No. davo - on the contrary, you've just confirmed Savoir68's second point.

While we have your attention, would you mind sharing with us what you understand a "race" to be? It's a little damaging to the racist position that none of you - including Andrew Fraser - seems to be able to elucidate what this notion actually is.

I'll give you a hand:

Is it genotype?
Is it phenotype?
Is it ethnicity?
Is it culture?
Is it religion?

Or is it just a label you attach to anyone who's different from you, and to whom you feel superior?

The Hyperlink above in my last post is an exellent reprisentation of what is mentioned in Drews Post, perhaps not clear, but the battle of Ideologies, and the difference of Subjective argument "Ideological philosophy"Emotional disorder and "The Objective" argument based on impirical facts, Never shall the two meet.
I was not sure the link worked , but it is OK, Please indulge,we might end this war with some real intelligent argument and not a Leftis programed Subjective responce proclaimed and orchestrated by the linguistic corruption of the Noem Chomsky types.It would not matter what truth was on display, it will be denied by those who are logic depraved.

Davo- you wrote:

"If whites migrated to the worlds poorest countries en masse, I wonder if in time, that country would still be poor. I doubt it.

Whites seem to prosper anywhere they go, blacks live in poverty anywhere they go (london, the carribean, new york, johhanesburg)".

Perhaps if they were given the chances that white people had they would not have to live in poverty. Rather ironic it is that blacks were used as slaves in America because white people were too lazy to do those jobs,then they were segregated. In Australia we blame Aboriginals for causing lots of crime, yet of one the major factors underlying indigenous Australian crime is alcohol- alcohol which was introduced by white people.

The same can also be said of standard IQ testing- it favours the white middle class, and of course you then get people such as Fraser using against those to which it is biased against in the first place.

The funny thing is Davo's is a unemployed bogan living in Mcfields. :-)
Can Davo or his fellow neolites offer any demonstrations of their magnificent brain power that gives “white” such high status. Can he show us what it is in our genetics that makes us better? Of course he can’t he is like any other racist no matter what colour, he is simply looking to blame someone else for his own short comings. Some failure in his life maybe it was the little Kim li who got pick before him for the footy team. Maybe it was the Indian girl who turned him down and his mates laughed at him. Whatever it is Davo get over it

Pericles,

Like you, I disagree with the means by which Fraser makes his case, but instead of letting that invalidate his entire position, I find him justified in responding to the gross imbalances in healthy criticism and issues regarding responsibility in free-speech resulting from “multiculturalism.”

Indeed, this being fundamental to his overall position, the needed perspective the UWS references might offer highlight the irony in the debate on free-speech surrounding Fraser, and thereby the “arrogance” of those who deem academic “credentials” to be of more serious concern in such matters than those of, say, the Muslim sheik.

You see, in outright disagreeing with Fraser, one denies the fact that in practice only whites seriously have to be responsible speakers. The Other’s bigotry is excused as a “response to racism”. Why not Fraser’s?

The Sydney Mardi Gra floats nuns, reverends, and those who innocuously say “poof” on air. In light of the UWS links, don’t you find their having never floated a Muslim to be pathologically treating them as permanent guests?

In light of the possible legal dilemmas arising from “multiculturalism” re Trad’s having to creatively devise a means to appease his fellow sharia law sympathisers to the over-tolerance of Australian law, I implicitly asked you whether you would ban such meetings from happening, say, a second time?

Is it not inconsistent, for example, of a Wassim Dourahei (Hizb-ut-tahir) to claim, on the one hand, that Australia ought to tolerate his organisation’s political views (RE Howard’s refusal to invite him to terror summit), and therefore implicitly heterogeneity, and on the other that this society (indeed the entire planet) ought to transform into a politically homogenous society that is intolerant of criticism, alternative viewpoints, and change, under dogmatic Islamic Sharia law (the UK website shows an intolerance of democracy)?

Since freedom of speech is based on the assumption of tolerance and equal rights, I find no inconsistency in being pro free-speech ONLY for those who are also pro free-speech, since those against it could only be a virus upon its very principles. Do you think sharia law sympathisers are such a virus?

Saviour68,

Your inconsistency is in your not ALSO applying "tuff!" to (1) Aboriginal lands rights activists, and (2) the most recent batch of immigrants coming under the "multicultural" program.

Assuming you support "multiculturalism", then it is inconsistent to support, on the one hand, the rights of ethnic minorities to preserve themselves from the threat of "assimilation", and on the other, to reserve "transformation" solely for the UK-European hosts (The "middle" wave of immigrants, the ones who built this nation).

Assuming you want to be consistent, you would either have to make all cultures undergo transformation into a "melting pot," or support the right of preservation for all cultures, in which case you would have to also support the preservation of the the host culture.

Besides, what is wrong with a nation or culture wanting to preserve themselves? Try this on in China, Japan, Suadi Arabia, etc., and you would be against it. Why? Are you a white hater? A racist? The argument about aboriginals being here not so long ago is rediculous : two reasons :-
1) Japanese or Indonesians would now occupy this land instead, and much more detrimentally to the indigenous fauna.
2) Every Western European Nation is undergoing similar demographic changes as well and the natives there are white Europeans, why do they have to be told "TUFF" about not being able to determine their own cultural/ethnic futures?