You're right David.The richest cultures on our planet should be those with oil,since it is the cheap supply of energy which principally facilitates our living standards.

The Middle Eastern cultures with 65% of the world's oil should be the richist and most culturally advanced,yet more often than not the reverse is true.Why do they flee to Western Countries for a better life and bring their baggage of hatred and ignorance with them and destoy the very thing to which they aspire?

All the economic power houses of the world economy such as the USA EUROPE China and Japan are net importers of energy and often resources.They are successful because they have the discipline and work ethic to achieve.Your wealth is in your people,and when you treat half of your population as slaves,is it any wonder that the multi tasking women in their society add little to their failing economies.

There is indeed something very perverted about human nature that let's power and personal ego destroy the very thing that they yearn most,ie peace and prosperty.

YEP Arjay and Boaz racist, cultural supremacists. Your thinking and words confirm it while trying to refute it. My post reaffirms it.

Water off a ducks back -stop playing the poor little me victim Boaz. My post is a fair and contains nothing that could be remotely perceived as a personal attack. If reasoned argument about yourr opinions not you personally the maybe that is why you are unable to see the subtlies of racial and cultural supremacism that most of your rhetoric is couched in.

Ten points for razor scooters - zero for racist tootlers. (its dictionary its wrenched but what the hey)

Ranc.... I said cultural ascendancy, not 'superiority' in the qualitative sense...

This is an important point. Our culture is most important to 'us' who have it, while it might not be 'superior' to others, (in their view)thats not the issue, which is.. "Its ours".

I'm referring to Australia by the way, not the world. Each country has to answer these questions for themselves.

I'll freely admit that I would like to see and am always working towards a more "Christian" culture. But I do this by simply 'being' what I am, and engaging with people on the heart/mind level. In such cases as Catch the Fire, yep..I become quite active and vocal, because I see in that a direct threat to the culture we have. I'm sure a secular person would resent the idea that they cannot criticize Mohammed, or the Quran. They sure have a good run with Jesus and the Bible.

You cannot legitimately call this 'racist' because by doing so, you are also calling those who would seek to establish their own culture over ours in this country by the same tag :) see my point ?

You cannot say a defender of culture is racist yet a 'promoter' of a foreign culture is not.

You might have the fanciful idea that things should just be let go until some synthesis or new culture emerges without challenge, but I assure you, if such an approach was allowed, the one which came to the top would the one who's followers drove it there, and they would be very competitive.

You know the old saying about 'evil triumphing when good men do nothing'...well the same applies to cultural heritage mate.

Get a grip... and see the light :)

Boaz: I am talking about your’s and other's attitude. I think it is both racist and cultural supremacist. Most people are Aristotelian thinkers. You tend to put things in categories. I am a bit more of a right-brainer. So I think in degrees. I am also mostly a non either/or thinker. I can't figure where that comes from because no French is in our genetic line. That is just the way I am. No apologies there. So I may get a bit more traffic through the old corpus callosum.

I think your thinking is Aristotelian and averse racist. There are covert, overt, aversion, mild, medium and hardcore. There is another kind but I can't think of it at the moment and no time to research it. But do you get my drift?

I am also mostly a non either/or thinker. I can't figure where that comes from because I am not French. That is just the way I am. No apologies there. And I refuse to accept that Aristotlean thinker because of their apparent ability to make a firm conclusion are superior to my thinking more diffused thinking which allows for the possibility of other conclusions that may be just as valid as mine.

I am a proud scatterbrain. Yes the far right racists and cultural supremacists will shop me for that but I won't be kicking windows over it. Their arguments are usually produced by others further up the chain and reproduced - they are political pawns.

You promote Christianity because you think it is superior. Why would work for something that you think is inferior? That is not logical.
The word has unfortunate connotations as historically it has suggested total racial or cultural supremacy.

You spend a lot of time denigrating and creating misunderstanding of other religions as well. That is because you see them as inferior in certain aspects. I do too but I also see and wish to preserve the positive aspects. I also see similar failings in or own culture and religions. But only in certain aspects

Rancitas continues. I don't condemn the whole because of the part. I don't promote the part as being representative of the whole and an interpretation of the whole as the whole. Racist tend to.

With respect. You are married to a person who is a different race. Let me tell you that there are many married misogynists, misanthropists in politics, married man-haters (ever notice that there is no flash word for male haters), so it stands to reason that a racist can marry inter-race. Hold it Boaz. Don't start kicking windows. No offence.

So your marriage doesn't convince me that you are not writing racist text. You are certainly not hardcore racist or deceptive (covert). However, from your words, position and attitude at times you do tend to aversion racist writing (averted state of mind). So while you may not personally feel any superiority in a human racist sense, your arguments are racist.

The anti-refugee mob's (and yours) central argument is Islam religion is fascist (which Muslims reject and usually debunk) and their culture is too far removed from "Christian" Australia to not degrade our way of life. On this they reject the human rights of refugees (at thus the Christian position).

That most refugees are Middle Eastern and Muslim, Sudanese Catholic, and non-European (white) then their identity is related to their skin tone. These days skin colour indicates the persons religion - a religion that is misunderstood and feared. So a racist sees a refugee, he sees an inferior human because he assumes they are true believers of an evil text.

This is confirmed when a person is hunted down and bashed because of their colour. The racism is confirmed when a refugee is locked up because it is assumed that they are anti-Australian. It is dinkum Australian vis the unAustralian immigrant based on skin colour. That is racist. That is cultural suprematism. Judge refugees on their actions and send the racist thugs to Iraq for a lesson on the reasons refugees come here. To escape from thugs in Iraq that think like the far-right over here. (:

Ranc...that was quite a mouthful... and clearly you have grappled and struggled with the issue :) well done !

I had no problem with most of what you said, except the last 2 paragraphs of section 2.

Let me re-state my basic position. I don't care what skin color or religion a would be migrant has, as long as 'we' control the numbers and conditions of entry to Australia. That way (Like Malaysia and most other countries which have a potentially dangerous ethnic mix) we can avoid the problems which are clearly evident elsewhere, and avoid an exacerbation of troubles like Cronulla.

The events in E.Timor right now, underline the correctness of my position. When the analysis is done, it will become clear that racial and ethnic, possibly religious but definitely also economic factors are at play in the political turmoil.

Human societies work best, with the least amount of trouble, when they are ethnically and culturally homogenous (or at least as far as possible). Its just a fact of life, does not even need to be argued or defended.

I don't see that such a view is 'racist' because the goal is social harmony, not the dislike of particular races per se.

You linking of 'skin color' with religion was off the mark mate. You yourself mentioned Sudanese Catholics and Middle East Muslims...both dark but different religion. One more acceptable the other less, to me (in terms of social harmony).

As to me being 'Aristotelian' :) hmm I dunno about that. As for me writing off the whole because of the part, thats not quite right.
I can recognize as much as anyone the 'nice' aspects of religion and culture, but also the dangers. In Islam, the dangers far outweigh the nice bits.

"Mohammed engaged in torture, extreme sexual gratification and dispossessed people of their land" .... denigration or historical fact ?