On this issue with the exception of the Greens all parties of any size are prisoners of the xenophobia and hysteria they have been fostering. They cannot abandon their xenophobia and hysteria without admitting their own moral bankruptcy. There are two main problems:

1. The governments along with the religious and political entities which are persecuting people.

2. The lack of a place of safety for those who are persecuted.

Solve the first problem, and there are no more refugees. Provide places of refuge, and there are also no more refugees.

Phillip,
Xenophilia is a far more widespread and serious mental condition than Xenophobia, extreme Xenophilia among the middle classes, church groups and in political circles is wreaking havoc upon the poor and working class communities of Australia. Xenophilia these days has become so extreme that has swung over into the familiar patterns of the White supremacy of old, we have the gruesome spectacle of rich White people asserting the absolute superiority of their schools of thought and their ways of life over all others while trying to disguise their true motives behind a veneer of "compassion" and moralising articles such as this. Extreme Xenophiles such as yourself Phillip seem to have such a limited understanding of the world that you cannot see that by creating these straw men and false contradictions you are in fact committing the cardinal sin of "Racism" yourselves.
When Leon Trotsky coined the term "Racists" he clearly defined the term as the belief among one section of society that their way of life and their people were wholly democratic and just but were being held back by the top down rule of people who did not share their own values or who held beliefs considered alien by the majority.

David F,
LOL, you confirm my post before I even post it, well done.
It's my contention that Anti Racism and support for "refugees" has become a strongly identitarian and even ethnocentric movement among a section of the White majority in this country. Any time I see "them bad-us good" I know immediately what I'm looking at, even if at times it looks like unconscious anti racism on the part of the speaker, because as we know many bigots don't even realise that they are bigots.

On this issue --with the exception of the Greens who are off with the pixies-- all parties of any size are pretty clued up about the scam that is being perpetuated by the boaties and their hangers-on. The Greens cannot abandon their fantasy without admitting their own total redundancy . There are two main problems:

1. Different groups have a tendency to fight .

2. There are often not enough of what people want to go around .

Solve the first problem, and there are no more refugees. Solve the second problem, and there will be no more poverty, and then we can all live happily every after.

Dear Jay of Melbourne,

You seem obsessed with race and racism. I used neither word in my post. It is news to me that Trotsky coined the term, racists. Please cite when and where he coined it.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=racist:

racist Look up racist at Dictionary.com1932 as a noun, 1938 as an adjective, from race (n.2); racism is first attested 1936 (from French racisme, 1935), originally in the context of Nazi theories. But they replaced earlier words, racialism (1871) and racialist (1917), both often used early 20c. in a British or South African context. In the U.S., race hatred, race prejudice had been used, and, especially in 19c. political contexts, negrophobia.

Perhaps this nerds would be better off sticking to something they knows something about.

Of course he could go home & improve his own society, one so far below the Ozzie society in every way it is really funny that someone who has left there presumes to lecture anyone else on earth on how to live.

David F,
Nice try at deflection but it's question of context,we're not talking about "Nazis" and there's no equivalent movement at large in today's society or indeed the world. The debates in which we White Australians engage in 2013 fit the description given by Trotsky in his history of the Russian revolution, if I remember it correctly the chapter is titled "Peculiarities Of Russian Development", this is the only way the word "Racist" can be applied to the world of 2013 and it's definitely the context in which you've used it.
Further to what I posted earlier I'd suggest that being so unnatural and so defiant of nature the only way so called "egalitarian" values can be propagated at all is to couch them in inegalitarian or even anti egalitarian language, the proper language of men. We might refer to Marcuse' "Repressive Tolerance" but I think Niccolo Machiavelli put it succinctly when he said "Hence it is that all armed prophets have prospered and the unarmed ones have been destroyed".

Dear Jay of Melbourne,

No deflection. You wrote: "When Leon Trotsky coined the term "Racists".

Please show where and when Trotsky coined the term "Racists". He may well have used the term, but I doubt that he coined it.

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your facts.

Hasbeen,

"Perhaps this nerds would be better off sticking to something they knows something about."

(Yeah, David - only Aussie xenophobes are qualified to speak out on the issue around here)

Here's something to ramp up the hysteria a notch.

Tony's latest desperate lunge for votes (in response to Rudd's hastily concocted barrel of nasties)

Confected emergency - anyone?

Sorry - forgot the all important link to Tony's latest:

http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/LatestNews/PressReleases/tabid/86/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/9311/Operation-Sovereign-Borders.aspx

There's no record of the use of the word "Racist" or the French "Racissme" in the Anglophone countries prior to the 1930's the concept as we understand it today (via Trotsky) did not exist,if you can find one I'll happily discuss. I've given you the exact reference, it's Trotsky's "History Of The Russian Revolution", in the relevant chapter he's critiquing the relationships between the peasantry, the church and the Tsarist bureacracy.
You can view the document here:
http://www.marxists.org/ebooks/trotsky/history-of-the-russian-revolution/ebook-history-of-the-russian-revolution-v1.pdf
If you use the search function and type in "Racists" it'll take you there.

Border Protection is becoming a farce at the political level.

In terms of Rudd and Abbott and their solutions, perhaps they should remember a little of history.

As Napoleon said, “Never harass your enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself.”

I think in terms of both our future prospective leaders, Napoleon summed it up well.

As to the Xenophobia, welll of course its rampant, we are human beings and being innate animals we will always try to do the girl or guy standing next to us over, it's just within our nature.

Geoff

Dear Jay of Melbourne,

Thanks. It was in:

Slavophilism, the messianism of backwardness, has based
its philosophy upon the assumption that the Russian
people and their church are democratic through and
through, whereas official Russia is a German bureaucracy
imposed upon them by Peter the Great. Mark remarked
upon this theme: “In the same way the Teutonic jackasses
blamed the despotism of Frederick the Second upon the
French, as though backward slaves were not always in
need of civilised slaves to train them.” This brief comment
completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the
Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the “Racists.”

I assume Mark is a typo, and Trotsky meant Marx. I don't know who Trotsky meant when he used the word, Racists. Terms in ideological literature may have special meanings which are not the same as in the outside world. For example, 'feudalism' in Chinese communist literature means imperial China whereas western scholars uses feudalism that arrangement by which systems of obligations linked various centres of power before the emergence of a nation state.

We aren't obliged to honour our UN convention on asylum seekers, with either onshore processing or resettlement on the Australian mainland.
We should however, adopt modern space age technology that allows us to much more accurately discern just who is a genuine asylum seeker or a humbugging economic migrant, or indeed, member of the criminal cohort engaged in facilitating undocumented irregular arrivals.
We did need to take the sugar off the table, so that we can as a self determining sovereign nation, decide who comes and the manner of their arrival.
In which case, as a fair minded and just nation, we can decide to increase the intake; and focus exclusively on the most deserving/longest waiting, be they black, white, brown or brindle; believer or atheist!
Rhrosty.

The UN convention is a joke and outdated all anyone from Iran etc has to do is "I am an Atheist I am being persecuted" we have to accept what they say as true. That potentially puts MILLIONS of refugees on Australian soil at taxpayer expense.

<<The UN convention is a joke and outdated all anyone from Iran etc has to do is "I am an Atheist I am being persecuted" we have to accept what they say as true.>>

Spot-on Philip.

And a short time after we rubber stamp their application "found to be genuine", and released them into the community, we find them all in attendance at the local mosque and sending their children to the local Islamic school--surprise, surprise!

The jokes on you Oz

As the flood of asylum seekers has increased exponentially my sympathy for them has decreased.

Obviously not all of the people coming here are refugees from persecution and fear of death but are motivated by a wish for a better life and riches. That is why many of them throw away their papers and passports.

Australia cannot take such a flood. One way to divert them back to where they came from would be to refuse to process anyone who has no documentary evidence.

Rudd's Papua solution will also reduce the flood to a trickle which can be better handled by Australian authorities.

*Confected emergency - anyone?*

More a question of principles and reality, Poirot. The reality is that Australia cannot save the world, no matter how much people wear their hearts on their sleeves. So we've decided to take 20'000 a year. Why not just take them from refugee camps from around the world, rather than a boat race where many drown or can afford to pay? Hardly a sensible system and extremely costly, as we can be blamed for generating hope for them. So time to bring the outdated UN Convention up to date.

There must be better examples of 'xenophobic' nations than Australia.

Australia has 23 million people. It has taken in 11 million migrants since WW2.

Australia achieved zero population growth decades ago. All of its rapid population growth (that has resulted in ramped up taxes and lower quality of life to pay for it) is from new records continually being set for immigration.

What other national government pursues diversification as a goal without ever feeling the need to obtain a mandate for it? Never you mind, says the government.

The current PM, Kevin Rudd, was very bold in saying that his goals are a "Big Australia" from immigration and endless diversification, also from immigration. His government set a new record for immigration. Kevin feels he deserves a top UN job and he will likely get one too.

If Australia is xenophobic, a hell of a lot of that must be coming from its diversified migrant population. Because almost everyone is a migrant, or has migrant parents or grandparents and likely came from a non-English speaking background as well.

A cynic might ask if that begs the question whether xenophobia must be continually rediscovered to keep the victim industry alive. There are so many adademics, bureaucrats, lawyers and other professionals earning a quid from it that it must soon compete in size and turnover with some of Australia's largest private companies.

But hey, all of the largesse is from the trough of taxpayers' money and there is an endless supply of that, right?

I can't blame South African Phillip Mackinik for mouthing off about the attitudes of Australians towards illegal immigrants, after all, Australia was one of the countries which insisted upon the catastrophic policy of black majority rule in South Africa and Rhodesia. So, now that Rhodesia and South Africa are black ruled basket cases, it is perfectly understandable that Phillip would return the complement to the finger waggers in Australia who helped to wreck his country.

And since Phillip is aware that sooner or later, South Africa (like Rhodesia) will become totally anarchic, he is aghast that the Australians want to stop people from fleeing their dysfunctional countries. That may be because Phillip is probably dreaming about emulating so many of his white countrymen and fleeing to Australia himself, so that he can live in a safe and functioning functioning white society again.

That the Aussies cracking down on people seeking asylum is bad news to Phillip. How is he going to flee South Africa and get into Australia now? So his article is full of contempt for white Australians, and it is full of his resentment that the Australian government is finally waking up to the fact hat everybody in the Third World like himself wants to get into Australia.

If Phillip can't live in Australia, he would just love for Australia to become an anarchic and bankrupt multicultural cesspit like South Africa. That would teach those uppity Aussies a lesson and give them a reality check about the consequences of importing certain trouble prone minorities into Australia. It would also make him feel better about being forced to remain in an anarchic black society himself.

Sour grapes, eh Phillip?

Xenophobia is the least of Australia's problems. Did you know that the U.S. is planning a nuclear first-strike on China? Read the following extract from an article written by Paul Craig Roberts and your fear of asylum seekers will quickly dissipate.

"Polls from all over the world consistently show that Israel and the US are regarded as the two greatest threats to peace and to life on earth. Yet, these two utterly lawless governments prance around pretending to be the “world’s greatest democracies.” Neither government accepts any accountability whatsoever to international law, to human rights, to the Geneva Conventions, or to their own statutory law. The US and Israel are rogue governments, throwbacks to the Hitler and Stalin era.

For the past 68 years, most military aggression can be sourced to the US and Israel. Yet, these two originators of wars pretend to be the victims of aggression. It is Israel that has a nuclear arsenal that is illegal, unacknowledged, and unaccountable. It is Washington that has drafted a war plan based on nuclear first strike. The rest of the world is correct to view these two rogue unaccountable governments as direct threats to life on earth."

It is Washington that has drafted a war plan based on nuclear first strike on China. Get it!

When that happens, Australia will have millions of asylum seekers on its shores.

Go to http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/ and read the whole article.

LEGO,
I don't know anyone personally who voices opions on illegal immigrants other than expressing sentiment for their safety, and in many cases it's only because they'd be blasted for saying anything else. This whole notion of 'xenophobia' is an artificial construct in order to silence the progression of arguments against the 'boat people' in general, which if fully developed would trump the egalitarian modus operandi - severely too. I laugh at your assessment Phillip; not because it's false, but because its outlandishly true.

We seem to think in this country that if we are just like the Taliban the refugees will stay home. Pakistan is cancelling the protection of 2.6 million Afghans after hosting them for over 30 years of western invasions and occupations starting with the 1979 Russian invasion coaxed on by the US.

That is why this latest cruelty is being done, just to keep out the Afghans.

^Forgive the numerous errors in the above post, I'm on a mobile device. Crucially, I meant "your assessment OF Phillip."

@ Marilyn ,

<<Pakistan is cancelling the protection of 2.6 million Afghans after hosting them for over 30 years >>

Oh my, surely not, some of your advocate allies had just been telling us how badly Oz compared to those other nations like Pakistan who *HOSTED* so many!

..........................
( Lexi! yoohoo! have you read Marilyn post?

How did you put it now? oh yes:

<<Most countries do not have official re-settlement
programs for refugees, simply adjusting their intake
according to the ebbs and flows of arrivals.>>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5889#167908

I guess this is just Pakistan adjusting its intake, ay?

See I told you that *HOSTING* wasn't the same as *RESETTLEMENT*!)
........................

By the way, Marilyn, are you aware that most of the funding for the "refugees" upkeep whilst they were in Pakistan were provided by outsiders like Oz --a rather stingy *HOST*, ay?

I can't reply to everything that's been posted here. I do note however that NO ONE IS CONTESTING THE FACTS.

I will reply to one, though: LEGO, I have dual South African and Australian citizenship and can live wherever I like. And yes, Zimbabwe is a mess and South Africa has significant problems (which some of us are working on rather than running away), but a police state favouring less than 10% of the population is not a viable alternative.

I have not specifically addressed in the article the claim that these people are all "economic migrants". If that were the case, why are they all originating from war zones or countries with a history of persecuting minorities -- not big, poor countries like India or Bangladesh?

The strange thing about racism is that people don't like being called racist. Why? Because it puts a label on you. Guess what? Racism is exactly about putting labels on people.

Anyway keep posting responses. The more mindless hate that is flushed into the open, the more decent people will stop supporting this sort of thing.

dafid f,
I could say you're racist against people with some brains.

Hi PhillipM

The reason why MOST "asylum seekers" ( we have had Pakistanis pretending to be Afghans) originate in war zones, is because almost all multicultural societies are war zones, and the illegal immigrants have to have some sort of plausible excuse to barge into Australia and ask directions to the nearest social security office. I don't want my country to become a war zone.

We are now getting middle class Iranians pre booking their passages in Iran, because they see Australians as soft touches who will never send them back.

Tell me Michael. When you looked for a new country to flee too, why did you pick Australia? Is it because it was largely populated by European people who know how to run a decent country? And you knew that you would be safe there? Well mate, if you have already fled a multicultural third world cesspit, why do you want to make Australia a replica of what you fled from?

Australia is still a European country, despite the best efforts of certain traitors to make us into Australia into a third world cesspit. I like it the way it was, and I wish to preserve what is left of my own people's territory and cultural identity. If that makes me a racist, then that is a label I will wear with pride. You must be a racist yourself, because when you fled South Africa, you choose European Australia. You did not choose to immigrate to Zambia, Botswanaland or Bolivia. It is a cultural universal that people prefer to live among their own people, people that they feel safe with and with whom they feel kinship. Your own preference for Australia for a new country revealed your own racist "xenophobia."

But if you want to be accepted as an Australian, you had better figure out who's side you are supposed to be on. Australians will never accept you as an "Australian" if you work against the interests of the people of this country that you aspire to be a citizen of.

Lego, we do not have Pakistanis pretending to be Afghans, that was a dumb lie invented by Philip Ruddock 12 years ago and long disproved but so what if they did? They might still be in need of our protection and in fact over 85% of Pakistanis these days are Hazara and do get protection.

The ADA has problems with the Coalitions latest brilliant idea for repelling refugees.

http://ada.asn.au/commentary/formal-comment/2013/oppositions-plan-to-combat-people-smuggling.html

Hi Marilyn.

You are suggesting that a "Hazara" born in Pakistan is a "Hazara", not a Pakistani. When did you decide that you wanted to be a racist too? Your above statement implies that what defines a person is their ethnicity and culture, not their nationality.

Gee Marilyn, I think just like you do. I think that what defines an "Australian" is primarily their ethnicity and their cultural heritage. Although I will accept people of other ethnicities as "Australian", provided that they largely accept the values, attitudes and behaviours of my people. What confuses me, is why you accept that "Hazaras" in Pakistan are still "Hazaras", but the instant that any one of them sticks their big toe on the soil of Australia, they instantly stop being "Hazaras" and become "Australians"?

I can no more accept an "Hazara" as an Australian, any more than a "Hazara" would accept me as an "Hazara", just because I was a European living in Hazaraland. If ethnicity is not important to social identity and social inclusion, then every person born in Australia is now an "aborigine." Your attitude is a curious one. You seem to think that every race, religion and ethnicity on planet Earth has a right to maintain their own cultural identity, except white Europeans.

I am a white European who wishes to maintain my own cultural identity, and who wishes my country to remain an island of peace in a sea of multicultural turmoil. Multiculturalism is exactly like Socialism. How many times does it need to fail before supposedly intelligent people like yourself realise that it is a bad idea?

The Socialists tried to create a class blind society and they failed because they ignored basic human nature. You Multiculturalists are trying to create a race blind society and you are going to fail also, for the same reason. Birds of a feather just keep flocking together no matter what the Commissar or the Human Rights Commissioner says. Australia's growing ethnic crime rates and welfare dependency combined with race riots and terrorism are the portents of things to come.

At this point I would like to thank all who took the trouble to comment. I learnt some useful things.

For example, on the point of Trotsky coining the term “racist”, I hadn’t realised before that he wrote in English, let alone had sufficient command of the language to coin new words. Live and learn.

It’s also instructive to see what sort of people support the Lib and ALP world view on asylum seekers. Everyone who votes for these two parties should read the comments here to see what company they are keeping.

Finally, I invite anyone who didn’t get the point of the article to take a course on statistics and data interpretation. It beats running with raw emotion for understanding the world.

PhilipM,
Statistics of a political nature are never accurate & close to the truth because the people who write them are academic background bureaucrats who don't know the meaning of honesty & integrity.

It is obvious that both push and pull factors are involved in asylum seeking. This paper from the UK shows asylum claims there and the proportions from year to year where refugee claims were accepted (a lot less than here).

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Briefing%20-%20Migration%20to%20the%20UK%20-%20Asylum.pdf

Note that asylum claims did go down after 2001, but nothing like to the same extent as in Australia. Philip Machanick is drawing a long bow when he claims that the Pacific solution and other policies of the Howard government made little difference.

Why not plot the absolute numbers as well as or instead of the difference from the previous year?

Hi PhillipM

So, you find it "instructive" about "the sort of people who support the Lib/Lab view of asylum seekers?

Since almost the entire Australian electorate vote for either the Libs or the Labs, you are self evidently sneering at almost everybody in Australia who do not belong to your tertiary educated social caste. Could I suggest that the primary motivation of you and your bourgeoisie bohemians mates is a compulsive need to to think that you are better than everybody else? There was once a time when educated western young people used to laugh at snobs and moral puritans, but somewhere along the line the educated elites decided that they would become snobs and moral puritans themselves.

You and your little social climbing socialites mates think that you are so much better than your social inferiors in the working class, and morally superior to your parents in the business class. So you cultivate tastes and attitudes calculated to get up the noses of everybody who does not have a crummy Artz degree and who does not work for the public service.

It is all just vanity. And I do not think it wise that Australia should commit social suicide just to satisfy "the sort of people" like yourself and your need to believe that you are better than everybody else.

I find it astonishing that a South African like yourself who needed to flee multicultural South Africa would want tom inflict the same thing on the country he chose to flee to. But I suppose the need to think that you are a superior human being is a stronger motivator to any thought of self preservation.

It is because of foreigners like yourself who flee their dysfunctional countries then come to my country expressing contempt for Australians and presuming to tell us that we are doing everything wrong, that makes "the sort of people like me" oppose the immigration of "the sort of people like you."

<< The UNHCR is also warning that efforts to try and integrate non-Melanesian refugees into the socio-economic and cultural life of PNG will be problematic>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-26/unhcr-australia-png-refugees-asylum/4845628

Bet you the UNHCR would NOT put up with such boganism in OZ!

Perhaps the UN would find the PNG solution more palatable if we marketed it as our attempt to break-down PNG's xenophobia.

The UNHCR, my dear SPQR, is an organisation dedicated to solving the world's poverty problem by the simple expedient of having the entire third world immigrate into European descended countries.

Divergence: "Why not plot the absolute numbers as well as or instead of the difference from the previous year?" Good question. When you do a statistical analysis, you test a hypothesis. In my case, the hypothesis is that changes in refugee numbers trigger changes in boat arrival numbers. Why? A very large fraction of refugees don’t move. They run until they are safe and stop. Contrary to the mythology that the UNHCR is trying to inflate the numbers, they recognise this by not counting as refugees those who stop in a safe haven in their own country (they are called “internally displaced”) and by leaving out Palestinians from the general count, since they mostly were displaced decades ago and aren’t going anywhere. So it seems reasonable to me to take as a starting point that refugees on the whole don’t move unless they have reason to be despondent because a sudden influx indicates the problem is getting worse (visible in their camp by growing queues, pressures on resources, etc.). Likewise, if they see evidence of improvement (shortening queues etc.) they are less likely to seek desperate means to find a new home.

That’s why I would argue for doing stats on the difference over the previous year: the push factor of interest is not how many refugees there are, but how big the recent change has been.

But since you ask, let’s do the stats. If you look at the correlation over the entire period for which I have data 1992-2012, the correlation between total number of refugees and boat arrivals is close to zero and not statistically significant. If you look at short periods where there was rapid change, you do see stronger correlations, but the time periods are too short for statistical significance. So my model explains the data better.

LEGO: I left South Africa of my own accord, and returned of my own accord. Keep trying. I can’t imagine anyone with any sense identifying with your views.

Went back home to mum after you got your Aussie passport and a guaranteed bolt hole to flee to, eh, Phillip?

When South Africa turmnes into another Rhodesia, with yet another crazy black "President for Life" ruining the place, you will be alright, Jack. Last I heard, the black SA President had spent the entire annual British Aid budget to South Africa building a new palace in his home village. He isn't as crazy as the Ivory Coast one who built a replica of the Vatican right in the middle of nowhere, but he's working on it.

But on the subject of White SA and Rhodesian asylum seekers, Phillip, I think that Australia should admit every one who does not have a serious criminal record or an Artz degree. This is because I am a white man myself and I have a sense of empathy to my own people, and I know that the SA and Rhodesian whites would integrate easily and productive citizens. Which is more than I can say about too many third worlders who are arriving uninvited right now.

So I can understand why you would want Australia to be welcoming to asylum seekers. You are probably worried about your friends and rellies who will have nowhere to go when SA implodes. But you would be better supporting us Aussie racists on that score, because we are the only ones who care about you and the white population in SA.

If you take a non racist approach, and claim that the western world should accept anybody as asylum seekers, your friends just might get the door slammed in the faces with everybody else. Because in case you haven't noticed, the entire European world is getting fed up of asylum seekers, and this will be a major election issue in every European country from now on.

Rudd's turnaround is indicative that the ruling caste in every European country is sensing that the peasants are revolting over this issue, and they had better start listening to their own people or they will find themselves looking for another cushy job.

David F,
Your first post needs to be examined. You identify two points which seem to manifest from simplicity.

Your first point, "The governments along with the religious and political entities which are persecuting people" is something you believe needs to stop. Did you deliberately leave out 'race'? Because generally, persecution has three main branches: race, religious and political beliefs - and more often than not, race is intertwined with the other two. So how DO you stop this? Send in the 'worlds police force' for more wars? Sow more resentment and hate into the hearts of the affected populace against the West?

Secondly, "the lack of a place of safety for those who are persecuted" is a crucial element that needs to be solved to you. I'd do well to quote Darwin here: "If the country were open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and this would also seriously disturb the inhabitants. Let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has shown to be."

And then, you impose upon Jay that he seems "obsessed with race and racism". Hmm, might I say you are oblivious in discussing such a thing that has an omnipresent importance when dealing with immigration.

PhilipM

You made this statement on another thread:
<<Asylum seekers are not granted asylum in Australia without hard proof that they are in danger if they return home>>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15265#263803

Care to back it up?

What <<HARD PROOF>> were you talking about?

Please don't dodge the question again.

Dear Seraphic Lord.

You seem to be in some confusion about the psychology of people on the Left side of politics. The Left have deduced that every conflict in the world is caused by Bad Guy "oppressors" who are always doing nasty things to the Good Guy "oppressed." The concept that both sides are fighting for their own self interest is a concept which is a bit too deep for them.

Thus every human conflict can be solved by a trendy lefty by the simple expedient of identifying who is the 'Oppressor" and who is the "oppressed."

If you have been around long enough you will remember that every trendy lefty once took the side of Israel against the Arabs because it was pretty plain that 2 million Israelis could not oppress 500 million Arabs. But unfortunately for the Israelis, they did something wrong. They kept winning their wars against the Arabs and what was worse, they became an ally of the USA.

Now, according to left wing ideology, winners are always the "oppressors" and losers are always the "oppressed." So, much to the astonishment of normal, sensible people, the entire left intelligentsia switched sides after the 1973 Yom Kipper war and started claiming that it was not the 500 million Arabs who were the problem, it was the 2 million Israelis.

Got it now? You were right to call DavidF's mindset "simplistic", but that is how these characters think. Critical analysis and objective thinking is a bit much for them.

Dear Seraphic Lord,

I don't think that race should be relevant to immigration at all. Australia has abandoned the White Australia policy, and I don't think it should be brought back in any way.

David F,
I fear you may be mistaking me as a 'supremacist' of sorts, as that's the only feasible explanation as to why you've intrinsically blurted out the White Australia Policy - as if some defensive ploy in reaction to the very mention of race - when I never mentioned anything to with the fossilized act.

And now, I must ask you why race shouldn't be relevant? If it wasn't, there sure wouldn't be any discussion going on about 'Australia and xenophobia'

Dear Seraphic Lord,

You wrote: "Hmm, might I say you are oblivious in discussing such a thing that has an omnipresent importance when dealing with immigration."

I don't see that it has an omnipresent or any importance. I can see no reason that it is relevant to immigration unless we are going back to some version of the White Australia policy.

There is a discussion going on because some think it is important. I think we can evaluate a person's qualities including education and character without bringing race into the matter.

Britain

"The majority of violent inner-city crime is committed by black men, police figures suggest. Police hold black men responsible for more than two-thirds of shootings and more than half of robberies and street crimes in London, according to figures released by Scotland Yard. It found that 67 per cent of those caught by police for gun crimes were black."

" But the statistics also show that black men are twice as likely to be victims of such crimes. The data, which provides the ethnicity of the 18,091 men and boys who police took action against in London during 2009-10, looked at both violent and sexual offences. "

USA

* between 2001 and 2003, blacks were 39 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the reverse, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.”

* Between 2001 and 2003, blacks committed, on average, 15,400 black-on-white rapes per year, while whites averaged only 900 white-on-black rapes per year.

* “Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.”

* “Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.”

"Although African-Americans make-up about 13% of the American population, they are responsible for less than 2% of taxes. White Americans ( a group including Hispanic, native American, and Middle Easterners) are responsible for well over 97% of the tax base. In other words, White American workers "pay" for the housing, education, clothes, medicine, medical treatment, transportation, and entertainment costs of 40% of African-Americans."

Australia.

VICTORIAN police are being urged to set up a special taskforce to tackle gang violence and lawlessness among young African migrants living in Melbourne's inner-city housing commission estates. The push - led by rank-and-file police and terrified neighbours - is backed by the state's powerful police union, which claims sections of the African community need to be "properly educated" in Australian values

SPQR: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61protection.htm – the critical wording is that they do not want to return home “due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted”.

Evidence that the government is not soft on this requirement:
http://news.yahoo.com/australia-deport-1st-rejected-afghan-refugee-045533846.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-12/afghan-letters/4568656
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-25/sri-lankan-foreign-minister-disputes-refugee-claims/4777790
http://www.refugeeaction.org.au/?page_id=2076
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/hazaras-despair-home-and-away/story-e6frg6so-1226161600278

More reading here: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AsylumFacts

LEGO: keep up the “Critical analysis and objective thinking”. Your arguments are a heady mix of rejecting elitism and embracing it. I’m not sure though that it’s the “peasants” who are “revolting”.

People who are unable to think objectively like you, Phillip M, seem to believe that the solution to human hostility is to create multicultural societies where everybody is going to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya". People who can think objectively like myself, look at existing multicultural societies like Lebanon, Fiji, Cyprus, Georgia, Afghanistan, Biafra, Rhodesia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Liberia, Kashmir, Punjab, Sudan, Nigeria, Bougainville, East Timor, Yugoslavia, Kurdistan, New Zealand, Bhutan, Angola, Burma, Chechnya, Guadalcanal, Aden, Malaya, Oman, Congo, Northern Ireland, Palestine/Israel, Czechoslovakia, Mexico, and recently, Thailand, an say that objectively, such a premise is obviously a delusion.

People like yourself subjectively say that all races are equal. Therefore there is no problem importing people of different races, religions or ethnicities into European societies. But objective reality tells a different story. Certain races, religions and ethnicities are very disproportionately represented in welfare dependency and criminal behaviour. Taking a more discriminatory approach to immigration is therefore essential to maintaining racial harmony, social cohesion, economic success, and a low crime rate.

I find it difficult to understand how a person like yourself can simply ignore the facts in order to promote a humanitarian ideology which has failed everywhere. Even with the examples of Europe and the USA now failing economically under the weight of welfare dependency and ethnic criminal behaviour, you stubbornly continue with your three monkey approach to critical thinking.

One definition of "insanity" is, making the same mistake, over and over again.

Philip Machanick,

You did NOT answer the question.

Your statement was : <<Asylum seekers are not granted asylum in Australia without hard proof that they are in danger if they return home >>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15265#263803

My question was: “What <<HARD PROOF>> were you talking about?

You attempted to side step it by presenting a series of links – none of which address your claim.

To go through those links:
Link 1 [from Yahoo] re ONE Afghani retrunee
Link 2 [ABC PM] re a small number of returnees
Link 3 [The Aust News Network] re The Sri Lankan FM disputing asylum seekers claims
Link 4 [Refugee Action Coalition] a puff piece from a lobby group.
Link 5[The Australian]re possible deportation of small group.

At best, your links relate to only a small number of rejectees.
The fact that we have rejected a small minority does not establish that the huge majority we accepted provided <<HARD PROOF>>

Since you cannot answer my question, let me answer it for you.

The vast majority of "asylum seekers" DO NOT present <<HARD PROOF>>
--They might have a mobile phone --but they have conveniently lost their papers/ID.
--They tell the same generic, rote learnt story (similar to the one you fed Loudmouth earlier in this thread)
--And as long as the names they give us don't appear on any wanted list they get given the benefit of the doubt and rubber stamped "found to be genuine".

And that is why we are such a popular destination: soft border controls, and not hard to get welfare for life.

SPQR,

Yada, yada, yada.

They're not genuine.

They're on welfare for life.

Talk about "hard proof".

If you say something often enough, it becomes true - you (obviousy) reckon.

Poirot,

<<They're not genuine>>

<<They're on welfare for life>>

If the SPQR-reality TV channnel with its daring exposés of current affairs and its incisive political analysis is too confronting --please resume your viewing of the Disney channel.

I believe the boat people will never accept our beliefs or traditions and will not rest until they have the numbers or power to change ours. Do you see a happy and successful assimilation at Lakemba?

Hi Siller

I live 4 kilometres from Lakemba and I play "spot the Aussie" every time I drive through there. The Muslims moved in, and the Aussies and the Asians moved out. This phenomenon is known as "white flight" in the USA. Detroit, Michigan, is a shining example of what happens to a productive community when the welfare dependent and crime prone minorities move in, vote for high welfare advocating politicians, and the productive move out.

Lakemba and Auburn are part of what the NSW Police call "The Gaza Striip" because of the endless shootings involving drug trafficking, sectarian and ethnic hostilities, and "family feuds." But Poirot doesn't care about her own people or her own society, all she cares about is her own self image as a generous and caring person. Her country is becoming more and more unsafe but Poirot will stick her fingers in her ears and avert her eyes, because she does not want to see or hear what she does not want to know.

The importation of "refugees" into Australia has been a social and financial catastrophe for the Australian people. The Vietnamese ghetto of Cabramatta is the heroin capitol of Australia. The importation of Lebanese into Sydney after the Lebanese civil war sent crime rates in Sydney through the roof. NSW has not only built four new prisons in the last twenty years, we had to reopen two ancient ones (Parramatta and Berrima) to take the overflow.

Please note, in multicultural Lebanon they all start shoting at each other and we have to feel sorry for both sides. We must then allow both sides become 'asylum seekers" where they continue their war in Australia, except that this time they include Australians in their targets to be robbed, raped and murdered.

Meanwhile, Poirot and Lexi are living in some leafy middle class suburb, as far away from "refugees" as they can get. And they are both down in the garden, dancing with the fairies.

LEGO, I live in Mt Gravatt in Brisbane. Around me there are lots of students, many of them Muslim from Malaysia and other places. They are fantastic people and many of them are looking to settle down here. It's also not far from Kuraby, where Brisbane's main mosque is located and where there is a large Muslim population in the surrounding suburbs. As well, it's close to Sunnybank, which is the commercial heart of the Asian community-"China town" in the Valley is just a marketing tool, sunnybank is the real "China Town", along with Darra and Inala at the less up-market end of the scale. It's right alongside the Muslim precincts I spoke of above and everyone seems to get on fine, even if there aren't as many white faces as you might prefer.

Some of the nicest people I have ever met are Muslim, while some of the most egregiously despicable call themselves Christian and caucasian

I'm afraid you're speaking through a part of your body that isn't meant to be exposed to public view.

Multiculturalism is simply a recognition that we are all in the same boat. We all want to belong, we all want to have a fair shot at life, we all want to express ourselves, we all need to be fed and clothed and loved.

The cultures that we live in are just a way of making that possible, or in some cases, such as the awful US model of corporatist culture that has dominated the world for the last 40 years, of making it impossible to do it and remain truly human.

What the hell do you care how the family next door prefers to justify their existence? All you need to know is that they love their kids just like you do, they mow their lawn just like I don't do and they want to be friends with friendly people.

Dear Antiseptic,

Thank you for that.

Mr Antiseptic, I live in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia and I study in Australia.The Muslims from Malaysia are a minority in Mt Gravatt and they want something from you. I invite you to visit them in Malaysia where they have the numbers and the power believe me they are not so nice.I am a Malaysia Chinese and I can tell you when they have the upper hand they are not so nice or tolerant

Xiao Chen
Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Mr Xiao,
thank you for your perspective, but are you sure you're not confusing religion with simple power dynamics and the historic friction between the native Malays and the ethnic Chinese population, based on economic disparities? I know both Chinese and Malay Malaysians, including some who have emigrated and they are all just people trying to make a go of life, with their own problems and prejudices, just as everyone else does. It would be a mistake to judge any ethnic/religious group by its political or activist class, don't you think?

AntiSeptic,

You said "Some of the nicest people I have ever met are Muslim, while some of the most egregiously despicable call themselves Christian and caucasian."

And followed in the next post, with reference to Chinese and Malay Malaysians, by saying "...with their own problems and prejudices, just as everyone else does."

Now, it seems as though it's excusable for 'problems and prejudices' to exist for non-whites, but you have no problems calling Caucasians as "despicable" and I'm sure you'd be one to jump on yelling out "racist!" to any white voicing criticism of non-whites.

When we couple this with your praise of the Muslim and Asian community, well, I think you can see where this is going. Do I disagree that Muslims are 'bad'? No of course not; what a silly way of thinking.

Another thing that constitutes a silly way of thinking is your blatant anti-white hypocrisy.

I'm afraid you're generalising from extremes. I didn't suggest there are no bad Muslims or that all Christians are despicable.

We're all people, you know.

I'm afraid the rest is just projection on your part. I'm a caucasian Australian who identifies as Christian, but unlike you seem to be, I have no prejudices against people of different ethnicities or religious backgrounds. Do you feel inferior, or are you just naturally a timid sort of soul?

Perhaps you might try meeting and talking to some people from different backgrounds yourself?

Hi Mr Antiseptic.

I am sure that the Americans, the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan love their kids, mow their lawns, and have friends also, But I am sure that you take a dim view of these people, and would not make the same positive assumptions about them as you do about Muslims. If a Nazi woman walked down a road in Mount Gravatt with a swastika armband, I am sure that you would be hopping around in self righteous apoplexy. But a Muslim woman wearing a burqua, which is the uniform of Islamofascism, has you averting your eyes and making excuses.

Do those "nice" Muslims you see every day in Mt Gravatt believe that church and state are the same thing? Do they believe that Sharia Law should take precedence over secular law? Do they denounce western concepts of female equality? Do they believe that Muslim apostates, pagans and homosexuals should be murdered? Do they think that a woman has no right to say who she should marry? Do they believe that western women who get raped by Muslims are "cat meat" sluts who deserve it? Do they believe that raped women should be punished for "allowing herself to be raped" and engaging in "fornication?" Do they believe that Muslim men may marry outside of their faith bun that Muslim women may not marry outside of their faith? Do they believe that Islam should be spread through jihad? Do they believe that Islam must not be criticised and that those who do criticise it should be murdered?

Because they would not be Muslims if they did not believe in these things. And I will bet that you will never ask them these questions, because you don't want to know that you are wrong You are also probably a bit worried about what happened to Theo van Gogh and Salmon Rushdie, so you too frightened to ask them these pertinent questions because you know that those "nice" Muslims might go berserk and attack you if they thought that you were criticising their religion and it's associated medieval cultural practices.

LEGO, I think my comments were pretty clear.

Why don't you try meeting a few people from different ethnic/religious groups instead of acting like a cat chasing shadows?

Pretty miserable response, Antiseptic. Looks like my broadside hit home.

One of the reasons I grew out of trendy lefty mindthink, my dear Anti, is because I could no longer think up excuses for the clear double standards of the Left , and I began to think for myself.

There is a clear contradiction between your advocacy of Muslims and your attitudes to Americans and Nazis. You do not hold Muslims to the same standards as you do to the people that you despise. You take it for granted that Muslims are nice people and you ignore their ideology, reinforced by their collective behaviour, which clearly shows that they are a threat to your people and everything we believe in.

You may be interested to know, that prior to WW2 there were many Jews in Europe who dismissed the Nazi threat to Jews out of hand. These Jews probably used the same arguments that you to about Muslims. "They are all nice guys who want what is best for their children, and they mow the lawns and make the trains run on time. It is just a few hotheads which give all Nazis a bad name."

With Nazis you take for granted that they are all a threat and you condemn the lot of them, never thinking that Nazism and Islam are almost identical. Albert Speeer wrote about how Hitler had met with a bunch of mullahs from the Middle East in Germany, and he had praised Islam for warriors religion more in keeping with Nazi ideals than wimpy Christianity. The Nazis and the Muslims even found common ground in their hatred of the Jews.

LEGO, I'm afraid you're still chasing shadows.

Lots of activity and no prospect of any kind of satisfaction at the end of it all. Doesn't that seem pretty pointless?

No Mr Antiseptic.

I take pleasure in the fact that your social regressives are unable to deal with your own double standards and have to respond with sneery one liners, while I can out point you every time. I am glad that you are on the yank and Aussie hating side and not on my side.

Keep up the bad work. The whole world is watching.

LEGO, I'm not sure what you think you're achieving.
All you've done is hurl abuse, with no constructive purpose. You're focussing on differences, not commonalities and as a result you're not able to see the forest for the trees, which is a shame, since you're obviously intelligent.

You see, I take it as read that there are some people in every culture who have weird, illogical views that could be dangerous if they became widespread. I also take it as read that if a culture has survived for a long period of time then it has been exposed to lots of such people and that some of their views may have been adopted as dogma by some others. So what? Most people are just as I described in my opening post on this thread.

I'm afraid that you come across as lacking confidence in both yourself and your own culture's strength, which may well be justified, since one of the major influences on that culture over the past 50 years has been corporatism, which has lead to an increasing fragmentation, while the cultures that you are so afraid of are founded on their communality.

If you'd like to do something positive, perhaps you might start looking at ways we as Westerners can integrate some of the good things that make the Islamic, Jewish and some of the Eastern cultural traditions so successful in dealing with adverse conditions? the Jewish culture, for example, is the one that has been so successful in fostering that corporatism while it remains committed to a familial/communal model. The Orthodox traditions are also strongly communal, which is why the Greek and Eastern European immigrants have prospered so well.

It would be much more interesting than jumping at shadows, don't you think?

What makes a good culture and how do we make it happen?

Well done, Antiseptic, you managed 307 words that time.

What I do, my dear yank hating antiseptic, is to point out the contradictions in the logic of people like yourself who have been conditioned to think that being anti everything is the fashionable thing to do, and who have been conditioned to think their own race and culture is evil. My mission is to deprogram you, and make you proud of your race, your culture and your nation.

I was once like you are now. I was conditioned like you to think that "smart" people manned the barricades for every left wing cause imaginable. And that constantly finding fault in my own race, culture, and history indelibly marked me as one of the sophisticated intelligent ones. But the constant refrain of left wingers. who can be counted upon to always blame the white race and our culture for anything that ever went wrong in the world, forced me to reappraise my values and start thinking straight.

Today I will happilly attack anybody who puts the boot into my people, my culture, or my allies. And I am heartened by the fact that the people like yourself, who are still suckers for this left wing ideology are so easy to befuddle. It is just as George Orwell said in 1984, Ideologues such as yourself, can not se the plain contradictions in your own arguments. My job, is to force you to look at them and to recognise them.

One of the reasons why white western culture has created the modern world and been the pre eminent culture for the last 400 years is because it did look at other cultures and evolved by absorbing the best and most practical of the values and attitudes of other cultures. The reason why cultures such as the Muslims became stagnant, was because they were so insular and contemptuous of other cultures that they saw no reason to change their ways at all.

They were so insular, that first book published in Islam that even mentioned America was not until the mid 19th century

Now you've got that off your chest, what do you think makes a good culture?

Does it have to be homogeneous ethnically or are common values more important? Why?

Come on mate, give us the benefit of your mind instead of your emotions.

LEGO: let's see if I have this straight. Are you saying that tendencies like criminality are genetically determined and have nothing to do with socio-economic circumstances?

Hi Anti, I would love to continue deprogramming you. but PhillipM has hit on an interesting question.

Hi PhillipM, what I am saying, is that both nature and nurture are far more important causal factors to criminality than socio economic circumstances.

In the past, people may have stolen both food to eat and goods to survive. But today, modern societies have extensive welfare services so that people need not commit criminal acts in order to eat and survive. If poverty caused crime, then every poor society on Earth would be riddled with crime, and every poor person would be a criminal. This is not the case. Here in Australia, some of our poorest areas are rural ones where guns are common, people do not lock their doors, and crime is almost non existent. Some small country towns in Australia have never had an armed robbery in their entire history.

That genetics does play a part in criminal behaviour is easy to prove, when you remember that 95-98% of prison inmates are male. Not just male, but primarily young males. The degree of genetic responsibility to criminal behaviour recognised by courts in every civilised society. Very violent offenders can appeal to the court that their propensity towards violent behaviour is something that they can not control, and they can get leniency from the court if they agree to undergo therapy.

Finally, the degree to which violence is accepted in any society as a way of solving personnel problems, is a reflection of cultural conditioning. Young men brought up in macho cultures where men have a medieval concept of personnel honour are very violent societies. For example, Mexico's homicide rate (per 100,000 people) is 30 per 100,000, while Australia's is 1.8 per 100,000.

Mexican culture is based upon the Inca culture which required the shedding of copious amounts of blood. This was mixed with Christianity, where the tortured and crucified Christ really struck a chord with the Incas. Nowhere in the world does Christ's blood flow more freely on his cross, or the crown of thorns cut more deeply into His head.

Yeah, I thought you'd squib it, LEGO. All those people with different skins terrify you, don't they?

On the subject of poverty and crime, it's got nothing to do with welfare benefits, but the sense of communality that is still strong in rural areas where people have to rely on each other because there are so few services provided for them and stealing would be betraying a friend.

I leave my doors open and I always have. Don't you get tired of having to open and close all the locks in your world?

I won't bother with the rest of your post other than to say that it's just more shadow-chasing. What a shame you can't find something better to do with that mind.

What you need, my dear Antiseptic, is a few thousand Lebs running around your town shooting each other, selling drugs, walking on your beaches insulting your daughter, screaming at your police, making your teachers lives unbearable, throwing rocks through your church's stained glass windows, and driving like complete lunatics. I see now why you love multiculturalism so much. Those most enamoured of this failed concept are the ones who live the furthest away from its consequences.

Returning to your original questions, a "good" culture is a successful, peaceful and prosperous culture which bequeaths unto its people personal freedoms never before experienced by humankind. And it is one which leads the way with scientific discovery which benefits everyone.

You can scratch the sundry Muslim cultures from that list, can't you?

As to your question as to whether a "good" culture needs to be homogenous or whether "common values are more important", I would point out that your question makes little sense. Homogenous societies are noted for their lack of internal strife because their common values mean that there is little difference of opinion as to what constitutes correct behaviour. It is the multicultural societies which are populated by competing groups with diametrically opposed concepts of right and wrong, which are not nice places to live and where human conflict is inevitable.

Now, I have answered your questions, please answer mine. Tell me why you advocate multiculturalism when it has been a noted failure in every country cursed with it? And why should it work in Australia when it has failed everywhere else?

" a "good" culture is a successful, peaceful and prosperous culture which bequeaths unto its people personal freedoms never before experienced by humankind."

Ah, you mean like this one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_empires_and_dynasties

"the Umayyad (and later, the Abbasid) Caliphates allowed merchants and scholars to travel easily through western Eurasia, bringing goods and knowledge which the Muslims greatly expanded upon through the Caliphate and outward to less advanced regions, such as Western Europe. In 751, paper-making from China made its way to the West through Muslims. Trade introduced Islam to the Africans."

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

"Traditional political concepts in Islam include leadership by elected or selected successors to the Prophet known as Caliphs, (Imamate for Shia); the importance of following Islamic law or Sharia; the duty of rulers to seek Shura or consultation from their subjects; and the importance of rebuking unjust rulers.[1]"

Glad we got that sorted out.

"your question makes little sense. Homogenous societies are noted for their lack of internal strife "

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

It really is a shame the way you're wasting that mind of yours.

LEGO: I wonder how far you go with your claim that criminality has a strong genetic component. Would, for example, Australia do well to round up all citizens descended from those sent over as convicts and send them back to the UK?

Multiculturalism: I doubt very much that the number of cultures in one country is a significant variable. What matters is how they relate to each other (and other foreign cultures); an inclusive culture of mutual tolerance works very well; marginalising and repressing minorities doesn't. Here are some examples for you. Germany: relatively uniform culture; started 2 world wars. UK: Scotland and Wales after some initial repression treated inclusively and mostly get on OK; Irish treated brutally like a poor colony, with a very different outcome. Switzerland: 3 separate language groups, and they get along just fine.

SPQR: how many examples do you want? If the government is interpreting the law harshly for some, it cannot bend the rules for others, especially not in an area where human rights lawyers are all over them. Do you have an independent source for your claims?

PhillipM

If you knew anything about Australian history (other than that put in your mind by western hating socialist academics) you would know that most convicts sent to Australia as slaves were convicted of crimes which today, would not be considered crimes at all. One convict was 11 year old Mary Wade who had been condemned to hang for stealing a dress. The severity of her sentence should give you some idea of how harmless most of the "criminals" sent to Australia were. "Serious" offenders were simply hung and genetically exterminated.

The fact remains that genetics and behaviour are linked. Here in NSW, the government has banned dog owners from owning at least two breeds of dogs, and put severe restrictions on the ownership of several more breeds. This is because these particular breeds are notorious for attacking humans. Unsurprisingly, some dog owners accuse the government of "canine racism." But if you are smart enough to agree that some breeds of dogs are dangerous, why can you not make the same connection with humans?

How cultures relate to each other, my dear Phillip, is as predictable as the law of gravity. Tolerant cultures will accept minority cultures who's cultural values are similar and who are therefore a capable of being assimilated. Even unassimilatable cultures can be tolerated, provided that their numbers are small and are not growing through immigration or birth rate differentials. But where two dissimilar cultures with diametrically opposed values inhabit the same territory and populations proportions are reaching critical mass, the result has ALWAYS been, serious social strife, high rates of criminal behaviour, race riots, demands for separatism, terrorism and civil war.

I hold this truth to be self evident.

You are a tolerant and anti racist person. If boat loads of Nazis wearing swastika armbands were landing in their tens of thousands on Australian beaches seeking "asylum", and if the suburbs in which these Nazis resided were notorious for their criminal behaviour and welfare dependency, how tolerant would you be of Nazi's?

How happy would you be of Nazi population growth in Australia?