Mark, re your comment "This adds something very positive to our identity; to our sense of attachment to place and people; to our sense of responsibility for maintaining community standards; to our affinity with the history and culture of our nation; to our willingness to sacrifice for a common good."

Why is a "nation" a logical grouping? Why not just the local neighborhood? Or the whole planet? After all, nations vary in size from a few thousand to nearly 1.5 billion.

Personally, I'd love to see the day where we all have a sense of attachment to place (Earth) and people (all humanity), where we have a sense of responsibility for maintaining global standards; we we have an affinity with the history and cultures of all nations; and a willingness to sacrifice for a common good - e.g. sacrificing some of consumeristic greed today to ensure that our descendants have a planet worth living on.

Idealistic, perhaps, but I fail to see why it's any more or less desirable than applying the same goal to each nation separately.

BTW, I'm aware in my previous comment I conflated immigration and multiculturalism - but it's not very clear to what extent it's realistic to have one without the other. If you allow migrants from different cultures, you can't realistically force them to adopt all aspects of the prevailing national culture. But whether it's necessary for government policies to go out of their way to encourage cultural differences is another debate.

CJ Morgan “I suppose that supporting the "re-colonisation" of Africa mightn't necessarily be racist, but this certainly is:

"The majority of Australians are from “British” ancestral stock. That is where the inventiveness and innovation comes from.””

“Racist”?

It is a factual observation.

That you harbour some negative prejudices toward the British, among the other small minded envies of the underachiever, is your problem to deal with.

Certainly, Australia and the world would be seriously disadvantaged if the innovative and inventive British values (duplicated through the founding fathers of USA and evidenced by the development of the most powerful nation of the planet), were not benefiting humanity by contributing most of the key developments dating back to before the industrial revolution.

I would further speculate, had the “British allies” not prevailed in WWII, some of us would have all found out what “racism” was really about and sadly, a lot of us would have been victims of racism.

My observation to “British Innovation” is as “racist” as suggesting statements like

the “Maasai” are very tall Africans and

“pygmies” are short Africans

are “racist”.

The term “British” is not even a “racial” description, it is a "cultural" description, if I wanted to be “racial” I could have used terms like “Celtic”, “Angle”, “Saxon”, “Norman” etc..

All those sources were “genetic contributors” to what became known as “British”.

I would suggest you acquire a basic understanding of the meaning of words before you bandy them around.

I would further suggest you get a basic understanding of people before you bother to judge others in your posts.
However, I doubt you have the intellect to comprehend what I am talking about, such is the problem when dealing with “dullards” (of any racial origin).

I will defer to your broader experience and likely tolerance to sewage gases.

Too bad you lack British / protestant work ethic, if you had it now, you would certainly benefit from it.

I guess, we will just have to wait until your regressive genes are diluted by and assimilated into that good, strong and inventive British pool

Good point, Wizofaust. But whites were the most advanced race on Earth and it was only to be expected that they would also invent more efficient means of mass murder. However, violent behaviour is considered to be legally proscribed behaviour. In this aspect, blacks are statistically more prone to very violent behaviour than whites.

The aboriginal homicide rate is six times higher than for the rest of society. Black women spouses in the US are murdered at a rate seven times higher than their white sisters. The black incarceration rate varies in US states but is around 12 and 20 times higher than whites.

You ask where Multiculturalism has failed,Wizofaust.

You could try Lebanon, Fiji, Cyprus, Georgia, Afghanistan, Biafra, Rhodesia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Liberia, Kashmir, Punjab, Sudan, Nigeria, Bougainville, East Timor, Yugoslavia, Kurdistan, New Zealand, Bhutan, Angola, Burma, Chechnya, The Solomons, Aden, Malaya, Oman, Congo, Northern Ireland, Palestine/Israel, Czechoslovakia, Mexico,and recently, Thailand. Add to this sundry race riots and acts of terrorism in Britain, the US, Europe, and just about every other country on Earth and it is diffucult for me to understand how you could ask such a question.

From what I know of race relations in the USA, when the blacks move in, the whites move out. This is a phenomenon known as “white flight”. Some cities like Chicago are now almost 100% black and it is no surprise that this city is called the “murder capital of the USA.” Washington is another city which is almost 100% black and in 1993, the Mayor, Sharon Kelly appealed to the US government to call out the National Guard because the Washington police had lost control of the streets.

What is happening in Canada I am not sure of, but I do know that the Canadian Police have arrested a bunch of Muslims who were plotting to detonate bombs. Here in Sydney, I have seen how my city is becoming the Chicago of the Pacific, with 55% of the handgun murders in the entire state of NSW occurring within two notorious ethnic ghettoes in Sydney

Some success story.

"But whites were the most advanced race on Earth and it was only to be expected that they would also invent more efficient means of mass murder." (Quote: Redneck..good choice of tag.)

"However, violent behaviour is considered to be legally proscribed behaviour. In this aspect, blacks are statistically more prone to very violent behaviour than whites." (Same.)

CRAP!

_______________________________

"Too bad you lack British / protestant work ethic, if you had it now, you would certainly benefit from it.

I guess, we will just have to wait until your regressive genes are diluted by and assimilated into that good, strong and inventive British pool."
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 15 October 2007 7:09:24 PM

MORE CRAP. You certainly know how to patronize people, don't you Crouge?

Olduvai: "daggett asked me to post this):"

Cripes James, how many sock puppets do you need? Ginx is right - this is getting pathological.

Col Rouge: "The majority of Australians are from “British” ancestral stock. That is where the inventiveness and innovation comes from."

"until the Australian gene pool is diluted to the point where those inherited inventive traits are lost among the mass of inferior emulator and copyists traits"

Um, Col you old dog - notions like "British ancestral stock" and "inferior emulator and copyists traits" are only held by racists like you. It's evident from the level of your bluster that you know you've been exposed as the racist you are. Despite his idiocy, I actually have more respect for the other redneck - at least he's honest about his bigotry.

And what makes you think I don't work, old pooch?

wizofaus,

Thank you for having so succinctly put together in one post so many of the fallacious arguments which are used to justify high immigration and multiculturalism:

"... if Australia had not opened its borders, we would today be a small, uninteresting and largely irrelevant nation with a modest economy, at serious risk of military invasion ..."

The argument that the Australia, prior to the adoption of multiculturalism, was 'uninteresting' was tackled head on in William Lines' "Patriots" (2005) pp180-184, an excerpt from which follows:

"Until the 1970s, Australian governments justified immigration in terms of defence, development, and economic growth. Then, under the influence of a very small number of intellectuals - most of them based in Melbourne - justifications changed. These academics, social workers, and migrant activists claimed a relation between immigration, humanitarianism, and equal worth. All these goals could be achieved, they claimed, under a policy of multiculturalism. Very quickly, the great majority of Australia's most educated and most brainwashed people cast themselves as pro-multicultural. They saw multiculturalism and immigration as the means to uplift and morally transform a boring, dull, unenlightened, selfish, and bigoted Australian society. Most wonderfully, immigration furthered the cause of anti-racism. By implication, those who advocated immigration control were racist, narrow, self-seeking nationalists intent on cultural homogeneity."

---

It was shown in Andrew Ross's "Armed and Ready" (1995) that it was a myth that Australia, with a stable and smaller population that it had up to the 1940's, was vulnerable to invasion. In fact, Australia was a technologically advanced nation in 1942, and the Japanese Army knew it. That is why, even before their defeat at the Battle of the Coral Sea, they had vetoed a plan by the Japanese Navy to invade Australia. For further information see "Can Australia ever be self-reliant for national defence?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=860

(tobecontinued)