R0bert

There is some truth in your assertion that environment and behaviour are linked. Psychologists call this phenomenon “The Crowded Rat Syndrome.” That is, give a rat plenty of room and he can be a nice rat. Crowd him up with lots of other rats in a space where territorial boundaries overlap and he starts getting very aggressive.

But there is a lot more to understanding human (and rat) behaviour than that.

The idea that every human is absolutely equal to every other human was a philosophy popular among the elites in the 19th Century. But they were less concerned with race than with class. They believed that class was an abstract concept which had no basis in reality and that all people from the disadvantaged class was just as smart as all the people from the aristocratic class. George Bernard Shaw wrote PYGMALIAN (My Fair Lady” as a means to display that with a bit of work, a flower girl from Cheapside could be made indistinguishable as a princess.

Whereas some people from the disadvantaged class can be smart, I think that you would agree that most of them are not smart. And while people in the upper classes are usually smart, there are still plenty of “upper class twits” who presume that they are smart simply because of their social position.

Now, my premise revolves around the notion that not all races or ethnicities are equally smart. In Bankstown today, people from the Lebanese Muslim community have made Bankstown, like Cabramatta, a byword for serious violent criminal behaviour. Yet thirty years ago, this same environment was simply a working class / disadvantaged class area of the largely white European people. Bankstown was never a “good” area then, and there was still a lot of crime. But compared to today it was Nirvana.

Crime is less a product of environment than the cultural values of the people who inhabit it. And if you crowd a bunch of nice rats together they are less likely to bite each other than if you crowd a bunch of savage rats together.

Redneck, I used to think like you, but realised that race or colour doesn't equate to intelligence nor preponderance to violence. What is does do with some, is display their inability to jump from subsistence living to modern living, putting them in a culturally confused state. This has caused a lot to turn confusion into subconscious acts against what they have been forced to do.

Those that are at fault, are the missionaries who forced them to give up thousands of years of living harmoniously with nature under their animist understandings. To being forced to give up the only life they knew, for fear of something they can't, see, feel or understand other than if they didn't conform they would be wiped out. Look at the countries and populance to see the result of them being christianised, or muslimised.

We have religious blanks, raving about what good they have done for these people. But look at our own region, take Borneo, it is a basket case, economically and environmentally, as is Papua New Guinea and most countries that have been colonised by christians or muslims. They have just been fodder for the greed of religion and those that hide behind its despotic expression.

So we can't have immigration from any country until they can be rid of the illusions that are destroying them, religion. The perpetrators of these acts, and those that still support them, should go and repair the destruction they have caused, both psychologically and environmentally.

Philo BD, FH, others, I am sure that you will rush out and buy your tickets to show how loving and caring your god is. Of you go, your god will protect you, as he does everyone else.

Remove the offending cause, and a cure will follow. I am still waiting for someone to tell me what war hasn't been inspired and supported by religion.

Redneck, it's not race, nor culture, but God religions and their culture, there is a difference and I for one am not prepared to lump everyone into the same basket, its to primitive.

Mr Alchemist, I used to think like you. I once vehemently claimed that the only difference between races was skin pigmentation and physical characteristics. But I was stuck by the fact that Asians are generally well behaved, noted for their dedication to hard work and noted for rising above poverty. While African descended people are a pain in the butt in every society that is unfortunate enough to have them present.

To claim that the coming of civilisation is somehow at fault for disrupting the lives of noble savages is a premise more worthy of mirth than serous consideration. The spread of civilisation was as inevitable as the rising of tomorrow’s sun. Along the way it put an end to slavery, thuggee, suttee, headhunting, cannibalism and human sacrifice. No stone age culture that ever met civilisation ever wanted to return to barbarism.

The coming of white, especially British civilisation, was the best thing that ever happened to most backward cultures. Since the end of Imperialism, the greatest civilising force ever invented, most Third World countries have reverted to Fourth World status. It was the white man’s burden to civilise the world and we dropped the ball half way through doing the job. Now we have to contend with a bunch of failed states who’s people hate us while holding out the begging bowl to us, while simultaneously dreaming about finding a way to immigrate to the land of the whites that they despise.

If you want a war that was not inspired by or supported by religion, how about the famous “Soccer War” that erupted between El Salvadore and Costa Rica over a disputed line call in a World Cup match? That two countries could declare war on one another over a soccer game is a measure of how immature and violent some non European people are. God and religion had nothing to do with it.

Alchemist,

The invasion of Ethiopa by Italy in the 1930's

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (1990-1)

Libya's invasion of Chad

Argentina's invasion of the Falklands

Germanies (multiple) invasion(s) of France

Frances single invasion of Germany (Napoleanic)

Need I continue? The causes of war are far more varied than you appear to realise. The ultimate causes of most includes religion, however they also include population pressure, economic pressure, overcrowding, need for extra resources, power, etc.

Howeveer I do agree that to some extent ultra-nationalism and fundamentalism are significant, and have in fact contributed to some of the most extreme, barbaric warfare seen in history (eg Crusades, particularly those in Spain, Jerusalem and Constantinople [destroyed by christian crusader's after enduring numerous seiges by moslems]).

I'm breaking my promise here (so sue me, Redneck! Whatever your real name is...) and posting twice, when I said I'd only do so once -- but hell, rules annoy me. Incidentally, that 'I'll post once' call was made NOT because anonymous, self-confessed, right-wing folks spook me, but because (a) banging your head against the brick wall of the anonymous anti-multiculturalists who post here seems a sadly futile exercise...logic and bigotry may sadly belong to different jigsaw puzzles; (b) free time to monitor this site is a luxury I lack; and (c) I'd had my 900 words published under my true name, which is a decent allocation.

But anyway, recent events warrant this query:

After watching today's news footage of white 'Aussies' rioting in the Sydney area, displaying nationalist white power flags, victimising people of 'middle eastern appearance' and smashing up cars (belonging to salt-of-the-earth white folks, no less)... Where does this leave the arguments of the aptly-named Redneck, along with 'Meredith' and a couple of others, who cited the riots in France as evidence of the inherent violence of those troublesome darkies? How do you account for this white violence -- and the ugly chants of 'Aussie Aussie Aussie, oi oi oi?' I heard on the radio this morning?

Diversity is the reality: we are a nation of immigrants and (colonised)) native peoples.

Wake up, self-avowed proponents of racism: your ethos gets us nowhere. Chat to the person who sells you your kebab. What nonsense did they endure today? Are you able to offer them some of that famed 'Aussie' cameraderie? Or does your sympathy lie with the rioters in this instance? And so, back to my original question: who is the 'WE' in this situation?