(continuedfromabove)

2. a long tortuous drawn out attempt to ignore, and then to dismiss, a straightforward articulation of the case against unrestricted immigration by one of America's greatest living intellects, and

3. that you are in, in fact, after all, in favour of limiting immigration in some unspecified way.

Not really much substance, it would seem. I wonder what would have sustained you in this discussion if cacofonix had not made a post openly on my behalf?

Now why don't you, for your part, see if you can similarly summarise my own substantive contributions to this forum in less than 59 words.

As I wrote before, you fit the mould of immigration advocates who are practised at the use of personal attacks, particularly the labeling of their opponents as racist in order to avoid discussion the substance of the issues and to end discussion.
---

On Norway and Bangladesh: why not? Perhaps Gore Vidal could have used other countries to illustrate his point, but I don't see how that would have fundamentally changed anything.

---

One last thing, CJ Morgan, would you care to quantify your "support the limitation of immigration to Australia on ecological grounds"?

Do you know that John Howard initially dropped annual immigration figures to 68,000 because of the unpopularity of Labor's high immigration program? However, he has since ramped it up all the way to 300,000 (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/backscratching-at-a-national-level/2007/06/12/1181414298095.html) notwithstanding his posturing over the Tampa crisis in 2001.

Now do you happen to believe that level of immigration into a country running out of water is ecologically sustainable? Do you happen to believe that the Queensland Government's plan to cram another 1.1 million into South East Queensland by 2026 is ecologically sustainable?

If you don't, then what do you intend to do about it?

---

wizofaus,

I was not meaning to judge you for your use of a second account. It's understandable, why some would choose to do so. Unlike some other forum users, I have no need to clutch at these sorts of straws to divert attention from the weakness of my own case.

Glad to see I've gotten up your nose, James/daggett/cacofonix or whoever you are today. I'm increasingly convinced that you're little more than a clever racist (or three} masquerading as an anvironmentalist. That you've spent so much effort referring to my posts in this thread - without acknowledging the post in which I refuted the content of the supposed Vidal quote - is perhaps indicative that I'm on to your essential mendacity.

daggett/cacofonix/James Sinnamon: "So, have I misssed anything CJ Morgan?"

Er yes, how about this one way back in the thread where I said:

"If you were really interested in exploring a hypothetical situation where large numbers of Bangladeshis might seek refuge in a Western society, I'd suggest that Britain would be a better example than Norway. After all, there was never a Norse Raj that was part of a worldwide Norwegian Empire, the exploitation of which was directly responsible for the relative wealth of the Empire's ruling country - as was the case with Britain and its former Subcontinental dominions.

Indeed, it could be argued that the relatively large numbers of Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Africans and West Indians who have migrated to Britain in recent decades to share in its wealth are really just its colonial chickens coming home to roost. Culturally uncomfortable perhaps in the short term, but ultimately economically and morally just." [http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96174]

Somehow you missed that one in your litany of being 'he who protesteth too much, methinks'.

"One last thing, CJ Morgan, would you care to quantify your 'support the limitation of immigration to Australia on ecological grounds'?"

Well actually no, my triumvirate antagonist. I don't have enough information, and neither do you (three, at least). All I'm saying is that I'd like to see a sensible debate about the issue without the intrusion of the racist element that you are evidently happy to summon to your cause.

And I'd like to see it done honestly, rather than via the subterfuge that you evidently prefer.

Apparently there was a major incident at highpoint shopping centre yesterday involving many youths ( reports of around 70, with police being called in from around 6 police stations in the area, and at least 15 police cars in attendance). According to CH 9 many of them were African in appearance. Searching the internet I can hardly find much information on this. Nothing at all on the ABC. And nowhere is it mentioned about their race. I'm really tired of what I believe is a PC cover up.

Mark Richardson

You don't know what I'm bound up on, so don't speak for me.

I'll state again that you are wrong on Japan and Norway. Neither are homogenous societies. Both countries did what Australia did and murdered many of their Indigenous populations. Call it being 'bound up' or not, that's just what happened.

And the Indigenous of these countries would, I imagine, not perceive the societies they live in as egalitarian, nor homogenous.

Good post, Wizofaust.

Inferring negative value judgements on a race of people by claiming that they are the modern world’s premier murderers is racism. Saying that blacks have darker skin pigmentation or are prone to sickle cell anaemia is not a negative value judgement, and is not racism.

You did not submit any statement clearly identifying you are an anti racist, it is just that that is the default position typically held by people with your philosophy. My perception is that ‘anti racists” tend to be very racist towards the whites, and I get my kicks pointing this out to them when they slip up.

My position is that Separatism and civil war is an inevitable consequence of mixing up different cultures which have diametrically opposed value systems. A minority with very different values to the majority may gain some degree of acceptance and tolerance, provided that it keep those cultural practices which are unacceptable to the majority out of sight, and provided that the minority police itself to weed out fanatics who pose a threat to the majority. But all that becomes irrelevant if political control swings to the minority through birthrate differentials or immigration. Sooner or later, the societal divide becomes an unbridgeable chasm, as the population demographics reach critical mass.

Multiculturalism is like Socialism. How many times does it have to fail before its adherents admit that something is wrong with the whole concept? Inviting your enemies to cross your moat and enter your keep just to show them how much you like them, may not be a good idea.

If any ethnic group has a genetic predisposition to violence, criminal behaviour, and welfare dependency, then they will never be accepted by the majority who are paying for their upkeep, and who are providing victims for the ethnic minority to prey upon.

Your metaphor about Christian fundamentalists is a good one. If any country was full of Christian fundamentalists who wanted to turn my country into a fundamentalist Christian republic, I would oppose their immigration into this country, as I already oppose Muslim immigration.

Liz,

I agree with Mark.

Japan is one of the most homogeneous countries on the planet. I've been there and you rarely see someone who is not Japanese. Wikipaedia also states that it is linguistically and culturally homogeneous. Norway was until recently very homogeneous. Sadly that is changing quickly and they are having many problems with rising crime rates. In Norway the anti-immigration party now leads the polls.

To be precise, no country is homogeneous unless 100% of inhabitants are the same. However in comparison to most other developed countries Japan and Norway are very homogeneous.