Hi SPGR,

Yes, a good friend calls it one aspect of 'a Gramscian march through the institutions', an answer to Gramsci's call for long-term work to bring down the major systems of bourgeois democracy, civil society and government, and way down the track, once everything has collapsed and we 'need' a strong system to replace the present 'weak' one, replace them all with a totalitarian or authoritarian regime. I'm inclined to agree with him.

Cheers,

Joe

loudmouth: once everything has collapsed and we 'need' a strong system to replace the present 'weak' one, replace them all with a totalitarian or authoritarian regime. I'm inclined to agree with him.

And let me guess what Lexi, poirot, Marilyn etc would suggest what that totalitarian/authoritarian regime should be. ISLAM! Da Dah...

Any thoughts on my last post?

SPQR, Just because one shows a spark of humanitarianism towards asylum seekers it doesn't indicate that is, as you put it support for "a jihadi against the West and open borders in only one front in that war."
"once everything has collapsed and we 'need' a strong system to replace the present 'weak' one, replace them all with a totalitarian or authoritarian regime. I'm (Joe) inclined to agree with him."
Joe can we take your comment as support for a totalitarian or authoritarian regime?

Why is it that when people have alternative points
of view - they are automatically demonised, labelled,
insulted and - said to be "pro" ridiculous things
like a "jihad" against the West of Islamic fundamentalism.
That doesn't win the argument or add anything
constructive to the discussion. Nobody likes abusive,
illogical debaters. Grow up Gentlemen - if you want to
be taken seriously. Surely you can do better.

Paul 1405 (and counting),

<<Just because one shows a spark of humanitarianism towards asylum seekers "a jihadi against the West and open border>>

A "spark" is hardly adequate for an approach which would rubber stamp all and sundry who can rote learn a good sob story, then provide them and their sponsored relations with lifelong support. More like a ruddy forest fire!

With few exceptions if you scratch one of your sparky humanitarian refugee advocates you will find they subscribe to a whole lot of other loopy programs all of which they expect the West to pay through the nose for.

Still and all, how would all the shonky snake oil salespersons eek out a living if there wasn't big hearted people like you & Poirot? I reckon your shelves must be choker-block with all sorts of snake oil and potions.

SPQR, "if there wasn't big hearted people like you & Poirot?"

Not to refer to the posters mentioned, but it will be a cold day in Hell when the Left, particularly the Greens, show any of that 'big heart' or 'do gooder' morality where the elderly are concerned for example. Or when it comes to light that government removed babies from women for decades and no, they weren't indigenous (so nothing in it for Left activists one assumes).

There other descriptors than the very inappropriate 'do gooder' that could be used for Left activists and the totalitarian Greens who demand 'One World Government', with Bob Brown as the President. Insofar as the Greens are concerned, they gather any complaint that could become a sensational headline and go for it. All for some very well paid seats in the Senate for the clever few who manipulate the 'useful idiots'. It must be so easy to bowl a few underarm deliveries and score votes from the serially upset, more likely the trenchant critics of Australians and Australia.

I am wondering how long people have to feel guilty for responsible for people who pay $10,000 up to criminal travel agents instead of buying a cheaper airline ticket. What about the parents who set out to blackmail Australia by putting their children on the boats? Yet the cringing Left see no problem with that.

None of the very well paid Greens Senators and in some cases retired on a guvvy golden taxpayer-funded superannuation, have ever put themselves out one jot to take one of these buff young men into their home, even though they will be paid to do it (again by the taxpayer). So much for setting themselves up as judges of the morality of the general public.