this is what i really dont understand. Why free immigration is seen as something for the left wing, and anti-immigration is for the left wing. How did they come to this consensus? In what kind of world does letting immigrants into a country who hate democracy, increase rates of crime, decrease gender equality, increase oppression and domestic violence, increase rape, have higher a higher level of gang membership and incent, considered to be a liberal value. Surely a left-winger must oppose the immigration of these groups of people.


why is there no social democratic party that is anti-immigration (anywhere in the world?). as it stands the only party in australia that wants to even research the impact of muslims in australia is the smacking christian democratic party, a bunch of anti-social freedom loons.

secularist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2009 at 6:04pm:



Because what you are asking for  requires that people's beliefs be taken serously and consequently a differentiation be applied.
Show me a politician who is confident to say that not not all cultures are equal I will show you 'a populist bigot'.
You have to be conservative (believing that your culture and traditions are worthy of conservation) to confidently differentiate between cultures.i

The points made about the loony left pandering to minority groups, and promoting what almost amounts to cultural, 'self loathing', amongst many modern western democracies, is certainly bizarre.

Their desire to support minorities, and the underpriviliged has seen them wilfully ignoring the gross misconduct, and negative behaviours from many of these minority groups. Behaviours that they would loudly, and violently, rail against, if they were committed by any western power, so it is no wonder that they have found themselves isolated on the very extreme edge of society.

The unforunate fact is that the Racist loony extreme right is just as out of touch with reality as those loons, and the polarisation of people to accept EITHER, silly, and offensive position, just leaves fewer moderates in the middle, who abhor racism, but still have enough confidence in their culture to stand up for what should be considered acceptable behaviour in their culture, without resorting to the hysterical rantings of people like the Islamophobes.

So we end up with politicians shying away from being associated with these extremists' views, and often countering with ideas of political correctness which are sometimes just reactionary positions designed to distance themselves from the extremists, rather than considered policies which will most benefit society as a whole.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 4^th, 2009 at 10:32am:


Taking into account that it was proven we all came out of Africa I propose all this race thing is more of the contest, bullying and has hallmarks of “fight or flight” behaviour with emphasis on fight.

It is well documented that people who came to Australia 30,000 years before others, have learning difficulties in mainstream schools and it is mainly due to lack of tradition in this type of formal learning format.

Another maybe easier to comprehend example, their bodies are unable to handle alcohol the way that European folk can due to thousand years of exposure over many generations.

Religion seems to implant “I am better” chip in many individuals too.

darn it, how come i generally agree with most athiests ???
we are "meant" to disagree vehmently !!!!!!!!

i guess that's where i leave most churches teachings