individual

I have noticed people from the political left are often concerned about the Aboriginal, and how they were victimised by early “colonists”.

But now, they want to flood the country with immigrants, which is yet another form of colonisation.

And I have noticed so many immigrants are 100% urban, with no connection to the Australian countryside at all, and spend much of their time in shopping malls.

Ironically, I would regard spending time in shopping malls as being towards the far right in general attitudes and values.

Incomuicardo,
You're right about the shopping mall brigade. Re colonising Australia I have lost count how many times I have invited indigenous posters on OLO to offer their view about more immigration to their land & as to which group of immigrants is their preference. To-date no-one has taken up my offer, not even any do-gooders.
I have been told by an indigenous that if Australia doesn't give them what they want then they'll aid illegals coming into the country in return for good money.

Individual

In terms of what is the best immigrant, that it is a huge moral question.

Perhaps it is best not to have immigrants with any interest in the natural environment of Australia. The surfing breaks are already overcrowded, the fishing spots are already overcrowded, and the roads are already overcrowded with grey-haired nomads looking for adventure in the bush with their luxury caravans.

I totally disregard the concept that immigration adds to our culture or has social value. At present there are 8 movies being shown at my local cinema complex, and all movies are American.

Most of TV is American crap also, and our so-called multicultural society is just an Americanised society, (or immigration has completely taken away any national identity, leaving a vacuum that is being filled with Americanisation).

So that only leaves the possibility that immigration is of economic benefit to the country.

And if this is the case, the best immigrant is someone who exists to consume, and their most favourite place would be a shopping mall.

But there are moral questions regards existence for consumption only.

So in that sense, bringing in immigrants to increase consumption becomes a major moral question for all of Australia.

Incomuicardo, you touch upon Americanisation.

I think this is intrinsically linked to multiculturalist indoctrination.

America is a nation of varied origins, not only British colonies, but French and Spanish too, unlike Australia which has only one colonial origin.

They also had the Native Americans and the imported African Blacks.

Like the God they think they are, America is trying to recreate Man (i.e. society) in its own image.

They are exporting their social model as the "normal" or "typical" one, when in fact it's a freak historical aberration.

Such a model is inappropriate in most other countries.

But America controls the ideological dialogue.

Shockadelic

Yes, 7 of the top 10 global brands are based in the US, and we are being slowly inundated with American junk food shops, as well as American styles of entertainment, advertising and marketing.

Or perhaps American entertainment depends heavily on advertising and marketing to make people watch the nauseating and violent crap.

The concept that multiculturism has improved our culture is simply not true when Americanisation is now the most predominant facet of our culture.

So mass immigration as a means to improve our natural environment is a total farce, as is mass immigration as a means to improve our culture.

That only leaves mass immigration as a means to improve our economy.

This concept of bringing in more people to improver our economy is a very right wing concept politically speaking.

And, as a side issue, our real GDP per capita seems to be levelling out in time as we bring in more immigrants.

It could be that bringing in more immigrants simply means the wealth inside the country has to be spread amongst a greater number of people, and real GDP per capita levels out, and will eventually go down.

While desperate for mainstream recognition, it's not worth SPP etc. claiming victimisation when various 'elders of the church' are happy to collaborate closely with the 'anti immigration network puppeteer' John Tanton (network), especially via his journal The Social Contract Press described by SPLC as routinely publishing of race-baiting articles by white nationalists'

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/the-social-contract-press

John Tanton is in esteemed company here as SPLC. since its inception to support civil rights in USA, has been locked into ongoing battles (and being attacked) by the KKK and related. Coincidentally Tanton has corresponded with KKK and white supremacist attorney Sam Dickson, amongst others.

http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2011/09/14/the-company-they-keep-examining-the-tanton-networks-white-nationalist-ties-via-georgia/

Which Australian 'envioronmentalists', demographers and social researchers have contributed to TSCP? Dr. Bob Birrell of CPUR (whose Director is of African descent, but seems to be an anonymous figurehead, where di he get that window dressing tactic from?), his long time collaborator Katherine Betts at Swinburne (whose coup was the interview of Jean Raspail, writer of "The Camp of the Saints' for TSCP described by The Guardian as essential top 10 reading along with David Irving, for neo nazis and skinheads) and of course SPA's own in house poet, Mark O'Connor.

Which politicians are also involved in Tanton's network via seemingly benign fronts? Victorian Labor MP Kelvin Thomson via Progressive for Immigration Reform PFIR (oxymoron?), and SA Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi via ALEC, which is openly neo con.

The modern nativist movements use (academically confected negative perceptions) of political or social phenomena to motivate their potential acolytes, media and politicians, while masking their true beliefs and motivations, like religious and other cults do.