@algoreisrich with respect to migration read my piece in OLO

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10544

you will note that I am calling for zero migration but not for the

narrow bigoted reasons that you foreshadow.

People can come to identical conclusions for radically different reasons

- migration as encouraged in the west is merely a tool to keep wages

down - if anyone is interested in looking at that argument in detail

have a look at the piece Richard Dennis wrote for the Australia Institute.

I have from a young age considered that humans as a species are full of their own self importance. For some reason nature gave us some extra abilities over other animals which we seem to have decided makes us as good as a god.
I doubt that we are heading for extinction from our own hand, it would take a massive natural event to do that but i would think that at some stage there will be a major population crisis as you can not just let the population continue to grow uncontrolled and expect to be able to feed them, control them (as in maintain civil discipline) and keep abreast of evolving disease.
There is great logic to controlling the population, without upsetting many we control the population of live stock that we graze based on the carrying capacity of the land. We even cull out native animals when they over populate areas to keep the ecological balance. Why is it then that we are incapable of applying the same rational understanding to humanity.
Al has a point about immigration in this country though as baygon puts it "People can come to identical conclusions for radically different reasons." Australia has a natural zed pop growth so why do we fight it by massive immigration. Surely there are ways to generate incredible wealth and a highly productive and well educated community without having to massively increase population so jerry harvey can sell them all tv's.
On the link, it has some interesting things to say and some rubbish. I will reserve judgement till i have time to truly appraise it.

It is difficult to see beyond humanity's self-serving attitude towards the planet that sustains it. For the most part we're like child left alone in a lolly shop. We give ourselves special dispensation in many areas because we see ourselves as somehow separate from the laws that dictate sustainable life on this earth.
I can't see us ever "not breeding" as a species - the whole biological and social construct of our existence is geared towards such an outcome.
I like Squeers' notion that perhaps there is hope for such an intelligent and adaptive species to somehow evolve the wisdom to see our potential as bound within the fortunes of our planet, that we are not separate entities here for a joy ride to unsustainable extinction.

Posted by Big Frog, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 10:10:43 PM:

"[Deleted for abuse and poster barred from forum.]"

I wonder whether this constitutes any sort of record for brevity of presence upon OLO? See: http://bit.ly/bTgTE7




Now you have blood on your hands, BAYGON.

It rather reminds me of the scene from the film 'Catch 22' in which the bloke having fun swimming that stood up on the pontoon got cut in half by the propeller of the low-flying Piper Cub in which others were also having fun. High farce, but such happens. That's rest and recreation for you, a necessary concommitant of war.

In your defence, I must observe that you did offer good counsel to would-be posters to this thread, in your opening post, thus:

"Before rushing in to comment and hit
me about the head with a soggy lettuce
leaf have a look at the 'about' page on
their website. If nothing else it describes
some protocols about dealing with people
with whom you disagree - protocols that
could be adopted by users of the forum."

There is, given that counsel (which constituted all but the totality of your opening post) no way that the posting of this topic could be claimed to have been unduly provocative, but, like moths to a candle, seeing what they thought to be the light, some still came and got burned.

I commend your magnanimity in providing a case in point as an answer to the current topic 'Politics and Perception- do we see what we want to see ?' (a thread I have not so far read). Punt and contra-punt. Co-belligerency rather than alliance in the provision of mutual support as between Forum users: the way to go. AlGOREisRICH indeed receiving such support.

It was very wicked of you to post more than once in this thread, BAYGON! Wicked. Wicked. Wicked.

But then again, someone has to populate the OLO index pages with topics, and those also serve who only stand and bait.

I must confess disappointment in Pericles' seeming non-participation in the discussion.

HI there Baygon

you said:

//you will note that I am calling for zero migration but not for the
narrow bigoted reasons that you foreshadow.//

I note your tolerant and inclusive attitude to interpersonal discussion :) but I won't call you names..

My reasons for being against Immigration are neither bigoted nor narrow.

I absolutely believe in Australia having a healthy community which is free from conflicting ideologies. If you cannot recognize potential and real conflict in ideas/cultures/creeds...then there are plenty of numbers which can provide help with that problem. Just dial.

There is nothing whatsover 'bigoted' about declaring a particular creed 'creed non grata' when it specifically calls curses down on named other religions. Neither when such a creed specifically calls on it's followers to fight non them into humiliating subjection.

If you don't see this, let me know..and I'll start a thread on 'Understanding the English language' and we can work from the ground up.

I welcome any race or creed which has

a)Compatible culture
b)Numbers are managed with due regard to our political, social and cultural cohesian and stability.

This neccessarily involves a degree of rational discrimination which is a healthy thing.

@algoreisrich
"I absolutely believe in Australia having a healthy community which is free from conflicting ideologies."

I would regard that position as an oxymoron - take a timeslice through any period of history, take any community and you will find more often than not conflicting ideologies.

Western thought is much influenced by the doctrine of 19th century nationalism. This essentially grew out European Politics which stressed the importance of uniformity and homogeneity in the body politic. (For a good discussion on this read Kedourie or Toynbee)

Kedourie states: that this is a uniquely European feature "In this respect Islam, with the protection it vouchsafes to non- Muslims [this tolerance of diversity] is equally true of the lands of Hinduims and Buddhism. In none of these areas before the coming of European Influence was a homogenous population considered a religious or political ideal."

Indeed your assumption that conflicting world views inevitably lead to conflict is a particularly European insight - our history is full of instances where we gave people the choice to conform or be killed (just look at the Religious wars)This belief is so ingrained in us that we have difficulty in imagining a world where diversity is tolerated. cont