For starters, Ms. Mundell’s “I came here by boat” is silly. She is obviously a legal immigrant. As a New Zealander, she receives special consideration – that’s why there are more Kiwis here than in New Zealand. She retains dual citizenship, so that’s strike one against her although, they way she criticises Australia, she might just need to return to New Zealand.

Ms. Mundell asks, ‘Why am I free to come here ….’. We could well ask, “Why did you want to come to such a terrible country?” And, ‘How bad to we need to be before she does “clear off”?’ We could start practising right away.

The fact that Ms. Mundell totally disregards, or isn’t aware of, the fact that Australia takes in more migrants and refugees per capita than any other country except Canada, clearly shows that the recent call for all immigrants sitting for and passing tests on Australia prior to gaining citizenship is well worth considering.

At the very least, Ms. Mundell should start mixing with people different from the ones she does now. So far, she doesn’t appear to have made any use of her desire to, “broaden her life”.

Perhaps she will never be able to shake of the same pre-conceived ideas that a woman I hired a car from in Wellington had when she told me that, ‘It is good to meet a “nice” Australian. I thought you were all like Roy and H.G. on TV’.

Be careful what you say about boat people settling this country Meg. That suggests a wide disparate group striking out for this big brown land. If you lock yourself into this you will rob yourself of the chance of assaulting us with the White Australia Policy. A diverse group can hardly come up with such a policy.

Meg, I saw an ad the other day which read: Woman wanted to share a flat. Must be prepared to live with a know-it-all and buy my books, tapes etc and attend my many lectures. Contact Ms Greer, London.

Maybe you could favour us by returning every few years and tell us how uncouth we are.

Good one Meg...

it is such a shame that I know many Kiwi's who are not nearly as politically correct as you.

is'nt there a resurgence of nationalism in your homeland? to many asians in auckland or something? an m.p dedicated to dismantling political correctness?

the kiwi's could teach us a lesson or two: our pauline ended up in jail!

there are cultural difference between the two nations.

a maori aquaintance of mine was telling me about how kiwi's find aussies offensive, sarcastic, smartasses: but his attitude was get used to it or go home!

Well written, Meg. Keep rocking the boat and asking the hard questions. Many nth generation Australians like myself as well as newer immigrants will thank you for it. Don't be deterred by what might crawl out and attack you on these pages.

Leigh, your statement "that Australia takes in more migrants and refugees per capita than any other country except Canada" is confused and deliberately misleading. Meg clearly differentiated between migrants like herself who find it easy to enter Australia and refugees who don't. Producing a so-called fact that combines both categories without any differentiation between the two only clouds the debate.

You have attempted to put your own spin on the old and long discredited myth about Australia being second only to Canada in the number of refugees it takes. Even if you'd quoted it correctly, this belief is totally wrong. Australia and Canada are two of only eight countries whose immigration programs actually specify an annual quota of refugees and of those eight Australia does indeed come in second behind Canada.

The reality is however that over seventy countries accept refugees and asylum seekers and of these Australia is ranked only 32nd. We manage to host one refugee for every 1,580 Australian people, Britain hosts one for every 530 Brits and Tanzania hosts one refugee for evey 76 of its people. It is the third world countries who shoulder the burden of the world's refugee problem even though they are the least well-placed to do so.

Of the 12,000 refugees Australia does admit, a great percentage of these are from refugee camps in Africa and have no way of ever getting here. Our generosity on paper looks far better than the reality and is far less than the 20,000 we have easily accomodated in the past when crisis situations have arisen.

With over 21 million refugees world wide and Australia being a relatively wealthy and sparsely-populated country, our contribution as a responsible global player is paltry to say the least. Not only this, but it is achieved on the back of deliberate misinformation and clandestine cruelty. Most Australians don't know or want to know what is really going on under the guise of protecting their borders.

Bronnie the hard core refugee activist...the guilty westerner desperate to change colour.

France wanted to change colour, become more multicultural with their oh so sophisticated snobbery...look at them now. What a laugh! Oh the racial tensions in Britain, I want that too. Me tooo. I want to join in.

The me too, keep up with the Jones attitude towards increasing the refugee intake is a recipe for riots, ultra-nationalism and anarchy. Suburbs of Paris is now looking like Ramallah thanks to naive, wooly thinking refugee transplanting.

But hey, it is all about the white guilt factor ain't it.

Many people regard New Zealanders as part of 'ourselves' , ANZACS, neighbours. Perhaps some are but attitudes like yours point out the differences that exist.
Why do you stay here then? To critisise?To show your superiority?
Why not hop back on your little boat and head for pastures greener?
We will cheerfully wave you adieu.

Sweeeet

I said on another post – we are talking about todays world and we are not talking about what was.

Meg had the singular fortune to be a New Zealander. As a migrant who arrived here back in the 1980’s from the UK I can assure Meg, being born white, middle-class and non-religious does not mean that I was able to circumvent the skills demand test, medical checks or suitability interview, for which I had to wait in line for over a year.

I guess, what this proves is if Australians are to be seen to be applying an even handed policy of "level playing field", we should get appropriately “level” with New Zealanders who, it would appear simply rock up as boat crew or as any other form of flotsom or jetsom (mmm spelling?). Migrant qualification and standards should be applied with equal rigour for anyone from anywhere in the world.

Meg, if testing your migration application against the same criteria as everyone else, would result in your application being denied – the only "Ethical" thing for you to do is to return from whence you came.

In the mean time, you can rest assured, John Howard was right when he said “WE will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.” the Prime Minister does speak for me and is thus, fully entitled to use the collective “WE”.

Ms Mundell highlights a fact that racism does exist in this country as i'm sure it does in New Zealand also. Even when it is of the "mild" type that she describes, the derogatory stereotyping remarks uttered amongst friends, it is still distasteful, but is it really as wide spread as she believes or is it just the people she chooses to acquaint with?

And regarding the governments policy on immigration and such matters, i agree it is dismal, but is it really due to a prevailing racist, xenophobic attitude inherent in the government as Ms Mundell seems to imply, or is it rather that the government is trying to preserve a way of life for its existing citizens and is erring on the side of "over-protection"?

I enjoyed Meg's article, and have always enjoyed Meg's writing, her open-mindedness, her genuine compassion, and her desire to speak up for those who have little opportunity to voice their experiences through our media.

I respect the right of all those who post here to express their opinions, and I have been part of many productive discussions on Online Opinion's forum pages. However, it is inconsistent for those posters to suggest that if a writer such as Meg Mundell disagrees with something that happens in Australia, she should leave.

If I understand what previous posters have said, their defence of Australia is based on their belief that Australia is a good country, with plenty of opportunities. And if Australia is great, then democracy is part of what makes it so.

To suggest dissenting views should be eradicated by telling those holding those views to 'go home' doesn't sit well with Australian values, as stated on the 'Australian values and principles' page of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs website:

"Allowing dissenting views encourages a healthy and strong democracy."

These forums provide excellent opportunities for people of many varying beliefs to come together and learn from each other, understanding that people of different opinions can get together and discuss things, with civility, dignity and respect for each others' experiences and beliefs.

Although I came here some 30 years ago, from The Netherlands, and became an Australian citizen in 1988, following the anti-terror laws, I increasingly feel less welcome here. Although I married an Australian, and our three children are born here, my citizenship papers may be cancelled and deported if the government decides that I'm a 'security risk'. I do not support the occupation of Iraq. As in France and Palestine, people who are oppressed and alienated may do bad things, and likewise their supporters. But is this not because good people allow the government to do bad things. We never had a referendum about Iraq. When did we declare war on the Iraqi people? We all have blood on our hands - we, as Australians, are directly involved in killing innocent Iraqi civilians. Recently I visited Asia and was repeatedly asked "why is Australia occupying Iraq?" I'm not a Muslim, and as has been shown elsewhere, opposition can come 'from native born' Australians as well as from overseas. The reputation of Australians, for social justice and mateship has declined . . . I am an Australian by choice, but now I begin to regret having made that choice . ..

Thank you Meg, absolutely lovely article.
It is not white guilt to believe that all people, regardless of their origins, should be treated with courtesy and respect.
It is not politically correct to withold judging someone until you know them.
It is not un-Australian to have compassion for terrified people fleeing persecution.
It is merely civilised.

Davo wrote "But hey, it is all about the white guilt factor ain't it".

Your one of a few here in this forum that repetitively refers to white guilt. Tell me, why the fixation?

I really like the relatively open border policy we have with New Zealand. I think we should extend the program to other willing and likeminded nations so long as they reciprocate. Europe, the USA, Malaysia, Singapore etc.

It would be great to travel and work abroad without all the red tape. It would just be a matter of grab your credit card and passport and off you go to work where ever the wages are good and the entertainment pleasant. And in the process the people of the world might move a little closer to understanding eachother.

We have a bilateral trade agreement with the USA which lets most goods move unhindered between the two places. Capital is mobile so why can't workers do the same?

We certainly live in crazy times. When we feel under threat, all kinds of crazy stuff seems to come out of some people's mouths. Sure the world is a somewhat unstable place at times these days. Does making degrading remarks about people of other races, religions or oipinions make our world safer?

I think this article may serve to help us think about our reactions to the issues of immigration debate and ask ourselves why we think this way. There are some dangerous people in the world today, but hasn't this long been the case? Maybe it is the first time terror is hitting home? To many countries terror is not new. Australia is also clearly not the only country with people wanting to come here, and spare a thought for those third world countries trying to cope with far greater numbers of refugees than us. (As someone pointed out).

Cheers

Terje, wouldn't it be nice to be able to do that, however with all the scaremongering on "terror" we would need security checks, health checks, the list goes on. As a born and bred Aussie, I don't mind Meg's comments at all, after all we are a free country, some born and bred Aussie's don't particularly like our racist component, against Aboriginal people, or migrants. I agree we should learn to get along with each other, but the "redneck" element will always be with us, but so to will the other side of compassion and tolerance for our fellow man. Those like Col Rouge, being a Tory, probably thinks Meg will vote against the government, which is why he wants her to go home. Meg has every right to voice her concern, as does every Australian citizen. What is needed is, if anyone disagrees with Meg{and I don't} is to present a contary point of view, those without a contary arguement, can only say "if you don't like it leave", and by the way Col, John{Bonsai} Howard does not speak for me, or at least 51% of the population at the present moment, if you check the latest opinion polls, so either come up with an arguement, or pull your head in....Bonsai is a little bush.

The reason why you are so readily accepted as an "Australian" Ms Meg, is because you are white, come from a nearly identical culture, and you are an attractive female.

You are implying that the attitudes of Kiwis towards non white immigrants is so different, that you are surprised at the utterences of Australians towards people of different races or cultures who Australians do not accept. That's funny, I have been reading that NZ is experiencing the same attitudes towards immigrants themselves, while traditional Maoris are even demanding ethnic homelands with racial aparteid separatism.

So please, drop the facade of hurt innocence, it is a pose which is as transparent as a sheet of glass.

Fifty years ago, trendy lefties supported Bolshevism, which promised to build a class blind, utopian society. But no country ever attained that ideal. Today's trendy lefties now have a new "ism", Multiculturalism. This promises to create a race blind, utopian society.

Unfortunately, the events in France, Britain, Spain, Thailand, Afghanistan, Iraq and numerous other countries are proving their fairyland thinking is once again wrong.

It is a cultural universal that people prefer to live amongst people of their own race and culture, people with whom they feel kinship and with whom they feel safe with. In addition, all humans make disparaging remarks about people from different cultures who are invading their people's territory. No race, ethnicity or culture is immune to those sentiments.

Why do you think that white people should be different?

Silent

there is a need to distinguish between 'degrading remarks' and 'truthful warnings' when it comes to other religions and ethnic loyalties. Failure to make that distinction will result in tit for tat sloguneering and mud slinging match of apocalyptic proportions.

The way to identify 'degrading remarks' from the other, is to note the level of 'personal attack' found in the posters remarks. If you find 'name calling' such as 'racist/bigot/neanderthal/barbarian/Xenophobe/arrogant' and the such like, there is a pretty strong indication that the perpetrator of such remarks has little substance to their position.

There are other occasions when a person actually uses a considerable level of emotive language even including abuse, yet they also might have important information in their post. One such example was the Burns brothers. (M.S. BURNS) who spoke in a VERY "Redneck" way concerning some would be immigrants (mostly the illegal kind).

I put that aside, and examined the sources he disclosed, and found them to be from legitimate sources, some including those who would be pre-disposed towards an 'anti-howard' position. Yet they referred in well documented terms how assylum seekers of Christian background were declared 'scum/unclean/untouchable' etc by those of ..er shall we say 'another' religious persuasion. The small numbers of Christians were alienated, abused, beaten,sneered at, ostracized... in places like Baxter, all simply because they were 'Christian' among larger numbers of 'others'.

The idea that people would be coming to Australia with such attitudes against others is not something I relish. You can see that attitude on the faces of those who mercilessly beat and kicked the channel 7 cameraman outside the courtroom where recent terror suspects were being dealt with.

So, when it comes to immigrants, I have only one thing to say:

Australia chooses who comes here.
Australia determines the criteria of acceptability
Australia decides how many of any racial or religious background on the basis of"
1/ Social compatability
2/ Cultural cohesian
3/ Political stability.

Would you want any less for someone wishing to join your family ?

Meg, statements from friends of friends, really does put you at the bottom of credibility. You've probably never been to Poor Augusta, listening to a taxi driver from a city, real common sense. Go away and take you politically correct friends with you. Everything you say is refuted by the facts, take a lesson in the current situation in the majority of European countries.

In Sweden, rape, robbery, assaults, mostly by muslim migrants has increased 600% in 5 years. Take a trip around real Europe, not your feel good airy fairy tours and speak to the people. You will see that much of Europe is on the verge of anarchy. Austria, Germany, are bringing in laws to remove all those that are not citizens and not employed. Why, simple immigrants are destroying the way of life and social fabric of the countries.

Meg, easy to see that you and your supporter's have no idea of what reality is. Why don't you go to Africa, or any country and see how well you are accepted racially. Write an article in Zimbabwe, Iran, Morocco, or any country about how you don't like their racist views and see what happens. Like all that have been given an easy ride here, you insult and ridicule us. Go back to your country that's collapsing under the racist tensions there.

Take your politically correct friends with you to the middle east and speak out against their racism, be sure to express your individuality by wearing short sleeves and a knee high dress. I'd love to see that.

But like all of your ilk, you say a lot of stupid things, without experience or understanding. You can't support your statements by actions or any evidence, that your approach works. You must be religious, uninformed, lacking experience or just can't see beyond the mirror in your head.

Yes Bronwyn, keep rocking the boat, until it sinks, typically politically correct. Lots of self righteous aims, but lack of reason, intelligence or substance. Note the unemployment rate of immigrant muslims here, then you'll see reality.

Thought provoking and gentle piece; and well supported by Bronwyn.

We may well be caught up in a mealstron of inter racial disharmony that goes on for quite some time. And you can point to France and Britain as much as you like. The States depsite the psuedo revolution of the sixties still is a nation divided.

The commn theme is usually represented as race where as the underlying reason is usually poverty and intolerance that simply feed off each o ther.

Much of what is being said today about our muslim friends and I am loathe to single them out but they seem to be the whipping boys this season was said albeit with less venom about the post war wave of immiggrants who came here - and the bulk of those were legal! as in fact so have most of those who floated here a while ago.

The current ferment of course is more intense. Little meaninfull efforts by our commonwealth leaders has done much to ameliorate that fact; circa Tampa they started the ball rolling and have been comfortable for many of us to keep kicking it along. We now have a parralel to the law btweenn two sides keen to seem as tough if not tougher than the other - a pre adolescent pissing contest if you like. ( or for those Americanophiles " if you will" ).

We do choose who comes here. We always have. We just stuff up the process of managing them. Very few come here hating our guts; but some of just have the knack of fostering hatred and suspicion.

Davo mentions white shame:

Speaking of anecdotal stories, I was introduced to a tenant on my family land, she pointed out her aboriginal ancestors actually own my family farm. I proudly pointed out that I the was 4th generation of my family to live here, and my uncle actully owns the farm. I told her a little of our family values and traditions. The struggles over come by my grandfather after returning home from ww2 and now his sons to hold onto this land were and are immense.

In our hands this land has been protected from logging, sub-divisions and other nasties. I sincerely hope she left with some respect for my Australian culture in her heart.

Who does the Prime Minister mean when he says “we”? I naturally assume he means Australians, you seem to identify as a New Zealander, maybe you will integrate and maybe you won't. Just as some cultures integrate after a generation and some don't.

So as the Treasurer Costello and a few other posters on here suggest, you are free to leave if we Australians disgust you. We are free here to like and dislike according to our own discretion. Personally, I'd advise growing up a little, everyone white or black has some cross to bear, its what you make of your life.

You and I have no right to ask Australians to curtail to our specific needs. A lot of my lifestyle preferences and actual situations are of "minority" values and social positions. I have never felt the need to demand understanding and compensation for who I am. Playing the "victim" game, or getting on with life, it is up to you.

If you want to rebel against something take the advice of Alchemist, go to Iran in Bondi Beach national dress (joke). But seriously maybe help Australian girls who are victims of Islamic rape or work against the Asian sex slave and heroin trade… here are some areas where you will find real victims and real criminals black and white.

Bronwyn,

Your statement that I have been deliberately misleading is offensive. You will need to brush up on your people skills to have any success in your self-appointed role as arbiter of right and wrong.

“Most Australians don't know or want to know what is really going on under the guise of protecting their borders.”

I suppose you have evidence for this sweeping statement, Bronwyn, or is it just an expression of your contempt for all those awful Australians out there who don’t share the views and self-hatred of you and your little elitist clique?

The eight countries you claim are the only ones who put a quota on refugees at least put out the sign that they are willing to accept some refugees. Other countries don’t show that willingness.

The countries you say “admit” more refugees do not do so willingly. They are swamped by people who simply turn up, and they don’t have the facilities or strength of character to insist on orderly programmes as does the Australian Government on behalf of the people who have given them three terms in office.

You obviously don’t know much about geography either, Bronwyn. Australia is indeed sparsely populated, but only because two-thirds of the continent is uninhabitable.

We all have different opinions on this site. But anyone who can describe those who disagree with her as something that “might crawl out and attack you on these pages” – as you did in your first post – is demonstrating the likelihood that she might not be a very nice person; and Ms. Mundell, not herself an abusive person in her writing, might very well be embarrassed to have a supporter like you

I went to Europe and I had to stand in a different line to other people at customs, and sometimes I have to get visas when they don't, something about an EU or whatever, but just like me they weren't citizens of the country that we were entering. Discrimination, boo hoo...

Meg,
Being Australian means speaking the same language. I am a commercial sales rep dealing with purchaising managers. We sell our product in units of six. I deal with one a NZ'er when I ask how many? They make suggestive requests, "S** please". We speak English here and unless you can speak English, then you are not really Australian.

Being part of the Australian "we" means being able to shout, "Grind those Bl** All Blacks into the turf!" or when Warne is bowling against the NZ "Come on Aussie come on". Until you can learn our humour you are still an alien. All aliens out!

be,
Are you actually a security risk as you state in your own words?
Quote, "I'm a 'security risk'. I do not support the occupation of Iraq."

Again you state, "We [Australians]... have blood on our hands", what act of terrorism have you been involved in?

be, Since you have regrets of being Australian Maybe there is a more appropiate place where you will feel at home with this statement. Quote, "I am an Australian by choice, but now I begin to regret having made that choice".

How sad is that...

Philo,if you don't like it here,do a good deed and go to France and sort out their racial/religious tensions that are now on the brink of civil war.France has had years of weak leftist rule and "Come one come all mentality," will now destroy their society and economy.

You see the intellectual elite mix internationally on an inter-racial basis and in theory with everyone having the same education and genetic disposition i.e. tolerance,work ethic,religious background etc all races should get on.The problem is that the masses must compete and create enough wealth for the intellectuals to live in their refined and protected existence.When you have to compete to survive on low incomes and little education,tensions will flair.The leftist intellectuals had no grasp of the complexity of such an ill planned immigration policy.

Had the French invited the Chinese into their country they would be complaining about them being so successful and running all the businesses.There would be no civil strife had they invited the Chinese.They don't have a victim mentality or use their religion as a crutch,they are polite ,well mannered ,work hard and mind their own business.

A multi racial society will work if it is well planned without political correctness,[ie don't let ideals cloud your judgement]with good education for all and economy that that can gainfully employ everyone.

I think in the real world of pragmatic decisions certain philosophies and races should be mostly excluded, since they are both incompatible and a negative influence on the general lifestyles and philosophies of our culture.Let them evolve on a different continent.The world is not languishing in a people drought.

If it is alright for intellectuals to look down their noses and ridicule "Rednecks",is this not the same attitudes that others decry as racism?"Redneck" is an American term describing the burnt neck of an ignorant labourer toiling in the sun.It is a form of social typing akin to racism.

It seems strange that Australia has consistently not met its set quota of refugees and yet there is such hysteria over those refugees "being let in". If your not meeting a quota why not find the rest of the quota and help the genuinely suffering!

Here's a thought - I'll send 25 Aussies to the Congo, Zaire, or Zimbabwe, and see how long they live? Welcome to the life of many in the world.

Corin you are amongst many of the left looking for simplistic solutions.Open borders,open hearts and closed minds to the complexities of our evolving societies.

Corin wrote "Here's a thought - I'll send 25 Aussies to the Congo, Zaire, or Zimbabwe, and see how long they live? Welcome to the life of many in the world"

Not need to go that far Corin. Many on this forum against refugee immigration wouldn't last two days in many parts of Australia.

Re David Boaz post, I agree with David, that Australia should and has always set the rules, for migration into this country, and that should remain the way migration is handled. In the Townsville Bulletin newspaper today, we read of a case where a self confessed peadophile, with convictions for same is USA, was allowed to migrate and study at our James Cook University, by the Dept of Immigration. He of course reoffended, and was caught by Queensland Police, and deported today. My question is if the Federal Government decides who comes, and under what circumstances they come, how is it they allowed a self confessed, convicted peadophile into the country, as if we don't have enough of our own, it seems we are now importing them? Are we importing any other unsavory people, are the security checks being performed properly? the Minister for Immigration, Amanda Vanstone declined to comment to the Townsvill Bulletin, seems to me to be a very shabby operation, under Ruddock, and now Vanstone, I'm afraid I don't have a lot of faith in the Government processes to protect it's citizens, when these situations occur.

Thankyou BOAZ. Its a fair point, but I do know the difference between between 'degrading remarks' and 'truthful warnings', I was talking about the former not the latter. One often finds, however, that some of us stretch the meaning of "truthful warning" to such an extent, that it targets people who are not involved in the extremist elements within certain religions. Yes Boaz, Christains still get discriminated against, by people from many different religious persuasions. I agree we need limits on immigration and protection against those who intend to harm other others walzting into our country. The issue is not to target people by some sort of narrow minded view of "association", ie because they maybe be Christain, Muslim, or whatever.

Arjay,

Look I don't disagree with you. I'm not some "l"iberal ideologue hell bent on refugee rights. Boaz makes some good points as well.

Here's a thought for you both though - in Britain they process their assylum seekers in detention within 3 months - why not Australia.

The other thing is that I wasn't making it up that Australia sets a quota of assylum seekers per year (that the Government thinks appropriate in the overall immigration program) and it hasn't ever reached it. Look there are camps of refugees all over Africa, the Balkans, and Afghanistan. Why not make the que work and find genuine assylum seekers over there.

Simplistic .......

Last point, Australia under Howard has higher immigration levels than under most years that Hawke and Keating were in power. So Howard talks tough, but in reality he is promoting the changing face of Australia as much if not more than any previous leader. He just won't tell you he is. Genius politician.

I'm not Left leaning - I'm a Blair man - get it Right.

Corin

To Mr Corin Mc Carthy.

The utter stupidity of rushing immigration checks for asylum shoppers in Britain is something which quite literally blew up in the faces of 60 Londoners only a couple of months ago. That some of the perpetrators and instigators of this outrage were “asylum seekers” who had gone to Britain in order to “escape” religious and political persecution simply underlined the fact that such people can not automatically be trusted.

During the Tampa showdown, a friend of mine was holidaying in Italy and he said that the Italians were utterly fascinated with the whole show. He said that pictures of Aussie SAS storming the Tampa seemed to be on Italian TV 24 hours a day. He told me that Italians were congratulating him for Australia’s stand against illegal immigrants claiming “asylum” and they said that it was about time the Italian government showed some backbone and did the same as the Aussies.

But I don’t want you to think that I am against asylum seekers per se. On the contrary, there are tens of thousands of white people now living in oppression in “Zimbabwe” (Rhodesia) who should be immediately allowed to come to Australia. These people are culturally akin to Australia, speak our language, have the same standards of behaviour and were our allies in two world wars. They can be relied upon to become good citizens and not create crime and welfare prone ethnic ghettoes.

But you are right in claiming that the Liberals do not give a damn about “the changing face of Australia. All they care about is money and power. Multiculturalism equals “divide and rule”, and that is just fine with them. Whatever social problems this creates is almost entirely limited to the confines of far away and exotic places like Bankstown or Campsie. The rich live cosseted in their wealthy suburbs behind an economic fence higher than the Berlin Wall.

Don’t tell your leftie mates that you are a Blair man or you will have a social fatwa put upon your head and be caste out among the despised suburban heathens.

Corin, this country is collapsing under the weight of the people already here. This Eco system is designed for no more than 10-15 million people,. it can't sustain our current population. To bring in more, is just plain stupid. You really need to look at what is happening in other places to see that we are on the same track as they are and in the grip of a religious war. All you and your ilk want to do is throw open the gates and say, come and take over.

Rainer, there are those that are against immigration that have the full support of indigenous people in this regard. I would back those against it, to survive against those that support it in the outback. Zimbabweans and Sth African whites, get to know a few and see how they turn out. There are some very racist and supremest ones, I have dealt with a few in Tasmania and they have a very un Australian way of looking at those that are not of their social set, which is Afrikaans. These people I find obnoxious.

The vast majority of those wishing to come here are muslim. If they were fundamentalist christians we should also be thinking seriously as to what their agenda is. There should be no more immigration until we have sorted out ourselves, though don't hold you breath.

redneck says:
During the Tampa showdown, a friend of mine was holidaying in Italy and he said that the Italians were utterly fascinated with the whole show. He said that pictures of Aussie SAS storming the Tampa seemed to be on Italian TV 24 hours a day. He told me that Italians were congratulating him for Australia's stand against illegal immigrants claiming "asylum" and they said that it was about time the Italian government showed some backbone and did the same as the Aussies.

.................................................................

But...but...but...th...that can't be right. Margot Kingston, Philip Adams, the ABC 'experts' on all things and others told us that Australia was being shamed in the media right across Europe during the Tampa incident.

Leigh

“Most Australians don't know or want to know what is really going on under the guise of protecting their borders.”

"I suppose you have evidence for this sweeping statement, Bronwyn, or is it just an expression of your contempt for all those awful Australians out there who don’t share the views and self-hatred of you and your little elitist clique?"

Yes, Leigh, I do have evidence which I would be happy to share with you if I felt you were interested.

And

"We all have different opinions on this site. But anyone who can describe those who disagree with her as something that “might crawl out and attack you on these pages” – as you did in your first post – is demonstrating the likelihood that she might not be a very nice person; and Ms. Mundell, not herself an abusive person in her writing, might very well be embarrassed to have a supporter like you"

Point taken, Leigh. I have read enough of these posts now though to know that views such as those expressed by Meg do unfortunately attract a lot of personal abuse and racist attack, both of which I consider to be fairly low and both of which were already occurring here, which is what I was referring to.

Don't bother trying to psychoanalyse me, Leigh. I'm more interested in fair and substantiated debate. As I'm sure are most readers.

Australia was being shamed by Tampa, Sage. It was being shamed in the cocktail parties in New York and the nouveau riche clubhouses in Europe, where the sons and daughters of the local burghers sit around sipping latte's and trying to find some way to denigrate their own country and their own people.

Most of these characters were not only born with silver spoons in their mouths, most of them got the whole silver service. Do you remember that Victorian Law student who had went to the most exclusive girls school in Australia? The one who burned the Australian flag in front of TV cameras while screaming "What has this country ever done for me!"

Even Meg Mundell admits that she is middle class. And espousing pro multiculturalism ideals is as big a fashion statement indicating her social position as bragging about sailing across the Tasman in some cashed up son and heir's yacht.

I'll bet that Bronnie did not earn her living cutting sandwiches in a takeaway shop either. Working and disadvantaged class women have a more jaundiced and realistic view of human nature. Bronwyn's sentiments are typical of a cashed up person who appears to have a neurotic need to continuosly display their moral and intellectual superiority over the Great Unwashed.

Sort of class snobbery.

Ok - my point and get it - is that immigration levels are very high under Howard! Much higher than the early and mid 90's when Keating was leader. Howard obviously believes high immigration is necessary. If you think he's wrong Redneck - vote for someone else!

It is hard entering a debate after many comments have been posted. I could respond to many postings, but I’ll keep it simple and just respond to the most recent.

Dear Corin

I heartily agree that immigration rates are far too high. I think Howard is absolutely wrong in this regard. Oh if only the answer was to simply not vote for him next time round.

Immigration should be lowered to net zero. That is, equal to emigration – a total of about 30 000 per annum. This would take it out of the population growth equation. I believe population stabilisation is essential in this country, as in every country, in the interests of sustainability – which is the paramount concern for all of us.

I have always thought that we should increase our refugee intake, to about 24 000 – making it by far the largest category of a 30 000 pa intake. But gee, racial tensions in France, Britain and other countries, and the ominous developments in Australia regarding the new terrorism laws and the reactions from Muslim and other minority groups here, have made me question this and start wondering whether we should be increasing our aid to refugee black spots, thus helping them in their home countries, and not bringing them here at all

Why don't Leigh, Sage and redneck form a club, it could be called Neo-Nazi's Australia, unfortuneatly your implied intimidation, does not work on intellegent human beings, such as Bronwyn, so I would suggest, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, that you try to add constructive input, instead of irrational nonsense, and present a case properly, for your side, as your comments thus far make me feel embassesed for you all.

I’m Meg. This will be my only contribution to this thread.

Quoting Bronwyn: “I have read enough of these posts now though to know that views such as those expressed by Meg do unfortunately attract a lot of personal abuse and racist attack.’

Yes, it's been interesting to cop this. No personal hassle, but the nasty responses to an honest and non-hostile article expose the latent anger, suspicion and hypocrisy I was highlighting, and which we all need to question.

Those who got defensive, take a gentle breath and re-read the article – note the positive comments about Australia and its people. Don't misrepresent my story as a simplistically ugly scenario.

What are “Australian values”? Did the angry respondents demonstrate them? If not, should they too be given the boot? No, I think not.

Quoting Redneck: “Even Meg Mundell admits that she is middle class. And espousing pro multiculturalism ideals is as big a fashion statement indicating her social position as bragging about sailing across the Tasman in some cashed up son and heir's yacht…"

For the record, that ‘cashed-up son and heir’ was a broke wreck. I left home at 15, have cut hundreds of sandwiches and worked many menial and low-paid jobs to support myself. You haven’t revealed your real name, so enough frankness from me! But I’ve lived a far from safe or sheltered life – and an interesting one. Yet you see my image, read the words ‘middle class’, and whip out your cookie cutter. But people the world over don’t fit the rigid labels you so readily slap on them.

Who has compassion? If you vote yes, you represent hope for the future (whatever your political label). Those who don’t must admit they’re doing more than rocking the boat; they’re strangling life itself.

Let’s give the first option a shot. Whether you agree with me or not, how about we surprise ourselves with more constructive and thoughtful comments?

SHONGA, your charientism is appreciated but fails to move me. You should welcome diverse comments because they present a chance to test your own thoughts. The perceived shallowness of some opinions may be a sign of fatigue at seeing the same old tropes trotted out.

To Meg

Your article was an attack on the attitudes of Australians towards immigrants. So you can hardy complain if we the aggrieved don’t chuck your superior attitude right back in your face. You seem to think that it is reprehensible for Australians to unquestioningly accept a white New Zealand “boat person” but not a “refugee” “boat person” from Afghanistan.

Every race, creed and culture on this planet is far more accepting of immigrants from within their own cultural, ethnic and racial group. And I do not understand how you do not instinctively understand this or how you think that it is an in way wrong. People prefer to live amongst people who they consider are their own kith and kin and with whom they feel safe with. That is a cultural universal. It is not some psychological disease intrinsic to the white race.

It is as plain as the nose on your face that some ethnicities and races are noted for ther criminal behaviour while the Muslim religion in particular is noted for it’s extreme hostility to non believers. People from these particular cultures can hardly be expected to be welcome immigrants.

But people from related races and cultures who have Australian standards of behaviour and who have Protestant European philosophies on such controversial topics on abortion, divorce, birth control, individual freedoms, and the separation of church and state, are obviously more acceptable immigrants than people from cultures which oppose these concepts. Multiculturalism has been a disaster in every society cursed with it, and some countries are ungovernable because of it. Why you, as a presumably intelligent woman, want Australia to emulate self evident failure is beyond me.

It is a pity that you say that this will be your only response on this topic. I presume it is because you are terrified of putting your silly humanitarian ideals up against an informed opponent who will tear them to peices. Go and run and hide, Meg. I will deal with your PC indoctrinated acolytes instead.

Indeed Meg

<<I’m white, middle-class, non-religious, was born in (New Zealand)>>

Lets look more closely at this, and 'why' you would not experience any 'hasssles' due to your ethnicity or religion.

1/ White+English speaking = basic socio/cultural compatability.

2/ Non Religious. = Not likely to wish to set up an 'IslamicState' in Australia (though some seem to be giving it a good shot)

3/ Middle Class ...some inherited Wealth from broken treaties ?

4/ From New Zealand. Sadly, the above actually point to the outrageous and inhumane treatment of Indigneous Maoris through the blantant and opportunistic breaking of the Treaty of Waitangi, in part due to the capitalistic pressure from greedy and and unconcienable Australians-one man in particular.

So, its quite possible your actual 'existence' is immoral (due to a state founded on 'greed' and the exploitation of others) and 'illegal' due to the broken treaty.

The same goes for many of we Australian.

MEG, There are 3 lessons to be learnt from the historical background of both Australia and New Zealand.

1/ Due to the fact of this generation also being victims of history, we cannot really change things much. but we CAN seek to put right as much of what our forebears put wrong as possible !

2/ Any fool can see that allowing 'large numbers of foreigners' into their country is cultural/social suicide. You and I are living testimony to this fact.

3/ It is still possible to enjoy a wonderful fulfilling life for both indigenous and non indigenous people, through a

-recognition of history, a
-redeeming of our attitudes, and
-renewal of our hearts.

Atheism offers us nothing on this score -Lack of enduring valid moral foundations leads to either 'sentimental' fondness for supposed 'good' (Humanism) or... to a nihilistic existential brutality which saw the Waitangi treaty broken.

National repentance, humility and faith in Christ will indeed bring the Kingdom of God into our land, 'in our hearts'. The government will then begin to reflect this individual renewal. The power of national repentance is ound in the story of the Welsh revival of 1904.
http://www.welshrevival.com/lang-en/1904history.htm

OK Bronwyn. Let’s see the evidence that “Most Australians don’t know or want to know what is really going on under the guise of protecting their borders.” I think that if you did have properly referenced evidence which can be checked, you would have provided it already and not worried about whether or not I was interested. I don’t think Jung could analyse you, Bronwyn. I certainly don’t have the slightest idea what makes Australia-bashers like you tick; don’t think that I could live with the horror of finding out. If Australia every really needs defending, I hope you are in front of me and not behind.

Shonga. Someone who names himself after an ancient African witchdoctor whose followers removed body parts from still living people to cure their friends is calling me, Sage and Redneck neo-Nazis? Bronwyn is an intelligent human being? We are trying to intimidate? Get a grip!

And don’t try to fool us into thinking that you believe that we, or anyone else, are entitled to an opinion different from yours. You and your friend Bronwyn are two of the three regulars here who certainly do not believe that and denigrate others with name-calling.

If you and those of your ilk wish to spout nonsense, find yourself a nice little chat room where they write in the equivalent of grunts.

Meg asks, "...as a citizen of this country, a land settled by boat people, I’m still wondering: who does the Prime Minister mean when he says “we”?"

"We" are those who hear and respond to dog-whistle politics, Meg, and there's been no shortage of it.

The federal government has quietly but surely been dismantling the concept of multiculturalism since it came to power in 1996, finding more political traction in concepts such as the 'battlers', 'ordinary Australians', and the 'silent majority'.

John Howard's tacit approval of Pauline Hanson's maiden speech in that same year, when she claimed Australia was "in danger of being swamped by Asians", set the ball rolling. In 2001 it was determined Muslims were the kind of people who would toss their children into the sea. There has always been always an element of racism in Australia, starting with the Chinese on the goldfields and subsequent White Australia policy in the mid-1800's. Postwar it was the Europeans with their funny food and pronunciations. In the 70's it was the Vietnamese; in the 80's, the Chinese again.

Since September 11 2001 it has taken minimal effort for our government to maintain a sizeable groundswell of resentment towards foreigners, anyone not 'one of us', especially any who dare question our priorities. Many responses on this page illustrate this - " Multiculturalism has been a disaster in every society cursed with it, and some countries are ungovernable because of it." Australia has been a multicultural country since 1788; we'd be living of kangaroo meat & macadamia nuts had it not been so. At least the author had the gumption to log on with an appropriate username.

Immigration issues facing Australia and New Zealand are currently very similar. How to accommodate a large range of foreign cultures and ideas in a homogenous society fearful of 'the other' and the unknown. Though national borders are the key to the regulation of who enters the country this is only half the story. Our attitude to those who do is what makes the resulting community function.

Correction - there has always been an element of racism in Australia, government-sponsored or otherwise, starting with the recognition of terra nullis. The persecution of Catholic convicts and immigrants in our settlement years carried on for generations. I would suggest racism is an unfortunate acquired attitude in every society, though I would welcome any argument that says otherwise.

Whoever we are, in making decisions about who comes to this country, we need to keep some perspective of the overall picture.
First, we should acknkowledge that we live in a finite world.
Second, it would be appropriate to acknowledge that, during the time (half hour?) spent reading this post and others, to the order of ten million people have been in the process of bonking. People have been at it, maybe between royalty's satin sheets, and certainly on flea-ridden cloth in Uganda. For lust, or for love, they were doing what has come naturally for mammals during the course of a hundred million years.
Third, far too much bonking takes place southout adequate precautions. As a result, more births than deaths occur: eacy year the world greets extra numbers (about equal to the population of Germany) clamoring for sustenance and a fair go.
Fourth, there is great disparity of living standards across the world, and about 20 million Australians are living much better than several billion others.
Fifth, the 6.4 billion people of the world are living beyond the environmental means of their own territories. And Australia is also flogging its environmental base to death just propping up the lifestyles of its 20 million.
Sixth and finally, world communications are such as to enable the comparatively deprived to see how much better-off are the more affluent: they know in which direction to head for improvement.
While cross-pollintation of human intellect is desirable, Australia will not be doing itself, or other communities, favours by fostering the rate of depletion of resources in promoting continuous population increase. We can best help those less fortunate by providing assitance in their own countries. And, while we can't stop them from bonking, we can provide greater assistance than at present in the means of decreasing their fertility.
We, while considering who should be allowed entry to Australia, should not take a blinkered view of the disturbing larger picture

Come on Aussie, come on, come on! You have all become to serious on this thread, we are dealing with a disspirited NEW Zealander who is advising us on immigration policy. This is family heritage warfare, good hearted rivalry. Who believes New Zealanders have the ultimate in immigration policy? Send all disgruntled NZ home, and the place will become a little happier, I say.

Meg didn't have to enter by boat that is the just her point of recognition. Planes fly over the ditch several times each day to the sheep paddocks and that method is less stressful. I suppose she flies home several times each year to see her relatives? It is just that home sickness is setting in again.

COLINSET.. bravo !
You might be amazed at how close your post was to the One Nation Immigration policy, which contrary to the 'left' inspired media blitz and the ensuing popular opinion was more about POPULATION than about race.
I'm not a Pauline Hanson fan myself, but I know good policy when I see it.

Your other points are also valid, and deserving of reflection.

Reaching out to other countries at the source of overpopulation is indeed a very good move.

OVERPOPULATION
I'll guarantee you one thing, once the population of India and other places reaches saturation point, they will send up a howl of protest about 'greedy racist white people from Australia' when we end up tightening our border control ever further !

POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM
Needless to say the Greens and Democrats will be at the forefront of the bleeding heart crowd, calling on government to 'share our abundance' etc.. (code for 'bring in more Green or Dem voters) Then there will be the obligatory 'family re-union' immigration increases and before we know it, 'race' wont be our problem, lack of water and other resources will !

Hey Bennie, “there has been an undercurrent of racism” in every country in the world since the year dot. Not just Australia. Every species on this planet from Chipmunks, to Primates, to Stickleback Lizards, defines a territory and defends it against all comers. A Groper might tolerate a Snapper invading his territory, but he or she will not be happy if another Groper swims in and starts poking around.

Do you have a front fence?

Racism just happens to be pretty normal behaviour, because it is simply a manifestation of normal competing in group/ out group hostility. And that has been going on since the year dot also. Racism can even be considered exemplary behaviour in wartime. No country, race, creed or culture has ever been immune to it’s effects because they are all secular and usually exclusive concepts by nature themselves. That is why every country in the world has a border and an army.

That border states “within these precincts the laws based upon OUR culture are supreme.”

Where two cultures co exist in a single territory, and their concepts of right and wrong are mutually exclusive, then you have a big problem. Tolerance of the minority by the majority is directly proportional to the degree to which the minority accepts the dominance of the majority culture. But where potentially hostile minorities are expanding through birth rate differentials or through immigration, hostility from the majority is normal behaviour. The majority knows that sooner or later, the two groups will polarise into competing factions for the same territory and a cultural clash must occur.

The result has always been civil strife, insurrection, terrorism, repression, demands for separatism and even civil war.

Oh and Bennie, the most reliable guide to a persons cultural values, and therefore their attitudes and behaviour, just happens to be the colour of their skin.

I'm curious, Redneck, that you wrote in your previous rant "the most reliable guide to a persons cultural values, and therefore their attitudes and behaviour, just happens to be the colour of their skin"

I am quite certain that the only thing I have in common with you IS the colour of my skin.

You are so full of hatred for anything or anyone that differs from your narrow little 'norm' your beliefs and what passes for your 'culture' are the antithesis to mine. I don't automatically HATE as you do, anyone simply because of the colour of their skin.

Therefore it can be argued that you and I differ completely in our cultural views - does this mean that one of us should leave Australia as you would have anyone who differs from you leave this society? In that case, pack your bags, as a sixth generation Aussie I'm not going anywhere. I'm making the decision here and I have decided that Australia doesn't need mean little trouble makers like you. You complain about encountering racism from others and it has never occurred to you that you are the cause. You create your own problems, redneck - either shape up or leave.

I have more in common with anyone of intelligent and compassion than I do with you.

(I predict really scathing rebuke from redneck - can hardly wait).

Having been away for a few days, I've just been perusing this thread. As others have expressed, the somewhat predictable torrent of xenophobic and racist bile is rather dismaying, but hardly surprising.

I'd like to thank Meg for her gentle perspective on Australia's greatest cultural deficit - i.e. the racism that has been integral, either overtly or more subtly, to settler culture ever since Captain Cook. While I don't think that the people who post in this forum are necessarily representative of all Australians, the kinds of hateful, intolerant and/or outright racist comments that tend to predominate here when these issues are discussed are instructive. It's as if the racist cancer in our culture moves around our collective social body, manifesting its tumorous presence in vilification of, variously, Aborigines, Chinese, Pacific Islanders, Greeks, Italians, "Balts", "Yugoslavs", Vietnamese, Lebanese and most recently Muslims.

The utter stupidity of this national cancer is succinctly expressed in this quotation from the most recent comment in this sad thread:

"the most reliable guide to a persons cultural values, and therefore their attitudes and behaviour, just happens to be the colour of their skin."

Sigh.

Bronwyn,

Just one last look for the evidence you have for showing such contempt for your fellow Austalians. Time to move on.

But, not surprisingly, no evidence here. Nil. Zilch. Zero.

Never mind. Keep on "screaming". Even the people you hate like a joke.

Bronwyn,
It is a fact that most people are afraid to look deeply into the mirror and see their faults. It is one reason why western civilisation has a superiority complex – it avoids responsibility for its contribution to the state of the world.

That you have looked and seen, while intelligently trying to educate others to our collective issue, I applaud you.

Redneck, this has to be addressed:
"the most reliable guide to a persons cultural values, and therefore their attitudes and behaviour, just happens to be the colour of their skin."

I have a cricket team of friends – 4 of which are from various sub-continents. They are more reliable and honest than most of the white guys in the team.

You are one of 2 things –
A thoughtful man trying to stimulate dissent to get people thinking (which is highly unlikely due to the illiterate nature of your posts, as the concept would take a man of much greater intellect than you have displayed – which of course could be part of the ruse…)

A man of such little character and diminished self-worth that you have to belittle those easy targets around you to feel any sense of accomplishment or worth.

I know which I believe…

Reason,

You are not the first and won't be the last to try and reason with Redneck. There is no point. He is just one of those people who are not interested in hearing what the other side have to say. I just skip his comments now because they're all so predictable. Debate is supposed to be interesting and his preaching is just not interesting.

To Scout, Reason and Mahatma Sitting Duck.

I can hardly attack all of you for prejudging me and attacking me personally. After all, I am one of the greatest offenders of those particular arts.

But I at least try to submit a reasoned argument before I stick the boot in. Your last posts made no attempt to argue against my line of reasoning at all. You simply piled on the ad hominem as a means of avoiding what you do not want to contemplate.

Scout came the nearest to staying in the arena instead of just catcalling from the stands. But the best he could do was to ask me a question instead of formulating a reasoned response himself.

Now the fact that none of you could debate yourselves out of wet paper bags is OK. To any impartial observer it means that I have got you pretty much where I want you and that you are too scared to respond to my line of reasoning.

Analysis of the pro / anti multiculturalism topics appears to me to display a repeating pattern. The anti's put up all of the good arguments in an objective manner, while the pro multiculturalists resort to emotive language and self righteous posturing as a substitute for a defensible position.

Hey boys and girls, once again we have got the trendy little sods on the run.

Scout,
I note you feel you have exclusive rights to this land and suggest your opponents leave. Quote, "You create your own problems, redneck - either shape up or leave." Are you any different to redneck?

mahatma duck,
I wonder if you can spot the difference in this quote of yours? One is not a race but a universal occupational and exclusive religion.
WHICH ONE?
"Aborigines, Chinese, Pacific Islanders, Greeks, Italians, "Balts", "Yugoslavs", Vietnamese, Lebanese and most recently Muslims."

I like the questions implied in the article. What if she wasn't a white anglo kiwi female? What if she was a middle-eastern male, kiwi or not? Would the pathway to Ozdom be as compliant?
The predjudices of the individual officials involved cannot be ignored. It needs to be counteracted with paticular attention to the financial status of the immigrant. You can currently legally 'buy' your way into Oz. This should be changed...

Not so Swilkie.We need those who have money because on average they also have intelligence.Good genetics means better intelligence and hence prosperity.

We need both to pay all the taxes for the less abled lay abouts and leftist intellectuals to pontificate about the evils of capitalism.

Spot on Colinsett and David Boaz (both 13/11). Directing a much greater aid effort towards refugee black spots and fertility-reduction in third-world countries are two vital policies that need to go hand in hand with much-reduced immigration and much-increased effort on real sustainability in Australia.

Going off on a bit of a tangent, in response to David Boaz – where on earth are the Greens and Democrats at with all of this? Why aren’t they leading the way? Where is their expression on real sustainability issues? And to think I not only used to be a member of the Democrats, then the Greens, but I ran for state parliament for the Greens! But boy did they both just completely lose me over the Tampa issue.

Alright, I’ll put a sock in it….. and go to bed.

Philo - once again you miss my point. Sigh. Perhaps I am too subtle for you. I was pointing out to redneck that colour of skin does not necessarily indicate values which are compatible - as I pointed out I have no values in common with redneck and come from common celtic stock who migrated to Australia many generations ago - supposedly that would place me in rednecks culture and, of course, it doesn't.

Now Meg is asking who will be accepted as an Australian citizen and who won't - now Philo do you know what irony is? I set myself up as redneck's judge and jury and stated that he should leave. Thus emphasizing Meg's point as to who should play God. I don't have any more right to demand that redneck leave than I do to expect my immigrant friends to leave because of the colour of their skin.

Personally Philo your exchanges with me throughout this forum suggests that you just like to disagree with me on principle.

And redneck - multiculturalism will fail by the shortsighted and narrow perspective of people like you.

Life isn't perfect, everyday we make compromises with people (white/black/whatever) who we may or may not like (bosses, door bitches, driving in traffic) we do this to get along. All you contribute of this forum is a constant stream of hatred. Do you only mix with white people, do you not get out in this world at all? Many years ago I was raped by a caucasian man - I don't hate all white men as a result. Recently an Indian woman took it upon herself to give me a great deal of support when I was injured at work - no gain for herself - she simply wanted to help and was in a position to do so.

Redneck if you take your hostility out into the world every day - then that is what you will receive.

On the contrary, Mr Swilkie, the notion that a potential citizen could buy their way into Australia has much to recommend it.

Australia, like every other country settled by white Europeans, is one of the best countries in the world. We could charge potential immigrants a million bucks a head for the privelege of immigrating to this country and we would still have to beat them of with sticks at the immigration office.

Could you imagine 100,000 new immigrants per year paying a million bucks each for the prvelege of becoming Aussie citizens? That would be $100 billion dollars a year added to our economy. Hey, even the Labor Party could balance a budget with that much cash.

Better still, most people with that kind of money are usually of the brighter sort who are productive and law abiding. This would help offset the thirty years of politically correct immigration into this country which has seen crime rates spiral upwards and crushing welfare bills which threaten to beggar us all.

We have enough Moe and Maquarie Fields types in this country already who are looting the public purse while selling drugs, bonking themselves silly and stealing our cars. And we most definitely do not need any more like that. The last thing Australia needs is any more addict littered Cabramatta's or bullet swept Bankstown's to add to our intractable and expensive social problems.

Dear Meg

As an Australian living in New Zealand I have to take issue with your claim that 'Kiwis don’t get the sheep jokes thing, and are slightly concerned about Aussies’ fascination with the theme.'

Come off it! I dare say they invented the slurs (they certainly claim – ad nauseam mind you - that they invented everything else of peripheral importance...)

And I hope with the claim that, 'Kiwis encounter a watered-down, jokey form of racism' [in Australia], you are not for a second suggesting that the reverse is not true.

From my experience there is a constant theme of 'anti-Australianism' in this country (primarily through the media) which I really do not think can be compared to Australian jibes at Kiwis. However whilst you happily call whatever comments Australians make 'racist' I'm more convinced that Kiwi comments are based on a deep held sense of inferiority which they happily project on Australians (Kiwi’s do LOVE calling Australians arrogant and American - I think it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy and loved…)

Time and time again redneck ( well at least twice ) you have claimed that you and perhaps others " have the lefties on the run!" - dont quite see it myself; it may be they take time out to have a latte' or two, or take the labradoodle for a walk in the park - but they always seem to return; relaxed and confortable they may be but on the run? I dont think so.

And While I am loathe to join you guys in the tangential bickering I fell compelled: You and Arjay seem to think assets equate with intelligence and goodness - thats a bit of a stretch;

Consider for a moment Bond, Skase,Herscu, Willimas (HIH) Adler, the onetel boys, Martha Stweart, Abe Goldberg , G Balos and F A Pugliese. Ansty customers one and all - the seemed to have a hankering for other peoples money in the best spirit of capitalism. The well to do have no mortgage proper conduct or intelligence

With respect to the list, one that could be expeanded with ease let me add..... as an unreconstructed leftie I do not confuse rat cunning with intelligence or correlate material success with ethical or good behaviour I leave that to those who subscribe the theory of the protestant work ethic - and those who, in aspiring to gather more stuff around them, are blinded to the conduct of those who already have lots of it.

I must go now; I have chattering to do, chardonnay to drink - I might even go to the Anti IR Rally in Mellbourne and meet up with a few comrades; aahh how I miss the barricades.

Well Leigh, just when you've announced my big no-show, I've happened to check in and find this thread still going. And with such vengeance! Tempered fortunately by some calm and reason from Mahatma Duck, sneekeepete and a few others.

Here as mentioned earlier are a couple of sites that may give you some idea of this government's cruelty towards people legitimately seeking asylum here. http://tonykevin.com/ gives an insight into the regular ADF practice of turning boats back towards Indonesia, with no regard as to whether or not they will actually make it and with no follow-up of what happens to them if they do. http://baxterwatch.net/ gives some insight into the hell-hole which is the Baxter detention centre.

The expense we go to to keep asylum seekers out is just not worth it. Not only is it counter-productive but it only leads to us being resented by the countries concerned. The numbers of people seeking asylum here are small and most of them are young which is just the demographic needed by an aging population. Think of the contribution they could have made to our society by now if they hadn't been left to languish for years in indefinite detention. Instead, most of them are now battling insanity.

Australia will be a safer place for us all if we stop demonising people of middle eastern descent. Doing the right thing by a few thousand asylum seekers would be a good start, not to mention pulling out of Iraq, increasing overseas aid and developing a more independent and regionally-focused foreign policy.

Fighting fire with fire as we are doing now is just breeding more contempt. For every would-be suicide bomber we lock up, we just arm another thousand with enough anger to want to step up and take their place. We've got to get a bit smarter than that.

By the way, contrary to your assertion, I'm not a regular contributor. Not that it matters. It's just another thing you've got wrong that's all.

Redneck

"I'll bet that Bronnie did not earn her living cutting sandwiches in a takeaway shop either. Working and disadvantaged class women have a more jaundiced and realistic view of human nature. Bronwyn's sentiments are typical of a cashed up person who appears to have a neurotic need to continuosly display their moral and intellectual superiority over the Great Unwashed."

It is ignorant of you to assume that those holding an opposing view to your own are cashed-up silver-spooners. True, I have received a good education, but at public institutions and well before Little Johnnie came along and destroyed the concept of universal education. Apart from that, I have absolutely nothing in common with the class to which you have so arrogantly assigned me.

I've worked intermittently and mostly casually and my life is far from the easy street existence that you imply. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with the working class and with any other group struggling to find acceptance in this harsh dog-eat-dog world. There are many others like myself who do the same and your accusations of snobbery and elitism are just so wide of the mark that it only destroys further the little credibility you might have.

Compassion, fairness and inclusiveness will always win out over hatred, divisiveness and intolerance. Try it for a change -you'll feel better immediately!

Bronwyn

"Australia will be a safer place for us all if we stop demonising people of middle eastern descent."

Previously it was easy to label someone as a loony right-winger when they would go on about terrorist cells with in the western muslim population, until London. Now it seems as if we had been right. Also warnings about Europe been so stuffed by islam colonisation and perversion of the PC laws have been foo-fooed for years by the left. Are you reconsidering Europe yet?

How about they and your multi cult stop demonising us? Have you no respect for Australian opinion?
Your attempts to stereotype us as racist are just plain rude.

Hard-core refugee activist Bronnie, I would rather 'middle easterners' feel resentful towards us on the other side of the ocean than in our community. The cameraman brawlers illustrate my point.

What you say looks good on paper, but in the real world is quite ugly. A bit like multiculturalism in France.

Arjay, in my 44 years in this mortal coil I’ve never found financial status to be an indicator of intelligence.
Redneck, I live & grew up in the Bankstown area. Haven’t been shot yet, although the local speed camera is a little ballistically-scarred!
My point is that the “Business visa” system is overly valued by the powers-that-be.
Government (& Redneck) obviously like immigrants using this pathway to Oz- on the surface, it appears to be of benefit, but it contradicts what this country truly needs – skilled, average workers.
My observations indicate we seem to have two classes of immigrant - the wealthy with the means and desire to uproot from their native lands to live in a place like Oz, and the true refugee, who can no longer live in their home country, for whatever reason.
I’ve found that the refugee, in general, values highly the opportunities offered in Oz in the way of real employment etc, while the business immigrant often provides little long term benefit to Oz society. Would a wealthy Malaysian family come to Oz to employ people? I think not. It’s much cheaper to set up manufacturing biz (for example) in SEA than Oz.
To be fair (to the immigration system), ones education & skills are taken into account on application for Oz residency. The problem is that financial status takes precedence. The wealthy, uneducated will win a spot on the boat or plane over the educated, skilled, yet poor person every time

Oh dear,

Arjay: "We need those who have money because on average they also have intelligence.Good genetics means better intelligence and hence prosperity." Jamie Packer, anyone?
Redneck (as usual): "the most reliable guide to a persons (sic) cultural values, and therefore their attitudes and behaviour, just happens to be the colour of their skin. " Geez, then let's just forget about trying the blond, fair-skinned, blue-eyed alleged Sydney jihadist - he's clearly One Of Us.
Sage: Good work on your use of charientism. Proof, if proof were needed, that possession of a thesaurus doesn't confer liberal values.

I love Redneck's logic in the way that it apparently makes myself, and presumeably, himself, so close to people like the lovely Martin Byrant, and Ivan Milat, and those Snowtown picklers.

People can be good, bad, evil, angelic, arrogant, deluded, brilliant, sweet, kind or stupid NO MATTER their colour of skin, country of origin, or type of faith.

Woah!
This thread, apart from some honourable exceptions, really is enough to make me wish I wasn't Australian, if these sentiments are meant to be those of your average Aussie!
Some of them are reminiscent of the views of your average German about Jews in the 1930s.
Oh, and Redneck (brilliant alias, by the way) you argue that having money and being the member of a certain class indicates intelligence and then you brow beat Meg and Bronwyn for having an easy life (maybe money) and being members of a certain class, an assumption you make based purely on their opinions. Do you see a contradiction here? Maybe white immigrants with money from a certain class are the last people you'd really want coming here, because they might, indeed, be intelligent (well, maybe some of them) and so reject narrow, racist opinions for what they are; stupid.

The sneekster is emboldened by some of the stuuf he reads from time to time;

I visited the blog site of Con George -Kabatzis yesterday - I recommend it; he is really keen on putting to the terrorists.

Meredith; It is still easy to go on about the looney right banging on about terrorist cells in the west - in spite of London - because some from the right are so jolly shrill about these things - no one said they werent likely to be there. In fact I am surprised that some people were so shocked at the prospect of home grown terror.

No amount of preventative measures would have stopped action like that - and England has been geared up for this sort of thing since the seventies.

And Meredith in a comment to Bronwyn; you make reference to Australian opinion - my cry for a definition of this goes unheeded; what is an Australian opinion? - and you can add to that a defintion of "our way of life" and "our values" - it would seem I have been living a lie all this time as I am soooo out of step with those who make constant reference to these things of "ours".

And As for Islam colonising Europe - the heavy influx of Islamists and North Africans into France is a direct result of the progressive program of decolonisation of those areas from the sixites and seventies - up until then the French "owned these people" and their land and tried to imbue them with all manner of french stuff - they were part of France - they even moved to France - but as economic times changed they have clearly passed their use-by-date - and are now no longer all that welcome.

What happens today had its roots in yesterday and as today is tomrrows yesterday we'd better get it right - but I fear the damage is done.

Signing off:- Sneekeepete in a pensive and pithy mood

If you stood “shoulder to shoulder” with the working and disadvantaged Australian class you would consider the harm that multicultural immigration is doing to them and understand the anger that people from these two classes feel towards people like you.

The Australian Labor Party was once a working and disadvantaged person’s party but o0ver the years it has been hijacked by trendy lefties such as yourself who want to instigate Internationalist ideologies as party policy. That these policies are firmly opposed by the very electorate that Labor claims to represent is the real reason why John Howard keeps winning elections.

It is not in the interests of the disadvantaged class for impoverished and crime prone immigrants to rape their daughters or loot the social welfare system that many disadvantaged people consider their own means of survival. When you are down and out you get very interested in how much the social welfare cake is being divided up. Disadvantaged people are forced to live with the more undesirable ethnic groups and they feel antagonistic towards people like you for forsaking them. People like you live behind economic fences higher than the Berlin Wall. The best way to stop this lamenting about “refugees” by inner city trendies is for the government to put Muslims, Vietnamese, Lebanese and negroes into leafy suburbs like Balmain and Cremorne and watch the fun.

Working class people are incensed that immigrants are being used by the rich to undercut their pay rates. I am in the building industry myself, and I know that there are now building sites with every member of the work force of one particular ethnicity or another, where nobody speaks English and nobody knows who is being paid what. My own union newspaper has recounted stories about injured Chinese workers being denounced by their Chinese employers as illegal immigrants to get rid of them and to cover the fact that the workers were not even insured. Indian workers on a temple site at Parramatta were being paid $14 a week and they lived in shipping containers.

Pete,

Many people have repeatedly answered, “What is an Australian?”. I’ve seen many answers based on 200 years of Aussie history, traditions and culture all on this forum.

My opinion (actually answered earlier in this thread) an Australian is an actual Australian, not a New Zealander or muslim or anything else. Meaning, unless your loyalties are to Australia over anything else (religion, other nationalities and/or their political agendas), I’d say you weren’t one.

Most people don’t acknowledge mulitculturism as true Australian Identity, seeing it as a social fad or experiment, maybe in response to the new global awareness of the world’s suffering. Its sincerity isn’t questioned. We’ve had to come to terms with the fact it doesn’t work. Europe, has embraced Multi-cult for 40 odd years. It’s not just the French. What ever the reasons, look at the results. Idealism and reality don’t often go hand in hand.

Taking in foreigners is not a problem, countries need new people for labour. PC pandering to cultural differences of minorities that are un-Australian is the problem. The PC suppression of peoples judgements and freedom to say “no” to minorities just breeds resentment. Surely debate is better than censorship. Anything that needs legal protection from debate and a democratic vote can’t expect to be free from critics and agendas against it. This is the nature of Australia and most western democracies.

SneekyPete…
An more valid question is, What do we do when cultures refuse to integrate into Australian society?

"What is an Australian?"

well from what I have been told by a large number of people that if you have Italian parents you Italian, don't matter if you were born here... people I worked with in Melbourne would all claim to be Italian, not Australian if they were in that situation... same went for Lebanese, Greek, etc... most nationalities it seemed...

generally to me it seemed people claimed the nationality of the parents first, then Australian second...

nearly all of these people would also clam that there parents nation was better that our nation, this was always a common frame of mind...

I experienced excessive racism against white Anglo Saxon Australia's that spoke with a solid Australian accent... this was so common I was dumbfounded really...

I live in Tasmania, and I would have to say... this is the lest racist, most tolerant place I have live in Australia... with ease...
(This includes Tas, Vic, NSW, WA)

Basically to me an Australian, is a person that lives here... and as Merry said... puts Australia before all other like country of origin and rubbish like religion (this should be left at home... don't bring your crappie idiot religions here and impose them on us). If a person that comes here from somewhere else can manage these two SIMPLE things... then they are welcome to call them selfs an Australian as far as I am concerned...

But when people want to go to a school for example... and there are say 1000 plus students... there is a standard dress code... and one wants to break it to wear a head scarf (what ever you call them?) then... I am sorry... you should not expect to get the rules changed just for you.. and you alone, either abide by the rules layout when you start... or find a school that accommodates your needs...

This type of behavior I find somewhat redicouls... People complain that it's there culture, religion or what ever... now we have examples of schools in WA not sing Xmas Carrol's not to offend the musslims... this is a contradiction if I have ever seen one...
we kill our culture, religious practices, to accommodate some peoples we let come and share our truly wonderful place to live on the planet... But they will not budge when it comes to there's... (These people are not Australian, there a pain in the butt)

well if these people don't like our rules they should not come... if your a refugee and you don't like our rules, then the rules are more than likely allot better than where you came from, so deal with them....

Shonga “Those like Col Rouge, being a Tory, probably thinks Meg will vote against the government, which is why he wants her to go home. Meg has every right to voice her concern, as does every Australian citizen. What is needed is, if anyone disagrees with Meg{and I don't} is to present a contary point of view, those without a contary arguement, can only say "if you don't like it leave", and by the way Col, John{Bonsai} Howard does not speak for me,”

Go read my post again – I did not suggest Meg simply go home.

I suggested that if Meg considered her right of access to Australia, as a New Zealander to be “less than equal” to the treatment of others, then her own “socialist conscience” (all people being equal) and ethics would compel her to remove herself and apply without the advantages of the “accident of her birth”.
That she does not suggests her protests are more to do with “rabble rousing” and her ethics are non-existent.

That you should contrive what I said to suggest an ulterior motive for my post show your own lack of insight, comprehension of ethics and moral standards.

John Howard speaks for more people than anyone else in the arena of Australian Politics. If you think your view is pre-eminent I suggest you test it at the ballot box, that is where John Howard gained his authority.

So test yourself and see how well you fair. Then you will realise how insignificant, irrelevant and marginal your own views are.

integration is a slow process - history has shown us it does occur eventually in the vast majority of cases; many people still cling to their traditions and values to some degree but our experience with European migration, English, Italians, greeks, Vietnamese clearly indicates compromise and tolerance usually over comes any remnant differences.

We choose to ascribe false meaning and significance to practices such as wearing the hijab, eating halal or kosher foods and even feeling some how affronted by other consideration regarding religious observance.

Some choose quite consciously to let these really trifling issues worry us. Integration should not be confused with capitulation of beliefs and life long habits.

Loyalty to a country is learnt; We as a nation need to demosntrate the value of loyalty - we have failed on that front by insisting people make wholesale changes to their way of life because we dont like it.

There is no switch in your head that allows immediate allegiance to any one or anything - people dont come here to be loyal they first come here to live, work and maybe raise families often becuase they did not have the opportunity to do these things in their country of birth.

I've had more proslytising Christians knocking on my door - some with annoying persistance pressuring me to fal in line with their sets of beliefs - than I have had Islamists haranguing me.

We are free to say no to immigrants and equally some of us are free to say why say no? what is it that makes you afraid; they are free to say give us some consideration in how they dress pray and eat

Acceptance and tolerance is not pandering.

Any number of people might some how think it is right to further marginalise those who present us with differences we find uncomfortable and go further to turn what is essentially our problem of intolerance and inflexibilty into their problem - but weight od numbers is not an arguemment - the majority can be wrong; in this case I believe that they are.

Dear Mr .net noobie. if you think that an "Australian' is simply somebody who lives here",then I can give three examples which prove you wrong.

The first is our own dear poster "Rainier" who tells us he is not an "Australian",he is a aborigine.

The second is from firebrand Islamic cleric Abu Abbas, who was famously quoted as saying "Our loyalty is to Allah and his prophet, not to Queen and country. Nationality means nothing."

And the Greek government does not agree with you either. Is a man born in Australia of Greek parents an Australian or a Greek? According to the Greek Government, he is a Greek.

This extraordinary fact came to light when Toula Soravia was shot dead in Sydney, right in front of her son,by a gang of thugs intent on robbing her. One of the offenders fled to Greece,but the Greek government refused to extradite him back to Australia because even if he was born in Australia, they regarded him as Greek. And Greeks don't shop Greeks to Anglos. Even if the killer murdered a Greek woman who was born in Greece.

Now I applaude the Greeks loyalty to their own people. And I think that some posters on this site could improve their own sense of identity towards their own people by emulating the Greeks. But if aboriginees, religious leaders and foreign governments consider ethnicity or religious affiliation as more important indicators of social identity than place of birth, then why should North European Protestant Australian people be any different?

The term "Australian" once defined the Australian people. But under multiculturalism, "Australian' can mean anything,or nothing.

Regarding 'assimilation' and integration and immigration.

I would not have the slightest qualm in doing the following:

If assimilation etc can be measured, by various indicators, I would use this information to influence selection criteria of 'which races' are more or less allowed to come to Australia.

For particular groups demonstrating 'low assimilation' skills and attitudes, the quota from that country/race would be substantially reduced in immigration places. And of course. vice versa.

Some measurable criteria:

1/ Language skills.
2/ Knowledge of Australian history and culture including poetry.
3/ Cross cultural relationships
4/ Attitudes "Are they 'Greeks of Australian nationality' or are they Australians of 'greek ancestry'.

The last one is particularly important. Any who regard themselves as 'Greek' first, are welcome to return forthwith. ... to Greece.

Ooops.. I see a little pair of dark hands and a head popping over a fence.. yes.. its RANIER :) about to give me all the same 'tests' for the Anglo white devils :)

Cheers all

I would like to explain to the racists posting on this thread how a non-racist Aussie sees this land.
Those with the greatest historical claim to Oz are those whose ancestors were here prior to 1770, but through violent dominance the Oz Aboriginal nation has been reduced to a shadow of what it could be. Almost defenceless from the day of meeting with Cook & co, there has been no chance against raging western imperialist racism. It took until the 1960’s for the realisation that we are all human, no matter what the colour, religion or cultural background to find it’s way into Oz law. It’ll take another several hundred before the last vestiges of racism are removed from humanity – but it will happen.
I mix with many different nationalities on a daily basis, & have done so since childhood. Through school I had friends from all over the world – I tended to mix with those of similar interests & disposition, with no regard to ‘race’. As a matter of fact I had more friends of non-anglo background than anglo. We’re not born racist, we learn it. I was never taught it & still have not been.
In my day-to-day activities, rarely does the racial origin of others enter the equation. When the question of racial origin arises, I’m a 4th gen Scottish origin ‘skip’. I learn from the different cultures presented to me.
We are probably the greatest ‘multicultural’ nation on Earth. We have few ‘historical chains’ hauling us in one direction or another. Lets not let the pressures applied by poor government push us to racist tribalism, as can happen.

An Australian is primarly one who believes in our Constitution, institutions of Government and laws. Anyone who wishes to undermine this is seditious and un-Australian.

Our established attitudes and behaviour can identify an Aussie overseas but these are merely our cultural heritage.

The attitudes of non racists is racist. If racism is totlly unacceptable, and opposition to racism is a moral absolute, then any form of racism is evil. Therefore, if it is PC acceptable to claim that the instant an Iraqi “refugee” sticks his big toe on Australian soil that he is just as “Australian” as Ian Thorpe, then when Captain Cook put his foot on Botany Bay, he was just as “aboriginal” as Rainier. The fact that fairyland interpretations of race and ethnicity can work both ways is something which never even occurs to people who have been PC indoctrinated by left wing teachers.

Claiming that racism is entirely learned behaviour is nothing more than an unsupported allegation. In group / out group hostility is a manifestation of group loyalty to family, tribe, clan, or nationality, and that has always been based around hostility to outside entities. Membership of any family, clan, tribe or ethnicity has for millennia been almost entirely based upon race. Human warfare has been around for a long time and although prostitution has been called “the world’s oldest profession”, “soldiering” might also claim that honour. Due to the complementary nature of both professions, then both professions could claim equal place for the title.

Hostility to outside groups is entirely a measure of how much outsiders are considered a threat to the primary group. Muslims in Australia are determined not to integrate into accepting Australian mainstream culture and so they will never be accepted by Australians as being part of our family, tribe or group. So when men of this particular group engage in hostile acts against the majority group, then all the members of the Muslim group will be considered hostile. The only way to mitigate this is for all Muslims make unmistakable and genuine attempts to condemn the men who claim to speak for all Muslims, and throw them out of their particular group.

If Muslims do not do this, then racism and hostility towards their particular group will increase, and that increase can be seen by the majority group as both justifiable and acceptable.

I was not taught by Left wing teachers - the Christian Brothers learned me all I no - "Beaten But Not Buggered" is emblazoned on my family crest.

And redneck is right rascism is not learnt. We probably all carry with us rudimentary allegiances to our tribe but some of us have learnt that rascim and fearful hatred of the different, a bit like eating your young and clubbing women into servitude, is counter productive to right living - so we have grown out of it.

Just a few technical points:

In anthropological terms, "Australian" refers to Aboriginal people and languages. In strictly legal terms, an Australian is anybody who is legally living in Australia.

Of course, in practice some Australians consider themselves more "Australian" than others, based upon their personal ideas about what constitutes legitimate membership of Australian society. Some of the more ridiculous comments above demonstrate how extreme such views can be.

Also, since I invoked anthropology above, as usual those whose personal ideas about 'legitimacy' invoke the language of racism, are conflating ethnocentrism (the 'natural' tendency of humans to identify with the human group to which they belong) with racism (the classification of human groups according to ideas about biological race and the subsequent discriminatory behaviour towards and ideas about individuals thus classified).

On the other hand, we have the self-evident notion of being Australian that was demonstrated last night by the Socceroos and the millions of Australians who are today celebrating that wonderful victory. Those in this forum who like to decry 'multiculturalism' might like to consider its direct correlation with our current success in the 'world game'.

Lastly, I note that Boaz's subjective criteria for Australianness would likely exclude a significant proportion of the 'white' population. Fortunately, I suspect that few people take such comments seriously.

I couldn't give a rats how "Australian" I am, or you are, or anyone else for that matter. I am an Australian citizen, I choose to live here and bring my kids up here, but I certainly don't fit Philo's definition, so perhaps I'm not one at all.
As to Redneck's Iraqi with the big toe, again I don't care if he is as "Australian" as Redneck claims to be, but she/ he is fully as human and therefore deserves the same rights, respect and courtesy as any other human, regardless of what label you care to hang around his or her neck.

mahatma duck,
To be legally identified as Australian is not based in genetic race identifiers, it is the allegiance one has to our system of society, our Government its institutions and laws.

We are a diverse democratic society where all citizens are given equality before the law. Where Government is based in the power of the people represented by the crown and locally elected representatives. Where the judicary enacts the conscience and will of the people in the administration of law.

When we witness the corruption, undermining and abuse of our institutions then we believe such persons to be unaustralian. The violation or abuse of our borders, our welfare, our national security, our troops, our symbols [ie. flag], sporting teams, our common history or language etc etc.

Catholic “brothers” are most definitely not left wing, Sneaky Peter. But they share a common goal with lefties. Catholicism is not a national body, it is an international one who’s ruling class does not give a damn about the welfare of Australians. It only cares about the survival of it’s organization and the welfare of Catholics.

The Catholic hierarchy promises heaven after death for it’s adherents, while Marxists promise heaven on Earth for it’s members. Both systems appeal to people who’s personalities need an authoritarian figure or party to spell out for them moral absolutes that are set in stone. That is why Communist parties flourish in Catholic countries and why Catholics and Marxist hate each other so much. They both appeal to the same sort of people to make up their members and both organizations are in open competition for them.

Your claim that humans have “grown out” of racism is laughably wrong. Another 400 cars got burned in France today and that sure looks like racism to me.

The Jews have suffered from racism for 2000 years so they of all people should be very sensitive to it. But even Israel is a racist state. Even within Israel, extreme divisions occur within the Jewish race. When Israel was created, Jews from the East and the West came together to form Israel. But the “European” Jews found that their culture was markedly different from the Eastern Jews, who’s culture and adherence to religion was very Muslim in character.

Both groups are now openly hostile to one another with Westernized Jews calling fundamentalist Eastern Jews “Goyem”, while the Eastern Jews sneer back at the Westerners with the racist tag of “Frankum.”

You have got a lot to learn, Sneaky Peter.

"Australian" refers to Aboriginal, well i was born here so i'm an Australian...

RedNeck... above i meant that what i personally class as an australian

Also, why people think rasism is so bad, to me it is a natural tool given to us by evolution, for survival of our own... rasisim is totaly normal and is totally natural... and as i said in my last post... It's not a question of your race... you will always be rasist and u will alaways be subjected to rasism.. now if i get some idiot on here that claims there not rasist... please disregard the posts, as they are a fool to even think it is podssible to be non rasist..

we maybe able to control the extent of our own personal rasism... but it is in there wheahter u like it or not...

it's about time people remembered that were just animals...

Yes, Noobie, but we do not have to behave like racists.
Seems we have a collusion of the definition of 'racist'. Racism, by definition, is to 'show racist behaviour'. It is 'not racism' to feel that someone is different due to their place of origin. It 'is' racism to act on that feeling in a derogatory way (through intellectual or physical means, whatever).
To promote the idea that racism is an unremoveable, inevitable ingredient in humanity is rubbish. We are far more in control, as a race, of our negative 'instincts' than we were even 100 yrs ago.
Racism is inarguably 'learned'.

Just a few technical points..... firstly... it wasn't Ranier..

It was MAHATMA lurking behind that fence :) Welcome back...

BUT....

I continue to be totally amazed that someone with the technical training and experience of people groups and races and tribes as you purport to have, can then throw all that knowledge of human behavior out the window and come in here throwing sloguns, accusations of 'racism' etc and mini mantra's at the likes of Redneck, myself and Philo.

Of all people here Mahatma, you would be in a good position to actually affirm most of what you know is correct in Rednecks posts.

I have trouble with his 'genetic' aspect, but even in this, there is an underlying wisdom that while he may not express it in techo terms is nevertheless there.

Example his statement about 'skin color/race/predisposition to crime' etc....

Lets look at this in terms of cultural values and breeding.

1/ If a culture places a HIGH value on the art of "treachery", like among Sawi people of Irian Jaya, or 'independance' among the Dayak, or 'docility and humility' of the Lun Bawang of Sarawak and some of them migrate to Australia, there is a better than even chance they will reflect their own culture. Given that 'breeding follows values' i.e. a person 'skilled' at that thing, is going to be breeding more, then the general 'tone' of the population will increasingly manifest a given set of characteristics.

2/ This is much more 'cultural' than 'genetic' so I think Redneck is not correct in suggesting this, but the end result is still the same.

Only when a culture is confronted with values which contradict the prevailing ones, and when opinion leaders of that group adopt them, will the 'tone' of the population begin to change.

If you disagree with someones position, why not try the Biblical approach :) 'correcting your opponents with gentleness'

I have to confess to the need of relfecting on that verse myself

Swilkie...
sorry mate you are wrong... only a few of us will ever have the ability to contain all of these types of feelings all the time... most are not... and personally i find it crazy to think a human can override thousands/millions of years of evolution in the few short years there alive what ever the enviroment they are luycky or unlucky to be born into. But i do understand what you are saying and i also think that this is true, but only under certain cercumstances or exreme prosparity and the good life, but when things go bad... people will do what ever it takes to survive..

Philo,
'An Australian is primarly one who believes in our Constitution, institutions of Government and laws. Anyone who wishes to undermine this is seditious and un-Australian.'

'When we witness the corruption, undermining and abuse of our institutions then we believe such persons to be unaustralian.'

Does that mean we can put lil' johnny on a slow boat back to dear old England? (perhaps the owner of the MV Tampa would not mind).

1. He has intentionally, or with contumelious disregard for the welfare of Australians, sought to undermine the Constitution, and is therefore in the position where he could and should be charged with sedition (WorkChoices). Our Constitution 'predicates the continued existence of the States as independent self-governing entities' (Melbourne corp. v Cth, per Dixon J) , lil john does not agree, and has sought to avoid this continued existence of both the States & the Federal compact.

2. He has intentionally, or with contumelious disregard for the welfare of the welfare of individual Australians, used his senate majority to foist upon the Australian population laws, which having not been presented to the Australian population at the last election, he has no mandate to introduce.

3. He has intentionally, or with contumelious disregard for the welfare of individual Australians, misused his senate majority to introduce draconian, discriminatory legislation.

Oh!, hang on, I do not need to make a case, why don't we just work on Barnaby, he is from Queensland, and he will have to pass the money bills!

You know, wouldn't that be justice!

Yes I was wrong redneck: when i said I said we I should have said some of us; and soon there will be more of us.
The melding together of historically disparate groups to celebrate Australia's win over Uruguay is an example of how multiculturalism represents a strength and not a weakness as so many suggest.
Olay Olay Olay oLay oolaaay olaaaaay!

For all his faults, at least our eponymous redneck acknowledges (indeed, celebrates) his racism. In my opinion, that makes him less insidious than others who deny that their ideas are racist, even though they repetitively post drivel such as Boaz has above.

What I find interesting is that many of the racists among us are managing to shift the objects of their prejudice from the biological ("race") to the social ("religion"). That is, although their prejudice is now directed towards adherents of a religious ideology rather than members of so-called races, it is expressed in structurally very similar terms and means to the ways in which 20th century racists peddled their execrable agenda.

The worst racists, IMHO, are those who deny their racism. Unfortunately, I suspect that many Australians fall into that category.

Aaron,
Since you know PM JH has violated our constitution then you have a responsibility to bring this to the attention of the Governor General. Sir John Kerr acted on advice 30 years ago to dismiss a corrupt Government who was acting illegally and against the interests of Australia. The Governor General is there to protect the Constitution; so I suggest you grab a Constitutional Lawyer and bring it to the attention of the GG.

Oh! I see! You are a coward. Just use verbal denegration but have no case. Thought so

Thank you David Boaz, but I would like to clarify a point which you appear to think is my position.

The primary controlling force in human behaviour is culture. People are not born knowing right from wrong. Those concepts are inculcated into us by our parents, teachers, peers, religious and community leaders, and by the role models provided by society. Such people are primarily concerned with teaching children that they can never be accepted in any society unless they can learn to repress their natural desire to be entirely selfish. Unselfish and especially altruistic acts by individuals are applauded in every society. Conversely, ruthless selfishness and arrogant egotism is universally despised by every culture as manifestations of evil.

Concepts of right and wrong and socially acceptable behaviour can differ to an extraordinary degree. Cultures have existed which sanctioned human sacrifice, cannibalism, slavery, suttee and thuggee. It is impossible to understand the behaviour of any group, clan, class, nation or people unless one can appreciate their culture, and the underlying rationale that sanctions that behaviour.

But human beings are not simply machines which obey cultural programming. They are biological entities who’s behaviour can also be greatly influenced by their instincts. This instinctive behaviour is governed by genetics. It is now accepted by the courts of advanced nations that some people are not fully in control of themselves. Extremely violent people are known to exist who appear to be intrinsically violent. Such people have successfully convinced courts that their criminality is primarily a biological problem, and these people can be treated leniently by judges who may recommend psychiatric or medical treatment instead of incarceration.

But once the idea that biology can influence the behaviour of some people to a very marked degree is accepted and understood, then the obvious question is. Why are some ethnicities and races so prone to violent criminal behaviour? Is it nature or is it nurture? Or is it both?

Redneck

Thanks for your last post. I found it quite thought provoking - much more than Mundell's article.

Cheers
Kay

sorry Philo,

i would absolutely love to mate, however I feel that it is probably unjudiciable.

I do intend to bring it to the attention of all persons who have some influence on Barnaby. Indeed at the present time, I am in discussion with several accountants that I am aquainted with, trying to find out what presses an accountants buttons, and I AM reliably informed that it is numbers, not argument or rhetoric.

Consequently Philo, I am in search of numbers that an accountant can use to tell a story.

That would be seriously amusing, as i understand from your post that you too understand the events of 1975, you will understand the importance of a single senator from Queensland.

Dear Redneck,
your expansion of your position is most welcome. Specially that you ended it with a question rather than a statement. How wonderful it would be, if those like our beloved Mahatma, would use their apparently considerable experience and education to explore the issue at an issue level, rather than choosing to waste everyones time with abuse.

Your reasoning is bold and backed up by references. A very scholarly approach ! The abuse on the other hand, was sadly lacking in the same.

Mahatma, you need a jolly good shake. At least a stern rebuke for your irresponsible approach to serious matters with which you disagree.

If you find fault in Rednecks reasoning or mine, SHOW IT !
.. and with references and sources. Otherwise, please don't insult the intelligence of those here, who can actually notice your rather 'colorful' (to choose the very best word without lowering myself to your own chosen level) approach.

Yes, Redneck, ask anyone in PNG about the 'Chimbu' and in Malaysia about the 'Bugis', and you will find your theory very much anecdotally validated if not confirmed by formal studies.

I was dropped off at one remote area in Sarawak, where the people were VERY distinct in how they greeted us, and then, the next day, off to a different tribe 10 minutes by plane away, and they were TOTALLY different. Like East is from the West. Even while with the first group a group of jungle nomads (Punan) wandered in, they also were like white is to black in character, temperament and look.

They all expressed the values which were predominant and highly valued in the group. People breed on the basis of values. "IF" there is any genetic aspect to 'personality' and most dog breeders would say there is, then it shows up also in group behavior.

This theory also has implications for societies which embrace Christianity, the new values are also the basis of breeding. If there is a genetic aspect, then the society is also transformed at the biological level as well as the spritual. (Note, this is 'if')

To Swilkie.

I take issue with your unsupported allegation that racism is "inargueably learned."

Group hostility is primarily a function of defence of territory. Humans have always formed self protecting groups which have been hostile to other human groups who have invaded the territory that the primary group considers vital to their survival.

Tolerance is not a function of intellectual intelligence, it is a function of prosperity. Those groups who have plenty can afford to be generous with other groups with the fruits of their territories resources. But groups under stress experiencing survival conditions are not noted either for their generosity or for their friendliness.

Add to this the cultural universal that people of one culture bitterly resent having to live under the rule of another culture on the same territory. The degree of hostility between the two groups is a measure of how much the majority groups values, (that is, their concept of right and wrong), differ markedly from each other. This hostility is greatly exacerbated if the two groups are of different ethnicities or races. Race wars tend to be very bad wars.

Racism is therefore instinctive behaviour which can be reduced or increased through cultural conditioning. But it is a lot easier to promote hostile racist behaviour than tolerant behaviour, especially in times of economic stress, because it is always easier to convince people to behave in ways that they already "feel" is right.

Philo,

‘Oh! I see! You are a coward. Just use verbal denegration but have no case. Thought so’

I hereby reply to your implied suggestion that I could not back up what I say;

1. Seeking to destroy the Federal compact, and to disembowel the Constitutionally predicated continued existence of the states as independent governing entities;

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=2440745&TABLE=HANSARDR&TARGET=

also see

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=2106&TABLE=BILLS

2. Also for discriminatory, draconian legislation, employers with less than 15 employees would no longer be required to pay redundancy pay to employees (effectively reducing the real wage scale of such employees’ based upon discriminatory identification).

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=2110&TABLE=EMS

also see;

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=2106&TABLE=BILLS

3. And for legislation which was never proposed, argued or indeed suggested at the last election, which JH has/had no mandate to introduce, see all of the above.

As for my cowardice in refusing to attempt to commence action for something which is probably non-justiciable, perhaps you will remember that you proposed, in your mantra for determining the relative un-Australian-ism (or otherwise) of individuals, the indicia of un-Australian behavior.

As for me, well my family has been here longer than most, in fact I probably have senior bloodlines to most here, except of course those of original Australians. Therefore despite my not being a christian etc. I presumably am unlikely to be deported?

Aaron,
Since you do not choose to expose JH to your claims of his seditious violations of the Federal Constitution then stop your wingeing about him. You should recognise that the States agreement is verified by our Constitution and both sides of the political party spectrum work under this constitution.

If you want change to our Constitution then take it to the people by referundum, that is the proceedure under our Constitution. Those that promote the undermining of our Constution without the will of the people are seditious and unaustralian.

The URL given in your last post is out of date.

Philo,

I am currently authoring a proposal along the lines of the argument I advance in this post;

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13#20614

See what you think

Redneck - a good description of what racism is but you haven't supported your argument that racism is 'instinctive'. Read & understand my previous post(s).

AAron,
Obviously you are even more terrorising, destructive and confrontational than JH.

Probably, but it WILL work.

Remove the individual from the group, and they once again fear the ramifications of their actions.

Individuals feel fear, stress, and concern. Individuals are normally VERY careful not to offend other individuals.

This may indeed give pause to those who intend to give effect to the anti-worker agenda. They, and their families will be placed at risk, when they place employees' and their families at risk of economic ruin, ce la guerre.

To Swilkie.

Oh, that's cute. I write a 300 word article using group psychology to explain why racism is instinctive behaviour, and you just ignore it pretend that it means something else. I presume that since you could not fault the logic in my explanation, then pretending that my post was nothing more than a definition of racism was your last resort position.

If you claim that racism is entirely learned behaviour, then the onus is upon you to write a 300 word article explaining why you think your extraordinary assumption is correct.

If you chicken out, then you will look like a fool who maks claims that he has no basis for and which you can not substantiate.

C'mon boy. You may not be able to find any way to fault my post but I am looking forward to tearing your logic to bits.

Please hurry up. I can't wait.

There seems to be a lot of rampant racism in this thread.

Oh yes, it would be so much easier to be racist. But in doing that, I would be succumbing to Liberal party's desire to become intolerant and scared so that I submit my basic freedoms in order for "protection".

They will then be yet another step closer to their sick ideology of total control.

Boaz,
You constantly claim to be this moral Christian yet you whole-heartedly support a political party who locked desperate immigrants away for years (including children).

While I agree that we can't just let anyone into the country, the Howard government for a long time there was behaving in an inhumane way by imprisoning desperate people for an unnecessarily long period of time.

The classic case was Peter Qasim (finally freed after 7 years).

Amanda "The Hutt" Vanstone claimed that he had inconsistencies in his case; hence they would not release him. But the only inconsistencies were petty things such as the spelling of the town he came from in Kashmir. But you have to remember, not only are the literacy skills of these people sometimes limited, but in places like that they rarely have the need to write the name of their own town. That on top of many other factors such as broken English created a mish-mash story. Now he requires psychiatric care.

...and you support these psychos!

There sure is plenty of racism on this thread, Mr Man. What’s wrong with that? Racism is, and always has been, normal behaviour and a cultural universal. Could I remind you that the racist joke is a cultural universal and it always has been? Archaeologists even found racist jokes about Roman soldiers chiselled into a Carthaginian temple to Baal in Libya. The Romans themselves had a racist term for British people, “Britanculi”, (Wretched little Brits). How racism has been elevated by people like you into the Eighth Deadly Sin is beyond me.

Now a feature of racism is the denigration of a group of people through stereotyping and pre judgement. Could I point out to you that your own attack upon the Liberal Party is a perfect example of that, and therefore a form of racism itself. You are claiming that Liberals are “sick” “psychos” who possess negative character traits like total intolerance and inhumanity. You also openly claim that the Liberals are scheming to install a dictatorship thereby possessing “total control.”

Now substitute the words “Jew” or “Nigger” in your rant for “Liberals”, and where is the difference between your view and that of any other racist who elevates his own group by denigrating other groups?

I would also take you to task for your erroneous claim that the Liberal Government is acting reprehensibly by locking people up. This country is a democracy and governments who wish to stay in power must take into account the views of the people. It is clear that Australians simply do not trust the Labor Party with immigration issues. Because they know that Labor would cheerfully flood this country with Muslim terrorists as long as those terrorists voted Labor.

Your beef is with the Australian people, not John Howard. Please attack the Australian people with the same sneery arguments that you use on the Liberals, so that the Australian electorate can return the complement by giving you and you ilk two fingers full of righteous indignation in response.

Mr Man
I need to address a couple of issues raised in your colorful post.

First and most important,-if I've created the impression that "I" am a 'moral Christian' I've not acheived my primary goal, which is to point readers to Christ rather than 'me'. I don't see myself as anything other than a sinner, probably worse than the regular variety as my knowledge of Christs teaching is based on considerable study and experience.

In this regard, I rejoice that salvation is not by 'works' but by grace. Undeserved kindness from a forgiving God, due to Christs self sacrifice for us. "He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities" and.. "all we like sheep have gone astray, and the Lord has laid on him, the iniquity of us all". (Isaiah 53)

So, please don't look at 'me' as anything other than a messenger or a signpost. (perhaps a signpost which has a few blotches of mud on it splashed from the passing cars of lifes struggles)

Next, that I 'support this government'. To a degree, as the lesser of 2 evils. I support some of their policies and others I find abysmal. I don't vote 'coalition' directly, I will vote for a party like FF until they become untenable by virtue of policy.

Peter Qasim. I have serious questions. I find it noteworthy that folk like yourself and others supporting freeing so called assylum seekers also view it in a very 'western' way. (i.e. nuclear family only) Speaking as someone who is connected to a vast extended family in Borneo, the first question that came into my mind about Peter and establishing his 'statehood' is.... uncles and aunties. i.e. extended family. The idea that his mother and father were only children and he also, and all the grandparents only children, is a little difficult to believe. He would readily be able to identify MANY relatives if he chose to do so.

Finally, the logical place to 'flee to' if on the Indian side of Kashmir, is the Muslim side.. not some obcure island in the Torres straight.

You know, Redneck, I agree with you, racism is normal and human, so is violence, lying, stealing, aggressive behaviour of all kinds, tantrums, ignorance, arrogance, selfishness and egotism. Watch small children and you will see all these behaviours, oh, except for racism, actually. They can't see the difference between one kid and another, they are all competitors for attention, for the toy we want when we are small, regardless of who their parents are. I think racism may be learned, but is a natural outgrowth of many of the negative (but necessary for survival) traits humans display.
The thing is, though, Redneck, as a decent parent you work to minimise your children acting out their negative feelings. Not to stop feeling them, you understand, but to learn to control them and channel them and not take them out on others. Its called growing up and maturing. Something those who continue to boast about their racist attitudes and behaviours, it seems, have yet to do.
Yes, we all have racist feelings and attitudes, its just some of us have learnt that they are immature and stupid and that the consequences of acting them out are bad for all of us.

Redneck - I'll nibble.. but not 300 words. I'll reserve that much effort for where it may make a difference (i'm a freelance political writer).
I agree with your observations on 'group dynamics', this is the way things have & still do work in places. I also agree with Enaj - couldn't have said better myself. Redneck, If you get the opportunity, watch how 5 yr olds of different nationalities interact. They do not 'hate' each other .
Racism is a 'higher concept' in learning. We do not know of it until told by peers or parents. As Enaj says, one must do ones best to counteract discrimination of all kinds.
Racism is being gradually removed from social acceptance. Government endorsed, negative race-based discrimination no longer exists in Western society. Sometimes we even feel guilty about past misdemeanours. It is component of violence, in the social sense. Its illegal (in one way or another) in at least all western nations. It is well & truly on the decline.
Your attitudes are well& truly in the minority, Redneck.

Good post, Enaj.

On the subject of violence, society has paradoxical views. Laws exist in every organised society to prevent violence within the group. But every society also teaches it’s young that violence directed outside the group that benefits the entire group is admirable behaviour. Even the Christian God made that distinction in His Ten Commandments. The Commandment states “Thou Shalt Not Murder”, not ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill.” In other words, violence within the group is murder, but killing for God, King or country is tacitly OK. I put it to you that “violence” is just like “racism”, it is not evil by itself. It all depends upon situational context. “Racism” can be defined as “Loyalty to your own people.” What is wrong with that?

You are correct that children do not recognise race unless it is culturally conditioned into them. The lion cub will happily play with the lamb. But when the lion becomes adult, it begins to look at sheep in a different way. You are suggesting that humans should remain children and never grow up.

Selfishness is a good example too. Is selfishness a negative moral absolute? No. Each and every one of us is primarily concerned with our own self interest. But mature people learn from their culture to limit their selfishness for the good of the community as a whole. Because humans are social animals which learned long ago that it is from the group that individuals receive protection and support. To be entirely selfish is to be useless to the group and totally selfish people risk banishment, imprisonment and even execution.

To summarise, selfishness is not evil. Every person balances the amount of self interest he or she will consider appropriate and how much they should sublimate their selfishness for the good of the group. Racism is not evil either. To what extent people are loyal to their racial group and concerned with it’s self interest and survival, and how much they sublimate that self interest to the welfare of the human race as a whole, is a matter of situational context.

Yes Redneck,

I agree with you, what I would actually call racism is spitting on someone due to skin colour or beating up someone just over race, with no other issues involved. Natural loyalty to your kin is an admirable quality in a human. To call loyalty “racist” is a manipulating and crude strategy of the PC agenda. PC tactics often use the “racist” card to censor discussion by socially shaming people into silence. To be labelled a racist you “loose” the debate by default, “oh your racist” bang PC wins. Judgment is also demonised by the PC as is not being part of a minority.

Today the PC fad is in decline, as its spokespeople have defamed their own causes with overkill on censorship of opinion etc. This is a shame in ways as some of the original PC intentions were fairly decent, saving the planet, human rights n all that. I actually resent the PC for destroying the credibility of these serious issues.

Redneck, I’m glad you are taking on this argument, It’s a hard one in today’s social climate and language.

Actually, five year olds do display racism.

They say things like: whats wrong with your eyes? what happened to your skin? are you covered in chocolate?

Swilkie and Enaj sound like bubble-wrapped idealists (clueless in the real world). You both need to be re-educated.

davo, noticing a difference in eyes or skin colour is not racism. Refusing to share your toys with the kid who is different because they are different is racism and I have not seen much of that in young kids except where it is well trained into them.

And I'd rather not see you "reeducated", the kind of societies that do that don't tend to be real nice places to live.

Redneck, despite my disagreement with many of your conclusions I'm appreciating the manner you are putting your points. It is one of my life goals to strike a healthy balance between self interest and the good of the community. It seems that you are saying the same thing but see the balance point in a different place to where I see it.

enaj, thanks for your thoughtful posts on this issue.

R0bert

i would have to say the opposite Robert. Anti-racism is a cultural construct and is something that is trained into people. Five year olds discriminate perhaps more openly than an adult. I see it all the time - it has'nt been trained into them at all.

That said, there is a trend among western nations to delibrately multi-racialise there societies so that our intellectuals can continue to do B grade re-runs of the civil rights movements. They know racism is inevitable - a convenient way to patronise the ordinary working person.

Sorry, Davo, have watched my own kids in a totally ethnically mixed kindy have friends and enemies from all different backgrounds and they were no more interested in one kid's skin colour or shape of eyes than they were in another's height or fatness or freckles or red hair or funny laugh.
Redneck, I appreciate your open-ness to debate the issue. And I agree that none of the attributes I describe are inherently evil, but each may lead to evil behaviour if left unchecked. That is what parenting is for, to check the negative behaviour, not the negative feelings.
I suspect racist feelings that lead to discrimination, insult and placing unfair limits on others on the basis of attributes they cannot change may meet the criteria for evil behaviour, particularly if they then are used to justify actual harm, cruelty and brutal treatment.

To Mr Swilkie.

Your entire assumption that racism is entirely learned behaviour is based upon the behaviour of children?

OK. Male 5 year old children are not noted for engaging in homosexual behaviour, are they Mr Swilkie? But homosexual behaviour is certainly not entirely learned behaviour, is it? Homosexual behaviour is usually considered instinctive behaviour which does not usually manifest itself until puberty. In what way is this different to racism or any other form of group identity?

Children simply accept that they are children, they do not think much in terms of group dynamics or group survival. But when they become adolescents, they desperately seek both an acceptable personal adult identity and a group identity. Simply being regarded as “adolescents” is not a good enough group identity for tweenagers or teenagers. It is usual for young men to form gangs where group affiliation reflects the cultural values, relative affluence, and recreational activities of a particular area. (Goths, bikies, surfers, boogie boarders, punks, ethnic gangs, Sloane Rangers, grotty yachties, etc). These groups of young people are traditionally very hostile to one another. Especially if the groups are composed of low status young males and there are girls around.

Prisons are usually full of young men, because young men are naturally prone to irresponsible, attention seeking, impulsive and violent behaviour. Young men do not need to be taught how to be idiots, they seem to manage that feat quite instinctively themselves. No matter how much the culture of older people tries to make them act responsibly. Fortunately, they grow out of their hormonal induced behaviour, sooner or later.

Different youth groups do instil learned loyalty and hostility to outside groups in their members. But this hostility is based upon each individuals instinctive need to belong to a group that they can identify with and their own natural, youthful aggression. Once in a group, it is normal and natural to regard the welfare of the group as paramount and to be hostile to other groups infringing upon your groups territory.

BOAZ_David,

I apologise for making assumptions about your political stance. I took the time to read some of your other posts (the ones I hadn't yet read) and you are a little more neutral than I first thought.

But as a person who was brought up in a protestant Christian household, I will never understand this unusually strong link between The Right and the Christianity (especially in America). Seems like a bit of a contradiction to me.

I agree with your "lesser of the two evils" comment. I just seem to disagree with you on who the lesser of those two evils is.

Redneck,
The difference between verbally attacking a political party and attacking (as you've put it) Jews and "Niggers" is that Jews and negros never hurt an entire nation of people in one simple act.

There are much bigger things in life to worry about than those "funny looking" people. I'd suggest concentrating some of this this potencially constructive rage on something like fighting for the rights you are about to lose at work.

To Mr Man.

Your explanation that the Liberal party is somehow "guilty" of some undefined crime against the entire nation of Australia is typical of the attitudes of a racist person who has extreme hostility towards a group of people that he regards as contemptable.

The most amusing aspect of the attitudes of anti racists is that they are extremely racist themselves. They demand that minority groups must not be prejudged while simultaneously prejudging their opponents as "racists" and "bigots".

They passionately claim that ethnic minorities must never be stereotyped. Yet they unashamedly stereotype their own opponents as "ignorant", "of low intelligence" or as "members of the herd", while stereotyping themselves as people possessing unequaled powers of intellect and morality.

Finally, when confronted by people uttering racist labels, they act like outraged virtuous schoolgirls who have just got their first feel up at a drive in. But this does not stop them from thinking up derogatory names for their opponents, of which "redneck" is a favourite. Trendy lefties are so obsessed with mindlessly acting out the role of the morally pure, that they are unable to even figure out that calling somebody a "redneck" is a racist term which sneers at people entirely upon the basis of their skin colour.

To summarise, your own hostility towards identifiable groups of people who's cultural values you oppose, and the hostility which I exhibit towards identifiable groups of people who values, attitudes and behaviour that I find offensive, are exactly the same thing.

The only difference is that you have not figured that out yet.

When you do, you might reset your scrambled logic circuits and begin thinking straight.

From the Islamic Foundation for Education and Welfare (IFEW) [ http://www.IFEW.com/ ] NSW Australia

A Proposal:
Development of
Da'wah(spreading of islam) Efforts in Australia
Daud Batchelor

(ii) Australia is not a developing country so that the Malaysian concepts presented cannot necessarily be applied directly (without modification) to Australian conditions - except in the case of the Aboriginal Community which is a "developing" community.

http://www.ifew.com/insight/v12i01/dawaprop.html

Are our aboriginals less developed and there for easier targets for conversion to islam?

Mr Man,
thanx for your conciliatory words.
I also find it curious observing the apparent closeness between the political 'right' and the Protestant fundies of the US, but I think it goes back to the history of the place and the foundational aspects of the early pilgrims and their attempts to establish a more theocratic nation as far as they could.

With regard to Rednecks posts, try to look beyond the 'rough'ish exterior to his reasoning. A lot of it is quite spot on, but his terminology and mood tend to elicit 'reaction'. By his own confession, he has yet to experience the mellowing grace that comes from knowing Christ, so.. we pray on :)

To be honest, I see outstanding value in the various points of view here, the main aspect being simply that we are all TALKing about important issues which by and large have been neglected as 'taboo' for so long.

Immigration is a sensitive issue for sure. I think we should learn the lessons of history re human nature, group behavior and just forget all the 'chants and attacks' which are levelled against responsible policy because the most vociforous come, in my opinion, from those who perceive they have most to either lose or gain on a political level. I tend to look sideways with suspicion when 'Migration Agents' like Marion Li wax compassionate about 'assylum seekers' etc.

The best consultancy for our own policy would be the indigenous Aussies. Just ask them "Given what you know now, what would you have done differently on the arrival of the whites" ..I'm only guessing here, but total annihalation might just slip out :) and understandably so. When you think about it, there would have been no other way for them to remain independant. Unfortunately, the tides of history would not have allowed that independance to continue much longer anyway.

Today, we need to develop policies which are both compassionate and responsible, recognizing both human nature and political realies.

Redneck,

An example of crimes committed against the entire nation are the blatant breaches of civil rights called anti-terror laws, in particular the sedition laws. Another crime - although not against an entire nation - is that Howard is actually an accessory to the war crimes of Bush. What war crimes? Launching an offensive without UN approval, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib...

And if it wasn't for those pesky leftist State Labor leaders then I would’ve just committed a crime by speaking ill of our country’s leader and could've potentially been locked away for 2 weeks with no access to a lawyer or contact with my family and then thrown in prison for up to 7 years.

But if you look at history as whole, then we Anglo-Saxon whites are just as terrible as all other races - even nowadays. We just hide behind a corporate logo and call it "making a profit". Or steal oil and call it "spreading democracy".

But before you launch another attack, I would just like to add that I respect your defiance of political correctness, despite the fact that fundamentally, I disagree with you.

Mr Man,
I see another one eye propagandist view here.

"An example of crimes committed against the entire nation are the blatant breaches of civil rights called anti-terror laws, in particular the sedition laws. Another crime - although not against an entire nation - is that Howard is actually an accessory to the war crimes of Bush. What war crimes? Launching an offensive without UN approval, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib..."

Where were Beasley and the the State Labor leaders in this blatent breach? You single out Howard as though he was the exclusive decision maker in these anti-terror laws. Since you believe Howard is a war criminal, I suggest you bring him to the Internation War Crimes Commission. You condemn him without trial, most un-Australian! You see you are really a propagandist, not a factual reporter. You mention Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib etc but give no reference to crimes committed by the other side [Saddam and his Sunni murderers]. In other words you incapable of presenting balance and are a sadist bigot

Philo, up until the "sadist bigot" bit I very much liked your reply.
Kind of interesting how some of the left scream about Howard and the anti-terror laws and keep quiet about Beasley's claims that they are not tough enough.

It's not a right vs left issue, rather a freedom vs control issue and that is not something that is easy to pick from political orientation.

Personally I'm against some of what I understand the provisions to be - to easy for a genuinely corrupt government to misuse them. The thought of Labor having access to that kind of power is scary in the same way that I'm concerned about Beatty having access to the powers in the new IR laws.

R0bert

Philo,

Excellant points! And I agree - Where was Beazley in all this? Telling us that our rights needed to be stripped further, that's where.

But at least Labor wants to protect SOME of our rights. If howard had his way, half the country would be living in cardboard boxes, eating gruel. All for the benefit of the super-rich who don't even need his support.

But considering the how profound Saddam's crimes were, it would be a waste of time even mentioning them. Everyone knows how psychotic he is but at least he was open about his hatred and contempt. You never heard him say "The Saddam regime is a friend of the Kurds!". Besides, you'd expect more civil behaviour from countries who are apparently "spreading democracy".

And just for the record, I'm not pro Labor, just anti-Liberal.

But this is all completely off the topic.

Philo,

I agree that labour did not prevent these breaches, however I note that in the 1950's the states and opposition did not in fact prevent the Communist Party Dissolution Act. This act was in fact based upon a referral of power from the states, similar to the present laws. It was entirely invalid, beacause its effect, was inter alia, to impose retrospective criminal liability, and to declare certain acts illegal, by parliamentary / administrative fiat, without due process.

'a stream may not rise above its source' (Communist Party Case, Fullagar J).

Redneck,

I do agree that in some respects, rascism is a natural part of the human condition. However it IS learned behaviour. White children raised on aboriginal communities do not normally refrain from interacting with Aboriginal children, however they do notice differences - but they do not discriminate upon that basis. The noticing of points of difference is thus natural, whilst the discrimination against others based upon those differences is LEARNED.

People.... I we need to make an important distinction between 'racism' and 'territorial security'.

Most of what is being referred to as 'racism' in regard to immigration is simply a prevailing group identifying potential threats to its social,political and cultural integrity and seeking to challenge those trends before they erupt in a volcalno of French style hostility and civil unrest.

Racism has a specific meaning" i.e. "Regarding another race as biologically inferior to ones own".

When we struggle and grapple with this area of life, we need to get OUT of this artificially constructed social 'prison' of not being able to speak about things which are 'good/bad' for our nation without worring about 'incoming' from pc or pro open-immigration people.

I am adamant and passionate, that we need to DISCRIMINATE on many levels. This is nothing more than being selective for the welfare of ones own territory.

Examples such as "Tribal mentality" + "incomapatable religion" + "Criminal Track Record"

Lets 'test' this theory in regard to one group, 'Lebanese Muslim males'.

Referring to Tim Priests account of the various goings on in Sydney's south west, we can observe the following:

1/ When an arrest is attempted of a Lebanese Muslim Male, there is a strong possibility that his extended family and associates will be quickly on the scene in large numbers and they will seek to overturn the law by
a) force of numbers
b) Threats to kill/rape wives of officers attending
c) Same as 'b' in regard to Witnesses.
d) Possibly raiding the police station in large numbers, intimidating police and threatening b and c above.
e) Seeking to kill police by drive by shootings at the Police station.

Melbourne witnessed this type of behavior just a week ago with the 'Lebanese Muslim male' thugs who attacked a Cameraman.

In the absense of other races or religions carrying out such acts in recent memory, one is drawn to the conclusion that an immigration welcome to any extended family connection to a Lebanese Muslim male who has a proclivity to crime would be a serious mistake.
Hence "Conditional Citizenship" ?

Bd, “Melbourne witnessed this type of behavior just a week ago with the 'Lebanese Muslim male' thugs who attacked a Cameraman. In the absence of other races or religions carrying out such acts in recent memory,”

lets not forget the recent Irish incident where a bloke was murdered by catholics because he disagreed with a leader of the IRA, lets not forget the amount of threats put out by this christian group. Or the beating up of a non jew in Israel by radical jews because he entered the wrong place. Then we have the death of the Aussie Jew in new York by a mob. We can also include the beatings by southern white cops on those that aren't christian. In England there are many cases of right wing christians beating up stray muslims and jews. Then we have the right wing christian Nazi's in Germany that beat up anyone, who may not agree with their views or gets in their way. Then we come to the millions of jews, Gypsies and others that were murdered by the christian Third Reich.

I really find it hard to understand how anyone can say that their religion is better than another, when they do exactly the same despotic things. The only problems that immigrates have brought to this country, is religion. From the first landing to this day, it is religion that has over seen the demise of the people of this country and others. After all, part of my family were shipped to this country because of their beliefs and life style, against their will.

To Mr Alchemist.

At least you have to wit to comprehend that in group / out group hostility is a cultural universal and no race, creed or culture can be considered above the rest in those stakes. Some posters on this site have a bit of trouble making that connection.

But the point that David Boaz states is that within the “Australian” community a certain standard of behaviour is expected from any person, or group of persons, who aspire to be citizens of this country.

Identifiable groups of people who have a cultural (or genetic) predisposition to use violence as a first resort when dealing with personal problems are not considered to be people worthy of inclusion in our society.

The utter contempt that people of the Islamic faith (and by Muslim Lebanese in particular) have for any kind of non Muslim authority is well appreciated in the Sydney area. It is not only the NSW police who have a problem with Lebanese, the NSW Education Department can not even get teachers to work in the “troubled” South West of Sydney because of the behaviour of Lebanese Muslim boys. Teachers have been regularly assaulted, intimidated, sworn at, threatened with rape, had their cars damaged and even their houses pelted with rocks at night.

The NSW ambulance service will not go into certain streets without police protection because they are sick and tired of their ambulances being pelted with rocks. This service also changed their uniform shirts from blue to white because ambulance officers were being regularly assaulted by Lebanese and Arab boys and men who mistook them for police officers.

The events in France are hardly a surprise, given the totally unacceptable behaviour of certain immigrant groups in this country. The biggest surprise is that there are still people like yourself around finding excuses for crime prone minorities and trying to blame white society for everything.

Just a quick one, Reddy,
You obviously do not live in Bankstown (the area that I assume you refer to). I'm of Anglo descent & have lived in the Bankstown area all my life. You are full of sh-t. I think I speak for many in stating that your attitudes mirror those of Hitler, the KKK & similar.
You fail to understand the problems your attitude creates. You cannot see beyond your own bias. You are sick.

We have got you and your friends on the run again, haven’t we Mr Swilkie? I have responded to your posts with reasoned arguments which you do not have the wit to argue against. Instead you simply resort to sneery one liners, insults, and claiming that my attitudes “mirror” those of Hitler and the KKK.

Now if I remember correctly, Hitler claimed that blond, blue eyed white people are superior to every other race and that the fairer your skin, the more superior you were. I have never endorsed that view at all. I challenge you look through the archives and find any reference to me claiming that particular premise. When you do look and find that I am right, don’t forget to sign my “sorry” book. As for the KKK, I do not know much about them. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to their official philosophy so that we can compare it to my own stated views?

But I can understand your anger and frustration. For many years, naïve people such as yourself have been told that people like me are stupid. While people like yourself who claim that all races are identical in every way except skin colour, are very intelligent. You identify with the anti racists because you wish to be considered intelligent. Then you come up against people like Me, ALL, Leigh, David Boaz and several other posters, and we all just run rings around you. Your reaction is one of seething anger, the identifying mark of a not too bright immature man.

Passionate emotions like anger suppress the brains ability to think rationally, Mr Swilkie. If you really think that your position is correct, start thinking objectively and start doing some research instead of relying upon your presumed superior intellect over your opponents. Thinking that you are so smart compared to your opponents that you do not even need to try too much, has been the Waterloo of many an unprepared person. Unless you can support your view with a good argument which displays cause and effect, you have lost the debate.

Reddy,
>>Identifiable groups of people who have a cultural (or genetic) predisposition to use violence as a first resort when dealing with personal problems are not considered to be people worthy of inclusion in our society.<<
Ridiculous.

Red,

As indigenous people have a much higher rate of incarceration etc. and a correspondingly high rate of violence (both v other indigenous people & non-indigienous people), presumably you advocate a return to the old system whereby they were not counted in the census, allowed to vote etc. Perhaps we could even reintroduce the protection act, thereby requiring every indigenous person to carry a letter of authorisation to leave their community, with them at all times?

C'mon redman, you ARE smarter than that!

Redneck, “The biggest surprise is that there are still people like yourself around finding excuses for crime prone minorities and trying to blame white society for everything.” How you worked that out is beyond me, but as I like fishing it's reasonable that the gullible will bite when dangled the right bait. Even if I thought it from your posts, I would never accuse you of being a cross dressing, homophobic, closet, religious blank, unless I saw you come out of the closet in your pretty pinkies. You must be so paranoid, to accuse a white, blonde, blue eyed Gypsy of supporting morons.

I am against all religion, those that promote it, political correctness, politicians, multinationals and war. I would love to see all migration stopped, any that complain send back. I would throw all those immigrants that are on welfare out and deport any that committed a crime. Also introduce the death penalty for certain crimes and jail corporate leaders who ripped of anyone. Turn around refugees boats and sink intruding fishing boats. Anyone that can't speak Australian would go to and I would offer all the religious the chance to leave and go to a country of their choice, or else shut up and only worship in their homes and places of worship.

Redneck, so sad that you are so bereft of understanding, it is not colour, race, nor culture that is the problem, it is religion and the cultures associated with it. Those who believe in religion, can but repeat themselves and rarely have anything progressive to say. Nothing can be done about the past, but to learn from our mistakes, sadly religion never learns those lessons. Religion being an illusion, can but repeat itself over and over with the same results, death and destruction.

The type of attitude you have, I lost during active service as the religious ones put down our hosts and their cultural lifestyle, only to cower in fear when the reality of war invaded their illusions. Lie down and take your pills, your slip is showing

I can not help myself sometimes; Here we go again the indefatigable redneck claiming victory yet again; he, in his vivid, imagination has the lefties "on the run" - where to is another matter , but they still seem to be all over these pages in spite of redders oft repeated assertions.

The poor mans victories are pyrhhic at best and largely confined to that space between his ears.

After graduating from crayon to keyboard there now seems to be no stopping this man - I assume - who has stood "shoulder to shoulder" with working class Australians and from what I read thinks that he is alone in that. No one else has had any life experience.

He advises me, and others no doubt, that I have a lot to learn; that is where the seenkemeistere has it all over redders et al - I can agree with him. I do have a lot to learn; an awful lot. I even learn from redders. But with the old redneck, judging by his position on almost everything - poofters and mulsims are the root of all evil; and that is about the limit to his logic - redders has nothing to learn.

A prisoner to his own prejudice. Dark of heart closed of mind bereft of imagination - and he apparently does not like chardonnay or latte'either; that is what I find most staggering about the guy! While I still contend that a good reisling remains the Prince of wines, chardonnay has its place. And while I prefer a short black ( oh how you could work u that line ), latte' too has its place.

I used to think just like you do on the subject of race, Mr Alchemist.

Your own statement is a contradiction.

You claim that culture “is not the problem” then claim that “religious culture” is the problem. But culture is simply a guide to a group of people’s behaviour. Australia’s homicide rate is 1,8 per 100,000. The rate of homicide in the USA is 9.8 per 100,000. But the rate of homicide among young inner city blacks in Washington DC is an incredible 227 per 100,000 and God or religion has nothing to do with that figure. “Gangstas” are hardly noted for their religious observances. Criminal behaviour in inner city Washington DC, (which is 90% black) became so bad in 1993, that the mayor, Sharon Kelly, asked the President to call out the National Guard. She admitted that the police had lost control of the streets.

Culture is critical to understanding any group of people’s behaviour. But I think that you will admit that the culture of the typical black or Hispanic street gang member is a bit different to that of the members of The Mormon Tabernacle. In the cultures of low status young males and the cultures of people from societies like the Middle East, it is common for men to embrace a culture in which male codes of honour are almost medieval in concept. That is why these cultures are so violent, especially towards women.

On the subject of genetics, even the Australian Institute of Criminlogy has released a paper (Oct 2003, “Is There a Genetic Susceptibility To Crime” ) in which they have ruefully admitted that there is strong evidence that there is. This confirms the scientific research published in the Criminology book “A Mind To Crime”. The facts cross connect.

The primary reason for glaring discrepancies in criminal beahviour of different ethnic and racial groups is primarily cultural. But genetics could also play a part because it is easy to culturally condition a person to act in a certain way if they already instinctively feel that such behaviour is natural and normal anyway.

Well finally the Alchemist has revealed his political agenda. Just imagine the violence he would cause if he ever tried to introduce his totalitarian approach to a nationhood. His real agenda is violence and war as he attacks any difference from his view. Let us see him introduce it without civil war.

Quote: "I am against all religion, those that promote it, political correctness, politicians, multinationals and war. I would love to see all migration stopped, any that complain send back. I would throw all those immigrants that are on welfare out and deport any that committed a crime. Also introduce the death penalty for certain crimes and jail corporate leaders who ripped of anyone. Turn around refugees boats and sink intruding fishing boats. Anyone that can't speak Australian would go to and I would offer all the religious the chance to leave and go to a country of their choice, or else shut up and only worship in their homes and places of worship."

redneck, there is another aspect to those crime rates which is worth considering - environment. I spent a short period of time in one of the bad areas of Washinton DC many years ago, didn't find out how bad until after the event. Un-informed me went out to get some groceries while staying at a youth hostel in the area. I had a very memorable (and pleasant) chat with some locals on the way back.

The environment was bleak, almost no gardens (or space for them), drap building fronts, few trees etc. Some of that is economic and some is cultural. No matter how small the space I would be trying to find a way to have a garden but most of these people have not grown up with that and don't understand the impact it can have.

I understand that some of the initial work in Mahatton came from idea's in the book "Fixing Broken Windows" which I have not read (should do sometime). The premise I have been told is basically that if you leave windows broken, graffiti up, allow people to piss in public, commit small crimes etc then they become more accepting of that stuff and bigger problems are easier to move to. Zero tolerance is an extension of this, get rid of the small crime and people are less likely to do big crime. Along with that goes the problem of a dramatic loss of freedom and that is the sting.

Haven't ghetto's always had a high level of crime? Isn't there evidence that if you improve the environment and give people some hope they care more? My guess is that the environment for those young negro's in DC plays a big part in the murder rate in that area, a much bigger part than genetics.

R0bert

R0bert

There is some truth in your assertion that environment and behaviour are linked. Psychologists call this phenomenon “The Crowded Rat Syndrome.” That is, give a rat plenty of room and he can be a nice rat. Crowd him up with lots of other rats in a space where territorial boundaries overlap and he starts getting very aggressive.

But there is a lot more to understanding human (and rat) behaviour than that.

The idea that every human is absolutely equal to every other human was a philosophy popular among the elites in the 19th Century. But they were less concerned with race than with class. They believed that class was an abstract concept which had no basis in reality and that all people from the disadvantaged class was just as smart as all the people from the aristocratic class. George Bernard Shaw wrote PYGMALIAN (My Fair Lady” as a means to display that with a bit of work, a flower girl from Cheapside could be made indistinguishable as a princess.

Whereas some people from the disadvantaged class can be smart, I think that you would agree that most of them are not smart. And while people in the upper classes are usually smart, there are still plenty of “upper class twits” who presume that they are smart simply because of their social position.

Now, my premise revolves around the notion that not all races or ethnicities are equally smart. In Bankstown today, people from the Lebanese Muslim community have made Bankstown, like Cabramatta, a byword for serious violent criminal behaviour. Yet thirty years ago, this same environment was simply a working class / disadvantaged class area of the largely white European people. Bankstown was never a “good” area then, and there was still a lot of crime. But compared to today it was Nirvana.

Crime is less a product of environment than the cultural values of the people who inhabit it. And if you crowd a bunch of nice rats together they are less likely to bite each other than if you crowd a bunch of savage rats together.

Redneck, I used to think like you, but realised that race or colour doesn't equate to intelligence nor preponderance to violence. What is does do with some, is display their inability to jump from subsistence living to modern living, putting them in a culturally confused state. This has caused a lot to turn confusion into subconscious acts against what they have been forced to do.

Those that are at fault, are the missionaries who forced them to give up thousands of years of living harmoniously with nature under their animist understandings. To being forced to give up the only life they knew, for fear of something they can't, see, feel or understand other than if they didn't conform they would be wiped out. Look at the countries and populance to see the result of them being christianised, or muslimised.

We have religious blanks, raving about what good they have done for these people. But look at our own region, take Borneo, it is a basket case, economically and environmentally, as is Papua New Guinea and most countries that have been colonised by christians or muslims. They have just been fodder for the greed of religion and those that hide behind its despotic expression.

So we can't have immigration from any country until they can be rid of the illusions that are destroying them, religion. The perpetrators of these acts, and those that still support them, should go and repair the destruction they have caused, both psychologically and environmentally.

Philo BD, FH, others, I am sure that you will rush out and buy your tickets to show how loving and caring your god is. Of you go, your god will protect you, as he does everyone else.

Remove the offending cause, and a cure will follow. I am still waiting for someone to tell me what war hasn't been inspired and supported by religion.

Redneck, it's not race, nor culture, but God religions and their culture, there is a difference and I for one am not prepared to lump everyone into the same basket, its to primitive.

Mr Alchemist, I used to think like you. I once vehemently claimed that the only difference between races was skin pigmentation and physical characteristics. But I was stuck by the fact that Asians are generally well behaved, noted for their dedication to hard work and noted for rising above poverty. While African descended people are a pain in the butt in every society that is unfortunate enough to have them present.

To claim that the coming of civilisation is somehow at fault for disrupting the lives of noble savages is a premise more worthy of mirth than serous consideration. The spread of civilisation was as inevitable as the rising of tomorrow’s sun. Along the way it put an end to slavery, thuggee, suttee, headhunting, cannibalism and human sacrifice. No stone age culture that ever met civilisation ever wanted to return to barbarism.

The coming of white, especially British civilisation, was the best thing that ever happened to most backward cultures. Since the end of Imperialism, the greatest civilising force ever invented, most Third World countries have reverted to Fourth World status. It was the white man’s burden to civilise the world and we dropped the ball half way through doing the job. Now we have to contend with a bunch of failed states who’s people hate us while holding out the begging bowl to us, while simultaneously dreaming about finding a way to immigrate to the land of the whites that they despise.

If you want a war that was not inspired by or supported by religion, how about the famous “Soccer War” that erupted between El Salvadore and Costa Rica over a disputed line call in a World Cup match? That two countries could declare war on one another over a soccer game is a measure of how immature and violent some non European people are. God and religion had nothing to do with it.

Alchemist,

The invasion of Ethiopa by Italy in the 1930's

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (1990-1)

Libya's invasion of Chad

Argentina's invasion of the Falklands

Germanies (multiple) invasion(s) of France

Frances single invasion of Germany (Napoleanic)

Need I continue? The causes of war are far more varied than you appear to realise. The ultimate causes of most includes religion, however they also include population pressure, economic pressure, overcrowding, need for extra resources, power, etc.

Howeveer I do agree that to some extent ultra-nationalism and fundamentalism are significant, and have in fact contributed to some of the most extreme, barbaric warfare seen in history (eg Crusades, particularly those in Spain, Jerusalem and Constantinople [destroyed by christian crusader's after enduring numerous seiges by moslems]).

I'm breaking my promise here (so sue me, Redneck! Whatever your real name is...) and posting twice, when I said I'd only do so once -- but hell, rules annoy me. Incidentally, that 'I'll post once' call was made NOT because anonymous, self-confessed, right-wing folks spook me, but because (a) banging your head against the brick wall of the anonymous anti-multiculturalists who post here seems a sadly futile exercise...logic and bigotry may sadly belong to different jigsaw puzzles; (b) free time to monitor this site is a luxury I lack; and (c) I'd had my 900 words published under my true name, which is a decent allocation.

But anyway, recent events warrant this query:

After watching today's news footage of white 'Aussies' rioting in the Sydney area, displaying nationalist white power flags, victimising people of 'middle eastern appearance' and smashing up cars (belonging to salt-of-the-earth white folks, no less)... Where does this leave the arguments of the aptly-named Redneck, along with 'Meredith' and a couple of others, who cited the riots in France as evidence of the inherent violence of those troublesome darkies? How do you account for this white violence -- and the ugly chants of 'Aussie Aussie Aussie, oi oi oi?' I heard on the radio this morning?

Diversity is the reality: we are a nation of immigrants and (colonised)) native peoples.

Wake up, self-avowed proponents of racism: your ethos gets us nowhere. Chat to the person who sells you your kebab. What nonsense did they endure today? Are you able to offer them some of that famed 'Aussie' cameraderie? Or does your sympathy lie with the rioters in this instance? And so, back to my original question: who is the 'WE' in this situation?