To Rodney Crisp.

If you support the already failed concept of multiculturalism ( publically renounced by the leaders of France, Germany, Austria, Britain, Italy, and Spain), then there must be a reason for that. For 15 years I have sparred online with lefties like yourself who support multiculturalism, and without exception, they believe that multiculturalism is the only way to create world peace and create a just society. When it is pointed out that multiculturalism has failed and it is catastrophic to white society, they adopt the three monkey approach. They stick their fingers in their ears, and say "na, na, na, na". They don't want to know. Whatever problems multiculturalism causes in their own white societies, they think that the supreme goal of world peace justifies the means. If you support multiculturalism for another reason, I would love to hear it.

Your latest article "An open letter to my aboriginal compatriots" was written to maintain the fiction that aboriginal dysfunction is all a product of ,racism, intolerance, and discrimination caused by "unjust" white society. Your article went on to list "historical" injustices in regards to voting and obtaining drivers licences, which a person from my perspective would understand as practical and reasonable, given that even in the 1930's there were still aboriginal people in Australia who had never seen a white person, and they were still living stone age existences.

Your article goes on to suggest that white Australians should abase ourselves and grovel to aboriginals for whatever perceived injustices our forefathers committed which has created the sorry state which aboriginals find themselves in today. You talk of treaties, and proportional representation of aborigines in parliament.

I reject your opinion in it's entirety.

The coming of the British was the best thing that ever happened to the aboriginal people in 50,000 years. Aboriginal stone age society was brutal and extremely unjust towards aboriginal women and young people. The aboriginal people were trapped on the first stage of human development (hand to mouth) and because of the unique flora and fauna of Australia they were destined to stay there.

Continued

Continued

Australia was colonised by the British who were arguably the most advanced civilisation of the time. Fifty years after colonisation, they would be the world's first civilisation to recognise the injustice of slavery, and would openly send it's armed forces to fight against it. My understanding of Australian history was that the British tried to create an Australian society inclusive of aborigines, but that this was impossible. It was impossible because the few aboriginal people that the British encountered after the smallpox pandemic had killed off 75-90% of them, obviously had very low intelligence.

The "injustices" you wrote about were simply the recognition by the British, and later Australian governments that aborigines are different. They are different because they have low intelligence and are prone to very violent behaviour. That is why the Australian government put aboriginals on reserves and appointed "protectors" to supervise them. They began the process of trying to educate aboriginals into advanced society and protect them from rapacious whites who would sexually exploit the aboriginal girls. If Australian government s ever wanted to "breed out the black" , all they had to do was to let the rapacious whites continue to sexually exploit aboriginal females.

For the most part this worked. On remote aboriginal communities today, it is the older aboriginals who were mission schooled who are the ones who can read and write. Social control was maintained by insisting that aboriginal people were forbidden to drink alcohol. It was the social crusading lefties like yourself who pointed out that this was "racism" and who insisted that aborigines be given the right to drink. The Left therefore bears the responsibility for the social catastrophe caused to aboriginal society by allowing aborigines to drink alcohol.

Thinking up novel ways to depict white people as responsible for aboriginal dysfunction was best displayed by the so called "stolen generations." The idea to take mostly part aboriginal children away from the toxic influences of tribal life and give them a life skill that would make them employable was actually a program demanded by the Leftist social crusaders.

LEGO,

It doesn’t matter what the crime rate is with “blacks” (you still haven’t defined “black”, by the way) compared to whites. I don’t care if the disparity is double what those newspapers suggest. Your simplistic assumptions don’t become right once the disparity reaches a certain point. You still need evidence.

<<Of course, we can't say that because "correlation does not denote causation.">>

Correlation can ‘denote’ causation, but it’s a bit much to say that it can ‘imply’ it.

Imply:
Indicate the truth … of (something) by suggestion rather than explicit reference. (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/imply)

Denote:
Be a sign of; indicate. (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/denote)

A subtle difference, but enough for you to insist on using the slightly broader term ‘denote’ when no one else does.

<<… 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.>>

Not even in your description did I see anything about it being the white guy’s fault. You’re just digging your heels in now. I like how you say “white guy”, though. It gives the impression that white people are to blame right down the level of the individual. Dishonest, but a nice rhetorical device.

<<Looks like Dr Vic went to the same politically correct university that you did, AJ.>>

Another attempt at the Association fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy)

<<Look nobody believes your politically correct crap anymore, AJ. That's why people are voting for Trump …>>

And now the Argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum). That makes four fallacies now:

-The Association fallacy
-The Deductive fallacy
-The Appeal to Nature
-The Argumentum ad populum

A record for you, LEGO. Congratulations!

Did you know there was once a time when most people thought the world was flat? That didn’t make them right, though. Fear and ignorance are not evidence for anything.

<<The Left therefore bears the responsibility for …>>

It’s always about the simplistic false dichotomy of so-called Left-wingers versus Rightismists (with their blind faith and adherence to the doctrines and dogmas of Rightistism!). But thanks for yet another fine example of the Association fallacy.

Hi Rodney,
Thanks for that, it's a wonderful song by one of the great poets of the age, backed up by some of the most emotive musicianship. Roger's work has been a constant source of inspiration for me over the years. He's lived out his personal journey of self-discovery very much in the public spotlight and has never backed away from taking stands on things that he feels are important. Another guy in the same mould is the great Pete Townsend, who was also fortunate to find a great bunch of friends to work his magic with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfuWXRZe9yA

I don't know if you're familiar with Roger Waters' solo work, but if you're not, I strongly recommend it. You might not have heard his most recent song in particular. This version is performed with the men and women of Musicorps, the organisation that gives wounded ex-service personnel the gift of music, which he devotes a great deal of time to.

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

He shows us all that growing old doesn't necessarily lead to cynicism, bitterness and miserating.

To AJ

The Leftist establishment uses racist arguments to explain why certain ethnicities are always very overly represented in criminal behaviour, welfare dependency, and general social dysfunction. Whatever arguments they use, they all boil down to "blame the white guy."

Unlike yourself, I am not frightened of stating my position. My equally racist argument is that certain ethnicities just happen to have generally low intelligence, and a genetic predisposition to violent, attention seeking, and irresponsible behaviour. Of course it is illegal under section 18C to say that, because those who use the equally racist argument that it is "all the white guys fault", do not want their own racist argument analysed and shown up to be the complete BS that it is.

My premise is backed up by self evident realities which even ordinary people can understand and relate too. Almost everybody today recognises that even within racially homogenous communities, wide differences of intelligence levels and intelligence talents (also called "gifts") occur. Those with low intelligence usually occupy the lowest rung of society, and the smartest and most talented usually occupy the top. The biggest population demographic, working class people, have average intelligence. Most people can relate to and agree to that.

It is the lowest class in society which disproportionately produces the most serious violent criminals. Certain ethnicities are very disproportionately represented in the lowest class. According to IQ tests, these same ethnicities also have the lowest collective intelligences. Surprise, surprise, these very same ethnicities are also very disproportionately represented in recidivist criminal behaviour. That certain crime prone ethnicities have low intelligence can easily be verified by any person who strikes up a conversation with a Pacific Islander. The Australian Institute of Criminology has admitted that crime and genetics are linked. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that race and crime are linked.

This is confirmed by crime statistics which clearly the display the enormous disparity in crime rates between races.

My argument is simple, because the cold hard truth is often simple. It's premises cross connect, and they are backed with self evident facts which anyone can understand.

I’ve already countered this, LEGO.

<<The Leftist establishment uses racist arguments to explain why certain ethnicities are always very overly represented in criminal behaviour, welfare dependency, and general social dysfunction. Whatever arguments they use, they all boil down to "blame the white guy.">>

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
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#330972

Simply repeating yourself achieves nothing.

Leftist establishment: because you make make an ideology sound both crazy and threatening if you add an -ist and call it an "establishment".

<<Unlike yourself, I am not frightened of stating my position.>>

You see what I meant by repeating yourself earlier?

<<My equally racist argument …>>

Your argument is more racist because the differences you highlight are done on the assumption that they are inherent to race.

<<… is that certain ethnicities just happen to have generally low intelligence, and a genetic predisposition to violent, attention seeking, and irresponsible behaviour.>>

“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.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#330972)

<<My premise is backed up by self evident realities which even ordinary people can understand and relate too.>>

No, it’s backed up by confusing correlation with causation.

<<Those with low intelligence usually occupy the lowest rung of society, and the smartest and most talented usually occupy the top.>>

“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#330972)

<<The Australian Institute of Criminology has admitted that crime and genetics are linked.>>

“Admitted”, as if it were done reluctantly.

<<Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that race and crime are linked.>>

“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.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#330972)

<<This is confirmed by crime statistics which clearly the display the enormous disparity in crime rates between races.>>

Correlation does not imply causation.

Have you got any new material for me to play with, LEGO, or are we just going to go around in this circle until one of us gets bored?