Actually Lego, that is only one way of reading what I wrote,and whilst I am limited to only 500 words or so, I am aware of the possible alternatives to that reading only too well. I didn't say we should accept every refugee, nor did I even hint at it.

As to your description of my "Australian" as being racist, that should be perhaps supported as to it's position in the lexicon, as "your opinion", in my view.

Apart from those little additions, thank you for taking the time to comment, on what is a very divisive debate, nationwide, and becoming same, worldwide.

Hello Mr Damaged Singer.

Your article plainly identified "first people" as the real Australians, and the "round eyes" as the "usurpers." That is an act of racism, because it judges black aboriginal people as being more Australian than white people, and it also submitted the racist slur of calling white people "round eyed".

I find it incredible that you are unable to see the self evident racism in your own article. It is exactly as George Orwell said. Trendies like you are blind to the contradictions in your own ideology. You are so full of your own moral superiority, that it never occurs to you that you have to abide by the same anti racist rules that you preach, and which you think that those lowly, cretinous western suburbs suburbanites should unquestionably accept. Either racism is wrong, or it is not wrong. You can't get up on a pulpit preach against racism surrounded by a chorus of singing angels, and go and do it yourself.

You Daemon, have reached a Jimmy Swaggard moment. You had better get down on your knees and cry "I have sinned, Lord!" before your chardonnay sucking mates banish you to western Sydney for conduct unbecoming an ideological zealot.

Look mate, I used to be a trendy myself, but unlike you I recognised the white hating racism that was constantly preached by the evangelical social regressives who claimed that they were anti racist. You can't educate me at school to recognise racism in all it's forms, and then get surprised when I recognise, plain as day, it in the articles of the trendy left. Unless you can address this contradiction, your moralising, finger wagging position, is more worthy of hilarity than serious consideration.

Please don't look at your article again and see the obvious racism, because your ideology is hopelessly compromised at the moment. You just can't see it, can you? I want you to keep writing anti white racist tripe so that I can show any impartial reader with a brain how hypocritical and muddled is the thinking of people like yourself.

I tend to agree with LEGO's assessment.

Both the article, and its authors other contributions to the thread are loaded with misrepresentations --something we have come to expect from apologists for illegal immigration.

What price a quiet heart? indeed!

How can the article writer engage in such spin and have a quiet heart...doesn't seem to bother him in the slightest!

The ad hominem response, may well be beneath you Lego, I can't say as I haven't sought your other work, though I have suspicions.

At no time did I say I wasn't or am not, racist. I merely laid out the basic issues I was asking in my effort, which has obviously been something of an Amaeus moment for you - that some "chardonnay socialists" have the gall to speak, rather than remain in simpering silence behind plastic beaded curtains in Newtown coffee shops.

I have to confess, as I showered last night, that I wondered how come no one had used the "chardonnay socialist" sobriquet at that time? It won't be long I thought.. then there you are. Thank you for re-inforcing my faith in human nature. Thank you for calling me from your ivory tower of judgement.

Thank you for supporting what I had always thought.. you can't mention the inherent racism of Australians, without being attacked for your own hypocrisy because you don't mention, as the writer of the article, that you accept you also have an essence of racism, but that you try and manage it, by doing something, rather than flinging stones at others, who choose the path you do.

I fully accept all you said, but how about commenting on the issue, rather than on the messenger?

@Damaged

I know, I know, your post was addressed to LEGO and I have every faith that he will thoroughly answer it.

But I would just like to squeeze in one incy-wincy reply to this comment of yours:

<< [It] has obviously been something of an Amaeus moment for you - that some "chardonnay socialists" have the gall to speak, rather than remain in simpering silence behind plastic beaded curtains in Newtown coffee shops.>>

The imagery alone is hilarious but the idea is well beyond hilarious, when one considers that:
1) "SOME" implies a small number.
2) What you have said in your article & subsequent posts is really very little different from what we have heard over and over and over again from:
--the various channels of the ABC & SBS
--practically all of the student campus newspapers/ magazines,
--Various writer in the Fairfax press & even big bad Murdoch's (free giveaway newspaper) the MX (and you yourself cited The Monthly)
--95% of all article writers on OLO and 100% on most other forums &
-- and the thousands of groups & QC's that make up the refugee lobby/industry.

Yet still, you have the fantasy that your "message" gets little airing and you are a lone (brave) voice crying out in the wilderness --what a joke!

ROFLMA

SPQR,

Well said and how true.

However a keyboard warning next time please so I can put down my coffee before reading. LOL