"The next two episodes cannot be missed"

Of course they can, and will be by the vast majority of Australians, including myself. Far, far more interesting and important things to do.

L.B.Loveday

Best to remain in blissful ignorance, eh?

The best and most factual summation I have read. Bookmark as an FAQ.

Jo the UN in all it's guises is even more removed from the ideals, & aims of the Australian people than is academia in general, & lecturers in particular.

On boat people, & carbon [dioxide] tax we have over 80% of the population voicing their disapproval, & 90% of academia preaching how wrong we all are.

When you are marching down the road, & you find 80% are out of step with you, it's time to re asses yourself. You just may find it's you out of step.

Perhaps it's time for our so called elites to start listening to those who pay their wages.

I don't give a damn what some academic in Timbuktu thinks of Oz, & neither should you.

Yes I saw the first programme and the producers will clearly achieve
their objective of pushing peoples emotional buttons. Life in
the third world in many places is indeed very tough, as those of
us who have travelled, already know, but many Australians do not.

That does not change the reality that Australia cannot save the
world and all its refugees. All we can do is accept some and try
and make sure that they are most deserving, often stuck in those
camps without a razoo, unable to pay their way to the front of
the line.

The resources which we have to spend on the issue are limited and
should be spent as wisely as possible. That is presently not the
case, for the UN Convention is clearly out of date and needs updating.

Dear Jo,

Bless you, we do understand, we do feel, we do empathize and it is all very distressing.

What many of us who have a much better grasp on reality really want, is to put a stop to more advocacy documentaries, dressed up as reality TV, from advocacy public media and commented upon by even more advocates from academia, who offensively think they own the franchise on refugee tragedies, and who pontificate over the high moral ramparts to point the finger at any Australian that fails to measure up to your irrational emotive overload.

If you really feel that SBS should be remotely associated with such blatant and partisan political propaganda and “social experiments” then it really is time to close them down.

My god are we still bulls*hitting this old cliche?
The "People wouldn't be so mean to refugees if they would only know what they went through!"?

Some people (like me) are quite well aware of what they go through- but our pity stops IF the refugees in question are deranged religious fanatics, violent, corrupt, criminally-inclined, only understand warlike/tribalistic/gang lifestyle, hostile to people outside their community, unlikely to integrate- or will generally repay us letting them in with a knife in the back, riots whenever Denmark publishes a cartoon, and formerly-safe neighbourhoods.

Strangely enough- unlike many people who aren't so gung-ho to let refugees into Australia- the pro-crowd doesn't want to actually address these problems at all- hence the attempt to pretend the issue is something else ("boats vs planes", and now this)

Again, my policy is we should simply screen all refugees for the above problems- if they don't have them, we should process them IN the community as they would not be a threat- if they DO- send them STRAIGHT back.
I shouldn't be expected to give up my safety to the very person who wants to take it away, simply because HIS safety is in peril too.

If some drugged up lunatic is being chased by a gang in the rain, he's clearly been bashed up- runs up to your door and screams "open up or I'll kill all of yous!" and starts trying to kick the door down, set fire to your postbox and try to threaten you- do you
a- feel for his safety and let him in, hoping he will be a good boy now he's had his way?
b- not risk it- barricade the door and call the police?

Again- we should evaluate each individual (or family group) we receive before deciding to extend our compassion.

Dear Jo.

According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, 55% of the handgun murders in the entire state of NSW between 1995-2000, occurred within the boundaries of Sydney’s most notorious ethnic ghettoes, which are full of “refugees.” This singular indisputable fact is a searing indictment on the behaviour of sort of people who pass themselves off as “refugees”, whom you wish to continue to immigrate.

It is not in your interest, nor is it in the interests of your people, to keep importing foreigners who do little except to queue for Centrelink benefits and cram our prisons.

Your attitude is to assume, that every person who claims to be a refugee is an innocent victim of some oppressor. But the violence committed by “refugees” on other “refugees” inside of Australian detention centers refutes that. Many of these people come from countries where who is oppressed, and who is not, is simply a matter of which faction is in power at any given time.

If the Serbs, Bosnians and Croats wish to kill themselves off in their own countries, I do not see why Australia is therefore obliged to take in every Bosnian, Serb or Croat who wishes to immigrate here, so that they can resume hostilities in my country. Some of us still remeber the bombing campaign committed by Croats in Sydney, in which Australians were killed. Nor do I see any sense in importing people who so obsessed with their ethnic or religious uniqueness, that they are demanding to form their own state within the borders of the state they already live in.

I have to ask, how long before they do the same thing to us?

The inception of this country was a bit different from that of the US - the fabric of their nation was woven from the threads of myriad national and ethnic identities whereas up
until the early 1970s, assimilation and the preservation of "White Australia" continued as the Australian Government's official policies.
Migrants including refugees of every ethnic origin were expected to assimilate promptly into a monocultural mould of Australian identity, based on the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic culture.

The ideal individual was the one who assimilated easily, one who became more similar to the host population as a result of social interaction and through the shedding of attributes of their culture.

It's no wonder that today these attitudes are still very much alive.
Fear of the unknown, mistrust of "differences" is very much prevalent despite the fact that at present Australia is one of the most ethnically diverse societies in the world and well over twenty percent of all Australians were born in another country. More than half of these have come to Australia from non-English speaking countries of Europe, the Middle East, South America, and Asia.

I have no argument with the fact that refugees should be processed
expediently on the mainland and the proper checks and procedures
followed. Refugee centres on off-shore islands such as Christmas Island or Nauru and centres on the mainland such as Villawood and others, cost the taxpayer millions of dollars. The sooner legitimate
refugees are processed and placed in society to contribute and fend for themselves is in the greater interest of the nation. The present system breeds resentment and mistrust, of the current process both for the local population and for the refugees themsleves.

Very little ignorance here Ammonite, blissful or otherwise. I'm very well read, informed and experienced.

I don't want to watch "more advocacy documentaries, dressed up as reality TV" (thank's spindoc), nor to have my nose rubbed in the fact that our taxes pay for a substantial part of it.

Hasbeen,

I think academics (most of them) will long be on the wrong side of the debate on this one.

It is all too easy to claim some moral position over one issue.

In reality, Australia, and other Western naitons, are expected to do more to help refugees who obviously see as more desirable that say the booming developing naitons. We are expected to spend more and accomodate them.

At the same time, developing naitons, including corrupt and authoritarian ones, a laughing all the way to the bank while western industries continue to struggle.

I have lost my faith in most Aust academics to refect complexity a long time ago.

but have faith; I belive the Australian people will sort this one out.
Yes, we should take some refugees, but the amount will be decided by a whole lot of considerations which should be discussed more.

I will watch the 'show' even though it coincides with the Trial which I prefer to watch. Now I call it a show because that is what it is with carefully selected participants, and editing to show what the producers want. I have seen too many current affairs programmes not to be cynical and aware of a staged show.

For example no one would just hand over their money and passports to another person. The Iraqies at Liverpool agreed they were economic migrants who, now having permanent residency, were awaiting the arrival of their families, by 747. Why would the smugglers want the passports of their passengers, they have no purpose for them. It is the 'illegals' that destroy their docs so we cannot verify who they are and where they came from. Strange that none of the six Aussies picked up on the camoflaged Yacht made to look like a fishing vessel, and one was a builder. He would pick it immediately. Or that it suddenly started to leak in a smooth sea then had smoke from an unseen fire. How obvious is that.

That is only a few things I saw in episode 1, let us see what falsehoods there are in next episodes.

OH yes, and they are confusing the issue by mixing in genuine refugees, whom we all have emphathy for, with the 'illegals' in the same show.

LEGO, Can you provide any more info about the Croats bombs or a link where I can find it. I am interested in where,when and other details.

Other posters, notably Yabby & Banjo have said it for me. So apart from my overwhelming objection to "refugees" arriving via people smugglers leaky boats from a country where they are obviously not in any imminent danger .... nothing more.

"What many of us who have a much better grasp on reality really want, is to put a stop to more advocacy documentaries, dressed up as reality TV, from advocacy public media and commented upon by even more advocates from academia" sounds like Dick Smith and his anti-population diatribe paid for by him on the ABC.

Who is this propaganda targeting?
White Australians.
So my race is seen as a barrier to Asylum seekers having access to Australia.
It's quite clear that the people who produced this propaganda believe that it is the responsibility of White people and only White people to give Asylum to the huddled masses.
This propaganda piece is racial in nature, it's suggesting that there's a race problem in one segment of the Australian population and that the solution to this race problem is to "teach them a lesson" and shame them into allowing the Third world to pour into White children's living spaces.
Distilled: Brown people are allowed to choose their neighbours, White people are not.

L.B.Loveday

I don't believe you. In fact if the SBS docu was about enforcing your prejudices - that boat people/refugees should, in fact go back where they came from, you'd be sitting slathering in front of the Teev.

If you ARE informed, as I am from direct professional experience working with immigrants, knowing their histories as well as reading beyond Andrew Bolt, I doubt you would be avoiding watching the program. Anyone who wants to can watch and make up their own minds, but to deliberately avoid learning more and understanding more is simply reprehensible.

Lexi, I had thought we had reached an understanding on this abuse of Uni-babble.

I’m so disappointed in you. Your post is an even worse example of cobbled together web site drivel, bound together with ideological sticky tape, infused with historical pseudo-facts, laced with grammatical inexactitudes and smeared with plausibility jelly. Lexi, this is precisely the over informed, intellectually under cooked garbage we discussed on another thread. So what do you do? You reached Rock Bottom and started digging.

You had your chance, you blew it and we have to draw the conclusion that this is what you are.

What a raging disappointment, and I thought you had the edge on Cheryl.

Ammonite wrote "In fact if the SBS docu was about enforcing your prejudices - that boat people/refugees should, in fact go back where they came from, you'd be sitting slathering in front of the Teev".

What a truly conceited, ignorant person to presume to:

(1) know my prejudices (unless she/he is a personal acquaintance of mine hiding behind anonymity) when I have never given in this or any other public forum anyone, let alone her/him, valid reason to conclude I think "boat people should go back where they came from".

(2) state categorically that I would watch a certain genre of program on SBS. I have not watched any SBS program for over 20 years, and not watched Australian free-to-air of any genre other than sport for 10 years.

and " to deliberately avoid learning more and understanding more is simply reprehensible".

There is so much to learn, so many ways to learn, so much to understand and so many things to do. Watching a padded out 3 hours "docu" does not even tempt me.

How can any sensible person think that not watching SBS is reprehensible?

Ah spindoc by moniker and by nature.

Lets have a look at the recent Adel Uni survey which tracked both refugees and their Oz born children.

It found that while refugees found it harder to get work in the short term, the situation improved over time. The reason many initially found it hard was a combination of poor language skills and having to confront the type of xenophobic attitudes posted here.

The report found that refugees provided a bigger demographic dividend for an ageing population because they are younger than other migrants and a high proportion arrive as children.

It found refugees are more likely to be helping dwindling rural communities and labour shortages with one in five moving to regional towns this year compared to just 11 percent in 2004.

The report says refugees had made 'a distinct contribution as entrepreneurs'.

Dear spindoc,

Oh dear. I'm sorry if somehow I seem to have upset you by what I posted. I'm a librarian by profession and our training includes
doing research and seeking out the facts from a variety of sources. What I presented was obtained from many sources - on the history of refugees and migrants in general who came to this country and the government policies that
were operational at the time. I thought that I made it quite clear that refugees need to be processed quickly and their suitability/or not, assessed according to all the checks and necessary procedures. I also stated that the current policies were problematic.

Perhaps you didn't read my post in its entirety - and therefore took it as a personal insult. It was not intended as such. And your stooping again to personal insults really does not do you much credit. This is a public forum of social and political debate and as such we're all entitled to our opinions. We can disagree - but we should respect the opinion of others. I can't understand the tendency on so many people's parts to think that their way is the right way and that people who disagree with them are bad.

A healthy, vital society is not one in which we all agree. Without our personal cimmitment to the attributes of fair play and integrity,
we're in grave danger. Malice and intolerance stalk our society, staking claim to our minds, and not one corner of our social order is unaffected. Personally I think it is more important that we renew dignified and respectful dialogue with those who do not agree with us than that we keep slavishly congratulating those who have the wisdom to see things our way. You obviously disagree with that. Fair enough. That's something I'll have to learn to live with.

@ Cheryl
The subject at hand is the SBS propaganda piece "Go back to where you came from", not "refugees".
The program is about White people, if they wanted to make a doco about "refugees" they could have had someone from Sudan or Iraq re -trace their journey and give viewers a sense of "what it's really like".
There are in fact numerous films which do exactly that and do it well, I've seen one about illegal immigrants hopping trains from Guatemala to the U.S and another about people moving from Zimbabwe to South Africa, riveting viewing.
This may also be of interest:
Tamil "Refugees" in Canada taking holidays and business trips back to Sri Lanka.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/08/21/15098761.html?cid=ETF

Ah Cheryl and Lexi, you place so much importance upon the opinion of others. One has to wonder if you will ever develop one of your own.

Your capacity for drilling down into content is truly astonishing. More so from the point that in spite of all this effort, research and investigation, you studiously manage to avoid context, relevance or an opinion of your own. When are you going to realize that your own opinion is supportable because YOU formulated it. The opinion of others will never be supportable because it was not your original thought. As a result you resort to Uni-babble.

Some will just never get it.

Dear spindoc,

You're at it again. Re-read our posts. We do have opinions and we do express them. We also quote from various sources which is part and parcel of debating. Part of knowing your topic. It's always best to be informed whether the topic is politics, sport, television or stamp
collecting. You seem to enjoy arguing on an emotional level not a mature intelligent one. I'll leave you to it.

Dear Cheryl,

Jay overlooked a few facts about the TV program, Go Back To Where You Came From." Small clarification. The TV style documetnary takes six
Australians, with very set views on the asylum seeker debate, on a trip to where many refugees begin their journey. Apparently it's been a "roaring success." Chloe Walker, ABC Sydney states that, "...the hashtag #gobackSBS was one of the International top trending topics on Twitter last night, the show got a mention in the New York Times and was warched by an average of 524,000 in the five major metropolitan areas."

Worth a look I'd say.

Cheryl & Lexi

Worth just going to the SBS website:

http://www.sbs.com.au/shows/goback

While I find some of the participants very annoying, I can see where they are coming from also. What is fascinating is the interaction between them and the migrants they were placed with. Can't wait for tonight's episode.

In particular, the stories from the African family are similar to those histories I discussed with immigrants I have worked with - in one case a victim of torture was so scarred emotionally that he cannot even bear to be around other black Africans, preferring the company of whites. And people claim they do not understand why other people have to flee their homes.

Best to remain in blissful ignorance, eh?
Ammonite,
What exactly is one supposed to get out of this ? Enlightenment ? From bias ?

Lexi.
Not "Australians", White Australians specifically, the program is about the attitudes of White Australians.
I'm not surprised that around 10% of the population would show an interest in a show based on Racial profiling of "Bigots". Viewpoints such as the ones expressed in the original article and reinforced by yourself are, after all representative of only a tiny proportion of people.
It's important to remember that the end of the so called "White Australia policy" was brought about with a view to assimilating the White population into a mixed "Eurasian" race.
The politicians, the WW2 generation who set up "Multiculturalism" were explicit in expressing their desire to see the end of the White Australian Nation.
Go and do some reading, look at what Gorton, Fraser, Whitlam, Hayden,Hawke, Chipp & co actually SAID in the late 60's and 70's.
I for one take them at their word, simply because they really did as they said they would do....they failed, of course, but they gave White Genocide a red hot go.
Programs like this are a throwback to the ideals of that generation of heavily indoctrinated moral cowards who came out of WW2, the sooner we consign Anti White views to the dustbin the better off my race will be.

I have worked in the construction industry for the last 15 years and have seen exactly how the NEW Australians work,I was born here and am 3 rd generation Italian, If your not their KIND they treat you like dirt, they talk to you like your a bit of crap, they ignore you and definately will not lift a finger to give you a hand.
I've seen plenty of gang ups on white individuals because, they just imagine that they have been slighted, and the first thing that comes out of their mouths is "you racist bastard".
How many building sites have illegal immigrants in them is a joke, if word gets out that a site visit by workcover is going to happen the site is practically abandonded.
Yet, we let them come here because they have been threatened, come on stick up for us now, because we feel threatened.

THAT JUST WILL NOT HAPPEN

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

John Donne



Methinks this comes close to the heart of the matter:

SBS is good at producing little infomercials, *Go Back to Where You Come From* is just the latest.
A short time back SBS dished up *Immigration Nation* whose message was that the White Australia Policy made OZ a pariah nation.
Anyone with a sound grounding in history could see it was full of half truths and straight out lies –but it satisfied the faithful.

SBS is also fond of airing John Pilger “documentaries” who themes are almost always Anti-West --there is even one on tonight.

Why SBS runs such programs is not hard to fathom –it needs to maintain the guilt trip.
Guilty Ozzies lead to weak border controls, which mean more illegals get to stay, which in turn means more viewers for SBS.

With *Go Back to Where You Come From* it has taken six soft suburbanites from middle class Australia and run them with the down and outs of Asia & Africa. And when the inevitable happens and they cry "Oi this is tough" , SBS can self-righteous declare "See that proves it, all asylum seekers are genuine "

Like *Immigration Nation* it is full of half truths and full on distortions –but the faithful will lap it up.

Wow! A White Australia! Do you think that is possible?

Do you realise what a mongrel mix the white race is, especially the English with centuries of conquest from the east.

At least now we can blame the other races for our problems. But with a
White Australia are we going to blame the Poms, the Irish,the Scots,
and any other non-ocker that gets in our way.

Maybe we can start a new colony in Antarctica?

Lexi has made the point, above, that detention is both unnecessary and costly.

It’s an old howler that is often raised, and just as often answered – but, seemingly never digested.

Canada tried a soft approach with asylum seekers --and this was the result:

“ According to Canada's Attorney-General, Rob Nicholson, 63,000 refugees ordered to be deported are still in the country and 41,000 have gone missing.”

“ According to Canada's Attorney-General, Rob Nicholson, 63,000 refugees ordered to be deported are still in the country and 41,000 have gone missing.”

“ According to Canada's Attorney-General, Rob Nicholson, 63,000 refugees ordered to be deported are still in the country and 41,000 have gone missing.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/agents-promise-tamils-boats-to-australia/story-e6frg6so-1225948082054

It is now hurriedly tightening up procedures --- but I wonder how far into the future it will be grappling with the social and financial costs of its earlier *more humane* experiment.

It is totally unacceptable that under the tyranny of the anti-white Political Correctness Religion us white people are ORDERED to accept and even to "celebrate" our own demographic elimination or be ex-communicated from society for being "evil racists".

I`m no fan of Malcolm Fraser,but he`s right on one thing:

"Genocide involves the attempt to achieve the disappearance of a group by whatever means. It does not have to be violent, it could be a combination of policies that would lead to a certain group dying out."

Malcolm Fraser (Prime Minister of Australia 1975-1983)

They may say they`re "anti-racist",but they`re not,they`re anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Aquarius.
You called my race, "mongrels" and suggested we be removed to Antarctica, what you're promoting is classed as Genocide under international law, why such hatred toward White people?
In your opinion my race are "dogs", you'd only say that because we're White, you use the idea of Anti racism as a cover for your hatred of my race.
You're not so much "Anti Racist" as anti White, Anti Racism is just a code word for Anti White.

So let me get this straight- if you have a hard life, and go through hardship to achieve your dreams, that somehow makes you automatically a nice, safe, sane person?

By the way, I'd like to add an interesting observation- judging by this forum;
1- QUITE A FEW of the anti-refugee side are quite willing to 'confront' whatever refugee topic and insinuations about the reasons why some people are hostile towards our current refugee intakes
2- ALL of the pro refugee side are avoiding my posts, and trying to pretend that its something else.

It most definitely DOES seem that one side is afraid to confront the main issues- and it's not the antis.

A "White Australia"
resettlement in Antarctica
What a great idea
Antarctica is already "White"
And we can blame the penguins
Afterall they're partially black.

Japan is 98.5% Japanese. Japan does not let foreigners vote and kicks them out.

No "anti-racism" protests.

Zimbabwe has ethnically cleansed almost all of white population, after seizing their property.

No "anti-racism" protests.

Singapore and Malaysia cane illegals and kick them out.

No "anti-racism" protests.

The UAE has foreign workers at its leisure. When they finish their contracts, all are sent home.

No "anti-racism" protests.

Yet any white country does any of the above, "anti-racists" declare WAR!

Why do "anti-racists" ALWAYS excuse or ignore non-white countries that refuse race replacement (Genocide according to the United Nations), but DEMAND and JUSTIFY it, for all white countries and only white countries?

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Something I have noticed:

All Brown Countries are Poor.

Can someone explain, what is so magical about the ground White people happen to be occupying?

Anti-whites, if I said I wanted a world with ONLY white people in it, you would call me a Nazi.

Yet so called "anti-racists" DEMAND a "Brown Future", for all white countries and only white countries and are getting it.

Isn't race replacement, GeNOcide, according to UN Law?

Lego,
"According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, 55% of the handgun murders in the entire state of NSW between 1995-2000, occurred within the boundaries of Sydney’s most notorious ethnic ghettoes, which are full of “refugees.” "
I have seen the BOCSAR figures and there were only 39 handgun murders in this 5 year period. furthermore the largest number of murders occurred in SYDNEY LGA.
AND you don't identify which areas comprise the 55%. But unless you can identify the ethnicity and background of each individual in each LGA, you are just fantasising.
Your post is a massive beat up designed to scare people.
But it wouldn't worry you to let the facts get in the way of demonising people would it?

We obviously are all influenced by the social context in which we live, by our education, experiences, and even our family and peer group influences at times. Newcomers, especially if they have come to Australia in linguistic or ethnically distinct groups have always had a hard time at first. But past streams of migrants and refugees gave
Australia its reputation as a country of diverse peoples that is all the better for it.

Still there's no denying the fact that a volatile part of our community is living back in the irretrievable past with a fantasy of an all-white Australia.

Australian identity has changed throughout history and by contact with the global community. To-day it is questionable whether there is a single identity or not. There is no doubt that Australians seem to have a problem to define its unique identity. Obviously many people have different views of what the identity is. Our identity has been constructed over the past 200 years from popular images and myths.
Australian artists and poets helped to create the Australian Bush Legend. The same applies to refugees. When discussing refugees people often lump them all together and treat them as one homogenous species. Nothing is further from the truth. They vary a great deal
in their ethnic backgrounds, religions, and educational levels.

The same goes for refereces to the "White Race," or the "Black Race,"
Many people misunderstand what race is - and consequently use the term incorrectly. Many judgements have often been confused with racial traits though they have nothing to do with culture and nationality or intelligence, but only with the opinions or prejudices of those who made them.

What am I?

My ancestry is Middle eastern (Jewish), Irish, Scottish and British.

I was born here in Australia are were both my parents and 3 of my grandparents, their parents and parents' parents.

This talk of skin colour, race is just an excuse to hate people other people don't know.

Lexi:"The same goes for refereces to the "White Race," or the "Black Race,"
Many people misunderstand what race is - and consequently use the term incorrectly."

Well the 1948 genocide convention puts no qualifiers on the use of race as an identifying factor:

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

Do you Lexi agree that EVERY racial group is legally protected under internationally-agreed genocide law from deliberate demographic replacement policies?

I speak of:

High rates of immigration from the Third World, especially Asia (deliberately encouraged by Multiculturalists and the federal government)

High birth rates of those from Third World backgrounds (a fact well-known to Multiculturalists and the federal government).

Lower birth rates of those from British/European backgrounds (a fact well-known to Multiculturalists and the federal government, and encouraged by high rates of taxation).

Promotion of inter-racial marriages. A rate of say 5%, increasing proportionately over generations, will eventually lead to the genocide of the Australian People.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

It would be interesting to know just how many of those here who are so dismissive of the SBS program have actually sat down and watched the first two episodes in their entirety.

It is compelling and confronting television and if given a chance should at the very least shift some attitudes on some previously held misconceptions.

This program is not 'propaganda'. It's an open and honest attempt to provide the average Australian, who's never experienced the horrors and the life choices faced by refugees, with a vicarious living-through of a typical refugee experience, which through sheer good fortune in the lottery of birth they'll never have to confront for themselves.

The leaking and the fire on the boat were obviously contrived, but they're both common occurrences for asylum-seekers travelling in unseaworthy boats so such a contrivance is justified. There's very little else that has been set up especially for the show. The squalor of the camps and the brutality of the police raids were not in any way exaggerated. In fact if anything the police were being constrained with the cameras trained on their every action.

For those capable of feeling empathy for another's plight, this program will provide food for thought. For those whose fear and prejudice has blinded them to the notion of our common humanity, I guess no amount of walking-in-another's-shoes will ever move them.

SPQR

<< Like *Immigration Nation* it is full of half truths and full on distortions ... >>

Name one.

SteveRogers

<< I`m no fan of Malcolm Fraser, but he`s right on one thing: "Genocide involves the attempt to achieve the disappearance of a group by whatever means. It does not have to be violent, it could be a combination of policies that would lead to a certain group dying out." >>

I doubt Malcolm Fraser would appreciate being quoted to support your racist fear mongering. He more than any other Australian Prime Minister is responsible for giving hope to refugees, the vast majority of whom have gone on to call Australia home and to contribute to its wealth and cultural richness.

Bronwyn:"I doubt Malcolm Fraser would appreciate being quoted to support your racist fear mongering"

1.Facts are facts no matter who makes use of them,yes?

2.In your horribly biased anti-white OPINION I am "racist fear mongering" you are only saying that because I`m white and trying to defend my racial group from genocidal polices,anti-racism is just a codeword for anti-white.

I stand partially corrected, Shalmeneser. I have here in my hand the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics publication “Trends and Issues”, number 57, May 2001.

I quote.

“It is evident that the rise in handgun shootings in the Liverpool-Fairfield and the Canturbury-Bankstown Subdivisions has been more pronounced than the increase across the rest of the State between 1995 and 2000. It is also self evident that a large proportion of handgun shootings originate from these two sub-divisions. In fact, shootings in these areas account for more than 55% of all handgun shootings which occurred across NSW during the year 2000.”

The primary inhabitants of these areas Shalmeneser, are people of Vietnamese and Middle eastern ethnicities (the whites fled long ago). The Bureau also notes that these divisions “have significant drug trafficking problems.”

People of Vietnamese, Lebanese, aboriginal and Pacific Islander ethnicities are very disproportionately over represented in violent criminal behaviour and drug trafficking. The ABS publication “Prisoners in Australia” notes that foreign born people of these particular ethnicities are incarcerated at a rate 2-3 times higher than for "Australian born" people, and several times higher than for people from law abiding ethnicities.

When one remembers that police have stated previously that the main problem with criminal behaviour is more from the second generation “born in Australia”, then the actual proportions of prisoners from these ethnicities must be significantly higher.

To put that into perspective, ethnic criminal behaviour is now so bad that the state of NSW has opened four new prisons and reopened two old ones, and this despite the increase of novel punishments like “community service” and “home detention.” In the same period, NSW opened only one new university.

Lego,
if we use your 1995 - 200 figures as a base and we look at the 10 year period from 2000 - 2010, we see a massive increase of 300% in Randwick (from 0 - 3).
Waverly, Hurstville, Wyong, Wollongong, Shellharbour,Orange and the Hills went up 100% (0-1)Leichard 200% (0-2).
Parramatta 100% (1 - 2). Rockdale increased by a massive 500% (0 - 5)
By your logic we should be sending all Anglos back to where they came from.
bankstown on the other hand only increased by 40% ( 3 - 5).
Fairfield increased by 29% (7-9).
The reality is we're talking about minute figures. when the numbers are this small you can make percentages say whatever you want to.
you have not refuted the substance of my original post.
Yours is a beat up.

The makers of this series are blind to some necessary facts about our allegedly rich continent. In a very few years the effects of peak oil, climate change and peak phosphorus will make the delusion that we can take the overflow from the countries where ignorance of carrying capacity has caused disaster as evident as cannon balls.We have already exceeded the carrying capacity of this country and in a hundred years we will be lucky to carry 5% of our present population Fooled by our reluctance to examine our morality we act as if sharing our last crust would guarantee a favoured place in the life after death. To some this is a fair swap but better I think to recognize the truth Mary Gilmore spoke...

I have grown past hate and bitterness,
I see the world as one;
But though I can no longer hate,
My son is still my son.

All men at God’s round table sit,
And all men must be fed;
But this loaf in my hand,
This loaf is my son’s bread.

Dear SteveRogers,

I don't quite understand what you mean when you refer to the "White Race." Are you referring to the colour of one's skin or to people who come from the same genetic stock? Because humanity has been mixing
since early historic times with conquests, invasions, migrations, and inter-marriages. There is a general term which defines the light-skinned people as Caucasian - which distinguishes them from the African, the Asian, Polynesian, Australoid, and other groups.

I agree with shared values in a country like Australia but your statements are a bit of a puzzle in that they seems obsolete and detached from reality. We're a great country because we're so diverse.
A stereotypical Australian is possible but not one who can be defined as aspirational for the majority of the population. Even the "Australian of the Year," awards and the chosen recipients don't always make everyone in the community happy.

As Charles Darwin told us: "It isn't the strongest of the species that survives nor the most intelligent, but the ones most adaptive to change." Most Australians are assimilating foreign ideas and becoming stronger in the process. We're no longer the cultural backwater that we once were.

Lexi.
You're only saying that because we're White.
You're the one trying to come up with justifications for Genocide, we're just working within the parameters of the U.N convention on the prevention of Genocide.
Saddam Hussein could have stood up in court and denied the existence of "Kurds" or "Shia", he could have come up with all sorts of excuses and exceptions, called them "mixed race mongrels" or whatever...but it wouldn't have saved him because there is no excuse for the perpetration or promotion of Genocide.
It doesn't matter whether YOU think there is such a thing as the White Race or not if I'm accusing you of promoting and excusing the Genocide
of MY race.
By promoting "diversity",you promote the idea that Australia will be stronger with less White people living here, would you care to put a figure on that?
In your opinion, what proportion of children born here should be White?
What measures would you like to see enacted to ensure that your preferred quota of Whites in the population is not exceeded?

Nobody is trying, to reduce the number of Chinese living in Australia, they're working hard to increase their presence.

Nobody is trying, to reduce the number of Afghans living in Australia, they're working hard to increase their presence.

I doesn't matter what trendy code words you use, you're still condoning and promoting the Genocide of my race, what you want is not a solution to Australia's race problem but a final solution to the White problem.
...and as we know, final solutions always come with a wink and a nod and stack of trendy code words for those in on the scheme.

*For those capable of feeling empathy for another's plight, this program will provide food for thought*

Bronwyn, it certainly did. For instance, what about those poor
Burmese women and children and why are they left behind whilst
healthy young males with enough money from Iraq and Afghanistan
come in first? Does your empathy not include them?

Dear Jay,

Continued stereotyping of any body - as you're doing with me - even
though you know nothing about me only encourages "counter stereotyping," and that's not something I want to get involved in - because the result is usually a complete breakdown in
communication with labeling and insults being bandied about. I don't view people in terms of their colour, race, religion, or gender. It's a person's human qualities that I find are the primary measure of that person's worth and achievement.

BTW - I don't use "code words," however you can always use a dictionary if your vocabulary is somewhat limited or Roget's Thesaurus which is available at your local library. Any librarian will help you to look up words of more than one syllable that you have difficulty understanding. I will not be interacting with you any further. I shall leave you to your views.

The racist, anti-racist debate is not helpful. (And, there is no white Oz anyway, unless it's some country town full of roo shooters.)

This show is educational and confronting, even if some aspects are "weighted", as perhaps in the selection of the travelers, and of the families they get to stay with. (Obviously there would be other refugee families which might not portray such a positive impression as those chosen for this production.)

Nonetheless, the fact is, Oz is involved in immigration - through selection processes, and with refugees, both "legal" and boat people. At least this show provides us with an opportunity to view a small portion of what many refugees face in their journeys.

If we are to form a valid opinion on appropriate treatment of those seeking refuge on our shores, it behooves us to make a reasonable attempt to understand the realities. Too many poor decisions and opinions have been based on incorrect or incomplete information, and this situation is one of considerable complexity.

My favoured position is for action to solve the problems evident in those countries from which the refugees are fleeing - but obviously that will be difficult and will take quite some time and effort to achieve, and is heavily dependent on the will of the first world to take action toward that objective. In the meantime, I would support the use of temporary protection visas for a limited number of genuine refugees - ultimately with a view to repatriation to their (suitably reformed) home countries, when and if that becomes possible.

"Economic" refugees should probably be repatriated as quickly as possible back to their country of birth, or to another "available" alternative.

This show does not alter the great dimension of the world refugee problem, and has not so far offered any solution. Of course, no easy solution exists.

What should Oz do? Work as conscientiously as possible with the UN and all nations toward a timely and effective solution. What is more important - an NBN or a better world? (And, world peace.)

Dear Shalmaneser.

55% of the handgun shootings in the entire state of NSW in 2000 did not occur in Orange, or The Hills, or Wollongong, or Shellharbour, or Randwick, or Wyong. They occurred within the boundaries of two of Sydney’s most notorious ethnic ghettoes, which are noted for their high levels of drug trafficking, violent criminal behaviour, and long term welfare dependence.

Your post is a perfect example of how idealists such as yourself are prepared to shuffle the figures so that you can muddy the water to hide the effects of ethnic crime. I hear that the Sudanese are just about out of control in Victoria, with even the police now fearful of entering public housing areas in Fitzroy or Flemington.

You know Shalmaneser, old Joh Bjelke Peterson knew how to deal with people like you. He used to find out who were the most strident white activists demanding aboriginal self determination, and then he used to find out if they owned their own home. If they did, he used to get an official to approach their next door neighbors, and offer them a fantastic deal to purchase their homes for public housing. Then he used to move aborigines into the houses. As Joh used to say “That always shuts them up.”

I wish Joh was still alive, and he would buy your neighbors’ houses, and then move Sudanese into both of them to give you a reality check.

"The racist, anti-racist debate is not helpful. (And, there is no white Oz anyway, unless it's some country town full of roo shooters.)"

Anti-whites like to say there is no such thing as "white" countries, but they define "white" countries, every time they open their pie holes:

A “white” country is any country, you anti-whites INSIST has an obligation, to import huge numbers of third world immigrants.

"Nonetheless, the fact is, Oz is involved in immigration"

All white countries and ONLY white are involved in this "immigration". No white country has ever been allowed to discuss this issue rationally or vote on it. Remember what they did to Pauline Hanson?

So why must all of our countries have this immigration?

Because we are white.

"What should Oz do? Work as conscientiously as possible with the UN and all nations toward a timely and effective solution. What is more important - an NBN or a better world? (And, world peace.)"

All Brown Countries are Poor.

Working for "world peace" by committing GeNOcide against white children, isn't going to change anything for the better.

@ Bronwyn
.......................
RE: SPQR
<< Like *Immigration Nation* it is full of half truths and full on distortions ... >>

Name one
.......................

Love to ( not that it will have any impact on your entrenched views! )

Lie No. 1
One of the central arguments of * Immigration Nation* was that Australia due to its White Australia Policy become the pariah nation of the region.

The fact is, most of the countries in our region have long had similar anti-immigration/ foreigner mores/policies.
Even you, must have heard about China seeing itself as the Middle Kingdom surrounded by unclean barbarians
It didn’t want any barbarians settling in China and intermarriage was out of the question for any self respecting subject.
The Japan had long held a similar world view .

So tell me how they could possibly have been morally offended by WAP?

Lie No.2
One of the programs tame “experts” even suggested that Japanese militarism was provoked by the White Australia Policy .

Which is too ridiculous to comment on

So there you go, Bronwyn --- not that it will make an iota of difference!

I enjoyed the first two episodes, contrived though they perhaps are. Certainly some of the participants seem to be genuinely reappraising their prior hostility to refugees on the basis of firsthand experience.

While entirely predictable, I think that the evident racism in comments above quite disturbing. However, they are no worse than that proclaimed by some of the participants in the program, so there is some hope for redemption yet.

At the very least, the program shows that it's possible for people of fair mind and good will to change their racist views of the world, so there's hope :)

@SPQR
Japan has around 128 million people. They are 98.5% Japanese. Sure there are some "guest workers". But when they get shipped out there is little dissent from the international community. If a white country closes the border they scream bloody murder.

Just because a liberal think tank puts up a website saying Japan should let in Non Japanese. That doesn't mean Japan will do so. They are hardly facing pressure. This website and the groups attached go back quite a ways. They do not appear to be making a dent into Japan.

There is a big difference between a few Korean workers being allowed to live in certain buildings in Tokyo. And what you will read below happening in California. Again this type of "forced integration" is for all White countries and ONLY White Countries.

Obama administration: California’s whitest county MUST BE FORCIBLY INTEGRATED.
http://cofcc.org/2011/03/obama-administration-californias-whitest-must-be-forcibly-integrated/

Non White countries do routinely have guest workers and such. However, they do so at their own leisure. No White Country has ever been allowed a vote on this subject.

By the way, China has tried to force immigration (and integration of groups like Tibetan Nomads) into Tibet. This has routinely been labeled Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide by the UN. You will never hear a peep about the above clear and consistent Targeting of White Children.

Forced immigration into all white countries and only white countries (anywhere else is labeled genocide)

Forced integration in all white countries and only white countries (anywhere else is labeled genocide)

Then they push interracial relationships in all white countries and only white countries .......hmmmmm....there is a pattern emerging here

then they promote a Brown future for ALL White Countries...hmmmm

.......SURE is difficult to see how the word Genocide applies here

Antiwhite:"there are no such thing as white children"
ProWhite:"Of course not! In your visions of the future, you have killed them all".

Saltpetre.
The program in question doesn't show what "refugees' go through, it merely details what a carefully selected group of actors were asked to do in the production of a work of propaganda.

These people are actors playing a part in the same way as the participants in any other so called "reality show'.
Propaganda only works when it operates on the lowest common denominator, it's useless otherwise..say what you will about the Nazis but right from the beginning they knew what they had to do and what depths they'd have to stoop to in order to sell their final solution.
To a propagandist there's not two cents worth of difference between producing "Go back to where you came from!" and "Big Brother", you could inject the subject of race into the latter just as effectively as you could the former.

I spared myself the ordeal of further viewing and tuned in to Angry Boys instead, at least Chris Lilley's work is grounded in everyday Australia and what's more he treats his subjects and his audience with respect and compassion, even love.

Dear Bronwyn, Morganzola, Saltpetre ...,

I'm beginning to think that we're being had by a bunch or teens.
Don't feed them. All these "White Australia" posts sound a bit like
something out of a Russell Crowe movie.

I think we're being had folks.
They're simply stirring us.

Lexi:"I think we're being had folks."

You`ve been outed for the anti-white extremist you were all along,just no one was properly calling you out on it.

There`s no more pi**ing around now,judgement day has arrived.

Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.

Yabby,
Yes I noticed that as well in the 2nd episode.

Remember to nice Burmese people living in the flat in Malayasia, well we don't get them here on boats because they simply do not have the money to pay.

The programme did not mention the fact that the Afghans and Iraqies fly to Malayasia, then overtake the Burnese people who are queueing patiently, and pay a smuggler far more than the air fare to get them to Aus.

I think we should accept some refugees, but not the 'illegals' that have the money to push others out of the queue like is now happening in Malayasia.

There is a huge difference between refugees and the 'illegals' that come by boat.

I'll not be watching any more of the programme in question, because it is an intellectually dishonest, manipulative polemic.

Its whole premise is founded on a strawman argument: that the "average" (read: white, suburban, working-class, non-Green voting) Australian is opposed to asylum seekers entering Australia unauthorised, because they are opposed to Australia taking refugees (and, it goes without saying, racist).

This is not the case at all. Research has demonstrated that Australians make a clear distinction between unauthorised arrivals and refugees, and they are overwhelmingly positive to the latter, while hostile to the former.

What the argument is *really* about is two very simple principles: does Australia have the right to control its borders or not? Is people smuggling an illegal activity that should be stopped?

Yabby

<< ... what about those poor Burmese women and children and why are they left behind whilst healthy young males with enough money from Iraq and Afghanistan come in first? Does your empathy not include them? >>

Not sure if this program has really provided you with food for thought, Yabby, or whether you're just point scoring as usual, but anyway. There's nothing to be gained by setting one group up against another. We can empathise with both. Australia has the capacity to give due consideration to asylum claims from both groups.

The plight of the Burmese is particularly heart-wrenching. Thousands are stuck in jungle camps for years on end, crammed in together in unsanitary disease ridden squalor, eating grass to survive. They have little hope of any nation being able to do much for them. They're certainly one group I'd like to see included in our humanitarian intake.

The young males from Iraq and Afghanistan are no less deserving of our empathy. They are not desserting their families as you imply. Most families can't afford to pay people smugglers, so they work in with others, pool their assets and sell what they can to get one person to safety. A young male is usually the fittest and most able to endure the gruelling hardship of the journey and besides they are often the ones most at risk of being killed in their homelands in the first place.

Your comments here are as cringe-worthy as those of the Australian on the program tonight who asked the heartbroken Iraqi lady what she thought of her son leaving her behind in Iraq!

SPQR

I didn't watch 'Immigration Nation', so I won't respond to your comments. I will respond to any 'half truths and full on distortions' you can find in 'Go back to where you came from' which is after all the topic of the thread.

Lexi

<< I think we're being had folks. >>

What's new, Lexi! I've just scrolled through the rants and looked for the comments relating to the program. What did you think of it?

*Your comments here are as cringe-worthy as those of the Australian on the program tonight who asked the heartbroken Iraqi lady what she thought of her son leaving her behind in Iraq!*

Not really Bronwyn, because one of the greatest things I learned
to do is to think what about I feel and why. It is the emotionally
engulfed who have the problem.

Fact is that Australia cannot save the world, you cannot argue with
that one. So best we help the most deserving.

The programme sure tried to push buttons, but also revealed some
statistics. Yes 100'000 people died in Iraq. But the war is
essentially over. Bombings are down by 90% and they are losing
about 200 people a month, if I remember correctly what the
American general said. That would not be that far from the
Australian road toll. Another interesting statistic I once read,
something over 20'000 a year were dying in Iran from traffic
accidents. So IMHO based on the figures, things are clearly not
that bad anymore in Iraq.

Feel free to quibble with the figures if you wish.

Yep, Yabby, things are pretty good in Iraq. The three Australians on the show tonight must have put on bullet proof vests and helmets and been driven through Bagdad in an armoured vehicle just to look good for the cameras. Silly Me. I thought they were doing it to avoid being shot at.

Yes, 100 000 Iraqis have been killed in the American lead invasion and occupation of their country, the majority of them civilians, and just as many again horrifically and permanently maimed as we also saw tonight. A pretty good reason to have fled the country I would have thought. And a pretty good reason for Australia to have accepted their claims for asylum too, considering we were part of the invading and occupying force.

I hope you're right and that soon Iraqi asylum seekers can return to their homeland, which is after all where the majority would prefer to be, but we need to be sure first that they will be safe. According to UNHCR there are still over 1.8 million refugees and internally displaced people in Iraq so a huge resettlement and rebuilding task ahead and too soon to be returning too many just yet I would think.

@Bronwyn,

Ok Bronwyn, now we’ll look at * Go Back To Where You Came From*
Here’s a few off the top of my head:

--Doctor Dave in episode 1 makes the claim that for the asylum seekers escape is the prime motive, destination is of little concern —WRONG
Both the Afghanis and the Tamils have specifically schemed and planned to get into affluent western nations –you might recall the Viking Princess hijackers and their shopping list of Western nations.
--In episode 1 –with the little boat fire skit ---we are led to believe that boats catching fire are the function of old-unseaworthy vessels & overcrowding ---WRONG
Boats fires are mostly the doing of their crew who deliberately torched them, on sighting Aust coast guard shipping.
--In episode 1 when interviewing the Iraqis – they say, “we got to Malaysia “ –no attempt is made to find out HOW they got to Malaysia.
It would spoil the effect SBS is trying to create by revealing that they FLEW into Malaysia . A country whose immigration gives passengers arriving from Muslim countries easy access..
--- In episode 1, Villawood is described as Australia’s "most notorious” and implied to be a hell hole. No mention is made of the apple laptops & wide screen TVs that were part of the modern facilities, much of which was later destroyed by the asylum seekers dummy spit.
---In episode 2 when talking of the “refugees” in Malaysia, there is deliberate attempt to blur “asylum seekers’ and general illegal immigrants.
Malaysia has tens of thousand of illegal work-seekers from Indonesia and the subcontinent –none of these are seeking asylum –these were all lumped together

And PS : when Dr Dave finishes with * Go Back To Where You Came From*
He is assured of a future as part of the coaching team on The Biggest Loser, he has all the right lines and mannerism.

@ Clownfish.
We might also ask why Immigration detention is being run as a "for profit" enterprise by a fairly malevolent globalist company,SERCO.
Detention is big business, it's also a "growth area".
When politicians, such as the Victorian premier talk about building "super prisons" they're not talking about state run facilities, they'll be privately owned and run for profit, most probably by British based SERCO.
Why isn't the focus of the "Refugee Advocates" on a "Send SERCO back where they came from" campaign?
As it stands the more "refugees" who arrive here the more money is transferred from the public purse into the pockets of SERCO stakeholders.
Where's the outcry? I've heard exactly Zip on this issue from "Refugee advocates" and in my book silence is consent, there's also the possibility of connivance between the two groups.
I'm 100% certain that some "refugee advocates" are in the pay of SERCO because that's the way the world works,"activist" groups are always infiltrated and corrupted by their supposed enemy, always.

I have got a better idea for a refugee TV program.

How about we get a boatload of Anglo Saxons who burn their identity papers and set out on a boat for Asia to claim "asylum" from Australian oppression? When they get intercepted by some Asian navy, they threaten to throw the kids overboard and then set fire to their boat?

After being landed on shore, and taken to a detention centre equipped with computers and being fed "Australian" food supplied by Anglo caterers, they attack each other, attack inmates of other nationalities and religions, attack the guards, set fire to the detention centre, and then sit on the roof daring the police to do anything about it.

After being granted "temporary protection visas" they immediately head for the nearest Asian Centrelink offices to load up on all of the free goodies. They are then provided with houses bought commercially by the government from the open market, or they get preference over Asians for public housing.

As more boats arrive, they congregate entirely within a suburb which soon becomes notorious for very high levels of drug trafficking, violent crime, drive by shootings, and long term welfare dependency. The spiritual head of the Church of England in that Asian country could help by implying that Asian women were "catmeat" sluts who deserve to get raped by Anglos.

The program could then concentrate on how racist and lacking in compassion the Asians are, because they object to any more Anglos barging into their countries.

Bronwyn, if Soviet troops were driving around Australian streets,
I'd suggest that a few Aussies would take a pot shots at them too.
Besides, how would it look for SBS, if one of their guests had been
shot? No doubt extreme caution was taken. Meantime around
20 million Iraqis do in fact live in Iraq and are rebuilding their
country. Given the statistics mentioned, I'd say that there
are other deserving asylum seekers such as Burmese women and
children, who should not be pushed out of the way by young Iraqi
males who could be helping to rebuild their country.

Bronwyn:"100 000 Iraqis have been killed in the American lead invasion and occupation of their country"

How many white people have been murdered,raped,assaulted,roadkilled,mentally damaged,never been born due to anti-white demographic-reduction policies since the anti-white PC religion took over?

30,000 white women a year are raped by non-whites in America alone.

Your "moral outrgae" does`nt extend to those expendable white people does it Bronwyn,Iraqis are much more deserving of your sympathies are`nt they?

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Lego,
i am unaware of this particular bjelke petersen policy. however nothing associated with that evil man would surprise me.
Your support of this particular action demonstrates your ignorance of what constitutes corrupt conduct and what is the proper role of government.
leaving that aside you have not addressed the substance of my response to your claims. there is an old rule that says when you are losing the argument attack the messenger.
I repeat. your claims about handgun crime and migrants is a beatup. the statistics from BOCSAR prove this. have the good grace to acknowledge this.

SPQR

Escape IS the primary motive of asylum-seekers and contrary to your claims very few have the luxury of shopping around. Most put their lives in the hands of people-smugglers with little idea of where they're headed. A frequent comment from the Iraqis who arrived here in the early 2000's was they'd never heard of Australia. As for the Tamils, they do live in our region and many had family here. If you were stranded on a boat with sick women and children for months on end with no country willing to assist you, I think you'd start making a few demands too.

One or two boat fires have been deliberately lit, but the majority occur as a result of clapped-out and poorly-maintained engines. The fear and helplessness generated by the fire itself, as with the water coming in, was what the show sought to highlight. The whole experience is terrifying, especially considering most are afraid of the ocean and unable to swim.

Regarding the Iraqis flying out of the country, very few do that. The interpreter did, as part of a one-off deal in recognition of the fact he'd risked his life interpreting for the Coalition forces and was subsequently in grave danger as a result. The other two most probably drove or walked to Syria or Jordan first and may have flown from there to Malaysia, but equally may not have. Arriving by plane in no way negates a person's refugee status, though I agree it tends to reduce our sympathy for their plight.

Regarding Villawood, it is a hell-hole. A few TV sets and laptops don't reduce the pain of being locked up like a criminal for months and years on end, with little or no news of your family's safety and the constant threat of being returned to danger.

Your last point is irrelevant and depends a lot on your definition of illegal. It's impossible to know the numbers of refugees in Malaysia, but estimates vary from one to two hundred thousand - a great many in other words and a fact the program depicted accurately.

SPQR,
You are wasting your time, the likes of Bronwyn cannot see the difference between genuine refugees and the shonks that fly into Malaysia then pay toget to Aus illegally. If they were genuine they would fly all the way, but we could then establish their identity and send them back.

You know this and I know this, but to Bronwyn the 'poor stricken boat people' are a religion and no amount of practical evidence that they are con artists and gate crashers will change her mind.

But you are doing well as some other open minded persons might just read this thread.

*A frequent comment from the Iraqis who arrived here in the early 2000's was they'd never heard of Australia.*

Err Bronwyn, we have moved on 10 years. Saddam and his boys are
dead long ago. Now they ring up our emergency services on the
sat phone and suggest they be picked up.

Yes, lots of people would like the good life in Australia, but
given the present terms of the Convention, which is 60 years
out of date, economic migrants can slip through the loopholes,
tell their story and gain asylum. Sadly its those Burmese
women and children missing out.

Our gullibility is amazing.

Silence on the SERCO question, typical.
Would the "Bleeding Hearts" countenance the proposition that perhaps the transnational people smuggling business is actually a racket run by governments and QUANGOS like SERCO?
The money to be made in this industry is staggering, not to mention the political capital for those still in office and subject to declaration of their financial interests.
One of the criticism levelled at SERCO is "When is a government not a government?",I've read articles suggesting that 80% of SERCO and Group 4 management are former UK government staffers, as of that reading they were the fifth largest private employer in the world.
Remember folks, the Atlantic Slave trade was the most profitable business enterprise of it's era, the basic infrastructure which facilitated that evil business is still in place and the elites are positively ADDICTED to trading in human beings, it's just one of their perverse "appetites".

Jo Coglan states that the majority of asylum seekers who have reached Australia by boat have been found to be genuine refugees.

The reality is that the classification of an asylum seeker as a refugee is a very subjective process. In the end it often comes down to whether an asylum seekers claims are to be believed or not believed, and in most cases without any real evidence. As very few stories from dysfunctional third world countries can be conclusively and individually verified and disproved, the asylum seekers get the benefit of the doubt and so gain refugee status.

Most asylum seekers getting on a boat to Australia discard identity and travel documents and present a prepared story that effectively distills the stories of previously successful applicants. The story has to be moving enough to engage the 1951 Convention protection obligations, but at the same time vague enough to be uncheckable and unverifiable. Asylum seekers know the questions that will be asked during interviews and also know the required answers, being informed by people smugglers or relatives that have already come via people smugglers.

While the law says the onus of proof in a refugee status application is on the applicant, this has in practice evolved into applicants challenging the Australian Government to disprove their stories. It is a matter of telling the right story for asylum seekers to obtain permanent residence, they may or may not be genuine refugees.

Banjo

<< You know this and I know this, but to Bronwyn the 'poor stricken boat people' are a religion and no amount of practical evidence that they are con artists and gate crashers will change her mind. >>

I'm always persuaded by hard cold evidence, Banjo. You start producing some.

Yabby

<< Err Bronwyn, we have moved on 10 years. Saddam and his boys are dead long ago. Now they ring up our emergency services on the sat phone and suggest they be picked up. >>

Don't patronize me Yabby, I'm up to date and across this issue in a way you'll never be. I simply mentioned that by way of example.

Talking about moving on, you've been rabbiting on yourself for the best part of ten years about the Refugee Convention being out of date, sounding like a cracked record if ever there was one. The Convention will be out of date when there are no refugees left to make it relevant, which isn't going to happen any time soon.

I'm no more gullible than you are, Yabby. I know there are asylum seekers who play the system, but most do not. The vast majority of boat arrivals in particular are consistently proven genuine. Figures for different groupings over the years have ranged from 70% to 98%, and typically sit between 85% and 90%. And this is coming from a government doing everything it can to send them anywhere but here. It's pulling out all stops to tighten up the criteria, but in the end has to admit that most of them are indeed bona fide refugees.

Browyn,

Not being able to prove that someone is not genuine, does not automatically make them genuine.

To Shalmoneser

Joh Bjelke Peterson was Queensland’s longest ruling Premier, and he won succesive elections because he represented Australians, not Bantus, Somalis, Lebanese, Sri Lankans and everybody other foreigner on the planet. What he did was poetic justice to people who think like you, and it is the reason why so many Queenslanders held him in such high regard and kept voting for him.

I attacked the messenger, because I seriously object to black hearted villains like yourself blatantly distorting the facts so that they conform to what their predetermined idea of what reality ought to be. You might have gotten away with it with other contributors, but I have done my homework, and I look forward to dissecting whatever false statistics you post up in the future to support your Alice in Wonderland worldview.

I know how embarrassing it would be for you to just come clean and ruefully admit that the 55% of the handgun shootings in the entire state of NSW in 2000 which occurred within two notorious ethnic ghettoes, are a searing indictment on the behaviour of certain ethnicities whos continued immigration into this country you champion. Because if you did admit the self evident truth, your whole position would be out for a duck. So it is not surprising that you have chosen to squirm and spin doctor rather than admit that ethnic crime is a serious problem which Australia could have avoided entirely with a discriminatory immigration program.

However much you avert your eyes, and dream up novel ways to interpret the statistics so that things don’t look so bad, the statistics are not going to go away, and they are plainly displaying that your position is inimical to the welfare of your own people.

*Don't patronize me Yabby*

Actually Bronwyn, I was more offended by you thinking that we would
believe that kind of garbage.

*The Convention will be out of date when there are no refugees left to make it relevant*

That is as logical as saying that the tax laws will be out of date,
when we don't need to pay taxes anymore. Laws should be updated
to suit present circumstances. If loopholes are discovered in the
tax laws, they should be closed. The same applies to the Convention.

*The vast majority of boat arrivals in particular are consistently proven genuine.*

As others have pointed out, there is no proof that they are genuine.
They simply jumped through the required hoops, often with clever silks to assist.
Meantime the system is costing huge amounts,
which is hardly money well spent. Take them all from refugee camps,
those wasted resources would be more wisely used on genuine cases.

What am I?
Ammonite,
Come again ? How the hell should we know if you don't. What do you see yourself as ? I'll go along with what you tell me.

Jay of Melbourne, were you having a go at me? Some of us take a break now and then, you know ;)

Anyway, to address your question: I agree that private corporations running prisons, etc., is problematic, although not for the reasons you advance.

To suggest that corporations like SERCO, dislikeable as they are, are running a 'racket' on a par with the trans-Atlantic slave trade is both histrionic and historically flawed. The rest of your comment read as little better than wild-eyed conspiracy theories.

However, "when is a government not a government?" is a valid question.

The basic problem with privatising prisons is that the state is thereby abrogating one its core - indeed, one of its few rightful duties to its citizens.

Bronwyn
<< Regarding the Iraqis flying out of the country, very few do that. The interpreter did, as part of a one-off deal in recognition of the fact he'd risked his life interpreting for the Coalition forces and was subsequently in grave danger as a result. >>

Clearly you are making it up as you go.
The “interpreter” ( and, we only have his word he was one) made no mention of a special deal ( yes some interpreters did get special deals ) but this gentleman by his own admission arranged his own exit . And it makes no sense that a “special deal”’ would have him flying to Malaysia!

<< The other two most probably drove or walked to Syria or Jordan first and may have flown from there to Malaysia, but equally may not have>>

Again, you are making it up
Have a look at a map and see how far Syria and Jordan is from Malaysia –then have another think about it

Bronwyn no doubt you have big heart and good intentions.
But devotion to boat people is not the noble cause it is made out to be.
Most of the boat people are economic migrants and exploiting the UNHCR and Australia.

@clownfish.
No I'm not having a go at you, just trying to inject some other ideas into the discourse.
Posters here have touched on issues of sovereignty in relation to border control, the SERCO issue is one aspect of that but I'll concede it's probably not something we as "small time" activists have any immediate power to change. The problem as always is money, if we had money we could investigate these "conspiracy theories", we could have research institutes devoted to studying the links and family ties of these "Globalists"....but we don't.
The similarities between the Slave Trade and the Refugee Industry are many if people care to look, I'll not de -rail the discussion further on this thread but there seems to be a persistent group of people operating down through the ages who have a "thing" for trading in human beings.
International population movement and open borders are the goals of Globalist capitalism, which as we know is not based in any one State, it's both extra territiorial and trans national entities.
Think back to the late 80's and early 90's "Anti Globalist" movements and look at the state of those same tendencies now, they all now support, you guessed it, open borders and unlimited transnational population movement.
In the past here probably was a case for this type of action in order to subvert states who were controlled by globalists, but as I've pointed out these entities, like SERCO are now pretty much extra territorial and out of reach of that type of activism.
All the "Left"and so called "respectable" conservatives are doing now is hurting Nations, that is to say people, as the real enemy is now out of reach.
Flooding White countries with Third World migrants in order to "get at" entrenched elites or eliminate "White Privilege" is no longer a viable, nor moral activity, it's just Genocide.

Individual

You cannot understand that we are all a 'racial' mix - no matter how 'white' we may appear? No wonder you misunderstand much discussion.

The following is a link to a speech made by Malcolm Fraser at the Adelaide Australian Refugee Association last night (its OK Individual, I don't expect you follow this either):

""Does Labor realise that it can never outdo the Coalition on inhumanity to asylum seekers?"

It is a climate of fear he traces back to the Howard government and its handling of the Tampa in 2001.

"But with the balance in the Labor Party at the time, the party decided that the Liberals had ripped enough redneck votes out of the Labor Party, and they weren't going to let them rip anymore," he said.

"Now that's not an assumption from looking at the outside. Those words were used in a conversation I had with one of Labor's most senior people at the time."

Mr Fraser says Australia should be involved in a greater international effort to help resolve problems in other countries.

He also wants a humanitarian and bipartisan approach to the asylum seeker issue.

It is a sentiment that won the former prime minister a standing ovation."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/25/3253374.htm

Lego,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ9EWcaS7II

Individual.
We're not a "Racial mix",White people are not "Mixed Race" in any sense of the term, that's an outright lie.
For a start, 3/4 of the genetic stock of the indigenous people of the British isles, the group most relevant to this discussion comes from the original pre Neolithic settler groups, with small levels of European admixture (ie Nordic, Slavic etc) in SOME localities:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/dna-blueprint-of-the-irish-revealed-2333700.html
The Irish, Scots, Cornish and Welsh have very low levels of admixture.
You're trying to say that it doesn't matter if my race is "assimilated" out of existence because we're just "mongrels",you regrads us as being no better than Dogs try telling an African he's a "mongrel dog" and see what type of reaction you get.

It doesn't matter what YOU think about race, under the law Race is real and it matters, there are no such things as "social constructs" in the Racial and Religious tolerance laws.
If we say we're White, we're White, anyone who denies the existence of my Race, and like you seeks to make some point in support Third World migration is subject to sanction under international law for promoting the crime of Genocide.
You say you are anti Racist, what you are is anti White, anti Racism is a code word for anti White.

Beg pardon, the previous post should be addressing Ammonite, not Individual, silly mistake.

Sorry Shalmaneser, I won't click on links. The last time I did that, I got the worst virus in my computer ever, and it cost me hundreds of dollars and a lot of grief to get it out.

Besides, I can't deprogram a link, but I still have hopes of deprogramming you.

What was it about, anyway?

Jay Of Melbourne,

Anti-racist isn't anti-white. Everyone is free to choose their own mate, and if Indian wishes only to marry Indian, ok, if Chinese only wishes to marry Chinese, ok, same for Oz, or Welsh, Japanese, Inuit, Kong, Nigerian, Congolese, Iraqi or Iranian, or whatever. Choose, that's all.

However, deny as you like, but there is a lot of inter-race marriage, and it seems to be a growing trend. Where will it end? Multiracial-ism? Probably unavoidable, and probably to be welcomed, in the long run. There is already too much divisiveness in the world, and one less cause or excuse for division would have to be a good thing - in my humble opinion.

If you are meaning that it would be best to go back to a White Australia Policy, then I'm afraid that horse has well and truly bolted, and the gate can no longer be shut in any case, so all the horses are going to bolt all over the place, and there's no stopping it. What happened to the last xenophobic Oz politician?

The only real question is how to maintain an Oz identity and an Oz culture - such as these are, anyhow. Or is this now possible, or worth stressing over, or preferable in any event? Oz culture has certainly benefited from migration over many years, and probably can only get richer still with further immigration.

So, choice becomes solely who to welcome to Oz - on what basis, and how many? I think there may be great advantage in taking a wide selection, with less chance of clustering without blending. We have seen what clustering can produce. Is integration a dirty word? (Facilitated amicably, with give and take on both sides.)

Saltpetre,
I posted :Anti Racism is a code word for anti White, take it as read.

Some further points:
If by "Xenophobic politician' you mean Pauline Hanson then you're barking up the wrong tree, she's supported forced assimilation from day one.

White Australia policy? I'd suggest that the people who coined that term had a far different interpretation of the concept of Whiteness to modern Pro Whites. What's more there was no overthrow of the old order in the dismantling of those policies, sure it was easier to sell once the heavily indoctrinated WW2 generation had been groomed for office, but it was all done under the direction of the Old Timers.
So no, apart from the fact that it's impossible to go back to the old White Australia policy it's also, from my point of view undesirable because it led directly to the situation we have now.
You'll get no more political views from me because as an Anarch I'm opposed to politics, I'm only interested in democracy, my "issue" is that an alleged Race problem in White countries is being dealt with in a political rather than a democratic manner.
I'm not going to go into another long polemic on the state of play but I use the same critical techniques as the ideological anti Whites, Left and Right and come up with a pro White analysis. If you're trying to pant me as a "Right winger", I'm not, I'm "Hard Left-Pro white"or why not try "Anti Globalist", that's an accurate description and one I'm comfortable with
The rest of your post is just a re hash of previously submitted views on how best to facilitate White Genocide.
I'd like to ask you the same question I put to Lexi, would you care to put a figure on your views?
What percentage of Australians should be White and what measures would you like to see implemented to achieve this "perfect number".

Do you know what bores me?

Seeing a debate that has gone on for the past 10 years, repeat over and over and over again, with the same non-arguments presented every time, with participants being extremely careful to avoid any new arguments because they confuse and frighten them.

In fact, in the paper today Paul Daley went so far as to suggest that democratic governments should ignore their responsibilities to look out for their electorates to accomodate his special morals instead
"good governments should steadfastly refuse to be moved by public sentiment when the principle behind that mood is ill-founded or morally abhorrent."
-Of course, he never actually went so far as to say what those "ill-founded and morally abhorrent" reasons were- knowing there was too good a chance he would make it obvious he doesn't actually know what those reasons are and look like a moron.
Which really means "Governments should ignore their duties and ignore the people I personally don't like, to do what I want instead, because I know I'm right and they're wrong, even though I don't exactly know what they want"
(Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/blind-to-the-suffering-20110625-1gke0.html#ixzz1QMF3w0Ky)

And Fraser- no time for that old windbag; I categorize him into the 'neocon with a guilty conscience' group- remembering he was a complete ruthless right-wing bastard in his day (and still is), he is simply a lost man who needs to pick up a token "compassionate cause" so he can tell himself he is not an ogre- but failing to overcome his bigotry towards the average Australian, finds refugee the natural topic of his obsession.

@ King Hazza.
Nail- head...contact.
One of the points Herr Hitler stresses over and over again in Mein Kampf is that the "masses" are incapable of forming a "reasonable" opinion, that they need, basically an Iron hand ruling over them for their own good.
He also used "airy fairy", "do gooder" language to get his own way then manufactured a crisis to suspend the Weimar constitution....however, everything he did was LEGAL under that constitution.
The one characteristic of "fascists" be they of the Leftist or Respectable conservative variety is that they believe that an elite should rule the masses...for their own good.

There is a very good article on this topic by Paul Sheehan titled "Refugee series is strictly for the gullible" just a few days ago. Just google it.

Race? I do enjoy a good race.
You cannot beat the marathon.
There are many races represented.
And White is not always a winner.
Even the medals are of many colours,
But never White.

I look in the mirror and I see a face.
It is of a different colour to that of my race.
I ask my mother why that is the case.
She says "Son, I don't know, it was long ago
And I can't remember the place."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4PBgtFHl58

Still relevant after how many years?

Also relevant Ammonite, is that if you add just a little of the wrong stuff to your mix in the pot, you don't get steel, you get junk, or an explosion.

When what goes into the mix is controlled by dreamers, the explosion is not very far off. mix

Dear Hasbeen,

You've got a valid point. However, if you don't add to the mix you may end up with something very bland and boring. As Phillip Adams wrote in an article for The Age - a few years ago:

"It's important to remember Australia before the most recent wave of migration. It was dull, self-satisfied and joylessly confromist. Not simply null and boring, but nullarboring. Not merely mindless, but lobotomised. Of course, the option of multi-culturalism involves taking some considerable risks - but almost every human advance is based on experiment, innovation and adventure."

Yeah Hasbeen

If we all had "coffee coloured" skin.... there'd be less skin cancer.

And maybe it would be bland, Lexi. In fact I agree.

For those who think skin colour indicates character, you have a long way to evolve before you reach the same levels of tolerance exhibited by many animals who co-exist in our homes.

http://tinyurl.com/6737nyz

Dear Ammonite,

As I've written previously on this thread - prejudice creates what it fears. Families often live defensively and themselves become highly prejudiced about Australians. The increasing hostility of some of the broader community reinforces this inter-community racism, rather than challenging it. Self-inflicted wounds begin to fester. With the end result being that one volatile part of our community is living in deep alienation, unable to belong, while another volatile part is living back in the irretrievable past with the fantasy of an all-white Australia. We need more education, less fear mongering and, not least greater honesty about the culture of racism that is so damaging to us all.

People on this thread who use the same words repeatedly like - "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white," compound their ignorance
because the implication is - you're racist if you're white.
We get it. And they think it's a compliment. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Lexi, Ammonite;
-You're advocating White Genocide as a form of cancer prevention.
-You're advocating white Genocide because, Phillip Adams was bored.
Stop aiming the gun downward at your feet.
From Mein Kampf, chapter six ..yes "him" again, the Nazis were the masters of racial propaganda and he'd advise you thus:

"Particularly in the field of propaganda, placid æsthetes and blase intellectuals should never be allowed to take the lead. The former would readily transform the impressive character of real propaganda into something suitable only for literary tea parties. As to the second class of people, one must always beware of this pest; for, in consequence of their insensibility to normal impressions, they are constantly seeking new excitements.

Such people grow sick and tired of everything. They always long for change and will always be incapable of putting themselves in the position of picturing the wants of their less callous fellow-creatures in their immediate neighbourhood, let alone trying to understand them. The blase intellectuals are always the first to criticize propaganda, or rather its message, because this appears to them to be outmoded and trivial. They are always looking for something new, always yearning for change; and thus they become the mortal enemies of every effort that may be made to influence the masses in an effective way. The moment the organization and message of a propagandist movement begins to be orientated according to their tastes it becomes incoherent and scattered".

Lexi, Ammonite,
What you may deduce from the above post is that I'm asking you to commit to your views, if you want White people wiped out in this country then say so.
You've posted the views that my race should be subjected to Genocide because we're boring and prone to melanoma...jeez Hitler made more of an effort than that, he made all sorts of claims about Jews but they must have been a hell of a lot more convincing than yours.
So let's have it you two, commit to White genocide, here, in public, in the open.
If you're feeling brave then give me a figure, how many White Children should be born in Australia?
What methods would you like to see used to achieve your ideal figure?

You can sit there and talk the anti Racist talk but people are beginning to wake up to the fact that you're just Anti White.
All your talk of anti Racism is just a cover for anti White views.
You claim to be anti Racist, what you are is anti White, anti Racist is a code word for anti White.

Lexi, boredom I can handle no problem, never had a problem releaving it yet, Phillip Adams, is something no reasonable human being should ever be asked to handle, let alone listen to.

Ammo, as a bloke who came within a whisker of marring a polynesian, & yes I know it's a cliche, princess, & living happily ever after on a very tropical atoll, I am a great believer in coffee coloured people, [particularly young ladies], in any number. It was only fear of Phillip Adams' boredom that stopped me.

The fact that her mother was the size of 2 of Sydney's old double decker buses, had almost nothing to do with it.

However that still has nothing to do with letting all sorts of rubbish into our mix.

If we mandated a no welfare period of 5 years we would find very quickly, 1/, those who really want to help refugees. They would support these people themselves, directly, not ask me to do it.
2/, those who want to come to Oz to work, & improve themselves.

The latter I would welcome, but we mostly get the other type. That's why so many are still unemployed after 4 years.

Dear Jay,

I don't want to respond to you in the manner that you deserve - because my post would then get deleted for abuse. Suffice to say that you don't know what you are talking about and therefore your ignorance is not worth responding to. People are entitled to different opinions on issues - but you are not logical. You are abusive and as such deserve to be ignored. I do not wish to inter-act with you - that would be lowering the bar. Your prejudices - is what you use for reason - sorry but that just isn't good enough. Go spout your rants to someone who gives a damn about what you think.

Dear Hasbeen,

You I understand and know where you're coming from. I've got family members who think like you do. However, I happen to think differently.
So we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Jay of Melbourne

I disagree with everything you have to say on the topic of refugees. You may have the right to spout such abuse to myself and others, but you are merely discrediting yourself.

Jay, if you are of British origins, do you know that somewhere in your ancestry there are decendents of Indian, Malay, and Chinese origin as a result of trade in Asia. If your ancestors were in the military there is a good chance of African blood.

Don't forget that early settlers in Australia from all over Europe fathered children with Aboriginal women.

I recently watched on TV "Who Do You Think You are" the ancestry of
English actor Rupert Penry-Jones, he was most surprised that in the early 1800's his ancestry was Indian. Especially when he's blonde and has blue eyes. Therefore your own ancestry is in question. Even Hitler had Semitic blood.

Lexi, Ammonite.
I'm not abusing anyone,I'm asking a question in a civil and reasoned manner and I'm not making jokes about Genocide in the way that you two do.

Will you put a figure on the number of White people who should be allowed to exist in any one place?
You skirt the issue and make callous, off colour remarks about it but won't say yes or no.

If I was suggesting that the way to lower the rate of diabetes in the Pacific Islands was to blend Polynesians out of existence...or that because Chinese people bore me they should no longer have the right to exist..by the Gods I'd expect a far more robust reply than the ones I've delivered to you!

You're getting all catty because you've been caught promoting genocide and I've called you out on it.
Face it, you're trying to cover up the fact that you're Anti White by claiming to be anti Racist, that's like a Nazi saying "Hey guys gimme a break! I'm fighting Communism at the same time as I'm deporting the Jews!"
What you are is anti White, anti Racism is a code word for anti White.

JoM

>> You're getting all catty because you've been caught promoting genocide and I've called you out on it. <<

I have not on this forum or anywhere called for genocide - you are behaving hysterically and with great vitriol.

Everyone, if you trace their family ancestry back far enough has mixed 'race' - whatever that means.

You lower the tone of this website and I will always speak out against people who foment hatred for anyone.

Jay Of Melbourne,

I'll take your challenge.
Optimal Mix for Oz: 25% so-called "white"; 25% ethnic "other"; 50% glorious "harlequin-ade" liquorice-all-sorts. As to how to achieve this splendid ratio - start where we are now, add a sprinkling of a broad range of genetically enhancing new blood, and let nature take its course. Note: Throw 2 pennies in the air, and you will get 25% two heads, 25% two tails, and 50% one head and one tail - simple probability.

As for your all-white proposition: Where are we going to find even one? Given that we all started out black Africans in the first place, (and I'm thinking you're not a Creationist, are you?) and all sorts of mixing has been going on ever since.

As for Hitler: The guy was a self-denying absolute fruit-loop of the worst possible kind. Anything he had to say, ever, I would say the opposite would have to be closer to the truth. So let's leave that particular black dog lay, shall we.

Colour has nothing whatever to do with character, morality, intellect, education, aptitudes, ideals, aspirations or potential - it is merely a matter of varying density of skin pigment cells. We are all Homo Sapiens, like it or not, and the sooner we are all a nice homogeneous light tan to mid brown, with black and yellow alternating stripes, the better things will be.

Integration is the go, not assimilation - for we in Oz have so much to learn, being the young (embryonic) country that we are, and our beginnings were not exactly all that promising, and since then our cultural development is not quite in the same ball-park as that of China, or Islam, or that of the Greek or Roman Empires. "White" history has not really been something to be enormously proud of, in the end result.

Ammonite.
Lower the tone? How much lower can it go? We've got Saltpetre openly calling for genocide, others insisting that White people are all a bunch of "mixed race mongrels".
Fine, you don't personally want a genocide of White people in Australia but you support the right of people to promote ideas such a "greater diversity", which as I've demonstrated is really a coded way of saying "less White people".
As the passage from Mein Kampf illustrates, you and probably most of the others on the "pro" side of the debate over White genocide are just dilettantes.
But as we know that kind of attitude doesn't fly when an accusation of genocide is made, one way or another the law will deal with perpetrators and their supporters.
None of the senior Nazis were convicted of Genocide, they got them on other counts, similarly the senior figures from the Balkan wars who've fronted tribunals of late have been indicted on various charges.
If memory serves, Milosevic faced charges of complicity in the deaths of 340 Kosovo Albanians and sundry other "technical" charges and couldn't secure any convictions for attempted Genocide over the Srebrenica murders or the so called Ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks.

What astounds me is that these dilettantes will come out in favour of the Convention On Refugees and insist that it be followed to the letter but then go all quiet when the convention on Genocide is quoted.
Again, Adolf Hitler and the Nazis decided they'd respect some laws and not others and a whole lot of fence sitters and dilettantes in the Reichstag just meekly bowed their heads and let them have their way.

Deliberately altering the makeup of a population, by any means can be considered Genocide under international law and that charge could be satisfactorily proven in the case of Australia.

There's error in my above post, the court did not proceed with charges of Genocide against Serb leaders because several less senior, but more culpable defendants (in the physical sense) had been acquitted of such charges, or rather the charges could not be upheld in the end.
Anyone who's interested can go to the ICC website or for information on the Nuremberg trials, the Lillian Goldman Law Library at Yale university.

Saltpetre,
Everybody knows who I mean when I say White people, It's not an issue that is ever going to come up outside internet discussions or Lefty dinner parties.
Hitler wasn't a nutcase, he and his associates knew exactly what they wanted and how to achieve their aims,given that he was literally the glue that held the Reich together if he was mad he couldn't have made that whole machine work.

Here's something I composed for an e-mail to some colleagues, tell me what you think:

"Australia is projected to reach a population of 30 million by 2030,
you're proud of our "diversity" because it brings "Equality" to the
nation, a White Australia in your view being fundamentally unequal.
So when in your opinion is a society both diverse and equal, presumably when all of these diverse groups are in equal proportions in the population.
Given that your great source of pride is the fact that this country now contains components of over 200 ethnic groups and your goal is equality in diversity what methods would you like to see used to create this harmony?
30 million divided by 200 puts a cap on each ethnic group of 150,000
people, there are an estimated 18 million White Australians at present, given that our birthrate is once again nudging replacement level what policies would you vote for in order to eliminate the millions of extra White people?
Not funny is it, when you look at it like that.
What you're promoting is the greatest planned GeNOcide in the history of the world."

Jay Of Melbourne,

Firstly, how many of your 18 million "white" Australians are comprised of various numbers of the 200 ethnic groups you refer to? Are you trying to imply that "White Australian" is a new and separate ethnic group? If so, your self-delusion is complete.

If a pig thinks it's a chook, fine, but trying to convince me or anyone else in their right mind that the pig is in fact not a chook but a duck, is, I'm afraid, a lost cause. Similarly, your attempting to paint Hitler and his Nazis as some sort of philanthropists principally concerned with the welfare of the German people and the world, and not simply totally insane xenophobic elitists and power mongers, is also doomed to failure. When a pig is a pig, it will always be a pig to all but the deluded, psychotic or just plain insane.

You really are caught up in this genocide idea, aren't you. If the likes of Milosevic and co, or Pol Pot's generals, or those responsible for the Srebrenica massacre, could not be found guilty of genocide, then your puffing and blowing here is just so much massive hot air, and you need to realise that. Allowing natural assimilation and integration to take place in Oz is just being anti-apartheid and anti-segregationist (as well as anti-racist), and is good mannered courtesy.

I hope your constant worrying about a disappearing white Oz doesn't keep you awake at night, because it's like I've said before, this pig is not a duck - white Oz is just another multi-ethnic portion of this nation's dynamic populace.

Anti-anti-racist is just code for "elitist bigot".

Saltpetre.
It doesn't matter what you think, the convention on the prevention of Genocide is open ended for a reason.
The point I made in the last post, which you ignored was that once the accusation of Genocide is made the court will convict you, no matter what.
There is no way back from a Genocide charge, once you're in that dock you can kiss the rest of your life goodbye.
Human rights tribunals always convict, just look at the Canadian system.
I'm not pro this, or pro that, I'm just pointing out that reducing the numbers of my Race in Australia is Genocide.
What people such as yourself fail to appreciate is that the world is not static, the rest of us are leaving the age of egalitarianism and moving on to ethnocentrism.
The centre of gravity for Racialism and Nationalism has moved away from Europe and settled on Asia,the ties between Racialists of all Races grow stronger by the hour, in the long run your "minorities" might not be loyal to who you think they are.
Your "diverse" migrants are also perhaps not as diverse in outlook as you'd like to think, bear in mind that the balance in migrant intake is tipped heavily in the favour of Christians. Your average Third World Pentecostal Fundamentalist makes Fred Nile look like Julian Clary, we're talking witch hunts,exorcisms, mortification of the flesh and black magic
As we coast toward the start line for WW3, as the last Arab Socialist dictators are scooped up and dragged off to the Hague and the total subjugation of the Middle East begins, whose side are you on?
What's going to happen in the next couple of years will change everything, can people like you really afford to be so cocky?
Just think about it, when, in the next months and years you're asked to pick a side, which will you choose?
Pro White, or pro White genocide?

Ammonite - “Everyone, if you trace their family ancestry back far enough has mixed 'race' - whatever that means.”

If you go back far enough, everyone is descended from Noah and his family. So we are all one race, the human race. In this one sense, we are all ‘boat’ people.

This thread just gets funnier and funnier. Talk about the sublime and the ridiculous!

Dan S

If you like to believe that we all descended from Noah and this means you believe skin colour is no big deal, then whatever 'floats your boat'. It is preferable to the racist bilge currently poisoning the freedom of speech normally present on OLO.

For me evolution is the key - we are all out of Africa.

Dear Ammonite,

Evolution is the key, except some people haven't evolved very far at all. This is from the sublime to the ridiculous and no - it isn't funny!

Evolution is the key to what? Darwin’s book - On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, did not exactly inspire harmonious thoughts on how we could all get along.

I agree with you that skin colour is no big deal. It’s only skin deep. And while JayM is over the top with his nonsense about genocide, he is exercising his free speech. Saying only things that everyone agrees with is not free speech. A society that allows people to say things we find distasteful is the definition of free speech.

I think Jay is taking offense to your slightly out of date ‘Melting Pot’ song. We don’t exactly need a world full of ‘coffee coloured’ people, despite the song having some agreeable sentiment. Perhaps he is looking for some balance to the resistance to the fact that Anglos truly have brought worthwhile and significant contributions to this land and others.

Ammonite, I know you like YouTube videos. So check out some of this wisdom from Jemaine and Bret –

http://youtu.be/zs_rXxi0zhM

Dan S

Sheeeeeesh!

We have been over evolution and your creationism beliefs before - this is not what the topic is about.

I urge you to read JoM's history - he is NOT about objecting to a few words in a song, he truly believes that the "white race" is in peril and that people, like myself who simply believe in live and let live are committing some form of genocide.

I love people in all their variety - from Inuits to Masai. It was just a nice song about treating each other with respect, it is NOT serious about "turning out coffee coloured people by the score" although this would mean pro-white racial purists would have nothing to whinge about.

That's all.

You believe a big god in the sky created everything. I don't.

Whatever, we are all living beings and have every right to be here.

LIVE AND LET LIVE.

Ammonite ,
I agreed with you that Jay’s comments on genocide were over the top.

Yes, we’ve discussed evolution and creation before. However, here is wasn’t me who raised the subject. Saltpetre, Lexi, and yourself have all raised it on this thread. Why am I the only one who is not allowed to comment on it?

If you think that the promotion Darwin’s writings had nothing to do with raising racist attitudes historically, then I’d be happy to provide you with examples.

Jay Of Melbourne,

".. reducing the numbers of my Race in Australia is Genocide."

I'm sorry Jay, but your postulation is fatally flawed. By your implied definition, Genocide has been happening in Oz and around the world for a very long time, with "whites" just as guilty as any other race. The human race is simply continuing on the evolutionary path commenced in Africa over a million years ago - but now converging, rather than diverging.

The fact is, we are all the same under the skin, and differences in skeletal structure, facial features, musculature and DNA are relatively superficial. The principal differences in people are learned beliefs, attitudes, cultural and societal norms. As these are "learned", they can be altered, with appropriate education and opportunity - it is only necessary for people to be willing to re-evaluate, to consider alternatives, to change. A wall street banker is much the same as any other wall street banker, whether of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Oz or American extraction. My thinking is that you, Jay, are focusing on the image, rather than the man.

The world is at a crisis point of rapid change, with far greater priorities than inter-racial consolidation. We in Oz can not be immune from the adaptation which must take place, and can either embrace it or be overrun by it.

"As we coast toward the start line for WW3,.. and the total subjugation of the Middle East begins.."

Subjugation is on the way out. I am on the side of balance, equity and the resolution of all causes of conflict - including the reigning-in of western elitism and runaway capitalism.

".. the world is not static, the rest of us are leaving the age of egalitarianism and moving on to ethnocentrism."

Yours must be a very small and lonely group, for several billion of humanity would be looking for a much better deal.

Dear Dan

Because all humans evolved from the same ancestors, which is why we are the same under the skin (and can breed with each other).

Not expecting you to understand this. Just go pray or light a candle or something.

Dear Ammonite,
A few minutes ago you said that ideas of origins, creation and evolution, were not what this topic is about. But now you see it differently. You see the relevance of the topic and want to argue for the evolution position.

In fact, you are quite wrong. You say that because all humans evolved from the same ancestors is why we are the same under the skin. But by the definition of evolution, we all evolved from the same ancestors: apes; prior to that, the first vertebrates; prior to that, the first multi-cellular organisms; prior to that, the first single cell organism.

All of these are quite different under the skin. In evolution theory, we are all one continuum. We are essentially related distantly by common descent to carrots and cauliflower. (Do you eat either of these? I know that carrots share quite a percentage of DNA with humans. Yet I am zero percent cannibal when I eat them.)

By the theory of creation (as described in Genesis), life was created in distinct kinds, and ordered to reproduce after their own kind. So the various kinds are distinct, but mankind has always been one. All humans are quite closely related.

All living beings are related by virtue of having originated by the design of a single creator. But all humans have the distinctiveness and extraordinary value of being created in the image of that creator.

You talk about us [people] being the same under the skin. That’s true. We are very closely related; I to you, you to me, both of us to Jay. The reason we are so closely related is that the common ancestors of all mankind stepped off a boat together only a few thousand years ago.

"The reason we are so closely related is that the common ancestors of all mankind stepped off a boat together only a few thousand years ago."

That would make us all relatively recent boat people, wouldn't it?

Nice story, pity it's just a myth :)

Morgonzola..
A myth..or is it?
At any rate there's an interpretation of that tale that says the darker races are descended from Noah's son Ham.

I think it's time we moved this discussion on anyway, Ammonite isn't going to recant and apologise for his brand of Scientific Racism and I'm not going to budge, obscure interpretations of old holy books are also something I'm interested in, as is the intelligent design idea.

What I find amusing is that the "we're all descended from Black Africans" idea is still given voice, presumably still with a straight face, they might be descended from us but probably not the other way round.
The oldest known proto Negroid remains were found in Mali some 75 years ago, there's considerable debate about their age but the ballpark figure is between 8-12,000 years.
Bear in mind this skeleton only has SOME Negroid characteristics.
Given that the age age of advanced European civilisation keeps being bumped back further and further, now past the 13,000 year mark the above proposition is looking less and less likely.
For example,the standing stones at Gobekli Tepe in Anatolia seem to be inscribed with marks resembling a sort of proto Aramaic script, check it out, I think there's a feature on it in a recent National Geographic.
If you've got time you could listen to this excellent podcast by Olaf Hage and GeorgeAnn Hughes,they go into the idea of the Flood, pretty mindblowing stuff all this "ancient texts" business.

http://www.thebyteshow.com/Audio/OlafHage/OlafHage_GobekliTepe_11June2011_TBS.mp3

Dear Morganzola,

I like the myth about the aliens who came to earth, got drunk, had a party and slept with gorillas..

Lexi.
It might have begun when some ancient White people tried to colonise Africa in the distant past and interbred with whatever species of Human was getting about there, that theory would fit the world as we know it.
White people colonise, Black people freak out and assume they're gods or spirits at first, life goes on for a While, there's some intermarriage then the White people pack up and leave.
That podcast I linked to explores the idea that there was some environmental catastrophe which sent the advanced Europeans back to a hunter gatherer existence.
Twilight of the Gods, an occlusion of the sun which made farming difficult or impossible, stands to reason that they'd start roaming out of their territory.

JoM,

I believe it was Neanderthals who were snuggly settled on the European continent prior to the migration of homo sapien sapiens to that part of the world - from Africa.
I imagine it was the Neanderthals who were the paler of skin at the time, adapted as they were to the colder climate.

Freaky as it is, these two coexisted for quite some time and probably interbred.

@ Lexi:

Yes, it's all a bit reminiscent of "2001", isn't it? With these latest diversions we do seem to be moving from comedy to myth to sci-fi!

Keep it up please, tres entertaining! Can we bring Charlton Heston and the Planet of the Apes into it somehow?

Dear Morganzola,

I don't need to bring, "The Planet of the Apes," into it or Charlton Heston. Jane Goodall - is currently touring Australia - perhaps she sees a connection with the now substantially dark-haired, dark-eyed Australians everywhere.

What do you think?

Dear Morganzola, I thought I'd get you with this one - maybe Lexi will approve?

Poirot.
Nah, your info is out of date the Boffins are now saying Neanderthals were not cold adapted after all, Google it.
White skin and light hair then are clearly not adaptations to climate, any more than brown skin is, these are racial traits.
The migrants from Africa were most probably pinkish White or olive skinned creatures like the San, not Negroid, who then mated with the indigenous White Europeans, Asians and Neanderthal.
What's more Negroid Africans don't have any of the residual Neanderthal DNA found in Whites and Asians and there have been no Neanderthal remains found in Africa.
The Israelis and Chinese are also pushing back the "foundation" dates even further with their latest research, 400,000 and 250,000 years respectively, sure, evidence backs up the idea of some links to Africa in a certain epoch, but as the evidence steadily pushes back the dates for Eurasian "civilisation" past that time frame the whole show falls apart.
Plus there are were all sorts of Hominids running about the place in the distant past, we're up to what? Seven or more related species of hominid co habiting the planet in fairly recent prehistory.
That's the big hangup in the Egalitarian construct of a "human race", it's adapted, if not totally contrived to fit into a White liberal world view, which sadly for Liberals is not shared by the vast majority of normal people in the world.

Dear Aquarius,

"You know the saying, "Human see, human do."
(Planet of The Apes - 1968).

Well done, Lexi.

Dumb and dumber. One person is trying desperately to prove that whites are somehow more important than everyone else and sounds like they are quoting from "Racism for Dummies". Another is trying to prove that we all descended from a single Middle Eastern man (issues with gene pool on that one).

Imagine a bunch of aliens reading this thread, what would they make of us?

I suspect their response (or lack thereof) has been encapsulated by Bill Watterson:

"The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that it has never tried to contact us."

One man, his sons, their wives - eight people. There's nothing to say they were 'Middle Eastern', but were possibly drawn from a society of rich genetic variation. What are the issues with the gene pool?

Dan S

I am not your teacher:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_population_size

Read, learn, think.

Ammonite,
You’re definitely not my teacher. You are my accuser.

I’ve done more reading on the subject of genetics than just reading from the Wikipedia.

You are the one making the claim. If you make it, then you should be prepared to back it up. So you should not mind if I again ask you to explain yourself -

What are the issues (that you seem to have) with the gene pool?

Ammonite.
There's no point to your commentary other than to offend and abuse people who don't share your views.
I have an open mind toward Dan's views and in that regard I'm rapidly catching up on a part of my education which I'd neglected. I'm reading old texts and I'm reading and listening to people who study them, Dan's ideas are valid and are backed by a whole lot more information than yours, compiled over literally aeons.
Your views, whether you know it or not are solely influenced by one man, V.Gordon Child who was in the first place a Stalinist,a Marxist and an atheist...look him up, you think these your information is the very latest but you're way, way out of line.
You're going to have to accept that there is no common ground between us, that some people have deep spiritual connections to, in my case blood and soil and in others a belief system which is a central part of their being.
We're having an interesting and what's more relevant discussion under the heading "Who are we?", feel free to join in.

Well Poirot, some here seem to want to re-write White evolutionary history. Ok, I guess it's all theory anyway. (The drunk aliens is a bit fanciful though - maybe?)

Jay has granted us, however, that early white Europeans moved into Africa and interbred with whatever humans were roaming about, so we are all related after all! And then a cataclysm sent the whites running back to their nice cooler climes, or maybe into Asia? Could Indigenous Australians have come from that early white-African blending? Anyway, Jay has all us all related, and that's a relief.

Meanwhile, our partially-related refugees have nowhere to go, just like our northern cattle. Maybe we should send the cattle to Malaysia instead - clean swap. (But still can't help feeling sorry for those cattle.)

I wonder what our Indigenous Australians have to say about all this. Has anyone asked them? Given "Land Rights" evolution, surely they should be asked? Some refugees might actually like to settle in Far North Queensland or Arnhem Land, and this could be a growth industry for the traditional land owners.

I wonder how many "refugees" actually want to come to Oz, or anywhere else, anyway? Given that Jay, and most others, have an attachment to their home soil, the numbers wanting to throw aside all that ethnic and traditional history may not be so many after all?

I guess Oz could take say 3-4 million, if we could establish satellite, possibly mining, cities, with all necessary facilities - if Europe would fund the relocation of genuine willing refugees from all over. Perhaps this could be a small new industry for Oz?

Similarly, establishment of regional satellite industrial cities in the developing world, geared to meet the food and materialistic demands of the west, could accommodate the bulk of refugees in their home countries. This could be really good for "big capital" too, if political stability and assurance can be achieved in those countries. The big question is how to achieve that stability and assurance. Solve that, solve both the refugee situation and world overpopulation - what a relief.

Saltpetre.
Glib, though due to the fact that what's posted, stays posted your use of the word "related" in a precis of my submissions is inaccurate and mischevous.
Never mind, we move on.
There's also another theory, that a small number of females from Africa were taken as slaves or concubines to Asia or Europe, remember as described in the study of the Cohen haplotype it only takes a few infidelities to, "muddy' the gene pool as it were and some groups show remarkable genetic "fidelity".

The Liberal egalitarian theory doesn't fit the world as we know it.
We know White people colonise, we know they take slaves, we know a small percentage of whites Will interbreed with other races, we know a small proportion of Whites are also sick in the head and want to see their own people wiped out.
See all that's typical White behaviour, in many respects we're so different to other humans that it's impossible to cope with in the absence of some metaphysical explanation.
As I said above, there's nothing new under the sun, the ancients were no doubt having the same discussions we are, in fact I know they were.
You're flippant,mocking and belittling me, I'm calling you a traitor and a promoter of Genocide in the most earnest tone I can muster in print.
You're joking about Genocide I'm condemning it.
You want people to join in your whimsical take on the issue of Genocide, I want people to recant and repudiate that view.

As for Ammonite, so for you, there is no meeting point in our views, you're pro white Genocide, I'm against it, it's an issue of morality.

There's an interesting article in "The Age,"
30th June 2011 for anyone interested. It has the title -
"White power groups under investigation," by the state
government in Victoria.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/white-power-groups-under-investigation-20110629-1gr32.html

Lexi.
Notice how they don't name the groups?
It's a beat up.
Remember when Tyler Cassidy was shot by the Police and the scum who work for the Age, the so called Anti Racists and the ADC tried to smear him, his family, friends and employers as "Nazis"?
They made up lies about the "leader of Melbourne's Nazi movement" frequenting the pub where Tyler worked and made utterly scandalous remarks about his friends...who as it happened were of many different ethnic origins.

The "Neo Nazis" in Melbourne are well known to all on the Radical Right and are Pariahs, nobody will have anything to do with them.
If you do some digging online you can find their names, photos etc.
The Australia First Party recently published a detailed expose of these micro groups and individuals along with other state linked provocateurs such as The Australian Defence League and the Q Society.
As with the "Islamists" almost every "Neo Nazi" group that's uncovered, both here and in the U.S is either run by Jewish Anti Racist activists such as the JTF or FBI informants.
A recent deployment of "Proxy busting" software on so called "Hate Sites" revealed a large amount of Neo Nazi internet traffic coming from, suprise, surprise Tel Aviv and its well known that certain high profile sites are run or staffed by Jewish activists.

Anyway..that's beside the point and probably of no interest to anyone here.
Lexi you can rest assured that these "White Power" groups are tiny, in one case a single individual and heavily controlled by "others"...who shall remain nameless. Needless to say that as heavily monitored as they are they're not likely to get into too much mischief, if they get locked up they're of no use to their sponsors, so you can sleep soundly at night.

JOM, I wasted time listening to your podcast http://www.thebyteshow.com/Audio/OlafHage/OlafHage_GobekliTepe_11June2011_TBS.mp3.

The guy is mad. I gave up when I got to his proof that the flood happened because people suddenly started building settlements with mud bricks because that was the most abundant building material around!

I think you've gone on with this stuff long enough. It has got to the point where an article with a sensible point has become hijacked by ratbaggery.

Graham.
Fair enough, It's not for everyone, Christians often lose me as well but it's fairly uncharitable to call Olaf Hage "mad".
Suggesting that assimilation should be promoted to lower Cancer rates or that White people are mixed race "Racists" are also ratbag ideas....nevertheless.
Back to topic.
Given that the whole premise of "Go back to where you came from" is a play on White Australians self consciousness surrounding issues of race, I wonder if someone could illuminate that mindset for me.

Another poster previously made a point about entrepreneurship and the economic benefit of Refugees.
White countries are never short of either money or talent, why not send refugees to Malawi or El Salvador, two of the poorest countries in the world?
I'm not saying dump them there where they'd be a burden, give them some seed capital and mentoring by locals and U.N personnel until they get on their feet.

It's costing fantastic amounts of money to detain refugees, money which goes to a malevolent Globalist entity, SERCO.
Why not put that money toward, say flood mitigation and levee building in Bangladesh or come up with a plan to rescue Kiribati, then insist that these governments absorb some of the worlds displaced, yet economically valuable persons as workers.
Given that the White Liberal Egalitarian crowd are intent on waging a World War of annihilation on all fronts against those of us who don't share their views shouldn't people like Jo Coghlan be spending their valuable time on real projects which would benefit millions instead of selfish, micro solutions which only benefit themselves.
Face it, this issue is only going to get worse as the Liberal Armies start rolling into the Middle East and North Africa, as it is the bulk of refugees are coming from the other great Liberal wars, Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka.
Of course I won't even go into the question of why War prevention and Anti militarism aren't the main memes in popular culture as opposed to refugees and "gay" marriage, that'd probably be too much for the Liberal "Humanitarian bombers" to bear.

Jay, You do have some valid points. Let's look at it from the refugees point of view. They're trying to escape war, hunger, catastrophe, and offering them an alternative which in our opinion may seem sensible, practical, from the refugee's point of view they would be placed in an environment no different from their present situation or the prospect of a future repeating that situation. It is only natural that people want an environment for themselves and their families that has no threat of war, and a better and safer lifestyle.
If we take any nation in Africa that might have prospects today there is no guarantee of avoiding a major catastrophe or invasion from the neighbours tomorrow. People just don't want to take that chance and it would not be fair of us to force them.

OMG Aquarius!
That's like saying, "Race is real and it matters", my initial point.
Your post not only brings up the question of where one stands but also in whose name one stands.
Altruists are pretty rare generally, finding one who stands totally in the name of the "other' is incredibly rare.
Who stands exclusively in the name of my Race?
Who has the same heroic attitude to both White and non White people.
I'd like to think that in the absence (or at least lack of visibility) of such figures in our community there might be someone, from say Iran or perhaps Japan who'd take up our case.
Iranians and Japanese are still capable of compassion for others coupled with deathless fidelity to their own, a mix sadly lacking in our self appointed "conscience elite" composed, as we know of callous dilettantes and blasé intellectuals.

Don't worry ammonite,

Dan *may* have read more genetics than you, but far less than anybody with a genuine interest.

On top of that, he is known to make false assertions about the veracity of his position, *after* other poeple have checked and found him to be incorrect. Even on so trivial a topic as checking a word in the dictionary.

So, even if he disagrees with you, you can assume him wrong.

Rusty

Rusty

Um Thanks.

I had forgotten what I'd written, I didn't realise that because I used links to Wiki, Dan S would consider himself better read than I - I always look for the Wiki links that are supported by their own research references - you'd think Dan being so widely read would understand citations. I only have a degree in Environmental Science, which must mean that someone who reads the bible and believes the earth was created in 6 days knows heaps more about genetics, than l'il ole science loving me.

Ammonite,
You have not demonstrated any love of science. You are only engaging in slander. Tell me, what are the issues you have with the gene pool?

If you can’t answer the question, it shows you know not what you are talking about. If you can’t back up what you are saying, you should have kept quiet in the first place.

@Dan S de Merengue: If you can’t answer the question, it shows you know not what you are talking about. If you can’t back up what you are saying, you should have kept quiet in the first place.

Oh, were is @AJ Philips when you need him?

In the one debate I had with Dan, it I ended up saying I felt like a blow fly continually ramming itself into a pane of glass. It was actually giving me a headache. Fortunately the blow fly finally woke up to what was happening. There few things less amenable to fact and logic than a blow fly, but a pane of glass is one of them. It took this blow fly a long while to realise that is what he was up against.

AJ is one the very few that has the fortitude to follow through on the line of debate (a generous term, now that I think about it) Dan invariably engages in every time he appears here. Amazingly AJ persists until Dan S goes circular - brings up a point he earlier conceded.

Maybe AJ's human after all, and has got tired of it.

Dan S

Slander?

Nowhere have I slandered anyone, least of all you.

What is it Dan, when you find yourself without an argument that would not support a feather, you throw around wild claims at those with whom you disagree?

Suggested reading:

My posting history which clearly demonstrates a love of science. Hmmmm on the claim of slander, methinks you are projecting much.

Thanks RStuart,
The last couple of times I conversed with AJ Philips recently he was quite reasonable, he had something substantial to say, and was able to engage with civility.

Ammonite,
Slander is saying things intended to malign and demean. Calling someone dumb is getting towards this. Does name calling pass for you as rational discussion?

It is likely that you do have a great love of science, as I would expect from someone with a degree in environmental science. However, when I asked you a specific question, you told me to go and read the encyclopedia. Such a response is just a brush off; it does not require any love for science to say that.

You are quite welcome to disagree with me. I only ask that you state what it is that you disagree with so that we don’t have to guess. This is why I asked you a specific question.