between minorities and majorities are changing, either through birth rate differentials or immigration, there is not a majority race, religion or culture on planet Earth who would not be very concerned about this.

Intelligence differentials. All communities layer their social strata according to intelligence, with the more intelligent usually inhabiting the upper classes. Even within close knit communities, little social interaction occurs between the different classes due to the differing intelligence levels and different types of intelligences. Birds of a feather just keep flocking together regardless of how much Rodney thinks it is wrong.

If social division exists even within close knit communities based upon intelligence. How much do you think any race, religion or culture will ignore the fact that another, less successful and not too bright minority does not measure up to their social standards? Could I submit that whites and Asians generally get along OK because people from these groups have generally identical intelligence levels?

Europeans are bringing people into their countries at such a rate that I understand that our unique and successful European culture is going to be swamped unless I disregard my inclination to be tolerant and become intolerant. I don’t think that it is either noble or smart to be so tolerant that it becomes a vehicle for social extinction.

Furthermore, Europeans are bringing people into their countries who’s consider their racial, religious and cultural identity to be uppermost, who’s cultural values we consider reprehensible, who’s group behaviour based upon those cultural values is unacceptable, and rather incredibly, under our new state sponsored religion of Multiculturalism, they are being encouraged to maintain them.

I apologise for my tardy responses, LEGO. I’ve been frightfully busy in the last week or so. Besides, given that you slink off after the one-month mark, making the mistake of thinking that no one is reading anymore, I figure I can ‘win’ with less effort by spacing my posts out given that you also assume that the person who gets the last word in must necessarily be the winner.

<<I "phrase my sentences like I am kicking your arse" because I am doing just that.>>

So the fact that they're worded dishonestly is not of any concern to you? Why am I not surprised?

But let’s see now. You have committed two fallacies so far (three, if you include your appeal to nature in your posts to Craig Minns), while I have committed none. You have lied twice about what I have said, while I have not yet lied about anything you have said. And you have twice used the word “now” to dishonestly give the impression that I am improvising and conceded little by little.

Looks to me like there’s only one person getting their arse kicked here, and it’s not me.

<<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.>>

Oh, this is another thing. Firstly, I ask you why my opinion that you are wrong is not enough, and you never answer. Secondly, I state my position all the time and yet you’re quite happy to pretend that I don’t because it’s not the position you need.

Looks to me like there’s only one person getting their arse kicked here, and it’s not me.

<<And you know and that my position is right. You are not debating, you are desperately trying to stifle debate.>>

Do I? Am I? Could you give an example of this? Of course you can’t, and there's yet another example of who here is getting their arse kicked: the one who cannot provide examples of their accusations when asked. Not one.

Continued…

…Continued

<<You have criticised the obvious connection between low intelligence and criminal behaviour with the trite phrase "correlation does not denote causation"…>>

No, I’ve said that the correlation itself is not evidence. I’ve also been saying “imply” rather than "denote", but you’ve changed this because it helps your argument. There’s another one for you. Only one of us here is having to misquote the other. You're a master of deceit, but not much else.

Looks to me like there’s only one person getting their arse kicked here, and it’s not me.

<<…as if this is as immutable as the Law Of Gravity, and it is always the case.>>

Yes, it is always the case that correlation does not imply causation.

<< Oh? Exactly what do you mean by "nature"? Is the "nature" you are talking about "genetics"?>>

Yes, and physiology. That sort of thing.

<<If so, are you finally admitting that genetics and crime are linked?>>

“Finally”? There’s that dishonest wording again. And here’s those links to me saying that before, again:

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

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

Oh, that’s rich given that I’ve never said “denote”. How about you desist from putting words in my mouth?

<<Leftist humanitarians like yourself blame white people for the social dysfunctions of every other race.>>

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

<<Your excuse for this obvious racism…>>

It’s not racism because it has nothing to do with race. I’ve already explained that.

<<Are you suggesting that the white race is always responsible for minority dysfunction in European societies, just because the whites are in the majority?>>

No.

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

If the good reasons outweigh the bad, yes. Unfortunately for you, they don’t. It’s just your rightistism that leads you to think you can.

Rightistism: because you can make an ideology sound twice as crazy if you add both an -ist and an -ism.

.

Dear LEGO,

.

I understand what you are saying and I think there is a lot of truth in what you are saying but I also have a difference of appreciation of some of it.

You write, for example:

« All communities layer their social strata according to intelligence, with the more intelligent usually inhabiting the upper classes »

That is not my impression. People like Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Pierre and Marie Curie, and other great scientists, artists and musicians, Nobel prize winners etc. are generally not considered as belonging to the so-called “upper classes”. In Europe there are still numerous aristocratic families living in their castles and “chateaux” or stately private residences, sending their children to the best private schools in the US or Switzerland or wherever. Together with the immensely rich in every country in the world (without exception), they make-up what I should call the “upper class”. Apart from people like Donald Trump, they are usually well groomed and well educated (socially) but not necessarily what one would normally consider “the more intelligent”.

The “upper class”, of course, is at home wherever they go. They always have the best of everything in every country and every culture, in every airline, private jet, yacht or limousine.

They don’t have to migrate anywhere. They live wherever they like as long as they like and they are always welcome, irrespective of their culture and religion. They come and go as they please.

Migrants are not part of the “upper class”. As I see it, there are two major categories of migrants. There are those who migrate out of interest or curiosity or, should I say, free choice, and those who migrate out of necessity. I am one of the former.

The problem arises with those who migrate out of necessity. They are generally the victims of war, political, religious or racial persecution, severe economic conditions or dramatic and persistant climate change.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

We can ignore them just as we ignore the homeless and beggars on the street or we can try to help them. For every single one who manages to reach our shores or country borders there are thousands more who do not have the courage, the strength and the determination or simply the means to risk their lives and make the perilous journey. As I wrote in a previous article, the ones that do “are worth their salt so far as I am concerned”:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18477&page=0

Migration, in their case, is not some light-hearted whim or a simple choice taken out of interest or curiosity but the impelling quest of a safe and decent life for themselves and their families. They are not bludgers seeking to live off the dole or invading the “rich” countries in order to “submerge” them, and take them over. They are people who flee their own countries and their own cultures to go to other countries and integrate other cultures.

We are living out a human drama of a planetary dimension and, in my opinion we should do our best to stick to our values. By that, I mean that we should do whatever we can to help them without driving our “rich” countries into “social extinction” syndrome (to employ your expression). Nobody wants that and it wouldn’t be of any help to the migrants.

.

.

Dear All,

.

There is an interesting article in today’s Australian edition of The Guardian by Peter Lewis, an executive director of Essential, a strategic communications and research company based in Melbourne and Sydney that conducts a weekly poll, The Essential Report, on the national public mood.

The title of The Guardian article is “False perceptions: what lies behind our attitudes to Muslim Immigration”. It follows this week’s joint commitment by Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten to reject One Nation’s call for a discriminatory immigration policy and highlights recent Census figures which indicate that only 2.2% of the Australian population identifies as Muslim. Here is the link to the article:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/12/rejecting-one-nations-immigration-policy-is-more-than-symbolism-it-can-change-the-nation?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Politics+AUS&utm_term=194548&subid=10045778&CMP=ema_792

.