Without cholesterol you die. Cholesterol plays an important role in making and repairing cell membranes. Your body makes cholesterol because you need it.

On the other hand too much cholesterol, and especially too much cholesterol of the wrong type, can make you sick. Specifically, too much “bad” cholesterol can cause INFLAMMATION.

I have no doubt that all societies need a measure of diversity. Societies that are intolerant of dissent – in other words societies that do not allow any diversity of thought – stagnate and die. The poster boy for this thesis is the late unlamented (by me at least) Soviet Union.

We need to hear diverse opinions. We need to see diverse cultures. If we don’t our society become inward looking and smug. It loses all dynamism, all capacity to EVOLVE. Ultimately such societies just rot away.

But can there be such a thing as too much diversity? And can there be bad diversity as there is bad cholesterol?

Can too much diversity cause INFLAMMATION that harms the nation?

I am a Jew and an immigrant. For such as me it may appear hypocritical not to mention dangerous to raise this issue. I also realize that measuring and defining “diversity” is difficult.

Nonetheless I think this is an issue that should be examined.

Is diversity ALWAYS a cause for “celebration”?

Is there an OPTIMUM LEVEL of diversity just as there is an optimum level of, say, taxation?

Is there “bad” diversity as well as “good” diversity?

I’m interested to see what OLO posters have to say.

What a highly intriguing analogy you have chosen, stevenlmeyer.

>>Specifically, too much “bad” cholesterol can cause INFLAMMATION.<<

Well, not exactly.

Inflammation can be caused by a multiplicity of factors, among them, stress, smoking, viruses, trans fats, an imbalance of omega-6 to omega-3 fats, excess refined sugars etc.

Cholesterol can - and does - exacerbate the symptoms.

http://www.health.com/health/condition-article/0,,20232652,00.html

But it does not explain why almost half of all heart attacks occur in people with "normal" cholesterol levels.

So your analogy is almost as perfect as it is possible for an analogy to be. Inflammation (of the people) can be caused by factors entirely unrelated to diversity itself - fear, ignorance, bigotry, all that stuff. But diversity does exacerbate those traits already present.

>>But can there be such a thing as too much diversity? And can there be bad diversity as there is bad cholesterol?<<

Absolutely there can.

An over-emphasis on counteracting "bad diversity" - with mindless positive discrimination, for example - is as dangerous to society as a reliance on statins to counteract "bad cholesterol". It may mask the problem for a while ("look, your cholesterol levels have fallen") but ultimately deliver no benefit, inasmuch as the patient still dies of a heart-attack, caused by stress-induced inflammation.

In the same way, encouraging "good diversity" may be as simple as ignoring it. Eschew pouring hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money into make-work schemes designed to "encourage" diversity, just as you avoid being sucked into the quack-medicine of statins, along with all its side-effects.

Good one.

I’m sorry to say Pericles that we again seem to be in agreement. ;-)

The cholesterol story is a bit more complicated. Cholesterol is “shipped” though you body wrapped in proteins. The whole bundle, cholesterol plus protein, is called lipoprotein. The size of the lipoprotein particles varies. “Good” cholesterol is really just plain old cholesterol wrapped up in a relative large particle called a “high density lipoprotein” (HDL).

“Bad cholesterol” is cholesterol wrapped up in a relatively small particle called a low density lipoprotein or LDL. Very bad cholesterol is wrapped up in an even smaller particle called a very low density lipoprotein (VLDL).

LDLs and VLDLs are able to penetrate the outer lining of the arterial wall. They can actually lodge inside the arterial wall where they may cause inflammation.

Lack of exercise, smoking and bad diet can, as you point out, cause chronic inflammation. One of the mechanisms through which they cause inflammation seems to be by altering the balance between HDLs, LDLs and VLDLs. It’s probably not the only mechanism but it is one of the mechanisms.

Statins it turns out are actually anti-inflammatories. That was not known at the time they were introduced.

The efficacy of statins is quite questionable. I was given all the data for a major study of one of the statins. I found that, ON AVERAGE, if you treated 100 people for five years you would avert four heart attacks / strokes but cause TWO EXTRA CASES OF DIABETES.

It was interesting that one quarter of the sample was fat (BMI > 30). One third smoked! Most of the reduction in heart attacks and strokes occurred among these (overlapping) groups.

There was no data on how much exercise the participants did.

If you left out the fat people and the smokers from the sample the efficacy of the statin in question was really very small.

I think giving such people statins without counseling them to change their lifestyles is unethical.

Moral of the story:

It’s not the cholesterol (diversity) it’s the wrapping! LOL

Stevenlmeyer......that looked too much like a backdown toward Pericles 'minimalist' approach.

He knew what you mean't..and so do I... too much 'diversity' is dangerous for our social health. Stick to your guns Steven.

Unmanaged, over-divesity in society is the equivalent of Unions chanting "Divided we stand... united we fall" it's patently rediculous.

Diversity is fine..as long as it's managed in the interests of social harmony and cohesian. This neccessarily means very limited numbers of 'non mainstream' people admitted, and it also neccessitates a clear and unmistakable 'selection' criteria which includes 'creed' as a top point.

We might see evidence for this soon in the USA .. where the Times Square bomber said "This is just the beginning of the war between the USA and Muslims"... another saying floating around right now in that connection is that the underpants bomber etc are just the 'raindrops of a gathering storm'..well.. no Muslims..no storm..I assure you.

Pack em all off to Gitmo? or just replace the catholics coming across the border with Muslims down to Mexico?

Just in case Pericles is drooling at me 'vilifying' "muslims".. I am taking my terminology from the times square bomber who used it himself. ("Muslims"...rather than "Islam")

ALGOREisRICH

I am sticking to my guns. And Islam is not the only dimension of “diversity”.

Since you mention Islam let me make my position clear – again.

Islam is an absolutely HIDEOUS ideology. It is vile and loathsome. Atheists who lump it together with Christianity are either ignorant or are deceiving themselves.

But Muslims on the whole are no more likely to be vile and loathsome than anybody else. Islam is not a religion of peace but most Muslims are peaceable. The terrorist threat is real but overstated.

As I’ve often put it, few Christians are as good as the teachings of Jesus and few Muslims are as bad as their religion.

The trouble starts when we try to APPEASE Islam.

Our attitude should be:

--No your religion is NOT exempt from critique, analysis satire and scorn. Making a cartoon of Muhammad licking the penis of a pig may be in execrable taste but it is NOT illegal. If you don’t like it don’t look at it.

--Calling Islam vile is NOT racism.

--You may not sentence people to death for writing, drawing or saying things that upset you. Nor can you sentence them to death for “apostasy”. If you try any of these things we shall send you to prison for incitement to violence.

--If you want to cover your face you’re welcome but you WILL uncover you face when called on to testify in court so that the jury can have a good look at you while you’re giving evidence. You WILL also uncover your face to have your drivers’ licence and passport photos taken and when lawfully asked to identify yourself.

--If parties to a dispute agree VOLUNTARILY to have their case settled according to sharia law that’s fine provided we are certain there is NO coercion involved and there WILL be a right of appeal to the secular courts.

Provided we make all this EXPLICIT and stick to it rigidly I see no problem

It's all right Boaz, you don't need to make excuses.

>>Just in case Pericles is drooling at me 'vilifying' "muslims".. I am taking my terminology from the times square bomber who used it himself.<<

I know you well enough by now to know exactly what you want to say. Your unremitting fear of Islam means that you take every opportunity to propose that they are excluded from Australia, by means of "a clear and unmistakable 'selection' criteria which includes 'creed' as a top point."

Since you yourself have adopted an extremist "creed", one that is anathema to a large number of Australians, you should thank your lucky stars that this form of selection is not enforced.

And thanks for the fill-in on cholesterol, stevenlmeyer. My GP eventually persuaded me to give statins a go, after years of tut-tutting about my (admittedly astronomic) cholesterol levels. I chickened out after three days (I couldn't sleep!) and will not go back.

As someone who does not experience stress, is not overweight, exercises (fairly!) regularly, had a tolerably acceptable diet that does not include fast foods, I decided to take my chances without drugs. So far so good.

And as Boaz points out, my "prescription" for an acceptable level of diversity is the same. Ignore any blandishments to make exceptions to our legal systems, while remaining entirely Australian in our tolerance and commitment to a "fair go".

I'd hate to suggest to Boaz, for example, that the defining trait of his Highland ancestry is having very short arms, and very long pockets. And that this is so extremely un-Australian, that we should exclude his brethren on the basis of this "creed".

"A land of meanness, sophistry and mist", as Byron described Scotland in "The Curse of Minerva".

Hmmm.

If you want to see the result of excess diversity, you have to look no further than the Roman empire.

An homogeneous Rome was incredibly strong.

The addition of diverse peoples at a small rate, slow enough for "Rome" to digest caused no problem. Sure, the original "Romans" may not have recognised the new Rome as what they had once built, but it was still strong, & united.

Further diversity led to a growing weakness, until the empire split into 2 totally separate parts, neither of them as physically strong, or as homogeneous as the first. Ideologically they had nothing much left, compared to the original, other than self interest.

More diversity led to the total failure of everything "Rome" had once stood for.

I'm getting sick of chewing. I have been digesting diverse peoples, & trying to turn them into Ozzies for over 60 years. I'm even a believer in "coffee coloured people of the world", & thought we were succeeding. But when I can find no one who speaks my language, in a suburb of my own country, I know that the plan was wrong, the rate far too high, & the result, disastrous.

I guess it boils down to this.

What is the difference between a nation and groups of mutually hostile tribes, sects, factions and individuals who happen to occupy the same territory?

The people of Czechoslovakia decided they were not a nation. They had the good sense to arrange an amicable divorce into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Is Iraq a nation?

No, we should not have invaded it. But most of the post-invasion deaths were the result of different sects fighting and killing each other. It wasn’t even a simple case of Sunni versus Shia. Different Shia sects killed each other.

So in what sense is Iraq a nation?

In what sense is Lebanon a nation? The only people Sunni Lebanese fear and hate more than the Israelis are their fellow Lebanese who are members of Hizbullah.

The moment they had the chance the component parts of Yugoslavia split up. Yugoslavia, it turns out, was not so much a nation as the Serbian Empire.

Is Indonesia actually the Javanese Empire? Ask the people of West Papua.

http://www.eco-action.org/opm/

Is it likely that the Turkish and Greek parts of Cyprus will re-unite anytime soon?

Is Sudan a nation?

Fiji is interesting. Indian migrants have, in effect, colonized the Islands.

We seem to have a limited ability to co-exist with people too different from ourselves. We seem to need time to become “accustomed to their faces”.

This may be appalling.

This may be indicative of bigotry.

But it is what it is.

In the end we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be or as our ideology says it ought to be. If we don’t we may share the fate of Yugoslavia or Lebanon.

Perhaps there really is a limit to the amount of diversity we can tolerate before the fabric of our society crumbles and we become like Sudan.

We can't handle the diversity with our own indig; people. We are very lucky they are peaceful people, even amongst their own tribal clans.

I had too much colesterol, not caused by weight, family history.
A stent fixed that 7 years ago and counting

Interesting theory, Hasbeen.

>>If you want to see the result of excess diversity, you have to look no further than the Roman empire.<<

It isn't immediately clear whether you are talking about Rome itself, or its Empire.

It wouldn't be a surprise, of course, to find a great deal of diversity in a region of 55 million people, that stretched from the north of England down through Europe to bits of Africa, Egypt and Turkey.

What is surprising is that in all seven volumes of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, he fails to mention "excess diversity" even once.

He does point the finger in a couple of other interesting directions, though.

"...we may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister"

Is that the sort of diversity you had in mind, Hasbeen? I guess it qualifies, in an odd sort of way.

Gibbon was more concerned that all the good life had gone to their heads. Or other parts.

"The refinements of life corrupt while they polish the intercourse of the sexes. The gross appetite of love becomes most dangerous when it is elevated, or rather, indeed, disguised by sentimental passion. The elegance of dress, of motion, and of manners gives a lustre to beauty, and inflames the senses through the imagination. Luxurious entertainments, midnight dances, and licentious spectacles, present at once temptation and opportunity to female frailty"

He contrasts this with the life of the Hausfrau:

"From such dangers the unpolished wives of the barbarians were secured by poverty, solitude, and the painful cares of a domestic life. The German huts, open on every side to the eye of indiscretion or jealousy, were a better safeguard of conjugal fidelity than the walls, the bolts, and the eunuchs of a persian harem."

Perhaps they didn't diversify enough, those Romans?

You touched on two topics that are close to my heart: diversity and Cholestrol (i have high LDL as well:)).

My 2 cents: its really about how we manage diversity. I travelled long enough to different parts of the world and observed how different countries managed diversity. I think a good diveristy is a by product of making all groups of different backgrounds, beliefs, income, etc,... come together under one umbrella and contribute to what makes a good citizen (in our case: what makes a good Australian). Its a science of culture transformation on a large scale.

The label 'bad diversity' should be a temporary phase of realising that we have a problem that needs to be managed. Continuing to label Australian diversity as a 'bad diversity' is another way of saying : we can't manage it or we don't want to manage it. Just like the Cholestrol analysis by Steven and pericles.

Boaz, I watched you turn almost every thread (including weather and global warming topics) into a 'wack a mossie' discussion.

Peace,

Pericles, I can't help it if those blokes were a bit slow, & could not see the wood for the trees. I suppose I should have shared my amazing analytical ability with them.

Still I'm sure of my "facts". Lets face it, if the general yells charge, & half the army don't speak the language, & retreat, you're sure not going to win many battles, now are you?

I CONFESS.....I am StevenLMeyer in Jewish clothes... I have to be.. afterall... Steven says so much which would come from my own mind.. I HAVE to be 'him' :)

Amazing Steven... I would happily vote for you or join you in a public action on the issues we seem to stand together on.

Pericles... you feel my 'creed' is worrisome ? :) but Gibbons says:

The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister"

Good grief.. sounds like they were actually trying to reflect the teaching of Jesus "When your enemy harms you bless him"

Yep..Christians are dangerous.. history says so...and so does Pericles. Actually... I do agree that if a lot of us were in power and tried to implement the Lords teaching LITERALLY along those lines...... as state policy.... we would last until the first wave of 'whoever' decided to grace our shores with their fascist/militarist presence.
But I sense that kind of approach to State will have enough voices who know Romans 13 and how to apply it to save the day...hopefully anyway.

F.H. mate.. your either not reading my posts or you are living in the past.
Or..you read other peoples posts and simply 'transfer' what they say to me.
I the only time I've 'whacked' "Muslims" is this thread... and I simply referred the reader to a Muslim who acted out his religion.

FYI "Islam" is just a symptom of a deeper malaise in the West. See the Quintus Fabius Maximus thread for further information.

With regard to the Roman Empire, one of the books I am reading at the moment is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/books/review/Rodenbeck-t.html

It makes some interesting points about diversity within the Eastern Empire during the latter stages.

The empire –though largely Christian ---had two or three major contending creeds. The empire also had racial divisions , in particular Christian-Arabs, who had been allowed to settle within or on then fringes of the empire.

When the Muslim -Arabs came to invade the Levant they didn’t have technical superiority and they didn’t have superior numbers -- what they had was unity of purpose .

Some of the empires groups collaborated with the invaders, thinking they might get advantage over their local opponents.And even when there wasn't collaboration there was uncertainity about where group loyalities lay.

Nah! cultural diversity is not like cholesterol ---it’s more a case of leukaemia which is temporarily in remission – and will return as soon as environmental conditions stress the carrier.

Fellow_Human wrote:

>>I think a good diveristy is a by product of making all groups of different backgrounds, beliefs, income, etc,... come together under one umbrella and contribute to what makes a good citizen (in our case: what makes a good Australian).>>

These are “motherhood” statements. They say what you believe “ought to be” without explaining the “how”.

Let’s take a look at the REALITY of 21st century immigration.

The following is my observation of what happens in Australia which is infinitely better than what happens in Europe.

Immigrants cluster in enclaves. They mix largely with each other. So do their children. Thus was it ever.

What’s different is modern communications. At the click of a mouse an immigrant can keep track on what’s happening in his home country or even his home neighbourhood. It is much easier to stay connected to your home CULTURE.

There has been an explosion of cable TV outlets. For a few dollars a month a Muslim immigrant can pipe Arab Radio and Television into his home.

This means that the traditional links with home country / culture attenuate more slowly than in the past. What we call “multi-culturalism” is a reaction to this reality. Diversity persists for much longer so let’s “celebrate” it.

In reality however a combination of modern communications and multi-culturalism has the potential to balkanise the host country. Immigrants bring their enmities with them and they persist for generations

The combination of modern communications and multi-culturalism encourages immigrants to NURTURE GRIEVANCES. Immigrant groups have real grievances. But for some immigrant groups nurturing grievances has become more important than viewing them as challenges to overcomes which was OF NECESSITY how they were viewed in the past.

Immigrants find the natives mostly indifferent or vaguely suspicious. Attempts to “manage” this by labeling suspicious natives “racists”, “rednecks”, “Islamophobes”, “bigots” etc usually inflame the situation.

Some immigrant groups are mostly successful. Others are mostly failures. That’s another reality. The ones most likely to fail seem to be the ones that expend most of their energy in grievance nurturing.

Horus

Looks an interesting book. I’ve ordered it.

Pericles,

Gibbon was not the last word in historical writing. I have read similar theses to the one expounded in the book by Hugh Kennedy that Horus linked.

In fact Kennedy’s thesis is very relevant. Consider the case of Jonathan Pollard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

Pollard is an American Jew who was seduced into spying for Israel. He is currently serving a life sentence.

This raises the question of what you do about people who may have emotional attachments to countries or causes that are inimical to the interests of the host country. Major Nidal is another case in point. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan

During World War 2 the British interned many refugees from Nazi Germany. The Americans interned their Japanese citizens. My father was barred from joining the South Africa army in 1939. All these were probably over-reactions but understandable under the circumstances.

Let’s take a look at a developing situation that does not involve Muslims. China is the growing power in this region. Good intelligence on China is important for Australia’s security. At the same time, because of our links with the US, Australia is an important espionage target for China.

I think almost all Australians of Chinese origin will be loyal to Australia. The difficulty will be Australians with family in China. They are vulnerable to blackmail. During the cold war having relatives behind the “iron curtain” was often sufficient to bar you from employment in sensitive positions. Would we have to do the same in future?

I have no easy answers to these questions except to say that ignoring the issues is not an option.

Lentaubman

Excellent post.

Many immigrant groups do seem to devote most of their energies towards nurturing grievances.

Here is another reality:

Historically the newcomers have always had to EARN THE TRUST of the residents.

Tens of thousands of years of evolution have hardwired us to be like that. That’s why attempts by governments to circumvent this process always backfire.

ALGOREisRICH

I’m afraid we are too different to be anything but uneasy allies.

It's not an either/or situation.

There can be good and bad in non diversity, and there can be good and bad in diversity. Neither diversity or non diversity are good, or bad, in and of themselves. It's what we do with diversity, or non diversity, that's either good or bad. In other words, it's the 'people' who are good or bad.

Dear Steven
we are too different ? :) I don't think so really.

I'll accept 'allies' but not uneasy...because I don't feel uneasy about you at all.

HORUS.. *important point* from your historical reference about the Arab Christians at the borders of the Empire.

Your reference to them is much too 'kind' on the Muslims.

The real situation is this..and is referred to in the 9th surah of the Quran "Fight those who do not believe in Allah...until they are subjected" v 29

According to the Islamic sources I've read.. here is what happened.

1/ Muhammad realized that the Romans were looking at his newfound 'State' as a new 'threat' and they gathered at a place called 'Tabuk' to look at an invasion.
2/ Muhammad, realizing he needed a buffer.. approached the Arab Christians with a choice they could not refuse "Fight and die or change alliegance"
3/ Many were intimidated into becoming vassals of the Islamic state, and in fact became a 'buffer of human flesh' against the Byzantines.

4/ Muhammad simply considered them 'road kill' to slow down the Romans in the event of an invasion.
5/ Dumah is a case in point of his methods. The prince of Dumah, Ukkaydah, had not signed a 'treaty of treachery' with Muhammad, so Muhammad sent Kalid bin Al Waleed to 'teach him a lesson'. They murdered Ukkaydah's brother outright, and while the blood was still congeiling on the ground suggested to Ukkaydah he accompany them back to Muhammad who gave him the 'choice' of embracing Islam and keeping his life..or... suffering the fate of his brother.

My next post will be from the Muslim history source.. read it yourselves.

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/campaign_of_tabuk_and_death_of_ibrahim.htm

Ibn al Walid's Campaign against Dumah

With the withdrawal of the Byzantines and the binding of the frontier provinces with treaties and covenants of peace, Muhammad had no reason to march any further. The only one he feared was Ukaydir ibn 'Abd al Malik al Kind!, the Christian prince of Dumah. This prince was suspected of preparing to launch a treacherous attack as soon as the Byzantine forces could return. Taking no chances, Muhammad sent Khalid ibn al Walid with five hundred cavalrymen to deal with this threat and commanded the army to return to Madinah. Khalid hurried to Dumah and, discovering that its king was out on a hunting trip with his brother Hassan, attacked it without finding any appreciable resistance outside the city; its gates, however, remained tightly closed. Khalid seized Ukaydir and his brother Hassan as they returned home. He killed Hassan and threatened to kill Ukaydir unless the gates of the city were opened. Ukaydir and his city yielded. After seizing two thousand camels, eight hundred goats, four hundred loads of grain, and four hundred coats of arms, Khalid carried them, together with his captive, Prince Ukaydir, to Madinah. Muhammad offered Islam to Ukaydir, and the latter converted. He was then reinstated on his throne and became the Prophet's ally.

COMMENT....I think I pretty much caught the gist of the above in my summary earlier.

Australia is not the only country wrestling with these issues.

See: WHEN MULTICULTURALISM DOESN'T WORK from the Toronto Globe and Mail.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/multiculturalism/when-multiculturalism-doesnt-work/article1737375/

Quotes:

(All capitalisations mine)

>>…Increasingly, newcomers to Canada earn less than previous generations of immigrants. Their Canadian-born children, although they typically excel in school, are, according to one study, LESS LIKELY TO FEEL A SENSE OF BELONGING IN CANADA.>>

>>…The proposed law to ban niqabs for those seeking public services in Quebec, the controversy surrounding the so-called honour killing of Muslim teenager Aqsa Parvez, the backlash against Tamil asylum seekers, the arrest of a Canadian-born doctor and Canadian Idol contestant in an alleged Islamist terror plot – all of these raise questions about Canada’s nurturing of cultural difference. Even one of Canada’s most prominent visible-minority politicians, Ujjal Dosanjh, accuses multiculturalism of allowing Sikh extremism to take root here.>>

>>… religious difference has become our biggest challenge. Muslims, the fastest-growing religious group in Canada, have recently met with resistance WHEN WEARING THE HIJAB during a sporting contest and seeking a prayer room at a university. In 2005, the Ontario government slapped an outright ban on religious courts of arbitration, which had operated for years in the Christian and Jewish faiths, because of an application to launch an Islamic court.>>

>>“Immigrating to Quebec is a PRIVILEGE,” he [Quebec Premier Jean Charest] said. “And welcoming immigrants is a responsibility for all Quebeckers. Between the two, you have to know where to draw the line.”>>

QUESTIONS:

Is immigration to Australia a “privilege”?

Or is it in some sense a “right”?

SHOULD immigration to Australia be regarded as a “privilege”?

stevenlmeyer,
Your post is an interesting one bound to trawl up a diverse range of opinions. But unquestionably your reaction to AlGore's prodding appears an over reaction at best. Why should you hate muslims so much, other than by basing your opinion on the deeds of the few. As an atheist i certainly do lump christians in to the same barrel as they are just as hateful destructive and ignorant as muslims, it is all there in history to see. You could judge christians by Hitler, catholic churches child abuse and george bush, all christians all of the lowest standard.
Leaving that aside i don't see the amount of diversity as a problem. It is the way the diverse are grouped. If that makes no sense let me explain, i would think that the world can only be better off with the most diverse range of cultures and ethnic groups possible. this will lead to a much healthier and more diverse gene pool of the human race. It also makes travel very enjoyable as the change and contrast will be endless. There has always been a certain level of immigration throughout the ages, mostly forced due to natural disasters, climate change and sadly war. But there has always been those that move because they find that which rings a bell for them. Those immigrants naturally assimilate and enrich their new home with wonders of their own culture but not with the intention of changing their adopted home. This is when diversity is good, it turns bad when it is forced on those moving as they rarely want to change their way of life and culture. This brings them into conflict with their new home and leads to intolerance and anger from the ignorant bigots of the country. After time as we have seen it can infect a whole population until the hateful way has become the norm and we show no compassion to those in need. So this would be bad diversity, and unfortunately we have this type out of control in our country.

Dear Nairbe

Steven does not manifest a hate for "muslims" he clearly declares he vehement and passionate loathing of "Islam" the religion.

You said some worrisome things about Christians too.

DOCTRINE..and CREED are the foundations of comparison and understanding.

You cannot separate any analysis of Christianity from 'CHRIST'.. Jesus of Nazareth and his example and teaching. Assessing the actions of so called Christians OTHER than using this as your 'digital theological vernier' is plain wrong and irrational.

Assess Hitler..by

a) Mein Kampf
b) His actions.

Are they in harmony? YES..they are...and thus we can say Hitler was a very good Nazi. But puh-lease.. I find using hitler as an example of 'Christian' to be insulting, offensive and degrading in the extreme.
Same goes for the treatment of 'history'.

The 'Creed' aspects of Islam which are so dangerous are the universal call to make war on non-Islam. the creedal aspects which make it abhorrent are the treatment of women, captives and children.
The personal example of Muhammad is utterly reprehensible. He allowed his soldiers to rape traumatized captive women on the battlefield and this is a war crime not to mention horrific and barbaric.

Doubt me ? :) Here it is in living black and white.

Volume 3, Book 46, Number 718:

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said said, "We went with Allah's Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the 'Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah's Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, "It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence."

Notice CAREfully what Muhammad said. "Don't to 'coitus interruptus'
but YES to intercourse... because of the point about 'if a soul is destined to exist'...ie... whether u unload in her or not it's all Allah's will if she get's pregnant.

Here is the true "Australia"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW5cECZx8k0

Look at the faces... look at them....

lentaubman,

Goodand rational analysis thanks. I agree.

Boaz,

I think I can judge for myself, you are the same person writing the same stuff since 2005... Happy ranting.

Al where was your youtube video made? All of the commentary is in an other language. You weren't inferring that real Australians are of white anglo-saxon decent are you. The Aboriginal peoples just might have a little to say about that.
Beside this, what are you on about. Try having a read of the old testament will you. remember an eye for an eye, stoning's for adultery and sodomy. On and on the anger and destruction, punishment of the non believer. The uncontrolled pain and suffering christians have unleashed on the planet over 2000 years and you want to claim the high moral ground, please. Yes AL hitler was christian and just as all mad dictators and armies they push their god out infront and claim the moral right.
The development of a secular society is what bought real change to our societies. Equality and common decency were born of that society but i notice the church is quick to change and then claim the high moral ground. Pathetic really.

ALGOREisRICH

I must confess I also don't understand the point you are trying to make with that youtube clip.

What you show is certainly a face of Australia. It is an important face, one that I love and feel is too often neglected. I abhor the way the politically correct purveyors of the black armband version of Australian history seek to denigrate it.

It is also an important part of Western culture that the politically correct pseudo-intellectuals constantly disparage.

But it is not the ONLY face of Australia.

This is an important face of Australia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usW-xPNkcGw

But so is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6mqQZc8CmM

And this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_4ryCBPZKQ

No if you ask me which I personally prefer I’ll take the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra any day of the week. That’s why I have a season ticket.

Even though I’m not a Christian I love the annual Carols by Candlelight at the Sidney Myer Bowl. Now there’s a beautiful face of Australia. See:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=carols+in+the+park+melbourne&aq=f

But I cannot deny that the Chinese acrobats and the Hindu Temple are ALSO faces of Australia.

As is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nOFXTO5PFk

Not my style of music but it’s a face of Australia.

F.H. you said:

I think I can judge for myself, you are the same person writing the same stuff since 2005... Happy ranting.

But you did not, even in the slightest deny the reality of what I posted. Why? because old son, you know it's 100% true. Why fight when you cannot win ? :) so.. you take the other approach "attack me"

I challenge you.. look up the last 100 posts I've made..and look at every discussion I've opened.. for the past 6 months.. and see just how many are about Islam. The primary themes are: (in accordance with my nick)

1/ Global Socialism/Green pseudo capitalists
2/ The rise of the green movement as a wolf in sheeps clothing aimed at establishing socialism.

You can judge for yourself by all means...but how about judging fairly eh ?

LENTAUBEMAN brilliant post! I'm sorry the clip had Dutch commentary, I didn't have the time to find the english one :)
The point I was making, is that if you look at those (mostly white) faces, you would see such a depth of connection with our history..yes..our white history, but remember.. white is one thing, actual race is another. There was a strong Scottish theme, and a strong Christian theme ('pipe band/Amazing grace) and a traditional folk theme (various folk songs) The relationship with England is also presented.

Yes there are other 'faces' but those others, cannot diminish the overwhelming fact that the real 'Australa' as a nation was forged by mainly white anglo saxon/celt/scot/irish people. It was built on many ugly parentheses in regard to Aboriginals, but they did not have a 'nation' as we understand the term in this period in world history.

Please remember this also, a lot of what I say, and why I say it.. is in part a reaction to...."this"

http://racetraitor.org/abolish.html
and
http://www.acrawsa.org.au/
with a prime example of the last link found here.

http://www.acrawsa.org.au/ejournalFiles/Volume%204,%20Number%202,%202008/O%27Connell%20Pinned%20Like%20a%20Butterfly%20FINAL.pdf

If you notice carefully, the issue was not one of 'race' but of 'regulation' yet the woman made it a 'race' issue.... read on please.

..cont

...cont/

From page 7 of that article:

"For their social dominance, ill-defined
boundaries and internal diversity as a
group, Brown FM finds that whites should
not be able to invoke the racial hatred
provisions of the Racial Discrimination
Act." Page 7

But here is THE LAW:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s10.html

Right to EQUALITY before the law.

Then...try to understand how that magistrate could end up where he did in the above excerpt.

If I had the power, I'd dismiss that magistrate summarily.

LOL ALGOREisRICH

You really need to get with the program. The one sin for which there can be no forgiveness is to be White and middle-class.

Didn't you know?