We would see who the real Australians are if the country ever had to defend itself.

An IPA survey after the Russia/Ukraine conflict revealed that if Australia found itself in a similar situation that only 46% of people calling themselves Australians said that they would stay and fight, 26% were not sure, and 28% said they would leave. The percentage of ‘leavers’ is suspiciously close to the percentage of “Australians” who were born overseas. How the fools think that they would be able to leave during a war, or that other countries would take them in, only they know - if they have even thought about it. But, I am sure that it would be better to not have them here, as it would have been better not to allow them to come here in the first place.

It would save us having to go to the cost and inconvenience of having to intern such people, particularly those from the country/countries Australia might find itself at war with.

Which brings us back to the stupidity of bringing in migrants who are not descended from people of British or European background. We are British-based, and it is highly unlikely that Europeans would ever be a threat these days. Our political class has put us in a lot of danger with its absurd importation of the wrong people, too many of whom are only Australians-of-convenience.

I'm rather hesitant about tarring any particular group with
the one brush. History has shown us that no faith, no
nationality, no race during wars is free of cowards or
collaborators. No group is spared from killers and
traitors in their midst.

Talking about British and European loyalty?

The - "Cambridge Spy Ring" John Cairncross, Anthony
Blunt, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean or Kim Philby. British
Intelligence Officers who were double agents for the
Soviet Union.

The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were said to be sympathetic
to Nazi Germany.

There were - Europeans who proclaimed themselves to be
"patriots" yet sold their country out. So I think we should
be careful of just tarring any particular group with the one
brush - and saying the others are squeaky clean.

There are and always will be individual differences.
People who use systems for their own gain. No particular
faith, race, or nationality is immune.

I have to say that the UK is looking a bit iffy these days: first a PM of mixed Indian/Kenyan descent, and now a black woman. Rule Britannia seems to have become Fool Britannia.

We would see who the real Australians are if the country ever had to defend itself.
1/ Does 'defend ourselves' mean fighting on our shores or on others?
2/ If there is a war, what exactly are we defending?

I'd argue if we are stupid enough to go to war with our largest trading partner, then the enemy might not even reside on foreign shores.

ttbn is concerned black people are getting into the top jobs in the UK very if'y in his book, don't these black fellas know their place in polity white society? Next think you know some upperty black fella will be running Australia, now that will never do ah old fella!

Let's be serious. A black person does not represent a country that is 82% white people. The once-conservative party has gone mad: pandering to minorities, which used to be an extreme Left pastime. But these days, all politicians are excited about skin colour, and to hell with white people - even though most of them are white themselves.

Strangely, the Labour Party has NOT tried to pull the same stunt. They just have a black underling or two.

That is not to say that Badenoch doesn't have merit. It's rumoured that she wants the Tories to be … well Tories; she thinks they have gone wacky on gender nonsense. She has a nice face - yes, people's character is reflected in their faces. It's a test that never fails.

But, she does not represent the majority of British people, who have always managed to make Britain that great place it has been for a very long time.

Back to one of the whitest of Brits, PM Starmer; he tweeted that, “The first Black leader of a Westminster party is a proud moment for our country”. So, what's he doing? Why didn't he decline the top job in favour of a black person? He didn't congratulate Badenoch for being the new Tory Party leader: he congratulated her for being the first black Tory Party leader. Again, if it's such a good idea, what is he, whitey, doing leading the Labour Party?

Starmer, and all the virtue-signalling, ‘anti-racist’ types are more into the skin colour and races of people - not the people themselves - than the people they abuse as racist will ever be.