Thursday, February 16, 2006

Australia votes for Islamic Statehood!

Brutal horrific genocide legalised... Bloody badge of liberation endorsed... Morals binned... Fabric of society overturned... Other horseshit spouted to cloak religious dogma reiterated...

Meanwhile for the rest of us, it's a champagne moment as Venal Snake gets whalloped with Fucking great Parliamentary Stick!

35 comments:

R H said...

Well a German once told me that there was no such word in his language. What a fibber!
But anyway I'm amused to read that the residents of that town (Fucking) considered changing its name because of the embarrassment, e.g. busloads of tourists arriving there and so on. But they finally decided not to. Which was a good commercial decision. A decision showing that when it comes to hard cash no embarrassment is too great.
And morality, what's that?
Bugger off!

phil said...

Good on us Anglophones! We make fun of all other cultures in a very non-discriminatroy fashion, it would seem.

adam said...

Tony looked like he was about to cry. Funny how we're apparently vilifying Catholics over this, yet when Muslims get their rags in a knot over those cartoons, its all "free speech, losers!"

Well said, by the way.

Mike Jericho said...

For those seeking a more thoughtful contrarian viewpoint, I would suggest reading this article.

I'll wager that not one of you can fisk it.

Armagnac Esq. said...

Now I have a ministerial to slap together, and can only write until the end of my near-finished coffe, but you well know I view this link as spurious horseshit because the right never puts its money, literally its money, where its mouth is.

As an aside Hitchens is contrarian, Steyn is just gleefully reactionary.

He hits a number of good points. Ms Hungry Jacks in fact is having more kids than Ms Collins St, so if we gut and under-resource the public schools, public hospitals and social support services the likes of Ms Hungry Jacks will use to raise their kids, what the hell is THAT doing for our future?

You can use carrot, rather than taking away choice. That would be the intelligent, civilised, and liberal, even libertarian, approach.

Armagnac Esq. said...

See..
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18176748%255E1702,00.html

adam said...

Sorry Mike, I already did at mine.

I think everyone's losing sight of our libertarian ideals here.

Having kids is the most personal decision an individual can make. As a relatively secular, modern democracy, can we not divorce the state from such a decision?

Seriously, lets just allow whoever wants kids to have them and see what happens. I call it "natural selection".

R H said...

Twenty years ago when the yuppies started the small family craze the fear was that the big-family lower-orders would overwhelm them.
Now it's the Muslims.

That article is poorly written. Really bad.
It shows how good some bloggers are.
They're very good indeed.

Splatterbottom said...

Armaniac, if you use a carrot, you are still not going to increase the birth rate. I should know, I've got 8 kids and I never used a carrot even once.

(Its opportunities like this that make you wish you were Bill Hicks so you could really cash in on the possibilities. Forget Hitchens and Steyn, good as they are.)

Mike Jericho said...

I see not one of you managed to refute a single statement Steyn made.

Do you now see why you are losing elections?

Deservedly so.

Splatterbottom said...

I don't want to refute Steyn, Mike. I've done my bit. I agree with him. But Bill Hicks is still the better commedian.

Armagnac Esq. said...

Given that I did, completely, you have just demonstrated why arguing, and more particularly arguing with right wingers, can be such a pointless affair.

R H said...

The silliest statement Steyn makes is that the British Empire came about because of enormous manpower.
What a joke.

Maybe it had something to do with national character instead? Superior technology, too?
And being a seafaring nation?

Apart from that, this bloke's attempts at being funny are embarrassing.

He's a dope.

Mike Jericho said...

Armaniac, you claim that you fisked his article?

Please, I invite you to show me where that thoroughgoing fisking is located. Because all I saw you doing was calling the Steyn article "spurious horseshit" and then suggest that the "carrot is better than the stick".

If I say your response is "childishly lame" and then tell you that "every dark cloud has a silver lining", you would react the way I did to your claim that that passed for a refutation.

Because it really, really doesn't, you know. It's a blunt insult followed by a cliche.

Fisking is the process of quoting an article and then refuting it's claims, one by one. If you feel that your position is superior to Steyns, I invite you to prove me wrong by doing that.

R H, I wish you would at least make the act of shooting down your assertions slightly difficult.

The British Empire at that time had a superior navy. Their army was clearly inferior to the French, Russian, Prussian and Austrian armies. They won wars by joining vast coalitions.

Steyn's point was that without the surplus population, they could not have invaded, settled, administered and held those colonial lands they did.

That is his point.

He, at no time, claimed that it was the only factor. He only claimed that it made colonialism possible. Which it did. They had the people to send elsewhere, and because of unresolved infant mortality issues, the French, Russians et al had less to send. That is primarily why the French lost the wars for North America.

As any historian will tell you, if a civilisation isn't expanding, it's collapsing. You leftists are so worried about offending everyone else that you've forgotten that. You literally would rather bequeath a decaying, contracting society, mired in self-loathing historical revision to your descendants than a confident, proud, expanding one.

Nature doesn't respect that. It stamps such unworthy species out. And don't resort to more deterministic bullshit about it being "meant to be" that the Muslims are destined to overcome the west because we were so naughty a few hundred years ago. It isn't meant to be. It's a choice.

And you are all making the wrong one. Because there is NOTHING in Muslim society that is anywhere near as decent and redeeming as is the qualities found abundantly both in western civilization and the liberal democracies we have so insensitively spread throughout the world.

I beg you. Re-evaluate your thinking.

R H said...

I'm afraid of offending no one. You'd be the least I'd worry about.

A leftist am I? Well tell that to old moses at LP. And about two hundred others as well.

Listen buddy, I'm RH, that's all.
I wouldn't be a leftist or a bloody rightist. Because they're donkeys, all of them.

Wake up! Britain's navy thrashed the French and Spanish time after time. That's all they needed to do.
And haven't you heard of Waterloo?

Shit! What's an education done for you. Fuck all. Crammed cliches into your block, that's all. "...self loathing historical revision...blab blab blab blab..."
Hell!- you're like Brunswick Street on Sunday morning!

Get some talent. Get some sense. Get something to say that's bloody interesting!

Mike Jericho said...

"Wake up! Britain's navy thrashed the French and Spanish time after time. That's all they needed to do.
And haven't you heard of Waterloo?"


Please, do tell me what happened at Waterloo.

No, don't bother. You'll just get excited and start frothing again. I'll tell you.

The British land forces of the Duke of Wellington fought a losing defensive battle on the plains and hills of Waterloo (it wasn't a sea battle) against the superior forces of Napoleon. This was at a time when Napoleon's forces were at their lowest ever ebb, yet it is clear - and this is the opinion of 99.9% of the world's foremost military historians - that had the Prussians not shown up in Napoleon's rear before he had delivered the final blow to Wellington's exhausted troops, he would have won the battle handily.

Wellington wasn't fighting to win, you see. He knew he couldn't win. He was fighting to hold; fighting for time, so that Marshal Blucher and his Prussians could get to them.

So, to quote myself: "The British Empire at that time had a superior navy. Their army was clearly inferior to the French, Russian, Prussian and Austrian armies. They won wars by joining vast coalitions."

In that particular war, France was fighting the alliance of Britain, Prussia, Austria and Russia.

I'll thank you now to show your gentlemanly qualities by conceding the point to me. You've just been thrashed.

It seems my education wasn't a waste after all, eh?

Brownie said...

Mr Jericho - 1.did I see you take your education on an outing to 'Who Want To Be A MeOnAir' and come home with the big cheque?

2. you have not thrashed RH as you claim. Instead you fell right into his challenge to 'tell us something interestin' - you did just that.

Mike Jericho said...

Brownie

1) That was a really, really, really lame attempt at an ad hominem attack.

2) I can make the claim that black is white, but that does not make it so. Anyone who looks at my exchange with RH will see in him a man whose argument was comprehensively annihilated.

Really. That is why conservatives have such a good time with you lefties, you know. When beaten, you resort to personal attacks and say things that are really just silly, much in the manner of a child.

You are supposed to be the progressives, remember? If you're going to pride yourselves on being the "good guys" of the political spectrum, do remember to occasionally behave like them.

Getting back on topic, there is a wonderful article here that deals with the overarching question of Western Vs Islamic society. I invite any of you to try to disprove the author's claim that leftists are abyssmally mistaken in their attempts to equate the two morally.

R H said...

Jericho, you are an enormous bore! Stupendous!
I've seen few like you.
Where the hell do I say Waterloo was a sea battle?
And have you ever heard of Nelson? Or of Drake?
I leave fine stupid points of history to professors, academics, and tedious people like you who pride themselves on knowing what Napoleon had for lunch on 15th Feb i809. The fact is Britain's naval superiority is what got it an empire.
So how come you don't know that? I'm astonished.
Pedants like you are always good at saying how you've annihilated someone else, but all that you really do annihilate - with your endlessly constipated prattle, is any interest in yourselves.

R H said...

And Mr Jericho, you can't complain of an ad hominem attack. -Not when you so blatantly invite it upon yourself.

Mike Jericho said...

RH, you said the following:

"Wake up! Britain's navy thrashed the French and Spanish time after time. That's all they needed to do.
And haven't you heard of Waterloo?"


In the context of that paragraph, it certainly seemed as though you thought Waterloo was a naval battle. You see, I was giving you the credit of being able to construct a single coherent paragraph.

I used your example of Waterloo to display how my earlier point about the British use of alliances was valid.

The rest of your post devolved into jibberish-filled mumbling about my education.

As for your last post... you seem to have gotten confused, and adopted one of my arguments as your own. Sadly for you, this is a written and not a spoken argument.

You earlier argued that Britain was able to construct its empire because of "national character", "superior technology" and being a "seafaring nation".

These things certainly contributed, but as I repeatedly pointed out, Steyn only asserted that Britain's population explosion (thanks to the defeat of infant mortality) was a major factor. By definition, it was. You don't have colonists without a surplus population.

You couldn't rebutt his assertion, so you sought to divert the argument. Tsk tsk.

You now seem to have decided that Britain's superior navy was the only factor in its empire-building. Perhaps then you can tell me what naval battles enabled the conquest and colonization of India, Afghanistan, Africa and America?

In America, the colonists faced French and Spanish colonists, along with Native American tribes. All of whom wanted domination of the nation.

Yet the primarily British-descended colonists won, and by the war of 1812, the Americans had drawn parallel with Britain in terms of population. Do you think that large reproduction rate might have played a part in the period of "manifest destiny" which followed?

Steyn's argument remains totally unassailed. Really, you should not have even tried. It makes no sense to attack basic logic. If you have a surplus population, you will expand. That's history. Not names and dates; not trivia, that is the nature and practice of humanity itself.

But the west isn't looking to colonise anyplace anymore. We are in a far more drastic position, demographically, as Steyn points out. Just to replace our populations, our birthrates will have to seriously increase.

If they don't, economically, we will have to rely upon immigration, and the bulk of immigrants are from the Middle East and Central Asia, where birth rates are through the roof.

Those (predominantly Muslim) people then get here, are not integrated into multicultural Australia (because leftists don't force them to, and Islam is opposed to liberal western society) and they continue to have children at that rate. Their culture is not challenged, or even written about in the newspapers (for fear of Muslim violence) so the critical debate that was so essential to the development of Christian society never happens to them. They don't evolve. They don't integrate. They just smolder, their anger and resentment being fueled by their religious hatred of the west and by leftist historians/teachers/academics/journalists/activists who are obsessed with black armband history, who run around insisting that they (Muslims) have a lot to be angry about.

Don't you see where this is going? Non-political demographers estimate a majority Muslim population in Belgium and the Netherlands by 2030. France will go 10 years later. Then Spain, then Britain.

Muslim majority populations are just a matter of time. That's it. Not if.

When.

If you shrug and say that it's unavoidable, I'm going to scream.

Arthur_Vandelay said...

Something tells me Mr Jericho doesn't like Muslims. I must take issue, however, with the following:

"Their culture is not challenged, or even written about in the newspapers (for fear of Muslim violence) so the critical debate that was so essential to the development of Christian society never happens to them."

What? Islam is written about constantly in the papers, especially since September 11. Much of the commentary is negative, of course, if you glance at the musings of Bolt, Ackerman, Devine, Henderson, Albrechtsen, and many of the Murdoch editorials. (That's to say nothing of the "Letters to the Editor" columns.) And, despite Muslims having lived in Australia all this time, not one newspaper office has been burnt down, and not one journalist or pundit has been killed. There has been criticism of the negative commentary, of course, but that is the nature of dialogue and debate in a liberal democracy.

So cheer up, Mike :) And might I suggest you get to know a few Aussie Muslims? The Muslims I know (when they aren't purchasing large quantities of fertiliser and taking photographs of significant infrastructure) just want to work, raise families (EEEK!) and live in suburbia. Very Aspirational Australia.

They prefer soccer to Aussie Rules, but that's hardly seditious, is it?

R H said...

Good grief! I'm no scholar, just a reader, and Steynes avoidance of these other factors: national character, ect, has got to be dishonest.
I withdraw personal remarks against you, but golly, don't say you've annihilated me. You haven't. Don't sound so smug, it does you no good.
I've taken a squiz at your blog, and you've sure got a dirty on Muslims. You seem devoted to it. But that's your business, I don't care. I only care when ridiculous things are said about me.
People prefer to live among their own kind. I'm no different. But I can live in harmony with other nationalities, so long as they don't expect me to change to suit them. I'm proud to be of British ancestry.
And will apologise for that to no one.

Armagnac Esq. said...

Yes jericho, the carrot over stick thing you completely ignored and which utterly trumps the woman-hating garbage coming from the far right now, most bizarrely, as some sort of security argument!?

I'm not repeating it, it stands, clearly irrefutable by the finest minds the right can muster.

Steyn is a skunk.

Now...the ills of the west cannot be compared with the ills of islam??

Really?

Like in the balkans, where the muslims were all bloodthirsty hate kill murder ...*yawn* while the god fearing christians did civilised things like using mass rape as a weapon of war or making men bite each other's balls off alive before shooting them.

Our 'civilisation' didn't really give the world thousands of years of anti semitism culminating in genocide in europe, did it? That was muslims dropping out of the fucking sky was it?

Geez, priceless.

Mike Jericho said...

"Yes jericho, the carrot over stick thing you completely ignored and which utterly trumps the woman-hating garbage coming from the far right now, most bizarrely, as some sort of security argument!?"

I didn't ignore it. In another one of your threads, I recently agreed with you, but disagreed over the issue of implimentation. You think it should be paid for by the government, I suggested that tax cuts would be a better "carrot".

You resorting to labeling all contrary arguments as "woman hating" is just stupid. You know that. I've now written two novel manuscripts with women as the central protagonists in each. I love women. More importantly, I love strong, intelligent, self-sufficient women. I'm no misogynist. Neither is Danna Vale, I suspect. Like her, I am concerned with demographics.

I'm not repeating it, it stands, clearly irrefutable by the finest minds the right can muster.

No need to repeat your argument. It wasn't much of one. It was (as I've pointed out already) an insult and a cliche. That was your grand response to Steyn's detailed argument?

"Steyn is a skunk."

Sticks and stones.

"Now...the ills of the west cannot be compared with the ills of islam??"

That you even need to ask me that question while in the Muslim world people are being murdered and embassies burned over cartoons worries me profoundly. I won't mention what they do to homosexuals, people who convert to Christianity, people who have affairs, etc...

"Really?"

Yes, really. This is what I look like while worried.

"Like in the balkans, where the muslims were all bloodthirsty hate kill murder ...*yawn* while the god fearing christians did civilised things like using mass rape as a weapon of war or making men bite each other's balls off alive before shooting them."

Erm... you do recall that the mass murdering and raping of civilians was being done by all sides in that conflict, right? And that the Christian Serbs were (loosely) allied with Russia? The US and the EU attacked the Serbs when it finally became really apparent that the UN would just allow the genocide to continue.

That's right, the west you seem to so dislike sided with the Muslims. Go look it up if you'd like.

"Our 'civilisation' didn't really give the world thousands of years of anti semitism culminating in genocide in europe, did it?"

Why the scare quotes? You think that we don't even possess a civilization? What is your definition of one? Angels floating around on clouds with halos? Get fucking real, man.

Every 'civilization' that has ever been comprised of human beings has done awful things. That we learn from our errors sets us apart from the ancient civilizations of the Near East and the Mediterranean.

And yes, many Jews were killed by Christians. Just as many Christians were killed by Jews in the Holy Land before Christianity spread and found a powerful host in Rome. Then Nazis killed lots of Jews because they were lunatic racist zealots who had fallen in love with the "science" of Eugenics, which fluffy-minded leftists in the UK and the USA had peddled to them. Big lovers of Euthanasia too, the Nazis.

Conservatives at the time opposed both Eugenics and Euthanasia. They were assured that the progressives knew what was best for society. As hundreds of thousands of disabled and retarded people were given lethal injections.

What is your point exactly? That because there has been a bloody learning curve in the development of western civilization, we should just throw up our arms and weep, and tear down everything that has been accomplished? Why? Will that bring any fallen Jews, Indians or Aborigines back? Will it bring any of my Celtic forbears back? Will it make our society better? Will it keep your wife and family safer from those who wish to harm them?

No, it won't. Take it from me. History is there to learn from. To take the lessons that are there and then look forwards, to apply what has been learned now and tomorrow.

History does not solely exist as a ready supply of pretexts to justify current animosities. I can whine that my Celtic forbears were hunted, slaughtered, enslaved, oppressed and occupied by Anglo-Saxons for 1,600 years. But what will it get me? What will it aid my children, or their children?

Nothing.

The west is something to be proud of, for what was accomplished. Why? Simple. Because it wasn't supposed to happen at all. By all logic, the Nazis should have won. Or the USSR. Take your pick of tyrannies. They were supposedly so strong and efficient, yet we overcame them both. Free people, acting for the future of humanity. Because democracy was best, we knew that, and it was worth defending. While the Nazis were killing Jews (as you rightly point out) magnificent young men, some not even 18 years old, were hurling themselves at machine gun nests on the coasts of France and in the wilds of Russia, so that the Nazi menace could be forever wiped away. Sure, scorn what the Nazis did. But weep for the courage of those wonderful boys, who gave everything for people who would probably never even know their names.

Think about how warlike mankind is. Now remember, no two viable democracies have ever declared war on one another. Not ever.

You want peace on Earth, right? So do I. To me, the only way to end war is to reform the world. To make it democratic. To take power from despots of all shades, and hand it to the people. You guys may claim that Bush is a despot, but the reality is that he was voted into power. And in a few years, he'll step down, just as Reagan did.

If we can make the Middle East democratic, then there is an excellent chance that we will enjoy a great period of peace. The Communist Chinese will still be around, and so will North Korea. But they'll come around eventually. Asians love the free market too much to resist democracy forever.

With a free world, filled with democratic nations, your utopia (and mine) can be realised.

You guys want to do nothing about the Middle East, or worse, appease the Muslims who are now doing everything they can to gain nuclear weapons, while making daily threats to "wipe Israel off the face of the map".

They kill for Allah. We kill so that countless generations of Arabs will know the freedoms we take for granted every day.

Either way, people will die. Take your pick.

R H said...

Steyn's theory is one of the stupidest bits of rot I've ever seen.

The daft notion that overcrowding ("superfluous population") can make a particular nation world-beaters! What tripe. If that were the case we'd all be chinese. Or Japanese.

Japan was enormously overpopulated in the early part of last century, but all their endeavours to expand failed.

There is one huge reason for Britain's expansion in the 18th and 19th centuries, and that reason is Coal. And the resultant technology.

And Jericho, Britain didn't always have to stage a battle to colonise foreign lands (although its troops and military strategy were first rate). Nor did it need to do a lot to make it's coloured folks behave. Gunboat Diplomacy was enough.

I strongly doubt what you say about Waterloo. I'd doubt anything you say in that regard at all.

So here's some RH advice; the worst thing you can do in presenting any argument is to be too dishonest about it. You leave gaping holes. Holes people can poke their heads through and laugh. This thing from Steyn is amazingly stupid.
It's so bad in fact, and so utterly ridiculous, it would even shame Tim Blair.

R H said...

What gets me most, is this gangster,Steyn, deliberately ignores the Industrial Revolution. It began in Britain, and drove its need for colonies.

R H said...

Mike, I started off being wary of you.
But golly, you're a character!

Arthur_Vandelay said...

On a slight tangent . . .

The defeat of Nazi Germany? Didn't the USSR play a minor role in that as well?

Mike Jericho said...

Arthur, in talking about WWII, I was responding to Armaniac's assertion that western civilization was responsible for the slaughter of Jews. I just pointed out that - at the same time as the concentration camps - young men and women were dying to try to bring that to an end.

To quote myself: "While the Nazis were killing Jews (as you rightly point out) magnificent young men, some not even 18 years old, were hurling themselves at machine gun nests on the coasts of France and in the wilds of Russia, so that the Nazi menace could be forever wiped away."

As you see, I made sure to mention Russia. As 3/4 of the German forces were engaged by them in the east, it would have been grossly unfair not to mention them.

I don't discount Communism as being a part of the development of western civilization. It was. It was an idealistic attempt at human governance which, through the machinations of a few power-mad people, was perverted into a murderous tyranny.

Like I said, it was a bloody learning curve. But we've come rather a long way since the days when you would be sent to a gulag for being homosexual, don't you think?

RH, I'll argue with you some more later tonight. Today I have to look at lots of dead bodies.

Helen said...

(Re second last link) That's as good as Spotsylvania.

Armagnac Esq. said...

="I just pointed out that - at the same time as the concentration camps - young men and women were dying to try to bring that to an end."=

Sorry Jericho, you can't run any sort of argument that either the western allies or the russians were in that war to prevent the shoah.

They would have let the jews die, to a man, to a child, had hitler not embarked on an aggressive war at the same time.

Steyn IS a skunk this is my site and I'll call him what I will. If I went to a conservative site and started treating a loony extreme islamic cleric like he had wisdom to share I dare say there'd be a similar response multiplied by 100.

And I'm pretty up on who did what in the balkans, cheers, and attempts to string together the handful of barbaric incidents at the hands of muslims with the scores of genocidal incidents and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the serbs are unsustainable.

flatcatinahat said...

And another thing ... the reality is that Bush was not voted into power. In fact, the election of Bush was effectively decided by nine unelected judges.

flatcatinahat said...

And one more thing:

If the West (let's call a spade a spade, and just say the USA) is something that we should be proud of and, that what's missing in those backward despotic middle eastern regimes is a little bit of western democracy then why has the West given its blessing, at various stages, to Colonel Ghaddafi, Hafez Assad of Syria, the Turkish generals, Hassan of Morocco, the Shah, the sleek Ben Ali of Tunisia, the creepy generals of Algeria, the plucky little King of Jordan and even the Taliban?

Armagnac Esq. said...

Nice point flatcat.