Individual- I have some respectful criticisms below...

Comment 1- Any growing community needs diversity to function but it's not cultural diversity, it's genetic diversity that brings cohesion.

Answer 1- I have an interest in Ayn Rand she makes some interesting points. She seems to represent the "small L liberal"/ "free market" view. Business has a place in the community but can be a problem when it dominates. I feel that some "small L liberals" and business interests pretend to be conservative- perhaps compared to global companies they are. This is "a source" of the rift in the Liberal Party in Australia- liberals pretence for conservatism on the right. It makes the whole party irrational in the public eyes.

Of course being of the conservative view that cultural diversity is divisive.

I don't believe we should have "a growing community" from an economic or population perspective. I don't want to get into an argument about the validity of environmental impact but suffice to say and despite the criticism- Malthusianism has value- we can't have continual growth in my view.

I can't see genetic diversity as being anything but divisive- yes you can safely have trace amounts of different genetics in the community- but genetic diversity leads inevitably to cultural diversity.

Small L liberals are always going to want to be able to use immigration to throttle wages because the workers seize political power. Ironically a more managed economy (more conservative less liberal) would also provide more certainty as to wage costs for businesses (though I can understand that Free Traders would see that as a loss of power).

Everyone in the community needs to benefit from the community structure in order to participate (Nobel Prize Winner Joseph Stiglitz also said this). Everyone wants more power those with power have a greater ability to gather more- this creates instability- it creates opportunities for economic raiders and other types of raiders- raiders should probably be discouraged in favour of stability within the community.

There was a philosophy after Henry VIII that those that utilised land for the most profit should own it- this appears to be the basis for poverty and disruption and landlessness- until the age of "the landed gentry" land couldn't be bought and sold- people that were considered as part of the land had rights to timber and water. Under Elizabeth I trades were brought from Europe to settle in the UK to develop new industries of Iron, Glass, and ship building- this is one of the first instances of Social Liberalism. While one could argue that new industries are an "absolute good" (I wouldn't) and are important for their economic and national security- it was also used underhandedly to undermine wages. Liberalism is responsible for much harm in contemporary communities. Small L liberals/ Businesses like to talk about "regulatory stability" while they prey on the workers stability (sometimes they deserve it)- this is the mess that liberalism has created.

Conservatism is about stability for everyone.

Comment 2- We have had in-breeding for too long & now we're suffering the consequences yet people refuse to acknowlege the problem.
The lately-present in-breeding is cultural & the result is so clearly dividing us. Immigration goes a small step towards watering down such problems but it must be selective immigration with a view to compatibility.

Answer2- I don't consider that in-breeding at a state or national level is an issue. One could argue that genetic diversity is an "absolute good" due to evening out of genetic weaknesses- but this discredits the validity of psychology and group cohesion.

Comment 3- There's no way this planet could handle more people let alone an increase of progressive mentality.
Can anyone provide information on progressives being a positive influence in society ?

Answer3- I agree with this. The Progressive Communists (Social Liberals) seem to want to use the high population of the third world as a hammer to destroy the Economic Liberals- I think this path will destroy everyone on the social and economic sides. This would harm the rationality and stability of the world and return it to a dark age.

Comment 4- The most important requirement is to de-muddy the gene pool to arrest the regress push by the progressives. Education must be taken off the progressives' hands if we want to be serious about our future.

Answer 4- Individual could be contradicting himself here with respect to his previous comments above.

I agree that we need to return to our British gene pool in Australia as it solidifies our common identity and purpose. Some call this eugenics- so be it- it was the misuse of power that created the Liberal mess. Reducing the world's population would be a good start- once there is more space in the world then perhaps it will relieve the demand for land and resources and the potential for war. We'll need to work together to achieve this.

Canem Malum,
I can't disagree with your assessment. I'm just a little puzzled by #4 . Perhaps I didn't put it clearly & you're reading something into it that I didn't actually mean.
By the gene pool I didn't mean racial but rather intellectual & as in mentality. For example we now have 3rd generation welfare dependent families & third generation bureaucrats & we don't seem to work on thawing that snowball.
Re the gene pool I can only add that I know people from varied racial/ethnic background who put bristish ancestry Australians to shame in every aspect & also many of the multicultural who should have been deported decades ago for their refusal to accept & share the workload of Australians.
The front runners in causing the breakdown in society from my personal experiences, are the fence-sitters in the public service.

Individual- I generally agree with your comments but I thought in this case I felt that I needed to clarify some aspects. I'm a but cautious about the delineation of certain positions. I hope I explained this in the previous post.

One thing we have lost is incentive to perform. Once the Left got a hold in politics it was no longer viable for the workforce to put in in that extra yard because the real workers are simply watching their efforts & tax dollars squandered on the hangers-on.
We need to find a way to reward effort rather than reward some ficticious "qualification" which is of no use to those who pay for it.
The term qualification should be made obvious in the way that this "qualification" is actually of benefit to society as a whole. If we don't work on changing the situation the end result will too dreadful to even think about. We must get reward for effort & result !
A National Service would be a real bonus to all.