Populate or Perish

babies in potsA French novel has changed my mind on an expensive piece of entitlement largesse championed by Tony Abbott. Mr Abbott was right and I was badly wrong, along with all conservative commentators. I have also been wrong about opposing the increasing amounts of taxpayer money paid and promised for child care. The reason is simple: we pay it, and a lot more of it, or we die. Bear with me.

“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,” came to mind when reading: “If you control the children, you control the future.” The first is the familiar Party slogan in Nineteen Eighty-Four. The second is a description of the Muslim Brotherhood’s motivation in Michel Houellebecq’s novel Submission (2015). I was struck by the parallel, and it didn’t end there.

I was not familiar with Houellebecq’s work before reading Submission. For those like me, Douglas Murray provides an excellent review of Submission and some of the author’s earlier works, together with a little about the man, in the November, 2015, edition of Quadrant. Murray recounts that Houellebecq was the target of legal proceedings for having one of his characters in Platform (2001), whose girlfriend had been killed on a tourist beach by jihadists, express hatred for Islam and Muslims. He speculates that this may have been one of the reasons Houellebecq decided to live in Ireland. Whatever the truth of that, it says something sinister about where we are heading when a novelist is held to legal account for the expressed feelings of one of his characters. Perhaps the local Thought Police suspected he was venting his own secret Islamophobic thoughts?

It is decades since I first read 1984. But it is hard to forget the interrogation of Winston Smith by (Thought Police operative) O’Brien: “The summit of human happiness resides in the most absolute submission.” Sorry, wrong book, wrong person. That is Roger Rediger (Secretary of Universities) in Submission persuading protagonist François (a literature professor) that Islam is the way to go.

Here’s O’Brien. “You know the Party slogan: Freedom is Slavery. Has it occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone – free – the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete submission, utter submission [to the Party] then he is all-powerful and immortal.”

The costs of not succumbing in Oceania in 1984 and in post-Islamic France in 2022 are a little different, it is true. In Oceania it means Room 101 and one’s worst fears, which in Winston’s case is having his face eaten by rats. In France it means François not regaining a teaching position at the now Islamic University of Paris-Sorbonne, living dissolutely on a pension, and losing the possibility of acquiring three young submissive wives. Both succumb. O’Brien and Rediger are persuasive in their different ways.

The disturbing quality of Houellebecq’s novel is the seemingly seamless way French society as a whole succumbs, and is transformed, once the Muslims under leader Ben Abbes take power with the help of the centre-right and the socialist parties – intent, as they are, on keeping Marine Le Pen’s National Front at bay. Women’s bare legs disappear as does their gender-mixed social activities and their employment.

The key to the success of the Party in Oceania in 1984 and the Muslims in France in 2022 lies in population management. In Oceania the vast proletariat is kept diverted and compliant. In France, Muslim women are kept subservient to men. Even before being influenced by Rediger, François noted the advantages of patriarchy: “…it worked, whereas now there aren’t enough children, so we are finished.” The ‘we’ here is clearly European civilisation.

The fertility rate in the EU is around 1.6 children per woman, well less than the 2.1 required to hold the population steady. However, according to Pew Research published in 2011, Muslim fertility in Europe is 2.2. Other figures that I have seen put the fertility gap somewhat higher; but the Pew-reported gap is enough to convert a situation where the more fertile 10% of child bearing women in a population become more than a third after three generations. Bear in mind too that the more recent waves of Muslim migrants are likely to have higher fertility rates than longer-term Muslim residents.

Rediger is unequivocal: “Liberal individualism triumphed as long as it undermined intermediate structures such as nations, corporations, castes, but when it attacked the ultimate social structure, the family, and thus the birth rate, it signed its own death warrant. Muslim dominance was a foregone conclusion.” And this he sees being world domination: “If India and China had preserved their traditional civilisations…they might have eluded the grasp of Islam. But from the moment they let themselves be contaminated by Western values, they too, were doomed.”

Now this, or close to it, has been said before by Mark Steyn and others, but somehow through the fictional character of Rediger (as with O’Brien) it takes on the mantle of inevitability. I can’t see a flaw in Rediger’s arguments and neither can François. From submission to God’s Koranic will, from which comes the canonical submission of women, comes Muslim children and inevitable dominance over relatively non-procreating non-Muslims.

Is there an answer? Well, if there is it lies in France, perversely enough. France has extremely generous paid maternity leave and child-minding provisions. Its fertility rate at a little over 2 is materially better than the rest of Europe — not enough, of course, but not as bad as some. The fertility rate of non-Muslims in France is still somewhere below 2 (it’s hard to find an exact figure). And Muslim immigration, presided over by the conniving political elite, greatly compounds the problem for all Western nations.

Western societies cannot turn the clock back. We are stuck with a materialistic, secular, society of working women within which children are expensive in time and in money. The only possible answer — that I can think of — is to provide sufficient financial support to working women to significantly offset their costs costs of having children. This means doing more than in France because that is patently not enough. Abbott-like measures would be a modest start – here, in Europe and in America. And there should be additional incentives, as in France, for working women to have more than two children. We have to use the very wealth that Western societies create to subsidise the procreation of children who will grow up to honour and sustain Western values.

And, to be clear, for obvious reasons, the target has to be working women. Forget any complaint about disadvantaging stay-at-home mums. Tough! Our civilisation’s very survival is at stake. By the way, this has nothing to do with whether Muslim regimes would be moderate or extreme, good or bad. Their religious baggage would make them inferior to our Judeo-Christian-cum-secular regimes; even with their many flaws, not least of which, as Rediger explained, is a progressive subverting of the centrality of traditional family life.

37 thoughts on “Populate or Perish

  • brian.doak@bigpond.com says:

    Perish the thought Peter that taxpayers have to support mothers in the workforce. Better we take on the unions and the human rights industry and allow foreign nannies on the rates of pay that they are very pleased to receive in Hong Kong, Singapore, India, and throughout the Middle East. At the same time we say no government benefit to the third or additional child and we stress that singles or couples on welfare, and therefore unable to support themselves or a family, are illegible to receive taxpayer support for any children they might have.
    Children born into impoverished families can, if neglected, be removed and adopted by any suitable self supporting childless couple.

    One can imagine the benefit of such rules applying to remote unsustainable aboriginal communities, to migrant and refugee communities, and to every body not of the above.

    Japan must be laughing because they like the Middle East accept next to no migration or refugees and are a proud mono-culture.
    As their population shrinks,from an excessive level for a small landmass, individual wealth is increased because there are fewer amongst which the nation’s wealth needs to be divided.

    • acarroll says:

      “As their population shrinks,from an excessive level for a small landmass, individual wealth is increased because there are fewer amongst which the nation’s wealth needs to be divided.”

      Yes because they aren’t transferring their wealth outside of their national community, unlike every Western country, entirely due to this strict adherence to mono-culture.

  • sweeneyad@gmail.com says:

    Peter, there is another antidote to having our society slowly (or not so slowly) irrevocably overtaken by the Muslim dispora. A discriminatory immigration policy which promotes our western secular values and a war against the PC crowd who would prevent free speech which extols the virtues and superiority of western culture.

    A West which is smaller (by population) but dominant in culture (which builds superior capability – science, economics etc etc) can withstand a comparatively backward culture which is larger in population – we have done it for the past few hundred years now.

    So the answer is not bigger govt programs to encourage more children. Small govt, less taxes to support childcare (and all the rest) and families could afford to have more kids (and look after them themselves perhaps)?

    Culture first!

  • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

    Another poignant and timely article from Peter Smith. Undoubtedly, while the threat of impending Muslim domination is the most exigent aspect of the phenomenon he so aptly analyses, there are other, multiple, overlapping details that demand attention.

    To begin with, it is an indisputable axiom that the global population explosion over recent decades can not possibly continue indefinitely. Even with the acknowledging of human ingenuity and inventiveness, it can not be ignored that the carrying capacity of the Earth must be finite. Just what the limit might be is a mute point. Nevertheless, global overpopulation continues to be seen by many as a serious threat to humanity.

    The declining birth rate in western societies is not entirely due to the degrading of the sanctity of the family. In less advanced and less prosperous times it was a matter of survival in old age to produce enough offspring to look after the old, which is still the case in many primitive cultures, regardless of religion or custom. With increasing material security and increasing survival rate of infants, the need for producing many children rapidly declined in developed countries. In fact, serious demographers were reassuring us that as material prosperity spreads over ever larger areas of the world, the runaway, dangerous population explosion will run out of steam.

    State-sponsored social security also hugely contributed to the decline of the birth rate, which was also a contributing factor in diminishing the significance of the family, making the process self-reinforcing. This factor casts serious doubt on the notion that increased financial support for child rearing and child minding result in increasing the birth rate by a significant degree. Is it not just as likely to increase the number of single mothers with one or two children at the most? And simply more married mothers going out to work instead of having more children?

    The only fully reliable condition for having more children is the old-fashioned, traditional family where dad goes to work and mum stays home to look after her children and their father. Tall order? Yes. Nothing else is remotely likely to work, though.

    • prsmith14@gmail.com says:

      Bill, that is the problem. It is, as you say, a tall order to turn the clock back to traditional families. I would put is a little differently. It is impossible. How then to lift the birth rate which always tumbles as societies become more prosperous; in large part because of the perceived costs of having and raising children. My proposal might not work. But what else is there that is politically and socially feasible? Peter

      • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

        Yes Peter, it is a monstrous conundrum. While I doubt the efficacy of your proposed solution, I can’t dismiss it out of hand. Yet, you say in your article that France with its generous childbearing and childrearing assistance is doing a little better than the rest of Europe, the difference is almost certainly due to the large proportion of Muslims in the country. The scenario unfolding is most ominous indeed. – Bill.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Stop all Muslim immigration.

    Force all immigrants to sign an oath of alliance to Australia and it’s sectarian values.

    Round up and deport all the extended family members of any terrorist who attacks Australians or Australian values.

    Social welfare to be standard. A living wage set the same for everyone regardless of family size. Two levels married or single. No health benefits, no rent assistance, no tax deductions for families etc.

    Westerners applying western values and traditions of self-reliance, individual freedoms, egalitarianism, forthrightness, equality and respect for the law will thrive.

    Governments to govern for the majority.

    All self-interested minority groups, claiming taxpayer assistance, should be required to demonstrate a belief in the resilience of individuals and themselves, f… off and look after themselves or others as the see fit.

    That would fix things pretty quickly.

    • prsmith14@gmail.com says:

      Yes Keith, but it won’t happen. Meanwhile the game is being irretrievably lost. Mind you, it will be lost in any event if Muslim immigration is not at least considerably – considerably – slowed. Peter

  • Jody says:

    Watch this. The man being interviewed is surely going to lose his life for his views!


    • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

      Thanks for the link Jody. I have watched and listened to Maajid Nawaz previously and I remain unconvinced. Perhaps he is sincere and genuinely believes the views he espouses. On the other hand, he studiously avoids all criticism, let alone condemnation of Islam as it is detailed in the Koran and other Islamic scriptures. His condemnation is restricted to violence and the jaundiced attitude to women and homosexuals. He seems to want to sanitise Islam sufficiently to be acceptable by the rest of us. Is this a surreptitious version of jihad by stealth?

      • Jody says:

        He speaks about “Islamism” as the prevailing threat to the western world. He isn’t renouncing the religion per se, but the medieval practices and those you mention. Like Ayaan Hirsi Aly he is one of the very few ready to publicly criticize the current practice of Islam in terms of its theocratic incarnation and anti-female practices. For her views, yaan Hirsi Aly has felt the dead hand of political correctness in the USA and its academic institutions. They have been attempting to bully her into conformity, but so far unsuccessfully.

        • prsmith14@gmail.com says:

          Jody, the big difference is that Hirsi Ali has left Islam and, as set out in Heretic, would buy it only if it were stripped of its essential scriptural core. While this is unrealistic, it underscores how irredeemably flawed is the religion itself. In my view those that do not recognise that are effectively apologists for a poisonous creed however they dress it up. Peter

          • Jody says:

            OK, I was unaware of the extent of her dissent. Whenever I’ve heard her speak it’s been about GM and the appalling treatment of women and Islam and theocracy. She’s a powerful advocate and will be speaking in Melbourne soon. Her partner Niall Ferguson is doing some lectures soon for the IPA.

            What I do know is how badly Ali has been treated by academe in the USA, which resorts to the typical bullying tactics and belligerent group-think of the bien pensant.

  • mgkile@bigpond.com says:

    Demographic engineering can be a tricky business, especially if driven by concerns about ‘cultural purity’.

    The Romans tried after the Punic Wars, passing the Lex Papia Poppaea in 9AD to encourage procreation.

    It required men and women beyond the respective ages of 25 and 20 to have ‘legitimate children’. Unmarried (caelibes) or childless (orbi) citizens were subject to higher taxes and reduced rights of inheritance. They could not become heirs through any will, nor could they receive legacies.

    Recalcitrant bachelors were given 100 days to get with the Project. Otherwise, all their property was marked for the aerarium or state treasury. Married couples with children, by contrast, had special civil rights – best seats at the Gladiator Games etc – and rank.

    That said, no developed country has managed to reverse a declining natural birth rate – once it has fallen below replacement level of 2.1 children per woman – even with significant immigration.

    Australia’s natural fertility rate, for example, has declined 40% in past half century – from 2.9 in 1968 to 1.7 today. Its current population is projected to increase from 24 million to 30 million in next 14 years.

    This assumes, however, a 53% contribution from ‘o/s migration’ and 47% contribution from natural births.

    Time for a Do IT for Denmark campaign? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf2f31t0O80

  • Jody says:

    Yep, it seems that having children is just a bridge too far for the generations post the 1980s. When I lived in Austria I noted that most people had dogs instead of children and that you’d often see ‘geri-dads’ (fathers who are greying). Suffice it to say, the new arrivals had 5 or 6 kids or more and no prizes for guessing what demographic I’m talking about.l

  • rh@rharrison.com says:

    The argument here suffers from a fatal flaw: it assumes the demographic situation to be the disease, when it is merely a symptom.

    The real disease is the pathological self-loathing that has poisoned Western civilisation in recent decades. The message, usually implicit but sometimes explicit, is perpetuated through mass media and at all levels of education, and manifests in all areas of society. Why would anyone want to reproduce when he is told constantly that he is heir to the most immoral society ever created?

    One way this takes form is in the inability of Western institutions to resist the ever-growing influx of non-Western, indeed anti-Western peoples. If we Westerners are immoral and worthless, who are we to say that aliens cannot enter our countries and freely express contempt for our values? Sure, there was a determined and successful effort to stop illegal migration, but at the same time legal migration in large numbers (of people who refuse to accept our way of life and sometimes violently oppose it) continues unabated.

    “Our civilisation’s very survival” does not hinge on our birthrate but on our civilisational self-confidence.

    • Jody says:

      You speak a great deal of sense here. Western institutions now promulgate “cultural Marxism” which tries to destroy the notion of western ‘imperialism’ in art music (and literature and the visual arts) in all its incarnations. Careers are being built on attempting to prove that an opera by Mozart is not in any way superior to Hip Hop, if I can put it that way. It gives me a considerable amount of pleasure to note, of late, a serious backlash outside academe to such notions. Music-lovers have lost patience and other academics who want to defend western art music are of the defensive.

      What you’ve suggested and the example I’ve provided are both sides of the one coin – only that currency is counterfeit and completely worthless.

    • acarroll says:

      The demographic situation in the West is now, frankly, desperate.

      Peter Smith mentions the birth rates in France. France no longer keeps race-specific birth records (because we’re all human = equal, right?) so it’s very difficult to find out what the contribution the Gaulois make to this. Recently however, people at the French blog Fdesouche attempted to infer what the rates were based on the incidence of certain genetic diseases in the population that have non-European geographic origin. From that they determine the following:

      2006: 27% of new borns non-native
      2012: 34.44% of new borns non-native

      A 25% increase in 6 years.

      The trend is increasing under the tsunami wave of mass immigration, particularly from Africa and the Middle East.

      Whichever way it goes, the patriarchy is returning and human rights will be deprecated.

      One can hope that the Eastern European nations will stay strong and serve as the stock to regenerate — and reconquer — Europe.

      • rh@rharrison.com says:

        That’s a good point you make. In one of history’s great ironies, the four decades of communist oppression, following on from the devastation of the War, seem to have immunised those nations from the disease that has infected the rest of the Western world. (Just to be clear, the Visegrad Four – Poland, Hungary, Czecho and Slovakia – along with the Baltic States are Western in their cultures despite being in Eastern Europe.)

    • prsmith14@gmail.com says:

      Richard, Falling birth rates are a symptom but I doubt that is to do with the way we view ourselves. A strong positive correlation between having fewer children and prosperity is one of the most reliable of all relationships across cultures. However, I agree that allowing the mass immigration of people who do not share our traditional values does say something about the jaundiced way we (many of us [them]) view our civilisation. I share most of the views on the page about the causes of the problem and what theoretically might be done to solve it. My only point is that I can only think of one way that is politically feasible. And, I don’t know whether it would work, of course. I also agree that unless Muslim migration can be stopped, or severely curtailed at the very least, the game is lost in any event. Peter

      • rh@rharrison.com says:

        That’s a good point, Peter – I had not given sufficient weight to the prosperity/fertility dynamic. But as you say, whatever happens with fertility, the game hinges on migration patterns. That, of course, makes the current success of Trump so interesting. If he wins the nomination and then the general election, and then implements his migration policies (all big ifs admittedly), the effect on other Western countries’ migration policies might be profound.

        • mgkile@bigpond.com says:

          Richard H

          As will the continuing inflow of millions of refugees into EU from Syria, not to mention North Africa/Nigeria.

          According to ‘glass half-full’ David Kilcullen in his interview with Margaret Throbsy today, that war will last at least another decade, despite current chatter about peace.

          Incidentally, Indonesia has just made homosexuality illegal. so expect next boatload to land on Christmas Island – a mere 184 nautical miles from Java – could be carrying a persecuted minority.

          Time to gift this ‘crumb from the table of Empire’ – now deemed part of Australia – to Indonesia.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Hi Peter

    Watch this space. I’m currently nearing the end of my latest project. I invented a packaging machine and our final preproduction model is complete and undergoing trialling. It will revolutionize the packaging industry.

    My next two projects; building and equipping a factory (robotic) and the marketing of the machine will be undertaken with the involvement if my children and their partners.

    When that’s under way I’ll have the time and money to launch a political party.

    It’s first action on election will be to halve the salaries of politicians.
    Second action will be to launch a Gov’t backed savings bank that will introduce real competition into interest rates on loans and deposits.

    Third action will be to outlaw duopoly and monopoly control of markets.

    The fourth action will be to outlaw foreign ownership of the Australian means of production.

    I’ve started on a manifesto and the basic precepts will be Honesty in Politics
    Honesty in Media
    Honesty in Business
    Honesty in the Workplace.

    It’s values will be
    Individualism, Independence, Self reliance, Secularism, Allegiance to Australia, Forthrightness, Freedom of Expression and acceptance of the old Australian value of Egalitarianism. (This egalitarianism accepts every body is different and that everyone holds some of the truth. Nobody holds all the truth. Everybody is heard and each voice respected regardless of wealth, intellect, education, ability, gender etc.

    The party will govern for the majority.

    I’m not joking. Run the above past people and guage the reaction.

  • ian.macdougall says:


    The fertility rate in the EU is around 1.6 children per woman, well less than the 2.1 required to hold the population steady. However, according to Pew Research published in 2011, Muslim fertility in Europe is 2.2.

    That surprises me. I would have expected the Muslim immigrants’ fecundity to be more like those prevailing in their countries of origin.
    What draws the immigrants is the relative prosperity of the West. And also its liberal and tolerant institutions. (There is no campaign at present to get Syrian refugees to populate the vast empty interiors of Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Libya, etc.)
    Another obvious factor is their desire to live in the West without adopting its values or becoming part of it. So every now and then some ‘community leader’ leads a political push for Sharia Law: as in Bradford, UK and in Holland – which has understandably created a reaction and built the political careers of Geert Wilders and others.
    The big issue as I see it is education. Every cultural minority wants its own schools, so that their cultural tradition will be passed on unsullied to the rising generation. But there are political problems if such rights are to be given to say Catholics, but denied to Muslims. It would be a magnificent political trick to keep private religious schools for Christians who wanted them, but at the same time deny them to Muslims. Yet Islamic schools are essential if Muslim ghettoes are to be constructed successfully inside western societies, as bases from which they can be subverted. So there would have to be a trade-off: if Muslims can’t have ‘em, neither can anyone else
    What is most likely in the west is continued Muslim immigration, seen as politically unstoppable, followed by local religious sectarian wars. And if push comes to shove, one or more civil religious wars on national scales.
    There have been historic precedents.
    “Stop all Muslim immigration.” While of course, retaining good relations with the Islamic countries which are the major suppliers to the global oil market, which is essentially indivisible: and to which we are hooked, like a junkie to the supplier of his fix.
    Good luck with that.

    • prsmith14@gmail.com says:

      Yes, Ian, I wouldn’t be surprised if Pew understates the Muslim fertility rate in Europe; particularly as official records are not always available. I took it at face value because even at face value it presents a problem, particularly when compounded with high immigration. Of course, any Muslim fertility close to three would be disastrous in a short space of time – which is why apologists try to convince us that the Muslim fertility rate will eventually fall to Western norms as they are assimilated into our culture. Only problem: many will never assimilate. Peter.

  • Jody says:

    What I’d like to know is why no voter in any country was ever consulted about this massive demographic change through unchecked immigration. We’ve never had a chance to vote on ‘multiculturalism’ here in this country or on whether or not we want Syrian or any refugees. It’s possibly the most undemocratic action that has befallen western powers since WW2. I blame the Whitlam (witless) government and the execrable and highly dubious scoundrel (with the low IQ) Al Grassby for what we’ve got in Australia. Again, no taking it to the people in any way shape or form. It proved to be the ultimate Trojan Horse.

    And there’s that serial ‘frightbat’ Jane Caro tonight suggesting how bad Australians are because they impute less than the noblest motives to illegal immigrants who want to get off Nauru. They people are pure, noble and so much better than we are. I’ve got to stop watching “The Drum” – it’s full of rancid ideologues with the reading age of Noddy and the intelligence of Sooty.

    • acarroll says:

      That’s the money question isn’t it.

      How did it happen that pretty much all the Anglophone countries fall to non-discriminatory immigration policies around the same time? None of them had this fundamental change to the demographic and national character put to referendum.

      Instead, it was done via Government policy, under the influence of Frankfurt School and Fabian acolyte bureaucrats and lobby groups.

      From that point on the Anglophone States stopped working for the nation (the end of the Nation-State) and became empire builders. The main difference to the historical empire being that new nations were imported into the existing territory rather than conquering the territories of existing nations.

      Western Europe has followed suite as it has fallen under the same sick influence.

  • brian.doak@bigpond.com says:

    It is a good point made by Ian MacDougall that we must stop Mohammedan immigration and we must also limit their schools. It is presently in the news that some major Muslim schools have had their funding stopped because of the financial rorting by school boards. Because Muslim families are in low income areas the schools receive about 90%of their operating funds from government and school boards have been accused of siphoning off significant amounts through consulting fees and exorbitant land rent. One might suggest that when the cultural group receiving the funding has no respect for the cultural group providing the funding those they regard as infidels, multicultural rorting is bound to occur.

  • michael.muscat@outlook.com says:

    Is it time for a three child policy?

  • pawelek@ozemail.com.au says:

    Did anybody here mentioned that perhaps Prime Minister’s idea was primarily to encourage women who were successful in business to have more children?

  • mgkile@bigpond.com says:

    T’was ever thus.

    When the first Commonwealth census was taken for the night between April 2 and 3, 1911, there was similar anxiety about the composition of the nation’s 4,455,005 inhabitants, “exclusive of full-blooded aborigines [because they had no fixed address] living in a purely wild state.”

    Questions relating to aliens, especially Chinese and Japanese, “excited considerable interest.”

    Sir George Handley Knibbs,inaugural Commonwealth Statistician, was – according to Henry Ergas – ‘an ardent eugenist. He shared the widespread view that “we are guarding the last part of the world in which the higher races and live and increase freely.” But that refuge was threatened by pressure from “lower races” and by the combination of a falling birth rate and degeneration “first, in bodily strength, then, in moral strength”.

    Same anxiety, different semantics. Concerns about racial purity have been recast during the past century. The worry today is about preserving ‘culture’ and ‘values’.

    • ian.macdougall says:


      Same anxiety, different semantics. Concerns about racial purity have been recast during the past century. The worry today is about preserving ‘culture’ and ‘values’.

      One enters on a terrible path if one deems all people or all ‘races’, however defined, not equal. But not so with cultures.
      Some cultures are superior to others. The Islamic culture, with its tolerance of barbaric practices like female genital mutilation and stonings of women to death for ‘adultery’ etc, etc, etc, etc… is nowhere near the top of the heap.

      • mgkile@bigpond.com says:


        If, as you suggest, “some cultures are superior to others”, does it not follow that the people who make up those cultures are superior to folk who are members of what, presumably, you would could the “inferior” cultures?

        To clarify,could you list the cultures that you consider “superior to others” and why?

        What do you mean by “equality” in this context?

  • Keith Kennelly says:


    See the truths we hold are different.

    The track record of Islamic countries is not to rate good relations with other countries as important.

    Why should we act differently?

    I reckon they would take the money mate. That is their track record too after all the two biggest Islamic oil exporters are now running deficits.

    We can count on those things.

    Good luck with your appeasing approach.

  • Matt Brazier says:

    Ponzi scheme.

  • ian.macdougall says:


    Good luck with your appeasing approach.

    Please explain?

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Well Ian it is quite simple really.

    I’m buying oil from someone, I’m not forming anything other than a commercial relationship.

    If,as you suggest, you think I should change my policy toward people who grip a religion that expresses barbaric aims and wishes to destroy my way of life, just to maintain good relations With countries who support those evil things, then that mate is appeasement.

    The Saudis and Iranians are running deficits, they’ll and mate I doubt they’d care terribly much whether I allow Muslim immigration. Besides if I allow in Sunnies the Iran ins would be upset. If I let in Shia the Saudis would be upset. If I let them both in they would simple carry on their centuries old murderous feuds and we as a country will suffer.

    Understand appeasement is allowing those things you abhor to continue or to allow the conditions fostering them to continue instead of opposing them. Pretty simple really.

    As I Said Good Luck With Your Appeasing Approach.

Leave a Reply