PDA

View Full Version : Hanson, racism etc (sf. Australian political leaders)



Basil
02-12-2007, 03:01 PM
Hanson was exposed as a racist bigot, whereas Cornes was exposed as a bit incompetent. It's not quite the same kettle of fish (but I do think Labor would have been better served to disendorse Cornes).
Hanson was never exposed as anything of the sort. Her views were determined as unpalatable to the general population.

If you wish to argue that in your opinion she was a racist bigot, feel free and I'll debate the issue (not that I would vote for her in a pink fit).

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2007, 03:12 PM
Hanson was exposed as a racist bigot
Only if you define treating all races equally, as advocated by Martin Luther King, as "racist". You know, "judging by the content of our character not the colour of our skin."

I wouldn't vote for her either, because of her isolationism/protectionism and a basically leftist economic package.

pax
02-12-2007, 10:52 PM
Only if you define treating all races equally, as advocated by Martin Luther King, as "racist". You know, "judging by the content of our character not the colour of our skin."

For his next trick, Jono will demonstrate that black is white..

I am not sure what is "equal" about moratoriums on either Asian or Muslim immigration.

Basil
02-12-2007, 11:07 PM
I am not sure what is "equal" about moratoriums on either Asian or Muslim immigration.
Perhaps I can help. Hanson was wishing to limit (not ban) Asian and Muslim immigrants as a proportion of all races and creeds for the sake of proportional balance of overall immigrants - and only until that balance was brought to bear, IIRC.

And more broadly, she wanted a slower rate of immigration across the board (again not cessation). Her marking a point on a line is just as valid as someone else marking a point, unless anyone who nominates a rate under someone else's is branded a bigot (which I note is not the case you are making).

I'm not a commentator on the issue because she had no traction with me as a serious candidate and I didn't pay close attention to the minutiae. I did listen to the apoplectic outrage opposing her, but I only heard noise, misquotes, appalling paraphrasing of her and no substance.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2007, 11:34 PM
For his next trick, Jono will demonstrate that black is white..
That's your thing, since you think that "racist" means "treating all races equally" and "anti-racist" means "privileges based on skin colour".


I am not sure what is "equal" about moratoriums on either Asian or Muslim immigration.
Once again, Keating's favourite Imam, Sarcofelis Hilaly. Some of us don't want his type here to spread hatred of Australians, Jews, and women who won't wear a burqa.

TheJoker
03-12-2007, 04:38 PM
Perhaps I can help. Hanson was wishing to limit (not ban) Asian and Muslim immigrants as a proportion of all races and creeds for the sake of proportional balance of overall immigrants - and only until that balance was brought to bear, IIRC.

What you just described would count as racism under my interpretation.

Using race discriminate, when there is no justification. Where is the proof that having a balance in race immigration provides any tangible benefits. Is it not better to assess indivuals based on their own merits regardless of race?

How does race effect a person ability to perform as part of the Australian community?

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2007, 05:13 PM
What you just described would count as racism under my interpretation.
Come off it! Islam is not a race. And we have every right to insist that if people want to come to Australia, certain things are unaceptable, like sentencing the victim of gang rape to flogging and jail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=498849&in_page_id=1879), or trying to lynch a teacher for naming a teddy bear "Muhammad", or declaring that women without burqas were "cats' meat" as Keating's favorite Imam "Sarcofelis" Hilaly said ...


Using race discriminate, when there is no justification.
Indeed not. This includes the racist policy of affirmative action.


Where is the proof that having a balance in race immigration provides any tangible benefits. Is it not better to assess indivuals based on their own merits regardless of race?
Where were you when Labor instituted the White Australia policy?


How does race effect a person ability to perform as part of the Australian community?
It doesn't. Any more silly questions?

Basil
03-12-2007, 06:03 PM
What you just described would count as racism under my interpretation.
OK, we'll have to agree to differ. I'll try (as best I can) illustrate why I reject your rationale. I note that this topic (for me) is highly subjective. While I can't claim that my, your, Hanson's, anyone's approach is right or wrong; I believe I can successfully refute your (I say 'subjective') claim (subjectively!)


Using race discriminate, when there is no justification. I believe your rationale is far too narrow (and I assume not just for the sake of argument). You have cited two things:
1. Race to discriminate
2. Lack of justification

1. Race to discriminate
Using the Hanson model (and again I do not claim to be an expert), I believe she wished to substitute (pro tem) one race for another. Let's say (and it appears fine for the sake of your blanket rejection) that she wished to substitute Asian for Sudanese.

However, one must examine further, especially in the face of such a weighty claim. For instance, if she were later to seek to redress what she saw as an imbalance of too many Sudanese, by slowing their rate of acceptance and increasing Asian immigration, one would have to also claim that now she was being racist (towards Sudanese in favour of Asians). From the argument you have put forward, there is no other conclusion.

So my first finding in her defence is that an allegation of racism against her fails because her supposed racism is part-time and importantly not directed a particular race, but at any group who happens to be 'winning' the quota system.

A benefactor which gives it money to blind people in year one and then deaf people in year two cannot be subject to a claim of discrimination and a subsequent scrutiny of merit.

2. Lack of justification
She did justify her position by wishing for a balanced mix of people. That is justification. You or I may not agree with her intention, but she has supplied a reason, and the reason bore no resemblance to a White Australia policy.

In fact a case could be made that retaining the 'imbalanced' status quo is unfair to the lesser represented. Jono made this point quite succinctly. Try this for size:
"Australia is a racist pig of a place. It's predilection for favouring Asian immigration is the clearest and most insulting action possible. The only conclusion that can be drawn by this policy of imbalance is that Australia proactively favours Asians over Africans."

Sounds good, doesn't it? This PC crap and intellectualising must stop.

So that is the second reason why I reject the foundation of your assertion.


Where is the proof that having a balance in race immigration provides any tangible benefits.
I don't have any. Hanson probably doesn't either. I hope to demonstrate with my next that the question is (unintentionally) the wrong one to pose. I believe her rationale was one of balance and what seems reasonable - ie embrace a multicultural society - and making sure it is in fact multicultural!


Is it not better to assess indivuals based on their own merits regardless of race?
This is where I think your position gets stickier than a toffee shop meltdown. Indeed it's where I think any over-simplistic approach suffers the same fate. I'll seek to show that you selectively pick a point on a continuum, claim it to be correct and at at the same time, reject another point on the continuum. Let's have a look.

"Assess individuals based on merit?" Fine for a First XI selection - not with a global crisis that's been going on for decades. Right now billions of people need to get out of where they are - right now! Thousands will be dead by the time I finish this post!

It is clear that the only, I repeat 'only', morally sound way ahead is to stuff jobs, the economy and any other white bread ideals we have and get the whole lot over here - NOW (oops another 1,000+ just died during that paragraph). We won't. Why not? Well we have considerations, don't we?

-- We won't be able to fund chess
-- We won't be able to fund the arts
-- We won't be able to fund the Opera House
-- We won't be able to fund the Olympics
-- We won't be able to fund people with a wonky eye
-- Keep adding - the list is endless (and embarrassing to us all, of course)

So, returning to your question of merit, we would find millions of people meritorious. Do we accept them all? No. We have a quota. A bloody quota. Why? Because we're selfish. Could we accept 1,000,000 refugees and still exist? Yes.

Are we focusing on Asian and Sudanese when we could/ should be focusing on people with a week to live? Yes.

Do we fiddle around and spend hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars working out whether Mr ABC really should be allowed to live here and be reunited with his daughter who's got a job working in a bank and married a truck driver, while ... ooops there's another 1,000 people dropped off the face of the earth to be buried exactly where they dropped.

So I entirely reject your suggestion of merit when we (globally) are missing the point entirely. We are a disgrace. Not only should we hang our collective heads in shame, I save an extra kick up the backside for arguments such as yours which fiddle and twiddle around trying to intellectualise the semantics of a situation.

I could go on forever talking about the current system's lack of merit criteria, but I must go and have a lie down (and try not to think of the agony and misery which abounds while we chat). My head can remain firmly in the sand.


How does race effect a person ability to perform as part of the Australian community?
It doesn't. No one has claimed otherwise.

pax
03-12-2007, 11:03 PM
Perhaps I can help. Hanson was wishing to limit (not ban) Asian and Muslim immigrants as a proportion of all races and creeds for the sake of proportional balance of overall immigrants - and only until that balance was brought to bear, IIRC.

YRIC. Pauline wants to suspend Mulsim immigration completely.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22700447-29277,00.html



They've just opened up the floodgates to allow people here that have no intention of being Australian or being proud Australians.

I've actually now called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration because I believe it's not for reasons of religious or any other reason.

But I think it is a cultural difference to us as Australians and we must protect our own culture.

The biggest source of immigrants to Australia is New Zealand, closely followed by England. Yet somehow, she never has any concern about them. Muslims number a small proportion of immigrants to Australia (and a tiny percentage overall), yet Pauline and other fear mongers would have you believe we are being overrun.



And more broadly, she wanted a slower rate of immigration across the board (again not cessation).

Yet her rhetoric is all about Muslims and Asians. If she spoke only of immigration in general we wouldn't be having this discussion.

pax
03-12-2007, 11:09 PM
Once again, Keating's favourite Imam, Sarcofelis Hilaly. Some of us don't want his type here to spread hatred of Australians, Jews, and women who won't wear a burqa.

Earth to Jono: not every Muslim is Sheikh Hilaly. It is possible to deny entry to individuals without denying a massive group of people on the basis of their religion.

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2007, 11:36 PM
The biggest source of immigrants to Australia is New Zealand, closely followed by England. Yet somehow, she never has any concern about them.
Kiwis and Poms don't fly jumbos into buildings, and NZ and England actually sentence gang rapists not gang rape victims.


Muslims number a small proportion of immigrants to Australia (and a tiny percentage overall), yet Pauline and other fear mongers would have you believe we are being overrun.
It took only 19 on 11-9.


Earth to Jono: not every Muslim is Sheikh Hilaly. It is possible to deny entry to individuals without denying a massive group of people on the basis of their religion.
Where are these moderate Muslims that lefties tell all about?

Frankly, if we have evidence that someone danced with joy after 11-9, supported flogging rape victims, cheered Sarcofelis, denied the Holocaust, then we should not allow them in.

Basil
03-12-2007, 11:40 PM
YRIC. Pauline wants to suspend Mulsim immigration completely.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22700447-29277,00.html

My comments referred to her notorious platform from a decade ago. I believe I do recall correctly. Your quoted story of a month ago, I confess to having no prior knowledge of.

There seems to be a little confusion between us over 'ceasing', 'permanent', temporary', 'ban', 'completely' and 'moratorium'. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "suspend completely". It is true that she now wishes to suspend (pro tem, viz moratorium) Muslim immigration. And this is why she is a bone-head!


The biggest source of immigrants to Australia is New Zealand, closely followed by England. Yet somehow, she never has any concern about them.
Good point. And possibly a terminal one to her defence. There is the issue of adopting Australian values, but her blanket statements(?) seem to fail to acknowledge that good and bad exist in all.

TheJoker
04-12-2007, 08:15 AM
I believe your rationale is far too narrow (and I assume not just for the sake of argument). You have cited two things:
1. Race to discriminate
2. Lack of justification

1. Race to discriminate
Using the Hanson model (and again I do not claim to be an expert), I believe she wished to substitute (pro tem) one race for another. Let's say (and it appears fine for the sake of your blanket rejection) that she wished to substitute Asian for Sudanese.

However, one must examine further, especially in the face of such a weighty claim. For instance, if she were later to seek to redress what she saw as an imbalance of too many Sudanese, by slowing their rate of acceptance and increasing Asian immigration, one would have to also claim that now she was being racist (towards Sudanese in favour of Asians). From the argument you have put forward, there is no other conclusion.

So my first finding in her defence is that an allegation of racism against her fails because her supposed racism is part-time and importantly not directed a particular race, but at any group who happens to be 'winning' the quota system.

So was she proposing to ban caucasian (white) immigration until there was a balance between the number of caucasians and asians living in Australia? The answer is no; the underlying ideal of the policy in my opinion was to maintain the status quo of a caucasian majority in Australia.



2. Lack of justification
She did justify her position by wishing for a balanced mix of people. That is justification. You or I may not agree with her intention, but she has supplied a reason, and the reason bore no resemblance to a White Australia policy

In fact a case could be made that retaining the 'imbalanced' status quo is unfair to the lesser represented. Jono made this point quite succinctly. Try this for size:
"Australia is a racist pig of a place. It's predilection for favouring Asian immigration is the clearest and most insulting action possible. The only conclusion that can be drawn by this policy of imbalance is that Australia proactively favours Asians over Africans."


Again if we want a race (religion) balance they why target Asians and Muslims, both are already minoirty groups, based on your justification we should be restricting caucasian and christian immigration (so that we can have a balanced population).



I don't have any. Hanson probably doesn't either. I hope to demonstrate with my next that the question is (unintentionally) the wrong one to pose. I believe her rationale was one of balance and what seems reasonable - ie embrace a multicultural society - and making sure it is in fact multicultural!


The point fails again because the policy did not encourage minority cultures to migrate to Australia and restrict the majority culture White/Christians.


This is where I think your position gets stickier than a toffee shop meltdown. Indeed it's where I think any over-simplistic approach suffers the same fate. I'll seek to show that you selectively pick a point on a continuum, claim it to be correct and at at the same time, reject another point on the continuum. Let's have a look.

"Assess individuals based on merit?" Fine for a First XI selection - not with a global crisis that's been going on for decades. Right now billions of people need to get out of where they are - right now! Thousands will be dead by the time I finish this post!

It is clear that the only, I repeat 'only', morally sound way ahead is to stuff jobs, the economy and any other white bread ideals we have and get the whole lot over here - NOW (oops another 1,000+ just died during that paragraph). We won't. Why not? Well we have considerations, don't we?

-- We won't be able to fund chess
-- We won't be able to fund the arts
-- We won't be able to fund the Opera House
-- We won't be able to fund the Olympics
-- We won't be able to fund people with a wonky eye
-- Keep adding - the list is endless (and embarrassing to us all, of course)

So, returning to your question of merit, we would find millions of people meritorious. Do we accept them all? No. We have a quota. A bloody quota. Why? Because we're selfish. Could we accept 1,000,000 refugees and still exist? Yes.

Are we focusing on Asian and Sudanese when we could/ should be focusing on people with a week to live? Yes.

Do we fiddle around and spend hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars working out whether Mr ABC really should be allowed to live here and be reunited with his daughter who's got a job working in a bank and married a truck driver, while ... ooops there's another 1,000 people dropped off the face of the earth to be buried exactly where they dropped.

So I entirely reject your suggestion of merit when we (globally) are missing the point entirely. We are a disgrace. Not only should we hang our collective heads in shame, I save an extra kick up the backside for arguments such as yours which fiddle and twiddle around trying to intellectualise the semantics of a situation.

I could go on forever talking about the current system's lack of merit criteria, but I must go and have a lie down (and try not to think of the agony and misery which abounds while we chat). My head can remain firmly in the sand.


It doesn't. No one has claimed otherwise.


I agree we can't open the flood gates and I am all for restrictions on Humanitarian immigration. Perhaps I wasn't clear what Imeant by merit; those people who could bring the most benefit to Australia regardless of race. For example people with labour skills that are in need etc. Like merit selection for a job which chooses the most suitable candidate regarless of race.

TheJoker
04-12-2007, 08:40 AM
Come off it! Islam is not a race.

Of course but what about asian!!!! :doh:

I guess you will go into some semantic arguement as to why asian is not a race:rolleyes:


And we have every right to insist that if people want to come to Australia, certain things are unaceptable, like sentencing the victim of gang rape to flogging and jail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=498849&in_page_id=1879), or trying to lynch a teacher for naming a teddy bear "Muhammad", or declaring that women without burqas were "cats' meat" as Keating's favorite Imam "Sarcofelis" Hilaly said ...

Thats why we have Australian laws.



Indeed not. This includes the racist policy of affirmative action.

Actually there is the justification (at least according to its supporters) for the discrimination in affirmative action policies, that is, the short term discimination will provide the opportunities to eliminate an existing inequality that can be attributed to previous racial discrimination. Whether or not it is useful is debatable. Personally I don't know enough about the sucess rate of such programs to comment. But I do fear that it provides oppportnities for policies to mask themselves as affirmative action that have another agenda (e.g. Hanson's immigration policy).

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2007, 09:45 AM
Of course but what about asian!!!! :doh:
What about it? I am not a supporter of the Labor-introduced White Australia Policy, and neither is Gunner.


I guess you will go into some semantic arguement as to why asian is not a race:rolleyes:
No, I would ask what this has to do with being wary of radical Muslims.



Thats why we have Australian laws.
And that's what new migrants should be prepared to live under.


Actually there is the justification (at least according to its supporters) for the discrimination in affirmative action policies, that is, the short term discimination will provide the opportunities to eliminate an existing inequality that can be attributed to previous racial discrimination.
But as US Chief Justice John Roberts said, the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

What AA does is punish those of the politically appointed target group for what their group has supposedly done in the past, whether or not they have personally discriminated or benefited from it; and rewards members of the politically favoured group just because they are members of that group, whether or not they have personally been victims of discrimination. The basic error of AA is treating people on the basis of their group, not as individuals.

In practice, it benefits those already well off in the favoured group, and punishes poorer members of the target group. Or there are absurd situations as Hanson pointed out: two half-brothers with obviously the same opportunities in life in the same family, but one was eligible for Abstudy and the other was not.


Whether or not it is useful is debatable.
And it's more than debatable that it will be short term either. They said that a quarter of a century ago!


Personally I don't know enough about the sucess rate of such programs to comment.
I do: documented by the book Affirmative Action Around the World by Dr Thomas Sowell (himself black); see review (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3873.html)by Dutch Martin (also black).


In Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study (Yale University Press, 2004), Thomas Sowell takes a global view in examining group preference polices in the U.S., India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and Nigeria. Whichever term is used -- affirmative action in America, "positive discrimination" in India, preferences "reflecting the federal character of the country" in Nigeria, or "sons of the soil" preferences in Malaysia -- Dr. Sowell looks at the similarities in the rationale behind these countries' policies, and focuses especially on the actual outcomes.

Among the common consequences of preference policies in the five-country sample are:

They encourage non-preferred groups to redesignate themselves as members of preferred groups to take advantage of group preference policies;
They tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g. black millionaires), often times to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g. poor whites);
They reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best — the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile — thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and
They engender animosity toward preferred groups as well as on the part of preferred groups themselves, whose main problem in some cases has been their own inadequacy combined with their resentment of non-preferred groups who — without preferences — consistently outperform them.

TheJoker
04-12-2007, 10:07 AM
What about it? I am not a supporter of the Labor-introduced White Australia Policy, and neither is Gunner.


No, I would ask what this has to do with being wary of radical Muslims.


The post on the Hanson policy mentioned targeting (reducing) asian and Muslim immigration. I said the policy was racist you said "Come off it Islam is not a race" in retort to my comment, you missed that by targeting asians the policy is racist.

I agree we do need to be wary of radical muslims given their track record. But this has nothing to do with Hanson's policy which in no way sought to identify "radical" muslims. Unless of course you consider all muslims radical.


And that's what new migrants should be prepared to live under.

Absolutely agree


But as US Chief Justice John Roberts said, the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

What AA does is punish those of the politically appointed target group for what their group has supposedly done in the past, whether or not they have personally discriminated or benefited from it; and rewards members of the politically favoured group just because they are members of that group, whether or not they have personally been victims of discrimination. The basic error of AA is treating people on the basis of their group, not as individuals.

In practice, it benefits those already well off in the favoured group, and punishes poorer members of the target group. Or there are absurd situations as Hanson pointed out: two half-brothers with obviously the same opportunities in life in the same family, but one was eligible for Abstudy and the other was not.


And it's more than debatable that it will be short term either. They said that a quarter of a century ago!


I do: documented by the book Affirmative Action Around the World by Dr Thomas Sowell (himself black); see review (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3873.html)by Dutch Martin (also black).


In Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study (Yale University Press, 2004), Thomas Sowell takes a global view in examining group preference polices in the U.S., India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and Nigeria. Whichever term is used -- affirmative action in America, "positive discrimination" in India, preferences "reflecting the federal character of the country" in Nigeria, or "sons of the soil" preferences in Malaysia -- Dr. Sowell looks at the similarities in the rationale behind these countries' policies, and focuses especially on the actual outcomes.

Among the common consequences of preference policies in the five-country sample are:

They encourage non-preferred groups to redesignate themselves as members of preferred groups to take advantage of group preference policies;
They tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g. black millionaires), often times to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g. poor whites);
They reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best — the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile — thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and
They engender animosity toward preferred groups as well as on the part of preferred groups themselves, whose main problem in some cases has been their own inadequacy combined with their resentment of non-preferred groups who — without preferences — consistently outperform them.


I would have to look at the supporting arguement before drawing any conclusions, but it seems like a strong arguement against affirmative action.

pax
04-12-2007, 10:10 AM
Kiwis and Poms don't fly jumbos into buildings,

Neither do a billion Muslims. Pathetic statements like this do you no credit, Jono. Hitler was Christian - should all Christians be condemned because of his sins? The Ku Klux Klan is full of Christians - perhaps we need a moratorium on white Baptists from Texas?



Where are these moderate Muslims that lefties tell all about?

I lived next to a family of them in Sydney. I worked with several, one of whom was a committed peace activist. When you make these thoroughly hateful statements about Muslims, you make them about my friends. Maybe you should get out there and meet some Mulsims - you might be surprised.



Frankly, if we have evidence that someone danced with joy after 11-9, supported flogging rape victims, cheered Sarcofelis, denied the Holocaust, then we should not allow them in.

Fine, yes, absolutely. What about the other 1 billion Mulsims?

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2007, 11:54 AM
Neither do a billion Muslims. Pathetic statements like this do you no credit, Jono.
It doesn't need a billion, just a handful. But Pax is typical of the Left who thinks that school prayer and nativity scenes are a bigger threat to civilization than jumbos flying into buildings and blowing up school buses.


Hitler was Christian — should all Christians be condemned because of his sins?
No he was not. Stop repeating the lies that appear on the atheist sites inhabiting the darkest hovels on the Net. Hitler hated Christianity for its Jewishness and respect for the sanctity of life, and planned to eliminate it as Nuremberg prosecutor William Donovan showed (http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/endC.htm).

Winston Churchill said:


‘… there can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi power, that power which spurns Christian ethics, which cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen with pitiless brutality, the threat of murderous force. That power cannot be the trusted friend of the British democracy…’

Justice Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor at the main Nuremberg trial (Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 2, The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School):


‘The Nazi Party always was predominantly anti-Christian in its ideology’ [and] ‘carried out a systematic and relentless repression of all Christian sects and churches.’

General William Donovan, Nuremberg prosecutor, compiled enormous documentation on how the Nazis planned to exterminate Christianity (http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/endC.htm). He showed show that the Nazis, right from the beginning, realized that the church would have to be neutralized because of its opposition to racism and aggressive wars of conquest. So they planned to infiltrate the churches from within; defame, arrest, assault or kill pastors; reindoctrinate the congregations; and suppress denominational schools and youth organizations. (see the Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion: Nuremberg Project (http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nuremberg.shtml)).

See also Was Hitler a Christian? (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/11/05/was_hitler_a_christian) by Dinesh D'Souza and From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/FromDarwintoHitler.htm) by Richard Weikart, professor of modern European history at California State University, Stanislaus, who has lived in Germany over five years, including one year on a Fulbright Fellowship:


In this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual history, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis. He convincingly makes the disturbing argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles rather than nihilistic ones. From Darwin to Hitler is a provocative yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of the historical impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in the twentieth century.


The Ku Klux Klan is full of Christians — perhaps we need a moratorium on white Baptists from Texas?
The KKK were full of Christian-haters. That's why they bombed the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, 15 September 1963, which killed four black girls. See also Identity: A ‘Christian’ religion for white racists (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0002b.html):


"Christian Identity" is the name of a religious movement uniting many of the white supremacist groups in the United States. Identity's teachers promote racism and sometimes violence. Their roots are deeply embedded in movements such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. They consider themselves true Israel and view the Jews as half-devils and arch enemies. They believe all but the white race are inferior creations. Identity's religious views are bizarre and occultic, and their view of history is often informed by conspiracy theories. Identity's use of the name "Christian" to promote racism and violence is blasphemous. Jesus Christ as redeemer of all races is God's supreme answer to Identity's outrageous claims.


I lived next to a family of them in Sydney. I worked with several, one of whom was a committed peace activist. When you make these thoroughly hateful statements about Muslims, you make them about my friends. Maybe you should get out there and meet some Mulsims — you might be surprised.
I know some decent Muslims too. But how is it "hateful" to talk about the facts? Where are these the moderate Muslim organizations when all the atrocities are being committed?

But your comments really are hateful towards Chrsitianity, in that you impute actions of anti-christians to Christianity. Yet these Muslim terrorists are acting consistently with the teachings of the warlord Muhammad. See also Robert Spencer's book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is — and Islam Isn’t (http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c7094).


Fine, yes, absolutely. What about the other 1 billion Mulsims?
And a significant number have agreed that there is justification for terrorist acts. But even if the number were at 0.1% it would mean a million potential terrorists.

In any case, there would be no problem with genuinely peaceful Muslims, but not those that I've already mentioned. We don't need a repeat of Keating letting in Cat's Meat Hilaly to get the Muslim vote — and the fact that it did get the Muslim vote should make one wonder about the alleged moderate majority.

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2007, 12:03 PM
Of course but what about asian!!!! :doh:

I guess you will go into some semantic arguement as to why asian is not a race:rolleyes:
Well, the Indians are Caucasian and the Chinese are Mongoloid according to common classifications. But that has never been a problem for me. I like Reagan's attitude when certain people complained that without affirmative action, Asian students would dominate universities. He just said, "So what?"

But this leads on to how Asians also refute much leftist propaganda about discrimination, as Dr Sowell shows in Race and Culture. The commonest lefty "evidence" of discrimination in the USA in the is a lower proportion of blacks in highly paid jobs or places at uni. But the same criterion applied to Asians would "demonstrate" that America discriminates against whites and in favour of Asians! Sowell is very good at puncturing leftist "aha" arguments, but extending the data set.

Many Asians I know come to Australia because they like our culture and want to escape their own country. E.g. Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia are officially second-class citizens under the Bumiputra laws. But Australians generally welcome their contribution to this country.

TheJoker
04-12-2007, 12:45 PM
Jono do you agree that the Hanson immigration policy was racist?

pax
04-12-2007, 12:53 PM
But your comments really are hateful towards Chrsitianity, in that you impute actions of anti-christians to Christianity.

As usual, you completely miss the point. I do not impute the actions of any individual to Christianity. I am merely pointing out that there are many perpetrators of hateful acts that claim to be Christians - just as there are perpetrators of hateful act who claim to be Muslim. It is hypocritical to condemn the whole of Islam because of the actions of a few, when you do not condemn Christianity in the same way. Personally, I condemn neither.

pax
04-12-2007, 12:58 PM
But Pax is typical of the Left who thinks that school prayer and nativity scenes are a bigger threat to civilization than jumbos flying into buildings and blowing up school buses.
Your words, not mine.

Basil
04-12-2007, 01:34 PM
As I said at the outset, this subject is highly subjective. You believe I have failed in my defence of the allegation of racism against Hanson. I believe you have failed to make it. Where you do raise valid questions (and I do accept them), I can simply illustrate another country or person who's policy could highlight that you are a racist and/ or anti-humanitarian (and I do illustrate that below) ... and so it goes on ... round and round ...


So was she proposing to ban caucasian (white) immigration until there was a balance between the number of caucasians and asians living in Australia? The answer is no
Agreed. But then no party is promoting what you suggest.


... the underlying ideal of the policy in my opinion was to maintain the status quo of a caucasian majority in Australia.
Possibly. But she didn't say that. One could easily argue that the underlying reason of the present system (visa applications/ self-supporting criteria/ proportion of refugees) is also favouring whites. Your position is just another arbitrary line on the continuum.

I repeat, it is very easy to pick a line on the continuum and argue against others. However, the credibility of any such position falls in a heap when it itself is blow-torched by another line on the continuum. One might as well declare Rudd Labor is racist until it advocates and practices what you suggest. But then even that would fall in a heap on another of your tests - being merit. One would simply be blindly promoting equality of colour and creeds without reference to merit. Around and around we go.


The point fails again because the policy did not encourage minority cultures to migrate to Australia and restrict the majority culture White/Christians.
No, the point doesn't fail at all. You are simply illustrating the subjectiveness of the situation using an argument which I myself used in an earlier post (in reverse). You are seeking to (hypothetically?) argue the case for the restriction of whites. According to your original narrow definition, that right there is racism, regardless of whether the whites are presently the primary immigrants - you yourself denied me that defence (for Hanson).


I agree we can't open the flood gates and I am all for restrictions on Humanitarian immigration.
But are you in favour of the current restrictions? If so, you could stand accused of being anti-humanitarian - and so it goes on - everyone has a line on the continuum ...

TheJoker
04-12-2007, 02:12 PM
As I said at the outset, this subject is highly subjective. You believe I have failed in my defence of the allegation of racism against Hanson. I believe you have failed to make it. Where you do raise valid questions (and I do accept them), I can simply illustrate another country or person who's policy could highlight that you are a racist and/ or anti-humanitarian (and I do illustrate that below) ... and so it goes on ... round and round ...


Agreed. But then no party is promoting what you suggest.

That is because they do not agree with Ms Hanson that we need the balance of races/cultures.

The point was "if" that was her rationale as you suggest, then then it follows that you must limit Caucasian/Christian immigration. So there is either a huge hole in the policy or the real policy agenda was different.


One could easily argue that the underlying reason of the present system (visa applications/ self-supporting criteria/ proportion of refugees) is also favouring whites.

Yes one could. But we are debating whether Hanson's policy was racist, not the current policy.


One might as well declare Rudd Labor is racist until it advocates and practices what you suggest. But then even that would fall in a heap on another of your tests - being merit. One would simply be blindly promoting equality of colour and creeds without reference to merit. Around and around we go.

Again for clarity I was not suggesting limiting white/christian immigration. There is no need to have a balance of racial or cultural background in the population.



You are seeking to (hypothetically?) argue the case for the restriction of whites. According to your original narrow definition, that right there is racism, regardless of whether the whites are presently the primary immigrants - you yourself denied me that defence (for Hanson)

I am not arguing the case for restricting immigration of whites. Any policy that uses race as a defining factor for immigration will be racist.



But are you in favour of the current restrictions? If so, you could stand accused of being anti-humanitarian

I am not familiar with the current quota of humanitarian visa granted. If it is up to standard compared to the rest of the OECD countries, then I am in favour.

If that makes me anti-humanitarian, then so be it. I am sure it wouldn't be my only fault or prejudice.

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2007, 02:16 PM
As usual, you completely miss the point. I do not impute the actions of any individual to Christianity. I am merely pointing out that there are many perpetrators of hateful acts that claim to be Christians — just as there are perpetrators of hateful act who claim to be Muslim. It is hypocritical to condemn the whole of Islam because of the actions of a few, when you do not condemn Christianity in the same way. Personally, I condemn neither.
Here's are the key differences which refute your moral relativist crap:


The specific people people you said were Christians were manifestly not, and on record wanting to destroy churches and Christianity itself.
Those who commit atrocities while claiming to be Christian were acting contrary to Christ's teachings. But those terrorists, or Saudi judges, claiming to be Muslims were acting consistently with Muhammad's.
There is clear and consistent condemnation by Christians of atrocities by professing Christians, while the silence of the alleged moderate Muslim majority about astrocities committed by professing Muslims is deafening.

TheJoker
04-12-2007, 02:19 PM
There is clear and consistent condemnation by Christians of atrocities by professing Christians...


So you condemn the crusades and the inquisitions?

Spiny Norman
04-12-2007, 02:39 PM
So you condemn the crusades ...
Any atrocities committed in the crusades, yes.


... and the inquisitions?
Our chief weapons are fear, suprise, ruthless efficiency ... and a fanatical devotion to the Pope.

Where's those comfy cushions?

pax
04-12-2007, 02:58 PM
Those who commit atrocities while claiming to be Christian were acting contrary to Christ's teachings. But those terrorists, or Saudi judges, claiming to be Muslims were acting consistently with Muhammad's.


I am going to do something very unusual here, and quote from a speech by George W Bush. Please note his quote from the Koran. Only those with a very extreme interpretation of the Koran can possibly claim that the 9-11 terrorists were acting according to Muhammed's teaching.


As we work together to defeat the terrorists, we must be very clear about the enemies we face. The killers who take the lives of innocent men, women, and children are followers of a violent ideology very different from the religion of Islam. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against anyone who does not share their radical vision, including Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.

Their strategy will fail. Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing chapter 5, verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all of humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity. I appreciate those of you here who have joined these scholars in rejecting violent extremists. And I believe the time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to denounce an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles your noble faith.




There is clear and consistent condemnation by Christians of atrocities by professing Christians, while the silence of the alleged moderate Muslim majority about astrocities committed by professing Muslims is deafening.


Then you aren't listening. Muslims around the world were horrified by 9/11. Here are a few public statements:

http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2007, 03:55 PM
I am going to do something very unusual here, and quote from a speech by George W Bush. Please note his quote from the Koran. Only those with a very extreme interpretation of the Koran can possibly claim that the 9-11 terrorists were acting according to Muhammed's teaching
What would Bush know? He also thinks that democracy is the answer, although the Founding Fathers of his country specifically rejected democracy because it could lead to tyranny of the majority (cf. Hamas), and founded the USA as a republic. Good grief, the man is a member of the Republican party not the Democrats and he doesn't know this??

The official Muslim doctrine is that the verses written later, advocating war, supersede the verses supposedly advocating peace, written when Muhammad was in a weaker position. From Jihad in Islam: Is Islam Peaceful or Militant? (http://answering-islam.org/Hahn/jihad.htm)


The well known Egyptian scholar, Sayyid Qutb, notes four stages in the development of jihad: 1. While the earliest Muslims remained in Mecca before fleeing to Medina, God did not allow them to fight; 2. Permission is given to Muslims to fight against their oppressors; 3. God commands Muslims to fight those fighting them; 4. God commands the Muslims to fight against all polytheists. He views each stage to be replaced by the next stage in this order, the fourth stage to remain permanent.

...

The majority of the Qur’an’s texts themselves clearly identify jihad as physical warfare in Islam and, Islamically, God’s way of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth. They hardly require to be interpreted metaphorically. Likewise, from the Hadith and the earliest biographies of Muhammad it is just as evident that the early Muslim community understood these Quranic texts to be taken literally. Historically, therefore, from the time of Muhammad onwards, jihad as physical warfare in support of the message of Islam has been a reality for the Muslim community. Hence it comes as no surprise when even terrorists easily appeal to these source materials to justify their actions, not to speak of their teachers who teach the theory and the art of terrorism.


Another article on the Answering Islam (http://answering-islam.org) site, The Two Faces of Islam … Still Smiling: Why All Muslims Benefit From Terrorism (http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/two_faces.htm), said:


I’m very happy that most Muslims are willing to live in peace with their neighbors. Yet we have to be honest here. Benevolent Muslims aren’t peaceful because they are following the example set by Muhammad. They are peaceful because they’ve chosen to do what’s right, and because they are willing to live far better lives than Muhammad himself lived. In fact, many Muslims are such kind, peaceful, and gentle people that they seem to be following the example set by another great religious leader—one who died on the cross for the sins of the world and rose from the dead to prove his message. This man gave his listeners a sober warning: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them" (Matthew 7:15). And, may I add, we should also watch out for false religions, which come to us crying "Peace! Peace!" when they are built on a foundation of murder and bloodshed.


Then you aren't listening. Muslims around the world were horrified by 9/11.
As above. While of course most muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists are Muslims, acting with the blessing of well known religious leaders.

But that link goes to lots of different places. And even then, many of the alleged apologies were not unconditional; there was usually something about how the American imperialists or Zionist oppressors partly brought it on themselves.

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2007, 04:38 PM
So you condemn the crusades and the inquisitions?
Any atrocities within them, yes, as Spiny said. But you really have swallowed a typical highschool anti-Christian revisionist historiography of these.


Crusades

Many historians are recognizing that the Crusades were a justified response to centuries of Islamic aggression, e.g. Robert Spencer's books The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (http://www.thbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6805) and Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is — and Islam Isn’t (http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/).

The Muslims quickly conquered the Iberian Peninsula well before the Crusades. They probably would have almost certainly conquered Europe if the Frankish king Charles Martel’s infantry had not defeated the Muslim cavalry at the Battle of Tours/Poitiers in a brilliant defensive strategy.

Also, just think about the historic centres of Christianity such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and the rest of North Africa—they are now Muslim lands, converted at the point of the sword. And after the crusades, the Muslim Turks conquered the ancient land of Asia Minor, the birthplace of the Apostle Paul, the site of many of his missionary journeys and home of the Seven Churches of the book of Revelation. Furthermore, when they conquered Constantinople (now Istanbul) in 1453, they turned Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom), the world’s biggest church of its day and centre of Eastern Orthodoxy, into a mosque.

Note that a just war can still have atrocities without affecting the justness of the war itself. In the case of the Crusades, problems arose because many of the soldiers were biblically illiterate, and had justification-by-works mentality, thinking that they could earn salvation by going on the Crusade. However, biblical Christianity is not the cause but would have been a corrective if followed—salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, not by works, as shown by Paul’s citation of Genesis 15:6, ‘Abraham believed the LORD, and it was credited to him as righteousness’ (Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6, cf. Eph. 2:8-9).


Inquisition

E.g. modern historical research on the Inquisition (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html) points to about 2,000 killed in three centuries. Stalin killed that many before breakfast. The historian Henry Kamen wrote (The Spanish Inquisition, A historical revision, p. 203, 1999):


“It would seem that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries fewer than three people a year were executed in the whole of the Spanish monarchy from Sicily to Peru, certainly a lower rate than in any provincial court of justice in Spain or anywhere else in Europe.”

Note also, the Inquisition prisons were so much better than the secular prisons of the day that some criminals even uttered heresies so they could be transferred there.


Perspective

Gregory Koukl points out in Christianity’s Real Record (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GregKoukl/2006/11/21/christianitys_real_record):


Thousands of witches were not burned at the stake. The Salem witch trials resulted in only nineteen executions before it was stopped by Christians. The Spanish Inquisition involved thousands and the Crusades tens of thousands, not millions.

Of course, it’s tragic when even a handful of innocent lives are taken. Injustice isn’t justified because the numbers diminish. But an accurate accounting does serve to put things in perspective, especially when one considers the alternative: Has atheism fared better?

Basil
04-12-2007, 09:35 PM
That is because they do not agree with Ms Hanson that we need the balance of races/cultures.
I disagree. I agree that under your (narrow) definition that Hanson is racist. But I assert that you, me and Rudd are also racist by our actions. Perhaps less so - but then we're talking the difference between murder and serial murder. This is the ongoing problem I have. Popular (apparently non-racist policy) is simply a line on the continuum.


The point was "if" that was her rationale as you suggest, then then it follows that you must limit Caucasian/Christian immigration. So there is either a huge hole in the policy or the real policy agenda was different.
To be honest, I'm losing track (which I accept is my problem, not yours). However I maintain that your argument (attacking her) and defending the status quo as asserted by we enlighted types is all of racist and anti-humanitarian. The status quo is wrong - clearly. It's just that we're (popularly) comfortable with it. We're still as guilty as sin - and pointing to Hanson who wishes to tighten the noose even further is merely subjective.


Yes one could. But we are debating whether Hanson's policy was racist, not the current policy.
Let's agree (again because of your definition) that she is. So are we (the popular sane and morally pure) majority! And my reference to the current policy of global racism highlights extreme the difficulty you and others have proving a crime of which we are all guilty.


Again for clarity I was not suggesting limiting white/christian immigration. There is no need to have a balance of racial or cultural background in the population.
But we must limit white immigration (according to your logic). If we do not limit white immigration, we are being racist because the status quo has whites winning on the numbers. This policy is clearly racist. Alternatively, if we beef up the non-white quotient to match the white quotient (for the sake of equality), then we aren't proceeding according to merit, which you have also argued.


I am not arguing the case for restricting immigration of whites. Any policy that uses race as a defining factor for immigration will be racist.
But the two statements (the positive corollary from your first, and the status quo from the second) are mutually exclusive.


I am not familiar with the current quota of humanitarian visa granted. If it is up to standard compared to the rest of the OECD countries, then I am in favour. If that makes me anti-humanitarian, then so be it. I am sure it wouldn't be my only fault or prejudice.
Fair enough. I have some news for you. Your position is anti-humanitarian (according to my similar narrow) definition.

It's a very slippery, and HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE area! BTW, I ain't casting any stones. If you must find Hanson racist, go ahead - but better give yourself a spell in the slammer, too. In fact take me and Rudd with you.

Southpaw Jim
05-12-2007, 08:19 AM
At the risk of starting another argument here, can we all agree that if Hanson is not overtly racist (although I suspect she is, in her heart of hearts) that she is at least a xenophobe.

"Please explain."

<tiptoes away quietly while bomb ticks..>

TheJoker
05-12-2007, 11:06 AM
However I maintain that your argument (attacking her) and defending the status quo as asserted by we enlighted types is all of racist and anti-humanitarian. The status quo is wrong - clearly.

But you have failed to prove that the current immigration policy is racist. To do so you need to prove that it directly or indirectly discriminates based on race. You would need some statistics to back up any claim.

The Hanson policy however is overtly racist by specifically discriminating against racial groups. Personally I think there is a big difference.



Let's agree (again because of your definition) that she is.

So what is your "broader" definition?


And my reference to the current policy of global racism highlights extreme the difficulty you and others have proving a crime of which we are all guilty.

You arguement sighted anti-humantarianism, and discrimination based socio-economic status, it did not in my opinion highlight a global racist policy.



But we must limit white immigration (according to your logic). If we do not limit white immigration, we are being racist because the status quo has whites winning on the numbers, this policy is clearly racist.

I never said the current immigration policy has the white winning on numbers, in fact it is unlikely based on the country of origin statistics for 2005-06http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/statistical-info/oad/settlers/setdatb.htm.

My point was (and I will try to be clear as best I can) in that "if" the rationale for Hanson's immigration policy was to ensure a balance of races within the community (as you stated) the current population is majority white/christian (nothing to do with the current immigration policy); therefore any immigration policy seeking a "balance" would need to limit white/christian immigration, and not asian and muslim immigration.



Alternatively, if we beef up the non-white quotient to match the white quotient (for the sake of equality), then we aren't proceeding according to merit, which you have also argued.


I am not asserting that the current immigration policy favours any racial group, I have no idea. While there are a large number of settlers from China, that may indeed be due to a larger number of Chinese applicants. And basically it has no bearing on whether Hanson's policy is racist or not.

The whole point is that the justification you gave for Hanson's policy targetting asian and muslim immigration is flawed. That is you are not going to get a balance in the population of races/cultures is you limit asian muslim immigration.

If her rationale was to have a " race balance" in terms of migrants and not general population (different to the rationale you gave). In order to remove any racial bias inherant in the system. Then I would agree that the policy was not intetionally racist (but would still have racist outcomes see below).

First Hanson would need to prove that the system did have some inherent racial bias. Looking at the total migration numbers from any one racial group would not be sufficient, you would need to prove that a particular race had higher (or lower) percentage of applicants approved when other deciding factors (such as skills) are discounted.

I still wouldn't favour the quota system, I would rather try to address the root cause.

The quota system would still result in racist outcomes. For example (hypothetically), A highly qualified neuro surgeon from China wants to migrate to Australia (and Australia has a high demand for neuro surgeons) but the migration quota for "asians" has been filled so she is denied, at the same time a hairdresser from the South Africa applies to migrate (and Australia has a medium demand for HDs) but the "white" quota is not filled so he is accepted. If the quota system was not in place the neuro surgeon would have been accepted ahead of the HD based on her skills and Australia market demand for those skills. Instead she is denied based soley on her racial background.


Fair enough. I have some news for you. Your position is anti-humanitarian (according to my similar narrow) definition.

Fair enough, but again this is off-topic. We are debating, or so I thought, whether the Hanson Policy was racist or not.


It's a very slippery, and HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE area! BTW, I ain't casting any stones. If you must find Hanson racist, go ahead - but better give yourself a spell in the slammer, too. In fact take me and Rudd with you.

I am not calling Hanson a racist, I am saying her policy was racist. I have no idea if that was her intent or not.

Again we are debating whether the Hanson policy is racist or not, whether you, I or Rudd are racist is not relevant. I may well be a racist and a hypocrit but that has no bearing on whether the Hanson policy is racist.

Can you provide your definition of racism and your rationale for why the Hanson policy is not racist?

Southpaw Jim
05-12-2007, 11:45 AM
I'm still avoiding tagging Hanson as a racist, as I do know that she has been misrepresented to some degree by the media, but I find the following passage from her maiden speech to Parliament... telling:


I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40 per cent of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate. Of course, I will be called racist but, if I can invite whom I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say in who comes into my country. A truly multicultural country can never be strong or united. The world is full of failed and tragic examples, ranging from Ireland to Bosnia to Africa and, closer to home, Papua New Guinea. America and Great Britain are currently paying the price.
Arthur Calwell was a great Australian and Labor leader, and it is a pity that there are not men of his stature sitting on the opposition benches today. Arthur Calwell said:


Japan, India, Burma, Ceylon and every new African nation are fiercely anti-white and anti one another. Do we want or need any of these people here? I am one red-blooded Australian who says no and who speaks for 90% of Australians.
I have no hesitation in echoing the words of Arthur Calwell.

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2007, 11:52 AM
Again we are debating whether the Hanson policy is racist or not, whether you, I or Rudd are racist is not relevant. I may well be a racist and a hypocrit but that has no bearing on whether the Hanson policy is racist.

Can you provide your definition of racism and your ratioale for why the Hanson policy is not racist?
It's up to you to define racism consistently and prove that Hanson is and Rudd, yourself and Gunner are not by the same criterion.

Southpaw Jim
05-12-2007, 12:04 PM
Also, there is Hanson's most recent foray into the limelight, regarding the Howard Government's decision to rebalance the African refugee intake (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22534591-952,00.html?from=mostpop), specifically:

Speaking at a Gold Coast Media Club function today, Ms Hanson said she welcomed Mr Andrews' move ,adding, "It's been recorded in Victoria that there is a 25 per cent increase in HIV.

"There is TB, and a case of leprosy which has been recorded in South Australia.''

Ms Hanson said the federal government had a responsibility to ensure the safety of Australians.

"You can't bring people into the country who are incompatible with our way of life and culture,'' she said.

"They get around in gangs and there is escalating crime that is happening.''
The implication that African refugees are responsible for a 25% increase in HIV in Victoria is utter rubbish (http://www.africanoz.com/b2evolution/blogs/index.php?cat=14). I find it hard to accept Hanson is not a racist in the face of such slurs :hmm:

TheJoker
05-12-2007, 12:05 PM
It's up to you to define racism consistently and prove that Hanson is and Rudd, yourself and Gunner are not by the same criterion.

I did define racism, go back through the thread. Gunner has agreed (or so I think) that the Hanson policy is racist under my "narrow" definition. But he does not agree that the policy is indeed racist, which infers he has a different definition for racism under which the policy would not count as racist I would like to know what that definition is.

Secondly as I have pointed out clearly we are not debating whether myself, Ms Hanson or Mr Rudd or Gunner are racist. We are debating on whether Ms Hanson's proposed immigration policy was racist. Whether myself, Rudd or Gunner is racist is irrelevant. Whether Ms Hanson is racist is only relevant if she is; if she is not it does not mean that the policy is not racist, if she is then it might support an arguement that the policy agenda is likely to be racist, but since no such arguement has been made; whether Ms Hanson is racist or not is irrelevant

Gunner put up a defence of the Hanson policy to show that it wasn't racist, I beleive I have shown his rationale to be flawed, and that the policy was indeed racist. In support of my arguement you posted a comment (concerning affirmative action) stating that race based quotas where indeed racist and ill-concieved.

Basil
05-12-2007, 11:17 PM
But you have failed to prove that the current immigration policy is racist.
Just because you haven't understood, doesn't mean I haven't proved it. My last go.
First
Pax (I believe, I'll go back and check after the post) suggested that white immigration was tops. Right there, there is discrimination of colour.
Second
Your own stats below bear this out. The Brits get pole position, and as the chart confirms, it is based on skill. Your earlier quest for merit based priority is blown out of the water.

Read my lips. Australia is presently allowing a far greater percentage of skilled white people in than any other group. This is neither egalitarian on colour nor merit-based from the claimant's POV. It is clearly a case of "what can you do for us, not what can we do for you".

If you wish to spin that round and round, go ahead. I will not be making that point for you again, no matter how you phrase the question or whether you accept my position.


The Hanson policy however is overtly racist by specifically discriminating against racial groups. Personally I think there is a big difference.
Given your narrow definition, I agree entirely on both counts. She is racist and there is a difference. However, as I have repeatedly said, what is the point of branding someone a racist or a liar or a pig if we're all up to our necks in it? The standard needs to change, or it is a worthless standard.


So what is your "broader" definition?
My broader definition is located somewhere else on this board which regrettably you are unable to view. I may try and paraphrase quite a difficult concept at some stage later. Else, we could just wait until you reach 200 posts ;)

However, to avoid being accused of being too oblique, I will say this. Are you familiar with the difficulties involved in determining whether or not someone is an employee or a contractor. In recent years the ATO (and the courts) has made significant improvements to the test. Notwithstanding, the issue is quite complex and many factors are brought to bear in the ultimate determination. The factors are given different weightings to arrive at the determination. Even those determinations are the subject of High Court tests from time to time.

My idea of discrimination requires quite a few tests. Some are
- intent
- hate
- good faith
- whole of conduct, and more

A simple example illustrating the dangers of a simple test (such as the one you seek to use) would be the case of a Sudanese killing an Asian in a street fight. Is the killing racist? I'll leave you to ponder the depth of the considerations that a court would face as opposed to the application of a simple test on the colour of skin.


You arguement sighted anti-humantarianism, and discrimination based socio-economic status, it did not in my opinion highlight a global racist policy.
I did cite an anti-humanitarian angle. I did so deliberately - for two reasons.
1. Humanitarianism is a very close relative of racism.
2. I require the link when I am attempting to defeat over-simplistic calls of racism on a national level.


I never said the current immigration policy has the white winning on numbers, in fact it is unlikely based on the country of origin statistics for 2005-06http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/statistical-info/oad/settlers/setdatb.htm.

I can't bothered going back to look whether you said so or not. In any event, your stats prove your claim of likelihood to be wrong. The whites have it by a country mile.


And basically it has no bearing on whether Hanson's policy is racist or not.
As I have said, according to your definition, Hanson is racist. However, according to your definition we all are. So what progress is made? This is why I look for a better, more meaningful definition.


The whole point is that the justification you gave for Hanson's policy targetting asian and muslim immigration is flawed.
I'm not going to go back and re-argue what I have done already in respect to any justification Hanson may or may not have. I will gladly accept (and have never done otherwise) that Hanson's rationale (for her latest policy of ceasing Muslim immigration) is flawed.


If her rationale was to have a " race balance" in terms of migrants and not general population (different to the rationale you gave).
We have misunderstood each other. I may (or may not) have been to blame with some sloppy expression. I can't be bothered going back to check. Your quote above is what I intended. Thank you for taking the trouble to clarify.


In order to remove any racial bias inherant in the system. Then I would agree that the policy was not intetionally racist (but would still have racist outcomes see below).
We agree. The difference is that I require 'intent' in the vast majority of cases - as well as in this one, for a charge of racism to stick.


The quota system would still result in racist outcomes. For example (hypothetically), A highly qualified neuro surgeon from China wants to migrate to Australia (and Australia has a high demand for neuro surgeons) but the migration quota for "asians" has been filled so she is denied, at the same time a hairdresser from the South Africa applies to migrate (and Australia has a medium demand for HDs) but the "white" quota is not filled so he is accepted. If the quota system was not in place the neuro surgeon would have been accepted ahead of the HD based on her skills and Australia market demand for those skills. Instead she is denied based soley on her racial background.
We agree.


Fair enough, but again this is off-topic. We are debating, or so I thought, whether the Hanson Policy was racist or not.
We are. However, as I have said I require the broader (seemingly irrelevant parameters) in order to make sense of your narrow claim which has no practical use IMO.


I am not calling Hanson a racist, I am saying her policy was racist. I have no idea if that was her intent or not.
OK. I require intent. You don't. Racist (your definition) outcomes exist everywhere. They go both (all) ways. Sometimes they'll switch direction! The world would go potty chasing every such claim.


Can you provide your definition of racism and your rationale for why the Hanson policy is not racist?
I will try and get you my definition. I don't believe Hanson's (old) policy is racist because because I didn't perceive vilification.

Her more recent policy of temporary cessation of Muslim immigration appears to be on the grounds of prejudice against the race (the subject matter introduced to me after this thread started) and not on the grounds of a utopian ideal of balance. I haven't read her statements properly, but if my perception is correct, then that would be racist! :P

TheJoker
06-12-2007, 11:58 AM
Just because you haven't understood, doesn't mean I haven't proved it. My last go.
First
Pax (I believe, I'll go back and check after the post) suggested that white immigration was tops. Right there, there is discrimination of colour.
Second
Your own stats below bear this out. The Brits get pole position, and as the chart confirms, it is based on skill. Your earlier quest for merit based priority is blown out of the water.

Read my lips. Australia is presently allowing a far greater percentage of skilled white people in than any other group. This is neither egalitarian on colour nor merit-based from the claimant's POV. It is clearly a case of "what can you do for us, not what can we do for you".

If you wish to spin that round and round, go ahead. I will not be making that point for you again, no matter how you phrase the question or whether you accept my position.


Given your narrow definition, I agree entirely on both counts. She is racist and there is a difference. However, as I have repeatedly said, what is the point of branding someone a racist or a liar or a pig if we're all up to our necks in it? The standard needs to change, or it is a worthless standard.


My broader definition is located somewhere else on this board which regrettably you are unable to view. I may try and paraphrase quite a difficult concept at some stage later. Else, we could just wait until you reach 200 posts ;)

However, to avoid being accused of being too oblique, I will say this. Are you familiar with the difficulties involved in determining whether or not someone is an employee or a contractor. In recent years the ATO (and the courts) has made significant improvements to the test. Notwithstanding the issue is quite complex and many factors are brought to bear in the ultimate determination. The factors are given different weightings to arrive at the determination. Even those determinations are the subject of High Court tests from time to time.

My idea of discrimination requires quite a few tests. Some are
- intent
- hate
- good faith
- whole of conduct, and more

A simple example illustrating the dangers of a simple test (such as the one you seek to use) would be the case of a Sudanese killing an Asian in a street fight. Is the killing racist? I'll leave you to ponder the depth of the considerations that a court would face as opposed to the application of a simple test on the colour of skin.


I did cite an anti-humanitarian angle. I did so deliberately - for two reasons.
1. Humanitarianism is a very close relative of racism.
2. I require the link when I am attempting defeat over-simplistic calls of racism on a national level.


I can't bothered going back to look whether you said so or not. In any event, your stats prove your claim of likelihood to be wrong. The whites have it by a country mile.


As I have said, according to your definition, Hanson is racist. However, according to your definition we all are. So what progress is made? This is why I look for a better, more meaningful definition.


I'm not going to go back and re-argue what I have done already in respect to any justification Hanson may or may not have. I will gladly accept (and have never done otherwise) that Hanson's rationale (for her latest policy of ceasing Muslim immigration) is flawed.


We have misunderstood each other. I may (or may not) have been to blame with some sloppy expression. I can't be bothered going back to check. Your quote above is what I intended. Thank you for taking the trouble to clarify.


We agree. The difference is that I require 'intent' in the vast majority of cases - as well as in this one, for a charge of racism to stick.


We agree.


We are. However, as I have said I require the broader (seemingly irrelevant parameters) in order to make sense of your narrow claim which has no practical use IMO.


OK. I require intent. You don't. Racist (your definition) outcomes exist everywhere. They go both (all) ways. Sometimes they'll switch direction! The world would go potty chasing every such claim.


I will try and get you my definition. I don't believe Hanson's (old) policy is racist because because I didn't perceive vilification.

Her more recent policy of temporary cessation of Muslim immigration appears to be on the grounds of prejudice against the race (the subject matter introduced to me after this thread started) and not on the grounds of a utopian ideal of balance. I haven't read her statements properly, but if my perception is correct, then that would be racist! :P


Ok I will quickly respond. I'll agree that under your definition where intent is required Hanson's Policy may not be seen as being racist. In which case it must be seen as absurdly flawed and moronic. I will explain:

Lets look at the two possible intentions of the policy as I see them:


Racists Intent
The policy seeks to reduce immigration of racial groups that are already a minority in terms of migrant figures. That is it cannot be seen as an attempt to eliminate racism iherant in the system (affirmative action). In fact it is indeed the opposite and seeks to further misrepresent an already misrepresented group. Hence the only reason to do so would be a dislike of those racial groups (racism)

Racial Balance intent
The policy seeks to use racial quotas to balance out any inherant racism in the existing system (afffirmative action). However it proposes to limit the immigration of migrant minority groups (asians and muslims) and have no such limits on the majority migrant group (whites) entering Australia. Any moron can see that this policy can not bring a balance, indeed it will do the exact reverse and increase the racial disparity of migrants entering Australia.

So either the policy has a "racist intent" or the policy is moronic. Unless of course I have failed to identify the intent of the the policy.


I do think I understand the crux of your arguement however:

Racist relative to what?

That is it depends on what measuring stick you are going to use to make the determination (subjective). I was hoping that I was going to be able to convince that using any reasonalbe measure the policy would be exposed as racist. I would have thought that my arguement was compelling enough, but it seems we will have to agree to disagree.

Capablanca-Fan
06-12-2007, 12:30 PM
Does "racist" mean thinking that some races are inferior or superior, that some races should be discriminated against or for, that some cultures or religions are superior or inferior, something that a "white" person is automatically simply by virtue of his whiteness while a "person of color" cannot be (as per the University of Delaware (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/11/07/academic_cesspools_ii)) or what?

This word is often an attempt by the Anointed (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/anointed.php)to end fair debate by demonising their Benighted opponents.

TheJoker
06-12-2007, 01:37 PM
(as per the University of Delaware (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/11/07/academic_cesspools_ii)).

The article posted by Jono, highlights Gunner's point about the definition of racist being subjective! I now agree with Gunner totally; anyone may or may not be racist depending on the point of view.

I've learnt my lesson and next time when debating subjective terms will seek to find a mutually agreeable definition, before going off and argueing from my perspective. :eek:

Capablanca-Fan
06-12-2007, 05:53 PM
Wanted: a national culture
Multiculturalism is a disaster (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2697772.ece)
Dr Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of Great Britain

Multiculturalism has run its course, and it is time to move on. It was a fine, even noble idea in its time. It was designed to make ethnic and religious minorities feel more at home, more appreciated and respected, and therefore better able to mesh with the larger society. It affirmed their culture. It gave dignity to difference. And in many ways it achieved its aims. Britain is a more open, diverse, energising, cosmopolitan environment than it was when I was growing up.

But there has been a price to pay, and it grows year by year. Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation. It has allowed groups to live separately, with no incentive to integrate and every incentive not to. It was intended to promote tolerance. Instead the result has been, in countries where it has been tried, societies more abrasive, fractured and intolerant than they once were.

Liberal democracy is in danger. Britain is becoming a place where free speech is at risk, non-political institutions are becoming politicised, and a combination of political correctness and ethnic-religious separatism is eroding the graciousness of civil society. Religious groups are becoming pressure groups. Boycotts and political campaigns are infecting professional bodies. Culture is fragmenting into systems of belief in which civil discourse ends and reasoned argument becomes impossible. The political process is in danger of being abandoned in favour of the media-attention-grabbing gesture. The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.

...

We have lost the basis of morality as a shared set of values holding society together. We are living “after virtue”; that is to say, in an age in which people no longer have roles and duties within a stable social structure. When that happens, morality becomes a mere fa&#231;ade. Arguments become interminable and intolerable. The only adequate answer to an opposing viewpoint is: “Says who?” In a debate in which there are no shared standards, the loudest voice wins. The only way to defeat opponents is to ridicule them.

If there is no agreed moral truth, we cannot reason together. All truth becomes subjective or relative, no more than a construction, a narrative, one way among many of telling the story. Each represents a point of view, and each point of view is the expression of a group. On this account, Western civilisation is not truth but the hegemony of the ruling elite. Therefore, it must be exposed and opposed. Western civilisation becomes the rule of dead white males. There are other truths: Marxist, feminist, homosexual, African-American, and so on. Which prevails will depend not on reason but on power. Force must be met by force. Lacking a shared language, we attack the arguer, not the argument.

This is done by ruling certain opinions out of order, not because they are untrue – there is no moral truth – but because they represent an assault on the dignity of those who believe otherwise. So: Christians are homophobic. People on the Right are fascist. Those who believe in the right of Jews to a state are racist. Those who believe in traditional marriage are heterosexist. Political correctness, created to avoid stigmatising speech, becomes the supreme example of stigmatising speech.

...

But if there is no moral truth, there is only victory. The pursuit of truth mutates into the will to power. Instead of being refuted by rational argument, dissenting views are stigmatised as guilty of postmodernism’s cardinal sin: racism in any of its myriad, multiplying variants. So moral consensus disappears and moral conversation dies. Opponents are demonised. Ever-new “isms” are invented to exclude ever more opinions. New forms of intimidation begin to appear: protests, threats of violence, sometimes actual violence. For when there are no shared standards, there can be no conversation, and where conversation ends, violence begins.

...

Identity politics is deeply and inexorably divisive. If the withholding of recognition is a form of oppression, then one way of achieving recognition is to show that I have been oppressed. The logic is as follows: the group to which I belong is a victim; it has been wronged; therefore we are entitled to special treatment. This gives rise to an endlessly proliferating list of the aggrieved. Each of their claims is surely true, but you cannot build a free society on the basis of these truths, just as you cannot heal trauma by endlessly attending to your wounds. A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation, is greater than that of others.

Axiom
06-12-2007, 06:32 PM
Multiculturalism has been a trojan horse for the balkanisation of cultures.
Strong middle classes with robust cultures are abhored by the global money power.
Enforced race mixing without our consent suits corporation interests ahead of the national interests.
I'm not talking here of the gradual and target specific immigration needs, but of the disproportionate swamping of one culture by another , on a scale that comprimises the culturally alligned will of the people.
I'm in favour of multi - cultures ie. diverse ,rich, varying cultures throughout the world, not multiculturalism, a move towards an homogenised global mush of humanity.

TheJoker
07-12-2007, 09:04 AM
Who has had a great deal of experience of a culture outside there own?

What were your experiences like?

What do think of the ideas of multi-culturism and integration?

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2007, 09:17 AM
The country has historically benefited from immigration. But those people actually came here because they liked Australia. If they had families, they would still often try to have another child for Australia. Sure, they would sometimes make encourage their children learn the language of their origin, but not at the expense of English. Sometimes they would open a restaurant serving cuisine of the old country, enriching Australia's choices.

What is not satisfactory is balkanization, or coming here and thinking that the natives are inferior. It is certainly not for Keating to make sure that Sarcofelis Hilaly can become a citizen.

Ian Murray
07-12-2007, 09:57 AM
Hanson is doing very nicely out of standing for election, even though she has no chance of gaining a seat. Her latest bid will give her a $200K+ windfall at taxpayers' expense - see today's news at http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22884377-2,00.html

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2007, 03:14 PM
Was Hanson ever compensated for her wrongful jailing?

TheJoker
07-12-2007, 04:13 PM
The country has historically benefited from immigration. But those people actually came here because they liked Australia. If they had families, they would still often try to have another child for Australia. Sure, they would sometimes make encourage their children learn the language of their origin, but not at the expense of English. Sometimes they would open a restaurant serving cuisine of the old country, enriching Australia's choices.

What is not satisfactory is balkanization, or coming here and thinking that the natives are inferior.

Jono you seem to imply that current migrants are behaving differently to previous generations of migrants. However I am not sure that this is the case.

I personally I don't know of any parents in Australia who do not encourage there children to learn english. I would be surprised if there are any :eek:

I do however know people who as the children of Greek migrants went to a "Greek" school in Australia so that they could learn to speak the Greek language. They speak perfectly good English, albeit with an Australian flavour ;) I can't see any problem with that.

If the stats do indeed show that migrants who enter Australia are less likely to have further children once here, then I would suspect that is most likely due to cost, generally the large Australian families are a thing of the past.

You also indicate that current migrants do not like Australia, what eveidence do you have of that? I would find it strange that they would go through the rigours required to migrate to Australia if they did not like the place. However some may feel once they are here that they are not welcome.

I would also point out that it takes a number of generations for a migrant population to adjust to the new conditions. It is not something new for migrant populations to remain insular during the first few generations of settlement. Why do think Sydney has a China Town or a Little Italy, because migrants find solace by sticking together. Just like you can find an "Anglo" quater in Hong Kong. What about the Americans living in Saudi Arabia they haven't integrated now have they! Don't try to label lack of integration as being particular to anyone racial or religous group.

The current population also needs time to discover the culture, for example 50 years ago how people would have known what "Yum Cha" was, now it is a popular past time for many Sydney-siders. What "native" Australian would have had Japanese friends?

Adjustment takes time. A the only way to speed up the process is to ensure that the migrants feel welcome, if we shun them they will have no choice but to remain totally insular.

Basil
07-12-2007, 04:27 PM
Who has had a great deal of experience of a culture outside there own?

What were your experiences like?

What do think of the ideas of multi-culturism and integration?
3 years locked down in a boarding school. These days it would be considered highly multicultural. Approaching 50% non-English from everywhere on the planet - you name it - it had a representative (or ten).

Back then multiculturalism didn't have a name. It was just normal (for me).

I was lucky to have lived it between the ages of 10-13. Of course it all seemed perfectly normal. As I have said elsewhere. Dormed with different races and creeds. Played sport with them. Ate with them. Lived with them. Lock down.

Loved it.

That experience coupled with my general (irreverent? :eek:) demeanour probably explains why I don't get so frickin' antsy at the slightest question of racism where other (rock cringers) possibly do!

pax
07-12-2007, 04:43 PM
What is not satisfactory is balkanization, or coming here and thinking that the natives are inferior.

Do you have any evidence that this is happening outside of a very small minority?

TheJoker
07-12-2007, 04:53 PM
I guess I should detail my experience as well

For the last 5 years I have been in an inter-cultural (and inter-racial) relationship my partner is Chinese; born in Hong Kong came out here for Uni.

My sister is has also been in an inter-cultural (and inter-racial) marriage for the last 16 years.

I work in office that consists of an Amercian, a Cambodian, two Indians, a Malaysian, two Chinese (one from Hong Kong), a Russian, a Vietnamese, an Aussie, and myself (born in the UK, been in Australia since 4 years of age).

My social group is equally varied.

And i have travelled to numerous place aboard.

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2007, 04:55 PM
Jono you seem to imply that current migrants are behaving differently to previous generations of migrants. However I am not sure that this is the case.
No, mainly one section.


I personally I don't know of any parents in Australia who do not encourage there children to learn english. I would be surprised if there are any :eek:
No, I was thinking of the bilingual putsch in the USA.


I do however know people who as the children of Greek migrants went to a "Greek" school in Australia so that they could learn to speak the Greek language. They speak perfectly good English, albeit with an Australian flavour ;) I can't see any problem with that.
Me neither. And this is a case in point: these Greek immigrants didn't demand Government handout for their Greek school.


You also indicate that current migrants do not like Australia, what eveidence do you have of that?
Come on, listen to some of the Islamic leaders.


I would find it strange that they would go through the rigours required to migrate to Australia if they did not like the place.
For sure, there are asinine things going on there. That's a problem with l bureaucracy, which makes up stupid rules just because they can.

But the answer lies in the doctrines of Islam, and the duty of all Muslims to bring the whole world under Islamic rule.


However some may feel once they are here that they are not welcome.
It would be true of various gangs who think that Australian girls are sluts, or Keating's Imam Sarcofelis Hilaly.


I would also point out that it takes a number of generations for a migrant population to adjust to the new conditions. It is not something new for migrant populations to remain insular during the first few generations of settlement. Why do think Sydney has a China Town or a Little Italy, because migrants find solace by sticking together. Just like you can find an "Anglo" quater in Hong Kong.
No problem there. Not far from me is Sunnybank, with a high Asian population.


What about the Americans living in Saudi Arabia they haven't integrated now have they! Don't try to label lack of integration as being particular to anyone racial or religous group.
In Saudi's case, it may be because they don't want to be flogged and jailed for being rape victims or being in a car with a man they are not married to!


Adjustment takes time. A the only way to speed up the process is to ensure that the migrants feel welcome, if we shun them they will have no choice but to remain totally insular.
Who wants to shun them? All the same, there was a case not long ago where an Asian restaurant refused to serve Australians.

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2007, 04:57 PM
Who has had a great deal of experience of a culture outside there own?

What were your experiences like?

What do think of the ideas of multi-culturism and integration?
Just a glance at my name would show that I am "multi-cultural"! It is the Hebrew word for Frenchman, and I have loads of relatives in Israel. Ironically, many of the most PC pushers of multi-culti have English names.

My wife is American and had a Polish maiden name. I've been to many countries when I was a semi-serious chessplayer, e.g. Olympiads in Dubai, Greece, and Philippines; World Junior in France, Asian Junior in Bangladesh, Asian Teams in India.

Several of my colleagues are Caucasians married to Asians, and we have Asians and Americans on staff.

My chess club has heaps of different nationalities and ethnicities: Hungarian, Russian, Kazakh, Swedish, Icelandic, Danish, Chinese, Indian, German, Maori, Malaysian, Greek ....

Axiom
07-12-2007, 04:58 PM
Do you have any evidence that this is happening outside of a very small minority?
There is in the usa , see the 47 million immigrants in last 8 yrs !, see the LA RAZA (THE RACE !) movement, see the re-conquistadors, see their open encouraging borders, see the new amnesty law passed,see the welfare fraud, see the drain on tax payer funded health education, see the net cost to the citizen per every illegal immigrant, see the balkanising effect this anger produces.
This is irrefutable proof that governments have no interest in the will of the people when it comes to the levels and type of immigration sought.
Guess who profits at the expense of the tax paying public ?
Yes, the multi national corporations, yet another example of their abuse of government ,........ or their use of a criminal government !

TheJoker
07-12-2007, 05:08 PM
In Saudi's case, it may be because they don't want to be flogged and jailed for being rape victims or being in a car with a man they are not married to!.

So do they have a right to set-up there own community within the country segregated from the rest of population, and live by there own moral values?

Shouldn't the same arguement that they should assimilate apply?

If not then why should Muslims assimialte to Christian values when living in a predominantly Christian society and not vice versa.

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2007, 05:14 PM
If not then why should Muslims assimialte to Christian values when living in a predominantly Christian society and not vice versa.
Yeah, why should Saudi Muslims have to assimilate to such foreign values like not flogging and jailing victims of gang rape or teachers whose kids name their teddy bear "Muhammad".

Pamela Bone, although a misotheistic feminist lefty herself, had it right when she smacked that old shrew Germaine Greer in Why we stay mute on Islamic sex apartheid (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22882381-7583,00.html):


US Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton last week urged President George W. Bush to call on King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to drop all charges against a 19-year-old Saudi woman who had been gang-raped at knifepoint, then sentenced to 200 lashes after she ostensibly confessed to adultery. ...

Good on Clinton. ...

I would like to be able to say, good on the thousands of Western feminists who rallied across the world for the cause, except that they didn't. I would like to be able to say, good on Australia's own famous feminist, Germaine Greer, who spoke out passionately in defence of the young woman during a visit to Melbourne last week, except that she didn't.

I must be fair to Greer. The human rights of Saudi rape victims were not the subject of her Melbourne address last week. She was here to give the opening night lecture on a conference on Jane Austen and her topic was the relevance of Austen to the young women of today. I must also confess I was the spoiler of the evening, who during question time asked Greer if she saw any parallels between the concept of family honour in Austen's Pride and Prejudice and the concept of family honour in Middle Eastern societies today. I then asked why it was that Western feminists seemed so reluctant to speak out against things such as honour killings.

Greer: "It's very tricky. I am constantly being asked to go to Darfur to interview rape victims. I can talk to rape victims here. Why should I go to Darfur to talk to rapevictims?"

Questioner (me): "Because it's so much worse there."

Greer: "Who says it is?"

Questioner: "I do, because I've been there."

Greer: "Well, it is just very tricky to try to change another culture. We let down the victims of rape here. We haven't got it right in our own courts. What good would it do for me to go over there and try to tell them what to do? I am just part of decadent Western culture and they think we're all going to hell fast and maybe we are all going to hell fast.

"But we do care. We do oppose these things. We are all wearing white ribbons this week, aren't we? A lot of good that will do."

This to thunderous applause. She was speaking to an audience of English teachers, nearly all women.
...

Behind Greer's enthusiastically received comments is the dreary cultural relativism that pervades the thinking of so many of those once described as on the Left. We are no better than they are. We should not impose our values on them. We can criticise only our own. The problem with this mindset is that, with all its faults, Western culture is clearly, objectively, better.
...

Is it the fear that by speaking out they will become targets of Islamist threats too?

I don't believe so. More likely it is, as Andrew Anthony described it in his recent book The Fallout, the new phenomenon of "Islamophobiaphobia": the great fear of being seen to be critical of Islam, of being seen to be racist, as if race had anything to do with it.

At its kindest, it is a fear of kicking the underdog. But there is a terrible confusion about who the underdog is. The underdogs are not the oil-rich sheiks, imposing their cruel laws on women. They are not even the upper-class women of Saudi Arabia (why should we fight for the right to drive a car when we have chauffers to take us everywhere?) The true victims, even in the most victimised countries, are poor women.

Odd that so many old feminists think racism is worse than sexism.

TheJoker
07-12-2007, 05:15 PM
And this is a case in point: these Greek immigrants didn't demand Government handout for their Greek school.

I would be surprised if the Greek and Italian schools in Australia don't recieve public funding like any other private school. And I am sure they would demand it if denied.

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2007, 05:29 PM
Tammy Bruce on the failure of Western feminist leaders and how the Western military has achieved gains for women (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22882714-20261,00.html):


THERE have been a few organisations since 2003 that have done astounding authentic feminist work for women and children around the world, and in Afghanistan and Iraq specifically. The American military, without even a passing thank you from so-called feminist leaders Eleanor Smeal or Gloria Steinem or Kim Gandy, have liberated over 53million people in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a good 25 million of those being women and children. If the marines were taking their orders from those so-called feminists, the women who support and laud Hillary Clinton, those now free people would still be enslaved ... It is the last appalling betrayal, and one that should condemn them to the dust heap of exposed hypocrites, pretenders and failures.

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2007, 05:30 PM
I would be surprised if the Greek and Italian schools in Australia don't recieve public funding like any other private school. And I am sure they would demand it if denied.
But not decades ago. If there were any demand now, it would be because of the increasing multi-culti nonsense as well as the rise of the entitlement mentality.

Desmond
07-12-2007, 07:26 PM
Who has had a great deal of experience of a culture outside there own?

What were your experiences like?

What do think of the ideas of multi-culturism and integration?
I am married to a first generation Australian. It has been a very steep learning curve for me, thrown head first into a culture I knew nothing about. I am richer for it. There is really so much to learn that the cricket/footy, footy/cricket culture that I was brought up into would never even get a sniff of. The nicest people you will ever meet. Do anything for you. Newsflash - migrants built this country, and I'm not talking about the 18th century ones. They come here, work their asses of for a generation or two to get their children a chance at some life other than a brickie/cleaner, and what thanks do they get? "They form ghettos and do not assimilate." Get a clue Hanson, you cow.

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2007, 01:36 AM
I would have to look at the supporting arguement before drawing any conclusions, but it seems like a strong arguement against affirmative action.
Thanx. Sowell has also documented that affirmative action invariably produces far more strife than good, and cites an Indian writer for a most cogent reason why, in Dirty Secrets About "Affirmative Action" (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2183):


...

My research overseas suggests that it does little or nothing for most of the groups supposedly benefiting in other countries India has had preferences and quotas much longer than the United States, but there too the benefits are far less visible than the backlash and polarization such programs produce.

One Indian writer has pointed out why these programs produce so much hostility for so little actual results. Imagine that there are 10 desirable jobs open and that there are 10 applicants, he says. Suppose that 9 of these 10 jobs are being filled according to the qualifications of the applicants, while the 10th job is set aside for someone from one of the lower castes or tribes. The search then begins for the highest-ranking member of one of the groups that is legally entitled to preferential treatment. If that highest-ranking individual is 30th from the top, there will be 29 people resentful of his selection -- 9 because they had to make it on their own merits and 20 because they were not hired, despite having better qualifications. However, 19 of those 20 disappointed applicants would not have been hired anyway, since there was only one job taken by the person who received preferential treatment. Yet all these people will be bitter about that one job.

Sometimes the quota isn't even filled, but others still resent the fact that it exists. Because India has had affirmative action much longer than the United States, the polarization and hostility have gone much further there. Riots over preferences and quotas have become common in India. A few years ago, 42 people were killed in riots over 6 places set aside in a Bombay medical school, even though not all those places were filled. How is that for minimizing the benefits and maximizing the hostility?

In the United States, preferences and quotas can have negative effects on the groups supposedly benefiting, as well as positive effects. Since only the positive effects are likely to be publicized, the negative effects are seldom counted. For example, the ease with which a discrimination lawsuit can be made against an employer for not having employment statistics that match the local population provides incentives for employers to locate away from minority communities. That can easily cost members of these communities more jobs than they gain from preferences or quotas. But few people even think about trying to weigh the net balance of gains and losses, because it is arbitrarily assumed that there can only be gains.
...

Mephistopheles
30-12-2007, 07:18 AM
But not decades ago. If there were any demand now, it would be because of the increasing multi-culti nonsense as well as the rise of the entitlement mentality.
What a crock. Greek schools were being funded by the government as far back as 1980 and very probably earlier. Exactly how many decades back do you want to go, Jono?

Having read this thread overall, it seems clear to me that Hanson is unprovably racist on the basis of the evidence presented (i.e. we suspect that she might be but we can't prove it) but has most definitely presented policies that represent xenophobia. Any discrimination based on race when it comes to immigration policy can be seen as xenophobic and arguably racist. It's just that simple.

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2007, 11:16 AM
What a crock. Greek schools were being funded by the government as far back as 1980 and very probably earlier. Exactly how many decades back do you want to go, Jono?
What a crock. Go back to the first major wave of Greek immigration.


Having read this thread overall, it seems clear to me that Hanson is unprovably racist on the basis of the evidence presented (i.e. we suspect that she might be but we can't prove it) but has most definitely presented policies that represent xenophobia. Any discrimination based on race when it comes to immigration policy can be seen as xenophobic and arguably racist. It's just that simple.
But discrimination on the basis of culture is not necessarily racist. If a culture encourages people to come here and despise their new home, we don't want them. In years gone by, people came here to become Australians. Sure, they would keep their own culture and enrich Australia in the process, but they were grateful to Australia for giving them a home. Many immigrant families would try to have another child "for Australia". This is a far cry from Sarcofelis Hilaly and his many supporters.

pax
30-12-2007, 04:01 PM
If a culture encourages people to come here and despise their new home, we don't want them.
Which culture are you talking about exactly Jono?

Axiom
30-12-2007, 06:30 PM
The most public cruxificion of Hanson, laid the path for the unopposed influx of even great immigration numbers.
Who is to defend the primary culture? Or is the prevailing culture simply inconsequential to those that make the decisions ?
Further evidence of a sham ,media facilitated democracy ?

Kevin Bonham
30-12-2007, 06:54 PM
The most public cruxificion of Hanson,

I don't think even the minor political eccentric Jesus of Nazareth deserves comparison with the minor political eccentric Pauline Hanson in this melodramatic manner! :eek:

... especially not when most of One Nation's wounds were entirely self-inflicted.

Axiom
30-12-2007, 07:25 PM
I don't think even the minor political eccentric Jesus of Nazareth deserves comparison with the minor political eccentric Pauline Hanson in this melodramatic manner! :eek:

... especially not when most of One Nation's wounds were entirely self-inflicted.
The only reason why hanson was allowed the political stage prominence that she had, was because she made the perfect public sacrificial spectacle psy op on the alter of reasoned debate of the culture-immigration democratic choice issue !

There are two views of history: (1) History happens by accident or (2) It is planned. The general public is taught that history happens by accident. However, the upper echelons... know that history is planned.
- R.E. McMaster, Jr.
Educator

Kevin Bonham
30-12-2007, 07:36 PM
The only reason why hanson was allowed the political stage prominence that she had, was because she made the perfect public sacrificial spectacle psy op on the alter of reasoned debate of the culture-immigration democratic choice issue !

What reasoned debate?

As for democratic choice, we've seen it in action - her views were quickly rejected by the great majority except to the limited extent that Howard kowtowed to them (more symbolically than actually, in general).


There are two views of history: (1) History happens by accident or (2) It is planned. The general public is taught that history happens by accident. However, the upper echelons... know that history is planned.
- R.E. McMaster, Jr.
Educator

So what is an "educator" in this context and why is their unsubstantiated quote about political history of the slightest relevance to anyone?

Axiom
30-12-2007, 07:52 PM
What reasoned debate? The one that limits immigration to a point where the attracting culture's integrity is not itself threatened.

As for democratic choice, we've seen it in action - her views were quickly rejected by the great majority except to the limited extent that Howard kowtowed to them (more symbolically than actually, in general). of course she was rejected ! what do you expect from a facilitated straw (wo)man ? ! :rolleyes:
And howards feeble kow towing was simply an acknowledgement of the real concerns of the electrorate.




So what is an "educator" in this context and why is their unsubstantiated quote about political history of the slightest relevance to anyone?it was alluding to the nature of reality, ie. it is far more farmed or planned than organic or accidental.
ie. hanson was allowed to rise to a public political profile, for the very
purpose of a public cruxificion to immunise or warn off further public debate.
Note ,the taboo aspect of this subject.
Those that speak of a preservation of a cultural (which includes at least partially a racial component) identity are disproprtionately(with respect to their rationale) vilified.

The diversity and richness of the varied world human cultures are under threat.
Globalisation seeks to merge these differences into an homogenised mass.
Divide and conquer.

Kevin Bonham
30-12-2007, 08:22 PM
The one that limits immigration to a point where the attracting culture's integrity is not itself threatened.

What do you mean by cultural integrity? Australia as one of the more multicultural societies on earth is also among the most stable, so arguing that more of the same will produce the opposite effect seems a hard row to hoe. Of course there will be isolated individuals who take advantage of freedom to work against it, but that's not the same as spotlighting whole cultures as bad.

Which particular cultures in what numbers are a threat to cultural integrity?


of course she was rejected ! what do you expect of a facilitated straw (wo)man ? ! :rolleyes:

Hardly what vaguely intelligent anti-immigration activists (an extremely scarce species anyway) were saying about her at the time. Usually they were treating her as a vilified genius in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. All very well to say "well actually she was just a dill all along" now that you need to disown her.


And howards feeble kow towing was simply an acknowledgement of the real concerns of the electrorate.

Not the electorate in general but a small but noisy (and electorally critical) talkback-shockjock type minority within it.


it was alluding to the nature of reality, ie. it is far more farmed or planned than accidental or organic.

So? It provided no evidence that this is so and nor do you.


ie. hanson was allowed to rise to a public political profile, for the very
purpose of a public cruxificion to immunise or warn off further public debate.
Note ,the taboo aspect of this subject.

What nonsense. The public crucifiction (deliberate misspelling) happened because her party was a useless rabble of neophytes and shonksters. The public debate has never gone away; we're having it now (if you can call it that).


Those that speak of a preservation of a cultural (which includes at least partially a racial component) identity are disproprtionately(with respect to their rationale) vilified.

Actually they are disproportionately called xenophobic dingbats because they disproportionately are xenophobic dingbats.


The diversity and richness of the varied world human cultures are under threat.
Globalisation seeks to merge these differences into an homogenised mass.
Divide and conquer.

Actually cultures become far more rich and diverse from the process of merging than otherwise. Australia itself owes much of what little richness and diversity it has to this process.

Mephistopheles
02-01-2008, 08:42 AM
What a crock. Go back to the first major wave of Greek immigration.

So, unsatisfied with my demonstration that Greek schools have been at least partially government funded for decades, you shift the goalposts. I suspect that Greek schools were partially funded by the Australian government from their inception in any case but can find no reliable history via Google at the moment.


But discrimination on the basis of culture is not necessarily racist. If a culture encourages people to come here and despise their new home, we don't want them. In years gone by, people came here to become Australians. Sure, they would keep their own culture and enrich Australia in the process, but they were grateful to Australia for giving them a home. Many immigrant families would try to have another child "for Australia". This is a far cry from Sarcofelis Hilaly and his many supporters.
Can you reliably demonstrate that his "many supporters" constitute the majority of the Muslim population of Australia? While discrimination on the basis of culture may not be racist, I am somewhat suspicious of any discrimination singling out a group based on the behaviour of one particular individual and/or a minority of that group who happen to actively support him.

I am also a little worried about how one might exercise this discrimination in any case. Islam is not a homogeneous "culture" and has not been so for many centuries. If a potential immigrant does not tell the authorities that they are Muslim, is there any real way of telling that they are? I put it to you, quite simply, that Hanson would not have railed against Australian Muslims if it were not for the fact that most of them have brown skin.

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2008, 06:23 PM
Can you reliably demonstrate that his "many supporters" constitute the majority of the Muslim population of Australia?
They don't have to be a majority to be dangerous. It took only one fanatic to murder Benazir Bhutto, although she narrowly escaped a previous attempt using a BABY with bombs attached!! It took fewer than 20 to cause the 11-9 atrocity.

But only the most PC lefties can deny that many Muslim countries are oppressive to women, Jews and Christians. There isn't a single Muslim-run country with freedom of religion for Christians, but not a single country with a Christian heritage that denies freedom of religion to Muslims.


While discrimination on the basis of culture may not be racist, I am somewhat suspicious of any discrimination singling out a group based on the behaviour of one particular individual and/or a minority of that group who happen to actively support him.
As I've pointed out before, the alleged moderate Muslim majority is a silent one.


I am also a little worried about how one might exercise this discrimination in any case. Islam is not a homogeneous "culture" and has not been so for many centuries. If a potential immigrant does not tell the authorities that they are Muslim, is there any real way of telling that they are? I put it to you, quite simply, that Hanson would not have railed against Australian Muslims if it were not for the fact that most of them have brown skin.
I put it to you that you haven't the slightest evidence for this. Was there any evidence that she had anything against, say, Palestinian Christians? It should be noted that they are never suicide bombers but have the same complexion as the terrorists.

Axiom
02-01-2008, 06:58 PM
Jono - how familiar are you with the history of the middle east ?

How familiar are you with the history of british exploitation / aggression of/towards the middle east ?

How familiar are you with the modern history of anglo-american exploitation / aggression of/towards the middle east ?

How familar are you with the history of anglo-us-israeli false flag events perpertrated against peoples (mostly muslims) of the middle east ?

How familiar are you with the history of the creation of AL-Qaeda ?

Jono - do you believe the west is capable of totally distorting the truth by use of mass media propaganda ?

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2008, 07:25 PM
Jono — how familiar are you with the history of the middle east ?
Very. Especially the history of Israel, ancient and modern. I highly recommend Alan Dershowitz' book The Case for Israel.


How familiar are you with the history of british exploitation / aggression of/towards the middle east ?
This is something of a leading question.


How familiar are you with the modern history of anglo-american exploitation / aggression of/towards the middle east ?
Although this is something of a leading questions as well, I could say, reasonably. US President Woodrow Wilson has much to answer for, with his lofty talk about "nation building", "self-determination" and breaking up empires. Hitler was able to pick off the nations formed from the Habsburg Empire one by one. And he was able to use the discrimination against the Sudeten Germans by "self-determining" Czechs as a pretext (from Conquests and Cultures by Thomas Sowell).

And the nations created from the Ottoman Empire have been hotbeds of trouble. Iraq itself was drawn on a map, ignoring historic boundaries of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, as payback to Lawrence of Arabia's ally Emir Faysal, appointed King of Iraq.


Jono — do you believe the west is capable of totally distorting the truth by use of mass media propaganda ?
Definitely. Just look at global warm-mongering.

And just in today's Australian, there was a favorable report on Labor's promise to crack down on so-called "predatory pricing" just as that agrarian socialist Barnaby Joyce wanted. There were no comments from economists on what a crock this whole thing is: this proposed fight against predatory pricing" is just affirmative action for incompetent business, while there is not the slightest evidence that consumers are hurt when businesses charge lower prices (http://www.cei.org/gencon/027,01529.cfm); rather, they are the winners (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3588).

But back to the topic, the Leftmedia has often exaggerated deaths caused by Israel and ignored why Israel was fighting back (against murderers of civilians), or demanded that Israel once again trades land for "peace" which is really empty talk about peace.

Axiom
02-01-2008, 07:59 PM
Very. Especially the history of Israel, ancient and modern. I highly recommend Alan Dershowitz' book The Case for Israel.
i recommend www.jewsagainstzionism.com



This is something of a leading question.
yes, leading, and as a part of the following questions :)



Although this is something of a leading questions as well, I could say, reasonably. US President Woodrow Wilson has much to answer for, with his lofty talk about "nation building", "self-determination" and breaking up empires. Hitler was able to pick off the nations formed from the Habsburg Empire one by one. And he was able to use the discrimination against the Sudeten Germans by "self-determining" Czechs as a pretext (from Conquests and Cultures by Thomas Sowell).
divide and conquer.


And the nations created from the Ottoman Empire have been hotbeds of trouble. Iraq itself was drawn on a map, ignoring historic boundaries of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, as payback to Lawrence of Arabia's ally Emir Faysal, appointed King of Iraq.
divide and conquer, but , who were the architects?



Definitely. Just look at global warm-mongering.
and war on drugs, and war on terror, amongst many other more insidious programs.


But back to the topic, the Leftmedia has often exaggerated deaths caused by Israel and ignored why Israel was fighting back (against murderers of civilians), or demanded that Israel once again trades land for "peace" which is really empty talk about peace.
the media is overall predominately pro-israel ,....... you know, its part of our judeau-christian culture ! (as per question in the test on becoming an australian citizen !)
From my analysis your examples represent only tokenism ,in the larger more pervasive picture.

noted was your non-response to my al-qaeda origins question ;)

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2008, 08:24 PM
They don't have to be a majority to be dangerous. It took only one fanatic to murder Benazir Bhutto, although she narrowly escaped a previous attempt using a BABY with bombs attached!! It took fewer than 20 to cause the 11-9 atrocity.

And it only took one Martin Bryant to kill 35 and wound many others at Port Arthur (except that Axiom probably still doesn't believe it) and one Timothy McVeigh with some help from a few others to do far more damage than that at Oklahoma (and I'd be surprised if Axiom believes that one either.) Both of them were home-grown nutcases of their respective nations. The presence of a fringe nutter element in any culture does not prove anything much about that culture generally.

The solution to cases like al-Hilali is not to restrict the backgrounds of people who enter the country, but to have laws permitting individuals to be screened out or thrown out on the basis of their individual misdeeds, especially in inciting religious or racial discrimination.

There seem to be double standards on both sides of the popular-debate divide here. The "politically correct" oppose political incorrectness against Muslims but may make excuses for political incorrectness by Islamist extremists. The "politically incorrect" oppose political correctness but would probably be more than happy to see al-Hilali booted using laws informed by some version of it or other.

Still seeking an answer to this question from Axiom:

Which particular cultures in what numbers are a threat to cultural integrity?

Axiom
02-01-2008, 08:37 PM
Still seeking an answer to this question from Axiom:

Which particular cultures in what numbers are a threat to cultural integrity?
Firstly, lets look at 3 current examples
1) 30 million + illegal mexicans in usa(southern states particularly, of course)
2) sub continental asians in uk( birmingham)
3)africans in areas of paris france.

there is a limit , at which the existing culture collapses....yes/no ?

i know cultures change and will continue to do so, but it is the abrupt change against the so called 'democratic will' of the people to which i object.
I use this as a patent example of just one of the fundamental ways in which both our govt and hence our media, fail us.
We are conditioned to accept that anyone speaking out in defence of our culture(whatever that happens to be at the time) is vilified as a racist. This is the taboo subject.



And on the lone nut gunman thing, i have a question for you.
Why is it that 'lone nut gunman ' never seem to murder the most powerful ppl on earth ?
is it because they are so deranged as to fail to distinguish between puppet power and real power?
or is it because any real threat to real power is really dealt with?
or are people so mass conditioned ,that even their nutters cant see past it ?
OR, ARE THEY NOT REAL NUTTERS, BUT USED PATSIES ? ....consider.

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2008, 11:37 PM
And it only took one Martin Bryant to kill 35 and wound many others at Port Arthur (except that Axiom probably still doesn't believe it) and one Timothy McVeigh with some help from a few others to do far more damage than that at Oklahoma (and I'd be surprised if Axiom believes that one either.) Both of them were home-grown nutcases of their respective nations. The presence of a fringe nutter element in any culture does not prove anything much about that culture generally.
But while there was practically universal opprobrium against McVeigh and Bryant from those in their cultures, thousands of Palestinians cheered at 11-9 and voted in Hamas (the Hebrew word for violence; how appropriate).


The solution to cases like al-Hilali is not to restrict the backgrounds of people who enter the country, but to have laws permitting individuals to be screened out or thrown out on the basis of their individual misdeeds, especially in inciting religious or racial discrimination.
That's fair.


The "politically incorrect" oppose political correctness but would probably be more than happy to see al-Hilali booted using laws informed by some version of it or other.
How about, al-Hilali should never have been admitted in the first place, but Keating wanted the Muslim votes? And the fact that it worked is cause for concern.

Mephistopheles
03-01-2008, 09:07 AM
They don't have to be a majority to be dangerous. It took only one fanatic to murder Benazir Bhutto, although she narrowly escaped a previous attempt using a BABY with bombs attached!! It took fewer than 20 to cause the 11-9 atrocity.
And Kevin has demolished the nonsense above perfectly so I proceed to...


But only the most PC lefties can deny that many Muslim countries are oppressive to women, Jews and Christians.
Is this remotely relevant or is the above a common-or-garden right-wing-fruitloop straw man?


There isn't a single Muslim-run country with freedom of religion for Christians,
Bull. Indonesia has constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and specifically endorses Christianity as well as Islam.


As I've pointed out before, the alleged moderate Muslim majority is a silent one.
Is there anything wrong with being a member of the silent majority that just wants to get on with their lives? If so, what?


I put it to you that you haven't the slightest evidence for this. Was there any evidence that she had anything against, say, Palestinian Christians? It should be noted that they are never suicide bombers but have the same complexion as the terrorists.
You've put the cart before the horse here, but it wouldn't be the first time. I have no concrete evidence to support my suspicion but it has not been expressed as anything other than a suspicion. Hanson has form on Xenophobia and Muslims do, for the most part have brown skin. It is a convenient group of brown-skinned people for her to pillory so she does so. She has notably not attempted to attack groups coming into the country who are mostly white.

Mephistopheles
03-01-2008, 09:22 AM
But while there was practically universal opprobrium against McVeigh and Bryant from those in their cultures, thousands of Palestinians cheered at 11-9 and voted in Hamas (the Hebrew word for violence; how appropriate).
Are you now differentiating between Palestinians and Muslims in general? Palestinians occupy a certain position which is not directly related to their religion but rather to their ethnicity and geography. Their interests are diametrically opposed to those of Israel and they are naturally going to be antagonistic towards both Israel and the USA.

As concerns McVeigh and Bryant, their aberrant acts were condemned in the media but the majority of the population were silent, as would be expected of Joe Public. In addition, a minority of the population were openly supportive of McVeigh.

Capablanca-Fan
03-01-2008, 12:01 PM
Are you now differentiating between Palestinians and Muslims in general? Palestinians occupy a certain position which is not directly related to their religion but rather to their ethnicity and geography. Their interests are diametrically opposed to those of Israel and they are naturally going to be antagonistic towards both Israel and the USA.
But there are no Palestinian Christian suicide bombers.


As concerns McVeigh and Bryant, their aberrant acts were condemned in the media but the majority of the population were silent, as would be expected of Joe Public. In addition, a minority of the population were openly supportive of McVeigh.
Was there dancing in the street? Where is the parallel to that, or the riots after those Danish cartoons about Islam? Where is the condemnation in the Muslim media of the violence?

Mephistopheles
03-01-2008, 12:18 PM
But there are no Palestinian Christian suicide bombers.
Whatever is your point? You seem to be intent on the following fallacy:

Most terrorists today are Muslims => Most muslims today are terrorists.

It's an absolute crock, both logically and in practice. Yes, the current crop of terrorists are mostly Muslim. Up until the late '90s, the majority of terrorists in the UK were Irish Catholics. That does not mean that Irish Catholics were mostly terrorists.


Was there dancing in the street? Where is the parallel to that, or the riots after those Danish cartoons about Islam? Where is the condemnation in the Muslim media of the violence?
There was plenty of condemnation of the violence by Muslims and such even appeared in the MSM in the West. As for the Muslim media, I've no clue. It's not exactly mainstream and I don't spend any time perusing it. It does follow, however, that the "Muslim media" driven by the more extreme elements within the societies where it exists, just as is the case with most media emanating from religious groups.

I don't wish to defend Islam in the slightest. It's superstitious claptrap that is wont to encourage irrational behaviour. My position is that most Muslims are just folks trying to get by. Expecting outrage from them when their radical minorities commit some wrong is not dissimilar to expecting an outcry from Christians when an abortion clinic is attacked or pigs' heads are dumped, draped in an Australian flag, on the proposed site of an Islamic school.

Kevin Bonham
03-01-2008, 12:21 PM
Firstly, lets look at 3 current examples
1) 30 million + illegal mexicans in usa(southern states particularly, of course)
2) sub continental asians in uk( birmingham)
3)africans in areas of paris france.

there is a limit , at which the existing culture collapses....yes/no ?

How do these people threaten cultural integrity?


i know cultures change and will continue to do so, but it is the abrupt change against the so called 'democratic will' of the people to which i object.

The people vote for leaders who support these changes. If they don't like those changes they can vote those leaders out. They generally don't do so.


Why is it that 'lone nut gunman ' never seem to murder the most powerful ppl on earth ?

Well they probably do sometimes, but when they do it, you refuse to believe it happened that way and insist it was a conspiracy. But the main reasons it is rare are (i) nutters often kill fairly randomly, and only a small proportion of the people on earth are the "most powerful" (ii) the most powerful are often the best guarded.


But while there was practically universal opprobrium against McVeigh and Bryant from those in their cultures, thousands of Palestinians cheered at 11-9 and voted in Hamas (the Hebrew word for violence; how appropriate).

As Mephistopheles points out, covert sympathisers for McVeigh are not unknown. But it's no surprise Palestinians get violent when they are living in very poor economic circumstances and large chunks of what they thought was their land have been carved off and given to someone else with a tentative historical claim to it (just as it's no surprise Israelis get violent when they've finally established a homeland away from terrible persecution only to find Palestinians keep blowing little bits of it up). I'm sure that if Russia invaded Australia and gave most of the best bits to the Aboriginal population while hording the whiteys into squatter camps in St Kilda, the latter would launch terrorist attacks on the occupiers (probably by blowing up old Holden Commodores) and cheer and dance on the streets if a plane crashed into the Kremlin. This is not to approve of Palestinian violence but to suggest that the circumstances in which a people live are often more to blame for their response than their culture.


How about, al-Hilali should never have been admitted in the first place, but Keating wanted the Muslim votes? And the fact that it worked is cause for concern.

I am open to evidence in that direction, but I don't know what was known about him when he was let in.

Capablanca-Fan
03-01-2008, 12:36 PM
Is this remotely relevant or is the above a common-or-garden right-wing-fruitloop straw man?
Most relevant to see the assorted lefties act as useful idiots to the Islamofascists, who would eliminate these lefties if they ever got into power. Especially ironic are homosexuals who support the Palestinians against Israel, yet Israel is the only country with full human rights for homosexuals.


Bull. Indonesia has constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and specifically endorses Christianity as well as Islam.
Bull yourself. The Soviet Union also had the same "constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion" but it meant nothing. In Indonesia, Christians are murdered, e.g. three Christian schoolgirls (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4387604.stm), while these three Christian women were jailed for "proselytizing" (http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=4060). Conversely, Islamofascist terrorist leaders are released after serving much less time than Schapelle Corby, who has murdered no one.


Is there anything wrong with being a member of the silent majority that just wants to get on with their lives? If so, what?
For one thing, doubt whether such a moderate majority even exists.


Hanson has form on Xenophobia and Muslims do, for the most part have brown skin. It is a convenient group of brown-skinned people for her to pillory so she does so. She has notably not attempted to attack groups coming into the country who are mostly white.
Can you demonstrate that she would have had the same attitude if nearly all terrorists were a member of a "white" ethnic group or religion? There is no evidence that her opposition has any correlation with skin pigmentation. This charge of "racism" is mainly a debate stopper rather than a meaningful argument.

There is a stronger case made for xenophobia, but her protectionist views are hardly unusual, unfortunately, and not racially based. Some who I thought would know better think that we should introduce retailiatory tariffs against white European countries who subsidized their farmers. But as Milton Friedman pointed out three decades ago in Free to Choose, subsidies mean that European taxpayers are helping our (American in his case but it applies here too) consumers obtain cheap food, so it is in effect a form of foreign aid to us. So why should we stop our consumers benefiting, and thus having more money to spend on other businesses?

Capablanca-Fan
03-01-2008, 12:56 PM
Whatever is your point? You seem to be intent on the following fallacy:
Most terrorists today are Muslims => Most muslims today are terrorists.
No, most terrorists today are Muslims and many Muslims support terrorism, there was widespread rioting after Danish cartoons, and Keating won Muslim votes by admitting Sarcofelis al-Hilaly, => we should be cautious about wholesale Muslim immigration. Mark Steyn points out in America Alone that Sharia law could be introduced in Europe by democracy alone in a few decades.


It's an absolute crock, both logically and in practice. Yes, the current crop of terrorists are mostly Muslim. Up until the late '90s, the majority of terrorists in the UK were Irish Catholics. That does not mean that Irish Catholics were mostly terrorists.
Wrong again, Christophobic bigot. Dr Mark Durie points out in Creed of the sword: Islam has to accept that its militants find support for violence in their faith's teachings and should pursue reform (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20460114-601,00.html):


The example of the IRA, so often cited as Christian terrorists, illustrates the Christian position, because the IRA's ideology was predominantly Marxist and atheistic.

IRA terrorists found no inspiration in the teachings of Christ.


There was plenty of condemnation of the violence by Muslims and such even appeared in the MSM in the West.
When you look behind the surface, the condemnation is hardly unequivocal. And many of them claim to oppose killing innocent civilians, but then define Israelis as non-innocent.


Expecting outrage from them when their radical minorities commit some wrong is not dissimilar to expecting an outcry from Christians when an abortion clinic is attacked or pigs' heads are dumped, draped in an Australian flag, on the proposed site of an Islamic school.
Yet the abortion clinic attacks are extremely rare, despite the Leftmedia lies about them, and the pro-life groups universally condemn them (http://www.lifenews.com/nat97.html). Reconstructionist Gary North wrote a harsh letter denouncing Paul Hill, who killed an abortionist (http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/let_2_paul_hill.html); Hill had previously been excommunicated by his church for talking about what he later did. And there are far more attacks on Synagogues than mosques. And you imply that Christians are the ones who dumped the pigs' heads.

Axiom
03-01-2008, 01:01 PM
How do these people threaten cultural integrity?

it is well past threatening, .....they have supplanted the existing cultures in the above places !


The people vote for leaders who support these changes. If they don't like those changes they can vote those leaders out. They generally don't do so.

Exactly ! , which shows the fraud of democracy.
look at the polls on sudden mass immigration in the usa and uk, yet see the influx continue unabated at the whim of the few corporate heads wanting cheap labour.The people have little actual political say.




Well they probably do sometimes, but when they do it, you refuse to believe it happened that way and insist it was a conspiracy.

i cant think of an example in the last 100 yrs at least, if there was, it certainly didnt recieve much publicity ! ;)


But the main reasons it is rare are (i) nutters often kill fairly randomly,
yes REAL nutters do ! ....but what about the 'nutters' that killed jfk,mlk,jl etc , how in fact , RANDOM were they ?


and only a small proportion of the people on earth are the "most powerful" (ii) the most powerful are often the best guarded

yes ,a probable factor,.....i guess, they see no need to afford the same level of protection for their political puppets, which in effect PROTECT them !

Kevin Bonham
03-01-2008, 01:47 PM
it is well past threatening, .....they have supplanted the existing cultures in the above places !

Supplanted or supplemented? Might be time you coughed up with evidence on this one. Also, who threatens cultural integrity in Australia?


Exactly ! , which shows the fraud of democracy.
look at the polls on sudden mass immigration in the usa and uk, yet see the influx continue unabated at the whim of the few corporate heads wanting cheap labour.The people have little actual political say.

People have every political say; if the vast majority of them wanted to vote out pro-immigration parties and vote for anti-immigration parties they could do so. They generally don't.

What is going on is that either people do not consider it an important enough issue to vote on, or else the polls are incorrect.


yes REAL nutters do ! ....but what about the 'nutters' that killed jfk,mlk,jl etc , how in fact , RANDOM were they ?

They were political nutters. Actually what I call "random" nutters are really only pseudo-random nutters in most cases, eg Martin Bryant harboured a grudge against the Port Arthur site over something everyone almost else would find trivial.


yes ,a probable factor,.....i guess, they see no need to afford the same level of protection for their political puppets, which in effect PROTECT them !

As I mentioned on another thread, power is a very elusive concept. If the most powerful are not visible as such (and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that) then political nutters would not be likely to target them.

Axiom
03-01-2008, 02:40 PM
Supplanted or supplemented? Might be time you coughed up with evidence on this one. Also, who threatens cultural integrity in Australia?
Supplanted, see towns in texas, suburbs in birmingham uk, suburbs of paris, suburbs of sydney ,melbourne..its not so important who the 'who' is ,only that enforced culture supplantion happens contrary to the will of the ppl ( see polls)




People have every political say; if the vast majority of them wanted to vote out pro-immigration parties and vote for anti-immigration parties they could do so. They generally don't.
the polls say 'no' , but the govts say 'yes' , we dont get even close to real political choice,......you know full well that the corp media will attack unmercisiously anyone who dares raise this issue........my only interest in this topic , is this point of evidence that we live in a fake democracy where the media act as cohorts for big business corp interests at the expense of the people.
This is part of the globalisation process. People in uk, dont want the EU, but too bad , they get it . the ppl in usa dont want the war, too bad, they get it. .... the ppl in the west dont want theit infrastructure sold out to foriegn interests, too bad, they get it .
The establishment has no intention of allowing the ppl a real say in their destiny, we live in a sham democracy.


What is going on is that either people do not consider it an important enough issue to vote on, or else the polls are incorrect.
the ppl are brainwashed and bullied by the media to stay on script.
polls reveal a far truer reflection of the way ppl really feel, due to its escape from such restraints....and polls in usa say STOP THE HUGE INFLUX OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS !.........Note that even the law is subservant to the will of the establishment !







As I mentioned on another thread, power is a very elusive concept. If the most powerful are not visible as such (and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that) then political nutters would not be likely to target them.
agreed

Kevin Bonham
03-01-2008, 02:59 PM
Supplanted, see towns in texas, suburbs in birmingham uk, suburbs of paris, suburbs of sydney ,melbourne..its not so important who the 'who' is ,only that enforced culture supplantion happens contrary to the will of the ppl ( see polls)

But even if an entire suburb is taken over by another culture that doesn't mean that the integrity of the original culture is destroyed. It simply means that other cultures exist within an area that remains largely dominated by the original culture, perhaps enriched by something from the new culture, perhaps not. So where's the evidence of loss of integrity?

As for "enforced culture supplantion", what's "enforced" about it? If the locals like where they are and don't have to move, no one is forcing them to sell up!


the polls say 'no' , but the govts say 'yes' , we dont get even close to real political choice,......you know full well that the corp media will attack unmercisiously anyone who dares raise this issue...

Irrelevant. If the people wanted to vote for Hanson they would have done so irrespective of corp-media attacks on her.


.....my only interest in this topic , is this point of evidence that we live in a fake democracy where the media act as cohorts for big business corp interests at the expense of the people.

Well, this doesn't provide any evidence at all.


This is part of the globalisation process. People in uk, dont want the EU, but too bad , they get it . the ppl in usa dont want the war, too bad, they get it.

People in the USA threw out their Republican majority primarily over that issue, and will probably switch to a Democratic President as well - wait and see what happens once that occurs.


The establishment has no intention of allowing the ppl a real say in their destiny, we live in a sham democracy.


the ppl are brainwashed and bullied by the media to stay on script.

I've quoted these two together because if people are so brainwashed and bullied then why doesn't it show up in their vote?


polls reveal a far truer reflection of the way ppl really feel, due to its escape from such restraints...

That's nonsense. Polls are no more private (often rather less so in fact) than voting in elections. If people can overcome brainwashing in opinion polls they can do so when they go to vote as well.

Mephistopheles
03-01-2008, 03:02 PM
No, most terrorists today are Muslims and many Muslims support terrorism,
"Many Muslims"? Weasel words. Start demonstrating that "many" is even close to a significant minority and I'll stop laughing at your risible bigotry.


there was widespread rioting after Danish cartoons,
There was widespread rioting after the Rodney King verdict. There was widespread rioting by English football fans in Europe on many occasions. In any group, there will always be a bunch of mindless imbeciles and these people will be the ones to get noticed. Australia's Muslims appeared to manage a couple of meetings and a bunch of miffed-sounding letters to the editor...


and Keating won Muslim votes by admitting Sarcofelis al-Hilaly, => we should be cautious about wholesale Muslim immigration.
Keating stood to win (at the absolute limit), at most, 1% of all votes, assuming that every single Muslim of voting age changed their vote and all of them were otherwise going to vote against Labor. Not to mention the fact that such an action would probably alienate a similar number of voters to the Muslim votes thus "won". Keating would have been well aware of the numbers. I really think that you have to stop trotting out the above lamentable fiction as it does not stand up to even the most basic of scrutiny.


Mark Steyn points out in America Alone that Sharia law could be introduced in Europe by democracy alone in a few decades.
Mark Steyn is a bigot who found reason to rationalise the genocide in the former Yugoslavia.


The Serbs figured that out—as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you can’t outbreed the enemy, cull ’em.
Charming.


Wrong again, Christophobic bigot. Dr Mark Durie points out in Creed of the sword: Islam has to accept that its militants find support for violence in their faith's teachings and should pursue reform (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20460114-601,00.html):


The example of the IRA, so often cited as Christian terrorists, illustrates the Christian position, because the IRA's ideology was predominantly Marxist and atheistic.

IRA terrorists found no inspiration in the teachings of Christ.
Oh dear. The IRA's ideology can be whatever it likes. It's membership was almost entirely Irish and Catholic. The only person here displaying any kind of bigotry is you, as my example served to demonstrate that the vast majority of Irish Catholics are not and were not terrorists.


When you look behind the surface, the condemnation is hardly unequivocal. And many of them claim to oppose killing innocent civilians, but then define Israelis as non-innocent.
The condemnation that I read was entirely unequivocal.


Yet the abortion clinic attacks are extremely rare, despite the Leftmedia lies about them, and the pro-life groups universally condemn them (http://www.lifenews.com/nat97.html). Reconstructionist Gary North wrote a harsh letter denouncing Paul Hill, who killed an abortionist (http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/let_2_paul_hill.html); Hill had previously been excommunicated by his church for talking about what he later did. And there are far more attacks on Synagogues than mosques. And you imply that Christians are the ones who dumped the pigs' heads.
I imply no such thing. White Australians were almost certainly the culprits and I see no collective outrage and condemnation of the act. You hold "us" up to fairly lax standards but you expect the entire Muslim population to yell and scream when their radical minorities cause trouble. That, my friend, is a double standard.

Mephistopheles
03-01-2008, 03:20 PM
Most relevant to see the assorted lefties act as useful idiots to the Islamofascists, who would eliminate these lefties if they ever got into power. Especially ironic are homosexuals who support the Palestinians against Israel, yet Israel is the only country with full human rights for homosexuals.
Ah. It is a straw man. The above has nothing to do with my arguments whatsoever. You are attempting to put the words of "the assorted lefties" into my mouth. Doesn't wash with me.


Bull yourself. The Soviet Union also had the same "constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion" but it meant nothing. In Indonesia, Christians are murdered, e.g. three Christian schoolgirls (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4387604.stm), while these three Christian women were jailed for "proselytizing" (http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=4060). Conversely, Islamofascist terrorist leaders are released after serving much less time than Schapelle Corby, who has murdered no one.
The above is nothing more than a grab-bag of factoids. Christians are murdered in Australia. Muslims are beaten up by thugs. This stuff happens and I'm afraid that it happens everywhere. Your first "example" is the funniest, as it speaks of the existence of Christian schools in Indonesia. I doubt that such would exist in a country where there was no freedom of religion.

For at least a partial list of Indonesian Christian schools, go to http://across.co.nz/IndonesiaSchools.html.


For one thing, doubt whether such a moderate majority even exists.
You have failed to demonstrate that the majority of Muslims is not moderate. The mere fact that they are rarely noticed speaks volumes about how moderate they actually are.


Can you demonstrate that she would have had the same attitude if nearly all terrorists were a member of a "white" ethnic group or religion? There is no evidence that her opposition has any correlation with skin pigmentation. This charge of "racism" is mainly a debate stopper rather than a meaningful argument.
I have not presented evidence because, as I have articulated several times already, it is merely my suspicion. At least I have said as much rather than make a bald assertion along the lines of your "no moderate majority" twaddle.


There is a stronger case made for xenophobia, but her protectionist views are hardly unusual, unfortunately, and not racially based. Some who I thought would know better think that we should introduce retailiatory tariffs against white European countries who subsidized their farmers. But as Milton Friedman pointed out three decades ago in Free to Choose, subsidies mean that European taxpayers are helping our (American in his case but it applies here too) consumers obtain cheap food, so it is in effect a form of foreign aid to us. So why should we stop our consumers benefiting, and thus having more money to spend on other businesses?
Hanson's "swamped by Asians" comment and associated outbursts were unequivocally xenophobic of themselves. You will note in my contributions to this thread that I have not labelled Hanson a racist but rather a xenophobe.

Axiom
03-01-2008, 03:22 PM
But even if an entire suburb is taken over by another culture that doesn't mean that the integrity of the original culture is destroyed. It simply means that other cultures exist within an area that remains largely dominated by the original culture, perhaps enriched by something from the new culture, perhaps not. So where's the evidence of loss of integrity?
loss of the integral whole,by definition.


As for "enforced culture supplantion", what's "enforced" about it? If the locals like where they are and don't have to move, no one is forcing them to sell up!
enforced as in contrary to the will of the ppl as shown in polls




Irrelevant. If the people wanted to vote for Hanson they would have done so irrespective of corp-media attacks on her.
the corp media makes up the mind of most, dont underestimate its power to dictate




Well, this doesn't provide any evidence at all.
not meant to, just outlining my position




People in the USA threw out their Republican majority primarily over that issue, and will probably switch to a Democratic President as well - wait and see what happens once that occurs.
and this is where we can test this........i predict a significant continued presence of the some half a million us troops stationed around the globe, under a dem. govt, the window dressing ,no doubt will change, the flavour will change, but us military intervention and presence will largely go unchanged...you will see.






I've quoted these two together because if people are so brainwashed and bullied then why doesn't it show up in their vote?
it does ! ,
sometimes the most basic and simple realities elude us.
ie. if we have true democracy in usa,uk,aust,canada,nz etc , why have leaders come from just 2 parties in the last 100 yrs or so ?
This fundamental question should be food for thought.




That's nonsense. Polls are no more private (often rather less so in fact) than voting in elections. If people can overcome brainwashing in opinion polls they can do so when they go to vote as well.
they cant ! , as the elections provide no real opportunity to vote in such a realisation ! That is my point !

Kevin Bonham
03-01-2008, 03:48 PM
loss of the integral whole,by definition.

No, "integrity" just means that something is intact, which in the case of a culture just means that the values and practices of the culture still exist. A loss of cultural integrity, for example, happens if there are not enough people around who still know its language, or if young people reject the culture en masse and opt for a different one. A significant minority of another culture moving in does not threaten the essential nature of the prevailing culture at all.

Or alternatively, if by "cultural integrity" you mean large cultural monocultures where no-one is different, then that sounds like a good thing to lose.


enforced as in contrary to the will of the ppl as shown in polls

I asked for evidence of enforcement. You have not provided any.


the corp media makes up the mind of most, dont underestimate its power to dictate

If it makes up the mind of most then why do they give the contrary opinion in polls?


and this is where we can test this........i predict a significant continued presence of the some half a million us troops stationed around the globe,

Given that the US is the world's pre-eminent military superpower this will hardly be surprising if it happens, but will not be the same thing as "the war" nor will it be as contentious.


it does ! ,
sometimes the most basic and simple realities elude us.
ie. if we have true democracy in usa,uk,aust,canada,nz etc , why have leaders come from just 2 parties in the last 100 yrs or so ?
This fundamental question should be food for thought.

You might want to check your stats there. By my count there have been PMs from four different parties in Canada since 3/1/1908, from seven(!) in Australia, and from five in NZ. These numbers reflect chopping and changing on the conservative side mainly but in each case they are genuinely not the same party as each other, as distinct from mere renamings.

Two-party systems form for primarily logistic reasons, but typically their ideology is very fluid and if there is genuine public demand for action on a particular issue, and many people want to change their vote over it, both parties will frequently try to adopt it.


they cant ! , as the elections provide no real opportunity to vote in such a realisation ! That is my point !

Yes they do; anti-immigration candidates run in all kinds of places. But they generally lose.

Axiom
03-01-2008, 04:44 PM
No, "integrity" just means that something is intact, which in the case of a culture just means that the values and practices of the culture still exist. A loss of cultural integrity, for example, happens if there are not enough people around who still know its language, or if young people reject the culture en masse and opt for a different one. A significant minority of another culture moving in does not threaten the essential nature of the prevailing culture at all.
im commenting on a trend , watch over future years for a continuation and increase in this trend

Or alternatively, if by "cultural integrity" you mean large cultural monocultures where no-one is different, then that sounds like a good thing to lose. not mono-culture! im talking about sudden mass influx of non-integrating cultures!




I asked for evidence of enforcement. You have not provided any.
my evidence is the poll results(simply google) contrasted with government policy




If it makes up the mind of most then why do they give the contrary opinion in polls? its not so black and white, i submit that polls demonstrate a will of the ppl, although agreed,mitigated to an extent by the programming. but i again submit that there are no real avenues to pusue such a will in the media/politics sphere, as no media/political air is given for such a will to breathe. so kept muffled and asphxiated...besides ppl normally vote on economic issues rather than cultural ones in any case.






Given that the US is the world's pre-eminent military superpower this will hardly be surprising if it happens, but will not be the same thing as "the war" nor will it be as contentious.
yes i should have added, that new wars will be fought under dem leadership, using similar dubious rationales.




You might want to check your stats there. By my count there have been PMs from four different parties in Canada since 3/1/1908, from seven(!) in Australia, and from five in NZ. These numbers reflect chopping and changing on the conservative side mainly but in each case they are genuinely not the same party as each other, as distinct from mere renamings.
ok, but i think my general point still holds, especially if i shrink scale to the last 50 yrs ;)


Two-party systems form for primarily logistic reasons, but typically their ideology is very fluid and if there is genuine public demand for action on a particular issue, and many people want to change their vote over it, both parties will frequently try to adopt it. except when the interests of big money talk louder than the will of the people





Yes they do; anti-immigration candidates run in all kinds of places. But they generally lose.
to lose by design.. mere democracy window dressing

i havent seen this rational debate in the media !
just a distorted cartoon version ala hansen ,red necks, strawmen etc

Capablanca-Fan
03-01-2008, 05:04 PM
"Many Muslims"? Weasel words. Start demonstrating that "many" is even close to a significant minority and I'll stop laughing at your risible bigotry.
Significant? It is significant if editors fear to reproduce those Danish cartoons for fear that the violence might be repeated.


There was widespread rioting after the Rodney King verdict.
Thomas Sowell, himself black, had interesting points (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1576) to make about that. One of the problems here is a lack of responsibility for one's actions, and one group which leftists have encouraged to take a victimhood role that excuses anything.


There was widespread rioting by English football fans in Europe on many occasions.
That is a problem with fanatics of the English religion: football! :P


Keating stood to win (at the absolute limit), at most, 1% of all votes, assuming that every single Muslim of voting age changed their vote and all of them were otherwise going to vote against Labor.
Sometimes that's all you need. Why else did he ignore the well judged advice not to admit this hater? Why are you defending this? It is still a very sad reflection on many of our Muslims that they support "Cat's Meat" Hilaly.


Mark Steyn is a bigot who found reason to rationalise the genocide in the former Yugoslavia.
Nothing bigoted about him. That quotation seems tongue-in-cheek. His book America Alone was well argued. Europeans have negative population growth, and have already abandoned the attempt to preserve their culture, and instead want to appease radical Muslims.


Oh dear. The IRA's ideology can be whatever it likes. It's membership was almost entirely Irish and Catholic.
Oh dear, ignore the evidence of what really motivated the IRA and how they really operated, so you can bash Catholics and pussyfoot around Islamofascist terrorism.


The condemnation that I read was entirely unequivocal.
I can't know what you read, but the ones I've seen have made half-hearted condemnations but partly excused them because of the actions of Israel and America.


I imply no such thing. White Australians were almost certainly the culprits and I see no collective outrage and condemnation of the act.
Americans, but there is nothing in white American ideology that encourages such a rare thing. And the perps were punished as severely as possible under the law. But there is no shortage of Leftmedia and TV shows that portray murders as typical of pro-lifers as opposed to ultra-rare and condemned unequivocally by the prol-lifers that the Leftists try to bash. Yet when it comes to Islamic terrorists, there are all sorts of wimpy disclaimers how they are distorting "true" Islam (when they are not at all—See Robert Spencer's book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is — and Islam Isn’t (http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c7094)). But dishonest double standards are typical of the Leftist self-Anointed (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?articleID=484&issueID=37) class.


You hold "us" up to fairly lax standards but you expect the entire Muslim population to yell and scream when their radical minorities cause trouble. That, my friend, is a double standard.
Rubbish. There is reason to be concerned when there are mobs causing death and mayhem just because of cartoons. And ironically, when the Pope said something about Islam and violence, many Muslims showed their offense with violence, proving the Pope's point!

Capablanca-Fan
03-01-2008, 05:12 PM
Your first "example" is the funniest, as it speaks of the existence of Christian schools in Indonesia. I doubt that such would exist in a country where there was no freedom of religion.

For at least a partial list of Indonesian Christian schools, go to http://across.co.nz/IndonesiaSchools.html.
Yeah, there were Christian churches in the Soviet Union, and they exist in Communist China. But it would be ridiculous to claim that there is religious freedom there, although most of the Leftmedia worshipped the USSR at the time when it existed.

But there can't be true religious freedom if there are laws against proselytising, and violence against converts.


You have failed to demonstrate that the majority of Muslims is not moderate.
You have failed to show that they are. And once again, Islamofascist fanatics don't need to be a majority to be dangerous.


The mere fact that they are rarely noticed speaks volumes about how moderate they actually are.
Argument from silence.


Hanson's "swamped by Asians" comment and associated outbursts were unequivocally xenophobic of themselves. You will note in my contributions to this thread that I have not labelled Hanson a racist but rather a xenophobe.
That could be true, although much of the Leftmedia charges are exaggerated.

Capablanca-Fan
16-01-2008, 11:29 AM
Salute the Danish Flag! — It’s a Symbol of Western Freedom (http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=1172085)
By Susan MacAllen
23 July 2007


In Denmark, once-liberal immigration policies have forced huge governmental change and zero tolerance for Muslim immigrants intent on turning Denmark into an Islamic welfare haven. FSM Contributing Editor Susan MacAllen reveals a shocking reaction there and lessons America must learn.



Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies — it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets — all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?

By the 1990's the growing urban Muslim population was obvious — and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark’s liberal way of life, the Danes — once so welcoming — began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.

The New York Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:



"Muslim immigrants … constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending."

"Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes."

"Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane."

"Forced marriages — promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem..."

"Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim."


It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and the U.S.: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden — before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa — who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers — and I wonder what she would say today.

In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years — one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe. ( Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of "racism" by liberal media across Europe — even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.) If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark’s history, culture, and a Danish language test. You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won’t find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you. You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren’t.



A large thorn in the side of Denmark’s imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, "The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference," Hvilsh&#248;j says, "There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come." And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, "In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech."

Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family’s thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark. The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time — in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.



pax
03-04-2008, 03:52 PM
[this post through to #112 moved from Next POTUS - mod.]


We saw it before when he tried to downplay Islamofascist terrorism by lying that Hitler was a Christian.
I didn't lie about anything.

pax
03-04-2008, 03:59 PM
Nor did I downplay anything come to think of it. Jono, you are walking a very fine line.

Capablanca-Fan
03-04-2008, 04:58 PM
I didn't lie about anything.
Yes you did. You said:


Hitler was Christian — should all Christians be condemned because of his sins? The Ku Klux Klan is full of Christians — perhaps we need a moratorium on white Baptists from Texas?

Of course, both Hitler and the KKK hated Christianity; Hitler wanted to exterminate Christianity, and the KKK bombed churches.

More on this thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=176087&highlight=hitler#post176087), containing both Pax's mendacity and my response.

pax
03-04-2008, 07:12 PM
Of course, both Hitler and the KKK hated Christianity; Hitler wanted to exterminate Christianity, and the KKK bombed churches.
Hitler clearly considered himself to be some form of Christian, and was brought up as a Christian. He wrote in Mein Kampf:

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
Along with many other references to God, Heaven and so on.

I do not dispute that his actions were clearly in contradiction to Christianity, but that is a very different proposition.

Capablanca-Fan
03-04-2008, 07:18 PM
Hitler clearly considered himself to be some form of Christian,
No he didn't. As documented in that other thread, he and the Nazis in general wanted to exterminate Christianity.


and was brought up as a Christian.
As Ernst Mayr said, Germany in that time hardly had any biblical Christianity.


He wrote in Mein Kampf:

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
Along with many other references to God, Heaven and so on.
So what? I've already seen the sort of atheopathic sites you've parroted. Where is the proof that this was any more than deism?


I do not dispute that his actions were clearly in contradiction to Christianity, but that is a very different proposition.
Not at all, since faith and deeds can't be so easily separated in Christianity.

pax
03-04-2008, 07:26 PM
No he didn't. As documented in that other thread, he and the Nazis in general wanted to exterminate Christianity.
What you documented in the other thread was a plan to infiltrate manipulate the Christian Churches for his own ends. This is quite a different proposition from "extermination".

Anyway, I did not wish to get into a debate over Hitler's personal; religious beliefs (on which I am no expert). I merely wished to point out that you don't condemn Catholics because Hitler (at some point) called himself one.

You have distorted my statements and read into them false motivations.

pax
03-04-2008, 07:28 PM
Not at all, since faith and deeds can't be so easily separated in Christianity.
The actions of the 9/11 bombers were in clear contradiction to the teaching of Islam, yet you are happy to condemn all Muslims by association with these extremists.

Capablanca-Fan
03-04-2008, 10:27 PM
The actions of the 9/11 bombers were in clear contradiction to the teaching of Islam, yet you are happy to condemn all Muslims by association with these extremists.
Where on earth do you get that idea? Leading Muslims are calling for exactly that, and baying mobs in Islamic countries cheered when it happened. The usual Islamic theory is that the later texts calling for violence against the unbelievers, e.g. SURA 9:5 (http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm), supersede the earlier texts of peace.

Islamic courts sentence rape victims to lashes and imprisonment, and sentence apostates to death (http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/A/apostasy.html).

The Two Faces of Islam . . . Still Smiling
Why All Muslims Benefit From Terrorism (http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/two_faces.htm)
By David Wood


I’m very happy that most Muslims are willing to live in peace with their neighbors. Yet we have to be honest here. Benevolent Muslims aren’t peaceful because they are following the example set by Muhammad. They are peaceful because they’ve chosen to do what’s right, and because they are willing to live far better lives than Muhammad himself lived. In fact, many Muslims are such kind, peaceful, and gentle people that they seem to be following the example set by another great religious leader—one who died on the cross for the sins of the world and rose from the dead to prove his message. This man gave his listeners a sober warning: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them" (Matthew 7:15). And, may I add, we should also watch out for false religions, which come to us crying "Peace! Peace!" when they are built on a foundation of murder and bloodshed.

Capablanca-Fan
03-04-2008, 10:34 PM
What you documented in the other thread was a plan to infiltrate manipulate the Christian Churches for his own ends. This is quite a different proposition from "extermination".
Papers reveal Nazi aim: End Christianity (http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/endC.htm)

The fragile, typewritten documents from the 1940s lay out the Nazi plan in grim detail:

Take over the churches from within, using party sympathizers. Discredit, jail or kill Christian leaders. And re-indoctrinate the congregants. Give them a new faith — in Germany's Third Reich.

More than a half-century ago, confidential U.S. government reports on the Nazi plans were prepared for the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and will be available online for free starting tomorrow — some of them for the first time.

These rare documents — in their original form, some with handwritten scrawls across them — are part of an online legal journal published by students of the Rutgers University School of Law at Camden.

"When people think about the Holocaust, they think about the crimes against Jews, but here's a different perspective," said Julie Seltzer Mandel, a third-year law student who is editor of the Nuremberg Project for the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion.

"A lot of people will say, 'I didn't realize that they were trying to convert Christians to a Nazi philosophy.' … They wanted to eliminate the Jews altogether, but they were also looking to eliminate Christianity."

Mandel said the journal would post new Nuremberg documents about every six months, along with commentary from scholars across the world, on its Web site at www.lawandreligion.com.


Anyway, I did not wish to get into a debate over Hitler's personal; religious beliefs (on which I am no expert).
One of the few accurate statements I've heard from you.


I merely wished to point out that you don't condemn Catholics because Hitler (at some point) called himself one.
When?

And nothing in the Catholic Catechism says anything about exterminating Jews and the handicapped. There are plenty of places in the Quran that advocate relentless war against the unbelievers.


You have distorted my statements and read into them false motivations.
Your true motivation is a cheerleader for ultra-leftists belonging to racist churches and for Islamists.

pax
04-04-2008, 12:32 AM
Your true motivation is a cheerleader for ultra-leftists belonging to racist churches and for Islamists.
Exactly like this kind of rubbish..

Rincewind
04-04-2008, 01:18 AM
When?

He was brought up a catholic and served as an altar boy. In his adult life he was still nominally a catholic and while not close to the church, he unmistakably portrayed himself as a christian and in several of his speeches and writings he made reference to the almighty and creator in a matter of fact way. Hitler also saw himself as an instrument of god's revenge and he justified the persecution of the jewish community in those terms. The 99% christian German population bought it, lock stock and barrel including the churches. Hardly surprising considering the staunchly antisemitic views of many of the traditional fathers of the church as well as the leaders of the protestant church.

In the 1930s, roughly two thirds of the German population were Lutheran and it is little wonder they were capable of the atrocities of the 1930s and 40s when you read the writings of the founder of that church. For example, Martin Luther wrote, of the Jews:

"Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security."

- Martin Luther: The Jews and their Lies.

Based on that text, Luther was as antisemitic as Hitler was and can certainly be assigned some of the blame for the holocaust.

Capablanca-Fan
04-04-2008, 03:05 AM
He was brought up a catholic and served as an altar boy.
Stalin was brought up in the Eastern Orthodox Church but became an atheist by reading Darwin.

Being brought up in a garage doesn't make you car.


In his adult life he was still nominally a catholic
Nominally = in name only.


and while not close to the church, he unmistakably portrayed himself as a christian and in several of his speeches and writings he made reference to the almighty and creator in a matter of fact way.
More ipse dixits. I've already documented how Churchill stridently denounced his regime as anti-Christian, and how evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith said that Hitler was trying to conform Germany to evolution. The Nazis often showed films to illustrate survival of the fittest, and the Hitler Youth were taught to confess that they had sinned against natural selection.


Hitler also saw himself as an instrument of god's revenge and he justified the persecution of the jewish community in those terms.
Obama and Klinton claim to be Christian as well while they promote anti-Christian policies. But analysing his policies as Prof. Weikart did shows the evolutionary basis for his eugenics and Master Race policies.


Hardly surprising considering the staunchly antisemitic views of many of the traditional fathers of the church as well as the leaders of the protestant church.
No they weren't, considering that Jesus and all His disciples and all NT authors were Jewish. And just consider Romans 9–11, for example, written by the Apostle Paul (himself a Jew).


In the 1930s, roughly two thirds of the German population were Lutheran and it is little wonder they were capable of the atrocities of the 1930s and 40s when you read the writings of the founder of that church.
The Lutheran church had largely become liberal by that time, as anyone with the slightest knowledge of the history of theological liberalism would know, and as Mayr inadvertently confirmed.


Based on that text, Luther was as antisemitic as Hitler was and can certainly be assigned some of the blame for the holocaust.
Yes, we all know about Luther’s disgraceful attacks on Jews late in his life. They should not be condoned, but Luther’s antisemitism was totally different to Hitler’s. Luther trashed anyone he saw as an opponent of the Gospel, and his choicest barbs were for the papacy. But even the quote that Windy has cited from some gutter atheopathic site doesn't have the slightest indication about mass murder of Jews and disabled.

Hitler cared nothing for the Gospel, and killed Jews just because they were Jews, including quarter of a million Jewish Christians.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-04-2008, 08:31 AM
Stalin was brought up in the Eastern Orthodox Church but became an atheist by reading Darwin.

Stalin did not become atheist (even though he might have read Darwin, that alone would not make anyone atheist). The whole communist system was atheistic and he toed the line. However, when he had complete hold on power, he reduced the oppression on churches and gave them some liberties (within limits tolerated by the communist doctrine, of course.

Carry on, guys, this little recourse just corrected one fact, but has no influence on the debate.

Rincewind
04-04-2008, 09:08 AM
Stalin was brought up in the Eastern Orthodox Church but became an atheist by reading Darwin.

Irrelevant


Being brought up in a garage doesn't make you car.

It is a silly analogy, even by your standards, but let's go with it...

if you make car noises and run no petrol then you are certainly to all outward appearances a car.


Nominally = in name only.

Which is what Pax said ni the first place. Hitler claimed to be a catholic. This is certainly true. You asked "when?" remember?


More ipse dixits. I've already documented how Churchill stridently denounced his regime as anti-Christian, and how evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith said that Hitler was trying to conform Germany to evolution. The Nazis often showed films to illustrate survival of the fittest, and the Hitler Youth were taught to confess that they had sinned against natural selection.

Yes there were racist motivations to the nazi racial purification but it was basically religious in inspiration. Biblical evidence was often cited against the Jewish people and the 99% christian population (including the catholic Fuhrer) bought it.


Obama and Klinton claim to be Christian as well while they promote anti-Christian policies. But analysing his policies as Prof. Weikart did shows the evolutionary basis for his eugenics and Master Race policies.

I'm sure that makes christians sleep better at night. But the truth is Hitler was a catholic, believed in god and thought he was doing god's work. For example,

Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work.

- Adolf Hitler: Mein Kampf


No they weren't, considering that Jesus and all His disciples and all NT authors were Jewish. And just consider Romans 9–11, for example, written by the Apostle Paul (himself a Jew).

By church fathers I was referring to the likes of John Chrysostom "The Golden Mouthed" who said

The synagogue is worse than a brothel…it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts…the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…the refuge of brigands and dabauchees, and the cavern of devils.


The Lutheran church had largely become liberal by that time, as anyone with the slightest knowledge of the history of theological liberalism would know, and as Mayr inadvertently confirmed.

So what? Antisemitism was widespread in Europe and especially in Germany, Poland and Russia as anyone familiar with European history can tell you. That tradition goes back to the church fathers both Roman and Protestant.


Hitler cared nothing for the Gospel, and killed Jews just because they were Jews, including quarter of a million Jewish Christians.

This is rubbish. Hitler did care for the gospel. His personally library contained many theological texts many of which showed signs of much use including the underlining of passages and marginalia. Furthermore in Mein Kampf and in numerous speeches Hitler made reference to god and his belief he was an agent of the almighty. These references also showed a familiarity with both the old and new testaments.

Finally, Hitler is quoted as saying as late as 1941 to General Gerhard Engel, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

Capablanca-Fan
04-04-2008, 11:34 AM
Yes there were racist motivations to the nazi racial purification but it was basically religious in inspiration.
The eugenics laws were entirely evolutionary. And the whole idea of superior races had evolutionary overtones. Hunter's Civic Biology, which the ACLU defended in the Scopes Trial, taught white supremacy. There is no biblical basis for the superiority of the Aryan Race.


Biblical evidence was often cited against the Jewish people and the 99% christian population (including the catholic Fuhrer) bought it.
Where is your proof that 99% of the population in the birthplace of liberal theology was Christian? But that's a problem with the denial of the Bible's authority, as you advocate: a substitute authority is found. Indeed, that's what repelled Karl Barth from the popular liberalism of his day—he was disgusted that leading liberal theologian Adolf von Harnack supported the Kaiser's militarism. There were many Bible-denying liberal churches in Hitler's day that went along with him. The Bible-believing Confessing Church opposed him.


I'm sure that makes christians sleep better at night.
Never had any trouble sleeping because of atheopath lies.


Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work
Which "Lord"? Has nothing to do with the Lord of the Bible. Nothing about Jesus. That's why Churchill and the Nuremberg prosecutors denounced the Nazi regime as anti-Christian. But evidently Windy and assorted modern atheopaths no better.


By church fathers I was referring to the likes of John Chrysostom "The Golden Mouthed" who said
This is a sermon sometimes translated Orations Against the Jews but should be Orations Against the Judaizers. That is, harsh words in the typical Greco-Roman rhetoric of his day against Judaizing influence within the church who wanted a foot in both the Synagogue and the Church. A reviewer of Robert Louis Wilken's book John Chrysostom and the Jews: rhetoric and reality in the late fourth century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983) says:


"...very convincingly demonstrates not only that St. John Chrysostomos was not an anti-Semite, but that his supposed writings against the Jews are actually against the 'Judaizers,' a terrible mistranslation which convicts him unfairly of racism, when in fact his words are addressed to a theological element in the Christian Church. This work was published in 1983 and is a 'must' for anyone wishing to understand the issue at hand."

Of the Jews themselves, obviously he thought Judaism was a false religion, but admired their devotion. Hitler couldn't give a monkeys about the religious beliefs of Jews, since he killed Orthodox Jews, atheistic Jews and Messianic Jews.


So what? Antisemitism was widespread in Europe and especially in Germany, Poland and Russia as anyone familiar with European history can tell you. That tradition goes back to the church fathers both Roman and Protestant.
There is a tradition of hatred for the middleman that is not confined to the Jews. Thomas Sowell argues that the same hatred existed for other middleman minorities like the Chinese in SE Asia, Indians in east Africa and the Lebanese in west Africa. Supposedly they were parasites because they were not producing things themselves. But when such middlemen were expelled, the economies tanked, showing that they fulfill an important role in connecting producers with consumers.


This is rubbish. Hitler did care for the gospel.
Where is your proof, apart from crap parroted from gutter atheopath sites. You wouldn't know the Gospel if you tripped over it anyway. Where is the slightest evidence that the teachings of Jesus mattered at all? No, Hitler hated Christianity for its Jewishness, and wanted to make the Nazi State God, with himself as the messianic figure. Think of "Heil Hitler", and understand that it's making himself a counterfeit—Heiland is the German word for Saviour, Heilsarmee = Salvation Army.


His personally library contained many theological texts many of which showed signs of much use including the underlining of passages and marginalia. Furthermore in Mein Kampf and in numerous speeches Hitler made reference to god and his belief he was an agent of the almighty. These references also showed a familiarity with both the old and new testaments.
Like what?


Finally, Hitler is quoted as saying as late as 1941 to General Gerhard Engel, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
Proof? And relevance? Obama claims to be a Christian but hates Christian morality, and in reality his church teaches a false African Christ.

Kevin Bonham
04-04-2008, 12:15 PM
I didn't lie about anything.

I am happy to leave #98 (moved from Next POTUS thread) and subsequent discussion as is unless there is a request from pax to the contrary, but it looks like a reminder is in order about claims of lying on this board. They should only be made where the poster can prove that the person making a comment knew it to be false (as opposed to it simply being false, or a difference of interpretation) and the evidence that they knew it to be false should be stated in the post where the claim of lying is made.

This was previously stated in this post on the Moderation thread (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=77855&postcount=17) which predates Jono's active posting career so he probably wasn't aware of it. Claims that a person is a liar or lying are in some cases defamatory, so our policy is to rule them out unless they can be proven (or the person accused of lying is a known troll who has no reputation to lose!)

If anyone wants to discuss this please do so on the feedback thread.

Capablanca-Fan
04-04-2008, 12:20 PM
Stalin did not become atheist (even though he might have read Darwin, that alone would not make anyone atheist).
But this is what Stalin's biographer Yemelyan Yaroslavsky said: that while Stalin was still an ecclesiastical student he ‘began to read Darwin and became an atheist’ [Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Moscow, pp. 8–9, 1940]


The whole communist system was atheistic and he toed the line. However, when he had complete hold on power, he reduced the oppression on churches and gave them some liberties (within limits tolerated by the communist doctrine, of course.
He bulldozed churches and persecuted Christians during his purges. But when Hitler broke his agreement with him and attacked in Operation Barbarossa, Stalin courted the churches because he needed allies.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-04-2008, 12:42 PM
But this is what Stalin's biographer Yemelyan Yaroslavsky said: that while Stalin was still an ecclesiastical student he ‘began to read Darwin and became an atheist’ [Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Moscow, pp. 8–9, 1940]

There are so many biographers with so many contradicting views. Are you going to take everything they wrote at a face value?
He became atheist as it was part of communist doctrine. He was not as militant in his hatred of church as Lenin was.



He bulldozed churches and persecuted Christians during his purges. But when Hitler broke his agreement with him and attacked in Operation Barbarossa, Stalin courted the churches because he needed allies.
He persecuted Christian to the same extent as everyone else. Bulldozing churches was part of communist ideology. He was not the one to start it, but the one to stop it.
Of course, he was not a big friend of church, but tolerated religion to much greater extent then the rest of communist leadership.

Capablanca-Fan
04-04-2008, 02:58 PM
“People have been calling for national dialogues and conversations for decades. It usually works something like this: Liberals say we need a frank discussion about race (or class or gender) in this country, and then they proceed to bludgeon any conservative stupid enough to take them up on their offer.” — Jonah Goldberg

Capablanca-Fan
04-04-2008, 05:09 PM
Fitna on Google Video (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020486.php)

Expert on Islam, Robert Spencer, comments (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25777) about this film that the PC thought police are trying to ban:


What did the film contain that was so hateful and intolerant, and so threatening to Muslim states that they were doing all they could to make sure it would not be seen? It consists largely of a series of Qur’an quotes, followed by acts of violence committed by Muslims that are manifestly consonant with those quotes. This is buttressed by statements of Islamic preachers, justifying acts of violence against unbelievers in the name of Islam. The most harrowingly effective of these sequences in the film is the first, which begins with Qur’an 8:60, chanted in Arabic and presented visually in both Arabic and English: “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies…” Then follow scenes of horror from September 11, 2001, as we hear a frantic woman calling 911 and saying she was going to die -- clearly, terror had been struck into her heart, as it had into the heart of a woman in Spain we hear next as the scenes shifts to Madrid on March 11, 2004, as she calls someone to say a bomb has just gone off on the train.

But the connection of the images and sounds to Qur’an 8:60 is not left to the viewer to make. Presently a Muslim imam appears, declaring, with a clear dependence on that Qur’an verse: “Annihilate the infidels and the polytheists, your (Allah’s) enemies and the enemies of the religion. Allah, count them and kill them to the last one…”

And there’s the rub. For all the indignation that Fitna has caused around the world, and for all the angry claims that it “equates Islam with violence,” that equation has already been made, many, many times, by Islamic jihadists around the world.

Rincewind
04-04-2008, 05:35 PM
The eugenics laws were entirely evolutionary. And the whole idea of superior races had evolutionary overtones. Hunter's Civic Biology, which the ACLU defended in the Scopes Trial, taught white supremacy. There is no biblical basis for the superiority of the Aryan Race.

Hitler's interpretation was different to yours but he did see it as a biblically inspired and he said so in Mein Kampf (quoted earlier).


Where is your proof that 99% of the population in the birthplace of liberal theology was Christian? But that's a problem with the denial of the Bible's authority, as you advocate: a substitute authority is found. Indeed, that's what repelled Karl Barth from the popular liberalism of his day—he was disgusted that leading liberal theologian Adolf von Harnack supported the Kaiser's militarism. There were many Bible-denying liberal churches in Hitler's day that went along with him. The Bible-believing Confessing Church opposed him.

Ipse dixit. The catholic church certainly went along with Hitler once he gained power.


Never had any trouble sleeping because of atheopath lies.

Just keep telling yourself that, Jono, if it makes you fell better.


Which "Lord"? Has nothing to do with the Lord of the Bible. Nothing about Jesus. That's why Churchill and the Nuremberg prosecutors denounced the Nazi regime as anti-Christian. But evidently Windy and assorted modern atheopaths no better.

Stop being obtuse. Hitler was obviously referring to the christian Lord.


This is a sermon sometimes translated Orations Against the Jews but should be Orations Against the Judaizers. That is, harsh words in the typical Greco-Roman rhetoric of his day against Judaizing influence within the church who wanted a foot in both the Synagogue and the Church. A reviewer of Robert Louis Wilken's book John Chrysostom and the Jews: rhetoric and reality in the late fourth century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983) says:


"...very convincingly demonstrates not only that St. John Chrysostomos was not an anti-Semite, but that his supposed writings against the Jews are actually against the 'Judaizers,' a terrible mistranslation which convicts him unfairly of racism, when in fact his words are addressed to a theological element in the Christian Church. This work was published in 1983 and is a 'must' for anyone wishing to understand the issue at hand."

Of the Jews themselves, obviously he thought Judaism was a false religion, but admired their devotion. Hitler couldn't give a monkeys about the religious beliefs of Jews, since he killed Orthodox Jews, atheistic Jews and Messianic Jews.

More christian spin doctoring. I'm willing to go along with the line that Chrysostom was anti-Judaism the religion and not anti-Jew th race. However, the hatred he felt for those that practiced the religion is palpable from his writings and they are sentiments which echoed down through the ages causing untolled misery.


There is a tradition of hatred for the middleman that is not confined to the Jews. Thomas Sowell argues that the same hatred existed for other middleman minorities like the Chinese in SE Asia, Indians in east Africa and the Lebanese in west Africa. Supposedly they were parasites because they were not producing things themselves. But when such middlemen were expelled, the economies tanked, showing that they fulfill an important role in connecting producers with consumers.

I fail to see any relevance here. Hitler was not anti-middle-class, quite the opposite. And the sin of usary had long since been abolished so the German persecution was not primarily economic. (However, they were not against turning a dollar out of the holocaust when the opportunity arose).


Where is your proof, apart from crap parroted from gutter atheopath sites. You wouldn't know the Gospel if you tripped over it anyway. Where is the slightest evidence that the teachings of Jesus mattered at all? No, Hitler hated Christianity for its Jewishness, and wanted to make the Nazi State God, with himself as the messianic figure. Think of "Heil Hitler", and understand that it's making himself a counterfeit—Heiland is the German word for Saviour, Heilsarmee = Salvation Army.

Perhaps if you stop ranting we can have a sensible discussion. Heil simply means "hail" and not saviour. The german word for saviour would be "retter," as in the phrase "Herr und Retter Jesus Christus."

Hitler was clearly christian if you look at what he actually wrote in Mein Kampf, said ni his many speeches, what books he regularly read from his library.


Like what?

For example

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.

- Adolf Hitler: Munich, 12 April, 1922

Hitler was obviously inspired by reading from the bible.


Proof? And relevance? Obama claims to be a Christian but hates Christian morality, and in reality his church teaches a false African Christ.

It is exactly relevant to Pax's claim that Hitler's called himself a catholic at least at one time.

You asked when.

The answer is for his entire life, at least until the year 1941.

Capablanca-Fan
04-04-2008, 06:38 PM
Hitler's interpretation was different to yours but he did see it as a biblically inspired and he said so in Mein Kampf (quoted earlier).
Then cite his alleged biblical justification. He actually despised the Bible as a Jewish book! Here are other things he said, from Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944, Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:


National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:


Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:


The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:


The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:


Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:


Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:


Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:


There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:


It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)


Ipse dixit. The catholic church certainly went along with Hitler once he gained power.
More revisionism, totally refuted in Rabbi David Dalin's book The Myth of Hitler's Pope (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods48.html). Pope Pius XII actually rescued more Jews than Schindler, and the medieval popes constantly refuted anti-semitic libels, like the "blood libel" that's so popular in the Arab world.


Stop being obtuse. Hitler was obviously referring to the christian Lord.
No it's not, considering that he never mentioned Jesus, and hated the Jews who wrote the Bible. His real views of Christianity are cited above. Which ones do you think he really held to? What actually matched his actions? Clue: Churchill and the Nuremberg prosecutors denounced the Nazis as anti-Christian.


More christian spin doctoring. I'm willing to go along with the line that Chrysostom was anti-Judaism the religion and not anti-Jew th race. However, the hatred he felt for those that practiced the religion is palpable from his writings and they are sentiments which echoed down through the ages causing untolled misery.
Never caused genocide: that had to wait to evolutionary ideas of eugenics and the master race. You don't understand Greco-Roman rhetoric, and still fail to see that Chrysostom was attacking Judaizers within the church, not Jews. Luther also resorted to strong rhetoric, but nothing about slaughtering families.


I fail to see any relevance here. Hitler was not anti-middle-class, quite the opposite. And the sin of usary had long since been abolished so the German persecution was not primarily economic. (However, they were not against turning a dollar out of the holocaust when the opportunity arose).
That's the whole point: the Jews were able to lend at more competitive terms, so were resented as money-lenders.


Perhaps if you stop ranting we can have a sensible discussion.
If you weren't such a fanatically christophobic atheopath, maybe we could :P


Heil simply means "hail" and not saviour. The german word for saviour would be "retter," as in the phrase "Herr und Retter Jesus Christus."
Nein, Heiland means saviour according to this German dictionary (http://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/heiland), and it was the main word used in the Luther Bible, e.g.

Luke 2:11

"For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord."
"denn euch ist heute der Heiland geboren, welcher ist Christus, der HERR, in der Stadt Davids."

2 Peter 3:18

"But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ"
"Wachset aber in der Gnade und Erkenntnis unsers HERRN und Heilandes Jesu Christi"

There are heaps of words related to it, such as Heilsgesichte: interpretation of history stressing God's saving grace (http://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/heilsgesichte)


Hitler was obviously inspired by reading from the bible.
Ah yes, typical fundy atheist (http://www.tektonics.org/parody/fundyath.html):


You believe that Hitler claiming to be a Christian is undeniable proof that he was a Christian, while George Washington only claimed to be a Christian in order to win the people's favor.

[QUOTE=Rincewind]But of course RW knows better than Churchill, Keith, the Nuremberg prosecutors who clearly must have been deluded to call the Nazi regime anti-Christian; or Keith and Weikart and the World at War series (narrated by Sir Laurence Olivier) to note the Darwinian basis for his policies.

Rincewind
04-04-2008, 07:25 PM
Then cite his alleged biblical justification. He actually despised the Bible as a Jewish book! Here are other things he said, from Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944, Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953:


As hearsay that all is pretty interesting however there are a number of problems with the Herr Bormann's pillow book. None of the conversations were mechanically recorded and the fact that this is the only source of Hitler's supposed anti-christian attitude having a secondary source which has been edited by a staunch anti-catholic like Bormann doesn't fill me with much confidence.

If you look at Hitler's own words as he published and Mein Kampf and in speeches which have been recorded, Hitler makes numerous strong references to the biblical inspiration of his any Jewish policy and refers to himself as continuing a biblical struggle.


More revisionism, totally refuted in Rabbi David Dalin's book The Myth of Hitler's Pope (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods48.html). Pope Pius XII actually rescued more Jews than Schindler, and the medieval popes constantly refuted anti-semitic libels, like the "blood libel" that's so popular in the Arab world.

The church certainly did go along with Hitler. Originally the catholic church discouraged people becomnig members of the nazi party, later this was dropped. The pope regularly sent birthday wishes to Hitler and whatever some clergy did in private, publicly the church went along with Hitler.


No it's not, considering that he never mentioned Jesus, and hated the Jews who wrote the Bible. His real views of Christianity are cited above. Which ones do you think he really held to? What actually matched his actions? Clue: Churchill and the Nuremberg prosecutors denounced the Nazis as anti-Christian.

HA! You cite some book which is the work of Bormann and not Hitler. Look at what you can be sure of what Hitler actually said and wrote and you will find numerable biblical references and justifications for the Jewish persecution. Look at Bormann, the staunch anti-catholic, hearsay evidence and you have anti-catholic retoric which is in isolation from all other evidence.


Never caused genocide: that had to wait to evolutionary ideas of eugenics and the master race. You don't understand Greco-Roman rhetoric, and still fail to see that Chrysostom was attacking Judaizers within the church, not Jews. Luther also resorted to strong rhetoric, but nothing about slaughtering families.

Pogroms and Jewish persecutions definitely predated Darwin. I've told you already about the purging of the Jews from Spain. At least the Spanish allowed the Jews to choose exile, conversion or the flames. The Portuguese were not so accommodating and in 1506 the Portuguese massacred up to 4,000 Jews. Forcibly baptised their children and then shipped them off to the island of St Tome.


That's the whole point: the Jews were able to lend at more competitive terms, so were resented as money-lenders.

Not the point at all. In the middle ages the Jews were resented as money-lenders since the sin of usary forbade christians from this occupation. Thsi was not the case in 20th century Germany.


If you weren't such a fanatically christophobic atheopath, maybe we could :P

You always were crap at insults. When you get better I might need to respond in kind.


Nein, Heiland means saviour

Did they say Heiland Hitler or Heil Hitler?



You believe that Hitler claiming to be a Christian is undeniable proof that he was a Christian, while George Washington only claimed to be a Christian in order to win the people's favor.

You always come up with at least one totally irrelevant paragraph per reply. I'm beginning to believe you have a serious comprehension problem. Probably why you gave up science.


But of course RW knows better than Churchill, Keith, the Nuremberg prosecutors who clearly must have been deluded to call the Nazi regime anti-Christian; or Keith and Weikart and the World at War series (narrated by Sir Laurence Olivier) to note the Darwinian basis for his policies.

Not at all. But to call Hitler an atheist is just a total fiction. He was a god fearing christian who believed he was doing god's work on earth. A lot of the downplaying of Hitler's christianity has been done by those wishing to appease the collective conscious of the christian west.

Look on the bright side though Jono. Most of those opposing Hitler were also christian (including Stalin). That is the good thing about the bible, you can use it to justify anything because so much is open to interpretation and a monotheistic mindset is such it lets you write strong rhetoric which can capture the hearts and minds of a likewise, monotheistic populace.

Rincewind
04-04-2008, 07:49 PM
even though he might have read Darwin, that alone would not make anyone atheist

You have to remember Igor that in Jono's black-and-white world, Darwinism = Atheism. Despite the fact that the Catholic and Anglican churches largely accept evolution as well-establish science (because it is).

Capablanca-Fan
05-04-2008, 01:45 PM
You have to remember Igor that in Jono's black-and-white world, Darwinism = Atheism. Despite the fact that the Catholic and Anglican churches largely accept evolution as well-establish science (because it is).
Who cares? It's the very same denial of biblical authority that featured in the liberal German churches that supported Hitler. The Confessing Church, which still held to biblical authority, opposed Hitler at great cost.

RW doesn't mind churches that accept his atheistic view of earth history.

Capablanca-Fan
05-04-2008, 01:48 PM
Call to switch onus on racist offences (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/call-to-switch-onus-on-racist-offences/2008/04/04/1207249461190.html)
Carol Nader
The Age, 5 April 2008


Race Discrimination Commissioner Tom Calma wants the burden of proof in cases of racial discrimination to fall on the alleged offender, instead of the person making the complaint.

Mr Calma said Australia's laws made it difficult to prove there had been discrimination.

Just like accusations of child molestation or rape, where mere accusations can wreck lives when overzealous fascistic prosecutors dispense with the presumption of innocence.

Capablanca-Fan
05-04-2008, 02:24 PM
As hearsay that all is pretty interesting however there are a number of problems with the Herr Bormann's pillow book. None of the conversations were mechanically recorded and the fact that this is the only source of Hitler's supposed anti-christian attitude having a secondary source which has been edited by a staunch anti-catholic like Bormann doesn't fill me with much confidence.
Of course not. Windy ignores eye-witness accounts of his fellow Christophobe Hitler's true feelings, which actually matches Hitler's actions, Churchill's impressions of Hitler, and the Nuremberg trial findings. Bormann was very high up in Hitler's heirarchy, and disappeared after the war, so it's bizarre atheopathic conspiracy theorising to think that such statements were not genuine accounts of his feelings. But of course, Windy would have to think that the Nuremberg documentation of the Nazi plan to destroy Christianity was all made up, because by golly, he just HAS to convince himself that Hitler had to be a Christian.


If you look at Hitler's own words as he published and Mein Kampf and in speeches which have been recorded, Hitler makes numerous strong references to the biblical inspiration of his any Jewish policy and refers to himself as continuing a biblical struggle.
Of course, Hitler was a demagogue who would use or say anything to get power. What matters is what he said among his mates like Bormann.


The church certainly did go along with Hitler. Originally the catholic church discouraged people becomnig members of the nazi party, later this was dropped. The pope regularly sent birthday wishes to Hitler and whatever some clergy did in private, publicly the church went along with Hitler.
Again, all nonsense that was disproven by Rabbi Dalin's book. He documents how Pius was always staunchly opposed to Nazism, hid hundreds of Jews in his personal summer house, encouraged Jew-saving operations across Europe, and was widely praised by Jewish leaders and Israeli prime ministers Golda Meir and Moshe Sharett.

But Windy prefers garbage like that book Hitler's Pope to statements like those from Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, chancellor, Jewish Theological Seminary of America:


No keener rebuke has come to Nazism than from Pope Pius XI and his successor, Pope Pius XII.

Or Golda Meir:


We share in the grief of humanity [at the death of Pius XII]…. When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict. We mourn a great servant of peace.

The Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism and took the baptismal name Eugenio in the Pope's honor.

But Windy would have us believe that all these Jewish leaders were deluded about how much the Pope helped Jews and opposed Nazis.

One review of Dalin's book states (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods48.html):


Rabbi Dalin also notes that prominent Catholics who were honored for their efforts on behalf of the Jews have pointed to Pope Pius XII as the inspiration behind their actions. The future Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, while still Cardinals Roncalli and Montini, respectively, received high praise for their efforts to shelter and rescue Jews. In both cases, the future pontiffs shrugged that they were just following the orders of Pope Pius XII. Cardinal Pietro Palazzini, who hid many Italian Jews for several months in 1943 and 1944, was honored by Yad Vashem in 1985 as a "righteous Gentile." Cardinal Palazzini emphasized that "the merit is entirely Pius XII’s, who ordered us to do whatever we could to save the Jews from persecution."

It was partly because of his sympathy for the Jews and his opposition to National Socialism that Pius was in fact strongly disliked by the Nazis; Hitler’s regime actually lobbied against the election of Pacelli to replace Pius XI as pope. Pacelli was referred to as Pius XI’s "Jew-loving" cardinal. Rabbi Dalin points out that "of the forty-four speeches Pacelli gave in Germany as papal nuncio between 1917 and 1929, forty denounced some aspect of the emerging Nazi ideology."

As Cardinal Pacelli he had played a central role in the drafting of Mit Brennender Sorge, Pius XI’s 1937 encyclical condemning Nazism. His inaugural encyclical, Summi Pontificatus (1939), made clear the incompatibility of National Socialism with the Catholic faith. The New York Times headline read, "Pope Condemns Dictators, Treaty Violators, Racism." Allied aircraft even dropped some 88,000 copies of the Pope’s document over Germany in order to undermine the Nazi government.


Pogroms and Jewish persecutions definitely predated Darwin. I've told you already about the purging of the Jews from Spain.
Not that I needed lessons in Jewish history from you — I am Jewish myself as my name should make clear. There were parallel expulsions of Indians from East Africa, who fulfilled a similar role as middleman. Malaysia has laws that discriminate against their Chinese, who were also middlemen. But for the Nazi genocide, it was essential, as Weikart documents, for Darwinism to undermine the Judeo-Christian sanctity of life ethic and replace it with an evolutionary ethic.


Not the point at all. In the middle ages the Jews were resented as money-lenders since the sin of usary forbade christians from this occupation. Thsi was not the case in 20th century Germany.
Much of the anti-semitic propaganda portrayed Jews as exploiters, money-hungry and parasites.


You always were crap at insults. When you get better I might need to respond in kind.
Translation, "I haven't the wit to keep up!"


Did they say Heiland Hitler or Heil Hitler?
The Nazified churches replaced Jesus with Hitler as the one to follow as glorious leader and saviour. And presumably you now admit your error in denying that Heiland means "saviour".


You always come up with at least one totally irrelevant paragraph per reply. I'm beginning to believe you have a serious comprehension problem. Probably why you gave up science.
I kept up science, unlike a mathematician who was never a scientist.


Not at all. But to call Hitler an atheist is just a total fiction. He was a god fearing christian who believed he was doing god's work on earth.
Much of his propaganda comes from Teutonic myths. It's no accident that Wagner was his favourite composer.


A lot of the downplaying of Hitler's christianity has been done by those wishing to appease the collective conscious of the christian west.
Oh, Churchill and the Nuremberg prosecutors are all part of Windy's conspiracy :lol: :lol: As were the Jewish leaders who praised the Pope's opposition to Nazism and rescuing of Jews.


Look on the bright side though Jono. Most of those opposing Hitler were also christian (including Stalin).
Are you daft as well as atheopathic? Stalin was an atheist, and had to be one to be a communist.


That is the good thing about the bible, you can use it to justify anything because so much is open to interpretation and a monotheistic mindset is such it lets you write strong rhetoric which can capture the hearts and minds of a likewise, monotheistic populace.
No it's not. You talk nonsense like that, but never demonstrate how a contextual understanding can justify what you claim. I defend my points with a grammatical and historical interpretation. For instance, nothing in the Christ's teachings points to genocide or forced conversions. But as Weikart documents, there was a consistent thread from Darwin to eugenics and master race propaganda.

Rincewind
05-04-2008, 05:09 PM
Of course not. Windy ignores eye-witness accounts of his fellow Christophobe Hitler's true feelings, which actually matches Hitler's actions, Churchill's impressions of Hitler, and the Nuremberg trial findings. Bormann was very high up in Hitler's heirarchy, and disappeared after the war, so it's bizarre atheopathic conspiracy theorising to think that such statements were not genuine accounts of his feelings. But of course, Windy would have to think that the Nuremberg documentation of the Nazi plan to destroy Christianity was all made up, because by golly, he just HAS to convince himself that Hitler had to be a Christian.

Bormann was, as you point out, an atheist. As his conversations were never recorded and the transcripts were later edited by Bormann it is not unlikely that Bormann interpreted or biased his conversations to support Bormann's own opinions. If you look at the directly attributable statements which we know Hitler to have said or wrote then you find nothing to support you position that Hitler was anti-christian. In fact it was quite the opposite. Hitler was pro-christianity, pro-Jesus and believed his persecution of the Jews to be a divinely inspired mission.


Of course, Hitler was a demagogue who would use or say anything to get power. What matters is what he said among his mates like Bormann.

Which cannot be corroborated, which go against everything else Hitler ever wrote or said and yet strangely support Bormann's personal agenda. I know you're used to just taking whatever scant evidence supports your preconceived point of view and ignore everything else, but this is laughable.


Again, all nonsense that was disproven by Rabbi Dalin's book.
...
But Windy would have us believe that all these Jewish leaders were deluded about how much the Pope helped Jews and opposed Nazis.

If Rabbi Dalin proved anything there would be worldwide acceptance of that view today. However, there isn't. Whether Pius XI (for example) did more harm than good is still an open question. Primarily many people believe the church signing the Reichskonkordat was an important step in Hitler's regime gaining legitimacy. By signing the pact the church certainly went along for the ride.


As Cardinal Pacelli he had played a central role in the drafting of Mit Brennender Sorge, Pius XI’s 1937 encyclical condemning Nazism. His inaugural encyclical, Summi Pontificatus (1939), made clear the incompatibility of National Socialism with the Catholic faith. The New York Times headline read, "Pope Condemns Dictators, Treaty Violators, Racism." Allied aircraft even dropped some 88,000 copies of the Pope’s document over Germany in order to undermine the Nazi government.

I'm afraid it was all to late by then. If only he had been that outspoken in 1933.


Not that I needed lessons in Jewish history from you — I am Jewish myself as my name should make clear.

So what? Plenty of christians are unaware of the christianity's bloody history.


There were parallel expulsions of Indians from East Africa, who fulfilled a similar role as middleman. Malaysia has laws that discriminate against their Chinese, who were also middlemen. But for the Nazi genocide, it was essential, as Weikart documents, for Darwinism to undermine the Judeo-Christian sanctity of life ethic and replace it with an evolutionary ethic.

The so-called Judeo-Christian sanctity of life ethic is something you just dreamed up. If anything the sanctity of life is a much more recent philosophy and not one particularly Judeo-Christian. If it were then:


the Inquisition would never have happened
the expulsion of Jews from Spain would never have happened
the slaughtering of up to 4,000 Jews in Portugal, 1506 would never have happened
the African slave trading in the Americas would never have happened
the holocaust directed by a catholic and executed almost unanimously by christians, would never have happened.

The list goes on...


Much of the anti-semitic propaganda portrayed Jews as exploiters, money-hungry and parasites.

Yep. I agree and also deicides.


I haven't the wit to keep up!

No you haven't. That's why I'm keeping things simple for you.


The Nazified churches replaced Jesus with Hitler as the one to follow as glorious leader and saviour. And presumably you now admit your error in denying that Heiland means "saviour".

More fiction by you. Point to where I denied that "Heiland" meant "saviour." My point is they said "heil" and "heil" means hail. All this other guff is just you trying to muddy the waters.


I kept up science, unlike a mathematician who was never a scientist.

Thats a laugh. :lol: No scientific publications in more than 15 years.

You left science to become chief propagandist for the church of creationism, remember?


Much of his propaganda comes from Teutonic myths. It's no accident that Wagner was his favourite composer.

Hitler was much less inspired by the Teutonic myths than some other members of the Nazi party. Look at the speeches and Mein Kampf. Hitler's inspiration is unmistakably the bible.

For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people
- Adolf Hitler: Munich, 22 April 1922

Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God's truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity.
- Adolf Hitler: Munich, 28 July 1922

In the Bible we find the text, 'That which is neither hot nor cold will I spew out of my mouth.' This utterance of the great Nazarene has kept its profound validity until the present day.
- Adolf Hitler: Munich, 10 April 1923

In the life of nations, what in the last resort decides questions is a kind of Judgment Court of God.... Always before god and the world the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills.
- Adolf Hitler: Munich, 13 April 1923

There are scores of other examples. Hitler's own words shows where his inspiration lay, in the good book.


Oh, Churchill and the Nuremberg prosecutors are all part of Windy's conspiracy :lol: :lol: As were the Jewish leaders who praised the Pope's opposition to Nazism and rescuing of Jews.

I have already countered this point, and where do I say there is any conspiracy?

The christian west needed to exorcise the atrocities of the holocaust from their conscience. The writers believed it and the readers believed it. That doesn't make it true.


Are you daft as well as atheopathic? Stalin was an atheist, and had to be one to be a communist.

Igor has already pointed out that Stalin was more church friendly than previous communist leaders, consistent with his christian upbringing. Outwardly he had to maintain the pretense of atheism.


No it's not. You talk nonsense like that, but never demonstrate how a contextual understanding can justify what you claim. I defend my points with a grammatical and historical interpretation. For instance, nothing in the Christ's teachings points to genocide or forced conversions. But as Weikart documents, there was a consistent thread from Darwin to eugenics and master race propaganda.

There is no need to get into a hypothetical discussion as to whether the bible can be used to justify atrocities. There is already amply historical evidence that it can. The bible is also patently open to more mundane differences in interpretation as evidenced by the multitude of churches, sects and cults that exist today.

If everything was clear cut, there would be only one brand of christianity and Hitler could not have justified the holocaust with biblical rhetoric.

pax
05-04-2008, 11:32 PM
Who cares? It's the very same denial of biblical authority that featured in the liberal German churches that supported Hitler.
You're amazing, Jono. The way you manage to just casually slip in an analogy between Hitler supporters and the entire Anglican and Catholic Churches.

The Reverend Wright has nothing on you. You haven't had lunch with McCain recently have you?

Capablanca-Fan
05-04-2008, 11:51 PM
You're amazing, Jono.
Some have said so after blindfold simuls, but people can think what they want.


The way you manage to just casually slip in an analogy between Hitler supporters and the entire Anglican and Catholic Churches.
Pointing out something in common is perfectly reasonable: the very thing that Windy advocates for the church, i.e. denying biblical authority in favour of current fads, is just what the Nazi-supporting churches did! The churches that opposed Hitler did just what Windy hates: teach biblical authority even if it opposed the fad of its day.


The Reverend Wright has nothing on you. You haven't had lunch with McCain recently have you?
Ah yes, Obama's cheerleader spruiketh forth again. He still doesn't see anything wrong with Obama sitting in Wright's church for 20 years.

Capablanca-Fan
06-04-2008, 12:33 AM
Bormann was, as you point out, an atheist.
Yet a close confident of Hitler's. So was Goebbels, the master propagandist.
At the Nuremberg Trial, Goering had no time for religion, and Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi "philosopher", declared himself an atheist to Gustav Gilbert, the psychologist who interviewed the Nuremberg defendants at length. Streicher, the leading Jew-baiter, told Gilbert that he had no time


As his conversations were never recorded and the transcripts were later edited by Bormann it is not unlikely that Bormann interpreted or biased his conversations to support Bormann's own opinions.
Tell your atheopathic self that if you want your delusions to fester. As if Bormann would dare to edit anything while Hitler was alive, especially as if by your reasoning those reported statements are to contrary to what he believed.


If you look at the directly attributable statements which we know Hitler to have said or wrote then you find nothing to support you position that Hitler was anti-christian. In fact it was quite the opposite. Hitler was pro-christianity, pro-Jesus and believed his persecution of the Jews to be a divinely inspired mission.
Jesus prophesied about false Christs, and the "Christs" mentioned by both Hitler and Wright both qualify, since they have not the slightest resemblance to the Christ of the Bible.

Dinesh D'Souza points out (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/11/05/was_hitler_a_christian) that which was obvious to all around, like Churchill, the Nuremberg prosecutors, and Jewish leaders who praised the Pope:


How persuasive are these claims? Hitler was born Catholic just as Stalin was born into the Russian Orthodox Church and Mao was raised as a Buddhist. These facts prove nothing as many people reject their religious upbringing, as these three men did. From an early age, historian Allan Bullock writes, Hitler “had no time at all for Catholic teaching, regarding it as a religion fit only for slaves and detesting its ethics.”

How then do we account for Hitler’s claim that in carrying out his anti-Semitic program he was an instrument of divine providence? During his ascent to power, Hitler needed the support of the German people—both the Bavarian Catholics and the Prussian Lutherans—and to secure this he occasionally used rhetoric such as “I am doing the Lord’s work.” To claim that this rhetoric makes Hitler a Christian is to confuse political opportunism with personal conviction. Hitler himself says in Mein Kampf that his public statements should be understood as propaganda that bears no relation to the truth but is designed to sway the masses.

The Nazi idea of an Aryan Christ who uses the sword to cleanse the earth of the Jews—what historians call “Aryan Christianity”—was obviously a radical departure from the traditional Christian understanding and was condemned as such by Pope Pius XI at the time.

...

In his multi-volume history of the Third Reich, historian Richard Evans writes that “the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in.” Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken the Christian churches in Germany. Evans points out that after 1937 the policies of Hitler’s government became increasingly anti-religious.

The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as “troublemakers” were ordered not to preach, hundreds of them were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance. The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers.

What Evans says is consistent with Nuremberg prosecutor William Donovan about the Nazi plan to exterminate Christianity.


Which cannot be corroborated, which go against everything else Hitler ever wrote or said and yet strangely support Bormann's personal agenda.
How amazing that Hitler would appoint someone so allegedly different in philosphy to be such a confidant, as well as Goering, Himmler, Heydrich, Goebbels ...


I know you're used to just taking whatever scant evidence supports your preconceived point of view and ignore everything else, but this is laughable.
"Scant evidence" to Windy means Churchill, Nuremberg prosecutors, Jewish leaders who praised the Pope's opposition to Nazism and rescue of Jews, Sir Arthur Keith who said that Hitler was trying to make Germany conform to evolution, European history professor Richard Weikart, documentary evidence of films proclaiming the role of natural selection eliminating the weak ...

"Overwhelming evidence" to Windy means taking some of Hitler's claims at face value, ignoring the fact that he was a master propagandist who would say anything to win power, and the even more obvious fact that his actions were contrary to the teachings of Christ.


If Rabbi Dalin proved anything there would be worldwide acceptance of that view today.
His view is well documented. And his view WAS accepted worldwide by the Jewish leaders of the time of Pius.


However, there isn't.
What would you know? The anti-Pius crap came from Rolf Hochhuth’s Der Stellvertreter (The Vicar), Communist propaganda from early Cold War period (1963). And then there was John Cornwell’s mendacious book Hitler's Pope that lefties and atheopaths (not much difference) accept as gospel.


I'm afraid it was all to late by then. If only he had been that outspoken in 1933.

First of all, I've already pointed out denunciations by Pius XII's (Eugenio Pacelli) predecessor Pius XI, which were mainly authored by the then Cardinal Pacelli. At the time, the Nazis denounced Pacelli as Pius XI, "Jew-loving cardinal", because of more than fifty-five protests he sent the Nazi regime while serving as Vatican secretary of state. Further, Dalin points out:


We have much documentation, which shows that in no way did he remain silent. What is more, he spoke out loudly against Hitler and almost everyone saw him as an opponent of the Nazi regime. During the German occupation of Rome, Pius XII secretly instructed the Catholic clergy to use all means to save as many human lives as possible.

In this way, he saved thousands of Italian Jews from deportation. While 80% of European Jews died in those years, 80% of Italian Jews were saved. In Rome alone, 155 convents and monasteries gave refuge to some 5,000 Jews. At any given moment, at least 3,000 were saved in the papal residence of Castel Gandolfo, being freed from deportation to German concentration camps.

For nine months, 60 Jews lived with the Jesuits at the Pontifical Gregorian University, and many others were hidden in the basement of the Biblical Institute. Following Pius XII´s instructions, risking their own lives, many priests and monks made possible the salvation of hundreds of Jewish lives.

But during the war:


His silence was an effective strategy directed to protecting the greatest possible number of Jews from deportation. An explicit and severe denunciation of the Nazis by the Pope would have been an invitation to reprisals, and would have worsened attitudes toward Jews throughout Europe.

Of course one can ask: What could be worse than the extermination of 6 million Jews? The answer is simple and terribly honest: the killing of hundreds of thousands of other Jews. The revisionist critics of Pius XII know that both Jewish leaders as well as Catholic bishops, who came from occupied countries, advised Pacelli not to protest publicly against the atrocities committed by the Nazis.

We have evidence that, when the bishop of Munster wished to pronounce himself against the persecution of the Jews in Germany, the leaders of the Jewish communities of his diocese begged him not to do so, as it would have


So what? Plenty of christians are unaware of the christianity's bloody history.
Why not tell us then? Of course, you will have to downplay the far bloodier history of atheistic regimes, which dwarf the death tolls of all the "christian" regimes, which were acting contrary to Jesus's teachings.


The so-called Judeo-Christian sanctity of life ethic is something you just dreamed up.
Crap. It is derived from the teaching that humans are made in the image of God, and the commandment against murder.


If anything the sanctity of life is a much more recent philosophy and not one particularly Judeo-Christian. If it were then:
No, if it were followed, then. Not all who claim to be Christian are Christians. So the corrective is the opposite of Windy's recommendation: a closer connection to the Biblical teachings!



the African slave trading in the Americas would never have happened
Slavery was ubiquitous; there were no atheistic objectors. Atheopaths praise ancient Greece and Rome as forerunners of the Endarkenment Enlightenment, but they had widespread slavery. It was evangelical Christians who abolished it. See also How Christians Ended Slavery (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/01/14/how_christians_ended_slavery).


More fiction by you. Point to where I denied that "Heiland" meant "saviour."
Your attempt to correct me by saying that Retter is the word.


If everything was clear cut, there would be only one brand of christianity and Hitler could not have justified the holocaust with biblical rhetoric.
It is clear cut. Some people just can't or won't see it. And you still haven't found any valid biblical support for the Holocaust, just your postmodernist nonsense that the interpretation of a text depends on the reader, not on objective features within the text. By your "reasoning", a math problem can't be clear cut if many students give wrong answers.

Rincewind
06-04-2008, 11:53 AM
Bormann was, as you point out, an atheist.
Yet a close confident of Hitler's. So was Goebbels, the master propagandist.
At the Nuremberg Trial, Goering had no time for religion, and Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi "philosopher", declared himself an atheist to Gustav Gilbert, the psychologist who interviewed the Nuremberg defendants at length. Streicher, the leading Jew-baiter, told Gilbert that he had no time

Your inability at logic is matched by your inability to use the quote feature of the board. I never wrote the last two sentences of the supposed quote you included in your "reply." Please be more careful about putting words in my mouth in the future.

Regarding your objection. We are talking about Hitler, who was a catholic. Yes many of the Nazi upper echelon were atheist or interested in early Tuetonic occultism. Hitler was far more traditional.


Tell your atheopathic self that if you want your delusions to fester. As if Bormann would dare to edit anything while Hitler was alive, especially as if by your reasoning those reported statements are to contrary to what he believed.

What I'm saying is you have one second hand and edited source of what Hitler was supposed to have said. Surprisingly, it is contrary to everything Hitler said from all primary sources and even more strangely it matches the view of the person responsible for recording and editing it. Therefore it should be read with considerable quantities of salt.

However, even if we can believe Bormann (a first for you, accepting an atheist's word on anything) then it only gives us a view on Hitler's state of mind in the last four years of his life. I'm not saying that he did, as the evidence is hearsay and not corroborated, but perhaps he did lose his religion to some extent. Certainly the war not progressing as quickly as he would have hoped from 1941 would have tested his faith. That doesn't change his view in the 20's and 30's when he came to power. It doesn't change his rationale of biblical retribution which his speeches were laden with. And it doesn't change the fact that the overwhelmingly christian population accepted that rationale and undertook a persecution of the Jewish people on its basis.


Jesus prophesied about false Christs, and the "Christs" mentioned by both Hitler and Wright both qualify, since they have not the slightest resemblance to the Christ of the Bible.

Dinesh D'Souza points out (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/11/05/was_hitler_a_christian) that which was obvious to all around, like Churchill, the Nuremberg prosecutors, and Jewish leaders who praised the Pope:


How persuasive are these claims? Hitler was born Catholic just as Stalin was born into the Russian Orthodox Church and Mao was raised as a Buddhist. These facts prove nothing as many people reject their religious upbringing, as these three men did. From an early age, historian Allan Bullock writes, Hitler “had no time at all for Catholic teaching, regarding it as a religion fit only for slaves and detesting its ethics.”

How then do we account for Hitler’s claim that in carrying out his anti-Semitic program he was an instrument of divine providence? During his ascent to power, Hitler needed the support of the German people—both the Bavarian Catholics and the Prussian Lutherans—and to secure this he occasionally used rhetoric such as “I am doing the Lord’s work.” To claim that this rhetoric makes Hitler a Christian is to confuse political opportunism with personal conviction. Hitler himself says in Mein Kampf that his public statements should be understood as propaganda that bears no relation to the truth but is designed to sway the masses.

The Nazi idea of an Aryan Christ who uses the sword to cleanse the earth of the Jews—what historians call “Aryan Christianity”—was obviously a radical departure from the traditional Christian understanding and was condemned as such by Pope Pius XI at the time.

...

In his multi-volume history of the Third Reich, historian Richard Evans writes that “the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in.” Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken the Christian churches in Germany. Evans points out that after 1937 the policies of Hitler’s government became increasingly anti-religious.

The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as “troublemakers” were ordered not to preach, hundreds of them were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance. The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers.

What Evans says is consistent with Nuremberg prosecutor William Donovan about the Nazi plan to exterminate Christianity.

"Your" cut and paste argument is lazy and, in this case, poorly directed.

Firstly D'Souza is saying that Hitler rejected the church. It is true he didn't regularly attend mass from an early age but he never renounced his catholocism and as far as I am aware he always payed his church tax. Secondly which the Aryan Christianity is a marked departure from the conservative christianities of the time, it is still inspired by the christ of the bible. In the same way there are a multitude of different flavours of christianity still extant today.

Secondly, Evans is talking about the Nazis as a whole and not Hitler in particular. Yes obviously the Nazis were worried about the church as a political power in Germany and were thwarted in their attempt to set up a new state church. But that was a political struggle and not a theological one. We are interested in Hitler's inspiration and beliefs here and while he was occasionally critical of church administration, he was not critical of Jesus or christianity the religion.


How amazing that Hitler would appoint someone so allegedly different in philosphy to be such a confidant, as well as Goering, Himmler, Heydrich, Goebbels ...

Not at all. He had catholics, lutherans, atheists and occultists in his administration. However we are talking about Hitler's beliefs here and not the collective beliefs of the Nazi party.


"Scant evidence" to Windy means Churchill, Nuremberg prosecutors, Jewish leaders who praised the Pope's opposition to Nazism and rescue of Jews, Sir Arthur Keith who said that Hitler was trying to make Germany conform to evolution, European history professor Richard Weikart, documentary evidence of films proclaiming the role of natural selection eliminating the weak ...

"Overwhelming evidence" to Windy means taking some of Hitler's claims at face value, ignoring the fact that he was a master propagandist who would say anything to win power, and the even more obvious fact that his actions were contrary to the teachings of Christ.

Well if you could come up with primary evidence of Hitler renouncing christ I'm sure you would. Seeing as you can't you are reduced to recycling the opinions of others. That's all well and good but please stick to what Hitler believed and not what Churchill thought the Nazis as a whole stood for.


His view is well documented. And his view WAS accepted worldwide by the Jewish leaders of the time of Pius.

That's very nice of them and it probably went a long way to healing Judeo-Christian relations. However HISTORIANS remain divided on the question of Pius XI and certainly by agreeing to the Reichskonkordat the church made things much easier for the Nazis since the regime was being recognised by the world's largest church.


What would you know? The anti-Pius crap came from Rolf Hochhuth’s Der Stellvertreter (The Vicar), Communist propaganda from early Cold War period (1963). And then there was John Cornwell’s mendacious book Hitler's Pope that lefties and atheopaths (not much difference) accept as gospel.

Crap... propaganda... mendacious... Come on Jono, don't give such a balanced view. Tell us what you think. :lol:

The fact remains opinion remains divided and a lot hinges on the positive effect the signing of the Reichskonkordat had for the Nazi regime.


First of all, I've already pointed out denunciations by Pius XII's (Eugenio Pacelli) predecessor Pius XI, which were mainly authored by the then Cardinal Pacelli. At the time, the Nazis denounced Pacelli as Pius XI, "Jew-loving cardinal", because of more than fifty-five protests he sent the Nazi regime while serving as Vatican secretary of state. Further, Dalin points out:


We have much documentation, which shows that in no way did he remain silent. What is more, he spoke out loudly against Hitler and almost everyone saw him as an opponent of the Nazi regime. During the German occupation of Rome, Pius XII secretly instructed the Catholic clergy to use all means to save as many human lives as possible.

In this way, he saved thousands of Italian Jews from deportation. While 80% of European Jews died in those years, 80% of Italian Jews were saved. In Rome alone, 155 convents and monasteries gave refuge to some 5,000 Jews. At any given moment, at least 3,000 were saved in the papal residence of Castel Gandolfo, being freed from deportation to German concentration camps.

For nine months, 60 Jews lived with the Jesuits at the Pontifical Gregorian University, and many others were hidden in the basement of the Biblical Institute. Following Pius XII´s instructions, risking their own lives, many priests and monks made possible the salvation of hundreds of Jewish lives.

But during the war:


His silence was an effective strategy directed to protecting the greatest possible number of Jews from deportation. An explicit and severe denunciation of the Nazis by the Pope would have been an invitation to reprisals, and would have worsened attitudes toward Jews throughout Europe.

Of course one can ask: What could be worse than the extermination of 6 million Jews? The answer is simple and terribly honest: the killing of hundreds of thousands of other Jews. The revisionist critics of Pius XII know that both Jewish leaders as well as Catholic bishops, who came from occupied countries, advised Pacelli not to protest publicly against the atrocities committed by the Nazis.

We have evidence that, when the bishop of Munster wished to pronounce himself against the persecution of the Jews in Germany, the leaders of the Jewish communities of his diocese begged him not to do so, as it would have

Earlier in this post you demonstrated your ineptitude at using the quote facility. Now here you seem to have failed in the application of cut and paste argument, finishing your last quote mid-sentence. However, to answer "your" (incomplete) cut and paste arguments...

As I said many posts ago certain members of the clergy did act against Hitler. Many were persecuted in Germany and the Nazis justified this by saying the church should stay out of political matters. It doesn't matter, none of this changes the fact that various churches went along with Hitler to various extents. In particular, the catholic church's signing of the Reichskonkordat was a case in point where the church gave impetus to the Nazi regime and such impetus was a foreseeable outcome of their action.


Why not tell us then? Of course, you will have to downplay the far bloodier history of atheistic regimes, which dwarf the death tolls of all the "christian" regimes, which were acting contrary to Jesus's teachings.

I don't downplay them at all. The point is that throughout history, the revealed truth of the bible has inspired and been used to justify atrocities. You are the one to claim Hitler was not biblically inspired when obviously he was and he communicated that inspiration in his speeches to motivate the christian population to perpetrate the holocaust.


Crap. It is derived from the teaching that humans are made in the image of God, and the commandment against murder.

There is plenty of murder int he bible. For example Sampson slays thousands of people (including innocents in his final act of genocide which god gave him the power to conduct via a prayer for revenge). Your argument of the sanctity is also not supported by history since the 'sanctity of human life' is a much more recent phenomenon than christianity.


No, if it were followed, then. Not all who claim to be Christian are Christians. So the corrective is the opposite of Windy's recommendation: a closer connection to the Biblical teachings!

Ipse dixit. The point is the bible has been around for two millennia and the "sanctity of human life" has only achieved very recent currency. If it was embedded in the bible then we would have expected it to be apparent a lot earlier.


Slavery was ubiquitous; there were no atheistic objectors. Atheopaths praise ancient Greece and Rome as forerunners of the Endarkenment Enlightenment, but they had widespread slavery. It was evangelical Christians who abolished it. See also How Christians Ended Slavery (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/01/14/how_christians_ended_slavery).

More attempts to change the subject. Slavery is a case in point as to a violation of the sanctity of human life. If it is such an integral part of christ's teachings, why did the overwhelmingly christian cotton farmers in southern use slaves for so long and fought the north to protect their right to do so? Why did christians in their thousands participate in the Klan and persecute African Americans every since the fall of the south? More examples of the integral "sancity of human life" espoused in the bible?


Your attempt to correct me by saying that Retter is the word.

My argument is: "heil" does not mean "savior", "retter" does.

Are you saying that is false?


It is clear cut. Some people just can't or won't see it. And you still haven't found any valid biblical support for the Holocaust, just your postmodernist nonsense that the interpretation of a text depends on the reader, not on objective features within the text.

I've given numerous examples of Hitler's use of biblical inspiration in his speeches which instigated the holocaust. Even if Hitler didn't believe them, the average German punter obviously did and being inspired by them they gave Hitler power in Germany and also instigated the holocaust.

My main argument here is just that Hitler was inspired by the bible and the mainly christian population were swayed by his biblical references to undertake their persecution of the Jews. The evidence (several quote already provided from Hitler's speeches and Mein Kampf) seems incontrovertible.


By your "reasoning", a math problem can't be clear cut if many students give wrong answers.

That is a poor analogy. After all the bible is supposed to be have the answers, not the questions.

A better one would be "A worked solution to a mathematical problem can't be clear cut if many students, with all the prerequisite knowledge, can't follow it." I would say that is true. If the solution is unclear and open to different interpretations then it is a pedagogical failure.

Axiom
07-04-2008, 05:48 PM
Rabbi Eliyahu: Life of one yeshiva boy worth more than 1,000 Arabs

"Mass Jerusalem service marks one-month anniversary of deadly attack on Mercaz Harav rabbinical seminary. 'We do not seek vengeance, we seek retaliation,' says yeshiva head says

Kobi Nahshoni
Published: 04.03.08, 21:03 / Israel News

Some 1,000 people attended a memorial service at the Mercaz Harav rabbinical seminary Thursday, marking the one-month anniversary of the murderous attack which claimed the lives of eight young men.



Also attending the service were many prominent rabbis of the Religious Zionist Movement, who were not shy about expressing their rage against the government's policy.



Rabbi Yaakov Shapira, head of the Mercaz Harav yeshiva, chose to explain the attack by saying that "the Torah and the land of Israel are acquired only through agony."



Former Sephardi chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu called on the government to decree that for every life lost in the attack another yeshiva and township will be formed.










"Even when we seek revenge, it is important to make one thing clear – the life of one yeshiva boy is worth more than the lives of 1,000 Arabs.



"The Talmud states that if gentiles rob Israel of silver they will pay it back in gold, and all that is taken will be paid back in folds, but in cases like these there is nothing to pay back, since as I said – the life of one yeshiva boy is worth more than the lives of 1,000 Arabs," added Rabbi Eliyahu.



Ramat Gan's chief rabbi, Yaacov Ariel, chose to deliver a more moderate message: "We do not seek vengeance, we seek retaliation. The terrorist's house should have been demolished immediately, regardless of the law. It should have been done because it was a matter of life and death – the deterrence could help save future lives."



"We are against killing innocent people or harming children," he added, "but once terrorists hide behind children, we have to strike back. The blood of those living in Sderot is worth just as much as the blood of those the terrorists hide behind."



Mercaz Harav will be holding a vigil in memory of those killed in the attack all through Thursday night. "

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2008, 10:43 AM
White lies about dark crimes (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/white-lies-about-dark-crimes/2008/04/13/1208024983371.html)
Paul Sheehan
SMH 14 April 2008



As far as I can deduce, beneath the suffocating silences of the state bureaucracy — now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Labor Party — last Monday a group of violent racists acted out their YouTube fantasies and stormed into Merrylands High School at 8.50am, armed with machetes and baseball bats. They then started to beat the crap out of people.

A week after this rampage, any member of the public interested in this crime could have deduced the alleged perpetrators were Tongan morons. Or perhaps morons who are, regrettably, Australian citizens but portray themselves as "nigga gangstas". The reaction of the various state agencies to this crime was best described in a Herald editorial last week as "a torrent of the most extraordinary obfuscation, and a reluctance to acknowledge the reality that local residents live with every day".

Just as Goulburn jail, home to the most violent offenders, is dominated by Aborigines, Pacific Islanders and Lebanese Muslims, so is racial hate-mongering in our society disproportionately represented by these same groups, even as the ideologically tainted human rights industry obsesses about white racism.

On the internet you can find hundreds of video clips featuring variations on the Tongan-moron theme, glorifying crime and racial violence. Here's a smattering of lyrics from a rap song on YouTube: "I want your head boy … Two niggers in the front, two niggers in the back … My homies … brains over the sidewalk …"


Capablanca-Fan
03-05-2008, 11:32 AM
Bill Cosby slams black victicracy


“Ladies and gentlemen, these people set, they opened the doors, they gave us the right, and today, ladies and gentlemen, in our cities and public schools we have 50 percent drop out. In our own neighborhood, we have men in prison. No longer is a person embarrassed because they’re pregnant without a husband. No longer is a boy considered an embarrassment if he tries to run away from being the father of the ... child [born out of wedlock]. Ladies and gentlemen, the lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. I am talking about parenting. It is time for us to turn the mirror around. We have to take back the neighborhood.”

...

“These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids—$500 sneakers for what? And won’t spend $200 for ‘Hooked on Phonics.’ They’re standing on the corner and they can’t speak English. I can’t even talk the way these people talk: ‘Why you ain’t,’ ‘Where you is’... And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk... Everybody knows it’s important to speak English except these knuckleheads... You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth! There are generations who have been born here and their English is worse than Koreans who have just been here a few years.”

...

“We cannot blame white people... Brown Versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person’s problem... Where are we today? It’s there. They paved the way. What did we do with it? Fifty percent drop out, rest of them in prison.”

This was at a speech at the NAACP’s 2004 celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision that led to the integration of public schools. Naturally those victicrats hated these home truths! But the likes of Rincewind can't accuse Cosby of being racist, or for that matter, other blacks who refuse to toe the victicrat party link, such as Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1307).

Desmond
04-05-2008, 09:01 AM
Tha middle paragraph just looks like general bitching about 'kids these days'. I'm sure Cosby was much more respectful when he was a boy. :hand:

Capablanca-Fan
04-05-2008, 12:40 PM
Tha middle paragraph just looks like general bitching about 'kids these days'. I'm sure Cosby was much more respectful when he was a boy. :hand:
No, he was also blaming those who taught them this silly speech. Thomas Sowell points out that this allegedly authentic "black English" or "ebonics" actually can be traced to the white rednecks of the south then to the British borderlands they came from. But this dialect has basically died out among whites, and is retained only by what he calls "black rednecks".