...Multiculturalism will ever live by following the “will o the wisp” mysterious lights of unreason off into the swamps of “never land” accompanied by Peter Pan, Tinker Bell and the Lost Boys, further into unknowns of Lar Lar land, the land of disconnected reality.

...Contrary to Academic opinion, True Blues are not the stupid morons or transvestites portrayed by Barry Humphries, and actually possess a brain suitably proportioned to distinguish fact from fiction, Lie from reality and plain old fashioned rip-offs of forced sugar coated racial integration policies. Australians are losing their culture, country and any hope of a future under the “domination” of the madness of multiculturalism and unrealistic immigration policies that hold any connection to real life and real people called Australians!

How racist were Australians when Hanson was flying high and what has changed?

We were not particularly racist, and nothing of any significance has changed.

NOTHING that Pauline Hanson said, was racist, IMO. Her concern about too much Asian immigration was a perfectly legitimate thing to express and put out there for public debate.

Those who condemned her as racist for those comments are the ones that need to be condemned as being anti free speech, and for trying to stifle subject matter that is of national importance and that SHOULD be freely debated.

< DIAC's Diversity and Social Cohesion offers these two aims in a program that opened in August and closed to applications in September 2011.

Aim 1: To promote respect, fairness and a sense of belonging for Australians of every race, culture and religion. The aim primarily focuses on promoting inter-community harmony and understanding.

Aim 2: Develop the community capacity building skills of specific community groups under significant pressure due to their cultural, religious or racial diversity. This aim primarily focuses on supporting specific communities with the purpose of building their social cohesion capacity and/or to promote their positive contribution to Australia. >

Dear oh dear!

Firstly, the title should be: Social Cohesion and Diversity. The most important thing is social cohesion. The level of diversity should be dependent on maximising social cohesion. As it reads now, it appears that diversity is all-important and social cohesion runs a poor second.

The first aim surely should be the preservation or improvement of social cohesion, and the imperative that any increase in diversity be undertaken with this in mind.

The question is not broad enough. Racism is only one ingredient of prejudice. A better question would be "How prejudiced were Australians etc." Racism is not the only prejudice. There exists great religious prejudice in Australia promoted mainly by fundamentalist Christians who demonstrate aganist Shariah while supporting fundamentalist chaplains in the schools and laws that favour their religion and who demonstrate for Israel while trying to wipe out Jews by converting them. To be concerned about racism while ignoring fundamentalist religion which is only too often a partner to racism is ignoring a more basic problem. Of course other religious fundamentalisms are often as bad as Christian fundamentalists, but Christian fundamentalists are more of a problem in Australia than other religious fundamentalists. They are not necessarily racists but all too often reinforce racism.

Australians are no more racist than anywhere else. We have a long history of effectively integrating people from all over the globe into the Australian community.

The 'racism' referred to by the author is often more a clash of cultures caused by the poor planning of Governments who lump people of very different lifestyles together in the same communities with the ridiculous expectation that all will be well. When it isn't someone cries 'racism'.

In addition, many of the clashes are between immigrant groups themselves who we dare not call racist for some unknown reason. The title is reserved for Aussies only.

Pauline Hanson received a lot of support because she expressed the 'integrative stress' in the community brought about bad Govt planning rather than a rejection of people from another country per se.

david f

Yes watch out for those wicked chaplains who have to minister to fatherless kids, abused kids, drug addicted kids due largely to the totally failed secular dogmas. And of course be careful of that salvation officer who houses the homeless thanks again largely to secular dogma. These guys really are worse than the 'racist' ones. Just happens that many of the fundamentalist Christians are Africans, Chinese, Islanders and Indigeneous (oh that exposes your bigotry). Christian hating secularist are generally the most intolerant and violent towards those who oppose their godless views and dogmas brainwashing their kids.

I remember Pauline Hanson's words on being elected. She claimed that she would represent white people. That sounded very racist.

Andrew Jakubowicz favourite word is "racism". And why not? He probably makes a tidy living promoting it and for this reason must talk it up.

Australia is a tolerant country. This is well demonstrated over many decades of immigration. Newcomers may well be eyed with some suspicion and even resentment by sections of the community. This may well be exacerbated by aspects of the mode of arrival or how they present. So what? Is that much different to the 'aussie' family who move to a new town or the kid who changes school? NO! If the newcomers show RESPECT for the status quo and a desire to fit into their surroundings, generally acceptance is swiftly forthcoming.

As far as I am concerned, and seemingly the MAJORITY of Australians, immigrants who wish to integrate, contribute and flourish are welcome. Users, abusers and separatists are NOT. Last time I checked we were still a democracy and freedom of speech was a right. If the TRUTH can't be spoken least it offend - God help us all!

Dear runner,

The chaplains are not consciously wicked. I'm sure they think they are doing good, and they do some good. However, they simply have no business in the public schools which are for all children regardless of religion or lack of it. School children should not be subjected to superstition.

A wise man said:

Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. For good people to do bad things it takes religion.

david f

'Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. For good people to do bad things it takes religion. '

your philosophy is flawed as good and bad can not be defined by a moral relativist.

davidf, I think you would be very hard-pressed to find evidence for your claim that Hanson said she would represent white people. She consistently said that she wasn't racist because she wasn't opposed to Asian immigration but just the rate of it. Personally, I felt that she was racist because she was singling out Asians for discrimatory treatment in an immigration policy that was otherwise non-racist.

It is a tribute to how far Australians have moved away from racism that views even more extreme and blatant than Pauline Hanson's were bi-partisan policy up until the mid-1960s. The major parliamentary parties were all committed to 'White Australia' and the voters kept voting for them. The shift has been gigantic. At its height, Hanson's party was but a marginal party that received only ten percent of the vote.

A cursory glance of the document released to Andrew under FOI suggests to me that the reason for withholding it may have been due to methodological problems rendering it unreliable (to put it politely), but I'll try to make time to elaborate on that later on.

We Australians are not the racist ones, it's those who come to our country, knowing full well who we are and the laws we have in place, yet when they arrive, they want to either change our laws, and or, have us follow their customs.

They should all be told before the arrive, This is Australian mate!

Dear byork,

I remember reading Pauline Hanson's statement in the newspaper that she would represent white people. I was shocked then to read such a statement by an elected parliamentarian. I doubt that I was hallucinating.

Ludwig,

How can you say that nothing (anything?) Pauline Hanson said was racist?

You said all she was doing was questioning too much Asian immigration.

Questioning immigration levels is one thing - but too much ASIAN migration is racist.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Nothing has changed.

Just cross out the word "Asians" and replace it with "boat people" or "Muslims".

Same arguments, same excuses, same fear and loathing and also probably the same people.

Welcome to OLO, phildobbie!.

<< Questioning immigration levels is one thing - but too much ASIAN migration is racist. >>

Eggzactly!

For some people even questioning the size of our immigration program is a step too far into the realms of racism. And by crikey, if you dare to question the merits of a particular racial, ethnic or religious component of our immigration intake, pffff, are you forever condemned!

Condemned by a few extremist loudmouths, that is, who pass themselves off as mainstream mouthpieces…. but supported by the majority of ordinary Australians!

Why are we letting Davidf get away with hate speech...again, he says he is anti Racist, what he means is that he's anti White, Anti Racism is a code word for Anti White.
Imagine David's horrified reaction upon learning that Sharon Firebrace ran for parliament in 2010 and that she was an advocate for indigenous Victorians.
David would have fairly imploded with righteous anti Racist fury over Robert Goot's 2010 comments to AJN wherein he praised Michael Danby's long standing advocacy of Israeli interests within the federal parliament.

David, prove to us that Racism exists, name all the individuals who are publicly practicing Racists, who write articles, make films and TV shows on the virtues of Racism.
Give us details, if you will of all the public fora in support of Racism, where they meet, who are the speakers, what are their areas of expertise.
David, name the major Racist political lobby groups, their most successful activists, that is to say the ones with "Racist"as part of their job description.
When you've given us the detailed breakdown of the organised Racist movement, both underground and mainstream then you will need to provide a bibliography of Racist publications, periodicals, blogs and websites, that means the ones with "Racist" in their titles or theses.

I've been consciously and actively pro White for over 26 years I can prove that Anti Racists exist,I can name off the top of my head the active players, their websites, publications, fora, meeting places etc yet I cannot name a single active and committed Racist, not one, presumably you can.

Phildoble,
To question the number of Asian immigrants or any other particular group is NOT racist.

It simply reflects one concern for the effect that large numbers is having on our culture.

I am a strong advocate of discontinuing importing those groups that have demonstrated they cannot or will not integrate into our society. My concern here is social cohesion, nothing more nothing less.

Seems some people want to change the word racist to mean whatever they want.

Interesting what the judge said today about those he sentenced for planning terrorist attack here.

David f,
I too would be very interested if you can find a direct quote of Pauline Hanson saying that, as I think you will find it was something made up by a journo. No wonder journos are not highly thought of.

You can easily find the date of her election and follow on from there.

I notice that the articles author is chairman of a group advocating 'diversity' so I take with a big grain of salt what he has to say.

I cannot see any practical advantages 'diversity' itself brings, except maybe some differing cusine.

For me I see social cohesion and maintaining our social standards far more important than encouraging 'diversity'. We are doing ourselves no favours if we do not have a critical look at some aspects of some cultures, before allowing some to enter for the sake of 'diversity'

I think the author uses 'Racism' merely to attract attention.

A lot more Australians know about the deliberate attempt to turn all white countries brown i.e GENOCIDE since those days.

Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

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

Banjo,
Chairman of a group of one, these "Anti Racist" groups are usually husband and wife teams and the larger groups with some level of actual funding are at most half a dozen strong.
However you will notice there's at least one Anti Racist in every town or suburb, every school, every workplace, we call them Political Correctness Officers, self appointed, pompous,overbearing, the office Hitlers we all know so well.
If you want an open debate about immigration then you first have to identify and silence the PCO in your midst,isolate them and take away their power to squash debate.
I noticed the Mantra posted above, that's a memetic tool designed to shut down anti Racists, memorise it and use it on the PCO's in your life.

Another poster recognised that Multiculturalism is not specifically defined by lawmakers as a Racial policy, it's primarily an economic measure.
But, it is a Racial policy simply because it's ONLY implemented White nations and ONLY White nations are expected to submit to a radical change in their genetic makeup.
So "Racial and Religious tolerance" laws, the enforcement regimes of Multiculturalism are actually "Race Laws" becaue they discriminate on the basis of race.
There are no "Race Laws" in Vietnam, or Sudan, or Tonga.
White countries and ONLY White countries are said to need "Race Laws".

Jay,
Any chance of you getting copy of full text of what the judge said yesterday when sentencing those would be terrorists?

Australia is a very tolerant nation. While there may be a few racist elements, generally we have a harmonious society based on tolerance. However, all the multiculturalism being forced onto Australia assumes that we don't have a culture of our own, and that other cultures must be blended on as ongoing overlays. Australia is not a blank canvas, with no cultural heritage. This anti-"racist" campaign is to make the public feel guilt about any resistance to ongoing mass immigration. We already have a mix of many cultures, so we don't need more cultures and more immigration. There's limits to population growth - not only environmental, but social as well.

Anti-racist may be a code word for anti-white to some people on this list. Not to me. Racism is seeing the value of a person in the colour of their skin or their ethnic origins. Anti-racism is ignoring the colour of their skin or ethnic origins in seeing the value of a person and opposing bigots who do see things that way. Racists may have any colour skin. Racism stinks regardless of what a racist looks like.

The United States has been a racist country in the past in keeping black people in slavery. Part of the population is still racist. However, they have moved away from racism enough to have elected a man with dark skin as president. From keeping black people in slavery to electing Obama as president is a tremendous advance. Barack Hussein Obama kept a name which indicated both his black and Muslim ancestry and, bearing that name, was elected president. I am proud of him and proud of my country for electing him. I voted for him by absentee ballot not for his colour but because I thought he would make a better president than his worthy opponent.

John Brown tried to end slavery and died in the attempt. He was hanged in 1859 for attempting a revolt to free the slaves. Presiding over that execution was Robert E. Lee who led an army in revolt against his country to preserve slavery. Lee’s revolt failed, and he surrendered after much bloodshed. He was honoured even though he was a traitor and fought for an ignoble cause.

As far as I am concerned Lee was a racist traitor. In August of this year I was with my son in the Adirondacks and visited the grave of John Brown who was buried a few miles from my grandparents old house. Unlike many Abolitionists who objected to slavery but still thought a black man was not quite as good as a white man John Brown was not prejudiced. He recognised all humans regardless of their skin colour as equally worthy. So do I.

Rather than muckraking about (has-been politicians) Pauline Hanson, and about (long gone) White Australia Immigration Policy.The "national consultation on the Anti-Racism" might better serve "social cohesion" if they were to study how two of the three persons mentioned here:
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/extremists-jailed-for-evil-terror-plot-20111216-1oy37.html

Got past our (to quote Lexi) <<STRINGENT LAWS>> << where "people with questionable histories are immediately sifted out>>

And, under what big hearted humanitarian scheme were they passed to settle in OZ --a country & culture the judge says they so despised.

Australians are waking up en masse about what is REALLY happening here. I myself recently started questioning everything and I've come to the conclusion that non-white immigration to EVERY white country is effectively genocide and it is planned.

There are no white countries with a fertility rate above replacement and they're all being swamped with hoardes and hoardes of immigrants. Japan has a fertility lower than most white countries, but it doesn't need unbearable amounts of immigrants.

By definition, this is genocide - pure and simple.

"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, as such:

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;"

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

Australia's national, ethnical and racial grouping has obliterated - not just in part. Urbanisation, feminism, promotion of homosexuality, consumerism - every measure intended to destroy the family unit is contributing to lower fertility rates. This is not just some fanciful new culture infesting white countries, it is planned and PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP. What is happening here is the most diabolical thing on earth - certainly more diabolical than anything the die-hard COMMIES whinge about incessantly.

Keep throwing around your epithets - bogan, racist, bigot, nazi, supremacist, this white Australian couldn't care less what I'm called anymore.

Woah! This is the most depressing set of comments I've ever read at this site. davidf is spot on in his definition of racism and it's very sad to see so many at this site openly want to revert to the days when Australia was racist in policy. However, they are a minority. When they stand for parliament, they are crapped on by the voters. Like the Greens, they get around 10% of the vote and then claim to speak for everyone else.

In 1986 or 1987, the Commonwealth Government undertook a major study of suburbs in which large numbers of Asian migrants had been recently settling. I can't remember the name of the report (even though I did review it back then) but its findings were most informative. It found a much higher level of racism among those who did not have Asians as neighbours and far less among those who lived near them and actually knew them as people.

This mixing is why we rarely have race riots in this country and, when we do, they are provoked by small groups who are opposed by the great majority. Real problems arise, though, in times of economic crisis when new arrivals are blamed for unemployment. They're much easier to target than the capitalist system, I suppose, which is the real culprit

Dear observed,

I think you are correct that there is non-white immigration to EVERY white country. I disagree that it is planned.

It is the result of modern medicine and sanitation which has decreased infant mortality rates and increased the life span past infancy. It is also the result of women being kept in ignorance and not having knowledge of or access to birth control and abortion. The death rate has gone down faster than the birth rate. It is difficult for a country to retain the increase. Therefore some people leave.

As a result there is a great population increase. The same thing happened in the white world. At first there was a great population increase, but white women stopped having as many babies. The knowledge of methods of birth control, education for women and the availability of abortion brought the birth rate down. As a result some countries have a birth rate of less than 2 per woman. This is less than the replacement rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate lists countries by fertility rates. There are many countries where women during their child bearing years have fewer than two children on average. There are 230 countries listed in the list compiled by the CIA Factbook. 99 of those countries on the list have 2 or fewer children produced by each woman of child bearing age. Of those 99 countries 40 are mainly populated by people of non-European descent.

The process by which women of European descent stopped having so many babies can be repeated all over the world. Educate women and give them access to birth control and abortion. Unfortunately there is great opposition from some religious groups to this program, but we can try to put pressure on our government to promote these actions in their foreign aid programme.

Dear byork,

Racism is not restricted to capitalism. The Marxist countries did not eliminate racism. There were many instances of it in the USSR and China. In addition they murdered millions due to their class identification. I don't see a lot of difference between class murder and race murder.

David,
I may have misjudged you, no person who is aware of all the issues around population and immigration could possibly be an anti Racist, it would be an immoral stance.
What we see before us in the so called Liberal democratic countries is the synthesis of Second Generation Communism and monopoly capitalism. Think of it as a sort of Eugenic Hegemony, replete with utopian imagery and the ideal Nietzschian styled "Post Racial" superman.
http://www.racialcompact.com/Time_Fall_1993-2.JPG
I don't believe you'd support Eugenics, no normal person does, only sickos want a blended humanity.
But we make the point that ONLY White people in White countries are subjected to Anti Racist laws, Emma West is in jail in the UK for a Racial speech crime, yet a gang of Somali girls who bashed a young White British woman and tore out a clump of her hair while screaming "Kill the White slag!" were set free without punishment by a magistrate.
Footage of the assault on Rhea Page, as you can see, if her male friend hadn't been there she most likely would have been killed, he had his hands full just protecting himself, the assailants also repeatedly tried to attack the couple even after the Police had arrived:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgIN4kBsNRg

Emma West's outburst was inappropriately timed but all she really did was annoy other travellers, who promptly put her in her place, at the end of the trip they would all have gone home and forgotten about the incident, this kind of squabbling happens on public transport every day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd8iYLvlQaM

So David Which is worse. in your opinion, who should be in jail and who should be free?
This is the type of thing that White people have to put up with all the time, this is why they get angry and emotional over Racial issues.

Byork,
It's telling that, in your mind your earlier post creates no dissonance.
Monopolist Capitalism is clearly the culprit in the impoverishment and disenfranchisement of the world's lower castes, including Europeans, what you are misrepresenting is the role trans-national migration plays in the capitalist's schemes.
You can't oppose Capitalism and support Immigration, they're part of the same program.

If we take the original justifications for Multiculturalism and mass Third World Migration to White countries at face value we may also come up with another set of arguments against continuation of these programs.
The early proponents of Multiculturalism expressed a desire to end "Anglo Saxon" (ie British) domination of Australian society and had a vision of a more continental style of cosmopolitan democracy.
This has not come to pass, Australia is still under full British political, economic and social control and while elements of the authentic Cosmopolitanism which began to manifest itself in the '70's and '80's still linger they are fast being eclipsed by what passes for Global capitalist "culture".
In this respect multiculturalism is a failure, it has not delivered what was promised.
The second way of justifying mass Third world immigration was economic, that there were jobs to be filled, jobs that Whites would not do and so on.
This argument may have been valid in the 1950's when we had a productive society with massive infrastructure projects, a large manufacturing sector and plentiful opportunities out in the regions but it isn't sustainable today.
The only economic sectors in this country at present are population growth and mining, immigration actually comes at a cost rather than a net benefit, we are literally losing money on population growth.
http://candobetter.net/node/977

Davidf, I know there are non-white countries with fertility rates below replacement - I mentioned Japan. These countries are not getting swamped with immigrants as ours are. I believe it is planned.

1. What do you mean by education? Do you mean indoctrination? People are propagandised with the idea that having more than two children is greedy - I have noticed this through schooling and through media, particularly throughout university (when I am in a sector of no relevance to overpopulation). Despite Australia having a fertility rate below replacement for 36 years, we're still bombarbed with the endless overpopulation propaganda. Dare to blame immigration? You will be called a nazi, bigot, bogan, racist, supremacist. It's only now, when we're about 15% non-white (and much more when baby-boomers die) that an attempt (very poor one at that) is made to increase fertility rates. Is this slight increase due to ~education?~
2. Also, when regarding education, why is there no ~education~ about the decline of white people? Italy, Spain, Greece, Ukraine, Germany, Russia are at suicidal levels - why is there no attempt to keep the natives alive? By definition in the UN convention as I posted, it is effectively genocide - it will become much more apparent when the baby boomers are gone.

The most powerful way to destroy my people is through indoctrination under the guise of ~education~.

The word education has become dirty. It is now like "tolerant," "accepting" and "diversity" - these words are the opposite to epithets that strike fear into us whites. People think they're just wonderful and fanciful.

I'm sorry but I don't believe Italians, who are notorious world-wide for having large families and Italy being home to catholicism and the vatican, are now having 1.3 children each. Even in Australia, 28% of Italian-Australian women do not have kids. This is not just education, this is planned.

Dear observed,

Who planned it? Who is behind it? What advantage are they getting from it?

Davidf and observer,
Why don't you blokes start a thread on birth rate or overpopulation?

In the mean time have a google on Iran family planning. They lowered the birth rate from 6.5 per woman to less than 2. This needs to be done in the countries that are subject to famine.

Funny thing, the delegates in neither Copenhagen or Durban had a session on overpopulation. Yet a reduction there would lower carbon emmissions.

There's misunderstanding of what I was saying about capitalism. davidf, my point was that anti-immigrationists prefer to scapegoat new arrivals and blame them for unemployment when, in my view, the source of unemployment is capitalism - which they do not blame. The right-wing reactionary critique of capitalism that has been expressed in some comments here opposes its progressive qualities. For instance, to the capitalist class in general wage labour is colourless - skills are what matter in the age of globalisation, not skin tone. The reactionary 'anti-capitalist' right also opposes globalisation, the inevitable process that Marx so accurately foresaw in the mid-C19th. Yet this globalisation has created the conditions for a truly human outlook in which skin tone really is meaningless. Capital will always go where labour is cheap and labour will always seek out higher wages. Workers of the world unite! Open the borders!

David f, please don't try to kid us there isn't a racism problem in the good old U.S. of A. - just check the stats for imprisonment rates.

What is racism? Is it being wary of 'difference' or is it really acting to restrict opportunity for those of difference? I think it is primarily the latter, and rates of crime, civil disobedience and imprisonment tend to reflect the limitations of opportunity for any group. Hence, in Aus you could surmise that the group most discriminated against in our midst are our own indigenous people.

Is our government doing the right thing with its immigration policy? Is adequate provision made for educating new immigrants about Australia, its laws, language, culture and employment opportunities and demands? Or are new arrivals left very much to fend for themselves, and hence tend to aggregate to ethnic enclaves? I think our demography spells it out fairly clearly. And, are Australians given adequate education about new arrivals being introduced into their midst, afforded meet and greet fora, given opportunity for a cultural exchange to afford better understanding and cooperation? I haven't seen evidence of such.

Immigration is a complex matter, and our government has neither provided sufficient justification for their policies nor provided adequate facility for the integration of new arrivals within our community. Immigration should be based on shared need and on adequate services and acquaintance-ship provisions. Unless such basic requirements are met effectively there will always remain settlement problems.

We are a relatively small population in any global comparison, and immigration exodus is a very significant worldwide problem, and with it problems of accommodation, employment and civil order. A worldwide resolution is required.

P.S. I think it was a pretty poor article.

Dear byork,

I agree that immigrants are targeted unfairly for unemployment. Of course labour moves across national boundaries much less freely than capital, and Marx made a critique of capitalism as it existed during the Industrial Revolution and shortly after. However, mechanisms in the capitalist countries such as labour unions, legislation and an independent judiciary developed where labour can get some redress for these inequities. Under Marxism unions became mere transmission belts for the party line and did not concern themselves with worker grievances. The judiciary merely served the purposes of the state. There were fewer rights for workers than in the capitalist countries.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12693 will direct you to my article on the Communist Manifesto as a recipe for tyranny and murder. I see no hope in Marxism for creating a better world. I think at present the capitalist Scandinavian countries are the fairest most decent countries on the planet with political freedom and a high level of material prosperity extending to most of the population.

Dear Saltpetre,

You wrote: “David f, please don't try to kid us there isn't a racism problem in the good old U.S. of A. - just check the stats for imprisonment rates.”

Apparently you didn’t read my post. I wrote: “The United States has been a racist country in the past in keeping black people in slavery. Part of the population is still racist.”

Is that denying there is racism in the US? Is that denying there is a problem with racism? The US has come a long way and has a long way to go.

There is an inordinate percentage of the US population in prison. Part of that problem is racism. Another part of it is the draconian drug laws where possession and use of narcotics along with the crime that flows from it are treated as legal rather than medical problems. Legalise drugs the way the US ended prohibition on booze, and much of the problem will disappear. FYI I am a member of Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR ) which seeks to redress Aboriginal inequities.

Has anyone been reading the DIMIA report quoted in the article?
Straight off the bat it identifies a structural problem in the campaign against "Racism".
The Negative focus groups, which were made up of White Australians identify "Racism" as mainly overt acts of violence and political oppression, the, fictional Hollywood version of White Racism in other words.
The other groups made up of sympathetic Whites and non whites identify fairly trivial matters, rudeness, impatience, spite, ignorance and fear of otherness in everyday interactions.
So the White groups who were selected as the most "Racist" have a distorted view of what constitutes Racism, a view fed by fiction and propaganda from the United States and the Australian Tabloid media.
They deny that they are supportive of extreme Racist elements and that it's "other people" who commit Racist crimes, skinheads, Nazis Klansmen etc.
We see the effect of this distorted, media driven world view in evidence among the sympathisers on this thread, I challenged the anti Racists to identify the Racist troublemakers in the community and they failed to accept the challenge then immediately went on to discussions of slavery, the rate of incarceration etc in the U.S.A, which have nothing whatsoever to do with Racism in Australia.
I've had to cite overseas examples of "Racism" myself, albeit of that more down to earth impatience and rudeness which is part of everyday life in urban, multicultural communities.
The attitude of most White people responding to the Emma West video is "Big deal" , non Whites simply say that this sort of thing goes on all the time, that they're used to it but that she's an ignorant and foolish young woman.

To put it simply, Emma West is the epitome of a "Real Racist" in the context of the DIMIA report, showing teenagers films like Schindlers List or Mississippi Burning is pointless, it isn't going to enable them to deal with people of that disposition or mindset.

We put up with floods, Fire, tempests and accidents but we don’t allow for the vermin which consistently rule/ruin our lives.
Our Party Politicans have no compunction in creating any stories or other incidents to discredit any person who they consider a danger to their own power to hold the people at ransom.

Why do people keep getting sucked in by this junk? Try these scenarios:

A bus driver packs more and more passengers on a bus. Do the passengers:

(a) Get angry at each other, necessitating the driver to lecture them about racism and the benefits of living harmoniously together?

(b) Abuse the driver for letting so many people on the bus?

(c) Abuse the bus company executives for their greed and disregard for the wellbeing of the driver and passengers?

A government department unknowingly employs a convicted felon from another country as a purchasing officer. The employee proceeds to embezzle the department of millions of dollars over several years. Does the public react by:

(a) Demanding the immediate sacking of all foreign workers, necessitating a massive public anti-racism campaign?

(b) Demanding answers as to how a management hierarchy (incidentally mostly Anglo-Saxon males) can be so incompetent as to not adequately vet a job applicant then be ignorant of such blatant fraud for so long?

In light of these scenarios, is it more likely that people oppose mass immigration:

(a) Because of the lack of any economic benefit to the average Australian, and the infrastructure shortfalls and public debt balloon which results?

(b) Because they are racist?

...# Those who condemned her as racist for those comments are the ones that need to be condemned as being anti-free speech, and for trying to stifle subject matter that is of national importance and that SHOULD be freely debated #...

Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 16 December.

...Added to the TOP of "that" list, Tony Abbott!!

The spiritual effects of Anti Racism on the target populations, White people in other words, are calculated to breed despondency, guilt and self recrimination.
Now how the hell is that conducive to fostering a sense of personal responsibility and a desire to become involved in, say reconciliation between White and Indigenous Australians?
Anti Racist is a code word for anti White, what anti Racism does is actually strip White people of any sense of Civic or personal responsibility by creating an Abstract image of the Racist Nazi who wants to kill six million, the "Other person who is Racist".
All this "Step Up-Step Back", "Progressive Stack" stupidity in the Occupy movements is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

Racism in Australia is NO reality at all.

What are THE 2 Discriminations we DO have?

1. Old people, disabled people, short men (less than 5'5"), fat women & door to door salespeople.

2. Anti-IMMIGRATION. Elites: Politician, CEOs, mindless business councils & Heather Ridout exclusively PROFIT from immigration and the masses PAY the true costs:

Australia is a fragile desert continent, similar to say a house with a small garden whose soils are so poor its garden struggles. The owners are being harassed by business people and the LAW because they refuse to allow any more ELEPHANTS to graze on their garden. The elephants you see are a big tourist attraction and make lots of taxes and profits for the elites.
Eventually laws were passed and the 'discrimination' against the elephants was punished with big gaol terms for the owners and their families. Subsequently the gardens were all trampled and the government collapsed and the businesses went to Tasmania and New Zealand where PROFITS went into the record books.

From this 3 things emerge:

1. Discrimination against physical characteristics can be usefully legislated against in the name of social justice and MERITOCRACY. There are a lot of BIG men with small brains running this country to all our detriment.

2. Racism in the world is RIFE. Australia is and has been a bastion against racism for nearly 2 centuries. So much so that it remains a global ENIGMA.

3. IMMIGRATION is EVIL & Anti-IMMIGRATION is NOT Racism. Anti- IMMIGRATION platforms are vital in the context of social equity and long term sustainability for Australia:

Australians LOVE ELEPHANTS of all colour, shape, size and demeanour. We want the best for them. We would never dream of discriminating against them as beings. But understand this: NOT on OUR GARDEN unless we can teraform it into huge mountains and a mississippi sized river system to sustainably & most importantly, equitably house them.

...The conclusive reading of the above “posts” defines racism as a perverse reversal of the term. Following-on from such a conclusion, racism becomes defined as “Anti-Racism: The pro-active racists in Australia are, therefore, the “Anti-Racists”.

...Since Government holds the “only” key to immigration, and immigration is a tool of the economy which the Government demands to control, then Governments stand accused of racism against their own people, when declaring accusations of racism against opposition to immigration and multiculturalism, by any group or individual in the community; famously including Pauline Hanson.

...Abbott and Howard quickly learned the ease of “picking-off” the individual campaigner, as Pauline Hanson was, than to honourable confront the issue of "unpopularity" that immigration was, and still remains, in the broader community. Theirs were a cowardly attack on Democratic freedom of opinion, through silencing debate and eliminating the influence of Hanson’s influential opinions by manipulating her Political demise: A demise which concluded with a term of imprisonment for Hanson on trumped-up charges, as a conclusion to her persecution, spearheaded at the time, by Abbott in particular.

...Australia is in urgent need of “regression therapy” on the issue of immigration and its effects on Australians in terms of infrastructure stress, in areas such as education and employment and employment conditions and housing costs, for a small example of some areas of the negative impact on Australians. Those forced imperatives, resulting from high levels of immigration, left for Australians alone and unaided, in their local communities to deal with...

Chris Bowen's stereotyping of Australians as "a land of racists" just happens to be an act of racism. Welcome to the club, Chris.

Server not found







Firefox can't find the server at culturaldiversity.net.au.