Submitted by Shatner'sBassoon on Fri, 11/06/2015 - 19:48
AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING KALEIDOSCOPIC JOIN-THE-DOTS/ADULT COLOURING BOOK EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT IN NARCISSISTIC/ONANISTIC BIG PICTURE PARASITIC FORUM BLEEDING.
LIKE POLITICAL LIFE, PARTICIPATION IS WELCOME, ENCOURAGED EVEN, BUT NOT NECESSARY.
Totally agree with the apples analogy. Also , as Stu referred , if you shut the borders you’re only stoking the fires amongst those that want to spread hate.
But you’ve got to wonder if the concept of inculcating Muslims into Western life as a foil to extremism is useful as it’s not an anti - Western ideology , but an anti - infidel ideology.
It’s a virtually impossible situation to treat fairly . On the whole I think Australia is going about it in generally the right way. I just think it’s shit the way people with fears which are genuine to them are treated as pariahs .
It certainly hasn’t worked in the NZ losers case has it ? You’d have to assume shame and ridicule won’t have any more of an effect of others who harbour these feelings.
If you think we are safe and our gun laws are strong. The Monthly remind us today we cannot assume it will stay that way.
"Exposing the evil of One Nation powerbrokers James Ashby and Steve Dickson, as the Al Jazeera documentary How to Sell a Massacre has done, may stop the comeback the party has been on since at least 2016. What it won’t stop is the rise and rise of the gun lobby in Australia, however, nor threats to the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), as the “Point Blank” report released by The Australia Institute today warns clearly. One of the most powerful parts of How to Sell a Massacre (part two of which airs on ABC TV tonight) was the interview with Port Arthur survivor Carolyn Loughton, whose daughter was shot in front of her, and who described the agreement brokered by former prime minister John Howard as “a very, very fine document, that all Australians are proud of, and [which] keeps us safe”.
Most Australians would wholeheartedly agree, and would be surprised to read in “Point Blank” that no state or territory has ever fully complied with it. It’s a testament to the power of the shooters’ vote, and if One Nation’s pro-gun advocacy falls over, there are plenty of political opportunists who are ready and eager to take their place.
In part one of How to Sell a Massacre, James Ashby tells undercover journalist Rodger Muller that if their attempt to raise up to $20 million from the US National Rifle Association “gets out, it’ll f*cking rock the boat”. Journalist and author George Megalogenis goes further, predicting that the revelations “may actually sink One Nation as a political force in Australia”. In today’s Australian, for example, one columnist describes it as an “existential crisis” [$] for the party and former senator Rod Culleton muses [$]: “No more wheels left on the cart. She’s upside down in a ditch and on fire!”
If One Nation’s primary vote collapses due to a public backlash, as all sides hope, then preference flows will matter that much less. It is a dilemma for the Coalition, which on the one hand needs the preference flows of One Nation, but which faces Labor being helped by the right-wing vote being split. Under pressure from the Nationals, the prime minister is today determinedly dodging calls from inside his own party to follow Labor and put One Nation last. For her part, Pauline Hanson has today tweeted that she was “shocked” and “disgusted” by the Al Jazeera “hit piece”, which she has referred to ASIO. Good luck with that.
NSW Labor has today moved to ban donations from the firearms industry, but one of the interesting points made in the “Point Blank” report is that political donations are only a small part of the spending of the gun lobby. The report compares gun-lobby spending per capita here and in the United States, and finds it is about the same – which headlined the ABC’s report on it today.
So, the Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia (SIFA) spends more than $30,000 per head on political campaigns, but just $2500 on donations, while the NRA spends more than $28,000 and $2500 respectively. As an example, as I reported in The Saturday Paper, in the recent Victorian election the SIFA spent $165,000 on the “Not Happy Dan” campaign, but only donated $14,000 to the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, whose candidate, former senator Ricky Muir, was unsuccessful. “Point Blank” finds that SIFA’s very expensive “Flick ’em” campaign in the last Queensland election also failed in its objectives. Banning political donations? The gun lobby might be grateful. SIFA did not spend a cent campaigning ahead of last weekend’s NSW election.
The two parties that have received the bulk of the $1.7 million in political donations from the gun lobby in the seven years since 2011–12 are Katter’s Australian Party (more than $800,000) and the Shooters, Farmers and Fisher Party (just under $700,000). NSW Shooters party leader Robert Borsak told me last week that his party’s policy had changed since 2017, to include a statement that it did not support US-style gun laws. “Our policy has never been to make self-loading firearms more readily available,” he said. “Think about it, why would we want that to happen here? Why would that be in the enlightened self-interest of shooters, licenced firearms owners in Australia? It’s ridiculous to even contemplate it.”
Except, the Shooters do want Australians to have a right to shoot in self-defence in their own homes. “That would absolutely gut the National Firearms Agreement,” gun control advocate Rebecca Peters told Radio National last week. “A fundamental part of it is that defending yourself – a civilian turning into a vigilante or playing police – is not acceptable. It wasn’t acceptable before the National Firearms Agreement, but the National Firearms Agreement stablished it very clearly. That’s actually the major difference between the United States and the vast majority of other developed countries. Other countries do not accept that a civilian should have a gun for the purpose of killing another civilian.”
It’s the unravelling of the NFA that Australians need to worry about. As one NRA flack said in last night’s documentary, the gun lobby’s tactics in the wake of a massacre are “offence, offence, offence”. Those tactics have been effective here, and resulted in a steady erosion of the NFA, which cannot be taken for granted. The price of Australia’s freedom from massacres is eternal vigilance."
@Blowin "but every one who wants us dead does so under the auspices of Islam"
So taking that rationale
So the current death rate of women caused by their partners is a war of men against women?
So the logic follows
You are a male when will you kill your wife?
Blowie has come up with some absolute horse-shit in his time, but that was a doozy even by his moronic standards.
Where do you even start?
The sweeping assumptions and accompanying holes in the - can you even call it this? - erm, argument are bog-standard Blowie but blown up into full fly-blown hysterics.
"The religion’s ideology is that all infidels ( non - believers ) should be killed if possible. Failing that enslaved."
That is the entirety of Islam's message/belief system/faith? One shared not only by the most extreme and fundamentally warped of the fundamentalist/extremist terrorists fighting for a myriad of causes and reasons (and rationalised by them alone), but by all people of the Islamic faith?
I get it. It's like saying that not all One Nation voters are bigoted dumb-arses, but most bigoted dumb-arses vote One Nation? Yeah?
Speaking of which, gotta love this:
"I voted for ON as a protest vote as I’ve said many times. Nothing whatsoever to do with their stance on Islam. You’d understand that by now if you were ever going to , but you’re not smart enough for that and so be it."
Being a tad slow, what were you protesting about in that protest vote again?
And how'd it work out ya reckon?
After Big John Winston Howard destroyed her first time round, and stole her immigration fear shtick (but by doing the loud part quietly, not vice versa), we've had 20 years of downward spiralling public discourse to right where we are now.
And the Libs want to preference them?!
Actually, if the plan was to destroy the Liberal party from within by dragging them rightwards into pure ugly Aussie Oi! Oi! Oi! redneckery and snowflaked, shit-scared, dog-whistling, then maybe you were Right all along, Blowie!
That was it, hey?
Don't bother Blowin, just ignore him, he is just trolling you, you bite and you give him what he wants.
"One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has been left 'unrecognisable' after being bitten on the face by a tick." (apparently)
Yea I'd imagine it would be a tough call to face the cameras, after yesterdays revelations..
But there's always Twitter, where you can name-call and blame others till your tiny heart's content.
"If the fear is irrational, why do we allow refugees to come here when they claim persecution in their Islamic homelands ?"
I've read through ths a few times and don't understand the point you're making. Not in some Lionel Hutz sense - "I'm confused" - but genuinely don't get it.
Also, you do appreciate that people can have misplaced fears, yeah? White Australia feared the blackfellas for years, right up to the 60s, despite us having every possible advantage over them.
Just 'having a fear' does not qualify anyone a place at the table.
A visit to the swillnet emporium never disappoints.
We have had One Nation caught red handed seeking ca$h from the NRA, we have Morrison’s weasel words about still preferencing ON even after Anning, even after Christchurch and even after that Al bloke from the Middle East caught Ashby off guard on the sauce and and today we have had confirmation about the deadly deals Turnbull had to make with the far right of his party and the Nationals .... all that and what is the intelligenia talking about?
"In culture war, the first casualty is sense."
It means the fears are well justified in other parts of the world . Often times refugees are in Australia as a result of Islamic violence.
When the fear is shared by the Australian military I’d say that it’s legitimised somewhat.
I think people are concerned more with the future of Islam in Australia than they are with the current threat. Whilst attacks are thankfully rare now , maybe they won’t be in the future when the Islamic community is larger within our borders. The precautionary principle is often widely cited to put forward action on climate change that may never eventuate, is it not applicable in the instance of our ongoing war with Islam ?
Again , I’m not overly worried. I spend my share of time in the world’s largest Muslim nation . Others aren’t so unconcerned. They shouldn’t be pilloried for the fact.
"You knew how to handle that situation, you shit your pants and dive in and swim."
Joe Cabot, Reservoir Dogs
Westie, i heard the Tick died.
Watashi wa metabo oyagi desu.
OK, well usually it's political and those escaping just want a peaceful place to live. They're the ones escaping the violence.
The phrase "ongoing war with Islam" is both melodramatic, sweeping, and inaccurate. However, the way you've used it illustrates what we're talking about. The great majority of Muslims are peaceful, but using emotionally-charged, ill-considered terms doesn't broaden the conversation we need to have but it does the opposite. It makes every peaceful Muslim an enemy.
And if we're going to have a conversation about issues in Islam, then immediately following that is the one about narrow-minded bigots scared of what they don't know forcing the national interest to address the ghosts in their heads.
Lets look at Iran, despite it being a country many refugees flee too, it's also a country many refugee flee from.
Reasons being, threat to life from being.
- Sunni only make up 5% of population
-Atheist, Christian or other faith
-Other minority groups
It's technically punishable by death (but not always enforced) if you leave Islam or for not being a muslim in Iran.
or Afghanistan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen
"...immediately following that is the one about narrow-minded bigots scared of what they don't know forcing the national interest to address the ghosts in their heads."
Did you just accuse someone who’s lived in the world biggest Muslim nation with his Indonesian wife and actually lived amongst Indonesians in a Muslim majority province a “ narrow minded bigot scared of what he doesn’t know “ ?
Never let the facts get in the way of a good smear ,hey ?
So....James Ashby, eh?
Pretty safe to say I've had much more contact with Islam/muslims than you have, I've lived and worked in indonesia the country with the biggest muslim population in the world (more than half the 20 staff i worked with were muslim), spent years of my life there, have muslim friends in Australia and Indonesia, about 80-90% people at my wedding were muslims, some of my wife extended family are muslims including one uncle that has a few wife's.
As said many times you can love the person but hate the religion, christian or muslim or whatever.
Im not scared of what i dont know, the more i learn about islam and the quran the more i understand why we have a problem.(when people actually follow it as its meant to be)
To be honest, i dont think Australia should really fear the effects of Islam, we are democratic country with a very small muslim minority, but that said we should ensure it conforms to our ways and we aren't made to conform to its ways, and this calling any criticism of Islam, Islamphobia is crazy, it deserves criticism like any religion (criticism is different to mocking though)
Indonesia though, there is an argument things are changing the moderate form of Islam is being influenced by countries in the middle east, not just my opinion either, as i said in the other thread, Jokowi gets reelected, all should move along in the same vein slowly, but if Prabowo gets elected in upcoming election, we could see a much greater influence from a more conservative anti west type Islam...I do fear that but thats a warranted fear..
Islam is a religion. Radical Islam is a political philosophy which is abhorrent to the vast majority of Muslims. Once you make that distinction it is easier to understand that criticising the religion and indiscriminately blaming its believers makes no sense. No one has a problem with criticism of radical Islam, preventing its adherents entering the country or charging them with any crimes for which there is enough evidence. Given most of that evidence comes from Islamic religious believers, alienating them is totally counter-productive. We are fortunate in Australia that there have been very few people (6 I think) killed by Islamic terrorists. Over that time more than a thousand women have been murdered. We have just had 50 people murdered by a white supremacist. We should focus much more attention on these problems.
Non hysterical view on islam from muslim arab-american scholar on Islam.
Details Islam's different view on separation of church and state.
And an interview with the author: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/06/the-meaningles...
I said before that ProMo is loving Ashby and One Nation right now. Everyone is smashing the low-hanging rotting fruit. And rightly so.
And it keeps all this off the radar somewhat.
Apart from the content, the really revealing part is the level of internal leaking on show here.
Whomever they are, it paints a pretty toxic and dysfunctional picture of the Libs - internally as much as anything - then as well as right now.
Thanks freeride, sort of smashes my previous point, though I would still think that radical Islam is a distinct political philosophy outside mainstream Islam in Australia and most western nations.
Good mate of mine Andrew P Street wrote something on his Patreon the other day (here! well worth subscribing to for $3/m) that I think is a worthy point to consider (note: this piece was a response to the Anning/egg-boy incident). Here's the most relevant part I'd like to share:
"... it's lovely to believe that it's possible to win the Contest of Ideas by a frank and open exchange of views. Here's the thing, though. Debating is only useful if the participants are genuinely open to having their mind changed. Otherwise it's pointless grandstanding.
Now, some people genuinely do interrogate their beliefs and parse out why and why they believe what they believe. And one of the best ways to do that is that is to ask what would change your mind about something.
It's a great thing, working out what would disprove a hypothesis.
Because let's be honest. The people calling for A Debate aren't up for a debate. They're not even up for a conversation. They want a monologue, at best.
And that's true of our current government, which is why we've spent a decade not doing anything meaningful about climate change. No-one who has looked at the science of climate change sincerely believes that the science on climate change isn't settled.
And this brings me back to the Haldane quote: what would make (for example) Pauline Hanson, or George Christensen, or Tony Abbott change their mind on climate change? I'm going to go out on a limb and say: nothing. Hell, Malcolm Roberts has even said as much.
Even so, for the most part, having a screaming argument is fine and preferable to any sort of violence. But it doesn't work when you're confronting violence, and that brings us to white supremacy.
Nazis are not up for a chat. They're not looking to convince anyone of anything. They're looking to dominate, and anything they're not able to dominate they seek to destroy. Exhibit A: the child who dared show disrespect.
And you might justifiably ask "hey, APS, what would change your mind about white supremacy?" And my answer would be something like "consistent evidence that 'white' societies have been more peaceful, productive and long-lived than all non-white ones".
If that existed, it'd make a compelling case."
Kinda feels that there's a lot of forum commentators (here) who are unlikely to change their views, no matter what evidence is presented.
Which means most of these political/religious topics will never be anything more than a perpetual shouting competition.
If that NZ dude was Asian or middle eastern would he still be a "cough cough" a white supremacist?
If a coloured person in Indonesia or Africa or wherever did a revenge attack against a mosque are they are a white supremacist?
IMHO this white supremacy angle is just typical media beat up always wanting to put labels on things, the attention the media give these groups is just basically free publicity that is more likely to see their support base grow rather than dwindle.
The number of people with white supremacy views would be tiny compared to say 30 +years ago be much less, it's just now with things like the internet or youtube they can band together easier.
What are you on about, Indo?
You are delirious.
He wrote a 74 page manifesto about white European nations (or what he considered to be those) being invaded by Islam and full of common white-supremacist language.
How is that a media beat up, please describe?
If a non-white person killed them it would depend on their intentions. It would still be a terrorist attack but I doubt they'd be doing it in the name of white-supremacy/nationalism. So no, most likely not a white supremacist attack.
Would still be an anti-muslim terrorist attack.
Sometimes I am completely baffled by what goes on in your brain.
White people and white societies are held to a higher standard. It’s one of the unacknowledged contradictions of modern identity politics. The shameful conceit that WE should know better. That’s why one white atrocity eclipses multiple atrocities by others.
That’s why the Cronulla “riots “ is still held up as an irrefutable model of the inherent supremacy within white Australia whilst the Hyde park riots over a cartoon drawn in another country - Behead all infidels ! , Our dead go to heaven ....yours go to hell ! - is quietly forgotten.
Sorry, I can see exactly why you don't think he should be labelled a white supremacist.
Under another heading entitled "What are your wishes??", he quotes a white nationalist slogan "the 14 words".
"To most of all show the invaders that our lands will never be their lands, our homelands are our own and that, as long as a white man still lives, they will NEVER conquer our lands and they will never replace our people," he writes.
Breaking News! [Vic' Police: avoid Flagstaff Stn] + City Loop Delays.
Passengers spotted a Gunman at the Station.(Police are now searching)
Please not again! How about you give Melbourne a break all you mean bastards.
Ben - I’ve had my mind changed many times by the weighted opinions of others. Thoughts are constantly evolving. Just because my thoughts don’t align with yours , please don’t assume that they’re cast in stone .....or incorrect.
yep, ben, that all sounds about right.
reason isn't there to change other's views, it's to change your own views.
it's basic socrates.
edit....blowin...thanks for proving my point...and being a good socratic!
On that point, trying to formulate an argument for an opposing view can be pretty helpful, if only to highlight the flaws in your own view. I could be wrong, but I think that's where the term "playing devil's advocate" comes from?
My mind is not open to change for the simple fact I am always pretty much right.
What I do get from these threads is some great language and the depth and breath of knowledge / research ability is stunning that applies to everyone.
Hard to find a similar group anywhere.
Blowin, my post wasn't directed at anyone in particular.
And whilst I do disagree with some commentators, I welcome the broad range of opinions put forth by everyone (as long as respect is shown).
The only echo chamber I'm interested in is a Roland RE-201.
"White people and white societies are held to a higher standard. It’s one of the unacknowledged contradictions of modern identity politics. The shameful conceit that WE should know better. That’s why one white atrocity eclipses multiple atrocities by others."
Lotta truth in that, though I wouldn't call it shameful, more unacknowledged. Major strands of European thought evolved out of events that happened in - suprise, suprise - Europe. The signing of the Magna Carta, Martin Luther's Reformation, and the Enlightenment, being the Big Three, though there are others. Each playing a significant role in shaping the fair and just societies we have now. So when the natives get restless it's seen as contrary to the standards set, yet when new arrivals transgress then slack is cut. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it's understood they were raised in societies not shaped by those events.
Personally I don't worry much about "importing hate" or whatever because history shows (and not just in this country) that migrants begin to absorb the host culture after a generation, and that means adopting the hand-me-down values from our past.
Ben, what about a Binson Echorec? ;)
The view changing thingy works both ways. There's one learned contributor on here, well versed in islam, and living amongst other cultures, who has admitted to losing some faith in our current narrative and the possibilities of islam and the modern world to integrate peacefully. Changed his mind with new information and the rapidly changing times....
And it's not me!
Never see any of it from most though, never conceding, not even an inch...nothing changes with new information, and the rapidly changing times....
I think indod has a point with the white supremecy thing. Traditionally white supremecy has been about nazis, genes, and eugenics. The Christchurch bomber seems to be more about protecting culture. He even said he doesn't particularly see 'brown people' in a bad light, he just wished they'd remain within their countries and cultures. I haven't read all of his manifesto but that's the impression I got. Yes that's a form of white supremicism I guess, but I'd argue strictly speaking, it's not.
And yes, is it white supremicism when a jew says it? What about the chinese? Total silence on thar front....
So throwing this 'white supremicism' thing around willy nilly doesn't really help anything from my perspective. It seems to be attributed to everything now. The new division, you're either with us, or.....
It's like the brainiacs of the left have had a brain storm session at mission control, and it went something like this...
Brainiac 1. Ok comrades, it seems our beloved racism term has lost its gravitas, the people think we've overdone it. Over used it. Worn it out...
Brainiac 2. Overdone what?!!
There's racism everywhere, my doctorate in identity studies proved that. I can see it everywhere I look, I must call it out everywhere I see it, everytime. We all must....
Brainiac 1. But the plebs aren't listening anymore, they say we've overdone it, the boy who cried wolf etc. etc.....
Brainiac 2. That's rubbish, my doctorate showed....blah blah blah.... The plebs are deplorable. We must re educate them....
Brainiac 1. All that might be true comrade but we're not having the impact we'd like. We're losing ground, the term racism has lost its power. The people aren't listening. We need a new tact. Something powerful to stop the growth of the right in its tracks. Something besides calling people racist.
Brainiac 3. I know! I've got an idea!
The problem is the overuse of the word racism right? let's avoid calling everyone and everthing racist, and we'll use the term 'white supremicism' instead. Just substitute it out. White supremicism is much worse, it will have more impact, the plebs cannot argue against it, and if they do, we'll belittle them with calls of white supremicism just like we did with racism.....
Brainiac 1. Good idea comrade. We've isolated nearly everyone with our hair trigger finger on racism, let's change the wording, let's up the charge, and we'll call it out more vigilantly than before. That's it! What could possibly go wrong with that...
White supremicism it is, our new talkng point. Distribute the news to the allies...
What could possibly go wrong....
It’s actually used because racism is definitively subjective . It’s declaring “ I don’t like you cause you’re different . “
This is harder to reject and outlaw than the objective nature of belief in supremacy . Declaring one race to be superior to another is debatable. Declaring that you don’t like a race isn’t. It’s your opinion and it’s basically incontrovertible.
If you say that you like blue better than red , not much can be said in opposition. But if you say that blue is inherently better than red , then you’re on thin ice and open to argument.
That’s why it’s being framed as supremacy when it patently isn’t . It’s definitively stated in the manifesto that it’s not supremacy.
In the eyes of the NZ loser , he’s no more a white supremacist than Pemulway was a black supremacist.
“We're going to win so much. You're going to get tired of winning. you’re going to say, ‘Please sir, I have a headache. Please, don't win so much. This is getting terrible."
Whoops, wrong thread?
"Traditionally white supremecy has been about nazis, genes, and eugenics. The Christchurch bomber seems to be more about protecting culture."
I dont have his manifesto on this computer so cant refer to it, however he used white supremacist symbols in the manifesto and phrases too such as 'the 14 words'.
It's all too absurd when you follow the logic anyway. So the guy who says he only enjoys white culture, what's he implying about my mate who's married a Javanese woman? What's he saying about their kids? Or my mixed race (Euro/Aboriginal) neigbours? And their kids too? Take a look around, even in my white bread town there's evil inter-breeding going on, and when you drive up to the city you see it everywhere! Happy people finding soul mates regardless of colour or race, their children unwitting participants in the Great Replacement.
There was nothing in that manifesto of use to us. He was a confused, frightened man unable to see the world as it is. A typical fundamentalist.
Not on your computer ?
Tattooed on the back of your shaved head ?
Written in blood on parchment and hung in my dungeon.
Taken by a passerby at Thiroull carpark
"I know nothing"
Coincidentally, speaking of small minds perpetuating blood purity ...were you aware of this ?
Auburn hospital patients ....https://youtu.be/VaJDaz_aKyQ
Yeh he's picked up stuff along the way, but he was definitely no nazi
He was all over the shop. Politics and belief.
Do you just tell people it’s a custom made steel Gath ?