Just been reading the Christina Macintosh Blog about the latest arrests in Melbourne for terror related planned acts.

As far as I can tell all that have been arrested and convicted of terror related offences have been muslims. so isn't it time we really grasped the nettle and stopped the entry of all muslim immigrants and refugees.

It is fine to be idealistic and say all will come round to our way of life eventually but events have shown that after several generations they still bold the same beliefs and wont integrate into our society.

So let us admit that muslim immigration was a mistake and stop it now before we reach the situation of some European countries.

It is said that about 20% of muslims hold extreme views which is far too high for our safety. It must be seen by all that the less muslims we have the safer our communities are.

Muslim immigration was a huge mistake. The last Coalition spokesman with a brain, John Stone, was saying this before Muslim immigration started, but his under-equiped colleagues ignored him. If all Muslim immigration was stopped now, that would be good. But,the trouble is that it was not the the immigrants who kicked off terrorism, but their Australian-born offspring. So, yes to a cessation of Muslim immigration, but who knows how many future generations will continue to be a threat? The rot has already been foisted on us by politicians who can only be described as treacherous scum, and it will be with us, probably forever, with or without further Muslim immigration.

Dear Banjo and Ttbn,

Why should I trust you that Muslims would be the first-but-last on the list to be excluded from Australia?

Terrorism so far killed 3 people in Australia - but bad drivers killed 10,000's. Shouldn't your priority be to prevent those who come from countries that are prone to produce poor drivers from coming, especially drunk drivers, including 2nd-generation Australian-born? Muslims, at least, do not drink!

Then what about Asians with so many drug-dealers among them?
What about all other sorts of crime?

It's all nice and well until it hits you personally. Say for example that your son/daughter falls in love with someone from Ireland, which are known to be bad/drunk drivers - now they cannot bring their bride/groom to Australia even though their spouse happens to be an excellent driver and doesn't even drink. Too bad they settle together somewhere else instead, resent and don't speak to you for introducing these laws and so you are left miserably alone in your old age.

Of course it is Banjo, in fact it was back in Bob Hawke's time. However with Political correctness, do gooders, & idiots like Shorten & Turnbull trying to buy the Muslim vote, it won't happen until the shooting starts in the inevitable civil war.

Don't bet we'll win it either. After all the indoctrination, & green/left propaganda, many of our citizens are more frightened of actually touching a gun, than they are of being shot by an enemy.

Dear Banjo,

There's an interesting article given in The Australian
newspaper -
on the fact that Muslim migration to Australia is at a
big slowdown. It's worth a read.

cont'd ...

This link is also worth a read:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-19/tighter-australian-immigration-policies-needed-islamic-council/6479942

It's an excellent article with which I totally agree.

It's interesting to note, Foxy, that the people quoted in your reference are using "we", indicating that some Muslims do think of themselves as Australians - as fed up as the rest of us are with maniacal 7th. Century threats and idiocies. Here's hoping. In the meantime, my Muslim dental nurse and I are saying more and more to each other, although I am so deaf, and she is so softly spoken, that is not always easy.

Conflicting research to add into the mix Foxy?

"While the world’s population is projected to grow 35% in the coming decades, the number of Muslims is expected to increase by 73% – from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.8 billion in 2050. In 2010, Muslims made up 23.2% of the global population. Four decades later, they are expected to make up about three-in-ten of the world’s people (29.7%)."

"Meanwhile, religious switching, which is expected to hinder the growth of some other religious groups, is not expected to have a negative net impact on Muslims. By contrast, between 2010 and 2050, Christianity is projected to have a net loss of more than 60 million adherents worldwide through religious switching."
See: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/23/why-muslims-are-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/

I've heard it said that by birth-rates alone, the populations of most western nations will become predominantly Muslim shortly after the predicted 2050 date this above article mentions.

"Professor Jerzy Zubrzycki pursued multiculturalism as a social policy while chair of the Social Patterns Committee of the Immigration Advisory Council to the Whitlam Labor Government."
1973 – Al Grassby, Minister for Immigration in the Whitlam Government issued a reference paper entitled A multi-cultural society for the future.
1975 – At a ceremony proclaiming the 'Racial Discrimination Act 1975', the Prime Minister referred to Australia as a "multicultural nation". The Prime Minister, and Leader of the Opposition, made speeches demonstrating for the first time that multiculturalism was becoming a major political priority on both sides of politics.
See:https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/publications/fact-sheet-australias-multicultural-policy

When many other ethnic/religious groups can assimilate and identify with Australian ideals, becoming citizens who add, not detract from what it is to belong here. Why is it that some choose to change us and reinstate the crap from their former homeland? These are the people we should seek out and prevent from staying. Who was behind the 'major political priority' to change then and why is it a priority for us to accept Muslims today ?

Should we start our "salaams" now or later, given that there is a huge Muslim nation less than 2 hours flight time from our northern border ?

Foxy,
As the DIAC do not issue figures regarding religious faiths of incoming migrants, I will believe there is a slowdown in muslim migration when I see hard evidence of it, or a statement by the PM or Minister that the policy has changed to preclude muslims from migration entrants and refugees.

That is the first essential step. Of course other steps can be taken to reduce the number of muslims here but that is far too much to ask at this point. I cannot see the present government or Opposition taking any measures to reduce muslim entry. It will require a drastic policy change.

Maybe if One Nation gains more power at forthcoming elections the two major parties will be forced to change policy if either are to get government. Do not forget that the majors have an agreement not to even discuss immigration issues.

Dear ttbn and Albie,

As stated in the link I gave earlier - there is a case
to be made for Australia to be more selective about
who it allowed in. Assoc. Prof. Halim Rane from
Griffith University Islamic Research Unit tells us
that we need to look more carefully at the people
who are coming. If they are not prepared to obey our
laws if they express particular views, particular
values, display particular norms that would suggest to
us that they wouldn't integrate well and would be
ultimately happier somewhere else then we should
exercise our right to deny those people entry into
the country for their benefit and ours.

He also stated that some Muslim leaders need to
rethink their teaching and that moderate Muslims need
to take a bigger leadership role in their communities.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-19/tighter-australian-immigration-policies-needed-islamic-council/6479942

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/06/25/what's-fastest-growing-religion-australia

cont'd ...

I'll try again:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/06/25/whats-fastest-growing-religion-australia

Dear Banjo,

You may find it helpful to look at the link given in
my post up above on what the fastest growing religion
is in Australia. It backs the links given earlier.

This is why no more than a very small number of Muslims should be allowed to come to Australia.

Copy and paste this.

Europe’s “refugee” crisis and the Kalergi plan for white genocide - December 2016

What do we have here, yet another Muslim bashing thread. There is no evidence that the majority of Muslims in Australia, or those coming to Australia, have any track with terrorism at all, or with those that support terrorism, in fact they loudly condemn such barbarism. Moderate Muslims have as much to fear from terrorism and war, if not more, than does the rest of humanity, world events indicate that, with 470,000 killed in Syria alone, most of those Muslim non-combatants.
Unfortunately there is a small minority within the Islamic community, both here and throughout the world, who have been radicalized to the point where they actively seek to support terrorism. The best defense against this misguided radical minority, besides well organized counter terrorism forces, and a vigilant immigration policy, is to support the vast majority of Muslims who are opposed to radical action. Calls by vocal members of the hard right within Australia and overseas to ban and marginalize moderate Muslims only goes to radicalize more of the non terrorists supporting majority. If you want to increase acts of terrorism keep making theses outlandish demands. If we are going to defeat terrorism we need as many Muslims on side as possible

Increased Muslim numbers = trouble.

Story about some of the migrant problems in Germany for 2016.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9700/germany-islamization

Interesting how many times politicians or higher ups ordered things to be covered up so as not to identify perpetrators etc.

The problem is deeper than Islam. It began with the failure of the Aborigines to keep the monotheists away from the shores of this continent. The monotheists with the intolerance of monotheism gathered Aborigines into compounds where they compelled the Aborigines to replace their superstitions with the Christian superstition.

Perhaps, it would be for the best to restore polytheism. Then, the gullible and superstitious could worship whatever gods they wished to. There was a spirit of tolerance in the ancient world for those who worshipped other gods than that of the worshipper. Gods were not jealous of the worship of other gods. In general the ancient polytheistic religions did not prescribe morality. One worshipped and made sacrifices to the gods to obtain their favour. For morality one consulted the philosophers. Since there was no confusion of the philosophers with any deity one could take their opinions or leave them. The opinions of the philosophers were generally compatible with social reality and not eternally true so their views could change as the situation changed.

Jonathan Kirsch in “God Against the Gods” tells of the struggle between polytheism and monotheism in the ancient world. Here he tells of the role of the philosopher in antiquity:

“Yet another voice that could be heard, quite literally, in the market place of ancient Rome was that of the philosopher. Nowadays, philosophy has come to be regarded as an intellectual pastime that has nothing to do with the practice of religion—and nothing at all to do with real life. But the philosophers of pagan antiquity were the functional equivalent of what today we would call theologians: they pondered the beginning and ending of the world, the nature and destiny of humankind, the identity and will of the divine. For the same reason that some of the ancients found more spiritual meaning in the mystery religions than in the staid ceremonies of the official cults, others placed themselves under the tutelage of the philosophers who offered to reveal the arcane secrets of the cosmos.

continued

continued

Philosophy was fully as diverse as any other expression of paganism. Just as one might worship one or another of the many gods and goddesses, one might study and practice the teachings of the Stoics or the Epicureans, the Skeptics or the Cynics, the Peripatetics or the Pythagoreans or the Platonists. And, like, the mystery religions, the philosophers offered something that the priests in the official cults ignored-a concern for the happiness and fulfilment of the men and women who placed themselves under their tutelage. “[T]hey specialised in an activity that one could call in modern language pastoral care, life counselling or psychotherapy,” explains historian Hans-Josef Klauk. [Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity]

While the Pontifex Maximus and the lesser priests and priestesses of the official cults called upon the old gods and goddesses of the Greco-Roman pantheon to preserve the empire, the philosophers were offering advice to ordinary men and women about how to live a decent life. Here is another example of the moral and ethical concerns that were among the core values of classical paganism—the philosophers instructed their followers on “what is honourable and what is shameful, what is just and what is unjust,” according to one ancient orator, “how a man must bear himself in his relations with the gods, with his parents, with his elders, with the laws, with strangers, with those in authority, with friends, with women, with children with servants.”

continued

continued

The most accomplished philosophers held forth in the academies, the houses of wealthy patrons or the royal court—King Philip of Macedon set the standard when he engaged Aristotle as a tutor for his son, the future Alexander the Great—but others plied their trade in public, wandering from town to town and collected the odd coin in an outstretched bowl. Bearded, cloaked in a toga and holding a staff—the standard iconography of the working philosopher—they would deliver their oratory at the gates of a pagan temple, in the public baths or amid the bustle of the marketplace. Not unlike a standup comic, a philosopher had to work the crowd and cope with hecklers: “What, is a juggler coming on?” was one common taunt as reported by an ancient source. pp. 101-102”

One reason that monotheism won out was that it served well as a religion of rule. The monarch could maintain that he (Most rulers were male.) had divine sanction. Constantine favoured Christianity and established what A. N. Wilson called the ‘first totalitarian state”. Kirsch comments on this:

“As a ruthless campaigner and an expert intriguer, Constantine was perfectly willing and able to search out and punish anyone who challenged his political authority. Among his innovations, for example, was the establishment of the so-called agents in rebus, a corps of imperial courtiers who served as fixers, enforcers and informers. These “doers of things,” as the Latin phrase is rendered in literal English, functioned as the ancient equivalent of a secret police, and they came to be feared and loathed by the men and woman of all ranks and stations on whom they spied. The very existence of such apparatus of state security is what prompts biographer A. N. Wilson to characterize imperial Rome as “the first totalitarian state in history.”” [Paul: The Mind of the Apostle] p. 170

It would be good if Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Baha’i could all be replaced by a resurgent polytheism. It would be better to abandon superstition altogether.

Dear David F.,

What a wonderful theory. If only it could indeed
happen in this troubled world of ours. If only people
would not take their world for granted, but instead
understood the social authorship of their lives and
futures they could become an irresistible force in
history. Whether we choose to destroy our civilisation
or save it is a collective decision and it is one that
may well be made within our lifetimes. If more and
more nuclear weapons are built, and more sophisticated
means of delivering them are devised, and if more and
more nations get control of these vile devices
then surely we risk our own destruction. If ways are
found to reverse that process, then we can direct
unprecedented energy and resources to the real problems
that face us, including poverty, disease, overpopulation,
injustice, oppression, and the devastation of our
natural environment. Sooner or later we will have to
realise that our ultimate choice must be to enhance the
life on the lovely planet on which we live. Our survival
depends on it.

I see no reason to believe that moslem populations in Australia will
behave any different to their behaviour in Europe.
It is pointless talking about "moderate" moslems.
It can be argued that the terrorists were either moderates or the
children of moderates.
Paul 1405 looks on the sunny side of moderates but the terrorists
have all been moderates. To try to differentiate is pointless.

The Party of Freedom in Holland has proposed applying the law regarding
hate publications to the Koran and it would be banned under existing law.
Their intention is to close mosques and deport as many Moroccans as possible.
There is no gentle way to handle this problem.

Foxy the link you gave promoted the establishment of a dictatorship.
Do you really think that you and I would be exempt from the rule
of the Caliph ?
If you think that is not the aim of moslems then your reading is rather abbreviated.

It is true that there is a movement to reform Islam but they are
considered blasphemers and subject to the death penalty.
That is not an idle threat. So called moderate moslems when quizzed
admit if push came to shove they would side with the immans and
support the establishment of Sharia law and the closing of parliament.
In the UK there have been a number of polls along these lines.
The basis of the problem is that Islam is not just a religious movement
but rather a Theological Dictatorship that does not allow any activity
not permitted by Sharia law. eg Iran and Saudi Arabia.
There is no place for laws decided by the people unless approved by
the Caliph.

To advocate and to try and implement sharia law I believe is sedition
and is punishable by a long term of imprisonment.

These are the problems that Europe is facing. Do we need it here ?

Just after I put that last post on here, I watched the midday ABC News.
They had a discussion on citizen tests for immigrants.
The whole discussion missed the major problem.
They were centred around "good character" which is pointless.
Any immigrant will say anything they know the interviewer needs.
They would present as a family which would tick all the boxes.
Then a year later pay their son's airfare to the middle east to join ISIS.

There no way that we can sort them out at the border.
Do we have to wait until the expected civil war in France begins ?

Dear Bazz,

Do you really believe that people practice their
religions in exactly the same way? Surely you
must realise that Muslims are not all the same,
same as neither are Jews, Christians, et cetera.
Muslims come from various parts of the world, with
various cultures, languages, and so on. You can't
put them all in the one basket. That's not logical.
Of course our immigration laws need to be tightened.
For everybody. And of course we have to make it
quite clear that we ask people in this country to
subscribe to a legal framework that can protect the
rights and liberties of all. That these are not
optional.

Anyway, I can understand your fears. You're not
alone in that. Here's a link that tells it from
the other side of the coin that's worth a read:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/muslims-on-what-its-like-to-live-in-australia-20160429-g0i953.html

cont'd ...

I'm having computer problems.

I'll try once more:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/muslims-on-what-its-like-to-live-in-australia-20160429-goi953.html

Dear David,

If your analysis of Greek/Roman paganism is correct, then theirs was not a religion, but a scientific attempt, then they simply considered themselves to be practical. The test is simple: if one is shown that their god(s) do not exist and/or is/are ineffective, then a scientist would forsake those god(s) whereas a religious person is unaffected.

Monotheism should be considered in the same light - the intent of the worshippers. Are they just trying to improve their mundane life? Are they after wealth, health, power, land, progeny, long-life and similar forms of success? It is only rational for those who believe the God-of-Abraham to be stronger than the others to worship Him. In fact, the early Jews believed that other gods also exist and neither Moses nor the prophets told them otherwise (that they do not), but rather commanded [despite that]: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me".

All that changed was that the new-god-in-town was jealous, but otherwise, for the masses at least, both were merely scientific attempts.

Scientists can go wrong. The mechanics of Newton was replaced by Einstein's relativity and technology was adjusted to accommodate this. Those ancients who looked upon worship as mere technology would have no problem to modify it, which they did when they embraced Christianity.

I know little about the Romans, but assuming that your account is correct, it seems that the philosophers were the true religious leaders of the time, that they were the ones who instructed people on how to live correctly and improve their character (which would ultimately lead them to God, rather than to material gains).

Material results can be planned and verified objectively, thus no place for diversity, while spiritual results cannot.

As far as material success is concerned, modern science has already replaced both monotheism and polytheism: in that sense, one could say that the god of science is stronger and more jealous, so any attempt to restore polytheism as a means to material success is doomed to fail.

(continued...)

(...continued)

However, on the spiritual plane, diversity of gods as well as diversity of philosophical-moral-instruction is necessary in order to cater for diverse people of diverse propensities. For some, the best results may be achieved by worshipping the God-of-Abraham while for others it may best be to worship other gods, including even self-invented ones.

Hinduism has always recognised this need for diversity and encouraged people to select their own form of God (Ishta-Deva) to worship for which they feel more affection.

This is not to deny the oneness of God, but rather to acknowledge the weakness of the human mind, which finds it difficult-to-impossible to develop feelings of love towards that which cannot be defined, which has no attributes, no form, no colour, no sound, no texture, no smell, no taste and no practical utility.

Even the God-of-Abraham, which presumably has no form (although ancient Jews, before the Rambam, believed that he had a size - 1/3 of the universe) has a utilitarian value, that of creator, protector and judge. For some this is sufficient in order to truly love Him, but not for others who need a more vivid and tangible representation.

Yuyutsu wrote:

“Scientists can go wrong. The mechanics of Newton was replaced by Einstein's relativity and technology was adjusted to accommodate this. Those ancients who looked upon worship as mere technology would have no problem to modify it, which they did when they embraced Christianity.”

Dear Yuyutsu,

Science does not deal in right and wrong. Science deals with the best explanation for phenomena available according the knowledge of the time. Newton’s mechanics with its laws of motion described perfectly what could be measured by instruments available at the time. Newton had no reason not to believe the invariance of time and space. Newtonian mechanics was a great advance on Aristotelian physics.

With such developments as the Michelson-Morley experiment which showed that the speed of light was not affected by the velocity of the object producing that light Einstein developed new theories to account for the new evidence. That is the way science works. All scientific laws are provisional and can be discarded or modified by new evidence. Science contains a growing body of knowledge as new evidence, experiment and theory replaces what has been found to be inadequate to explain observed phenomena.

Religion has no such corrective. The almost ubiquitous nature of monotheism in the western world is due to Constantine favouring Christianity and Theodosius making it the official religion of the Roman Empire and persecuting those who wanted to retain their faith in the gods. There is no more evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible than for the existence of Jupiter. The ancients in general did not embrace Christianity. It was forced upon them by the power of Rome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_persecution_of_paganism_under_Theodosius_I

However, even the most fervent believer of religion generally wants to get along in the world unless they are so besotted by faith that they fly airplanes into buildings. There is no evidence that any woman has ever become pregnant without the intervention of a human sperm. Nevertheless most believers in the Virgin Mary would not accept the assertion of a pregnant daughter that it was the work of a supernatural being.

Foxy, your 2nd link did not work either the first and second were
different, 0 & o were changed. I suspect you are actually typing the
urls in by hand. Certain way to have trouble.
Use tinyurl as I wrote in another thread.

You said;Do you really believe that people practice their
religions in exactly the same way?

No of course, Shia and Sunni etc come to mind and the fanatical
cults within them, eg wahabis etc show that.
That however is not the point, it is undeniable that the terrorists
are moslems and they come from within the moslem community.
So to protect ourselves what should we do; ban Buddists ?
I think not, we can only tackle the problem where it is, not in some
examination of the innermost thoughts that someone may have in the future.
No, this is a matter of survival, nothing more, nothing less.
We have no way of identifying those who may do us harm or their future
children they may have but the one constant is their religion.

The suggestion to promote polytheism as an antidote to theocracy was tried by Tutankhamen and by Rome's least-worst emperor, Julian. It didn't work. The answer to theocracy is atheism. The answer in Australia to Moslem theocracy is to stop them coming in and at the least sign of their trying to coerce people into deferring to the rulings and symbols of their cult, kick the bastards out. A measure the British and Europeans might profitably adopt.

Meanwhile an ideological war against the Moslems' "holy book" - bigotry on steroids that rival theocrat George Pell characterised as chock full of violence.

Such an ideological war could accompany the ideological wars against drugs and dangerous driving.

Dear Emperor Julian,

I refer you to the last two sentences of my post:

"It would be good if Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Baha’i could all be replaced by a resurgent polytheism. It would be better to abandon superstition altogether."

Dear David,

Point taken about science and the Romans.
So the Romans didn't even get a chance to be logically convinced that Jupiter doesn't exist, that's because they were coerced to forsake him even earlier, how nice...

Well then we are not talking religion at all, but merely about the brutish emperor's decrees. I still think that it is easier to refute the existence of Jupiter than the existence of the God-of-the-bible, simply because the former has more attributes.

As I mentioned, such refutation should not have any effect on a religious person anyway. Since truly religious people (as opposed to opportunists who believe that they can use God as a tool for their benefit, or to Romans who worship God in order to keep their head attached to their neck) are not looking for material rewards, they care not about God's existence.

«There is no evidence that any woman has ever become pregnant without the intervention of a human sperm.»

Thank goodness for that: had there been such evidence, then the belief in the Virgin Mary would become a practical-scientific conclusion, which would have jeopardised the practice of faith.

«even the most fervent believer of religion generally wants to get along in the world»

Well what is the correlation coefficient between "fervent believer of religion" and "religious"? I think it's very close to 0, if not even negative.

The closer one comes to God, the more happiness and contentment they find within, hence the less often they become interested in either getting along in the world or in blowing it up.

<<The problem is deeper than Islam. It began with the failure of the Aborigines to keep the monotheists away from the shores of this continent.>>

But the problem is deeper than that. Humans in principle are a not smart species in many ways and can poorly operate in certain conditions. Here the impacts were placed on the first living species of the Australian continent, and they were not human.

The first level of impact (in fact) came from Aboriginal people and was passed onto native animal species and plant life. The environment and native animal species that existed in Australia were affected.

For example, the cause of early animal extinction (in terms of Australian megafauna) has seen ideology taking precedence over scientific evidence.

With the arrival of early Australian Aboriginals (around 48,000–60,000 years ago), hunting and the use of fire to manage the environment may have contributed to the extinction of the megafauna. New evidence based on accurate information and dating of megafaunal remains suggests that humans were the ultimate cause of the extinction of megafauna in Australia.

Australian megafauna on the mainland became extinct in the same rapid timeframe, approximately 46,000 years ago, when the earliest humans first arrived in Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_megafauna

Non human Australian native species are much smarter than humans and I would argue include plant species. Many have very simple operating systems, can live naturally and have strongly adapted to change. Many live in peace and yet the Australian population in many ways are struggling to function.

I have no intention of evaluating David F with whom I'm largely in agreement, merely of evaluating the notion that polytheism is an effective antidote to theocracy. History shows it's not.

As for keeping Moslems out, everyone entering Australia must be made aware at the border or on the plane on the way in that Australia is a secular multicultural society founded on the values of the European Enlightenment of the late 1700s. Accordingly a condition of entry is to respect the right of every person in this country to promote, accept, reject, or deride the teaching and symbols of any religion whatsoever. Anyone discovered to be seeking to deny any person this secular right will be deported to point of embarkation, charged for the transport out and barred indefinitely from re-entry.

Moslems would never have to be mentioned but no serious Moslem could fit through this perfectly reasonable sieve.

Correction: based on, or embodying, not founded on. Australia was founded on a brutal invasion and genocide.

There is one god who you can see, feel, touch, be careful with the touching, but cannot dispute. This god provides everything you need, even the mud ball you are living on, the food you eat, the air you breath, life itself. Who am I talking about, none other than the Sun God. Few are worshiping him today, and that makes the Sun God very angry, and when he is angry, look out floods, famine and fire are your reward. I have looked at the concept of god(s) and there is no doubt the Sun God, is the most logical, most practical and most useful of all the gods.
I accept the scientific explanation of the Sun God, the big ball of fire, that is what he is, but that does not diminish his godliness in anyway.

This video is a story about Sweden, but it applies equally to Australia. So I hope many will take heed of what is said because it effects our children and grand children, unless we soon take action to prevent it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZsvdg1dkJ4

Like foxy, I will try again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZsvdg1dkJ4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZsvdg1dkJ4

In the name of free speech Banjo, when you copy a link, normally if you remove the letter s from https at the start of the link, as I have done above it should play automatically.

Rather a one sided rant there Banjo from that stand up comedian.

In Firefox if you highlight the url then right click and the dropdown
menu lets you open it.

Self-determination is unfair, undemocratic and an instrument of oppression. It has come to mean a nation formed on the basic of a religious, ethnic or racial paradigm. Those who are citizens of the nation but are not of the dominant paradigm are second class citizens. The term, self-determination, was introduced into diplomatic parlance by Woodrow Wilson who wanted the make the world “safe for democracy”. However, Wilson was a racist who apparently thought white Protestants of north European descent were the only peoples capable of democracy. The treatment of the Central powers after WW1 shows his biases. Germany except for the return of Alsace and Lorraine to France and the Polish Corridor remained a national unit and essentially untouched. Self-determination was applied to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and it was broken up to create new states. With the exception of Czechoslovakia the new states went fascist between WW1 and WW2. Part of Wilson’s motivation was probably the hope that the peoples of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire would be so happy with their new status that they would not come to the US and spoil Wilson’s dream of a white, Protestant USA. The subject peoples of the Turkish Empire were not even deemed worthy of self-determination and were given to Britain and France as mandates.

There should be no Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist states. In a democratic country religion or lack of it, ethnicity and race of its citizens should be no business of the government. All should be equal under law, and that law should be civil not religious.

Paul,
Thank you, I do appreciate it. It never used to be a problem, just click on copy then paste where you want, easy. Perhaps the change to Google Chrome altered something, I'll get it looked at.

I do like Pat Condell, he has a way of putting his argument that is plain, simple and straight forward. I guess there is some that do not like what he has to say but find it difficult to show if he is incorrect. I am surprised at the number of videos he now has put out. They should be compulsory viewing for all politicians, so they learn something.

I am an Australian resident, born in Germany and temporarily living in Germany since three years.

I am watching the situation in Australia as well as in Europe since 2 years ago when I realised there is an invasion starting in Western Europe, and have since then written quite a lot of translations of German articles about what is happening here for my Australian friends.

So much about my background.

I consider this discussion very important, since many posts refer to what is happening in Germany and other Western European countries, and knowing those facts gives Australia at least a chance to avoid the same mistakes as long as it is still possible.

That is the main reason I am writing this posting, and I don't want to go into details. Even so far away you have probably heard how much life has changed here. A lot of self restriction and fear, like people don't let their 14 year old teenagers go swimming or to the cinema any more without adult protection, just to name one of the liberties we have lost among many others. For those interested in details there is a website with statistics (in English as well) that the Government would rather no let us know. They hate the Internet.

That website is no muslim or migrant bashing. They just scan police reports and publish it as summary, all with links to the reports: http://www.refcrime.info/en/

Generally spoken I can only hope that Australians and Australian politicians watch closely how things develop in Western Europe, and reading UK news is sufficient ... no language problems, and also many Germans read UK news to learn what is going on in Germany since the Merkel Government is trying to keep everything bad about migration low key not to spoil the mood in Germany. Government officials admitted that several times.

If Australia hopefully learns something from the problems Western Europe has and does not make the same mistakes I would be very glad to have a place to go to with my family once the situation here gets worse.

"and have since then written quite a lot of translations of German articles"
@renysol
Have you ever considered to write your articles directly for refcrime? As their website (http://refcrime.info/de/mitmachen, unfortunately only in german) shows, they are searching for authors with language skills that help them with finding articles and translating them for the international audience. In my opinion you would fit perfectly into their team. Consider contacting them

"Have you ever considered to write your articles directly for refcrime?"

I am working in an area and with people where everything against the Merkel Government and criticism of migration is taboo and I would certainly lose my job for doing so.
OTOH that would cause me to return to Australia without further delay which might be a good thing ;-)

renysol,
Thanks for your posts, we need direct information from Europe as I feel much news is edited out to give an improved slant on the situation there.

The reason I post threads like this is simply to make people aware. I try hard to stick to facts that are difficult to contest. I really fear for the safety and our society for the next generations in Aus.

I sometimes think it is a waste of time as many don't seem concerned, especially the politicians and those in authority. For example a refugee got off 'scot free' in the ACT for raping a 15yo girl. Found guilty, he pleaded ignorance and walked out. This is not the only case either. Had much difficulty in discovering that a bloke who took his 9mts old daughter to Indonesia for Type 3 (worst) FGM only got a 12months SUSPENDED sentence. Am still trying to find out the sentence for a couple who took their two daughters to Africa for FGM. I suspect it will be an another light sentence, which is sick and no deterent.

But I am afraid we will do nothing and find our lifestyle gone in a generation or so.

But please keep posting about the situation in Europe as I really believe that immigration is the most important issue facing us. The big obstacle is the agreement the major parties have, brokered by Hawke PM, not to discuss or debate immigration matters.

Re Europe, explore why Malmo is the rape capital of Sweden, ignored by those who get all hot and bothered over whether Julian Assange's condom was defective.

Re Australia: Does anyone know if Centrelink pays Moslem polygamists benefits for multiple wives?

Dear EJ,

Yes Centrelink does pay.

Because a single parent payment is higher than
partner payments.

Banjo; subscribe to this list. It does seem to be quite accurate.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php

Thanks Bazz,
Would also like any Aus websites that anyone feels that they give good news reports and are the least biased.

So, Foxy, the dhimmis are using taxpayers' money for the multiple "wives". Why does Dutton let multiple "wives" into the country as if they were wives by Australian standards? I had to go to a lot of trouble with the kind help of the then Immigration Minister (1980) to bring my own umpteen hundredth generation English wife in and she's not saddling the country with any religion, especially one that's bigotry on steroids and hates our guts. And without claiming a brass cent of public money.

Dear EJ,

If you want the laws and standards changed -
get in touch with
your local MP, take up a petition, get involved.
Or you can simply come on the internet and whinge
about things to strangers. :-)
The choice is yours.

You'll have to forgive me. I got inspired by
listening to the American President's Farewell
Speech in Chicago.

Thanks Foxy for your kind advice to get involved. How would membership of the national executive of a political party suit you? And when that party shot itself in the foot and disintegrated how about working in the election campaign of another party what will lead my State after the March election? Your condescension comes close to that of the freaks who advise those who differ from them to take their meds.

And to stop pressing issues in a newsgroup conducted for that very purpose? Come ON.

And yes Mr Obama talks a great talk and unlike most pollies does so with a command of language that's always a treat to hear. Pity the walk he's walked is so different: high explosives fired at hospitals, suburbs and wedding parties, agitation to reignite the deadly Cold War, the gross injustice of Gitmo and the persecution of whistleblowers, craven co-operation with the thieving bankers of Wall Street. I'd rather a knuckledragger who grunted in pidgin but did the right, moral thing. That's a difference from you that OLO is a platform for debating.

Dear EJ,

From your post I can see that I've hit a nerve.
That was not my intention. On the contrary.
I sincerely meant that if you want something
changed you should get involved and try to do
something about it. As you observed this is a
discussion forum and you should be prepared
for that. However - labelling people discourages
communication.
As for my involvement in politics? I do get
involved in issues that are important to me.
Anyway, Thank You for your suggestions.
You're not the first
person to make suggestions to me that I get more
involved in politics. However what with my current
health problems - and caring for a mother who has
dementia my plate is rather full at the moment.

cont'd ...

Here is a link that may help you understand why
I asked you to get involved if you want to
see things change:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/12/11/anger-over-welfare-payments-wives-polygamous-marriages

We should never more than 2-5% of the population to be non white, non Christians.

A country that has a strong sense of pride, nationalism and a strong sense purpose, of who they are where they are going, just like Israel does, is not a good candidate for either peaceful or military takeover in the short term or the long term.

//We should never more than 2-5% of the population to be non white, non Christians.//

Too late, Supreme Cyclops.

Foxy, apparently your emotions must have guided the following:
"You're not the first person to make suggestions to me that I get more involved in politics. However what with my current health problems - and caring for a mother who has dementia my plate is rather full at the moment."

Of course I'm not ANY person who made such a such suggestion and I think your words came from emotion not from actual reading. I don't do emotionality - haven't the patience for it. And I wouldn't dream of lecturing you on how you should run your life. That's another difference between us!

I couldn't connect your link with "getting more involved in things" as you did. OK you're different - you have an impetus for talking down to people. What I did gain from the link was that dhimmitude is more ingrained in mainstream PC thinking than in some Moslems themselves who have seen the writing on the wall and sounded a warning to Moslems still mired in the ideology of the desert bandit Mohammed.

We should not get too tied up in "Australian values" that differ from Moslem values. Our moral values are not confined to Australia, they are derived from the European Enlightenment of the late 1700s which is a work still in progress and incompatible with some regrettably Australian values such as those expressed below: "We should never [allow] more than 2-5% of the population to be non white, non Christians."

Re the Moslem items of property described as extra "wives" - Why is Dutton accepting them as immigrants under that label leading to Centrelink having to pay them all.

Dear EJ,

I feel that if you can't have empathy for others - no matter
how smart you are, you're not going to get very far.
Seems to me that you've built a wall around yourself,
which is a pity.

As for Mr Dutton? The link I cited previously
stated that Centrelink does not hold data based on
polygamous relationships or religion. Therefore Islamic
marriages being religious unions are not registered.
We were told that under the current system there are only
two options for payments - a single parent payment, or
partner payments. A single parent payment is higher
than partner payments. Of course rorting of the system
will continue to occur. This needs to change.
Unfortunately, the government thinks it would be
more expensive to do this. A public outcry is needed
for change to occur. Hence my suggestion for you to get
involved if you want change to occur. You don't have to
get emotional to do this - all you need is action. As a wise
man once said - "I'd rather eat my words than get
calluses from sitting."

All MAN MADE religions, and I emphasize MAN MADE, is there any other kind? These macho religions, Islam and Christianity included, see woman as subservient to men. Woman's roll in macho religious societies is to be nothing more than one of mans chattels, to be used and abused as he sees fit.

These macho beliefs are not confined to Islam, a recent example in Australian Christian society was that of William 'Little Pebble' Kamm, a self styled Catholic cleric, and cult leader, who exploited women for his own lustful sexual satisfaction. In the beginning Kamm and his 'Order of St Charbel' (you do remember St Charbel) was given the blessing of the mainstream Catholic Church, something they have since withdrawn (2002). one of Kamm's aims was to repopulate the word using himself, and 84 queens and princesses. Woman were kept on the cults property near Nowra NSW, for several years, these women were supported financially by the state (social security). Kamm was sentenced to 10 years jail for sex offences against a 15 year old girl, in the mid 2000's, he was released in 2014, and is now attempting to form a political party, The Republic Reform and Justice Party, the name alone should appeal to some. Good luck Pebble!

"Thanks for your posts, we need direct information from Europe as I feel much news is edited out to give an improved slant on the situation there.
...
But please keep posting about the situation in Europe as I really believe that immigration is the most important issue facing us. "

As I indicated I am hesitating to get too involved in this matter but on the other hand it is really the most important thing, and it won't go away by ignoring it.

I have therefore registered another nickname to avoid problems I am anticipating when using my name or the name of my company, at least as long as I am still living in Germany. I will post here about the situation in Europe whenever I find the time, and try to stick to the facts, not influenced by my opinion, at least make clear what is facts and maybe add my opinion in parentheses

Dear DTM,

Welcome to the Forum and -

Please keep us informed. It's excellent to get
news from first-hand experience such as yours.

What part of Germany are you living in?
I have relatives in Braunschweig.

Emotionality is guidance from your gut not your cerebrum. It has nothing to do with empathy. Empathy is a strong motivator of concern with issues. Emotionality is a strong motivator for control freaks and its message is "don't think - feel. If you think then I can't control you. e.g. by lecturing you on how to run your life, or by belittling you by telling you to take your meds". There are other red flags, like "get off your arse" Emotionality tinged with control freakery can guide you to misread comments focused on issues and not even be concerned on being shown where you've done it.

Enough of the psychobabble. The thread issue is Moslem immigration and in particular my current focus is (along with focus on many other issues) the importation of multiple individuals on a false claim that they are wives. The broader issue is the dhimmitude or appeasement that drives it. The broader issue still is defence of our secular society from being destroyed by giving it away.

There are three kinds of empathy - cognitive, emotional,
and compassionate. I shan't go into discussions about
these due to the word limit of each post however for those
interested it may be worthwhile Googling the subject.
The information is readily available on the web.

I shall delve a little into "gut reactions" though. The
following link makes for an interesting read:

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/12/youre-just-about-to-dash.html

The article tells us that "Gut reactions should not be
dismissed as a mere novelty. A new study reported in
"Scientific Reports" on interoception, or "gut feelings"
was conducted by a research team, which included John Coates...
who now works as a neuroscientist. Coates attests that
interoceptive sensations not only stem from the stomach but
the heart, lungs, bladder, bowls, skin and other organs as well.
Based on his findings, he sermised that those who are attuned to
sensing these body sensations are best able to "survive and
thrive."

The article is worth a read.

Regarding polygamous marriages in Australia. Paul's
comment written in The Australian newspaper Dec. 11th 2016
reminds us that - "Centrelink has paid polygamous couples
for decades." He tells us that "First wife is identified as the
wife, other wives receive benefits when either looking for
work, sickness, invalid, or special benefit, unless fail
other tests or are working, whichever most appropriate."

"When wife 2+s each have children they receive single parent
benefits, the obligation of the father to support the child with
maintenance may or may not be applied."

"There is no financial disadvantage if the several wives living
in the same home though rental assistance depends on them living in
separate units with names on leases."

"Polygamous couples occur in various religions and racial
groups with polygamy common a long way back in Australian
history."

Finally, Paul sums up that "While applicants follow the rules
they are entitled to payments, when cheating they may be
penalised depending on both Centrelink decision makers and
prosecutors."

cont'd ...

Here is another link on the subject from
Monash University:

http://www.mojonews.com.au/polygamy-in-australia-we-offer-everything-from-outrage-to-a-pat-on-the-back/

cont'd ...

My apologies the link does not appear to be working.
I'm having problems with my computer again.
Kindly Google under the subject -
"Monash University - polygamy."

Or the title.

Sorry.

Bigamy means two wives or husbands of the one person at the one time, not in series, and is a criminal offence under Section 93 of the Crimes Act. If it's more than two it's still a criminal offence but it splits into two names: Multiple wives in polygamy and multiple husbands is polyandry. "Cultures" with lower standards may allow it but the Department of Immigration sure as hell shouldn't.