From Tribal to What?

This essay has been in my mind for some time, though writing it has been prompted by reading a book review in October’s Quadrant. The review was by James C. Bennett, and the book,Shadows of Empires: the Anglosphere in British Politics, was written by Michael Kenny and Nick Pearce. I’ll return to both in due course.

Human beings started in families who formed groups, which I here label ‘tribes’, both for protection and for mutual support in other ways. The tribes met other tribes, and in time competed with each other for land and other resources. About twelve thousand years ago human beings began to discover the virtues and costs of agriculture, and formed much larger entities through the coalescing of tribes into what I will call ‘empires’. Empires allowed the creaming-off of what might be thought of as a ‘surplus’, and the surplus enable the building of fortified cities, the creation of armed forces, and monuments to the rulers, like the pyramids of Egypt.

Important in all this was the creation of language, both in oral and readily recognised written  forms. The rulers’ language became the dominant one, and subject tribes needed to learn it if they were to prosper. There must have been some extremely good years in the few thousand years before the birth of Jesus Christ, at least in the larger European/Asian area, because there was extensive movement of population, which is itself suggestive of high birth rates and abundant food supply. No matter, empires there were, and they competed with one another. The most successful was the Roman Empire, and we know a great deal about it, because it left a great deal of written material, preserved for the most part in Christian monasteries. Interestingly, at the time of Christ’s birth educated Romans spoke Greek; the native Roman tongue, Latin, they thought somewhat vulgar.

To the East, from the Roman perspective, there existed an older and more successful civilisation, with its own language, China. To the Southeast, until the Romans conquered it, were the surviving elements of another older civilisation, the Egyptian. Rome and China had little to do with each other, though there was some trade with India, where there had also been some successful but not long-lived civilisations, most notably the Indus River civilisation, the Harappan, built around the city of Mohenjo-daro, which showed a fine sense of urban planning (it was finally covered in a gigantic flood, and has been excavated, so we can see it for ourselves).

I’ll concentrate on the European theatre from now on. After the crumbling and then fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century of the modern era, Europe descend into what we call ‘the Dark Ages’, mostly because it is hard for historians to throw light upon what happened for several hundred years. The records are simply not there. What finally happened was the development of city-states built around trading centres, and to a degree on the production of good, mostly manufactured, which others wanted to buy. Again, language was important, but more important was the development of what we might now call ‘civic trust’. Trust has always been important to traders. You need to trust those with whom you trade, even though you may speak a different language, and they need to trust you. How does this work? By trial and error. By experience. Through practice. If and when it works, it is copied by others. Trading networks spread across Europe, and from Europe to the Near East, and then from Europe into China and India.

This was something new, or an enhanced version of something old, assisted by new and improved forms of communication, mostly better ships. Common languages developed, so if you had a smattering of them you could get by a long way from home. Better ships and growing wealth in Europe led to the creation of kingdoms and then empires, familiar things, but now with a greater reach. Spain, Portugal, England, France and Holland all used naval power and wealth to find and colonise distant parts of the world, and as they did so, their languages became dominant. Traces of that dominance appear all over America, Asia and Africa today. Indeed, Southern America is mostly Spanish or Portuguese in language, and Spanish is the second-most spoken language in the USA, while a whole province of Canada, Quebec, speaks French, and it is a second official language for all Canadians.

By 1900 the Western domination of the world was largely set out in colour as well as in  language. I grew up with much of my school atlas coloured in red, the signal colour of the British Empire. That was something to be proud of at that time. By then there was competition between languages, too. While commerce was carried out in English, for the most part, diplomacy was the domain of French, and that remained true with the League of Nations after the First World War, and even into the United Nations, after 1945. In Australia, we were Anglo-Celt for the large part, and there was a division between Catholics (Irish) and Protestants (English and Scots). That was really tribal. The town I grew up in possessed a whole Catholic world, schools, social cubs, traders, shops, doctors, chemists, to whom the faithful went. I hardly met a Catholic boy except on the sporting fields until I went to university. I didn’t meet a Catholic girl at all. So the tribal inclination was alive and well, along with an old and working capacity to trust others, even if they were not of the same tribe.

Then we had the postwar influx of migrants, ‘Balts’, ‘reffos’, ‘wogs’. They, understandably and necessarily, formed tribes as soon as they arrived — people who were already here, spoke their language, knew the ropes and understood the system. That was sixty years ago. They are gone, but their children and grandchildren are Australians. We are a much more diverse society, and in my view much the better for their arrival. We are now dealing with a new and for some a worrying arrival, that of Islamic immigrants, and I’ll finish the essay with a thought about them. So, now to the review and the book which started this essay.

What is the Anglosphere? It is a concept built round the notion that there is a common bond linking the old white settler dominions — Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the ‘mother country’, the United Kingdom, and add in the United States if you want, and then the millions of people in India and Africa and Asia who use English as a daily language (though they will likely have other languages as well). It is easy to move from one of the old dominions to another, and people do. Bennett and others see the growth of CANZUK as another way forward, now that the EU is having trouble. I don’t think that we in Australia have much sense of this possibility, but I found the review stimulating, and the book full of interesting argument. For my own part I would agree that I found it easy to live and work in Canada, the USA, and the UK, and certainly to move around New Zealand and lecture. There were such familiar ways and familiar civilities, and of course the common language. And that led to a lot of trust.

My final thought is about the way in which we treat Islamic immigrants. There are a little more than 600,000 people in our country who self-identify as Muslims. They do present a problem for some of us, who see every one of them as a potential jihadist. They are not. The great majority are like other immigrants, wanting to make a new life and home for themselves. Yes, we could reduce the number of Muslim immigrants, but only at the cost of radically changing our family immigration rules, which would upset everyone else.

I go back to trust. We have to trust that in the long run things will settle down, and that Muslim kids will grow into Muslim/Australians. They do. That outcome will require tolerance on the part of those who are not Muslims, and the capacity to welcome Muslims as neighbours and, in time, as friends. There is no real alternative, I think.











Join the discussion 170 Comments

  • spangled drongo says:

    Don, they don’t have to be potential jihadists but we all have to be potential Muslims unless we completely disallow either them or their Muslim religion.

    Katie Hopkins has a message for America which applies to the whole world, “Do not let your country become the UK. Be better than us.”

  • Neville says:

    Don this is an interesting article, but I’m afraid I can’t agree with you about your ideas on what Muslims believe.
    Sam Harris,Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins etc are of the left but have serious doubts about Muslims and what they truly believe.
    They’ve quoted polling that shows that the majority of UK Muslims actually hate Homosexuals, Jews, apostates etc and strongly believe that the Koran is literally God’s last word. No ifs or buts.
    I’ve spoken to a few Muslims about this and found that they definitely think the Koran is the word of God and there is no tolerance for a reformation to try and modernize their so called holy book or religion . They literally believe the Koran is God’s last message to the Prophet.
    Most Christians today do not think that the New Testament is the Literal word of God and most do not believe in the Virgin birth or that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. And even fundamentalists wouldn’t want to kill you if you didn’t agree with them about their literal interpretation of the Bible.
    The Koran is every bit as silly and stupid as the Morman nonsense and I have no respect for anyone who literally believes it.

  • Boambee John says:


    Trust is a two way street. Each side needs to demonstrate that it is worthy of the other side’s trust.

    Islam is based on an ideology of conquest and obedience. This ideology is enforced as ruthlessly on its adherents as on those it conquers. This is not a good basis for mutual trust.

  • BB says:

    It was a time when I thought religion was the worst of the worst. By that my reference was Christianity since I grew up in a Christian world. My father you would describe as an atheist even though he considered himself a staunch Irishman. He was somewhat misguided I found later on but there you go. The last few years my opinion of Christianity has changed somewhat and this was brought about by listening to Jordan Peterson. Understanding Peterson is quite difficult he looks at humans in terms of their behaviour and what drives that them. His expectations are quite different to many and sees the striving for dominance as being very significant. I see the rise of secularism to be a very good thing. It has produced democracy, science and more. This has weakened our religious tradition. There is much less influence on the state then there was. The structure of family and the rights of the individual are now much changed from what they were.

    Islam is by no means weak and the current state of Christianity and our democracy is in peril from it. In Europe leaders of the Muslim faith are openly taunting the status quo. They say they will have a theocracy soon and they may well be right. The structure of their religion is such that they are organised to expand their population rapidly. Girls at a young age undergo a form of circumcision which prevents any unexpected pregnancies before they are married at 12 to 14 to a suitable man of the faith. As Muslims it is an article of faith to have many children. Polygamy is also part of their faith and also an advantage which provides a population of expendable males when the going gets tough.

    The lifestyle of Western countries has developed over thousands of years and it is a very good one. We must realise though we cannot take incompatible belief systems into our midst. They must be separated and kept out and as it stands at the moment the Muslim will inherit what was developed and discard much of it.

    I suggest we all watch this and consider it very carefully. Thinking that all will be well and there will be integration as there has been with others is a huge mistake. Sanctioning discussion of these topics is even a bigger one.

    • margaret says:

      “Girls at a young age undergo a form of circumcision which prevents any unexpected pregnancies before they are married at 12 to 14 to a suitable man of the faith. As Muslims it is an article of faith to have many children.”
      That seems extremely odd BB.
      The temporary circumcision of pre pubescent girls which I take it is reversed at marriageable age?
      You know of course that the US has child brides also.

        • margaret says:

          The way you expressed it was odd.
          I’m aware of the practice itself. The control of women’s sexuality has many guises but none so barbaric as clitoridectomy. The equally mainly unnecessary practice of male circumcision has reduced with increased knowledge. Interestingly female circumcision was/is aimed at eliminating self- pleasure that may have been discovered early while male self-pleasure has always been encouraged as one of the ways men could ‘control’ their own sexuality.

          • Boambee John says:

            “male self-pleasure has always been encouraged as one of the ways men could ‘control’ their own sexuality.”

            You mean all those warnings about “you’ll go blind” or “it will make hair grow on the palms of your hands” were really a form of encouragement?

          • margaret says:

            Oh, yes, perhaps I meant ‘should’ be encouraged, or at least, accepted.

  • Hasbeen says:

    Unfortunately there are 3 alternatives Don.

    First. Submission to Islam. This would correct what many see as the problems of womens lib, & homosexuality, so perhaps not a bad result.

    Second. Civil war. This is the most probable result , as I very much doubt our normally Christian women, Womens libbers & our homosexuals will be too happy with the first.

    Third. Your rather wishful thinking of a rough rubbing along together. This is highly unlikely, as anywhere Muslims gain similar numbers in a population they have always become very aggressive.

  • Nga says:

    Interesting but unsurprising to see that five of Don’s geriatric camp-followers have commented on this post and to a man they espouse a tired and uneducated species of bigotry that can best be described as alarmism.

  • Chris Warren says:

    I see no problem with Muslim or Islamic religions that did not arise as part of Jewish or Christian or other religion. The Bible is drenched in slaughter, slavery and sacrificing family members for the sake of a fable.

    Fundamental Christians are just as anti-gay, anti-feminist, and chauvinistic, based on the Bible or Mormon texts, as are those who worship the Koran. Fundamental Bible-ites have generated just as much violence as we see from others today. All religions deform culture, personality and standards of morality.

    However a real problem is that there are too many discontents who seek to scapegoat vulnerable elements. This is a particular rightwing trait that, thankfully, Australia is slowly starting to expunge.

    There have been dramatic changes since the 1950’s. My early public school only had English and Aboriginal students. Now most schools have a high proportion of NESB pupils.

    This is how the world is developing. The real problem is fundamentalism irrespective of whatever book it comes out of.

    If you want a religion why not just be satisfied with Tarot cards?

    • spangled drongo says:

      Name a Christian group that is as incapable of assimilating into this country’s culture as Islam, blith?

      BTW, you don’t use Tarot cards, you’re quite happy with CAGW.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    “Fundamental Bible-ites have generated just as much violence as we see from others today” You are factually wrong.

    “Now most schools have a high proportion of NESB pupils.” … and are equal in achievement to those in Kazakhstan.

    • tripiaka says:

      Bryan are you God that you can just make a pronouncement that “you are wrong” or are you just so exhausted by your radical denialist position and disappointed that despite your efforts 80% of the population have been sucked in and are rank believers – so much for the wisdom of the crowd eh? – that you can’t even offer a silly bit of evidence from a JoNova – what is a JoNova anyway?

      Are you racist against Kazakhstanies and their educational achievements? What’s your point then?

  • tripitaka says:

    Drongo can you see the logical flaw in your question? I bet you can’t because you don’t know nothing about the science of logic do you? You should look it up because logic is a fundamental part of western civilisation and our search for truth and what leads to true conclusions.

    The flaw is that you make the claim that there is a group that is “incapable of assimilating into this countries culture (and it is) Islam (sic)”. That is what is called a truth claim and it shows that you have “a misunderstanding about the nature of scientific knowledge, and more generally about what it means to make a truth claim”. You can read more about this in this article;

    • Boambee John says:

      “you don’t know nothing about the science of logic do you”.

      And this, dear readers, is what a first class honours in science gets you these days. Never heard of the double negative tripitaka?

    • spangled drongo says:

      How on earth did you ever manage an honours in sci, trip? But I suppose you don’t need facts for soft sci.

      Lucky you didn’t do history.

      When you’re doing hard sci and you have to get designs that can potentially kill people, approved by world authorities, facts actually come into the debate.

      When you are told to disbelieve your lying eyes because some soft sci exponent got peer reviewed by his mate on the basis of GIGO assumptions, do you really think that is science?

      Soft scientists don’t actually HAVE to be silly.

      But it does help.

      Particularly when it comes to the bleedin’ obvious.

      • tripitaka says:

        Drongo you are so resilient. Any ordinary person would be rendered speechless by the incisiveness of my analysis of you and your motivations and abilities but you just bounce back up and carry on with your delusional thinking.

        It was hard work getting my degrees drongo; best time of my life though.

        So logic Drongo remember that is the problem with the tribes – your tribe is illogical and unscientific and full of sentimental nostalgia for the past when thought you were the high point of evolution. Let’s get to the logic; you say; “When you’re doing hard sci and you have to get designs that can potentially kill people, approved by world authorities, facts actually come into the debate.”

        It’s not easy for me to understand your comments you know because they are so illogical and lack the foundational knowledge that would provide you with the ability to construct proper sentences. But I did have a crazy old grandfather who never spoke to me again after I was on tv at one of those lefty demonstrations and wow what a relief that was to not have to pretend to be nice to such a nasty old fool and just be able to talk to my grandma.

        So to clarify, are you saying that the only facts that matter because if they are wrong they can actually kill people, come from the manly hard sciences and not from those sissy soft sciences and you actually were involved in this sort of amazing achievements and were back in the day, a player, in the big time getting designs approved by those world authorities – not the UN! surely not?

        Tell me about this bleedin’ obvious? Is this ‘bleedin obvious’ that you speak of, an actual fact that comes from hard science and can it be verified by the UN?

        • spangled drongo says:

          There, there, trip, I can understand how the bleedin’ obvious is such a difficult barrier for you and the UN both.

          But never mind. Just tell us if you ever achieved anything with that honours degree in science that was in any way scientific.

          And factual.

          And useful.

          As opposed to those who only use their sci for wild conjecture based on their sci assumption.

          You apparently have never noticed how so many of these sci prognostications have regular 180 degree about turns.

          But they always tell us they are sure they got it right this time.

          And they don’t even crack a smile.

        • Boambee John says:

          “Any ordinary person would be rendered speechless by the incisiveness of my analysis”

          LOL. And you ate soooo totally humble about yourself.

          I realise that you are just trying to pull our collective chain, but, really, you are worse at that than you are at grammar.

  • tripitaka says:

    Bryan are you God that you can just make a pronouncement that “you are wrong” or are you just so exhausted by your radical denialist position and disappointed that despite your efforts 80% of the population have been sucked in and are rank believers – so much for the wisdom of the crowd eh? – that you can’t even offer a silly bit of evidence from a JoNova – what is a JoNova anyway?

    Are you racist against Kazakhstanies and their educational achievements? What’s your point then?

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      “Bryan are you God“ Yes.

      “Are you racist against Kazakhstanies and their educational achievements?” No. I’m simply surprised that you’re just as stupid.

      • tripitaka says:

        Thanks Bryan for your prompt response. It is so easy to stir up some of you old people. Like me nothing better to do with your morning I guess.

        But anyway, it’s okay to believe you are God; this sort of delusion isn’t uncommon among those white males who suffer from priviliged prick disorder and now are developing dementia. It’s only when your behaviour leads to repercussions and a lack of your famous freedom when there are problematic results for the individual or ‘society’. Hmmm for those who don’t believe in society I guess there can be no problematic results if they continue to deny that they are suffering from their own behaviour as it is clear that you deniers are; suffering I mean. Sad.

        Why are you surprised that I am stupid? I’m probably evil as well being a lefty. Are Kazakhstanies stupid? Is that because they have brown skin and skin colour is correlated with IQ and Bryan is IQ the same as ‘intelligence’?

        So many questions and since you are on the ball this morning, I’m hoping for some more instructions from God. Can you put them on a stone tablet?

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    “nothing better to do with your morning”

    Exactly like you, although I do have better things to do. To clarify, I have been to Almaty, and not all Kazakhstanies are brown. I am also sick of your introduction of racism into every discussion. Finally, Australian school students score no better than those from Kazakhstan, so if, and I quote “brown skin and skin colour is correlated with IQ”, then you’re denigrating thirty percent of the Australian population.

    Your words, darling, not mine.

    • tripitaka says:

      Also Bryan It isn’t appropriate to call women ‘darling’. It’s really not pc anymore!

      It’s such a shame because way back it was a good way to easily deflect troublesome women. Too easy and now it’s hard. Poor you.

      • Bryan Roberts says:

        “It isn’t appropriate to call women ‘darling’”

        Darling, do I give a f**k? Guess. If I am contemptuous, it is because you parade your ignorance and bigotry as virtue, in contrast to what you claim to be the ignorance and bigotry of other contributors, ie, old white males.

      • Bryan Roberts says:

        “Some of us are such bad people that we actually choose to be naughty and violate the social codes”


        • Boambee John says:


          You naughty naughty man. You have chosen to violate the social code by calling triptych “darling”. Put on the dunce’s cap and stand in the corner!

          • Andy McNABB says:

            BJ, recently a middle aged woman called me “dear”. Soon after that insulting form of address, I started having night sweats, (even with the aircon down to 10 degrees), and really horrible nightmares . I have engaged a QC and we will take this to the High Court and apply for Legal Aid.

            My marriage has fallen apart because of this.

            The Minister for Naughty Names has also been informed, and it (can I call a male Minister of the Crown “he” ?) is in full agreement and will be funding some of the costs.

            Dear, dear me.

      • Andy says:

        Did you get your degree using the cut out coupon on the Corn Flakes or WeetBix box ? If you do not have those cereals in your pantry, you can always get a Masters degree using the coupon from the Phantom comics.

  • tripitaka says:

    Of course I know about double negatives; did you seriously think that was a mistake? lol what a narrow life you must lead BJ.

    I quite like double negatives – there is a sort of symmetry that appeals to me. And you know I’m not one of those group thinkers that the old drongo bangs on about; I’m an individual and I like to use words creatively when I am not writing for any publication that matters in the scheme of things.

    I was lucky to grow up in a family in which good English was important and I knew all the grammar rules before I even went to school so I didn’t have to learn those things. Some of us are so lucky in the richness of our early lives.

    • Boambee John says:

      So when you said that spangled drongo don’t know nothing” you really meant he does know something?

      Stop now before you embarrass yourself further than you already have.

    • Boambee John says:

      “I was lucky to grow up in a family in which good English was important and I knew all the grammar rules before I even went to school so I didn’t have to learn those things. Some of us are so lucky in the richness of our early lives.”

      Another example of privilege talking down to those seen as somehow inferior?

      • tripitaka says:

        That sentiment; the feeling of inferiority and the normal resulting feeling of resentment provides the motivation for much of the tribalism we see now. There is a poem that you could read to try and help you with what appears to be an unnecessary lack of self-esteem; there is also counselling available from psychologists that could help you.

        “You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.

        And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be.”

        BJ but you see the point is that I have always thought that grammar was part of the straight society and needed to be ‘challenged’ like everything about the capitalistic patriachal society that lefties have always identified as problematic for some groups of people and therefore problematic for all people, to live fulfilled lives.

        wihtou so that people could re-boot their prejudices in the light of new knowledge and like who was it said; when the facts change I change my mind. What do you do BJ? Cling on to the alternative facts and the resentment or get over it and move on?

        • Boambee John says:

          You said “That sentiment; the feeling of inferiority and the normal resulting feeling of resentment provides the motivation for much of the tribalism we see now.”

          Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “That sentiment; the feeling of superiority and the resulting feeling of entitlement that you display provides the motivation for much of the tribalism we see now.”

          You are not very self aware are you?

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      “I knew all the grammar rules before I even went to school so I didn’t have to learn those things”

      And you never learnt them afterwards? Maybe you should have been educated in Kazakhstan?

      • tripitaka says:

        Oh Brian why do I bother? I chose to use bad grammar. Can you get it? Some of us are such bad people that we actually choose to be naughty and violate the social codes but wait up, do you believe in society? What about what Thatcher said?

        No such thing as society, Is that still true or have the facts changed?

        • Boambee John says:


          As you poibt out, many of us are in the higher age group. We have completed productive careers, and now amuse oursrlves engaging in debate.

          But you are a young vigorous scientist who seems, regrettably, not to have a productive career, but spends the day trying without success to demonstrate some kind of imagined intellectual superiority.

          Keep it up, it provides us with light amusement.

        • spangled drongo says:

          More fun than Cathy Newman interviewing Jordan Peterson.

        • Boambee John says:

          ” I chose to use bad grammar.”

          Even if the double negative changed your criticism that sd knows “nothing about the science of logic” to an affirmation that he is right on top of the subject? Yeah, we believe you, though many wouldn’t.

  • Neville says:

    More disgusting behavior from Muslim rapists in the UK. These gangs of Muslim rapists don’t seem to cause as much concern because these young white working class girls don’t seem to get much sympathy from the UK MSM.
    Something like the Muslim pack rapists in Sydney about 20 years ago. These cowards are the scum of the earth and should have to serve very long sentences before they are released.
    If deportation is an option upon release they should be sent back immediately.

    Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
    October 26, 2018 11:02am
    Brendan O’Neill:

    “Britain is a country where a politician putting his hand on a middle-class woman’s knee causes more outrage than the sexual abuse of scores of working-class girls by men from Pakistani backgrounds…

    A posh journalist having her knee brushed by a politician causes media meltdown, Twitterstorms about ‘the patriarchy’, and soul-searching in parliament about men’s wicked behaviour, while the exploitation and rape of working-class girls in towns like Huddersfield provokes little more than an awkward tut of disapproval.

    The guilty verdict delivered in the trial of 20 men at Leeds Crown Court on Friday confirms the British political class’s ongoing reluctance, or outright inability, to confront the problem of Muslim grooming gangs…

    Very often, the reluctance to condemn Muslim grooming gangs is driven by an ugly and prejudiced view of ordinary Britons as being a pogrom in waiting, biting at the bit to attack Muslim communities. The elites frown upon frank discussion about these sexual crimes for fear that the unpredictable little people will turn mad and racist in response to them.

    The political and media classes have elevated the protection of multiculturalism from analysis and debate above the safety of white working-class girls. This is the trade-off they have made. And it’s an unforgivable one.

    Anti-racism has become racism, and vulnerable white girls are paying an unimaginable price”.

  • spangled drongo says:

    If we banned the Burqa, would it reduce tribalism:

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    The most notable feature of airports in the middle east is large men in white followed by small women in black.

  • spangled drongo says:

    I find it fascinating that our modern SJW “Huguenots”, fleeing local religious “persecution” and embracing freedom FROM religion, are the predominant encouragers and promoters of this Islamic tide with never a bad, or even cautious, word for the known traditional hazards caused by these same barbarians who will be making them [and us] pay handsome tributes just to exist, before too long.

    • Neville says:

      Yes SD that’s because the looney left are barking mad. If there’s a chance that there is an illogical and unreasonable way of looking at a problem you’ll observe that they choose it every time.
      The full stupid solution attracts them like blowies around a dung heap.

  • spangled drongo says:

    SJWs are globalists, not nationalists, and the more we go down that mindless path along with the UN, European Union et al, the more likely we are to revert to tribes within our own divided country.

    Assimilation will be reversed and increased confrontation that we are already witnessing to some degree will result.

    This is the reason SJWs hate Trump.

    He’s a nationalist.

    And he has the good sense to know how that system works to peoples’ and the country’s advantage.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Britain is a country where a politician putting his hand on a middle-class woman’s knee causes more outrage than the sexual abuse of scores of working-class girls by men from Pakistani backgrounds…”

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    “The great majority are like other immigrants, wanting to make a new life and home for themselves.”

    The difference is that their core beliefs are alien to our culture. This is widely acknowledged, yet we continue to bring them in, and adapt our social habits to accommodate them. Segregated swimming pool, etc. There is no evidence, anywhere in the world, of successful integration. Sure they want to make a new home for themselves, but in an Islamic culture. The whole world has seen it, and frankly, I don’t want it.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The “Dark Ages” were the times when the Muslim empire advanced and invaded the west which went backwards and it wasn’t until the west expelled Muslims that they got going again.

    Yes Don, building efficient ships not only allowed the west to trade freely with India, China and the far east plus discover the “New World”, they also had the ability to prevent the Muslim Barbary Coast pirates from doing to the shipping trade what their camel-mounted brothers had been doing for centuries on the Silk Road.

    The Muslim civilisation does not have a good record of productivity but in order to thrive seems to need a rich resource to milk.

    The history of Muslim superiority has always been a lose/lose for western civilisation.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Amazingly, we tolerate the completely intolerant. Are they ever likely to change?:

    “Probably during the fifth century c.e., when
    a nomadic people, Hephthalites in the Greek record, Huna in the
    Indian record, occupied the region and then further invaded India, two
    colossal Buddhas (one 165 feet high and the other 119 feet high) were
    carved on the sandstone walls of Bamiyan Valley, where they stood for
    more than 1,500 years as a testament to the Buddhist heritage of this
    area. Even after the Taliban completely destroyed them in 2001, their
    ruins still stand as a witness to the long legacy of Buddhism on this
    route that connected India and China.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    The tribes in need of urgent assistance that would fit much better are white South African farmers and Syrian Christians.

  • tripitaka says:

    Well that’s the thing Nev, you blokes just really don’t have any idea how people like me or Chris or any of those other evil leftists you spend your life obsessing about, ‘behave’ or what motivates us.

    But there is so much research being done understanding clearly the cognitive mechanisms that lead to the sort of disordered and self-serving thinking that motivates people like you to reject fairness, and kindness and truth and justice and the Australian way of egalitarianism and the idea that we can make a better world, so that we should be able to raise better people in the future.

    It’s like a screwdriver – that’s you blokes – all screwdrivers – trying to understand a cordless drill – that’s leftist ideas and the people who understand them and want a better world for everyone. Even you foolish old buggers.

  • tripitaka says:

    hahahaha Drongo, you still believe in the white supremacist history about the dark ages. Nothing like an old fool who lives in the past for an example of ignorant white supremacist thinking.

    “throughout the Middle Ages, from Iberia to North Africa to the Middle East, Christians and Muslims behaved like the neighbors they were. Sometimes they feuded, sometimes they ignored one another, and sometimes they helped each other. Certainly there were episodes of horrific violence between them, such as the sack of Jerusalem in 1099 , but there were plenty of other instances of Christian kings hiring Muslim mercenaries against their Christian rivals, or Islamic merchants trading freely with both Muslims and Christians, even while the Third Crusade raged. As late as the 16th century, France had no problem making an alliance with the Ottoman Empire against their common foe, the Holy Roman Empire. We should always be aware of the long, deep historical roots of religious violence, but we also have to be aware that, just like other kinds of violence, it has specific historical circumstances that create it.”

  • Peter Kemmis says:

    Your cast across the sweep of history is fair comment, but such a sweep with its somewhat reassuring conclusion does not identify the murderous conflict that would have often arisen as those tribes and empires merged, or the weaker were assimilated, or sometimes annihilated by the superior.

    The Muslims I know personally, or those I meet working in a supermarket, service station or public transport, all seem to be perfectly decent people, and I have no reason to think otherwise. Further, I would expect the majority of those in Australia, are similarly friendly and well disposed towards people like me.

    However, we cannot ignore what is occurring in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey, each leaning quite heavily towards fundamentalist Islam. Nor can we remain immune to the political, legal and and social role of the Islamic faith in countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and across the lake, in Somalia. Much closer to home is the UK experience, examples of which have been cited by others commenting here in response to your thoughtful and optimistic article.

    So it is fine to look across that broad sweep of history, but you and I will be gone well before others can write of the eventual harmonisation of Judeo-Christian and Muslim societies. When will that be? A century from now? Half a century? I can’t see its being much less. And goodness knows what shape it may take.

    What I consider most strongly is that we must not put our heads in the sand about the problem. Public denials that it is a problem, and strident cries of racism for calling it so, limit the capacity of Australians, non-Muslims and moderate Muslims, to discuss the issues and hammer out good strategies for managing Muslim migrants and assimilating them.

    Yes, I’ve used that horrible word “assimilate”. But that is indeed the lesson of history. Those more successful results of merging and absorption have indeed been stories of assimilation. (As an aside, for a very brief time I was an observer of indigenous assimilation policies in a remote area of this country; paternalistic they may have been, but frankly, those remote communities were a damn sight better than they are today.) So much for idealism, and heads in the sand. Plain and honest speaking is what we need.

    • tripitaka says:

      “However, we cannot ignore what is occurring in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey, each leaning quite heavily towards fundamentalist Islam. ”

      So true Peter, we can’t ignore it. What we need to do rather than bleat and carry on with old discredited white ideas about how murderous Islam just is, is to look at what motivates people to be fundamentalists of any kind.

      Get over your silly fears. Old white man knowledge has had it’s day and it’s been shown to be wrong in so many areas that relate to why people do what they do that despite all the propaganda from your kind of selfish and greedy person, Australians are rejecting this sort of nasty anti-social anti-human ill-informed way of thinking.

      Maybe you all might want to think about emigrating to a far right country where racism and religionism is in fashion since Australia is no country for right wing old men who can’t keep up.

      Do you think that your plain honest speaking is what we need? You blokes have been doing this plain honest speaking for years now and it’s not doing any good. Australians are increasingly rejecting your plain and honest speaking.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Peter Kemmis

      Yes the focus should be on fundamentalism – not any particular religion.

      Remember the string of bombings of abortion clinics in USA set off by fundamental Christians, and the murderous antics of Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland.

      Jewish fundamentalism (eg Haganah, 1920-48) has led to continuous and enormous bloodshed in the Middle East.

      Assimilating is a different issue, not necessarily linked with violence and one that arises even within atheism.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Our oh-so-knowledgeable, left-leaning SJWs here have such a poor understanding of history and the record of those of the Muslim faith.

    They can’t even remember that when the Imam’s were few and less influential following the two world wars, Muslims almost became westernised and democratic.

    They refuse to get that it is when religious mindset is activated that belief controls logic. [Just check the mirror].

    They have since reverted to their religious domination and women in particular have to dress as black letterboxes.

    And they think that lone democracies in their midst don’t have the right to exist.

    And a woman like trip refuses to see any problems.

    She thinks white males are a much bigger threat.

    Oh, to have a sci degree with hons!

    Please go and read some history, particularly that of Byzantium.

    • tripitaka says:

      Well Drongo can you stop with the histrionics? It might be impressive for old me who were once somebody, but not for those of us with sci degrees with hons – we like discussion calm and rational and in the proper form of logical argument that is part of the history of western civilisation. You are so emotional. Calm down.

      Have you heard of “deconstruction”? Probably not, so here is the definition. Deconstruction is a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language which emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression.

      You do know that it’s important in getting sci degrees with first class hons to define everything before making truth claims about anything? Probably you don’t know this and it’s not your fault, but it’s a ‘truth’ of western civilisation that I keep reminding you about. Logic is very important and can easily debunk truth claims that appear valid to the simple minded who have lived their lives regarding profit as the be all and end all of their existence.

      So when you say “They”, as in: “They have since reverted to their religious domination and women in particular have to dress as black letterboxes.”I need more information to understand who this group of “They” is.

      I know it’s not all Muslims but I don’t know which particular group of Muslims it is that you are thinking of. We need to be certain what group of Muslims behave like this, before we can determine the truth value of your claim that they have reverted to religious domination and women in particular have to dress as black letterboxes.

      And I blame Julius Summner Miller for this but I always want to know why. Why is it so? So when we know which group of Muslims are doing this we can make hypotheses about why. Why?

      • spangled drongo says:

        So your hons sci degree was in psychology.

        That explains it.

        No wonder you never produce any science, tripluv.

      • Boambee John says:

        “So when you say “They”, as in: “They have since reverted to their religious domination and women in particular have to dress as black letterboxes.”I need more information to understand who this group of “They” is.”

        Have you thought of trying observation? Just a suggestion.

        • tripitaka says:

          What should I be observing BJ?

          I haven’t seen any black letter boxes lately but I have been observing that there are plenty of silly old blokes who pop up on my radio saying the most appallingly stupid things and they are far more salient to me as a source of the problems that this country faces as we go forward.

          Perhaps you should be the one “observing” since it is your set of beliefs that is lacking any logical argument and increasingly being rejected by Australians. Lots of people say we are observing the end of the Liberal party because of the old white men like you.

          And this is an example of the lack of serious argument that you can offer. I know you didn’t write the phrase but you are supporting it and to say that a woman in a burka is a ‘black letterbox’ is not a good way of showing how rational and logical your point of view is.

          Why not get up to speed on how western knowledge has progressed since the olden days?

          • Boambee John says:

            “I have been observing that there are plenty of silly old blokes who pop up on my radio saying the most appallingly stupid things and they are far more salient to me as a source of the problems that this country faces as we go forward.”

            You need to avoid Radio National. Philip Adams is well past his use by date.

      • Boambee John says:

        Tripitaka at 1028

        “Well Drongo can you stop with the histrionics? It might be impressive for old me who were once somebody, but not for those of us with sci degrees with hons – we like discussion calm and rational and in the proper form of logical argument that is part of the history of western civilisation. You are so emotional. Calm down.”

        Tripitaka at 0749

        “Old white man knowledge has had it’s day ”

        It seems that “discussion calm and rational” can include a good dash of ageism, racism and sexism. I hope, though, that you stick to your principles, and never accept antibiotics (based on the work of an old white man) or the use of anti-septics (another old white man).

        I was going to suggest that you avoid flying, but on checking found that the latest research shows it was not based on the old white men, Wilbur and Orville Wright at Kittyhawk, but on that of two sisters, Wilma and Olive Wright, escaped slaves, at Hello Kitty.

        Realky, calm down and try to practise what you preach.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “I haven’t seen any black letter boxes lately”

    A vis arts degree with no vis, hey trip?

    You mean you missed this upthread:

    spangled drongo October 26, 2018 at 8:28 pm

    Is ostrich imitation part of vis arts?

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    The problem with the Muslim full -face covering is not whether or not women choose to wear it, it is that it prevents, very effectively, any normal social interaction. Men (and women) frequently strike up casual, and mostly meaningless, chats with strangers in the street and elsewhere. These depend on their ability to see the response of the other person. In the absence of a visual response, no-one would bother.

    • margaret says:

      It’s part and parcel of the control of women’s bodies and minds by fundamental religious adherence.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “…..fundamental religious adherence.”

        You are allowed to be specific, marg.

        Meanwhile, here is a reminder to trip that she should change tribes if she seeks honesty.

        Or what can be achieved with a science degree when you choose evidence rather than activism.

        It’s called scientific integrity.

        I received an email from Jennifer Marohasy this morning describing it very well:

        There is science, and then there is activism in the name of science. How can we tell them apart: the activism versus the real science – and does it matter? Some would argue that activism is more important than science, to ensure the protection of the environment. After all, many would argue that economic interests often corrupted scientific findings, so some fitting-up of the evidence may sometimes be necessary.

        ‘Noble cause corruption’ is a term invented by the police to justify fitting-up people they know to be guilty. This assumes that the means sometimes does justify the ends. Could this even be the case in science – for example, to say that global warming is killing coral reefs to make a stronger case for action against climate change?

        Then there is pure make-belief, which is of more interest to some than evidence.

        In the popular, animated Disney-movie Finding Nemo, which is a about a little clown fish finding his way back to the Great Barrier Reef, there are vegetarian sharks. The inclusion of the vegetarian sharks cannot be to teach kids science, but perhaps to challenge traditional stereotypes – as well as entertain.

        The movie Finding Nemo doesn’t claim to be scientifically accurate. But what does it mean to be scientific, anyway?

        Because of the status associated with science, many individuals and organisations claim their work is scientific. But what is a proper test for such a claim: that it can be described mathematically; that it has the endorsement of a government authority?

        Science is about evidence. Another key distinguishing feature is that it is open to falsification – unlike faith, a scientific theory can always potentially be disproven. So, the moment someone tells you that ‘the science is settled’ you should know that they are not about testing the evidence, but rather prosecuting an argument that may or may not have some truth to it.

        It is twenty years ago that I first observed Great Barrier Reef activism up-close, back in 1998. The public campaign began on 20th August when then Queensland Greens spokesperson and Senate candidate Drew Hutton issued a media release claiming the sugar industry was “having disastrous impacts on the marine environment”. This claim was based on the work of a scientist who had found what was claimed to be a highly toxic chemical – a dioxin – in dead dugongs.

        Dugongs are real animals with a mermaid-like tail, that live in the ocean and feed on seagrass. They are considered vulnerable to extinction, with one of the largest remaining populations inhabiting the warm waters of northern Australia. The idea that these harmless creatures, more closely related to elephants than whales, could be slowly poisoned by sugarcane farming was truly horrific.

        Information was being amassed by scientists to prove this point.

        I was told that in the meantime there was a need for urgent action by sugarcane farmers because the chemical found in the dugong was a dioxin, and that it was a result of farmers burning sugar cane that had been sprayed with the herbicide 2,4-D.

        None of these allegations proved to be true.

        But damage was inflicted on the reputation of the Queensland sugar industry. This was in direct proportion to the success of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) membership drive, which also helped with fundraising for scientific research at that time.

        Back in 1998, my reputation was also damaged because I insisted that more evidence was needed before the sugar industry accepted responsibility for killing the dugongs. In fact, I was not only condemned by activists for suggesting that the dioxin could be naturally occurring, but I was also condemned by the commercial fishing industry for explaining on radio that the dugongs had actually been drowned in fishing nets – that they didn’t die from poisoning.

        The scientist who first briefed me about the dioxin in the dugongs – with information that has since proven to be wrong – has enjoyed a successful career and is now a professorial research fellow at James Cook University. Indeed, it has been my observation over the last twenty years that scientists who survive and thrive within the system are those who subscribe to activism, rather than those who care most about evidence. Perhaps not surprisingly we now have a replication crisis in science.

        It is the case that an increasing number of peer-reviewed scientific studies are impossible to reproduce on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves. Yet the reproducibility of experiments is an essential part of the scientific method; otherwise we are dealing with anecdote.

        The replication crisis has been acknowledged in social psychology and increasingly in medicine more generally – but it is still denied in Environmental sciences especially climate science and Great Barrier Reef science. Daring to question the veracity of the evidence was the beginning of the end for former reef scientist and James Cook University Professor Peter Ridd.

        In less than two weeks time, Dr Ridd will be fronting the Federal Court after being fired by James Cook University for speaking-out very publicly against what might best be labelled as activism in reef science. Dr Ridd has claimed that there is no quality assurance of Great Barrier Reef science – science that is arguably misused to secure billions of dollars of tax-payer funding for more and more research, which is arguably of dubious quality though it often makes for a good newspaper headline.

        The university may argue that Ridd, as an employee of James Cook University, was damaging the reputation of the university when speaking out about the quality of the science; that he should have complied with their request to desist.

        Dr Ridd will likely argue that there is a clause in his employment contract that gives him the right to speak out because he is an academic at a university – that this is his duty as a scientist who cares about evidence and the truth.

        I plan to be at the court case from Monday 12th November and cover the arguments at my blog.

        In the meantime, I will begin posting background information at my blog, including snippets from my time as an employee of the Queensland Cane Growers Organisation Ltd. During that six-year period from 1997 to 2003, I sat on various government taskforces with key activists from universities and environmental organisations and saw first-hand how activism is rewarded and scientific scepticism slowly drowned-out. Of course, scepticism is critical to true science – as important as being able to reproduce the results from an experiment, and as critical as the principle of falsification.

        As I see it, this court case – Peter Vincent Ridd versus James Cook University – is almost a last stand for the truth when it comes to reef science, least the clowns prevail.

        I’m told it may all be lost on a technicality of employment law but I’m hoping this is not the case. I’m hoping that the issue of scientific integrity will be given a proper hearing and that the right of a university professor at a publicly funded Australian university to speak truth to power will be defended. What Dr Ridd has to say may not be politically correct. He has shown that the true demise is less of the Great Barrier Reef and more an erosion of the scientific method within our once great scientific institutions.

        Of course, the argument may be made that activism is more important than science – even that there should be more Disney movies starring vegetarian sharks. This is also an issue worth discussing in the context of this court case. It is entertainment and notions of morality – and perhaps even what it means to be a progressive – that may be driving the erosion of the scientific method including when it comes to the Great Barrier Reef.
        Thanks for caring.

        Dr Jennifer Marohasy
        Researcher & Writer

        • tripitaka says:

          Drongo Marohsy is not a reputable scientist. Do not use her as a source of knowledge. That is why you deniers are losing the argument. You don’t have any reputable scientists or people who can present evidence and arguments that debunk the consensus climate science only old cranks like you.

          You need to read articles like this one and refute the claims that are made about Jennifer if you want to use her as a reputable source for your ‘facts’.

          And Dr Ridd is another of what we used to fondly call a ‘crank’ back in the day. Climate change denial attracts lots of cranks.

          You ask “(b)ut what does it mean to be scientific, anyway?” And I can tell that you really don’t know and I’m appalled that you don’t know. I’ve already posted this article but you didn’t read it did you Drongo.

          I bet you find it physically impossible to read a Guardian article. That’s why you don’t come up with any good arguments that debunk any of the facts that you think are true. You need to understand leftie arguments as to why your rightie arguments are not arguments.

          This article explains how science works. Read it.

          • Bryan Roberts says:

            Which is the junk science: the claim that the Pacific Islands were sinking, or the FACT that they are not?

          • Boambee John says:

            “Drongo Marohsy is not a reputable scientist.”

            She must be reputable, she is not an old white man!

          • Boambee John says:

            “I bet you find it physically impossible to read a Guardian article. That’s why you don’t come up with any good arguments that debunk any of the facts that you think are true. You need to understand leftie arguments as to why your rightie arguments are not arguments.”

            Having read the Grauniad on subscription for three years, I can understand why some find it difficult to read!

            Understanding “leftie arguments as to why your rightie arguments are not arguments” seems in your mind to amount to ad hominem attacks based on age, sex and colour. Bit thin really. If all you have is casual slurs you don’t have much.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Trip thinks Jennifer Marohasy is not reputable and quotes a fact-free activist like Graham Redfearn [in the groaner no less] to prove it but no supporting argument or evidence of her own. Oh, dear!

            JM has always maintained that most of the small amount of warming shows very little ACO2 footprint.

            It’s very simple to prove who’s right, trip.

            Have you read the latest climate report by the IPCC?

            And what is their new summary of total warming since records began?

            If you don’t know, it’s about 0.5c +/- 0.2c.

            It used to be 0.6c +/- 0.2c but by being honest enough to use SST over 70% of the earth instead of SAT for 100%, they reduced it.

            Now please explain in your own simple words how that amount of warming which is considerably less than natural climate variability for the same period is at most only a very tiny indication of an ACO2 footprint.

            This is very basic stuff, trip.

            Show us that you can answer it and that your sci education isn’t all a waste of effort.

          • BB says:

            It is hard to take you seriously the name like that. How is Pigsy and Monkey by the way? You say there are no reputable scientists that debunk the consensus climate science. You ought to be more careful with your language consensus is contradictory to science. There is a consensus that God as a deity exists but no science. This is faith and I think there is no more science in your personal belief than accepting that the Monkey King can truly fly on pink clouds. I feel fairly certain that this for you will not change anything but here is Richard Lindzen. I suspect your definition of a reputable scientist is one that never questions your faith. A scientist who is truly definite about anything is really not a scientist at all but an ideologue. If your name is truly your real name curse your parents and never use it in the public sphere.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Yes, the Guardian is right and our denialists are now being seen as “monsters” according to Outsiders on Skynews.

            A recent analysis from shows sea-level rise around Australia is now around 40cm per century. This is an increase over previous estimates of around 30cm.


            Obviously if the oceans warm further as GHG’s increase and more land ice melts our sea level will increase.

            The Marohasy document did not even mention sea level trends and only covered their modelling that had been adjusted and based on nothing but 3 sets of data from the Northern Hemisphere and just 3 sets from the Northern Hemisphere.

            To the extent they claim they can use this wacko exercise to forecast climate into the future – it is fake news.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Sea level rise at Fort Denison from 1914 is:


            but there has been a recent acceleration. The recent sea level rise at Fort Denison from 1991 is much greater. See:


          • spangled drongo says:

            Yeah, frightening stuff, hey blith?:


            As in nothing that it hasn’t done in previous years.

            And do you know how much the gauge is actually sinking?

          • spangled drongo says:

            BTW, have you bothered to go outside and check sea levels yet, blith?

            Or even answer my question on the world’s warming since global records began?

            And I’m very flattered you wish to discuss and comment upon a subject I introduced upthread but don’t wish to acknowledge my existence.

            What is the term for that, double hypocrisy?

    • tripitaka says:

      Definitely is difficult to make friends with a woman in a full face covering type burka, Bryan but so what. Does it happen often to you? And do people wearing sunglasses bother you? How important is this in the scheme of things that are a problem in our society?

      But you need to define what you mean by ‘normal’. Surely you don’t think that what you think is normal is normal for all of us. I never chat with strangers in the street.

      I actually have made friends with a woman who wore a full burka when she went out; not in the house. She didn’t really choose to wear it. She was married and her husband insisted that she wear it but it wasn’t an issue for her. She was used to it and had never lived without it.

      But it wouldn’t help to ban it because if it was banned she would never have been allowed out of the house. This family were not refugees but immigrants who came here for a better life and they went back to the ME. They didn’t try and change our society at all. Just criticised our disgusting women who dress like prostitutes etc etc. and other things.

      The other type of burka wearing women I now about are the wives of the Saudi students who come here to study. They bring a lot of money to the uni and to the community. One never gets to talk to the wives or make friends so I don’t know if they actually choose to wear the burka. But I imagine that if burka’s were banned they would go to another country for their education.

      But then there is another type of woman who actually does choose to wear a burka; there are western women who convert. Now that’s really weird and I think quite significant in understanding the motivation of individuals who are attracted to extremism.

      Burka’s are not a good thing in my estimation but they will go out of fashion just as head scarves did for the Greek and Italian people who came here. It doesn’t help to point and scream ‘freak!’ ‘bad person!’ to get people to feel relaxed enough to look around and see how much better life is here. You only need to look at the way young Muslim women dress to see that it always happens.

      But again it is salience that is important in what we as individuals find significant. And what I think it is worse for social cohesion and has reduced the level of sociability and trust that there is in our society is the neo-liberal idea that people are inherently bad and not to be trusted.

      That is the difference between the ‘tribes’ if you want to get right down to the basic fault line. Right wing people are always out to take advantage of and make a profit from less able people, and left wing people think that people are inherently good and society does exist and is necessary and a good society is the best cure for all human suffering.

      • Bryan Roberts says:

        Do you ever read the tripe you write? Forcing a woman into a ridiculous facial covering is OK, because she gets “used to it”. Presumably beating women is also OK, because they too, get “used to it”. Which of the progressive universities was silly enough to award you an Honours degree, when you can’t even see the incongruities in your own arguments.

        • Boambee John says:


          Tripitaka uses “leftie” science. This relies heavily on ad homs and casual insults. To the extent that “leftie” science uses data, records are fungible, susceptible to adjustments by “homogenisation” and recalibration. But that is all good, because “consensus”.

          Any person who appeals to consensus is not discussing science.

        • tripitaka says:

          Oh Bryan you are such a doofus. Do you stand on your lawn and shout at the clouds?

      • margaret says:

        To be more specific for that most erudite of scholars, Spangled Drongo, I’ll have to use a quote from the article ‘The Devil is in the Details: development, women’s rights and religious fundamentalism’.

        “Religious fundamentalisms do not spring up “fully grown”. Generally, there is a gradual process, beginning with control over women’s bodies – the way they dress, their presence in public space, their sexual and reproductive autonomy – along with the policing of a strict gender binary and gender roles, the valorization of a patriarchal family form, and the imposition of heterosexual “normalcy”.”
        Christian fundamentalism exerts its own repressions of women’s rights without the burka.

        Only education about the facts of sexuality and reproduction, free of religious input can advance society (now non-existent it seems … society can’t seem to absorb pluralism because… ignorance and lack of public education about sexuality, race and class).

        Also, seen on chalkboard outside local pub when I was walking, the thought for the day:
        “Once we had empires ruled by emperors, then we had kingdoms ruled by kings, now we have countries . . . “

        • spangled drongo says:

          Gee, marg, that’s specific! Not.

          Last time I checked we live in a secular democracy, not a religious dictatorship.

          Separation of Church and State and all that.

          Where do you live?

  • Neville says:

    Geeezzzz I don’t know why you blokes bother with these silly religious fanatics , you certainly have a lot more patience than moi.
    They don’t deserve to live in a country that allows religious freedom but not enforcement. But give these leftie donkeys long enough and I’m sure they’ll be happy to stick their head in the noose.
    The left used to believe in the enlightenment and science but today it’s all about groupthink and the relentless pressure to conform to central authority.
    So called consensus is the mantra and they seriously talk about penalising anyone who steps out of line. Just ask the young Liberals at uni who can’t even hold a meeting without these ignorant bash artists and thugs screaming and yelling abuse until they abandon it.
    Then the Uni presents the young liberals with a bill for providing them with ZERO protection. This is what these gutless creeps have descended to, just another version of mob rule.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The tribal anti-whites are in control. And it’s even worse in Britain:

    “I have been wondering about why whites are racists, and no other race is?

    There are British Africans, British Chinese, British Asian, British Turks, etc, etc, etc.

    And then there are just British. You know what I mean, plain ole English people that were born here. You can include the Welsh, the Scottish and the people who live off our shores of Great Britain on tiny islands. Yes, we are all true Brits.

    The others that live here call me ‘White boy,’ ‘Cracker,’ ‘Honkey,’ ‘Whitey,’ ‘Caveman’ ‘White trash’ and that’s OK…

    But if I call you, Nigger, Spade, Towel head, Paki, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook or Chink, you call me a racist.

    You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you. So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

    You have the Muslim Council of Great Britain.

    You have Black History Month.

    You have swimming pools for Asian women.

    You have Islamic banks for Muslims only.

    You have year of the dragon day for Chinese people.

    If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.

    If we had White History Month, we’d be racists.

    If we had any organization for only whites to ‘advance’ OUR lives, we’d be racists.

    A white woman could not be in the Miss Black Britain or Miss Asia, but any colour can be in the Miss UK.

    If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships, you know we’d be racists.

    There are over 200 openly proclaimed Muslim only schools in England. Yet if there were ‘White schools only’, that would be racist!

    In the Bradford riots and Toxteth riots, you believed that you were standing-up for your race and rights. If we stood-up for our race and rights, you would call us racists.

    You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you’re not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.

    We fly our flag, we are racists. If we celebrate St George’s day we are racists.

    You can fly your flag and it’s called diversity. You celebrate your cultures and it’s called multiculturalism.

    You rob us, carjack us, and rape our daughters. But, when a white police officer arrests a black gang member or beats up an Asian drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.

    I am proud…. but you call me a racist.

    BEING PROUD TO BE WHITE! It’s not a crime, YET… but its getting very close!”

    • tripitaka says:

      Well Drongo I don’t think I have actually called you in particular a racist but I don’t see your problem.

      If you believe that there are different human races then you are a racist. It is simple. But if you believe that why be upset about your beliefs. Surely you should be proud of being a racist or a white supremacist? Why keep denying that you are these things?

      • Bryan Roberts says:

        Trip, you are apparently non-white, and you are aggressively antipathetic to views expressed by, as you call us “old white men”. Are you not ‘ageist, racist, and sexist’? Please explain.

        Your essay should be submitted by the end of the week. Please ensure you use correct English, which is one of your weaknesses.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Before we move on to your tribal/racial integrity I am still waiting for you to display your sci integrity with an answer to my comment above:

        “Now please explain in your own simple words how that amount of warming which is considerably less than natural climate variability for the same period is [or not] at most only a very tiny indication of an ACO2 footprint.”

        I will take a “no response” as your inability to demonstrate this integrity.

      • Boambee John says:

        This has got to be the loosest definition of racism ever. Still, using it, do you accept that affirmative action based on (non-existent different human races is racist?

  • Boambee John says:


    I realise that it was not the subject of your essay, but what the commentary here demonstrates is the absolute, unwavering, tribalism of the political left in Australia.

    The left have their set of tribal totems (among others, CAGW, multiculturalism, large scale immigration, separation of church and state rigidly enforced, except for one particular religion/political philosophy). Any dissent from any totem of the tribal left by a member leads either to self-criticism lessons and apologies or expulsion from thr tribe. Dissent by non-members is treated with mindless contempt.

    • margaret says:

      Tee hee – when your beliefs are being questioned call Daddy – he might carry a big stick.

      • Boambee John says:

        Don’t be more childish than necessary margaret.

        • margaret says:

          Child-like not childish … and a bit bolshie Bojangles, but mainly a centrist. I like the small l in the word Liberal. I get them but don’t get rwnj’s male or female.

          • Boambee John says:

            You were going well until you demonstrated your tribalism with the acronym “rwnj”, presumably defined as those you disagree with?

  • spangled drongo says:

    The Daily Tosh:

    Turnbull is talking sense; the Wentworth moment on Israel was a strategic blunder, writes Paul Kelly.

    The daily facts:

    White: bad. West: evil. No learning, no debate but lots of unshakeable victimhood. Welcome to the anti-Ramsay Sydney University, writes Janet Albrechtsen.

    • tripitaka says:

      You are such a victim Drongo, you poor old white man. How did it happen that you are not the emperor of the world with the magnificent ability to ask questions that reveal that there is a huge fraudulent conspiracy going on and you can see the flaws. Wow.

      How did western civlisation develop so quickly into a place where your genius could be ignored? Were you too busy making a profit and creating wealth for the country to notice the cultural Marxists?

    • tripitaka says:

      And Drongo of course there are other human tribes who think they are *the* human beings; why would you think that ‘lefties’ claim that only white people are racist? There are so many of these straw men arguments that rwnj’s make about lefties and what ‘we’ do or want or are. So many irrational self-serving assumptions and so little evidence or argument about why and how did we lose the argument so badly?

      Thing is that we lucky white people have the ideas from Western Civilisation to guide us in our thinking and our behaviour and other tribes do not have that.

      Western civilisation is the search for truth and in that search for truth the question as to white ‘superiority’ is a rational and an admirable focus for the questioning minds that all human beings have to some or other extent.

      Any number of western philosophers and scientists have noted that self-examination is a good thing for individuals and cultures. That is what leftie critique is all about; we are following in the footsteps of the great thinkers of western civilisation.

      If you believe in western white superiority you need to make the argument that proves that there are races and they have different characteristics that matter.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Tripluv, I’m still waiting for you to display your sci integrity by answering my question on how the tiny bit of total global warming since records began, recently adjusted downwards by the IPCC, indicates the necessity for any alarm.

        Really basic stuff.

        Particularly for an hons sci student like you.

      • spangled drongo says:

        After you do that, if you feel it is essential, we can get back to hurling your pathetic insults.

  • tripitaka says:

    So true Margaret, It is hard to ‘get’ the rwnj’s; there are research groups all over the world working on it and writing about it but there is no consensus; lots of hypotheses and this knowledge is going to be useful for understanding how to avoid raising such anti-social people who love to insult other people.

    The thing I see as important to remember Margaret is that these old fools didn’t actually choose to be as deplorable as they are. Nobody is born to be a rwnj; it is the things that happen to them that determines the path they take in life.

    I imagine the awful childhoods that some of these deplorables had – the dreadful things that were said around their kitchen tables and the lack of education but mainly it is what wasn’t said that matters. They didn’t get a chance to grow a ‘mind’ that can understand and process complexity and so many other concepts that are an essential part of the way the world works now.

    It’s interesting that BJ thinks it is a bad thing to be childish. But then it’s always interesting for me to deconstruct what they write in response to my comments. I’m pleased that I’m getting comments from a wider selection of the commentariat here and not just the febrile Drongo and the boring BJ.

    • Boambee John says:

      “understanding how to avoid raising such anti-social people who love to insult other people.”

      Bit rich coming from someone whose favourite casual insult is “old white men”.

      Physician heal thyself!

      • tripitaka says:

        Seriously BJ. You think that it is an insult to call someone an old white man? Why is that?

        This sort of retort is a real joke outside of your small identity group bubble. A descriptive term like old white man can become an insult in the minds of the small minded and perpetually outraged by the society that they don’t believe in?

        Must be the ‘hurty feelz’ – I’ve read this term on rwnj sites so it must be an okay term to use eh ? – that motivates you to be offended and complain about such a trivial thing. Choosing to be my victim? lol

        And talking about right wing nut job values and what they do on their sites, isn’t it true that a true right wing nut job warrior always escalates?

        • Boambee John says:

          I am astonished that one of your towering intellect is unable to comprehend the difference between simple words and their context in usage.

          “Old white men” is, as you point out, a plain description. When, however, it is used as a term of abuse to dehumanise groups and reject their opinions as unworthy of consideration, it becomes an insult.

          You need to improve your comprehension of “deconstruction”.

          • tripitaka says:

            And of course you BJ have a very sensitive antenna that allows you to just know when things are being used as a term of abuse rather than a descriptive term?

            Is that antenna a special gene you got at birth or is there a course you did at the rwnj university of life?

            I don’t need to improve my comprehension of deconstruction; I’ve been assessed by people who, unlike you, have the qualifications to determine my comprehension.

          • Boambee John says:

            My “sensitive antenna” was developed by observation of the infestation of flnj NPCs on the internet.

      • margaret says:

        I agree tripitaka that “old white male or man” is a term that old white men can choose to be offended by (just as David Leyonhjelm free speech advocate could not help being a hypocrite when put to the test of choosing to be offended, I myself could not help being offended to see wicked campers emblazoned with offensive misogynist slogans). Or they can choose not to be offended by it … they could laugh, they could think about the term and why it hurts them so much, they could even accept that that’s what they are and aren’t they fortunate to have got this far.
        If the term “old white women/females” was used as frequently I wonder if I would be as “offended” by it since it covers my cohort.
        The “owm” term is connected to those owm who hold or think they hold the power or at least the “suppository of wisdom”.
        And what about Ezra Pound in the poem Hugh Selwyn Mauberly written about one hundred years ago? Why could he not have compared Western civilization to a man with similar characteristics?

        “There died a myriad,
        And of the best, among them,
        For an old bitch gone in the teeth,
        For a botched civilization,

        In lines 86-87, Pound’s still talking about the “myriad” (which means “whole bunch of”) men who died in WWI, and says that some of the “best” men of the time were among them. And what did they all die for? For what Pound calls a “botched civilization,” an ugly modern world that isn’t worth fighting for. And in case he hasn’t made his point about how terrible the modern world is, Pound compares modern civilization to “an old bitch gone in the teeth.””

        • tripitaka says:

          So true, ” they could laugh, they could think about the term and why it hurts them so much, they could even accept that that’s what they are and aren’t they fortunate to have got this far.” I do wonder why they are so worried about other people’s electricity bills when it is not their business as libertarians to bother about people who don’t make the right choices and can’t pay their bills. Are they secretly bleeding hearts?

          I have developed the skills of, not only getting over being called a feminazi or any of those other things that women were are called to keep us in our place, but being able to see how awful it is to feel as unempowered as these old white men must feel to be so bitter and to be reduced or perhaps desperate is the word, to see Donald as a hero rather than a clown who their fathers and every one of their childhood heroes would have deplored.

          What I find interesting is the huge gap that is never explained between the sort of manly behaviour that Jordan Peterson advocates and the way Donald Trump and Milo and the other carpetbaggers who are making money from right wing distress and their need to congregate together and support each other, actually do behave.

          • Boambee John says:

            I am in awe of your magnificence!

            However, I remain puzzled why such an “expert” in deconstruction remains unable to deconstruct the difference between a descriptor used neutrally and a deliberate sneer used in a somewhat pathetic attempt to delegitimise the opinions of others.

            PS, Am I really insulted by the term? No, just amused by its usage. I have been insulted by experts, you don’t make the grade.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Cooking denialists in their own soup of lies….

    • spangled drongo says:

      What a desperate person you are, blith.

      You think that by telling old dredged-up lies yourself and producing endless assumptions you can win the debate.

      Try going back to square one and producing any, ANY, factual evidence.

      Try answering my simple question upthread on the total measured global warming as per the IPCC.

      It’s called sci integrity, that Jennifer was trying to impress on you.

      • tripitaka says:

        A rare bird you are Drongo. Not many people are impressed by Jennifer. Well not in a good way. But good on you for supporting the underdog. That is such a good Aussie trait.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Jennifer at least has retained her sci integrity by dealing in empirical evidence instead of groupthink based on assumption.

          How about you, trip?

          Hurry up. Your time’s running out.

          • Boambee John says:

            Tripitaka is more into deconstructionism than science these days. The two are incompatible.

        • Boambee John says:

          I think you mean “not many people you mix with”. That might be more a commentary on the narrowness of your professional and social circles than on objective reality.

  • spangled drongo says:

    They used a different method in the past but the lefty fems of today are doing the same thing through an agenda driven by political correctness and rabid misandry:

    “The castrati were boys deprived of their masculinity in the name of a sublime, sonic effeminacy so that others could celebrate the higher registers of culture. Eunuchs also were castrated before they reached puberty so that they became more submissive and servile to their masters. In both cases, the mutilation of manhood drastically reduced their testosterone levels, with boys developing high-pitched voices and more effeminate characteristics.

    Throughout the Western world children are being inoculated against the inherent “toxicity” of masculinity. They are taught that it is an evil social construct, and part of a trans-historical male ­despotism; that it has long been the source of injustice for billions of society’s more vulnerable.”

    We men, today, are expected to reject our masculinity to avoid offending those who are always offended.

    Have you ever seen this so well exemplified as by our fems here?

    Who follow up with age and colour in case we shrug it off.

    And they think they are signalling their virtue. LOL!

    • Boambee John says:


      Think of Chris W and tripitaka as pre-programmed NPCs, their actions will become more comprehensible.

      Neither is able to think outside the very narrow boundaries of their programs.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Replying to a drongo is the first sign of Dementia

        • tripitaka says:

          Cosying up to a demented Drongo is a sign that BJ doesn’t have any real friends and he feelz sorry for the Drongo and I do too.

          Pre-programmed? You don’t know much about coding or role playing games do you BJ?

        • spangled drongo says:

          Is that why you do it all the time, blith?

          Only in your own underhand way?

          Should I change you name from blith to dementious, the god of confusion?

    • margaret says:

      One word will suffice – SAD.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Marg, you left out a couple of obvious words:

        SAD — BUT TRUE!!!

      • margaret says:

        Sad is the word I use mostly for spangled drongo, who, (thanks to the largesse of Don in writing essays we can all comment on and go off on tangents, and also, who provides a platform for free expression), just blurts out his schtick using the broken record technique.
        I’m not acquainted with the term NPCs what does it stand for?

        • tripitaka says:

          It is the latest attempt by the rwnj’s to feel relevant. The urban dictionare is a good source of these new words.

          “A play on the term “non–player character” from various forms of interactive gaming (particularly RPGs).

          Someone using no critical thought or reasoning skills.
          Simply regurgitating a set of arguments and non-sequiturs bequeathed to them by someone else. ”

          In some computer games there are characters who are there for you to find out information from; they are only there to help the real player move on in the game so they are only coded or programmed to have a limited range of functioning.

          This is another of those ‘cool’ sayings that right wing nut jobs adopt in an attempt to appear relevant and up to date and superior to those evil lefties who are of course the NPC’s . The ubiquitous insult of ‘virtue signalling’ seems to be out of fashion and there is a search for new insults.

          • spangled drongo says:

            And once again our trip demonstrates her complete lack of balance by claiming it applies only to one side of the argument.

            Sorry, trip, but you’ve just confirmed your lack of integrity in all things.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Google is your friend, marg:

          “Top definition


          A play on video games “non-player character” mixed with a play on The Simulation Hypothesis.

          An NPC is seemingly a human that is unable to think objectively.

          We exist in a simulated reality and some humans take on the role of NPCs, spouting “opinions” they are programmed to spout and repeating in a cult-like manner.

          Liberal: (Yelling) Fuck Trump! Ban guns!
          Conservative: (Yelling) Fuck Hillary! Ban immigrants!

          Friend: Bro, I’m sick of all these people just repeating shit…
          Me: Its hard to move forward with all these NPCs.”

          Sound about right?

          • tripitaka says:

            You really know people who talk like the examples you provided Drongo? Do you live in the US then?
            Are you still praying for a Trump to make Australia Great Again?

            I chose the second most popular definition and not the first because it is more appropriate to an American reader.

            Why did you choose the first example? Because you liked the fact that it seems to you to be having a go at lefties? I thought that the first example might have been trying to be even handed but I really can’t deconstruct this sort of American specific dialogue without spending a lot of time getting a background.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Now you’re being dishonest as well.

            You claimed that it only applied to conservatives instead of both sides equally, as mine did:

            Liberal: (Yelling) Fuck Trump! Ban guns!
            Conservative: (Yelling) Fuck Hillary! Ban immigrants!

            No brains, no honesty, no integrity.

            Go away!

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Trip, as others have pointed out, you appear to have no appreciation of context in the use of the English language. You claim that the use of ‘old white men’ is neither derogatory nor abusive, yet you clearly intend it to be, and it is certainly interpreted as such. To explain: ‘old’ as distinct from ‘young’, those who you assume would agree with your point of view: ‘white’ as distinct from those of other races, who you assume would agree with your point of view: ‘men’ as distinct from other ‘genders’, who you assume would agree with your point of view. It cannot be anything other than an insulting put-down – intimating that the opinions of this group are not worth considering. Attempting to defend yourself is simply disingenuous.

    • Boambee John says:

      That is what happens when you abandon science for deconstructionism. The real meaning of the English language is obscured.

      • tripitaka says:

        And you BJ have a certificate from God to say that you know what obscures the English language. ROFL.

        • Boambee John says:

          No, just the advantage of having been taught by a teacher who knew the subject.

          • tripitaka says:

            And BJ was it God that told you that that teacher was the one who knew the truth about the English language? That was how you knew that this teacher was right and the other teachers who had a different opinion about the English language were wrong?

          • Boambee John says:

            It was the god of comprehension and clarity. Which god told you that your version was right?

            Why this sudden obsession with deities? I hope you are not one of those bigots who judge people based on their religious beliefs. I you are, I might have to hide in my safe space for a while.

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      You would not know a childish rhyme, but it is actually relevant.

      I didn’t know
      the gun was loaded,
      but I’ll never, never
      do it again

      You pull the trigger, darling, you take the consequences.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Trip, you’re a noisy left-wing harridan pretending to be an intellectual. It hasn’t worked, and nobody believes you.

    • tripitaka says:

      You are wrong Bryan. Lots of people in the real world as apart from this safe space do ‘believe’ that I have a point and I have been making this point for many years. The extremist right wing views you hold are ‘wrong’ for Australia and most of us don’t want to be like the US. Very few Australians want a leader like Trump.

      Even out here in the regional small towns where I live none of the rusted on Liberal voters who are my neighbours and with whom I have good neighborly relations, want a Trump type leader or for Australia to be more like the US.

      • Boambee John says:

        Research assistant at a minor Dawkins uni?

        • tripitaka says:

          Lol So obsessed you are with me. What is the motivation behind this determination to find out more about me personally? What is your point? Do you think that ‘lefism’ will go away if you prove that lefties are ‘worse’ persons than righties?

          That is irrational, because even if you could do it, it is irrelevant to the argument about what Australians should value and what we should want for our country.

          It is leftie ideas that are better and will win out in the end.

          • Boambee John says:

            Idle curiosity as to how you can spend so much time here. Easy for us retired old white men, but don’t you have some form of employment?

            Leftie ideas are better? I defer to the citizens of the former Soviet Union on that question. Many of the citizens of Cambodia were unavailable for comment.

            PS, look back at the pixels you have spilled obsessing about your imagined version of me in the last couple of threads.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    I recognise that several readers have serious fears about jihadists within the Muslim population of Australia. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, no one has been killed by such a terrorist in our country. And there are, as I said, more than 400,000 Muslims, so fas as I can see trying to make a living here. Yes, they are different, but we’ve learned how to deal with differences over the last seventy or so years.

    And if we don’t do our best now, what is the alternative? This is serious public policy stuff.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Don, I admire your optimism. The difference between what we dealt with in the refugees from WW2 and now is; these new migrants don’t want to assimilate and integrate whereas WW2 “reffos” were genuine and absolutely fantastic.

      They lived in old army Nissan huts for years while they worked, saved and educated their kids to the highest degree they could and the reffo kids I sat beside in primary school I still see regularly and count as my friends.

      They taught us a great deal. They improved our living standard enormously. And they were very appreciative and friendly at the same time.

      I don’t see that with our current immigrants.

    • Boambee John says:

      Curtis Cheng? Tori who ran the Lindt Cafe? People run down on the streets of Melbourne?

      And that is just off the top of my head, and there are plenty in jail after being convicted of planning to kill.

    • Boambee John says:

      Also, our streets are now littered with concrete bollards, attendees at major public events must be security checked before entry, our police are armed like soldiers. This is not an improvement to our lifestyle.

      Meantime our leaders, fully protected by armed police, seem quite sanguine about the possibility of casualties among those who do not get the same protection.

    • Neville says:

      Don you are wrong and the police have foiled many attempts to kill us here. Of course they did kill many Aussies and other people in Bali.
      They’ve killed thousands in the Twin Towers horror in the US and others have been killed in other incidents around other western countries over the last few years.
      A proportion of Muslims are very dangerous and if you can’t understand that I’m afraid I can’t help you. Admittedly the thousands killed within their own countries every year is the result of a raging hatred between Shias and Sunnis that has lasted for over a thousand years. In fact since their split after the death of the Prophet about 1300 years ago.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    You are wrong. I have no fear of jihadists. I have a well-founded fear for the future of a country I love going down the tubes because its politicians are afraid of being called racist.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    I realise you’ve been ill, Don, but that does not excuse you. “Australia ‘under attack’ for 15 years from group of Muslim men”, judge tells court By David Spice Updated 16 Feb 2018, 6:37am

    • tripitaka says:

      Nah won’t work Bryan; a pissed and aggressive white Australian man with a tendency to punch other people and dominate and force himself on a women is far more scary than a ‘muslim’ man.

      And as if anyone can recognise a Muslim man from looking at the them? I suppose you have some sort of sensor that goes off when you see one Bryan. Hells Bells you old white men have been blessed with extraordinary abilities and yet you still managed to allow not only the cultural Marxists to march through the institutions but the Muslims – and the Asians – to swamp our country. Sad.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Trip, I think your grandfather came to this conclusion a long time ago:

        ‘Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenceless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed- in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.’

        • tripitaka says:


          Which grandfather do you mean? The one who was a deserter from WWI; he was a Jehovah’s witness and they were pacifists. Should have been shot but the records show that he didn’t even serve time. I’d love to know the full story but he has been deceased for a long time now and my mother who is still alive at nearly 90 doesn’t remember much about her childhood and why he had signed up if he wasn’t going to fight.

          The JW’s were quite an active group in the first half of the last century being banned. “In 1941, during the Second World War, the Menzies government banned Jehovah’s Witnesses, giving them the distinction of being the only Christian religious body to be banned in Australia during the twentieth century. ”

          It is the other grandfather who was part of WWII and who my mother saw abusing my older sister so she had to never leave us alone with him while not upsetting anyone by telling what she knew because of course no body would believe him that you must be thinking about.

          I don’t remember much about him except for one time when he told a story about how he had “beaten” his ‘little black boy’ in New Guinea for some transgression of grammar rules. It’s not clear to me what this little black boy was or how come he was at the mercy of my Grandfather but I gathered that he did all the women’s work.

          Anyway the point of the story was that later on dear old Grandad realised that his black boy had been grammatically correct in the way he had used English and Grandad had been wrong. He thought this was a great story and something quite significant that a great white man like him could have been bested by a little black boy. Not an inkling of any empathy for the boy or shame and regret for the beating.

          Like you he really *believed* that there are such thing as facts that are irrefutable. But the point of science is that nothing can be proved; only disproved – like in when a black swan turns up.

          I can imagine that it must be awful for a genius like you to have to live through this. Never mind. There are many things that you could do to distract yourself from this chaos and look after your own self. Take up Tai Chi.

          • Boambee John says:

            Two points tripitaka.

            The death penalty did not apply in the Australian forces in the First World War (or, indeed, any later war).

            Have you forgotten telling us of the grandfather you ceased to have anything to do with after he criticised you for attending a leftist demo? I suspect that he is the one to whom spangled referred.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      I forgot Tori and the Lindt siege. My apologies. But the rest are court appearances, not all of them well-founded. And yes, there are doubtless more in waiting. However, I repeat, there are 400,000 plus Muslims in our country, and despite what others have said, they work, buy houses, shop and try to live lives here. We can do what about them? I am suggesting being friendly, and saying hello when that is appropriate. Yes, trust is a two-way street. But it has to start somewhere. Why not with me?

  • Chris Warren says:

    There is a strange undertone of racism in the above. We should reject any religion based on violence and oppression (or Caliphate). This includes the Torah and Talmud, the Bible and the Koran.

    The violence of white Christians in white robes against negros and the shooting and poisoning of Australian natives by Bibleites seems of greater impact than anything so far propagated by a relatively few Muslims. In the 1950’s Australia was in fact a defacto Christian “Caliphate” demanding all children chant the Lords Prayer at school and denying most divorce, abortion and allowing rape in marriage etc etc. Many Aboriginal missions were Christian dictatorships.

    So if you want to object to Muslim expression, you also need to object to “White Power” iconography spewing out of the Internet and the likes of Fanning.

  • Chris Warren says:

    From Tribal to this !!!!!

    Bible genocide …

    9:4 The Lord said to him, “Go through the
    city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the fore-
    heads of the people who moan and groan over all
    the abominations practiced in it.”
    9:5 While I listened, he said to the others, “Go
    through the city after him and strike people down;
    do no let your eye pity nor spare anyone!
    9:6 Old men, young men, young women, little children,
    and women – wipe them out! But do not touch
    anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctu-
    ary!” So they began with the elders who were at
    the front of the temple.
    9:7 He said to them, “Defile the temple and fill
    the courtyards with corpses. Go!” So they went
    out and struck people down throughout the city.
    9:8 While they were striking them down, I was left
    alone, and I threw myself face down and cried out,
    “Ah, sovereign L ord ! Will you destroy the entire
    remnant of Israel when you pour out your fury on
    9:9 He said to me, “The sin of the house of Is-
    rael and Judah is extremely great; the land is full of
    murder, and the city is full of corruption, for they
    say, ‘The L ord has abandoned the land, and the
    L ord does not see!’
    9:10 But as for me, my eye will not pity them nor
    will I spare them; I hereby
    repay them for what they have done.”

  • spangled drongo says:

    Blith is in denial that there have forever been minorities on the fringes of most religions that have been, while generally harmless, somewhat extreme.

    He seems also to be foolishly unaware that the followers of Islam are neither harmless minorities nor fringe-dwellers.

    • Boambee John says:


      Chris makes a good point about the KKK. Those Democrats always were a nasty bunch.

      PS, not much difference in appearance between someone in a burka and someone in KKK robes.

Leave a Reply