The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Privileged 'whites' > Comments

Privileged 'whites' : Comments

By Jennifer Clarke, published 8/10/2007

Australia’s migration and citizenship laws privilege ‘whites’ in all sorts of ways.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 43
  7. 44
  8. 45
  9. All
"We live next door to the world’s fourth most populous nation (Indonesia), which contains millions of people who would love to live here, or even just visit for work or a look around."

The Indonesians had thousands of years to colonise Australia, as did the Chinese and other Asian civilisations. But none of our northern neighbours were interested in this arid wasteland until the British came along and built a nation worth living in. Now they want a piece, complete with European-built infrastructure. Funny that.

This author of this Caucasophobic article seems to be implying that Australia should abandon its sovereign right to enforce its borders and allow an “under new management” takeover by our fecund neighbours. I wonder, does "cultural diversity" increase globally if, say, Australia becomes an Asian colony due to immigration in a world already dominated demographically by Asians?

"What they don’t want are too many funny-looking people from Elsewhere coming here, intending to stay and vote, and provoking the racism latent in “the Australian way of life”."

We should be less worried about imagined instances of racism, and more concerned about the latent stupidity emanating from the left.

Have you bothered to compare Australia's immigration levels to other countries? Or don't you do 'numbers'?

Here's a not-so-secret secret - Australia has the second highest per capita immigration rate in the world. And the vast majority of these new migrants aren't coming from Europe.

I've always found it odd that no Third World country is ever said to be in need of a heavy dose of Westerners. But Western countries are constantly told by their elites how much better off they are for having Third Worlders flood their shores (any opposition is reflexively denounced as 'racist'). This immigration deluge is always said to be "enriching." One wonders why the immigrants ever left their homeland considering how enriched it must be. The main point, though, is that this mass immigration juggernaut is purely a one-way street. When they come here it is 'enriching' - if we were to go there in similar numbers it would be called colonialism.
Posted by Dresdener, Monday, 8 October 2007 10:20:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dresdener – It is not the elites who are championing the cause it’s the Loud Looney Left! Many elites support it so as to get the support of the LLL when it comes to vote time because as you know there are plenty of them out there.

All I can say is why shouldn’t whites have an unofficial privilege after all it was all there hard work which made Australia what it is today. We give the black fella’s a heap land that’s the privilege they get.

How about something for the people who made Australia into what it is! Oh no that would be racist I hear the LLL say. A bit of a paradox don’t you think!
Posted by EasyTimes, Monday, 8 October 2007 11:32:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I will respond to 'Dresdener', because this post illustrates the problems of discussing Australian ethnicity openly.

My comments were made about Australia, a nation founded on migration, not about Europe or 'Caucasians' generally. Given Australia's location, the case for it staying 'white' is about as strong as the case for it becoming 'white' in the first place - ie, very weak. The issues are not the same as in Europe, where pressure for the integration of people of colour has come from their (or their ancestors') past colonisation by the European power or importation as cheap labour. How Australia's immigration intake compares with that of European countries is irrelevant. New Zealand, with one-fifth of our population, takes about one-third as many migrants as we do.

My statistics are from the Immigration Update for 2006, on the Immigration Department's website. These show that more migrants come from Europe than any other region, and that large numbers come from New Zealand. 'The rest of the world' now does outstrip Europe, but you would expect that because most people live in the rest of the world.

'If we were to go there in similar numbers it would be called colonialism'. That is the right term for the takeover of Australia from its indigenous population.

Indonesians DID migrate to Australia's north in precolonial times - Muslims from Macassar came in thousands on the tradewinds, fathering Yolngu children, leaving behind loan words and sometimes taking Yolngu back with them to Sulawesi. The migration was stopped under the 'White Australia' policy.

Some of Asia's population growth results from 'fecundity', but some Asian countries (eg China, and to a lesser extent Indonesia) have imposed or encouraged family size limits - a responsible approach to global over-population. With its baby bonus, Australia has done the opposite.

I have found it easy to travel to Asian countries, and have known several Australians who live in Asia. While Europeans and Americans can fly into and out of Australia on ETAs, however, someone from a poor Asian country may have trouble getting a tourist visa.
Posted by Jennifer Clarke, Monday, 8 October 2007 11:50:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author Jennifer Clarke writes, "we appear to need migrant labour (skilled and unskilled) ..."

We 'appear' to need migrant labour only because this message has been drummed into the consciousness by a lying pro-high-immigration news-media since at least the mid-1970's, but the reality is otherwise as has been shown in numerous other places in Online Opinion and in Mark O'Connor's review of Phillipe Legrain's "Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them" at http://candobetter.org/node/209

I think we should not be permitting any further migration, with an exception for humanitarian refugees, including from black Africa. However, the numbers must be such that existing inhabitants are not overwhelmed.

---

I would be interested to know how the author would be prepared to quantify the truly non-discriminatory immigration policy she advocates. Presumably, she would allow immigration to Australia on the basis of the proportion of each national or cultural group to the world's total population, in which case nearly 37% would come from India and China alone. If we added in the 11 major countries of South East Asia and South Asia that figure would become 50%.

Only a very small percentage would be allowed from countries with cultures similar to the White Anglo-Celtic group that comprised the majority of this continent at the end of the Second World War.

Would Jennifer Clarke apply a similar standards to all the other countries in the world, perhaps to Italy, Denmark, Japan, Finland, Latvia, Norway, Japan or Brazil?

BTW I have been told Brazil has in its constitution an immigration policy which is aimed at preserving the cultural and racial mix of that country as of the mid-1930's - something that Australia never attempted since the 1970's.

I would suggest that a predominant culture in any country does have a right to preserve that dominance. This, of course, would have applied to the Aboriginals, and, before them, the original human inhabitants of this country who were wiped out by the Australian Aboriginals.

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Monday, 8 October 2007 12:16:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuedfromabove)

However, past injustices are no justification for injustices today against the current inhabitants of this continent, and, in any case, only make matters worse for the remaining Aboriginal inhabitants. Nor do they justify the further damage to the already perilously degraded natural environment of this continent.

I would also be interested to hear Jennifer Clarkes' response to Gore Vidal's words on the topic of high immigration spoken at a lecture in Dublin in 1999:

"A characteristic of our present chaos is the dramatic migration of tribes. They are on the move from east to west, from south to north. Liberal tradition requires that borders must always be open to those in search of safety or even the pursuit of happiness. But now with so many millions of people on the move, even the great-hearted are becoming edgy. Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in 40 to 50 million homeless Bengalis. If the Norwegians say that, all in all, they would rather not take them in, is this to be considered racism? I think not. It is simply self-preservation, the first law of species."

quoted in "The Folly of mass migration" at
http://www.opendemocracy.net/people-migrationeurope/article_1193.jsp
original quote at:
http://www.immigrationcontrol.org/b_board.htm
Posted by daggett, Monday, 8 October 2007 12:17:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer's unbalanced argument barely alludes to the trouble France and the UK have with black Africans. Here is a taste of what Australia can expect:

The 751 No-Go Zones of France
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/709

Revealed: 170 gangs on streets of London
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/12/ngang112.xml

Factfile: teenagers gunned down across UK
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2313547.ece

Immigration threat to Britain as single nation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/21/nbyrne221.xml

Idi Amin's son was in gang that battered man to death in the street
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=472882&in_page_id=1811

School uniforms made slash-proof
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6945814.stm

Dear Son, Let me tell you what immigration has done to this country
http://abandonskip.blogspot.com/2007/08/uk-dear-son-let-me-tell-you-what.html

The police fiddle while children are killed
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article2327834.ece

"Although we are the most spied-upon nation in Europe and although we have spent billions on social renewal schemes, we have reached a state in which children and teenagers in big cities live in terror of other children and teenagers and in despair of protection from adults. They carry knives because they are afraid.

They are afraid on their way to and from school and they learn almost nothing when they get there, partly because adults don’t protect them from bullying, thieving and disruption. Teachers have either lost or relinquished their authority and children can expect little or no guidance and protection from them, or from their parents, or from council care, or from the police ...

It’s this mentality that has produced teachers who can’t or won’t teach, school leavers who are unemployable, students who can’t study, feckless parents, broken homes, police who are obsessed with things that don’t matter, neighbours who dare not stand up to other people’s children, jails overcrowded with the wrong people, idiotic state sector make-work, intrusive quangos imposing idiotic make-work and the divisive follies of multiculturalism and uncontrolled immigration.

Until we begin to stand up against all these things, we can probably expect more senseless killings of children. "
Posted by online_east, Monday, 8 October 2007 1:08:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kevin Andrews has not stopped black African refugee intake, only lowered it from 50% to 30%. If he really cared about Australia, he would have stopped it altogether. Australia's immigration/refugee programs must be returned to compatible sources, which means white European christian/secular: who have half a chance of fitting in. Jennifer, your utopian borderless world fails in practice - just like communism does. It's time is done, or so are we.

The night I stood up to the thugs - and why I will never do it again
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=476418&in_page_id=1770

"I'm no vigilante myself, having spent much of my life as a journalist in the liberal Press. Normally people like us are some of the most vocal in the land. Yet we have become afraid."

Wake up to reality - and sense
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_anthony/2007/08/by_happy_coincidence_comment_i.html
"... a large section of liberalism had become contorted by a reluctance to entertain reality. "

The first gangs of summer
http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2007/08/first-gangs-of-summer.html

Britain is dead, a collection
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007708.html

"The upshot is that although the British do still have the legal sovereign right to control who enters and works in their country, they do not exercise it, because in their own minds they don’t have the moral right to do so. Which means that my comparison of Britain to a man who has committed suicide but who, like a ghost, does not realize he is dead and so complains that people are treating him as though he didn't exist, was correct as a portrait of the British mindset."

Under the weight of all this evidence, all Jennifer can come up with is to resettle Africans into rural areas, or prevent 457 visas from taking their jobs. That's a myopic view. Such tinkering is illusionary because groups tend to gravitate to isolated enclaves, and Skips will move away from those areas, rural or city. And if the likes of Jennifer have her way, there would be so many Africans here that talk of integration would mean one thing - how future immigrants and newborns will slot straight into an African culture, no-go zones, etc. Time for a reality-check, Jennifer.
Posted by online_east, Monday, 8 October 2007 1:15:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Make up your mind Jennifer. No One is Illegal tell us that Australia has always been multicultural. Now you say we had a white Australia policy. How could such a policy survive in a multicultural Australia?
Posted by Sage, Monday, 8 October 2007 2:14:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An author is mistaken-Australian legislation privileges just Anglo-Celts/Saxons, those UK-linked biologically only, and the rest of the “whites”, ”coloured” and “round-the-blacks” is simply placed on their shelves of a feudal freedom enjoyment.
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 8 October 2007 2:21:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer's article convieniently omits the fact that far more black africans come into Aus as skilled migrants (nurses, tradesmen, etc) than as refugees, and are welcomed into the community as they are usually literate in English, skilled and needed.

The majority of refugees are illiterate (even in their own language), cannot understand or speak English, totally without skills, generally unemployable, and a huge financial burden on the state and the area in which they are settled. If Aus was a business and the money was coming out of your pocket, who would you choose?

The huge problems of crime and unemployment in South Africa are a large part due to the huge influx (about 8m) of unemployable refugees from other countries and the violent reaction against them has come not from the privileged whites, but from the townships.

The migration to Aus post WW2 was generally of skilled Europeans, and thus cannot be compared to the refugees today.

The racism card is easy to play especially by those that turn a blind eye to the little details of reality.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 8 October 2007 2:46:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is an opportunity to fix two problems at once; the appalling level of spelling in our community, and the need to regulate our migrant intake.

Let's bring back the Dictation Test.
Posted by plerdsus, Monday, 8 October 2007 3:08:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some things never change. 150 years ago it was the Irish that were forming gangs and ghettos and failing to integrate, and that a noisy minority wanted out. And look what a calamity they've been causing ever since.
50 years ago it was the Greeks and Italians that were forming gangs and ghettos and failing to integrate, and that a noisy minority wanted out. And look what a calamity they've been causing ever since.
15 years ago it was the Chinese and other SE Asians that were forming gangs and ghettos and failing to integrate, and that a noisy minority wanted out. And look what a calamity they've been causing ever since.
Now it's the Lebanese or the Sudanese that are forming gangs and ghettos and failing to integrate, and that a noisy minority want out. And in 20 years time, we'll look back at what a calamity they've caused.
In 20 years' time it will be Pacific Islands desperately fleeing their shrinking shores that will be forming gangs and ghettos, and that a noisy minority will want out. And in another 20 years, we'll look back at what a calamity they've caused.
And in 100 years' time when there's no single distinct dominant ethnic group left, there will be, oh, I don't know, bio-engineered cyborgs that are forming gangs and ghettos, and that a noisy minority will want out. And in another 20 years, we'll look at back at what a calamity they've caused.
Maybe in 200 years time we'll find those genes that cause a noisy minority to fear and distrust others that seem different, and have them carefully removed. But I'm not counting on it.
Posted by wizofaus, Monday, 8 October 2007 3:16:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like Jennifer Clarke, I am disgusted at Kevin Andrew's attempt to make the Sudanese people into an election issue. If he is going to make an attack on a whole ethnic group he should be prepared to back it up with hard evidence.

However, the bulk of the article was the standard Leftist line: "white race as the cancer of history", "we have no right to our prosperity", etc. It is amazing that people like Jennifer Clarke never apply their reasoning on citizenship (i.e. our collective property) to private property. Ms. Clarke no doubt keeps her doors locked so that random strangers cannot come in to doss down or help themselves to the plasma television. To give people an incentive to cooperate, work and provide for their future, we respect private property and even allow people to become rich, even though we know that property is sometimes acquired by dubious means or inherited from people who acquired it in such a way. Why does she think the situation is any different on the national scale?

White people did not invent wars and genocide. These things were happening before there were modern humans, as we know from those cannibalised Homo Heidelbergensis skeletons in that cave in Spain. There is now DNA evidence that the ancestors of the Aboriginal people were in a position to settle Australia because they had displaced the ancestors of the New Guinea Highlanders from the coasts.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_200106/ai_n8988825

What is the use by date on ancestral guilt?
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 8 October 2007 5:32:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The main problem for Australia is about numbers, not ethnic background. But accepting migrants from diverse lingual and cultural backgrounds is not without significant logistical challenges. The UK has pursued similar policy for decades, routinely dismissing any criticism as racist. Of late the problems have become too substantial to ignore. How long will it be before people start facing the reality here?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article2511938.ece?openComment=true
Posted by Fester, Monday, 8 October 2007 5:53:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's what I love about the left,they never let reality or common sense interfer with their ideology.Face it we are nothing but a bunch of white elitists racists and that is why we have the the most diverse culture on the planet who take more refugees per head than most other countries.

No mention of facist Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia or Malaysia who make second class citizens out of non Muslims.By the way,if you don't like the Muslim philosophy or the imposition of Sharia Law,you are also a filthy white racist.You must learn to be tolerant to those who seek to enslave you.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 8 October 2007 7:22:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer Clarke seems to target whites as a kind of "cosmic enemy" - as a group of people hindering the arrival of the long-awaited free and equal new man.

It's a "magical" way of thinking about the world. We are supposed to believe that stable governance and a strong work ethic in Australia are responsible for lack of development in Africa. We are supposed to believe that if whites gave up group identity and power that others would be released into freedom and equality - despite the evidence to the contrary in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Zimbabwe is an excellent example of what is wrong with the theories put forward by Jennifer Clarke. When whites there lost power and privilege the result wasn't freedom and equality, but political repression and a new kind of inequality in which a black elite exploits the black poor and in which one black ethnic group dominates another.

It's noteworthy that the most egalitarian nations are generally the most homogeneous, e.g. Norway and Japan. Compare these two countries to diverse nations like Brazil and Mexico in which a small but enormously wealthy elite rules over the masses.

It seems to me that Jennifer Clarke has picked up on some of the worst aspects of academic whiteness studies, as explained here:

http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2007/09/whiteness-studies.html
Posted by Mark Richardson, Monday, 8 October 2007 7:26:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, no-one is advocating handing out citizenship certificates to known terrorists or fundamentalist sharia Imans, but the majority of Muslim immigrants settle in here just fine, and as they usually maintain ties back to their countries of birth, this can only help the slow and painful process of dismantling racism and fascism in those parts of the world, as more and more Muslims see the obvious benefits of a liberal and equal society first-hand.

Actually because of the illogical focus on race and ethnicity, it concerns me considerably that immigrants with extreme beliefs intent on imposing them on us are being allowed to slip through the cracks. The idea that the average Sudanese refugee is somehow less likely to assimilate and adapt to Australian values than, say, the average Iraqi refugee is pretty much nonsense, yet this is exactly what Andrews is claiming.
Posted by wizofaus, Monday, 8 October 2007 8:13:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The difference is an Iraqi will at least be able to use a phone to save himself. And at least Arabic is not a language no one has heard of, he can go and work in our many thousands of kebab shops.

Whats the bet Jenny got a big fat grant from our government for this rot?

Where do these freaks come from? What did her parents do to her as a child that she comes up with this garbage?

Jenny I want my money back, you are very clearly an oxygen thief and not the full quid and as such not worthy of my tax dollars.

I believe your time would be better spent in the kitchen looking after your girlfriend.

NEXT!
Posted by SCOTTY, Monday, 8 October 2007 10:49:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"My comments were made about Australia, a nation founded on migration..."

The truth is that all nations are nations of immigrants. And Australia was founded by migrants from the British Isles, not by every single cultural, ethnic and religious group from 200-odd nations across the planet.

"Given Australia's location, the case for it staying 'white' is about as strong as the case for it becoming 'white' in the first place - ie, very weak."

By your reasoning, Israel's case for staying Jewish is "very weak", as is the case for Siberia remaining Russian.

Maybe in your borderless utopian world, the masses should be able to freely migrate into any piece of (Western) land they see fit. But in reality, every nation has the sovereign right to uphold its borders and control immigration. Ironically, the Third World countries which Australians are afraid to offend have no hesitation in using immigration controls to retain their present ethnic compositions. As Gore Vidal said, this is simply an act of self-preservation. But apparently such rights don't extend to Australia's founding population.

'Australia' is a European creation. There was no nation by that name on this continent prior to British settlement. European settlers founded and built this nation and developed it into what it is today. If a man builds a house for himself, why shouldn't he and his family reap the benefits of their labour? Is it 'racist' for the householders to have some say over who can move in with them?

"That is the right term for the takeover of Australia from its indigenous population."

Ah, the old the guilt card. Multiculturalists use this often; they tell Australians that their European forebears settled Australia and displaced the nomadic Aboriginal population, so what is wrong with migrant groups doing the same to us? In other words, they tell Australians that in order to make up for past guilt, Australians must meekly accept resurrected colonialism.

"Indonesians DID migrate to Australia's north in precolonial times"

Name a single permanent built Indonesian settlement in Australia.
Posted by Dresdener, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 2:32:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SCOTTY you must understand surely your debating style is in need of review?
Racism is a bad thing no matter who brings it ,minority's can often be as racist as any.
I too find the thread of not much worth but clear racism gets a run here too.
In the last few days I have been questioned about my views are they racist?
Maybe, but I do think we need migration, and wonder if we need further devision in our country.
Is the western world, my world trying to unite us? or divide us?
You have to wonder I can however tell you I have walked up to new arrivals to say Gday, and been met with cold stares.
Fear and lack of understanding however should not be rewarded with race hate.
I am truly concerned in my view we all should be, at some young migrants from the African Continent wearing American gang colors.
Maybe we should help new migrants in better ways.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 6:00:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"My statistics are from the Immigration Update for 2006.."

I notice that the Department of Immigration is still playing the same old statistical trick of dividing Asia into three segments - Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia and Southern Asia. If Asia is divided into smaller regions, then obviously the total number of Asian immigrants to Australia does not appear so great at first glance. But to treat Europe as a single region and then claim Europe is the largest component of the immigration program is disingenuous, especially when immigration figures from the ABS show that Asia as a whole has now overtaken Europe and New Zealand combined.

"... someone from a poor Asian country may have trouble getting a tourist visa."

Did it ever occur to you that people from low-wage countries have a higher risk of staying illegally? Hence the reason why a Japanese citizen can enter Australia without any problems, but a Russian or a Ukrainian has to jump through hoops. Discredits your little "white privilege" conspiracy theory, doesn't it?

"..we appear to need migrant labour (skilled and unskilled).."

No, it appears you are parroting the claims of big business in order to justify your own open-borders ideology.

Jennifer, the case for Australia staying 'white' is about as strong as the case for Haiti staying 'black'. In essense, our ethnic makeup defines who we are as a nation. There is nothing 'racist' about it. One cannot understand modern Australia unless you realise that our culture, institutions, social practices, politics, attitudes, way of life and view of the world are fundamentally shaped by our European heritage. And it would be silly to assume that Australia would basically remain the same country if Europeans became a minority. As a geographic entity, Kosovo hasn't changed much over the centuries. But the advent of a Albanian Muslim majority in Kosovo during the 1940s radically altered the culture and politics of this traditionally Serbian Christian province.

If some seek to use immigration to facilitate a radical transformation of the composition of our society, then surely the democratic approval of the plebs is required first?
Posted by Dresdener, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 10:59:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It always boils down to skin colour for you, doesn't it Dresdener - no matter how cleverly you weasel around it?

You don't happen to own a dog or two, do you?

Also, "As a geographic entity, Kosovo hasn't changed much over the centuries. But the advent of a Albanian Muslim majority in Kosovo during the 1940s radically altered the culture and politics of this traditionally Serbian Christian province. "

You mean, not counting that period from 1389 to 1912 when it was part of the Ottoman Empire and was predominantly Muslim, albeit in a relatively secular way?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 11:22:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dresdener – your arguments are reasoned and comprehensive.

You very adequately destroyed the feeble premises on which Jennifer Clarke’s article is based.

Oh and you seem to have invoked the wrath of CJ Morgan but take heart, criticism from such a twisted pen confirms, you have got it right
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 11:45:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A great article Jennifer,

I agree that as a nation we have resolved to reinforce a long standing belief that we are a white nation.

The test reinforces this belief, along with some of the posts on this page.

Until we become a collective-minded country and start caring for the few remnants that are sick, homeless and dying then we cannot truly become a world leader.

I lived in Perth a few years ago and was shocked at the outward confession of a few South African 'friends' statement that they moved here after the 'collapse' of their country because black Australia had not power or respect and therefore no chance of change.

Furthermore the perception of "Aussies' overseas is overtly racist in nature. We have to change our national image. Actions, like the test and comments on the UN Declaration, further enshrine out status as racist, arrogant, white-minded fools.

Dresdener, there was a long and prosperous relationship between several northern Aboriginal groups with Maccassans from Indonesia. This proves that they got on in a very cosy environment of trade. They still have a festival up north to remember this friendship
Posted by 2deadly, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 4:49:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, now I'm confused...you said you were Libertarian...so why are you concerned over trying to maintain ethnic identity? Shouldn't everybody be free to enter and remain in the country, so long as they respect the law?
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 5:01:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dresden wrote: “One cannot understand modern Australia unless you realise that our culture, institutions, social practices, politics, attitudes, way of life and view of the world are fundamentally shaped by our European heritage”

This is exactly the point that Jennifer is making but you (as well as our fanatical Anglophile Col) do not appear to understand beyond a very superficial intellectual engagement.

Is this because the elements of your own identity that are so congruent with the dominant culture and are thus so normalized and reflected back at you that you take such traits for granted (as normal)?

But is this normal? This is the question JC asks and you have taken issue with.

Why?

In other words you argue that if one does not understand the fundamental basis by which white supremist culture operates and informs national patriotism - one does not understand Australia.
I have absolutely no problem with this at all.

I just wish you and Col had the guts to name it for what it is rather than trying to dress it up in solipsistic ‘soft centred’ jingoisms.

Is it because you think that Whiteness should not be an area of cultural, historical and sociological inquiry? This is akin to telling anthropologists not to study black people.

**Thanks Jennifer for naming the "white elephant" in the room (again).
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 5:46:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wizofaus.... you said:

Arjay, no-one is advocating handing out citizenship certificates to known terrorists or fundamentalist sharia Imans, but the majority of Muslim immigrants settle in here just fine.

to which I offer:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21952947-601,00.html

THE nation's most senior Shia Muslim cleric has attacked John Howard for backing Israel against Arabs and openly declared his allegiance to the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.

Sheik Mousselmani said all of Australia's approximately 30,000 Shi'ites were avid supporters of Hezbollah (Party of God) and haters of Israel.

COMMENT...I'm rather interested in how you see this kind of thing as 'integrated well'..... etc ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHbV5CSj51I You might like to pay attention to the actual words spoken by Nasrallah..the head of Hezbollah..

The Australian Sheikh is guilty of terrorism and treachery.. as follows:

1/ He Supports Hezbollah.

2/ Nasrallah/Hezbollah calls for 'death' to America.(and has attacked US soldiers (Marine Barracks.. 200+ killed)

3/ Australia is allied to the USA by the Anzus treaty.

4/ America is our ally.. and we are theirs.

Thus.. to call for the destruction of our ally, is to break treaty with us.. hence..it is treason.

This is confirmed further, by the Muslim understanding of 'treaty'... in particular the Treaty of Hudabiya. Between Mohammad and the Meccans. (prior to him invading it) Mohammad claimed the treaty had been broken by virtue of the fact of a tribe allied with the Meccans.. attacked a tribe allied with MOhammads forces.

Thus.. guilty on all counts.. the Sheikh and every Shia Muslim who confesses support for Hezbollah should be arrested forthwith and incarcerated.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 6:08:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wiz, Col's only a libertarian to the extent that it doesn't conflict with his Thatcherite world view. Given his extreme views about recreational drugs, for example, one would have to question his understanding of Libertarianism. I expect that he self-describes as 'libertarian' because that sounds better than 'fascist bastard'.

It's hardly surprising that he approves of Dresdener's Anglophilia, given that they evidently share a similarly neo-colonial view of Australia. Personally, I think that Australia would be better off if Col buggered back off to the Old Dart and Dresdener repatriated himself to Dresden - but it's a free country, eh?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 9:39:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ, I'm not sure under what circumstances Sheik Mousselmani was granted citizenship, but his claim that 30,000 Australian Shi'ites supported Hezbollah terrorists is clearly inflammatory and disruptive. Fortunately it appears there is little evidence that his words resonated at all with Australia's Muslim population, and I'd much rather him to be spouting that sort of nonsense here than in Lebanon, where no doubt it would encourage further hatred and terrorism.
As for the treason charge - going by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#Australia, it's hard to see how his ravings qualify as such: the laws quite clearly apply to actions, not words, and quite specifically only apply to Australia, not allied nations.
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 10:18:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Surely the big question is "What action provides the greatest benefit?". And here is another question: What would happen if you took a bunch of black people, dispersed them about a world hitherto devoid of humans, then left them to their own devices for 100,000 years?
Posted by Fester, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 10:34:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a "CONSTITUTIONALIST" I am too aware that the Commonwealth of Australia is in principle racist, and so the States, as it is approved for this in Subsection 51(xxvi) of the Constitution, which continue to provide for the "white only" policy. Personally, I oppose racism but have to concede that constitutionally it is permissible. Getting rid of Subsection 51(xxvi) might then be the better way to go! The 1967 referendum was a con-job on Aboriginals and so the unconstitutional “Racial Discrimination Act”. Aboriginals are constitutionally no longer "citizens" just that this is overlooked!

While Kevin Andrews introduced the “citizenship test” it is a sheer and utter nonsense, as learning who was a cricketer has got nothing to do with current cultural, social and conduct and legal position of Australians.

While the test seems to make out that Edmund Barton was the first Prime Minister, the truth is that Lyne was the first one commissioned on 18 December 1900 and when he handed his commission back then Edmund Barton was given the commission on 24 December 1900, as the second (not first) person to be Prime Minister!

The “citizenship test” neither does expose constitutional reality that “citizenship” is constitutionally a State legislative power dealing with political status (including franchise) and nothing to do with nationality, as we are and remain (subjects of the British Crown”.

If we expect others to learn about Australians and heritage would it then not better that we teach our politicians some constitutional facts?

My book, published in July 2006” about “INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is -Australian way of life- really” makes it very clear that it means that every person of whatever religion, colour of skin, nationality, etc, can live his/her life in whatever way he/she desires, including customs and traditions provided it is within the provisions Australian laws!

See people as equal and we all are better off!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 11:36:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan: "It always boils down to skin colour for you, doesn't it Dresdener - no matter how cleverly you weasel around it?

You don't happen to own a dog or two, do you?"

You don't happen to engage your brain before posting, do you?

Playing the everyone opposed to mass immigration is a 'racist' trick won't work. You can shrilly scream racist all you want. This type of nitwittery will simply be ignored, especially coming from someone who sees a racist behind every tree. Melanin challenged? Guilty until proven innocent!

In a previous discussion, I asked you whether you believed ethnic nationalism to be a form of racism. You didn't answer my question - other than admitting a link between ethnicity and the nation-state.

But this little revelation was most interesting:

"I've been deeply engaged in notions of race, ethnicity, nationhood and sovereignty for a long time - both personally and professionally."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=915

Certainly explains your "racists under the bed" psychosis.

So, my dear retired anthropologist friend, would you care to explain your thoughts on Gore Vidal's speech? I'd be very much interested to know why you think it is 'racist' to oppose cultural and civilisational suicide.
Posted by Dresdener, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 4:06:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair dinkum, what a bunch of scared wallies. All so frightened of being called "racist". Australia was settled by Europeans, not Asians, not Africans.
As such, as much as the home owner makes the house rules in his own home, we get to make the rules (You WILL take off your shoes if you enter my home. I don't care who you are).
Why do we make the rules? Because everyone aspires to the WESTERN way of life with all its warts, not the Asian way, not the African way. It's true, the tallest tree cops the most breeze and we're used to it.
We appear arrogant because our forefathers went through centuries of wars, feasts, famines, revolutions et al. to arrive at an understanding of remaining strong and knowing compassion, which has left us more self-confident and willing to be tolerant of those who are respectful of the opportunities presented by stable government and sound society rules. Those that don't subscribe can sod off.
You want to call me (and others) "racist", go for your life. Doesn't make you right, does it?
Australia is European in nature, has sounder economic management than our neighbours, greater social stability, and is a better place to live as a result. Why shouldn't we be privileged? Reward for effort I call it.
If the pinko lefty basket weaving crowd don't like it, tough!
Posted by tRAKKA, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 10:23:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The industrial bargaining power of Australian workers is being diluted by unprecedented numbers of imported labour. Yet protest is difficult because of constant propaganda to persuade them that they have no right to democratic representation on this issue which will push down wages and push up the cost of living. (The cost of living goes up with the demand for land although land-prices are not counted in the CPI, making this difficult to complain about.)

People are reluctant to complain about blatant importing of labour and of consumers of housing and vital resources when the increase in those newcomers is obvious because of a different appearance - be this due to their clothing or their physique - because Australians realise this can rebound on those people personally.

Yet it is only through such obvious differences that numbers of immigrants become apparent to locals who would otherwise not recognise this source of population pressure.

Citizens are entitled to expect that their government should not put them in such an invidious position.

They should denounce the organizations which market propaganda to suppress political discussion and expressions of protest against mass movements of labour. Multicultural propaganda, for all its good intentions, has been financed by government and by private enterprise, and can be shown to benefit government and private enterprise by discouraging the expression of important industrial relations concerns. It has served to prevent open protest against the impact on the environment and affordability which arise from the augmentation of demand through population increase well beyond that which would occur naturally.

The same economic and environment problems occur through the importation of large numbers of ethnically similar labour and consumers. It is not easy to complain about them either because of the tendency for ANY complaint about immigration numbers to be reflected back by a complicit media as if it were a complaint about ethnically different labour.

In other words, industry and a complicit government are not going to make it easy for workers and citizens to protect what they have and unfortunately multiculturalism has been mis-used to disarm protest. More at http://candobetter.org/node/217
Posted by Kanga, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 10:34:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good for you, Dresdener. I am reminded of an American joke: "A racist is a person who is winning an argument with a Leftist or Neoconservative."

There is a further issue to do with Jennifer Clarke's project for ethnic replacement (which the Left clearly identifies as genocide when the Indonesian government floods Irian Jaya with Javanese or the Chinese government floods Tibet with Han Chinese). This was touched on by Fester and involves the sheer numbers (assuming she doesn't want to do away with the existing population). On p. 10, Oct. 6, 2007 New Scientist you will find a graph plotting rank on the UN Human Development Index (measure of human well-being) versus number of Earths required to support the average level of consumption. Giving everyone a Western European standard of living would require 3 Earths and 2 Earths for an Eastern European standard of living. Only Cuba combines sustainability with a reasonably high human development rank. Somehow I don't think most of us would like the austerity or lack of freedom. These figures don't even consider peak oil, climate change, further population growth, etc. We can't solve global poverty by taking people in, just immiserate a lot of our own people.

Our own environment is deteriorating, as admitted by the government's own State of the Environment reports. There are permanent water restrictions in all the major cities, except Hobart, and even some of the politicians are beginning to admit there are limits to growth. See this exchange from a recent Senate hearing:

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/committee/S10200.pdf

CHAIR—Do you think they should pump another million and a half people into the area [SE Queensland]?

Mr Currie—I think they should bring them here!

CHAIR—No, let’s be serious. Will the area sustain another million and a half people or not?

Mr Currie—Not without rain it will not.

CHAIR—You know the forecasts. I know the long-term predictions. It is going to get worse not better.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 10:40:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister, Mark Richardson et al - all those not ignoring the posts by a 'non-native-to-UK-product"

Please, read my message posted on 9 October, 12;29:34 in a topic

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6484
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 10 October 2007 1:08:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, I didn't know how angry you all could get for simply being white and privileged! Lots of different responses here, most of them defend their privilege. Are these economic, nationalistic, political and xenophobic defences sustainable -- given only 20 percent of the world’s population is white?

Should we non-whites start to lobby for policy that sees integration of white people into the rest of the world, nation, and neighbourhood?

I think its the least we could do.
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 1:32:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dresdener: "Certainly explains your 'racists under the bed' psychosis."

No, but it explains why I know racism when I see it - besides which, I doubt that you're actually under your bed, even though you're up at 4am ranting about immigration. And you call me psychotic!

"...would you care to explain your thoughts on Gore Vidal's speech?"

Sure, if you'd care to provide a link to the full speech, instead of a twice copied single paragraph from it. The nearest I can get is to that single paragraph, originally cited on some nutjob Irish anti-immigration site, where it is quoted without context as some kind of obviously hyperbolic dog-whistle.

Interesting how readily you respond to those whistles, old chap.

Since you referred us back to that previous discussion, how did you get on with the Anderson and Kapferer books that I suggested for you, in order that you might sort out your evident confusion about notions of nation, state, ethnicity and race? While there's a few big words in them, I'm sure that even you are capable of understanding them with a bit of effort and a dictionary.

Lastly, I note that you're silent on your error concerning Kosovo's historically dominant religion.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 1:34:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wizofaus “you said you were Libertarian...so why are you concerned over trying to maintain ethnic identity”
nothing I wrote suggested or implied any racial bias. Nothing I have written denies my libertarian preferences.

Anyone applying to Australia and being accepted for migration should be welcomed. However, those who do not respect or intend to respect (if not adopt) existing Australian values would be better off staying where they are, for their own sake as well as the rest of us.

Rainier “solipsistic” - now that is “‘soft centred’ jingoisms”.

It sounds like a word you found when attempting to describe yourself in as few syllables as possible?

CJMorgan” Col's only a libertarian to the extent that it doesn't conflict with his Thatcherite world view”

Dearest Margaret Thatcher was more libertarian them you give her credit for.
Her objective and success was to extricate UK citizens daily life from the strangle hold of previous socialist government interferences, which was choking it to death.

Same in the USA, Ronald Reagan was the President who advocated less government, not more.

But your lack of understanding of such things is no surprise, filling your post and presumably your head with the “convenience” of leftist drivel, keeping faith with the old Leninist mantra, “tell a lie often enough and it will become the truth”.

As for “I think that Australia would be better off if Col buggered back off to the Old Dart”

I wonder what septic tank would accept you back? – I guess it will not be the one Rainier peers out from, his “solipsistic” tendencies would find even you too much for him.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 2:08:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All these stupid accusations of "racism", how unintellectual! how stupid,theatrical, so shallow.
Everyone is Racist, particularly those who are so terribly antiracist.
Why shouldn't whites be privileged? If it is they or their forbears who made this wonderful country what it is, they deserve the privilege.
If I earn my wages, why should some interloper be entitled to demand part or all of it?
If I pay for my house who has the right to demand livingspace in it. ..Unless I decide to share it, then they must live by the house rules.Same with my wages.
If they refuse to live by the rules, they must go.That is common law, common sense.
It is better to have immigrants who share our culture than have those who's culture is so opposite our own .Why import trouble?
Posted by mickijo, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 4:04:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many years ago, in the early 1980's a friend suggested that Geoffrey Blainey might have had a point in his opposition to multiculturalism. I am not exactly sure what it was that Blainey had said, but he was immediately accused of being racist by a second (female) friend, who I will call Jean. As all of us had left-wing convictions and moved in left-liberal circles, he saw no alternative but to humbly recant and he never uttered those thoughts while he was alive. (He was killed tragically in a car accident a few years later).

Then years later in the late 1990's, Jean found herself, living single in one of the suburbs of Sydney that had formerly been predominantly Anglo-Celtic but which had been changed demographically so that, by then, it was predominantly inhabited by Arabs, Turks and Vietnamese. As a single white female, usually alone, she had to confront daily the misogyny of many young males from the Arab community who assumed that an unaccompanied European female was fair came for sexist abuse. Even where nothing was said, she found the constant stares from them more than she could cope with, and she sold her house and moved to another part of Sydney, in which Arabs were less dominant.

Given the frequency of rape and violence perpetrated against women by males from Islamic cultures as chronicled in books like Paul Sheehan's "Girls Like You", I would suggest her move was well advised.

She put to me that it is easy for those politically correct European professional females, who can drink their coffee freely outdoors in the street-side cafes of Balmain without having to confront the reality of the culturally-derived misogyny, to judge those who do. Although I did not think to raise the question at the time, I would assume that she has, at some point, reflected upon her own past role as a policewomen of political correctness.

I don't intend now to weigh into the debate about how many Sudanese refugees should be allowed into the country, but I think a ...(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 4:05:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuedformabove)... more honest and objective consideration of this issue is needed.

The need to help victims of the Dharfur conflict needs to be weighed up against the likely effect that it will have on established communities in this country and on the ecology of this dry fragile continent.

---

On a broader level, we also need to consider that if we increase the numbers of people consuming levels of natural resources comparable to those that the rest of us currently do on this continent, as Divergence has pointed out.

In reality the practical consequences for the world's poor of open borders would be far worse than would be the practical consequences of closed borders even if we were to assume that the motives of those advocating the latter were racist.

Whilst the motives of many advocating open borders are sincere, I believe the motives of many are not. I believe that they are indifferent not only to the plight of the poor in their own national communities, but also to the plight of the vast majority of poor in the Third World. I believe that the motivation of many are the unearned profits they derive from real estate investments and the ability to be able to cheaply hire domestic servants including nannies as is commonplace in the United States (see my comments at: http://candobetter.org/node/216).

---

CJ Morgan,

Nice try.

It's pretty clear to me what Gore Vidal intended to say. I can't imagine how a broader context would alter the fundamental meaning of his words. I can't find the complete text of his speech, but I would expect that, if Vidal had been misquoted or had been taken out of context, we would probably know by now. Even if it could be shown that the words had not been uttered by Vidal, I fail to see how that negates the essential point.
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 4:08:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If I were to ask Jennifer Clark whether aborigines should be allowed to preserve their culture, I have no doubt that she would would gushingly support the idea. No doubt, she would also claim that Romanians, Chinese, Africans, Vietnamese and native Americans should all be proud of their cultures and ensure their preservation.

But when it comes to white culture, a different standard applies. It is obvious that Jenny has wet dreams about destoying the white culture in which she chooses to live. This is rather odd, since modern white culture is a mile in front of all others, in terms of prosperity, human rights, gender equality, tolerance, and scientific endeavor. If you want to immigrate from some backward cesspit to get a better life, head for a country where the whites call the shots. Preferably one where they all speak English.

It is the obvious detestation which people like Jennifer Clark have for their own people and culture which is the most baffling part of their anti everything ideology. Next would come their deturmination to never see anything wrong with the cultures of failed dysfunctional societies, and their propensity to always blame white people for anything that goes wrong, anywhere.

Then they have the hide to claim that they are non racist.
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 4:55:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, you say "Anyone applying to Australia and being accepted for migration should be welcomed. However, those who do not respect or intend to respect (if not adopt) existing Australian values would be better off staying where they are, for their own sake as well as the rest of us."

To which I say "duh" (for the most part anyway, allowing for some debate over exactly what Australian values are). But that is empirically *not* the position of many of the posters here who object to immigration on the grounds that it dilutes our European heritage etc., including "Dresedener" who you appear to agree with.

The reality is that our Anglo heritage will eventually get diluted away, whether people object to it or not. The point of concern should be whether it is occurring at a rate that is having a significant destabilising effect, which, despite the various anecdotes told here and elsewhere, could not realistically be said to be the case so far.
Posted by wizofaus, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 5:17:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh dear, good old redneck is here, i recall him once becoming upset that i called him a 'redneck' could not see the irony in it at all...LoL ..sad but true.
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 5:52:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article; Racism is a two way street; i have met more 'racists' amongst immigrants and 'permanent residents' than i have ever met amongst 'white folk'- The Asian-isation of Australia has already happened; wake up Australia; the Howard Government allows 'skilled' migrants from universities take jobs; when our own kids can't get a place; there is a person (chinese) in a high position in a Qld Gov Dept; she cannot speak english! her Principal Supervisor wrote her thesis. There are 100 cases for the'privileged colored
Posted by originalaussie, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 6:34:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While many blame all kinds of people of all kind of races, religions, etc, being it about coloured people taking work for lower wages robbing Australians of a decent income, Australian values, etc, would it not be better that people who post first consider what they are on about.
“Australian values” are to me that people comply with Australian laws, and so what is constitutionally permissible!
Lets look at the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution extremely concerned about the influx of cheap coloured labour from other countries undermining the security of Australians therefore held it better to give the Commonwealth of Australia with the power to DISCRIMINATE against coloured people and so inserted Subsection 51(xxvi) to allow special laws against certain races. As they made clear the Commonwealth of Australia could by this regulate the influx of coloured people and protect by this Australian jobs. Avoid unwanted cheap labour influx. By the 1967 referendum Aboriginals were included in this provision!
Now, the Commonwealth rather then to secure Australian jobs, has gone about to use this for a Racial Discrimination Act, contrary to the Constitutional powers, has out-sourced jobs (in particular to India) undermining Australian jobs, etc.
Instead of providing a training program for would be immigrants for them to learn what Australian law is about so that they can assimilate within the wider community to practice their own culture but so as to remain within Australian law, we have that they are asked who was a famous cricketer as if that will give them respect for Australian law!
The Commonwealth of Australia was given every possible constitutional powers to ensure that those it allowed to become part of Australian society could do so only if it is appropriate. The Commonwealth of Australia uses cheap visa’s to undermine Australian workers security and as such it is useless to blame the workers who are the influx of the visa system, as all they do is to accept the invitation of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Since federation it has been mismanaged and that is where the real issue lies to be addressed.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Thursday, 11 October 2007 12:16:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
daggett/James Sinnamon: "It's pretty clear to me what Gore Vidal intended to say. I can't imagine how a broader context would alter the fundamental meaning of his words. I can't find the complete text of his speech, but I would expect that, if Vidal had been misquoted or had been taken out of context, we would probably know by now. Even if it could be shown that the words had not been uttered by Vidal, I fail to see how that negates the essential point."

Oh come on, James. Surely you can do better than that. You posted the purported paragraph, which on the face of it is a hyperbolic and hypothetical strawman, as a challenge to the author of the article that this thread is about. It's your responsibility to verify your source and provide references that others can locate. To assert that it doesn't matter that it might be fabricated is intellectually sloppy, to say the least.

In this case, the context might explain Vidal's extraordinary hyperbole: "Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in 40 to 50 million homeless Bengalis. If the Norwegians say that, all in all, they would rather not take them in, is this to be considered racism?"

Why Norway and why 50 million Bengalis? Without some sort of context this just looks like a dog-whistle of the worst order. At any rate, the hyperbole fails - of course, it wouldn't be considered racism in the ridiculously small probability that such a situation could ever really happen.

I agree that Australia needs to limit its population, but I disagree that 'race' should be any kind of factor in our consideration of how we might do that.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 11 October 2007 8:12:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well CJ, if the Vidal quote is correct, which is hard to confirm, it's pretty indefensible and contradictory. To claim Norwegians would prefer to keep Bengalis out as a form of "preservation of species" then that categorically *is* racism. Last time I checked Norwegians and Bengalis are the same species.

OTOH, there are plenty of reasons why Norwegians would not want to simply open the border and allow 50 million Bengalis into Norway, no holds barred. The reasons Bengalis might want to come to Norway is because Norway is an open, liberal, equal, well-educated, economically prosperous society. Allowing the country to be quickly indundated with people that have not grown up in a similar culture and do not have the same levels of education and training would very quickly cause social and economic breakdown, benefitting nobody. The sustainable rate at which Norway could accept immigrants and maintain the advantages that make it an attractive place for migrants is probably no more than 100000 a year (given its current population of 5 million), meaning 50 million Bengalis would take a few hundred years to be successfully integrated into Norway (assuming of course its ecology truly could withstand that many extra people). In a few hundred years, the ethnic and cultural makeup of a nation CAN and does change enormously - Australia, the U.S. and Canada being obvious examples. Indeed, in another 200 years, the ethnic/cultural makeup of Australia is bound to be significantly different to what it is now. It is possible it could well be significantly *more* homogenous, as interracial breeding becomes more commonplace, however the experience in the U.S. would suggest otherwise.
Posted by wizofaus, Thursday, 11 October 2007 9:43:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
originalaussie, there are hundreds of white Australians in Qld government departments who cannot speak or write English at a functional level. Someone's got to employ them.
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 11 October 2007 6:07:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
originalaussie,

Do not worry – jobs have been reserved for the Anglos only as skilled, experienced and educated sustained a m a s s for educating English only.

What a waste of both life for newcomers and professional potential in Australia!

However, taking the most professional from overseas eases competition at the international market and creates jobs for local illiteral native-English-speaking rednecks.
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 11 October 2007 7:08:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rainier, one possible inference from your accurate observation might be that dear old MichaelK is employed in the Qld Public Service.

If so, I'm sure that it would be at a senior level :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 11 October 2007 8:31:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck couldnt have put it better.

The self loathing white guilt fraternity of which this site is full of have an agenda to destroy themselves and the rest of us as well.

There over joyed to be in on any trendy cultural thing that preserves an ethnic minorities roots. But if its white culture, then out come the knives.

You see, these leftist loony moonbats are the real RACISTS, your average white fella will be an endangered species if they have thier way.

Have a go at what the last couple of clowns were on about.

Give me one example of any dark races that run thier own country and thier not killing and raping one another.

All of Africa needs to be re-colonised to make it stable again.

And then after we force them to have peace they can live in thier own countries, bringing them here is just going to drag our standard of living down.

Selfish Pricks!
Posted by SCOTTY, Thursday, 11 October 2007 8:33:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee Scotty, did you think that up all by yourself? Amazing. Simply Amazing.
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 11 October 2007 10:48:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dresdener,
I find you posts refreshing, and I admire your logic, clear thoughts and ability to reference relevant material to back your claims.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by ozzie, Friday, 12 October 2007 9:11:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the need to reduce African and Muslim immigration, but the argument that whites are fundamentally more deserving of civilisation because "we earned it" is specious.

Most whites in the western world were born into already-wealthy societies and directed into a productive role in a civilised, managed economy. We contribute because we were trained to, not due to some innate superiority.

It is highly unlikely that anyone in this forum, if they had been born in Liberia or Lebanon, would be some sort of progressive mover and shaker in their society. They would act as the natives do, primitivism and all.
Posted by Sancho, Friday, 12 October 2007 9:50:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SCOTTY, there are certainly Caribbean nations that are largely ruled by "dark-skinned" people that are generally well-behaved and moderately prosperous, e.g. the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Barbados. But let's suppose there is a genetic trait among black African peoples that tends to lead to difficulties with maintaining a modern nation state, which is, after all, an invention that occurred outside that culture and ethnic background. Does that really mean the world would be a better place if Australia (and other stable, prosperous nations) didn't accept African refugees, who aren’t exactly likely to be source of our next prime minister anytime soon?

And does it really mean the world would be a better place, for all concerned, if "white rule" were to be returned to African nations? The alternatives - cracking down heavily on arms shipping to Africa, pushing hard for education reform, convincing the Catholic church that its position on contraception is doing drastic harm, a program of large-scale technology transfer, better targetted aid and welfare, etc. etc. have not been given a decent chance, and anyone who says "I know the solution to all Africa's problems", especially anyone who hasn't spend a good portion of their life there, fully deserves to be ignored.

As far as the "average white fella" becoming an endangered "species", not only does that show a complete ignorance of cladistics and genetics, but I'm afraid whether you like it or not, the percentage of humans whose genetic makeup might be considered predominantly "white" has been declining for a long time now, and eventually Australia is unlikely to maintain a dominant ethnic group. But so what? Last time I checked, unless you seriously consider that the word "fair" is not a reference to justice and equality of opportunity, there is nothing in our national anthem, our flag, our constitution or our parliamentary system that suggests that it somehow our skin-colour that makes our country great.
Posted by wizofaus, Friday, 12 October 2007 9:59:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan,

Whilst it is clear that means exist to find out the identities of myself and other posters to his forum for anyone curious enough, could I suggest to you that it would be more polite to respect the anonymity of another poster to this forum if he/she chooses to remain anonymous within the context of that forum?

---

In regard to Gore Vidal:

Of course, it matters if the words were fabricated and falsely attributed to Gore Vidal, but there is no reason to assume that they were. For reasons I have already stated, it seems to me that on the balance of probability those were his words. Certainly the part of his speech, excluding specific mention of Norway can be found in this Guardian Weekly articles of 2 January 2000 at http://www.guardian.co.uk/2000/article/0,,196650,00.html

For your part, you're welcome to provide evidence to the contrary. Given the huge resources at the disposal of the big-business-and taxpayer-funded pro-immigration lobbies around the world (examples: http://www.apop.com.au http://www.metropolis2007.org/ http://www.amf.net.au), I don't think you would have much difficulty in finding the evidence you need, if it exists. All they would need to do would be to approach Vidal himself or his agent. If Vidal were mis-quoted and his words were indeed 'hyperbolic' or even 'racist' as another poster has maintained, then I would expect a denial would have been very quickly forthcoming.

Nevertheless, even if, for argument's sake, it could be proven that the words were fraudulently attributed to Gore Vidal, I still think the argument needs to be considered on its own merits.

If that's not good enough for you, then I will just have to let other forum users be the ultimate arbiters of whether you, myself, or both of us, are 'intellectually sloppy'.

---

What is more extraordinary than Vidal's alleged hyperbole, is how, for decades immigration advocates have avoided confronting the basic arithmetic of immigration.

The total population of Bangladesh today is 150million. In 1995 four years before Vidal made his speech it was 119.2million, so Vidal's hypothetical figure of 40 to 50 million was barely more ...(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Friday, 12 October 2007 10:26:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuedfromabove)... than a third of Bangladesh's population at the time. So how many Bangladeshis do you think would NOT jump at the opportunity to immigrate to a country like Norway if given the opportunity?

In reality, it would end up being far fewer than 40 million, because long before anywhere near that number would have arrived in Norway, Norway would have been reduced to poverty worse than that of Bangladesh by the enormous social dislocation and necessary reallocation of resources. However, I imagine that that would be small comfort to either the Norwegians or to the Bangladeshis left behind.

According to Mike Davis' article "Planet of Slums" published has an article in New Left Review in 2004 and in 2006 expanded into a book of the same name, there a 1billion human beings on the planet who now live in the sprawling shanty towns on the edges of Third World Metropolises. They have no economic role whatsoever to play in those societies and live in abject poverty. They are in that state for two reasons:

1. The destruction of their agricultural livelihoods and replacement with unsustainable fossil-fuel based mechanized agriculture demanded by globalisation to suit the world's wealthy elite, and

2. Population growth

How many of those do you suppose would not jump at the opportunity to move to an industrialised western nation?

Indeed very many are, from both the poor and the less poor layers of those societies, making the move and the demographic shift caused by even a small fraction of the numbers that are theoretically possible are causing huge problems for the environment and social cohesion of countries such as Australia, whilst simultaneously making matters worse for their far more numerous compatriots left behind, because of their own increased demands upon the natural resources of this planet.

The housing affordability crisis is one aspect of this crisis. This is, in fact, a consequence of immigration both anticipated and welcomed by the growth lobby which comprises property developers, land speculators and related manufacturing and financial interests. For further information download Sheila Newman's 248p 2002 Master's thesis from http://candobetter.org/sheila).
Posted by daggett, Friday, 12 October 2007 10:27:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daggett, you really are out on a limb here. What "huge problems for the...social cohesion of...Australia" are you talking about?
Do you really think Australia has less social cohesion now than it did, say, 200 years ago, when we were virtually *all* criminals and convicts? Do you really think Australia has less social cohesion now than it did during the Great Depression, when our ethnicity was, indigineous peoples aside, overwhelmingly Anglo?
I think you would even be hard pushed to show that Australia's social cohesion was measurably less now than it was 50 years ago, before the first wave of southern European immigrants became, and even if it were, this is just as likely to be an outcome of trends in economic policy (that you allude to in other posts) as any pattern of migration.

As far as environmental damage goes - sure - but as I've said elsewhere, the solution can just as well be a serious effort to reform the way our primary and secondary industries operate, and the individaul lifestyles we choose, to not only minimize environmental damage, but to actively work towards restoring the environment, meaning that every immigrant that moves to Australia becomes a *plus* for the environment, rather than a negative. In fact I would argue that, GHG emissions aside, that is the case already: Australia manages its natural environment far better than most of the countries that refugees are fleeing from. Once we "solve" the GHG emissions problem, then environmental concerns will strongly favour migration of refugees. At any rate, at some point you simply have to start valuing human lives as they are right now over and above global environmental concerns that are some way into the future: ideally you tackle both at once, but if the choice is between allowing millions to languish and suffer under conditions of disease, despicable poverty, genocide and warfare, and increasing global GHG emissions, then I'm firmly voting for the latter, even accepting the risks entailed.

(TBC…)
Posted by wizofaus, Friday, 12 October 2007 11:02:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont. from above, changed username - against forum rules I'm sure, but these limits are driving me nuts)

For a start, every refugee that is brought to a country with a first-class education system and the institutes that encourage scientific study and technological development is a new mind that is more likely to be able to help find the solutions needed to reduce our GHG emissions. Secondly, allowing violence and disease to fester in other parts of the world will inevitably come back to bite us, and as a species, we are never going to be able to co-operate globally to tackle climate change as long as separationist attitudes exist.
Posted by dnicholson, Friday, 12 October 2007 11:21:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
daggett - the only reason I know your name is that you provided it yourself in this forum. It strikes me as slightly dishonest that you want to publish articles in this forum under your own name, but also want to comment on other authors' work (indeed, challenge them} anonymously. Perhaps it's not so much a case of intellectual sloppiness on your part, but intellectual dishonesty.

At any rate, the Vidal 'quotation' is little more than an egregiously hyperbolic hypthetical strawman deployed originally by some loony-tunes Irish white supremacist website, and shamefully taken up by you in this forum. It's becoming clearer why you might want to have two identities in this forum: your real one, where you have to own your ideas and provide proper evidence for your arguments, and your pseudonym, behind which you can hide in order to promote racist drivel.

If you were really interested in exploring a hypothetical situation where large numbers of Bangladeshis might seek refuge in a Western society, I'd suggest that Britain would be a better example than Norway. After all, there was never a Norse Raj that was part of a worldwide Norwegian Empire, the exploitation of which was directly responsible for the relative wealth of the Empire's ruling country - as was the case with Britain and its former Subcontinental dominions.

Indeed, it could be argued that the relatively large numbers of Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Africans and West Indians who have migrated to Britain in recent decades to share in its wealth are really just its colonial chickens coming home to roost. Culturally uncomfortable perhaps in the short term, but ultimately economically and morally just.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 12 October 2007 11:31:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daggett asked me to post the following on is behalf:

CJ Morgan,

You may attribute to me whatever motives you like to my request that on this forum where I have not chosen to use my own name that you address me as 'daggett'. The fact is that I have never attempted to conceal my identity from Online Opinion users. Any forum user has always been at liberty to follow the link to my home page. On other discussion forums I have gone further and included my own name in my posts. If I was attempting to lead a double life as a secret racist as you have alleged, then I would have thought that I had gone about it very ineptly.

Whilst I have not concealed my identity, I prefer not to have my own name splashed across forums such as this, that is, unless you can show why, for example, my authorship of other articles on Online Opinion (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4820) is relevant to this discussion and, at that, why it would then be necessary to use my name.

If you insist upon doing this, then perhaps there may be nothing I can do, but I still consider your doing so to be extremely discourteous.

Given the notorious propensity of open-border advocates, many funded by wealthy growth lobby interests, to hysterically denounce those who have, in the past, questioned even immigration, let alone multiculturalism, in order to close down the debate, it is understandable, why many others choose to post anonymously.

For my own I have protested against the Iraq War and have written letters to the paper on this subject. You may find one on my home page. So, whilst I strongly question high immigration and multiculturalism, I believe that my concern for the wellbeing of all humankind has been demonstrated in practice, and is, for reasons I have argued above, which you have cleverly avoided discussing, more sincere than that professed by many open-border advocates, just as Norway's generous program of foreign aid is of much more practical benefit to the third world than would high immigration be.
Posted by cacofonix, Friday, 12 October 2007 1:14:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wizofaus,

Putting humans ahead of the environment is sawing off the tree branch you are sitting on.

The Redefining Progress site has the environmental footprints of most countries as calculated in 2006. (Environmental footprint is a way of expressing total consumption in notional hectares of land.) The global average per capita footprint is about 22 hectares, already above the sustainable capacity per person, while the US footprint is 109. This leaves an average footprint of 18 hectares for the rest of the world. Now lets assume that all those 300 million high consuming Americans were not just consuming less, but raptured up into the sky, leaving their resources to be shared among the rest of the world. This would raise everyone else's footprint to 23 hectares. However, the global population is growing at 1.3% (Australia at 1.4%, meaning a doubling time of 49.5 years). Assuming no increase due to the bonanza, and ignoring further environmental deterioration, peak oil, the pumping dry of aquifers, etc., it would take only 20 years of population growth at 1.3% to bring the average footprint back down to 18.

It is undeniably true that you could accommodate more people if they all lived like battery chickens. Who do you think people would blame for the poverty if you got your way? You would have far less opposition to helping people in their own countries, and it is likely to be far more effective.

If you think our environment is well managed here have a look at the government's own State of the Environment reports. Or have a look at the link to the Senate hearings I posted earlier. It is clear from that that we are being lied to about the safety of recycled water, lied to about the survival of some endangered species, including a lungfish of so much scientific interest that 7,000 scientists signed a petition begging the Beattie government not to build a dam over its habitat, lied to about the capacity of SE Queensland to support more people. Those "donations" from the developers and corporate elite have a high price.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 12 October 2007 2:04:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(wizofaus, naughtily cheating the post limit...)

Divergence, no-one's suggesting that Australia's environmental management track-record is fantastic, but GHG emissions aside, it's still a great deal better than most 3rd world countries.
And no, of course there's no point trying to save human beings alive today without also ensuring the planet maintains its capacity to sustain humanity in 50, 100 or even 150 years' time.
However...there is good reason to believe that we are slowly "turning the corner" wrt to environmental concerns, and I think the next 100 years we'll see a lot of quite dramatic projects to put an end to destructive practices, and to restore the Earth's ecology to a point that we can be confident that it will sustain us for the foreseeable future. In that sense, we can afford a little bit more damage now if it helps bring more people out of abject poverty and suffering - more people that, as I said, have the potential then to become part of the solution, not part of the problem. It is going to be largely up to the wealthier, more industrialized nations, with high levels of scientific education and technological development, to lead the charge here, and the more people that are part of those nations, rather than living in countries where just daily subsistence far overrides any long-term concern for the environment, the better.

Against this, of course Australia has limited capacity to absorb more people, however it takes a rather dim view of our technological capability to suggest that we really can't fit any more in at all. I also think sheer economics will give a reasonably good indication when we're simply not capable to increase our population much further - a point we're not at yet, by all available measurements.
Posted by dnicholson, Friday, 12 October 2007 2:26:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dnicholson,

Its good to know that your response to the problems affecting the worlds environment is that you have a "hunch" that everything will be OK, so lets just go ahead and import more people and cause more destruction to the environment. In the next 100 years we will solve the environmental problems.
That is in my opinion an absolutely incompetent response to problems that have a sound basis in scientific fact.

Headline tomorrow in the SMH, "Environmental concerns disappear, Dnicholson has a hunch that everything will be OK"
Posted by ozzie, Friday, 12 October 2007 3:04:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wizofaus,

According to recent news reports, the IPCC is saying that the global warming situation is even worse than they had predicted. From the environmental footprints and per capita greenhouse gas emissions, an additional person in a developed country is many times the disaster for the planet of an additional person in a Third World country. I recall reading that an average person who moves from India to Mexico and adopts the average level of consumption there increases his
GHG emissions by 5 times, and by 20 times if he moves to the US. There are simply too many people to give them all a decent standard of living (see my previous posts). We face a lot of other problems, both globally and here in Australia, such as mass extinctions, the pumping dry of aquifers under some of the world's most fertile agricultural lands, and peak oil.

Where do you get your idea that we are "turning the corner" (apart from a few indicators like urban air quality)? If the likely extinction of the lungfish and the permanent water restrictions in our major cities don't convince you there is a problem, what would?

You also create a situation where people look to a personal solution via emigration rather than the hard work and risks involved in fixing their problems: high birthrates, low literacy, corrupt and incompetent politicians, cultural patterns that have become dysfunctional, etc.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 12 October 2007 3:23:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I also think sheer economics will give a reasonably good indication when we're simply not capable to increase our population much further - a point we're not at yet, by all available measurements."

Some might differ with you, and it also raises the question of why Australia should be increasing her population simply because it is technically feasible? Population growth is certainly not increasing the per capita prosperity, so why subject the population to such risk?

I share your optimism for technical fixes, but as ozzie points out it is unwise to assume the solutions will come and continue this high immigration lunacy on this basis.

I'm getting sick of the fat old immigration emperor dancing about starkers. The humour has long past and now it is just obscene.
Posted by Fester, Friday, 12 October 2007 5:55:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cacofonix: "Daggett asked me to post the following on is behalf"

Now James, you really are stretching it - not only do you apparently need to post under both your real and pseudonymous identities, but you also have a sock puppet to call in on your behalf when needs be. And it seems you've been at it for some time:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6261#91028

Dear oh dear. Suddenly you don't look very credible - or honourable - at all. It's really quite disappointing that whenever you scratch a population/immigration nut, there's a disingenuous racist just below the surface.

Very sad. Why don't you just argue honestly, as yourself, with solid and verifiable evidence?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 12 October 2007 10:46:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan,

Before you make accusations against others I think you should examine the evidence a little more closely.

At the start of the forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6261#90904

... the author James Sinnamon using the account name of 'daggett' identified himself, but neglected to identify himself in his next post at:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6261#91014

My guess is that this was an innocent mistake.

Then, because of that omission another poster RobbyH accused the author of concealing his identity at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6261#91027 :

"James, interesting that you choose to comment on your own article but using a nom de plume, Daggett."

As the author had already identified himself, I had assumed that RobbyH was objecting to the author merely commenting on his own article. This caused me to naively ask of RobbyH:

"Could you please explain what is wrong with authors responding to comments made by others about their own articles?".

So, could you please explain what was wrong with that?

Did you read the post immediately below? It was from OLO editor Susan Prior:

"James has no need to explain. He has quite clearly identified himself as the author if you look at his first comment."

Since I opened an account on OLO on 22 July I have posted all of 15 comments. On about two occasions including yesterday afternoon, I have posted on behalf of 'daggett' and have openly acknowledged having done so.

Daggett asked me to post on his behalf because of your damaging allegation that he had anonymously commented on this author's article. Because of the limits on OLO he would not have been able to post until later this morning.

He has politely demonstrated to you that he was not attempted to conceal his identity, but you have chosen to ignore his arguments and instead clutch at another imaginary straw in an attempt to make the mud stick.

I note also that you have, as is typical of immigration advocates, as daggett has noted, resorted to the labelling of your opponents as 'racist' in order to avoid any discussion of the substance of their arguments.
Posted by cacofonix, Saturday, 13 October 2007 1:55:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’ll answer that for Scotty, Wizofaus.

I take exception to your claim that skin colour does not make a country great. Take a look at every dysfunctional country in Africa, Asia, or the Middle East, and ask yourself it white people would not have done a lot better. You could take the entire population of Afghanistan and swap it with the entire population of Australia, and in 100 years, Afghanistan would be a productive and stable country and Australia would be another dysfunctional third world cesspit riven with tribalism, extreme poverty, and war.

The problem as I see it, is that the dumb people on this planet are breeding a lot faster than the smart people. In addition, the dumb people appear to be getting more successful in getting the smart people to finance them. Just look at the aborigines. I would love to believe that “all men are equal”, but such an unrealistic appraisal of human intelligence can only be maintained by blaming white people for the dysfunctional societies that are the product of cultures created by races who are not very bright.

Get it through your head that some ethnicities are collectively not real bright and consequently they just happen to be a pain in the butt everywhere they go. Be it the USA, Africa, the Middle East,or the Caribbean, wherever these some ethnicities infest is a great place to keep away from. Bringing such people to Australia is simply going to repeat the same mistakes that made so many other places uninhabitable for civilised society.

If you want to bring people into this country who are collectively renowned for their high levels of criminal activity and welfare dependency, then you had better start figuring out which hospital, school, and scientific research budgets you wish to trim to finance the construction of more dole offices and prisons.

What we see from the author of this article, is the usual “blame the whites for everything” philosophy so popular among the inspirational nouveaux wannabees who never tire of attacking their own successful culture and making excuses for every failed one.
Posted by redneck, Saturday, 13 October 2007 5:20:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck,
Your last post would be offensice to the majority of Australians. However I believe what you say is probably close to the truth. If you look around the world, the people's who are cooperative, restrained, and less violent tend to have the more developed countries. These ar ethe countries that now everyone is trying to migrate to. The USA, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Norway, France etc. All advanced western white countries. No one is trying to migrate to China, India, Turkey, Greece etc etc. These countries are all dominated by greed, corruption, disorganisation and fighting.
I've been interested in this subject for a few years now. There is now a new book by a Prof of economics who believes that England was the first country to industrialize because its population had evolved to live in such an economy, where it was an advantage to work, save and be cooperative.
The more I look around, I see that those people from well off countries are quiet, considered, and less prone to emotional outburts. A guy in my class at Uni from Nepal ( doing his degree courtesy of the Aust taxpayers) told me how much he liked Australia because here when we have an argument we generally solve things without violence. He stated back home when you have an argument you kill the other person, and that this was common.
To believe that all people's on the planet are equal is just a lie. I mean no one any harm, but I believe as a general rule people must learn to live in their own countries and develop them for their own good, instead of bludging of other countries.
Posted by ozzie, Saturday, 13 October 2007 9:36:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck

What makes this country great is the contribution and sacrifice of countless forebears from many ethnic origins. To suggest that it is a result of skin colour is simple ignorance. The first humans were racially identical, and our physical differences are more a consequence of geography. Similarly, the civilisation we enjoy in Australia is more a consequence of the good fortune of geography, in allowing the mixing of technologies and ideas of many cultures. And a simple knowledge of European history would reveal the great sacrifice of many to create freedoms we all enjoy today. It therefore seems a contradiction and a great insult to your forebears for you to suggest that all we enjoy today is the result of skin colour.
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 13 October 2007 10:21:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck, so you accept then that 1500 years ago, when the “white” people of Europe were living in the Dark Ages, while the Muslim, Chinese and Native American people enjoyed stable, peaceful, prosperous civilisations, that whites were then “less intelligent”? Even in the 20th century I’ll think you’ll find far more violence and genocide has been instigated by whites (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, Milosevic, etc.) than anyone else.

Fester, I don’t agree with increasing Australia’s population just because it is technically feasible. I would be more than happy to see the skilled-migrant worker program scaled down considerably, at least until we water availability, housing affordability and infrastructure development (especially public transport) in a far better state.

Ozzie, when did I use the word “hunch”? The evidence of a gathering momentum of recognition among powers-that-be that environmental degradation can’t continue on much longer is pretty good, although there’s no question it has been frustratingly slow and a rather late arrival.

Anyway, what alternative is there? Either industrial nations do make a serious efforts to turn our technological capability towards environmental sustainability, or we continue to de-forest, over-fish, pollute, and over-heat the planet until it can no longer sustain us, and human progress will be sent back thousands of years, our population reduced to a fraction of what it is now. The reality, as far as long term global sustainability goes, is that whether millions are living amidst poverty and warfare in Africa, or are resettled in prosperous technologically advanced countries is not really going to make a huge difference in the scheme of things, but it certainly makes the lives of those millions better. Further, we all already do all sorts of things that increase our ecological footprint – we buy bigger cars, bigger houses, bigger TVs, bigger air conditioners, drive more, fly more…so to argue against bringing 3rd world citizens to our shores because it will increase the total environmental harm done to the planet is a bit rich.
Posted by wizofaus, Saturday, 13 October 2007 12:33:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's quite right, Wizofaus. Many civilised empires rose and fell in Asia and the middle east while caucasians were beating each other with stone tools.

Comforting as it would be to believe that whites are superior, the fact is that Asians and arabs are just as capable and intelligent. We are simply fortunate to live in an era which has delivered white supremacy - but it's on the wane. This century belongs to Asia, and we'd better get used to it.

However, I think the case for African equality is closed. Blacks simply do not have the capacity for running civilised societies that other racial groups do. Countries like Sierra Leone, Ethiopia and Sudan are prime examples of the type of society Africans create when left to their own devices. And, as if to prove the point, we have Zimbabwe and South Africa, both of which were prosperous under white rule, but have declined hugely under black governments.

Despite the horrors of apartheid, at least it allowed some South Africans to live without fear of crime and violence. Now, no-one has that luxury. And can you imagine a white president denying the existence of HIV and recommending garlic as a cure for AIDS?
Posted by Sancho, Saturday, 13 October 2007 12:55:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho, I agree that is easy to look at sub-Saharan Africa and conclude that there might be some genetic trait among the indigeneous population there that works against running a modern nation state. But to suggest it's lack of "intelligence" is not supportable - there's no shortage of highly intelligent black people, even by Western cultural standards, and if measured by the standards of hunter/gather tribes, whites must seem rather dimwitted in comparison (see chapter 1 of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs & Steel). There does seem to be consistent theme of corruption running through governments in most African nations - but the same occurs in many Latin American nations, where the population is predominantly Caucasian, mixed with genes from native peoples that were previously capable of highly sophisticated civilisations. On top of all this is the fact that genetic variation among sub-Saharan African tribes is far far greater than the genetic variation among the rest of humanity (appearances are deceptive!). So the case for it being a genetic issue is, at best, tenuous. Even it could be shown to be so, I'm not sure it helps inform anyone as to what the best solution is.
Posted by wizofaus, Saturday, 13 October 2007 1:42:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I consider some views that have been put on this forum which seem to be overtly racist, and it is necessary for me to take my distance from those views.

Having said that, I would hasten to add that I consider the motives who have expressed those opinions on this forum are still more honest than those who have expressed 'anti-racist' views. In reality, 'racism', to some degree, exists in virtually human being on the planet. Anyone in the 'anti-racist' camp who insists that, unlike the Reverend Jesse Jackson, they would remain on the same side of the road as a group of black youths is not being honest.

I think all races and cultural groups including Anglo-Celtic Australians, who once comprised the majority of this country, have both good and bad characteristics. Even the attainment of literacy by one group does not make that group more intelligent than another.

As illustrations:

* It was observed that Aboriginals were better able to learn English than the original settlers of this country were able to learn their language.

* Pastoralists on Cape York have attested that it was only local Aboriginals who far better understood the local land than they who saved their enterprises from ruin.

Aboriginals had maintained the sort of society for tens of thousands of years that was in harmony with its ecology, unlike modern industrialised society, which is now stands on the brink of catastrophic collapse after barely 200 years. I would add that many trapped in the rat race of 21st century Australia would, if given the choice, gladly exchange that for the lifestyle of Aboriginals and other hunter-gatherers who were able to live largely carefree existences requiring far fewer hours of work in their typical day.

If we don't change course soon our descendents will be very lucky if they can re-establish the lifestyle previously enjoyed by Aboriginals.

So, I am with Ronald Wright, Jared Diamond and Richard Heinberg (http://www.primitivism.com/primitivist-critique.htm) in my view that the supposed progress of humankind is an illusion. Only when we ...(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 13 October 2007 2:34:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuedfromabove)... can learn to properly look after our natural environment, as well as hold on to some of the technological advances gained since our ancestors ended their hunter-gatherer lifestyles, can we truly claim to have progressed.

Whilst other posters can point to grave shortcomings in many African societies, I still think it needs to be acknowledged that colonialists, particularly British colonialists, by having destroyed earlier more sustainable forms of society in those countries, have set in motion the chain reaction in countries like Zimbabwe now unfolding before our eyes.

Another relatively sustainable society which was destroyed by the British colonialists was that of rural pre-industrial England. Those who lived comfortable existences on what they thought was their own land were driven off the land as a consequence of land enclosure laws. This was in order to drive them to work in the dark Satanic mills as Dickens later described and coal mines. Many ended up in prison and were transported to this country as convicts, so the treatment of many of this country's original Anglo-Celtic settlers that many on this forum now consider a blight on the face of this planet to be eradicated as soon as possible through Jennifer Clarke's program of ethnic replacement, was no better than the treatment of Australian Aboriginals.

The open-border solution to the mess largely created by colonialism must be rejected on two grounds:

1. The current inhabitants of this country are entitled to maintain a decent standard of life that is in harmony with their natural environment, as well as their cultural predominance,

2. Mass immigration will, at best, only help an insignificant fraction of the people in the Third World, mostly from those societies' elites. For the rest left behind it will only make matters worse as larger numbers of people in industrialised nations inevitably draw even more of the earth's natural resources to maintain their lifestyles. An immigration program that, instead, permitted a significant proportion of people from the Third World to settle in industrialised nations would have immediate catastrophic effects for all the world's population, both rich and poor alike.
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 13 October 2007 2:34:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wizofaus “who object to immigration on the grounds that it dilutes our European heritage etc., including "Dresedener" who you appear to agree with”

Your tinted interpretation of Dresedener’s post differs from mine. I drew the obvious conclusion that, recognizing that we live in a world of “Pick and Choose”, whoever was allowed to migrate to Australia should be first seen as someone whose contribution should be sought by Australia.

As one who had to wait to be “chosen”, under the recognition of demand for given qualifications / skills, required back in the 1970/80’s, I can assure you I have no problem with anyone from any ethnic background, who can pass the migrant muster tests, contributing to Australian community.

As for “The reality is that our Anglo heritage will eventually get diluted away, whether people object to it or not.”

That “anglo” was an “anglo-saxon” heritage, which also represented a fair minority of roman and celtic origins.

The REAL reality is “this anglo heritage”, like the original “Anglo heritage” in UK, is (for the past 3000 years or so), a constantly changing feast.

All original aspects, be they “Anglo”, Arab, African, Asian or indigenous will get “diluted”, as a single Australian cultural mix continues to evolve and change.

It is a bit like Brazil, where the nuts come from (of which you seem to be an example, resplendent) and of which it is also said “there are a lot of coffee coloured people”.

So, bring it all on, we are, after all, a single nation, not just a bunch of ethnic "tribes".

And just be thankful that we are building on the work-ethic and attitudes of protestant Englishmen, rather than the siesta inclined southern Europeans who ravaged South America, the Belgians who tormented their African dominions, the Germans (who largely missed grabbing their “place in the sun”) or the Indonesians who demonstrated their capacity for colonial statemanship in East Timor.

Scotty “All of Africa needs to be re-colonised to make it stable again.”

I would agree with that,

Rainiers, responding to Scotty, such a boofhead.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 13 October 2007 2:51:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
daggett asked me to post this:

CJ Morgan,

Regarding the quote from Gore Vidal posted originally to http://www.immigrationcontrol.org/b_board.htm and subsequently to http://www.opendemocracy.net/people-migrationeurope/article_1193.jsp in the article "The Folly of mass immigration" by Anthony Browne of 1 May 2005:

I received the following in an e-mail from a maintainer of the Irish web site http://www.immigrationcontrol.org :

"... The newspaper cutting from which that came was an article by Mary Ellen Synon who shared the platform with Gore Vidal when he spoke to the Politics Society in Trinity College Dublin some time in 1999. Unfortunately I have no date on the cutting. It was the Sunday Independent, an Irish paper, and the speech was the previous Monday. If I can track the date I will but it would probably be difficult."

If you like you can follow this up further for yourself by contacting the maintainer of the web site.

Now how about ceasing your resort to personal attacks and the dragging of red herrings across the trail and getting on with discussing the substantial issues?
Posted by cacofonix, Saturday, 13 October 2007 3:40:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dagget/cacofonix/James Sinnamon or whoever you are today - frankly, I don't believe you, but if you want to have multiple identities on this forum in order to circumvent the posting limits or escape being identified with your dog-whistling, that's your funeral, I guess.

Back to Vidal's supposed speech: you said "Certainly the part of his speech, excluding specific mention of Norway can be found in this Guardian Weekly articles of 2 January 2000 at http://www.guardian.co.uk/2000/article/0,,196650,00.html". Not only no mention of Norway, but neither of immigration nor Bangladeshis. Now you claim that the article was by "Mary Ellen Synon" rather than Gore Vidal, and that it remains conveniently untraceable. How surprising.

At any rate, I've already told you what I think of it above (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96174), but you haven't deigned to respond, apparently preferring to play identity games instead.

daggett: "I consider the motives who have expressed those [racist] opinions on this forum are still more honest than those who have expressed 'anti-racist' views". I suppose the overtly racist views of members of your cohorts like redneck, Col Rouge (does that make two rednecks?), Scotty, Sancho et al may have the "honest" motivation of maintaining "white" supremacy, but that makes them no less odious.

That you are happy to not only dog-whistle such a pack of baying hounds, but also to defend them despite your attempt to distance yourself from their drivel, supports my contention that your identity games are chiefly designed to allow you to promote racist ideology.

As I've intimated, I generally support the limitation of immigration to Australia on ecological grounds, but it seems to me that the consideration of so-called 'race' in that issue is counterproductive, to say the least.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 13 October 2007 5:35:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan “I suppose the overtly racist views of members of your cohorts like redneck, Col Rouge (does that make two rednecks?),”

There must be pixies at the end of your garden, who you like to play with, if you can interpret anything which I have written as “racist” in any way.

“Meritorious selection” holds no fealty to racism, although its deployment might be misinterpreted by the innately limited and used as the rally cry for racism by those incapable of higher thought, as we see here.

“That you are happy to not only dog-whistle such a pack of baying hounds,”

Oh such hyperbole, doubtless drafted as you deployed your inherent ability to find truffles.

To which I would say: better to run with the dogs than be herded with the hogs
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 13 October 2007 6:15:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wizofaus. To claim that white people are more murderous than other races, is an act of racism. I can say something like that, because I am a racist. But you can not say it, because you are supposed to be anti racist.

Orwell was right. Pseudo intellectuals are unable to fathom the obvious contradictions in their own arguments.

Every single civilisation which has ever existed, Wizofaust, came into being by virtue of its military might. Wars of conquest, genocide, and slavery are features of all civilisations, not just white ones.

European civilisation fell in 400 AD with the fall of Rome, and what makes you think it could not happen again? The Roman rulers and intellectuals became so disinterested in the welfare of their own farmers and workers (who had always manned the Roman legions) that their own people saw no reason to fight for their own state’s survival. Nonplussed, the Roman patricians simply invited in the barbarians, with whom they “outsourced” the defence of their own realm. These barbarians became the very enemies who eventually destroyed Rome from inside. Sound familiar?

Those who fail to learn from history…….

One of the reasons why European civilisation took so long to get back on its feet was because it was because from 400AD to 1300 AD, Europe was besieged from the North, South, and East, by barbarians, and there was no European civilisation strong enough to defend Europe by counter attacking. Those barbarians included Muslims, who first wiped out the Celtic civilisation in Spain, and who then attacked France in 800 AD (before being stopped by Charles Martel.) They also invaded Italy, and twice reached the gates of Vienna, after destroying Constantinople.

Now they are besieging Cronulla.

According to ex Det. Sergeant Tim Priest, 45% of the inmates in French jails are Muslims, even though they are only 6% of the total French population. To bring people into this country that are hostile to our civilisation, very prone to welfare dependency and criminal behaviour, will eventually bankrupt this state. It will also destroy our once strong social cohesion, with catastrophic results.
Posted by redneck, Saturday, 13 October 2007 6:43:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've tried to explain the Jennifer Clarke mindset here:

http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-does-left-treat-us-differently.html
Posted by Mark Richardson, Saturday, 13 October 2007 6:54:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ick!! what a lot of choices here.

Crouge: "Dearest Margaret Thatcher"!! Why didn't you just run your fingernails down a blackboard?

Mr Daggett or what ever ID. you have today; I've changed my mind. I don't support you.

__________________________

Today I went back to the earliest posts I could find on OLO.

As a human race we have ALWAYS had a go at different races/cultures; we did not have this format to espouse our views though.
It is easier now to monitor the opinions of us folk.

Within the life of this site, the focus has clearly shifted to the Islam/migrant/refugee 'problem'.(Another compelling trend: fundamental Christianity which is not so much being adopted, as pushed strongly as the answer to all perceived 'evil').

What is different about this situation is that it is State (of Australia) sanctioned, and even covertly encouraged! Don't even attempt to tell me that this intolerance and mistrust has NOT been driven by the Howard Government years. IT HAS!

Blind Freddy can't miss the trend to clear and open vilification of specific races.

It is far more civil of me to put this in the manner in which I have, rather than the way I would like to..

It was courageous in this current environment for Jennifer Clarke to attempt to convince some of the privilege of the white race over their darker fellow's. Courageous but futile.

However; I'm damn glad that she tried. She has the right to do so; as do I.
Posted by Ginx, Saturday, 13 October 2007 8:02:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Except redneck I never said white races are more murderous than other races - just that in the 20th century, they were responsible for more violence and genocide than other races, without any attempt to attribute this to a innate/genetic tendency.

However, I do agree it would be foolish to suppose that there were not a genetic component to traits such as violence, intelligence, civility etc. etc. While some might classify even that very suggestion as "racism", it's certainly not the definition I use.
OTOH, it is also clear that the expression of these traits is strongly determined by cultural and environmental influences - the history of any fairly well-defined ethnic grouping will show periods of violence, periods of high culture and scientific development, periods of religious fundamentalism, you name it - even though the genes haven't changed once.

Of course the dominance of Western civilisation will not last indefinitely. The rise of China and India is an unstoppable force, and it would be highly surprising if by the end of my life (I'm hoping to last another 50 years) European-derived cultures held anything like the economic and socio-political sway they do now. Whether or not Australia accept refugees from Africa is going to make precisely zero difference to this.

Muslim immigration and integration is an entire discussion in itself, but here it is very much the *culture* of extreme Islamic beliefs that concerns me, not at all the genetic/racial makeup of those that hold those beliefs. I would much rather have an Iraqi family with moderate Islamic beliefs living next door than an Anglo-saxon with extreme Islamic beliefs.
Posted by dnicholson, Saturday, 13 October 2007 8:12:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister

‘The majority of refugees are illiterate (even in their own language…’The huge problems of crime and unemployment in South Africa are a large part due to the huge influx (about 8m) of unemployable refugees from other ’

The majority of African refugees have spent many years in refugee camps, without access to education. They are not illiterate in their own language. They are eager to learn English and new skills. I’ve taught them and they are a delight to teach. If only white students were as eager as them.

You can not relate the issues of South Africa to issues in Australia.

You are wrong when you state that crime and unemployment are due to refugees from other countries. The first wave of refugees to South Africa were white refugees arriving from Zimbabwe during the 70s. Johannesburg has been a dangerous place to live in long before the second wave of refugees arriving from Zimbabwe, largely due to famine.

Fester

‘The UK has pursued similar policy for decades, routinely dismissing any criticism as racist. Of late the problems have become too substantial to ignore. How long will it be before people start facing the reality here?’

The UK did not have similar polices. They had policies of colonial residence being allowed residence to the UK. They just didn’t expect such large numbers of non-white colonials taking up the offer.

Mark Richardson

‘It's noteworthy that the most egalitarian nations are generally the most homogeneous, e.g. Norway and Japan.’

Norway and Japan do not have homogenous populations. Nor are they egalitarian. Their Indigenous populations have experienced incredible discrimination, much like Australia’s Indigenous populations. From an Indigenous perspective, I wonder if they felt their experiences were ‘egalitarian’.
Posted by Liz, Saturday, 13 October 2007 10:21:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Even in the 20th century I’ll think you’ll find far more violence and genocide has been instigated by whites (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, Milosevic, etc.) than anyone else."

Wizofaus, I think you might find that Mao Zedong killed more than the combined total of those you mention; seventy million human beings is what I have read. But it is surreal to think that race might be considered as a determinant of a murderer, let alone a relevant factor in building a utopia.

Racism is a silly diversion which Jennifer Clarke seems sidetracked by. The idea that Australia needs more people, or how accepting immigrants might correct the distribution of wealth in the world seem to be accepted without question.

There is scant evidence that immigration provides any net per capita economic benefit for Australians, and the deterioration in housing affordability, services and infrastructure, at a time when Australia is riding a resources boom, would suggest that immigration is a strong driver of inequality.

So much for immigration correcting the balance. And the few making great profits at the expense of all Australians are being amply veiled from scrutiny by racist prattle. Without this diversion, they might have to answer the unanswerable and justify the unjustifiable.
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 13 October 2007 10:44:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge: "There must be pixies at the end of your garden, who you like to play with, if you can interpret anything which I have written as “racist” in any way."

I suppose that supporting the "re-colonisation" of Africa mightn't necessarily be racist, but this certainly is:

"The majority of Australians are from “British” ancestral stock. That is where the inventiveness and innovation comes from.

So, until the Australian gene pool is diluted to the point where those inherited inventive traits are lost among the mass of inferior emulator and copyists traits, Australia will continue to fair above average in the innovation stakes."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6228#90147

Admittedly Col is cleverer than most of his cohorts here in concealing his racism with weasel words, but like the rest of them it comes bubbling to the surface every now and again, like noxious gas in a sewage pond.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 13 October 2007 11:00:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I migrated from The Netherlands I was perplexed as to how behind Australians were, at least by some 25-years it appeared to me.

My view is, that Australians are probably the dumbest people on earth! They do not even know what their true nationality is.
They pretend to know it all, yet they let themselves being conned by their politicians, time and again.
How on earth can anyone consider Australians to be smart if they allow a prime minister to unconstitutionally authorise a murderous invasion and in the process have mass-murder committed in another country and the Court even block any attempt to hold him accountable, but if you park incorrectly then they are willing to send to jail, if you don’t pay!

Look how John Howard unconstitutionally rob Aboriginals of their rights, and simply he merely has to make any excuse, and the masses will accept it rather then questioning his conduct.
Now, he claims to hold a referendum to change the Preamble of the Constitution to recognise Aboriginals, where the Preamble is not at all part of the Constitution, and so no referendum can alter the preamble in that regard.

When I grew up in The Netherlands it was very much an issue that the coloured people were living together in a house and then saved money to purchase it (In The Netherlands home ownership is not what one normally go for) and it was made clear that those blacks were buying up property after property and renting them out and making good money.
As such, from my experiences it is not that the whites are smarter then the black, but rather that it depends on the circumstances available to people.
Look at Iran, they have a constitutional council where legislation is first checked if it is constitutionally sound, where as in Australia we have legislation passed and applied regardless how unconstitutionally it might be and then the poor lacking monies have no way to challenge it because the way the Court operate! that is dumb!

Intelligence has nothing to do with the colour of the skin!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Sunday, 14 October 2007 1:27:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are you Wizofaust, dnicholson?

If any person makes a negative generalisation about a race, (ie, “aborigines are lazy”) then that person is making a racist statement, regardless of whether they are involving genetics in their prejudgement. If you consider yourself to be anti racist, you can not denounce others for their racism, and then engage in that behaviour yourself, whenever it suits you.

Thank you for admitting that genetics may indeed explain the violent behaviour endemic in some ethnicities. It is a rare thing for anyone with your ideals to ever admit that. I would agree with you that cultural values are more important than genetics in understanding the behaviour of most people. But if you import people into this country who’s genetics have bequeathed a lack of intellect and a lack of self control, what makes you think that their behaviour will be guided by white cultural values? Is it not a lot more likely that they will adopt the violent and anti authority culture of their own people?

Llisten to the cultural values being endorsed by black rap music, which includes an approval of violence, hatred of whites, disrespect for authority, misogyny, and an advocacy of illegal drug abuse, then cross connect that with the general behaviour of blacks in every country in the world. That is a better explanation for universal black dysfunction, than the “blame whitey for everything” ideology so popular with the nouveaux pseudo intellectual wannabees.

As for stating that white civilisation will not last forever, that is quite possible. But since the human race has made more progress in the last 200 years under white guidance than it has in the last 200,000 years, I don’t see any benefit to the human race in hurrying its demise. Whichever civilisation replaces white civilisation may not be too enamoured of human rights at all. The Asians and the Muslims are hardly noted for their tolerance of minorities. Before you rejoice in the destruction of white civilisation, you had better figure out what it may mean to yourself and your family if that event ever occurs
Posted by redneck, Sunday, 14 October 2007 7:30:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
redneck,

Thank you redneck for having drawn our attention to the double standards evident on this forum.

On the one hand, an alleged 'racist' daggett, is accused, without basis, of having masqueraded as 'cacofonix' (myself) and is attacked remorselessly on the basis of that allegation, whilst the substance of his arguments have neither been acknowleged nor responded to.

On the other hand another contributor, who lies in the 'anti-racist' camp has openly acknowleged having done what daggett is accused of having done, but nothing is said.

----

Whilst, no doubt, this will continue to escape the notice of the 'anti-racist' crusaders(1), daggett has, in fact, argued against the view of redneck, with whom he is allegedly in collusion, that "the human race has made more progress in the last 200 years under white guidance than it has in the last 200,000"

He argued against this view at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96279

Footnotes

1. Not a PC term I realise, but I couldn't come up with any other which conveyed the same meaning.
Posted by cacofonix, Sunday, 14 October 2007 8:28:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's interesting that Liz is so bound up in the mental concept of "oppressed indigines" that she immediately denied that Japan and Norway could be either ethnically homogeneous or egalitarian because of the existence in these countries of small indigenous populations.

In fact, there are about 50,000 Ainu in Japan out of a population of 125,000,000. This means that Japan really is one of the more ethnically homogeneous of nations. The Japanese have deliberately pursued a policy of supporting a large middle class for the purposes of national unity, so it is one of the more egalitarian nations in this respect (i.e. in terms of wealth differential).

Whilst it would be a positive thing for the Ainu to keep themselves going as a distinct people, you can't define Japanese society around their existence.
Posted by Mark Richardson, Sunday, 14 October 2007 9:18:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan, I have no interest in "maintaining "white" supremacy". I merely want to maintain a free, open society which keeps violence, crime, and segregation to a minimum. If race is an obvious factor in achieving that goal, it must be addressed.

I am a reluctant racist. It has only been my extensive experience with Africans which overturned my otherwise conventional left-wing views on refugees, and I hold no such reservations regarding Asian or moderate-religious middle-eastern immigrants.
Posted by Sancho, Sunday, 14 October 2007 11:15:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck, yes, wizofaus = dnicholson, and yes I'm blatantly cheating the posting limits. I expect I'll be told off soon enough...

I'm not sure racism is as simple as you suggest - if I state that black Africans are more likely to suffer from sickle-cell anemia, have black curly hair, and darkened skin pigmentation, does that make me a racist? I think at least some sort of value judgment needs to be involved - such as "lazy" or "unintelligent". Further, I don't believe I criticised you for being racist, merely pointed out that there doesn't seem to be much evidence to support some of your generalisations. I'd see an "anti-racist" as someone who claimed that any form of racial generalisation was always wrong, no matter how much the evidence supported it.

As far the possibility of Western Civilisations, and the values it has fought hard for, being subsumed by a rising Chinese or Muslim movement that has yet to recognise the importance of those values concerns me very much. It is exactly because of this that I believe we need to allow immigration, to avoid separationist attitudes festering to a point that outright military invasion becomes inevitable. Of course, if there were evidence that there existed a genetic factor among certain ethnicities that meant prevented them adopting modern Western liberal ideals of freedom and equality then perhaps we would have little choice but to enforce separation and protect ourselves with as much military might as we could muster - but fortunately I see no such evidence. Plenty of Muslim and Chinese commentators have argued strongly for adoption of such ideals - and OTOH, what we do see, especially among the Christian far-right in the U.S., considerable evidence of "whites" having difficulties embracing modern liberal ideas.
Posted by wizofaus, Sunday, 14 October 2007 1:21:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan,

It was revealing to review your 'contributions' to this discussion:

1. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#95870)

Dresdener attacked as:

(i) a racist and
(ii) a dog whistler.

You also corrected Dresdener's mistake in regard to Kosovo, but failed to address any other substantial points raised in Dresdener's posts.

With 250 words unused in your post, Dresdener's reference to my quoting of Gore Vidal, which you have since realised also to have been an instance of 'dog whistling', failed to draw a response.

2. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#95947)

Personal attacks against Col Rouge and Dresdener. Still no response to Gore Vidal's 'dog whistling'.

3. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96005)

More personal attacks on Dresdener for:

(i) being a racist,
(ii) being a dog whistler,
(iii) apparently not having read or not understood some books that you had previously recommended to him, and
(iv) having been mistaken about the history of Kosovo (again).

Avoidance of response to Gore Vidal's words.

4. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96059)

Finally, after being directly challenged by myself, a response (illogical and evasive in my opinion) to Gore Vidal's argument.

5. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96059)

A personal attack against MichaelK.

6. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96174)

(i) a personal attack against myself for alleged intellectual dishonesty and fraud, and
(ii) a further evasion of Gore Vidal's argument.

7. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96234)

More personal attacks against myself including an unfounded allegation that I had been masquerading as cacofonix and using that account for dishonest purposes.

8. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96293)

(i) rejection of evidence of the veracity of Gore Vidal's words? (Do you really think I care whether you accept their veracity or not?),
(ii) more personal attacks against myself, and
(iii) that you "generally support the limitation of immigration to Australia on ecological grounds"

9. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96326)

Another personal attack on Col Rouge comprising an expose of apparently racist views elsewhere on OLO.

So, have I misssed anything CJ Morgan?

All I could find in your nine posts so far, apart from personal attacks, appears to be:

1. your correction of Dresdener's mistake concerning the history of Kosovo,

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 14 October 2007 5:58:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuedfromabove)

2. a long tortuous drawn out attempt to ignore, and then to dismiss, a straightforward articulation of the case against unrestricted immigration by one of America's greatest living intellects, and

3. that you are in, in fact, after all, in favour of limiting immigration in some unspecified way.

Not really much substance, it would seem. I wonder what would have sustained you in this discussion if cacofonix had not made a post openly on my behalf?

Now why don't you, for your part, see if you can similarly summarise my own substantive contributions to this forum in less than 59 words.

As I wrote before, you fit the mould of immigration advocates who are practised at the use of personal attacks, particularly the labeling of their opponents as racist in order to avoid discussion the substance of the issues and to end discussion.
---

On Norway and Bangladesh: why not? Perhaps Gore Vidal could have used other countries to illustrate his point, but I don't see how that would have fundamentally changed anything.

---

One last thing, CJ Morgan, would you care to quantify your "support the limitation of immigration to Australia on ecological grounds"?

Do you know that John Howard initially dropped annual immigration figures to 68,000 because of the unpopularity of Labor's high immigration program? However, he has since ramped it up all the way to 300,000 (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/backscratching-at-a-national-level/2007/06/12/1181414298095.html) notwithstanding his posturing over the Tampa crisis in 2001.

Now do you happen to believe that level of immigration into a country running out of water is ecologically sustainable? Do you happen to believe that the Queensland Government's plan to cram another 1.1 million into South East Queensland by 2026 is ecologically sustainable?

If you don't, then what do you intend to do about it?

---

wizofaus,

I was not meaning to judge you for your use of a second account. It's understandable, why some would choose to do so. Unlike some other forum users, I have no need to clutch at these sorts of straws to divert attention from the weakness of my own case.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 14 October 2007 5:59:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Glad to see I've gotten up your nose, James/daggett/cacofonix or whoever you are today. I'm increasingly convinced that you're little more than a clever racist (or three} masquerading as an anvironmentalist. That you've spent so much effort referring to my posts in this thread - without acknowledging the post in which I refuted the content of the supposed Vidal quote - is perhaps indicative that I'm on to your essential mendacity.

daggett/cacofonix/James Sinnamon: "So, have I misssed anything CJ Morgan?"

Er yes, how about this one way back in the thread where I said:

"If you were really interested in exploring a hypothetical situation where large numbers of Bangladeshis might seek refuge in a Western society, I'd suggest that Britain would be a better example than Norway. After all, there was never a Norse Raj that was part of a worldwide Norwegian Empire, the exploitation of which was directly responsible for the relative wealth of the Empire's ruling country - as was the case with Britain and its former Subcontinental dominions.

Indeed, it could be argued that the relatively large numbers of Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Africans and West Indians who have migrated to Britain in recent decades to share in its wealth are really just its colonial chickens coming home to roost. Culturally uncomfortable perhaps in the short term, but ultimately economically and morally just." [http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96174]

Somehow you missed that one in your litany of being 'he who protesteth too much, methinks'.

"One last thing, CJ Morgan, would you care to quantify your 'support the limitation of immigration to Australia on ecological grounds'?"

Well actually no, my triumvirate antagonist. I don't have enough information, and neither do you (three, at least). All I'm saying is that I'd like to see a sensible debate about the issue without the intrusion of the racist element that you are evidently happy to summon to your cause.

And I'd like to see it done honestly, rather than via the subterfuge that you evidently prefer.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 14 October 2007 7:49:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apparently there was a major incident at highpoint shopping centre yesterday involving many youths ( reports of around 70, with police being called in from around 6 police stations in the area, and at least 15 police cars in attendance). According to CH 9 many of them were African in appearance. Searching the internet I can hardly find much information on this. Nothing at all on the ABC. And nowhere is it mentioned about their race. I'm really tired of what I believe is a PC cover up.
Posted by knopfler, Sunday, 14 October 2007 9:14:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Richardson

You don't know what I'm bound up on, so don't speak for me.

I'll state again that you are wrong on Japan and Norway. Neither are homogenous societies. Both countries did what Australia did and murdered many of their Indigenous populations. Call it being 'bound up' or not, that's just what happened.

And the Indigenous of these countries would, I imagine, not perceive the societies they live in as egalitarian, nor homogenous.
Posted by Liz, Sunday, 14 October 2007 9:38:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good post, Wizofaust.

Inferring negative value judgements on a race of people by claiming that they are the modern world’s premier murderers is racism. Saying that blacks have darker skin pigmentation or are prone to sickle cell anaemia is not a negative value judgement, and is not racism.

You did not submit any statement clearly identifying you are an anti racist, it is just that that is the default position typically held by people with your philosophy. My perception is that ‘anti racists” tend to be very racist towards the whites, and I get my kicks pointing this out to them when they slip up.

My position is that Separatism and civil war is an inevitable consequence of mixing up different cultures which have diametrically opposed value systems. A minority with very different values to the majority may gain some degree of acceptance and tolerance, provided that it keep those cultural practices which are unacceptable to the majority out of sight, and provided that the minority police itself to weed out fanatics who pose a threat to the majority. But all that becomes irrelevant if political control swings to the minority through birthrate differentials or immigration. Sooner or later, the societal divide becomes an unbridgeable chasm, as the population demographics reach critical mass.

Multiculturalism is like Socialism. How many times does it have to fail before its adherents admit that something is wrong with the whole concept? Inviting your enemies to cross your moat and enter your keep just to show them how much you like them, may not be a good idea.

If any ethnic group has a genetic predisposition to violence, criminal behaviour, and welfare dependency, then they will never be accepted by the majority who are paying for their upkeep, and who are providing victims for the ethnic minority to prey upon.

Your metaphor about Christian fundamentalists is a good one. If any country was full of Christian fundamentalists who wanted to turn my country into a fundamentalist Christian republic, I would oppose their immigration into this country, as I already oppose Muslim immigration.
Posted by redneck, Sunday, 14 October 2007 9:40:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz,

I agree with Mark.

Japan is one of the most homogeneous countries on the planet. I've been there and you rarely see someone who is not Japanese. Wikipaedia also states that it is linguistically and culturally homogeneous. Norway was until recently very homogeneous. Sadly that is changing quickly and they are having many problems with rising crime rates. In Norway the anti-immigration party now leads the polls.

To be precise, no country is homogeneous unless 100% of inhabitants are the same. However in comparison to most other developed countries Japan and Norway are very homogeneous.
Posted by knopfler, Sunday, 14 October 2007 10:05:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(on daggett's behalf):

CJ Morgan,

In regard to your accusation that I have deliberately avoided your supposedly devastating rebuttal of the argument (rightly or wrongly) attributed to Gore Vidal in the article "The folly of mass migration" at http://www.opendemocracy.net/people-migrationeurope/article_1193.jsp, had it occurred to you that it is not easy for me to chase after every rabbit you set free with only 2x350 words allowed per day?

I hadn't made it a high priority to respond to that, other than in the general sense that I already had:

"On Norway and Bangladesh: why not? Perhaps Gore Vidal could have used other countries to illustrate his point, but I don't see how that would have fundamentally changed anything."

Also, since you made that post, I had made it clear that I am critical of the record of British colonialism.

Perhaps there was more of a moral case for the UK to accept immigrants from Bangladesh than for Norway, as you argue, however given that the UK is the most crowded country in Europe as a consequence of past migration from former colonies and elsewhere, a case may be made that in this regard the ordinary people of the UK, who are now suffering the consequences, may have long ago repaid that particular debt, so I don't think there is now any more a case for why Britain should accept an additional 40-50 million Bangladeshis than there is for Norway. Either way, I think Gore Vidal's argument still holds.

So, my slightly amended summary of your 'contributions' in your ten posts so far, now stands at:

1. personal attacks on your opponents as racists masquerading as environmentalists or as other fictitious OLO users, dog whistlers, 'a pack of baying hounds', etc, etc;

2. your correction of Dresdener's mistake concerning the history of Kosovo;

3. your 'rebuttal' of Gore Vidal, and

4. that one of these days you plan to enter into a 'sensible debate' about immigration not tainted by the participation of anyone you deem to be racist.

So, CJ Morgan, is there anything else I have still missed?
Posted by cacofonix, Sunday, 14 October 2007 10:23:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
knofler, Yes i saw that report too,

Do you think we are on the cusp of a Zulu war?

Should we circle the wagons, conserve our water and food?

I'll keep watching CH 9 if you watch the door!

______________________________________________________

CJ, Holy trinity, you've got a real nutter there!
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 14 October 2007 10:26:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So it appears, Rainier. It's interesting that 'cacofonix' doesn't appear to have any opinions of its own - but that's exactly what one would expect from a sock puppet.

James/daggett/cacofonix - yes, you did miss something else in your obsessive efforts to attack me for exposing your identitity games. I understand that you may be a little worried about being found out, but rest assured that it won't be me that alerts the moderator to your sock puppetry. If you feel that you need more posts than the rest of us in order to make yourself look really silly, I won't stand in your way.

On topic, and again way up the thread, I agreed that while Australia should probably limit its immigration on ecological grounds, 'race' should play no part in our consideration of what an appropriate level might be. You appear to disagree, but haven't actually offered any reasons beyond the egregious and dodgy Norway/Bangladesh strawman red herring.

What would you consider to be an acceptable upper limit to Australian immigration, and on what objective basis would you decide who is included?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 15 October 2007 6:29:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck, that the 20th century saw two world wars, the Holocaust, European and Latin American fascist states, the Gulags - all the creations of "whites" - is not to me proof that one race is more murderous, just meant as a counterexample to those who appear to believe that blacks are inherently more violent. Of course, it is entirely possible that if black races had been in similar positions of power, with access to the same resources, the 20th century would have been even more bloodthirsty - but that is sheer hypothesising.

You ask how many times does multi-culturalism have to fail. I would ask when exactly has it failed? Do you really think that Australia today is a "failure", when compared to, say, 50 years ago when our ethnicity was more homogenous? OTOH, it wouldn't be unreasonable to suppose that if Australia had not opened its borders, we would today be a small, uninteresting and largely irrelevant nation with a modest economy, at serious risk of military invasion by any one of our neighbours who couldn't resist all that empty space.

Do you think Canada is a failure? Singapore? Even the U.S., while it has no shortage of issues, would have trouble pinning any of them on a deliberate policy of open borders and multi-culturalism (indeed, you might even argue that racial tensions in the U.S. have been due in part to a lack of ready embrace of multi-culturalism). Yes, there are European nations that are beginning to wonder about the wisdom of allowing in too many arrivals with substantially different cultural values, which is understandable - but Europe is not Australia or Canada or Singapore or the U.S.
Posted by wizofaus, Monday, 15 October 2007 8:01:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz, I'm trying to understand you, not speak for you.

If you had written "Japan and Norway are ethnically homogeneous and egalitarian in levels of income, but they haven't always treated the small indigenous population well", then I would accept that you were arguing reasonably. Instead, you have twice denied the existence of homogeneity and egalitarianism.

By the way, a division of Norway into indigenous Sami and non-indigenous Norwegians is questionable. Both groups have been present in the region since prehistoric times. As far as we know, both groups are indigenous.

If your personal concern is with the well-being of indigenous populations, then the Norwegians too should attract your sympathy.
Posted by Mark Richardson, Monday, 15 October 2007 8:06:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On homogenous national communities:

Are people really talking about ethno nationalism?

How do you measure homogeniety accurately?

I feel what you are really alluding to is very different from an actual community because it is not (and cannot be) based on quotidian face-to-face interaction between its members.

Instead, members hold in their minds a mental image of their affinity. Is this case it an imagined white Australian affinity.

As Bennedict Anderson puts it this is largely "imagined" because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion".

Compare this 'imagining'with my own meagre knowledge of Indigenous people across the nation. On a conservative estimation I would know at least 30 people in each of 40 Indigenous communities in Queensland and they would know of me and my family. And no, the majority of them are not related to me at all.

But we would not think of ourselves as homogenous, quite the contrary actually, we favour and practice from an "ontology of diversity" being the norm.
Posted by Rainier, Monday, 15 October 2007 9:51:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To the point of this discussion a simple notion is "How to stay white while populating with black?" (other PERFECT-ENGLISH words could be used to surely).
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 15 October 2007 1:06:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(daggett asked me to post this):

CJ Morgan,

There are a large number of issues I have raised in my own contributions so far, including five direct questions I have put to you, all of which you have
either ignored or declined to answer.

Of all the points I have raised, the only one you have responded to, in any sense, is Gore Vidal's argument against high immigration.

So, given this, and given the insults and personal abuse you have hurled at me, and given that you have also failed to acknowledge where I have shown
your allegations against myself to have been factually wrong, why should I hope that any response on my part to the question posed in your last post
will lead to a discussion any more fruitful than what has occurred so far?
Posted by Olduvai, Monday, 15 October 2007 2:25:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A thought provoking article. Before anyone passes judgement about the racial dimension of immigration policy, shouldn't we first look at what's happening on the ground regarding African integration into the wider community? As a white resident of Blacktown, I have been in awe and wonder at how well our black refugee community of over 3,000 Africans have managed their lives. We are so much richer for the diversity Africans bring.

Many of the first intake of Sudanese were Dinka and most spoke English before migrating. I know many who have already graduated from university or TAFE. The local Council has employed a former Sudanese Human Relations graduate from the University of Western Sydney. He coaches a local football team. Blacktown City Council has provided venues for African musicians and artists.

The lBlacktown Migrant Resource Centre is doing a good job teaching practical English and computer skills to those for whom English is a second or third or fourth language.

I have been impressed with the warm, welcoming character of the many Sudanese that I have met. Our local newspapers have played a positive role, featuring achievements of our newest citizens in the arts, sport and participants in community life.

There is tremendous good will on the part of many residents like myself. Unfortunately Immigration Minister Andrews has a deaf ear to all but the redneck element in our society. His comments have incited sporadic racial abuse and violence against Africans by the emboldened and well organised groups of neo-fascists and neo-conservative academics/religious fundamentalists who seek to give 'legitimacy'to the Ministers decision to cut back African refugees.

Some concerned Sudanese have been meeting in community groups to work out the best way to respond to racists and Minister Andrews. Non-violence is key. Learning how Australian politics is practiced, letter writing to candidates, participation in protests, polical networking and learning verbal self defence are all elements of the agenda on how be heard.

Whilst an Afican-oz politician maybe a few years away, white Australia proponants whould be aware that the freedom train has already departed and from here its full speed ahead.
Posted by Quick response, Monday, 15 October 2007 3:03:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Off topic I'll grant, but what in the hell has gone wrong with you: the poster formerly? currently? known as Daggett?

You think I'm being sarcastic? Who are you??

The original Daggett did not post in the manner in which you are.

Seriously; have you had some sort of a breakdown?
Now someone else ALSO is posting for you!

...........ummm;..please explain?
Posted by Ginx, Monday, 15 October 2007 3:30:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rainier,

You don't have to have met everybody in a community for there to be a community. Again, let me use Japan as an example. You can travel around Japan and there will be some diversity of speech and culture from place to place, but all the same you'll know that you're inhabiting the same national community.

It isn't imagined, it's real.

Therefore, it makes sense for someone living in Nagasaki to believe that they are part of the same national community as someone living in Nara. If the Nagasakian travels to Nara he'll experience a few different things, but a lot of similar things as well, familiar to him as part of the national culture. He'll recognise the people in Nara, even if he's not met them before, as being members of his own national community.

This adds something very positive to our identity; to our sense of attachment to place and people; to our sense of responsibility for maintaining community standards; to our affinity with the history and culture of our nation; to our willingness to sacrifice for a common good.

I fear that, applied to the mainstream, your "ontology of diversity" would lead to an acultural consumerism. Safe but empty.
Posted by Mark Richardson, Monday, 15 October 2007 4:51:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"OTOH, it wouldn't be unreasonable to suppose that if Australia had not opened its borders, we would today be a small, uninteresting and largely irrelevant nation with a modest economy, at serious risk of military invasion by any one of our neighbours who couldn't resist all that empty space."

Bollocks. It is the big lie that Australia would have disintegrated/been invaded without mass immigration. Another opinion could be that Australians would be enjoying much higher living standards without high immigration. Repeatedly making these silly assertions does not add to their credibility. It only shows how faith based the belief in the benefit of immigration is. It would be nice to be surprised with a credible argument instead of the usual "Immigration saves!" liturgy, but I guess that would be far too much to hope for.
Posted by Fester, Monday, 15 October 2007 6:32:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark, re your comment "This adds something very positive to our identity; to our sense of attachment to place and people; to our sense of responsibility for maintaining community standards; to our affinity with the history and culture of our nation; to our willingness to sacrifice for a common good."

Why is a "nation" a logical grouping? Why not just the local neighborhood? Or the whole planet? After all, nations vary in size from a few thousand to nearly 1.5 billion.

Personally, I'd love to see the day where we all have a sense of attachment to place (Earth) and people (all humanity), where we have a sense of responsibility for maintaining global standards; we we have an affinity with the history and cultures of all nations; and a willingness to sacrifice for a common good - e.g. sacrificing some of consumeristic greed today to ensure that our descendants have a planet worth living on.

Idealistic, perhaps, but I fail to see why it's any more or less desirable than applying the same goal to each nation separately.

BTW, I'm aware in my previous comment I conflated immigration and multiculturalism - but it's not very clear to what extent it's realistic to have one without the other. If you allow migrants from different cultures, you can't realistically force them to adopt all aspects of the prevailing national culture. But whether it's necessary for government policies to go out of their way to encourage cultural differences is another debate.
Posted by wizofaus, Monday, 15 October 2007 6:36:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan “I suppose that supporting the "re-colonisation" of Africa mightn't necessarily be racist, but this certainly is:

"The majority of Australians are from “British” ancestral stock. That is where the inventiveness and innovation comes from.””

“Racist”?

It is a factual observation.

That you harbour some negative prejudices toward the British, among the other small minded envies of the underachiever, is your problem to deal with.

Certainly, Australia and the world would be seriously disadvantaged if the innovative and inventive British values (duplicated through the founding fathers of USA and evidenced by the development of the most powerful nation of the planet), were not benefiting humanity by contributing most of the key developments dating back to before the industrial revolution.

I would further speculate, had the “British allies” not prevailed in WWII, some of us would have all found out what “racism” was really about and sadly, a lot of us would have been victims of racism.

My observation to “British Innovation” is as “racist” as suggesting statements like

the “Maasai” are very tall Africans and

“pygmies” are short Africans

are “racist”.

The term “British” is not even a “racial” description, it is a "cultural" description, if I wanted to be “racial” I could have used terms like “Celtic”, “Angle”, “Saxon”, “Norman” etc..

All those sources were “genetic contributors” to what became known as “British”.

I would suggest you acquire a basic understanding of the meaning of words before you bandy them around.

I would further suggest you get a basic understanding of people before you bother to judge others in your posts.
However, I doubt you have the intellect to comprehend what I am talking about, such is the problem when dealing with “dullards” (of any racial origin).

I will defer to your broader experience and likely tolerance to sewage gases.

Too bad you lack British / protestant work ethic, if you had it now, you would certainly benefit from it.

I guess, we will just have to wait until your regressive genes are diluted by and assimilated into that good, strong and inventive British pool
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 15 October 2007 7:09:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good point, Wizofaust. But whites were the most advanced race on Earth and it was only to be expected that they would also invent more efficient means of mass murder. However, violent behaviour is considered to be legally proscribed behaviour. In this aspect, blacks are statistically more prone to very violent behaviour than whites.

The aboriginal homicide rate is six times higher than for the rest of society. Black women spouses in the US are murdered at a rate seven times higher than their white sisters. The black incarceration rate varies in US states but is around 12 and 20 times higher than whites.

You ask where Multiculturalism has failed,Wizofaust.

You could try Lebanon, Fiji, Cyprus, Georgia, Afghanistan, Biafra, Rhodesia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Liberia, Kashmir, Punjab, Sudan, Nigeria, Bougainville, East Timor, Yugoslavia, Kurdistan, New Zealand, Bhutan, Angola, Burma, Chechnya, The Solomons, Aden, Malaya, Oman, Congo, Northern Ireland, Palestine/Israel, Czechoslovakia, Mexico,and recently, Thailand. Add to this sundry race riots and acts of terrorism in Britain, the US, Europe, and just about every other country on Earth and it is diffucult for me to understand how you could ask such a question.

From what I know of race relations in the USA, when the blacks move in, the whites move out. This is a phenomenon known as “white flight”. Some cities like Chicago are now almost 100% black and it is no surprise that this city is called the “murder capital of the USA.” Washington is another city which is almost 100% black and in 1993, the Mayor, Sharon Kelly appealed to the US government to call out the National Guard because the Washington police had lost control of the streets.

What is happening in Canada I am not sure of, but I do know that the Canadian Police have arrested a bunch of Muslims who were plotting to detonate bombs. Here in Sydney, I have seen how my city is becoming the Chicago of the Pacific, with 55% of the handgun murders in the entire state of NSW occurring within two notorious ethnic ghettoes in Sydney

Some success story.
Posted by redneck, Monday, 15 October 2007 8:18:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"But whites were the most advanced race on Earth and it was only to be expected that they would also invent more efficient means of mass murder." (Quote: Redneck..good choice of tag.)

"However, violent behaviour is considered to be legally proscribed behaviour. In this aspect, blacks are statistically more prone to very violent behaviour than whites." (Same.)

CRAP!

_______________________________

"Too bad you lack British / protestant work ethic, if you had it now, you would certainly benefit from it.

I guess, we will just have to wait until your regressive genes are diluted by and assimilated into that good, strong and inventive British pool."
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 15 October 2007 7:09:24 PM

MORE CRAP. You certainly know how to patronize people, don't you Crouge?
Posted by Ginx, Monday, 15 October 2007 8:45:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Olduvai: "daggett asked me to post this):"

Cripes James, how many sock puppets do you need? Ginx is right - this is getting pathological.

Col Rouge: "The majority of Australians are from “British” ancestral stock. That is where the inventiveness and innovation comes from."

"until the Australian gene pool is diluted to the point where those inherited inventive traits are lost among the mass of inferior emulator and copyists traits"

Um, Col you old dog - notions like "British ancestral stock" and "inferior emulator and copyists traits" are only held by racists like you. It's evident from the level of your bluster that you know you've been exposed as the racist you are. Despite his idiocy, I actually have more respect for the other redneck - at least he's honest about his bigotry.

And what makes you think I don't work, old pooch?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 15 October 2007 10:02:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wizofaus,

Thank you for having so succinctly put together in one post so many of the fallacious arguments which are used to justify high immigration and multiculturalism:

"... if Australia had not opened its borders, we would today be a small, uninteresting and largely irrelevant nation with a modest economy, at serious risk of military invasion ..."

The argument that the Australia, prior to the adoption of multiculturalism, was 'uninteresting' was tackled head on in William Lines' "Patriots" (2005) pp180-184, an excerpt from which follows:

"Until the 1970s, Australian governments justified immigration in terms of defence, development, and economic growth. Then, under the influence of a very small number of intellectuals - most of them based in Melbourne - justifications changed. These academics, social workers, and migrant activists claimed a relation between immigration, humanitarianism, and equal worth. All these goals could be achieved, they claimed, under a policy of multiculturalism. Very quickly, the great majority of Australia's most educated and most brainwashed people cast themselves as pro-multicultural. They saw multiculturalism and immigration as the means to uplift and morally transform a boring, dull, unenlightened, selfish, and bigoted Australian society. Most wonderfully, immigration furthered the cause of anti-racism. By implication, those who advocated immigration control were racist, narrow, self-seeking nationalists intent on cultural homogeneity."

---

It was shown in Andrew Ross's "Armed and Ready" (1995) that it was a myth that Australia, with a stable and smaller population that it had up to the 1940's, was vulnerable to invasion. In fact, Australia was a technologically advanced nation in 1942, and the Japanese Army knew it. That is why, even before their defeat at the Battle of the Coral Sea, they had vetoed a plan by the Japanese Navy to invade Australia. For further information see "Can Australia ever be self-reliant for national defence?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=860

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 1:09:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuedfromabove)

After that war Australia helped to found the United Nations, which could have become a vehicle to establish an enduring and just peace which would have made the enormous effort by Australia following the First World War to become capable of defending itself less necessary. So, given these substatial achievements in both war and peace, the view that Australia would have remained irrelvant if t had not massively increased its population hardly stacks up.

I posed the question in that thread: Why did Australia choose to give up the technological edge that it had gained in the 1940's and why has that proud history been disowned today by almost the whole political spectrum including John Howard himself, who perpetuates the myth that Australia was saved from certain invasion by the US at the Battle of the Coral Sea?

It appears that denigrating or disregarding altogether Australia's past proud achievements (other than the odd token episode on various battlefields) seems to suit the purposes of Australia's current elite.

Rather than putting in the hard work necessary to preserve Australia's technological edge, they, instead, seem to have preferred the easier path to short term wealth at the expense of the rest of the country and of future generations. That path included using immigration to force up the value of real estate (for further information, see "The growth lobby and its absence", Sheila Newman's Masters thesis of 2002, at http://candobetter.org/sheila) and, more recently, digging up and exporting, at an accelerating rate, our finite endowment of mineral wealth.

---

On wizofaus's points about immigration and multiculturalism in the US, the UK and Canada, see http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org http://www.migrationwatchuk.com http://www.fairus.org http://www.cis.org

---

Ginx,

Before I answer the question you have put to me, could you tell me specifically what you object to in any of my posts in this forum?
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 1:09:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daggett, I take it you didn’t notice the prefix "it wouldn't be unreasonable to suppose...", before jumping down my throat.

Of course there is no way anyone can say for sure what sort of nation Australia would be now if we had never adopted a policy of open borders. But I know my own life would be much poorer for it - my wife is South American, I regularly attend Spanish language classes with my son (run by a Taiwanese lady), most years we attend or participate in various international festivals, our favourite restaurants are Japanese and Indian, my longest-lasting friends are Chinese, Malay, Greek and Sri Lankan, etc. etc. I don't believe my perspective is unusual in this regard, so yes, I think there is good reason to claim that Australia would be a far less interesting place today without our migrants. As I've said before, I allow that we have been accepting them at an unsustainable rate, and at times have been insufficiently diligent at keeping out those whose values and beliefs threaten to undermine modern Western liberal society, but the net effect of immigration thus far has been largely positive.

Regarding the issue of military vulnerability - who's talking about 1940? Today we have nearly 300 million Indonesians sitting at our doorstep with sufficient wealth and technology to invade Australia and take advantage of what it has to offer. Similar could be said of 1.3 billion Chinese. If Australia had adopted an isolationist position 50 years ago and today had a population of just 14 instead of 21 million, with ties only to the UK and the US, I don't think it would be unreasonable to be concerned how our neighbours might view us.

BTW, I too am concerned about Australia losing its technological edge, but how is this to do with immigration? Re: your links, where exactly is the suggestion multi-culturalism has been a failure? All those sites suggest is “current levels of immigration are too high”, which I largely agree with.
And redneck - how are those countries examples of failed multiculturalism?
Posted by dnicholson, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 6:46:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh and redneck, re: black violence and prison population in the U.S. - *poor* people are generally more prone to violence and more likely to end up in prison, regardless of skin colour. Indeed, if you looked only at middle- and upper- class crime, I would highly surprised if blacks were over-represented. So I don't accept that this is good evidence that blacks are inherently more violent, just evidence that they are inherently less likely to succeed in the U.S.'s white-dominated economy. Perhaps there really is a genetic reason for this, and it is unfortunate that it would be basically impossible to get funding to perform serious scientific research in an attempt to determine whether this might be the case, but even if there were, the solution wouldn't be any clearer: the best option is to ensure that every man, woman and child is well-educated, well-fed, and in a position to be economically successful, regardless of skin-colour. BTW, for a different perspective on causes of black violence/prison overrepresentation:
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/violence.htm
Posted by dnicholson, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 7:02:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oops, hadn't finished writing that last (dnicholson) post...meant to say that the second two pages of that article are mostly psychobabble, but the first makes some worthwhile points. Another article about the situation in the UK, where among the poor, it's whites that are struggling the most: http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8089315
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 8:37:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(on behalf of daggett):

wizofaus,

When I wrote, "Thank you for having so succinctly put together in one post so many of the fallacious arguments ..."

... it wasn't meant to be purely sarcastic and I wasn't meaning to jump down your throat. I was truly grateful that you were prepared to state your views openly, rather than resorting to various ploys to avoid discussion of the issues at hand.

If you had better taken account of my point about Australia having helped to found the United Nations, then I think you might have understood that I wasn't advocating isolationism as the solution either.

(more later)
Posted by cacofonix, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 9:57:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A conversation between two sock puppets - this thread's getting more like Sesame Street every day!
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 10:20:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Col and sock puppet gang,

What CJ and I have been trying to enlighten you all about is the rise of a modern form of racism in which the effects of racism are realised not
in the terms of explicit or manifest prejudice, but rather through a championing of so called ‘traditional values’ which then come to be asserted in an anti-minority manner.

This utilisation of your nationalist rhetoric is deployed to bolster those ideological values and traditions as your imagined majority.

Dagget, you need re-think what you think Jared Diamond is saying, he’s way off track! Materialistic /Darwinian/ Marxist racism is still racism

What seems to be occurring here is by no means an outright attack on ethnic minorities, but a rather more insidious process of disqualification in which ethnic and non whites come to be marginalized relative to the proliferation of discourse celebrating these so called norms and ideals of a privileged white majority.

CJ is right that Col is careful not to be corralled into the herd of ‘common’ racists. Oh no, his sense of British class status would not allow him to be placed with the ‘commoners’. This would not do!

What is fascinating for me is the unconscious (or conscience) construction of a type of plausible deniability of racism in political rhetoric, particularly in how discussion of how nationalist, historical imperial sentiments are deployed in ways which ‘affirms and celebrates a set of values and well-being of that no one here can really claim to in any real sense.

One would think that everyone here that employs this approach founded this country, invented all the technology, wrote the laws of the land and built its institutions from the ground up and then feel justified to defend on this basis this on their apparent ‘entitlement (read privilege) against the “”threat”” from outsiders.

Its always a never ending source of amusement for me to discover that those who are embracing the uncertainties of globalism are those most despised by those who hang on to those old western narratives bout statehood and ethno- nationalism
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 11:26:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(on behalf of daggett):

CJ Morgan,

When do you intend to move beyond your resort to personal attacks and begin to discuss the substantial questions raised on this forum?
Posted by cacofonix, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 11:27:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If poverty causes crime, my dear Wizofaust, then crime must have been right out of control in Australia during The Great Depression. But my copy of “Rising Crime in Australia” (Centre for Independent Studies, author Lucy Clark) testifies that crime in Australia was at its lowest when Australians were at our poorest.

Similarly, the poorest regions of Australia are the depressed rural areas. Surprise, surprise, these are also the regions with the lowest crime rates. Despite firearm ownership being very common, most country towns have never had an armed robbery in their entire history.

Great Britain in 1900 had very real areas of severe poverty. Rather perversely, it also had the lowest homicide rate ever recorded for an industrialized society (1.2 per 100,000). Britain was so safe that, much to the astonishment of the rest of the world, police in Britain had no need to carry firearms. But in multicultural Britain, that is now changing with the Nottinghamshire Police being the first to arm general duties constables with handguns.

Two poor areas of the USA display an interesting contrast. The first is Washington DC, where in 1993 there was a complete breakdown in law and order. DC also has the country's strictest gun control, highest police costs per capita, highest ratio of police and correctional officers per citizen, and highest rate of incarceration.

Another poor area is West Virginia, which has the nation's lowest crime rate, almost non existent gun laws, and has the highest unemployment in the U.S. It also has the fewest police per capita.

The difference is that DC is 80% black and West Virginia 96% white.

I don’t know if you read up on Criminology, but even left wing criminologists refrain from claiming that poverty causes crime anymore, because they know that that premise can be disproved.

Its back to the drawing board for you, I’m afraid Mr Wizofaust/Nichols.

Could I submit that poor people in wealthy communities are generally not real bright? In other words Wizofaust, they are criminals because they are dumb, and poor because they are dumb.
Posted by redneck, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 7:27:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Ginx,

Before I answer the question you have put to me, could you tell me specifically what you object to in any of my posts in this forum?"
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 1:09:53 AM

___________

You mean you cannot answer unless you ask a question of me? Tsk!Tsk!

(I would have got back to you sooner Mr Sinnamon? but the technoguard told me I could not.)

I am more than happy to tell you what I object to in your posts. It is assessing which ARE your posts. I am GENUINELY confused.

You have conducted yourself doggedly and very calmly in your discussions on your threads, particularly with one particular poster who appeared to 'shadow' your statements and consistently disagree with them. (I consider it perfectly valid for me to question that now.)

Your response style now has completely changed to a more aggressive confrontative style (yes, I AM familiar with that style!), AND others?? now post for you!

SO...; from someone eloquent and self-assured in his beliefs, you have metamorphosed, and even have to call on others to post for you..?

Not knowing who one is addressing HAS caused problems on OLO.

That DOES answer your question; will you now answer mine?

_________________________________________________

"Could I submit that poor people in wealthy communities are generally not real bright? In other words Wizofaust, they are criminals because they are dumb, and poor because they are dumb."
Posted by redneck, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 7:27:08 PM

...............they can't be that dumb if they are in wealthy communities, can they? Not as dumb as those who judge them.....
Posted by Ginx, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 8:41:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
redneck,

I have to also disagree. Whilst it is wrong to completely discount a link between ethnicity and race, it is also wrong to use the statistics in the way you have in order to 'prove' that black people in the US are inherently more criminally inclined. That a more culturally homogeneous and stable Australia coped with the poverty of the depression better than blacks appear to be now in the US shold not be used to automatically discount poverty as a cause of black crime.

The globalisation process of past decades has hurt blacks particularly hard. Many of the well-paid unionised industrial jobs that blacks used to hold in the US have been exported to third world slave wage economies (as they have in this country). On top of that now they have to face the problems of a massive entry of immigrants, both legal and illegal, who are competing with them for the remaining jobs.

This is not to say that black crime in the US should be excused or not discussed, but we should open our minds to the possibility that if the harmful economic 'reforms' of previous decades were to be reversed and immigration to be brought back under control, the situation might become quite different.
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 1:36:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Daggert, there is nothing wrong with using facts and statistics to support a premise. It is only wrong if I deliberately manufacture lies, embellish the truth, or misuse statistical analysis to present a false picture.

I once held the same views as you do, and even screamed abuse at the Springboks as ‘racists”. But I like to know my subjects that I endorse, and I will always do a little research instead of just parrotting fashionable slogans. Also, I have a heretical nature and tend to question established orthodoxy. My research into the subject of racism led me to acknowledge that the minorities we were defending against racism were just as racist as we were. If a white person in the USA is 60 times more likely to be assaulted or raped by a black than the other way around, which race is more deserving of criticism for its racism?

In addition, the arguments put forward by white activists to explain black dysfunction were always “blame the white man for everything.”

That sure looks like racism to me.

Whereas I recognize that most peope pushing the anti racist line are young, idealistic, and well meaning, the leaders who herd them along the path of true PC righteousness have arguments which always boil down to this.

1. White people are always wrong, and dark skinned people are always right.

2. Anything that goes wrong in a darker skinned people’s society is always the fault of white people.

3. Not only are white people always wrong, they are especially wrong if they are Americans.

4. Whatever injustices occur in white society must be pointed out and savagely attacked, but if darker skinned societies are riven with the foulest injustices and human rights violations, it is impolite to point these out.

5. The cultures of dark skinned people must be protected, while the cultures of white Prots must be destroyed.

6. White people are always the oppressors, and dark skinned people are always the victims.
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 5:08:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
redneck, obviously any link between crime, poverty and ethnicity is never going to be proved or disproved by cherry picking examples.
Yes, there are times and places with extensive poverty and little crime - I'd guess this is because the poverty was/is widely shared, and everyone felt/feels like they're all in it together (stories from the Great Depression seem to confirm this).
I don't doubt that much of the crime among black populations is due to a "sub-culture" that has developed among them where violence is glorified. Multi-culturalism does not mean accepting all aspects of other cultures: some are clearly incompatible or undesirable. But, again, where is the evidence that blacks are inherently more likely to develop such a sub-culture? Has someone actually seriously studied the genetic make-up of blacks and said well, look, here is this correlation between genes A, B and C and behaviours X, Y, and Z?
And if it is there, then isn't the best solution to find ways to ensure such a sub-culture doesn't take root? (something that's not likely to be successful if its white governments imposing such changes, while blacks see whites as an oppressive enemy). I understand anti-ghetto laws have been tried in France, not sure how successful they've been.

BTW which criminologists have rejected the poverty-crime link? I agree it's simplistic and insufficient to explain all crime, and in many cases it's likely that crime causes poverty, leading to a vicious circle. My suspicion is that there are significant genetic traits that cause some people to be more likely to choose crime than others, but as long as people have a decent standard of living, those genetic tendencies can be relatively easily suppressed.
Posted by wizofaus, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 6:53:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said redneck.

You have the ability to see through all the smoke and mirrors to see the truth. People need to look to the facts.

The other day there was an article in the paper telling us that sudanese people are under represented per capita in crime stats in Australia, because they cause around only 1 % of crime. Yet I find it difficult to believe they represent anywhere near 1% of our population. Unfortunately there are many ignorant people out there that are unable to think for themselves.

Personally I would think that makes them at least 10 times more likely to cause crime than the rest of the population.
Posted by knopfler, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 7:02:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cacofonix: "(on behalf of daggett)"

James, since unlike you I don't have a host of sock puppets to post for me in contravention of the intent of the forum rules, I haven't been able to respond until now.

One of your alter-egos may recall that I have tried to engage on the substantive issues to do with this thread - namely the author's contention that Australia's immigration policies are 'racially' biased - but you have declined, apparently miffed that I've exposed your sock puppetry.

I repeat: I think that there are probably good reasons to limit Australia's immigration intake on ecological grounds, but so-called 'race' should not be a factor in considering who gets to come here. You derailed the discussion early in the piece by posting a very suspect "quotation" from Gore Vidal - that you have been singularly unable to verify, but which served your purpose to dog-whistle support for your cause (whatever that may be) from the racists in this forum - who range from some knuckle-dragging types with appropriate nicknames to slightly cleverer Alf Garnett types.

I'll ask you again: what level of immigration would you consider appropriate for Australia, and what are your reasons for supporting 'racial' criteria - if that is indeed your position?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 7:20:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So redneck, tell me, what do you consider racism to be.
After all these discussions on like where you want to defend the virtues of whiteness, you never really define racism - you just defend white power.

So come on, cough up big man, tell us what you think racism, what you understand it to be, even throw in some historical examples.

I look forward to reading your explanations
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 7:55:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Swiss have had a gut full!

Foreigners make up 20% of population in Switzerland.

Foreigners make up 70% of prison inmates.

This beacon of civilised society are now making a huge shift to the right. Any immigrant apprahended committing a crime will now serve thier sentence and then be deported forthwith.

Sounds pretty sensible to me, would be a winner here also.

Redneck,

Totally agree, dumb people commit crimes, drunken people commit crimes, bored people commit crimes, be they black, white or brindle they are what they are.

Question here is, do we allow our society to be dragged down UK style fully knowing the consequences by allowing people with some of the lowest IQ's in the world to come here at the bequest of a feel good minority? NO

Rainier,

Its only racist if your white isnt it mate.

Its only through white Australias generosity that your people are still alive. Your people are the most pampered and pandered to indigenous people on Earth, 28% of this continent has been given back to you, billions spent for nothing. We have tried.

I would like you and yours to thank white Australia.

You have nothing to whinge about except your own people.
Good old black chip on your shoulder isnt there.

I know your mob, I am your mob.
Posted by SCOTTY, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 10:37:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scotty, Redneck is redneck, but is not he a product of a "white generosity"?

Are you serious thanking Anglo-th ... s for "civilization"?
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 17 October 2007 1:08:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually SCOTTY, polls indicate support in Switzerland for the SVP (the party pushing for deportation of convicted immigrants) is about what it was 4 years ago (~26%), though the election in a few days will be the true test.
In 2000, the Swiss overwhelming voted *not* to end immigration into the country.

In the end though I agree - democracy is the most reasonable way to determine what a country's immigration level should be. The day that a significiant percentage of Australians want immigration levels reduced, they will vote accordingly, and the powers that be will be forced to listen. For now, it's very much a noisy minority clamouring about how immigration is destroying Australia.
Posted by wizofaus, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 1:34:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scotty, another wonderful effort, you must have stayed up all night working on that, you really are starting to develop into a deep intellectual thinker. On Line Opinion would not the same without you.
Cheers
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 1:34:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wizofaus wrote, "The day that a significant percentage of Australians want immigration levels reduced, they will vote accordingly, and the powers that be will be forced to listen."

I dealt with this in my post above at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96361

High immigration has been unpopular for decades. Howard won office largely because of the unpopularity of the corruptly administered high-immigration program of Labor. Nevertheless, Howard has since, shamefully and deceitfully, even outdone Labor in this regard.

---

wizofaus wrote, "I too am concerned about Australia losing its technological edge, but how is this to do with immigration?".

High immigration has been justified on the grounds that we needed skilled clever immigrants to maintain our technological edge. My post of 16 October at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96483 showed that Australia with a stable and much lower population was able to achieve that by 1942, so that argument is clearly rubbish.

The fact that so much of this country's energy and resources is being diverted to build residences necessary to sustain population growth, instead of, for example, universities, and more basic scientific research, directed towards making this society self-sufficient and truly sustainable, is one reason why Australia has lost its technological edge since then.

I wasn't arguing that Australia cut itself off completely from the rest of the world and have no immigration, but I do think it needed to be done in a much more thoughtful and controlled manner. If we look at the congested crowded unplanned, resource-hungry messes that our major cities including Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne have become, then it is obvious that this has not been done, and if we don't act now, past poor practices will continue and will make an already bad situation worse.

We should have certainly made certain that every new immigrant agree to support the basic values of this society, including a respect for the rights of women, gays and children within their own communities. Instead, misogynist attitudes, both towards non-Muslim Australian women and women within these communities, has been allowed to become entrenched, largely because the multicultural lobby denied that a problem existed for many years.
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 1:54:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Wizofaust, I hardly need to “cherrypick” examples of ethnic crime when my bucket is already overflowing. Even OLO has presented this article confirming my view.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=991

The best way to ensure that hostile cultures do not take root in this county, Wizofaust, is to not import people whose cultures these cultures belong to. We only have to look at Britain to see a portent of things to come. If we import Jamaicans or Muslims, they will bring their culture with them, and we will eventually get into just as big a mess as the Poms.

On the subject of the heritability of criminal behaviour, even the Australian Institute of Criminology published a paper which ruefully admitted that the evidence for this is very strong. (Is There a Genetic Susceptibility to Engage in Criminal Acts?, No.262, October 2003).

As to whether anybody has made a study to determine whether blacks are more susceptible to criminal behaviour, I don’t know. But I do know that the US NAACP successfully lobbied the Congress to withdraw funding from any molecular biologist who dared to present evidence that race and crime is linked. I also know that the NAACP also prevented the geneticists from the Human Genome Project from hosting a conference in the USA entitled “Genetics and Crime”. That conference was subsequently held in London, with the press pointedly excluded.

I know all that because I read a book by Peter Breggin, (The War on Children) a person noted for opposing any suggestion that genetics and crime are linked. Breggin openly brags in that book about his power mobilise political forces to cower the scientists.

Seems to me like the scientists are sitting on dynamite which a lot of people want them to shut up about.

Hello Rainier, long time no see.

In answer to you question "What is racism"? My answer is "To engage left wingers in fair debate and win."
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 8:40:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
redneck
The argument of race as a determinant of culture or social behavior has been around for many hundreds of years. Much of it was the justification for slavery, colonisation, and segregation, but you fail to include any of that in your hypothesis, for example the ‘one drop rule’ furthering the legitimacy of a greater white race was only fully abolished in America in 1983.

The thing is that this debate over whether the color of a persons skin as a basic element of human nature, or social construct is fixed on this idea that ‘blacks’ are an object of observation. Cultural anthropology and neo-Darwinian synthesis, has demonstrated that the category of "race" was not scientifically legitimate, least of all the attempt to conflate skin color, or the amount of melanin in the body, with any specific population. Geneticists have found that, in fact, there is more genetic difference within the definable groups of white and black people than there is between the actual groups themselves, thus giving rise to the conclusion that “racial categories that purport to designate any of us are too rigid and oversimplified to fit anyone accurately”.

That piece that you offered “Is There a Genetic Susceptibility to Engage in Criminal Acts” SPECIFICALLY states that;
“… the majority of genetic research on antisocial behaviors has been conducted on Caucasian populations, and does not aim to identify race-specific susceptibility alleles for antisocial behavior.”, yes indeed there is a genetic influence but it does not purport to a specific ‘race’, it’s a mix between genetics and ‘nature and nurture’ for every human being.

“Seems to me like the scientists are sitting on dynamite which a lot of people want them to shut up about.” Please enlighten us with some evidence.

Its sentiments such as these that are going to continue to exist as long as there is this engrained prejudice in Western culture, racism is largely ‘the white mans burden’. Whiteness and blackness only exists in the mind of those that feel the need to hold onto it as a source of identity and pride
Posted by peachy, Thursday, 18 October 2007 12:29:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
redneck, thanks for your definition. It’s a pity you don't see the need to provide a provide a proper answer. but I suppose for you it is. If by left wing you mean people who believe in decency and have learnt from history and personal experience that racism is wrong then I'm happy for you to continue to believe you win arguments here. On a similar line of thought, my dog Spike thinks he's human. Compared to you he probably is
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 18 October 2007 12:44:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan wrote "(you are) apparently miffed that I've exposed your sock puppetry."

Please forgive me for not having been more forthcoming in acknowledgement of both your mind-reading abilities and your brilliant detective work.

It must have taken a rare stroke of inspired genius to have followed the link, to be found at the bottom of any of my posts, in order to discover that daggett was, in fact, James Sinnamon, and then to have followed the links on my home page back to OLO to find that daggett had, in fact, written the odd OLO article himself.

That daggett had neglected to explicitly mention these facts in every one of his posts was clear proof of his intent to hide behind anonymity in order to make unfair and cowardly attacks against another OLO author.

Then our cunning sleuth observed that a post by another OLO user 'cacofonix' was made on daggett's behalf. Whatever the rules of OLO formally allowed, this was a clear breach of their intent, and, moreover, a sure indication that something far more sinister was afoot.

Sure enough, a search through cacofonix's posts revealed that cacofonix had spoken in defence of daggett (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6261#91028) on one other occasion when daggett was pronounced guilty of a crime similar to the crime of which he has now been found guilty on this forum. That crime was that he had anonymously commented upon one of his own articles.

When daggett protested that, on the post following cacofonix's post, OLO editor Susan Prior had shown that the accusation against daggett was factually wrong, Inspector CJ Morgan demonstrated an admirable single-minded determination not to let such an inconvenient fact sway him from his conviction that daggett was a serial OLO fraudster and that cacofonix, and later, olduvai, too, were fictitious creations created to conceal daggett's crimes from OLO users.

This deductive brilliance would surely make the solving of the Azaria Chamberlain murder case by the Northern Territory Police pale into insignificance by comparison.

Please, don't be any further distracted by daggett's disingenuous pleas to focus on the substance of the discussion.
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 18 October 2007 12:49:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James Sinnamon protesteth too much again, methinks. Whether he's posting as 'daggett', 'cacofonix', or 'Olduvai' (and who knows how many others), he is indeed a master sock puppeteer. Come on James, we all know you're telling porkies here.

If I was you I'd quit before the site moderators wake up to you - but I'm not an IT whiz like you, so I wouldn't have multiple IP addresses like you apparently do.

Interesting that you avoid responding to my 'on topic' points, yet again. But that's the object, isn't it?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 18 October 2007 1:02:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The best way to ensure that hostile cultures do not take root in this county, Wizofaust, is to not import people whose cultures these cultures belong to"

So where is your magical "hostile-culture-detector"? Or is your criteria simply the amount of melanin in somebody's skin?

Millions (if not billions) of migrants worldwide over the last few centuries have shown the ability to adapt fully to the predominate culture they move into. Maybe a few thousand have not, and of those, the majority are recent migrants that will likely adapt soon enough, and only a tiny amount actively engage in activities that threaten social cohesion for any significant period of time. Could we do more to reduce the threat of hostile sub-cultures forming in Australia? Absolutely. But I'm quite sure that, say, Andrews' famed "Australian Values" test will not help at all - prospective migrants almost invariably come here with the best of intentions and full commitment to the start a new life, respecting the laws and mores of their adopted nation... but unfortunately some find themselves sufficiently ill-equipped or disadvantaged that they may resort to criminal behaviour, or are drawn to groups that represent their own background but don't accept that Australian laws and principles take precedence over their own.

BTW, you might be interested in this article that makes a reasonably objective attempt to narrow down possible race-IQ-violence links in the U.S.: http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=3408&cid=1&sid=104

And daggett, according to whom has high immigration been widely unpopular for many decades? Who defines "high" and "widely"? If a survey simply asks "Do you think Australia's immigration level is too high?" then a lot of people, like myself, may well answer "yes" even though they are not hugely concerned that current levels are likely to be sustained until Australia is destroyed, socially and environmentally.
Posted by wizofaus, Thursday, 18 October 2007 1:10:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to digget, “High immigration has been justified on the grounds that we needed skilled clever immigrants to maintain our technological edge”.

Perhaps, non-Anglos, the luckiest among them used to taxi/delivery services and as interpreters, are automatically out of a group representing “clever immigrants”-the UK-linked-biologically with a right of abode.
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 18 October 2007 1:18:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan wrote, "If I was you I'd quit before the site moderators wake up to you ..."

I think, for your part you will have to make up your mind whether you are genuinely aggrieved at my allegedly unfair alleged use of sock puppetry:

"... since unlike you I don't have a host of sock puppets to post for me in contravention of the intent of the forum rules, I haven't been able to respond until now." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96606)

... or whether you see my supposed guilt of having transgressed OLO rules as a convenient means with which to blackmail into silence another contributor, whose views you feel threatened by, now that your usual resort to personal abuse has failed.

If you feel genuinely aggrieved, then I suggest you make a complaint to the OLO administrators and present whatever evidence you have.

Otherwise, stop wasting my time.
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 18 October 2007 2:27:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wizofaus,

Your last post seems to contradict an earlier one where you say that only a "noisy minority" are concerned about the negative effects of mass migration. You now seem to think that we would be in serious trouble if current rates of growth went on (from ABS figures two new babies and one net migrant for every death), but that somehow our wise and benevolent politicians are going to be willing to buck the development lobby / corporate elite and cut mass migration and pronatalist incentives before we wipe out too many more species or restrict the masses to one shower and change of clothes a week. Forgive me if I don't share your optimism. If there are permanent water restrictions in all our major cities now except for Hobart, it is hard to see how more people are going to make the situation better.

The Pew Research Center in the US conducted a global attitudes survey in 47 countries:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=258

Among other questions they asked people if they thought their governments should "further restrict and control immigration". A majority of people in 44 out of the 47 said yes, sometimes by an overwhelming proportion. Some percentages are: United States 75%, Venezuela and Turkey 77%, Ivory Coast (about as far from white racism as you can get) 94%, Indonesia and Italy 89%, Sweden 53%. There were only 3 exceptions: Japan (barely) where there is already extremely low immigration, South Korea and the Palestinian territories. Hardly anyone seems to relish being swamped by foreigners. Unfortunately Australia was not included, but forgive me if I doubt your "noisy minority" claim.
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 18 October 2007 3:42:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Wizofaust, the amount of melanin in a person’s skin and their physical appearance appears to be an excellent guide as to what culture they identify with. I don’t know of any white people who claim aboriginal culture as their own culture. Nor would any black African claim that Eskimo culture was their culture. How many Chinese identify their culture as black African? Do American Indians call Pakistani culture their own culture?

My culture is that of the white European prots, and I would point out to you that immigrants from those societies assimilate very well with each other without forming ghettoes with high levels of criminal behaviour or welfare dependency. We do not have a problem with Danes being offensive to women on Sydney’s beaches. There is no German ghetto noted for being the heroin capital of Australia. Teachers in Sydney’s “troubled” South West do not fear that Norwegian pupils will be violent and abusive to them. Nightclubs in Sydney are not banning French patrons because they are a consistent source of violence. British nationals are not noted for drive by killings or shooting up police stations. Irish people do not murder their daughters for refusing to marry their cousins. Dutch people do not perform illegal genital mutilation of their daughters. Scots leaders in Australia don’t call Aussie girls “cat meat” and imply that they deserve to be raped.

Some idea of ethnic crime differentials can be obtained by looking at US figures. The yanks don’t have a problem with identifying prison inmates by their race, like Australia does. Imprisonment rates for African Americans in 1993 was 1,947 per 100,000 people. For Hispanics it was 529. For “non Hispanic whites” (which includes Lebanese and native Americans) it was 306. But for Japanese Americans it was only 36.

It sure looks to me like there is a very strong cultural factor in crime rates, Wizofaust.

Conclusion? Danish, German, French, Norwegians, British, Irish, and Dutch people consistently make very good migrants while people from other cultures can be a real pain in the butt. Some much more than others.
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 18 October 2007 6:46:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan “Um, Col you old dog - notions like "British ancestral stock"

For Australian “ethnic mix”, I am merely stating the bleeding obvious.

If you think it is different then argue how and I will be happy to shred whatever you fancifully claim.

Rainier” Oh no, his sense of British class status would not allow him to be placed with the ‘commoners’.”

If I were so enamored with “British Class Status” I would have chosen to stay where I could entrench myself in such.

Instead I chose to migrate to Australia.

One wonders what “choices” the likes of you have ever made?

Probably nothing beyond polishing up your limited social skills when an opportunity arose to move into some “dead-mans shoes” in academia, or was it "affirmative action"?

As for “Its always a never ending source of amusement for me to discover that those who are embracing the uncertainties of globalism are those most despised by those who hang on to those old western narratives”

Well if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.

Certainly when I compare the stability of the “institutions” which Australia acquired from Britain and compare that to say,

South and Central American nations, little the Portuguese or Spanish contributed as “stable” ever existed.

The French authored the Vietnam war,
the Belgians were tyrants in Africa, the Germans no better.
The Italians claim to a place in the sun fell with the stupid invasion of Ethiopia.
I suppose we could laud it on the Danes for their conquest of Greenland.

The Chinese have demonstrated their colonial expertise in Tibet.
The Russians managed to violate eastern Europe in a way that challenged Hitlers’ bestiality,

to say nothing of Japans benevolence in Manchuria

and of course,

Indonesia’s excellent record in attempting the colonization of East Timor.

“globalism”, was espoused by Trotsky (and keep getting trawled up time after time by the insecure malcontents, as basis to excuse their own shortcomings) and even Stalin had the measure of him.

All envious drivel from someone who doubtless, awakes every day to face the deficiencies of his own ethnic origins.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 18 October 2007 7:40:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rainier

The irony is that both Redneck and Wizofaus believe that a specific racial and cultural mixture are the basis of a superior civilisation. They only disagree on the ideal formula.

All I care about is the mundane consequences of high immigration, like housing affordability, infrastructure shortfalls, environmental degradation, homelessness and the national debt. I dont see these things as specifically race related.

Maybe the bleeding hearts could become trendsetters by inviting the destitute into their homes? It would be a nice change from telling everyone else to show more compassion.
Posted by Fester, Thursday, 18 October 2007 8:54:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James Sinnamon, a.k.a. daggett, cacofonix, Olduvai et al says: "I think, for your part you will have to make up your mind whether you are genuinely aggrieved at my allegedly unfair alleged use of sock puppetry"

Note that James doesn't actually deny his nefarious sock puppetry. I believe that in some places this kind of logic is called 'plausible deniability'. I really detest this kind of dishonesty, which is why I've persisted in getting James to expose his shameful tactics. The rest of us are limited to two posts per thread per day in this forum, but James thinks that he's entitled to more of a voice than the rest of us. He's an IT pro so he can fool this site with different IP addresses, and in his mind if it can't be proven it's OK.

Personally, in this knowledge I have to regard James' arguments and evidence as inherently suspect, particularly in light of the supposed "Gore Vidal" quotation that began my examination of James' posts to this forum, and what turns out to be an array of sock puppets. I think that any forum reader with a brain has worked out what's going on here by now anyway.

This is a shame, really - because I concur with James that Australia probably needs to limit its immmigration on ecological grounds. However we appear to differ in that I have asserted that so-called 'race' should not a criterion for deciding who is allowed to migrate to Australia. I gather that James/daggett/cacofonix/Olduvai/et al differs on this, but for some reason he doesn't seem to want talk about it.

Perhaps he's distracted by some sort of identity crisis?

Col Rouge/Alf Garnett: "...the deficiencies of his own ethnic origins".

I can't imagine why anybody'd think you're a racist misanthrope. However, given that you and I seem to have almost exactly the same "ethnic origins", I don't supppose it would be impertinent for me to suggest that some other factor/s are at play here?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 18 October 2007 10:00:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence, no, what I said was that it has only ever been a noisy minority clamouring for migrants to stay out, or that immigration is destroying Australia. I'll happily accept that more than half of all Australians have some concern that our immigration level is probably too high. But it's not a vote changer at this point. If the powers that be don't reduce immigration sooner or later, it will become a vote changer, as it has in other nations.

Redneck, we already agree that some cultures are more likely to harbour values that are hostile to Australian laws and principles. But tell me, if you had to rank the following in order of their likelihood of causing a problem with Australia's social cohesion and cultural identity, how would you go:

1. A well-educated Iraqi who is a lapsed Muslim, and largely irreligious
2. A poorly-educated fundamentalist white Christian who believes in using violence against abortion clinics and homosexuals
3. A (black) Sudanese moderate/liberal Christian
4. An Indonesian Buddhist
5. A well-educated, English-speaking Indian Hindu
6. A poorly-educated, non-English speaking Indian fundamentalist Muslim
7. A Croatian fundamentalist Muslim
8. A well-educated, irreligious Vietnamese

...well, you get the idea. Just because there is a vague correlation between skin-colour/appearance and cultural background does not that the former can be used as an accurate guide to the latter.

Further, when Italians and Greeks first started migrating here, they *did* form ghettos and gangs. 10-15 years ago, most Chinese lived in areas with high concentrations of Chinese: they are now slowly dispersing throughout the community, and in another 20 years there will be probably be little evidence of once-Chinese-dominated areas, much like Lygon St in Melbourne is about the last remnant of an Italian "ghetto". I see little reason to believe that Muslim and Sudanese ghettos are not likely to go the same way eventually, provided that they are ostracised by the rest of society.
Posted by wizofaus, Friday, 19 October 2007 1:35:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oops, above should end "provided they are NOT ostracized by the rest of society".

Oh and Fester, I don't see how you can conclude I believe "a specific racial and cultural mixture are the basis of a superior civilisation". I certainly don't believe race per se is relevant. As far as culture goes, then yes, I believe there are certain cultural values that are worth fighting for, most of them included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which a vast majority of UN member countries voted to support.
Posted by dnicholson, Friday, 19 October 2007 1:49:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C.J. Morgan,

It seems to me that your persistant criticism of Daggett crossed over some time ago to harassment by virtue of repetition alone. The noticeable impact has been to focus Dagget on yourself and away from the debate. If you are truly concerned about 'plausible denial', why haven't you taken your complaint to the moderators of the forum? Or, if you feel that your charge lacks evidence, why not write an article about the ethics of multiple identities on online forums?

I have noticed that where Daggett has posted several successful articles on online opinion these have also attracted a number of repeat posters who I think are not sincere and whose posts verge on trolling. This disquieted me because I felt that Daggett (James Sinnamon) had something important to say which was not being expressed elsewhere.

Apart from this I would like to see posters to this article debate the definition of 'criminal' and 'criminality', which I think are terms used very naively and without regard to their intrinsic political nature.
Posted by Kanga, Friday, 19 October 2007 12:41:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wizofaus,

I seem to detect a sleight of hand. Immigration has always been strongly opposed by the majority of Australians, not simply "that more than half of all Australians have some concern that our immigration level is probably too high".

That is why he won in 1996. (And I voted against him then and will do the same in 2007), and why he played on Australian's oppostion to high imigrationduring the Tampa crisis. Nevertheless he has since sneakily ramped up immigation to 300,000 and 'me too' Rudd plans to do the same.

What sort of a 'democracy' so blatantly ignores the wishes of its own people?

---

CJ Morgan wrote, "I believe that in some places this kind of logic is called 'plausible deniability'. ...."

Yes, I admit it. I also had prior knowlege of the AWB bribery to Saddam Hussein's regime.

CJ Morgan continued, "... I really detest this kind of dishonesty, ..."

As you should.

CJ Morgan continued, "... which is why I've persisted in getting James to expose his shameful tactics."

Well, please take a bow.

Now, were you intending to say anything else?
Posted by daggett, Friday, 19 October 2007 3:15:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tolerate a migrant influx doing you favours only – and the more time passed the more educated and feeling-themselves-equally-biological the newcomers became.

Does Australia really need the equal non-Anglo folks in?

Hardly.
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 19 October 2007 3:38:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daggett, you say "immigration has always been strongly opposed by the majority of Australians" - and I ask for the evidence for this. I've yet to see anyone provide it. If it's true, why is the vote for One Nation and the Greens so pitiful?

And to suggest that this was the primary reason Howard was elected in '96 is a little preposterous - Keating was widely disliked for a number of reasons, of which high immigration was, at best, an issue of medium import for some voters. See http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv4n4/bettsi.htm

(Which, BTW, contains evidence that a majority of Australians have been - to some degree - opposed to the current levels of immigration. This is NOT the same as claiming they have been STRONGLY opposed to immigration full stop).

And no, democracy is never perfect. It just happens to be better than all the other forms of government that have been tried.
Posted by wizofaus, Friday, 19 October 2007 3:48:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wizofaus,

You are setting up a straw man. Has anyone here said that they want no immigration at all? Immigration can be a good thing in moderation, bringing cultural and educational advantages to the host community and giving some gifted people opportunities to develop their talents that they never would have had at home. Daggett means "strongly opposed to mass migration", migration in such numbers that it blows out the population, thus putting excess pressure on the environment, grossly dilutes the bargaining power of ordinary workers, inflates housing costs, and threatens social cohesion and personal freedom.

As you know, there have been no referenda on immigration numbers. Both major parties oppose citizen initiated referenda and have a bipartisan policy of mass migration. Voting for a minor party in the lower house usually does no good, because there is no proportional representation. The media and donations from the corporate elite are used to oppose anyone who threatens to upset the apple cart. Mass migration is a slow motion disaster, but people have a lot more immediate worries, like how they will pay the bills if they lose their penalty rates or keep the house if their interest rates go up (or whether there will be a capital strike if the Greens really do get into power). They tend to vote on these more immediate issues. Some of us are concerned enough to put incumbent politicians last.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 19 October 2007 4:58:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is from Ted Trainer's article in People and Place (vol. 11, 2003, pp. 16-24) criticising the 2002 CSIRO Future Dilemmas report, which presented projections of the effects of various population policies, from immediate stabilisation to doubling to 40 million.

"It could be argued the Report deals only with the few decades in which Australia is likely to live well by using up the last of its mineral and energy resource capital. It notes that in 50 years there will probably be few if any minerals left to export, or petroleum or gas, and land degradation might by then have seriously reduced our capacity to export agricultural produce. Meanwhile we will have added people, who will have increased the need to import, but will make little contribution to our capacity to earn export income. This is because export income comes mostly from mining and agriculture which employ few workers. We also will have built much bigger cities with proportionately more difficult problems of air pollution, congestion, and soon, in turn, multiplying infrastructure and resource demands."
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 19 October 2007 5:22:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In answer to your question, none of them. All of these people have their own cultures and it would be strange if they were disloyal to their own culture. Denouncing one's own culture only appears to be the fashion among white, educated people who think that parroting Internationalist views is an indicator of their presumed moral and intellectual superiority.

The funny thing about trendies promoting multiculturalism as a prop for Internationalism, is that they are demanding the importation of ethnic groups who are usually very loyal to their own ethnicity, religion, and nationality.

There is a lot more than just a vague connection between skin colour and culture. Almost all black Americans have never been anywhere near Africa but they still endorse “their” black African culture.

Your example of Chinese assimilation was a very poor one. The Chinese are noted for never assimilating into their host communities. They always remains separate and apart. Every city in the world has a “Chinatown” and where the immigration of Chinese exceeds common sense the Chinese establish satellite “Chinatowns” within cities. The Chinese have lived in Indonesia for 500 years and most of them still speak Mandarin and read Chinese language newspapers, even though it is illegal for them to do so. The dangers of multiculturalism were even highlighted by the Chinese in Indonesia, who attempted a coup in 1960 to make Indonesia a Chinese led country allied to Communist China. I do not know to what extent the Communist Chinese government colluded with the insurgent Chinese, but Indonesia closed its embassy in Peking and refused to have diplomatic relations with Red China.

The Indonesians solved their multiculturalism problem by marching 500,000 Chines into the jungle and machine gunning them.

The Indonesians would just love Australia to take every Chinese in Indonesia off their hands because they don’t trust them. Chinese government in Peking probably can not believe its luck that those stupid Australian yang guizi’s want to import millions of Chinese. The Chinese know their Sun Tzu. “The best way to take a citadel is from the inside.”
Posted by redneck, Friday, 19 October 2007 6:16:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan: "No, but it explains why I know racism when I see it.."

Obviously you idiotically believe that it is impossible for anyone but people of European ancestry to be racist. Why else would you consistently ignore Rainier’s constant spew of egregious vitriol against “white” people?

"you're up at 4am ranting.."

For somebody who espouses an open-borders, post-national “global citizenship” ideology, you can be amazingly parochial. Believe it or not, not all of us live in the GMT+10.00 time zone.

"The nearest I can get is to that single paragraph, originally cited on some nutjob Irish anti-immigration site.."

So Gore Vidal was quoted out of context? Or is the quote a complete fabrication? Or is Gore Vidal simply a racist?

The author of the article in which Vidal is quoted is a British journalist by the name of Anthony Browne. His crime is that he has written a series of articles and a book for the UK think-tank Civitas on immigration. This apparently makes him a “nutjob”, but I guess it takes one to know one.

Whatever the validity and context of Vidal’s quote, Browne’s point seems unambiguous:

“This is an issue of almost total, mind-numbing hypocrisy among western governments and political elites. They defend the inalienable right of other peoples – the Palestinians, Tibetans, native Americans – to defend their culture, but not the right of their own peoples.

It is vital to emphasise that mass immigration and the remarkably intolerant ideology of multiculturalism are exclusively western phenomena. Indeed, the striking thing about the global immigration debate in the west is its determined parochialism. If people in India, China, or Africa were asked whether they have a right to oppose mass immigration on such a scale that it would transform their culture, the answer would be clear. Yet uniquely among the 6 billion people on the planet, westerners – the approximately 800 million in western Europe, North America and Australasia – are expected by the proponents of mass immigration and multiculturalism to abandon any right to define or shape their own society.”
Posted by Dresdener, Saturday, 20 October 2007 12:49:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Interesting how readily you respond to those whistles.."

You should really should get some new catchphrases - the old ones are tedious as well as meaningless.

"how did you get on with the Anderson and Kapferer books that I suggested.."

I’m sure there are a great deal many books discussing the relationship between ethnicity and the nation. The “national question” which is being asked right across the Western world at the moment is perhaps the most contentious issue facing the West today. But I’m specifically interested in your views. So, unless you happen to be either Anderson or Kapferer, those books have little relevance. Or are your views so ‘dense’ that they simply cannot be understood unless you’ve read a myriad of books on the topic?

"your error concerning Kosovo's historically dominant religion."

You mean, after Kosovo served as the cradle of Serbian nationhood and the centre of its Orthodox faith?

Islam only became the dominant religion after the Serbs were defeated by, and their lands annexed to, the Ottomans. The forced migration of Serbs from Ottoman-ruled Kosovo, which left a vacuum filled by Albanians, undoubtedly aided the Islamification of the region. But the current unassailable Albanian majority occurred more recently - the result of Axis occupation, which involved the killing of an estimated 10,000-40,000 Serbs, the expulsion of another 100,000, and the arrival of more Albanians.

You can keep obfuscating and equivocating all you want, but the point is clear. You cannot expect to switch populations and demographic majorities through mass immigration - as Jennifer Clarke is advocating - and not expect also to switch civilisations. You cannot expect millions of migrants from vastly different cultures to enter a country and displace the founding population without radical consequences.

Yes, it makes the Third World immigrants very happy to move into a ready-built developed country (at least those nasty, racist Anglo-Celts were useful for something, right?). And yes, it makes the big end of town very rich. But why would the citizenry, the ordinary folk who are being disenfranchised and displaced, favour mass immigration on such a scale?
Posted by Dresdener, Saturday, 20 October 2007 1:28:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
redneck,

Whilst it is off topic, your understanding of the Indonesian military coup is incorrect in a number of regards. For a start, it happened in 1965 and not 1960. This is the first time that I have heard that it was a genocidal massacre of ethnic Chinese.

My understanding was that it was a massacre of approximately 500,000 members of the Indonesian Communist Party, which included ethnic Chinese as well as ordinary Indonesians. This occurred during a military coup. The pretext given by the military for the coup and the massacre was that it was to prevent an attempted coup by the Indonesian Communist Party, but this has been shown to have been a fabrication

Because any member of any 'communists' organisation is still widely depicted as necessarily being a bloody minded extremists bent on establishing a Stalinist police state, or worse, a Khmer-Rouge-style killing-fields regime, many people see the murder of such people as morally acceptable. One such person seems to have been Australia's current Governor General, former SAS commander Sir Michael Geoffrey, who in 2003 stated that both the 1965 Indonesian coup and the Vietnam War were justified as necessaryto stop the spread of communism.

I strongly disagree with that view, and the view that genocide is an acceptable way to resolve ethnic differences should have been put to rest with the Nuremburg trials following the Second World War.

However, if we continue to increase the numbers on this dry continent, then we are greatly increasing the prospects for future conflicts over our dwindling supplies of natural resources as shown in Divergence's quote of Ted Trainer above, will become ever more likely and what we have witnessed in Indonesia, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda or even Nazi Germany may well be what is in store for this country.

At the very minimum we have to stop high immigration immediately, at least until some harmony and commonality is re-established between the different groups that now comprise this country.

---

Dresdener, very well argued. Thank you.
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 20 October 2007 2:14:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence, I was using the exact words Daggett used: "strongly opposed to immigration". Even if he had said "strongly opposed to current levels of immigration", I would want to see proof. I would accept that a majority is "somewhat concerned about current levels of immigration". Personally I've never met anyone (other than on this forum) who rates current levels of immigration as a critical issue for Australia.
Yes, I've read Ted Trainer's stuff, and frankly, if he's right, we're pretty much doomed as a species anyway. I suppose I have a little more faith in human ingenuity and adaptability, and don't particularly see why I should rank his expertise over the CSIRO's.

redneck, saying "None of them" is not an answer. Personally, as I suggested in another thread, I think *your* beliefs pose a greater threat to Australia's social cohesion and cultural identity than some examples on that list.

And I'm not sure where you're living, but I live in an area that is very much a mix of long-ago dispersed Italians and Greeks, and more recently dispersed Chinese. No-one would seriously consider it a ghetto. Yes, there are still areas in our capital cities with heavy concentrations of more recently arrived Chinese, but few would classify even those as ghettos. Most "Chinatowns" in Australia are primarily commercial rather than residential areas, and are rarely hotbeds of crime or poverty. Other countries around the world have not necessarily embraced multiculturalism, hence any issues they may with Chinese integration is not particularly relevant to Australia.

Dresdener – re “switching civilisations”: Australia has been accepting immigrants from “vastly different cultures” for over 200 years, and I don’t see us “switching civilisations”. No doubt our cultural identity is slowly morphing, but the core values that define our civilisation have not yet been under serious threat (actually, they have, but from *white* politicians, not from immigrants). But all civilisations grow and evolve – we just need to vigilant that it’s for the better.
Posted by wizofaus, Saturday, 20 October 2007 6:03:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Daggert, the exact date of the Chinese Communist Insurgency in Indonesia I did not know, but I knew it was during the sixties. This insurrection, meant to establish the local Chinese as the government of Indonesia, followed the similar situation which occurred during the early fifties when the Chinese minority in Malaya also attempted to seize control of that country.

To what degree the Chinese in Malaya were acting on behalf of the Chinese government in RedChina is something I can not answer. But the degree of support that the Chinese gave the “Indonesian” Chinese can be gauged by the fact that Indonesia closed its Peking embassy for (if I remember correctly) 25 years. People like Mr Wizofaust/Nichols who take it for granted that ethnic minorities divest themselves of their ethnic or national loyalties the instant they are granted citizenship obviously do not bother to read history.

The ethnic cleansing of Chinese in Indonesia did occur and if the mass executions involved Indonesian Communist Party members, they were probably all Chinese anyway. You might remember that the Malayan Communist Party had a military wing called “The Malayan Races Liberation Army” which not surprisingly was composed almost entirely of Chinese. The British won that war because they kept the loyalty of the majority of “Malayans” (Dalits. Malays, and Indians) who had no intention of bending the knee to the Chinese.

On the subject of building a socially cohesive society, there are only a few options. You either demand that minorities accept your culture and religion and become one of you, but this is probably impossible when skin colour and ethnicity is a factor. Or you drive them out of the place and take over the joint yourself. Or you force them to accept minority status and then keep tabs on their birthrate. Or you exterminate them. Thinking that people from opposing cultures with diametrically opposed value systems can live together by singing "Kumbaya" and ignoring each others presence is “dancing with the fairies” stuff.

As for your comment on opposing immigration on environmental grounds, you and I are in agreement.
Posted by redneck, Saturday, 20 October 2007 8:14:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I certainly don't "take it for granted that ethnic minorities divest themselves of their ethnic or national loyalties the instant they are granted citizenship". Indeed, as your examples show, it takes careful management of migration, and specific policies to encourage and facilitate integration. Australia has generally achieved this well. Other countries have not. But no country in recent times has ever successfully managed to seal themselves off from the rest of the world.
Posted by dnicholson, Saturday, 20 October 2007 2:10:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’m interested to know what is meant by “mass immigration”. Certainly, it would seem to be applicable to the dodgy strawman “Vidal” quotation above, where one forum correspondent with numerous identities claims that one journalist, apparently citing another journalist, quotes the noted American author talking about the hypothetical immigration of 40 million Bengalis into Norway. Leaving the dubious veracity of the quotation aside, my major problem with this strawman example is that it’s purely hypothetical: as far as I can tell, nobody anywhere has actually suggested that this “mass immigration” is going to happen.

Other correspondents refer to Australia’s current (much more modest) immigration intake as “mass immigration”, but don’t actually specify what that means. At what level of immigration does it become “mass immigration”? I’ve asked what would be an acceptable migrant intake, but nobody seems to want to answer.

Jennifer Clarke suggested that current immigration laws and policies still favour and privilege “white” prospective immigrants, and also that this situation is unrealistic, discriminatory and unlikely to be sustained into the future. Predictably, this provoked a fair bit of wailing and teeth-gnashing among the racists, xenophobes, white supremacists, monoculturalists and population nutters in our midst, who (also predictably) have not managed to present a coherent argument amongst themselves.

Instead, we have comments that mostly range from the outright racist to more ‘weaselly’ expressions of antipathy towards immigrants from what non-European sources. I take my hat off to wizofaus/dnicholson for his/her patience in dealing with the intransigent purveyors of such tripe, whose positions can only lead to further social disharmony such as we saw in Cronulla not so long ago.

(to be continued)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 21 October 2007 8:48:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continued)

My own position is that any policy on immigration to Australia that derives from any kind of Anglo-Celtic ‘ethnic nationalism’ is both anachronistic and doomed to failure. Australia’s position as an “outpost of the Occident” (as someone quaintly put it) in our region was a temporary phase in the creation of national culture – which is, and always will be, a work in progress.

There are already sufficient numbers of Australians of non-Western heritage to ensure that time and demographics will further consign “White Australia” to a slightly embarrassing historical memory. Of course there will be resistance of the kinds that we see in this discussion – and worse – but ultimately our national culture’s dependence upon its historical links to Britain will become increasingly vestigial.

What really irks me about these immigration ‘debates’ is that it seems to be impossible to call for a reduction in immigration on ecological grounds without getting tangled up in the racist and xenophobic twaddle such as is evident in this thread. This is a real shame, because it prevents a balanced and reasonable discussion about an issue about which most of us seem to agree: i.e. the limited ‘carrying capacity’ of the Australian environment to sustain its human population.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 21 October 2007 8:49:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Wizofaust/nicholson. You asked me whether anybody has done research on DNA to deturmin if African blacks are so biologically different to whites that they are more prone to violence, and I replied that I did not know.

Well, whadyaknow? Here is a little gem from a Nobel Laureate which I only just found. I am sure you will find both it and the site it comes from interesting.

Food for thought. Bon appetite.

http://www.debaterelate.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1825&start=0
Posted by redneck, Sunday, 21 October 2007 12:35:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
redneck,
"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,"
James Watso
Posted by peachy, Sunday, 21 October 2007 2:03:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
redneck, good link.

Isn't it typical that, when faced with facts from a world-respected scientist, the unwashed lefty hordes scream 'racial hatred' and 'bigotry'.

Is it racism to say that Blacks are good runners?
Posted by Jack the Lad, Sunday, 21 October 2007 2:18:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan,

You can access the 2002 CSIRO Future Dilemmas report and also a summary to it at

http://www.cse.csiro.au/research/futuredilemmas/

It considers three scenarios, immediate population stabilisation at 20 million, high growth to 40 million, and an intermediate scenario. Which one you consider desirable obviously depends on your value system and the risks you are prepared to take with the environment and with maintaining a viable society. If you are a conservative Catholic and believe that you will get a gold star from God if you pack in the maximum number of people on the minimum standard of living (or hate your own society so much that you want ethnic replacement), you will take a different point of view from someone who wants a decent quality of life for all social classes and to hand on the environment in the same condition in which we found it (or better).

The issue is complicated because greed and stupidity also play a role in environmental pressures as well as sheer numbers. However, the report says, "population numbers [not lifestyle] are the primary driver of resource requirements in urban Australia". We see this with water restrictions in the cities. Water use doesn't vary much with income, so they can't raise the price on excess consumption without hitting large, poor families. Some bans are aimed at wasteful practices, such as watering in the middle of the day when evaporation is high, but others work by reducing quality of life. Washing a car with a trigger hose is actually more efficient than with a bucket. Using a soaker hose and timer is more efficient than handheld watering. The idea is to make time-poor people put up with filthy cars and dying gardens. The Beattie government wouldn't need to build a dam over endangered species habitat if there weren't so many people in SE Queensland. Nor would it be promoting the drinking of recycled sewage, despite the public health risks in the event of human or mechanical failure.

(cont'd)
Posted by Divergence, Sunday, 21 October 2007 3:42:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes I was aware of the Watson comment, which was regarding intelligence, not violence. FWIW "more violent" != "genetically inferior". Is a less violent lion or shark a better lion or shark?
Even "less intelligent" != "genetically inferior". Intelligence is not some magical trait that outranks all other survival advantages. For all Homo Sapiens' intelligence, we may not ending up surviving all that long anyway, and we certainly won't successfully out-compete the rest of nature.
So I have no issue at all with accepting that levels of intelligence might vary between various ethnic populations (allowing that intelligence is a murkily defined beast at best, and almost certainly not something that can usefully be reduced to a single number on a linear scale). As it is the evidence seems to be that Asians races outrank us on our own IQ tests, so there's hardly much cause of white supremacism there. The issue is purely whether the reason that sub-saharan African populations have had trouble forming stable, prosperous nations is largely genetic. You don't need to be Einstein to run a country.
Posted by dnicholson, Sunday, 21 October 2007 3:49:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My own preference is for stabilisation at 20 million in conjunction with measures to limit waste, inefficiency and conspicuous consumption. (You can walk and chew gum at the same time.) This means mass migration is what is significantly more than zero net, say over 50,000 a year (until natural increase goes negative), since half out population growth is coming from that source.

I favour this approach because the environment is seriously deteriorating with the present population. The latest Measures of Australia's Progress report is out and is summarised by David Dale in the Sun-Herald today. Between 1996 and 2006, the number of bird and animal species that are extinct, endangered, or vulnerable rose by 44%, from 119 to 171. 24 of the 83 principal fish stocks are now overfished, as opposed to 3 in 1996. We have achieved the highest per capita level of greenhouse gas emissions in the OECD.

Wizofaus, Ted Trainer does go over the top at times, but it was the CSIRO report, not Trainer, which claimed that the minerals, oil and gas will run out in a matter of decades and pointed to the degradation of agricultural land. If you think human ingenuity will always save us, why have past societies collapsed?

I am mostly concerned about the environment, but our politicians really are setting up the conditions for a perfect storm if we end up with serious ethnic fault lines in conjunction with rapidly falling living standards.
Posted by Divergence, Sunday, 21 October 2007 4:06:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An elegant expression of a traditional racist context:
"As for your comment on opposing immigration on environmental grounds, you and I are in agreement" by redneck.

At the end of the day even pigs might flight, perhaps.
Posted by MichaelK., Sunday, 21 October 2007 4:58:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence - if you're worried about our per-capita greenhouse gas emissions, then we should be importing as many people as possible! After all, the main reason our emissions are so high is because of the intensive resources industry (plus the fact that so much of our electricity comes from brown coal). Our per-capita domestic oil and electricity gas usage is well under that of the US.

As far as minerals etc. running out, while there's no question domestic oil supplies aren't likely to last more than a few decades, most of our profitable mineral resources aren't about to become seriously scarce any time soon (including natural gas and coal). At any rate, even if they did, this would make recycling sufficiently worthwhile to ensure that there were still stocks of economically useful materials. I haven't read the CSIRO report, but I suspect it was talking about "currently-economically-recoverable reserves" not "ultimately recoverable resources". Most raw minerals have reserve levels in the 1 to 2 decade range, and have done since records have been kept: that's the nature of how "reserves" are determined.

And no I don't believe ingenuity will *always* save us, I just believe it's the only thing that *will* save industrial civilisation. Convincing people to give up the twin paradigms of economic growth and ever-increasing material standards of living is doomed to fail (and I would argue, unnecessary. Neither depend on destroying the environment - it's just been the easiest and cheapest way to do it so far).
Posted by dnicholson, Sunday, 21 October 2007 5:23:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Kanga (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96853) for having shown up the disruptive and insincere behaviour of at least one forum participant.

---

CJ Morgan wrote, "At what level of immigration does it become 'mass immigration'. I've asked what would be an acceptable migrant intake, but nobody seems to want to answer."

As I wrote earlier (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96433), I had posed five questions directly to you, before you put the above question, and you have not responded to any one of them.

So, you seem to feel on the one hand you are entitled to demand of me immediate and specific answers to each and every question you have asked of me, but on the other hand I am not entitled to expect the same from you.

I don't see why I, or anybody else on this forum, should feel obliged to attempt to reason with a troll who prefers personal abuse to argument and who repeats the same arguments over and over again without having the courtesy to acknowledge my responses to those arguments.

---

In case anyone may feel that I am being unfair, I Invite them to read my summaries of to CJ Morgan's 'contributions' at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96360 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96378 and ask them to read his posts for themsleves, in order to see what little substance related to the topic at hand is to be found in his 18 posts so far.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 21 October 2007 6:23:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck,
That's a great article on James Watson. It's amazing how ignorant people are when someone suggests something different. It seems we haven't changed from the days of the Salem witch hunts.
As a medical practitioner we were always taught at Uni there was an inextricable link between human form and human function. Function determined form and form determined function. It is thus incredibily ignorant to see the many thousands of differences between various races brought about by evolutionary pressures and then assume that intelligence for some strange reason should be the one characteristic that is constant across the races.
I would'nt guess as to who is the more or less intelligent, but I would stake my life on there being a difference, brought about by evolution.
These people who criticize Watson's view are always willing to accept any idea that some groups may have certain superior characteristics provided we are talking about the "underdogs" having the superiority ( blacks being better at sports). I have never seen them jump up claiming discrimination for such things.
It seems some people just can't accept what science tells us. And for scientists to come out and criticise Watson is just shocking.
Posted by knopfler, Sunday, 21 October 2007 7:36:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Knopfler, part of the problem is that "intelligence" isn't a single factor.
Personally, I have an above-average ability at abstract problem solving (making me a good computer programmer), but a limited ability at applying my reasoning skills to many practical tasks, or at analysing how other people think, meaning I would be a lousy tradesman or business/sales executive. What IQ tests seem to show is that certain self-identified races, including "blacks", rank less well on average in the abstract problem-solving sphere. But one could hardly deny their ability to make a living in the harsh environment of the African jungles and savannahs for hundreds of thousands of years. Further, Native Americans are rated with similar levels of abstract problem-solving skills, yet were capable of running sophisticated civilisations (the Aztecs, Incas and Mayans) while "white" Europe floundered about in the dark ages. On top of that, the average non-normalized IQ score now for blacks is about what it was for whites 50 years ago (due to the Flynn effect). Yet 50 years ago, whites were no less incapable of running modern prosperous nations.

The further difficulty is that in the modern world, dominated by strong abstract-problem-solvers (whites - although note Asians are generally better still), races whose natural abilities tend to be in other fields often get short shrift, and judged to be collectively "less intelligent". Worse still, because of this mindset, judgments are made about black individuals that assume that because of their skin-colour, they must be necessarily be not as smart as those white guys next to them. But there are plenty of blacks with good abstract-problem solving skills, as well as plenty of whites with poor ones. There is no excuse for not judging each individual on his or her particular abilities and/or behaviour, other than laziness.
Posted by wizofaus, Monday, 22 October 2007 7:06:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wizofaus,

I don't know if you have fully read my last post. The point I am making is that, in my opinion, there will be a difference in intelligence between different races. How you measures that intelligence is another problem. Who is the more intelligent? I don't know.
I stated above that there are thousands of differences between different races that we accept, but when it comes to politically sensitive areas we close down debate and just say well there is no difference.
Humans are animals that have evolved over millions of years to different environments, thus they will be different.
There will be much overlap between intelligence of members of different races, however if we could measure average intelligence of different races then they would be different.
Wizofaus, would you agree with the statement that different races will have different levels of intelligence, without saying who is more intelligent?
Posted by ozzie, Monday, 22 October 2007 8:26:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozzie, I quite categorically accepted in my previous post that self-identified "blacks" tend to do poorer than whites on abstract reasoning tests, and whites tend to do poorer than Asians. By some people's view of "intelligence" this would make whites, on average, less intelligent than Asians, and blacks less so again.
But personally, as I said above, I don't see "intelligence" as a single factor, nor do I believe that "intelligence" is a trait that deserves special treatment over other abilities.
Ultimately, what is important is whether people of all races can successfully co-operate to form a stable, prosperous civilisation.
The other day I witnessed several hundred kids leaving our local high school en masse. My rough analysis was about 35% anglo, 35% "other caucasian", 20% Chinese/SE-Asian, 7% Indian and 3% "black" (probably Sudanese) - roughly in line with the demographics for my neighbourhood. There was virtually no racial segregation - they were all getting along just fine, chatting and laughing and all the stuff that kids do together. The inescapable conclusion I came to is that the intolerance and segregation and violence that happens between adults of different ethnic backgrounds is almost entirely a cultural phenomenon, that is conditioned into us by our parents, by society, by government policies - whether intentionally or otherwise. But each generation that conditioning seems to be getting weaker and weaker. I doubt racism and intolerance will ever be eliminated completely (as I suspect we *do* have a genetic tendency to distrust other groups, particularly if they are visually distinct), but it really has no place in the 21st century.
Posted by wizofaus, Monday, 22 October 2007 9:01:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hallelujah! Thanks to Divergence for responding sensibly to my question regarding acceptable immigration levels, and what might constitute "mass immigration". As it happens, I largely concur with you that an appropriate target might be something like

"stabilisation at 20 million in conjunction with measures to limit waste, inefficiency and conspicuous consumption... This means mass migration is what is significantly more than zero net, say over 50,000 a year (until natural increase goes negative), since half out population growth is coming from that source."

However, when you say "...our politicians really are setting up the conditions for a perfect storm if we end up with serious ethnic fault lines in conjunction with rapidly falling living standards", I think you're missing the point. The toothpaste is already out of the tube with respect to Australia's ethnic and cultural diversity, and restricting specifically 'non-White' immigration isn't going to change that. Any communal conflict in Australia's population can only be exacerbated by the expression and enactment of xenophobic and racist sentiments such as we see from some in this thread.

James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/Olduvai/et al, interesting that you would characterise me as "insincere" and a "troll", for exposing your dishonesty - of which I've reluctantly informed the moderators.

I've tried to find any questions that you or your sock puppets have asked of me that I haven't answered, and the only one that I can find that I hadn't specifically addressed was the one about the SEQ population. Of course I don't agree that increasing the SEQ population by 1 million is sustainable. Perhaps the questions were asked by another sock puppet that I haven't yet identified, and you're a little confused as to which one asked what?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 22 October 2007 9:30:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan wrote, "I've tried to find any questions that you ... have asked of me ..."

Here are six, not five questions.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96166

1. How many of those do you suppose would not jump at the opportunity to move to an industrialised western nation?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96361

2. ... would you care to quantify your "support the limitation of immigration to Australia on ecological grounds"?

3. Do you know that John Howard initially dropped annual immigration figures to 68,000 ...?

4. Now do you happen to believe that level of immigration into a country running out of water is ecologically sustainable?

5. Do you happen to believe that the Queensland Government's plan to cram another 1.1 million into South East Queensland by 2026 is ecologically sustainable?

6. If you don't, then what do you intend to do about it?

None had been answered, when you posed your question. three have only just now been answered in response to Divergence's most recent post and three (1, 3 an 6) still remain unanswered.

As I have shown, you apply one standard to others and a different standard to yourself.

CJM wrote "interesting that you would characterise me as 'insincere' and a 'troll', for exposing your dishonesty ..."

You haven't exposed any dishonesty except your own.

As I have repeatedly said, there has always been a link to my own web page at the bottom of each post, and those posts which were made on my behalf by others were done so openly. I am not aware where this is in breach of any rules. Where I have resorted to this I have only done so sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.

Now, you are entitled to suspect that some OLO accounts may not be bona fide, but allegations do not constitute proof.

CJM continued "... of which I've reluctantly informed the moderators."

... as you are entitled to, and which is vastly preferable to your further disruption of this forum.

In any case, the main reason I regard you as a troll was your misrepresentation of my arguments, which you have done yet again.
Posted by daggett, Monday, 22 October 2007 1:03:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZZIE “will be a difference in intelligence between different races” – surely, he will as long as majority of rednecks suppose discriminate non-Anglos in supposedly for-Anglos-only Anglo-colony of Australia.

But time brings about substantial change-as even in Germany already happened.

I graduated from monogamous school demonstrating similar educational outcome similar to WIZOGAMUS findings-so what? Race matters for racists only, and copulating is anyway leads to a similar results interracially.
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 22 October 2007 1:36:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James Sinnamon/dagget/various sock puppets:

"How many of those do you suppose would not jump at the opportunity to move to an industrialised western nation?"

Such a silly question I thought it was rhetorical. How could anybody possibly answer it sensibly? More hypothetical strawmen.

"Do you know that John Howard initially dropped annual immigration figures to 68,000 ...?"

No I didn't. So what?

"If you don't, then what do you intend to do about it?"

I'm a member of the Qld Greens, which is the only political party actively campaigning against this disastrous plan. What are you doing about it, besides consorting with racists and monoculturalists to whip up some xenophobic hysteria? And what good's that going to do in terms of SEQ anyway - most people who move to Qld do so from other parts of Australia, not from overseas?

"..posts which were made on my behalf by others were done so openly"

But that's the trouble, James. They weren't made on your behalf by others at all. They were made by you using various sock puppet identities - we both know that. Your persistent dishonesty about this, combined with your propensity to rely on 'evidence' of dubious provenance and veracity (e.g. "Vidal", Lines et al), relegates any arguments you may have to the 'crackpot' bin, I'm afraid. And your linking of the population issue with your apparent opposition to multiculturalism can only serve to discredit you further.

It's a pity, because you do seem to have a couple of good ideas and a certain amount of misguided enthusiasm. You need to realise that you also need to be credible for your ideas to have any force - and you are certainly not credible, if your performance in this thread is anything to go by.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 22 October 2007 1:37:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MichaelK
"I graduated from a monogomous school"

Reading your last post, I doubt you ever went to school.
Posted by ozzie, Monday, 22 October 2007 3:40:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan,

Racism isn't really the right word. The migrants who have been causing the most problems are usually not the ones who are racially most distant from the Anglo majority. Culture is far more important than race here.

If immigration numbers were cut to stabilise the population, I believe this would automatically fix the social cohesion problem, even if immigration were completely nondiscriminatory, provided that any prospective migrants were vetted individually. The US cut immigration back to around zero net between 1921 and 1965 from the very high levels of the early 20th century. The result was a reduction in social inequality and more assimilation, as the ethnic "ghettos" were unable to replenish their first generation migrants from overseas. It also became harder to cocoon oneself from the host society, so people who really disliked it would have been more likely to go home. The Center for Immigration Studies has a lot of articles on US immigration history

http://www.cis.org

What worries me is the scenario where the sociopaths in Parliament and the corporate elite keep immigration high, allow the formation and maintenance of ethnic ghettos, and continue to degrade the environment. When there aren't enough resources to go around people will eventually find something to fight about, but big ethnic and religious differences cause it to happen more easily.
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 22 October 2007 4:59:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence,
Now that this thread has partly shifted to immigration matters, I will put my two bobs worth in.

I have read and reread you posts relative to immigration and mainly agree with you. Big busness wants high immigration and while ever big business gives massive donations to both the major parties that will continue as 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'. Sales profit is the motive, not what is best for Australia.

We are badly in need of a population policy debate from the major parties and the public. The major parties have colluded not to publicly debate immigration issues so we won't get that.

After 35 years of failed multiculturalism we now have integration which is a step in the right direction. I am also hopefull the a discriminatory immigration policy will now take place so that applicants for immigration will be suject to integration assessment so those that, from our experience, will not or cannot be part of our community will no longer be accepted. As you say this is cultural and not racial.

It makes no sense to keep importing those people that cause disruption to social cohession.

Pity we cannot lower the numbers as well. Other countries appear to get by without population growth.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 9:35:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo, what 35 years of failed multiculturalism are you talking about? And "integration" is not the opposite of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is about accepting and celebrating the cultural differences that aren't in conflict with Australian laws and principles of equality and liberty. I don't think anyone could argue with a straight face that importing the cuisine, the music, the dance forms, the languages that are associated with non-Anglo cultures has been detrimental to our country. Of course cultural attitudes towards families, individualism vs collectivism, respect for authority etc. vary too, but I haven't seen this generate any serious threat to our social cohesion. Attitutes towards equality and liberty are arguably the most challenging aspect of multiculturalism, but 100 years ago Western views regarding these principles were very different too, so are clearly malleable with time (and as I pointed out earlier, the UNHRD was officially recognised worldwide well over 50 years ago). I absolute agree that we shouldn't even accept permanent residents who reject these principles (e.g., believing that Sharia law should always be honoured), and I think we could do with intelligent tests that can filter such potential residents out (testing at the time of citizenship is too late, and questions such as "Do you pledge to respect the Australian rule of law" are useless).

As far as our total immigration numbers go, the first priority should be to ensure that the current population can be supported sustainably (looking at infrastructure, housing supply, water supply, food supply, GHG emissions etc.). The second priority is to ensure that the population pyramid is a sustainable shape: if we stopped all immigration today, it would almost certainly become dangerously top-heavy in the next few decades. Rapid population decline is possibly more dangerous than the current rate of increase.

FWIW, it's not true that the government hasn't considered long term immigration impacts:

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/population/ageing/ageing12.htm

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1999-2000/2000rp05.htm

(which states "Given current trends in fertility and mortality, annual net migration to Australia of at least 80 000 persons is necessary to avoid spiralling population decline and substantial falls in the size of the labour force").
Posted by dnicholson, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 11:02:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozzie,

Be sure I “went to school” and did graduate from school and the university with awards and distinctions further proven during my career and life.

What is my lack of qualification is being a non-Anglos in a hopeless spot called Australia.
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 23 October 2007 11:47:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan,

First you attempted personal abuse and allegations of dishonesty in order to discredit me.

My own responses (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96189) and cacofonix's responses (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96244) which have demonstrated much of what you have alleged against us to have been factually incorrect have never been acknowledged by you.

When smears, insults and personal abuse failed, you attempted blackmail in order to get me to stop me from contributing to this discussion:

"If I was you I'd quit before the site moderators wake up to you ..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96724)

When I refused you complained to the moderators.

Having done so, my appeal to you to allow the moderators to deal with it and to cease your disruption of this forum was ignored:

CJ Morgan wrote: "James Sinnamon/dagget/various sock puppets: ...",

"... But that's the trouble, James. They weren't made on your behalf by others at all. They were made by you using various sock puppet identities - we both know that. ..." ()

No, you don't know that.

And just supposing, for argument's sake, it was true that I had set up a different account, and made use of it on the odd occasion.

So what?

Do I deserve for this unproven technical transgression of OLO rules to be the subject to never-ending vilification from you?

What do you believe is the essential difference between the transgression you have accused me of and the similar transgression that another contributor has openly admitted to having done on this forum?

In any case, does a technical transgression of OLO rules--as opposed to personal abuse, insults, blackmail, misrepresentation of your opponent's arguments, repetition of allegations without acknowledgement of the responses from the accused, etc--automatically make a contributor dishonest and without credibility?

I would suggest that only a narrow-minded pedant, or else a hypocrite, would insist this to be the case.

---

In response to your extremely belated 'answers' to my questions, let's first resolve the issue at hand.

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 1:18:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuedfromabove)

You have repeatedly and indignantly demanded that I answer your question, whilst ignoring the six prior questions I had previously asked of you (and a massive amount of other substantial content). When I pointed this out, you claimed to be unable to find them.

Furthermore, you held that your own inability to find those questions was further confirmation of your earlier smear against me :

"Perhaps the questions were asked by another sock puppet that I haven't yet identified, and you're a little confused as to which one asked what?"

I have shown that the questions were there after all and had been put by myself or openly on my behalf.

As you have not paid me the courtesy of withdrawing and apologising for your demonstrably false allegation against me, I won't waste any more of my time attempting to deal with your ostensible responses to those questions.

---

CJ Morgan wrote, "you do seem to have a couple of good ideas and a certain amount of misguided enthusiasm"

For my part, I think I will decline to reciprocate this obviously insincere attempt at flattery.

In my experience, sadly confirmed on this forum, there are plenty of members of the Greens who actively work against the stated goals of the Greens, in part, by smearing and otherwise disrupting others who do work for those goals.

=-=-=

redneck (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96923),

I don't subscribe to the Cold War view that the political movements we choose to label as 'communist' in South East Asia, or the association of Chinese communities with those movements (as opposed to, say, drug trafficking or female circumcision) were automatically bad things.

Let's not forget that the Malayan Communists, whom you condemn, also fought with the British against the Japanese in WW2. What you have posted appears to be the rationale of the Indonesian military dictatorship for what I regard as an unprovoked cold-blooded massacre of 500,000 Indonesian citizens. I would be interested to see your firm evidence for what you have written, but elsewhere, and not here. We are not going to resolve this issue here.
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 1:19:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whoops … just fallen into this thread and from a cursory reading … I can see most posters have either an identity crisis (or 2, or 3 …) or suffer from some kind of neurosis.

And here is me thinking the border that really should be protected only extends 13 km up and envelops the whole world … a common border, silly me.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 2:42:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Thanks Kanga (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96853) for having shown up the disruptive and insincere behaviour of at least one forum participant." (Quote James Sinnamon)

Come now....; why not just thank your colleague personally?

As to your fixation with getting answers to your questions......,hummm; I'm STILL waiting for ONE answer to ONE question.

It doesn't matter James.

Why you trashed your own credibility is beyond me. The 'for Daggett/ on behalf of' thing was totally unnecessary for one of your capabilities.

You are your own worst enemy.
Posted by Ginx, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 6:29:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/Olduvai/et al: "What do you believe is the essential difference between the transgression you have accused me of and the similar transgression that another contributor has openly admitted to having done on this forum?"

Er, James - wizofaus/dnicholson has been quite open about it. You, on the other hand continue to tell pathetic porkies that nobody believes. As Ginx says, why you would want to trash your own credibility this way is beyond me.

"In any case, does a technical transgression of OLO rules...automatically make a contributor dishonest and without credibility?"

No, only when they persist in the pretence after having been caught out.

"... there are plenty of members of the Greens who actively work against the stated goals of the Greens, in part, by smearing and otherwise disrupting others who do work for those goals"

Yes, but they get weeded out eventually. There's also plenty of people who claim to be environmentalists, but who turn out to be racists, nutjobs or NIMBYs in disguise. Which kind are you?

"I won't waste any more of my time attempting to deal with your ostensible responses to those questions."

No worries, James - I wouldn't have believed you anyway.

This thread's just about run its course anyway. See you another time, under whatever identity you choose to post.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 7:42:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dnicholson,
I refer to the last 35 years of MC ideology. You must have been asleep or out of the country if you don't think MC has failed. It has divided the community along various ethnic lines, each competing for a portion of the millions that our governments have thrown at them. The policy specifically promoted the cultures of foreign countries to the detriment of our own culture. "Unity in diversity" has to be the biggest lie ever. Ask the Croats and Serbs about unity. Ask the Sunni and Shia Iraqis about unity. Ask the Leb muslims about unity with anybody at all. MC is totally dependant on all groups giving respect to all others and the wheels fall off when some do not have respect.

Like most MC advocates, you wear rose coloured glasses and only see the 'nice' things like dragon parades, beer festivals, folk dancing and children in costumes. You ignor the baggage that comes with some cultures.

Well the debate is over. You are too late. Both major parties agree that MC is out and integration is a better way to go. No one has claimed that integration is the opposite to MC, but the emphasis is on our community instead of the retaining of foreign cultures.

Don't you think that the 6o or so racially motivated gang rapes and the events leading up to and following Cronulla were a threat to our social cohesion. What about the ongoing hatreds between various ethnic groups, does that enhance social cohesion?
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 9:47:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo, you might then ask the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland about unity. They share virtually everything bar a belief in the sanctity of the virgin mary and their attachment to mother England, yet still can't get along. Cultural (and racial) homogeneity is no guarantee for unity either.

The Cronulla riots were certainly an ugly incident, but so were the of riots and protests at, say, the Melbourne G-20 summit. All sorts of things provoke criminal, anti-social, violent behaviour.

Further, explain to me exactly how you believe governments now push "integration" over "multiculturalism" and how that would have prevented the Cronulla riots?

As I said before, multi-culturalism is essentially the art of allowing people from different backgrounds to co-exist and integrate without having to completely "assimiliate" and leave behind *all* aspects of their culture that differentiate them from the customs of the prevailing society. Everywhere that I have lived has demonstrated that it is perfectly capable of operating successfully. I don't believe there's a simple, easy answer to explain incidents where that hasn't been the case, though no doubt the attitudes of the population at large are a factor. But I also accept that allowing too many individuals from a particular background to predominate an area is a recipe for unease - we have quotas on the total number of migrants that may enter Australia, so perhaps quotas on the total number that may move to particular suburbs would be worth considering.
Posted by dnicholson, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 6:08:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dnicholson,
Issues about the pros and cons of MC have been debated many times on OLO.

You have certainly been out of touch if you are unaware that many months ago the announcement was made that MC was dropped in favour of 'integration' policy. I suppose it did not get a lot of media coverage because the Opposition leader concurred. I take it that you are aware that the major parties have a long standing agreement not to publicly debate immigration issues. Since then the Minister has further spoken about 'integration assessment' of potential immigrants.

I do not know exactly what made the Government decide to drop MC, but one can assume that events like the gang rapes, clashes between Iraqi Shia and Sunnis, Croats and Serbs were considered. Maybe the continued activities like arranged forced marriages, cock fighting played a role. FGM of aussie born girls is still being done dispite at least 14 years of educating the groups concerned. ASIO and AFP reports on ethnic crime is another possibility. But I think the crunch was the events leading up to and after the Cronulla day led the Government to beleive that our social cohesion was not what it should be.

The emphasis is now on our values and not on retaining foreign cultures. We are still stuck with those with alien cultural aspects, that are citizens, but from now on those persons with cultures that have not shown good prospects for integration will not be accepted for permanant residency visas.

In the longer term this will greatly improve social cohesion.
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 11:05:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wizofaus,

Yes, if fertility stays as it is (slightly below replacement) we might eventually need to take 80,000 migrants a year, which would be above zero net. However, according to a Ross Gittins column that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald a few months ago, the true immigration rate is running at about 300,000 a year. This is because a lot of migrants aren't included in the official statistics: refugees, even the ones we invite, New Zealanders, people who take out New Zealand citizenship to get to Australia, foreign students who complete approved courses, people on supposedly temporary visas that are routinely renewed, etc. The total plus the official migrants comes to about 300,000, according to Gittins.

According to Chapter 2 of the CSIRO report I linked to earlier, the age distribution is not a serious problem for Australia, with dependency ratios no worse than in the 1960s for even the lowest population scenario. A lot of European countries are doing very well by their people with the proportion of aged that we will be expecting. The government and media have beaten up aging for their own reasons, although it might be a real problem for places like South Korea, with a fertility rate of 1.3. It is 1.8 for Australia, and replacement is 2.1.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 11:44:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan,

So, what you would have me believe is that if an abusive troll, who is contributing nothing to the discussion other than personal attacks (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96360), were to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, fraud and having set up a number of other accounts, and I were to plead guilty as charged, regardless of what evidence has been presented, that the troll would immediately change his ways and begin to discuss the substance of my posts in a civil manner?

Please forgive my skepticism.

---

daggett wrote, "... there are plenty of members of the Greens who actively work against the stated goals of the Greens, in part, by smearing and otherwise disrupting others who do work for those goals"

CJ Morgan responded, "Yes, but they get weeded out eventually."

Are they now?

---

CJ Morgan wrote,"This thread's just about run its course anyway."

If you were more honest, you would have told us that you were running out of excuses not to debate the substantive points raised on this forum.

Now, run away and hide, and please don't come back.

=-=-=

Ginx wrote, "As to your fixation with getting answers to your questions ..."

Your prejudice against me has blinded you to the fact that it was not myself who first indignantly demanded answers to my questions.

"... I'm STILL waiting for ONE answer to ONE question."

Which one?

Ginx wrote, "You think I'm being sarcastic? Who are you??"

Already answered, I would have thought. Who's Ginx?

Ginx wrote, "Seriously; have you had some sort of a breakdown?"

No.

"... please explain?"

Sorry, but what is there to explain?
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 5:25:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reading these pages understands clearly that democracy is a very obstacle to Australian reality and Anglo-commonwealth determination.
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 24 October 2007 6:54:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo, I'm sorry but I'm not aware of any government policy to drop "multiculturalism". Government-published material is still available in different languages, migrants are not forced to give up any of their customs other than those that directly contravene Australian law (which has always been the case), and institutions and organisation intended to help migrants keep in contact with others from similar backgrounds are still very much alive and well. If you can point me to a single piece of legislation or policy change that reflects an attempt to drop "multiculturalism", I'd like to see it. The fact that the *name* of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs changed was largely a publicity stunt, no doubt to appeal to the racist fringe that still, as this forum shows, sadly remains in existence.

Divergence: a net immigration rate of 80,000 would be about what I would see as ideal. I somewhat doubt Ross Gittin's rate of 300,000 is a genuine reflection of how the net annual increase in non-native population, but I fully agree that the current rate is not sustainable.
Posted by wizofaus, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 7:18:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a truly weird diatribe.

You really have lost it, James Sinnamon.
Posted by Ginx, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 9:36:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wizofaus,
There are many legislative changes made that are supported by both sides of the House, that we do not get to hear about, unless one reads Hansard daily. Also there are many instances where changes can be made within the current legislation. The change from MC to 'integration' probably was made in this way. In fact I would not be surprized to find that no legislative changes were made to introduce MC 35 or so years ago and even if there was, provission was left for future changes.

Have no doubt it was announced months ago and the leader of the Opposition agreed. The best way for you to check on this is via the Ministers office.

You will find that changes to printed material and so on are in progress and will be available as time goes on. I am looking forward to obtaining copy of the new information that will be given to prospective migrants when they apply for a visa.
Posted by Banjo, Thursday, 25 October 2007 8:58:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ginx,

Thank you.

This just what we needed, this forum having reached 205 posts largely consisting of attacks repetitiously directed by this forum's self-appointed moral policemen against myself and my efforts to defend myself against those attacks:

Another personal attack (post 206), necessitating a further response (post 208) from myself.

Now, instead of being accused of being a racist, a dog whistler, intellectually dishonest, a fraud, having a large number of fake accounts, etc, etc, I am now told that I have gone mad.

Well, to be honest, Ginx, maybe I have. They say that mad people don't know if they have gone mad.

I am sure that what I have been made to endure, so far, on this forum would not have helped.

On the other hand, assuming that I have not 'lost it', then what we on his forum is yet another example of the lengths to which those who are largely comfortable with the status quo of Australia in 2007 are prepared to go to silence those who are not.

Also, are you aware that in the old Soviet system, the authorities would routinely diagnose as mad those critics of the regime who would not be silenced?
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 25 October 2007 9:50:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Intriguing Banjo, because there are still literally hundreds of Goverment web pages promoting multiculturalism, at both state and federal level. E.g.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/multicultural/agenda/agenda1.htm

"It accepts and respects the right of all Australians to express and share their individual cultural heritage within an overriding commitment to Australia and the basic structures and values of Australian democracy"

And from
http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/a-diverse-australia:

"The government's cultural diversity policy and its history."
...
"A Calendar of Cultural and Religious Dates"
...
"The Charter of Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society"

etc. etc. Further there are separate pages describing various ethnic/cultural groups (e.g. http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/comm-summ/textversion/sudan.htm)

Accepted, the word "multiculturalism" has been in some cases replaced by "cultural diversity", but a rose by any other name etc. etc.
Posted by wizofaus, Thursday, 25 October 2007 11:12:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At http://candobetter.org/node/228, there is an article by Tim Murray, Director of Immigration Watch Canada (http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org). It is entitled:

"Closing our borders can't mean turning our backs".

The intoductory teaser is:

"Whilst measures to stop the current unprecedented global levels of immigration are a necessary precondition to save our global environment, they can only ever work as stop-gap measures. Unless accompanied by a concerted international effort to redress the inequities, established by colonialism and, in recent decades, exacerbated by the waves of neo-liberal inspired globalising 'reforms', closure of borders of industrialised nations to immigration from Third World nations cannot succeed in the longer term and cannot hope to prevent world-wide environmental calamity."

Comments posted to that site will be welcome, although, for reasons which sould be obvious to all by now, personal abuse will not be tolerated.

---

(To those, who may be considering once again feigning moral outrage at another post by cacofonix, alleged sock puppet of daggett, please consider that others, who may be capable of coping with ideas and facts not consistent with their pre-existing world views, may appreciate this post, even if you do not. Daggett is unable to post himself because he has once again exhausted his daily quota having had to defend himself against two further personal attacks.)
Posted by cacofonix, Thursday, 25 October 2007 2:52:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Usual misleading is a very business of any political minder – whether it is immigration, employment or anything else in Australia or elsewhere.

Really, if 2.2m Australians subsist "below poverty line", how it has happened having about 5% of unemployed in this national-liberal neo-racist paradise recently?

And what a heck a reason for bringing in more slaves from overseas-if not putting more money into “job-service” trickery, a Labour leader wife is among professional service-providers is?
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 25 October 2007 6:51:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan: "Ethnic nationalism is doomed to failure.
A temporary phase in the creation of national culture.
Time and demographics will further consign "White Australia" to a slightly embarrassing historical memory."

Yes, the future is *inevitable*.
As it always has been so predictably thoroughout history.

We cannot in any way determine ourselves what the future of Australia will be.
It's already been determined for us.
We can only shrug our shoulders in resignation.

"Historical links to Britain will become increasingly vestigial."

Yes, while English becomes the dominant world language.
And British and American popular culture are exported worldwide, seen in every cinema and heard on every radio station.
Good luck de-Britishing the world, CJ!

Q&A: "Here is me thinking the border that really should be protected only extends 13 km up and envelops the whole world … a common border, silly me."

Yes, silly you.
No such "one world" has ever existed.
Human history is one of *thousands* of "worlds" i.e. cultural realities.

They can't all exist together *simultaneously*.
Each culture only exists because of some relative isolation from the other cultures.

The irony of multiculturalism is it thinks bringing them all together is respectful and beneficial.

But his process would actually end up *destroying* all cultural differences.
It would all end up blending together into gasp! A *monocultural* reality.

Some have claimed without multicultural immigration we'd be boring.
Some have said Australians are dumb, so we need smarter Asians to help us out.

Who cares if we're boring and dumb!
If that's what we are, then so be it.
Don't we have the right to be boring and dumb?

Do cultures only matter if they're "exotic" or "sophisticated"?
*Who* defines these terms anyway?
Who decides what's "smart" or "interesting"?

Australians have the right to be "Australian", however that's defined.
It certainly isn't defined as "the entire world and all its cultures".

As for helping all the starving millions elsewhere, this is impossible. There's too many.

Isn't our primary concern the wellbeing of those *already living here*?
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 25 October 2007 8:15:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I said; weird. (And 'cacfix' is exacerbating rather than helping.)
Posted by Ginx, Thursday, 25 October 2007 9:02:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ginx,

I attempted to answer your nonsensical questions only to be told that I had "lost it".

I responded to that post only to have that response ignored and your insult repeated.

How much longer do you intend to persist with this harassment?
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 25 October 2007 9:55:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic: "Who cares if we're boring and dumb!
If that's what we are, then so be it.
Don't we have the right to be boring and dumb?"

Yes you do, old mate - and let me be the first to say you exercise your right in exemplary fashion.

James Sinnamon/daggett/'cacfix'/sundry sock puppets: "How much longer do you intend to persist with this harassment?"

About as long as you continue to bleat disingenuously, I guess. If you'll just stop drawing attention to your apparently pathological multiplicity, I'm quite sure we'll all be able to engage in honest and sensible debate.

Personally, I'm quite happy for James to have his sock puppets,even if he persists in telling fibs about them. I actually quite liked the 'teaser' from his blog mate, but I haven't read the full article yet.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 25 October 2007 10:35:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“No such ‘one world’ has ever existed.”

Depends on the context Shockadelic … or one’s perspective.

This is a very intriguing thread from the outlooks you, and others wish to travel (and I doubt Jennifer would have seen it metamorphosing as it has – any comments JC?).

However, purely from a scientific point of view … humanity has only ‘one world’ with a common border and believe it or not, this border is under threat.

Without going too far off topic, if the thread hasn’t already, my point would be that humanity in general, regardless of skin colour, culture, ideology or level of dumbness … needs to address this issue as much as MC or identity, if not more.

The only way for conflict to be resolved is through mutual respect and recognising the multi-lateral or global problems to be solved. Unless we do this, GW or no GW, our ‘one world’ will not exist as you say, regardless of multiculturalism, identity or the colour of one's skin.

Sweet dreams.
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 26 October 2007 12:03:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Jack the Lad. Yes mate, you see the anti racists have no problem with anybody saying that the Chinese are good workers, but they do have a problem with anybody saying that Chinese are prone to gambling addictions. The rule of thumb is that positive stereotypes are OK, but negative stereotypes are racism. In other words, you may say nice things about races but not bad ones.

To Dnicholson/wizofaust.

If you accept that intelligence levels may not be equal among races then there is hope for you yet. It also makes you just as racist as I am.

A person’s level of intelligence is usually a major consideration in whether or not they hold “superior” positions in the pecking order. Every civilization has recognized the concept of high intelligence and valued it. IQ and SAT tests are still the only reliable guide to a person’s intelligence level and types of intelligence (also called “talents”) which an individual may have. They are also a reliable guide to future success of any individual.

On the subject of Asian’s being more intelligent than whites, I accept that. My purpose is not to promote white supremacy, it is to appraise an impartial examination of known facts and make reasonable assumptions from that knowledge.

Getting back to the topic under discussion (priveleged whites), the author of this article seems outraged that white people prefer their own kith and kin. I thought that was a cultural universal?
Posted by redneck, Friday, 26 October 2007 4:50:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, redneck, a racist is someone that assumes that between a black and a white man, the black man is "less intelligent", and therefore less capable of contributing towards society. Or that because someone is Sudanese, they will have trouble integrating into Australian society.

Your view that "intelligence" is a single factor that strongly determines their position in society is one that I emphatically disagree with. In America 50 years ago there were no black doctors, lawyers, professors, CEOs, secretaries of state, presidential candidates, etc. etc. 50 years ago people assumed blacks were genetically incapable of performing such roles. The fact that they were unable to reach these positions of status was entirely because "the system" was dead-set against them doing so. The fact that even today they are underrepresented in certain prestigious professions is just as likely to be indicative of the remnants of inherent racism in the system, or other cultural disadvantages, as it to be some genetic limitation of blacks. In another 50 years' time when the barriers have all but disintegrated, I am quite willing to wager that blacks will be well represented in most major "high-status" professions.

I would accept that there may well always be more white or Asian Einstein-like geniuses than black ones, but Einstein would have been a hopeless president, lousy CEO, and probably not a very good doctor (he certainy wasn't much of a father). "Intelligence" as measured by IQ tests is a much overrated factor - indeed, more than once, I've found myself wishing I could trade in a few IQ points for some abilities that would help me far more in living a successful, fulfilled life!
Posted by wizofaus, Friday, 26 October 2007 5:36:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Ginx,

I attempted to answer your nonsensical questions only to be told that I had "lost it".

I responded to that post only to have that response ignored and your insult repeated.

How much longer do you intend to persist with this harassment?"
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 25 October 2007 9:55:19 PM
__________________

HARASSMENT!! What IS the matter with you?

YOU wrote some pretty interesting stuff which I agreed with and indicated support for you.
YOU had a shot at someone because they addressed you by your real name which you put up on the site. It was NOT a crime to address you thus.
YOU chose to display a surprising sensitivity over it.
YOU chose to defend 'other identities' posting 'on behalf' of yourself. For someone of your capabilities it was a ludicrous exercise!
YOU choose to dummy spit repeatedly after this nonsense.
YOU; YOU, James set it in motion!

Now you cry foul!!

That is absurd.
Posted by Ginx, Friday, 26 October 2007 8:53:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ginx,

You wrote: "YOU had a shot at someone because they addressed you by your real name ..."

Had a shot?

This is what I wrote: "Whilst it is clear that means exist to find out the identities of myself and other posters to his forum for anyone curious enough, could I suggest to you that it would be more polite to respect the anonymity of another poster to this forum if he/she chooses to remain anonymous within the context of that forum?" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96165)

Please tell me how you were able to construe this as 'having a shot'? Do you think I was meaning to be sarcastic?

As other contributors, including yourself, are able to enjoy total anonymity, I thought it was reasonable to request that I be allowed a degree of anonymity.

But, obviously I made a mistake in assuming that CJ Morgan would agree.

Clearly nothing I say or do will cause CJ Morgan or yourself, to concede that I have been acting with honest intentions in this debate.

I will just have to hope that other OLO users will be able to make sense of this mess.

---

CJ Morgan's response to Shockadelic's post (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#97425) shows him to be incapable or unwilling to honestly take on board logical and insightful points in this debate. It is as if he is only here to barrack for a particular point of view which would suffer if debate were to go ahead unmolested.
Posted by daggett, Friday, 26 October 2007 10:45:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A world becomes as much English as rapidly downgrading services in Australia are.

Of course, if talking of medicine and transport, for instance, not of a prison-style “human” assisting.
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 26 October 2007 1:02:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic: "Don't we have the right to be boring and dumb?"

CJ Morgan: "Yes you do, old mate - and let me be the first to say you exercise your right in exemplary fashion."

Wow, none of us say that one coming!

You are so clever and original, CJ.
Such a predictable response wouldn't be "boring and dumb", by any chance?

And thanks for predictably ignoring the points I made.
Is badmouthing other people your official occupation?

Shockadelic: "No such 'one world' has ever existed".

Q&A: "Depends on the context Shockadelic".

And the context *here* was a discussion of immigration and it's cultural component I believe.
Not planetary geography.

And thanks for predictably ignoring the points I made.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 26 October 2007 8:30:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Wizofaust/Nichols, you appear to be contradicting your previous post in which you admitted that races may not have equal intelligences.

My position is that whereas some black people may possess high intelligence, the proportion of below average, average, and above average intelligences within races is not equal. I admit that education does make people smarter, and 18 point gap between white IQ’s and black IQ’s may be explained by the fact that white people have had access to education for much longer than blacks. But whatever the reason for the gap, it does exist, and at present white people are verifiably smarter than blacks. Once this fact is understood and appreciated, then the reason for black dysfunction in every state where they reside is easily explained.

I also admit that racism can be a factor holding back black advancement for smart blacks. But given that so many black people behave so poorly, can you not admit that racism by whites towards blacks may have some justification?

If you believe that intelligence ratios are equal in all races, could I point out that this concept has been tried before by the Socialist movement who vehemently proclaimed that the notion of “class” did not exist, and that every labourer was just as smart as every scientist. One Socialist, George Bernard Shaw even wrote a book to illistrate his ideology called “Pygmalion” (My Fair Lady), in which a Cheapside flower girl was simply given elocution lessons and a nice dress, whereupon she was indistinguishable from a Hungarian princess.

The concept that all classes are equally intelligent has gone out of fashion today, probably because the people who advocated this nonsense were all known to be insufferable snobs. But why educated and supposedly intelligent young people today persist in claiming that all men are equal when they self evidently are not, is one of the mysteries of life.
Posted by redneck, Friday, 26 October 2007 8:39:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, redneck, I'm not contradicting myself. Yes, I accept that intelligence - AS MEASURED BY IQ TESTS - varies between self-identified races. All things considered, it seems likely that this is at least partly a genetic phenomenom.
I simply dispute that
a) the type of intelligence measured by IQ Tests is all that important in determining one's ability to do well in life, and certainly isn't a significant factor in explaining cases of "black dysfunction" as you call it, and also that
b) there is any justification for ever *assuming* someone has a lower IQ simply because of their skin colour, even though average it may be the case between two randomly picked individuals. That is, judge individuals on their own merit, and on the merits that are relevant.

As far as the idea that "all men are equal" - I don't know anyone would seriously stand by that claim. What is the cornerstone of modern democracy and civilisation is that all men should be *treated* equally, and given equal opportunity.
Posted by wizofaus, Saturday, 27 October 2007 7:05:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But if you accept that there may be a genetic reason why blacks have a lower IQ than whites, then how could you possibly claim that this can not have any bearing upon black dysfunction? How can it not be a reasonable assumption that the two are linked?

And if you do accept that may be a genetic reason why blacks have lower IQ’s then whites, how could you possibly claim that there is no justification for assessing a persons IQ because of their skin colour? We make assumptions about individuals according to their group associations every day. You may not feel comfortable about inviting the Hells Angels motorcycle club over to your next party, not would you wish to live in Macquarie Fields or Moe. I doubt if you are entertaining the idea of becoming friends with the rednecks who infest the Silverdale Shooting Range, nor do you wish to associate with Scientologists.

Regardless of what quixotic ideology you wish would herald in an Age of Aquarius where peace reigned supreme, you still have to deal with the fact that black communities everywhere are dysfunctional. They are dysfunctional in third world societies and they are dysfunctional (and a pain in the ass) in First world societies. Regardless of where they have been relocated, the end result is a surge in crime rates and a clamour for welfare assistance. Given that black integration appears impossible, why do you persist in advocating proven failure?

You are not a social worker touting for business, are you?

Could I also point out that people can not be treated equally if they are inherently unequal? The concept of equal rights can only apply if everybody is more or less equal in intelligence, trustworthiness, fiscal responsibility, sexual fidelity, age, loyalty, resistance to addictive behaviours, and sanity. If everybody in a democracy must be considered equal, then aborigines should be left alone to drink themselves into the dreamtime and return to the Stone Age without being bailed out by the rest of the community.
Posted by redneck, Saturday, 27 October 2007 8:14:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As you wish Mr Sinnamon. As you wish.
I will continue as long as you do.

No-one likes to be criticized but for someone who is hugely sensitive about same, you seem determined to draw attention to yourself. I will accommodate you.

To answer your point; you WERE having a shot, or are we going to have another long drawn debate on what constitutes 'having a shot'?
_____________

"As other contributors, including yourself, are able to enjoy total anonymity, I thought it was reasonable to request that I be allowed a degree of anonymity." (Quote:Sinnamon)

Oh come on! You are invoking the 'slightly pregnant' principle here!

It's up to you now, James.
Posted by Ginx, Saturday, 27 October 2007 11:27:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great, so now we have Ginx who appears to be CJ Morgan's glove puppet, taunting Daggett (who apparently never hid his identity).
Ginx wrote,
"As you wish Mr Sinnamon. As you wish.
I will continue as long as you do."

What do you think this forum is, Mr Ginx-Morgan?
Some kind of Punch and Judy affair?

When we register on these forums we are allocated pseudonyms. It is obvious that these pseudonyms have a function of removing by one step issues from personalities. They are a safety valve.

What CJ Morgan-Ginx has done is aggressive and antisocial; It is like phone tapping, recording people without permission, grabbing hold of a bikinied dancer on the stage, getting on stage in the middle of a play and shouting that the actors are only actors and stopping the whole production.

The fact that this antisocial activity is dressed up as some kind of moral reform is all a bit Cromwellian (and I don't mean Orwellian).
Posted by Kanga, Saturday, 27 October 2007 11:46:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And there you have it...

WHAT UTTER HYPOCRISY!!

You;'Kanga' are a working colleague of Mr Sinnamon. How repugnant (but completely predictable), that you leap to defend his nonsense.
I accept that friends do that, but spare me the outraged indignation and assessment of MY behaviour.

At least declare the motivation for your sermon.

I at least can speak for myself as a poster. I DO NOT have another identity, nor do I CHOOSE to use to use a tag AND my own name when posting. That IS a free choice; Mr Sinnamon CHOSE to avail himself of it. His choice; his problem.
Posted by Ginx, Saturday, 27 October 2007 12:45:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why on earth should "high IQ" be necessary for social function? As I pointed out before, due to the Flynn effect, the average IQ of blacks is now about what it was for whites 50 years ago. Whites functioned fine 50 years ago.

There is absolutely no justification for judging an individual's IQ based on their skin colour because the amount of variation in IQ between individual whites, and likewise between individual blacks, massively outweighs any subtle overall difference between the average of ALL blacks and the average of all whites. If you pick two random white people, there's a very good chance that one has an IQ in the 90-95 range and the other in the 105-110 range, and it would be quite normal for the difference in IQ between two random whites to be over 20 points. If you pick a random white and a random black, the probability of the former's IQ being significantly greater than the latter's just isn't all that great. Most importantly, there are far better ways of making a common-sense non-scientific judgment about IQ (or, at least, about a more general sense of "intelligence", which includes emotional intelligence, diplomacy skills, general & knowledge, common sense, practical know-how, etc. etc., none of which are very well captured by IQ tests) - just a simple conversation would be a good start.
Posted by wizofaus, Saturday, 27 October 2007 1:50:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ginx/Morgan says that he or she doesn't have 'another identity'. Ginx/Morgan claims to be able to read my mind and know my motives.
Morgan-Ginx doesn't deal with the ethics of her/his behaviour.
Let's face it Ginx/Morgan, you enjoy getting stuck into people. this isn't about 'morality'. That is how you get your kicks. You are a bit of a bully, aren't you? - as long as you can remain anonymous, going by the full history of your posts. Of course I am gratifying your desire for attention now, aren't I? I wonder how your mother coped. I think we had just better ignore you, Mr Morgan, and then you may tire of your own behaviour.
Posted by Kanga, Saturday, 27 October 2007 6:52:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Er, let's get something straight here. My name is C.J. Morgan - which is the by which I am generally known in my community. It is also the name under which I trade, vote, join clubs and societies and participate in this forum. I am quite happy to accept responsibility for my ideas and the expression of them.

I don't know Ginx, except via this forum. While I usually find (her?) perspective incisive and amusing, I don't agree with everything s/he writes. It's really quite pathetic for Kanga/Sheila to allege the kind of duplicity her blog mate James engages in upon me. Unlike most people here, I actually post under my real name. and unlike some I only post under one identity.

What's particularly ironic about this persistent pretence by James - and now his blog-mate - is that I actually agree with much of what he has to say.

James has been caught out telling obvious lies and for some reason persists in drawing attention to them, and he's now drawn in his obviously unhinged blog-buddy to keep his various selves in the spotlight.

But maybe that's the real agenda?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 27 October 2007 9:28:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jinx wrote,

"As you wish Mr Sinnamon. As you wish. I will continue as long as you do."

I thought I was the one who was supposed to have 'lost it'.

Jinx, can you perhaps understand how others might conclude that you have lost all sense of proportion over this?

---

The denials of Kanga's allegation by Jinx-Morgan appear very sincere and heartfelt.

But, who is to know for certain that those are not just the words of very convincing liars?

No-one can be any more certain of that than they can be certain about the truth of Morgan's claims against myself.

Normally, unless obvious harm to this forum could be demonstrated, who would care?

---

So, let's just one more time attempt to settle just one of many points that Morgan has proven skilful at weaseling out of so far.

Daggett wrote:

"And just supposing, for argument's sake, it was true that I had set up a different account, and made use of it on the odd occasion.

"So what?..."

"In any case, does a technical transgression of OLO rules--as opposed to personal abuse, insults, blackmail, misrepresentation of your opponent's arguments, repetition of allegations without acknowledgement of the responses from the accused, etc--automatically make a contributor dishonest and without credibility?

"I would suggest that only a narrow-minded pedant, or else a hypocrite, would insist this to be the case."

CJ Morgan wrote:

"Er, James - wizofaus/dnicholson has been quite open about it. ..."

Yes, CJ, wizofaus was "quite open about it" and, perhaps, I was not.

So what?

Can you perhaps understand that many well-meaning and normally honest people may, on occasions, feel the necessity to lie?

It hardly seems, given your conduct on this forum, including your transparent attempt to blackmail me into ceasing my contributions, that you are a person fit to pronounce judgement on others.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 28 October 2007 12:18:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James/dagget/et al: "Can you perhaps understand that many well-meaning and normally honest people may, on occasions, feel the necessity to lie?"

So James finally, grudgingly, admits his deception. While the admission is far from gracious, I'm prepared to put his dishonesty and personal attacks behind us for the sake of peace and civilised discussion.

While many people may indeed "feel the necessity to lie on occasions", in my opinion such falsehood undermines communication and therefore detracts from polite debate. My own preference is for people to post in this forum under their real names rather than pseudonyms, because it seems to me that an awful lot of hate mongering is conducted under the cloak of anonymity. However, I accept that there are good and valid reasons why many people prefer to remain anonymous in a public forum such as this.

Mind you, I think the 'semi-anonymity' thing that sparked the sockpuppetry above is crap. Once someone's revealed their own identity in this forum (say, by publishing an article) it's just silly to demand that others pretend that they're anonymous.

Anyway, let's move on.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 28 October 2007 8:01:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh and redneck, your comment "The concept of equal rights can only apply if everybody is more or less equal in intelligence, trustworthiness, fiscal responsibility, sexual fidelity, age, loyalty, resistance to addictive behaviours, and sanity"

This is nonsense. Of course we vary in all of those traits, but

a) there's no objective way to even measure them, so on who earth gets to be the judge of where we each sit along the scale, and hence what rights we consequently each should have?

b) "more or less" is a uselessly vague qualifier. I have no problem accepting that blacks and whites, on average, do have "more or less equal intelligence" - certainly when compared to say, "geniuses and retards", or "25 yos and 1 yos", or "human beings and chimpanzees".

That there may be some case for "emergency measures" when dealing with particular situations (e.g. Aboriginal child abuse), there is no long term case for justification that Aboriginals should not have equal rights to non-Aborignals. If you believe otherwise, then I can only repeat my previous statement: your beliefs pose a vastly greater threat to Australian values, our cultural identity and social cohesion than the presence of migrants with significantly different cultural backgrounds. However - I will still defend your right to state your beliefs, as the best cure for ignorant and bigoted views is not to silence them, but rather to ensure that the rest of us are well enough informed to see them for what they are.
Posted by wizofaus, Sunday, 28 October 2007 9:57:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan,

You have overlooked some important issues in your haste to claim vindication of your squalid vendetta against myself.

As far as I am aware, you have no moral or legal right to have conducted this inquisition, and I have not pleaded guilty to your charges.

Only I can know whether or not your allegation against me is true, just as only you can know for certain whether or not the account Ginx is a fictitious creation of your own.

At face value, what occurred on this forum, is that I had openly asked two other OLO users, 'cacofonix' and 'Olduvai' to make posts on my behalf at points where my own OLO limits would not have allowed me to have done so.

A reasonable and well-intentioned person would have considered this understandable in the circumstances. No malice or dishonesty was ever intended on my part and no demonstrable harm was done. You, yourself, having in one breath used the occasion of a post by 'cacofonix' as a pretext to insult me, in the very next breath shamelessly acknowledged your appreciation of that post:

"I actually quite liked the 'teaser' from his blog mate, but I haven't read the full article yet." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#97447)

---

You have not acknowledged the massive extent of your own dishonesty in this discussion. This includes your attempt to embellish your original allegations in order to depict me as a serial fraudster on OLO:

1. your own failure to find questions I had put to you being held as further 'proof' that I must be using other fictitious acounts (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#97093), and

2. that I deliberately concealed my own identity when I discussed my own article on another forum(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96234).

No, it won't be possible for me to "move on".

By your shameful time-wasting and disruptive behaviour, including your attempted blackmail, you have destroyed any trust that may have been possible between us.

I also live in SEQ, and it is more than likely that we will cross paths one day soon, and when we do I will be taking great care to watch my back.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 28 October 2007 1:32:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1)

I hope that we can move on.

It is the bitterest of ironies that there is now some acknowledgment of using more than one identity Mr Sinnamon.
THAT is what this was about; ongoing conflict was the denial of that!

I make absolutely no apology for agreeing with another poster. ( Yes, ANOTHER. I do NOT know CJM.)I was agreeing with the nonsensical logic of taking umbrage at those who used the 'wrong' identity when two* where freely used, albeit that one was as an article writer; BOTH were there for all to see.

* I need to make something clear here James. When I was done over by 'sock puppets' on this site (The instigator IS back on the forum); I didn't even know what the terminology meant. I Googled it!
My point being that any MULTI Id's from you would be something of which I could never be sure.

You will note that I never made reference to sock puppets in relation to you. My issue was/is your sensitivity to the use of the 'wrong' ID by another poster. It struck me as ludicrous. It still does.

As said by CJM, the sad thing is that I agree with much of what you say. (I worked for the SAHT for a number of years. It would have been good to talk to you elsewhere on that issue and how it has evolved).

Your colleague in her first post here referred to 'allocated pseudonyms...have a function....are a safety valve'.
Yet in her second post she remonstrates with me for my ability to remain anonymous! It's OK for you but not for me...?
Posted by Ginx, Sunday, 28 October 2007 1:56:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
2)

Ms. Newman's assertion about bullies is frankly valid. But bullies are in the eye of the beholder...
Online specifically, those who are not agreed with, and choose to repeatedly engage with those who oppose their views, CAN be defined as bullies.

THAT was what I meant by: "as you wish Mr Sinnamon; as you wish".
You see James; I see YOU as a bully. I see you as doggedly and determinedly pushing an opinion that you now admit was not entirely true. But you were determined. I was not going to take that, because I disagreed with you.

Who is the bully? Eye of the beholder.

Ms. Newman (Kanga) referred to you as Daggett/Sinnamon in her post in "Dictatorial Conduct" of 23/8. THAT was clearly OK with you.
Kanga repeatedly defended an article by Ms. Newman in "A Crisis in Housing Affordability" WITHOUT making it clear that she WAS Ms. Newman.

Does it really surprise you that I take exception to lessons in propriety from either of you?

I would add here that having just reviewed the thread with my part 1 offering, it's clear that this will be ongoing. I hope not.
Posted by Ginx, Sunday, 28 October 2007 2:00:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent article, Jennifer.

I had somehow missed it until now or I would have contributed to the debate.

Just wanted you to know that your gutsy effort to highlight the racial discrimination inherent in our immigration system is very much appreciated. Not that it would surprise me if you haven't continued to read down this far after seeing the avalanche of venom your writing has unleashed. Though it must be said there are some worthy exceptions in amongst the bile.

Hope to hear more from you in the future.
Posted by Bronwyn, Sunday, 28 October 2007 4:16:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It depends upon what sort of society you want, Wizofaust. People with low IQ’s socially interact and people with high IQ’s do the same. But the societies built by people with average to high IQ’s "interact" successfully.

And there is justification for judging people’s IQ’s according to their skin colour, the most common (mean) IQ score for US blacks is 85 while for whites it is 103. There may be smart blacks around but they do not appear in the same proportion as in white populations. Judging people by their group associations may not be entirely accurate, but then it does not need to be. It only needs to be accurate enough to form a reasonable opinion.

If education ( Flynn Effect) makes people smarter, then it makes dumb, average and smart people smarter. Dumb people may make significant improvement because there is so much scope for improvement. The gap between intelligences may get closer between different levels of intelligence, but that does not mean it is possible to close it. You will never educate a person with low intelligence to be an Einstein.

As for the concept of equality, it is a good guiding principle but if taken as an absolute truth it becomes idiotic. The present unacceptable situation regarding aboriginal people came about because people like you insisted that aboriginals must be treated equally with whites. The idea that people barely out of the stone age were going to function equally in the computer age was flawed from the start. Anti racist people like yourself insisted that Paternalism was Racism and demanded that nothing less than full equality with whites was the bottom line. Racist people like myself pointed out that giving aboriginal people equal rights meant giving them the right to drink alcohol and that would be catastrophic to aboriginal society.

It is obvious now that the racists were right.
Posted by redneck, Monday, 29 October 2007 5:51:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now James, you are showing yourself up to be not only a liar, but a nasty, snivelling one at that. When presented with an opportunity to move on beyond your demonstrated misdemeanours, you instead go on the attack - as you have done throughout this entire silly thread. While I appreciate that you've painted yourself into a corner and it's undoubtedly difficult to admit publicly that you've been lying all along, there really is no excuse for your current very poor behaviour.

How did this start? As I recall, I questioned the veracity of a supposed quotation from Gore Vidal (that you never subsequently validated), and you responded with a precious request that I refer to you as 'daggett', despite you have identified yourself on OLO as James Sinnamon. So far so good, but when I questioned the intellectual honesty of copying a dodgy, unverifiable, dog-whistling strawman quotation in this debate, you decided to attack me personally, via your sockpuppet account 'cacofonix'. Your justification for this was that you'd have to wait a whole day before attacking me otherwise, but in so doing you had to dishonestly pretend to be someone else.

From there it just got worse, and you introduced yet another sockpuppet acccount, 'Olduvai', in order to wage your silly war on me. Again, you had to pretend be somebody else in order to perpetrate the deception, all the while attacking me personally for having had the temerity to catch you out.

[continued]
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 29 October 2007 6:29:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, redneck, if anything high IQ's tend to be associated with *poor* social interaction skills...and I speak from personal experience. I have a cousin whose IQ could well be at little as half of mine, who is far better at making friends and generally getting along with other people than I am, as my wife will readily confirm.

As far as giving Aboriginals the "right" to purchase and consume alcohol, nobody is suggesting that Aboriginals as a collective "race" shouldn't have this right, merely that there are particular communities where alcohol abuse has become such a serious problem that a temporary ban is probably necessary just to make any progress at all. I take an entirely pragmatic view on "paternalism" - it should be judged purely on whether it is effective. The fact that Aboriginals have a different skin colour is entirely irrelevant.
Posted by dnicholson, Monday, 29 October 2007 6:34:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ginx,

It is not only in my eyes and Kanga's eyes that you are a bully and a troll. Some weeks ago, your name was raised, not by myself, in discussion I had with another OLO user. This was at a time when I still thought you were OK.

She/he told me that your persistent repetitious online harassment had caused considerable distress to herself/himself and at least one other OLO user.

I only only hope that she/he will forgive me for having given you the satisfaction that you will undoubtedly derive from this knowledge.

=-=-=

CJ Morgan wrote: "When presented with an opportunity to move on ..."

You behaved like a despicable creep, and wasted my time and the time of others on this forum with your vendetta against me. Now that I have demolished conclusively (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#97663) the rationale for that vendetta, you expect me to 'move on'?

As you have not acknowledged your own deceit and hypocrisy nor indicated any remorse for what you have done, the only way I will be able to 'move on' from here is to never have anything to do with you again, either on-line or in person.

---

Now before you start, yet again, repeating all those past insults, could I suggest to you, that others might appreciate it much more if, instead, you were to respond to substantial points that other OLO contributors have raised to which you have so far neglected to respond?

These include Shockadelic's post at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#97425. Prior to that, there was a post by Dresdener at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96915 which you have completely ignored.

Now, you wouldn't wish anyone to gain the mistaken impression that all this apparent self-righteous moral indignation over the fact that 'daggett' heinously made a post openly as 'daggett', but through a second account which you allege to be the account of a fictitious user, is merely intended as a smokescreen in order to allow you to avoid confronting facts and logic which you find inconvenient, would you?
Posted by daggett, Monday, 29 October 2007 10:08:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[continued]

James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/Olduvai et al, I asked you several weeks ago "Why don't you just argue honestly, as yourself, with solid and verifiable evidence?", which is still a pertinent question. If you had done so, you wouldn't have painted yourself into the mendacious corner in which you're currently stuck, hissing and spitting like a cornered snake.

As it stands, you've demonstrated that you are quite willing to tell lies in order to try and get the better of those who disagree with you, and that you are also willing to deploy suspect and unverifiable 'evidence' to support your arguments, some of which place you firmly in the company of some of the most idiotic racists in this forum. In short, you are morally bereft and intellectually compromised.

James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/Olduvail/et al: "...it is more than likely that we will cross paths one day soon".

I certainly hope not - I encounter enough idiots, cheats and liars in the course of my daily business without having to deal with you in person as well. If you think I've been harsh on you in this post, might I suggest you follow your own advice and refer it to the moderators? As it stands, I've certainly wasted enough time on your silly, childish and vituperous games. You (and all your alter-egos) are a blot on this forum, and would be a liability in any social or environmental movement.

You seem to think that as long as you can conceal the evidence cleverly enough, that it's quite reasonable to get away wih any deception you can. You have the moral turpitude of an android. H
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 29 October 2007 10:50:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan wrote, "You seem to think that as long as you can conceal the evidence cleverly enough, that it's quite reasonable to get away wih any deception you can."

Concealing what?

I 'conceal' my identity by having my home page linked to from all my posts?

I 'conceal' the 'fact' that I have set up a 'sock puppet' account 'cacofonix' by having 'cacofonix' post openly on behalf of 'daggett'?

I 'conceal' the 'fact' that I have set up a 'sock puppet' account 'olduvai' by having 'olduvai' post openly on behalf of 'daggett'?

Or are you trying to say that there is some other deception going on, on a far greater scale, that no-one is able to detect?

Are you for real?
Posted by daggett, Monday, 29 October 2007 3:48:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually Wizofaust, people with high IQ’s build communities which “interact” socially a lot better than communities full of people with low IQ’s. Where would you rather live, Maquarie Fields and Moe, or Castlecrag and Bondi Beach?

As a Housing Commission kid myself, I couldn’t wait to flee my own area and get away from the drop kicks who infested the joint. Prior to the 84 flats I once lived in being built, the local residents protested that it would bring a lot of lowlifes into their area, and they were right. There were dole bludgers and shonky “workers compensation” cases galore. Not to mention car thieves and a dozen “break and enter” artists whom the government generously supported financially so that they could concentrate on their supplementary means of support.

As for aboriginals, plenty of racist people like myself suggested that aboriginal people should be prevented from purchasing alcohol on the basis that it would be catastrophic for aboriginal society. But anti racist people such as yourself would rather create disaster in your eternal quest to make reality conform to the way you wish it should be.

The concept that all races are equal is certainly a noble one, and I wish it was true. But I can’t deny the evidence of my own senses that clearly contradicts it. The only way anti racists can make your ideology work is to walk through life with your ideological blinkers firmly in place, and by finding ever more novel excuses explaining why some races are always failures. All of these excuses revolve around the concept of “blame whitey for everything”, and that sure looks like racism to me.

If 1 in every 4 Black males between the ages of 20 and 29 in the USA is currently in prison or on probation or parole, and if 45% of the prison inmates in France are Muslims, that looks like compelling reasons to me to keep these people out of my country
Posted by redneck, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 5:24:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And where is your research showing that a) the average IQ in Moe is significantly different to the average IQ in Bondi Beach, and that b) this difference is genetic? (FWIW, research *does* tend to show that IQ in rural areas is typically lower than that in urban areas. It also shows that there is typically less crime and social dysfunction in rural areas).

Your description of your experiences growing up only go to show that "race" is a meaningless determiner of inherent ability to succeed well in life. There's no shortage of white "dole bludgers" and lowlifes. (Incidentally, I'd much rather my taxes go towards ensure they can at least get by as "dole bludgers", rather than be entirely dependent on stealing or begging).

And redneck, I'm afraid it's quite obviously *you* with the blinkers on if you can seriously believe that "some races are always failures". Races that are failures die out.

Yes, there are some very concerning statistics regarding prison populations in various countries around the world. But while I'm open to accepting that some people maybe more genetically inclined to engage in criminal/violent behaviour, I also do NOT accept that this is predetermines their fate, and with the right measures to ensure that these people are given every chance to succeed in life, the temptation to resort to unsocial behaviours can be kept to a minimum. After all, it's obvious that simply throwing them behind bars is not working (just look at the U.S.'s ever-growing prison population). In Australia, Aboriginals are significantly overrepresented in our prisons: but these are the same Aboriginals that were able to function for over 40000 years in a harsh, unforgiving land, without the need to ever build a prison, and with no evidence that a significant percentage of their population were constantly at odds with the tribal norms. Captain Cook himself declared, upon first arriving here, that "In reality [Aboriginals] are far happier than we Europeans...They live in a tranquility which is not disturbed by the Inequality of condition.".
So what happened?
Posted by dnicholson, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 6:12:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wizofaust/dnicholson, I regard it as obvious that the social mobility of smart people is upwards, while dumb people are socially mobile in the other direction. “Class” is fundamentally a product of intelligence.

I know that there is no shortage of white dole bludgers, but since the Sydney “Muslim” suburb of Lakemba has the highest proportion of long term welfare recipients in the Commonwealth of Australia, why you would want to add to the number by importing more crime prone dole bludgers is beyond me.

As for failed races dying out, you might remember that Australia’s sainted Dr Fred Hollows was condemned by the homosexual community for telling aborigines that unless “certain practices” (initiating boys into tribes by screwing them up the bum) “did not cease immediately, there will soon be no aborigines.” Half the “highlanders” in Newgini have AIDS, and AIDS infected men in South Africa rape virgin girl babies because they think it is a cure. Doesn’t look too smart to me. Perhaps AIDS is a blessing in disguise for the improvement of the human race?

Criminality is primarily a product of low intelligence coupled with poor social conditioning. Since intelligence is heritable, it is obviously related to genetics. Dumb couples are not renowned for producing smart children, but smart couples usually do produce such a result. Why do you wish to burden your own society with dumb people from hostile cultures who are unassimilatable, and prone to criminality and welfare dependency? Haven’t we got enough problems to waste our money on without importing more problems? If the US prison population is expanding, has it occurred to you that this is because the white component of the US is reducing?

Your assessment of pre European aboriginal society had me shaking my head in pitying wonder. It would only take a 1000 word essay for me to blow that little “noble savage” myth right out of the water. Suffice to say that aborigines were unable to form a civilisation in 40,000 years and I am unable to fathom how you could consider that a virtue.
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 4:27:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I regard it as obvious that the social mobility of people who make use of their talents is upwards. "IQ" very roughly measures one of many talents. The highest IQ in the world means little if you're inherently lazy/unambitious, or have zero people-skills, or circumstances out of your control mean that no window of opportunity is ever available for you to succeed. Further, there are plenty of very successful individuals who almost certainly have mediocre IQs (especially in sports).

So now you're claiming that *Muslims* have inherently lower IQs?
Aside from the fact that Muslims aren't even close to being a "race", as I pointed out before, it was Muslims (of predominantly Middle-eastern extraction, but also a percentage of sub-Saharan "blacks") that preserved advanced civilisation in the West during the Dark Ages.

Perhaps you could stop "shaking your head in pitying wonder" and actually stick to the points at hand. I provided a quote by Captain Cook based on his first-hand observation. No doubt, he only saw a small cross-section of the indigenous peoples, and it would be naive to assume that their entire existence was all peace, equality and happiness. But it is entirely safe to say that it was infinitely better than the condition in which many live today, especially the ones behind bars.

And why *should* we view modern civilisation as some pinnacle of existence? No doubt it has its advantages, and I certainly wouldn't give them up in a hurry, but until modern civilisation proves it is capable of sustaining itself for tens of thousands of years, it makes just as much sense to regard it as some temporary anomaly. At any rate, some of the reasons that Aboriginal people never did move past a largely nomadic, hunter-gatherer existence is well-enough explored in books like Guns, Germs & Steels.

(Oh and FWIW, I regard the crowing achievements of Western civilisation to be the principles of equality and liberty for all, which you so determined to dismiss)
Posted by wizofaus, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 6:47:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW, I'm happy to accept that those who are unfortunate enough to be lacking in any form of intelligence are more likely to end up resorting to criminal behaviour - though of course, in reality, they are also far more likely to get *caught*, which skews the statistics. But realistically there's nothing much we can do about the fact that a percentage of the population will always fall into this category, regardless of their skin-colour. However we most certainly can make sure there is adequate support and a wide safety net to ensure that such individuals are able to live fulfilled, purposeful lives, without the need to resort to crime and anti-social behaviour. America's high prison population is very much a product of its inadequate welfare system, and an absurd emphasis on punishment and revenge over attempting to address the underlying causes.
Posted by wizofaus, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 6:51:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My dear Wizofaust.

If you admit that intelligence levels largely determine social position, then why did you waste space in a 350 word post demanding how I knew that the people of Castlecrag and Bondi Beach were smarter than the people of Moe and Macquarie Fields?

I don’t know if Muslims have lower IQ’s than whites, but thirty generations of screwing your cousins would not have done much for their genetic diversity and Muslim crime rates in western countries is very bad. Putting your critical analysis circuits on low power while you bob up and down on a prayer mat waiting for Allah to solve all of your problems for would not do much for the “Flynn Effect” either.

If Middle Eastern civilisation surged when Western civilisation fell in 400AD, perhaps you could make the connection that that is exactly what will happen again if western pseudo intellectuals keep attacking their own civilisation and ignoring the faults of Eastern ones?

As for the abos, my reading of history would contradict your view that abos pre European were better off than they are today, especially if they were women. And I find that your opinion that Western civilisation does not reflect the pinnacle of existence to be amusing. If the best that the human race could achieve in 40,000m years was a bark humpy, would you consider that an achievement because it was attuned to nature? It was inevitable that the human race would eventually become so advanced and numerous that it would strain the resources of its own environment. That was as predictable as the rising of tomorrow’s sun. Implying that primitive lifestyles are therefore superior because they were incapable of making any impact on the environment does not look to me to be the opinion of a thinking person.

We may not be able to sustain our civilisation for tens of thousands of years, but that is hardly an argument endorsing the concept that we should never have tried to get out of our caves.
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 1 November 2007 4:30:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where on earth did I admit that “intelligence levels largely determine social position”?
(And, BTW, you continue to conflate “IQ tests results” and “intelligence”).

Marrying and having children with cousins had been common practice among Western cultures for just as long as among Muslims. In Japan it has been considerably more common for many centuries. Further, there is far greater genetic diversity among Muslims, ranging from sub-Saharan Africans to Indonesians. I’ll leave it for other readers (if there are any left) to judge the sensibleness of your “bobbing up and down on a prayer mat” remark.

Where is the slightest evidence that being aware of the faults of one’s own civilisation is likely to be responsible for its downfall? If anything, remaining ignorant of them (or pretending there are none) is surely far more dangerous. I cannot speak for those who “ignore” the faults of Eastern civilisations, as I’ve never met anyone in that category.

I don’t dispute many aboriginals are better off now than pre-European settlement. My point was simply that the lousy state of existence that many others now suffer is a new phenomenon, and cannot be put down to some sort of genetic inferiority.

If I genuinely thought that “primitive lifestyles” were superior to modern civilisation, I would happily give the latter up and attempt the former. Except...I don’t even think I would be capable of it, to be honest. I don’t possess the sort of practical intelligence, patient temperament, or physical robustness required for it, and would no doubt have been a grand Darwinian failure in such an environment. I consider myself extreme fortunately to live in a world where having little else other than above-average talents in abstract and verbal reasoning in my favour is enough to do reasonably well.
Posted by wizofaus, Thursday, 1 November 2007 6:59:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
redneck wrote "If the best that the human race could achieve in 40,000m years was a bark humpy, would you consider that an achievement because it was attuned to nature?"

I say yes, and I am in agreement with wizofaus on this question and differ from redneck, Shockadelic and others.

As I wrote earlier, "Only when we can learn to properly look after our natural environment, as well as hold on to some of the technological advances gained since our ancestors ended their hunter-gatherer lifestyles, can we truly claim to have progressed." (13oct07 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96279) To those who haven't yet had a chance to look, I have written about this on my own web-site at http://candobetter.org/about

Our 'achievements' of the late 20th and early 21st centuries appear to be:

1. Digging up and exporting mineral wealth and in return for largely throwaway consumer items manufactured in slave-wage economies, and

2. Destroying what little arable land and native vegetation remains, in order, not to create any enduring wealth, but rather to facilitate the transfer of wealth from other Australians and, thorugh immigrants, from other countries, into the pockets of property developers, land speculators, banks, real estate agents, financiers and other sectors dependent upon this parasitic 'industry'.

These 'achievements' will seem extremely short-sighted and transient and selfishly motivated to our descendents who stand to inherit an overcrowded desert, far more bereft of arable land, water and vegetation than it was in 1788, and with its endowment of non-renewable mineral wealth exhausted. As Diamond, Wright, Broswimmer and many others have noted, the imminently threatened collapse of 21t century industrialised civilisation is far from the first time this has occurred in our history (see http://candobetter.org/about)

Compared to this stupidity, aboriginals and the other remaining hunter-gatherer societies of the world are highly advanced.

It is not as if Aboriginals were not aware of other civilisations. As pointed out earlier, Macassans had visited the northern shores of our continent for many centuries before Europeans arrived.

The Aboriginals chose not to adapt their ways because their own lifestyle, given the absence of the fossil fuel bounty since ...(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 1 November 2007 10:00:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuedfromabove)... tapped into at a terrible cost to the world's environment by modern industrialised society, was the most appropriate for this continent. For their part the Macassans must have realised that they would not make any headway on this continent with their lifestyles, so they left the Aboriginals in peace.

Aboriginals were no more interested in adopting the ways of the supposedly more advanced European as attested to by Watkin Tench (1788, published in 1996 edited by Tim Flannery, pp253-254) and given the mess that European settlers have made in only 220 years, they judged correctly in that regard.

On intelligence Tench writes: "To offer my own opinion on the subject, I do not hesitate to declare that the natives of New South Wales possess a considerable proportion of that acumen, or sharpness of intellect, which bespeaks genius. All savages hate toil and place happiness in inaction, and neither the arts of civilised life can be practised or the advantages of it felt without the application of labour"(p253).

Our modern civilised society has been able to use our finite endowment of fossil fuels and metals to largely replace labour, but, thus far, at a terrible cost to our environment. However, when that endowmennt is exhausted, the only other way to obtain that labour, other than from our own hands, will be from forms of slave labour that was practised in past hierarchical societies, which, in most cases failed (http://candobetter.org/about).

Whatever can be critically said of Australian society as it stood before the adoption of multiculturalism as the state orthodoxy in the late 1970's, at least it stood a chance of being able to achieve harmony with this land's environment, and appeared to be heading in that direction.

Pro-immigration multiculturalism is just an ideological justification to colonize today's Australia as it was before, so that a small lazy parasitic elite within it can get its cut at our expense. The past ignorant contempt for existin Australian culture that Lines has commented upon (16oct07 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96483) has been restated by a number of equally ignorant contributors to this forum.
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 1 November 2007 10:03:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Privileged whites

Redneck “The concept that all races are equal is certainly a noble one…my own senses that clearly contradicts it.”

Agree, I would ask who are the consistent beneficiaries of “affirmative action programmes”?

dnicholson “Races that are failures die out.”

I guess where we to ignore the infusion of non-aboriginal genes into the koori population and look at the claims of this thread, that “whites are privileged”, one is forced to suggest maybe the “privilege” is as much “genetic” as it is societal.

By the same token, the “vibrant and energetic” ability of koori’s to sustain their genetic heritage suggests that whilst they have not “died out”, they are on the verge of extinction.

Re “40,000 years in a harsh, unforgiving land”

I would note the fate of the Tasmanian devils has been put down, in part to the very narrow / shallow gene pool on which the species exists. Hence little to no source of genetic diversity / resistance to the facial tumors which are decimating the wild population.

Would it be “racist” of me to suggest, the “genetic pool” of so few kooris, settled in Australia for all those 40,000 years, (without the benefit of infusion of “genetic diversity”, which has effected say, UK through centuries of invading Britons, Celts, Saxons, Angles, Romans, Normans etc. and mainland Europe more), leaves them in a similar perilous state to the Tassie Devil?

Btw, “harsh, unforgiving land” hardly, if it had been, kooris would not have survived at all. Antarctica and the Arctic are “harsh and unforgiving”, compared to them, Australia is a holiday camp. I would note, areas incapable of sustaining human habitation, will always remain uninhabited. The marginal habitats will always be lighter populated than those “less-harsh” environs, which provide a sustainable bounty of food etc, like the coastal fringe.

As for “without the need to ever build a prison.”

Yes, why build a prison when you can always spear someone in the leg or stone them to death, mind you, a complete absence of civil engineering skills might also contribute?.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 1 November 2007 7:21:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, a) Kooris as a term only applies to certain NSW & Victorian tribal groups, not indigenous Australians as a whole
and b) where is the slightest evidence that Aboriginals were slowly dying out before European settlement? The commonly accepted figure for the pre-1788 population is around 750,000 - plenty big enough to sustain large amounts of genetic diversity (and quite likely considerably more genetic diversity found among European "whites" of the day).
Posted by dnicholson, Thursday, 1 November 2007 7:46:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wizofaust

You said, “I regard it as obvious that the social mobility of people who make use of their talents is upwards.” That sure looks like you are admitting that that intelligence levels determine social position.

“Begatting” with ones cousins may have been popular with royal families in Europe (also noted for their prevalence of genetically inherited diseases) but to the best of my knowledge it was never a common practice among general populations.

As for criticising ones own civilisation, you do agree that civilisations rise and fall? Self criticism can be a virtue, and it is probably the reason why western society advanced over all others while those civilisations which never criticised their own culture stagnated. But what we see today among young, educated and supposedly intelligence people is an expectation that they must always criticise their own successful community while studiously avoiding any criticism of failed ones, and they do this merely as a means of indicating their social aspirations. As such, this criticism is merely a ritual where social position is being indicated by aspirants who embrace devotions to fashionable causes with the same enthusiasm as they peruse a clothing catalogue.

The portents that such “internationalist” ideology is already placing their own civilisation in danger were written in the blood of the victims of the bombings in Madrid and London. It is written in the ever spiralling crime statistics in western societies where the importation of crime prone minorities have resulted in the creation of ghettoes where crime rates have reached levels undreamed of when those suburbs were populated by white people.

Thank you for contradicting your previous post and now admitting that civilisation is preferable to barbarism. But if you imply that aboriginal people are as smart as whites, then the onus is upon you to explain away the total failure of aboriginals and other black races to ever create successful communities in the modern age, despite oceans of cash and other aid constantly flowing into their begging bowls, while Asian races, with little or no help at all, did it all by themselves.
Posted by redneck, Friday, 2 November 2007 4:26:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How is "who make use of their talents" the same as "intelligence"?
Successful sports professional make use of their physical talents. Successful salesmen make use of their talents of persuasion. Successful enterpreneurs make use of their ambition and determination etc. etc. A high "IQ" (which has I have repeatedly state, only measures a very narrow view of what "intelligence" is) is fairly irrelevant in succeeding in a large number of possible careers.
I'm afraid the best of your knowledge isn't good enough, redneck. If you are going to make claims about Muslims inbreeding, you need to demonstrate that they did so at higher rates than Westerners. And explain Japan, which has always had relatively high rates of cousin intermarriage.
And redneck, it's what *you* apparently see among "young, educated and supposedly intelligence people" as far "studiously avoiding any criticism of failed [communities]" goes. No doubt there is often an unspoken taboo that makes criticising aspects of one's own culture *more acceptable* than those of other cultures, but you only have to look at the reaction to the Danish cartoons of Mohammed to understand one of the reasons this might be the case.

And I did not contradict my previous post, as I never made a judgment call between "civilisation" and, as you call it, "barbarism". All I have ever claimed is that they both have their advantages, and that I personally wouldn't fair very well living a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

As far as being "smart" goes - again, I don't accept that intelligence can be reduced to a single factor. It may well be that Aboriginals are genetically predisposed to particular types of intelligence that are not valued or rewarded in modern civilisation, however, there is no reason to believe that, with sufficient education and support, the majority of them are somehow fundamentally incapable of enjoying a fulfilling existence in 21st century Australia.
Posted by wizofaus, Friday, 2 November 2007 7:01:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dnicholson “plenty big enough to sustain large amounts of genetic diversity (and quite likely considerably more genetic diversity found among European "whites" of the day).’

If we were to make two observations about the European “Whites”,

1 The population base was significantly larger than 750,000

2 The accessibility of Europe from Asia and Africa (compared to remoteness of Australia, an island) and the waves of different invaders both to and from Europe, ensured the extended gene pool of European “Whites” was significantly broader than what aboriginies had going for them.

Considering those two glaringly obvious observations, I cannot see how anyone but a moron would argue the “genetic diversity” of aborigines could possibly be “considerably more genetically diverse” than “European Whites”

However, morons do exist, often but not exclusively, as a result of parental genetic contributions coming from a pool lacking in diversity, as in brother and sister.

Wizofaus the range of skills sets is reckoned to be represented largely by the following

Intellect (working memory and processing speed)
Dexterity
Listening / Attention
self control
self confidence
the ability to communicate / Social interaction skills
problem resolution

(the exact range and definitions may vary from different sources).

“IQ” is a quotient of the first in the list.

Anyone would agree that despite a significant intellectual gift, Stephen Hawkins would have not scored well on the dexterity scale and John Nash was not exactly endowed with “socially interactive skills” .
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 2 November 2007 7:31:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, you are aware that genetic diversity among sub-Saharan Africans is far greater than genetic diversity among the entire rest of the world's population? The reason for this is simple - the entire rest of the world's population are the ancestors of a small group of Africans leaving the continent some 60,000 years ago. 60,000 is not a lot of time for new genetic diversity to evolve.
A considerable number of these made it to Australia, in various waves, and formed the basis for the Aboriginal population. Much much later, what was almost certainly an even smaller subset of the original diaspora made to Europe and formed the basis of today's native European population. On that basis, it is quite likely that the average genetic difference between two white Europeans is less than the average difference between two Aboriginals.
Unfortunately I can't find any references to confirm this, although this site: http://www.biology.iastate.edu/intop/1Australia/04papers/TressaAborigOrign.htm mentions the high mtDNA diversity, whereas this paper:
http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp6proc/antti.htm
mentions the *low* diversity of Europeans and high diversity of Africans.
Posted by dnicholson, Saturday, 3 November 2007 5:25:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some of you should have a look at this book called "Race, Evolution and Behaviour", really quite incredible stuff. Explosive.
Posted by knopfler, Saturday, 3 November 2007 7:23:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dnicholson,
The rule as I recall it was –the further from their source humans had ventured, the less genetic diversity they had–

However, it might be more important to know in what fields a populations diversity lay.High diversity in a narrow area such as hair texture , could well bump up their diversity rating,but it would be hard to (seriously) see how it would hold much consequence .
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 4 November 2007 8:25:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a geneticist, I think Col Rouge makes a good bean counter.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 4 November 2007 8:36:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Human race spread from Africa-so, how it is happens that “whites” are “superior” to “blacks” with the similar genome?

Perhaps, it is superior just in figures of imaginations of so-called “professors” –money-suckers linked to an English crown somehow to legitimise existence of this walking anachronism.
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 7 November 2007 1:01:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess Jennifer Clarke's invidious "displace whitey" article well and truly elicited its intended response. Sadly though, the author never returned to back up some of her more preposterous arguments.

Afflicted by psychopathological self-hatred, Jennifer Clarke seems to share Susan Sontag's opinion that "the white race is the cancer of civilisation." Needless to say, it's really quite astonishing how racist these self-proclaimed 'anti-racists' can be. Faced with such virulent Europhobia, European-descended Australians have every legitimate reason to fear and resist a substantial shift in our nation's ethnic composition. Assimilating non-Western immigrants into Australia's traditionally European culture is becoming increasingly problematic. Europhobia makes it nearly impossible. As many of the newcomers adopt such Europhobic sentiments, Australians of European ancestry will face increasing tension, discrimination, and perhaps even physical violence.

In 'multicultural' Australia, ethnocentrism among non-Western minorities is not only tolerated but actually encouraged. Yet, as Euro-Australians become minorities in areas heavily impacted by immigration - and eventually the whole country - the proponents of multiculturalism will have no moral ground for objecting when we follow their examples.

If the multicultis and open-borders brigade wish to radically alter the makeup of Australia, the burden of proof should rest of them to show that racism, i.e., Europhobia, is not their real motive for pushing this almost unprecedented social experiment.
Posted by Dresdener, Thursday, 22 November 2007 8:21:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Playing English rules!

I would find it difficult to quarrel with all Dresdener’s conclusions (also “psychology” is a mere sublime imaginary field of rather linked-with medical field than medicine itself is) if definitions of "Euro-Australians" and "migrants" to the author's understanding were clarified.
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 23 November 2007 11:27:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 43
  7. 44
  8. 45
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy