If I were to ask Jennifer Clark whether aborigines should be allowed to preserve their culture, I have no doubt that she would would gushingly support the idea. No doubt, she would also claim that Romanians, Chinese, Africans, Vietnamese and native Americans should all be proud of their cultures and ensure their preservation.

But when it comes to white culture, a different standard applies. It is obvious that Jenny has wet dreams about destoying the white culture in which she chooses to live. This is rather odd, since modern white culture is a mile in front of all others, in terms of prosperity, human rights, gender equality, tolerance, and scientific endeavor. If you want to immigrate from some backward cesspit to get a better life, head for a country where the whites call the shots. Preferably one where they all speak English.

It is the obvious detestation which people like Jennifer Clark have for their own people and culture which is the most baffling part of their anti everything ideology. Next would come their deturmination to never see anything wrong with the cultures of failed dysfunctional societies, and their propensity to always blame white people for anything that goes wrong, anywhere.

Then they have the hide to claim that they are non racist.

Col, you say "Anyone applying to Australia and being accepted for migration should be welcomed. However, those who do not respect or intend to respect (if not adopt) existing Australian values would be better off staying where they are, for their own sake as well as the rest of us."

To which I say "duh" (for the most part anyway, allowing for some debate over exactly what Australian values are). But that is empirically *not* the position of many of the posters here who object to immigration on the grounds that it dilutes our European heritage etc., including "Dresedener" who you appear to agree with.

The reality is that our Anglo heritage will eventually get diluted away, whether people object to it or not. The point of concern should be whether it is occurring at a rate that is having a significant destabilising effect, which, despite the various anecdotes told here and elsewhere, could not realistically be said to be the case so far.

oh dear, good old redneck is here, i recall him once becoming upset that i called him a 'redneck' could not see the irony in it at all...LoL ..sad but true.

Great article; Racism is a two way street; i have met more 'racists' amongst immigrants and 'permanent residents' than i have ever met amongst 'white folk'- The Asian-isation of Australia has already happened; wake up Australia; the Howard Government allows 'skilled' migrants from universities take jobs; when our own kids can't get a place; there is a person (chinese) in a high position in a Qld Gov Dept; she cannot speak english! her Principal Supervisor wrote her thesis. There are 100 cases for the'privileged colored

While many blame all kinds of people of all kind of races, religions, etc, being it about coloured people taking work for lower wages robbing Australians of a decent income, Australian values, etc, would it not be better that people who post first consider what they are on about.
“Australian values” are to me that people comply with Australian laws, and so what is constitutionally permissible!
Lets look at the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution extremely concerned about the influx of cheap coloured labour from other countries undermining the security of Australians therefore held it better to give the Commonwealth of Australia with the power to DISCRIMINATE against coloured people and so inserted Subsection 51(xxvi) to allow special laws against certain races. As they made clear the Commonwealth of Australia could by this regulate the influx of coloured people and protect by this Australian jobs. Avoid unwanted cheap labour influx. By the 1967 referendum Aboriginals were included in this provision!
Now, the Commonwealth rather then to secure Australian jobs, has gone about to use this for a Racial Discrimination Act, contrary to the Constitutional powers, has out-sourced jobs (in particular to India) undermining Australian jobs, etc.
Instead of providing a training program for would be immigrants for them to learn what Australian law is about so that they can assimilate within the wider community to practice their own culture but so as to remain within Australian law, we have that they are asked who was a famous cricketer as if that will give them respect for Australian law!
The Commonwealth of Australia was given every possible constitutional powers to ensure that those it allowed to become part of Australian society could do so only if it is appropriate. The Commonwealth of Australia uses cheap visa’s to undermine Australian workers security and as such it is useless to blame the workers who are the influx of the visa system, as all they do is to accept the invitation of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Since federation it has been mismanaged and that is where the real issue lies to be addressed.

daggett/James Sinnamon: "It's pretty clear to me what Gore Vidal intended to say. I can't imagine how a broader context would alter the fundamental meaning of his words. I can't find the complete text of his speech, but I would expect that, if Vidal had been misquoted or had been taken out of context, we would probably know by now. Even if it could be shown that the words had not been uttered by Vidal, I fail to see how that negates the essential point."

Oh come on, James. Surely you can do better than that. You posted the purported paragraph, which on the face of it is a hyperbolic and hypothetical strawman, as a challenge to the author of the article that this thread is about. It's your responsibility to verify your source and provide references that others can locate. To assert that it doesn't matter that it might be fabricated is intellectually sloppy, to say the least.

In this case, the context might explain Vidal's extraordinary hyperbole: "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?"

Why Norway and why 50 million Bengalis? Without some sort of context this just looks like a dog-whistle of the worst order. At any rate, the hyperbole fails - of course, it wouldn't be considered racism in the ridiculously small probability that such a situation could ever really happen.

I agree that Australia needs to limit its population, but I disagree that 'race' should be any kind of factor in our consideration of how we might do that.