The only thing piling up higher than the tall ships is the sanctimonious left whinger excrement.

What an interesting reflection on the fleet entrance to Sydney. I share your insight into the motivations of the 'boat people' and your concern for the loss of life at sea. It is the 'solution' you propose Joseph that gives me trouble. If someone is desperate no amount of warning about the dangers at sea will deter them. If our only concern should be the loss of life at sea, as I think your article implies, then why don't we simply buy plane tickets for the queues of people wishing to come here at a fraction of the cost of Operation Sovereign borders?

Willem,
By that logic we should pay the airfares of all migrants, I'm reliably informed by an acquaintance from Ireland that Australia provides a "better life" for him and his family so would you reimburse him his relocation expenses?

I think the point is that if the main argument against stopping the boats was humanitarian (i.e. people dying at sea) then we could simply buy plane tickets. And it could easily be justified on humanitarian grounds to reserve this privilege for those from disadvantaged circumstances. This type of reasoning is applied in all sorts of situations, e.g. development aid money go to the disadvantaged in poor countries and not the disadvantaged in Ireland. I am simply saying that these are the implications of Joseph's argument. I sympathise with his concerns, but clearly there is more to this issue than the humanitarian question.

Another "holier than thou" bit of finger wagging moralising by yet another moral puritan who have a compulsive need to always tell us Australians how selfish and uncaring we are. With a name like Joseph Wakim and an attitude of open hostility to Australians, why would it not be appropriate for me, as an Australian, to not consider Joseph Wakim an Australian at all?

Being an Australian means that your loyalty is towards your own people, the Australian people. But Joseph Wakim is probably another foreign import who's loyalty is to his own all right. But his concept of "his people" is entirely different to mine. Joseph is an imported foreigner who would just love to dilute the Australian population as much as he can. 'His people" is every foreigner who like himself dreams of coming to Australia and turning Australia into a society similar to what he fled from.

I am honoured that so many foreigners want to live in the lands of the white, English speaking people. But what I don't understand is why they despise the people with whom they aspire to be citizens with? Or why they want to destroy the culture of the people who's culture they fled to?

And I don't understand why we as a people do not cotton on to the fact that we are importing people into this country like Joseph Wakim, who absolutely despise us.

I cannot agree with Lego's assumptions about non-white non-English speaking migrants. But he is right in fingering the issue of national identity as the main sticking point here. Many Australians fear and dislike, rightly or wrongly, the changes that a constant stream of non-Western migrants would inevitably bring to our shores. Until those on the left recognise that their preferred ways of dealing with the 'boat people' will change our national character and start defining what there is to like about such changes, many Australians will remain sceptical. I think the left owes us more than the humanitarian argument. If they believe humanitarian concerns trump the value of the existing national character they should admit it and start selling the national character their policies will engender. If they do value the existing national character, however vague or ambiguous it might seem, then they need to come clean on the absolute limits they think should be applied to migrants and the fact that even liberal limits will still mean turning desperate people away.

Willem,
"Left" and "Right" are part of the one value system, they are based on the same core principles and there's no such thing as National feeling in that set of values.
Australia is one of the great egalitarian/ Liberal projects there can't be any social changes within the bubble of a closed system such as the one we live under.

Jay, how can there be no 'national feeling'? We have a general sense of what a Kenyan or German might we, even if not all Kenyans and Germans are like that. Surely when we fly the flag, the ships come sailing under the harbour bridge and when one of our athletes lift a gold medal in the air at the Olympics we feel pride and joy at having something in common. One might argue that what we have in common is elusive and ever changing, but it is still there. And what I understand from conservatives is that they don't want their albeit vague definition of being Australian to change too much too soon. That fear is unmistakable. And no amount of appeal to humanitarian values is going to really address that. Somehow the issue of national identity needs to be thrashed about in public debate. The great egalitarian/libertarian values won't win the day unless they are 'sold' as a carrier of, yes, national identity. That's just the reality as I see it.

Willem.
The conservatives are worried that Liberal values are under threat from immigration, it's a position based on beliefs not facts, Liberalism is unassailable in this country.
Australia has been intentionally developed as a cosmopolitan society, national feeling and national unity has never had a place in that scheme, the only reason it's not been a hot issue to date is because there's never been a serious threat to cosmopolitanism or multiculturalism.
There are no Australian Nationalists, the very idea is ludicrous, how can you build a national movement from a cosmopolitan society?

I vote Lego post "Post of the week" someone calling himself LEGO pulling a no true Scotsman argument.

Cognitive discordance doesn’t go far enough.

England embraced the refugees and now are a world headquaters for Islamic terrorism. Such a compassionate approach which has set up chaos for future generations.

Dear Jay,

<<The conservatives are worried that Liberal values are under threat from immigration, it's a position based on beliefs not facts, Liberalism is unassailable in this country.>>

You seem to be confusing between 'Conservative' and 'Liberal': conservatives would more likely be worried that immigration may bring with it more liberalism than they are comfortable with, rather than less.

Personally I believe that the present boat-crisis has nothing to do with conservatism and/or liberalism and/or nationalism and/or compassion: instead, it is an accident of pure opportunism:

While in opposition, Abbott identified in Labor's inconsistent/failed policies an opportunity to gain political power. He (wrongly) assumed that Australians care so much about boats/immigration that this policy of "stopping the boats" would be his make-or-break policy for getting elected. In the end, he did win the elections, but for unrelated reasons. By now however, he has climbed a tree too high and doesn't know how to climb down - nor would I expect a man of honour to go back on his promises.

A new and unforeseen development occurred since: Tasmania has opened its arms and is happy to receive all refugees.

This way everyone can be happy, with a new type of visa that allows refugees to live and work in Tasmania indefinitely but not on the mainland. Holders of this visa should not receive commonwealth welfare, but may instead receive donations from individuals and charities that care for them. What to do with the boats would become an internal Tasmanian rather than a commonwealth issue.

We cannot expect Abbott to accept the Tasmanian solution or else he would become just like Juliar. The best is therefore for him to step down and allow the coalition to bring in someone else, like Turnbull, who is not bound by that tragic promise.

Yuyutsu,
No, as I said earlier, it's my current view that Left and Right are essentially the same school of thought, differences of opinion are sectarian in nature, not fundamental.
Conservatives as we know them are just as committed to cosmopolitanism and egalitarianism as their Left counterparts, in Islam they (incorrectly) see an inegalitarian system which threatens their "Aussie" fair go. There are no inegalitarian schools of thought in Western society and no anti egalitarian movements to speak of, that's why I said egalitarianism is unassailable.
On Abbott, I'd agree, Boats and also Gay marriage aren't places where one needs to draw a line, this is an egalitarian society, as you say people aren't usually seriously committed on way or another, at least it's my experience that away from the internet people who take a stand on the issues usually do so on shaky premises which they'll abandon when pressed.

Joseph Wakim, founder of the Australian Arabic Council and former Victorian Multicultural Affairs Commissioner.
Why am I not surprised?
Another alien lecturing Australians about what our values should be.

"a cartoonist could have a field day depicting two tribal elders watching the white sails"

It's been done. Years ago.

I shake my head at your inability to see your own irony/hypocrisy.

Of course, the Aborigines didn't welcome the "boats" or their alien occupants with strange beliefs/culture.
I'm sure they didn't shed a tear when hearing that yet another shipload of invaders was lost in the Atlantic or Indian Oceans.

And I'm sure, had they had the weapons/technology, they would have resisted their displacement with *enthusiastic violence*.

"the disruption, diseases and destruction"
Oh yes, it was a tragedy when it happened to them.
When it happens to us, party time!

Aborigines displaced?: Boo hoo!
White Australians displaced?: Hip hip hooray!

STFU.

Onya, Shockie.

Cripes shockie!
I was trying to manipulate Willem into admitting that immigrants/refugees are alotted a position in a hierarchy based on race not need and you've cut right to the chase.
What's the difference between an Australian White and an Australian Aboriginal if all they've ever known is life in Australia and whose identities are both enmeshed with the land and it's people?
The only difference is race...heresy I know but fortunately for the voices of reason you can't unring a bell.

Jay, it sounds to me like you are saying that those objecting to non-Western migrants MUST be racists. I would counter that 'racist' is not the right description here. I can easily imagine that the Legos of this world would be equally indignant at the arrival of heaps of white Russians who then choose to live in their own enclaves and agitate against perceived injustices in this society. Where's the racism here? No, I think the Legos dislike the change in character such people might bring to the nation. Cosmopolitanism, liberalism and egalitarianism are fine concepts for the Legos of this world as long as they don't threaten the existing 'flavour' of the nation. Of course one could argue against such protectiveness, but it remains a valid proposition to want to preserve a certain way of life. We wouldn't object if the Tongans or Fijians or Ugandans would do that in their own countries. Why can't the Legos do it in Australia?

Human beings are tribal and territorial. If there is one thing which unites all of humanity, it is the cultural universal of wishing to live among people that you consider your kith and kin, who's behaviour you understand, and with whom you feel safe with.

My premise (and Shockie's) is, that the so called "anti racists" see nothing wrong with any ethnic group wishing to protect their own culture, provided that they are not white. If "aboriginal groups" demand "self determination" and the right to live entirely on "their" racially apartheid areas to protect their own culture , that is OK. But white people must never do the same thing.

The culture of the North European protestant people is renowned for creating rich, advanced societies with personnel freedoms unknown before in human history. What is wrong with people like myself wishing to protect my own successful culture from social suicide, from unchecked immigration? Tolerance can never be a moral absolute because if you tolerate everything, you stand for nothing.

It is reasonable to make the conclusion by direct observation that too much immigration of incompatible immigrant groups will eventually destroy your own society. Almost every war going on at the moment is a race or religious civil war over who's cultural values take precedence in national legal jurisprudence. Therefore, racism in immigration is essential to the survival of my socially advanced culture.

What I object to, is an imported foreigner like Joseph Wakim, who's own Muslim civilisation is a failure and a disgrace, fleeing to my country and then having the effrontery to sneer at the idea that Australians should protect our own successful culture through restrictive immigration. If Australians were fleeing to Muslim lands because Islamic countries were rich, successful and free, I doubt if Wakim would object to Arabs protecting their culture from unchecked western immigration.

I base that on the fact that Muslims seem to be the world's foremost ethnic cleansers, with their own Prophet being the foremost advocate of such behaviour to protect and spread Muslim culture.

Lego, I read you loud and clear. But my question remains, are you a 'racist' or are you a 'culturist'/'ethnicist'? Does it really matter what the skin colour is of the people who threaten your way of life? Wouldn't you equally object if Russians or Rumanians or Chileans, who are all white, started streaming into Australia?

Hi Willem

I am a racist, in that I am certain that there is no equality in physical or mental attributes between races. And I am a racist, in that I see loyalty to my own race as a virtue not a social evil. I also think that cultures are not equal, and the most obvious observable connection to culture is the colour of a person's skin.

One only has to watch the Olympics to see that races are not equal. All ethnicities can run, but black African people dominate the long distance running events while white people dominate the swimming. National IQ testing in the USA has revealed that blacks generally have a mean IQ of 85, Hispanics 95, whites 103, and US Asians 106. That does not mean that there are no smart blacks or dumb Asians. It just means that the Bell curves for intelligence are different. The veracity of these figures is born out in university admissions. Those universities requiring high IQ scores for admittance are disproportionately inhabited by Asians with blacks represented very disproportionately low to their population proportions.

If this analysis is correct, then this provides a simple logical solution as to why black societies are universally dysfunctional, why blacks always form a large proportion of the disadvantaged class, and why blacks are disproportionately represented in serious criminal behaviour.

If a small white town had intergenerational welfare dependency, the children refused to go to school, they were academic failures at school, if the parents were drunk for three days every fortnight when the dole checks arrived, children as young as five were being screened for sexually transmitted diseases, and the women were being beaten to a pulp by their husbands quite regularly, we would have no trouble labelling the inhabitants of that town as dumb white trash.

But if the inhabitants are black, a different standard applies. We are not allowed to think that the reason for their dysfunction is low intelligence, that is "racism." Instead, we have to keep dreaming up reasons why the towns dysfunction is all the fault of white people.

I draw you attention to the Englishman watching an Islamic demonstration
in London, his cry from the heart;

I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK !

I understand how he feels. In the suburban centre near where I live it
is rapidly becoming Chinese. (At least that is better than Arabic).

I am sure we can accommodate Tasmania, we have in Sydney a whole
surplus suburb, complete with crooked rebirthing panel beaters, bikey
clubs, kerbab shops, scungy shopping centre, police station complete
with bullet holes, Mosques, prayer halls, terrorist bookshops etc and
a thriving drug business centre.

Willem "I can easily imagine that the Legos of this world would be equally indignant at the arrival of heaps of white Russians"

Heaps of any ethnic group other than the British ones we directly descend from could pose a destabilising threat.

Small numbers though, of *any* White people would be absorbed, in one or two generations, invisibly.

But even small numbers of African, Middle Eastern or Asian people will never "blend in", not in a 1000 generations.
There will always be a gap that cannot be crossed.

Demanding tolerance from Whites is not enough, the "gap" will always exist in their own minds. All they need do to remind them is look in a mirror.

Yet 3 out of 4 immigrants now come from these groups, groups destined to always be outsiders. A recipe for disaster.

All-inclusive immigration (like the globalist economy) is based on the extreme application of liberal principles.

Liberalism works only when there is a strong enough bond amongst a social group (tribe, nation, civilisation), a continuity or connectedness that can buffer the stresses of social or economic liberty.

That bond can be race, religion, culture, but there must be one.
With the decline of religion in the West, expect race to get more, not less, emphasis.

There is no continuity on a *global* scale, nothing to buffer the impact of global liberty.
Where the should be a bond, there is a void.
Being "human" isn't enough. That's meaningless.

Global liberalism must fail and the longer the fantasy goes on, the greater the eventual damage.

If anyone doubts that the divisions between peoples can be permanent
just look at the Middle East and no doubt other places and you can see
that a thousand years is nothing.

Why give yourself the bother of it all ?
Political correctness ?

Lego, you say 'the most obvious observable connection to culture is the colour of a person's skin.' I think you have proved my point, skin colour is incidental. The basis of the differences you observe between groups of people is 'ethnicity' or 'culture'. Just try switching out the race label from your argument. I think you would have a purer and more defensible argument. I don't agree with your reading of how people do and don't integrate, but I do respect a fundamentally sound argument.

Willem "Just try switching out the race label from your argument."

Why? If, as you admit "race" and "culture" are virtually interchangeable, why is "culture" preferable and "race" taboo?

There are still going to be conundrums either way.
Hungarians are White, but not linguistically related. Do we include them?
Iranians are linguistically related, but not otherwise culturally related.
Many Koreans are Christian, but not otherwise culturally European.
Basque are European, but a cultural isolate.

Due to colonialism, people of many races speak European languages and converted to Christianity, yet their native culture is still a principal influence.
How do we classify such people by "cultural" definitions *only*?

With White immigration, no matter what the cultural origin, our genetic demographics don't change.
With non-Whites, even if they totally assimilate culturally, they change our genetics.

Why should we have to change genetically?
Why are there no "human rights" for genetic types? Why no concern for endangered alleles?

Those changes cannot be reversed.
If we lose red hair or green eyes, they are gone FOREVER.