The three tickets into the upper classes are high intelligence, money, and (especially women) physical beauty. Beautiful girls from Gunnedah marry billionaires and Hollywood stars and get on the A-list, which is why rich people are often called "the beautiful people."

People with high intelligence are usually upwardly mobile. People with low intelligence stay on the bottom rung. In western democracies, it is not hard for a person with average intelligence in the disadvantaged class to climb a rung into the working class. Upper class twits are the subject of endless mirth but they can maintain their positions in the upper classes by virtue of inherited wealth and family connections. One advantage of secular democracies is their abilities to allow intelligent people from the lower classes to rise to whatever level is appropriate to their intelligence.

Black people generally have low intelligence and that is why they mostly inhabit the lowest class. The importation of black people into western countries has been a social catastrophe. Even in countries like Britain and France where there was no tradition of slavery within those countries, imported black people are very disproportionately represented in serious crime and welfare dependency.

The usual excuse is to "blame the white guy", but that excuse is getting rather lame. The first duty of governments is the protection of their people. The second, is to create prosperous and peaceful societies. Importing people who are a crime, welfare, and terrorism risk is not only stupid, it is morally wrong. One Greek philosopher (I forget which one) once wrote that, "the highest morality is the protection of one's own people."

Your position, is that the way to world peace is to mix up the races within the western secular democracies and eventually, some sort of fair and successful society will result. But the reality is that this model is just not working. As a resident of France, I am surprised that you do not consider the recent mass murders of French citizens by people from an imported and idiotic medieval foreign culture to clearly display the error of your muddled thinking.

Nothing to say in response, LEGO? I’m not surprised. Although, I'm sure that won’t stop you repeating the same rubbish in the future. Speaking of repeating rubbish…

<<Black people generally have low intelligence and that is why they mostly inhabit the lowest class.>>

What part of ‘correlation does not imply causation’ do you not understand? (Who exactly are you referring to when you say “black”, by the way? There are various shades of black. How black is black? Does intelligence follow ‘blackness’ on a sliding scale, or is there a sharp cutoff point?)

The problem for you here is two-fold. Firstly, you haven’t controlled for environmental factors, so you can’t know to what degree genetics plays a role (if any at all) on a macro level. Secondly, your scientifically debunked 19th century racial theories don’t address the problem of which came first: low intelligence or disadvantage.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#330439

These are two problems that you will not address, and they are fatal to your racial theories.

But no, somehow it’s me getting my arse kicked. Isn’t that right, LEGO?

<<The usual excuse is to "blame the white guy", but that excuse is getting rather lame.>>

Here you go, LEGO. Three instances of me correcting this sulky, petulant claim of yours:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274724
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274737
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17092#301897

And that’s just what I could find. You’ve had it explained to you over and over again that it has nothing to do with race (northern European minorities in southern Europe are discriminated against, and both groups there are white (although, you may insist on classifying the latter as ‘woggy’ and, therefore, slightly inferior)), nor is it about blame or fault. Some hippies might want to wallow in self-loathing, but that’s their problem and it solves nothing - just as denying the role that majorities play in the disadvantage of minorities solves nothing.

It’s not about who’s to blame, it’s about the majority doing what they can to avoid marginalising minorities. But that can’t be done until the marginalisation is acknowledged first.

Hi AJ.

Sorry to be so tardy in getting back to you, but I was once again immersed in Medieval Total War. (just one more turn!)

I hope you have been reading "The Australian" newspaper this week, AJ. Three items might have interested you.

Friday, October 14, 2016, page 5. "I Have Never Seen Crime So Bad Says Ex-Cop."

Ian Riddles, secretary of the Victorian Police Union, has warned that the streets of Melbourne are experiencing the worst criminal offending in 40 years. "We have regular car jacking, we have regular home invasions, assaults are up on our members, and then you have the threat of terrorism." "With the youth crime and the Apex gang and all that, it is a total lack of respect, but it also becomes a competition to see who can break into more houses or steal the most cars."

Assault in Victoria is up 11.1% this year. Robberies have increased 14.2%. Dangerous acts endangering persons increased 23.1%, Burglary up 12.6%. Crime in Dandenong and Latrobe up by 16% and 8.6% respectively. Small business owner Joe Risoli (burgled six times) blamed politicians "focusing on political correctness over law and order."

Translating from media Newspeak, what this means is that black African crime in Melbourne is now out of control within those Melbourne suburbs most infested with them, exactly as predicted by LEGO. Of course, we can't say that because "correlation does not denote causation." We can't say the observable truth, because reality is racism.

Next comes the news that 75% of aboriginal apprentices are failing WA drug and alcohol testing in safety sensitive employment. "The Australian") Oct. 13. The public servant who's job it is to keep aboriginal kids in a job, a bloke named Scott Osborne from the "Fit4duty" quango, says that aboriginal apprentices should not be treated differently from others in suffering the consequences of turning up drunk and stoned at work. But he insisted that employers should only instigate "culturally respectful" drug and alcohol testing for aboriginal apprentices, or the governments vaunted "Closing the Gap" strategy would be endangered.

Continued

Continued

Translating from public service Newspeak, this means that unless aboriginal apprentices are treated completely differently from everybody else, there won't be any aboriginal apprentices, and it will be all the white guys fault.

"The Australian, 14th Oct.

Finally Dr Vic Peddermores, who apparently has a cushy job in the NSW Shark Research Section of the CSIRO, responsible for squandering $16 million dollars a year protecting sharks from humans, warned of the danger that people posed to sharks. Dismissing the significant rise in shark attacks in the last 12 months including four fatalities, Dr Vic insisted that sharks were "timid" beings, and that while humans were not on the shark menu, sharks were on the human menu. Dr Vic said that people should not be worried about shark attacks, because "35 people drowned in the same period." Well, I would probably say the same thing as Dr Vic if my job consisted of sailing around in government supplied motor boats with bikini clad undergraduates tagging sharks. Red sails in the sunset. Picnics on the beach. Making love in the sand dunes. Nice job if you can get it. Somebody has to do it.

Looks like Dr Vic went to the same politically correct university that you did, AJ. Don't you just love it when some stupid academic says something which everybody knows is a heap of bovine excretia?

Look nobody believes your politically correct crap anymore, AJ. That's why people are voting for Trump, Farage, Hanson, Le Pen, and Weelders. If you think that simply parroting the party line is what "intelligent" people do, then you are going down the wrong track. People are beginning to laugh at you.

Hi LEGO,

To struggle against the rip to get back somewhere near the topic: compensation for Aboriginal people for the act of declaring British sovereignty over Australia: apart from the eventual explicit recognition (in the 1840s-1850s) of the Indigenous right to hunt, fish, gather, camp on, etc., their land, what actual right did the British take from Indigenous people here ? Answer: the right to exclude.

In return, colonial authorities provided rations, at first for all Aboriginal people, then only for all but able-bodied people, who were expected to either exercise their right to hunt, fish and gather, or to work for somebody for wages. In SA, how much rations ? A pound of flour per day (enough for a loaf of bread each day), and a pound of meat per day, plus tea, sugar, tobacco, etc.

By 1900 in SA, around seventy ration stations were providing supplies to around three thousand Aboriginal people. In fact, rations were still being issued into the 1960s.

The current welfare system for Indigenous people is costing some billions of dollars each year. People unable to work, or to find work, are of course entitled to welfare. But, despite popular stereotypes, working Indigenous people don't get anything extra from governments, apart maybe from lower-interest housing loans. So we come to Rodney's question: should governments provide compensation to Indigenous people, and for how long ?

Or not at all, nothing special ? I think that needs to be discussed.

Joe

The problem is how to provide people with the means of sustaining a worthwhile life while retaining their desire to improve upon it.

I think that part of the solution is to look at new ways to define how we frame our narratives of success. At the present, success is all too often defined in extrinsic terms. That is, by how well they manage to fit into an economic model which is defined by a limited range of possible outcomes, all of which are assumed to be perfectly rational responses to a limited range of possible stimuli.

The problem is that people have intrinsic motivations which are not always rational and are driven by a huge range of stimuli, some of which are themselves the unpredictable product of circumstance.

As long as we insist on trying to fit people into "little boxes", we're going to continue to need to have this conversation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUoXtddNPAM