For a general understanding of the issues this is a good start:

http://www.redrag.net/2005/09/21/fraser/

For those who have read the essay in more detail- one reference in particular stands out, 'The Color of Crime' which was written by the New Century Foundation a controversial 'think tank' to some, and to others a hate group founded by one Jared Taylor:

http://www.amren.com

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=215#34

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05030/450021.stm

The interesting thing about this report, and you can read it by going to the AMREN site if you so desire. Interesting enough is what the premise of the article revolves around -which seems to be that blacks cause more crime simply because they are black, all based on a reading of crime statistics in America for the most part. Yet to anyone with an even basic knowledge of criminology we must tread carefully when interpreting crime data, not to forget that other factors in crime such as socio-economics, mental health and the like are significant factors in relation to criminal behaviour. Nothing as such appears in Fraser's essay.

For those interested in a critque of Jared Taylor's 'Color of Crime' I suggest you take a look at this:

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-10/19wise.cfm

Whilst there is a general consensus that many criminals have a lower IQ than most, an Australian study into violent crime appears to rate the role of intelligence to crime lower than other factors:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/vda/vda-sec08.html

The implications of this in relation to Fraser's opinions are of course not considered in his essay, but relate to the belief that Africans have lower IQ's and therefore are more criminal in nature- there is no definitive evidence, scientific or otherwise that has proved this, although Fraser would disagree.

In the end people should make there own mind whether Fraser's arguments are free of ideological baggage or not, and whether or not his own political agenda outweights any benifit to he debate on race may indeed have. I am not convinced that his rhetoric makes a strong enough case for any public policy maker to consider

As a white Australian - I sometimes see the huge numbers of asians and Indians in the city and wonder what has become of the country that I grew up in.

But then I stop and consider.

a) Whites were not the first here

b) Some of the most important cultures/concepts of the world
originated from the middle east and asia.

c) The Asians, Greeks and Italians that I went to primary school
with are clearly "Australian" in outlook

d) Big brother - ie there are a s__tload of stupid white
Australians. I see a wonderful sample in the local
cafes, mainly kids on holiday who manage to have entire
conversations using only key phrases from the film
"Clueless". Are other neighborhoods any better?

Like all people away from their home, foreign tourists and students stick together. However my experience is that those who have been here for a while, who have grasped the language, who have made local friends - they are very inclusive. They do mix. They laugh at themselves and they do take on local customs. Sure they may surf less, but that's ok. My "way of life" is not threatened by that.

And this thing about a 5 point IQ difference... Lets look at current policy - in general, the immigrants that Australia accepts speak two languages and have a university degree. In most cases they earned that degree under far tougher circumstances than us locals. Often in a language other than their mother tongue. In fact - it's probably language which prevents mixing more than anything else. In my view. The ability to joke, be witty etc must be significantly hampered when using a non-native language.

Yes I miss the Australia of my childhood, but it never quite existed as I recall it and it had it's own subculture anyway. At the same time we are gaining smart people from groups that have contributed significantly to the world, though mainly in fields other than farming, surfing, footy and cricket.

You know something, Andrew, I couldn't give a rats about genetic/racial/IQ point differences based on race. I'll judge people as I find them, laugh with my crazy, non conformist Chinese neighbours, admire my studious, hard working academically high achieving half black Jamaican nephew, get irritated by my white, silent, unexpressive work colleague and live and let live.
For a while I thought my paranoia about where the world is heading was just that, paranoid and a product of my own age and biases. Reading articles like this one removes that comfort.
I feel a chill, chill wind blowing and I shiver in fear of it.
I don't want to live in a world or a culture where we classify the potential character of newborn babies according to any measure, scientifically proven or not.

Australia is already 99.9999999999% white to begin with,so who cares if it stays mostly white. Andrew fraser has alot of supporters, I think their like about 85% of the population,thats why he keeps opening his mouth.

Amel- if your basing that 85% figure off the A Current Affair poll are you assuming that 85% of our 20 million odd population were watching ACA that night, and that 85% of that 20 million phoned in support of Fraser- I think not.

Interesting enough was a similar poll conducted by Today Tonight I believe produced an opposite effect- either way phone polls on current affairs programs are hardly reliable sources of data.

Amazing. Try saying this out loud while keeping a straight face.

"Organised social and political life in the Western world is largely driven by the psychic power of carefully crafted illusions."

I thought for a while that it might just be the vagaries of editing that caused this article to be so incredible (to the extent that I considered it might actually be a clever spoof), but reading the original confirmed my first impression: this is not a scholarly, carefully balanced analysis, but a piece of inflammatory bunkum that should have the professor stripped of all the trappings of academe. It has absolutely nothing to do with free speech - anyone should be allowed to demonstrate their bigotry in this way - but that he is allowed to do so with acadmic credentials to provide some form of legitimacy, if not credibility, to his views.

These two sentences sum it all up.

"Since the end of World War II a strange alliance of Communists, Christian churches, ethnic lobbies and other pressure groups working through the corporate sector and within the centralised apparatus of state power has set out deliberately to flood the Anglo-Australian homeland with a polyglot mass of Third World immigrants."

"Given the relentless and revolutionary assault on their historic national identity, white Australians now face a life-or-death struggle to preserve their homeland."

These are the words of a rabble-rouser, not a scholar.

I recall reading back in August that a telephone poll on Channel 9's "A Current Affair" recorded that 85% of the 35,000 respondents agreed with the professor's position. That is a real measure of the danger of this form of publicly-funded bigotry.