I commend Tim Murray's "Australia and Canada: what cost cultural diversity?" published on OLO today at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7896&page=0 The discussion is at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7896&page=0

He quotes Mark O'Connor:

Thus instead of being ashamed that we have lost so many of
our marsupial species, many Australians on the left seem more
ashamed that we do not have flourishing Inuit or Bantu community
in their particular city. Quite why it should be Australia’s
duty to turn itself into a representative sample of the cultures
of the earth is never explained. Instead, there are constant
shouts that any reduction of immigration will lead us tumbling
back into an abyss of “racism” and “boring monoculturalsim”.
Thus Labor was able to disguise a right-wing policy of
relentless growth as left-wing “tolerance”.

Hawke’s and Keating’s spin doctors even took advantage of
the Anglo-Celtic guilt over having immigrated upon the
Aboriginal tribes without their permission and violently
displaced them. Somehow this became a further reason why
high immigration, so long as it was no longer Anglo-Celtic,
was essential - as if inviting in the rest of the world
would legitimise it.

---

I also commend Tim Murray's "Is it reactionary to oppose immigration?" of 19 December 2007 at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2240

Spikey,
Refer to your responses 15/9/08, 5:01:02 pm when you had responded to various people.

I responded to some of your statements.

Trust this satisfies.

My last point related to the fact that the indigenous Australians fell victim to a technologocally superior force, same way as the beaker people, the Celts, Britons, Romans, Danes, Saxons, Angles, et al did in Britain

Left-leaning Australians definitely go overboard (ha!) about immigration, but they're forced to in order to balance out the rank racism of the Right.

As Spikey pointed out above, arguments of "economic migrants", and comparisons with European countries which operate in entirely different geo- and ethnographic circumstances are bunkum. It's just cheap dog whistling to the tune of "keep the brown people out of the white man's land".

The richest irony is that the conservative government we had for 11 years increased immigration to record levels to compensate for its lack of investment in education, while making a big, sanctimonious show of locking up people who'd been displaced by the invasions we took part in. And the Right sees absolutely no inconsistency or hypocrisy in it.

This is what 2legit said in response to a post of mine:
<<So, the indigenous Australians had their homeland "invaded" by a race of people...who ruled from strength and became indigenous Australians...who also had their homeland "invaded" by a third wave of people... who ruled from strength and became indigenous Australians...who had their homeland "invaded" by a wave of WHITE people, who because of skin colour can't rule from strength or become indigenous? Is that your proposition? Really? A bit racist, isn't it?(lol!) That's quite an opinion you've got there :-)>>

I said I’d respond to 2legit's post if I could understand what it was he claimed I thought.

In turn Zlegit says:

<<My last point related to the fact that the indigenous Australians fell victim to a technologocally superior force, same way as the beaker people, the Celts, Britons, Romans, Danes, Saxons, Angles, et al did in Britain>>

I have an MA from a British university and taught English as a second language for some time. But I haven't a clue what Zlegit is talking about. Can anyone help me out please? What is he trying to say? How does it connect to anything I've written?

What's the missing link?

C.J. Don't shoot the messenger for stating the awful truth. I am not ashamed!! The truth about human nature is awful; we need to face that, not shoot the messenger. Tell me how the Jews are different to all the other religions in the world who want to segregate societies with their religious group on one side and the rest of the population of the country cast in the not one of us holy chosen ones on the outside. How many wars has that caused?

It doesnt excuse the German atrocities, but it is dam well what triggered it.
Now we have this conflict again just when we had that lovely sing along together on Polycarps post.

SPIKEY- And just who am I being racist against. THE JEWS? Dont you think the Jews were also being racist against the Germans by refusing to become one with them by splitting off into their own religious tribe. This is the trouble with religions that scream intolerance, it is really the other way around, it is them that split countries in two. Consider the Catholics and the Protestants in England. No religion no bloody uprisings and massacres would have occurred.

It provokes territorial warfare.

Personally, I have no hatred toward the Jews or Germans or any other race, as long as they dont try to lay claim to the sovereignty of my country, even it is only by the stealth of numbers.