Here is an interesting link predicting Pauline
Hanson's future:

http://theaimn.com/pauline-hansons-one-nation-doomed/

In history humanity has always been ruled by minorities. The current minorities appear to have certain threads in commmon with historical cultural currents such as industrialization, communism, militarism, academism / scientism / priestism.

Communists - In history we have already had a number of failed communist experiments. They believe that everything is about the worker vs the employer - an oversimplistic view of the world (see Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes).

Industrialists / Corporates - all industrialists care about is money (see Friedman). They seem to believe Australia is a machine for making money and the culture of the people don't matter as long as there is cheap labour for the businesses.

Militarists - they want to occupy territory

Academism / Scientism - they want to be the proclaimed experts so they get to make the decisions independent of their scientific merit (see Kuhn - Academic Democracy). Many academics seem to believe that only those with academic merit (ie. a PhD) should contribute to policy. Perhaps they want to create a "Kuhn-ian" world - maybe we should call it "Kookism". Many of us believe that is not an academics qualifications that are valuable to society but their reason - which is shared with others in the community.
_______________________________

Democracy attempts to smooth out the interests within a community so that it is fair - but special interest groups always try to subvert the system so that they get more power. Something that can seem to be "just" at one time can turn out not to be - there is evidence in historical overturning of laws. This is why we must fall back to the position that laws and principles "shouldn't be inserted under the radar" of democratic processes. Churchill put it well paraphrasing - Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

All laws and principles have positive and negative - The negative examples below for which generally only the positive are presented.

Example 1. Diversity policies can be used to subvert Australian peoples right to democratic self interest and free speech.

Example 2. Human Rights can be used to force Australian government to accept immigrants/ refugees even when the people may or may come to believe that it is not in their self interest. Many human rights principles are from the League of Nations / United Nations - transport and communications capabilities have changed significantly since the 1950s - Massive waves of migration now spread across the world.

Example 3. Foreign student industry is a big channel for Australian migration and likely that academics are significant benefactors. Academic benefits probably come in the form of higher wages, job security, research funding, academic standing. It may not be possible to trust academic objectivity in immigration.

Example 4. There appears to be a denial of monocultures benefits in academic circles in favour of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism could be used to undermine the rights of Australian people in Australia.

The above views are held by many people and some commentators would say that we are all “racist” ok - but what does that mean.
Does it mean that it is now ok to hurt us given they have "labeled us racist".
Some say racism is divisive. But is it the “racists” or the ones who caused high levels of immigration. The "racists" say that the immigrants are crowding us out of our jobs, land, culture. (Try telling a white guy from the taxi industry that it's just their imagination). You can say that people that proclaim a White Australia policy are bad but the ones saying this may not doing so just because they disagree with the term White Australia but because "they have an agenda". I'm sure that the Eureka Stockaders will be happy with whatever "they" want to call it as long as they "give us our gold back" - as I've said above "we built it - we own it".

Dear Canem Malum,

Cave ab homine unius libri.

Dear Foxy,

You are saying be afraid of the opinions of the illiterate man who has only read a single book?

- I don't seek to convince you - I only say what I see.

- Thanks for your feedback.

Regards, Canem Malum

We drift in to other waters if we try to explain why One Nation exists,I at least understand some, far from all,think migration/refugees are changing our country, for the second time, that took place after the ww2 refugee in take, and we are a lot better for it,it remains true in buying ON its supporters bought nothing, no party I can think of, ever fell so hard so often,ignore majority thought at your peril, when talking of rights taking their rights to save minority ones is? quite silly