The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Privileged 'whites' > Comments

Privileged 'whites' : Comments

By Jennifer Clarke, published 8/10/2007

Australia’s migration and citizenship laws privilege ‘whites’ in all sorts of ways.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 43
  8. 44
  9. 45
  10. All
"We live next door to the world’s fourth most populous nation (Indonesia), which contains millions of people who would love to live here, or even just visit for work or a look around."

The Indonesians had thousands of years to colonise Australia, as did the Chinese and other Asian civilisations. But none of our northern neighbours were interested in this arid wasteland until the British came along and built a nation worth living in. Now they want a piece, complete with European-built infrastructure. Funny that.

This author of this Caucasophobic article seems to be implying that Australia should abandon its sovereign right to enforce its borders and allow an “under new management” takeover by our fecund neighbours. I wonder, does "cultural diversity" increase globally if, say, Australia becomes an Asian colony due to immigration in a world already dominated demographically by Asians?

"What they don’t want are too many funny-looking people from Elsewhere coming here, intending to stay and vote, and provoking the racism latent in “the Australian way of life”."

We should be less worried about imagined instances of racism, and more concerned about the latent stupidity emanating from the left.

Have you bothered to compare Australia's immigration levels to other countries? Or don't you do 'numbers'?

Here's a not-so-secret secret - Australia has the second highest per capita immigration rate in the world. And the vast majority of these new migrants aren't coming from Europe.

I've always found it odd that no Third World country is ever said to be in need of a heavy dose of Westerners. But Western countries are constantly told by their elites how much better off they are for having Third Worlders flood their shores (any opposition is reflexively denounced as 'racist'). This immigration deluge is always said to be "enriching." One wonders why the immigrants ever left their homeland considering how enriched it must be. The main point, though, is that this mass immigration juggernaut is purely a one-way street. When they come here it is 'enriching' - if we were to go there in similar numbers it would be called colonialism.
Posted by Dresdener, Monday, 8 October 2007 10:20:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dresdener – It is not the elites who are championing the cause it’s the Loud Looney Left! Many elites support it so as to get the support of the LLL when it comes to vote time because as you know there are plenty of them out there.

All I can say is why shouldn’t whites have an unofficial privilege after all it was all there hard work which made Australia what it is today. We give the black fella’s a heap land that’s the privilege they get.

How about something for the people who made Australia into what it is! Oh no that would be racist I hear the LLL say. A bit of a paradox don’t you think!
Posted by EasyTimes, Monday, 8 October 2007 11:32:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I will respond to 'Dresdener', because this post illustrates the problems of discussing Australian ethnicity openly.

My comments were made about Australia, a nation founded on migration, not about Europe or 'Caucasians' generally. Given Australia's location, the case for it staying 'white' is about as strong as the case for it becoming 'white' in the first place - ie, very weak. The issues are not the same as in Europe, where pressure for the integration of people of colour has come from their (or their ancestors') past colonisation by the European power or importation as cheap labour. How Australia's immigration intake compares with that of European countries is irrelevant. New Zealand, with one-fifth of our population, takes about one-third as many migrants as we do.

My statistics are from the Immigration Update for 2006, on the Immigration Department's website. These show that more migrants come from Europe than any other region, and that large numbers come from New Zealand. 'The rest of the world' now does outstrip Europe, but you would expect that because most people live in the rest of the world.

'If we were to go there in similar numbers it would be called colonialism'. That is the right term for the takeover of Australia from its indigenous population.

Indonesians DID migrate to Australia's north in precolonial times - Muslims from Macassar came in thousands on the tradewinds, fathering Yolngu children, leaving behind loan words and sometimes taking Yolngu back with them to Sulawesi. The migration was stopped under the 'White Australia' policy.

Some of Asia's population growth results from 'fecundity', but some Asian countries (eg China, and to a lesser extent Indonesia) have imposed or encouraged family size limits - a responsible approach to global over-population. With its baby bonus, Australia has done the opposite.

I have found it easy to travel to Asian countries, and have known several Australians who live in Asia. While Europeans and Americans can fly into and out of Australia on ETAs, however, someone from a poor Asian country may have trouble getting a tourist visa.
Posted by Jennifer Clarke, Monday, 8 October 2007 11:50:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author Jennifer Clarke writes, "we appear to need migrant labour (skilled and unskilled) ..."

We 'appear' to need migrant labour only because this message has been drummed into the consciousness by a lying pro-high-immigration news-media since at least the mid-1970's, but the reality is otherwise as has been shown in numerous other places in Online Opinion and in Mark O'Connor's review of Phillipe Legrain's "Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them" at

I think we should not be permitting any further migration, with an exception for humanitarian refugees, including from black Africa. However, the numbers must be such that existing inhabitants are not overwhelmed.


I would be interested to know how the author would be prepared to quantify the truly non-discriminatory immigration policy she advocates. Presumably, she would allow immigration to Australia on the basis of the proportion of each national or cultural group to the world's total population, in which case nearly 37% would come from India and China alone. If we added in the 11 major countries of South East Asia and South Asia that figure would become 50%.

Only a very small percentage would be allowed from countries with cultures similar to the White Anglo-Celtic group that comprised the majority of this continent at the end of the Second World War.

Would Jennifer Clarke apply a similar standards to all the other countries in the world, perhaps to Italy, Denmark, Japan, Finland, Latvia, Norway, Japan or Brazil?

BTW I have been told Brazil has in its constitution an immigration policy which is aimed at preserving the cultural and racial mix of that country as of the mid-1930's - something that Australia never attempted since the 1970's.

I would suggest that a predominant culture in any country does have a right to preserve that dominance. This, of course, would have applied to the Aboriginals, and, before them, the original human inhabitants of this country who were wiped out by the Australian Aboriginals.

Posted by daggett, Monday, 8 October 2007 12:16:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard

However, past injustices are no justification for injustices today against the current inhabitants of this continent, and, in any case, only make matters worse for the remaining Aboriginal inhabitants. Nor do they justify the further damage to the already perilously degraded natural environment of this continent.

I would also be interested to hear Jennifer Clarkes' response to Gore Vidal's words on the topic of high immigration spoken at a lecture in Dublin in 1999:

"A characteristic of our present chaos is the dramatic migration of tribes. They are on the move from east to west, from south to north. Liberal tradition requires that borders must always be open to those in search of safety or even the pursuit of happiness. But now with so many millions of people on the move, even the great-hearted are becoming edgy. Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in 40 to 50 million homeless Bengalis. If the Norwegians say that, all in all, they would rather not take them in, is this to be considered racism? I think not. It is simply self-preservation, the first law of species."

quoted in "The Folly of mass migration" at
original quote at:
Posted by daggett, Monday, 8 October 2007 12:17:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer's unbalanced argument barely alludes to the trouble France and the UK have with black Africans. Here is a taste of what Australia can expect:

The 751 No-Go Zones of France

Revealed: 170 gangs on streets of London

Factfile: teenagers gunned down across UK

Immigration threat to Britain as single nation

Idi Amin's son was in gang that battered man to death in the street

School uniforms made slash-proof

Dear Son, Let me tell you what immigration has done to this country

The police fiddle while children are killed

"Although we are the most spied-upon nation in Europe and although we have spent billions on social renewal schemes, we have reached a state in which children and teenagers in big cities live in terror of other children and teenagers and in despair of protection from adults. They carry knives because they are afraid.

They are afraid on their way to and from school and they learn almost nothing when they get there, partly because adults don’t protect them from bullying, thieving and disruption. Teachers have either lost or relinquished their authority and children can expect little or no guidance and protection from them, or from their parents, or from council care, or from the police ...

It’s this mentality that has produced teachers who can’t or won’t teach, school leavers who are unemployable, students who can’t study, feckless parents, broken homes, police who are obsessed with things that don’t matter, neighbours who dare not stand up to other people’s children, jails overcrowded with the wrong people, idiotic state sector make-work, intrusive quangos imposing idiotic make-work and the divisive follies of multiculturalism and uncontrolled immigration.

Until we begin to stand up against all these things, we can probably expect more senseless killings of children. "
Posted by online_east, Monday, 8 October 2007 1:08:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 43
  8. 44
  9. 45
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy