Hating Abbott vs hating Pauline Hanson

I was also brought up not to not to highlight someone’s religion or to make bigoted remarks about any religious group and to avoid generalisations about any group. My mother was an ardent multiculturalist and her father had also suffered as a catholic and had joined a secret catholic society. Both my parents, however, were atheists and my father held religion in contempt. I grew up to develop a more tolerant attitude towards religion, which I see as a tribal flag that morphes into state religions when tribes are thrown together and rearranged. If they cannot come to some equitable accommodation about land-tenure and citizens' rights, then you get repression. However, I can see that the educated tolerance in multiculturalism has been exploited by elites who have invested in war and land-theft and want open-borders and mass immigration instead of secure citizens' rights. These elites finance racist wars in countries in the Middle East and on the European fringes on the pretext of liberating multi-sectarian groups in populations disorganised by chronically changing borders (due to foreign rearranging of tribes and land) and mass immigration (due to constant wars and colonisations) who are very intolerant of each other. When these wars ruin economies, produce lawlessness and cause refugee flight and economic flight, the globalists refuse to cease financing wars. Instead, in the name of multiculturalism, they insist that the people in their own countries open their borders to mass immigration and submit to the same demographically disorganising process that has been accomplished by war and colonisation in the sending countries. Hanson seems to be among very few forces in Australia that is standing up for citizens' rights and national sovereignty. I think she has a number of contradictory attitudes about welfarism that go with her Liberal, rural, and small business background. Whilst I don't hold these attitudes, I think they are defensible to a point. We need to deal with the pros and cons better than the current lib-lab sloganeering way. It was also significant that Q and A focused on Hanson's distrust of Islam rather than on her zero net immigration policies or any of the other ones. The effect was to polemicize any attempt to stand up for non-Islamic Australia against changes to women's rights, secularism and peace inside this country. I think that Hanson's criticisms of Aboriginal welfare, Asian takeover of land etc en mass, and Islam all have some bases in fact and deserve serious consideration. To demonise them is to demonise the baby along with the bathwater. A functioning political discourse should be able to talk about the baby and the bathwater, but our political discourse still attempts to drive wedges between anyone who would talk babies or bathwater and the 'rest'. To call Hanson a racist - as Larissa Waters did, gratuitously, right from the get-go - makes it very hard for anyone who does not know much about the surrounding issues (war, overpopulation) to investigate both sides. Australians should not be afraid to investigate both sides. With regard to racism and aboriginal economies, I find Libs, Labs, Greens and socialist alliance types totally racist because they all think it is quite okay to replace Aboriginal Australia with 'modern progress' and mass immigration from other cultures. They behave as if it is quite okay to destroy hunter gathering cultures and turn their members into industrial state citizens. This is the same mentality that excuses the destruction of viable tribal ways in the Middle East since the 19th century. This is the same mentality that drives Africans off their land in order to put it to more 'modern' uses. I thought it ironic, when Larissa Waters said something that questioned our support for wars against Islamic countries, and Hanson responded in agreement, that Jones immediately changed the subject. In fact, there is nothing more important than stopping these wars that are displacing millions of people (of all faiths) and if Hanson and Waters could have explored commonality there, then the whole program would have risen far above most political debates in this country.