How’s that Team Australia idea going?

For this we had to give up freedom of speech:

Example 1: The Islamic Council of Victoria has boycotted today’s meeting with Abbott, accusing him of being divisive and inflammatory.

Example 2: Sydney Muslim leaders yesterday gave Abbott more criticism than help: …

Example 3: Sydney Muslim leaders also played the victim card and released a statement hinting that their cooperation might have a price – the abandonment of Israel: …

Example 4: The Sydney attendees included Keysar Trad, whose past associations include a pro-jihadist publication and a pro-Hezbollah Mufti.

Example 5: The Grand Mufti boycotted an end-of-Ramadan dinner hosted by the Australian Federal Police to signal his opposition to the new anti-terrorism plans.

Of course, I understand that criticism of Team Australia is bad for public morale and at this time not being a Team player endangers us all and opens up the community to increased risks and blah, blah, blah.

Every embarrassment that befalls the Abbott government has been well earned – they have worked hard for it – and they should get to enjoy the full benefit of that embarrassment.

This entry was posted in Freedom of speech. Bookmark the permalink.

375 Responses to How’s that Team Australia idea going?

  1. Sinclair Davidson

    Unfortunately Aliice has retired from the blogosphere – at least, for the foreseeable future. I’m sure we all wish her well and hope to see her back one day.

  2. Gab

    Unfortunately Aliice has retired from the blogosphere – at least, for the foreseeable future. I’m sure we all wish her well and hope to see her back one day.

    I concur!

  3. Aristogeiton

    Anne
    #1422902, posted on August 19, 2014 at 8:31
    [...]
    As usual Aliice, you’re a day late and a dollar short. This conversation really has nothing to do with Libertarian/Liberal values which relates to and hopefully seeks to address Leftist, big government, high taxes, excessive regulation, punish success, reward impotence, nanny state paternalism and everything to do with the threat of an all encompassing socio-political system that would see you in a burka and freedom lovers dead.

    Sorry Anne, but you don’t seem to understand classical liberalism very well. It doesn’t exist only to beat up on your perceived enemies; it’s a philosophy in and of itself, and religious freedom is one of its tenets. I’d suggest taking a look at Mises’ “Liberalism”.

  4. cohenite

    religious freedom is one of its tenets

    Islam isn’t a religion; it’s a social system which is implacably expansionist, intolerant and militaristic.

  5. candy

    Here’s a few comments from the meeting today with the PM:

    Islamic Friendship Association spokesman Keysar Trad, said it had been ”a very positive meeting”’
    Samier Dandan, president of the Lebanese Muslim Association, acting as spokesman for Australia’s Grand Mufti, Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, described the round-table as ”very healthy”
    Maha Abdo of the Muslim Women’s Association adopted Mr Abbott’s own phrase of ”team Australia”, saying that ”the Prime Minister was listening with his heart and really engaging with the leaders”.

  6. Aristogeiton

    Grigory M
    #1422917, posted on August 19, 2014 at 8:42 pm
    [...]
    He’s not Aliice – FFS.

    I’ve asked Anne why she believes this and she refuses to say. She’s also asserted that I’m Aussiepundit in the past. It’s very odd.

  7. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Matthew at 7:51 pm :

    “We have Muslims here, which is at the heart of the problem, and … of the … proposal for police state measures. What we don’t need is more Muslims

    … low potential for integration (and forget assimilation) …

    … we have taken in among the worst that the Muslim world has to offer. Their own countries were happy to see them leave. This is the core of our Muslim population.

    I think that ‘traditional Australia’ is more or less done for … . The future Australia is going to be more Islamic … much less free. The question really is when it will happen not if it will happen.”

    Geoffrey Blainey, Tim Priest, other front line participants (not Fraser, Hawke or Keating), Lebanese mates whose families arrived in 1850, brawls within my then Labor milieu, the things I have experienced and seen and the wisdom of a Lebanese family into which a child married confirm all of this. In time things become self evident to objective minds.

    As I posted here around midday: Debate about any part of the division welcomed into Australia by our champions of the muslim death cult is redundant, a sideshow, inconsequential, self indulgent avoidance. The authority in the meeting called by Tony Abbott was held and successfully exercised by the death cult leaders.

    “Does anyone here have a personal exit strategy?”

    Yes, well established and finally decided not long after Labor got up. My wife’s Asian mob’s philosophical position on their minor muslim problem revolves around savage and bloody confrontation when necessary, pushing back and maintaining vigilance until next time. They are way more active and decisive in protecting the things they value, borne of experience.

  8. Anne

    Sinc & Gab,

    Unfortunately Aliice has retired from the blogosphere – at least, for the foreseeable future. I’m sure we all wish her well and hope to see her back one day.

    I don’t know why this is so important to you but… okay…

    Gee, isn’t it remarkable how similar Aristogeiton and AussiePundit are to the Alice of old.

    What a coincidence!

  9. Aristogeiton

    Well, if you’re not going to believe Sinc, then you’re not going to believe anyone.

    Aliice is a drug prohibitionist, and neither Aussiepundit nor I are.

  10. Notafan

    Look we all know that Zionists are behind IS, well at least a lot of people in the muslim world think so, except those that support IS who think the Zionists are behind the other mobs.
    So there is something they can all agree upon, it’s all the fault of you know who.
    Let’s hope Tone was velvet glove iron fist but i doubt it.

  11. Notafan

    Aristo, not that I have been here long but my limited observations is that your and Aliice’s drunk blogging style is quite different.

  12. Gab

    Gee, isn’t it remarkable how similar Aristogeiton and AussiePundit are to the Alice of old.

    No, it’s not remarkable at all. Alice’s word pattern, vocabulary, sentence construction, ideology, opinions, spelling are nothing at all like the other two.

  13. .

    Aristogeiton
    #1422880, posted on August 19, 2014 at 8:09 pm
    It’s amusing that the same people savaging libertarians for being impractical and dogmatic want to ban an entire religion.

    LOL

  14. Anne

    Since is a man to be respected for sure but I suspect he has a more benevolent attitude towards those with mental infirmity than I.

  15. Aristogeiton

    Anne
    #1422958, posted on August 19, 2014 at 9:12 pm
    Since is a man to be respected for sure but I suspect he has a more benevolent attitude towards those with mental infirmity than I.

    Yes, Sinc is hiding my mulriple identities because of his “benevolence”.

  16. Aristogeiton

    *multiple – stupid phone.

  17. JC

    Another day another Stoush, ariel?

    Sorry Anne, but you don’t seem to understand classical liberalism very well. It doesn’t exist only to beat up on your perceived enemies; it’s a philosophy in and of itself, and religious freedom is one of its tenets. I’d suggest taking a look at Mises’ “Liberalism”.

    And according to Hayek compatibility is too. To paraphrase Hayek… he considered that Europeans living alongside Japanese was fine as long as they held similar beliefs. He referred to it as shared values, I believe.

    Before you go around quoting classic liberalism, no what the fuck you’re talking about and stop making shit up, Aria.

    If Hayek believed that one group is incompatible with another or others, he would have said that it’s difficult seeing them sharing the same borders

  18. Notafan

    Sinc wouldn’t care, would he one way or another , I imagine
    but Aliice lost her son to drugs in November was it? so a break seems feasible.

  19. Anne

    Don’t bother JC. She’s nuts.

  20. JC

    And this is where the tire meets the road I think.

    Without question Australia is perhaps the most successful multicultural nation of earth. Are there problems? Of course there are, but the real point is that it doesn’t get better then this.

    I recall reading that one measure of success is inter racial marriage. This rate is around 80% for the non-Muslim big groups in Australia. The inter-marriage rate for Muslims around 17%. I’m not sure this is a very important statistic, but it’s certainly a marker on how we’re going.

    I think the most important element nearly all ethnic groups have shown is a close mix of shared values.

  21. Tal

    This place is just charming this evening

  22. JC

    I wasn’t around much today, Tal. That’s why you saw a deterioration in standards.

  23. Notafan

    I doow there were restrictions on religious intermarriage and still are but the only non muslim man I know that married a muslim converted, I don’t think his wife’s family would have allowed it otherwise
    The non practising muslim guy I know married a Christian and child is being raised Christian.
    A lot of muslims are expected to marry first cousins so the opportunity to marryout would be even more limited.

  24. Tal

    True Joe, keep them in line please they tend to get nasty

  25. JC

    bitchy… Tal. They seem to get really bitchy when I’m not around.

  26. Tal

    Yes….perhaps we should reopen The War Room

  27. C.L.

    Oh Lord heavens.

    Aristogeiton has now read Hayek’s works?

    When did this happen?

  28. C.L.

    Tal, are you joining Team Australia?

  29. Gab

    Don’t do it, Tal. Just don’t do it.

  30. Aristogeiton

    C.L.
    #1423022, posted on August 19, 2014 at 10:06 pm
    Oh Lord heavens.

    Aristogeiton has now read Hayek’s works?

    When did this happen?

    I’ve read “Constitution of Liberty” and “New Studies”. I’ve quoted from the latter here before.

  31. Tal

    Nah Lad I don’t like the team colours

  32. Tal

    Our War Room has blood on the walls Pete I can’t get the stains out

  33. C.L.

    It’s Christian Elephants time for Abbott already, Tal.

  34. Tal

    Damn straight Lad,UNLEASH THEM

  35. Fisky:

    Dover – the difference is that multiculturalism is an official ideology that is vague with about five conflicting definitions, most of which lead to a sense that the public domain is a vacuum and ready to be filled by whoever is most forceful. Pluralism just means acknowledging and tolerating difference.

    I’m not sure that’s correct given that the definition of the latter is used as one of those five conflicting definitions of the former.

    Ellen of Tasmania:

    Dover – do you agree with Fisky’s definition here? To an extent I can acknowledge and tolerate difference. And that’s the point isn’t it? Obviously, we all do that because we’re all not the other (must be a better way to say that), it’s just what differences, to what extent, in what areas, why and where?

    No, because when you acknowledge and tolerate difference another culture is being distinguished from the host culture and you are tolerating those difference on behalf of some recognized and acknowledged culture to the extent that they do not overstep non-negotiables of the host culture. This is not pluralism. Now, I’m not sure that pluralism as a doctrine of some sort recognizes or acknowledges this. I think the way it is used is to deny a recognized and acknowledged culture that is represented by the customs, laws and traditions of a historical community by positing a milieu in which the state offers a cultural and political regime so attenuated that it can seemingly accommodate incommensurable differences.

  36. NORMAL people don’t think of incest as soon as “keep the government out of your bedroom” is quipped.

    And normal people don’t think that a government refusing to recognize gay ‘marriage’ involves the government entering anyone’s bedroom.

  37. Fisky

    No, because when you acknowledge and tolerate difference another culture is being distinguished from the host culture and you are tolerating those difference on behalf of some recognized and acknowledged culture to the extent that they do not overstep non-negotiables of the host culture. This is not pluralism.

    No, the real problem is this – what do you ban, and why? If you are arguing for certain forms of behaviour to be prohibited, then which forms should they be, and on what grounds?

  38. Fisky, it’s not as if we don’t prohibit forms of behaviour now, and only tolerate other forms of behaviour while not approving of them. The grounds for either will be moral and/ or prudential.

  39. Combine Dave

    No, the real problem is this – what do you ban, and why?

    * Full length burkas in banks, public buildings etc.. due to safety reasons.

    * Burkas in cars, go-carts and other places where they are unsafe to wear.

    * Loud call to pray noises in residential areas.

    * FGM (which should come with mandatory sentencing for all involved).

    * Further $ support for OSB with all illegal entrants being kept on a list and banned for life from ever entering Australia.

    * An end to ME migration (PR, Skilled, students etc) until the threat of islamic terrorism passes with the difference in numbers being made up by wealthy/middle class Asians (depending on whether they are financing terrorism or not via religious ‘schools’).

    * Ending all welfare/foreign aid to the ME and to other now ‘wealthy’ states in our own region (Indonesia/Malaysia).

  40. Ellen of Tasmania

    you are tolerating those differences on behalf of some recognized and acknowledged culture to the extent that they do not overstep non-negotiables of the host culture. This is not pluralism.

    ““There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions.”

    (G.K. Chesterton)

    We’re seeing now that the pluralism so espoused by the left is really just the stepping stone to a new culture formed on their own belief system.

    No, the real problem is this – what do you ban, and why? If you are arguing for certain forms of behaviour to be prohibited, then which forms should they be, and on what grounds?

    That’s always the question – by what standard?

  41. That’s always the question – by what standard?

    Relativism has much to answer for. The only standard is one less restrictive than yesterday.

    No social standard that promotes order or civilisation shall be permitted to remain.

    With absolute standards, you generate tension at times, but that isn’t a bad thing.

  42. cohenite

    With absolute standards, you generate tension at times, but that isn’t a bad thing.

    Damn right; and so does the absolute absence of standards; islam has no standards except self-promotion and look at the tension that is causing.

    Banning or curtailing islam is not a threat to liberty or libertarian principles when you view the issue in terms of standards and values. And remove ego from the process.

  43. Notafan

    Religion of peace, another day another beheading of an unarmed civilian.
    And the IS flag flies in Australia when even the UK won’t tolerate it.

  44. Southern man

    Would banning Islam be necessary if we just upheld our current laws. No murder. No stealing. Respect private property. No rape. Add to that no welfare (families look after themselves with consequent lower taxation) and Islam is bound. Seems to me we (Australia) have lost the courage to fight for our culture.

  45. jupes

    Would banning Islam be necessary if we just upheld our current laws.

    Yes. Under our current laws we jail terrorists for only three years.

  46. Alfonso

    Will Australia accept the “necessity” of an increasing police state combined with appeasement while the same govt. encourages the immigration of large numbers of 3rd world Muslims?
    The infallible Tradies plus wives poll says……. not a chance.

  47. Ellen of Tasmania

    Will Australia accept the “necessity” of an increasing police state

    We seem to. How many are prepared to walk through x-ray machines and/or get fisked without any warrant or charges laid? It’s the old salami tactics, isn’t it? People grumble, then submit. Statists will never waste a threat. All this trouble is just grist for their mill.

  48. john constantine

    The bikie laws are an experiment.

    Corruption in the style of ‘silver or lead?.’ has ruined the economies of many societies. When the enforcement and assessment arms of government have been corrupted already by the swampies as social engineering battlefields in the culture wars, it has opened up the ‘slippery slope’.

    Little things, like Vicroads agencies in the country no longer being able to do roadworthy assessments, or take ‘canary unroadworthy ‘ stickers off cars, as the illegal rebirthing/insurance scam of vehicles is a big profit driver for ‘settlement communities’ and they used standover tactics to intimidate staff in small country agencies to get their paperwork .

    What about putting a cost on the insurance fraud that is another massive profit driver for the ‘settlement communities’ ?. insurance fraud distorts risk management for the whole community, and is a disguised tax on decency.

    The crony socialisation of the welfare industry has provided massive profits for many–from the rudd family fortune all the way to the welfare funded settlement community industry.

  49. Mater

    That’s uncalled for Alfonso. Dot’s a good man. I know for sure he’d never put me in a black shroud or cut off parts of my body.

    He’s just frozen, stuck on a philosophical point that can’t let him move sideways. It’s a bit like ‘thou shalt not kill’ passivists who refuse to defend themselves when confronted with an assailant.

    Anyway I’d like to hear his views on the ‘culture’ of Islam and whether he thinks its possible Sharia could ever fall upon us.

    Anne,
    A class post. Thankyou.

  50. Southern Man

    Yes. Under our current laws we jail terrorists for only three years.

    That’s in issue of penalties not lawfulness of an activity. I agree we need to revisit appropriate penalties for crimes (death penalty, imprisonment, slavery/fines / restitution of some form).

    My concern is the push to formulate a new law, with all its consequent loop holes and “false applications”.

  51. .

    Mater
    #1423370, posted on August 20, 2014 at 9:30 am
    That’s uncalled for Alfonso. Dot’s a good man. I know for sure he’d never put me in a black shroud or cut off parts of my body.

    He’s just frozen, stuck on a philosophical point that can’t let him move sideways. It’s a bit like ‘thou shalt not kill’ passivists who refuse to defend themselves when confronted with an assailant.

    Anyway I’d like to hear his views on the ‘culture’ of Islam and whether he thinks its possible Sharia could ever fall upon us.

    Anne,
    A class post. Thankyou.

    It’s actually dishonest bullshit. Those who refuse to engage in the Q Society’s verballing of all Muslims are against the death penalty for terrorists or strong military action.

    Lies, lies, lies.

  52. .

    dover_beach
    #1423218, posted on August 20, 2014 at 2:32 am
    NORMAL people don’t think of incest as soon as “keep the government out of your bedroom” is quipped.

    And normal people don’t think that a government refusing to recognize gay ‘marriage’ involves the government entering anyone’s bedroom.

    Wrong actually. You are asserting things contrary to real world data.

  53. cohenite

    Lies, lies, lies.

    Still in the inpatient queue I see dot.

  54. .

    Every concern Combine Dave has can be tackled by strong private property rights, enforcing laws already in force and having an adequately funded and trained security service.

  55. .

    The Q Society misfits always engage in ad hominem invective when their dishonesty is eviscerated.

  56. cohenite

    Be specific dot, what dishonesty?

  57. cohenite

    Every concern Combine Dave has can be tackled by strong private property rights, enforcing laws already in force and having an adequately funded and trained security service.

    So should the adequately trained security forces be proactive against muslims preaching or advocating violence against the community?

  58. .

    You for one cohenite refuse to admit that Muslims are not homogenous and all do not believe in global Jihad to create a Caliphate under Sharia Law.

    That was a fairly easy example of dishonesty to point out.

  59. Wrong actually. You are asserting things contrary to real world data.

    What, you have a survey showing that “normal people…think that a government refusing to recognize gay ‘marriage’ involves the government entering anyone’s bedroom”? You don’t? Thought not.

  60. notafan

    Why must Australia continue to squander additional resources to deal with a malignant group of people who openly threaten to excalate and commit terrorism in Australia. So what it is only 30% ?
    Liberty is for everyone. Australians are entitle to feel and be safe and manage the cost of doing so.
    Does it matter if some muslims don’t actively support jihad? By remaining practising muslims they tacitly support it. People don’t call their sons Jihad because it has a nice ring to it.
    We can only guess at the pressure put on moderate muslims to support jihad. They are required to pay a percentage of their net worth to charity, where does that money go?
    Does it matter if the support is words, actions or money?
    I would much rather live in peace with muslims but they have decided as a community that they have more rights than other Australians.
    By implementing sharia when it suits them they show their contempt for Australian law, by demanding halal certification money be paid they line up with the mafia, and so on

  61. Alfonso

    Ah, now for the exhaustive interviews and personal profiling to determine the non “homogenous and all (who) do not believe in global Jihad to create a Caliphate under Sharia Law.” as pre entry conditions for Muslim immigrants….ya gotta luv the Liberts, twisted into procedural impossibility by their dismissal of cultural values.

  62. Aristogeiton

    Alfonso
    #1423467, posted on August 20, 2014 at 11:07 am
    [...]
    ya gotta luv the Liberts, twisted into procedural impossibility by their dismissal of cultural values.

    Rubbish. This inability to distinguish between social pressure and state coercion led one well-known imbecile to assert above that Hayek would be happy with banning Islam. Why comment about libertarianism; you, and many commenters above, seem to lack a basic understanding of the philosophy?

  63. Alfonso

    You can stick your “ism” where the sun shines not.
    I’ll deal with the situation in front of me.

  64. Mater

    It’s actually dishonest bullshit.

    Whether it’s dishonest bullshit is simply a matter of opinion. She demonstrated class, and significant respect, in the manner in which she expressed her viewpoint. My acknowledgement stands.

  65. Glinda

    That’s uncalled for Alfonso. Dot’s a good man. I know for sure he’d never put me in a black shroud or cut off parts of my body…

    It’s actually dishonest bullshit. Those who refuse to engage in the Q Society’s verballing of all Muslims are against the death penalty for terrorists or strong military action.

    Not dishonest bullshit, Dot. Just a freedom-loving woman coming to the defense of an undeserving individual. Your cockeyed view on freedom would see you happily watch Anne or any woman be put in a black shroud or experience FGM because to you that’s the right of Muslims and their freedom of religion must be protected at all costs. Anne’s right. You are so constricted by your philosophical views that you can’t tolerate any different ideas. Add to that your lack of knowledge about Islamic history,doctrine and Sharia Law and we’ve got a recipe for disaster. Will you be first in the queue to submit to dhimmitude? No, I daresay, you’d convert. And, don’t think the Sufis and Ismailis will come to your aid – faithful Islamic adherence takes priority over your neck.

  66. Aristogeiton

    Glinda
    #1423507, posted on August 20, 2014 at 11:37 am
    [...]
    Your cockeyed view on freedom would see you happily watch Anne or any woman be put in a black shroud or experience FGM because to you that’s the right of Muslims and their freedom of religion must be protected at all costs.

    Complete bullshit. Lies seem to be all many of you have to offer.

  67. .

    dover_beach
    #1423456, posted on August 20, 2014 at 10:55 am
    Wrong actually. You are asserting things contrary to real world data.

    What, you have a survey showing that “normal people…think that a government refusing to recognize gay ‘marriage’ involves the government entering anyone’s bedroom”? You don’t? Thought not.

    The poll I mentioned was done by a reputable firm with a proper sample etc. Stop talking shit dover.

  68. .

    Your cockeyed view on freedom would see you happily watch Anne or any woman be put in a black shroud or experience FGM because to you that’s the right of Muslims and their freedom of religion must be protected at all costs.

    You’re a lying shit, Glinda. You are scum.

    You don’t want freedom at all.

  69. Glinda

    You for one cohenite refuse to admit that Muslims are not homogenous and all do not believe in global Jihad to create a Caliphate under Sharia Law.

    That was a fairly easy example of dishonesty to point out.

    You, for one, Dot, refuse to acknowledge how little understanding you have about devout followers of Islam. Muslims that don’t believe in worldwide Islamic Caliphate under Sharia Law or who dare to question any Islamic teachings are called “hypocrites” in Islam. They are “Muslim” in name only. They are abhorred by orthodox Muslims as much as the infidels. In Islam, it is not a matter of conscience like it is in Christianity. Muslims don’t get to pick and choose what they want to follow in their religion. It is an all-encompassing ideology that controls every aspect of the believers being – there is no room for choice in Islam. It’s Mohammed/Allah’s way or nothing. Ask yourself the question. When “push comes to shove” and the nominal Muslims are forced to choose between Western Civilization or the Caliphate, to stand beside you, Dot, what do you think they’ll choose?

  70. .

    You, for one, Dot, refuse to acknowledge how little understanding you have about devout followers of Islam.

    No. I understand it more than you do.

    You think a Sufi or Ismali is exactly the same as a Wahibbist.

    You are as dumb as dogshit and the lies you believe in simply pave the way for a loss of freedom.

  71. incoherent rambler

    You’re a lying shit, Glinda. You are scum.

    I see dot is using the intellectual approach, again.
    As a par-time LDP advocate, dot is certainly not trying too hard to win people over to the LDP cause.

  72. .

    ???

    (One wonders what this has to do with the LDP other than you hate it and freedom and will take any cheap shot you can IR)

    So to put the LDP in good stead, I have to take shit off some random fuckwit who offers me an ultimatium – believe their paranoid nonsense that all Muslims [who, in this bizzare ideology, have no sects or doctrinal differences] want to take over the world and those who don’t are lying, or otherwise, I believe in veiling women at will and FGM as a compulsory custom?

    You Q Society freaks are an embarrassment to the country.

    Nothing further needs to be said.

  73. Ellen of Tasmania

    “However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-
    capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country
    would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country
    were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean
    that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed
    to rent, or purchase, property.

    (Murray Rothbard.)

    Dot – would your position still allow for ‘public’ or state ownership of some areas? Would we still be looking at government control of immigration? Could it be a state issue? Or even a local council issue? Could they decide to have a red-heads-only suburb if that’s what the people there wanted?

    I’m asking because I think that many people here are feeling forced into accepting changes in their culture and society that they don’t want. The concerns aren’t ameliorated when you dismiss the idea that something could go wrong. What if everyone is wrong about Islam, but there was some religion or worldview that was that bad? Just saying ”Rubbish, Muslims aren’t like that” doesn’t mean that nothing is or could be ‘like that’.

    I’ve read an anarcho-capitalist view, but what is the libertarian answer to invasion-by-migration?

  74. Mater

    Dot and/or Ari,
    I would genuinely be interested in your thoughts on how we, as a country, might be able to tackle the ever-present (and growing) threat of domestic terrorism, without trampling the rights of someone, somehow, somewhere.
    That which separates us from the other side, also happens to be our greatest weakness. To effectively combat them, we may very well need to become the devil we despise.

  75. incoherent rambler

    dot -”Nothing further needs to be said.”

    Good. Then please stop.

  76. .

    I’ve read an anarcho-capitalist view, but what is the libertarian answer to invasion-by-migration?

    It doesn’t happen for the most part. History doesn’t have many examples of it truly happening. When it happened to the Roman Empire, what actually happened was the Roman citizens near the border simply switched allegiance.

    …and thank you for not accusing me of wanting subject women to FGM, as the dishonest turd Glinda has done.

  77. .

    we may very well need to become the devil we despise

    Never.

    This isn’t Syria, this is Australia.

    Furthermore I would not hazard a guess if terrorism threats were growing or not unless I was in the employ of the AFP or ASIO.

  78. Mater

    Furthermore I would not hazard a guess if terrorism threats were growing or not unless I was in the employ of the AFP or ASIO.

    Ahhh. So these organisations are all seeing, all knowing?


    Three of the bombers were British-born sons of Pakistani immigrants; Lindsay was a convert born in Jamaica.
    Charles Clarke, Home Secretary when the attacks occurred, described the bombers as “cleanskins”, a term describing them as previously unknown to authorities until they carried out their attacks.

    And didn’t certain individual recently sneak out of the country under the watchful eye of…..

  79. Driftforge

    The march leftward under democracy continues to remove the basic underpinnings of our order. Order is a more basic requirement than freedom. If you want to see freedoms re-established, then firstly order has to be retained.

    If you want to have maximum freedom within a nation, you have to minimise the variance of heritage within that nation.

  80. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    You think a Sufi or Ismali is exactly the same as a Wahibbist.

    I don’t think this, Dot. But largely, I think the Wahibbists are winning the ‘hearts and minds’ battles.
    I know that many ordinary Muslim parents are frightened of radicalization of their adult children.

    Nevertheless, Glinda is not what you called her. An angry and abusive response is never a good one. Glinda’s point of view about the way much of the Muslim world is thinking is valid enough, even though it may, arguably, be ‘theologically’ incomplete. Increasingly, many Muslim are being shown in Australia, as elsewhere, to be poor democrats and bad at integrating into modernity. Worrying.

  81. Glinda

    You’re a lying shit, Glinda. You are scum.

    You don’t want freedom at all.

    Ooooh, looks like I touched a nerve there, Dot. Rather than calling me names, why don’t you enlighten us all here about why I’m “scum”. Tell us about your special brand of freedom. You know, the one that says for you “anything goes”. I don’t think your freedom the same as my freedom? My freedom say that says women are not one-half the value of a man, they are equal. My freedom says my children belong to both mother and father, not just the father. My freedom says that raped women don’t need 4 male witnesses to testify to save them from stoning. My freedom says that women don’t get stoned for fornication or adultery. My freedom says that women aren’t killed because they “dishonored” their families. My freedom says that homosexuals don’t get hanged.

  82. jupes

    You are as dumb as dogshit and the lies you believe in simply pave the way for a loss of freedom.

    Yeah because we are all just pining for the increase in freedom that inevitably follows an increase in Islamic immigration.

    Horay for the freedom sack!

  83. Aristogeiton

    The stupid. It burns.

  84. Glinda

    So to put the LDP in good stead, I have to take shit off some random fuckwit who offers me an ultimatium – believe their paranoid nonsense that all Muslims [who, in this bizzare ideology, have no sects or doctrinal differences] want to take over the world and those who don’t are lying, or otherwise, I believe in veiling women at will and FGM as a compulsory custom?

    I’m hearing William Shakespeare? Protesting much?? You haven’t offered one single argument to show that my assertion in your brand of freedom would give license to Muslims to enshroud women, etc. It’s OK. Maybe a rest and reflection on your “principles” will give you clearer ideas.

  85. The poll I mentioned was done by a reputable firm with a proper sample etc. Stop talking shit dover.

    dot, the poll you once mention did not ask a question surveying whether “normal people…think that a government refusing to recognize gay ‘marriage’ involves the government entering anyone’s bedroom”. So the only person “talking shit” is yourself, sorry to say.

  86. Anne

    Dot, is there a pharmacy that delivers near you?

    …while you’re at it order some silver sulphadiazine cream for Ari, she’s suffering apparently.

  87. JC

    Rubbish. This inability to distinguish between social pressure and state coercion led one well-known imbecile to assert above that Hayek would be happy with banning Islam.

    Bullshit. You’re lying as usual.

    Hayek would have argued against banning Islam, but he would have strongly argued not to put incompatible cultures together.

  88. Infidel Tiger

    The stupid. It burns.

    Run it under cold water for 20 mins.

    The burn blankets you can buy now are amazing too. They come in all different sizes, so I’m sure you can find one that will fit on your crotch.

  89. Glinda

    You think a Sufi or Ismali is exactly the same as a Wahibbist.

    Goodness, Dot, I do believe you have reading comprehension issues. Let me ask you another question since you think the Sufis and Ismailis will save the day? FYI, historically, the Sufis has been ferocious, savage upholders of Islam, but I digress. Even assuming they’re the “good” Muslims, how many are they out of 1.7 billion if the Sunnis comprise around 85-90%? Do you honestly believe they will stop the resurgence of Islamic supremacy? Do you really believe that Muslims should be able to practice their ideology, unfettered, in the name of freedom, no matter the danger to mankind?

  90. Aristogeiton

    Not one of your better efforts, IT.

  91. .

    Glinda
    #1423644, posted on August 20, 2014 at 12:50 pm
    You think a Sufi or Ismali is exactly the same as a Wahibbist.

    Goodness, Dot, I do believe you have reading comprehension issues

    Goodness, you’re a pathetic, disgusting slander merchant who hates freedom.

  92. C.L.

    Goodness, you’re a pathetic, disgusting slander merchant who hates freedom.

    Aren’t you a militant supporter of Keelhaul, Dot?

    And Dresden?

    What happened to ‘bomb ‘em all and let God sort it out,’ old son?

  93. Ellen of Tasmania

    It doesn’t happen for the most part. History doesn’t have many examples of it truly happening.

    I’m not an historian, but even if I accept it doesn’t happen for the most part, or hasn’t happened often in history, doesn’t mean that it couldn’t happen now.

    If you have a cashed up group of people with world dominion aims and they have their eye on democratic western countries (that display growing cultural insecurity and fragmentation) – deep breath – AND you have open borders, and plenty of travel options, well it could happen and what does the libertarian do about that?

    I know it’s not the only – it may not even be the biggest – threat for our nation. The long, slow march through the institutions has done immeasurable harm. Right now, though, the cultural marxists see Islam as an ally in the destruction of the west and so we need to know what policies assist or hamper their aims, without increasing government control – because that would be an own goal.

    Libertarians don’t want to be seen as assisting the socialist dream (or the caliphate dream) because they didn’t have the wisdom to see what to support (or oppose) and, crucially, when.

    (Of course I know you want liberty, Dot. The question here is which worldview, which moral code, which political theory will work best.)

  94. Driftforge

    You think a Sufi or Ismali is exactly the same as a Wahibbist

    You seem to think that asking this question is relevant, but haven’t bothered to indicate why.

    You also seem to think that calling people names is al there is to robust discourse. No one minds a few along the way, but when its all you have got? You can do better than that.

  95. .

    Come off it Drifty. I was accused of supporting FGM.

    C.L. – your views on WWII are so aberrant nearly no one here goes along with you.

  96. Anne

    Excellent post Ellen, 12.54.

    Thank you.

  97. C.L.

    C.L. Dot – your views on WWII Islam are so aberrant nearly no one here goes along with you.

  98. .

    Ellen

    If the government knew there was such a plot,

    1.They’d arrest the seditionists.
    2. They’d commence bombing within five minutes.

    Or I’d expect them to.

  99. .

    Wrong C.L. Your views on WWII are bizzare and about five loud mouthed slanderers get stuck into my views on Islam rather than debate and discuss as Ellen has.

  100. Driftforge

    Come off it Drifty. I was accused of supporting FGM.

    It was pointed out to you that someone thought the logical conclusion of your position was the eventual dominance of Isalm, and acceptance of FGM in Australia.

    You haven’t made an argument why that is not the case.

  101. Ellen of Tasmania

    You think a Sufi or Ismali is exactly the same as a Wahibbist

    Would it help if we framed the debate, not around Muslims, but around Wahabis?. Would there still be an open border for Wahabis? Would it matter if they declared an intention of invading the west by migration, breeding and converting non-Wahabis?

    As I said above, the whole ‘what Muslims are really like’ is beside the point if we are concerned about what a subset of Muslims really are like and what their stated intention is. That’s not to say they’ll win their aims, but we might not appreciate their efforts to attainment in our own country. (NIMBY thanks, would sum up the sentiment, I think.)

  102. Ellen of Tasmania

    If the government knew there was such a plot, …

    I get that, Dot. But what if it’s not so much a ‘plot’ as an ‘aim’. If we go back to ‘the long, slow march’ it wasn’t as if the thing was a secret. They published papers about it, had organisations, committees, campaigns – and for all I know, 8×10″ colour, glossy photos with arrows and circles and a paragraph on the back etc.

    We’re looking on at countries in the E.U. and we want to know how we can stop that kind of unrest happening here. The LDP – libertarians in general – will need to show how their philosophy and policies would prevent that. That’s why I’ve often said that it’s not just a matter of peeling back government – it’s which bit of government we peel off when.

  103. Ellen of Tasmania

    No, because when you acknowledge and tolerate difference another culture is being distinguished from the host culture and you are tolerating those difference on behalf of some recognized and acknowledged culture to the extent that they do not overstep non-negotiables of the host culture. This is not pluralism.

    Unpacking and expanding this would be really worth a whole guest post, don’t you think?

  104. Wrong C.L. Your views on WWII are bizzare and about five loud mouthed slanderers get stuck into my views on Islam rather than debate and discuss as Ellen has.

    CL’s view of Keelhaul is bizarre? Frigthening.

  105. .

    I agree specifically about Keelhaul and I have never said otherwise.

    Most of what C.L. reckons otherwise is nuts.

  106. .

    Driftforge
    #1423700, posted on August 20, 2014 at 1:22 pm
    Come off it Drifty. I was accused of supporting FGM.

    It was pointed out to you that someone thought the logical conclusion of your position was the eventual dominance of Isalm, and acceptance of FGM in Australia.

    You haven’t made an argument why that is not the case.

    Have you stopped beating your wife?

    Spare me from these pathetic non-arguments.

  107. C.L.

    My “view” of Dresden is the same as Churchill’s (after he was threatened by the Commons).

    It was terrorism.

    Do you want me to post Churchill’s admission again?

  108. .

    Ellen

    If there is an aim to overthrow the government it is seditious. You don’t need a complete plan to be guilty of conspiracy.

  109. .

    Sure C.L. Beat whatever hobbyhorse you need to regardless of the thread topic. As long as you can suspend logic for a while and think like numbers and believe this is a fantastic way to argue a point.

    I notice Churchill didn’t hand himself over to the War Crimes Commission, so he was probably engaging in a bit of poetic licence.

  110. C.L.

    It’s very odd, morally.

    Dot is going beserk about those who would polemically bomb all Muslims together, as it were.

    But he’s OK about the incineration of hundreds of thousands of German civilians.

    That’s identical to the views of the Nuke Mecca crowd.

    —————————————————–

    Just because Nazis did great work in infrastructure and jet propulsion, it doesn’t mean Nazism wasn’t wicked to the core. Likewise, the existence of Surfis and Salamis (or whatever they’re called) doesn’t redeem Islam in the eyes of a Christian Westerner. A phony cult – by whose entirely dead fruits intelligent people can and should make definitive judgements.

  111. Driftforge, I wouldn’t say it’s the logical conclusion but it may certainly be a practical conclusion if Europe are anything to go by.

  112. Aristogeiton

    Wow CL. It would be exceedingly charitable to describe the link between the subject at hand and this distraction as tenuous.

  113. .

    But he’s OK about the incineration of hundreds of thousands of German civilians.

    That’s identical to the views of the Nuke Mecca crowd.

    Lies. Actual historians would have a field day with your Dresden comments alone.

  114. Aristogeiton

    Well this thread has just been filled with staggering dishonesty and fallacy. What a snooze.

  115. Can we please leave Dresden out of this?

  116. notafan

    Okay
    Those that advocate continuing muslim immigration. Will the problems in Europe miracuously pass Australia by or is the price of freedom; anti Jewish rioting, attacks on synagogues and Jewish businesses, the murder of Jewish citizens including children (Toulouse and Brussels) no go areas for police and emergency services (Sweden Malmo) , demands for states within states (Oslo) and the odd headhacking (Lee Rigby) and bomb in the transport system (Atocha in Madrid and London July 2006)

  117. Ellen of Tasmania

    If there is an aim to overthrow the government it is seditious. You don’t need a complete plan to be guilty of conspiracy.

    Dot, this isn’t really dealing with the concern. It’s not the overthrow of the government that is the worry here. It’s the overthrow of the culture. Social marxists haven’t overthrown our government but they have changed the way it governs by changing the way people view the role of government.

    Not sedition, not overthrow, not treason, not government. Culture. Values. Worldview. Tradition. History. Roots. That which makes our nation our home.

    People want to know how the LDP would protect that.

  118. C.L.

    Wow CL. It would be exceedingly charitable to describe the link between the subject at hand and this distraction as tenuous.

    No, it wouldn’t be charitable at all.

    It would be stupid.

    The nexus is apposite and, for Dot, devastating.

  119. .

    Ellen if you were in Australia in 1939 on the eve of WWII (similar to 1870) and were told what would be happening culturally in 1991 in Australia as the USSR broke up (close to what we are now), you wouldn’t believe your eyes or ears.

    I literally have no response for you. Either there is nothing or you work it out yourself.

    I think the immigration rules and proposed welfare reforms would create in the least, a productive society. 10 years of PR with no welfare before citizenship. Removal of welfare based on special status.

    Rolling back government declared culture and the inability to cause offence too would make us freer once again.

    From there, the laissez faire point of view charges the free people to do their best.

  120. Aristogeiton

    Wow CL. You have an apposite nexus? Well, why didn’t you say so? Q.E.D.

Comments are closed.