Nice honest description of the anti-left.
Various parts of the right would find this article just a tad too honest for them!
-The poor have been put there by God, so its OK to screw them.
(Never mind the Christian duty of charity, God says it is OK!)
-Family has priority over everthing.
(That is, my family. Nepotism is OK (like bailing out your brothers company with taxpayer funds). The Mafia uses family in the same way, and for the same reasons.)
-Natives do not deserve title.
(Invasion and aggession are OK, hide it this generation and next can ignore it. Justice is only for the strong! (God allows it, so it must be OK))
-It is OK to be hypocritical. Non-core promises and the like are OK because everyone does it. This is called "cynicism", and despite the popular usage it implies the sort of "relativism" that Howard accused the Left of. Howard (and BOAZ_David) both subscribe the Christian school of "I'm so bloody holy that I don't need to care about facts or other people".
-It is OK to have an opinion on anything, despite lack of subject knowledge. If someone who has knowledge disagrees, attack the person relentlessly; avoid facts! This arrogance is staggering and is getting scary.
-Worship Authority. Truth is hard work and you are sometimes wrong. Better to team up in a tribe, cloak yourself with virtue and attack any threats to the tribe's version of truth. This is how Humans lived for 100,000 years and we got nowhere.
Only when Law and Science triumphed over authority did Humans become modern. I feel that Howard has tried to drag us back.
the cuture wars are well and truly alive if the right tries to revive Howards legacy.

1)"Australian political life cannot remain exempt from the siren calls of
faith, race and nation" … as if it’s a contagion …

The only difference between Aust & the rest of the world is our
intelligentsia will largely bemoan such siren calls as unfortunate, or
pathological and, Australians will be spoon-fed the proposition that
there are certain international standards & forces at work which simply over-ride our
national interests –though, the rest of our near neighbours , particularly
the 'new ...superpowers' like China ,India etc will continue pushing their own
selfish, national interests.

Issues of immigration & values are bigger than any pro/anti-Howard posturings.
To portray them as another lib/lab demarcation is both simplistic & mischievous.

Supporters of either party need be mindful that a "radical & accelerating
change" to our ethnic composition or values is not in either’s long-term
interests.

It is notable that contrary to many a oracular pronouncement that Howard’s electoral defeat would overturn everything Howard stood for, the Rudd govt has only tweaked the key policy dials by a matter of degrees - though this may change the celebratory period ends & hardcore lobbyists call in their IOUs

Immigration is NOT largely driven by the young who migrate in search of higher
living standards, rather, it is driven by the mums, dads, sister, brothers,
'partners' who follow-after them ( legitimately or illegitimately ) and stay
, even when/where the yuppies have moved back offshore.

And in the future, immigration is likely to be driven more & more by guilt-mongering, that blames the rich/developed world for Climate Change, North–South Wealth imbalances, and its colonial past & declares it has a moral obligation to take in all and sundry who were damaged .

2) The comment “The role of Asian-Australian voters in John
Howard's Bennelong defeat has already attracted conservative ire" is,
LAUGHABLE! .A very small number of locals have blamed Asians -but they are
hardly representative of "conservative" opinion either in Bennelong or anywhere else. And some of Howard’s most ardent roadies & supporters were from the local Asian community.

Aaah..Frank.... (and Ozandy.. in a moment)

You said: (quoting)

- "the bolstering of a sense of national identity that placed whiteness, Christianity and British ancestry at the centre"

on your list of 'BAD'... but the suggestion from your structure was this:

"Christians.. actually support such a view..and thus, are evil"

All I did was point out that the Bible does not support such a view, in fact, such a view is ANTI Biblical.

Ozandy seems to have booked a passage on the good ship 'Frank-Ahoy'
and waved signal flags of support from the lower portholes.. and fuelled with toxic accelerant the already 'out of control' flames of the Myth 'Christians think they are better than every1 else".

NEWSFLASH.. stuggling with issues of national interest and importance is NOT anything to do with "We are better than you".

Jesus said "When you goto a banquet, don't take the highest seat, or the host might come along and inform you that someone more noble than yourself is here..and you with shame will have to give your seat to him... no.. when you enter, take the lowest seat, that the host might say "Friend..you are more noble than this.. come up higher"

There are many levels and layers in that parable. But while it emphasises humility..the context is:

-There is a host.
-There is a peck order.
-Don't elevate yourself without the hosts approval.

Migrants who do so, will possibly be told that the seat is reserved for others. Not by way of 'Christian' reminder, but of the simple facts of life, to which Jesus was alluding.

The only people who would wish to usurp the "Hosts" arrangment, are those who are either racist or seditiously minded.

Boazy: "stuggling (sic) with issues of national interest and importance"

Is that what you think you're doing when you post endless biblical quotations and intemperate blather designed to fan intolerance against anybody who isn't Anglo-Celtic, Christian, heterosexual and conservative?

No, I think Geoff Robinson's located you and your cohorts very well in that disaffected and bitter minority who supported the execrable Howard government and its odious manipulations of the underbelly of the electorate, but who now find themselves relegated to the political wilderness.

The rather hysterical (e.g. "racist or seditiously minded", "religious vilification" etc) sputtering coming from the political black hole into which they have fallen is an indication of how much ground that conservatives - whether neo, paleo or 'idio' - have to regain before anybody takes them seriously.

BOAZ,

For the second time in two days, PLEASE (you might appreciate the shout) stop attributing comments to me which I didn't make. You're either dishonest or a bit thick - tell me which.

It was the original article's writer, Geoff Robinson, who argued (among other things) that Howard was responsible for "the bolstering of a sense of national identity that placed whiteness, Christianity and British ancestry at the centre..."

I merely commented that such an achievement was nothing much to be proud of.

Spare us your puerile sermonising. I can get more intelligent sermons from the back of my breakfast cereal box.

The only reason we need high immigration is that our society is failing to survive. We are committing genocide against ourselves through low birthrates.

Our current fertility is about the same as China, with their "one-child" policy.

Women are missing their biological clocks - because many men are refusing to become fathers and husbands. Men are on the MARRIAGE STRIKE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_strike)

Why? Fatherhood has never been so dangerous (with winner-takes-all divorce rates around 50%).

"Nasty Feminism" (as distinct from equality-feminism) has treated men as the goose-that-laid-the-golden-egg for too long and now men are refusing to becom husbands and fathers!

You want to see a 'culture war'? look no further than the looming battle between the grass-roots 'Fatherhood and Families' movement and the vested interests of the well-funded, deeply entrenched and powerful (but aging baby-boomer) Nasty Feminists.

www.Fathers4Families-Australia.org