Because large nations, and their multinationals, dominate economic and political life internationally, small nations should get together to act to trade with each other, enhance each others' and their own cultural roots and diversity, and stop dumping. Many small nations, acting together, can agree to open their territories to imports, investment and immigration - on their terms, not on the terms of the Big Guys.

Clem Gorman

Cue staged outrage over the "horrors of Nationalism"..
Many people are coming to the same realistation Clem, what about a revival of the non aligned movement?
I'm primarily concerned with the interests of my ethnic group but I'm also intrigued by the possibility of a fully integrated Asian nation founded upon indigenous European genetic stock.We don't have to lose the identity of our nation to be part of Asia or a south Pacific civilisation, after all we're only about as different from Chinese as are Indians, Polynesians or Malays.

regardless..if your selling wheat..you can only sell it
via the wheat board..in..us dollars..

which..is great
if you need to buy arms...cause if you dont..java will simply roll the bunch of ya up..[and call you indonesia/malaise-ia]

..but first they send in some japs to break you
then yankies to indebted you..then some cocconuts
to lord it over you..

so their wives can buy some italian shoes..and their kids can attend the schools of the elites and join the boys club..looting you peons into perpetual serfdom..re-educate your wealth..into capitalist gain

welcome to colon-isation..101..[=fun for some]

For small nations to be successful they'd need to rid themselves of the hangers-on & if they do then the do-gooders brigade will scream discrimination.
I's a no win situation.

clem..we need more details
how big is micro..which ones are they
what is their current ruling method..what treaties have they signed

how long does the colonizers 99 years leasehold for?
what capacity of ports..power water health education..self defense

how reliable is your access to the world
who..owns your money system..how loyal..are your servants and who do they call master..what are your peoples skilsets..how big your foreign debt..closeness to transport..outside interference

the basis and affect..of justice and enforcement systems and ability to..protect and enforce sovereign duties..upon the slaves

how many of us can..lord it up..
in your manor..via our manners...and your permissions

there will be exceptions..but most effort will be subverted..or perverted..ridiculed or lambasted..but mostly ignored.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0

Jay, can you point to a model society where something akin to a fully integrated nation founded upon indigenous European genetic stock has perpetuated? Is there value to be obtained from other stock, like non European stock, or do they need to Europeanise themselves to obtain acceptance within society. As there is no place on this earth, including Australia. at the moment where the population consists only of indigenous European genetic stock, what happens to the other stock? Is migration a possibility to this Europeanised society, who would be included, and who would be excluded, and why?

Paul1405,
In comparison to bureaucrat hangers-on the racial issue is a minor one. Race is no impediment to economic success, bureaucrats are.

A DISGRACE! Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon along with NZ Greens MP Jan Logie, have been ordered out of Sri Lanka by that countries repressive regime. Lee and Jan were in Sri Lanka on a fact finding mission concerning human rights violations by the Sri Lankan government. The Greens have once again called on Abbott not to attend the CHOGM meeting, Abbotts attendance gives legitimacy to a most repressive regime.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/19765330/greens-senator-lee-rhiannon-ordered-out-of-sri-lanka-ahead-of-chogm-meeting/

<< [Oz] Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon ...[& NZ Green] MP Jan Logie, have been ordered out of Sri Lanka ...[THEY] were in Sri Lanka on a fact finding mission concerning human rights violations by the Sri Lankan government>>

Any group which included --those fish-paper wrapper /tabloid-press politicians --the Greens must be highly suspect.

The Greens would NOT know a "fact" if they fell over one.They were there just to stir.

[Oz] Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon ...[& NZ Green] MP Jan Logie
Paul1405,
Why don't these two advocate that we pay the poor workers there properly for the products our people here pay next to nothing for ? It's a bit hypocritical to bleat discrimination when we exploit their cheap labour. Just like our perverts going over to Asia to exploit their children
If they want to help these people we need to stop exploiting them & focus on them helping themselves

Indi, well said and I totally and utterly agree with you. It is The Greens who in this country often speak out for the oppressed in the third world. Go to the Kmart web site, tell them what you think of their policy of cheap imports from Bangladesh and how they profit from exploration, I have done that. The likes of Abbott and Shorten by their silence give approval to this vile practice of exploration in the poorest of countries.
"The Greens would NOT know a "fact" if they fell over one.They were there just to stir" Words of support for a ruthless regime.

Paul,

<<The likes of Abbott and Shorten by their silence give approval to this vile practice of exploration in the poorest of countries.>>

ROFL

Why is it vile?

Who knows what you might find if you did a bit of EXPLORATION ...iron ore, gold, oil?

Heck, if they found sufficient quantities of the aforementioned they wouldn't be poor countries anymore.

I'm all for the "exploration" of poor countries!

Only a fool highlights typos SPQR, are you, Spells Perfect Queen Ratbag, SPQR? The likes of you would exploit anyone and everyone for your own profit. As for exploration I doubt you get out of your tree to explore anything.

Sorry SPQR, please don't correct me, I know, Queen should have been Queer. Sorry.

Paul 1405,
You're jumping way ahead of the discussion and you're applying your usual Anti White spin to the matter, the thread title is Small Nations Forum.
I'm talking about nations and a new South Pacific civilistaion, not states with borders and rules regulating who can and cannot be part of this or that nation.
There's no reason several nations couldn't exist on this continent, the optimum size for a productive, stable nation is judged at 4-7 million, given that about 7% of the population relocate each year the "breakup" of the federation could be done peacefully. You could live in a liberal multiracial society, some might prefer a theocracy, others a socialist republic and so on and people would naturally gravitate to the nation which suited their needs and best enhanced their future prospects. Those nations plus those of our near neighbours would make up the south Pacific Civilisation,each with it's own distinct character.
The alternative, if we keep to the current course is what's come to be known as "flatland" where the state by the use of coercive force raises up some nations and holds down others to reflect the same low "Multicultural" standard for the sake of appearances only.

I am constantly in awe of the folk on this forum who have mastered the art of meaningless generalization, and who deliver same with such nonchalant brio. So, hats off to Jay of Melbourne for this one:

>>...the optimum size for a productive, stable nation is judged at 4-7 million<<

Ok, I'll bite. Let's have a look at some of the countries that occupy this golden category of optimum-ness.

Wow.

Eritrea, 6.3 million
El Salvador, 6.3 million
Togo, 6.2 million
Sierra Leone, 6.2 million
Kyrgystan, 5.5 million
Turkmenistan, 5.2 million
Costa Rica, 4.7 million
Central African Republic, 4.6 million
Republic of the Congo, 4.4 million

Yeah, ok, I'm being selective. New Zealand has 4.5 million inhabitants, after all. Mind you, I'm not sure whether that proves your point or not...

But that's not the issue. I'm not necessarily arguing against the actual point being made...

>>There's no reason several nations couldn't exist on this continent<<

However, the central point is essentially trashed by the careless use of a meaningless "statistic" that is intended to provide justification for it.

It happens too often. We seem to have lost the capacity to enter into any discussion - politics, climate, religion, whatever - unless we have some off-the-wall statistic to offer. And more often that not, it seems, these are simply pulled out of the air.

Or somewhere a lot darker.

Pericles,
Norway,Sweden,Denmark,Uruguay,Finland,Latvia,Croatia...the list goes on but you're judging success and stability by different criteria than those used by Nationalists, the point is that we see things differently and have our own standards. From a Nationalist point of view there are already several proto-nations on the Australian continent anyway, once they reach several million in number you'll see the type of social stratification and population "clumping' that you see in North America and Europe. Example The inner urban White "trendies" as people insist on calling them here are a proto nation when compared to the rural or commuter belt Whites, different values, different culture, different political system,different social hierarchy. They could easily have their own nation centered in one of the Eastern cities, Queensland could gradually become a Christian theocracy with it's proximity to the Pacific Islands, NT could all end up as a semi agrarian mixed Asian/White/Indigenous nation if the planned shift in agricultural production is realised..rice paddies, resorts and water buffaloes, you get my drift.
I'm just throwing out ideas, I don't think too many people think they're crazy and the transition wouldn't be too traumatic for most people, it's not as if train loads of poor people would be shipped off to Siberia, Canberra,Darwin or Melbourne are tolerable place for anyone to live.

Pericles, Paul,
Apologies, you're probably dying to know where I think all of us Deep Green/Reactionary/Fascist types would go? Probably Tasmania or the South Island of New Zealand, we'd be one of the smallest nations, obviously.

New Zealand has 4.5 million inhabitants,
Pericles,
Take a step back & consider the difference that makes all the difference in a country. That difference is inhabitants vs contributing inhabitants. Just take a look at Australia where the public sector is almost half the country's workforce which is largely an unproductive non-contributing number of inhabitants of this country yet they gobble up the more of our combined funding than the rest. It's not an economic model to build a nation rather to ruin one as we have experienced in the past 40 years since the big Goaf..

Indi,
People living in the country already make a lot less money than people in the city, have a lower standard of living, fewer services etc, how hard would it be to convince them to secede and move to a small nation if it meant even a marginal increase in their overall standard of living? If you were living on $15,000 a year in Centrelink benefits in Shepparton or Dubbo with limited future prospects and my nation could offer you a wage of $25,000 a year and a cheap, Green/post hydrocarbon lifestyle would you move?

People living in the country already make a lot less money than people in the city, have a lower standard of living,
Jay of Melbourne,
Well, yes & no. The public servants posted to country areas make above double the average wage whereas the local constituents are doing it tough.
People are sick to death of people moving into their area & start dictating for the sake of money. Many people nowadays move away from money & choose lifestyle instead. Invaders looking for money are a guarantee that this lifestyle is under threat. People looking for money are destroying the social fabric of small towns. Much better to offer the locals more money & keep the money seekers away, after all, most of them have thus far proven to be of no value whatsoever.

Jay I think in Indi's case you should make an acceptation and pay the moving costs. What about moving to Hutt River Provence on the west coast of the continent

http://www.hutt-river-province.com/

a bit close.

Jay, Tasmania and or the South Island of NZ are also a bit close to the rest of us. What about you and Indi form the advanced settlers party for the new nation on Macquarie Island. You can both be gainfully employed feeding the penguins. You could soon be joined by a few of the other "like minded" posters from OLO, SPQR for one. Think of it, you'll each have your own rock to hide under, I mean that in a nice way, a bit stormy in winter, and I don't think the penguins will take you in, so a rock is the next best thing.

I'd be interested to know where you get your "facts" from, individual.

>>New Zealand has 4.5 million inhabitants, Pericles, Take a step back & consider the difference that makes all the difference in a country. That difference is inhabitants vs contributing inhabitants.Just take a look at Australia where the public sector is almost half the country's workforce<<

Half? I don't think so. Try 16%.

Here are the two sources you need to work it out from yourself:

This one adds up Federal, State and Local government employees:

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6248.0.55.002Main+Features12011-12?OpenDocument

This one shows the total workforce:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0

What sources back up your numbers?

I'd also be very surprised if New Zealand showed a markedly different pattern. But please, go ahead and show that I am wrong. Only please, use real numbers.