2017 – The Year of #HollywoodLivesMatter

88

“Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners and if we kick them all out, you’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts.”

Meryl “Let Them Eat Cake” Streep.

This is not satire. This is the insane, yet logical, conclusion of a culture where victimhood is currency and power. Step aside BLM. You’re so 2016. As Meryl Streep informed us in her Golden Globes speech, the new most persecuted and marginalised group for 2017 looks set to be the Hollywood elite.

Just when we thought that the staggering lack of self-awareness among Hollywood celebrities had reached peak stupid, Meryl Streep comes along and astounds us in her capacity to go ‘full retard’. Yes, one of the same class of people who are always chiding us over our original sin of being ‘all of the white people’ actually just suggested that she and her bourgeoise peers in attendance are more disadvantaged and more marginalised in Trump’s America than anyone else on the identity politics pyramid that they pretend to care about.

Meryl Streep is more persecuted and marginalised than the Guatemalan maid who cleans her house and has yet to see any results of ‘Fight for 15’. Meryl Streep is more persecuted and marginalised than the Mexican bus-boy who cleared her plate of half-eaten salad earlier that day. Meryl Streep is more marginalised than the African-American limo driver who chauffeured her there that evening.

Meryl Streep is more persecuted and marginalised than the serf army of white trash, Indians, Pakistanis, and other ethnicities just a notch below being indentured (being indentured at least guarantees food on the table, a casualised catering company does not) who thanklessly toil serving canapés, champagne, and absorbing demeaning attitudes and abuse to make for a fully realised narcissistic experience for these faux-commie genuine one percenters.

And it’s a beautiful thing. When they lost, we were concerned that Cultural Marxists, particularly these most elite of elite Champagne Socialists, might back off a little, dial it down just a bit, show contrition, be perceived as voices of reason by the masses when the President-Elect inevitably made the mistakes and missteps to be expected. They didn’t. They learned nothing. And this ill-conceived speech by Meryl Streep may well do more harm to the left than the libido of Anthony Wiener, Hillary’s lazy phoned-in campaigning, and the Podesta emails put together.

The best thing is how spectacularly the mask has slipped. When people are afraid of losing their power and influence, they make mistakes. And Streep’s was a doozy. Celebrities can fool most of the people most of the time with identity politics, provided the grievance is about someone else. Even Leo kind of gets away with running up a carbon footprint roughly the size of Albury because his tears are for the environment and future generations… not about how real or imagined climate change will effect Leo. If he were to do that, even the casual apolitical movie fan would be asking the Wolf of Wall Street about his own emissions.

Streep, on the other hand, didn’t do as good a job of not revealing her cards. I think that one thing the (less prosperous) Left and Right can agree on is that we are in a very turbulent touch-and-go period where Western society can just as easily veer toward socialism as it has nationalism. The actress considers herself to be ‘of the people’, but she has subconsciously yet clearly telegraphed herself as being aligned with the kind of ‘bourgeoise decadence’ that was and still is rejected by Bernie Sanders supporters. She may think that she’s speaking the language of the ‘oppressed’, but to them she is clearly and openly speaking the language of Zsar Nicholas or the French Aristocracy. If she sells the idea of revolution too convincingly, Meryl Streep may well be one of the first ones that the truly oppressed reactionaries of a socialist revolution come for.

Streep has disparagingly suggested that sports are little more than opiates for the mindless masses, as if her own extremely safe and commercial endeavours are somehow the artistic equivalent of the Sistine Chapel. Way to win hearts and minds, sweetheart. I live reasonably comfortably, but I’m always mindful of being extra nice to the people who serve me at restaurants, people who pack my bags at the supermarket, and the people who come to work today and don’t know if they’ll be asked back tomorrow. These are the people you want to keep on side if everything descends into anarchy.

It isn’t difficult to imagine an unemployed, previously misinformed BLM supporter (who has been lied to all these years about the enemy being some blue-collar white Trump voter living in a trailer in Omaha) watching the speech as it is gleefully replayed time and time again by a partisan (and similarly lacking in self-awareness) MSM, and saying to his or herself, “Oh… so that’s how it really is”. An angry mob can quickly be redirected, and if the status of piñata shifts from #allofthewhitepeople and #bluelives to #hollywoodlives, as it rightly should after these words from an actress who genuinely does enjoy white privilege, the ‘evils of nationalism’ and the building of walls may well be the only thing that saves these people from the same fate as the Russian and French aristocracies.

It’s your XYZ.

Photo by Vincent Luigi Molino

SHARE
Previous articleObama Dropped
Next articleWatersportsgate – the Trolling of Buzzfeed and CNN

Eh?nonymous was a thoroughly repellent unemployed social justice warrior until a one in a million glitch in his Facebook account affected the algorithms in his news feed, omitting posts from his much loved left leaning Huffington Post and I F—ing Love Science, and inexplicably replacing them with centrist and conservative newsfeed items that slowly dragged him kicking and screaming into the light beyond the safe space that Mr. Zuckerberg had so carefully constructed for him. It’s a long road to recovery, but every Mark Steyn share he sees in his newsfeed is like another day clean from social justice addiction.

  • MattR

    When I heard her speech I couldn’t believe how much projection and hypocrisy it held. Did Hollyweed actors not learn a thing from the election? Nobody gives a rats what they think. Nobody is going to change their mind because someone really good at playing make-believe is telling them to think differently.

    Ugh, the sooner celebrity worship becomes a shameful thing the better.

  • Wide Awake

    I find it amusing that anyone would value the opinion of an actor on any issue. They essentially lie for a living, hence the reason they are all hypocrites.

  • Dan Flynn

    Trump got elected on the basis of celebrity worship. He’s one of them. By the way did anyone complain when celebrities used their profile to raise money for 911 victims or hurricane Katrina? I’m not saying that being a good actor means that you are more wise or special than anyone else, but it means that when you speak you get heard. So why not use that opportunity to oppose a sociopath who is going to ruin the US?

    • Hello, Troll.

      • Dan Flynn

        Well hi there Bucky, the name’s Dan actually, from Melbourne. Unlike the author of this article I am not hiding my identity.

        • Deplorable Steve B

          How do we know your last name is not… ANDREWS!!!
          Cue blast of dramatic music…

          • Dan Flynn

            Ha, actually Dan is a very common name down here in Melbs, I know about twelve of them.

        • Any relation to Errol ?

          • Dan Flynn

            No, unfortunately…

    • entropy

      Hi Dan, welcome to XYZ.

      Arnold Schwarzenegger got elected on the basis of celebrity worship (in the Hillary Clinton stronghold of California, no less), Trump got elected despite celebrity worship. The vast majority of celebrities who spoke out in public were against him.

      I know it’s a current leftist trend for those without an argument to simply make accusations of mental illness instead, but I am going to ask for the evidence underpinning your diagnosis of sociopathy. As for ‘ruin the US’, world markets surged after Trump’s election. The ASX went up 10%. The facts simply don’t support your assertions.

      • Dan Flynn

        Hi entropy, thanks for the warm welcome, nice to be here!
        I know that movie stars and musicians etc were against him, but Trump conducts himself very much like a celebrity, i.e. using Twitter as his main communication platform. People worship him in much the same way as they worship other celebrities. I don’t like it, but it’s the way it is.
        On the topic of mental illness. I have been a social worker in mental health for almost ten years and I can spot a sociopath from a mile away. It’s someone who sees the world in black and white, someone who views other people in really only two ways, 1) You are helping me get what I want or 2) You are standing in my way so I will attack you.
        Sociopaths show little or no remorse for their aggressive and inappropriate behavior and always pose as the victim, especially when they are the aggressor. Sound familiar?
        By the way I am not a leftist, I am a social worker, musician, father of two who has decided to take on some of this ‘alt-right’ business in my own small way. Cheers

        • entropy

          Glad to have you. I prefer diverse viewpoints and informed debate on topical issues and hope to see more as this site grows.

          I agree that Trump is a celebrity and, indeed, wants to be a celebrity (as evidenced by his TV show). I’d even go so far as to call him a narcissist, although that doesn’t necessarily make him different from any other politician or celebrity. But he certainly wasn’t elected because of his celebrity, like Arnold was. As a celebrity, Donald was never particularly popular. Even the MSM will now admit that he was elected because of his policies, however unfairly they try to characterise them.

          It’s also true that people now ‘worship’ (God-Emperor) Trump, but I’d suggest that’s because he’s the first politician in living memory to stand up for the interests of the ordinary American rather than because of his TV show.

          Not to minimise the valuable work you do in the community, but a social worker is usually not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Antisocial Personality Disorder (sociopathy) has a distinct definition in the DSM-5 and I’m sure someone in your position can appreciate the harm that vexatious accusations of mental illness do those who actually suffer from those conditions. Also, as a pragmatist, I’d advise against such hyperbolic statements as they just make it easier for opponents to dismiss your actual arguments.

          Similarly with the term ‘alt-right’, which is such a nebulous and often pejorative term that I try to avoid using it unless someone self-identifies as such. Not so much with the derogatory ‘leftist’, which I probably throw around far more than I should. (BTW, XYZ gives a fairly comprehensive mission statement in the About section.)

          Thanks for the reply and I hope you stick around.

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi entropy, I also appreciate your reply.
            I will agree that my use of the word sociopath was not only incorrect but a little on the dramatic side.

            To be more accurate, Trump’s personality fits a pattern that can be described as Borderline Personality Disorder’ with symptoms mentioned in my last post as well as ‘having difficulty managing their emotions and impulses, relating to people and maintaining a stable self-image’.
            Of course this is not an official diagnosis but I’m making a point that Trump is unstable and dangerous and very unfit to lead any country. And yes I am a social worker and not a psychiatrist, but having years of experience in the mental health field gives me as much knowledge about mental illness as any psychologist.

            I understand why people voted for him, he finally mirrored what many people have been thinking for a long time and he’s the perfect ‘fuck you vote’ to all those career politicians that we all hate.
            What I do not understand is how people could think he will actually makes things better. His entire life, thus far, has been in pursuit of his own personal wealth and empire building.
            I do not believe he ‘stands for the interests of the ordinary American’, I believe he is merely appealing to their fear and resentment. People have so much to be angry about, inequality being chief among them I think, and Trump is doing a very good job of using this to propel his own interests. It’s what he does best.
            So anyway I think Meryl Streep was brave to take him on despite the fact that it won’t change a thing.
            Cheers
            Dan

          • Deplorable Steve B

            ‘People have so much to be angry about, inequality being chief among them I think,’

            Absolutely correct, but not the way you mean it or according to the Marxist dogma which elevated and pampered all the minority tribes above that of ordinary Americans who were constantly under attack for being some sort of ist, phobe, or other now defunct leftist attack word/name…

            The breath taking hypocrisy of Marxists telling the majority of Americans that they are out of step and their normal, traditional values are on the wrong side of history was too much this time. This is what got Trump elected…

            We live in a comfortable society. What exactly have people got to be angry about, aside from the many professional offence takers?

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Steve,
            My reference to inequality was in fact about the poor getting poorer, rich getting richer, our society is rigged by corporations and corrupt politicians etc etc.

            ‘Professional offence takers’
            Are you referring to those people who actually give a shit about other people? Then yep I’m a professional offence taker. You can refer to me as a POT.
            Why is it that people can’t seem to understand oppression?
            I’m not about ‘elevating minorities’, I just want to live in a society where they are not vilified simply because they share the same religion as some psychotic terrorist.

            If someone threw shit at you would be be offended? Of course you would. If someone screams at a muslim ‘go home you terrorist !@#$’ then that would be offensive too right? It not some complex thing were talking about here, it’s just about respecting people.

            I’m a white person too and I don’t hate myself. I just think we can have it all – be proud white people and give minorities the chance to live without being vilified. I know there are big fucking problems with Islamic extremism but that does not make every muslim a terrorist. The vast majority just want to get on with life and he happy. I work with many of them.

            Anyway I could go on but I know you don’t see things the way I do. Part of the reason I came on this forum was to understand how other people think.
            Thanks for your message.

          • Deplorable Steve B

            ‘By the way I am not a leftist’
            ‘Sure, us lefties were all wrong about Trump’

            You are confusing me Dan. Which is it? I’ll go with the latter as I can smell your cultural and moral relativism a mile away. You are welcome on this forum as anyone is but please do not pretend to be something you are not…

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Steve, sorry, you’re right I am left wing, I just try to avoid rather meaningless terms like ‘leftists’, ‘elites’ etc, even though I myself sometimes use them! So yes, I am basically a socially minded ‘left wing’ kinda guy. I do not like oppression and do not think it’s ok to be racist, sexist etc. Cheers

          • Darryl

            Well, perhaps you fit within the alt-right spectrum yourself? Though I suspect you are a little confused. You are likely using the term racist incorrectly to encompass not race but culture and morality. As one person put it recently, “what race is Islam?”.

            As to sexism? I’m not quite sure in what sense you are using it? If simply in the sense that people should not be discriminated against because of their sex, many on the right will agree with you. Not so many if you use it in the sense of trying to pretend there is no distinction between sexes and trying to turn English into a form of Newspeak without gender distinctions, and the like.

            Oppression? Certainly most on the right don’t support it. And these days it is largely the left who practice it. Look at 18C, for instance.

          • Dan Flynn

            Daryl, 18C is a pretty mild example of oppression when comparing it to the kind of oppression many people suffer in this country and overseas.
            One in four Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner – that is oppression.

            During the past year, 1 in 5 people living in Australia was a target of racial discrimination – that is oppression.

            Apartheid was oppression,

            18C is the least we can do to protect people. Andrew Bolt hardly went to jail, he got a slap on the wrist.

          • Darryl

            No. 18C restricts free speech, a fundamental of our society, simply because someone is offended. That is oppression.

            Physical and sexual violence is a crime, whoever the victim may be. The law needs to be enforced. I think most people be their views right or left, agree with this. Surely you don’t contend that it is the right who is responsible for violence against women?

            Apartheid was indeed oppressive. That is why I wonder at those of the left who seek to implement it in Australia.

            As to your final comment on 18C, do you seriously contend that people need to be protected from being offended?

          • Darryl

            You really miss the point here. I haven’t seen any posts here advocating that Muslims be vilified. Nor have I seen any posts claiming that all or even a majority of Muslims are Terroists or even support Terrorism. What I have seen is a very practical debate on continued Muslim Immigration and its effects on our society. A discussion which raises many issues of concern, whick needs to take place and which can take place without widespread vllification of Muslims.

            There are always lunatics on the fringe who will abuse and vilify and even worse, but in a democracy discussing and debating issues is of vital importance. It is common leftist practice to point to these incidents and argue that we cannot debate this or other issues because it will inflame and encourage these types of actions. Too often in the past they have been successful in stifling debate by such measures. But lunatics exist on all sides. For example, see:

            http://abc7chicago.com/news/4-charged-with-hate-crimes-in-torture-of-teen-in-facebook-live-video/1687517/

            Perhaps the left should refrain from its “old white man” meme lest such incidents be repeated.

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Darryl,

            I get that people on this forum do not advocate violence or racial vilification but racial discrimination and vilification in this country is not confined to the ‘lunatics’ it happens all the time. Ask a muslim (especially woman) how often someone calls out offensive remarks, gives her angry stares, treats her differently, threatens her with violence. It happens so often it would shock you. Daily. Sure they might not be physically attacking her but racial intolerance and aggression is happening constantly in this country. You just don’t notice it cos, like me, your a white male and simply don’t have to deal with that shit.

            Forgive me as I have not read all the posts on this forum but I have great difficulty accepting your comment about ‘a very practical debate on continued Muslim Immigration’. This is not-so-subtle code for ‘we want Muslims to stop coming here cos we fear them and don’t like them’. Tell me I’m missing something.

            Just because intelligent and conservative people like you are not advocating violence does not mean that this type of thinking isn’t dangerous and ignorant. How many Muslim people do you know? I mean really know? ‘Practical debate on continued Muslim Immigration’ sounds a lot different to those people than it does you.

            I don’t think we should stifle debate but we need to be honest with ourselves about what we are discussing.

            Cheers

            Dan

          • Darryl

            What race is Muslim?

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Daryl, you raise some valid points there, I too do not agree or approve with many aspects of Islam, or rather, the way some men interpret Islam. Very big difference.

            You’re right about ‘democracy, free speech, separation of church and state, equality of women etc’ are not great in many middle eastern countries, I will not deny that but people are leaving those places to start a new life in Australia. Also you seem to be forgetting that the Muslim population in 2%. I would definitely call that ‘small scale Muslim Immigration’ especially when you consider the immigration into Europe. Am I fearful of terrorists. Sure I am, like anybody and I am disgusted and horrified by the attacks, especially in Paris.

            Can I ask whether or not you supported Australia’s invasion of Iraq in 2003? I hope not, because I think supporters of that war hold some responsibility for ISIS. They messed with something they should not have and opened Pantora’s box.

            Anyway, back to your views on Muslim immigration.

            ‘vetting to weed out militants and attempt to ensure that they will adopt the fundamental values of our society’.
            You know this is impossible right? It’s a nice idea but it’s completely impossible. Do you really think a well organized terrorist group could not find a way to penetrate the Australia’s borders? Also many terror cells are home grown, so they are ALREADY HERE. The harsh reality is that the more we talk about banning or limiting muslim immigration the more we fuel and enrage those twisted individuals who are planning a terrorist act. So in a way, I think that your views are actually making a terrorist incident in Australia more likely. How’s that for some logic? Seriously, twisted individuals are, if nothing else, passionate and they thrive on what they deem as ‘injustice’ and they feel compelled to act – racist views are just what they need to justify themselves. What we need is understanding and communication, not closed borders.
            By the way I used ‘cos’ because I’m a lazy typist 🙂
            Have a good day
            Cheers

          • Darryl

            It’s good that you at least acknowledge that there are some good points on the other side. Unfortunately, I think you have many preconceptions to overcome. Much of your post is based mostly on the underlying assumption that my only reason for wanting to limit Muslim Immigration is what you imagine is my fear of terrorism. This ignores the very real issues I have raised about core compatibility with the values of Australian society. You are of course correct that interpretation is very important, and that ISIS take an extreme fundamentalist view justifying not only terrorism but slavery, rape etc. But many of the other practices I mentioned are not extremist interpretations but mainstream ones, practiced in mainstream Muslim states. Sharia law is a good example. Good luck in achieving any justice if you are a woman before a Sharia Court. Surely it is not desirable for us to take immigrants with fundamentally incompativle values such as many of these unless they are prepared to change and abandon these inconsistent practices. Already, at 2%, we are seeing that many are not. And who is to blame them. We are asking them to abandon tenets of their religion. Or, rather, we do not seem to have even been asking.

            The fact that the Muslim population is only 2% and we are having these problems already is an indication that Peter Dutton’s comments were correct. Australia has had Muslims here for most of our history, beginning as I understand it with Afghan’s in the outback handling camels. It is only with the larger numbers that we have started to have problems hugely out of proportion to the “small” size of the population.

            And yes, I do know that my “solution” is impossible and not a real solution at all. It is feasible for only a very small intake through normal channels. Even then, there may still be errors made. It is certainly totally impossible for large refugee intakes. This leaves us a choice. Accept all the problems and pay the price, or not? I say or not, with very limited exceptions for very small numbers.

            As to your policy of “appeasement”, I hat to tell you but Muslim extremists already hate you. ISIS wants a worldwide Caliphate including Sharia Law. ISIS wants to achieve this by violence and terrorism. They need no further justification. They have quite enough reasons in their own twisted minds to target us already, whatever our attitude is to Muslim Immigration. And even if this were not the case, we cannot allow our immigration policy to be dictated by terrorists, even more so when the policy they demand does such harm to our society. ISIS have called for supporters throughout the west to carry out terrorist attacks. It is understandable that they may not like it if countries refuse to take Islamic migrants or take them in small numbers, because there are none or few to heed their call. There have been no attacks by Islamic terrorists in Japan, for instance.

            And must I ask again? What race is Muslim? Please answer the question or stop using the term “racist” incorrectly as you have been and continue to.

            As I sse no other evidence of you being a lazy typist I must wonder at your explanation for your use of “coz”. It is certainly a co-incidence. As I don’t think you are deliberately lying about this I must wonder if it was simply subconscious because you have seen it put that way elsewhere in leftist media and blogs. I do accept that you did not intend to imply a low education level and mock those with different views.

            As to Australia’s participation in the Iraq war, whilst I did not support this action for various reasons I certainly do not condemn it and do not agree with the points you make. Perhaps you would like to write an article for XYZ putting your point of view which you obviously hold very strongly. I can’t guarantee the editors will publish it but I suspect they might.

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Daryl,

            That’s a great idea I might write an article for submission to XYZ! 🙂

            OK, I get your points about terrorism not being the only issues you have with Muslims, it’s a fair point. I wonder, however, do you have any data to back up – ‘problems hugely out of proportion to the “small” size of the population’.
            Might it just be that every time a Muslim commits a crime we all hear about it? The right wing media such as the Herald Sun in Melbourne (the most widely read newspaper) loves to report on all things Muslim. I have seen no evidence that Muslim people are generally less law abiding that other people.
            Now about your ‘what race is Muslim’ question. I believe this is largely a smoke screen and semantics. Sure it’s not technically racist as per the Oxford dictionary meaning which specifically mentions race. But let’s fact it, we talking about identifying people and treating them differently based on something other than their words, actions and personality. Most Muslim people were born into Muslim families and adopt the religion as part of the prevailing culture in which they grow up. Pretty normal. Some people convert to Islam, sure, but the vast majority were born into it. Like us Catholics.
            Tell me, what race is being referred to by the use of the word ‘nigger’? It’s not race specific either, it just refers to anyone with dark skin. As you would agreed, being Muslim does not make you a bad person, your actions do.
            So Daryl, maybe we should invent a new word, ‘faithist’, or ‘religionist’, it doesn’t really matter, it’s all the same. Judging a group of people based on something other than their words and actions is not right.
            So please let’s not hide behind the ‘What race is Islam’ argument, it is very thin and, to be honest, quite beneath your other more compelling points.
            I need to get back to work, but you right wing guys are just too damn interesting!
            Cheers
            Dan

          • Darryl

            “Nigger” as I understand it originally referred to Negroids, a race. It is now sometimes used to denote anyone with dark skin. In this sense it may denote a group of dark-skinned races rather than one in particular. I certainly haven’t heard it used to describe an Asian, or a Caucasian with a suntan. It is clearly a term about race, not religion. It is a term of racial abuse which I personally have no use for. So let’s please use the term racist in its proper sense.

            I believe that racism has no reasonable basis. I think most reasonable people accept this. There is a justifiable odium attached to the term. The attempted extension of the term to cover religion and culture is an attempt to appropriate both the taint of unreasonableness and the odium for use in a far different and inappropriate context where neither applies.

            I believe it is not reaonable to say, for instance, “I am caucasian so I am inherently superior to negroids”, or, for example, “I don’t want any Negroids in Australia because they are Negroids”. On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to look at the tenets of a religion and say “I don’t want anyone of that religion in Australia unless they abandon these tenets of their religion”.. Or to look at a particular culture and say “We don’t want anyone from this culture unless they abandon female circumcision, child marriage etc”.

            And of course religion and culture is a central part of who we are. I am not sure if they can be separated from our words, actions and personalities. Even assuming that we can, the problem of immigration is a practical one. We have a group with certain characteristics opposed to some essential characteristics of our society. It is not desirable that we take any of them who will not these characteristics. We know many probably will, and even the children of many of those who don’t will. But we also know that there will be a sizeable group who will not. We also know now from the few studies that, unlike past migrants, successive generations seem to hold even more to some of these characteristics. Should we just ignore the known characteristics and propensity of the group and seek to have more of them in our society? Or should we take only those where we are able to closely examine their words and actions and personalities and beliefs and ensure that they do abandon those fundamentally harmful to our society. I suggest to you that the latter is the only appropriate course so as not to damage our society. Since we have limited resources it follows that we should only admit those few we are able to propertly vet. This is unfortunate and regrettable. We will lose the benefit of adding many wonderful people to our society. We will also avoid enormous problems including further loss of life in terrorist attacks, sexual assaults and pressure to change our society to accommodate values we find abbhorrent. We are already experiencing some very loud and strident calls with our Muslim population at only 2%

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Daryl, sorry for the delay. I’ve been spinning quite a few plates since I joined the forum! I appreciate your thoughts and willingness to communicate with me.
            I understand that you value safety, peace, harmony and are not some cross burning fascist. You have very legitimate concerns about the well being of Australian society but unfortunately I think your ideas with not change anything, in fact they will make it all just worse.

            ‘Should we just ignore the known characteristics and propensities of the group and seek to have more of them in our society?’

            This is a highly subjective statement, can I ask you Daryl if you actually know any Muslims? Actually had a conversation with one of them? Have you ever had a Muslim to your house or over for dinner? You might want to try some of your ideas out and see what they say. I’m agree there are people from Muslim countries who subscribe to some horrible shit, I have met some of them through my work and it is repulsive. But that’s the thing Daryl, there are assholes everywhere, from every country. If someone tries to enact female circumcision or child marriage it should be police matter, it’s child abuse plain and simple and should not be tolerated. The problem is that many Muslims do not subscribe to these things. Supporters of Sharia law are not welcome in this country as far as I’m concerned, as Sharia law would contravene Australian law many times over.

            ‘Or should we take only those where we are able to closely examine their words and actions and personalities and beliefs and ensure that they do abandon those fundamentals harmful to our society’.

            I think we already established that this is just not workable and is not realistic, you yourself said it was ‘not solution at all’.

            Society is not perfect and we cannot ever make it so. There are so many people who cause damage to our society. I think that male violence against women is actually number one considering the psychological damage it does to children who witness it as well as the actual victim. There are over 50 women who are killed by their intimate partners each year in Aus.

            ‘it is unfair, but it is reality. We live in the real world’

            This is defeatist Daryl. This kind of thinking is part of the problem and not part of the solution. Peace, understanding, and communication are key, not walls and intolerance.

            Try not to give in to the easy judgements of people. It is very easy to get swept up into muslim hating, it takes some serious effort to challenge assumptions and see the truth.
            Anyway I need to quite this forum for now, I’ve written twenty or so detailed replies in the last few days and am neglecting my family!
            Cheers
            Dan

          • Deplorable Steve

            “This is a highly subjective statement, can I ask you Daryl if you actually know any Muslims? Actually had a conversation with one of them? Have you ever had a Muslim to your house or over for dinner?”

            Dan, you do not need to invite a serpent into your house to know that it will bite you…

          • Dan Flynn

            Morning Steve, and you don’t need to go to Antarctica to know it’s cold. I get your point mate but Muslim people are hardly serpents. I know some very lovely and welcoming ones, many in fact. The guy who works at the local kebab shop is hilarious and very friendly and his kids work with him and they are lovely and they deplore extremists.
            Steve, I’m sorry but you just gave yourself away as someone who does not know the people who you are judging. Seriously mate it will do you good to talk and share with a muslim person and see for yourself most are just like you, they want to work, have kids, be happy and avoid violence and negativity. Cheers Dan

          • Deplorable Steve

            I don’t have to go to Antarctica to know it’s cold but this is a completely different context to my serpent analogy. The two are not the same.

            I don’t want to or have to know any Muslims. My purpose in life is to work hard, raise my kids, who are 3 wonderful adults now and live out the rest of my days with my wonderful wife. Why is it incumbent on me to investigate the murderous culture of these immigrants? Why can’t they just assimilate or go back to the dung holes they are so eager to leave? Muslim migration is not the same as the waves of post WW2 migration that built Australia and made it even greater. Please do not deign to tell me what would be good for me. I am not a kumbyah lefty who believes in unicorns and the brotherhood of man, so long as that brotherhood demands white Christian culture to constantly yield. You are speaking the same old language of leftist apologetics while ignoring the that Moslem teachings implore believers to do exactly what they are doing world wide. Deceive, lie, betray and murder in the name of Allah.

            I am tired of being preached or screeched at by people who have drunk to much cultural Marxist lemonade. The narrative is always the same…

          • Dan Flynn

            And I hope you do enjoy the rest of your days with your wonderful wife and I hope you children prosper Steve. It’s amazing to be a part of a have a loving family.
            I wish you well and no doubt we’ll clash on some other topic on XYZ, but for now I have to get back to my wonderful wife and children.
            Cheers
            Dan

          • Darryl

            Spot on. Assimilate or don’t Immigrate!

            Imagine this. You have 1,000 prospective immigrants from Country X. Country X sadly has become home to a new form of AIDS. The only test currently available costs $1M for a single test. The infection rate in that country is currently 20%. The choices are:

            1. Take all of them without doing the test and deal with the problems caused by the infected.

            2. Take none of them and ban immigration from Country X.

            3. Spend 1 billion dollars on tests.

            Whether you know these people personally or have ever met them has no bearing on the decision. In fact, as most of them may well be wonderful people it would simply make doing what is ine best interest of Australia and its people more difficult.

            That is, of course, option 2. At the moment our choice on Muslim Immigration seems to be akin to option 1, an expensive disaster dooming many of our own citizens to infection.

          • Darryl

            We all need a break from internet forums from time to time. I too have been a lone voice on issues on some forums, and it can certainly be overwhelming and take up enormous amounts of time if you let it. Probably this topic is getting too long and posts to easy to miss. When I get the time I might put my views on Muslim Immigration in an article for easier debate. I will, however. make one final reply in this thread:

            I did mention in an earlier post that I do know many Muslims personally and most of them are great people. A few I count as friends and can answer yes to your questions. I enjoy many discussions with one Muslim friend who advocates an open borders policy for Australia. I resisted my present views for a long while because I wanted a way to avoid the problems which would still have allowed my friends and other very decent Muslim people to come to this country. Sadly I don’t think there is a practical way.

            Many Muslims, perhaps even most, do not support the various practices from their religion and cultures which are so foreign to our way of life. But sadly, many do. How can we take one group and reject the others? Already there are informal applications of Sharia law in parts of Australia. It is applied by “agreement” where, for instance, family law matters are resolved by an Imam in accordance with Sharia. It amazes me that women in Australia would agree to participate in this process, which I can only put down to religious and/or cultural pressure. Pressure of the type which they should not be subject to here. In some other western countries things are even worse. For example:

            https://www.rt.com/uk/147713-sharialaw-uk-legal/

            The tragedy is made even worse by the fact that many Muslims want to come here to escape Sharia and other oppressive Islamic practices. We can resonably expect these people to wholeheartedly embrace the freedoms of our society. Unfortunately, these are not the only group of Muslim’s seeking to immigrate. For instance, it seems that there are many who apparently wish to bring their existing values to a more affluent society. Data on the attitudes of Islamic immigrants seems to be fairly scarce, but what does exist seems to be cause for some alarm. See, for instance;

            http://markhumphrys.com/islam.uk.html#polls

            To quote from that page:

            “Pessimism – They want to end our liberties peacefully.
            40 percent of Muslims want sharia law in UK.
            That is, 40 percent of British Muslims want to end our western liberties. They just want to do it peacefully. If ever they are in the majority, they will end British freedom.
            The poll shows 41 percent of British Muslims don’t want sharia law. And of course they may win the argument, as, over time, British Muslims finally come to understand and appreciate what a free society is.
            Still, 40 percent in favour is an appalling number. It is a strong argument for restricting Islamic immigration until current Muslims integrate better. Certainly, no one who believes in sharia law should be allowed into the West.”

            There are, indeed, as you put it, assholes everywhere. We don’t need to increase the number of them per capita by immigration.

            And no, my view is not defeatist. It is practical and realistic. I don’t hate Muslims at all. Nor do I fear them or their differences. I would love to be able to treat them the same as most other groups of potential immigrants. If you think about it the implication from the left in accusing those with different views of “hatred” and “fear” is that this must be the reason since there is no other reasonable basis for not agreeing with them. I’m sure this is not what you intended.

            It is nice to look at the plight of individuals, feel compassion for them and ignore the problems and costs that easing their suffering would bring. Even where such problems are enormous and costs potentially ruinous. This is what the left seems to be good at. Certainly some on the right feel no compassion at all. Others, I like to think most of us, feel compassion but nevertheless take the practical view. To me the left so often offers us problems but no practical solutions. The policies of your friend the Greens candidate are good examples of this. Well meaning if only we could afford it. And sadly lacking in compassion for those poor struggling familes who cannot afford skyrocketing power bills.

            It does indeed take some serious effort to challenge assumptions and see the truth. From my perspective, this is what I am hoping you will be able to do.

            Spending time with your family of course is far more important than preaching to us heathens. I’m off to play with my nieces and look forward to your contributions from time to time.

          • Trog

            Well said! Research suggests that in Australia somewhere between 3-5% are gay, @2% are Muslim and between 2-3% are Aboriginal. God bless them but why do they occupy so much of the news cycle? Is it simply because they complain the longest and the loudest? Adept at utilising the echo chamber of SJW megaphones who are there ‘cos they just love the banners and all the excitement? Just so over it all and wish we could go a week without a single, solitary mention. Bliss! Power to the (rest of us) people.

          • Deplorable Steve B

            I am going to go out out on a limb here Trogalicious and suggest that the major menace from the groups you have named come not primarily from those groups, but from social engineers using these groups to push their pervert/globalist/whatever agenda…

          • Trog

            One in all in I agree as there are plenty of opportunists out there pushing an agenda.

          • entropy

            Borderline is certainly an interesting one but as you know it tends to be a dumping ground for cases that don’t fit easily into other personality disorders. The thing about personality disorders is they’re typically combinations of normal personality traits taken to unhealthy extremes. This makes it easy to characterise people as having a disorder when they’re just exhibiting extremes of normal behaviour that are not pathological. Given the left’s history of personal attacks and misapplication of clinical labels (misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, etc.), such accusations are easy to dismiss.

            I’m sure you’re familiar with Aesop’s fable, the boy who cried wolf. People laughed at the idea of Trump entering politics. They said Trump would never win the Republican nomination. Then they said he had no chance of winning the presidency. It’s those same people who are now telling us that he’s selfish, dangerous and will destroy America. I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this. Conversely, the few who had the foresight to see Trump winning the election are the ones who believe he’ll be one of America’s greatest presidents.

            Regarding Streep, I’d consider it ‘brave’ if she made those comments in the American mid-West instead of in the privileged liberal echo chamber that is a Hollywood awards ceremony. Furthermore, Trump has always denied that he was mocking disability and was instead just imitating a generic flustered reporter. Personal interpretations aside, this is a perfectly plausible explanation. As such, she was criticising him based on her own beliefs and not on any concrete evidence. Given that there are many better criticisms of Trump she could have run with, I consider her speech to be a total misfire.

            Time will tell if Trump is a great POTUS or if his detractors finally got something right, but I’m sure we can all agree that it’s going to be an interesting four (eight?) years! Cheers.

          • Dan Flynn

            entropy, we could probably debate Trumps’s mental health for some time, hopefully we can agree to disagree on that one.

            I’m curious as to why you neglected my point about Trump’s life thus far being about personal empire building? There is some merit to this argument I would have thought?

            Sure, us lefties were all wrong about Trump winning the election but that does not make him more qualified for the job, just because he defied the odds. The guy is clearly talented. He’s knows what he is doing and is excellent in boiling down complex problems into snappy one liners.

            If this world was more equitable, if average Americans had jobs and prospects for their children’s future we would not have Trump in the White House. People become angry and resentful towards minorities and ‘bleeding heart liberals’ when they struggle to put food on the table and when shit ain’t going well in their lives. We need to focus on a more equitable society and many people would lose some interest in being a bigot.

            Like I said to Steve, I believe we can have it all – proud white people (or whatever colour) who have jobs and prospects for the future and minorities who don’t have to live in fear of some asshole screaming racial abuse at them or worse.

            Anyway I came on this forum because I want to understand people like you more. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you.
            Cheers

          • entropy

            We could debate Trump’s mental health forever, but it would be meaningless. Neither of us is actually qualified to diagnose him even if we had access to his medical records, which we don’t. Given the vitriolic slander leveled at Trump during this campaign, I’m going to need some actual evidence if you expect me to humour these accusations.

            I didn’t deliberately overlook anything but this is already a lengthy conversation that really isn’t telling me anything I haven’t heard before. Most people on this planet spend their lives trying to make money. Many heads of state have been successful in business. Malcolm Turnbull for example. And when people have achieved what they want to in their business life, they often look to give back to the community via donations or public service. Unlike Obama, Trump isn’t taking a wage as POTUS. Was Obama just out for himself? I thought your point was completely off target, which is probably why I overlooked it.

            I found your fourth paragraph to be ideological and not evidence-based, so I also won’t bother with it except to say that the reasons people voted for Trump are far more nuanced than you either can understand or will admit.
            I’d be concerned if, as a social worker, you don’t understand half of the people your trying to serve. It’s good to see you making the effort now but we can safely assume this isn’t something you’d be doing had Clinton won. The establishment would have continued and the deplorable 50% of the population would have been ignored for another four years. Remember, voters only had a choice between two candidates. There’s no mystery here.

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Entropy,
            I guess this is where communication fails:

            ‘I found your fourth paragraph to be ideological and not evidence-based, so I also won’t bother with it’
            That says it all really. Much of what you have said is also ideological and is hardly evidence based. We are humans, we have thoughts and opinions and insights that cannot always be backed up by peer reviewed scientific studies. We both see the world very differently and we gather information to support our pre-existing views.
            All my experience as a human being points to a certain truth – if you are not happy within yourself (for whatever reason) you are more likely to be bitter and look for someone to blame. If you are happy and are engaging in meaningful activities you are likely to spend less time looking over your shoulder and looking for people to direct your powerlessness and anger towards. The question then becomes how can we help people to feel better about themselves? We need to help them get a job, find some friends, get off their computer and engage with the community, meet someone special perhaps. This is what I try to do everyday with society’s most damaged and vulnerable.
            Thanks for the discourse.

          • entropy

            Hi Dan, please quote the ideological arguments I’ve made in this thread if you think they exist because I don’t believe I’ve made any. I feel I’ve gone out of my way to be reasonable in response to your exaggerated claims and ad hominems, and have only been looking to refute them or provide alternative explanations.

            Regarding paragraph 4: “if average Americans had jobs and prospects for their children’s future we would not have Trump in the White House” is at best an ideological argument, and at worst a fortune cookie. Similarly with “People become angry and resentful towards minorities and ‘bleeding heart liberals’ when they struggle to put food on the table”.

            Throughout this conversation you’ve provided little to no evidence to substantiate your assertions and, as such, I need provide no evidence to reject them. I’ve tried to furnish you with the context that you seem to be missing but rather than acknowledge my corrections, you largely just move on to your next argument (while complaining if I missed one of yours).

            Even your argument here presupposes that Trump is ‘bad’ and that people only voted for him because ‘reasons’. It’s not worth a reply because your premise is fundamentally flawed, if not biased.

            Communication fails when people don’t listen. I feel I’ve done all I can to address the concerns you’ve raised but at the moment I don’t feel like you have any intention of listening. My welcome was genuine and I hope you stay to listen, learn, argue, cajole or troll as much as you like, but do understand that my time is precious to me.

          • Dan Flynn

            Entropy, you can decline to respond to my messages anytime, I am not forcing you to communicate with me. Your defences of Trump and your views around Merryl Streep are as ideological as my comments. Granted, you take a far more clinical approach to your arguments than I, but it comes across as a little disingenuous to say that you are not ideological. This whole forum is based on an ideology. Anyway, time for me to sign off from this conversation and perhaps XYZ for a while, but I’m sure I’ll be back. Cheers Dan

          • Dan Flynn

            Entropy, sorry to bug you, I don’t want to waste your ‘precious time’ 🙂

            But I’ve thought a lot about your message and I shouldn’t have replied so late last night. Please do not feel like you need to reply to this. I just want to get it off my chest.

            What is ideology? ‘a system of ideas and ideals…’

            We both watched the same speech (Merryl’s) and one of us found it inspiring and the other found it a ‘total misfire’. The same speech, two wildly different interpretations. The difference? Our system of ideas and ideals.

            You don’t have to make obvious ideological statements for me to know that what you are saying is deeply ideological. Also your idea of ‘evidence’ is questionable, they are more like opinions supported by miniscule examples.

            ‘Unlike Obama, Trump isn’t taking a wage as POTUS. Was Obama just out for himself’

            This is not evidence, it’s just a random fact that is irrelevant considering Trump is a billionarire and his refusal to take a ‘measly’ presidential wage is very easy for him to do, and means nothing in terms of his level of long term commitment to the American people.

            ‘Given the left’s history of personal attacks and misapplication of clinical labels (misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, etc.), such accusations are easy to dismiss’.

            This is massively ideological, you refer to ‘the left’ like there is a homogenous group of left wing people who all think the same, this could not be further from the truth. Universities and other organizations are full to the brim ‘leftists’ who constantly disagree. I imagine the same with the ‘right’.

            ‘I’ve tried to furnish you with the context that you seem to be missing’

            I have been listening, I’m just far from being convinced, as your ‘furnishings’ simply do not have much merit.

            ‘As for ‘ruin the US’, world markets surged after Trump’s election. The ASX went up 10%’
            This is really, really far from evidence that Trump will be good for America. The global markets jump up and own all the time for a multitude of reasons, they apparently went down after Brextit and then back up again. That kind of ‘fact’ based thinking is just not accurate or compelling.
            Anyway, must be getting back to work, my time is also precious.

          • Wide Awake

            I get racially abused at work every day but that is okay because I am white! You will not find your leftist echo chanber here.

          • Dan,
            Please give us an honest psychological assessment of Obama.
            Be good to get a Social Workers point if view on him, don’t you agree?
            Look forward to reading your reply.

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Bucky,
            Obama ran on hope and change, not much of either happened. Perhaps he suffers from grandiosity and delusions?
            I dislike most politicians, the mere concept of government is quite bizarre to me, especially in USA. Corporations give them money to get elected and then submit bills to congress that were written by them. No one in politics escapes blame for what this world has come to, except, dare I mention it on this forum, ….the Greens!

          • Deplorable Steve B

            Green policies in conjunction with the left are exactly why the Western world is in its current state and finally pushing back against PC totalitarianism. The Greens are a fraud. They have no interest in environmental realities that actually work. They are more interested in ensuring that the population toes the line with their so called progressive values. They constantly expose themselves for the hypocritical, moronic idealogues they are…

          • Dan Flynn

            Steve, can you give me an example of what your referring to? The Greens are made up of individuals and specific policies.
            ‘They constantly expose themselves for the hypocritical, moronic idealogues’ This is very vague. I personally know the Greens candidate for Batman (who narrowly lost) and some of her policies are:

            – Restoring free education;

            – Increasing all income support payments above the poverty line;

            – Funding the transformations in our energy, transport and agriculture to move Australia to a zero carbon, zero pollution new economy.
            Might sound crazy to you but she’s try to make this world better. You will call me naïve but we gotta have hope otherwise we’re all fucked.

          • Deplorable Steve B

            I think Dan that you should read through a selection of articles on this site as they eloquently point out everything that is wrong with leftist dogma better than I can verbalise.

            However, to try to answer your question I’ll refer to your education, income support and funding concerns. These all sound very nice when it’s someone else’s money the policy makers can extort
            from working people and spread around their pet projects. This is simply a way to stay in power and is stealing. In effect, Socialism, which is the enemy of most people who post here.

            Secondly, the ruinous social policies of the Greens are just that; ruin dressed up as equality, a fictitious concept. Where was their concern when the marriage perversion plebiscite was canned? The best chance to prove their clames that a huge majority of Oz supported it. Oh that’s right democracy was hijacked because some fictitious fag would kill themselves over the public debate. About the same time it dawned on them that it would actually lose the argument and badly. This is but one example of Green hypocrisy, there are many more.

            Let’s not get into the zero emissions debate as South Australia lost that argument for the left convincingly.

            I hope I have answered your query satisfactorily.

      • Deplorable Steve B

        ‘Trump got elected despite celebrity worship’.

        Sharp point of view entropy…

    • Gregoryno6

      “By the way did anyone complain when celebrities used their profile to raise money for 911 victims or hurricane Katrina?”
      No, but those instances celebrities would have been trying to do good for other people. The Streepster’s speech featured an awful lot of self-pity. Poor Hollywood, poor us – we’re picked upon. Certainly they have been picked upon recently, but this is due to the high-handed manner they’ve adopted in their videos. We are actors and we know better than you. And they’ve grown increasingly ridiculous with every video they release.
      The comments about Trump mocking a disabled man were incorrect (to put it politely). The truth was known well before Sunday night.
      At any rate, Dan, welcome to the wonderful world of the internet. Will you be carrying on your work against ‘this alt+right’ business elsewhere? Do you have a blog?

      • Trog

        Your correct point about his not mocking the disabled just gets lost i feel as it’s not a good enough story so every reason not to get polite about it. More BS that, like the tin, that will forever be kicked down the road as it makes a nice noise..

      • Dan Flynn

        Hi Greg,
        I certainly don’t feel sorry for Merryl, nor any other Hollywood actor. They have all won the lottery of fame and fortune and do not have to deal with the struggles that ordinary folks have to.
        The reason celebrities speak out is because who else will? Politicians? If you are famous it simply means you have the power to be heard. You say something and the media will report it. Some try to use it for good, others use it for their own interests. If you or I say something the best we can expect is that a few people will read it on some internet forum.
        You guys are missing the basic point here and that is – Trump is ushering in a whole new era of minority bashing that will cause immeasurable pain and suffering – not to you guys though – you’re white, you won’t notice it. But many black or brown people will, as will women. You guys just can’t understand racial and gender oppression because you are men and you simply don’t notice it. Others do.
        So back to Merryl, she was using her speech to fight back against Trump. She didn’t have to, she could have just thanked everybody and left the stage. She didn’t, she took on Trump and got up the noses of millions around the world who will now probably boycott her films. This was not the easy option for her.
        No I do not have a blog, I’m just very curious as to how people like you think, you are clearly educated and intelligent beings and I don’t understand why you support such hateful and negative figure like Trump.

        • Gregoryno6

          Dan, the more I read of your comments the more you sound like a fellpw I met elsewhere online. Like you, did a lot of handwringing over the supposed prejudice of educated and intelligent white people. And that was pretty much all he had to offer.
          Your profile shows that you signed into Disqus yesterday and you’ve not commented anywhere else except here on XYZ. As if this is the only place you can find the alt+right.
          I’m going with Bucky. You’re a troll.

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Greg, I did just sign up yesterday. You have to start somewhere though right? And no we’ve never met. Honestly I’m just intrigued about how you guys think and wanted to communicate with you. I have never waded into an online forum like this before. You don’t have to talk to me if you don’t want to.
            Maybe it is pointless for me to try and argue with you on this forum, many of you seem rather unwilling to discuss the actual points and prefer to ‘play the man rather than the ball’.

          • Deplorable Steve B

            I have not seen any playing the man. It is great that you want to communicate with us. And you can do so without fear of a tax payer funded, screeching totalitarian attack on your persons or attempt to get you sacked from your job or publically discredit you or be sent death threats or litigation because you hold a different perspective. All the things the left love to do if you disagree with them.

        • Möwe

          Hi Dan. You said that Trump is ushering in a whole new era of minority bashing that will cause immeasurable pain and suffering, not to people like me because I’m white and a man and won’t notice it. You say I can’t understand gender and racial oppression because I’m a man.

          Your view of the world is based on a Marxist foundation. You see the world as divided into twos. Broadly, according to this world view, any group (even a group of two people) can be divided into the haves and the have-nots. The straights and the gays. The men and the women. The whites and the non-whites. The Christians and The Muslims. The rich and the poor. In this system, the have-nots are seen as more virtuous due to being perceived in this world view as having less power. You can show your own virtue by demonstrating that you love or sympathize with the have-nots more than the haves.

          OK. But have you ever thought that this way of looking at the world is wrong, or at least flawed? A bit too black and white, lacking in nuance? Have you ever questioned it? There are other ways of organizing the world. Take Confucianism, for example, which is based on the five cardinal relationships. Islam is based on Islamic doctrine. A Muslim version of you in Iran would probably be sympathetic to Iranian Christians, Jews, atheists and Zoroastrians, who are not seen as the equal of Muslims.

          As for Trump, I think people like him and he won because America is not about this division of people into two groups. That comes from Marxism, like I said. America is a place where you can start over, work hard, and be a success. It’s a place where you can be free to conquer whatever frontier lies in front of you and make a better life, no matter who you are. Trump stood for that and stands for that. It’s attractive. People like that. Hillary didn’t stand for that. Her main message seemed to be about dividing the country. Dividing it into groups, dividing its assets more equitably.

          Being circumspect about Muslim immigration and the rise of fanaticism is a completely reasonable response to recent world events. The kind of people who don’t think it’s reasonable also often think along Marxist lines, both in terms of morals and ethics, and in terms of how they would like society to advance. It is not racist to be circumspect about Muslims, it’s just being careful.

          Even the Muslims have a saying: “Trust Allah, but tie up your camel!”

          I’d advise you to have a second look at your worldview, which sneakily came to you from Marxism, and is also the dominant worldview of secular people in Australia in 2017. But it is losing ground.

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Mowe, sorry for the late reply, interesting perspective you put forward, and it is certainly giving me pause for thought. I cannot say I am well versed in Marxist theories but I do not believe this means I can not comment on your points.
            ‘Being circumspect about Muslim immigration and the rise of fanaticism is a completely reasonable response to recent world events’

            This is perfectly reasonable, I am also deeply concerned about this, however it is not just Muslims in general that I worry about, it is also other extremists. If I lived in America I would be more fearful of white people with guns than Muslims – Sandy Hook, Columbine, Batman shooter, Dylan Roof who killed all those African Americans in the church, the list goes on and on. What kind of circumspection would you have around disaffected white youths?

            I believe all extremism is born from poverty, trauma, poor parenting, lack of jobs and opportunity, fear. All those things contribute to people being consumed by their bitterness and resentment and then finally they lose the plot completely and start planning to hurt people. They may be Muslim they may be black, brown or blue. We tend to forget this and focus on Muslims because they are so different and, granted, difficult to understand.

            ‘I advise you to have a second look at your worldview, which sneakily came to you from Marxism’.
            I’m sorry mate, but this advice and I cannot take. It ignores the whole complex and beautiful world that we live in where lessons come from everywhere, not just dead Russian philosophers.
            My Dad taught me, my teachers taught me, my son teaches me, I read books, talk to people and listen to people, I even listen to the wind! My world view is much more complex that what can be communicated on a forum.

            Anyway thank you for taking the time to reach out to me, I appreciate it. Hopefully we we all learn something.
            Cheers
            Dan

          • Möwe

            Hi Dan,

            You mentioned various non-Muslim-related acts of ultra violence and asked what kind of circumspection we might have around those people, particularly. It’s a bit unfair to say it’s disaffected white youths — the Virginia Tech shooter was Asian, for example. However, these murderers were not acting in the service of jihad. They were just psychopaths who lost their humanity. Now, one could argue that anyone who kills for the flag of Islamic State is also a psychopath. True, and they no doubt are. But they have the backing of Islamic doctrine. The Columbine shooters had no such backing. Islam thus has a link to this kind of violent psychopathic behaviour.

            You mentioned that you believe extremism — by which you mean Islamic extremism, I suppose — comes from certain factors including poverty, trauma, poor parenting, lack of jobs and opportunity, fear. In other words, weakness. I agree that all those things can make one angry. However your analysis derives from your worldview, which as I mentioned in my last comment is based on Marxism. Marxism says that unequal distribution of wealth is the source of anxiety, anger and conflict between the classes, and that the solution is Communism. However, while poverty and joblessness can cause violent anger, they need not. It can cause humility, for example, followed by a change of heart. It’s a not-uncommon theme of Hollywood movies. In fact, in Christianity, poverty is seen as a virtue. Jesus famously advised the rich man to sell all his possessions, give the money to the poor, and follow him. (The rich man famously declined to do so).

            You mentioned poor parenting as a contributing factor to extremism. By that I think you mean parents who have no understanding of the right kind of morals to teach their kids, and also not caring. In other words, a combination of bad ideas and nihilism. But what are the right morals and ideas? Where can parents get the right ideas from?

            I have been teaching in remote NT for the past three years. (You can see one of my articles about here at XYZ. It’s called ‘Bill Leak Nailed It’). Plenty of remote aboriginal kids have bad parenting, no job opportunities and poverty, and almost every aboriginal child I have taught has trauma of some kind. However, though crime has been a common response to their situation, aborigines have not yet responded with mass shootings. Access to firearms is really not a problem for them — hunting with firearms is a common pastime in remote NT, even for kids.). Perhaps they have not resorted to mass murder because it is not a part of their culture. Drunkenness, family violence and suicide, however, are big responses in aboriginal communities to hopelessness, joblessness, trauma, family breakdown, nihilism, and bad ideas.

            Or take the Buddhists. They might say that violence comes from too much attachment to the physical world, and say that the solution is to let go of one’s attachments. There is not a big problem in the world from suicidal Buddhist mass shooters.

            The point of this diversion into other cultures is that one’s response to hardship is not necessarily mass murder, and it can be influenced by one’s beliefs and culture. Islam is in a different category to other cultures. Islam has a role model in the form of Mohammad (a warrior who killed many). Islam also has very high esteem for anyone who dies while performing jihad. It really is okay to be wary of these guys. Besides, are all Muslim terrorists poor and miserable? Wasn’t bin Laden from a fairly wealthy family?

            Now, to answer your question, “What kind of circumspection would you have around disaffected white youths?” To quote Malcolm Turnbull (who I swear said this during an interview on A Current Affair of Today Tonight, while still a Howard government minister, way back in about ’04 or ’05 — maybe someone will be able to confirm this), “I want people to have a reason to get out of bed in the morning.” I agree, but there’s more. Let people have both a reason to live and to love others. Atheism, Marxism, secular humanism — all kinds of materialistic worldviews are going to have a hard time providing that reason when times are tough, and sometimes even when things are going fine, too, as we can see by the rate of depression in our country. ISIS’s reason to get out of bed in the morning seems to be jihad. ‘We love death more than you live life,” they say. What else is there? A return to a traditional lifestyle, as many folks recommend for aborigines or even us white people? The threat of violence or imprisonment, as in North Korea? What works best?

            And what would have melted those Columbine shooters’ hearts and stayed their hands? Why couldn’t they just have had a laugh at the absurdity of life instead of raging against it like they did? Money, girls and an expectation of a comfortable, long life would have gone a long way to curing them I reckon, but not the whole way. The very worst killers in the world always have access to those three things in abundance. Material things alone can’t be the only cure for violence.

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Mowe, Some very well expressed points there. You’re right, Aboriginal people have experienced more than their fare share of trauma and abuse and have not taken up arms. It’s a testament to the beauty of their culture. And yes, Islam does have this thing called jihad and it provides a context for people to become radicalized and violent.
            I hope I’m not implying that Islam extremism is not a problem or that we should ignore it. ISIS is an abomination.
            To be honest I also find Islam to be difficult to understand and I certainly do not condone the behavior of so many people purporting to be doing the will of Allah. They are not, they are using a religion to legitimize murder as well as gross oppression of women among other things.
            So yeah, lets crush ISIS if we can but my main point here is this – let’s not take our anger out on normal being who happen to be Muslim. They are not ISIS, not even close. Just like you and I are not Martin Bryant. Most Muslims interpret Islam very differently.
            That is why I do not support views that include banning or limiting immigration based on someone’s religion. I have some friends from eastern Europe who are Muslim, they are white and, predictably, never experience prejudice despite the Chechen rebels being pretty bloody violent. Only the ‘middle eastern ones’ do.
            My statements about young white males being violent in America was just making a point and it is this – all people have the potential to be violent.
            If you examine the West’s role in Middle Eastern conflict you will quickly see our part responsibility in the rise in ISIS. I believe that all those people who were gung ho about the 2003 invasion of Iraq have much to answer for.
            Anyway, this could be my thirtieth long winded post in the past few days on XYZ. Feel free to reply but I may not get back to you sorry.
            I wish you the best in your endeavors.
            Cheers
            Dan

          • Deplorable Steve

            Read the Koran. It’s all there hiding in plain sight…

          • Dan Flynn

            It is Steve, and luckily most Muslims don’t take the violent parts literally as most Christians don’t take the bible literally, which also says some pretty far out stuff!

    • Sadsak

      I hope you enrol in the next course of growing up.

      • Dan Flynn

        Hi there Sadsak, how’s your life going?
        I’m 41, very happily married, two wonderful child children, gainfully employed in a job that I enjoy, I’m almost debt free and I enjoy writing my own music and perform fairly regularly. I’m happy and well adjusted.
        I feel pretty grown up, but always learning.

        • Deplorable Steve

          Do you play an instrument? What sort of music do you play/write?
          I am a blues/rock aficionado myself.

          • Dan Flynn

            I do Steve, acoustic guitar and vocal. I mainly writer folky kind of stuff with drums, bass, keyboards. I’m mad for it. Here’s a sample (PS: I’ll get back to your other comment soon) cheers Dan

            https://soundcloud.com/dan-flynn-22/heavy-lies-the-crown-1

          • Deplorable Steve

            That was awesome Dan. Well done.

          • Dan Flynn

            Thanks Steve!

  • entropy

    Obviously, the entertainment industry is suffering right now. Je suis Hollywood! But let’s all pause and take a moment to reflect on some real victims.

    Here’s Stan Grant on ABC’s 7:30 (09/01/2017) interviewing Ian McAllister about politicians’ entitlements:

    “Traditionally, you would think – we know we often say that politicians rate with used car salesmen and journalists when it comes to public acceptance…”

    Do not adjust your television sets. You read that correctly. An ABC ‘journalist’ uncritically bemoaning journalism’s lack of esteem.

    Traditionally, journalists have actually been highly regarded. To some extent because they actually did their jobs, but also because the public had no way of independently verifying their reports. If that’s changed, it’s because ‘journalists’ have become ideological propagandists and because readers can easily source the facts that they fail to objectively report. But why let facts get in the way of your self-identifying victimhood?

    Cry us a river, Stan.

    http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2017/s4601875.htm

    • Poor old Stan, he has been so downtrodden during his media career, he is just a victim, isn’t he ?
      That torrid sex scandal, forced upon him at Channel 7 where he was humping Tracey Holmes and then ran off from his family to shack up with her.
      Then, disgraced and shamed wonderboy, he ran off to work for CNN in Asia.
      Poor Stan, he has had such a hard life, vilified and racially stomped on, tortured by private agonies and white prejudices.
      The shame, the shame !

      https://www.pickeringpost.com/story/50-shades-of-grant/5750

  • Trog

    Masterful Eh?.

  • Mary Louise “Meryl” Streebe (her real name) reminds me of Marie Antoinette.
    Meryl believes herself to be the Archduchess of Hollywood.
    We are the peasants, the rabble, the plebs.

    “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”

    She has a history of making uninformed undeserved attacks on various people : Walt Disney, whom she falsely accused of anti semitism.
    She is a fellow traveller with the likes of that other imbecile, De Niro, who likened Trump’s victory with the 9/11 attacks.
    Stupid knows no boundaries with these poor vilified actors.

    Meryl also supports Romam Polanski, the Hollywood Director who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl at a decadent Hollywood party,then escaped overseas.
    Whoopi Goldberg rabidly defended Polanski, claiming it wasn’t “rape” to drug and sexually assault a child.

    These celebreties are sick,sick puppies.
    Hollywood is Pedowood.
    These celebrities live in a bubble that needs to be pricked.

    • Deplorable Steve B

      Mr B Turgidson, I believe you are correct. What is needed is an effective strike force that will cause them no end of grief. An attack pack consisting of your good self, Trog and an anonymous poet will have them on the back foot in no time.

      First: We do not pay to see their movies
      Second: We write clever exposes on XYZ such as you have done.
      Third: The Poet will compose nasty rhymes about them.

      Only if all else fails is the fourth option to be used:

      Release the Trog…

      These measures should suffice to bring these petty has beens back to reality…

      • Bring on The Trog !!!!!

        • Trog

          Honestly Bucky, this chap has set out to prod the bear in the cage and unfortunately for mine, largely been successful. We all know his views exceedingly well as they are reiterated, ad nauseum, in MSM on the hour every hour. Why give him and his take on further PC claptrap any more oxygen? IT’S BEEN DONE TO DEATH!!!
          Best for mine, to just let it sink without trace whilst the grown ups are talking.

          But it hasn’t?? He lost me diagnosing Trumps mental health condition from 10,000k distance as a qualified “social worker”. I have one of those things too and find his hubris orbital! Save me please from this incredible naiiviety!!!

          This isn’t even fit as an argument during playlunch!! Akin to confidently fighting a nuclear war with a pointy stick! As my old teacher would say, “must try harder”.

          His peace on earth and cry for understanding is reminiscent of the flower children of the 60’s. Lovely thoughts, it felt good at the time and some great songs but a huge disconnect with reality. They too spawned a few bombers who occassionally went off message. It’s called the real world.

          Streep’s speech was just preaching to the supposed “converted” and I guess at least some in attendance thought it was pretty fascile and tasteless too. I’m hoping this is so. But really, who cares?

          Dan is polite which is appreciated and I guess well meaning too, but unless he has a fresh point, totally valueless. His assertions have been done to death a 1000 times before and are the very reason Trump is the next POTUS! Enough of us and his supporters were heartily sick of the bleeding heart, offence taking, victim lobby and wanted a change. So cease the pack attack, clear the air, and let the bloke do his job.

          Can we at least wait to see what he does first before we put the boot in?

          • Darryl

            You are spot on. I must confess, however, some minor curiousity as to how he will now react following the less than successful beginning of his crusade. Regressive left sites are often simply echo chambers where they all agree with each other, to borrow from Gerard Henderson who often describes them so eloquently. Safe Zones for the true believers, long on rhetoric but short on fact or argument. Assuming he is coming from such an environment, it is only fair that we allow him a short time to attempt to adapt to this new one.

            He has, to use the well known saying, brought a knife to a gun fight. Rhetoric and slogans don’t cut it here. He needs facts and logical arguments. Which in my humble opinion the left is almost devoid of.

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Trog, sorry I missed this post. I know my views are nothing new, but neither are yours by the way. I have no interest in discussing stuff with people who agree with me, I’m mainly interested in guys like you who see the world so differently. I think we need more of this, ‘left’ and ‘right’ (to put it crudely) going at it with respect and passion. Hey maybe we should meet up for a debate in person sometime? 🙂
            I’ll be back I’m sure, only if I’m welcome though. I’m not going to mindlessly troll people here.
            This is my first foray into any kind of forum, seriously, so I’m sure I’ve made some rookie mistakes. But you guys are sure helping me sharpen my arguments and wit. Than you.

          • Trog

            Dan you certainly get points for effort and willingness to look seriously at another’s views. Points to for manners. Nothing much is new in politics absolutely true, except perhaps for feminism mark?? as we understand it with adherents actually calling for men to be euthanased. Clearly not “well” people but I guess new as even the Amazons gave their boy babies back to the fathers.

            Dan, debates are an interest of mine but largely because people far better equipped than myself can make them extremely entertaining, if permitted to and not howled down by the fanatically intolerant.

            We are akin clearly in having a thirst for knowledge. I am poor on Internet skills and buzzspeak with a very limited knowledge of what’s out there. It is clear however to all of us from my side of politics that we do, whilst labelled as Conservative, hold widely differing “passion points” with the issues.

            Imho, may I suggest some good sources for you to gain better insight into your opponents’ arguments.

            Andrew Bolt’s blog and Sky show (particularly his guests such as Mark Latham).The comments section of his blogs frequently run into the several 100’s. He is in equal measure both loathed and loved reflected in the many posts and a good tap into the mood of the electorate. He supported XYZ which is why I’m here after having not enjoyed my experience with the tedium of the ABC website.

            Spectator magazine online has the conservative point of view and very many distinguished, successful extremely articulate writers. Warren Mundine posted recently on returning from his 5th trip to Israel, from which he gains renewed inspiration for his own mob. Wonderful piece.

            Quadrant magazine. This is the heavy end of the spectrum frequently posting pieces by academics including some that formed part of an earlier doctoral thesis. It is a wealth of data, evidence based research and considered argument. It too has a coterie of extremely articulate commenters that are valuable, argumentative and diverse.

            Finally PBS News hour (a publically suscribed) US news service picked up by SBS. Yesterday’s broadcast for instance published Obama’s approval ratings world wide with over 80% in Australia, France and unsurprisingly Kenya, and 10-20% in the Palestinian territories, Jordan and Russia.

            I live in forlorn hope that the ABC will change and provide an overarching inclusive format for all views in keeping with the numbers supporting those viewpoints. Simple balance not the endlessly left, pile on, group think parroters who always agree, on, well, everything!

            An example of their ABC’s failure is your need to post on XYZ to gain insight into the Conservative spectrum. No criticism, just resignation.

            Long winded again (hate doing that) and my final post as it takes me too long to type but I do appreciate your curiosity and manners. As you will find in this world, it can be the exception rather than the rule unfortunately. Even though I do try hard not to be, I to fail on occasion. Human condition I suppose.

            Cheers.

          • Dan Flynn

            Thanks for the info Trog, I’m from Melbourne and I sure am familiar with Andrew Bolt, but not so much with your other suggestions. Will check them out. In the meantime I’ll sit and wait until someone else writes another article on XYZ so we can debate specific issues, I think I’ve taken too much of a general approach to my arguments and, as some have mentioned, have not backed it up enough. That’s not to say there is not a wealth of evidence to support my views, there is. The problem I find with the internet is that there is ‘evidence’ to support almost any view. It wouldn’t take much google searching to find and article saying that Hitler was a reasonable guy.
            Anyway Trog, one of my core beliefs is to treat others with respect at all times even if you hold polar opposite views, the moment we start throwing abuse or being overly judgement people close their ears.
            Anyway, nice to meet you all.
            Cheers
            Dan

          • Darryl

            Excellent recommendations Trog. Perhaps Dan would also enjoy the canine perspective each Friday and I can think of no better dog than Nancy to provide it.

            http://thesydneyinstitute.com.au/media-watch-dog/

          • Trog

            In my best cattledog speak…bugga!
            I missed several I think at least
            but that’s one I shouldn’t have. I particularly love the addendum list of truly vile insults thrown at him by the “genuinely gorgeous glitterati”! He wears them like a badge of honour. Luvvit!

      • Trog

        Ahh Steven your Magnificence is truly mesmerising to we lesser scribes. I do believe however that the young man seems a happy enough chappy and actually feel a little sorry for him that he has had to grow up in Victoria! This could explain much?

        Entirely fine to have his own view of course but perhaps not a good fit in this illustrious company. Only time will tell whether Mr Trump is merely outstanding… or truly the Supreme Godhead of our known Universe!

        Reserving judgement, but feel its best with the young’uns to just chuck them under the chin and say there-there a lot. It has a soothing effect on them I find and they do go off to sleep eventually.

        Ohhh the sweet delusion of youth, when holding hands, (collecting Oscars, Golden Globes and Grammy’s), and not least, kumbaya-ing up a blue streak could change our world. I believe Mr Trump is sending some of this lot as envoys to the Middle East to sort them out. I just hope they all have clearly defined beneficiaries?

    • Trog

      They always seem to have trouble when there’s no script to follow and they have to think for themselves poor, silly sausages. I liken it to the old adage,
      “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt”. Tired but still true.

    • Bikinis not Burkas

      Sorry to have to tell you that you are wrong, we are the Deplorables!

  • Darryl

    @Dan Flynn. It’s a little premature to welcome you to XYZ just yet. You’re a man on a mission. To “take on some of this ‘alt-right’ business in my own small way.” You have not got off to a good start. To justify your arguments on Donald Trump’s mental health and fitness you rely not on facts, but your own inexpert and uninformed opinion. You wrote:

    “And yes I am a social worker and not a psychiatrist, but having years of experience in the mental health field gives me as much knowledge about mental illness as any psychologist.”

    Waste of time going to Uni, isn’t it? Or doing any course for that matter?

    If you’re going to stay with us, please try to do better in the future. Do you actually know what the label alt-right covers? It is extremely imprecise, and has been used to encompass everyone from traditional conservatives disillusioned with the large traditionally conservative parties through to true neo-nazi’s. Breitbart has a very interesting article in which it attempts (with debatable success) to define the elements falling under the label alt-right at:

    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

    You will find many different opinions expressed on this site, and agreement amongst those reading and posting is far from unanimous. There is no one alt-right which you can demolish by spouting leftist propaganda. You can only deal with particular opinions by logical argument and for that facts are essential. Perhaps this is not the case on some leftist sites. Welcome to the right side (pun intended).

    • Dan Flynn

      Thanks for the link Daryl, sorry I missed this post. Will give it a read. Cheers

  • Darryl

    @Dan Flynn. You seem like a nice enough guy. I might ask you how we can have large scale Muslim Immigration and avoid this sort ot thing:

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/melbourne-imam-ibrahim-omerdic-charged-with-conducting-marriage-ceremony-involving-child-bride/news-story/7fd8ec9473a142031d0b64bf5ad8bbac

    It is not an isolated incident. It does not say how old the girl is in this case but in the previous publicised incident I recall the girl was 12. Her father had consented. In both cases the marriage was performed by an Imam. This latest case was apparently performed in a mosque and recorded on DVD. Apparently this type of crime is vastly under-reported. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-23/forced-child-marriage-continuing-in-australia:-report/5613700

    The Victorian Board of Imams released a statement saying in part:

    “Imams are advised to meet both the bride and groom in person prior to the nikah (Islamic marriage) ceremony to ensure they are of marriageable age and both are consenting to the marriage, As Australian Muslims, we are required to observe and respect the laws of Australia.”

    This is of course quite correct. The problem is that whilst the law needs to be obeyed (and in some cases it is not) this requirement does not change underlying attitudes in the community. In addition to those who simply break the law we are accumulating a group of people in our community who believe this law is not in accordance with their religion and is wrong. If this group becomes sufficiently large and influential then it can exert political pressure to change the law. The same scenario potentially arises in relation to other fundamental values. How many Muslim Immigrants, for instance, support Sharia law, and would support its implementation in Australia if given the chance?