Dear David,

<<The state does not decide what is right and wrong. It decides what is permissible and non-permissible.>>

Yes, and it may not legitimately do so unless it is for the protection of others who accept its protection.

<<Driving on the wrong side of the road and robbing a bank are both non-permissible.>>

I have no problem with that because it is reasonable to expect that other road-users and bank-users/employees, who wish to be protected by the state, are likely to be hurt otherwise.

<<I think it reasonable that the state prevents people from harming others.>>

Yes, but I qualify it by the (explicit or implicit) consent of those others to receive the state's protection).

<<The democratic state is an imperfect body as are all other governments.>>

Any ---cratic is a monstrous construct. What under the heavens gives anybody a right to rule over another?!

<<A person's religious beliefs or the absence of such beliefs should not be the business of the government.>>

I Agree, but I must qualify it with the word 'human': ... should not be the business of a human government.

<<The secular state and the elimination of monarchy are great advances.>>

A truly religious state would be much better (and a truly religious state would not force itself on unwilling others), but knowing our history, since history was written, not a single religious organisation was not corrupted over time to one degree or another. Hence for the age we live in, I also prefer the secular.

Now if we had a monarch who acted immorally, then I could say "alas, what can I do". Of course I should have tried to overthrow him/her if I could. Democracy, however, presents a new problematic dimension because those immoral and unacceptable acts are now done, supposedly in my name, hence it becomes my duty to fight it, ensuring that it is not my hands that spilt that innocent blood.

Paul
European Population Genetic Substructure: Further Definition of Ancestry Informative Markers for Distinguishing among Diverse European Ethnic Groups
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730349/
Basically there's a North-South gradient in European population genetics which is more pronounced than the East West gradient, so draw a line through the Pyrenees to Belgrade then run that line up to Helsinki, north and west of that line there's little variation compared to the populations outside it. As for "Hitler's scientists" they were assuming a lot in the 1930's but it seems that they were spot on about all Europeans being descended from a distinctive "Master Race", if you take the word "Master" to mean "base" or "blueprint".
We are not literally "Aryans" in the politicised sense suggested by the Nazis but at it's most basic expression we are descendants of a single wave or group of ancient Africa to Europe migrants, albeit one unrelated to the ancestors of the modern Africans, of whose genetic history little is known at present.

The intermarriage figures for the U.S.A are usually fudged by Liberal media, they take the percentage of newlyweds in interracial relationships as being something like 14% of the 2 million or so marriages per year and tout that as being indicative of the whole married population. Not so, only about 0.4% of White Americans have a stable, long term non White partner, as I said, it's not a feature of our past, present or future, as for the Daily Mail article I grant you I could unpick that as well and find that the figures are fudged or skewed in some way.
What's interesting is that interracial marriages in the U.S.A fail more often than they succeed and it's all highly variable by race, gender, age and even geographic location. For example White male/Black Female marriages are actually more stable than the national average whereas Black Male/White Female marriages have upwards of an 80% failure rate.
The Pew Institute publish regular surveys of U.S census data and you can also look at the U.S government data if you need further reading.

Dear Yuyutsu,

All governments are human governments regardless of where they claim their authority comes from. There is no such thing as a non-human government.

As far as asking for protection, if you were attacked and neither wanted to protect yourself nor ask for protection, I would protect you by violence if necessary whether you wanted me to or not.

I would not want to be the subject of any religious state whether it thought itself truly religious or not.

You wrote: "Democracy, however, presents a new problematic dimension because those immoral and unacceptable acts are now done, supposedly in my name, hence it becomes my duty to fight it, ensuring that it is not my hands that spilt that innocent blood."

I agree with that. So does Henry Thoreau.

http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html contains his essay on the subject.

Jay Of Melbourne "they don't have a point, we do."

It's not them I'm really trying to communicate with.
It's the unseen/unheard readers, who may be unsure or undecided.

They will see a defensible argument from me and fluff-and-bluff from my opponents.

Nhoj "Shockadelic believes Australians are an "ethnic group""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

"An ethnicity, or ethnic group, is a social *group* of people who *identify* with each other based on *common* *ancestral*, social, cultural, or national experience.

Membership of an ethnic group tends to be associated with *shared* cultural heritage, *ancestry*, history, homeland, language (dialect), or ideology, and with symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, *physical appearance*, etc."

Ethnicity is what is "shared/common".
Including ancestry.

For two centuries, "Australians" shared a British/European ancestry, the English language (Australian dialect, no other language "spoken at home"), Christianity or irreligion, a modern/Western Anglospheric culture/cuisine/dress adapted to the climate/circumstances of our homeland's environment.

"Australians" did not celebrate Chinese New Year, Ramadan or sacrifice babies to the volcano god.

New ethnicities develop.
It's called ethnogenesis.

Australians did not evolve from *all* the peoples/cultures of the world.
They have particular origins and therefore particular "shared/common" characteristics.

Cossomby "Chinese-Turkish-Tongan-Mexican-Zulu-Tamil-Korean-Tahitian ancestry...
In the past, obviously not that varied a combination, but in the future, definitely yes"

Sorry to break it to you, but the *past* is where our ethnogenesis occurred.

"but in the future, definitely yes, at least to an equivalent mixture"

Oh, it won't end there.
That's just 3 generations.

Every generation after adds *exponentially* to the number of possible combinations.
The only limit is the *total* number of all ethnicities in the world (around 6000).

"British culture set the basis for Australian (non-Aboriginal) culture and it will continue to be the basis"

And the *people*?
Would "Tibetans" still be "Tibetans" if everyone spoke Tibetan, ate Tibetan, etc., but slowly because of mass immigration, beared *no resemblance* to "Tibetans" of past centuries?

"this stability is exactly what attracts people to come here."

And they're coming here undermines that stability!
You can't have continuity and stability *and* radical transformation simultaneously.

Cossomby "but in the long run ie. last decade, British and New Zealanders have been the dominant groups"

Wrong.
http://www.immi.gov.au/settlement/srf/

Settlers By Cntry of birth (world region)
Arrival Dates: from 04-May-2004 to 03-May-2014

Cntry of birth (world region)
Southern Asia 395287
Northeast Asia 319536
Southeast Asia 284591
The United Kingdom and Ireland 272339 [15%]
Southern and East Africa 129144
The Middle East 95183
Northern America 42734
Western Europe 39544
North Africa 30295
South America 28862
Australia 26056 [1%]
Southern Europe 24140
The Former USSR and the Baltic States 20360
Central and West Africa 19675
Polynesia (excluding Hawaii) 17315
Eastern Europe 15822
New Zealand 9825 [half a percent]
Northern Europe 7789
Melanesia 4769
Central America 3520
The Caribbean 1464
Micronesia 259
Africa (So Stated) 47
Australian External Territories 7
Antarctica 2
AT SEA 1
Oceania 1

Total 1788567
Invalid/Unknown 3255

Total Arrivals 1791822

Total for UK/Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Australian External Territories: 308227 [17%]
Add in North America and Europe: 426687 [24%]

24% White.
That's the last decade.
Last year (and presumably future years), even less.

It is a myth that most immigrants are still White/European.
The fact that this myth is perpetuated implicitly acknowledges that "White/European" is what people *expect*!

Yet a simultaneous "we've always been mixed" myth is also perpetuated by the same people!

Dear David,

<<All governments are human governments regardless of where they claim their authority comes from. There is no such thing as a non-human government.>>

It is humbling and sobering to see the bigger picture, that no matter how tyrannical human governments can be, human control is but a tiny and feeble fragment.

What for example about the laws of physics - are we not governed by them?

What about the rule of Death? All kings and all prime-ministers succumbed to it so far, soon will Mugabe as well - Do you think any can escape?

Incidentally, 'government' can mean other than human, as in Genesis 1:16 - "God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night."

- You may consider it nonsense, but what human government shall stand once the sun turns into a red giant?

<<if you were attacked and neither wanted to protect yourself nor ask for protection, I would protect you by violence if necessary whether you wanted me to or not.>>

Perhaps you are saying this because you assume that I would implicitly like you to protect me, which makes you play God - otherwise, why do you wish me harm? do you hate me?

Can you see how this can lead to an 1984 situation, where Big Brother knows best what's good for you better than yourself? Does it not scare you?

<<I would not want to be the subject of any religious state whether it thought itself truly religious or not.>>

Have you seen a religious organisation which does not think itself truly religious?

I for instance would love to be subject to a state that is truly religious, but that's not on the cards for millennia to come, so why bother?