Why choose to stay here?

If you despise the country you have emigrated to so much, why stay?

Why did you come here knowing this is not a country of Islam, Buddishm, Christianity, Atheism?

Why did you not move to a country that shares your beliefs, lives your cultural life?

Why do you choose to stay in a country that is so foreign to you?

These questions baffle everyone in host countries that have angry, resentful immigrants who claim to have chosen your country as a safe haven, but complain violently of the society that hosts them?

If it's so bad and so wrong, why don't you leave?

Why stay?

You appear to be using us.

You appear to be an ungrateful group of people who don't care where they end up, as long as it is rich and has freedom and protects your views.

We hosts see right through that. Do you know how obvious your true intent is revealed?

You are lucky to be accepted into our societies. But you appear ungrateful and even arrogantly antagonsitic when our host society finds your behaviour insulting.

Your reaction to this behaviour is to go full defensive and demand your human rights.

How ironic, considering where you fled from.

You seem upset and vilified by the reaction of your host country, but then you complain when your host country feels the same vilifaction from you.

Well then, why not leave?

If the society you have chosen to emigrate to does not accept you, why stay?

Immigration - The Ugly Truth

Immigration is a force for good.

It's how most of us have ended up where we are in the world.

People of different beliefs, values, customs, ethnicity. race, nationality leaving their countries for some reason and moving to another; to similar ethnicities or not.

It's an ancient practice, but changed in the last 21st century due to unique developments:

- the Internet: global information exchange enabling public platforms for the stupid hitherto never available
- third world civil war and Western intervention
- global economic and natural disaster
- cheap easy travel
- organised crime expansion into trafficking
- political correctness
- Hipsters: the force-multiplied do-gooders
- the return of religion, as a political power
- the sidelining of science and philosophy

The worst reasons possible have supersized immigration from third world countries to modern Western countries.

When the world changes, we must change. We must look at our historically borne but current policies and change them accordingly.

That's not happening.

Old laws and policies are struggling to cope with new developments.

Laws and mind-sets only change when we have a public conversation, a courageous public debate unmolested by censorship and fear. Thus, the following discussion is rarely heard publically:

Immigration is also a force for bad.

It must demand conditions, and conditions set by the occupants to be subject to it; not those who will not be affected by it.

The conditions must include what is generally categorised by terms such as the potential for  "assimilation".

Those immigrating, where the scope of the host sociey's policy is unlimited, being "anyone from anywhere", will cover the range of people harmful or not to the host society.

So the first assumption is, some immigrants are likely to harm the host society.

Is this assumption true?

The assumption derives from an expectation that harm is likely in the forms of the effect on the host society's culture, power, freedom, laws and customs.

This expectation seems to be based on a few foundings: rational, emotional or instinctive or intuitive:

1. empirical
2. emotional: xenophobic, intuitive
3. rationa: logical, deductive

Empirical expectation of harm:

Ask the indigenous Fijians whom accepted Indian immigration how that went.

Inidans now rule Fijians in political power, government and commerce.

Ask the Malaysians and Singaporeans about Chinese immigration.

Chinese began to take over the commercial industries and the government.

Ask Western Europeans about the recent immigration of North African and Sub-Saharan people to their countries.

Ask these people what harm if any was done , is being done, by this immigration.

They will cite examples of ethnic-based societal division, class system and racism, now institutional in those societies.

There are empirical justifications for assuming the harm of some immigration.

Emotional/Xenophobic expectation of harm:

Xenophobia expressed by one host society to an immgrating ethnicity is of two kinds:

Emotional or intuitive:

Some will argue simply that they don't like the particular ethnic groups immigrating. They just don't like them. No reason. Just a strong dislike of people who are so different from them.

Rational:

Some argue that a community is a group of people whom share so much in "common" that they can live together easily without much trouble.

Therefore, how can a society enjoy the community of shared aspects, such as common history, common ethnicity, common language, morals, beliefs, customs and behaviour, live easily with a group that has none of these in common with it.

Are these assumptions that expect harm to their society true or at least understandable?

If they are, then conditions of immigration must be obtained and applied.

Assimilation or its potential must be a condition.

So what would we expect to be assimilation?

Firstly, the conservation of the host society's lore and conformity to its fundamentals.

Is that too much to ask?

Is there such a thing as an "incompatible ethnicity" unable to assimilate or be harmless to the host society?

It depends upon the numbers.

A minority of such groups is harmless, but a non-minority is not.

In Western democracies, there will inevitably be a move to have the immigrating group achieve political power, governmental representation and this will and must lead to laws that include aspects of the immigrating groups into the host society's culture, customs, behaviours and therefore the essence of that society.

It is reasonable then to conclude that such a non-minority's effect on the host society is harmful, in the sense of changing the essence of that host society. They will no longer be conserved within their own society, but will have changed to produce a merger of two societies.

Immigration has a potential to convert the host society to become no longer that society, but an unfamiliar combination.

Surely such a society would include contradictions, such as occurred between Muslims and majority Hindus in India following the end of the British Raj in 1946.

The country was split into three: India, Pakistan and Bangaldesh,

Is that split of the country a good thing for the majority society?

How reconcilable to our Western countries is arranged marriage, genital mutilation, slitting the throats of animals for food and ceremony, the respect of death in war by killing opposers, suicide bombing, the covering of woman, the relegation of woman to the kitchen, the marriage and sex of under-aged children by old men, the killing of critics of Islam?

How good is it for a society to accept these legislated and protected, promoted changes to their society? To accept the stoning of adulterous women, the amputation by sword of thieves?

In conclusion, if a society accepts immigration without condition, it should expect to become merely a partner in its own country and its laws and customs subject to radical and foreign change,

In India, cows are sacred to Hindus and have their throats slit for food and ceremony by Muslims.

Some aspects of each society will be self-contradictory, irreconsilable.

For those who expect this and work against it, We have your full support.

"...it begs the question...."

Another widely misunderstood and misused phrase, and subordinate clause, offended by general public and learned alike, is the phrase "It begs the question."

Begging the question is NOT to say, "The issue at hand demands we ask the following question..."

Begging the question is an accusation that someone has made a kind of logical fallacy in presenting an argument.

Someone makes a proposition and is asked to justify the reason or logic behind it, that lead to the conclusion.

The proposer then gives their reason or logic, but this is found to be a mere repitition of their proposal and NOT the logic that lead to the proposition.

Thus the proposer has "begged the question".

In other words, after hearing their reasoning and their logic, the question demanding their logic still stands.

Their explanation demands the question still needs to be answered, "what was your logic?"

Their explanation begs the original question; it is yet to be answered.

People please, get it right.

Without Further Adue...

The phrase, the oft used subordinate clause "Without further ado..." is malaproposed.

The general public and even academics have erroneously malaproposed the phrase to "Without futher adue..."

The concept is "fuss" or "trouble" and its linguistic symbol is commonly expressed as the term "ado".

Example, from Shakespaere's play "Much ado about nothing."

We don't know what the term "adue" means. It seems to confuse the concept of "due".

So, the purpose of the clause is, "let's fuss no futher and get on with the discussion, the issue."

So, "Without further fuss." is synonmous.

In symbolic language, there is no correct use or wrong use of words; there is only consistency with common usage.

In order to achieve communication, the shared understanding between speaker and listener, it is essential to have a database of commonly used terminology.

If one person uses a word differently from another, then communication should not be expected.

It is commonly held that the phrase is "Without further ado...", not "Without further adue."

It is the responsibilty of all whom seek communication, shared understanding, to stick to terms that are commonly used.

If this unwritten agreement is not adhered to in one instance, there is no reason to adhere in any instance.

So, We encourage All to keep the standards of their laguage use to the highest level, that we may All benefit from the world in which communciation is not made even harder to achieve than it already is.

Culture versus Tradition, Custom, Ethnicity - Time to Start Using Terms Properly

It has been the fashion for more than a generation now to refer to Ethnically different groups of people outside your own, as a different "Culture".

Now, the traditions, the customs, the ethnicity of a people group (especially when referring to those minority immigrants and asylum seekers/refugees pouring into our better countries) are instead lumped under the malapropist term "culture".

Examples:

- they don't eat pork, it's their culture
- they slit the goat's throat, it's their culture.
- they have arranged marriages, it's part of their culture.
- they marry children to old men, it's a cultural thing.
- some cultures don't look you in the eye, it's rude.
- Melbourne is a multi-cutural society.
- there are socio-cultural aspects at play in youth crime.
- Just because someone comes from another culture, doesn't mean we can be racist.

None of these sentences is using the term "culture" or "cultural" in the common use of intellectuals and thinker and students of sociology, anthropology, politics and other sciences that are concerned with people groups and their distinct behaviours.

The word Culture refers to development, change, improvement, growth. But it is used to describe tradition, custom, ethnicity.

The practise of stoning adulteress women to death, the throwing of acid into the faces of unveiled girls, selling off daughters to old men, arranging marriages of children to children with no regard for their own view, is not cultural in any sense, more accurately the opposite sense.

These practises are traditonal, NOT cultural. They are customary, they are socio-behavioural aspects of an ethnic group.

Up until recently (before mass immigration caused by terrorism and the Internet, cheap flights and the boat-people trafficking industry) the sentences above would have not used the term culture, but the terms, Tradition, Custom and Ethnicity.




It is odd that these "correct" or at least more accurate and historically consistent terms, have now almost become obsolete.

This is a typical malaproposim from the ignorant and uneducated, and easily fooled, easily lead, general public.

Teachers, educated parents, politicians, academics, philosophers, scientists are all to blame for not educating themselves and then correcting the general public misuse of discrete linguistic symbols conserved to express important concepts and meanings.

Should we intellectuals put up with this? Should we allow our beautiful, intelligent language to be hi-jacked by the dumbarse masses?

This use is detrimental to intellectual discussion, especially in the public arena, and the misue and misunderstanding of key sociological terms like these will create more problems than that field of study and policy has already.

So let's get our language right.

As we learned know already, there is no Divine Dictionary. The meaning of words is NOT permanent and written in stone by a council of wise Sages.

Words evolve. However, meanings do NOT.

So even if you take a word away and use it for some other meaning, the meaning left behind will remain and still need to be expressed by the symbols of langauge.

How about this:

Instead of that, why don't we educated step in, call out the mistake, and return the word to its original owner, and in a public way?

That's what We are doing, in our own cliques and places of social engagement.

Culture  = Growth, NOT Tradition

THIS IS NOT CULTURAL!

THIS IS NOT CULTURAL!

THIS IS NOT CULTURAL!

THIS IS NOT CULTURAL!

THIS IS NOT CULTURAL!

THIS IS NOT CULTURAL!

A Culture is a fungus on your bread, not a group of ethnically defined people.

THIS IS A CULTURE:

THIS IS A CULTURE:

THIS IS A CULTURE:

THIS IS A CULTURE:

Class and Refinement - the Downward Spiral in Australia

Australia celebrates the Bogan.

Australia promotes the celebration of unrefined, scuffing, thong-wearing, sleave-sniffing scruffs.

Australia ignores, ridicules, and denigrates the stylish, the well-adorned, the polite, the chivalrous, and the erudite, the educated, the rational, the intellectual.

Australians are taught directly or indirectly to mock and dismiss the sophisticated of dress, bearing, education and speech.

In Australia, it is risky to speak with a vocabulary of more than two dozen words in general day-to-day life. Pithy cliches and formulaic copy-cat phrases benal and simplified, uncontroversial and void of intellectual difficulty, are acceptable and expected. Anything beyond this is suspicious, rejected and prejudiced against.

Respect and admiration is reserved for ignorance, casual dress, standard commentary and beliefs.

Because of that, Australia is plummeting toward classlessness and unrefinement.

The original drivers are those founding Australian principles of aversion to authority, separation from Royalty and the overlord rebellion against the old Empire, with the Queen as its poster-girl.

Australians are proud of their history of flipping the bird to ponsy English rulers and ponsy English class systems.

It is therefore understandable.

However, it is to the detriment of progress and the development of civilisation beyond the cave-man status we all escaped so long ago and at such ernormous cost.

A return to peasantry is inevitable.

A classless unrefined society is not a good one.

It will entail the rise in power of the idiot across politics and industry. We will become that Bogan nation in the world.

Science and philosophy will join style and chivalry in being further sidelined and ridiculed into submission and dismissal. And this will create a domino effect on the detriment of the wellbeing of our nation.

Less money and attention will be given to scientific and philosophical discovery and practical application to make more room for the development of Middle Ages thinking, exemplified by witch-hunting, book-burning and all the other horrors that accompany peasant-rule.

Be warned.

But there is an anti-dote: we're not completely stuffed just yet.

Those in Australia still sporting the refined life must act and act quickly, with courage and vim.

Lead by example.

Protest.

Use your careers, your conversations, your contacts, any means available to knock Bogannism off the podium in your  own circle your own niche in life and stand in its place as a last beacon of hope.

Wear a suit, quote philosophers, expand your vocabulary in all conversations, demand intellectual discussion when arguing. Reject formulaic cliches in your responses to daily life conversations.

Hold your head high and with the courage of Perseus, proudly show the world the severed head of the Gorgon Bogan in your hand, as you command attention and respect to all that is refined in the world.

Here is your Bogan god's head. Severed by my sword of refinement from the Gorgon's body you proclaim so loudly and proudly to worship.

Doctors said I'd never walk again...

Ever hear someone say that?

It is total Bull Shit.

Think about it.

What medical practitioner, (a professional who is by definition an expert in evidence-based assertions with years of experience in witnessing the defeat of predicition and the futility of certainty) would tell someone, would ever consider making the kind of "horoscopic" statement exemplified by, "You will never walk again."?

No doctor, GP, surgeon, specialist or whatever you want to call them, would ever make that statement, or any statement like that statement.

It is a stupid statement to make, unless your patient is dead or their spine has been destroyed.

People say shit like that because of the effect they want to get from you, and the positive affirmation it says to themselves:  I am special, I am amazing, I am better than you, I am so awesome the universe works one way for others and another way for me.

However, it is "quite possible" that the patient in certain situations would want to know "will I ever walk again?". Who wouldn't want to know that, especially after an accident where you've lost control or sensation of your legs - or you've lost your legs?

It is therefore "quite probable" that such a person would ask their primary medical adviser that very question.

"Hey doc, will I ever walk again?"

Unless the doctor is a psychopath or philosopher, the former ignoring the question, the latter spending too much time answering it, they would probably respond to the question with an attempt to understand its genesis and reply.

So, what would they likely say?

As a practitioner of medical science, an expert in empirically verifiable and evidence-based inductive reasoning, they would have a suite of phrasing options to present to the patient, hopefully using sensitive language that include the following concepts:

1. A summary of how cases like this have panned out in the past for others.

2. Based on what evidence is available, a probability judgment, such as "possibly, unlikely, might, potentially, fair chance."

3. If certain conditions take place in the future, e.g. medical treatment, patient immobility, no further detrimental influences, then the probability of x degree of walking will increase.

A "doctor" would never ever say "you will never walk again", nor even "you will walk again".

They would attempt to respond to this question, understandably deserving of an answer, from a scale of likelihoods and balanced by conditional caveats.

The only reason you will ever have heard someone skite "the doctor said I'd never walk again.", is if and only if the patient was initially unable to walk and later was able to walk. What about the ones that didn't end up walking again? The doctor was correct in their prediction and wrong in yours. Knowing that, you now see how their predictions were flawed to begin with. So, there's nothing to skite over, now that you know the doctor was sometimes right and sometimes wrong with their predicitions.

Anyway, it is "unlikely" that a trained and experienced and sober doctor would make such a statement. Statements X will never Y, are the halmarks of the religious, the moron or the manipulator.

We wouldn't wish any doctor to have any of these characteristics.

If a doctor were found to be prognosing in this way, then we have discovered a rare bird, a very stupid doctor and we should move quickly to have their licence to practise removed...

...until they are likely to be smart again.

A bigger problem with this kind of flagrant bull shit is the anti-intellectual, anti-reasoning climate it draws from and adds to.

The patient's statement is a "So there!" to science and reasoning.

Smart people said something and they were wrong, therefore being smart is bad.

In the US, this kind of statement is likely to be made by a religious nut.

Science said I'd never walk again, then I walked again, therefore God exists.

Impeccable logic.

Doctors said x, y or z, and they were wrong, is a bull shit formulaic statement made by idiots who are also science haters.

They hate science because it is a threat to their little fantasy about living for ever in a heaven where you don't have to shit ever again.

Well, We're very sorry, but because you're dead, you are never going to shit again.

You Don't Want to Know the Truth!

Everyone publically worships the truth.

Everyone references "The Truth" as the final word in support of their argument.

Everyone fights and fusses in a search for the truth of the matter.

Tell me the truth, they demand at the top of their lungs.

We are all condemned for not telling the truth, altering the truth.

In reality, in private... absolutely no one wants the truth.

Again, what people say and what they do are two different things - usually the opposite.

The truth is terrible and terrifying.

The truth is painful.

The truth should be run from, should be covered in a blanket, buried, avoided, ignored, left alone.

The last thing we all want is to hear the truth from someone else. That's even worse than telling the truth to ourselves.

When someone else says it, it carries more weight; it's even more real and more terrifying, excruciating.

Everyone says they want the truth, but when they hear it, they want it to go away and never come back.

We need to distinguish a few different uses of the term here.

There is the truth in the sense of a statement representing reality, a fact.

Example: the statement, Donald Trump was elected President of the US, is true.

The statement is true, it reflects an empirically verifable reality.

Then there's the truth in the sense of the thing itself, without needing a subject: The Truth.

Thomas Hobbes argued that truth is a quality of words, not things.

A statement is true or false. A thing itself cannot be true or false.

A statement about a thing can be true, but not the thing.

The statement God is true could be false, but it is not a statement; it is meaningless.

The statement purports a quality to a thing that cannot have that quality, unless God is a statement.

Not all sentences are statements. The sentence, The King of France is bald, is not a statement and so is neither true nor false; it is a meaningless sentence.


The ancient Greek philosophers thought of truth as an unveiling of reality, a revelation.

Today, reality can be ugly and contrary to the world we wish existed, and which the truth reveals for us it does not.

So, today, reality lies mostly hidden; behind political correctness, obscured by policy-speak and euphemism.

So, some cry out for an unveiling. But they soon regret their demand, when the truth turns out to be hurtful, harmful, against their morality or their pride.

The cry for truth looks and feels heroic to many.

How do I look, says a woman; tell me the truth. She doesn't want to hear the truth.

We all go to great lengths to protect ourselves and others from the truth.

And so we should; the truth is awful.

We cover our bodies in clothes that hide our ugliness.

We respond with bright cliches when asked how we are doing.

We keep personal secrets for fear of embarrasment, prejudice, judgment, incrimination or retribution.

We lie about our age, our competence, our finances.

We exaggerate. We set people up, manipulating our questions and statements to produce a secret effect and extract a desired response from someone.




People who claim proudly that they say things as they are, are tactless bogans insensitive to the situation, ignorant of the nuances of social interaction, devoid of sophisticated conversation.

Will they tell their boss they're a stupid wanker? Will they tell their loved one how ugly they look or that their breath stinks? No they won't.

So let's stop pretending we want the truth and accept the fact that some things should stay veiled, hidden.

Let's stop lying about the truth.

Terrorist or Muslim Jihadi Islamist?

Everyone can and does use humour to achieve a desired outcome.

But a comedian uses the tool of humour to acheive the desired outcome they define as their purpose for being a comedian. A comedian is called by us a comedian because of the predominant use of their tool, humour.

Everyone can and does use the tool of painting to make art.

An artist uses media, like paint, and is called an artist because they use media, like paint, to acheive their artistic outcome, a painting.

So, everyone can use terror to acheive a state of terror.

But it is predominantly Muslim jihadi Islamists who use terror.

Beheadings, shootings, car bombs, flying planes into buildings, blowing up children, strapping bombs to women, cutting out the clitoris of young girls, marrying little girls off to old men, hiding in hospitals and schools for a shield, throwing acid in women's faces, stoning women and men to death, targeting innocent civilians, running people over on footpaths... what is more worthy of the term "terror"?

No other interest group, ideology, religion, ethnicity, political party, no individual uses such a thorough suite of terror like the Mulsim jihadi Islamist.

A mere description of an attack draws everyone's conclusion that it must be a Muslim nut-job.

So why do we name them after their tool?

We don't call other actors a name from a tool they use to achieve their outcome.

We don't call surgeons cutters, or plumbers pipists or spannerists.

So why call Muslims who murder the innocent in the name of their version of Islam, terrorists?

It's inconsistent.

If we were consistent with the terror makes a terrorist, we'd be tied to calling a comedian a jokist or laughist, words that don't exist, an artist a media-ist or paintist, and so on.

If we were consistent with a paint makes an artist, the food makes a Chef de Cuisine, then we'd say the terror makes a Muslim jihadi Islamist.

A builder uses a hammer to acheive their outcome, but we don't call them Hammerists.

So why do we call Muslim jihadi Islamists "Terrorists"?

Two reasons:

1. HISTORICAL USE

Firstly, it's a term already used by us, way before Islamists exploded onto the scene.

The IRA, ETA, Tamil Tigers and many other groups were lumped together because the scenario played out by the event, the attack, the explosion, and only later did we find out who was doing it.

A bomb goes off out of nowhere, with no obvious attacker, or an anonymous attacker.

The event took centre stage and was the first thing named. The party who deployed the attack is only named later.

Humans like to categorise things that are different, but share common qualities and then assign a name to that category.

So, terror was that word. It was the common denominator in all the attacks, a terrifying attack on civilians.

It's an easy step to lump all attackers together into the group of terrorists.

All of this thinking-style was developed by the media, not experts, academics or officials.


2. POLITICALLY CORRECT

Secondly, political correctness:

Not all Muslims are murderers. It is unfair to paint all Muslims with the title terrorist.

Islam as practiced by the vast majority is a religion and lifestyle of peace, compassion, love and social inclusion.

But like anything good, the worst of humans turn it into their own sick, murderous version.

Bertrand Russell advocated that in serious discussion we should always replace names with their descriptions.

So perhaps the name terrorist should be changed to our description of what we mean by terrorist.

The terrorists we are all terrified of are a sick version of the Muslim, following a murderous version of the jihad doctrine in order to achieve a political Islam, locally or globally.

Jihadi Islamist is a better term, if a shortened form is preferred. But if we want to progress on the debate, we need to bite the bullet and say it how it is. The terrorists are Muslim, we can't ignore that fact. No one has the right to tell someone that they are not a Muslim, if they say they are.

However, political correctness is so strong today, the term terrorist will remain as the name for the group committing terror.

The term terrorist is now a politically correct term.

Because the word terrorist is not discriminating, does not identify a sect, an ethnic group, a religion etc, the politicians took it on. The word terrorist and its derivatives is politically correct, safe.


HOW MUCH TERRORISM IS NOT CONDUCTED BY MUSLIM JIHADI ISLAMISTS?

Since 9/11 the word has almost exclusively been used to name attacks committed only by Muslims, and certain Muslims who appeal to the jihadist Islamist ideology. as taught by their founding father and fundamental inspiration, Sayyid Qutub.

Qutub promoted the ideology of the justification ordained by the Islamic teachings of jihad, to the killing of anyone, civilians, children, anyone who was a perceived threat to the Islamic religion and Muslim people.

When 99% of attacks on civilians across the world are committed by Muslims who subscribe to the Qutub jihad, who are Islamists bent on coercing the world into a Muslim world, we should call it what it is.

These attacks are more than terrorism. They are all carried out by people calling themselves Muslim and who state that they commit their terror to defend Islam.

TERRORIST - A WORD THAT COVERS ANY GROUP

Terrorist is a word that covers all groups, all ideologies, not just jihadi Islamists.

But, almost every attack on civilians across the world by a group defined by an ideology, are conducted by a specific group of people, who claim a certain religion and a branch of that religion that attacks for a specific reason.

Almost all the attacks happening across our world on civilians are conducted by members of one religion.

Who sees reports of attacks from Hindus, Buddhists, Jews or even Christians?

Who sees report of attacks on civilians across the globe from interest groups, like Greens, White Supremicists, Bikies, even Communists?

So, what we call them should be just as specific as the attackers. Not generic.

It would only make sense to call these attacks, by Islamists, terrorist attacks, if they were committed by a range of religion and ideology motivated attackers, e.g. Buddhists, Christians, Jews, White Supremicists, Black Power, etc.





It makes no sense calling hundreds of attacks on civilians by Islamists, terrorists.

We can and should be more specific.

The problem for all humans right now is not terrorism, it is Islamism and its jihadi application.

India's Racist Caste System is Alive and Thriving in Australia

Most of us have never heard of the term and Indian practice of the Caste System.

The celebration of Indian "culture" in Australia seems to skip over this pervasive tradition.

Perhaps they don't want us to know about certain "cutlural" activities, as Australians currently only like to know things that are nice, cute and acceptable about foreign "culture".

We're not surprised.





The Indian Caste System is a way Indians divide their people into a hierarchy of groups based on the value they provide to their society, their communities.

You inherit your caste from your parents and pass it on to your children, whom you've had with a member of the same caste, thus preserving the caste.

Sound familiar?

A lower caste is of inferior value to a superior caste. The castes therefore do not inter-marry, mix socially or treat each other equally.





The castes begin the division into basic social service provision: from religious elite and academics, royalty and warriors at the top, to business owners, executives, landowners, professionals, and then down to workers, labourers, servants at the bottom.

Beneath the bottom are "out-castes". The lowest of the low, those who perform the disgusting services no one else wants to do: cleaners, street sweapers etc.

These few fundamental types of castes are further divided internally, so that each caste type has its own sub-castes, which themselves divide, based on nuanced changes.



Have you ever used or heard the term "out-caste"?

We bet you didn't know the significance of this term.

You are born, work, marry, live and die in your Caste.

A higher caste will not employ an Indian into a job outside their caste's designated job spectrum.

How Aussie is that?

What's your definition of racist?



Although, Australian Indians will not admit this practice occurs anymore, in Australia (in India only), or doesn't exist, all you need to do is look for yourself. Look closely. It's there alright. Alive and kicking.

And why shouldn't it be?

Here's a screenshot from an example of an Indian "matrimony" dating website:






Why would a first or second generation culture abandon it's most traditional, most fundamental beliefs and practices, just because they or their parents moved to another country?

What strongly patriotic and proud person would oppose and choose to weaken, dilute or abolish its own heartfelt, close-held  cultural tradition? Would you drop one of yours, just because others might not like it?

The Indian Caste System is just one example of the ancient human self-preserving tradition (perhaps instinct) of creating a Them and Us in any society.

Every "culture" has, or has had, some version of a caste system in their society, their "culture"

[I keep using speech marks for "culture" because the word actually means "development", which implies change, improvement, growth, all concepts that actually oppose the concept of tradition.
Most things of "culture" when discussing ethnic group characteristics, utterly lack any connotation or certainly denotation of the term "cutlure".  In this sociological sense, the term is a mysnomer if ever there was one.]

Jews, Chinese, Arabs, Fijians, most groups who feel an ethnic connection divide themselves internally or from outsiders, in order to strengthen that feeling of belonging and specialness.

There's nothing wrong with keeping tradition. But there's everything wrong in lieing to everyone, falsely presenting yourself as an inclusive group, and excluding one group infavour of another just because they don't belong to your group.

Not all Indians are racist in this way. Of course, not all Australians are inclusive. That's not the point. The exception of any group is not a problem. It's the rule of any group that we're concerned about.

Before you call an Aussie a racist, think again.

Halal food is Cut-Throat... literally

Halal food is that which adheres to Islamic law, as defined in the Koran. 

The Islamic form of slaughtering animals or poultry, involves killing the animal through a cut to the throat; jugular vein, carotid artery and windpipe. 

Animals must be alive and healthy at the time of slaughter and all blood is drained from the carcass.

The animal chokes on inhaling its own blood, before dying in pain, fear and confusion, and bleeding out.

Often, a traditional knife is used, often blunt, and the executioner has no hesitation in sawing through a tough neck if needed.

You won't learn that in school, or at multi-cultural festivals celebrating Islamic tradition.

How would you like to go through that?

If you support Halal food in any way, directly or indirectly, you support this sick, stupid, disgusting practice. 

Grow some balls, get a brain and examine the world around you closer than a mind-starved Kardashian fan.

With the Internet providing you the world's information and the sum collection of all human understanding at the click of a button, you have no excuse for not knowing what's really going on around you.

ARMED CITIZENS

Australians will soon be arming themselves against perceived threats from local Islamists. Policy makers and legislators need to start preparing for the strategic shock now.

The slow wave of shocking attacks by Islamists across the globe that we see almost weekly on our TVs, elicits a myriad of responses from stunned onlookers. One notable response is the sense of helplessness. It is immediately clear to many watching that should they experience such an attack themselves there is nothing they can do about it. Almost every attack may as well have been carried out in a kindergarten – the victims are that helpless. 

A chain of thought sparks in the minds of most of us watching the helpless victims from our armchairs. We see that no one from the law enforcement community is there to help. No patrols. No one comes to their rescue. Where are the police?

The obvious solution for many watching the defenceless killed in public, in broad daylight, without impediment, is to arm-up. All it takes is one or two examples in the media of an armed victim fighting back against the terrorists, and the floodgates will be opened. Australians everywhere will beg, borrow and steal to arm themselves, so they can feel safer walking the streets, taking the train to work, dropping the kids off at school and shopping in the malls.

The thought of being armed everywhere they go, will replace the job police are failing to fulfil, a sense of genuine security and safety. At last Joe and Jane Public won’t have to worry about adding yet another fear to their growing list of dangers from the community. 

The danger on the horizon is of much more concern to average Australians, as it is utterly new, they don’t really understand its nature, it seems incomprehensible, it’s a scary, ugly terror and they know the police can’t protect them. Being armed they are no longer helpless – in their mind. Knowing they can turn from victim into counter-attacker, shooting back, will become close to desirable in the minds of many, especially men.

No one wants them or their loved ones to die for some stupid, pointless reason at the hands of a religious idiot nut-case, just because they had nothing to fight back with.

Unlike the gun culture of the United States, Australia has spent decades with strict firearms restrictions that has produced generations[1] without any understanding of their power and their potential. In the States, firearms are not uncommonly used in the settling of disputes, such as road rage and family or neighbourhood arguments. However, most of these end at the presentation of the weapon or the firing of a warning shot; hardly a terrorist attack.

For Australia, the phenomenon will be a shock to the system, as there is no “real”[2] familiarity with firearms by almost all dwellers of Australia’s few cities. They have almost no appearance in the life of a city-dweller, and even on television they rarely feature outside fiction, only occasionally in the news, and never in lifestyle television outside the odd hunting programme that most viewers will flick past whilst channel surfing.

There is an unwritten social contract in the US, between its comparably more fire-arm familiarised citizens, that is effectively a self-regulation. You avoid certain situations and certain escalating arguments, because someone might have a gun. This self-regulation is more obvious in areas of high firearm ownership, such as the cities of Texas and the Mid-western cities, such as Colorado, Arizona, and Idaho, but applies across the country and is understood by most. The point here is that it is no use looking to the US as a model to follow in Australia; it’s chalk and cheese.

Australian policymakers and legislators need to consider the implications of a secretly armed citizenship. The widespread carriage of secreted fire-arms in public will imply more than its relatively innocuous intent.

What should we imagine when considering the evolution of road-rage, pub brawls, arguing neighbours? Will people start resolving disputes with their weapons? Will the threatening presentation of a fire-arm be used to curtail an escalating argument between citizens? Instead of relying on current recourses, such as the pointless arguing and futile paperwork handed to them by impotent police stations, the armed citizen will not even bother wasting their time with the police.  

What effect will an armed society have on the black and open marketplace for weapons? We should expect to see the typical abuse by the retail trade, as supply creates demand.

Will self-defence classes move from the Dojo to the pistol range?

The change will affect the law enforcement community, certainly, schooling, public transport, health, privacy, even taxation, but also the commercial sector: the security industry, the insurance industry, private healthcare, sport and recreation industries, and the black markets of weapon suppliers, criminal activity to fund supply, and organised crime.

The implications are legion, as are the number of questions needing answers, problems needing solutions, laws and policies needing drafting well before that first TV news item airs all over the country. “Neighbourhood argument, pub brawl, street party, road rage, school bullying… ends in shooting.”

---

[1] Terrorists are unlikely to attack the regional farming communities, where any firearm familiarisation in Australia is only found among those protecting their crops from predators and pests, or for game during hunting seasons. This article is therefore concerned only with communities of strategic interest to Islamist terrorists, and these are likely to be large cities rather than country towns.

[2] Excluding movies and crime drama television, as fictional representation is a poor preparation for the real thing when it comes to firearms.

The Police are NOT on Your Side

The Police are not here to help you.

The Police will not protect you.

The Police do not prevent crime.

The Police are neither willing nor able to protect you.

The Police do not deter crime.

Why?

Because they are scared of the bad guys.

Because the laws prevent them from protecting you.

Oh shit! Really?

Really.

Just pay a closer attention to police and crime happening around you and in the news.

The evidence speaks for itself.

Where are the Police? Have you seen any today?

The Police are not on your side. They are gutless wimps with no power for good.

They protect the bad guys and harass the innocent.

The Police think you travelling at 68 kph instead of 60 kph in an empty safe stretch of road is more important than threats against yourself, your family or your property.

The Police do not patrol your streets.

If you see them, it's because they are on their way somewhere useless.

The Police do not walk the beat in your streets.

If the Police see violent criminals threatening you, they will run the other way.


You think the Police are on your side, protecting us, out their looking for criminals, because you assume they are.

You believe without question the myth that the Police are good and they protect us.

That is a myth. Look closer.

You and I are alone.

We have to protect ourselves.

The bad guys are coming.

The Police don't care.

You and I will have to defend our families by ourselves.

Before we can take whatever meagre measures we can to prevent the bad guys attacking or harming us, the Police will be there to pull down our defences.

After we defend ourselves from the bad guys, the Police will be there to punish us.

The Police will not be there when you and I are attacked.

They will turn up afterwards.

They will turn us into suspects and then leave.

The Police are too scared and too impotent legally to do what it is you think they do.

Wake up and make yourself aware of the reality. Study the Police today.

Look more closely.

Forewarned is forearmed.

...but hurry.

A new age and higher level of bad guy is coming.

It used to be holiday burglaries, car park car theft, ATM muggings, brawls.

Then it escalated...

Car jackings, home invasions, king hitting, road rage.

That's nothing.

Once the bad guys make the same realisation about the myth of the Police...

Once the bad guys know the Police are not there to protect you, are nowhere to be seen...

The bad guys will come to you, any time of day they want, and they will do any thing they want.

Not just theft.

Not just a quick bash.

Not just a hurried rape.

This time... knowing the Police are nowhere, and the Police are impotent...

The bad guys out there will take there time.

They will act out their fantasies.

They will re-enact those scenes in those movies.

They will have some real fun.

You've been warned.

We suggest you consider all this quickly, and then prepare yourselves.

Islamism, Bogans and Guns in Australia

It's not much of a prediction now, as it's already started, but it needs to be published anyway.


Two developments are fast approaching each other head on, like two trains on one track, which will have a metaphorically similar consequence for the subsequent paradigm shift in the Australian way of life.




1) Those brainlessly cultivating an anti-Muslim anti-Islam mindset will grow quickly in number, and through the bogannic intellectual catalyst of social media, Today Tonight, gossip and hearsay, will for the first time in local history start to organise (read "mob") themselves into active interest groups, enabling many flaccid minded members to summon the courage (best summoned in numbers) to turn their caveman fury into reactive and pre-emptive action against an ill-perceived Muslim threat, either planned or opportunistic. In courser terms, the nation's Bogan white-trash will start attacking Muslims.




2) Concurrent to the development above, a strategic shift in crime across Australia, caused by a burgeoning awareness that there are no police anywhere and nothing to stop anyone doing anything they want anytime they want, will cause a logarithmic rise in new and violent crimes and an equally shocking strategic shift in how the general public react to this and all perceived threats of violence against them, namely in pre-emptive acts of self-defence in collaboration with the black arms market. In cruder terms: Aussies will start keeping guns in their homes and family cars for self-defence.

The confluence of both strategically shocking developments will unveil a monumental merger and thereby commence the first phase of the violent transformation of the Australian way of life.

No more, she'll be right mate. She most definitely won't be right mate. No more laid back attitude. Just laid out. No more dinky die. Dinky's gone, it's just die.

Prevention is better, and cheaper, than the cure. We all know it. So let's try that?

Only the Government has the responsibility and authority to achieve efforts toward effective prevention of this merger, or at least slow it down perhaps in time for more rational generations to resolve.

Unfortunately, responsibility and authority are just words without will. And before will there must be understanding. So yes, we're all fucked two steps before we start.





All is not lost.

Stepping into the willing position will be private citizens. First they will appear as vigilantes and later under guise of the Private Military/Security Industry.



When the police, the justice system and the government fail to meet the basic needs of the people, the people will step in.





Good luck everyone.

The Drumpf End Game

Now the Drumpf cabinet is named and shamed, we can start laying odds on the endless range of cockups that will have Donald Drumpf impeached, imprisoned, assassinated or worse, first.



The nominees for supervening cockups are:



- Starting a war/armed conflict with a Middle or Great Power
- Military invasion of foreign nation
- Corruption during office - financial gain/favour
- Corruption during office - nepotism
- Historical corruption leading to criminal charges
- Slander/libel
- Inciting civil unrest, hatred/violence
- Sexual Assault
- Accidental launching of nuclear weapons
- Discriminatory action against people groups based on ethnicity or religion

You Get the Government You Deserve: The Trump Election

Well well well.

Never have the terms OMG or WTF been expressed to their full potential until now. Donald Drumpf (his real name is not Trump) is “elected” President of the United States of America. That’s one way to say it, anyway.

We could not let this one go. This singular event is the very Death Star to this Blog's Rebel Alliance.

A billionaire business man, raised on privilege and inherited capital and connections, driven and developed through greed and other putrid anti-social, anti-democratic caveman mental defecations, is the President of the United States of America.

 

OMG! WTF!

 

A business man shat out of the arse of privilege into the toilet bowl of the landlord sector.

A business man who has for all his adult life, almost fifty years, known only one way to do the life thing: to make money, to live, to manage people, to solve problems, to view the world, to value the world and to consider humanity.

A man for whom moral values are not learned or experienced or developed, but for whom are irrelevant.

BUSINESS MORALITY

In business, what governs behaviour is outcome, not morality. 

There is no deontology versus teleology. The ends do not justify the means; there is no justify, the ends are achieved by the means. Period.

The business morality you observe is a mirage. The man is moral but only because we, with morals, observe and judge the man's behaviour - based on our own morality. That doesn't mean the man has morals we can't judge, that means we have morals and we judge the behaviour of the man in terms of our own morals.

It is therefore merely an assumption that all behaviour is conducted from a moral basis - a sense of right and wrong, good and bad. Some behaviour has no moral basis. In some cases, a man may be amoral. However, that doesn't stop an amoral person from conducting behaviour we find abhorrent and that we should not act on that person against such behaviour. We should and we must.

The business morality is in fact your morality. The business behaviour is purely pragmatic. Business is beyond good and evil. 

All this is not to say that seemingly moral principles or norms are absent from the suite of business mantras. Greed is good, profit is supreme, invest in yourself, everyone and everything has a price, money buys happiness, if you die poor it's your fault.

Any uni student with half a brain can draft a thousand more, if they spend enough time watching billionaire businessmen. These words are not moral axioms. They are simply practical and objective summaries of the relationship between ends and their means.

Drumpf is not original here. He's done it all, and the same way they all do it. He's bought people, paid regulators off, bribed and favoured politicians, hired and fired, ass-kissed, blown, lied, bullied, swindled, mugged, black-balled and turn-coated. He's achieved the ends through the means.

 

What's different is he's become so powerful in his own mind that he has arrogantly stepped out of his world and into another world, a frontier world more alien than anything the complete sci-fi genre could match, the Starship Billionaire Businessman lands on the planet Democracy.

This leap of realms is akin to that between the Rock Stars and the Hollywood Actors. Different worlds, but one always fantasises about being the other. There's no difference between politicians and businessmen (Google any former politician and see what they're doing now).

 

Now we reach the crux of the question:

 

 

How has a billionaire business man, in the sense above, been elected democratic leader, executive power, commander of the armed forces, president of the most politically, economically and militarily powerful sovereign state on earth?

OMG WTF!

The question slapping us across the face on that day we realised it wasn’t a joke, is “How?”

Instinctively we balk and think "How does the exact opposite of what every sane human regards to be the ideal leader in a modern democracy, become President?"

Even though we all know how nuts the Yanks are, how the US is already largely corporatized, money mad, has always been heading in the direction of becoming the world’s first nation-state to be governed by a single corporation, we didn’t actually think the population would vote toward that Dystopia!

But they did. And that’s a huge step toward the actual single private company taking over the country. It’s a concept hitherto strictly limited to the unlimited realms of sci-fi fantasy and even then usually requires a violent pre-cursor, an invasion, an insurgency, a rebellion, a coup d’états, a malevolent insidious takeover, NOT a democratic presidential election! 

Over the days that followed "It's not a joke" Day, we divided our "How" question into self-explanatory subordinate "How" questions:

First generally:

How did a billionaire win a democratic election?

How did a moron even stupider than George W Bush get that far and then win?

How did someone get in with everything going against them?

How did someone get that far with so little experience?

Specifically:

How did that particular guy win considering his... his morals, his personality, his character, his everything!?

WHY DO WE HAVE GOVERNMENT?

The fundamental reason we have government (in so far as what would require it to be created in the absence thereof) is that people living together cannot be left alone. People harm other people in any community and that’s why we need rules and rulers.

 

So even at the most fundamental level, we have government exactly for the very reason to protect us from people like Donald Drumpf!

WHAT ARE WE IN FOR?

Victims of this election must ask themselves, belatedly, what am I in for?:

What are Drumpf's inclinations, beliefs, positions, likely behaviours on:

 

- tax, the direction for the country's wealth, the manufacturing industry, the environment, corruption, gun laws, protection of the vulnerable, poverty, inequality, the labour market, education, opportunity, international relations, regulation, social welfare, public transport, healthcare.

 

Well let's see. What is the business community's position on these issues? What is the billionaires' position on these issues? What do the country's wealthiest and most privileged think about these issues?

 

George W Bush we can understand a little. His dad was normal. George Junior was awkward at it, but he was polite, professional and at least gave the appearance of a grown-up. He didn’t flaunt his wealth, privilege or his power. He was fairly stable, although clearly a bit dim, a bit arrogant, a bit privileged, but we can understand why voters voted for him.

Obama was no surprise. On appearance, in the run-up, he was the ideal caring, intelligent, professional dad we all wish we had. Even with a name that rhymed with Osama, being African American and having a Muslim background, the voters saw through it at the man inside and voted for that.

Hiliary is a no-brainer. A successful, smart, powerful woman, with a fragile history in the bedroom just like we all have. She’s the one. The first woman to become US President. No more to be said.

Then this ugly, smart-arse, rich as fuck, wanker pops out of nowhere. This typical dumb-ass, bully money-eater with his stupid buildings, hotels and other crap rich wankers get richer on. He knows nothing about politics, geo-strategic events, world history, humanity. He doesn't care, he doesn't give a flying fuck. He knows business. He knows how to get money, lots of it and fast, and by any means necessary. Now he wants to know how to get his family and friends richer and more powerful, so they can all bask in the glory of conquering planet democracy, shitting on it and becoming its leaders.

 

Congratulations America, you got the President you deserved.