YEBIGA,
<< Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi !>>

Shame on you, where are your cultural sensitivities Paul and Foxy much prefer

Allah Aka-bah!
______________________________________

Foxy,

Doesn't take long for you to show your true colours, ah!

Brandishing mementos of Cronulla 2005 --but ignoring the acts that provoked it --ignoring the citywide attacks/violence in its aftermath--and ignoring all the Islamic inspired harassment & threats since.

Typical!

I will guarantee we would have no racism in Oz, if we hadn't let in a whole heap of odd races.

Think on it, & plan a more sensible future.

YEBIGA,

You're half-right, that there are, as you call them, media medias, with their particular narratives. But there are many narratives besides those, for example: the 21st successors to the Enlightenment narrative of equality of all people, men and women, the common rule of law, protection of the young, and so on.

Multiculturalism can sit a little uneasily with some of those post-Enlightenment narratives, particularly if they have been developed and solidified in regions of the world where the Enlightenment has got Buckley's of taking hold.

Culture reflects and sanctions who has power, after all, there's nothing neutral or always-good about it, and I look forward to the debate about the disjunction between those post-Enlightenment values which Australia is supposed to uphold, and the cultural values which privilege, for example, men over women, men over young girls.

I'm sure even Foxy would agree with me wholeheartedly on this differentiation :)

Cheers,

Joe

Foxy's paeans to immigration have two underlying assumptions. The first is that if a little of something is good, then a whole lot more must be even better. (Try it with salt in your food!) It is obvious that there are cultural and educational advantages to having some immigration, and that we sometimes need to import rare skills that don't exist in Australia (although an honest assessment that didn't include the desires of employers for cheap labour and savings on training costs would most likely turn up thousands of such cases a year, not hundreds of thousands. Even Foxy ought to be able to understand, though, that we can't keep doubling the population every 38 years indefinitely. The environment is taking a terrible hammering even with the existing numbers, and while it might help if we all lived like Bangladeshis, any politician who tried it would be thrown out pronto.

http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/EPBC_nomination_22-3-10.pdf

Second, Foxy believes that if something was of benefit in the past, that it therefore must continue to be of benefit for all time. (What about the rate your bones were growing when you were 8 years old?) The per capita economic benefit from mass migration is very small and mostly distributed to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves. This is the Productivity Commission's Opinion, not mine.

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/113407/annual-report-2010-11.pdf

Also see p. 154 and graphs on pp. 155 and 147 of their 2006 report on immigration.

The Productivity Commission didn't consider congestion, crowding, environmental damage, inflated housing costs, etc. due to the bigger population.

Paul,

Both you and the censors in Iran and North Korea want to stifle the expression of ideas, even if they are true. The pastors in the Catch the Fire case weren't screaming drunken abuse at some hapless migrant on a bus; they were giving seminars on Islamic theology, mostly for their own people. The Muslims who attended those seminars and reported them went to enormous trouble to be offended. This is about stopping people from expressing inconvenient truths, not civility in public. High population growth via mass migration has ceased to be in the interests of the bulk of the population, but it is still in the interests of the folk at the top. They benefit from bigger domestic markets, rentier profits from ownership of residential land and other necessities, and a cheap, compliant work force that they don't even have to train. They are insulated by their wealth from most of the problems they are causing. If only they could shut up the people who don't agree with them -- if they can't have them all like Foxy, singing the praises of mass migration, much as North Koreans sing the praises of their Dear Leader.

As for conservatives being about racism, Sam Harris discusses experiments to get a people's moral intuitions in his book "The Moral Landscape". On p. 125

"In a recent study of moral reasoning [43], subjects were asked to judge whether it was morally correct to sacrifice the life of one person to save one hundred, while being given subtle cues as to the races of the people involved. Conservatives proved less biased by race than liberals [leftists to us]. Liberals, as it turned out, were very eager to sacrifice a white person to save one hundred nonwhites, but not the other way around -- all the while maintaining that considerations of race had not entered their thinking."

Where endless, open-ended 'diversity' is promoted as a priority goal for government, can there be any doubt that those who do so use their claimed 'do-gooder' high morality as a blind, a false flag, for their hatred of the 'white' UK inheritance? Especially where they display an elitist dismissiveness and contempt for Australian traditions and culture, regarding them as worthless and not worth retaining, unless revised to suit their own jaundiced view of what should exist instead.

Australians do not object to immigration, however they rightly demand that government always puts their needs and future first. Government needs to remember that it is there to serve the public, not the other way around. To date, there has never been any attempt at meaningful consultation with the public on immigration policy and the diversity-we-have-to-have (who says?).