In this time of international tension Prime Minister Morrison could invite China, the US and the other nations of the world to a disarmament conference. If there is no response it would give the PM and Australia a reputation as peacemakers. If there is a positive response something worthwhile might result.

Well, for a more peaceful Australian society, a Flat Tax would be a good start !

The PM should of learned from the National cabinet not to do deals with the devil.

Dear David F.,

An initiative for peace is certainly worth a try.
Especially if our PM was to invite not only China
but other countries in the region, including the
US.

This could be an opportunity to show China that more
is expected from a military superpower and the
world's 2nd largest economy.

China has to be made to realise that the old ways cannot
continue. This would be an opportunity to politely get
the message across.

It's been 2 decades since China joined the World Trade
Organisation yet it acts as a developing nation with
restrictions on trade and foreign investment that assumes
special treatment compared to other major economies.

Inviting China is worth a try. And our PM should not be
deterred by the first reaction. If the success or failure
of every Australian foreign policy is measured by the
shrillness of a China official every policy would end
in failure.

David,

I'm sure you mean well, but boy oh boy are you naive.

Have you not noticed that Morrison has got one thing right, and announced that our defence spending will be raised to somewhere near the level it should always have been.

Disarmament belongs to the days of hairy hippies in the sixties; and the world is a much more dangerous place than it was then. It is only because of weapons and the willingness to to use them that peace has prevailed.

Dear runner,

I would remind you of what Churchill said about the devil, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

Dear ttbn,

You wrote, "Have you not noticed that Morrison has got one thing right, and announced that our defence spending will be raised to somewhere near the level it should always have been."

One thing we can get right is calling things what they are. We have been so talked into disregarding the functions of the military that we call it defence which is only one function. The armed forces of any country can defend, attack, occupy, threaten, help in disaster relief etc. Referring to defence spending when it is actually military spending shows that you are one of the many who are so naive that they disregard reality.

David,

With respect, of course it is military spending. As an ally, the ADF has performed all of the functions you mention. One word, 'defence' is used to cover the lot. Nobody is going to kick off with, 'we are going to spend money on defending, attacking, occupying, threatening, helping, etc.'

A paragraph from The Australian says it all:

"The doctrine of massive retaliation has delivered a stable world for decades. It will continue to prevent world wars".

Self-evident.

Thank you David, I agree with your sentiments.

Realistically, if I was China the country I would be least likely to trust apart from the United States would be Australia. Can anyone give a reason why China should trust the US toady Australia? There is no chance that the US Industrial/Military Complex would accept world peace and sign its own death warrant. Mikhail Gorbachev tried to bring about total nuclear disarmament between the Soviet Union and the United States, but Ronald Reagan point blank refused the offer. Just goes to show which country is the belligerent warmonger. Australia with its track record of aggression in Asia, Korea, Vietnam, kowtowing to the US at every opportunity. As North Korea is seen by America in relation to China, Australia is viewed much the same by China in relation to America.

Many people hold the view that nuclear weapons have helped to
prevent war. Throughout the decades since these destructive
devices appeared on the scene countries have avoided outright
military conflict. Obviously, we cannot know for certain
whether the superpowers would have fought one another
had there not been a nuclear threat. There can be
little doubt, however, that the prospect of mutually
assured destruction has deterred war by making
its potential consequences utterly ghastly.

This record has encouraged the widespread view that
the best way to avoid war is for each side to hold
the other's population as hostage under nuclear threat.

The drawback to this approach is that the threat of
mutually assured destruction is an "all-or-nothing"
gamble.
As long as the threat "works" war is avoided;
but if the strategy fails - - then the result is the
obliteration of the societies that depended on it.

Moreover, a strategy of mutually assured destruction is most
likely to work if there is a balance of power between the main
superpowers or blocs.

If the contending parties are evenly
balanced, neither will be likely to strike first,
for there can be no certainty of victory.
On the other hand if one of the parties
gains or appears to be gaining superiority war becomes more
likely - either because the superior power is tempted to take
advantage of its position, or because the inferior one is
tempted to strike before its own position deteriorates
further.

Nuclear weapons do not guarantee that war
cannot happen - only that it will be calamitous
if it does. They do not so much defend
as threaten, and in threatening, they elicit still more
threats in return - as the world's growing stockpile of bombs
and missiles attests. The obsessive focus on the threats of
weapons as the ways to avoid war also blinds us to the
central question - is anything that China or the US or us
values so important that we justify risking the destruction
of our societies, the murder of hundreds of millions of people,
and the jeopardizing of our very species?

Dear ttbn,

You wrote, “The doctrine of massive retaliation has delivered a stable world for decades. It will continue to prevent world wars.

Self-evident.”

It is far from self-evident and utter nonsense. We cannot predict the future. At the beginning of 1914 many in Europe were prosperous and felt secure, and nations were armed to the teeth. Even after the fighting started in August many, including national leaders, thought the war would be over in weeks. The bloodletting lasted four horrible years.

The naïveté exhibited by military leaders is astounding. Hitler had his soldiers invade the USSR without warm winter clothing. Like the leaders in August 1914 he thought it would be over in weeks. Many froze to death.

We live in a dangerous world. It is far from stable in Syria and other places. The doctrine of massive retaliation has not delivered a stable world. The idea that military expenditures bring safety is very naïve. I am not a hairy hippy but a hairy 94 year old US army veteran of WW2. I resented all the hairy hippies who were attending the Woodstock music festival in 1969 instead of protesting the Vietnam War.

Since WWII the United States has involved itself in no less than 17 identifiable wars and conflicts, not one fought on American soil. From the Korea War 1950/53 to the present war in Syria. In those wars a minimum 5 million died in Korea, the US/Vietnam War 1965/74 accounted for 1.3 million deaths. Since the end of WWII its estimated 40 million people have died in wars. That number does not include deaths through displacement, death from disease and starvation The vast majority of those killed have been non-combatant men, women and children.

Peace is for the hippies, the flower children, the confused, the misguided, the old, the young, the mothers, the fathers, the sons, the daughters, the poor, the weak, etc, etc, I'll remember that one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2mabTnMHe8

Foxy and david f,

Maybe the US could sign up to China's Belt and Road Initiative as a good will gesture.

Dear Paul,

You have pointed one of the tragedies of war. In order to triumph over an enemy we have to become more effective at killing than they are. War dehumanizes the victors. Some US actions should be condemned.

One of the pernicious outcomes of US victory is the adoption of the doctrine of exceptionalism in US society.

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

Sometimes a nation may benefit by defeat. Germans after the defeat in WW2 were forced to look at themselves. A minority are unregenerate Nazis, but Germany has become one of the more decent nations in the world.

Although victory has damaged the US, victory of the Nazis would have been far worse. It is better to avoid war altogether. That is why I started this string. It is to encourage the thinking of ways to avoid war.

Dear David,

All over the world, hundreds of thousands of scientists
and engineers devote their skills to planning new and
more efficient ways for humans to kill each other;
millions of workers labour to manufacture instruments
of death, and tens of millions of soldiers train for
combat - and some of them actually go to war.

From a moral and even an economic point of view, this vast
investment of human ingenuity and energy seems a tragic
waste.

For millennia people have hoped for peace in their time.

We do have two vital elements for international peace-
making in place. The first is the United Nations
which provides a forum for world opinion and a mechanism
for conflict resolution. The second is a growing body of
international law that specifies the rights and obligations
that nations have toward one another - particularly with
respect to agression.

A major difficulty with international peace-making is that
compliance with the resolutions of the UN and the rulings
of its world court are voluntary, for no country is
willing to surrender its sovereignty to an international
body. The UN is most effective when the super powers are
able to agree on a course of action and mobilize their
blocs to support it.

Even so, the organization provides an influential forum for
world opinion and while it does not always prevent war,
it does help to make it less likely.

What we as individuals can do is - let our governments
know how we feel about war. I feel that the prospects for
peace depends on the collective action of ordinary people.
If a modern society goes sto war, it is not just because
the leaders have opted for war, but because the people
have implicitly or explicitly done so - or at least
they have not opted for peace.

Our leaders need to know where we stand on the matter of
war and peace.

Hi Foxy, I'll take you up on your last point. "Our leaders need to know where we stand on the matter of war and peace."

To name the most powerful, and some of the most prominent leaders in the world today. Not a complete list by any means.

Xi Jinping, Emmanuel Macron, Tayyip Erdogan, Narendra Modi, Bashar al-Assad, Benjamin Netanyahu, Shinzo Abe, Kim Jong-un, Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Angela Merkel, Boris Johnson,

Given the above leadership of the world, I must say I am somewhat pessimistic at the possibility of world peace.

Hi Paul,

Yes the world leaders don't look too encouraging.

However I was thinking of our country's leaders.
People like Scott Morrison, Marisa Payne,
Christian Porter, Dave Sharma, Ken Wyatt,
Penny Wong, Kristina Keneally,
Tanya Plibersek, Chris Bowen, Anthony Albanese.

Dear David,

Nice thoughts, but Neville Chamberlain already tried this.
World War III is already underway.
Sadly you do not believe in God, because only God can help us now.

What a naive bunch!

The only thing that has prevented a world war is mutually assured destruction, & nothing else. As long ad bullies thrive in school playgrounds there will always be big bullies that would seek to prosper by subjugating a neighbor, region or the whole planet.

Only the likelihood of being worse off if they tried stops them. If the yanks had not stepped in & sorted Saddam Hussein we would have had many more such outbreaks. The moment the Yanks soften such takeovers will abound.

The most dangerous people on earth to the cause of peace are the pacifists.

David,

You are just burying yourself deeper in la la land. The only support you have had is from a poster who doesn't trust his own country; a person who repeatedly presents himself as a theoretical (he wouldn't have what takes to be the real thing) Fifth Columnist. "Realistically, if I was China the country I would be least likely to trust apart from the United States would be Australia", this idiot says". He's lucky the country seems to be saying he is disloyal to doesn't monitor social media as his Chinese mates do. Or, perhaps they do these days, there being so many Australia-haters taking advantage of the country these days.

If you and you Lefty mates have your way, it will be the Chinese doing the monitoring and knocking on your doors.

As Hasbeen says, people like you are the problem, part of the threat to be dealt with if we are to remain a free, democratic country.

Dear Yuyutsu,

If you answer this post I will not respond further. What Chamberlain did, and it isn't appreciated, was to save England. He recognised that England was woefully unprepared for war in 1938 and bought time. With the time he bought he encouraged war preparation especially the production of Spitfires which were superior to the German Messerschmidts. English pilots in their Spitfires won the Battle of Britain in 1940. It is likely that if Hitler had gone to war with England earlier it would have all up for England. As it was the Battle of Britain was a turning point in WW2, and appeasement was the correct policy.

Dear hasbeen & ttbn,

I don't trust China. In fact I don't trust any country. Any trust I have is accompanied by the condition that the trust must be shown to be deserved. In other words "trust but verify".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify

"The phrase became internationally known in English when used by President Ronald Reagan on several occasions in the context of nuclear disarmament discussions with the Soviet Union."

That was a philosophy of that leftist, Ronald Reagan.

If you think I'm a danger I wouldn't trust you to recognise a real danger.

All I am advocating is to try to make deals where we have a mutual interest. I think we have a mutual interest in avoiding war. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons all we need is one person going nutty and setting them off. That is a real danger. You can bury your heads in the sand and not recognise that danger.

Dear David,

Your argument in favour of appeasement is reasonable and certainly not heretical.

We sit here in a war council: so long as we all agree on the goals, which I think we do, we should indeed listen to each other and weigh all the different tactics carefully.

Indeed, during this period of British appeasement, Jewish children were able to escape Germany on trains: http://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/kindertransport-1938-40

Is this still the case? Will we, by keeping our tone down for a while (while continuing frantically to obtain more arms, training and allies), playing "peacemakers", still be able to buy time and rescue at least the people of Hong-Kong? I don't know the answer, but so long as we can save those lives, appeasement could remain a possible temporary option. I bow out and leave this question to the strategic experts.

It strikes me as extraordinary that after perhaps a million years of species evolution, Homo Sapiens seems not to have developed beyond base instincts, Id and Ego predominating, clinging to tribal structures and orientation and fear of the neighbours, afraid to look over one's shoulder, or to take an eye off 'the other'.

Not all of humanity however, but the peacemakers are outnumbered and outgunned by the fearful - the power-mongers who dare not admit to fear, who browbeat and con the masses into compliance with their psychosis, their paranoia, of ever present danger.

US BLM, doctrine of the Second Amendment, with 'ordinary citizens' roaming the streets with automatic assault weapons.
Just blinking marvelous, eh.

Peace can only be a long way off, and it will likely take the ilk of a 'super Reagan' to even start the ball rolling.

In perhaps another million years, with a great deal of luck and forbearance, a universal ethic of 'cooperation' may replace the prevailing ethic of 'competition' and distrust - if global annihilation does not precede and preclude this.
Until then, dog-eat-dog remains the state of play, and with it, this unfortunately precipitous existence, and future, of humankind.

We must cling to our patch of turf, be kind to one-another, develop friendships with our geographic neighbours (and with the bullies), maintain optimism that 'tomorrow will be a new day', pray (as best we can) that sanity will prevail, and use whatever little influence we may muster to induce change in the global ethos toward 'peace in our time'.

May the lion lay down with the lamb - before it's too late?
Hoping. (But, I don't see it happening in my limited lifetime.)

Dear Saltpetre,

This world is not meant to evolve and become a peaceful place, this is not it's purpose - rather, this world can be likened to a school.

We use this world to study and grow, then we graduate and leave and new, younger and uneducated students come in our place to learn more or less the same lessons. The school keeps standing, it does not evolve (or if you like to be more precise, it goes through cycles according to the school years/terms) - the students evolve and that is what counts!

Had schools evolved into universities, then who would be teaching the younger generation of souls entering this world?

Hassy, previously on the Forum you favoured a "Get em' before they get us" philosophy, did you not put forward the notion that 200,000,000 innocent men, women and children in Pakistan should be NUKED as a preemptive strike by our side? Who is MAD? Hassy you will never be in danger of being called a pacifist, that's for sure.

The belligerent warmongers are hell bent on destroying the United Nations as a mechanism for world peace. The announced spending of $270 billion on aggressive militarism by Morrison in the form of long range missiles does not bode well for Australia as a vehicle for peace in our region. You do not make friends with the neighbour by pointing a gun in his face. China should note that as well.

David I see the merit in what you say, for far to long the belligerent warmongers have held sway in Australia's decision making, dictated the attitude of the country towards militarism, allowed us to be led by the nose by a foreign power with disastrous consequences. AND they call me disloyal!

Peace, men and women of OLO.

To some on here, the native doves of Australia, keep on dreaming.

Seriously, what peace efforts do you think will win against the CCP given all of the facts and evidence that show the CCP's real intentions.

It is great we live in a society that gives people choice in how they think, but the wishful approach to the CCP you are calling for will not happen.

I am as sure as that as I was in 2008=09 when I stated the US backlash was coming.

There has to be a Cold War, and we have to win.

But as Mr O would say to the doves of OLO, kum by yah

There's a better chance of everyone of us winning the lottery than achieving peace.
There'll never be peace until all are pulling their weight !
One just has to take a look at Hong Kong. Would Chine really cause as much mayhem as the protesters ?

Well past her use by date though she is, Bronwyn Bishop made a true statement the other night on Sky News: "The Greens hate Australia".

A puss sucker who though she was above everyone else, $20,000 joy flights in a helicopter at taxpayer expense. Sorry if I missed that one, I refuse to pay for Murdoch trash, the so called 'Sky Channel' with its collection of bogon commentators. ttbn its the old men who never have to fight wars, that push for war, are you in that category.

BTW just to add, the NAZI's loved Germany, so what. If you really loved your country you wouldn't be trumpeting military aggression towards our neighbours in the way you do. That just makes innocent people targets.

Yuyutsu perhaps buying time would have some point if we were actually buying arms. Unfortunately we aren't buying weapons but toys.

Diesel subs, designed for WW11, & a failure even then are merely toys for the generals & admirals to play WW11 war games with, & utterly useless as weapons today.

A few tanks & a few aircraft which may be effective, but in such small numbers that we wouldn't last a single day in a full shooting war are nothing but a joke, & a waste of good men.

Unless we are fully nuclear armed we are merely a side show, & might as well be armed with boomerangs & nulla nullas for all the good we would do.

"Unless we are fully nuclear armed"...Look out Pakistan! Hassy you have a reputation what could innocent men, women and children expect if you had the finger on the button? Total destruction?

'A puss sucker who though she was above everyone else,'

straight from the antifa/greens dictionary. What a hero!

Dear David,

Rabbi Marianne Williamson has in her book, "Illuminata"
written some interesting thoughts that might be
appropriate to add to this discussion. She says that
the only thing we can be one hundred percent
responsible for is our own minds.

In our nation today, and as we can see from some of the
posts on this forum, there is a widespread malignant
thought form that "other people are the problem".

Conservatives tend to blame progressives for their
problems. Progressives tend to blame conservatives. The
media blames almost everyone, and almost everyone tends
to blame immigrants. Some people are convinced homosexuals
are the problem, while others think single parents are.
Still others think the Christian Right are the problem,
and far too many blame their parents. This entire culture
has become a hysterical blame session.

Yet a vital, healthy society is not one in which we all
agree. It is one in which those who disagree can do so
with honour and respect for other peoples' opinions and
an appreciation of our shared humanity.

Without personal commitment to the attributes of fair play
and integrity , we are in grave danger.

Malice and intolerance stalks our society, staking claims
on our minds and not one corner of our social order is
unaffected. This darkness is a significant threat to our
national good, perhaps the most significant threat to our
history, for it strikes at the very heart of democracy.

Where people are not free to disagree, there can be no
democracy, since that is what democracy is.

Our political conversation must shift away from the mass,
infantile finger-pointing that now pervades it. It is not
Progressives or Conservatives who have or are ruining our
country. It is the tendency on so many people's parts to
think that their way is the right way and that people who
disagree with them are bad.

It is important that we renew dignified and respectful dialogue
with those who do not agree with us than that we keep
slavishly congratulating those who have the wisdom to see
things our way.

Yes Foxy,

there is only one right way with the CCP, take it on.

and that is what is happening, with the momentum building.

If we dont act now, people in the future will have much less time and opportunity to read books about democracy.

Dear Chris,

M<any tyrants would not have risen to power had it not
been for vast numbers of people who gave them that
power.

Regarding China, I still believe that internally she is
not as strong as she makes out. And that Australia is
currently taking the right approach.

Had the Abbott government cared more about Australia's future than short term budgetary objectives and their hatred of the ABC, we'd be broadcasting into China now. Strategically, that would've been worth an order of magnitude more than this increase in military spending.

But the militaristic dinosaurs who dominate this forum cheered Abbott on...

Come on Aidan, the ABC are closer to the CCP than to the majority of the Chinese population. Fat lot of good they would do for anyone but a green ratbag.

Hasbeen, maybe you should try actually watching or listening to the ABC occasionally, rather than basing your views of its content on the lies of its enemies!

"the ABC are closer to the CCP than to the majority of the Chinese population" What a load of rubbish Hassy, its people with your attitude that promote war, not the ABC. I understand some part of your career is rooted in militarism as a gung-ho pilot. Is it possible you took part in attacks on innocent men, women and children at some point? That would explain your desire to nuk millions, and kill as many as possible. The greatest single act of mass murder in human history was committed by a military pilot, a Paul Tibbets, in 1945 when he and his crew dropped a nuclear bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan.

davif f,

Re your Chamberlain post.

Here's what I wrote to aidan on a similar issue....
Aidan wrote: "That's one possible outcome. Another is that Germany would have immediately gone to war with, and defeated, an unprepared Britain."

Well perhaps. But how would they defeat Britain? Sure Britain was unprepared but then so was Germany.
The German General Staff had already told Hitler that it would take at least 8 weeks to defeat Czechoslovakia and use all of Germany's resources. And that was assuming the Czechs remained isolated. But their worry was that other nations (Poland, Russia, France) would support them and the Germans didn't have the wherewithal to defend that.

Indeed the German High Command had told Hitler they could not go to war over the Sudetenland and had privately discussed overthrowing the government if Hitler tried.

Munich was the best chance the world had to avoid war. Chamberlain fluffed it because he was prepared to pay any price to get peace. As Churchill said "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war."

david f, if what you wrote were true, the UK would have immediately begun re-arming after Munich (Sept 38). But they didn't. Believing they had "peace in our time" they continued to allow the armed forces to deteriorate. It was only after Hitler took the rump Czechoslovakia (March 39) that the blinkers fell off.

Its now been 75 years since there was a shooting war between world superpowers. Sure there's been plenty of smaller proxy wars, but no major war. Whatismore, by any measure, that period has been among the most peaceful in human history.

That period of peace is longer than almost any time in history, even exceeding the post Napoleonic peace.

Truly we live in a golden age in terms of relations between the major powers. We are always on the precipice but never over it.

You want more peace? Get more of the things that have created this era of relative peace:

More Democracy
More capitalism
More economic growth
More individual freedom
More global trade
More inter-connectivity between major economies
More nukes
More mutual assured destruction

Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum ("Therefore let him who desires peace get ready for war.")..Renatus

Dear mhaze,

England did produce the Spitfires in the interval which won the Battle of Britain.

However, according to https://www.toptenz.net/10-times-easily-stopped-hitler-didnt.php

There was a coup planned against Hitler which was stopped because Chamberlain gave in:

“In order to prevent war (and Germany’s destruction), Hitler’s chief of staff, General Franz Halder, planned to stage a coup and remove Hitler from power. At the chosen time, the Berlin head of police was to arrest the entire Nazi leadership, including Hitler, Himmler, Goering, and Goebbels. The plan was to strike at September 14 at 8:00 PM, but on that day, it was announced that the English Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, would be flying to Berlin to have a meeting with Der Fuhrer. Halder delayed the coup on the small chance Hitler could bluff Chamberlain into backing down and giving him the Sudetenland.”

There are many whatifs in history. Try this one on for size. If Napoleon had won at Waterloo there would have been no Communist Manifesto.

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

“Prior to his son's birth, and after the abrogation of Jewish emancipation in the Rhineland,[24] Herschel converted from Judaism to join the state Evangelical Church of Prussia, taking on the German forename Heinrich over the Yiddish Herschel.”

The abrogation of Jewish emancipation was a result of Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo. Napoleon had emancipated the Jews, but with his defeat the emancipation was abrogated. As a result 6 year old Karl became Christian, got a Lutheran education and became a follower of Hegel and a leader of the left Hegelians. Had Karl remained a nice Jewish boy it is unlikely that his life would have taken the course it did.

Well I am surprised those advocating the ABC short wave broadcasting
have not heard of the Chinese jamming stations.
At one time the Russians and Chinese had control stations setup that
could bring up jammers on any frequency and in whatever area needed.

It was a great game that went on for years but as far as I know is now less active.

The ABC has the same mentality as Chancellor Merkel !

Plenty of ABC reports expressing concern about the CCP.

Keep debate real please.

I have no idea as to any initiatives for peace.
Without a crystal ball or the supernatural, I think the title is inane.
What on earth does anyone, either here on OLO or for that matter, in the world, know what the true lay of the land is, or what is truly going on in parliaments of countries around the world.
I have never contemplated the unrealistic thought of world peace, because there are too many "sick" factions.
The strongest ones have been the Illuminati, which to date no one has challenged their existence.
In case some of you have not heard of them or are not familiar with them, they intend "ruling the world" via a thing called the "one world order".
Now I don't give toss what some crazy elite Jews think or want, but I can say this, it's not in their interest to have a world of peace, as they believe and fervently condone the "divide and rule" ethos.
No I can't see a world of peace and harmony, this is probably as good as it gets.
Another thing I believe needs clarification is; I also don't see a nuclear war any time soon, because one of (only one) the reasons a country attacks another is for it's financial worth and/or resources.
If an atomic war broke out, and if we looked like we were loosing the war, at the very moment of having lost, I for one would have all our natural resources and those things which the enemy fought for destroyed by atomic bombs, so that the old adage of, "if I can't have it, neither can anyone else", rendering their efforts and the country, a waste of time.
Somewhat akin to the arsenic pills the spies were presumed to carry in case of capture.
No I believe the next "war", will not be nuclear, oh maybe a little here and their to rattle the sabre, so to speak, but no, the next "war", will be one with chemicals or bacteria, so as to not harm the resources, but reduce or remove any opposition.

david f,

"England did produce the Spitfires in the interval which won the Battle of Britain."

In fact the first Spitfire wasn't produced until June 1940, almost two years after Munich. Chamberlain thought he had "peace in our time" and didn't in the slightest use the time to re-arm. Its just a claim constructed after the event to try to justify what was a monumental error.

"There was a coup planned against Hitler which was stopped because Chamberlain gave in"

As per my original point.

The article about the times Hitler could have been stopped missed 1936 when Hitler occupied the Rhineland. At the time, the German troops were under orders to retreat if the French reacted in any way. The French could have sent in the local constabulary to oppose the German moves and it would have been all over

mhaze,

Britain and France were more concerned with fighting the Great Depression than fighting Hitler so they foolishly turned a blind eye to his machinations.

Maybe we have a lesson to learn from the pre-WW2 experience of Britain and France because at the moment the West is not taking any real action against the Chinese who are starting to gobble up bits of territory and expand its military capacity.

Scott Morrison might look to be facing off against China but let's be real in recognizing that he is just another boofhead deputy sheriff of the US and is just going through the motions and seeing an opportunity to grab a share of the cashed up Chinese wanting to flee Hong Kong before the CCP closes the gate on them.

The interesting question at the moment is what has China got installed for us for giving sanctuary to dissident Chinese? Something really bad short of war I'm imagining.

Definition of reputation:

1a: overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general

b: recognition by other people of some characteristic or ability
has the reputation of being clever

2: a place in public esteem or regard : good name
trying to protect his reputation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/reputation

I think the public deserves better than the above, if one is referring to peace.

NathanJ,

What are you talking about?

mhaze,
> In fact the first Spitfire wasn't produced until June 1940, almost two years after Munich.
What's your source for that claim? It contradicts the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire

_________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
Further to my comments last night:
'Twas from the ABC that I found out about the murders in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre, and Xi's complicity in them.
'Twas from the ABC that I found out about the Chinese social credit system, and the way the Chinese government is abusing it to punish whistleblowers.
'Twas from the ABC that I found out about the "reeducation camps" in western China where millions of Uighur people are being detained despite having broken no laws.

If the Chinese people had access to the information that I've received from the ABC, I think President Xi would have lost face by now.

Aidan,

Xi has been installed as president for life!

Don't you get it? He is now on par with a Chinese emperor.

That means they want him to be there for the duration of their push into empire building.

Mr 0,
Don't you get it? If Xi loses the confidence of the Chinese people, but relies on his "president for life" status to cling to power, his life could become very short!

Aidan,

You don't know anything about Chinese civilisation.

The CCP is the new dynasty.

New dynasty Mr O.

How so?

What is the CCP dominating outside China?

If you going to say something, back it up rather than merely talking.

Dear Chris Lewis,

A Chinese Dynasty rules China and doesn't have to dominate anything outside of China. Mr Opinion is correct in calling the CCP a Dynasty.

david f,

Yes, I think this is the reason Xi was made president for life: he has to have all the trappings of the first CCP emperor to tell the nation-state that the CCP is here forever and must be obeyed.

A dynasty is hereditary. Therefore the CCP is not a dynasty.
Nor will the CCP be in power for ever; sooner or later, if it doesn't cede power, the people will overthrow it. And with Xi in charge, that could come a lot sooner than most people expect. But meanwhile it could do a lot of damage.

Aidan,

Xi Jinxing could turn out to be the founding member of the Xi dynasty.

Does that make you happy?

Dear David, as long at the scum that is the CCP sticks to China, I will be happy.

Good luck to the CCP or Xi dynasty, although i hope the scum is overthrown by its people.

Dear Chris,

I would not be happy if the CCP would stick to China. I prefer it be replaced. I don't understand that a dynasty must be heredity. I understand that a dynasty is one entity rule with power transferred within that entity and no recognised opposition. I believe that in a traditional Chinese dynasty the ruler is free to designate a successor who may not be a relative.

Hi David,

A two part question, how should it be replaced, and by whom should it be replaced?

Its my opinion and without evidence, if free and democratic elections were held in China, if that was even remotely possible, I believe the CCP would be returned with an overwhelming majority. The devil you know is better that the devil you don't.

Yes Paul, given that you have to be a member of CCP to get anywhere in the first place, there would be a lot of people doing their utmost to conince the masses to vote CCP.

But give it 12 months with parties free to report the truth, and the CCP would not stand a chance

Dear Paul,

You may be right that with a free vote the CCP might be returned to power. However, if they were absolutely sure of that they could have a free vote with the only options yes or no. If no is a majority they might relinquish power. It might be instructive to consider the collapse of the USSR.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1989-1992/collapse-soviet-union

I certainly didn't anticipate a USSR collapse, but the citizens had had enough. Maybe Chinese citizens feel the same way.

how should it be replaced, and by whom should it be replaced?
Paul1405,
Let it implode instead of interfere with it & prolong it !

Hi David,

China is a much different case to the Soviet Union, to what degree is there mass discontent with the regime? Where is the strong political opposition? Is there a growing disaffected middle class? Is there economic instability? Unless these questions are answered in the
affirmative regime change is very unlikely.

With your opening post I agree, but is the objective peace, or having Australia gain kudos as a noble, but failed, champion for peace. I can only see Australia as one small cog in a giant wheel working for peace and stability in our region. The position of Australia at the moment is we are very much aligned with the US, and take a negative attitude with a "China bad, US good" stance, which is hardly likely to gain trust from the Chinese.

Just for a moment can you see that the Chinese might have concerns which they see as a threat to their security?

Dear Paul,

Threats to their security? Much of what the powers-that-be see as threats to their security are attempts to overturn the symbols and actuality of their oppressive acts. Do the million Uighurs in Chinese camps being free represent a threat to Chinese security? Do toppling the statues of the heroes of the slavocracy Confederacy, making police accountable and stopping the police murder of black and other people threaten American security? One means by which oppressors stay in power is by labeling attempts to overturn their system of power as threats to their security. If Trump and Xi have feelings of insecurity it is great. May their feelings of insecurity be justified.

Chris,

It's extremely doubtful that the Chinese populace will ever rise up against the CCP. That's just not how things happen in China.

If you look back over Chinese history the only way the CCP will be ousted is if another state challenges it. And the CCP is just too powerful to be challenged by an internal or external contender.

And keep in mind China has a powerful ally in Russia which is looking to re-establish its own empire. You add to that list a lot of smaller states like Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, and now even a more than China-friendly PNG which is just a stone's throw from our border.

If Australia really wants to send a message to Beijing I suggest cancelling the visas of all Chinese nationals and send them packing back home because how many of them do you think are operatives of the CCP here under the guise of migrants.

Mr O, yes, an uprising is unlikely.

But one must live in hope.

I think pressure for reform will come from outside China, assuming my hope that much greater pressure will emerge.

Interesting your view about getting rid of Chinese nationals. It is an issue I am currently writing about in my piece on Australia and race.

I am unlikely to agree, although it is an issue I raise given cold war tensions.

Chris,

If you're happy to live with the enemy inside the gate then so be it. I'm sure China will appreciate your stance.

I think an overwhelming majority of Chinese Australians embrace our lifestyle and societal norms.

Who wouldn't embrace our country; one of best in the world, despite growing policy difficulties.

Very hard to quantify our different beliefs though.

'Very hard to quantify our different beliefs though.'

not really Chris, not unless you deny the biblical influence that made Western nations the most desired in the world. Of course under godless marxism we now have heaps more violence and myriads of other godless fruit that is making the West less attractive.

runner, I was referring to quantifying where the loyalty of Chinese Australians are and will be given current tensions.

IMO, no doubt the west is the best; that is why many want to come here.

In a democracy such as Australia it is important that
we do not question people's integrity or loyalty
based on their political views or policy positions.

Ad hominem attacks that tag people as "useful idiots"
as "communists" are a means to discredit and
delegitimise opposing voices. Using these attacks avoids
the effort of engaging with arguments and evidence.

The question of "loyalty" harms the Chinese communities,
Chinese-Australians, and Chinese International
students. Just as everyone else they are entitled to
exercise their democratic rights, including freedom of
expression.

that is simply wrong Foxy.

Australians would have every right to alter its Chinese intake if evidence shows trends to be worried about.

We also have a right to favour HK Chinese. This would be our choice.

Aidan,

Re the Spitfire. Yes its true they did produce some in 1938/39. I was referring to the new Spitfire production that occurred in the aftermath of the Nazi absorption of rump Czechoslovakia. It was those planes that fought and won the Battle of Britain. Almost all the original proto-type planes had been lost in France and the low countries.

"If you look back over Chinese history the only way the CCP will be ousted is if another state challenges it. "

Well in the long history of China, various dynasties were indeed felled by outside invasion. But equally, a large or larger number were overthrown due to internal revolt as the rulers lost legitimacy.

In other China news, the US has, for the first time, officially taken a stand against the China so-called 9 Dash claims...
http://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/07/for-first-time-ever-us-officially-rejects-chinas-unlawful-south-china-sea-claims/

And China has now sanctioned Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio over their Uighur attacks.

This is all part of the expanding western (really Anglo-sphere) confrontation with China. Morrison's military expansion should be seen in that light.

Dear Chris,

We're not talking about immigration here.

What we're talking about is the questioning of loyalties
of people already here who happen to be Chinese.

We should not question the integrity and loyalty of
people simply because of their ethnicity. This is an
unacceptable way to conduct a debate or discussion.

It may be tempting to categorise people or their views
into "pro-china"or "anti-China" but dividing people into
categories is unhelpful, as it gives the illusion that
everyone allegedly in the same camp is united in a common
view and that people of different camps disagree on
everything.

This is a false belief. For example advocating for more
trade with China may be a pro-trade position, not a pro-
China one. People may equally advocate for trade with
other countries, or they may believe that embargos don't
work as intended. Similarly shedding light on atrocities
committed in Xinjiang may be a pro human rights position,
not an anti-China one. It is possible to hold different
views at once

All that matters regarding Australians of Chinese origins, is to make sure that they do not aid and abet the enemy, then to kick out (or exchange for Australian hostages in China) those who would and quarantine those who might.

Embracing the Australian lifestyle and societal norms, is a useful TEST: anyone who embraces these is very unlikely to help the enemy.

But it must be remembered that it is only a test, not a goal in itself. I, for one, do not pass this test, yet I am committed to help Australia in whatever way I can against the evil Chinese invaders.

Foxy,

with all due respect, I will conduct and offer my views anyway I see fit, but I will take your views on board.

If people disagree with my comments, so be it

IMO, I have every right to research and write about the sentiment of Chinese Australians in these strange times

Dear Chris,

I also am entitled with all due respect to question your
views and express mine. That is an acceptable way to
conduct a debate or discussion.

In a democracy such as Australia, it is important that we
do not question people's integrity or loyalty based on
their political views or policy positions or try to
discredit opposing voices. Using these attacks avoids the
effort of engaging with arguments and evidence. And the
question of loyalty harms the Chinese communities in
Australia. It harms Chinese Australians as well as
Chinese International students.

Just as everyone else they are entitled to exercise their
democratic rights, including freedom of expression. You're
not the only one entitled to do that.

This is not to deny the existence of foreign interference.
If there are accusations of foreign interference then they
should be based on facts and actual evidence of covert,
coercive or corrupt behaviours. By themselves, political
views or policy positions should not be seen as evidence of
foreign interference.

It is in Australia's national interest that we continue to
contemplate China's role in the world and to debate how
Australia should respond to the complex challenges posed
by China.

But this is a conversation that needs to be conducted based on
facts and the merits of the argument not on insinuation of
intention.

We need to stop personal attacks. We need to promote
greater knowledge - policy makers, scholars, and the media
need to work together and disseminate China knowledge
and research. This would help understanding of the issues
and put news stories in context.

And there's more but this will suffice for now.

Foxy,

I wouldn't trust the Chinese as far as I could throw them.

They'll just pick and choose whatever side to be on at whatever particular time is necessary to save their own necks.

I get the impression that you have a vested interest in a pro-China outcome. You don't by chance have business interests with the Chinese? A matter of money talks - you can take a few pointers from Andrew Forrest on that.

Mr O,

It may be tempting to categorise people on their views
into being "pro-China"or "anti-China". But dividing people
into 2 camps is unhelpful. People with strong views on
China don't hold views just for the sake of supporting
or opposing the Chinese government. For example advocating
for more trade with China may be a pro-trade position, not
a pro-China one. People may well advocate for trade with
other countries as well, or they may believe that embargos
don't work as intended. It is possible to hold more than
one view at once.

Someone can advocate for trade with China and at the same
time condemn China for its human rights abuses.

It is wrong to question the integrity or the loyalty of
people based on their views. Ad hominem attacks that try
to tag people as "communists"or "pro China"are a means
to discredit and delegitimise opposing voices.
And using these attacks avoids the effort of engaging with
arguments and evidence.

You have consistently tried to insinuate things about
people who express views on China that disagree with yours.
This is an unacceptable way to conduct a debate or
discussion. It needs to stop.

If we were to make a list of countries in our region with a questionable human rights record, lets see who we can find. Some worse than others. In no particular order of nastyness.

Indonesia
Papua New Guinea
Malaysia
New Zealand
Singapore
Vietnam
Cambodia
Laos
Thailand
Myanmar
and of course China.
and don't forget Australia.
Have I forgotten anyone, most likely.

As a member of Amnesty International, they publish a list of hot spots of countries violating human rights. here is some from the list for 2017. In no particular order of 10 such countries, not the worse 10, not the best 10, just 10;

Venezuela
Yemen
China
United States
Australia
Turkey
Syria
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Myanmar

There are lots of others if you wanted to make a list of 100 that can be done.

Paul, why few nations are hardly perfect, there is the importance of scale.

If you believe that CCP hegemony would be better than the US, which I doubt you do, then someone needs to explain why.

Yes, I see the CCP issue very black and white, and don't really care about the grey areas.

I have been looking at this issue for over a decade, and so far my fears have been justified.

If the CCP was to get its way, then stay tuned to a new level of human rights abuses. It will get much worse.

.

Dear david f.,

.

While I share your objective of “peace”, your proposed “initiative” for achieving it (the organisation by Australia’s Prime Minister of a worldwide disarmament conference) seems to me to be something of a pipe dream.

There is far too much hate, violence and fanatism in the world for peace-loving peoples and nations to be able to disarm safely and hope to live in security.

I, personally, consider that we should do whatever is necessary in order to be able to defend our families, friends and freedoms from internal and external threats – just as nature has armed our bodies with protective mechanisms capable of defending us from internal and external threats from aggressive illnesses, tumours, microbes and viruses etc.

The world’s preeminent arms limitation and disarmament treaty is the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). 191 states are parties to that treaty in 2020. Under it, non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the nuclear-weapon states, in exchange, agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.

But, as we all know, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to stop states using nuclear reactors to produce nuclear weapons.

Dismantling all forms of defence is not the right solution. We need to develop and maintain appropriate and effective alert and defence systems.

Also, in matters of defence, prevention is better than cure. We need to correctly identify and analyse the root causes of the hate, violence and fanatism that threaten our families, friends and freedoms. We need to gain a proper understanding of the root causes and treat them appropriately.

Our peace and safety depend on it.

Allow me also to add that, as a broker for peace between China and the USA, Australia alone is not all that well-positioned as a member of the ANZUS treaty.

Pakistan is generally recognised as China’s closest ally in Asia. Thailand also has a history of friendly relations with China. A partnership with one or both of these countries may be more viable.

.

Peace treaties only work between countries that keep their promises. China is not one of those.

A lot of posts on here.
I did not see one that took account of the Amman Accord between China
and the Islamic states. They have adopted an agreement of co-operation
on all matters. It appears because of the Chinese military move into
some border Islamic countries to include military matters.
As both are driven to be world dominators, China wanting to restart
the Central Kingdom regime and the Islamists wanting to demand that
everyone worship Allah, an eventual clash between Marxism and Islam
seems inevitable.
I would expect that the Chinese would be not genuine and would in the
long run delete the Islamists after using them.
Any other thoughts on this ?

yes, interesting.

The CCP wants to be a global superpower, but I doubt that its ideology would be compatible or acceptable to some muslim nations in the longer term.

And the CCP's targeting of its own muslim minorities will mean that no sane muslim leader or society will ever trust the CCP.

Problem for the CCP is that it stands for nothing.

The CCP has no chance of making China a superpower in cultural or ideological terms.

It will merely be supported by other dictatorships.

Pretty soon the world will divide much more between those who support the West and those who support the CCP.

Interesting times.

While ever China and the M-E islamic states have a common enemy in the form of the USA in particular and western values in general, they will remain friends or at least compatriots.

Witness the current situation with the Uighurs. Probably several million held in concentration camps, forced indoctrination to eradicate their Islamic beliefs, rape, murder/execution, forced organ harvesting, forced sterilisation. Yet not a peep from any Muslim state.

If any power other than China were to do even a tenth of what the CCP are doing to the Uighurs, the muslim world would be in uproar, Fatwas being handed out like candy, terrorist attacks by the dozen.

So why nothing here? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Its really that simple.

Sure, there may come a time when states like Turkey, Kazakhstan and Pakistan can no longer abide Chinese dominance. But that will only happen if and when they perceive the Chinese as a greater threat than the west.

That time is a long way off.

Banjo,

"We need to correctly identify and analyse the root causes of the hate, violence and fanaticism ... and treat them appropriately."

Yes, and the primary 'root cause' is 'inequality'.

Inequality of living standards, national security, self-sufficiency, services (health, housing, technology, education) and opportunity.

I acknowledge this list is IN-COMPLETE - with 'religious differences and intolerance' concerns (even hatred), racial or nationalistic wounds founded in historical 'conflicts', territorial or resources disagreements, or disparities in wealth distribution.

Given the 'social disturbances' within the US, UK and Europe, including extraordinary squabbles within the UK - Ireland 'split in two' and Scotland pushing for independence - if these supposedly enlightened, democratic, 'stable' world powers have difficulty getting their acts together, then what, realistically, is the solution?

Short of a new 'Messiah', it looks as though it may indeed be up to 'China' to lead the way - as counter-intuitive as this may appear - and as difficult to swallow as it presents.

Trump, Boris, Putin, UN, Narendra Modi, Imran Khan, EU Commission? None presents any real prospect for resolving their own problems, let alone the world's problems.

May a global 'pact' with China, with Xi Jinping, be the best, even the only practical way forward?
A tough one, but in combination with a revised and rejuvenated UN - with all Security Council 'veto powers' revoked?

Alternatively, the rest of the world may need to withdraw relations, trade and people-movement with China, declaring China a 'pariah' state, and then girding-their-loins for a 'reaction', strengthening their resolve via a reformed UN to unanimously embark on a program of global, universal equality - subject to an immediate complete cessation of all conflicts and hostilities, and an acceptance by all participating nations that all disagreements may only be resolved by the UN, by majority vote (no veto powers for anyone), with compliance being mandatory - and with any defiance or non-compliance invoking immediate expulsion and cessation of 'membership benefits'.

All member armed forces compliant with UN mandate - Taliban and Boko Haram etc to get lost or get stomped - no exclusions. Conformity, and no more 'China-viruses'.

Saltpetre, I could be wrong, BUT, if I have learned one thing, in all my years of interaction with the people of THIS world, is that even though the greater majority want to live an harmonious and inclusive life, there are those who are born with an adversary and dictatorial mentality.
It is therefore NOT possible to expect peace and harmony, at any level, as long as we have these people at large.
Even more disturbing, is when they are voted into power and are allowed to induct like minded people to assist them.
Remember, WE are the ones who decide such things, it therefore follows that it is the people who must first want peace and harmony if we are serious.
I submit OLO as a good case in point, just look at the spectrum of attitudes and mind-sets on here.
I have previously said that we must get pro-active and rid ourselves of the liars, cheats, and con-men and their brethren or followers.
This means taking up arms and attacking the institutions both private and govt, and I do mean the govt, or more precisely the ministers, that are the root cause of our problems and hardships.
Anarchy, I hear you yell.
Well call it whatever you like, but if we persist down this road of having decisions made that are not to our liking or expectations, we should not have to agree with them, otherwise what is touted to be a democracy is more like a dictatorship or other similar un-democratic system, of which there are many.
I prefer a system whereby I can do what I want, as long as I am not injuring or compromising others along the way.
I would much prefer as system of logic and common sense than what we have today.
And of course we need a system that is not black and white, because there is NOTHING about humans that is black and white.
Such is this stupid system of law that if you are charged with an offence, you are asked if you plead guilty or not.
Forget courts.

Dear Saltpetre,

As I've stated previously - it is in Australia's
national interest that we continue to contemplate
China's role in the world and debate how Australia
should respond to the challenges posed by China.

This is a conversation that needs to be conducted based
on facts and the merits of the argument not on insinuation
of intention. Therefore the promotion of greater knowledge
is crucial. Scholars, policy makers, economists, national
security experts, and even the media need to work
together and disseminate China knowledge and research.
This would help improve understanding of the issues and
put news stories in context. Also involving other
countries might also help.

A simplistic "pro china" "anti-China" division ignores complex
questions and shuts down the conversation.

Yes, foxy.

Sorry to tell you no one is listening. The Cold War is on, well and truly.

Dear Chris,

You probably mean no one is listening in your circle.

The Prime Minister and his Foreign Minister and
Cabinet are not only listening but actually acting.

Do your research.

I have to ask, but is it not obvious that China has been, for as long as I can remember, doing whatever it wants, mainly within China, but more so of late outside China.
It is acting more and more like someone who will not tolerate dissent or not getting it's way.
It has been clear for decades that it is building up it's military, why?
The irony is that we, the rest of the world, has been helping them by sourcing all our goods from China.
On the topic of conversation.
Has anyone tried to convince anyone on OLO and succeeded to change their minds, ideals or beliefs,......... anyone?
No, I didn't think so.
So how smart or aware or maybe un-aware do you have to be to suggest that we engage in CONVERSATION, with China?
That's a stupid idea normally, but especially so with China.
Can anyone tell me where there has been a difference of opinion with China, that CONVERSATION changed their mind??
Hmmmm??
NO?
I didn't think so.
If those of you with a broader range of knowledge about international affairs, could weigh in on this question, I for one, would be very great-full as I know too little about this and so I am not confident about talking about it as I have not given it the time and attention it deserves, when one considers the implications/ramifications of the current state of affairs surrounding China and the rest of the world.

Ok Foxy, keep dreaming.

Keep pretending chatter is going to make a difference to the CCP.

I am not going to spar with you anymore on the CCP.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

There’s a Russian proverb that Ronald Reagan was fond of quoting, “Trust but verify.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify

If a disarmament treaty is made it should include provisions for parties to the treaty to inspect to see that all are living up to the treaty. If any party to the treaty puts obstacles to inspection than the treaty is no longer valid. A disarmament treaty which relies solely on the word of the parties concerned is a meaningless piece of paper. A disarmament treaty which includes mechanisms to check on the activities of the signatories can make our insecure world less insecure.

Of course we live in a dangerous world, and any signatory to a treaty can withdraw from any treaty at any time. Nuclear proliferation is a great threat to peace. Every nation that acquires nuclear weapons makes the world a little less secure. There can be no guarantee that a seemingly stable person who has the authority to set off those weapons won’t have a psychotic episode.

In my opinion the current president of the USA is dangerous. He has suggested giving nuclear facilities to Saudi Arabia.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/report-trump-rushing-sell-saudi-arabia-nuclear-technology-190219181918317.html

One can fear that Saudi Arabia will develop the capacity to make nuclear weapons. The Islamic world already has nuclear capacity in Pakistan.

JCPOA is an agreement between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany and the EU to ensure its nuclear programme is limited to civilian use. Since experts in all nations involved apparently thought it was a good agreement and since there has been no indication that Iran has been violating the agreement I think it is a good agreement. Yet Trump has withdrawn the USA from the agreement without offering a reasonable explanation. He has stated that he thinks it was a bad deal. In my opinion if a Republican administration had done the deal he would not have withdrawn, but it was Obama’s deal. In my opinion he is a great danger.

continued

Dear Foxy,

"A simplistic "pro china" "anti-China" division ignores complex
questions and shuts down the conversation."

I agree, but how does 'the West' start the conversation - with any assurance of being taken seriously?

Hence, I posed two possibilities - 'band' with China in a genuine attempt to forge a viable way forward, or - take China 'to task' over what 'the West' sees as unacceptable behaviour, with the 'rider' of a potential withdrawal of all interaction with China if it refuses to 'participate'.

I'm not at all sure China would even agree to 'discuss the matter' with 'the West' - this being with a confirmed Alliance of all the major Western powers, and a rejuvenated UN (which is long overdue in itself).

Potential? Anyone's guess. But, can 'the world' afford not to at least try - one alternative or the other? Certainly either prospect would take time and dedication to achieve a mutually satisfactory covenant, and truly enlightened 'delegates' on all sides.

However, I cannot see long-term Peace and Security being achieved without much serious attention to the ogre of disparity and inequity running rampant in so many quarters.
Such ongoing 'inequities' present a most serious threat to world order, if allowed to persist indefinitely.

Of course, the 'West' could try 'going it alone' (to rectify Inequity), but I do not see the West even considering such a project with any enthusiasm in present circumstances.

ALTRAV,

I have no idea how to respond to you. I am not a student of history, Chinese or otherwise (or of very much else), and I could well be simply 'dreaming' or trying to sell 'a pipe dream', in my suggestion that the only way I can see for resolving the conflict and disorder so clearly evident in the world today is to seek to resolve the disparities and inequities so apparent in so many quarters.

Is 'disparity' truly the foundation of all 'evil'? Or, in other words, 'money' (or 'means'), and its concentration in few stingy, uncooperative and 'unreliable' hands?

I'm no Einstein, so, some ideas, please.

continued

The Islamic states are also a great danger and apparently the governments act without principle. In a post mhaze pointed out their silence in the face of China’s treatment of the Uighurs, Can anybody be trusted who doesn’t look out for their own?

Israel has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation agreement. Russia is still illegally occupying Crimea. I really don’t wish to single any particular country for condemnation since it seems that nobody’s hands are clean. Possibly Costa Rica has a good record from 1949.

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

“The victorious rebels formed a government junta that abolished the military altogether, and oversaw the drafting of a new constitution by a democratically elected assembly. Having enacted these reforms, the junta transferred power to Ulate on 8 November 1949. After the coup d'état, Figueres became a national hero, winning the country's first democratic election under the new constitution in 1953. Since then, Costa Rica has held 14 presidential elections, the latest in 2018. With uninterrupted democracy dating back to at least 1948, the country is the region's most stable.”

Most other countries might cease to exist if they didn’t have a military.

Banjo, you wrote:

“Dismantling all forms of defence is not the right solution.”

As far as I know nobody has suggested that.

You also wrote:

“Also, in matters of defence, prevention is better than cure. We need to correctly identify and analyse the root causes of the hate, violence and fanatism that threaten our families, friends and freedoms. We need to gain a proper understanding of the root causes and treat them appropriately.”

The absolute root cause of war is that it’s a thing humans do. If we got rid of humanity we would get rid of war. Of course other species kill each other, but not in the same manner.

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

“Ritual fighting (or ritual battle or ritual warfare) permits the display of courage, masculinity and the expression of emotion while resulting in relatively few wounds and even fewer deaths. Thus such a practice can be viewed as a form of conflict-resolution and/or as a psycho-social exercise.

continued

continued

Native Americans often engaged in this activity, but the frequency of warfare in most hunter-gatherer cultures is a matter of dispute.”
Perhaps it is more reasonable to try to limit the violence and scope of war as tribal people have done.

The modern world has already tried to limit the violence and scope of war by such actions as banning poison gas, recognizing crimes against humanity such as genocide and establishing an International Criminal Court. I would not expect a disarmament conference to result in complete disarmament. I would just hope for mutual reduction of armaments with mechanisms of verification and more acts such as cited above.

If we try to eliminate the root causes for war we will often find they also make life more livable.

Armament manufacturers make money from instruments of destruction, encourage conflict to sell their goods and seek out new market opportunities. However, capitalism has also given me and others a standard of life unimaginable to our ancestors I would not want to give up capitalism. Capitalism encourages the use of technology and provides its benefits to population at large.

To promote the hate, violence and fanaticism which lead to war there is nothing as effective as religion. However, religion is also a source of comfort and meaning to many. In the West we pride ourselves on having religious freedom. Even though I am not a believer I would not want to give up religious freedom.

Another cause of war is overpopulation. I am guilty of engaging in reproduction. “Too many people wanting too few goods” is a recipe for inflation and war. Education for girls and women, availability of contraception, abortion on demand, encouragement of homosexuality to those in doubt about their sexuality and heavier taxes on those with more children are ways to curb population growth. Some of solutions would be unpopular with some. However, it can be pleasurable to have children.

There are other causes of war, but I can think of none which don’t have positive features.

Banjo, what root causes of war would you eliminate?

David f,
Let me put your mind at ease, and anyone else who naively believes that the POTUS, namely Mr T can start anything, is not correct.
He can say anything, he can even start small things; BUT something as catastrophic as a war is definitely not withing his reach, even if the red button is.
Before any neuc's are deployed there are a plethora of steps, stages, meetings and God knows what else, and after ALLLLL that, at the end of the line are two guys with keys who turn on the "GO" switches simultaneously, before one piece of nuclear equipment is deployed.
I'm not quite up with the internal workings of the US congress or military, but I can thankfully rely on the fact that Mr T may be able to push a lot of buttons, but NOT the nuclear one!

Dear Saltpetre,

«Hence, I posed two possibilities - 'band' with China in a genuine attempt to forge a viable way forward, or - take China 'to task' over what 'the West' sees as unacceptable behaviour, with the 'rider' of a potential withdrawal of all interaction with China if it refuses to 'participate'.»

The first possibility was already tried - by Italy and Japan as they joined Germany in WW-II.

As for the second possibility, suppose we "told" (like they don't know already) China to stop what we see as unacceptable behaviour:
* Its occupation of Tibet
* Its stomping on Hong-Kong freedoms
* The holocaust of its Uighurs
* Its threat of invading Taiwan
* Its expansion, militarisation and resource-theft in the South China sea
* Its clamping down on religion, including private religious gatherings

Well, what are you hoping should happen?? Is there any real possiblity they could 'participate' (while awake and not drunk/drugged)?

Oh... I get it... you just want this for exercising your "last wish"... http://www.aish.com/j/j/51474902.html

one day someone might think how a baby can live peaceably in their mother's womb. When that takes place it might be believable that people really want peace.

Inequality can cause war, but I would not want to give it up?

I want to leave what I have earned and saved to my descendants. An attempt to make us all equal would deny that to me. As far as I know there has been no equal society in history, and I think the attempt to create one can only result in tyranny.

I regard the Communist Manifesto as a recipe for murder and wrote about it in the following.

https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12693

The Manifesto contains an attempt to construct a society where everyone is equal and I commented on some of the points:

“After a condemnation of bourgeois society the Manifesto specifies ten measures of a new society which may differ in different countries. Some follow:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Home ownership is out. One has a residence at the sufferance of the state.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Nothing can left to our children.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

I left the US to live in Australia. I still get pensions and social security from the US. If the US had followed the Manifesto the price of leaving would be losing everything I have worked for.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

There goes free expression, a free press and even owning a bicycle.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

The main factor in the loss of biodiversity is habitat destruction. The cultivation of waste lands would accelerate that process. Marx and Engels were probably not aware of ecological considerations.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

The armies would probably be staffed by conscription. There goes the right to decide what one wants to do for a living and where one wants to work.

continued

Continued

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

Presumably the equable distribution would be effected by the state determining where people live. The individual would not have a choice.”

The above points specify a powerful state. As it is we can go where we will and decide where we will live and what we will do for a living. I think most would prefer to live in such a society.

Dear Altrav,

You have pointed out the many safeguards against the launch of a nuclear weapon. If they all work it is great, but if they are too rigid the weapon cannot be used and ceases to be a deterrent.

I remember an incident when I worked for Westinghouse in the United States. Westinghouse made large screws or propellers to drive ships. Some of the equipment the workers used came in boxes. When a person unscrewed the boxes there were a number of inspectors to see that the small screws were removed. In fact there were seven different inspectors to check on the removal of the screws. One time when the propellers were connected to the ship the engines were turned on. CLANG! All the inspectors apparently thought the other inspectors were doing their job, and the propellers were badly damaged. I don’t trust the series of safeguards

david f,
let me assure you, neither do I.
And I'll bet all of them were qualified with a piece of paper to confirm it.
Also I agree completely with your account of what I see as socialism,
and communism.
Like a republic, IT DOESN'T WORK!
No unfortunately we have too many factions/groups who want to rule the world.
The one which is typically arrogant of them are the elite Jews in the guise of the Illuminati.
They have written throughout history of their intentions, which they have many names for, such as 'one world order', and I can't be bothered mentioning the rest.
By their own admission, they are dangerous and have been responsible for millions of deaths throughout history.
And they have the gall, the disgusting arrogance to force laws that make it illegal to suggest the the holocaust didn't happen.
Who the hell do these freaks think they are?
I am saying it again, WATCH OUT, these bastards are mental retards and they are amongst the most dangerous race/cult on earth.

I also deplore communism and its lies about solving inequality when we know what really happens when a power elite inevitably takes over and runs the show merely rewarding the party faithful and crushing rival ideas.

I am 100% liberal democratic, but one which supports a decent society that provides a reasonable starting point in terms of standard of living, yet promotes the ideal of equality of opportunity to help promote a dynamic society always seeking to renew itself to ovecome the challenges of the day

Hi Chris,

"I am 100% liberal democratic....." without putting it into words, that's what the average voter, sees for Australia. Both major parties cater to that desire. Radical change will not take place unless extreme social and economic conditions exist, allowing extremists to propagate their agenda. Russia 1917, Germany 1933, China 1949, a preexisting failure of the state will bring on radical change. The closest Australia came to that condition was during the 1930's, but it never reached the critical tipping point. At the time extremism enjoyed its highest level of support within the community, maybe as much as 20%. The other problem with extremism is its not a homogeneous block, Germany 1930, the main forces of extremism were the communists, the fascists and forget the anarchists. At one point the communists were the likely successors, but with better organisation and leadership the fascists under Hitler were able to win out.

Paul, I am hopeful that Australia never sees the extreme conditions necessary for a radical force to emerge.

I am thankful that Aust's liberal democracy today is light years from being as divisive as the US.

But circumstances can change quickly so nothing can be taken for granted.

Yes Chris the Hoi Poloi rise to the top no matter what the politics.
I was in the Moscow hotel restaurant in 1967, the one on Red Square,
where I could see the people arriving.
Big black Zis cars complete with chauffeurs jumping out and opening doors.
The women were wearing long dresses and weighed down with jewelry.
They spoke Russian quite loudly as passed me. They did not dine in
the main dining area but somewhere further inside.
I asked the waiter who they were, but he just shrugged and said government.

.

Dear david f.,

.

You ask :

« … what root causes of war would you eliminate? »

You will recall that I stated in my previous post :

« There is far too much hate, violence and fanatism in the world for peace-loving peoples and nations to be able to disarm safely and hope to live in security … We need to correctly identify and analyse the root causes of the hate, violence and fanatism that threaten our families, friends and freedoms. We need to gain a proper understanding of the root causes and treat them appropriately »

The root causes I was referring to were those that foster hate, violence and fanatism.

The three elements are prevalent throughout the world today in pandemic proportions. The root causes are diverse and various, depending on the historical context, perceived injustices, ideologies, cultural differences, etc.

The pattern of root causes of war is likewise more or less perceptible, more or less complex, and more or less difficult to prevent, mitigate and control.

Limiting conflict is an art that few people possess. On the national level, it passes by preventive diplomacy, fostering relationships based on cooperation rather than competition, deploying peacekeeping forces where necessary to prevent escalation, and entering into collective defence arrangements with other nations for greater security.

In addition, the countries that possess nuclear weapons, of course, dispose of what may be considered a fairly powerful argument of "mass dissuasion".

.

Dear Saltpetre,

.

On the question of inequality, according to the Inequality in Australia 2018 survey, Australia’s level of income is more unequal than the OECD average but more equal than other major English-speaking countries including the United States and the United Kingdom.

The Poverty in Australia 2020 report found that 3.24 million people in Australia (13.6% of the population) live below the poverty line – more than one in eight adults and one in six children. The poverty line (measured as 50% of median income) is $A457 per week for a single adult.

.

ALTRAV,

Do you read what you post?

You accused me of being patronising and insulting on
Shadow Minister's discussion about the Queen's letters
regarding the Gough Whitlam dismissal when all I did
was quote from the BBC - trying to give an English
perspective to the discussion.

And you used words like -
1) sick maggot, capricious maggot,
2) so called professor (about a historian you've never met).
3) Calling her a petulant prostitute

And even worse language in other discussions which is your
style of posting.

And when I pulled you up on
your language - you of course saw nothing wrong.
None of it was your fault. You found my style of
posting "insulting to all".

Yet here you go again.

Let me lift a mirror to yourself once again. This time you
personality shines through loud and clear for all to see.
You wrote to David F., whose of Russian Jewish ancestry
in the following way:

You wrote:

" ...elite Jews - in the guise of the illuminati?
They are dangerous and have been responsible for millions
of deaths throughout history and they
have the gall the disgusting arrogance to force laws that
make it illegal to suggest the holocaust didn't happen.
Who the hell do these freaks think they are?
I am saying it again WATCH OUT these bastards are mental
retards and they are the most dangerous race/cult on earth".

Shame on you - and if I was the moderator I would have you
banned from this forum for life.

Altrav,

You write some appalling rubbish. Do you believe every dumb-arse conspiracy theory that ever blows your way ? What you write about Jewish people is contemptible.

Although I suspect you won't, you could learn something from this:

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

Joe

Banjo,

"The poverty line (measured as 50% of median income) is $A457 per week for a single adult."

Statistics are great, aren't they. Imagine, $457 means poverty, and $550 'New Start/Job-seeker' (pre-Covid) is regarded as insufficient (seeming genuinely so), Aged Care rather better from all accounts, Parental Allowances may help a bit, or throw in some rental assistance, healthcare benefits and maybe some travelling allowances, and it appears we may not indeed be 'The Lucky Country'. What do ya reckon?

Please forgive me if I'm not reading the situation correctly.
I'm just not seeing all the poverty, though I'm sure there are many who are not able to do everything they'd like to, or have, for themselves or their kids, and I'm sorry for that, but are they all doing all they could (within their limitations) to make do or to get ahead? A bit of part-time casual here or there?

NDIS, Medicare, not enough social housing for sure (and I wish the PM would choose to do something about this, to invigorate the economy, instead of $25k for first-time builders or owner-occupier 'renovators'), but we are really in dire straits, aren't we.

However, I accept that I must be delusional in suggesting that maybe there wouldn't be so many refugees and displaced people running into trouble all over the place if something more had been done (and would be done) to relieve and hopefully avert/obviate the roots of disruption and hostility in their home countries.

After all it's a devil-take-the-hindmost world today, isn't it. Everyone afraid of losing power, means, and self-determination.

Still, charity begins at home.
(TBC)

Cont'd:

Banjo,

Who would have imagined that the 'Arab Spring' of people merely seeking better governance and a better deal could have sparked such incredible responses - Egypt, Libya, Syria - and the birth of ISIS? And we have the resurgence of the Taliban, and Iraq in a mess.

So, what exactly has warfare in the Middle East achieved?

A UN Special Rapporteur may have identified Aus as wanting in regard to material inequality, and even race relations, but then the UN is hardly truly representative of anything much these days - given its latest approval of China's new National Security Law, or its responses to Bashar Al Assad, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Maduro, Bolsonaro or even Netanyahu regarding his intentions regarding the West Bank.

Starving millions, TB still prevalent (but no vaccine for some), Covid running rampant throughout the world (and particularly the Third World), and yet we must focus on so many underprivileged, doing it tough in Aus. Blimey.

Oops, sorry Banjo, I see Job Seeker is $550 per fortnight (pre-Covid), so not very grand at all - and certainly needing revision, upwards.

Still, I guess everything is relative, but, with other additives regarding rental allowance, healthcare services, ..., maybe things are not as bleak as at first sight.

Comparisons? I leave this to my previous comments regarding some others comparatively doing it very tough indeed, and with little resolution in sight.

Dear Banjo,

Please tell us what you think those root causes are that foster hate, violence and fanaticism.

Dear David F.,

American Nobel laureate in Physics (2004), David J.
Gross, said many of the major problems in today's world
such as racism, bigotry, fanaticism, and threats to the
environment are caused by the sheer ignorance of people.

He pointed out that there are many problems and dangers:

1) Inequalities that exist - in and among nations.
2) Danger of fanaticism.
3) Persistence of useless war and violence.
4) The threats to the environment and health of our planet.

The cause of many of these problems he says is sheer ignorance.
The ignorance of science that could solve many of the world's
problems, the ignorance of basic facts, the ignorance of
other cultures that promote fanatical nationalism.

Gross made it quite clear that as possessors of knowledge
of the 21st century, one should take the responsibility to
strive to dispel this ignorance.

He also stressed that believing the wrong things or the
illusion of knowledge is far worse than the ignorance.

The reason that the fundamentalists are dangerous is not so
much that they are ignorant but that they are certain that
they possess the absolute truth.

It is this certainty that can lead to repression, bigotry,
racism, and fanaticism, Gross added

I sort of agree with Huntington "It is a human to hate".

While I acknowledge that there are some people who almost completely rise above squabbles, like my Mrs, i think most of us will find things to complain about in a very serious tone/way.

With regard to life and the struggle to achieve and prosper, life is a very competitive space.

I dont think ignorance explains much at all with regard to understanding the complexity and competitiveness of humanity

should be "it is human to hate".

Loved reading huntington's stuff at university, albeit left wing academics advised me not to pay too much attention to him.

But i have always been wary of do gooders, so I nearly always ignored them.

Chris Lewis,

Top marks, good for you for having reckognised bias and ignorance.
There are too many on OLO who have an unrealistic stance on life, and given the opportunity will subvert the very fundamental structure of society by promoting their opinions.
They are very passionate and invested in their beliefs, so it is normally quite impossible to bring them into line, as they refuse to consider anything else.
It is with disbelief that I watch these people going about their day completely oblivious to the fact that they are just like the covid 19, in so much as they are spreading a contagion that can easily be curtailed, if only they would consider other options that have been offered to them so as to be better informed and stop the spread of whatever diseased mis-information they harbour.

Maybe China wants war? Maybe could be considering to just get it over with, clear the decks and move forward with structuring the New World Order?

Methinks the US would be wise to aim a majority of its nukes or ICBMs at Chinese military targets - just in case - and maybe has already done so? (And maybe a few at strategic Nth Korean sites?)

We all say nobody wants war, nobody wins from war. Could we be wrong, in this instance? (As far as wanting to give it a go? Them, not us.)

China, or the CCP at least, seems very (to choose a John Howard slip of the tongue term) Recalcitrant? So, how is anyone expected to have a reasoned and reasonable conversation with them? Xi in particular has the best Poker Face one could ever imagine. Nothing given away, ever.

Well, my fingers are tightly crossed in hopes that sanity will ultimately prevail - but, honestly, I'm not all that confident.

As for Aus, maybe we can hope we are just too small a fish to be worried about? Maybe.

I'm not suggesting conversation should be abandoned, not in the least, just endeavouring to weigh-up the possibilities, and consider the odds.

(Victoria is a worry of course. Could Daniel possibly be considering Seceding? Nah, he's pretty ordinary, but not that ordinary, surely.)

one day every soul will find out that peace is only available via the Prince of Peace. The selfishness and sinfulness of us all forfeited peace a long time ago. The more secular/marxist a society becomes the less peaceful. Look at all those marxist fools who recently marched and had hate dripping off them.

.

Dear david f.,

.

You ask :

« Please tell us what you think those root causes are that foster hate, violence and fanaticism »

On such matters as on all others, David, as I am sure you are aware, my mind is not cluttered with formal education of any sort. Here are a few “pristine” ideas I consider worth considering :

On hate :

« The antidote to hate is compassion — for others as well as ourselves. Self-compassion means that we accept the whole self. “If we find part of ourselves unacceptable, we tend to attack others in order to defend against the threat,” says psychologist, Brad Reedy. “If we are okay with ourselves, we see others’ behaviours as ‘about them’ and can respond with compassion. If I kept hate in my heart for [another], I would have to hate myself as well. It is only when we learn to hold ourselves with compassion that we may be able to demonstrate it toward others.” » – Allison Abrams, psychotherapist, and mental health advocate.

This, of course, ties in with Freud’s theory of projection by which individuals attribute their own unacceptable thoughts, feeling and motives to others.

On violence :

« Violence results from a combination of factors, including those originating in the violent person’s social or cultural environment and those representing immediate situational forces. Researchers have examined multiple factors within a person that may contribute to violence, including genetic predisposition, neurochemical abnormalities (e.g., high testosterone levels), personality characteristics (e.g., lack of empathy for others), information-processing deficits (e.g., the tendency to view others’ actions as hostile), and the experience of abuse or neglect as a child. » – Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Violence may, of course, be physical, moral, or psychological and/or any combination of the three.

On fanaticism :

Fanaticism has political, economic, religious, and psychological roots.

Here is an interesting article on the root causes of fanaticism, entitled “Inside the Mind of Fanaticism” by Allen Frances, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and former Chair at Duke University, that appeared in the HuffPost of 13 November 2017 :

http://www.huffpost.com/entry/inside-the-mind-of-fanaticism_b_5a072059e4b0ee8ec36941e1?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANdMEdYtsglnegpE3oP0EwPl1gAEOxrCmnwzJkpkOkPCDU1TzkahNEhMXUJPlEtVp8rQIjEGPcxElM4axjBKZXqHMmczaomPTu7OOSeRwFhJuk_Fp-wMxYz5Tl9HT8U_U0xoJK91Pq3g7c4_WnHqINg-v0OUe9sjIwUNH9OwEOA9

.

.

Dear Saltpetre,

.

Inequality is an inexhaustible subject. Libraries are full of the scholarly publications of philosophers, economists, sociologists, and political scientists on the question.

But, clearly, nobody has yet come up with a solution that most would consider relatively satisfactory.

Capitalism and co-operative economics are the front runners from my point of view. I think both have merits, each in its own domain. But it is becoming more and more obvious that the upper echelons of capitalism need to be recycled for the benefit of the lower echelons.

The question is at what point and in what form. The question merits serious reflection.

It is illusory to imagine that the current system can continue to operate without change indefinitely. It is already far too top-heavy and could topple over under its own weight at any moment.

.

Of course, Huntington said a few controversial things, but I felt his work also had a normative dimension.

The trouble with the do-gooders, who will always say the politically correct thing, is that they are largely incapable of understanding the harsh realities of politics.

They will nearly always prefer to sound clever, to sound sophisticated and above the rubble of divisive argument.

In reality, having a strong opinion will always lead you to saying imperfect ideas in a imperfect world. I too would be guilty of this because I do have strong opinions and have clearly sided with the hawks on the CCP issue.

Politics is about the issues that can or do both unite and divide us.

But many in politics, in my opinion, choose to live in la la land.

I respect people who have a left or right opinion, as long as its supported with an understanding of the evidence, given that the complex and competitive world can have both a liberal and marxist summary that is reasonably plausible.

As of 2020, I doubt anyone has ever explained the complexity of humanity in political terms comprehensively. It is simply too hard and different people in different countries will have their own reasons to support a particular perspective or theory.

In the case of the CCP, I think it is pretty obvious the world needs to unite to provide a thorough and sustained response, albeit any response will have some possible ramifications.

The idea that Australia could somehow complain about the CCP by rightfully siding with the USA, but still enjoy a great trading relationship, is something only someone who does not understand life and politics could believe.

Not only would such a stance make Australia look gutless if it was to succumb to the CCP, which it wont, but it makes the CCP look even more stupid than it is.

The CCP, as an authoritarian regimes with immense resources and growing alliances, will indeed seek to punish Australia at any opportunity.

BTW, I am all for conferences and mediation.

Nations needs to adopt all measures to counter the CCP, albeit it would be interesting to see whether they would get anywhere.

But, I think a Cold War is here to stay for a while yet.

Huawei tension will probably spread to many other industry sectors.

I see hate, violence, fanaticism and inequality as part of the human condition. I recognise all those feelings within me. We are not equal. There are differences between us in intelligence, wealth, strength, sex,sexual orientation, agility and a host of other qualities. We hate those who hurt our children or anybody else we hold dear. I feel passionate about the separation of religion and state. Others feel passionate about other things. The boundary between passionate feelings and fanaticism is not clear. Most of us accept the state-sanctioned violence of war - especially when our country or anything else we hold dear is attacked. We strive to be above equality. We give medals and awards to those who show more intelligence, bravery, athleticism,compassion and exhibit more qualities that we feel are worthwhile.

Ridding ourselves of hate, violence, fanaticism and inequality would be ridding ourselves of humanity. It is an unrealistic goal. It is more realistic to keep hate, violence, fanaticism and inequality within reasonable bounds. Defining those bounds is a reasonable task.

David, I like your summary

david f,

If you are looking for answers to all those human related things you describe above you definitely won't find them in mathematica and computer science.

Why do you think I decided to study all the Arts things like history, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, philosophy, etc. after I finished my engineering degree?

It's one thing to have a livelihood but it's another thing to be able to understand the world one lives in.

the regressives answer was the 'summer of love'. That worked out well didn't it? More blacks killed by blacks but of course no problems according to the woke left white crowd.

runner,

You have some serious issues.

Dear Mr Opinion,

You wrote, "If you are looking for answers to all those human related things you describe above you definitely won't find them in mathematica and computer science."

I don't understand. Who would go looking for answers to all those human related things I described above in mathematics and computer science? Seems a bit silly to me.

It's inherent in us to believe that we live in danger. It's a survival mechanism.

Every shadow and hobgoblin is seen as a threat. Whatismore, we want to believe that things are worse now than in the past. After all, we know the outcome from the past and know that things turned out, if not for the best, at least not for the worst. We don't know that of the future and therefore expect the worst.

But, when looked at dispassionately and with reason, the current time in human history is likely the most peaceful ever. The chances of a particular person dying as a result of violence (not just war but any violence) is lower now than ever before.

So you want more peace? Well stop looking to change everything to get there. Just advocate to continue those policies which have created this 'best of times'.

Dear Chris,

«David, I like your summary»

I second that.

david f,

Exactly my point.

'I see hate, violence, fanaticism and inequality as part of the human condition.'

me to Davidf that's why I hate secularism/marxism. They murder millions of babies and try and rename them to cover their deceit and guilt. Atheism has an atrocious record when it comes to peace and life.

Thank you, David F., Chris & Yuyutsu,

Yes, maybe as David implies, we should exercise some compassion and empathy with everybody up to a point.

For example, we should try to understand how and why Trump says what he says from what may be his point of view before he conclude that he doesn't have a clue what to do about the coming COVID-19 catastrophe, that it's not strictly his fault, he's just an idiot in a high-intelligence job, thanks to his low-intelligence electoral base.

After all, it must be no blessing to be given great wealth and then thrust into the public limelight all of your life, including your own TV program, then a Presidential campaign which - miracle of miracles ! - you win. And then find yourself incredibly out of your depth - that stark knowledge that you don't really know what the hell is going on but have to pretend that you're well in front of it all. Of what, you can't fathom. So you go with - as a six-year-old would - whatever sounds nicest. And get rid of people who don't sound all that nicest. Like that Eyetalian guy, Fauci.

So let's have some compassion, empathy even, for Trumpf. As a born-moron, he's condemned to have a high profile, but like Chauncey Gardener, he's doing his best. Perhaps we all need life-channel-changers.

Perhaps every culture, every thought-pattern, is valid in its own terms, no matter how vile it may seem to others.

Joe

Dear runner,

The Marxist states were not secular. Secular states have separation of religion and government. They are neutral toward religion and do not try to stamp it out as the Marxists do. The first secular unit of government with separation of religion and government written into law was the Rhode Island colony headed by Roger Williams, a Baptist minister.

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

From Barry’s “Roger Williams and The Creation of the American Soul”

"The Bay's leaders, both lay and clergy, firmly believed that the state must enforce all of God's laws, and to do so the state had to prevent error in religion. This conviction they held fast to, for their souls and all the souls in Massachusetts plantation depended upon it.

Williams recognized that putting the state to that service required humans to interpret God's law. His views were not fully formed-how Massachusetts dealt with him would itself influence their formulation-but he believed that humans, being imperfect, would inevitably err in applying God's law. Hence, he concluded that a society built on the principles that Massachusetts espoused could at best only lead to hypocrisy, for he believed that forced worship "stinks in God's nostrils." At worst it would lead to a corruption not of the state which was already corrupt, but of the church, as it befouled itself with the state's errors. His understandings were edging him toward a belief he would later call "Soul Libertie." pp. 3-4

Secularism and Marxism are opposed to each other and should not be confused with each other.

Joe,

I like your summary.

Dear Foxy,

Please forgive me, I meant to include you in my praise of those other blokes, of common sense, compassion and decency.

Maybe we need to re-emphasise that civil discussion requires consideration of other points of view, because only when we can consider objections to our own points of view, can we think seriously about them and modify or strengthen - or change - our own viewpoints. We learn nothing by constantly listening to only our own viewpoints.

Maybe we should strive to confront, pay attention to, an opposing point of view every day on some pet subject, and to weigh up its validity. That may mean that we modify our own viewpoint, but it may also mean that we have to consider factors that we weren't aware of, and that we may have to learn much that is unsettling.

Love,

Joe

'Secularism and Marxism are opposed to each other and should not be confused with each other.'

a pity you are not a university lecturer David. You are obviously blind to the deranged violence endorsed by the state and professors against Trump and his supporters. The secularist have certainly displayed only hate violence, deceit and a rejection of democracy for 3 years or more. They rate alongside ISIS as the most bigoted hateful people I know of. Looks like they could well get what's coming their way.

Joe,

I wrote something very similar to your sentiments
expressed here in one of my earlier posts to this
discussion - that a healthy vital society is not one
in which we all agree and that our political conversation
must shift away from the mass, infantile finger-pointing that
now pervades it.

However, it is important to pull up people who are certain
that they possess the absolute truth. This kind of certainty
is what leads to repression, bigotry, racism, and fanaticism.
We need to take the responsibility to strive to dispel myths,
ignorance and conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Joe, i don't like Trump either, but I do believe there are real and justified reasons why he was elected.

When he was elected, i welcomed his approach to the CCP because someone had to escalate the issue.

Until Trump, we had a lot of talk and not much action.

But, i think the West will now do better when he is gone, assuming the talkers remain in the backround rambling on.

Dear runner,

Apparently you don't like facts.

Hi Foxy,

I wonder if there's not something else, a suspicion that people with a differing point of view are quite consciously lying just a little bit, they know that their arguments are a bit weak, so they add/subtract bits to strengthen their argument - and when this doesn't work, even in their own mind, they get all hurt and/or angry and condemn the other viewpoint out-of-hand.

I suspect that 'cancel culture' is in this paddock. It's not that different from the intolerant attitudes of fifty and sixty years ago. But surely, if someone's own argument is strong and valid, it will stand up to argument ? So any contrary viewpoint may actually help to provoke deeper thought about what one may have taken for granted, and eventually help to strengthen one's own argument.

I always go back to Edison's take on finding a suitable material for a filament for an electric light bulb - that his first two thousand tries didn't work, but at least he knew not to try them again. And eventually, he found something, What, I don't know. Tungsten, I think.

But that's how knowledge progresses. It doesn't progress by shutting down, shunning, burning at the stake, non-personing, someone. That way lies reaction, backwardness, closing-off, the death of knowledge. We could call it 'the Soviet way'.

With your Baltic-versus-Soviet background, you understand. I wish we all could learn from that.

Oops, have to put the tea on.

Joe

Joe,

Not all things will stand up to argument as you know
especially on this forum which is awash with ...
Well you know - as stated earlier there are people
who just don't like facts, don't respect the views of
females (we should be home bare-foot and pregnant),
and if your views disagree with theirs - you're a
socialist, Marxist, Maggot, or a petulant prostitute,
or worse, et cetera. As the saying goes
in some cases it's better not to argue with an ... (fill in
the dots) -
they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with
experience. Best to avoid, walk away, and try to ignore.
You get the picture

Joe,

You might enjoy this:

"Sell a man a fish,
He eats for a day,
Teach a man to fish,
You ruin a wonderful business opportunity".
(Karl Marx)

Just to spice things up a bit. (smile).

Then there is another view that tells it like it is but is not accepted because of the very attitudes mentioned.
Facts are merely a collection of specific bits of information and do not tell the true story or the TRUTH, unless they are put in the correct order.
This IS an old FACT, if one likes facts alone.
Some people are just plain stubborn and too proud for their own good, to even listen to other views or suggestions, for fear it will force them to question and therefore bring in to doubt their long held views.
It is a twisted view that suggests that bringing someone into line by accepting the truth, will somehow bring them down, when they very well know, or at least suspect, they ARE already at the bottom, and those they resist and reject are in fact trying to bring them up to a level higher than before.
Any raising of knowledge or level of knowledge is better than where they have been for so long.
I am pleased though, because sometimes I see that even though they seem to reject or deride you, and even say they will avoid you or walk away or ignore you, and if on a forum, will skip over your postings as well, but decide against.
Yet, their curiosity and deep seated desire to engage in some way with this person, who has gotten their attention and taken their innocence, keep them from wanting to disengage completely, thereby exposing their willingness to consider another view.

Hi Foxy,

I don't recall Marx writing this, maybe Groucho Marx, but it could be the origins of an infinite source of brilliant possible initiatives in economic theory. I'm trying to hypothesise what Engels, Adam Smith, Aristotle, Paul Samuelson, Milton Friedman, Homer Simpson or Henry Ergas might draw some lessons from it.

When I was a Maoist, working in Melbourne at Noon Pies in Preston in the late sixties, I used to come home from the evening shift, at around 1 or 2 am, sometimes, when the machines had broken down, at 4 am, and read through Marx's letters, and his Capital. Nothing like dedication. It's a tragedy that Marx never actually worked, let alone in a pie factory. Most of my workmates were Greeks, back in the late sixties, lovely blokes, very hard workers, they taught me important sayings like "Tha sevalo to boutso sto golo" which I think means something like "The chicken carefully looks after its eggs." I still don't know what it means.

Life is an adventure !

Love,

PS. IF life is an adventure, when are you running away from your husband ?

PPS. Jesus, how big is he ?

Hi Joe,

No, not Groucho but Karl. Although not sure where or when
he said it.

Yes, life is an adventure - and you've certainly had your
fair share by the sound of it. One of my colleagues at
work was a Greek guy - great to work with, a terrific
flirt who used to tell me - "Not all girls are made of
sugar and spice and everything nice. Some girls are made
of adventure and wine and all things fine". Cheeky.

My husband is over 6 ft.

Take care.

Joe,

Really like your recent posts, and mostly agree, but have some reservation regarding:

"I suspect that 'cancel culture' is in this paddock. It's not that different from the intolerant attitudes of fifty and sixty years ago."

Not trying to be difficult, and maybe my '60's memory's not that good - certainly missed most of '65 to '67 in Nasho's - but I thought, for example, that dissatisfaction with 'Vietnam' was really justified.
A pretty rotten show really.

'Intolerance'? I guess would include gay bashing by ignorant louts and some anti-feminism, and Free-Love was in, Hare Krishna, flower people, and the 'sexual revolution' (and some 'tune in, turn on and drop out - for some). Quite some rejection present, especially by the 'olds'.

But, then there was the 'space race', and the moon landing in '69. An amazing breakthrough, including the lead-up - Sputnik, Gagarin, and so many very fine US fellows - and more landings. Brilliant (including the photos), and the Aus tracking and video relaying was just great. Made us all proud I'm sure.

Of course, JFK's assassination in '63 was a very low point, and I was not that impressed with LBJ (or Holt's 'All the Way ...), and then, Tricky Dick and Laos. Rotten show. And Agent Orange, and its aftermath.

However, I think the current Culture Wars, BLM, attempts at re-writing history (and taking so much out of context), the general Woke (hate that word - almost as bad as Existential) 'Populism', Political Correctness 'gone mad', fights over Birth Certificate 'sexualisation', gender dysphoria and so much other uncertainty regarding 'identity', and what is now being taught in school about these things, is generally troubling.

So, give me the '60's, and '70's any day. We are now in troubling times, and I'm unsure how it's going to end.

Anyhow, all the best to you Joe, and to Foxy. You've both been lighting up my day.

BTW, have you noticed Bronwyn and Mox - maybe both on other threads (eg re PNG) - very pro-CCP. Ring-in's?

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for your remarks. I tried to ignore it. It hurt.

David

david f,

Why did it hurt?
What was it that offended YOU personally?
If you are referring to the criticism of the Illuminati, I would have thought you would agree, unless you are not familiar with their agenda and objectives.
Do not be mis-led by those who feel jilted and found guilty of spreading mis-information, so much so that people find themselves having to follow her with a verbal broom and bucket, to clean up after her in having to set the record straight.
If you are referring to my comments then you need not feel hurt on my account.
As much as you may dis-agree, you should feel hurt about the person who made the accusation, they chose to read it the way they saw it.
I will say it once more, and if anyone actually cares about the truth they will know or confirm my position over my past postings, and that is and has always been, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH JEWS!
Ordinary people are all the same, as we all very well know, so just because I choose to berate and correct someone for whatever reasons only means they refuse to consider that they might be wrong, so having hit a nerve they respond by implying falsehoods in a vain attempt at redemption and retribution for hurting their delicate sensibilities.
David, if you want to dislike me because I have besmirched you personally, on purpose, by all means do so, but I won't stand by and be accused of something I KNOW I am not guilty of.
Once more, I NEVER denigrate or put down ordinary Jews!
OK? Are we clear, so please do not feel hurt on my account, but by all means be wary of certain seemingly, do-gooder, well meaning posters here or elsewhere anywhere else for that matter.
Stay well.

.

Dear David f.,

.

You wrote :

« I see hate, violence, fanaticism and inequality as part of the human condition. I recognise all those feelings within me. We are not equal. »
.

Quite so, David, but life is not static. It is evolutive. We have come a long way since we branched off from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees five to seven million years ago. We still have a long way to go.

But, unlike you, I do not “recognise all those feelings within me”. There is no hate, passion or fanatism in me. Anybody who knows me would attest that I am fairly easy-going, calm and polite by nature. At worst, I become annoyed at times, but never really lose my temper.

Sport has always played a major role in my life and my education, many different sports – both individual and team sports – including some, such as boxing and rugby, that can be quite violent. I have learned to take the blows and deal a few out myself, to accept defeat with dignity and modesty just as I accept victory, to play the game fairly and respect opponents and teammates.

In addition, sport has taught me what loyalty and team spirit really mean in practice when the going gets tough and defeat is inevitable.

It is that experience and that philosophy that has guided me in every aspect of my life, including in my professional life. I have lost count of the number of times I have been stabbed in the back by some of my affable work colleagues. The scars are still there, together with all the wisdom they injected into me with their knives.

I guess it was my natural disposition, as well as my “weltanschauung” (worldview) and hard-earned wisdom that vaccinated me from hate and fanatism.

As for violence, my mottos are : “nemo me impune lacessit” (no one assails me with impunity) and “non sine pulvere palma” (no laurel without effort).

And like John Rawls, I only accept inequality if it is fair (“I cut, you choose”).

.

Dear ALTRAV,

I think we should be kind to all even those who are ignorant and stupid enough to be taken in by conspiracy theories.

I don't dislike you. I don't know you. It's a standard cliche of the Jew haters that they don't hate ordinary Jews as though there is a special band of evil Jews somewhere different from the ordinary Jews. They can be labelled Illuminati or whatever. It is crap.

I appreciate the well-meaning posters who labelled you for what you are.

Dear Banjo,

I don't wish to be above passion. I subscribe to the philosophy of David Hume who said that reason is the slave of the passions.

Hi Saltpetre,

I meant the stifling intolerance, and the smugness, of the 'other side' during the fifties :)

Yes, the sixties got a bit more exciting.

Joe

LOUDmouth,

I would never have picked you as being a member of the famous Melbourne pie-making Maoists of the 1960s.

Now I understand the reason for your pro-China stance.

Misopinionated,

My pro-Chinese-people and anti-CCP stance, do you mean ? Are you old enough to tell the difference ? i.e. over about ten ?

Yes, I'm pro-Chinese-people. Why ? Because I'm pro-people generally. I don't even mind village idiots, they can be quite entertaining. Not always: I saw one yesterday in town, ranting up and down the street, with his five-word vocabulary. Probably from Melbourne.

By the way, I haven't seen the word 'testamur' used for decades. And I didn't know that there were degrees just in History, etc. I thought they might be in Arts or Social Sciences or Humanities, but not in specific fields. Perhaps you'll learn that if you ever get to university :)

Joe

Dear David F.,

Regarding ALTRAV's comments on the Jews and his reference
to the Holocaust. That for me was an all time low on this
forum. And it needed to be called out.

Instead of being kind to him - I would only suggest that
he visit a Holocaust Museum in any capital city and speak
to a survivor.

You take care and know that you are so highly respected on
this forum.

" A heart that loves is always young".
(Greek proverb).

david,

fair enough, I have made my position clear and in doing so it is expected that it will be taken as genuine, in the spirit of mutual benefit, honesty and good will.
I would expect, if talking to an open minded, genuine and objective person, that MY explanation would be accepted un-questionably seeing as I have previously explained my position on the subject long ago, which more than vindicates me and my position and disgraces and exposes the accuser and their true persona.
I agree with you and respond with your own statement that I too believe that we should be kind to someone as ignorant and stupid as yourself, that is taken in by a personal opinion of a like minded person.
If you are going to listen to, and reason like, a child, then you too will be treated like a child.
I have explained, plainly and clearly, the truth behind this pointless discussion, if you choose to believe as your response indicates, then you are, and have exposed yourself as, a bigot and an unwillingness to accept a truth when it is told to you first hand.
So then if you don't denounce the Illuminati, then you are a sympathiser, and as such you are to be held in contempt and in the same vane as the Illuminati.
Where have you been? if you don't know the antics of the Illuminati.
As for who I am, I am informed with an open mind, it appears you are a mis-informed, easily led, bigot, with a closed mind.
I mis-judged you as being a decent and mature person.
BTW, I, AND OTHER WELL MEANING POSTERS, DON'T LABEL ANYONE.

cont'd ...

Dear David,

I'd like to share the following:

On the first day of the new school year, all the teachers in
one private school received the following from their principal:

Dear Teacher,

I am a survivor of a concentration camp. My eyes saw what no
man should witness:

- Gas chambers built by "learned" engineers.
- Children poisoned by "educated" physicians.
- Infants killed by "trained" nurses.
- Women and babies shot and burned by "high school" and
"college" graduates.

So, I am suspicious of education.

My request is: HELP your students to become human. Your
efforts must never produce learned monsters, skilled
psychopaths or educated feral animals.

Reading, writing, arithmetic are important only if they serve
to make our children more humane.

( - From Haim Ginott's "Teacher and Child").

Dedicated to the work and memory of Dr Haim Ginott, ( 1922-1973)
a psychologist, a parent, educator, and a sorely missed man.

Foxy,

keep it up, your still twisting the facts to suit your agenda.
You will be reported for in-sighting hatred and bigotry if you persist in mis-quoting and mis-representing people, if the adjudicators are not already watching and waiting to do so.
If you are an honest person with a truly christian ethos and demeanor you would not set about to bag people simply because you decided you don't like them, because they upset you and your sensitivities by alerting you to your flaws and faults.
You lie and intentionally twist my reference to the holocaust.
If you were to be honest and quote me truthfully, you would have seen clearly I was referring to the ILLUMINATI, and not Jews in general.
So either you set about to intentionally malign and deceive or, well there is no OR, because the comment was clear and un-ambiguous.
So if you want to lose even more face and cred than you already have lost, by all means,
KEEP IT UP!

LOUDmouth,

Looks like 'Chinese' means one thing to you and another to me.

When I use the word 'Chinese' I am defining the nation not individual people. You don't seem to be able or don't want to accept this usage. Probably a result of your years spent as Maoist pie-making Melburnian.

Yes they can specify the study area on the testamur. In fact just looking up at the wall behind my monitor right now I can see 'Master of Arts in Sociology' on the first one I spot. So yes they do it.

The reason you haven't seen a testator in decades is because you do not have one yourself.

LOUDmouth,

PS On last line that is 'testamur' not 'testator'. Wishful action on the part of The Forum auto-spell system.

Dear Foxy,

The stock-in-trade of religions, of ideologies which are religions with a shorter half-life and conspiracy theories is the belief that they have a truth that non-believers don’t have. My first impulse when I heard ALTRAV’s comments on the Jewish danger was to ignore them as I don’t think he presents a danger. Since then he has invited me to join in his delusion and condemn the illuminati. Since I didn’t I have apparently become their supporter in his mind. I think it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to argue a person out of a delusion.

You mentioned:

- Gas chambers built by "learned" engineers.
- Children poisoned by "educated" physicians.
- Infants killed by "trained" nurses.
- Women and babies shot and burned by "high school" and
"college" graduates.

I am sure some of the above were sure that they are doing what is right. In Australia there is not the support of the Libs, Labor, Nationals or Greens for such actions although I can’t be sure of all the other parties. We have a lot of people with various opinions voicing them on this thread. Nobody has supported ALTRAV’s bigotry. I don’t believe ALTRAV is a danger.

For all I know ALTRAV in most respects is a decent man even though he believes that a band of evil Jews called Illuminati are plotting mischief. Solzhenitsyn, an Orthodox Christian, wrote:

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

Solzhenitsyn had his own delusions, but it’s still a great quote.

david,

I don't say things without reason or foundation.
What I have said is merely what I have read or seen over time, some of it goes back decades.
I have no interest in making things up, I have enough on my plate, but the evidence was damning and of concern, it is/was not up to me dispel or dismiss any of it until or unless I came across anything contradictory.
Over the years I have not, and not for the want of searching.
So, if you wish to dismiss or reject anything I say/have said, you will have to charge the authors of such information and I have always made it perfectly clear that I can only speak of what I know.
Apparently you have no knowledge of the Illuminati, based on your attempt to defend them, if so I understand, but if you are defending them because of some futile attempt at being virtuous, then you cannot comment.
Still if you feel better with a lie and misrepresentations about me and my beliefs, then that's fine with me, as long as you know the TRUTH!

Dear David,

Thank You for sharing your thoughts with me.

While living and working in Los Angeles for so many
years my husband and I had the privilege of getting
to know quite a few Jewish people. They included -
academics, (I worked at the University of Southern California)
business people (through my husband's work in architecture
and town planning), and our apartment owners who were Jewish -
and - whose parents were Holocaust survivors.

Therefore when I read what ALTRAV had written - it had an
impact on me. I simply could not believe it, especially what
he wrote about the Holocaust, and
I decided to quote him exactly and let people make up their
own minds for themselves.

I find that it is important to call things out. Hitler would
not have risen to power had it not been for vast numbers of
of people who gave him that power. Although they may not
have shared his hatred, they didn't have a solid, moral
commitment to not hate.

Only a society in which there is a widespread commitment to
not hate is safe from hatred. A little hatred is like a little
cancer. It is dangerous.

David, I posted Dr Haim Ginott's letter from the private
school's principal to show that we can rid the world of
atrocities only by refusing to take part in them.And by
speaking out.

Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn tells us in the Preface, to his
book, "The Gulag Archipelago", about an old Russian
proverb that says:

"No, don't! Don't dig up the past!
Dwell on the past and you'll lose an eye".

But the proverb goes on to say:

"Forget the past and you'll lose both eyes".

Unless we learn from the mistakes of the past, the tragedies,
and allow the spread of hatred to continue - and now with our nuclear weapons -
it is unlikely that we will have a future to contemplate.

We cannot allow hatred to be spread. The moral choice is ours
to make. We have to stop people in their tracks spreading
as you put it - crap.

Hi Joe,

Do you recall the ridiculous claim made in the 1950's or 60's, that Red China was secretly tunnelling under the Pacific with the intention of a surprise attack on the United States. I think it was inspired by a cheap B grade Hollywood sci-fy of the time. Not staring the same B grade actor from 'Bedtime for Bozo'. Some people actually believed it.

Dear Foxy,

You wrote: “We cannot allow hatred to be spread. The moral choice is ours to make. We have to stop people in their tracks spreading
as you put it - crap.”

Respectfully, I disagree. People have a right to speak even if what they are saying is crap. The problem with limiting speech is that we have to give someone the power to decide what one can say and what one cannot say. I don’t trust anybody to have that power even though I don’t like a lot of things that are said.

I don’t approve of the anti-vilification legislation we have in Australia. I don’t approve of 18c. Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for someone to do an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity.

It is too broad. I want the right to say any religion is nonsense even though it could be interpreted as offending, insulting, humiliating or intimidating someone because of their race or ethnicity.

The Weimar Republic had excellent anti-vilification legislation. Under that legislation Nazis were charged. If the charges stuck the Nazis could play the martyr. If the Nazi was found not guilty they could say they were justified. The anti-vilification legislation shut people up, but it didn’t keep the Nazis out of power.

Free speech is risky. We may lose our freedom if a demagogue is believed and takes power. Banning speech is not risky at all. We are sure to lose our freedom by the act of banning. I prefer the risk of losing freedom to the certainty of losing freedom.

We can educate people to employ critical thinking and to evaluate arguments with reason and information.

Lincoln said ”You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

If we are to have a free society we have to take the risk that some of the time all the people will be fooled.

Paul,

Or Menzies' claim that the Chinese were about to all hop into boats and row down to Australia (i.e. down-hill, after all) ?

Joe

'Do you recall the ridiculous claim made in the 1950's or 60's, that Red China was secretly tunnelling under the Pacific with the intention of a surprise attack on the United States'

I am more concerned about the idiotic claims of the gw fraudsters, uni professors and scammers who made foolish predictions about the damage to the earth by climate change. These fools have brainwashed the masses for about 30 years. Still no evidence for this soothsaying.

Dear David,

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty
to respect other people's rights.

A person's freedom of speech is limited by the rights of
others. All democratic societies put various limitations
on what people may say. They prohibit certain types of
speech that they believe might harm the government or the
people.

Most democratic countries have restrictions on
free expression.

We have laws covering - libel, slander,
public decency, urging violence, hate speech. The development
of freedom of speech in most Western countries has been
brought about through the growth of democratic governments
based on the rule of law.

I guess we shall have to agree to disagree on this.

cont'd ...

Dear David,

I'm reminded of the old joke - about an American
arguing with a Russian about freedom of speech.
The American tells the Russian - "In our country
we can stand outside the White House and shout
that our President is a dud!" That's the difference
between us.

The Russian smiles and replies - "No, not at all.
We can stand outside the Kremlin and also shout that
your President is a dud!"

Foxy,

I suggest you keep your day job and leave the jokes to the comedians.

Mr O,

You get it
Or you don't.

Don't feel bad.

david,

Hear me out, I do agree with your posting, so I'm not the tyrant I am made out to be.
I feel your wrath still in the air.
I must clarify.
My comment about the holocaust was referring to the fact that it is against the LAW, or an offence for someone to suggest that it never happened.
I DID NOT SAY IT NEVER HAPPENED!
My highlighting the holocaust was about it being illegal just to say or imply it never happened.
Now seriously, do you not think it's waaaay over the top, or a tad ridiculous that someone can be charged and prosecuted for merely suggesting or questioning if the holocaust actually happened?
As for the Illuminati, I am not familiar with what you know or have read or seen about them, but I do know what I have read and seen about them.
Now over the years I have not read or seen anything which exonerates or challenges or refutes most of the claims and articles about the group.
So in the spirit of freedom of information and speech, I feel it is incumbent upon someone to respond with what information or sense of the topic at hand, which in this case I was referring to the Illuminati.
Nothing more, nothing less.
As for Foxy's prattling on about free speech and consequences, I and others are sick of hearing it, as if her continual ravings are going to change anyone's minds.
If someone says something illegal, then let the system handle it.
BUT if I have to curb my language and my message just to accommodate the sensitivities of some air-headed bimbo, then if you feel so inclined, by all means, berate me, but do it because YOU feel the need and not because some other overly sensitive person whinges and whines to you to fight her battles for her.
Thank you for your time, and I'm sorry that you have had to go through all this because of some self important over virtuous person who is too immature to know what REAL people are any more

Dear Foxy,

I am not an absolutist for free speech, but any restriction must be a reasonable restriction.

Governments may be resentful of criticism, but one should be free to criticise the government in a democratic society.

One of the restrictions of speech in 18c is that speech may offend. Somebody who doesn’t want to hear the speaker may be offended, but I don’t regard that as a reason to shut somebody up. However, it is a reason under Australian law.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the US Supreme Court stated that speech can be restricted if it presents “a clear and present danger”. One shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre where there no fire or inciting a lynch mob to lynch an individual is a clear and present danger. I regard some of ALTRAV’s comments as hate speech. However, it does not present a clear and present danger so he should not be shut up.

The US Constitution in the First Amendment refers to free speech.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
— U.S. Constitution

https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2015/01/great-american-thinkers-free-speech/#:~:text=%E2%80%94%20Thomas%20Jefferson%2C%20U.S.%20Founding%20Father%20%E2%80%9CFreedom%20of,vigor%20from%20a%20popular%20examination%20into%20the%20action contains a lot of quotes on free speech.

In my opinion free speech is our most important right.

In Australia defamation suits can shut a person up. In the US defamation is not an offense although libel is. Truth is no defense against defamation charges in Australia.

18C and defamation laws are some of the many restrictions on free speech in Australia.

Dear ALTRAV,

I think you are wrong, but I don't think that is a reason to shut you up.

Thomas Jefferson said: Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

For any ratbags who want to attribute all evil to mythical groups like the Illuminati, this might help:

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/19/8624675/what-is-illuminati-meaning-conspiracy-beyonce

I couldn't quite link the Illuminati to Jewish people in that article, or even less so in real life, but the minds of ratbags are endlessly inventive, as they are already inclined to paranoia and xenophobia.

Joe

For any ratbags who want to attribute all evil to mythical groups like the Illuminati, this might help:

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/19/8624675/what-is-illuminati-meaning-conspiracy-beyonce

I couldn't quite link the Illuminati to Jewish people, but the minds of ratbags are endlessly inventive, especially if they are already inclined to paranoia.

Joe

david,

thank you, you have clarified and vindicated me.
Because I do not possess the linguistic skills of some more advanced in the English language, unfortunately leaves me at a disadvantage, thereby frustrating any attempts at conveying some messages or having a free flowing discussion, without mis-understandings or corrections.
I confess that I absolutely hate any shred of PC.
In truth, there is absolutely NO place for it in language or speech, because it is a speech inhibitor, and cultivates lies in so much as it forces one to use "soft" language, when in fact the situation probably DEMANDS harsh and offensive language with the appropriate inflections so as to ensure that the point is made, and clearly without any mis-understandings or apologies.

david f,

You seem to know a lot about the Arts things like history, anthropology, sociology, archaeology, philosophy, etc.

Are you sure you're just a mathematician & computer guy?

Dear Mr Opinion,

I have had varied interests and activities since I retired. They are:

Doing courses in philosophy and history at the University of Queensland.

Reporting and commenting on news at 4ZZZ.

Acting as adviser to Senator Woodley.

Editing Social Alternatives.(a magazine produced by the dept of gov't at U of Queensland)

Travelling.

Seeing family.

Writing (published story, book on self-determination and write essays for online opinion and other places)

http://onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4977 points to the articles for online opinion

Reading (mostly science, philosophy and nineteenth century fiction)

Mathematics (mainly number theory)

Playing games on the computer (too much)

Guiding people on nature walks at Osprey House and Roma Street Gardens (had to quit because of loss of high frequency hearing so could not easily hear voices of children)

The Queensland Mycological Society (They no longer wish me to go with them on foraging expeditions when I passed 90 for fear I might have an accident)

Politics (am member of Greens, various nature organisations and liberal (in the US sense) groups)

I have had time to do the above as I am 94.

loudmouth2,

you cannot suggest that one link and you have debunked the existence of this group, whatever form or name they are in today.
I have been finding info on them for decades, and one thing I have learned is that you will find even less as time goes on.
In fact, one thing I have experienced is the adding of articles to my bookmark and some time later it is gone or the page is changed and the original page is gone.
Trying to find it again proved difficult, and again some time later it too has gone, and this has been the theme.
This has also been the case with any major Rothschilds info, GONE!
I still have all the other bookmarks.
So Joe, don't join in the echo chamber of the back patters, this rat-bag wants you to know that I am not prone to paranoia, but I am very inquisitive and that is why I am always looking for answers.
One thing I have found, and you will believe this, that these people have the wealth and where-with-all to have their antics scrubbed from the record, so they can never be traced to any wrong doing.
As I have said about Whitlam's sacking, if anyone thinks that the Queen did not give the nod to rid us of that scum-bag, they are seriously unworthy of being considered as intelligent or aware contributors to the Australian society and way of life.

david f,

That is excellent. You are truly a philosopher in the meaning implied by Socrates to set himself off from the sophists.

I like the way you synthesize your knowledge into a personal expression. There are a lot on The Forum who cannot do that.

We need people who know both the Sciences and the Arts. Did you know that philosophy can demonstrate that science cannot find the origin of the Universe (or Multiverse if one is into string theory)?

I understand there is quite a school of thought suggesting that the 'Illuminati' is alive and well in contemporary political society in 'the West' - and indeed a suggestion that Donald J. Trump, POTUS contemporaneously, may in fact be the current 'Imperial Illuminated Minerval', the 'top Joe' himself. Wouldn't be surprised, as he, Donald, certainly appears fully in charge of his beliefs (such as they are), and in his absolute certainty about his intellectual 'credentials'.
My, what a guy.

Slightly off-topic, I recently came across a very old piece of very astute legal advice, whose origins are not completely certain - with suggestion of three possible sources - being, a 12th Century Contra-Illuminati group of decidedly strange bed-fellows, or the 'Inquisition', or even the Salem Witch Trials.
The advice, in more or less direct form, is - "When you are in a deep hole, deep enough to swallow you whole, for the Grace of God (or in the contemporary vernacular 'for Heaven's Sake') Stop Digging."

Love free speech and free expression, and fully agree with David as to how it should be enabled - and when, and how, not.

Anyhow, spectacular credentials aside (or otherwise in my case), good talking with you. Take care - and maybe, be careful what you wish for?
(Someones got to be eyeing-off the 'spoils'.)

PS. Mr O,
Everyone knows, the Origin of the Universe is in Mecca.

Mr O,

slightly off topic if I may, but there is a burning question I have had since I can remember, and that's many decades ago, and that is;
WHAT IS OUTSIDE OR BEYOND THE UNIVERSE, OR WHERE OR HOW DOES IT END?
If it does not end, does it become a question of metaphysics?

ALTRAV,

Wouldn't it be nice to know?

Altrav,

You write some appalling rubbish. Do you believe every dumb-arse conspiracy theory that ever blows your way ? What you write about Jewish people is contemptible.

Although I suspect you won't, you could learn something from this:

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

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Thursday, 16 July 2020 12:27:31 PM

Comment-

I wonder what it is about Jewish Culture that has caused this apparent disproportionate dominance of the Nobel Prize pool and its flow-on influence. And is this good for those of us that are not Jewish.

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

You wrote :

« … one which is typically arrogant … are the elite Jews … Who the hell do these freaks think they are? … I am saying it again, WATCH OUT, these bastards are mental retards and they are amongst the most dangerous race/cult on earth … I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH JEWS ! »
.

I think you’re jumping the gun on that last statement, ALTRAV. I suggest you put it on ice and add it to your list of New Year’s resolutions for 2021. A couple of glasses of champagne to go with it could do you a world of good.

In the meantime, it is important that you present your excuses to Foxy and David f. for your inadmissible behaviour. Offensive ad hominem remarks have no place on this forum.

As for your outbursts on various OLO forum threads against some or all of the Jewish people (whom you now single out as “the most dangerous race/cult on earth”), while I recognize your right to do so by application of the principle of freedom of expression, I find them particularly obnoxious and inappropriate.

If you must say something caustic, please make an attempt to control your nerves and do so in a more civilised and measured manner. Your posts contain some interesting ideas and observations, but your expression is, unfortunately – and quite unnecessarily – deplorable, even to the extent of being repulsive.

That said, I find your stated incredulity at the decision of the Israeli Knesset to pass a law against Holocaust denial surprising. Once again, you point the finger at the Jewish state of Israel, whereas no less than 16 European states also have laws against Holocaust denial.

Holocaust denial is prosecuted in Australia under laws relating to "hate speech" and "racial vilification". Fredrick Toben, (a German-born Australian citizen) and his Adelaide Institute were prosecuted in Australia for Holocaust denial.

The law in Israel is not new. It came into force 34 years ago. But nobody has ever been prosecuted in Israel under that law.

.

Canem and Malum,

Right enough of this BS, it seems that you all have taken up this pack mentality, and lost your powers of reason and ability to read.
You are the ones who are now contemptible, inappropriate, obnoxious, deplorable, unnecessary, offensive even to the extent of being repulsive.
Have you all gone mad?
If you're looking to vent for whatever reason, don't make me your scape-goat.
You people need to be reprimanded for your blatant arrogance and false accusations.
If I can't write intelligibly then I apologise, BUT if you all can't read, then you must apologise to me.
Now, once again, those of you who can read try again, and this time, without the bias and bigotry which seems to come from you, not from me.
What I wrote, and always have written was in condemnation of an evil group or cult that is dominated by wealthy Jews, referred to as The Elite Jews. (their title, not mine)
This is a matter of record, albeit OLD records.
I didn't write this stuff, others did, so please go and attack the authors not the messenger.
Are we clear now, once and for all.
Now as for countries, or ANYONE making it illegal to even mention or discuss negatively about the holocaust is an illegal offence, and you can be prosecuted, for denying or questioning it's existence, is pure lunacy, madness and just plainly ridiculous.
And you want to criticise me and attack me for repeating something someone else wrote.
In case you're all too mentally and emotionally challenged, it appears I have to repeat my point once more.
If you read my post, and any previous reference to Jews you will find that I do not attack the Jews at all, ever.
It is the Illuminati and has always been and their mantra and mission statement was one of the most egregious and dangerous of worrying proportions.
These are historical facts.
So are we clear and do you all now finally understand the TRUTH?
I do not, and never have felt any ill-will or hatred for the Jewish people.

Canem Malum,

You ask:

"I wonder what it is about Jewish culture that has caused
this apparent disproportinate dominance of the Nobel Prize
pool and its flow-on influence. And is this good for those
of us that are not Jewish?"

The answer could lie in the fact that Jews are smart. That
it's something in their genes which gives them an elevated
Jewish IQ. Or it could be that Jews love hitting the books -
that Jewish homes have over flowing book-shelves which
throughout generations they have given honour to the pursuit
of learning and knowledge. Who knows what the answer is?
It could be a combination of things. And is it good for
those of us who are not Jewish? Of course it is. Raising
the bar in any pursuit - encourages higher standards for
all of us to achieve.

Now I have a question for you...

Why does bullying permeat British culture and all aspects of
daily life? Speaking at a Conference a few years ago,
organised by the
telephone helpline and charity ChildLine which was told that
bullying topped the list of its child callers' concerns
the then - Prime Minster's wife said she was aware of the
devastating effect bullying had on children and families.

She said, "Bullying doesn't stop at the school gates it
goes on after school and it goes on into university. It goes
into work and it even goes on into family. It is a real issue
at the heart of our culture".

So we need to also ask is this British influence that we have
disproportionately in this country of ours - good for those
of us who are not British?

It's a fair question if we're going to begin comparing cultures.

ALTRAV- I sympathize with your frustration.

While I have little understanding of the Illuminati or The Holocast I am suspicious of the prevailing view. Especially when they "cancel" the alternative view.

Despite much fault in the United Nations- the United Nations Human Rights principles in their definition of genocide refer (loosely) to undermining a culture- perhaps white culture is being undermined- I don't think anybody is arguing that it is not- the argument being is that White People deserve it- and so White Genocide is perhaps occurring- but what culture deserves murdering. Of course in these situations only those within the culture will appreciate the dynamics- as they stand in their own shoes. I'm sure all cultures are undergoing the process of genocide to a point.

There seems to be a conflict in the United Nations principles between the Genocide Principles and the Anti-Hate Principles. It seems the Anti-Hate Principles are also Hateful.

This is probably one of the reasons why it took so long 1992 (from 1957 from memory) for the US to ratify them and only under the condition that they couldn't be used to undermine US constitutional principles. Apparently the US considered the Anti-Hate principles too broad.

I suspect that anyone who supports the US Anti-Hate principles is effectively a Communist Agent.

David F to his credit has indicated that he does have concerns about restricting free speech- and has explained in detail how free speech should work- generally this view sounds reasonable.

As to Joe Loudmouth's claim that many people of Jewish culture have Nobel Prizes- I wonder why any people not of the host culture would have such an apparently overwhelming dominance over that host culture- obviously this is not a sustainable relationship. I would ask in this situation if the host culture would be advisable to allow this relationship to continue on the same basis.

I'm sure that everyone wants power and they only see things from their own point of view- whether they are Jewish, Black, Own a Business, Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, or White.

There are some who believe that they can create a stable multicultural society by "top down" control of a balance of forces- this is apparently based on The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli (1513).

I believe the best way to create a stable society by a "bottom up" approach and "the atom of society is the family".

Locke Liberals (created around 1679) believe that the atom of society is the individual and that society needs to be atomized to create the perfect world- many of us believe that this process of atomization is occurring through multiple channels. Communism seems in some ways to be an extension of Locke Liberalism- In other ways it is the opposite.

Liberalism and Communism are in reality perhaps the enemy of the individual.

Canem Malum,Foxy, you have that very wrong.

White people never did anything to any other colour or creed that those creeds did not do to others, or want to do to others.

It wasn't white people who attacked Pearl Harbor.

It isn't white people who have taken over Tibet.

It wasn't white people who split India.

The only difference between the oppressed & the oppressor is the oppressor is stronger & won the fight.

White people ruled the planet because they were smarter, better educated & more advanced & better equipped than any others. Now they have spread that advantage to the rest of the planet they had best toughen up. The rest of the planet is quite happy to take anything the whites have developed by force as soon as they are strong enough.

Many people are attracted to the vast fabric of nonsense in conspiracy theories, religion, government and other human areas.

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

"In conspiracy theories

The Illuminati did not survive their suppression in Bavaria; their further mischief and plottings in the work of Barruel and Robison must be thus considered as the invention of the writers. Conspiracy theorists and writers such as Mark Dice have argued that the Illuminati have survived to this day.

Many conspiracy theories propose that world events are being controlled and manipulated by a secret society calling itself the Illuminati. Conspiracy theorists have claimed that many notable people were or are members of the Illuminati. Presidents of the United States are a common target for such claims.

Other theorists contend that a variety of historical events were orchestrated by the Illuminati, from the French Revolution, the Battle of Waterloo and the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, to an alleged communist plot to hasten the "New World Order" by infiltrating the Hollywood film industry."

I am satisfied to believe that the Illuminati only exist in the minds of believers in conspiracy theories.

However, I think it is futile to make laws that either makes it illegal to deny that an event that has been thoroughly documented like the Holocaust didn’t happen or that an event that has never been verified such as the virgin birth did happen.

People have been sent to prison for the former or burned at the state for the latter.

It is futile to argue that 6,000,000 Jews murdered in the Holocaust should dispel the myth of the all-powerful, controlling Jew. Believers in the myth will say that these were only ordinary Jews who were murdered not the members of the Illuminati or other similar groups.

Some Jews have what I consider a healthy reaction to all the above. We can enjoy life and laughter. “They tried to kill us all. They didn’t succeed. Let’s eat.”

Mel Brooks wrote “The Producers” which spoofs the Nazis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Producers_(1967_film)

Let’s live and laugh.

david f,

I agree when you say "Let’s live and laugh." Just don't try reading any of Foxy's joke if you want to laugh.

Canem Malem,

Who is 'host' ? Jewish people have been here as long as any other non-Indigenous people, and possibly long before any of your ancestors got here. So who is 'host' and who is 'guest' ?

Back in the Middle Ages (i.e. up until the mid-19th century in some parts of central Europe), Jewish people weren't allowed to own land. So what were they supposed to live on ? Their wits, their education and skills, their knowledge of maths and science. So doctors, advisers to governments, the odd grand vizier in Mesopotamia and Muslim Spain, money-lenders, jewellers, artisans of all sorts. Perhaps in such circumstances, you take nothing for granted, so you make damn sure that you and your kids can make the best of difficult situations.

I had four grandfathers, three of whom I didn't really get to know; and one who looked after us kids for a solid year, and then over the years, until he passed away. He was a Hungarian Jewish maths teacher, originally an engineer with Shell in the East Indies. He worked at the Ultimo Tech. He broke his back in the late forties, so we saw a lot of him while he recovered. He and our nanna were nudists, so we saw a lot more of them.

He'd lost all of his relations during the War except his mother, who he was able to bring out here, and a brother fighting with Tito's partisans in Bosnia. Perhaps, as an intellectual exercise, CM, you could list all of your relations and then pick out just two who you would really like to survive, and sort of mentally exterminate the rest.

You probably would still make crass remarks about other people. Some people never learn.

Joe

Appologies, to canem, I just realised my mistake in my last posting.
It says to Canem and Malum, wrong.
It's supposed to say; to Canem and David.
Sorry bout that.

Statement 1- The answer could lie in the fact that Jews are smart. That
it's something in their genes which gives them an elevated
Jewish IQ.

Answer 1- Isn’t this theory called “Jewish Supremacy”. But that’s ok in our kangaroo court world “only White Supremacy is bad”. Strangely in this case I agree with Foxy that it is one theory- maybe I’m a “Jewish Supremacist”.

Statement 2- Or it could be that Jews love hitting the books -
that Jewish homes have over flowing book-shelves which
throughout generations they have given honour to the pursuit
of learning and knowledge.

Answer 2- Perhaps. But a White Person might ask why we aren’t encouraging people to read more within our communities.

Comment 3- Who knows what the answer is? It could be a combination of things.

Answer 3- Do you think that perhaps Jewish People are allowed in our society to help their own people but White People are not allowed to help their own people.

Comment 4- And is it good for those of us who are not Jewish? Of course it is. Raising
the bar in any pursuit - encourages higher standards for all of us to achieve.

Answer 4- Some argue that knowledge is not a zero sum game but if Jewish People are supporting Jewish Nepotism then is this valid for the ownership of the host culture. This appears to be one reason why multiculturalism can’t work.

Comment 5-

Now I have a question for you...

Why does bullying permeat British culture and all aspects of daily life? … the devastating effect bullying had on children and families.
..."Bullying doesn't stop at the school gates it goes on after school and it goes on into university. It goes into work and it even goes on into family. It is a real issue at the heart of our culture".

Answer 5- Bullying is not unique to British Culture. Perhaps British Culture is different to your Lithuanian upbringing. The British and Americans have a competitive culture- perhaps this sometimes overflows in inappropriate ways- but overall seen as healthy.

All societies encourage social norms- even “woke” ones- I believe that the values of my ancestors are important- for all their faults. One thing that is often missed in the debate about bullying in the home is the idea that women can be the bullies of children- embodied in Cinderella. I see that some bullying can be productive- but some is not- everyone has at some time or other been bullied- bullying comes in many forms- police bullying, government bullying, bullying by teachers,- perhaps the implementation of Liberalism is a form of bullying. Perception of bullying is often based on the eye of the perceiver. Women appear to complain more about bullying in the workplace than men- does that mean that men aren’t bullied?
You could argue that the tree of life is one big exercise in bullying.
Locke apparently believed that bullying could be transcended by passing power to the government but perhaps just changing the form of the bully.
All very interesting.

Comment 6- is this British influence that we have disproportionately in this country of ours - good for those of us who are not British? It's a fair question if we're going to begin comparing cultures.

Answer 6- At least Foxy acknowledges the culture concept. I agree that British Culture may not work for those people in Australia that are not of British heritage. This is why I believe maybe multiculturalism doesn’t work- perhaps shouldn’t have invited non-British heritage to Australia. Australia was formed as an act of British Parliament- it was built under British rule- it is effectively owed by the British. There are always tricky con artists that seek to relieve others of their property. We have been naive to let it happen- but there have been powerful special interests at play.

“Populate or perish is a lie”.

Australia and western countries have been very generous to other cultures they have 1. allowed them into our country after wars to rebuild their lives- after WWII, Vietnam War, Iraq War, Afghani War, … 2. allowed into Australia to study, 3. allowed work in Australia.

Dear David,

I've seen "The Producers" in Los Angeles starring
Zero Mostel. It was a great show. I've also seen
the films of Mel Brooks and his interviews on
American television. His wife Anne Bancroft was
also a great actress - the original Mrs Robinson in
"The Graduate". And of course it's good to "live
and laugh, (and eat)".

However, the Holocaust should not be consigned to history.

It is a contemporary issue. Discrimination against Jews of
all walks of life was not a new concept in 1933, but was
widespread and prevalent in many countries. It stretches
back past the parameters of the modern era into the
medieval age and beyond. It's therefore incorrect to let
the Holocaust be consigned to the period of the Third Reich:
the Nazi Regime manipulated and amplified the latent
prejudices of its citizens. It did not create them.

This makes the Holocaust a contemporary issue because it
shows the atmosphere in which genocide can take place.
We need to ask - how many people pertain to prejudices
which are unfounded and illogical, but which are
unconsciously adhered to? These beliefs survive both
because they are socially acceptable and because they are
unchallenged.

And, today in our society there remains a degree of
antisemitism in addition to levels of xenophobia, Islamophobia,
of black and asian communities and other ethnic minorities.

Quite a few recent surveys have shown these prejudices to be
on the rise. Look at the Black Lives Matter movement. It is
therefore important to remember the Holocaust because it is an
example of how these prejudices and trends could evolve into
something more threatening.

By spreading the testimonials of the survivors, we have the
opportunity to safeguard the memory of the Holocaust,
promote tolerance, and protect the multicultural society in
which we all live. And that needs to be done if we want to
"live, laugh, and eat" in peace.

Each time Australians have had to sacrifice their needs for those outside of Australia. It has always been contentious. Often large businesses (including Universities) have disproportionately benefited. It seems that perhaps immigrants have been a mechanism of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich.

Thank you for your comments Foxy.

Comment by Joe Loudmouth
Paraphrasing…
Who is host? Jewish people have been embedded in many countries for a long time. Jewish people couldn’t own land. A majority proportion of Jewish people were killed in Nazi Germany and Europe. CM list your relations and pick out two to survive. CM your remarks are crass and unlearned.

Joe Loudmouth- I will try to answer these today. Thank you for your interesting questions

Canem Malum,

Correction:

We used to get in our history books - "The First Fleet
arrived. It brought 1000 English convicts". It didn't.
It brought 1000 convicts but they came from a dozen
different countries. As somebody put it so delightfully,
"English jails were no respecters of nationality".

The first Italian arrived on January 26, 1788 -
Giuseppe Tuso. There were people from South Africa, there
were people from Ceylon, from India, from Spain, from
Portugal, from Hungary. So when people ask -
"Do you believe Australia should become a multicultural
society?" I always reply,
"It doesn't matter what I think. I can tell you what it is,
which is a society of tremendous diversity".

In many schools, 90 percent of the students speak a language
other than English as their first language. And today schools
are no longer emphasizing teaching about Australia's ties
with England and the Commonwealth. Foreign languages are
part and parcel of our current school systems.

The Queen's
portrait no longer hangs on school walls. "God Save The
Queen" is no longer played in our movie theatres and at
other events. Our Olympic Sports people on winning medals
now have their own country's anthem played - and not the
British one. Times have changed. And inevitably this will
continue.

loudmouth2,

I read your post with interest, and it revived the age old question, if we are on the subject of Jews.
Why is it, do you think, that the Jews have such a reputation as they do, (I dare not word it any other way), and have had for as long as can be remembered?
Again referring to history, they have been too focused on wealth and power possibly, and along the way have done some things and held views contrary to the expectations of the majority, choosing instead to isolate themselves from social equality and inclusivity.
Another somewhat conflicting situation which can be argued between a paradox and an oxymoron, is the case where Jesus Christ was a Jew, and yet rejected by the Jews to later become the Christian Messiah, and not the Jewish one.
I would have thought that Christianity and Judaism would be at odds.
I have over time become more aware of the way Jews are perceived by the public at large, even though I believe it to be focused at the more public and wealthier of them, not the Jews in general.
There is a school of thought that held the view that these Jewish "elites" were too aggressive in their methods of accumulating wealth, and in doing so were ostracised and kept getting driven out, so they changed their asset base to gold and that way when they were forced to move, they did not compromise their wealth.
I wonder if the case actually was not that they were not allowed to own land, but the fact that they were "persona non grata", and knew their time at any location was tenuous at best.
This perception was eventually directed at and applied to ALL Jews.

Interesting... not complete- possibly not completely accurate but perhaps useful in understanding the Jewish diaspora and their relationship with the world.

History of Jews in 5 Minutes - Animation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIYHMdOr5Aw

The Polish- Lithuanian Empire and Russian Empires seem prominent though the Jewish diaspora are not unique in having an unstable history- British history being one example.

Britain sponsored the Balfour Declaration for the Jewish State yet now British countries are under attack

Dear Foxy,

You wrote:

“However, the Holocaust should not be consigned to history.”

Dear Foxy,

I appreciate your good will along with your desire for a better world, but the fact is that the Holocaust is history. History is an account of what happened in the past. It is history along with the Rhineland massacres of the Jews during the Crusades and other instances of massacres of Jews. I am acutely aware of history. Many members of my family ended up in gas chambers, but it still is history. It was a raw wound, but raw wounds heal over in time.

We see many monuments to the dead of Australia’s wars. Some of those monuments ensure us that they will be remembered forever. That is nonsense. There is probably nobody alive who actually remembers a veteran of the Boer War.

You also wrote: “And, today in our society there remains a degree of
antisemitism in addition to levels of xenophobia, Islamophobia,
of black and asian communities and other ethnic minorities.

Quite a few recent surveys have shown these prejudices to be
on the rise. Look at the Black Lives Matter movement. It is
therefore important to remember the Holocaust because it is an
example of how these prejudices and trends could evolve into
something more threatening.”

Unfortunately, many will not connect the Holocaust with persecution of others. If anybody should remember the Holocaust it is the Jewish people. In Israel today the Holocaust is a living presence. However, in Israel there is prejudice against non-Jews, against Jews of differing ethnicities and against Jews of differing ideologies.

From my observations remembering the Holocaust does nothing to eliminate prejudice. I would eliminate all forms of prejudice, but I don’t know how to do it.

Dear David,

I don't believe that hate speech
should be protected under the guise of freedom of speech.
No right is absolute - especially if it does harm
to others.

Preconceptions and prejudices, and the rejection, or the
fear of someone because he or she is different, is not
"one of us", is still virulent all around us. And I am not
going to be quiet when I hear or see it being practiced.
I will continue to call it out.

That's why I feel strongly that remembering the Holocaust
is important. we need to hear the stories, we need to listen,
and share and learn what happened to ensure it doesn't happen again.

If the human rights of one group are violated. No group can
feel safe. We may not be able to eliminate
all forms of prejudice - but we need to not allow the
prejudice to go unchallenged.

This is something I feel very strongly about, and although I
do respect your opinion. This is an issue about which I
feel very strongly.

Socrates quotes
“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
Socrates

“The unexamined life is not worth living.”
Socrates

“I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think”
Socrates

“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
Socrates

"In a moment, we got from the sublime to the
ridiculous".
(- Longrinus).

Dear Foxy,

For all that,

"Pan metron ariston", "moderation in everything", and as Oscar Wilde would have added, "kai metron", "including moderation". I'll drink to that:)

Spocebo, Dziekuje, kai efkharisto.

Joe

And I thought I was the one who said I can't let a lie or misrepresentation go unchallenged, in fact I might have actually said, I'm not one to "let one get through to the keeper".
What our resident authority on everything has said is mostly fiction and the rest is of her own opinion and very acute imagination and view of the world.
Now taking each paragraph and let us critique them.
Speech is speech, and we all have the right to say what we feel the need to say.
The recipient's reaction is irrelevant, unless you set out to upset them, and you were successful, then you achieved your goal.
We are human, and as such are created with emotions.
Every right is absolute, depends on where you live.
No-one should interfere with another's personal beliefs or fears, it's PERSONAL!
We most definitely do not need to hear about the holocaust, it was a very bad part of history, and that's where it belongs.
What idiots can truly say that if we keep talking about a bad part of history that it will stop it happening again.
I can't believe, NO, I don't want to believe I am surrounded by such fools.
If someone is going to do bad or harm, they will get inspiration from the harmful things of the past, NO STOP KEEPING IT ALIVE!
Prejudice is just another human emotion, and therefore MUST NOT be challenged, because if you do you will raise it's profile and only give it oxygen and in fact causing more harm, than if you simply ignore it, especially if it does not involve you.
There are many issues everyone feels strongly about, that only gives you the right for you to do what you wish for, to and about yourself.
It does NOT give you the right to predicate, badger and shame or guilt trip anyone else into your particular weaknesses and failures.
If someone truly wants to help, then stop pushing childish ideals and bringing them down by not standing up for themselves or affected emotionally by some words.

Dear Foxy,

I feel very strongly about free speech and science. As a Jew I am aware of our history and of the history of dissenters in general. There are martyrs to free speech. Hypatia was martyred by a mob of Christians in 415 CE. She had aroused feelings against her partially because of what she had to say, partially because she was one of the last pagans in Alexandria and partially because she was a teacher and scientist against Paul’s injunction that women should be silent.

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

Another martyr to free speech was Servetus burned at the stake in 1533 CE.

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

“He was a polymath versed in many sciences: mathematics, astronomy and meteorology, geography, human anatomy, medicine and pharmacology, as well as jurisprudence, translation, poetry and the scholarly study of the Bible in its original languages.”

Servetus was burned at the stake for heresy. He voiced doubts about the Trinity.

Another martyr to free speech was Giordano Bruno burned at the stake in 1600 CE.

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

Giordano Bruno … was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician, poet, cosmological theorist, and Hermetic occultist.[3][4] He is known for his cosmological theories, which conceptually extended the then-novel Copernican model. He proposed that the stars were distant suns surrounded by their own planets, and he raised the possibility that these planets might foster life of their own, a philosophical position known as cosmic pluralism. He also insisted that the universe is infinite and could have no "centre".
Starting in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation.
…

The Inquisition found him guilty, and he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in 1600.

Free speech and science are often connected.

The scientists were condemned for their questioning of the church more than their science. Of course, when science conflicts with ideology woe to the scientists.

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

Marxism-Leninism was as intolerant as Christianity.

David,

As usual, I agree with everything you write. I saw your last line and thought of Lysenko before i saw your URL citation.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the Chinese have gone as far as the Stalinists with idiotic and blatantly anti-scientific theories like Lysenko's. But some of Trumpf's scientific propositions have the ring of Lysenkoism about them :)

Drinking disinfectant ? Shining strong lights ? Closing your eyes so as not to count positive covid cases ? What next - not counting deaths ?

The Chinese leadership seems to have eschewed all of the Stalinist ideological idiocies and not replaced them with anything at all, except raw Chinese power, and the right to perpetually rule. But in a sense, they may be in their Brezhnev-Kosygin phase, no new ideas, and yet impulsions to openly invade and expand the Empire (one suspects, before it's too late).

Of course, in order to get out of this crisis, what the world may need desperately is rough-and-ready co-operation, not some vicious struggle for supremacy, between a badly damaged US and a shaky alliance between China and Russia.

So who knows what relations between countries and regions may look like in a couple of years ? I hope we all learn some lessons from this catastrophe.

Joe

Foxy wrote: I don't believe that hate speech
should be protected under the guise of freedom of speech.
No right is absolute - especially if it does harm
to others.

Dear Foxy,

I agree that no right is absolute, but I disagree that doing harm to others is an adequate reason to limit hate speech.

If someone says what I do not want to hear that does harm to me. That hurts my feelings. I don’t think my hurt feelings are sufficient to shut somebody up. Two questions arise in banning hate speech.

1. How much damage is done?
2. Who decides what constitutes hate speech?

I think Justice Holmes' criterion answers both questions. It must present a clear and present danger. Yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre where there is no fire or inciting a lynch mob to lynch a particular person are examples of clear and present dangers.

If it does not present a clear and present danger I think hate speech should be protected. I don’t trust anybody to decide whether a speech is hate speech.

Foxy also wrote: “Preconceptions and prejudices, and the rejection, or the fear of someone because he or she is different, is not "one of us", is still virulent all around us. And I am not going to be quiet when I hear or see it being practiced. I will continue to call it out.”

I encourage you to call it out.

…

Dear Joe,

Thank You for your multi-lingual expressions.
Russian, Polish, Greek. I'm impressed.

Dear David,

In case we dismiss this religious intervention in science
as a thing of the past - we need to be aware that on
issues which require radical solutions that are likely to
harm vested economic and political interests, censorship
still exists today.

I remember reading that in Australia in 2006, leading
climatologists with CSIRO were forbidden by the
organization's management from publicly discussing the
implications of climate change. Management was acting on
behalf of the government. And Australia is one of the
stand out countries in terms of human development status.

It is not corrupt. It's science is world class. None of
this mattered. In 2006, the Australian Government's
position was to cast doubt on global warming and refuse to
enter into UN agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol.

With the release of the Stern Report on climate change, the
Australian Government's position changed - yet the PM remained
half-hearted about a commitment to counter global warming.

Little had changed in all those years from the past when
Galileo was put under house arrest by the Vatican for saying
that the earth moved around the sun. In fact, in 1633, the
church made him recant his theory of the universe.

So new ideas, instead of being welcome for the opportunities
they open up for the improvement of the human lot,
are still seen as threats to those who are comfortable
in their ideologies (religious or otherwise).

I think it is our clarity of vision to realize that -
"What does not change is the will to change" Because I
believe this, my life over the years, in spite of some
adversity, has moved towards fulfilment, with both my
work and with the people who are close to me.

That there can be change, and that there are positive
alternatives is evident. All we need to do is find and
take direction

david f,

Apparently Giordano Bruno was a friend or associate or teacher of Galileo and it was the memory of what happened to Bruno that made Galileo take the Papacy seriously and recant his proposition of a heliocentric solar system.

david f,

Do Foxy's jokes constitute hate speech?

She's obviously doing it on purpose. There should be a law against it.

Her jokes are cruel irrespective of who is on the receiving end.

Mr O,

Here's another of my "cruel" jokes especially for you:

"Nothing is impossible.
The word itself says
I'M POSSIBLE!"

Dear David,

Thank You for telling me that I should continue to
call it out.

Now back to the topic of this discussion - Initiative
for Peace. It's something we need to seriously debate
as the prospect of nuclear war is too frightening to
contemplate and yet we should:

"One cakling kookaburra swept from the trees
Two uneasy emus brought to their knees
Three bustling bandicoots deafened by the sound
Four waddling wombats burnt underground
Five writhing ringtails sliced into meat
Six crisp koalas toasted by the heat
Seven tangled taipans dissected on the grass
Eight playful platypuses melted smooth as glass
Nine crippled kangaroos, mutant crow and currawong
Ten million jolly swagmen floating in the billabong".

The effectiveness of this poem by Philip Neilsen was
obvious from the very frist reading. Subsequent readings
of it to friends and colleagues and family, has produced the
same strong reactions (oh yuck) Philip Neilsen has made a
satire/parody out of a very popular children's
picture book - "The Wooly Wombat"which teaches children to
count, and presents a nursery rhyme about cute Australian
animals.

Nielsen took this firm favourite using the same rhythm and
language and presented us with a slightly different version by
displacing the subject, the poet was tyring to make the
readers take a second look at something we take for
granted, by placing it in a new context (in this case, the
effect of a nuclear blast in Australia). Even the title is
well chosen, "Bush Lullaby" But the sleep in this case
will not be sweet.

Foxy,

In case you haven't noticed I'm the only one who has made a comment about your jokes

Dear Joe,

You wrote: “I could be wrong, but I don't think the Chinese have gone as far as the Stalinists with idiotic and blatantly anti-scientific theories like Lysenko's. But some of Trumpf's scientific propositions have the ring of Lysenkoism about them :)”

Trump is potentially worse than the Marxists in his attitude toward science. Fortunately, other parts of the US government are able to contest his nonsense. However what happened in China during Mao’s Great Leap Forward was far worse than the results of Lysenkoism.

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

“The Great Leap Forward (Second Five Year Plan) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) was an economic and social campaign led by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from 1958 to 1962. Chairman Mao Zedong launched the campaign to reconstruct the country from an agrarian economy into a communist society through the formation of people's communes. Mao decreed increased efforts to multiply grain yields and bring industry to the countryside. Local officials were fearful of Anti-Rightist Campaigns and competed to fulfill or over-fulfill quotas based on Mao's exaggerated claims, collecting "surpluses" that in fact did not exist and leaving farmers to starve. Higher officials did not dare to report the economic disaster caused by these policies, and national officials, blaming bad weather for the decline in food output, took little or no action. The Great Leap resulted in tens of millions of deaths,[1] with estimates ranging between 18 million and 45 million deaths,[2] making the Great Chinese Famine the largest in human history.”

Mao ‘advised’ peasants to put plants closer together to increase yield and gave other advice knowing little of agronomy. Consequently the yields were much smaller, and both peasants and agriculturalists knew the yield would be much smaller, but nobody dared challenge him.

Dear Foxy,

Your mention of interference with science is spot on. In Queensland planners were directed by government to ignore the predictions of sea rise level.

Not only do democratic governments, totalitarian governments and religious institutions ignore science, but scientists resist new developments in science. In the Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn expounds on this phenomenon.

Continued

Continued

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

“The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962; second edition 1970; third edition 1996; fourth edition 2012) is a book about the history of science by the philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn. Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of scientific knowledge. Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity where there is cumulative progress, which Kuhn referred to as periods of "normal science", were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of "anomalies" during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving" of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research.

For example, Kuhn's analysis of the Copernican Revolution emphasized that, in its beginning, it did not offer more accurate predictions of celestial events, such as planetary positions, than the Ptolemaic system, but instead appealed to some practitioners based on a promise of better, simpler solutions that might be developed at some point in the future. Kuhn called the core concepts of an ascendant revolution its "paradigms" and thereby launched this word into widespread analogical use in the second half of the 20th century. Kuhn's insistence that a paradigm shift was a mélange of sociology, enthusiasm and scientific promise, but not a logically determinate procedure, caused an uproar in reaction to his work. Kuhn addressed concerns in the 1969 postscript to the second edition. For some commentators The Structure of Scientific Revolutions introduced a realistic humanism into the core of science, while for others the nobility of science was tarnished by Kuhn's introduction of an irrational element into the heart of its greatest achievements.”

It took about 50 years for biologists to accept Darwinian evolution even though Darwin meticulously made his case. Scientists rejecting Darwin had to die out.

david f,

Did you know it was Kuhn who coined the phrase "A man with little knowledge takes a long time to tell you what little he knows."?

David, or anyone for that matter.

On the subject of scientists and taking everything they say as gospel, I have a question, and it is closely related to the Qld planners being directed to ignore the predictions of sea level rises.
And that is; what evidence or material facts do we have to make absolute decisions that can be enacted without question?
Another is, how do we know for certain that the stars are themselves suns, if we only have second or third electronic and scientific means of assessment.
In other words, NO-ONE has actually seen a star personally let alone come even close to one.
Unlike the Moon where man has set foot on it and touched it, even brought back samples of it.
Now Mars is clearly in our sights, but so far we have only seen pictures, which at least tell us that it must be there, but until it is confirmed by a human, it is still an unknown entity at the end of an electronic visual medium

Dear Altrav,

«what evidence or material facts do we have to make absolute decisions that can be enacted without question?»

We only have relative facts, but then we only make relative decisions, which we then keep questioning.

«how do we know for certain that the stars are themselves suns, if we only have second or third electronic and scientific means of assessment.»

We don't, nor shall we ever, but our relative and indirect knowledge of the stars is good and consistent enough for most practical applications.

---

Dear Joe,

I am curious as to how you came to have four grandfathers.

Thanks David and Foxy,

"Sticks and Stones ..." If speech can be such as to promote violence against others, with a clear intention to so do, then I decry it as unacceptable - and possibly criminal. ('White Supremacy', or even some aspects of BLM.)

If meant to belittle, I call it bullying, and still decry it. (Homophobia, Misogyny, Misandry, Islamophobia, Antisemitism.)

If speech (or action) is meant to assert superiority of rights, of 'place' in human genomic architecture or in ecclesiastical birthright (God's Children, Chosen Ones) I call it brainwashed or delusional; and decry it as potentially inciting intolerance, racism, and counter-reaction from 'outsiders'.

Stick your head too high, and someone may take a shot at it.

Most delusions are hopefully not harmful, but some can invoke a strong reaction. I have such a reaction (not very strong - mostly head-shaking) regarding the case of 'Malka Leifer' and those who fight so strenuously against her extradition to face criminal charges in Aus.
I also feel strongly against special 'enclaves' where purportedly what I, and the common law, would consider criminal activities are undertaken with relative impunity (and purportedly accepted as common practice), where police are not permitted to enter (by decision and direction of the 'authorities'), but are, unbelievably to me, not only tolerated but actually 'accepted' by the rest of the local community. Staggering.

I must be a bigot, because I see all of humanity as equal, as sharing a fundamental common genome, and as having equal rights. The fact that many have very few rights is shameful, and demanding correction. However, power and Capitalism rule, and for success, some are forced to remain 'at the bottom'. Nuts.

I react badly to ultra-orthodox anything.
I am unhappy with Netanyahu's approval of new settlements on Arab land - contrary to international agreement, contrary to 'the peace process' - and plans for the West Bank.
I am annoyed by Erdogan's plans for the 'Hagia Sophia'.

Myanmar, Tibet, West Papua, ISIS, Taliban ... - 'man's inhumanity'.

Deceit - 'weapons of mass destruction'.

What chance for Peace, physical or mental?

Yuyutsu,

my reason for asking about science and it's reliability, is directly related to the many things that are attributed to scientific studies and are promoted or published as fait accompli, and then we are all expected to act on the scientists conclusions without a shred of material evidence but theories and assumptions, such as the Qld Govt dismissing the theory of future ocean rises.
Just considering the broader view or the more realistic view.
Thank you for your comments, I know I have strayed off topic, it was intentional as the opportunity appeared so I took it while it was available.

On the subject of hate speech.
Some on here believe they are the virtuous kind who speak against free speech and try to sell it as hate speech, well as she feels that the recipient of said speech is the judge AND JURY on whether or not the speaker has engaged in hate speech.
Well if that's the case, I accuse Foxy and Allan of engaging in hate speech.
Now I have just made a statement which according to these two, I must be believed because I felt aggrieved by their continual antagonistic comments and verbal attacks which made me uncomfortable and to feel hurt and scared.
Now how did that come across, YES it is hypothetical, but it is an example of how anyone pushing against free speech is being unrealistic and foolish.
I think I have made a case against simple and naive interpretation of, in this case, freedom of speech, or more precisely, alleged hate speech.

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

You wrote :

« … one which is typically arrogant … are the elite Jews … Who the hell do these freaks think they are? … I am saying it again, WATCH OUT, these bastards are mental retards and they are amongst the most dangerous race/cult on earth …

« I didn't write this stuff, others did, so please go and attack the authors not the messenger. Are we clear now, once and for all ? »
.

If I understand you correctly, ALTRAV, you claim to be the spokesperson of right-wing propagandists exposing what they consider to be “elite Jewish” conspirators known as “the Illuminati”.

And, if, as I imagine, you assume this role voluntarily, you obviously share their ideas and objectives. It cannot be otherwise. At no point did you make the slightest effort to distance yourself from the propaganda. Quite the contrary, you enforce it by adding “WATCH OUT”.

Conspiratorial theories of so-called Illuminati (“the enlightened one”) have been imagined to exist in many countries around the world, linked to fundamentalist Catholic organisations, the Antichrist of Christian eschatology, Freemasonry, a "Fourth Reich" New World Order, Occultism of the Christian right, and various other right-wing populist movements led by demagogues who mobilise support for mob rule or even a fascist revolution by exploiting the fear of conspiracies (Wikipedia).

Why then, do you focus on the “elite Jews” ALTRAV ? The obvious answer to that is because the “authors” (whom you say you represent) are promoting antisemitism. I find it difficult to imagine that that thought did not occur to you. You strike me as being a perfectly articulate person endowed with an above-average IQ.

Also, I’m sure you have not forgotten that Graham Young, the editor of OLO, indicated not so long ago, that he was considering excluding you from this forum for an incident similar to this one.

You pleaded with him, at the time, not to exclude you as you were simply “the messenger” relaying the thoughts, ideas and writings of others.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

This is the second incident of an antisemitic nature, ALTRAV. Three strikes and you’re out.

I, for one, will request your exclusion from this forum if there is a third incident.

Also, I note that you have not yet presented your excuses to Foxy and David f. for your offensive ad hominem remarks on this thread.

That too will weigh heavily in my decision.

.

Dear Banjo and Foxy,

You have called for posters to ignore ALTRAV or to have him banned from olo for his obnoxious remarks. You have risen in righteous indignation.

There is a Jewish joke about a rabbi with a beautiful wife during czarism. He came home unexpected to see a Russian officer leave through a window. The rabbi stormed into the house and said, “Woman, what are you doing?”

She said, “Isn’t it true that the Messiah will come when we’re all good or all bad?”

He stroked his beard and said, “Yes.”

She continued, “Do you think we’re ever going to be all good?”

ALTRAV may be trying to bring the Messiah.

Banjo,

I will eventually be excluded from THIS particular forum.
After some time I have become familiar with the mix or blend of commentors and the mind-set of the adjudicators on THIS forum, and I have confirmed much about people and their make-up.
Banjo, I wonder why it is that you as a commentor, have any sway over another commentor on here, but that is just another of the myriad of questions I have about this forum.
Whilst I am waiting to be excluded from this forum, I am preparing a much more appropriate and effective medium by establishing my own pod-cast, so I can truly be free from narrow minded and oppressive mind-sets.
What you perceive as offensive and "ad hominem remarks", millions of people would be incensed and attack you for not seeing it as free speech.
As for Foxy and Alan, I cannot think of anything I have said about David, he's ok as far as I am concerned, so again you must have created a problem in your mind, where there is none.
Back to Foxy and Alan, now I have dealt with them and their own particular anti-social attitudes and ideologies.
You may disagree with me, that is your prerogative.
Now as for you and your "holier than thou" attitude, you have demonstrated that you are as flawed as the rest of us.
You don't get to predicate and dictate, unless you are an adjudicator, and if so you still must be above or beyond reproach yourself, otherwise you are a hypocrite.
As for you or anyone, getting their knickers in a knot over what you call antisemitism, I and millions of others call it plain and simple commenting.
Why is it that the Jews and the blacks it seems, believe themselves to be superior and above the rest of humanity.
has it not occurred to you that your attitude is akin to bigotry and marginalising.
You come on here full of yourself, threatening me with your platitudes and version of events, foolishly believing that your version of events is the true and righteous one

Dear Foxy & Banjo,

I deeply appreciate you & your efforts. However, I think you are wrong. Free speech is dangerous. Demagogues, bigots and ratbags of all sorts can express their noxious opinions and even find followers. However, I believe that the lack of free speech is even more dangerous.

It is comforting to silence the ratbags so the 'good' people are safe. However, I think silencing the ratbag is a danger in itself. Justice Murphy of the US Supreme Court described limits to speech.

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1348/francis-murphy

Murphy described limits to freedom of speech

“Despite his generally broad protection for First Amendment freedoms, Murphy was the author of the Court’s opinion in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), in which he wrote a passage that courts frequently cite when they stress that the First Amendment does not protect all forms of speech: “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

Murphy’s fighting-words exception establishes the categorical exclusion model of First Amendment jurisprudence — that one way to distinguish protected from unprotected expression is to determine whether speech falls into certain categories, such as fighting words, obscenity, or child pornography.”

Note that in the above Murphy would allow restriction of speech where it would “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” This is roughly equivalent to causing ‘a clear and present danger’.

I don’t think ALTRAV presents a clear and present danger even though he apparently is a prejudiced individual who subscribes to shonky conspiracy theories. Shut him up, and you create a martyr. Ignore him or challenge him with reason and laughter. Above all, remember he is a fellow human being.

Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 19 July 2020 11:29:38 PM

Most delusions are hopefully not harmful, but some can invoke a strong reaction. I have such a reaction (not very strong - mostly head-shaking) regarding the case of 'Malka Leifer' and those who fight so strenuously against her extradition to face criminal charges in Aus.

Answer- I was concerned by this case. This seems to be a case where a minority group uses their minority status and other stati as a shield.
Interesting that they should use a "woman" principle to hide a child exploitation racket. Leftist tactics in this domain are also interesting. Though Jewish people do still mostly vote left.

Irony-

Surely a woman didn't do this- a white man must have told her to do it.

Also the Tibetan Dalai Lama must be a racist and stoned to death because he rejects legitimate Chinese immigration

David, I feel I should thank you for what I'd like to believe is a vote "for freedom of speech".
You are correct in surmising that my speech is not about inciting violence, but in fact the opposite.
I grinned at your joke, and ask; in your opinion, am I, all good or all bad?
I must clarify something.
Is someone now not allowed to hate, dislike, get angry, retaliate, be jealous, sarcastic, and well basically be human?
I do not subscribe to this saintly world that Foxy attempts to promote, because it is not the real world and mostly because what she is promoting is a lie, a falsehood, to which I cannot abide, and as much as she seeks the moral high ground on the subject, it is I who will not let it get through to the keeper, and call it out whenever the situation calls for it.
Since being on forums, of which I am on more than one, I have come to confirm some things and learn some things about people.
That we are ALL different!
We don't always ALL agree!
Opinions are pointless!
Most people are too set in their ways and ideologies, and are mostly wrong to do so.
I abhor the principal that I (or anyone for that matter) cannot speak my mind if the situation requires or even demands it.
I say again, I care not about someones sensitivities if I feel something should be said.
Too many (what I see as gutless people) hide behind stopping freedom of speech to save them being told the truth as in doing so will upset them.
David that is a flaw in their character for being weak, not mine for being honest and forthright.
So the question is do we say only what makes others feel good, but makes us feel bad?
Who has more worth the speaker or the one being spoken to?
Like PC, by shutting down freedom of speech, it will shut down the truth.
I hope this clarifies and helps towards a better understanding of free speech.

Good Morning David,

Firstly, Thank You Banjo, Saltpetre, Joe, for your comments.
They are appreciated.

David, we have rules that bind all people living in a
community/society. Laws that protect our general safety and
ensure our rights as citizens against abuses by other
people, by organizations, and by the government.

Discussion forums also have rules that participants are
expected to adhere to if they want to continue to post.
People who want to flaunt those rules - can always go
elsewhere. Some blame the rules on political correctness.
That is a furphy. What some call PC - most call - common
sense and good manners - that in a civilized society we're
all expected to adhere to.

We teach our children how to behave properly. We even toilet
train our pets (bit of humour here). So it is natural to
expect a fully functional adult to know how to behave in
mixed company and what is or is not appropriate behaviour.

Freedom of speech is not absolute. There are certain limits.
Also freedom of speech does not mean freedom to say
anything you like and not face any consequences in your life.

For example, If I am rude and foul-mouthed to my friends or
colleagues - they may choose not to spend time with me. If
I am rude to my employer or speak badly about the organization
for which I work - I may lose my job. If a Chief-of-Staff
for a political leader says crazy things which affect the
leader's image - that Chief of Staff wouldn't have that job
for very long. And the list goes on.

Therefore to simply call out a person postings on a discussion
forum for their consistent use of foul, repulsive,
inappropriate language and their irrational, inflexible, attacks
on entire categories of people - with no evidence - is not
an infringement of their freedom of speech - but a misuse of
the right of freedom of speech. And it needs to be called
out - clearly and loudly.

Dear Foxy,

You wrote, “Therefore to simply call out a person postings on a discussion forum for their consistent use of foul, repulsive,
inappropriate language and their irrational, inflexible, attacks
on entire categories of people - with no evidence - is not
an infringement of their freedom of speech - but a misuse of
the right of freedom of speech. And it needs to be called
out - clearly and loudly.”

I have no objective to your calling out. However, I have not heard “foul, repulsive, inappropriate language.”

I have heard “irrational, inflexible, attacks on entire categories of people - with no evidence.”

However I believe it is an infringement of freedom of speech to ban someone for “irrational, inflexible, attacks on entire categories of people - with no evidence.”.

I don’t like to hear irrational, inflexible, attacks on entire categories of people - with no evidence.

However, freedom of speech means exactly that. It is allowing someone to say things you find loathsome, obnoxious, wrong, incorrect and otherwise unacceptable to you.

One can call saying things that you find loathsome, obnoxious, wrong, incorrect and otherwise unacceptable to you a misuse of freedom of speech. It may even be a misuse of freedom of speech, but freedom of speech includes its misuse

david f,

Very well said.

Foxy thinks the world is made of apple pies and fairy floss and all things nice and refuses to accept that the bad, the irrational and the objectionable are coexistent in her world.

Mr O,

Not all girls are made of sugar and spice and everything
nice.
Some girls are made of adventure and wine and all things
fine.

Dear David,

Calling females - sick maggots, capricious maggots,
petulant prostitutes, and worse. Referring to people as
mental retards, bastards, neuters, freaks, the most
dangerous race/cult on earth - and worse - does not
amount to free speech but cringe-worthy -
hate speech.

And, every time hate speech is permitted it costs someone
a part of his or her self. A part of their self respect or
a part of their sanity. It rips people to shreds and destroys society. Hate speech
is anything but free.

I would prefer if we were to leave this topic here.
I don't want to continue to give it a platform any further.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution allows you to
speak your mind and stand up for what you believe in.
However the limits on free speech are rooted in the
principle that you are not allowed to harm others to get
want you want

Foxy,

well finally we agree, I too feel you should leave this topic.
I'm sorry you are such a sensitive person.
It makes for a good woman, but perhaps a bad debater?
I had no idea you were so passionate, about EVERYTHING!
But as you say, I think it best if you don't engage with this topic further, it seems it's for the best.
All the best.

David,

Poetry and jokes aside, I think Foxy's position clearly demonstrates my point.
I made my position very clear, over and over again, but she refused to accept anything that SHE felt SHE did not like.
Now if my utterings were directed at her, one must ask, did they reflect the point or criticism I was making?
The answer is yes, of course it was, as I was addressing a particular comment which was in fact incorrect, or at least was an 'opinion', which was a personal view, and therefore not fact or reality based.
Condemning and criticising someones way of speaking or language is extremely patronising, especially because that IS the language and method of communication they/I grew up with.
Gutter talk, I hear you say.
If that's what someone wishes to call it fine, but, it must be said that by doing so you are exposing yourself to be a bigot and other forms of an unsavoury person, and even a hypocrite!
It is no different than mocking or criticising someone for speaking"pigeon English".
I remind everyone that like beauty being in the EYES of the beholder, speech is in the psyche or mindset of the beholder.

Dear Foxy,

You wrote, “I would prefer if we were to leave this topic here.”

I would prefer not to leave the topic here but to explain further why I am so passionately devoted to free speech.

I am a Jew with ideas that many find obnoxious. I have been attacked as a Jew and for my ideas. I glory in the fact that I live in a country where I can answer my attackers. However, there is a quid pro quo. If I want the freedom to answer my attackers, I cannot deny them the freedom to attack me.

John Milton belonged to a group, the Puritans, which was despised by the English establishment.

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

“...his celebrated Areopagitica (1644), written in condemnation of pre-publication censorship, is among history's most influential and impassioned defences of freedom of speech and freedom of the press."

I can assume that his motivation for writing Areopagitica is much the same as mine for continuing this discussion.

You wrote: “However the limits on free speech are rooted in the
principle that you are not allowed to harm others to get
want you want.”

No, Foxy, free speech can be harmful and may be necessary to get what you want. Free speech may expose corruption and thereby be harmful to the corrupter. However, it is necessary to get what you want if you want to expose the corrupter.

I maintain that the only permissible limit on free speech is that it presents a clear and present danger. Even that limit goes by the board if the clear and present danger is to a corrupter or other entity that should not be immune to the effects of free speech.

The problem with outlawing hate speech is deciding who should have that power. I would trust you not to abuse that power. However, it would not be you who would have that power but someone in the government of the day. They could define hate speech in a manner that would protect their interests.

david f,

Cicero was a free speaker.

And when it came to Mark Antony you could say that Cicero spoke his head off, if you get my pun.

Yes, David, free speech is crucial.

I applaud your last few posts on this thread.

Dear David,

There's free speech and then there's hate speech. And
hate speech is what I am against.

According to the UN - hate speech is:

Any kind of communication in speech, writing, or
behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or
discriminatory language with reference to a person or
group on the basis of who they are, in other words,
based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race,
colour, descent, gender, or other identity factor.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can
create a climate where discrimination and violence are
permitted and condoned. Hate speech is not about hurt
feelings, it's about dehumanizing, silencing, and
negating a person's or group's right to exist.

Such acts have real consequences. For example, exposure
to racial vilification has been shown to contribute to
very real health disparities between Aboriginal and
non-Aboriginal Australians. To suicide rates of people.

Toleration is not the solution to intolerance. There are
differences between what is right and what is wrong and
what is intolerably wrong. There are views that a free
society cannot and must not tolerate.

One right cannot be used to destroy another. Freedom of
speech exists alongside freedom from discrimination and
other freedoms. It does not and should not trump it.

This reflects the affirmation in the UN Declaration of
Human Rights - of the inherent dignity of all people.
This inherent dignity is the source of our rights.

Hate speech which seeks to destroy or deny the inherent
dignity of individuals and groups is therefore inconsistent
with the mission to promote the freedoms that are the
birthright of all people.

This means that we can place less weight on claims that
hate speech deserves similar protection to other kinds of
speech. It does not.

Foxy,

If the Uighurs use pejorative language to describe the Chinese is that hate speech?

Dear Foxy,

Section 18C was added to the Racial Discrimination Act just over 20 years ago, with the passage of the Racial Hatred Act. Under Section 18C:

(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.

I am against hate speech but do not think the prohibition against such speech should be written into law even though hate speech dehumanizes, silences, and negates a person's or group's right to exist.

The reason I am against such prohibitions written into law is that such a law is inherently discriminatory. A well educated, intelligent bigot can express his or her bigotry in such refined language as would make her or him beyond the reach of the law. Other bigots can make such statements when they are in a position where they cannot be touched by the law. President Trump has talked of sh**hole countries and has made other statements that denigrate countries and peoples such as referring to would be immigrants coming from Mexico as rapists and criminals. However, he is the bigot-in-chief of the USA and will not be called to account. However, a poor, working-class man having too many beers will be liable to punishment if he makes such statements.

No person either capable of expressing hate in polite, oblique language or beyond the reach of such laws will touched by them. Respected, fundamentalist preachers openly wish the death of homosexuals. They will not be touched by such a law because they operate under the cloak of religious freedom.

Some people will use 18C to claim they are offended by another person’s comments. I think we have already gone too far in anti-vilification legislation.