Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » God bothering » THIS IS ISLAM!

THIS IS ISLAM!

Seems to be on the money Comrades

radical-islam

 

Advertisements

60 Comments

  1. les says:

    yeah great story Iain I wonder how the Aboriginal tribes of this land felt when we brought them Christianity?

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Are you seriously suggesting that Christianity is as pernicious as Islam?

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    Well I watched it, Iain – as much as it pained me to do so. It’s absolute garbage and propaganda. Scaremongering. Simple/stupid and unsupported. Presented by a kid, by the sound of it. Juvenile. Do you seriously believe that crap?

  4. Iain Hall says:

    What part of the vid is factually incorrect?

  5. Paul Murray says:

    Islam vs. China will be interesting.

  6. Jeff G. says:

    Sounds like a “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Mecca”, only narrated by a 12 year old.

    I always go to the source with these things. Just who uploaded this video?

    Welcome to Hummingbird027’s page. Come visit me @ http://www.youtube.com/hummingbird027 for Hummingbird027’s Updates on End-Time and Prophetic News Video’s with a Biblical Perspective

    Well done Iain. You’ve promoted a propaganda video made by an end-of-days religious nutter, warning about other religious nutters. And you have the gall to say my arguments are worthless, what a laugh.

  7. GD says:

    There are many utube videos showing these statistics. Yes, this one was posted by a Biblical believer in the ‘end times’. But why not? Muslims claim to believe in martyrdom for suicide bombers with a reward of 72 virgins and all the wine they can drink.

    However, we don’t hear muslim apologists decrying that. Instead they prefer to mock the soft target, Christianity. Cowards all.

  8. GD says:

    Jeff, in the past twenty years, how many massacres, bombings and terrorist attacks have been carried out by ‘religious nutters’ of the Christian faith?

    And how many massacres, bombings and terrorist attacks have been carried out by muslims?

    You do the math.

  9. GD says:

    les reckoned:

    I wonder how the Aboriginal tribes of this land felt when we brought them Christianity?

    I wonder how they felt when they reaped the benefits of civilisation. You know, medical, financial, no more digging in the ground for grubs to eat as they had done for forty thousand years.. Yes, I wonder how they felt.

    Or would you prefer they were still digging in the ground for grubs to eat?

    I’m sure they much prefer being on Centrelink benefits, or going to university and shopping at Coles and Woolies, to digging in the ground for grubs. As for Christianity, as far as I can see, that religion has only brought them a better way of life.

    I can’t say the same thing for worldwide islam..

  10. Ray Dixon says:

    It took the Aborigines a while to “reap the (so-called) benefits” of white civilisation, GD. Do you think there was any welfare or assistance around for them in 1788? Any job opportunities? Any education? Any medicine? Or in 1888? By 1988 there was (200 years later) but even then, not a lot and it had only been introduced for a couple of decades. Until 1967 Aborigines were not regarded as Australian citizens, not counted in the census and (obviously then) not entitled to anything. Since then we’ve been playing catch up and, yeah, it seems sometimes they may be their own worst enemies but when you murder, oppress and discriminate against a group of people so unfairly for more than 150 years, it kind of gets ingrained in them that there’s no hope. We made this rod for our own back and it doesn’t help that people like you and John Howard want to rewrite history and send us back to the dark days. I reckon you’d have probably voted “NO” to the 1967 referendum that finally recognised them as people, not fauna, as you’re so mean spirited.

  11. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    There is no doubt that the way that the Aborigines were considered and treated prior to 1967 was a travesty however its unfair to suggest that anyone now endorses that situation. I even agree that it has taken far too long for the benefits of the mainstream to reach into the outback nooks and crannies but lets be clear in acknowledging that it is a far better place in modern Australia for our indigenous people than it has ever been in the past. Not perfect but definitely better.
    The thing is there has to come a point when carrying a big chip on your shoulder about past injustices just weighs you down and stops you making the most of the opportunities of the present so that you can build a better future. Too many blackfellas and those from the left who ache for their history hang on to that chip for grim death, long after it has become a putrid burden that poisons everything they say or do.

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    There is no doubt that the way that the Aborigines were considered and treated prior to 1967 was a travesty however its unfair to suggest that anyone now endorses that situation.

    Iain, GD was implying that Aborigines were better off from day one of white civilisation, so I don’t think it’s “unfair” to suggest he still endorses the way they were treated and regarded from 1788 to 1967. He clearly says so. My point is that it’s people like GD and John Howard who want to rewrite history that have actually hindered the progress of aboriginal people. It’s not a question of having ‘a chip on your shoulder’, it’s a matter of having to continually remind the likes of GD and Howard that their grievances are real and deeply ingrained. The longer we have an attitude that aborigines were not mistreated for most of our history, the longer it will be before their situation improves.

  13. Iain Hall says:

    Ray

    Iain, GD was implying that Aborigines were better off from day one of white civilisation, so I don’t think it’s “unfair” to suggest he still endorses the way they were treated and regarded from 1788 to 1967. He clearly says so. My point is that it’s people like GD and John Howard who want to rewrite history that have actually hindered the progress of aboriginal people. It’s not a question of having ‘a chip on your shoulder’, it’s a matter of having to continually remind the likes of GD and Howard that their grievances are real and deeply ingrained.

    you just can’t credibly draw that implication at all, If anything the “noble savage” imagining of indigenous culture is just as pernicious as any racist disdain for the culture that you imagine those on the right feeling.

    That said believing that“grievances are real and deeply ingrained” should not mean that those grievances should forever be the centre of anyone’s self imagining, sadly it is for too many of our indigenous people and those on the left who take up their cause.

  14. Ray Dixon says:

    I should also point out that GD’s mocking comment here re aborigines “reaping the benefits” is a classic example of his ‘abo-bashing’ style. You know, the thing he denies doing (repeatedly), and demands I give examples or retract the ‘slur’ on his name. Well, there’s your example of abo-bashing, GD. Proud of yourself?

    As for whether they’d prefer to still be eating Witchetty grubs, well why not? You should read your own source material, GD. From, your Wikipedia link:

    Edible either raw or lightly cooked in hot ashes, they are sought out as a high-protein food by Indigenous Australians. The raw witchetty grub tastes like almonds and when cooked the skin becomes crisp like roast chicken while the inside becomes light yellow, like a fried egg.

    They don’t sound too bad. A lot healthier than most of the sugar-laden shit you get at Coles & Woolies.

  15. les says:

    I have to side with Ray on this one…

  16. Ray Dixon says:

    you just can’t credibly draw that implication at all, If anything the “noble savage” imagining of indigenous culture is just as pernicious as any racist disdain for the culture that you imagine those on the right feeling.

    Huh? I don’t subscribe to this “noble savage” imagery of aboriginal culture any more than you do. I merely point to the disdain for their history (as clearly demonstrated in GD’s mocking comment) as evidence that among the hard right there is a disregard for aborigines full stop. And that’s the thing that is causing all the slow progress. It’s actually people like GD & Howard who have prolonged the welfare state and mentality among aborigines – by denying their situation, past & present.

  17. Iain Hall says:

    Ray

    I should also point out that GD’s mocking comment here re aborigines “reaping the benefits” is a classic example of his ‘abo-bashing’ style. You know, the thing he denies doing (repeatedly), and demands I give examples or retract the ‘slur’ on his name. Well, there’s your example of abo-bashing, GD. Proud of yourself?

    You seem to be labouring under the misconception that there is something innately wrong with offering any sort of cultural criticism of contemporary indigenous society, especially if you are external to that subculture, hmm I detect the evils of “political correctness” in your thinking on this topic Ray…

    Maybe you should check out what Noel Pearson has to say on the subject of indigenous welfare dependence

  18. Iain Hall says:

    of course you do Les, because you obviously can’t handle the truth about Islam

  19. Iain Hall says:

    Ray

    Huh? I don’t subscribe to this “noble savage” imagery of aboriginal culture any more than you do. I merely point to the disdain for their history (as clearly demonstrated in GD’s mocking comment) as evidence that among the hard right there is a disregard for aborigines full stop. And that’s the thing that is causing all the slow progress. It’s actually people like GD & Howard who have prolonged the welfare state and mentality among aborigines – by denying their situation, past & present.

    I think that there certainly IS a SMALL place for acknowledging the past Ray but too many people hold onto those grievances and make then the definitional point of their identity. That is NOT a good thing Nor does it have anything to do with culture wide welfare dependence. I would say that has far more more to do with the original hunter gatherer culture being all about exploiting opportunities for sustenance if an when they are found. Centerlink is just another opportunity to be exploited.

  20. Ray Dixon says:

    You seem to be labouring under the misconception that there is something innately wrong with offering any sort of cultural criticism of contemporary indigenous society

    Iain, read GD’s comment again.

    I wonder how they felt when they reaped the benefits of civilisation. You know, medical, financial, no more digging in the ground for grubs to eat as they had done for forty thousand years.. Yes, I wonder how they felt.

    Or would you prefer they were still digging in the ground for grubs?

    I’m sure they much prefer being on Centrelink benefits, or going to university and shopping at Coles and Woolies, to digging in the ground for grubs.

    That is not “cultural criticism of contemporary indigenous society”, it’s much more than that. It’s a straightout mockery and a put down of their entire race, culture and history. It implies they were instantly better off from the moment the First Fleet arrived in 1788. It implies they immediately “reaped benefits” and bludged off white civilsation and continue to do so. It is spiteful, factually incorrect and denigrates an entire race.

    It’s even worse than what Bolt writes. GD’s comment is exactly why the Racial Vilification Act was brought in – to stamp out that kind of hate (or put down) speech.

    My views on GD’s comment having nothing to do with any “political correctness” on my part. If he were to go into the street and repeat those words, nine out of ten people would call him a racist and tell him to STFU.

  21. Iain Hall says:

    Ray

    That is not “cultural criticism of contemporary indigenous society”, it’s much more than that. It’s a straightout mockery and a put down of their entire race, culture and history.

    What is so wrong about a bit of sarcasm or mockery Ray? Why should anyone or anything be protected from it?

    It implies they were instantly better off from the moment the First Fleet arrived in 1788. It implies they immediately “reaped benefits” and bludged off white civilsation and continue to do so. It is spiteful, factually incorrect and denigrates an entire race.

    Well even if that was his intention we have to get down to the tin-tacks of the claim, and that is a pretty big can of worms(pun intended)How do you define “better off” for instance? personally think there are pluses and minuses for indigenous people since 1788and the more recent the year the more that it in the plus side it becomes.

    It’s even worse than what Bolt writes. GD’s comment is exactly why the Racial Vilification Act was brought in – to stamp out that kind of hate (or put down) speech.

    The RVA is well intentioned but it is also far too dependant upon some rather too subjective criteria, frankly I think that those seeking to invoke it should have to demonstrate real harm rather than just claiming”hurt feelings”

    My views on GD’s comment having nothing to do with any “political correctness” on my part. If he were to go into the street and repeat those words, nine out ten people would call him a racist and tell him to STFU.

    That is the definition of Political Correctness Ray

  22. Ray Dixon says:

    A “bit” of sarcasm or mockery? Iain, face it, GD’s comment goes way beyond the bounds of light-hearted humour and/or exercising free speech.

    Look, the definition of political correctness , according to Collins Dictionary is this:

    “the attitude or policy of being extremely careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society who have a disadvantage, or who have been treated differently because of their sex, race, or disability.”

    I put the bold on extremely because that is the pertinent point. Your comments here on aborigines, for instance, are much more opinion-based and not a mocking put down of an entire race. I would not call you on what you have said (like I have called GD) because to do so would indeed be “extreme” and you would rightfully call me for being too “politically correct” for admonishing you. But GD goes much further and includes falsehoods, mockery and generally denigrates ALL aborigines past and present.

    Iain …. GD’s comment is disgraceful and I am NOT being “politically correct” to form that view.

  23. Jeff G. says:

    There are many utube videos showing these statistics. Yes, this one was posted by a Biblical believer in the ‘end times’. But why not? Muslims claim to believe in martyrdom for suicide bombers with a reward of 72 virgins and all the wine they can drink.

    You’ve just shot your own argument in the foot. Either Christians and Muslims are allowed to believe in a ridiculous afterlife or neither are. You seem to think only Christians can. Gee I wonder why that is?

    Jeff, in the past twenty years, how many massacres, bombings and terrorist attacks have been carried out by ‘religious nutters’ of the Christian faith? And how many massacres, bombings and terrorist attacks have been carried out by muslims? You do the math.

    How many countries have been colonized, invaded, bombed or starved through sanctions by Christian countries in the last 20 years? And how many by Muslim countries? You do the math.

    Re: our aboriginal friends, while I admire their determination to keep their culture and history alive, culture and history is not a means for survival and prosperity in the 21st century. White Australia is guilty of many heinous crimes and discrimination against indigenous people. But the fate of indigenous people lies in their hands as much as ours. There is no point harking back to the Dreamtime when they should be thinking about how to build a better life for their kids. And we should be helping them rather than hooking them up to the welfare drip.

  24. GD says:

    Re: our aboriginal friends, while I admire their determination to keep their culture and history alive, culture and history is not a means for survival and prosperity in the 21st century. White Australia is guilty of many heinous crimes and discrimination against indigenous people. But the fate of indigenous people lies in their hands as much as ours. There is no point harking back to the Dreamtime when they should be thinking about how to build a better life for their kids. And we should be helping them rather than hooking them up to the welfare drip.

    I completely agree. Well said.

  25. Ray Dixon says:

    I completely agree

    Yeah, GD? You “completely agree” that “White Australia is guilty of many heinous crimes and discrimination against indigenous people”? It doesn’t seem so from your previous comment. So …. I guess you’re going to retract your earlier (and disgraceful) comment then?

  26. GD says:

    Ray, before I respond to your question and to your many previous questions on this thread, and I will address them, I’ll ask you this: do you agree with Jeff’s statement about aborigines?

  27. Jeff G. says:

    At last we have found some common ground GD. Of course Iain will still say I’m a closet Greenie but more fool him.

    Maybe one of the reasons that we can’t solve the indigenous problems of today is because a lot of us are too busy bickering about “who did what to whom” in the past. History is interesting but if you can’t use it to solve modern day problems then it is useless. I care less about what happened to blackfellas in the 1800s and 1900s than I do about what happens to their children today and tomorrow. Perhaps if some of them felt the same way, they would be better off. Never forget the past but the future is where it’s at. Sad to see so many people, black and white, playing the blame game instead of working it all out.

  28. GD says:

    Excellent and accurate points, Jeff. Warren Mundine and Noel Pearson are two high profile aborigines who support this sentiment. On the ground there is the Black Steam Train blog written by an aboriginal bloke. Common sense, rationality and reason as opposed to the bleeding heart welfare dispensing mentality.

    There are many other aborigines who share these views. Links to follow.

  29. Ray Dixon says:

    do you agree with Jeff’s statement about aborigines?

    Broadly speaking … yes. What’s your point, or are you just fudging for more time (obfuscating is probably the more correct term) to cover your arse, so to speak, regarding your disgraceful & mocking put down of aborigines past & present?

  30. GD says:

    No Ray, this has been my view all along. My rhetoric may upset you and lead you to think that I’m ‘abo bashing’ but it isn’t the case. Prove otherwise.

    Likewise, a few months ago I managed to get you to read a Bolt column that I said had agreed with your assessment of an indigenous issue. You agreed that it did, except to say that, of course, Bolt was also abo bashing.

    There was no evidence of Abo bashing in his article, but you couldn’t help yourself.

  31. Ray Dixon says:

    Prove otherwise

    I don’t have to, GD. Your comment in this thread that I referred to is outrageous and unedified ‘abo-bashing’ without question. You falsely claimed Aborigines were better off from the moment the First Fleet arrived (a point that you later contradicted by agreeing with Jeff “completely”). You also claimed they bludged off white civilisation in terms of benefits. You even had the audacity to mock their choice of diet – ie ‘healthy’ Witchetty grubs – and stuck a mocking photo with mocking comments about it into your post. It was outright vilification of people based solely on their race. Full stop. Inexcusable.

  32. GD says:

    You falsely claimed Aborigines were better off from the moment the First Fleet arrived

    err, no I didn’t.. go back and read my comment..

    GD was implying that Aborigines were better off from day one of white civilisation, so I don’t think it’s “unfair” to suggest he still endorses the way they were treated and regarded from 1788 to 1967. He clearly says so.

    That’s quite a leap Ray to say that I’m implying something, which I wasn’t, to then say ‘he clearly says so’, based on that implication.

    Ray, I didn’t say that ‘Aborigines were better off from day one of white civilisation’ and nowhere did I suggest that I endorse the way they were treated from 1788 to 1967.

    Prove otherwise. Quote my comments and you’ll see that your over-heated allegations simply don’t stand up.

  33. GD says:

    You even had the audacity to mock their choice of diet – ie ‘healthy’ Witchetty grubs

    Oh, I’m so sorry, I didn’t mean to.

    FFS.

  34. GD says:

    And you reckon you’re not a leftist?

    Ray, there is not a conservative bone in your calcified leftist body. Don’t try and pretend otherwise. You are as left as they come. Only Lee Rhiannon is further to the left than you. And she votes for Moscow at every election, even though Moscow isn’t on the Senate voting form. 🙂

  35. Ray Dixon says:

    Ray, there is not a conservative bone in your calcified leftist body. Don’t try and pretend otherwise. You are as left as they come

    That’s a ludicrous statement, GD. Labelling someone a “leftist” is your answer to all criticism. Your rationale goes like this: “If you don’t agree with my extreme right wing views you are just a leftist”. You know full well that I am no supporter of the loopy left Greens and their unthought-through policies. You know full well that I am a business person involved in both tourism and property development. These are capitalists pursuits, GD, not activities normally associated with socialists/communists & “leftists”. You know full well that I do not support the type of meaningless protest we saw over the weekend. And you know full well that I take conservative positions on a range of key issues, particularly: law & order, drugs, gay marriage, education (I sent my kids to private schools – not the type of thing a real “lefty” would normally do), health (I have full private health cover, very “unleft” like) and many more. Where I differ from you politically is on matters economic and your hard line views on immigration, muslims and aborigines (and your constant put downs of those groups). To label me a “leftist” because I called you on your unfair and distorted mockery of aborigines is, quite frankly, piss weak. I’ll put it down to your defensive style of obfuscating and finger pointing at your accusers whenever you’re caught out. I shouldn’t have to waste all this space defending myself against your diversion, but that was your intention, to divert and deflect all criticism. Now, getting to the real issue:

    I didn’t say that ‘Aborigines were better off from day one of white civilisation’ and nowhere did I suggest that I endorse the way they were treated from 1788 to 1967.

    That’s how it read. You clearly claimed that the arrival of white civilisation/Christianity (same thing) was of great benefit to them:

    “I wonder how they felt when they reaped the benefits of civilisation. You know, medical, financial, no more digging in the ground for grubs to eat as they had done for forty thousand years..” – a clear implication that the arrival of Christianity (in the form of the First Fleet) immediately reprieved them from a poor, miserable and backwards past and that they “reaped benefits”. It’s a false claim and a complete put down of their 40,000 year lifestyle and culture. You reinforced this with a photo of grubs and a link to Wikipedia for effect.

    “I’m sure they much prefer being on Centrelink benefits, or going to university”– that didn’t happen for the best part of 200 years and, again, you’re implying that aborigines (all of them) are welfare bludgers “reaping benefits” from white civilisation.

    “(I’m sure they much prefer) shopping at Coles and Woolies, to digging in the ground for grubs.” – another (final) insult designed to denigrate aborigines in general by pointing to their eating habits. Rubbing salt into the wound, which is ironic because most of the crap on the shelves at the supermarkets is laden with salt, as well as sugar.

    Your whole intent was clearly to mock and run down an entire race and dismiss their mistreatment by claiming they were/are better off for the great part of the 200+ years following the arrival of white man. Maybe you thought it was ‘humorous’ to couch it in the terms you did, but any comedian who stood on a stage and said that would be booed off by the great majority of the audience – regardless of their political leanings. It’d be front page news. You see, GD, the great majority regard your type of speech as highly inflammatory.

    In my (non-leftist) opinion, I believe your remarks are racial vilification. No, I’m not calling you a “racist” (and I never have) but many would.

  36. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    Sometimes its better to concede that you have gone too far, read too much into something or just plain over egged your pudding than to keep digging a deeper hole

  37. Ray Dixon says:

    I stand by my views on GD’s racial vilification of aborigines. It was. I’m not in a hole and I don’t intend to address this much further.

  38. Iain Hall says:

    Mate,you drew an implication from GD’s comment that was something of an over reach and not what he meant at all.

    He has clarified his position and made it clear that he was not vilifying anyone. can’t you just accept that on face value even though you disagree with his sentiment?

  39. Ray Dixon says:

    By any reading of GD’s comment (the one in question) he was denigrating aborigines as a race, past and present. There’s no “over reach” in seeing his comments that way. He has not “clarified his position” at all. He has merely issued denials without elaborating. I repeat: GD’s words, in my opinion, were clearly racial vilification.

  40. Ray Dixon says:

    his sentiment

    Iain, sentiment means “A view or opinion that is held or expressed”. As I pointed out to you earlier, GD’s comments go much further than expressing an opinion by adding insult, untruths and mockery to his “sentiment”. It crosses the line from opinion into denigration of a whole group of people based on their race. That’s as clear as day.

  41. Iain Hall says:

    Ray

    you mentioned this particular response to me earlier before now now I could did not have an opportunity to address your argument in detail I now have a little time so lets de-construct your argument shall we?

    Ray, there is not a conservative bone in your calcified leftist body. Don’t try and pretend otherwise. You are as left as they come

    That’s a ludicrous statement, GD. Labelling someone a “leftist” is your answer to all criticism. Your rationale goes like this: “If you don’t agree with my extreme right wing views you are just a leftist”. You know full well that I am no supporter of the loopy left Greens and their unthought-through policies.

    Ray there is no doubt that you do have leanings to the left on many political issues, that you don’t endorse the loopy greens is certainly a serious brownie point but it does not take you out of the left.

    You know full well that I am a business person involved in both tourism and property development. These are capitalists pursuits, GD, not activities normally associated with socialists/communists & “leftists”.

    Being of the left does not preclude one from being a business owner its much more about your attitudes to social issues rather than how you make a quid.

    You know full well that I do not support the type of meaningless protest we saw over the weekend. And you know full well that I take conservative positions on a range of key issues, particularly: law & order, drugs, gay marriage, education (I sent my kids to private schools – not the type of thing a real “lefty” would normally do), health (I have full private health cover, very “unleft” like) and many more.

    Need I remind you of the example of our learned friend? he has all of the same sort of background and he is a raging Greens supporter/

    Where I differ from you politically is on matters economic and your hard line views on immigration, muslims and aborigines (and your constant put downs of those groups). To label me a “leftist” because I called you on your unfair and distorted mockery of aborigines is, quite frankly, piss weak. I’ll put it down to your defensive style of obfuscating and finger pointing at your accusers whenever you’re caught out. I shouldn’t have to waste all this space defending myself against your diversion, but that was your intention, to divert and deflect all criticism. Now, getting to the real issue:

    Ray you have this terrible confirmation bias which once invoked causes you to see the worst in what people say. That said what GD said about blackfellas was no different to the sorts of things that the likes of Noel Pearson and others have been saying for ages. And when it comes to eating grubs well its the sort of thing that is hardly done at all these days, except for the tourists. In fact the switch to a shop bought diet is the foundation stone of so many indigenous health and social issues, simply because GD is right to suggest that such things are consistently chosen over Bush tucker. So I suggest if you really want to pull GD up on anything then it would be far more productive to look into that choice being made by indigenous people and why its not a good one.

    I didn’t say that ‘Aborigines were better off from day one of white civilisation’ and nowhere did I suggest that I endorse the way they were treated from 1788 to 1967.

    That’s how it read.(to me) You clearly claimed that the arrival of white civilisation/Christianity (same thing) was of great benefit to them:

    “I wonder how they felt when they reaped the benefits of civilisation. You know, medical, financial, no more digging in the ground for grubs to eat as they had done for forty thousand years..” – a clear implication that the arrival of Christianity (in the form of the First Fleet) immediately reprieved them from a poor, miserable and backwards past and that they “reaped benefits”. It’s a false claim and a complete put down of their 40,000 year lifestyle and culture. You reinforced this with a photo of grubs and a link to Wikipedia for effect.

    Well Ray I would say that you should take GD’s clarification at face value, it costs you nothing to do so. Because your paragraph above is pure Straw man its all built upon your SUPPOSITION and NOT what GD intended his words to mean.

    “I’m sure they much prefer being on Centrelink benefits, or going to university”– that didn’t happen for the best part of 200 years and, again, you’re implying that aborigines (all of them) are welfare bludgers “reaping benefits” from white civilisation.

    Ray, No one thinks that those in need should be ignored in our society and I think (and I suspect GD does as well) that getting an good education is the best way forward for indigenous people but once again I cite the things that Noel Pearson has said about the pernicious effect of welfare dependence especially in remote communities. In such places just chillin on the welfare and living a life of idleness is very attractive but its a seductive trap that has sow a whole crop of social problems. That is a very sad reality that needs to be addressed

    “(I’m sure they much prefer) shopping at Coles and Woolies, to digging in the ground for grubs.” – another (final) insult designed to denigrate aborigines in general by pointing to their eating habits. Rubbing salt into the wound, which is ironic because most of the crap on the shelves at the supermarkets is laden with salt, as well as sugar.

    Its not an insult its a statement of fact health workers in indigenous communities are trying very hard to get indigenous people to retain their hunting and gathering skills because much of the knowledge has been lost simply because getting a feed from the store is just too bloody easy which has resulted in obesity and things like diabetes and kidney problems.

    Your whole intent was clearly to mock and run down an entire race and dismiss their mistreatment by claiming they were/are better off for the great part of the 200+ years following the arrival of white man.

    If anything I would suggest what GD was mocking was the whole victim mentality that is the foundation stone of so much discourse about indigenous issues. You know what Ray, I cringe when I hear about historical abuses and indignities that were heaped upon or indigenous people. But there comes a point where they just have to stop whining and work towards a better future. The apology should have been that turning point if you ask me but the problem is that many activists are just so fixated on the wrongs of the past that they just can’t see anything else.That said there is a great deal of good will toward indigenous people and that can certainly be used to improve their circumstances but it can also be entirely dissipated if they keep whining about past wrongs.

    Maybe you thought it was ‘humorous’ to couch it in the terms you did, but any comedian who stood on a stage and said that would be booed off by the great majority of the audience – regardless of their political leanings. It’d be front page news. You see, GD, the great majority regard your type of speech as highly inflammatory.

    None of us are perfect in the way that we make our arguments Ray but the great majority would NOT see what GD said the way that you do in fact I would back GD’s ability to read an audience (given he is a pro muso) over yours any day and while I agree that what he said was a bit light on for qualification it simply did not read the way that you saw it to everyone (certainly not me)

    In my (non-leftist) opinion, I believe your remarks are racial vilification. No, I’m not calling you a “racist” (and I never have) but many would.

    When it comes to cultural issues in things like dietary habits human beings are very versatile in what we can and what we chose to eat, personally I would only in any sort of insect in a survival situation, Blackfllas are just the same mate they chose to eat the same tucker that you and I eat and saying so vilifies no one.

  42. Ray Dixon says:

    Simple response, Iain:

    (1) I am conservative on most social issues too. I am not a “leftist”, it’s just that I’m to the left of you (and obviously way left of GD). Your attempt at deconstructing my own understanding of myself is plain wrong. One thing I abhor though is discrimination against minorities, especially when it’s based on race and full of malice, mistakes and mockery.

    (2) I stand by my view that GD went too far in his comments on this thread re aborigines. Why you’re doing his bidding for him though is anyone’s guess. I’m not really interested in hearing his defence via a 3rd party, in fact I’m not even really interested in hearing any more from GD himself on this – we know what he’ll say already. I’ve expressed my views and GD’s expressed his (and then some). Enough said, really.

  43. Jeff G. says:

    That’s a ludicrous statement, GD. Labelling someone a “leftist” is your answer to all criticism. Your rationale goes like this: “If you don’t agree with my extreme right wing views you are just a leftist”.

    Guys, the whole left vs. right thing is simplistic, boring and unhelpful. People who obsess about the left or right are like brain dead football supporters. They think their side is always right, even when it loses. They chant, barrack and abuse rather than discuss the game. They are incapable of recognizing talent in the opposition team. Iain and GD both engage in this nonsense far more than they should. GD reckons “the Left” is ruining Australia. Well no, the Left (the unions, John Curtin, Hawke and Keating, etc.) helped build Australia and make it a safe place to live, work and raise children. We enjoy great working conditions and a welfare net thanks to “the Left”. But the Right (Menzies, Howard, Packer, big business) built Australia too. Anyone who can’t see that the best path for Australia lies someone where in the middle of “left” and “right” is either blind or a brainless cheerleader for one side.

  44. Iain Hall says:

    Jeff
    I see the whole left right thing as a sort of short hand descriptor of a persons politics,and its nothing more than that as far as I am concerned. I don’t think either has a monopoly on virtue or vice.

  45. Ray Dixon says:

    That is essentially what he is saying, Iain. Only, it’s the extreme of either side (eg GD) that can’t see the forest for the trees.

  46. Jeff G. says:

    Iain,

    It’s good that you say that, because I agree. However it’s interesting that you tried to pigeon hole me as a “leftist” and a Green when I first posted to your blog. As if it was something I should be ashamed of. Well I’m not a “leftist” but even if I were, I doubt I would be ashamed.

  47. GD says:

    the Left (the unions, John Curtin, Hawke and Keating, etc.) helped build Australia and make it a safe place to live, work and raise children

    I agree, Jeff. However, since 1996 there hasn’t been much help from the left, ie Labor and the Greens. Labor has saddled the next generation with a massive debt, the largest in our history and without anything to show for it.* The Greens are responsible for the obscene waste of money spent on so-called renewable energy and other scams including the carbon tax. Increased spending on hospitals and roads would have been a wiser decision.

    Additionally the Greens have locked up the forests, forced industries to close and by their ideology, imbued the next generation with a fear of catastrophic global warming, which according to the latest IPCC report and the British Met. Office, isn’t happening. (links available)

    *Ray, the GFC is hardly justification for a debt of this magnitude.

  48. GD says:

    Iain said:

    what GD said about blackfellas was no different to the sorts of things that the likes of Noel Pearson and others have been saying for ages.

    Ray, have you ever read any articles written by Noel Pearson or Warren Mundine on this topic?

    Noel Pearson’s Ben Chifley Memorial Lecture clearly outlined his views on open-slather welfare for indigenous people.

    our descent into passive welfare dependency has taken a decisive toll on our people, and the social problems which it has precipitated in our families and communities have had a cancerous effect on our relationships and values

    Did you follow the link I posted to Dallas Scott’s blog Black Steam Train? His latest post is about Aboriginal identity. ‘Who Is More Aboriginal?’

    Dallas Scott is a dark-skinned Aborigine.

    This from Radio National:

    Dallas Scott, an Aboriginal man and writer, says even he is cautious in writing about Indigenous identity, wary that his words could be used to further racist arguments. He argues that we should distribute welfare to Indigenous Australians based on need, rather than identity.

    “distribute welfare to Indigenous Australians based on need, rather than identity”

    Exactly what Andrew Bolt has said repeatedly.

  49. Ray Dixon says:

    Pearson speaks without denigrating and humiliating his people – he just speaks plainly and factually. I agree with a lot of what he says although he overlooks the origins of the ‘descent into welfare dependency’ and what keeps them there. And Scott is “cautious” in what he writes to avoid inflaming the issue. Your comments were sarcastic, mocking, factually incorrect and generally put down all aborigines. Big difference.

  50. GD says:

    he overlooks the origins of the ‘descent into welfare dependency’.

    That’s because, being Aboriginal, he knows that the only way forward for Aborigines is to escape from welfare dependency.

    You may prefer to wallow in the trough of past injustices, however Pearson prefers to look to the future.

  51. Ray Dixon says:

    GD, I’ve edited the comment because I knew you’d jump on that (in order to divert and deflect from the point). It now reads ” he overlooks the origins of the ‘descent into welfare dependency’ and what keeps them there“. I’m not wallowing in the past. I’m saying your comments were inflammatory. Sure, your opinion may be soundly based and somewhat in line with Pearson’s, but your way of delivering is what is in question. If a higher profile person than you wrote what you wrote in a higher profile medium there’d be outrage. It would entrench among aborigines that they are unworthy bludgers who should be thankful we ‘rescued’ them from their past. If you keep telling someone they’re ‘useless’ they’ll believe it.

  52. GD says:

    Ray said:

    I’ve edited the comment

    At least you admitted that. However as for your claim that:

    your way of delivering is what is in question

    That is ludicrous. Should we, as a nation, be walking on eggshells every time we express an opinion about Aborigines? As I’ve posted, three leading Aborigines agree with my sentiments.

    Why are you so afraid of strident opinions, loudly voiced opinions? Is that illegal? Alan Jones has the highest rating radio show in Australia. It doesn’t upset his listeners.

    Perhaps you’re arguing from your leftist bias, even though you deny having a leftist bias.

  53. Ray Dixon says:

    I edited the comment BEFORE I saw your reply, GD. And you can be as “loud and strident” as you like. You can even be as moronic, rude and pigheaded as Alan Jones is (do you seriously hold him up as a good example of behaviour?). But when you include sarcasm, mockery, untruths and put downs in your “loud & strident” opinions you’re going much further (as I have repeatedly pointed out).

    These principles that I’m trying to explain to you apply generally to all people, not just aborigines. If you were to “loudly & stridently” express an opinion about me that wrongly denigrated my character you’d be defaming me and I could sue you for that. When you do that to a race or group of people you are defaming them. The point is, you shouldn’t go around unfairly denigrating people, GD. You do not have a “right” to do that. It’s not “free speech” it’s unlawful.

  54. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    This is some progress on your part:

    GD, I’ve edited the comment because I knew you’d jump on that (in order to divert and deflect from the point). It now reads ” he overlooks the origins of the ‘descent into welfare dependency’ and what keeps them there“. I’m not wallowing in the past. I’m saying your comments were inflammatory. Sure, your opinion may be soundly based and somewhat in line with Pearson’s, but your way of delivering is what is in question. If a higher profile person than you wrote what you wrote in a higher profile medium there’d be outrage. It would entrench among aborigines that they are unworthy bludgers who should be thankful we ‘rescued’ them from their past. If you keep telling someone they’re ‘useless’ they’ll believe it.

    However you still need to take that final step of admitting that telling the truth should never be considered offensive especially if it avoids being patronising or condescending to indigenous people. In my humble opinion its the denial of the truth about the perniciousness of sit down money that has done more harm than good for indigenous people, its one of those good intentions that pave the road to hell.

  55. Ray Dixon says:

    you still need to take that final step of admitting that telling the truth should never be considered offensive especially if it avoids being patronising or condescending to indigenous people

    Iain, I don’t need to take any steps because that is exactly what I have been saying all along. It is not offensive to “tell the truth” (or more correctly, express your truly held opinion), however, it is offensive to add insult, injury, untruths, mockery and general disdain to your comments, as GD did. Thank you for supporting my views on this.

  56. GD says:

    Geez, Ray, you missed the point of Iain’s last comment (:

    insult, injury, untruths, mockery and general disdain

    I agree with you about untruths. ABC’s Q&A were guilty of that when Marcia Langton falsely accused Andrew Bolt of being a racist. Tony Jones was also guilty when he stated to George Brandis, in relation to Langton’s comments:

    those are the facts

    That didn’t seem to bother you. I suppose it depends on what you view as ‘untruths’.

  57. Ray Dixon says:

    No, I did not “miss the point”. The point is your comments about aborigines included “insult, injury, untruths, mockery and general disdain”. As I said earlier, I feel like I’m arguing with a clown.

  58. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain said (on the other thread): “its not “denigrating a whole race” to suggest that most blackfellas prefer to eat food from the shop than insect larvae as their ancestors did”

    Not if it’s written as you just wrote it, Iain.

  59. GD says:

    This is horrifying: that the British Government could give in to islamic encroachers is beyond belief. Let’s hope that common sense reigns in Australia and that such a lily-livered surrender to Islam is not on our government’s agenda.

  60. Jeff G. says:

    All a case of “back to the future” really. The English used to have laws of entail and (another name I can’t remember?) that prevented property being left to women, divorced sons, Catholics, etc. I don’t see much difference, except that this is about religion more than tradition.

    I am against laws being made to incorporate any religious ideas into secular laws, as most religious ideas are bollocks. And Islam’s ideas are more bollocks than most.

    That said, this law relates to wills. The fundamental idea of wills should be that people are or should be entitled to leave their money and estate to whoever they please. Even if it is irrational or sexist. Could point you to a couple of deceased family members who would have signed up for a Sharia will if they could have.

    On a related note, I would not go back to England now for quids. It really is turning into a shit hole.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: