Rant of the Week


Legendary member
Prime Minister John Howard - Australia

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. 'If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you', he said on National Television
'I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia : one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option', Costello said.
Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should clear off. 'Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off', he said.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.'
'However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia . However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.
This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.
We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!
Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.
We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.
If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like 'A Fair Go', then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.
This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,
If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU chose.'
Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves and send it to our leaders, the free world will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths.
While I agree with Howard, you can only be like that if you can back it up. Inviting racists to leave is not enough. It is naive to believe that they will go, but the patriotic Howard followers will vote for him in the next election. Undesirables will have to be thrown out, just as Mafia leaders are in the US. It can be seen how effective that is! With all the illegals in the UK, who cannot be found, it seems that deporting spokesmen will only cause resentment among the rest.

We have to be realists in Europe. we can't seem to stop them coming in, let alone throw them out. Sarkozy is adopting a strong atitude in France, let's see how that works. Australia is better able to adopt that policy than we are.

The aborigines must have had a wry smile at that one.

"And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. "
Hey - who nicked my wallet?!
Im all in favour, but, what if australians get there arses kicked ,dont they like it?

In Australia we have had a meeting of great white minds in the form of our Highest Court, which decided (after 200 years of not noticing the inhuman sufferings of Aborigines) that before the British soldiers arrived in 1788 with a mass of petty convicts to make us part of the British Empire, there were PEOPLE living here. Those people were a race of intelligent humans with black skins -Aborigines- who had resided here for a known 60000 years.

What followed was a mass murder of those residents, especially by white police, graziers, army and business-men. Many were killed in weekly turkey shoots for sport, particularly if they were brave enough to defend their families. This continued till even 1950. Since then, our racist 'Police' have continued with normal murders, generally in secret deaths in custody, but the secrecy has now been exposed into common-knowledge. After so many years of survival on this harsh continent, no genes had developed to make Blacks immune from diseases like measles and also alcohol poisoning. Black people cannot absorb alcohol. Thus our jails have a very large percentage of Aborigines, mainly for being drunk and disorderly, insulting the police, swearing, fighting while intoxicated and generally being unable to understand white-man's laws.

The police preferred method is to hang Blacks with football sox or strips of blankets and claim that they had suicided while drunk. Commonsense suggests that two men must have lifted the victim and arranged the other details. The evidence has been clear that tribal people must not be separated from their culture and family members. It is imperative that they not be jailed for minor offences, rather taken to their families and elders to be judged by Aborigine Laws, or, for drunkenness, driven a few miles out of town and left under a tree to sober-up to find their way home next day. Or the police could treat them like drunk white politicians and deliver them home? Some States have laws forbidding whites to sell liquor to them, but the whites have their own laws including making profits from the delivery of booze to an arranged transfer area.

Our Politicians hide behind this new High Court judgment, which specifically prevents Aborigines from claiming ownership of land, unless they have had continuous occupancy or association. As most tribes were decimated, few are left to make the claims. Appeals to the Court have to be paid by the Aborigines. The Court also declared that if any Lease of a section of land had been registered to a grazier or miner, the Aborigines could not claim that land either, whether in use or not. Two hundred years of loud-mouthed windbag politicians have achieved nothing except to overlook white crimes of kidnap, murder and family separations of children from their parents. Australia's outback is generally used as cattle leases, previously or still 'owned' by British, Foreign interests or large local family businesses. Some tribal groups have bought the failed ranching efforts of white graziers and have often succeeded, having much more respect for and affinity with the land.

Those forced to live in our main cities are subjected to yuppie young police guided by untrained sergeants better known as wallopers but with much less intelligence than the normal quiet thoughtful happy objects of their mistreatment and repression. Those who live in most tribal areas live mainly in squalor, with little health care and a visit from politicians near each election time for more speeches and promises. The greedier the white person is, the more he seems to hate these beautiful people.

Americans would be correct in realising that Australian treatment of indigenous peoples closely follows the US example, or for that matter the example of all colonialist powers. But US Law still allows a principle of police guesswork to defeat correct justice as in the case of Sioux leader Leonard Peletier, due for release at his age of about 130 years? As most police in most coun- tries are poorly trained with only average or less intelligence, Justice should be meticulous in its findings, not using vengeance against people who are different and whose land Justice has stolen.

In the case of our Aborigines, they have very specialised talents including almost a genius spatial ability (time and distance)in the top football grades, yet being lightly-boned slim people. They have long almost eagle-quality sight and ability to track missing persons through deserts for a thousand miles if necessary. Their specialised Art form and landscapes are selling through white agents world-wide. Many have obtained degrees in business, law, medicine and anthropology etc through Harvard Uni. Their young men joined the Army during the 1939-45 war, but like the men from Papua who also volunteered, they received no pay for their services. They were 'only Blacks'.Yet vindictive politicians in both our countries would rather build hundreds of jails rather than ensuring fair and just life-styles for the differing races. After all, your slaves were indigenous African peoples before the great slave trade days.

There is a Govt body formed to control their finance and make the financial decisions that only whites can do? To make sure they have little input the politicians ensure a ratio of 60% white. Overheads like salaries dissipate the funds advanced to them. Sometimes these funds come from the share of land taxes or meagre Federal grants. Like the fate of the painted-white remnants of the Plains Indians they have become generally dispirited by the men who speak with forked tongues -politicians and other strange, noisy upstarts that experience such joy in inflicting misery on the lives of others. Even Churches are beginning to understand the harm they did in taking these 'savage' children away from their families. Presently much time is spent by devoted elders in tracing the tribal families from whence they were abducted.

One Leader, on the question of gun-control, has recently written, "We unequivocally support government's efforts to remove automatic and semi-automatic guns from our! land. Having been the victims of massacres in the past, we well know the meaning of "wanton destruction of life". We demand a safer environment for ourselves and our children; and we consider the removal of the most rapid weapons-of-death is one step in the right direction."

Well, what else can I say, except that they, with the Cubans, and the Latin American Indigenous nations are my favorite people. All are supposed to lay down and die before big business. All suffer the results of political self-serving ambition, mixed with a tendency to listen to the mob screaming racist insults and death, for the 'different' ones. The Aborigines walk softly over this Land of their Dreaming- their spiritual beliefs.



I dunno bet theres more than a few Aborigines (if they haven't all been murdered that it is ) who are thinking pot kettle black and cheeky ****ers when you lot gonna leave ?

peace to all, but that seems a joke.......

hope ? I dunno...... good luck everyone .
A surprising comment from Howard as he's normally quite blunt.

A don’t hold a view on this, or anything much else for that matter, but it is humorous.

If the immigrants to any country adopted the same attitude as the Brits did during their imperial expansions, or the French during theirs (and the Spanish and the Portuguese before them, and the Romans before them etc.) they’d grab their host country by the scruff of the neck and get them doing it ‘their’ way PDQ. I suppose weight of numbers helps, but that hasn’t always been a prerequisite.

If peaceful multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-political, multi-socio-economic was the way to go, it would have gone already. It hasn’t and it wont, because that isn’t what drives this. So all the bleating from the PC crowd will do nothing positive to address or resolve a situation that can be addressed, but never resolved. They’ll just muddy the waters and irritate those that perhaps previously would not have become involved and bring about their own failure through sowing the seeds of the same in their very endeavours to prevent it.

I’m sure there’s a saying somewhere along those lines, that the seeds of destruction are sown with the birth of every new endeavour. I’ve always taken that as a Ying-Yang type thing rather than a nihilistic one, and that’s the way it tends to work for me, but I guess it works the way you think it’s going to work most of the time.

I hate tight Cable ranges….
This Week's Rant

Controversial DNA Pioneer's Talk Halted
9 hours ago

LONDON (Associated Press) — London's Science Museum canceled a Friday talk by Nobel Prize-winning geneticist James Watson after the co-discoverer of DNA's structure told a newspaper that Africans and Europeans had different levels of intelligence.

James Watson provoked widespread outrage with his comments to The Sunday Times, which quoted the 79-year-old American as saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really."

He told the paper he hoped that everyone was equal, but added: "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."

The comments drew condemnation from British lawmakers, scientists, and civil rights campaigners. On Wednesday The Independent newspaper put Watson on its front page, against the words: "Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, says DNA pioneer."

Watson, who serves as chancellor of the renowned Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., was to deliver a sold-out lecture at the Science Museum, but on Wednesday night the institution said Watson's comments had gone too far and the event had been canceled.

Call to Watson's book publisher and his office in New York were not immediately returned.

This is not the first time Watson's speaking engagements have caused a stir.

The Independent catalogued a series of controversial statements from Watson, including one in which he reportedly suggested women should have the right to have abortions if tests could determine their children would be homosexual.

In 2000 Watson shocked an audience at the University of California, Berkeley, when he advanced a theory about a link between skin color and sex drive.

His lecture, complete with slides of bikini-clad women, argued that extracts of melanin — which give skin its color — had been found to boost subjects' sex drive.

"That's why you have Latin lovers," he said, according to people who attended the lecture. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."

Telephone and e-mail messages left with the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory after business hours Wednesday were not immediately returned.
If we are tolerant of the intolerant will that be our downfall?

Or, if we discover that we are falling down, will the social cycle of tolerance simply recycle into the next inquisition?
Controversial DNA Pioneer's Talk Halted
9 hours ago

LONDON (Associated Press) — London's Science Museum canceled a Friday talk by Nobel Prize-winning geneticist James Watson after the co-discoverer of DNA's structure told a newspaper that Africans and Europeans had different levels of intelligence.

I honestly believe that what Watson claimed is superfluously provocative drivel of the worst sort.

That intelligence doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with wisdom - which is what it's really all about in terms of achieving results - hasn't been evident only since his Co-Nobel Laureates managed with no effort at all to crash long Term Capital Management into the ground with amazingly naive ideas about markets.

If any of our fellow whites are still so proud of our allegedly superior intelligence than they ought to have the grace to accept that apparently we're only in third place in that department.
I honestly believe that what Watson claimed is superfluously provocative drivel of the worst sort.
But what if he is empirically and demonstrably correct?

Would it still count as drivel because it’s politically incorrect or personally unpalatable?

There is dogma in any organised form of thought. And with dogma comes the excuse for the failure to think for oneself, especially in those dogma we inherit or willingly accept. Those which we ourselves develop on a personal basis have more merit in that they by nature of the process of their development require attention, thought and the ability to bravely and independently differentiate.

We’ve always been rather good as a species in rejecting real truths based on others’ falsehoods – either deliberately or accidentally constructed. The more we do that, the more we’ll do that.

I have no idea as to the veracity of Watson's claims (though they would necessarily have to be elementary), but I do find the response to them from presumably similarly scientifically minded people, do be more abhorrent than the knee-jerk abhorrence that the masses feel they should feel to his likely unstudied comments.
Burger Values.. ?

Maybe White Man hates himself, which is why he seems hell bent on destroying all other indiginous ethnic civilizations and fragmenting and raping them of their own values and injecting the westernized "smack" of fast food values ?

So.. maybe whitey is jealous too ? insecure? fearful? OR ...

I still cannot get my head around the fact that today 2007 humans do not really want global peace on the planet with their fellow humans, whatever the skin colour, ehh?

I like the differences of cultures, views, idea's , tradtions.. why cant people celebrate it and get along.

If we all had an individual tick box, who would tick, Hate thy neighbour over Love thy neighbour ?

Well, look how bloody easy a choice it is, choose the tick box...

Who and why are people being brainwashed into hating on this planet ?? I think that must rank as the biggest crime against humanity... and its still relentlessly going round and round and round.......

white man intelligent? LOL.

OK maybe they are, maybe its nurtue, responding to environment, but I have to say still looking at how whites have used their intelligence, hmmm well, lets just say they do not seem to be the sharpest tool in the shed.

Regards CB.

A white honky.

peace all...

The uk is multi cultural, thats good, but we will have to deal with different cultures and their puppet masters trying to get intercultures to war amongst themselves.

Mathew & Mushtaq must stand side by side as individuals in all their glorious differences and choose love of differences..

LOL ooopss, would that be classed as a dictatorship ?
But what if he is empirically and demonstrably correct?

Hi Tony,

I'd still say that it's unnecessarily provocative and really serves no discernible aim, that was my main point.

If it's true, then that's the way it is and that's what they need to live with without it being shoved in their face.

If not...

It's sort of like telling your fat and ugly neighbour that she is fat and ugly. She may well appreciate that little nugget of information, but chances are she won't see the value added part from being informed of said unfortunate state of affairs.

As a child I grew up in many different countries, amongst them a country in Africa for some years, and I have great memories of incredibly kind and curious and supportive people over there, I've also lived for years in Japan, and the same really applied there, maybe it's a typical third culture kid phenomenon, but thing is at the end of the day in all the places I lived I've always found that irrespective of culture etc people really are more or less the same all over the world, driven by the same desires and fears and general "niceness", is that a word, lol ?

I realize that all that doesn't have anything to do with intelligence or lack of, but then I honestly believe anyway that intelligence is one of the most overrated qualities as it is, intelligence is really not what drives success in any venture, it's wisdom, and I really don't think the two are twins let alone related.

There are the inevitable exceptions, but it really is quite seldom that the most intelligent people end up being the most successful ones.
If he were black he'd probably rant against whites...

Seems he's a bit of a professional ranter, although he's clarified what he said or didn't say ;-)

Nobel laureate biologist Jim Watson apologized "unreservedly" Thursday for stating that black people were not as intelligent as whites, saying he was "mortified" by the comments attributed to him.

"I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said," Watson said during an appearance at the Royal Society in London.

"I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways that they have."

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief," he said.

Watson's remarks to the Sunday Times were the latest in a number of controversial comments from the eminent biologist.

In 1997, Britain's Sunday Telegraph quoted Watson as saying that if a gene for homosexuality were isolated, women who find that their unborn child has the gene should be allowed to have an abortion.

During a lecture tour in 2000, he suggested there might be links between a person's weight and their level of ambition and between skin color and sexual prowess.

"That's why you have Latin lovers," he said, according to The Associated Press, which cited people who attended the lecture. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."

And in a British TV documentary that aired in 2003, Watson suggested stupidity was a genetic disease that should be treated."

All clichés in one pot, eh, gays, fatties, sex and race.

Latin lovers my ass...

Sort of explains what I mean about the difference between intelligence and wisdom, he seems to be a pretty good example of an idiot savant.

Bloody marvelous.
What if Watson was Black?

what if Watson was german?

a fact should be objectively true irrespective of who says it.
(once it has been satisfactorily agreed what the terms of assessment are)

as per BSDs post, IQ and success may not have any correlation.

however, I think people have a tendency to have pre-conceptions (whether these are cultural or social), and selectively filter IN the data that support their pre-conceptions, and filter OUT anything that weakens their argument.

for example; the same study that shows blacks underperform in schools relative to white kids, also show that asian kids out-perform their white counterparts.
however, its interesting that the latter part of the study is not mentioned in a predominantly white society.

another example is wealth; people sometimes berate those who have born into great wealth, and feel envy at rich kids with a greater lifestyle, for no other reason than the accident of birth into a rich family. Yet these very same people forget that they themselves were randomly born into a wealthy country, and have the benefit of education and medicine, for no other reason than an accident of birth into that rich country.

I have, gathering dust, a book called "Guns, Germs, Steel" by Jared Diamond.
Its an anthroplogical investigation why different cultures developed in the ways that they did. Why did some reach a plateau of development, and others went onto invent airplanes.
I cannot give an overview of the book unfortuantely, since its so massive, I havent got past the preface!

EDIT: I am reminded of the Victorian scientists having a pre-conception that women were inferior to men, and tried to use "brain volume" as "proof". Its interesting that the pre-conception was that women were inferior, rather than to establish whether they were lesser, better or the same as men. The very wording of the question can sometimes lead us into restrictive thinking.
Do you:
a: agree
b: disagree

(the correct answer is c: I reject you leading me into a binary decision, and wish to seek possibilities, d, e and f.!)
Last edited:
Pretty much covers it. My point principally was that a useful test of whether we’re allowing ourselves to be BS-ed or not (or whether we’re BSing ourselves for that matter) is to ask if the content is in any may modified by the form.

If it makes a difference whether Watson is Black or not to the message he was going to deliver, then the responses, his too if he’s bowed to PC pressure, were morally wrong.

If I make a statement “Women see colours better than men”. Is it sexist? What if a woman says it?

If I say “Men have better night vision than women”. Is that sexist? What if a woman says it?

Both statements are true (for most men and most women).

There’s a whole bunch of things that are different about men and women (apart from the obvious) which are by definition sexist and could in the right/wrong circumstances and with the right/wrong form be taken negatively – but they’d still be true.

I guess it comes down to whether you consider form is more important than content. If what Watson had to say is true, or even if it was a hypothesis to be tested, are we better off not knowing of it because it may or may not offend one segment of society?

Personally, I’d say we’re not.
Fair enough Tony, makes sense.

I personally don't give a hoot about political correctness, all too often that simply carries strong tinges of hypocrisy, similar to people hiding their true nature behind the fig leaf of religion(s), or it just creates a stifled atmosphere where nobody dares to talk about what's what any more.

Beyond that I suppose my guiding light through all the noise that life has on offer is to only care or invest time and energy in issues that can be changed, or things that fulfill a real purpose.

I can tell my fat neighbour that she's fat, and maybe there's a promille chance that she'll do something about that, but telling her that on top of that she's ugly, too, well, there not being much she can do about that, makes that piece of information pretty irrelevant to all intents and purposes.

If it's true that Asians are cleverer than Whites then that's nice for them, but not much we can do about our fate, so not much sense in talking about that, is there. ;-)

Sort of like discussing why the sun rises in the East.

That apart a second guiding light for me is the Golden Rule, that interestingly enough is ubiquitous throughout pretty much all societies on earth:


Can't think of a better set of rules to organize all of us living together on this one planet of ours here.

Have a nice weekend :)
"Can't think of a better set of rules to organize all of us living together on this one planet of ours here.

Have a nice weekend :)"

hmm maybe if we take the 1st & 2nd letter of each of those faiths, that could be they key of common unity, and bonding for all mankind, the new unified rulebook..

rearrange these letters below to obtain the new faith of spiritual unity for mankind.


the prize ? You will be rewarded in heaven , surely. :p