yvonne said: "Oligarch gave China as an example country preaching unity by not allowing African immigrants. Though, it is probably more a case of few requests of migration to China by Africans than a Chinese policy, but let's leave that aside."

It seems you've completely misunderstood my point, so I'll make it clearer for you. If the people of China were asked whether they have a right to oppose mass immigration on such a scale that it would fundamentally transform their nation's cultural and ethnic makeup, the answer would be crystal clear. Yet, uniquely among the 6.5 billion people on the planet, Westerners - the approximately 800 million people in Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand - are expected by the proponents of mass immigration and multiculturalism to abandon any right to define or shape their own society.

The mere thought of Australia reasserting tougher immigration controls in an effort to sustain its own culture is automatically labelled "racist" by the openly discriminatory Asian countries. See the double standard?

As for Chinese immigration policy, the Chinese do not allow immigration into their country by non-Chinese ethnic groups. China only allows for the repatriation of ethnic Chinese (Han and other Chinese ethnic groups).

yvonne said: "Firstly, China is a more ethnically, linguistically and racially diverse country than Australia. Just because 'they' look 'alike' to you does not mean 'they' are. The written Chinese language is the only way many Chinese can communicate with each other. All the languages are as diverse as Finnish is to French. Only the educated speak Mandarin."

China is more diverse than Australia? Tell me, how large are China's European, African, Arab, Indian, Central Asian, South-East Asian and Hispanic populations? How many disparate, non-Chinese immigrants does China accept each year? How many refugees?

As for MichaelK, I'm not too sure what he is incessantly rambling about. Obviously he has never heard of the "Anglosphere" - a term used to denote the British-settled, English-speaking democracies.

It is really sometimes hard to distinct “English” itself from “belonging to England”-“England’s” as well as “Anglo(-)s” from a term “Brits” and in general those of-UK-spread-worldwide liking their modern-colonial masters’ backs for perks bestowed on them from London - their “inherited right” allowing pokies-style robbery of “commoners” wherever the foreign country head of state profile appears on local coins, is the most.

An Anglo-sphere accomplishes countries where English is a state language-that is mostly agreed international definition for this twentieth century lasting abnormality and legacy of English racism of the OPENLY-officially-imperial time a recent ERII reign witnesses decay of, and of no way refers to the precondition an Anglo-Celtic/Saxon populous to be simply in majority in these states – India is the brightest example of.

Arrogance and ignoring not-Anglos as lower sub-servants is as much “Australian” and ENGLISH as the Big Ben is England’s.

I hope this spelling-check-passed text will not be perverted as too frequently happened in order oligarchs participating would be capable to understand it to an extent of not raving accusations in my address while so many of things deliberated were, as understood already, beyond their comprehension regardless of positions their Anglo-London-forbearers had passed them in generations.

I'm still waiting for MichaelK. to tell us all which egalitarian paradise he left in order to come to Australia, the land of the hated Anglo-Saxons and coin of the realm. I can't help thinking he's either a doddering old fool, or someone who can't yet dress himself and go out unaccompanied. I know he said he was absolutely brilliant and recognised world wide for his genius... right up until he landed on the shores of Oz and then in a blink of an eye found himself no longer accepted as the smartest in class. Such an experience must have smashed up the old ego something fierce and seems to have contributed to the mans blatant racist and cultural hatred.

"Anglo-London-forbearers..."

Considering I don't have any English ancestry whatsoever, this comment was rather amusing. Another "jock", MichaelK?

I must say, Michael's incomprehensible anti-Australian rants are really quite entertaining if you don't take them too seriously. They certainly liven up the place.

International recognition, aqvarivs, had been gained to a great extent while wasting a life in “multicultural” fascists-led Australia (see above of Hitler-linked descriptions), where according to Oligarch, a “so many of things deliberated were, as understood already, beyond … comprehension regardless of positions their Anglo-London-forbearers had passed them in generations” refers to one of not-Anglo-London-linked.

Or Oligarch’s clarification is a mere inherited-ly-bitten-into pro-AUSSIE kowtowing to the rest of disputants, perhaps?

MichaelK, English is my second language. Maybe that is why I have enormous difficulty understanding what you are trying to say.

I gather you are of the opinion that Australians are governed by fascists and Australians generally are racists and against anyone not of English background. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If true, I have difficulty with someone who is not that familiar with the language and the nuances of the local form of the language having such strong views about us Australians.

My views as seeing multiculturalism as a positive for Australia known. Having said that, I also am aware of the many voices who see this as detrimental to Australia. I think this is only sometimes because of overtly racist beliefs. I understand that mostly it has to do with the worry that it divides Australians into groups of people who will not, or cannot communicate. Anyone who works in a big Australian organization knows this of course is not so.

I think that where MC falls foul is when there is too much emphasis given to what could offend another culture when living your own culture. This is where irritatingly silly political correctness creeps in. I doubt very much that these concerns were ever actually voiced by the supposedly 'offended' culture. And why would they be offended anyway. There is no compulsion to participate.

Respecting other cultures does not mean limiting the expression of festivities and celebrations. On the contrary, it gives an opportunity to see how all peoples celebrate, grief and worship.