“…sneered at”?

Oow (:>(

Hey my friend and long-time compatriot on this forum where we have crossed paths many times with no bad blood, all I desire to do is debate the issues with you in a friendly or at least neutral manner….and I think I am achieving it nicely, if I do say so m’self. There is no impoliteness at all, or at least none intended.

“highly suppressed”, “pretty open expression”, “Which do you mean, Ludwig?..."

There is pretty open expression of racist, antimulticultural, anti-Muslim, anti-immigration, etc beliefs of OLO, where people can escape the suppression by writing anonymously! But when it comes to expressing this sort of view openly and becoming known for your views, there is indeed a great feeling of suppression or adverse consequences that is felt to exist by most people.

Oh, you were only presenting an example of the “deliberate selection of phrases out of context”. So you knew this anyway. Crikey, there was no deliberate out of context selection….. Please!

“In context. Totally consistent.”

Alright Pericles. Thankyou for the further clarification.

One’s intended meaning is not always easy to get across in ~200-word posts. An exchange such as the one you and I are having here would probably take some considerable amount of conversation on the phone before each party really knew with confidence where the other one was coming from – perhaps the equivalent of 20 written posts each.

I’ve seen apparent contradictions in your writings and you’ve seen the same in mine. But both of us will swear that there were no contradictions in our respective posts. That’s just the nature of the English language and of this medium. If we perceive contradictions, then surely the thing to do is to seek clarification.

There is tremendous scope for ugly relations to develop as a result of this sort of misinterpretation or poor initial presentation of views, whichever the case may be. But us experienced old sods should be able to handle it and maintain an even keel.

continued

Oh uh Pericles, I see what looks like at first impressions to be another contradiction in terms. But I’m sure I won’t see it as such once you have clarified it:

“But only because if they admitted it, they'd be unelectable.

But the beautiful fact of the matter is that they are very much allowed to speak their minds in Australia, should they indeed have the courage of their convictions.”

Yes pollies would be unelectable fit they expressed Boazy/Powell-type sentiments. And many others in the general community could have their future employment prospects and current quality of life threatened if they did the same.

So, I think that we very much are not allowed to speak freely in this country…and that those who have the courage of their convictions would be seen by many to be fools.

Pericles,

You say "Boaz has a morbid fear of Islam. That is his prerogative. What I object to is his constant use of arcane and irrelevant material to justify projecting his fears onto other people."

Many of Boaz's posts cite the Quran and acts of Mohammad as found in the hadith. How are these "arcane and irrelevant" if 1.2 billion people consider these words / actions to be a guide to their lives? Why is this "fear" or dislike irrational when their god (Allah) tells them to kill, torture, mutilate, conquer, and subdue non-Muslims? Why should we trust or believe in the goodwill of people who say "Praise be unto him" after the name of a man that murdered, raided, plundered, enslaved, tortured, raped and even beat his own wife? Even so, Mohammad is considered to be a great moral example. Figure out, if you can, what that means. These things are all easily found online yet Muslims prefer not to talk about them (except for the radicals) but consent to these things by their actions. Boaz (or Polycarp)also cites current events about problems caused by immigration and Muslims. How are these irrelevant? Or do you blame everything on racism? (and so end of discussion)

What you call "projecting" fears is better known as freedom of speech. Just as Powell was silenced so is anybody that talks about these things. Non-PC opinions must be silenced, because they offend or incite against... (name of offended group here).

One last thing, the ones that "inflame passions" and "incite aggressive action" are the NOT those like Powell, Boaz, myself and most Westerners. They yell the truth and express their honest opinion. It is the immigrants, Muslims, multiculuralists and the PC folks that carry violent signs in the streets and preach intolerance and demand special privileges. They are the ones you defend, or look the other way. It is strange that people who see "hate," "oppression" and "racism" everywhere cannot see it under their own nose. It is ironic that people demand perfection from some but have absolutely no moral standards for others.

Kactuz

Yeah, I may have been a little edgy on this one Ludwig. But it must be the umpteenth time I have waded through Boaz' diatribes on race hatred, and they invariably get my back up.

But we are at least entering some more interesting psychological territory here.

>>when it comes to expressing this sort of view openly and becoming known for your views, there is indeed a great feeling of suppression or adverse consequences that is felt to exist by most people<<

My question to you would be: why is this so? Why do you feel that expressing "this sort of view" generates opprobrium.

Because you are right, it does.

And much the same goes for:

>>pollies would be unelectable fit they expressed Boazy/Powell-type sentiments. And many others in the general community could have their future employment prospects and current quality of life threatened if they did the same.<<

This is not, in my view, a matter of freedom to speak your mind. We have this freedom, both in this forum and outside it.

You may express such views in Australia - that Islam offers a threat to our way of life, that Jews are running corporate Australia for their own benefit, that China's exploitation of their working class gives them an unfair advantage over Australian workers, that Greeks who still support Panathinaikos rather than Melbourne Victory should return whence they came - but you must also remain accountable for them.

But it does require you to stay behind the line between personal distaste, and vilification; between stating your case and vilifying others.

And if you are in the public eye, you must gauge whether the audience's sympathies are with you or against you. If you campaign for the suppression of religious belief in those who have different religious leanings than yourself, for example, you must accept the electoral consequences.

While we live in a democracy, politicians are elected at the will of the people. If these people dislike your attitude towards racism, they will not elect you.

Punkt.

Sadly the real and unintended effect of Powell's speech was that all the political parties and the media colluded to exclude discussion of immigration from the national agenda and all reasonable discussion of the issue was stopped. The multiculturalists were given free rein and no one dared oppose them for fear of being immediately branded as racist. Free speech on such an issue was effectively prevented.
Multiculturalism has failed abysmally in Britain and what has occurred is the creation of multiple ethnic enclaves, each suspicious and afraid of each other. They have learnt nothing from the events in Yugoslavia in the early 1990s when the thin veneer of political control of such diverse communities was removed. Nor have they learnt from the many other conflicts in the world in countries where separate ethnic groups share a common territory - it does not work and always ends in bloodshed. But no doubt the multiculturalists will find someone else to blame when it happens - probably the inherent racism which they claim to see in all of us.

G'evening ALL...

After my discharge from the regular army and prior to joining up with the coppers, I took a 'Gap' year (as you do) to the UK. This was about sixty nine, seventy.

During this period, Enoch POWELL was at his most vocal, with speeches of 'Rivers of Blood' et al. and other less memorable material he presented to the British Parliament.

I'm certainly not an academic, period! Nor am I a racist. However, as a very keen (amateur) student in human behaviour, I've gotta admit that EVERYTHING that Powell prophesied or forewarned the British Govt. about, actually came to pass.

He exclaimed loudly and often. If the government continued to allow unconstrained immigration to accelerate and escalate unchecked, the British community would not and could not successfully coalesce the many different cultures into the broader community.

In my humble opinion, I do not believe that Black can ever be cleaved with WHITE. Both cultures are so very divergent, disparate. I'm on my second marriage, and prima facie it's quite successful. She's Asian, sixteen years my junior, and I'm a lumbering Aussie. Notwithstanding I did two tours in SV, I still have very little knowledge of the oriental ways. Or many other cultural specific nuances or subtleties for that matter. Yet after eighteen years or so of marriage, we still love each other (gee, heart on sleeve stuff!). Though, I still manage to make (unintentially) blunders with her oriential mores.

When I was still working, I was based for a time at an inner city (suburban) station, in Sydney. I reckon almost seventy five percent of our work, was racially based. Very sad, but very true.

I honestly don't know what the answer is ? I really don't. I do know what Enoch POWELL said those many years ago, was pretty right though.

If governments' ever try to pressure or coerce the people to accept other cultures, creeds, colours and nationalities, then in the not too distant future POWELL'S regrettable predictions could well come to pass here too, then God help us!