I'm sympathetic to the environmental issues raised. You guys care very much about the raping of the environment. The lack of planning involved. Much encouragement.

My concern which I think trumps the environmental concerns in urgency is selective immigration with respect to culture.

Not much can be done, no mobilisation of collective effort to work for the environment when a particular part is working for the destruction of democracy. An authority they consider a usurpation of Allah's rightful divine rule, namely Sharia.

It is silly to be blaise about culture. Any comparison between Islamic and Western Christian Democratic cultures reveals that.

How badly does anyone want to live in Saudi Arabia for example. They spend many millions of dollars in Australia promoting Wahabi Islam, and they're doing a good job of undermining Australia.

I don't expect to be taken on trust. I expect people to find out for themselves by following Froggie's injunction and hyperlink.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001307.php


I don't think there is the evidence to support 9/11, 7/7, Spain, Bali, Beslan, Iran, suicide bombings elsewhere are aberrations. Support for Islam is increasing eg Hamas elected in Palestine.

Sneekypete doesn't care what laws he lives under or whether he is forced to live as a dhimmi, mmm thats evidence of an encouraging attitude towards Islamism and proves my point. That vacuum created by that carelessness will be filled by Islam Europe is evidence of that.

It is us, these generations alive who are unwilling to fight to preserve two thousand years of the best culture anyone has come up with. People who don't care for future generations are handing it to Islam eg England, France, Netherlands.

Palestinians boast at their rallies how they are conquering countries like Denmark. Only bcz Europeans aren't reproducing and don't care.

If you're like sneekypete and have contempt for our institutions, for western civilisation all this will fall of deaf ears. Thats understood.

But who is genuinely silly?

Jolanda, not sure I'm up to writing the condensed version but I'll have a go at some impressions that stuck after reading the article.

For reference the link supplied by merideth is http://www.islam.org.au/articles/16/RACISM.HTM

Note for all readers these are my impressions of what Keysar Trad had to say in an article refered to by merideth not my own views about Islam or Australia. I may have misunderstood what Keysar was saying. Also note that the article was published in the late 1990's and may not reflect the current views of the author. The article seems to be a response to the perceived reaction to Pauline Hanson.
- The Quran is very strongly against racism
- Elitism is also wrong
- Muslims who were bothered by Pauline Hanson's views because of the potentail impact on their own lives rather than hurting for Allah are no better than Pauline.
- People under Islam are equal, there is no division by race or class. I didn't notice any mention of equality of gender.
- Western society is riddled with elitism whereas Islam seeks out the disadvantaged to help them.
- Fat women in bike pants are vulgar.
- Muslims tolerate the descendants of the criminal dregs of white society who colonised this country because muslims are not elitist.
- If they don't have a legal way of getting what they want they will take it anyway.
- Vile though Australia is the rest of the western world has big problems as well. Apparently no problems in any muslim lands.

If the views expressed in the article are still held by the author it is a very disturbing piece of work. Worth reading to try and understand a viewpoint.

Any alternate interpretations of the article? I'd like to know if others see it in a different light. FH are you in a position to give it a go or write a response to the article?

R0bert

"It is not about care for one's fellow human being. It is about grubby motivations of personal enrichment, regardless of the consequences for poor people from other countries, or even for citizens of your own country. There is certainly no concern shown for future generations."

Only if you are of the opinion that economic growth does not benefit future generations. In which case you're an idiot.

"Perhaps 'Yobbo', you might care to tell this forum exactly how you personally benefit from immigration."

Alright then, I've got a thing for asian chicks. So I admit my conflict of interest.

"The only reason that some economists are able to present immigration as economically beneficial is that they rely on the deeply flawed GDP measure, which was designed, in the 1930's by US economist Simon Kuznets, for an entirely different purpose. In 1934 he urged the US congress to not use the GDP as a measure of prosperity, but his plea has been ignored by those economists right up to the very day."

Translation: All the economists and politicians in the world are wrong, and I am right.

"One final point, 'Yobbo', I noticed your remark "The barrel of a rifle is also narrow. Narrow and accurate."

I, for one, don't find this to be very funny, if that was your intention."

It's not supposed to be funny, genius. The point is that "narrow" and "inaccurate" are not synonyms. I can have a narrow viewpoint and still be correct.

"I call on you to unequivocally apologise to to other forum contributors and visitors for having made this remark and to offer us an explanation as to why you chose to do so.""

[Deleted for flaming.] It's not my problem if you have a nervous breakdown when someone even mentions the word "gun". Grow up.

Some info in regard to population projections:

this page from the Australian Bureau of Statistics is one of a number online:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0e5fa1cc95cd093c4a2568110007852b/0cd69ef8568dec8eca2568a900139392!OpenDocument

The example has 3 different projections based on different variables. It does not have one with the specific 100 000 figure I mentioned, but there enough other examples to give a good picture. It is not worth arguing too much about fine print, because even small variations in the fertility rate can make a huge difference over 100 years.

There are many other examples, but this one shows 110 000 annual net migration and 1.7 fertility producing a population of 24 million in 2021, 28 million in 2050 and 30 million in 2101;
or 80 000 annual net migration and 1.5 fertility producing a population of 23 million in 2021, 25 million in 2050 then dropping back to near 22 million by 2101.

Even if our fertility rate doesn't continue to drop and we stack in 110 000 net migration every year for 100 years, we’ll still only hit 30 million. We can't keep looking for excuses to continue our grossly inefficient ways.

100 000 net migration and fertility of 1.6 would produce in between that – close to a stabilised population I’d suggest.

Current fertility is above 1.6, but given it declined from 1.91 to 1.75 through the 1990s, this is not an unrealistic possibility. Fertility rate is a bigger factor than migration. I repeat my support for efforts to reduce global population growth, and I don’t agree with shaping our policies here specifically to encourage more births (although I don’t suggest deliberately penalising people either).

These projections also give an insight into what happens with a policy of zero net migration – a precipitous crash in our population. This may please some people, but I very much doubt this could happen without significant negative economic consequences (regardless of what David Attenborough may think). Maintaining prosperity doesn’t mean pursuing ever increasing growth, but collapsing your population over a few decades doesn’t do it either. That’s why a stabilised population level is a reasonable (and very achievable) goal.

In regard to comments about multiculturalism, religion and Islam – for those who suggest in various ways that Muslims are incompatible with Australia, democracy, etc, it is useful to see your views expressed, but I simply say I disagree very strongly.

Extremists who don’t eschew violence – of whatever religion, or no religion at all – should not be allowed to settle here. But if you try to falsely taint the vast majority of Muslims as somehow being in this category, all you will achieve is to create more extremists.

Fundamentalism and extremism is what we have to guard against. In response to Yobbo’s accusation of “moral equivalence”, I am not trying to either equate (or to rate) the harm done by extremists from differing religions. All I was endeavouring to say was that extremist fundamentalist Muslims are destructive, but extremist fundamentalist Jews (or extremist fundamentalist ideologues of no religion) can be also. I am not going to weigh up degrees of blame, but if you don’t think fundamentalist Jews have made a contribution to the deaths of innocents in the Middle East you’re not looking too hard. I’m fairly sure it was a fundamentalist Jew who assassinated the Prime Minister of Israel for exploring peace with Palestine.

I am not, as suggested, trying “to make out that all religions are equally evil.” I do suggest that extremists of any sort are people we could do without. Just because I don’t believe in a religion doesn’t mean I suggest that all non-religious people are good, any more than I would suggest that all people from any particular faith are bad. Some of the most murderous regimes of the 20th Century, such as the USSR or Mao’s China, have been avowedly atheist.

Focusing on people’s religious beliefs is a distraction. Their acceptance of the basic values of Australia, which include democracy, freedom of religion and speech, (and the separation of church and state) is what matters, not their religion.

"Focusing on people’s religious beliefs is a distraction. Their acceptance of the basic values of Australia, which include democracy, freedom of religion and speech, (and the separation of church and state) is what matters, not their religion."

And Islam specifically rejects the notion that church and state should be separate. http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=559

"he basic belief in Islam is that the Qur'an is one hundred percent the word of Allah, and the Sunna was also as a result of the guidance of Allah to the Prophet sallallahu allayhe wasalam. Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides us through every detail of running the state and our lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the law of Allah."

So, by definition, anyone who adheres to Islamic ideals disqualifies them from the set of "those who accept our basic values". I'm sure you will continue to ignore this inconvenient fact, but I think it's important we get it on record.