Dude, we get nothing from the so called "parliamentarians" who are apparently are our "representatives". The only people who they actually represent are the international capitalist-intelligentsia regime. The "parliamentarians" are told what to do not by the ordinary people on the street but by their international pay masters, the capitalists. Australia is not a real democracy. Freedom of speech is not a right guaranteed by the federal constitution nor by any law. The Commonwealth is not a signatory to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Thus, Australians have very few rights.

Aussie Skinhead wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 7:56pm:

After the rhetoric, what rights or freedoms , exactly, do you believe you're being denied?

Aussie Skinhead wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 10:43am:

What are the anti-free speech laws?

Aussie Skinhead wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 10:59am:

What do they state specifically?

Aussie Skinhead wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 12:22pm:

What do you find unacceptable about Queensland's anti-discrimination act (specifically regarding incitement to racial or religious hatred) ?

Aussie Skinhead wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 1:56pm:

Where does it state that it is unlawful to debate racial topics, immigration and other important issues? Doesn't the act specifically state that discussion under these circumstances is lawful?

"We all know" ? who is "we"?

"kind of illegal"? Its either legal or its not.

Aussie Skinhead wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 4:21pm:

Doesn't it specifically state that the act does not prohibit discussion about racial matters that is in the public interest (such as immigration, multiculturalism, refugees, asylum seekers et al..) ?

Aussie Skinhead wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 8:30pm:

They would need to prove the "racist" comment contravenes the act. Complaining about a comment like "I think Australia is accepting too many Asian immigrants" would get nowhere because it is not in itself a contravention.

Aussie Skinhead wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 10:29pm:

Not just racist... The prosecution would have to prove that the sole reason for the offending comment was to incite racial / religious hatred (or was solely intended to cause and did cause serious offence) in the "most vile and serious of manners".

What kind of comment did you intend to make that makes you wonder whether you would be contravening the act?

Quote:


The laws are designed to intimidate white racialists by making out that their views are some how illegal.
Quote:


I will give you a few examples of how the law has been used to stifle white racialists and ordinary people on the street. Up in north Queensland, a mob of blacks were annoying a middle aged white man. The white man got sick of the annoyance and simply told the blacks a few home truths. The blacks were horrified at the retaliation, which they provoked, and made a complaint to the police. The white man was fined $1,500. In South Australia, a holocaust revisionist, Frederick Toben, was sentenced to three months jail for holocaust revisionism. In West Australia, a anti Zionist campaigner was arrested for his anti Zionist activities.

I am anti Zionist. I have always criticized the illegal Jewish group known as the "state of Israel". As for the blacks, I give them filthy looks down down. Other then that, I don't have much to do or say about the blacks.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 12:02am:


The laws might not apply in my case but what about all the other guys who have been prosecuted because of their racial and/or religious views? There is a fine line set by the laws between criticizing and vilifying races and religions. The laws are dangerous and should be abolished.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 2:51pm:

But who should define what is defamation and slander? Isn't it dangerous to try and limit free speech based on some idle speculation on what is "racial vilification"?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2009 at 2:00am:

But why should we limit free speech? We haven't needed such laws for most of mankind's history. It was the multiculturalists who turned this into an issue. They should be ignored and the non whites should be kicked out. That way, we won't need the laws and the debate regarding them.

Whenever you attempt to stereotype any racial groups as all having a single propensity, then you are always going to lose the argument, before you even start, but if you point out common patterns of anti-social behaviour, and do it in a non-threatening, and not deliberately offensive manner, then I cannot see that you would ever have any problem with any laws in australia Aussie Skinhead.

You seem to be able to express your views in a reasonably polite way here, and still get your point of view heard.

If you wish for more than that, if you wish to provoke confrontation, then perhaps the laws may seek to make that option less appealing, and I do not have any problem with that.

When groups seek to manipulate the laws of the land to stifle fair and reasonable discussion of behaviours displayed by representative members of didtinct racial groups, then we must rely on the common sense of the judiciary, and the weight of public opinion to make sure that the right to make reasonable criticism is not denied us, and I think most would agree that we want to keep that option.

Aussie Skinhead wrote on Dec 24^th, 2009 at 5:58pm:



Well therin lies the problem that people are not permitted to be brutally honest unless their comments fit a certain agenda.
I could rattle off loads of situations where stereotypical judgements are accepted because they fit a certain agenda which therefore makes it politically correct to silence the dissenters.
It's this type of dishonesty that allows the bank owners to rule the whole damned schemozzle.

Of course there are negative stereotypes because people take notice of bad things instead of good things. Yes, we have problems our selves but does that justify importing other people who have problems?

Quote:


Every one has a agenda. Some agendas are good while others are bad. People should be allowed to speak freely and be as blunt as possible if they like. I'm not saying that stereotypes are correct but they do have some factual truth. One, in making a judgment, should be allowed to take into account any thing he likes that is relevant to a  case. Every thing shapes a man. A man's background, political, economic and social believes and every thing else are influenced by a variety of different things like race, ethnicity, past experiences etc.

Please explain

As a white racialist, I am able to make a good judgment. Why? Because I have come to my conclusions through a long process of thinking about the said topics and that. I use to be a communist but I studied and read about what was really going on and I changed my mind.

No, not really. All because I don't like them doesn't mean I can't make a fair judgment. One can always be neutral in such matters. Now, aren't you just making a stereotype of "racists" and skinheads by making such claims?

Quote:


Yes, in their own county. They have their own countries so they don't need ours. Most non whites don't make good citizens because they are too different to us.
Quote:


Of course I agree with National Socialism. I didn't say that people are making presumptions when they claim that I agree with National Socialism or with the skinhead movement. After all, I am a National Socialist skinhead.

Quote:


Of course I would be fair. The fair thing to do would be to deport them because they don't belong here. It isn' fair to trick them into thinking that they can integrate into the Australian society.

Quote:


As I have said before, the word "racist" is a Jewish Communist term. The whole idea of anti-racism is culturally Marxist and thus communist. Cultural Marxism was invented by Jewish Communist intellectuals in the west during the 1920s. National Socialism is derived from observations of nature and interactions between people of different sexes, nationalities, classes, ethnicities and races. Thus, it is fair to implement the views of National Socialism in regards to people of different races, ethnic ties and nationalities.

Quote:

It is fair to every one because it takes not of people's differences. A National Socialist government will deport people of foreign races back to their racial fatherlands.

Quote:


National Socialism is not about feelings but about facts and observations. Facts are derived from observations of different peoples. One does justice by implementing findings that are derived from facts which are in turn made from observations. One's own feelings may be formed based on such observations in one's own life.

Quote:


Because they don't fit in and are undesirable for the Australian society. The facts, which National Socialism is based on, clearly state that non whites have a high chance of committing illegal acts. Why is it that Aboriginals count for 20% of the prison population? Why is it that most gangs in Sydney and Melbourne belong to certain races and ethnicities? Why is it that Sydney and Melbourne have high rates of crime? I tell you why. The reason is simple. It is all to do with the biological, sociological and cultural differences between the people of the white race and the people of the other races. National Socialism recognises this and incorporates it in it's ideology.

Quote:


No, because Australia belongs to the white race.
Quote:


The whole debate about racialism is inherently Marxist in it's nature. Marxism, through "anti-racism" seeks to divide the societies of the western white nations. If we are to reject Marxism, we must first reject anti-racism because of it's underlining intentions and motives. We all know what the motives of Leon Trotsky were. He, along with the Marxist intellectuals in the west, wanted a world wide communist revolution. At the time, the countries of the west were monocultural, strong and stable.  In order to create instability, the Marxist intellectuals created anti-racism, multiculturalism and political correctness.
Quote:


White racialism is not "racist". White racialism is not about committing acts of "predisposition towards vehement hatred of those exhibiting a certain outward physiology and the subsequent act or pre-disposition towards an act of pre-judgement based solely on physiological appearance". White racialism is about wanting to preserve the white race the cultures and ethnicities of the white race.

Quote:


It is their biological lands. They don't belong to Australia because Australia is white man's territory.
Quote:


I don't like ethnics. They are subhuman.
Quote:


The non whites only number less then two million. They don't actually contribute much to the economy and if they do then they are most likely taking jobs and work off white people. An example would be how foreign students are taking jobs off White Australian teenagers. As a White Australian teenager, it is difficult for me to get a job because there are thousands of foreigners who would do they job much more cheaply. They don't know their industrial relations rights where as I do. The foreigners wouldn't even know what a  trade union was. Indian students, who come to study here in Australia so that they can become citizens, are notorious for living in overcrowded conditions and working for NOTHING!!! How can White Australian teenagers compete with that? Us whites don't want to work for nothing and we especially don't want to work in poor conditions. We don't want to live in overcrowded houses.

Quote:


The blacks will be deported to reserved areas in the Australian bush. The reserved areas will be called "Aboriginal and Mixed Race Homelands".

Quote:


The blacks are a defeated race. The Aboriginals are a dying race.

Quote:


National Socialism has no intention of exterminating other races. National Socialists only want separate countries for white people. We simply want to preserve the white race and it's cultures and ethnic groups. Non whites on large have a high chance of committing crimes, wanting to change the Australian society along their lines etc. National Socialism rejects this and seeks to rectify the situation by removing the undesirables from the Australian society.

I don't think so.

Quote:


You are forgetting the blacks simply refuse to move away from their slums into areas where there are jobs. Plus, the blacks perform terribly at school and often get pathetic jobs. The blacks have no excuses.


Quote:

Yes, there is scientific proof. There is a 1.5 to 5% difference between the white race and the non whites.

But on the Half Sigma blog and elsewhere, the conversation is already flashing forward to what might happen if genetically encoded racial differences in socially desirable — or undesirable — traits are identified.

“If I were to believe the ‘facts’ in this post, what should I do?” one reader responded on Half Sigma. “Should I advocate discrimination against blacks because they are less smart? Should I not hire them to my company because odds are I could find a smarter white person? Stop trying to prove that one group of people are genetically inferior to your group. Just stop.”

Renata McGriff, 52, a health care consultant who had been encouraging black clients to volunteer genetic information to scientists, said she and other African-Americans have lately been discussing “opting out of genetic research until it’s clear we’re not going to use science to validate prejudices.”

“I don’t want the children in my family to be born thinking they are less than someone else based on their DNA,” added Ms. McGriff, of Manhattan.

Such discussions are among thousands that followed the geneticist James D. Watson’s assertion last month that Africans are innately less intelligent than other races. Dr. Watson, a Nobel Prize winner, subsequently apologized and quit his post at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island.

But the incident has added to uneasiness about whether society is prepared to handle the consequences of science that may eventually reveal appreciable differences between races in the genes that influence socially important traits.

New genetic information, some liberal critics say, could become the latest rallying point for a conservative political camp that objects to social policies like affirmative action, as happened with “The Bell Curve,” the controversial 1994 book that examined the relationship between race and I.Q.

Yet even some self-described liberals argue that accepting that there may be genetic differences between races is important in preparing to address them politically.

“Let’s say the genetic data says we’ll have to spend two times as much for every black child to close the achievement gap,” said Jason Malloy, 28, an artist in Madison, Wis., who wrote a defense of Dr. Watson for the widely read science blog Gene Expression. Society, he said, would need to consider how individuals “can be given educational and occupational opportunities that work best for their unique talents and limitations.”

Others hope that the genetic data may overturn preconceived notions of racial superiority by, for example, showing that Africans are innately more intelligent than other groups. But either way, the increased outpouring of conversation on the normally taboo subject of race and genetics has prompted some to suggest that innate differences should be accepted but, at some level, ignored.

“Regardless of any such genetic variation, it is our moral duty to treat all as equal before God and before the law,” Perry Clark, 44, wrote on a New York Times blog. It is not necessary, argued Dr. Clark, a retired neonatologist in Leawood, Kan., who is white, to maintain the pretense that inborn racial differences do not exist.

“When was the last time a nonblack sprinter won the Olympic 100 meters?” he asked.

“To say that such differences aren’t real,” Dr. Clark later said in an interview, “is to stick your head in the sand and go blah blah blah blah blah until the band marches by.”

Race, many sociologists and anthropologists have argued for decades, is a social invention historically used to justify prejudice and persecution. But when Samuel M. Richards gave his students at Pennsylvania State University genetic ancestry tests to establish the imprecision of socially constructed racial categories, he found the exercise reinforced them instead.

One white-skinned student, told she was 9 percent West African, went to a Kwanzaa celebration, for instance, but would not dream of going to an Asian cultural event because her DNA did not match, Dr. Richards said. Preconceived notions of race seemed all the more authentic when quantified by DNA.

“Before, it was, ‘I’m white because I have white skin and grew up in white culture,’ ” Dr. Richards said. “Now it’s, ‘I really know I’m white, so white is this big neon sign hanging over my head.’ It’s like, oh, no, come on. That wasn’t the point.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

Tom wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2010 at 6:48pm:

That is bullshit. I went to school with blacks. And guess what I saw? The whites worked hard and got good results. But the blacks misbehaved and failed dramatically. After school, virtually all the whites got a job but the blacks ended up living off welfare. Now, racism had nothing to do with it.

Then of course, the non-scientific “evidence”, the hearsay, the anecdotal evidence, our daily experience, suddenly made sense:

The Whites who explored China were just as racist as those who explored Africa, but their descriptions were different from what they and the Arabs had written about Africans. In 1275 Marco Polo arrived in China from his native Italy to open trade with the Mongol Empire. He found that the Chinese had well built roads, bridges, cities connected by canals, census takers, markets, standardized weights and measures, and not only coins, but paper money as well. Even a postal system was in existence. All of these made him marvel when he compared the Chinese to what he saw in Europe and the Middle East.
Even though he was an Italian, proud of his people and well aware of the greatness of Ancient Rome, Marco Polo wrote: “Surely there is no more intelligent race on earth than the Chinese.”

In amazing ways, Rushton forms a coherent picture to make sense of all the racial differences shown in reasearch.  Some differences are biological and can not be talked away by simple psychobabble or sociology-babble.

In a few cases medical treatment and medication showed racial differences. which proves a real quagmire for race equality dogmatist. Should they talk away and hide the differences as racist and cause medical malpractice and suffering for black patients? Or should they accept the scientific facts and actively promote racial analysis of medical studies and see their beloved pet dogma undermined?

Rushton’s book sums up the relevant research. Please forgive me for always quoting Rushton, incessantly. Nobody can say it better, nobody summed up the entire field in a more concise and coherent manner then Rushton.

Many statistics in Chart 1 come from the United States, where Orientals are a “model minority.”
They have fewer divorces, fewer out-of-wedlock births, and fewer reports of child abuse than Whites.
More Orientals graduate from college and fewer go to prison.
On the other hand Blacks are 12% of the American population and make up 50% of the prison population. In the U.S., one out of every three Black men is either in jail, on probation, or awaiting trial. That is much more than the number who graduate from college.
Chapter 2 shows how this racial pattern in crime is found worldwide. INTERPOL Yearbooks show the rate of violent crime (murder, rape, and serious assault) is four times lower in Asian and Pacific Rim countries than in African and Caribbean countries. Whites in the United States and in European countries are intermediate. The 1996 INTERPOL violent crime rates clearly show this pattern: Asian countries, 35 violent crimes per 100,000 people; European countries, 42; and African countries, 149.
Chapter 2 also finds that Oriental children are slower to mature than White children while Black children are faster to mature. This is true for the rate of bone and tooth development and the age at which a child first sits, crawls, walks, and puts on clothing. Oriental children do not begin to walk until about 13 months, White children at 12 months, and Black children at 11 months.
Chapter 3 looks at racial differences in sexual activity. Orientals are the least sexually active, whether measured by age of first intercourse, intercourse frequency, or number of sexual partners. Blacks are the most active on all of these. Once again Whites are in between. These contrasts in sexual activity lead to differences in the rate of diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, and chlamydia. There are high levels of AIDS in Africa, Black America, and the Caribbean and low levels in China and Japan. European countries again fall in between.
The races differ in rate of ovulation (Chapter 3). Not all women produce one egg during the menstrual cycle. When two or more eggs are produced at the same time, a pregnancy is more likely. So is the likelihood of producing fraternal twins (i.e., two-egg twins). The number of twins born is 16 out of every 1,000 births for Blacks, 8 out of every 1,000 births for Whites, and 4 or less for Orientals. Triplets and other multiple births are rarest in Orientals and highest in Blacks, with Whites in between.
Chapter 4 is about race and intelligence. Hundreds of studies on millions of people show a threeway pattern. IQ tests are often made to have an average score of 100, with a “normal” range from 85 to 115. Whites average from 100 to 103. Orientals in Asia and the U.S. tend to have higher scores, about 106, even though IQ tests were made for use in the Euro-American culture. Blacks in the U.S., the Caribbean, Britain, Canada, and in Africa average lower IQs — about 85. The lowest average IQs are found for sub-Saharan Africans — from 70 to 75.
Chapter 4 also looks at brain size. Bigger brains have more brain cells and this leads to higher IQs. The races vary in brain size. The Collaborative Perinatal Project followed more than 35,000 children from birth to seven years. Orientals had larger brains than Whites at birth, four months, one year, and seven years. Whites had larger brains than Blacks at all ages (see Chart 2). The data on adults in Chart 2 come from a sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel.
Chapter 5 asks whether differences in our brain size, our bodies and our behavior are because of genes, environment, or both. It also asks whether individual differences can tell us anything about race differences.

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/racial-differences-intelligence/race-dif...