PDA

View Full Version : The Australian-Born Family Will Become a Minority Group Within 15 Years



Vanir
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 05:39 AM
Here we have just a small example of the blatant social engineering going on in Australia.
The placement of UTTERLY alien refugees in rural areas is nothing more than an attempt to break the back of what is left of White Australia in the predominantly Anglo-Celtic country areas.

And this is not even the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/05/1094322642151.html?oneclick=true
note: The Age is a far left Newspaper here in Australia, in case that wasn't obvious.

Sudan to Colac - worlds apart, but a new chance
September 6, 2004
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/09/05/sudanese_wideweb__430x294.jpg
Settling into life in Colac are Wochan Koang Wuo Dol and his wife, Nyanchar Dak Chuol Deang, with their children Koany, 3, and Muoch, 1.
Picture:John Woudstra

Sudanese refugees are adapting to a very different way of life in western Victoria, writes Farah Farouque.

Wochan Koang Wuo Dol and his family's journey as refugees from war-ravaged Sudan has ended in an unlikely spot in regional Victoria - Colac.

After fleeing their homeland, the family spent a year waiting for visas in Egypt. Now, after five weeks in Australia - they came straight from the airport to Colac - they are working out the configurations of a new life in a place not known for cultural diversity.

A quiet stroll along a back lane of their new town, a slice of Australiana complete with gum trees and a windmill, comes as a culture shock. In tentative English, Mr Dol, 28, wearing the light suit he bought in a Cairo market, gives his verdict on this exotic location.

"Colac, v-e-r-y cold," he says. But his journey here is all about opportunity. "I want my two boys to get an education."

His wife, Nyanchar Dak Chuol Deang, 21, concurs. "It's good . . . but cold," she says.

Having escaped Sudan's incessant brutalities - civil war has racked the country for 20 years - negotiating the temperature and terrain of regional Victoria are among life's smaller hurdles.
Advertisement Advertisement

The family has chosen "bog-Irish Colac" - as one local jokingly described it - to make their new home. They are not alone. Over the past three years, a stream of Sudanese refugees have been enticed to Colac and neighbouring Warrnambool to take up manufacturing jobs.

One of Colac's biggest employers, the lamb processing plant CRF, has more than 20 Sudanese men on its books. First, the men came alone. Now, there are five families - and homegrown babies, too.

"It was really a case of 'we need to get people down here'," says Paul McCallum, of the Colac Otway Workforce, an employment services provider.

Mr McCallum's company has worked with the Adult Migration Education Services to persuade more Sudanese - there are estimated to be about 4000 in this state, mostly in Melbourne - to consider country living.

The Sudanese are proving to be good regional workers, says Mr McCallum. "They are really committed. They come from some pretty horrific backgrounds and they really want to work and they want to support their families back home."

Although finding rental properties in the country is hard - families are forced to share houses - the transition has been relatively seamless so far.

"I'm not saying every single person here welcomes them with open arms, but I haven't met anyone who doesn't," says long-time Colac resident Clarry Baulch, who has befriended many of the new settlers.

Colac's Sudanese are a community now, numbering close to 50. The men recently formed their own soccer team - their strong, lanky physiques make them formidable on any sports field.
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/09/05/colac_narrowweb__200x241.jpg

Bichok Guandong 35, Jock Chan, 18, and Sabit Kon, 24, are set to start work at the Colac meatworks.
Picture:John Woudstra

Every fortnight the new residents, who are Christians from south Sudan and speak a common Nur dialect, meet in a local church for services in their indigenous language.

Trainee pastor Peter Gatben Kunen conducts the services with his carefully preserved Bible in the Nur language.

These days Mr Kunen combines his spiritual watch - he was training for the priesthood in Sudan - with temporal duties as a labourer at the meatworks. But he accepts this as part of the refugee journey that has brought him to this unlikely destination. "Everything is different now," he says.

_______________________________



;(
Regards,
Anders

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 3rd, 2005, 12:42 PM
Interesting. I live near Warrnambool and travel there every week. I have noticed the sudden increase of these very tall, thin Sudanese; they seem to be friendly so far but sometimes the government gets in the friendly ones until people become accustomed to them, and then they allow more such immigrants in, whether violent or friendly.

I note one of them mentions cold weather. Yesterday many towns of Victoria had their lowest daily maximum temperatures on record. The temperature in Ballarat yesterday did'nt get higher than nine degrees celsius (48 in fahrenheit), and this is in the height of summer here, equivalent to the Northern hemisphere August.
Melbourne reached 13 celsius (55 fahrenheit) and had it's highest 24 hour rainfall on record, nearly five inches, with accompanying storm damage; believe it or not, the previous day reached 36 celsius (97 on the other scale)!

Æmeric
Wednesday, February 28th, 2007, 05:26 PM
Britons considering making a fresh start in New Zealand might find a less than warm welcome awaiting them after Maori politicians demanded curbs on immigration to the islands.

Lured by the attractive climate, majestic scenery, a high standard of living and the use of English, thousands leave the United Kingdom each year to make new lives on the other side of the globe.

But yesterday Maori nationalists called on the government in Wellington to limit the number of migrants from Britain.

They accused the government of running a secret campaign to prevent the "browning of New Zealand" by encouraging large numbers of white immigrants so that they outnumber those of Pacific and Asian origin who would align themselves with the Maori minority.

The proportion of Maori in the population, currently 13%, is expected to grow rapidly over the next few decades because their birthrate is more than twice that of white New Zealanders.

The number of non-Maori New Zealanders would be falling without the net gain from immigration, mainly because tens of thousands leave for Australia every year.

Tariana Turia, the founder and co-leader of the Maori Party which holds four seats in parliament, said: "What we are talking about is the number of people coming into this country and what that means for Maori political representation. The prediction is that we are going to see a considerable browning of New Zealand with Maori, Pacific Islanders and Asians, and maybe this is the way the government combats it."

"We aren't playing the race card because we are not talking about Asian immigration."

The demand by the Maori Party is significant because it could hold the balance of power in the Proportionally elected parliament after the general election next year.

The number of Britons moving to New Zealand has soared since the Lord of the Rings films gave the country's majestic scenery a high profile, boosted by the government introducing a minimum English language requirement that effectively cut arrivals from Asia. Britain represents by far the biggest source of migrants, with 22,400 entering the country last year to take up permanet residence.

Attractions cited by British migrants, apart from natural beauty, include more sunshine and the country's relaxed way of life. Martin Rowley, 39, and his partner, Jane Doble, who emigrated with their son George, six, from Marlow, bucks, five years ago, are typical recent arrivals from Britain.

They have a baby daughter, born since they settled in the coastal resort of Tauranga, where they run their own office cleaning business. "We love it here and would never want to go back," Mr. rowley said.

"There is so much space, with only four million people in the whole country, and the climate means we enjoy an outdoor lifestyle that we could never hope for in England."

Although the Maori Party demanded curbs on migrants from other mainly white countries such as the United states, Canada and Australia, their numbers are dwarfed by those from Britain.

The level of British migration is at its highest since New Zealand, like Australia, ended a policy of assisted passages for settlers known as "Ten Pound Poms" in the early 1970s.

Businesses and civil authorities increasingly recruit in Britain in an effort to counter a crippling shortage of skilled staff.

Helen Clark, the prime minister, dismissed the Maori Party's demands as "ridiculous". She said: "Our country has been built on migration, you're part of it, I'm part of it."

Enlil
Wednesday, February 28th, 2007, 06:59 PM
What do you think about this? It's not like it's foreigners invanding a new country like Mexicans to the US or Arabs and Blacks into Europe. I must say I understand the Maoris. Brits belong in Britain.

Æmeric
Wednesday, February 28th, 2007, 07:31 PM
I consider New Zealand to be an Anglo-Celtic country. Brits have a right to be in New Zealand. New Zealand is (diaspora) British territory by right of conquest, which is how every other race/ethnicity acquired their national territory. It is idiotic to give it up without a fight to an unworthy adversary because some White intellectuals who make policy, are affected with "white guilt".

Peter
Wednesday, February 28th, 2007, 09:26 PM
Britain each time is being a complicated country and New Zealand is a very good option. I support the british immigration.

Ragnar Thorsson
Wednesday, February 28th, 2007, 09:50 PM
I consider New Zealand to be an Anglo-Celtic country. Brits have a right to be in New Zealand. New Zealand is (diaspora) British territory by right of conquest, which is how every other race/ethnicity acquired their national territory. It is idiotic to give it up without a fight to an unworthy adversary because some White intellectuals who make policy, are affected with "white guilt".
What a crap, Britons belong in Britain.

Æmeric
Wednesday, February 28th, 2007, 10:03 PM
What a crap, Britons belong in Britain.:thumbdownCrap is your statement. That is like saying I don't belong in America. The Maoris want to pursue a policy of browning New Zealand. New Zealand was more then 90% White, mostly British, as recently as 40 years ago. Now it is less then 75% White. The Maoris specifically want an immigration policy that will make (Nordish) Whites a minority in New Zealand. It is not Asian & Pacific Islanders they are against migrating to New Zealand, but just Whites.They are practicing racism against Germanic & Celtic Britons. There are no more unoccupied spaces on the planet, not preserving those we already occupy is suicidal.

sheriff skullface
Wednesday, February 28th, 2007, 10:39 PM
:thumbdownCrap is your statement. That is like saying I don't belong in America. The Maoris want to pursue a policy of browning New Zealand. New Zealand was more then 90% White, mostly British, as recently as 40 years ago. Now it is less then 75% White. The Maoris specifically want an immigration policy that will make (Nordish) Whites a minority in New Zealand. It is not Asian & Pacific Islanders they are against migrating to New Zealand, but just Whites.They are practicing racism against Germanic & Celtic Britons. There are no more unoccupied spaces on the planet, not preserving those we already occupy is suicidal.

I have to say I have to sympathize with both the Anglo-Celtic New Zealanders and the Maori nationalists on different levels, if the Maori nationalists really want to preserve their territory, nation and racial heritage they should at least oppose the migration of asians to their homeland(along with watching that too many white immigrates won't overwhelm them) there has to be a compromise between Anglo-Celtic nationalists and Maori nationalists in New Zealand, there has to be a reasonable quota and limit of english allowed to move to New Zealand while maybe relocating the asians there to Vietnam or China,
thats only if the Maori are willing to be reasonable:|

Enlil
Wednesday, February 28th, 2007, 10:49 PM
That is like saying I don't belong in America.

No, it's like saying I don't belong in America, which I don't. Of course I belong there more than for instance Arabs since I have relatives there and thus people of my blood helped build the country, just like Brits belong more in New Zealand than SE Asians, but still.. also, they need the Brits in Britain. It's not getting whiter either.

OneEnglishNorman
Wednesday, February 28th, 2007, 11:08 PM
The British belong in NZ because they created the infrastructure, animals enclosures, roads, water, hospitals, etc.

Before the British arrived, New Zealand probably couldn't support the existence of even 1 million people. The Maori can do what they like, the whites are not stopping them from succeeding. The Maori resent how the British immigrants slot perfectly into NZ society, whereas the Maori are still on the outside.

The Maori are foreign to NZers, whereas British folk are not.

Boche
Wednesday, February 28th, 2007, 11:24 PM
The Maoris have a high culture and a interessting one. I can understand them. They didn't say they want to throw the english out, so i don't see any problem.




Gruß,
Boche

Æmeric
Wednesday, February 28th, 2007, 11:37 PM
No, it's like saying I don't belong in America, which I don't. Of course I belong there more than for instance Arabs since I have relatives there and thus people of my blood helped build the country, just like Brits belong more in New Zealand than SE Asians, but still.. also, they need the Brits in Britain. It's not getting whiter either.
What Britons need is for their political leaders to stop admitting non-White & non-Nordish immigrants into Britain. Britain is full & then some. Some Britons are leaving because of demographic pressures. Even without immigrants there are over 900 Englishmen per square mile in England. It wouldn't hurt to have them spread out into other British diaspora nations like New Zealand.

Beornulf
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 12:27 AM
This attitude is typical of New Zealand Maori, and seemingly the entire society in itself.

What the Maori are promoting is racial genocide towards European New Zealanders plain and simple. Their numbers are continuing to grow anyway due to all the race mixing going on.

I'm tired of this anti-white attitude found in New Zealand, we founded and built this nation, before us they were quite literally running around in grass skirts, eating eachother and killing of native animals. We are an important factor of this country, and to go against us simply because we are not brown is pathetic and stupid. We have more of a right to this country than Asians and Pacific Islanders and to say otherwise is rediculous.

Thorsten
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 01:10 AM
"No, we aren't playing the race card, because we are not talking about asian immigration.
"In actual fact, the majority of immigrants who come to this country come from Great Britain, from Europe, from Canada, from Australia."

Yea, because Europeans aren't a race:thumbsup How can she get away with blatent lies like that? According to the last set of statistics, the racial-group which shows the highest percentage of increase was Asians, this was on TV not so long ago for those of you who watch the news you would have seen it.

The Maori party have discovered that an increase in immigrants = less seats for them in Parliament. How gutless is it of them to just ignore the real immigration mass, the real factors of the problem and scapegoat old whitey! What does the Maori Party want? Stop ALL white people immigrating into New Zealand? It wouldn't bloody suprise me.


"We Maori have a relatively high birth rate."The prediction is that by the year 2050 we are going to see a considerable browning-up of New Zealand with Maori, Pacific and Asians-and maybe this is the way the govt combats it."

Is she serious??? As if our socialist Neo-commie government would be involved in a conspiracy to keep New Zealand white! Anyone with half a brain knows that their intentions are quite the opposite! Turia needs to fire whoever is gathering statistical data for her I think. She did get one thing right, Maori have a large birthrate. Now the next step is to get them to start paying for their families themselves! I know of Maori couples in and about my own neigbourhood and there are even a large number of single Maori women who keep having child after child because they get more money on the Domestic Purposes Benifit for the more kids they have, and we all know they aren't interested in finding work either. But as per usual, they breed like rabbits and we pay for it, now the Maori Party has the tenacity to claim that we have a Maori population conspiracy in place against them! Its just insanity.


National Party leader John Key said the Maori Party was correct to say the population increase had diluted the growth of the Maori roll.
"But that is a very small issue in relation to what not having those people coming to New Zealand would represent."

Now I can only presume that he is refering to the European Immigrants who actually have skills because I sure as hell don't need a Asian family of 8 to run my corner dairy. And bar the odd exception they aren't doing much else.

:mad

a.squiggles
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 02:06 AM
...the fact this is presented as though the maori are "standing up from under white oppression" and excersising some "right" in "browning" new zealand, where as any brittons proposing "whitening" of the uk would be labled "racist biggots" and ostracized makes me sick :thumbdown ...

Thorsten
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 02:16 AM
...the fact this is presented as though the maori are "standing up from under white oppression" and excersising some "right" in "browning" new zealand, where as any brittons proposing "whitening" of the uk would be labled "racist biggots" and ostracized makes me sick :thumbdown ...

Exactly. It's a complete double standard.

Bridie
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 02:36 AM
What do you think about this? It's not like it's foreigners invanding a new country like Mexicans to the US or Arabs and Blacks into Europe. I must say I understand the Maoris.How can you understand a population you've never lived side by side with?



They didn't say they want to throw the english out, so i don't see any problem.:lol They don't? ;)


In any case... would be nice if the Maori's would abide by their own beliefs in regards to immigration and stop migrating to Australia in such great numbers.



What Britons need is for their political leaders to stop admitting non-White & non-Nordish immigrants into Britain... or better still, stop admitting non-British, or non Germano-Celt immigration into Britain. ;)

Thorsten
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 03:23 AM
In any case... would be nice if the Maori's would abide by their own beliefs in regards to immigration and stop migrating to Australia in such great numbers.

Maoris practicing what they preach? Not likely! Its easier for them to concentrate on keeping Whites out rather than keeping Maori in. I truely loathe these people. The Maori are our burden.

Pro-Alpine
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 04:33 AM
I doubt any of you would think the same if this was reversed.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 04:49 AM
New Zealanders on Stormfront have posted an interesting thread in which it is claimed that pre-Maori inhabitants of New Zealand have been identified. In fact, there are living representatives of this race (fairer skinned than Maoris) on one of the offshore islands. Perhaps the Maoris should not complain about their treatment since the evidence seems to point to the fact that the Maoris ate the pre-Maories for dinner. The British immigrants will render much more civilized treatment than they, themselves, extended.

Thorsten
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 05:48 AM
I doubt any of you would think the same if this was reversed.

You have missed the point totally. For a start if a White politician proposed to 'curb Asian immigration' or 'curb Polynesian immigration' they would be demonized immediately and disregarded as a racist. The legitimacy given to the majority of absurd maori cliams is mind boggling. They are propogating straight lies as fact to back up their 'blame Whitey' scapegoat theory.

Solar wolff, you are correct. I always say to Maori that they're lucky it was the British who got to New Zealand first and Not the French, the Maori would have been totally wiped out, not given the oppertunity to assimilate into the new settlement. British settlers were the best thing to ever happen to Maori, Maori have so much to grateful for yet treat Europeans like parasitic, inferior aliens.

It has also been proven that Celts were here hundreds of years before the arrival of Maori.

Gesta Bellica
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 09:59 AM
Interesting issue, i believe that native Europeans and "new World" Europeans are more keen to see this problem from a different perspective..

There's one thing that is not so clear to me:
I don't understand why Maoris should be so grateful for the "European" lifestyle that was imported from the Britons, i am not so sure that they really wished it..if we go on thinking like this maybe European muslims one day will accuse us to be ungrateful after all they did for us, bringing the high culture and values of Islam in Europe ( and it's not a provocation, some are already starting to say it now..)
My question is.. if you want to keep New Zealand as white as you can, where Maoris should go?
I don't believe in a pacifical coexistence between races, it's a pill they are trying to make us swallow in Europe and it doesn't work.

Patrioten
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 12:20 PM
Well considering the double standard that exist where non whites can be "racist" all they want while we Europeans and decendants of Europeans are persecuted for the exakt same things, for wanting to preserve our own race and populations, i don't give a rat's ass about what some maoris have to say about British immigration to New Zealand. I say the Brits have every right to that land which they conquered. Same goes for the rest of the European diaspora that colonized North America, South Africa and Australia. Do i hold the same opinion regarding the non white invasion/colonization of Europe? No. Fairness gets you nothing in this world of eternal struggle.

Gesta Bellica
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 12:39 PM
Well considering the double standard that exist where non whites can be "racist" all they want while we Europeans and decendants of Europeans are persecuted for the exakt same things, for wanting to preserve our own race and populations, i don't give a rat's ass about what some maoris have to say about British immigration to New Zealand. I say the Brits have every right to that land which they conquered. Same goes for the rest of the European diaspora that colonized North America, South Africa and Australia. Do i hold the same opinion regarding the non white invasion/colonization of Europe? No. Fairness gets you nothing in this world of eternal struggle.

Really fierce attitude, but i believe that our ("white" racialists) rankings are still too low for an all out war.
We are put on minority demografically, if we look at the whole world and soon also in some "white countries"...so i'd prefer to find a common ground with all the other civilisations where we can discuss about racial awareness and so on..if they will start wishing to preserve their races and subraces as well we can have a future but we cannot fight multiculturalisation alone, we are few in numbers, sadly...

Patrioten
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 12:49 PM
Really fierce attitude,Seeing my country, people and race go down the drain makes me a bit pissed actually.


but i believe that our ("white" racialists) rankings are still too low for an all out war.I'm not talking about war.

We are put on minority demografically, if we look at the whole world and soon also in some "white countries"...so i'd prefer to find a common ground with all the other civilisations where we can discuss about racial awareness and so on...I don't think the non Euros would want to lose their role as victims and unleash us from the role as oppressors. We don't need their consent to care for our own people and countries. What we need is the support from our people, something which we do not have today.


if they will start wishing to preserve their races and subraces as well we can have a future but we cannot fight multiculturalisation alone, we are few in numbers, sadly...It's not them who are facing extinction, having their continents turned into multi racial hellholes, it's our continents and our race which is experiencing this.

Gesta Bellica
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 01:15 PM
I don't think the non Euros would want to lose their role as victims and unleash us from the role as oppressors. We don't need their consent to care for our own people and countries. What we need is the support from our people, something which we do not have today.

It's not them who are facing extinction, having their continents turned into multi racial hellholes, it's our continents and our race which is experiencing this.

I fear we will never gain total support from our people, when racemixing was not prohibited by force has always occured in some degree...
The real solution lies somewhere else.

I don't look for their consent either but I think some non-european ethnicities are in danger too, will they eventually realize what they are losing? i don't know, but to gain some support for our actions also from non Europeans would be a good weapon in our "war"...

The victims/oppressors game has often little to do with racialism but more with economical power, if only money would be better distributed in the world...we won't even need to care about immigrations.

Boche
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 01:43 PM
The problem is that you people complain now that some country which was taken over by europeans back in time says that they want their land.


Now imagine in 100 years (just imagine) Arabs would take over Europe and in 200 years the europeans complain that they want their country back.

I doubt anyone of you (if you'd live during that time) would say something against the European-Wants then. ;)


So stop complaining that the Maoris want that, their Wish wasn't fulfilled yet. And to be honest:

If i'd grow up in the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa etc. i'd move back to europe as fast as possible because i belong there and not somewhere else.


That's just my opinion and we need more europeans in Europe anyway!




Gruß,
Boche

Æmeric
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 02:19 PM
Now imagine in 100 years (just imagine) Arabs would take over Europe and in 200 years the europeans complain that they want their country back.

You can't compare the two issues. In the case of what is currently going on, Arabs, or Mexican or whoever are being allowed to take over with the blessing of the political leaders of the West. These nations are currently heavily populated with the highest level of civilization ever obtained by mankind. The countries predominately populated by the European diaspora such as the US, New Zealand, Canada, etc... were sparcely populated by people living in the stone age. A more proper comparison would be the Europeans returning Europe to the Neanderthals.

Bridie
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 02:50 PM
You have missed the point totally.
I've noticed a lot Europeans seem to miss the point totally. Although they feel entitled to their own homes (because their ancestors lived there for a really long (although how long is difficult to determine)), many don't seem to really understand that us "post-colonials" need to have somewhere to belong to also. What do they care if our roots are disrespected, criticised and insulted, or if we are seen as not being entitled to have our own homelands? What do they care if post-colonial children are raised to despise their own histories and ancestors due the fact that colonisation is now a dirty word? Many that I've read of around these sorts of forums even seem to enjoy getting up on their high-horses carrying on about how inferior post-colonials are, and seem to extract joy from the fact that in our current times post-colonials are encouraged or pressured by our school systems, media etc to feel ashamed of our histories and to hate who we are.

It often seems the whole world is anti-British... and I'm sick of it.

The only reason the Maori leaders are getting away with this blatant prejudice and discrimination (racism) is because it is politically correct to be anti-British.



I don't understand why Maoris should be so grateful for the "European" lifestyle that was imported from the Britons, i am not so sure that they really wished it.No, of course they didn't wish for it... and I don't see why they should be grateful either. They were the losers in a the battle for New Zealand... they are entitled to feel angry and bitter. But should British New Zealanders just say "fuck our ancestors and fuck ourselves, let's just give back New Zealand and just set up shop in Antarctica or something"?? You think it's proper order that the descendants of the victors should just give everything that they were born with away? What for? Guilt? Shame?



My question is.. if you want to keep New Zealand as white as you can, where Maoris should go?No one has said that they should go anywhere. They just shouldn't be given the rod to beat the Brit New Zealanders with so freely.



I don't believe in a pacifical coexistence between races, it's a pill they are trying to make us swallow in Europe and it doesn't work.Of course it doesn't work... but the New Zealanders don't have much choice, now do they?



I don't look for their consent either but I think some non-european ethnicities are in danger too, will they eventually realize what they are losing?We're the ones losing at the moment... not them. We're the more powerful side handing over everything our ancestors fought for with glee due the political correctness of our times... as well as social pressures. We have no pride in who we are... we are ashamed of our past, and so we've largely given up... feeling we don't deserve what we've got. Feeling "they" are better and more worthy than "us". This is something deeply ingrained in Anglo post-colonist countries. (Well, Australia and New Zealand anyway.)



The victims/oppressors game has often little to do with racialism but more with economical power, if only money would be better distributed in the world...we won't even need to care about immigrations.The money is distributed as it is because the ambitious, intelligent, creative and motivated people make, organise and control the money. Why should we hand over what we make to poverty stricken Africans or Indians?? If they were so concerned with being wealthier, they would find a way to make the money for themselves. And to be honest, it is just arrogance and short-sightedness on behalf of those of us from 1st world countries to assume that all the people of the world should have and should want what we have... materialism and convenience. Maybe they don't need it? And maybe we don't need to feel guilty for them not having it.



If i'd grow up in the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa etc. i'd move back to europe as fast as possible because i belong there and not somewhere else.
Life (and indeed the world) just isn't that simple Boche. You don't know what you would do in this situation, because you've never lived it.

Gesta Bellica
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 06:34 PM
I've noticed a lot Europeans seem to miss the point totally. Although they feel entitled to their own homes (because their ancestors lived there for a really long (although how long is difficult to determine)), many don't seem to really understand that us "post-colonials" need to have somewhere to belong to also. What do they care if our roots are disrespected, criticised and insulted, or if we are seen as not being entitled to have our own homelands? What do they care if post-colonial children are raised to despise their own histories and ancestors due the fact that colonisation is now a dirty word? Many that I've read of around these sorts of forums even seem to enjoy getting up on their high-horses carrying on about how inferior post-colonials are, and seem to extract joy from the fact that in our current times post-colonials are encouraged or pressured by our school systems, media etc to feel ashamed of our histories and to hate who we are.

It often seems the whole world is anti-British... and I'm sick of it.

The only reason the Maori leaders are getting away with this blatant prejudice and discrimination (racism) is because it is politically correct to be anti-British.


No, of course they didn't wish for it... and I don't see why they should be grateful either. They were the losers in a the battle for New Zealand... they are entitled to feel angry and bitter. But should British New Zealanders just say "fuck our ancestors and fuck ourselves, let's just give back New Zealand and just set up shop in Antarctica or something"?? You think it's proper order that the descendants of the victors should just give everything that they were born with away? What for? Guilt? Shame?


No one has said that they should go anywhere. They just shouldn't be given the rod to beat the Brit New Zealanders with so freely.


Of course it doesn't work... but the New Zealanders don't have much choice, now do they?


We're the ones losing at the moment... not them. We're the more powerful side handing over everything our ancestors fought for with glee due the political correctness of our times... as well as social pressures. We have no pride in who we are... we are ashamed of our past, and so we've largely given up... feeling we don't deserve what we've got. Feeling "they" are better and more worthy than "us". This is something deeply ingrained in Anglo post-colonist countries. (Well, Australia and New Zealand anyway.)


The money is distributed as it is because the ambitious, intelligent, creative and motivated people make, organise and control the money. Why should we hand over what we make to poverty stricken Africans or Indians?? If they were so concerned with being wealthier, they would find a way to make the money for themselves. And to be honest, it is just arrogance and short-sightedness on behalf of those of us from 1st world countries to assume that all the people of the world should have and should want what we have... materialism and convenience. Maybe they don't need it? And maybe we don't need to feel guilty for them not having it.


Life (and indeed the world) just isn't that simple Boche. You don't know what you would do in this situation, because you've never lived it.

This discussion is leading nowhere, because you have all the right to defend your people and your traditions..
On the other side the Maoris have it too.. we can discuss for years about the means and the excuses one can use to justify such a defense and still we wil find no solution.

Aren't we on a the razor's edge here? if we try to repatriate non European immigrants we should be against European immigrants to new world too..or we would have double standards.
We can justify double standards by saying that "might is right" but then we cannot criticize and oppose is somebody will use it against us as well.. (Then are we sure to be the strongest?)

We don't wish that everybody in the world will assume an European lifestyle still we expose the whole planet to such an influence in many ways, going there and taking their resources (because we actually do it, no colonialistic remorse here) and showing how wealthy we are...they don't have to use our comforts but for hell's sake their economy must run in a proper way, OUR WAY.

We just have many contradictions and no solutions...

OneEnglishNorman
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 06:54 PM
If we bemoan Europeans displacing Maoris then logically we must also be down on the fact that the sedentary Europeans were over-ran by more mobile sub-types. Where do you draw the line?

Fact is, New Zealand in 2007 is not New Zealand in 1707. Europeans have migrated there, mixed their labour with the natural resources, and created something new. How much land do the Maori want?

We need to get over the idea of equivalence for the rights of non-Europeans to reside where they live without incomers. Europeans are proven to be biologically on another level, that's why they're capable of going to the over side of the world and creating civilisation.

How can we regret America, Canada, Argentina, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand?? These are not fake creations, they are the natural by-product of European ingenuity, because Europeans are inherently adventurous, industrious and desire to enhance their surroundings.

Varyag
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 09:20 PM
How can we regret America, Canada, Argentina, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand?? These are not fake creations, they are the natural by-product of European ingenuity, because Europeans are inherently adventurous, industrious and desire to enhance their surroundings.

Indeed, America, Canada, Argentina, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand are European countries! They are so because they were created and built by Europeans. Maori's have no claim to New Zealand since they did nothing to create it. True, they may have inhabited the land prior to the Europeans, but to use that as a justification is idiotic. If you do, then you might as well credit South Africa to be a monkey country since monkeys inhabit the land. Both monkeys and Maoris incidentally have had the same contribution to "their" respective countries. Maori belong on reservations living like their ancestors did. They are incompatible with European society.

sheriff skullface
Thursday, March 1st, 2007, 11:30 PM
Indeed, America, Canada, Argentina, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand are European countries! They are so because they were created and built by Europeans. Maori's have no claim to New Zealand since they did nothing to create it. True, they may have inhabited the land prior to the Europeans, but to use that as a justification is idiotic. If you do, then you might as well credit South Africa to be a monkey country since monkeys inhabit the land. Both monkeys and Maoris incidentally have had the same contribution to "their" respective countries. Maori belong on reservations living like their ancestors did. They are incompatible with European society.

the Maori still had villages there, which means that like other nations and races of people that they have the right to their own territory and nation without having to conform to a universial standard or moral absoultism, they still however need to be alot more reasonable with their Anglo-Celtic neighbors, from what it said in the article

Bridie
Friday, March 2nd, 2007, 02:05 AM
This discussion is leading nowhere, because you have all the right to defend your people and your traditions..
On the other side the Maoris have it too.. we can discuss for years about the means and the excuses one can use to justify such a defense and still we wil find no solution.Then I propose we do away with justifications and excuses... this approach is too soft and leads to stagnation and backward developments. The survival of the fittest should be the rule... not the survival of those we most feel sorry for.



Aren't we on a the razor's edge here? if we try to repatriate non European immigrants we should be against European immigrants to new world too..or we would have double standards. The victors are entitled to all the double standards they want... to deny this is just naive.



We can justify double standards by saying that "might is right" but then we cannot criticize and oppose is somebody will use it against us as well.. (Then are we sure to be the strongest?)We are, yes. As long as Europeans don't fight against other Europeans, I have every confidence that we are (collectively) the strongest.



We just have many contradictions and no solutions...I have a solution... recognition that "survival of the fittest" is the natural way... and the healthiest way. The fittest should show mercy surely... but they need not make excuses, nor try to justify their actions with phoney political correctness. It's all very nice to wish that the world was all sweetness and light... and everyone could be happy, and there would be no suffering etc etc... but this is nothing more than the fanciful dreams of a naive fool. Death, pain and suffering has always been a necessary partner to birth, life, comfort and happiness. This is the way of our physical world.

Mjollnir
Friday, March 2nd, 2007, 11:22 AM
This European vs Post colonial debate is pathetic.

I am a New Zealanbd European (that's what the census says).

Where do you draw the line? Yes, Maoris had villages... Other animals also build structures to live in.

I find it rediculous how some people think they know everything and comment about New Zealand when it is not their country at all.

Do you know how much money the governement gives to Maori (meaning part Maori) as Treaty settlements each year? It is racism. I wonder how I would go if I demanded a British Passport? Because under the Treaty of Waitangi ALL people of New Zealand are given the same rights as British citizens!

I'm going to take an odd point of view on this sub issue too. Maori and Europeans did live in peace, for a time. That time ended after World War One when the remaining Maori (their population was durastically reduced) went to the cities where the European folk lived. Before this the Maori lived generally by themselves, in their own communities.

South Africa, Canada, Australia, USA... these placeswere properly conquered by the British Empire. New Zealand wasn't, it was fought for and then just accepted into the Empire. There is a difference.

I might also add that I am amased by Helen Clarks comment, seems that even the Left have some kind of morals.

To all of those who keep track of NZ politics I am sure that you already know that John Keys, leader of the opposition, is a Jew. The way things are going it appears that he may very well be the next PM of NZ.


Should the English who can claim Norman descent go back to Normandy? It just isn't going to happen.

FFF
Ben

Gesta Bellica
Friday, March 2nd, 2007, 11:22 AM
Then I propose we do away with justifications and excuses... this approach is too soft and leads to stagnation and backward developments. The survival of the fittest should be the rule... not the survival of those we most feel sorry for.

The victors are entitled to all the double standards they want... to deny this is just naive.

We are, yes. As long as Europeans don't fight against other Europeans, I have every confidence that we are (collectively) the strongest.

I have a solution... recognition that "survival of the fittest" is the natural way... and the healthiest way. The fittest should show mercy surely... but they need not make excuses, nor try to justify their actions with phoney political correctness. It's all very nice to wish that the world was all sweetness and light... and everyone could be happy, and there would be no suffering etc etc... but this is nothing more than the fanciful dreams of a naive fool. Death, pain and suffering has always been a necessary partner to birth, life, comfort and happiness. This is the way of our physical world.

Well you seem to have a fixation on others being naive but i don't think it's question of naivety at all...

It's more about thinking of a balanced development of our planet, we are not animals that have to get everything is in sight, i perfectly know that this world can't be a garden of eden on earth, suffering will always be a part of life etc, but I still believe that we need a point of equilibriuum and the survival of the fittest way is not the appropriate answer.

What can i say, time will tell ;)

Beornulf
Friday, March 2nd, 2007, 11:38 AM
I think it simply needs to be accepted and acknowledged that this is OUR nation, it the nation our people built.

Before European settlement New Zealand wasn't a nation it was devided between tribal factions who continually waged war on eachother. The Maori should be lucky we treated them as they did. They did not show the same kindness to their enemies. It well known that they enslaved and ate their enemies.

The question that we need to ask is why Asian's and Pacific Islander's would have more of a right to New Zealand than British people? We are a dominion of the Commonwealth, we share the same queen as the British, our history and country were founded by British settlers. So why are British seen as less relevant and desirable by Maori? Could it be because they are anti-white themselves?

They talk of the browning of the country, that is basically a form of genocide to New Zealander's, I use the term New Zealander because New Zealand was founded by Europeans and not Maori's. Now how can the "browning" of the country be seen as a good thing? It is destroying the countries roots and rich identity right there and should be stopped. The Maori Party have no interest in the well-being in the country only destroying its rich Anlgo-Celtic background and identity and putting forth their hands fo payouts from "evil whitey's government" .

Spjabork
Friday, March 2nd, 2007, 04:15 PM
The Maoris have a high culture and a interessting one. Be free to engage into deeper studies of that culture. (BTW "high culture" is what we have.) You can waste your time with what you want. There is plenty of "ethno"-research projects, financed by whitefolk tax payers, to the delight of childish and treacherous academic do-gooders.

I can understand them. They didn't say they want to throw the english out, so i don't see any problem.
They will say that soon.

Bridie
Saturday, March 3rd, 2007, 03:27 AM
I find it rediculous how some people think they know everything and comment about New Zealand when it is not their country at all.Best point of the thread. Would be interesting to read a debate between Maori and Euro New Zealanders... but unfortunately this just isn't going to happen here.



Well you seem to have a fixation on others being naive but i don't think it's question of naivety at all...Do I? :wsg Well, whatever the case, I just sick of soft stances that always seem to work against my people... and if you'd grown up as an ethnically British "post-colonist" you may be able to see where I'm coming from on this. Who knows?

Housecard
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 04:35 PM
What a crap, Britons belong in Britain.

The British built New Zealand and those who run it are British or Nordic decent. Britain's have more right to move to NZ than any other,especially those with a coffee coloured tan!

Housecard
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 06:28 PM
You have missed the point totally. For a start if a White politician proposed to 'curb Asian immigration' or 'curb Polynesian immigration' they would be demonized immediately and disregarded as a racist. The legitimacy given to the majority of absurd maori cliams is mind boggling. They are propogating straight lies as fact to back up their 'blame Whitey' scapegoat theory.

Solar wolff, you are correct. I always say to Maori that they're lucky it was the British who got to New Zealand first and Not the French, the Maori would have been totally wiped out, not given the oppertunity to assimilate into the new settlement. British settlers were the best thing to ever happen to Maori, Maori have so much to grateful for yet treat Europeans like parasitic, inferior aliens.

It has also been proven that Celts were here hundreds of years before the arrival of Maori.


Well said I totally agree with your thoughts...Many people do not relies that NZ was populated pre moari by people of the British Islands celto/nordics,though long forgotten and only in the latter years has this been confirmed. Even Australia was visited and migrated to, prior even than Capt Cook by celto/nordics.

Pro-Alpine
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 11:41 PM
The British built New Zealand

What about the previous occupants that built it before? more correctly would be a statement that states that it was changed.

Æmeric
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 11:48 PM
The previous occupants, the Maoris, didn't build anything. And it is highly probable that the Maori ate the people who inhabited New Zealand before them. The Maori have no moral right to New Zealand.

Pro-Alpine
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 11:51 PM
The previous occupants, the Maoris, didn't build anything. And it is highly probable that the Maori ate the people who inhabited New Zealand before them. The Maori have no moral right to New Zealand.

How do you know that they did not build anything? They had built communities they had structures. So far there is no evidence that proofs that anyone arrived before Polynesian voyagers to NZ.

Æmeric
Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 12:05 AM
Yes, Maoris had villages... Other animals also build structures to live in.

I find it rediculous how some people think they know everything and comment about New Zealand when it is not their country at all.

Do you know how much money the governement gives to Maori (meaning part Maori) as Treaty settlements each year? It is racism. I wonder how I would go if I demanded a British Passport? Because under the Treaty of Waitangi ALL people of New Zealand are given the same rights as British citizens!

I'm going to take an odd point of view on this sub issue too. Maori and Europeans did live in peace, for a time. That time ended after World War One when the remaining Maori (their population was durastically reduced) went to the cities where the European folk lived. Before this the Maori lived generally by themselves, in their own communities.

Æmeric
Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 12:07 AM
Many people do not relies that NZ was populated pre moari by people of the British Islands celto/nordics,though long forgotten and only in the latter years has this been confirmed. Even Australia was visited and migrated to, prior even than Capt Cook by celto/nordics.

Thruthheim
Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 12:29 AM
I can understand the Maori's justifiable claim to New Zealand, especially displacement. But they were displaced a long time ago, conquered as it were, the British settlers have more than established their presence and residency there for it to be just a case of "the Brits don't belong there".
Actual Brits, such as myself, don't belong in New Zealand, but those of British descent whom are there do belong there. However, from a British perspective, I'd decree British immigrants are the most assimiliable along with Australians to New Zealand.

Æmeric
Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 12:37 AM
Why should the Maori minority dictate to the British descended majority, that they have no right in letting their kinsmen settle in New Zealand, while at the same time advocating the immigration of other "brown" races to help reduce the White New Zealanders to minority status? The Maori policy is one of genocide against British New Zealanders.

Spjabork
Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 07:13 AM
They had built communities they had structures. So far there is no evidence that proofs that anyone arrived before Polynesian voyagers to NZ.
There is: http://www.1421.tv/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=70


First, a short digression. The Maoris were not the first to settle in New Zealand. Carbon dating of rat bones found in Hawkes Bay on the east coast of North Island shows them to be at least two thousand years old. The oldest Maori settlement dates back to AD 800. Dr. Richard Holdaway, a Christchurch palaeontologist, says the rats must have arrived by human voyagers - in short, humans must have arrived 800 years before the Maoris. As Dr. Rau Kirikiri, a leading Maori academic, reflected, `this could lead Maoris to question their own history.`
The New Zealand authorities are suppressing findings and inhibiting researches that are or might not be in conformity with "Maori Myth".

Nelson
Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 06:29 PM
This thread contains many people speaking from ignorance!:|



The Maoris have a high culture and a interessting one. I can understand them. They didn't say they want to throw the english out, so i don't see any problem.


This ignorance I want to explain further on.

Though there are others who understand the situation well:


There is: http://www.1421.tv/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=70


The New Zealand authorities are suppressing findings and inhibiting researches that are or might not be in conformity with "Maori Myth".

This is absolutely correct.

I have worked on numerous archaeological sites in New Zealand: and there is a pervasive, blind fanaticism in the attitude of the Maori to avoid an objective view of their history.

Though this hyper-subjectivity (i.e. narrow-mindedness) is common to all inferior people.

...

Maori "culture" (a brief description):

Technology:

That progressed as far as:
1) Grass and flax handi-crafts
2) Wood, bone, obsidian, and small-scale stone carving.
3) The best buildings were almost exclusively limited to wooden huts with fern awnings, and dirt floors - most buildings being temporary shacks made out of punga trunks (a type of fern).

The Maori's had little ecological knowledge and were committing mass environmental suicide before the British arrived (having killed off almost all protein sources: hence -- possibly -- the cannibalism).
This environmental destruction was so great that the Maori population was in general decline - and even extinct in many areas.

(These population estimates are widely available, and I could post them later...)

Added to their environmental ignorance are the following points: they never discovered metal working, stone masonry, archery, or writing - these being basic foundations of a civilisation.

Politics:

Slavery was rife, and wars so common that the tribes had annihilated themselves in certain areas - the Corromandel peninsula for instance.

The Maori tribes were well-known in the British Empire at the time of the New Zealand wars for their treachery and lack of faithfulness.

Language:

The Maori language was only spoken, and is one of the simplest languages on the planet in terms of structure.

Language reflects a people: and crude people are only capable of creating a crude language.

Genetically:

The most important facet of all - as this is the primary source of all culture.

1) Maori's are disproportionately represented in every facet of societal ills (a good indication for lack of genetic quality).
2) Physical and mental disease is disproportionately represented.
3) The Maori I.Q. is lower than the British I.Q.


So did the Maori's have a civilisation?
Let alone a high culture?

P.S. I have left out religion in the analysis of Maori culture as this would be too involved and subjective to write of here.

P.P.S. Important notes that should be known:
(and already mentioned by others)

1) The 'Maori' were not the original people of these islands.

2) 'Maori' of pure blood do not exist anymore.

Thorsten
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 01:15 AM
What about the previous occupants that built it before? more correctly would be a statement that states that it was changed.

People like you piss me off. You quite obviously know nothing about my country or you wouldn't be making these retarded comments.

A couple of facts for you.

1: Celtic peoples inhabited NZ before the Maori
2: Before English colonisation NZ consisted of a handful of waring, rival, cannibal tribes. There was no Maori civilisation.

Saxon & Celtic peoples created the nation of NZ. End of story.

Mazorquero
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 08:49 PM
As being myself from a country with a similar background to New Zealand's one, I think my opinion is valid (and I hope that after writing it I still conserve the friendship of many here:) ). To understand better this issue, we must make a difference: conquering is no the same as invading. Conquering is what Romans did and invading is what Atila did.
A folk conquers another one because it needs to expand. It imposes its culture over the former inhabitants but never looks for the total destruction of the conquered. On the contrary, it learns from it and absorbs it when possible; of course the looser will remain as an "inferior" folk socially and even officially. In general both the conqueror and the conquered obtain benefits (one more than the other perhaps), although not being evident at first glance. Conquering is a natural process, like when a group of lions defeat others and thus the animals subsist; it's natural selection, because the strongest (not always meaning physically) imposes over the weakest. Asirians conquered jews by replacing jew rulers with asirian ones, but never killed lowerclass jews.
Invading, on the contrary, reports no benefit, because it's just a group of people who occupy (not always) the land of others with the only aim of stealing treasures and food. The invader destroys every trace of the former culture, but that doesn't mean in general that the invader is superior to the invaded. The causes of an invasion are greed or revenges which don't take into account the consequences. Christianity destroying ancient pagan temples and books is a good example.
There's a midpoint also, like when two advanced folks fight each other in order to conquer the other or a land wanted by the other as well. Greeks against Persians fits perfectly with this.

How does all this connect with the present thread? To me, British conquered New Zealand. However, British (not settlers and their descendants) originally do not belong to NZ, so they must show a certain respect to Maoris, otherwise that would be what jews are doing against Palestinians and us: an invasion. And I'm sure nobody here wants to be a jew
If there must be a confrontation between the white NZ and the Maoris, then let it be. If the conqueror is worthy of being called like that, it will win.

Thor ist ruler
Tuesday, March 13th, 2007, 04:29 AM
What in the Name of each and every single god is up with this.

The Maori im sorry to say should have only a minor choice in this,
i am A New Zealander and we need more Brits and Germans ect or else our country will become even more flooded.

Skarpherdin
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007, 07:45 AM
what are peoples thoughts on the constant immigration of the Asian Peoples into both New Zealand and Australia

there are more and more living throught out New Zealand and i notice a growing number on our TV

Janus
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007, 01:45 PM
Mass immigration of foreigners is mass immigration of foreigners and my opinion on that is no different in this case. They're just bad as Black or Latino people for the general demographics of your country but if we ignore the ethnical and cultural problems they're less harmful because Asians are on avarage of European intellect, adhere to no silly religion they want to spread over the country and will eventually aculturate quite fast if not put into too big ghettos. However, they are still a burdon to the country and I don't see any logical reason why you should allow masses of them to immigrate.

Skarpherdin
Thursday, November 1st, 2007, 04:06 AM
because our country has this great love of Multi Culturalism, the people that rule this country think they are helpful i think they are a pest

Brynhild
Thursday, November 1st, 2007, 04:13 AM
My opinion? to be quite blunt, we have more than our fair share - we don't need any more.

Too many rival gangs, drug trafficking, racial tension and violence - the list goes on!

Skarpherdin
Thursday, November 1st, 2007, 04:20 AM
agreed we have heaps of problems we dont need anymore Asians here too.

we already have to many on Tv and Radio, whats next a Asian channel
auckland is almost overrun with them

United Faith
Thursday, November 1st, 2007, 04:39 AM
Immigration of any kind is bad. I don't mind asians as much as others but that doesn't mean I like it.

Brynhild
Thursday, November 1st, 2007, 04:45 AM
Immigration of any kind is bad. I don't mind asians as much as others but that doesn't mean I like it.

Remind me again, where did your family come from? :p

Skarpherdin
Sunday, November 4th, 2007, 09:39 AM
i myself dont mind them on a singular level infact one lives in my house in a spare room but i dislike the mass immigration to this country due to the fatc they Asians are rich so they find it more easy to get into NZ

Charles
Monday, November 5th, 2007, 10:09 AM
We like to think of ourselves as multicultural therefore let in lots of Asians so that people don't bring up the White Australia Policy. And we need to be friendly with Asia these days since Imperial Preferences went by the wayside in the 1950's. I think its time we limited migration and institute a sort of lottery system like the USA has for their Green cards.

Skarpherdin
Monday, November 5th, 2007, 11:12 AM
interesting NZ just wants them in here i was reading it in the paper a Politician wants to let even more move to NZ he thinks they will help NZ culture grow or somthing along those lines

Nachtengel
Wednesday, March 18th, 2009, 10:18 PM
AUSTRALIA is experiencing a population boom not seen since the 1960s - but it is not a baby boom. High levels of immigration are fuelling record high population growth.

Australia's headcount increased by almost 400,000 last year to 21.5 million, fresh data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) shows.

More than half of the new arrivals, or just over 230,000 people, were immigrants.

The rest were babies born in Australia.

The Federal Government this week moved to cut back immigration, reducing the skilled migrant intake by 14 per cent in response to the economic crisis.

The rate at which the population is growing has surged 50 per cent over the last five years. It is now growing at just under 2 per cent a year.

"The last time Australia experienced higher growth rates was in the 50s and 60s as a result of post-war migration and high birth rates," the ABS said in a statement.

Western Australia and Queensland attracted the most new people in the year to September 2008 but Tasmania was spurned.

For people moving within Australia, Queensland was the mecca, while people from NSW appeared keen to leave their state.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25206400-421,00.html

michael
Thursday, March 19th, 2009, 12:04 AM
And now we have all the crap that comes with these immigrants........gangs, guns & grief.........

Nachtengel
Friday, May 22nd, 2009, 07:04 AM
Australia will cut its intake of migrants for the first time in a decade, the government said on Monday, amid concern that skilled foreign workers could stoke resentment by taking jobs at a time of rising unemployment.

With a recession looming and the centre-left government expecting unemployment to reach 7 per cent by mid-2010, Immigration Minister Chris Evans said the intake of skilled migrants would be reduced by about 14 per cent.

Australia goes to the polls in late 2010 and immigration has been a charged issue in past polls, particularly following economic downturn.

A leading migration expert, former government official Bob Kinnaird, said record recent migrant arrivals in a fast shrinking job market were leading to “highly combustible” conditions in regional areas, where many new arrivals had settled.

Australia is a nation of immigrants and has been enjoying a boom in new arrivals for the past decade to help meet labour shortages as a China-fuelled mining boom drove unemployment rates to 30-year lows.

But six of Australia’s major trading partners are now in recession and economic growth has stalled. The country moved a step closer to recession this month with the first contraction in eight years and the economy shrinking by 0.5 per cent.

Australia’s jobless rate spiked to 5.2 per cent from 4.8 per cent last month with the biggest impact felt by full-time workers. Some economists fear unemployment levels could go as high as 10 per cent.

Evans said the immigration intake next year would be cut to 115,000, from 133,500 in 2008-09.

In major resource states Queensland and Western Australia, retrenched mine workers returning to their home towns found that jobs there had been filled by foreign workers, sparking resentment, Kinnaird said. “You could say in those last few months that madness has reigned,” he told the Brisbane Times newspaper.

The ruling Labor Party, with its roots in the workers’ movement, should have acted sooner to cut migration as economic conditions cooled to lance any voter backlash and ease tensions in critical country voting areas, he said.

But the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the government needed to be wary of tinkering with immigration, as many skilled employment areas still faced a worker shortage and lack of workers could crimp an economic recovery.

“We would have preferred a status quo position,” chamber Chief Executive Peter Anderson said.

Evans, who removed hairdressers and cooks off Australia’s critical occupation shortage list at Christmas, said he was now also deleting foreign bricklayers, plumbers, carpenters and electricians from the list that guides skilled migration intake.

Further cuts were likely in the May 12 budget, he said, leaving only health occupations, engineering and information technology skills as needed skills.

“What we’ll look to do is run a smaller programme and keep the capacity to make sure we can bring in any labour we might need as the year develops,” Evans said.

The government hopes its recently announced A$42 billion ($27.5 billion) stimulus package, including cash handouts and infrastructure spending, will help the economy through the downturn.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/05/australia_slash.php

Nachtengel
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 01:35 PM
Australia, with its liberal immigration policies and growing opportunities, is becoming an increasingly popular destination for Indians wishing to live and work abroad.

According to the Australian statistics bureau, the number of Indian immigrants entering the country every year has been increasing -- from just over 5,000 in 2001 to 13,500 in 2007. In fact, the total population of Australian residents of Indian origin has almost doubled since the new millennium, from 104,000 in 2001 to 200,000 in 2007.

One of the possible reasons for this trend is Australia's liberal immigration system -- especially its skilled migration policies.

While many nations require a job offer, labor market tests, and/or strict quotas before admitting overseas workers, Australia's General Skilled Migration (GSM) program allows entry for skilled migrants based upon their experience and qualifications in a long list of occupations. Working in Australia has never been easier.

The so-called Skilled Occupation List covers a wide range of professional specialties such as health care workers, computer specialists, and engineers, to trade occupations such as locksmiths, welders, and electricians.

In their application for skilled immigration, people are awarded points based upon their skills in their nominated occupation for which they plan to find a job in Australia. Age and English language ability also play an important part in the GSM program; however, the age requirement is fairly liberal. Skilled migrants are required to be from 18 to 45 years of age at the time of their application under the GSM.

Applicants must also have at least "competent" English ability (an overall band score of 6 on an IELTS test) unless the applicant's nominated occupation is a trade occupation. For trade occupations, "vocational" English is sufficient.

While Australia's GSM is a welcome opportunity for someone from India looking to live and work abroad, the system can still be complicated and difficult to navigate. However, with our 20 years of experience in helping people immigrate to nations all over the world, workpermit.com can come to your aid.

If you with to live and work in Australia, let our certified immigration advisors assist you. A good first step would be to fill out our free assessment form, after which a consultant specialising in Australian immigration will contact you.

Australia, with its wonderful climate, multicultural population, and growing opportunities, is fast becoming the destination of choice for skilled workers from all over the globe. Australian employers are looking increasingly more overseas to fill their labor needs and India is a treasure trove of talent for the nation.

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2008-05-26/australia/immigrating-australia-from-india.htm

Nachtengel
Monday, October 19th, 2009, 10:46 AM
The past week has seen a lot of reporting on Australia’s high levels of immigration and population growth. The reports were sparked by the release of the latest Intergenerational Report.

Headlines such as Australia ’sleepwalking’ into population disaster have questioned the perceived wisdom that an ever-increasing population is a good thing. It’s heartening to see a federal politician express his concern that the current high immigration levels will result in “Declining housing affordability, traffic congestion, over-crowded concrete jungles.”

The treasurer, however, seems oblivious to any of these concerns, as well as the concerns raised by TheRealists. Instead of listening to the concerns of Australian citizens, the treasurer has opened a new front on the population debate, arguing that high levels of immigration are required to reduce the ageing of the population.

When the latest Intergenerational Report predicted that Australia’s population will rise to 35 million in 40 years’ time the treasurer, when referring to the economic consequences said “It is arguably one of two of our greatest economic challenges along with climate change.”

This statement shows the enormity of the task people have when arguing that immigration is too high. The treasurer didn’t say that ‘Obviously immigration is too high and is already causing overcrowding in our cities and forcing up house prices’. He didn’t say ‘Obviously our population is ageing so we must boost productivity so that we can support our ageing population into the future’. You won’t hear words like that coming from the treasurer.

Instead, the treasurer just accepted that the only solution to an ageing population is to maintain record levels of immigration. By referring to it in the same breath as climate change the treasurer hopes to gain consensus that this is a challenge that must be faced, that we must cater for more and more people arriving in this great country every year.

But does the evidence stack up? Is immigration the best way to counter population ageing?

The short answer is, no, not really. Immigration is indeed part of the solution, but not at the record high levels we have currently.

The problem with using immigration to reduce population ageing is that migrants age too. You end up bringing more and more people, in the many hundreds of thousands of people each year into the country indefinitely.

There have been previous studies carried out into this very question. The conclusions of The Impact of Immigration on the Ageing of Australia’s Population produced in 1999 were as follows (emphasis added):

“This level [80,000] of annual net migration also makes a worthwhile and efficient contribution to the retardation of population ageing. Levels of annual net migration above 80,000 become increasingly ineffective and inefficient in the retardation of ageing. Those who wish to argue for a higher level of immigration must base their argument on the benefits of a larger population, not upon the illusory ‘younging power’ of high immigration.

The effects upon ageing of a younger immigrant intake or higher migrant fertility are very small. Furthermore, implementation of either measure would be problematic. They are not realistic options.”

The paper says ‘They are not realistic options’…that was 1999. Now it’s 2009 and the ‘not realistic options’ are reality with Net Overseas Migration over 200,000 per year.

In an embarrassment for the treasurer, the treasury website also states that immigration cannot stop the ageing of the population. The Treasury website states the following in the Australia’s Demographic Challenges section (emphasis added):

“But increased migration cannot prevent our population from ageing. This is because migrants who come to Australia will age along with the rest of the population. To maintain Australia’s existing age structure through immigration would require increases in immigration every year — and the increases would need to become progressively larger and larger to take account of the ageing of the migrants themselves. While there are undoubted benefits in maintaining net overseas migration, migration cannot stop the ageing of our population.”

Perhaps by increasing the font size as well the treasure may pay attention.

Fortunately, as opposed to politicians, there are some sensible people in the community who make it their business to know a lot about population and demographics.

Professor Bob Birrell of the Monash University Centre for Population and Urban Research has been quoted in The Australian as saying (emphasis added):

“”The government seems to have bought the argument that business in Australia needs a high amount of labour force growth to keep it going in the future. The rest of us are going to have to bear the consequences of that. The government doesn’t seem prepared to explore how we need to make social adjustments; rather, they are relying on the prop of bringing in more people of younger ages to essentially put all the older people to bed.”

The government should listen to the advice of specialists in this area as well as the advice that it has published on its own websites. Population ageing is a challenge, but the solution is not to bring ever-increasing numbers of people to Australia.

The answer lies in things that are occurring already. Already people are working longer and delaying retirement, meaning they place less of a burden upon society. In the same way, the minimum age for the aged pension is being increased. Compulsory superannuation has been in effect since 1993 and will reduce the burden of an ageing population in the medium to long term.

Our wealth as a nation continues to grow, and will grow into the future, meaning we will have enough resources to support the increased number of elderly people. And to top it all off the fertility rate has been increasing recently, from 1.79 to 1.93 in the past two years.

The treasurer this week launched the Australian Institute for Population Ageing Research. It is supposed to “examine the impacts of the ageing population on the economy, society and environment.”

I’ll give him some advice for free. Maintain and implement policies that will build wealth. Reduce the levels of immigration. With these policies Australia will cope just fine over the next 50 years, and will be a much better society for it.

http://www.protectionist.net/2009/09/26/ageing-of-the-population-not-solved-by-high-immigration/

Rhydderch
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009, 12:47 PM
And if they still insist on immigration as a solution, surely temporary immigration would be a better solution. That way the immigrants leave before they get old enough to need the support of others, and are replaced by younger immigrants.

If the economy was their real reason for advocating high immigration then that's what they'd be doing. But the economy (among other things) is just an excuse; immigration is part of the international socialist agenda of turning the world into a monoculturally communist utopia, with no national borders, no distinct ethnicities, and not even proper families.

Æmeric
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009, 03:14 PM
Immigration on the scale of Australia's decreases the native fertility rate by A; incereasing competition for jobs, depressing wages & B; increasing competition for housing & decent schools, increasing the cost of having children, especially since the native born are less likely to quailify for welfare.

Stop the migration of thirdworlders (who bring with them lower standards of living) & wages will go up, pressures on hosuing will ease & total fertility rates will rise. I also think retirement ages should be raised. People are living longer, healthier lives then they use to.

What the pro-immigrant advocates never mention is that those immigrants are going to be pensioners someday & will need someone to support them, leading to an endless cycle of immigration to support the pension systems of the West. It must seem like Asia, Africa & Latin America have an infinite supply of surplus people. What is also conviently neglected is those thirdworld migrants & their dependents will need more social assistance then the native born. The public costs of assisting these immigrants is greater then what they contribute to the retirement systems. The only people who benefit from third-world immigration is multicultural-marxists for philosophical reasons & the rich who benefit from cheap labor & can avoid the higher taxes to pay for it through the services of tax attorneys & tax shelters. The people who bear the financial costs of immigration are the middle & working classes.

oakenbough
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009, 03:23 PM
imigration just puts todays problems off untill tomorrow, trouble is the problems are still growing all the time, and our children will have to solve worse ones than we face now. If only people would plan for the future and not live for now.

EQ Fighter
Thursday, October 22nd, 2009, 04:58 AM
There is no such thing as temporary Immigration, any more than there is such a thing as a temporary invasion. Once they are there an established then they are going to stay, baring a military removal, and even a military removal depends on the natives realizing what is going on early enough to retaliate. Once the so called Immigrants achieve critical mass there is no going back.

Nachtengel
Sunday, March 28th, 2010, 10:37 AM
news.com.au, March 24, 2010

TRADITIONS based on heritage, sporting culture and common language are threatened by mass immigration, a leading demographer has warned.

Monash University population expert Dr Bob Birrell has said the huge influx of people with few or no English skills had created social problems in Melbourne suburbs such as Dandenong, Sunshine and Broadmeadows and most major cities were feeling the population strain, the Herald Sun reported.

“This is not a pretty picture,” he said. “Social divisions are becoming more obvious and geographically concentrated and certain areas are being overlain by an ethnic identification.”

Dr Birrell made the explosive comments in an article for Policy, a magazine published by the Centre for Independent Studies, a right-wing think tank.

In a plea to the Rudd Government to slash the current immigrant intake of 180,000 a year, Dr Birrell warned that the predicted population of 35 million by 2050 would be a disaster for urban living and the environment.

“One would have to wander deaf, dumb and blind through Australian capital cities to not notice how urban congestion has already reduced the quality of life,” he said.

The intake dominated by people from non-English speaking backgrounds was transforming Australia, Dr Birrell said.

“We are losing core elements of what was once shared. Almost all could once aspire to a house and land .&nbps;. . and sharing a common language, sporting culture and heritage,” he said.

But mass migration was creating ethnic enclaves in suburbs with cheap housing, and planning rules were forcing Australian-born “losers” and non-English speaking background migrants to live in congested neighbourhoods, “cheek by jowl”.

Continued: http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/03/mass_immigratio_1.php

Nachtengel
Monday, April 19th, 2010, 10:26 PM
THE Australian-born family will become a minority group within 15 years - outnumbered by a surging wave of migrants from Europe and Asia.

Figures from demographic consultants Macroplan Australia show record overseas migration and an ageing population mean migrant families will overtake the number of locally born residents by 2025 - far sooner than previously imagined.

The news will infuriate some Australian citizens, who claim the population is already too big and infrastucture is buckling under the strain.

According to 2006 census data, 40 per cent of the nation's population was either born overseas or had at least one parent who was born abroad.

But at present immigration levels, that proportion will jump to more than 50 per cent by 2025.

More: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/well-be-a-nation-of-new-migrants/story-e6freuy9-1225854962993

The Aesthete
Wednesday, April 21st, 2010, 08:19 AM
The Asian nations who are our neighbors will be getting what they always wanted (The Singaporean PM once indicated that they expect us to become more than 50 percent Asian). The education system here keeps telling everyone how good multiculturalism is, but polls show that most Australians feel otherwise. Soon those polls will not albeit those immigrants themselves decide to stop immigration. This should give a good representation of where this country is going; it is the names of students who got a perfect university entrance score or the top marks in 2008:


Sen Lin - James Ruse
Christine Zhang - James Ruse
David Pham - James Ruse
Nathan Wong - James Ruse
Caroline Banh - James Ruse
Ruby Kwong - James Ruse
James Xu - James Ruse
Victor Chan - James Ruse
Melissa Chen - James Ruse

Schwarze_Sonne
Monday, April 26th, 2010, 03:38 AM
It really is unfortunate.
I agree that we're told that Australians are happy that we're so multicultural, but it's obvious that we're not. Most people I know, including my family, are unhappy about the current rate of immigration in Australia. I don't think Australians are happy with this level of multiculturalism AT ALL.
Also, being a university student, I can't STAND the amount of foreign students I see at school, when I'm sure there are many Australian-born people who wish they had an opportunity to study at University and can't. It's unfair.

The Aesthete
Monday, April 26th, 2010, 05:00 AM
The university makes the majority of their cash through international students, most are from Asian countries and many apply for a skilled migrant visas once they are through then get citizenship. It is bringing down the quality of the education system. I was in class with a Japanese international student who could only speak a handful of words and contributed nothing; in a way I felt sorry for him. However in general international students from Germany and some other European countries are really bright, have great English, contribute a lot as well as fit in culturally.

Schwarze_Sonne
Monday, April 26th, 2010, 07:43 AM
I agree in the way that it is definitely bringing down the educational system. Australia needs to be educating their OWN people before educating other country's people. It's ridiculous really; I just can't understand how people and the government let it happen. Won't people open their eyes?

The Aesthete
Saturday, May 22nd, 2010, 09:56 AM
I just thought I would share a post I sent to German Islander who asked me about what Australia is like today.

Australia is still a white majority but it will not be if current immigration trends continue for around another twenty years. Thirty years ago there were virtually no non Europeans here as we had a ‘white Australia policy’ until the mid 70s (when we began accepting many ‘boat people’ refugees from the Vietnam War), but today in virtually every major city whites are a minority. When the states federated in 1901and until after the Second World War Australia pretty much exclusively only allowed in immigrants from Western and Northern Europe with an emphasis on British stock. After the Second World War it became more lenient allowing many Southern Europeans whose countries were ravaged by war in. This was in an effort to populate the country because our Asian neighbours vastly out populated us; this was made evident in WW2 when we thought the Japanese were going to invade us.

Illegal immigration is a currently a massive problem in Australia especially as until this year people smuggling was not considered illegal in Indonesia. Our Asian neighbors are somewhat hostile to the ‘lonely white outpost’ in the region and often consider us as America’s deputy sheriff in the region. The media here controlled by the great multiculturalists Murdoch (who has Jewish blood and is in a mixed marriage with a Chinese woman thirty eight years his junior) and the influence of the Asian nations on governmental policy (China and Japan are our biggest trading partners) are destroying this country. No wonder I see more Germanic women with racial others every day. The education system also indoctrinates the youth here to be pro multiculturalist; I actually know of a student who when writing an essay about immigration to Australia whose thesis was that it was degenerative to the country, was on submission told by the teacher that they could not take such a stance on this topic. In Australia Pauline Hanson (a woman) and the leader of a Nationalist party which experienced some initial success at the polls in the late nineties, was brave enough to speak out against multiculturalism, was thrown in jail on a trumped up charge and now is having to emigrate to the UK from Australia because she just wants peace.

The coveting of ‘Aussie’ girls by racial others is to some extent frenzied. This was evident in the Sydney gang rapes attacks by Arabs targeting Anglo-Australian girls, which somewhat was a catalyst to the Cronulla race riots in 2005 (Cronulla is a beach town which is mainly an Anglo Australian area where many racial others and Arabs in Sydney would go to try and pick up Aussie chicks and this harassment of their women angered the local males there). Aussie girls are widely regarded around the world as attractive, but I can go weeks without seeing a blonde (excluding family) in my area. Most outback areas are still mostly Anglo-Australian but the immigrants are starting to move out there especially as the government is actively encouraging it.

Currently we are experiencing our highest influx of legal and illegal immigrants ever!

Cuchullain
Saturday, June 12th, 2010, 06:48 PM
I recently visited Australia and New Zealand and in the cities especially the number of Asian people was very surprising. I was of the opinion that both countries were particularly strict on immigration but not as strict as I had thought.

I can only imagine the volume of people from Europe that are applying for residency in both countries at the moment. I went to visit not to stay so it was not something I was concerned about but every second European we met while there had some kind of application in.

I remember reading many reports about the Cronulla race riots in 2005 and all of them were against the Australians for being racist which seemed unfair to me at the time. I don't see anything wrong with people reacting, regardless of race or colour, when provoked especially if women are being disrespected.

Untersberger
Saturday, June 12th, 2010, 08:34 PM
I did a tour of duty to Christmas Island for 10 weeks.. If you saw what I had to endure as work you would be shocked to the core..

Rudd is an absolute Traitor whom MUST be working for the western Elites in their plan to flood white nations with non-white immigrants.. Its a trend across all white nations at this time supported by the hypocritical UN..

Its that Simple..

Australia is guaranteed a civil war in about 35-50 years from now as is Europa..

Cuchullain
Saturday, June 12th, 2010, 08:55 PM
I have no doubt that you are right Untersberger.

http://www.rheinwiesenlager.de

Thanks for the link this will make for some interesting reading.:thumbup

Roderic
Sunday, September 4th, 2011, 09:32 PM
White immigrants row


A Maori academic says immigration by whites should be restricted because they pose a threat to race relations due to their "white supremacist" attitudes.

The controversial comments come in response to a Department of Labour report, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Star-Times, which found Maori are more likely to express anti-immigration sentiment than Pakeha or any other ethnic group.

Margaret Mutu, head of Auckland University's department of Maori studies, agreed with the findings and called on the government to restrict the number of white migrants arriving from countries such as South Africa, England and the United States as they brought attitudes destructive to Maori.

"They do bring with them, as much as they deny it, an attitude of white supremacy, and that is fostered by the country," she said.

Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres, who migrated here from the Netherlands, has hit out at Mutu's view, saying there is no justification for anybody to discriminate on the basis of colour, race or nationality.

Mutu said Maori were generally supportive of immigration from Asian countries, and she was happy to welcome white immigrants who understood issues of racism against Maori.

"They are in a minority just like Pakeha in this country. You have a minority of Pakeha who are very good, they recognise the racism, they object to it and speak out strongly against it."

The Labour Department migrant report surveyed almost 1000 people on their perceptions of ethnic groups coming here. Maori respondents were the most likely to agree with negative statements about immigrants, such as that they threaten New Zealand culture and steal jobs from Kiwis.

They were also more likely to disagree that immigrants contribute to New Zealand's culture and economy.

The Labour and Immigration Research Centre report also found:

Samoans were the migrant group which received the highest negative rating by all respondents, one in five viewing them negatively.

British and Australian migrants received the highest positive ratings, just 5% disliking the British and 4% viewing Australians negatively.

Pacific Islanders (91%) were most likely to find New Zealand welcoming.

It is not the first time Maori commentators have sparked controversy by suggesting racial immigration policies.

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia caused an international backlash when she call for migration to be reduced – particularly from western countries – in 2007. At the time, Turia accused the government of trying to stop the "browning" of New Zealand through immigration.

De Bres said: "We should not stop people coming on the basis on their skin. It's racial prejudice and racial discrimination." He cautioned that racist views were not limited to one ethnic group.

De Bres said he recently attended a celebration at the Maori King's residence where different migrant communities were welcomed onto the marae, proving many Maori are welcoming.

"The positive thing to do is for Maori and migrants to engage more to understand each other."

Massey University sociologist Paul Spoonley said his research showed while other ethnic groups' attitudes toward migrants had been approving, Maori perception had become increasingly negative. Anti-immigration sentiment was fed by Maori fears that multicultural policies were diminishing policies concerning Maori, he said.

Mutu said she was concerned that relations between Maori and other minority groups had deteriorated.

"Maori feel very threatened as more groups come in and swamp them."

But Auckland University of Technology Maori history professor Paul Moon said extremist Maori views were held only by a minority and people should be wary of reading too much into the report.

He said Mutu's comments did not equate with the reality of many Maori inter-marrying with Pakeha.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5561044/White-immigrants-row

The Aesthete
Monday, September 5th, 2011, 01:41 PM
We get so many Maori coming here to Australia and for the most part they are nothing but a burden; violence and alcohol abuse are serious problems for them

Ingvaeonic
Monday, September 5th, 2011, 01:46 PM
We get so many Maori coming here to Australia and for the most part they are nothing but a burden; violence and alcohol abuse are serious problems for them

That's right. Maoris and Pacific Islanders do nothing but cause trouble and commit crime. I'd send all kanakas back. They are a bloody nuisance and a hazard. Most violent home invasions in Sydney are committed by kanakas.

Æmeric
Monday, September 5th, 2011, 02:20 PM
"Margaret Mutu, head of Auckland University's department of Maori studies,She is a racist & is opposed to European immigration for reasons of racial-politics. And she should be aware that Asians have much more stronger racist views regarding more primitive peoples, like the Maoris, then the typical White person.

celticviking
Tuesday, October 11th, 2011, 12:59 PM
In an email to Mr Rankin, Race Relations Commissioner Boris de Bres said although he deplored Professor Mutu's suggestion that New Zealand should discriminate against white-skinned people from certain countries, the Bill of Rights Act allowed people to speak their mind.



Professor Mutu, who is also head of the Department of Maori Studies at the University of Auckland, claimed Maori were generally supportive of immigration from Asian countries


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10756995

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/5744428/Margaret-Mutu-complaints-dismissed

http://www.3news.co.nz/No-action-over-Margaret-Mutu-racist-comments/tabid/423/articleID/228581/Default.aspx

Verðandi
Wednesday, May 9th, 2012, 10:38 PM
SYDNEY — THE federal government will pay families up to $300 a week to temporarily house asylum seekers in their homes to help deal with the increasing flood of arrivals.
With the Immigration Department now facing a potential shortage of community housing to accommodate detainees who are being released into the community, the government has turned to householders for help.
Under a plan slated to start next month, the government will seek to access the 5,000 homes registered under the privately run Australian Homestay Network (AHN) to host asylum seekers released from detention on bridging visas.
AHN was originally established to provide short-term private home accommodation and board for international students.
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/18061682/australian-government-will-pay-families-to-house-asylum-seekers


More... (http://www.natallnews.com/story.php?id=10215)

paraplethon
Thursday, May 10th, 2012, 12:26 AM
This would seem to be nothing but an open invitation for anyone considering coming here.

"Here, come to our country. Here, we'll give you everything you could possibly need. Hell, we'll even give you over our own houses for you to live in!"

How bloody ridiculous.

Razzok
Thursday, May 10th, 2012, 12:32 AM
What am I not surprised? That's what you get when you have a far-left Labor government with the loony Greens alongside them. These people are seriously out of touch and out of their minds.

MCP3
Thursday, May 10th, 2012, 01:06 AM
What a huge opportunity to make money for those who rent, e.g. hostels !
Rent 10 units to asylum seekers, Oriental, African or Asiatic immigrants and you get $3.000 per week by the government !

Amazing, amazing...people of the world..let's head to Australia!

Though i guess European/American people/tourists won't get any rooms paid by the Australian government. :thumbdown

renownedwolf
Thursday, May 10th, 2012, 01:17 AM
Nothing like a bribe to make people sell out their blood, eh?

paraplethon
Thursday, May 10th, 2012, 03:44 AM
Nothing like a bribe to make people sell out their blood, eh?

Problem is, we've been told for so long Australians don't have an identity of our own, that we're not an identifiable populace, we have no culture of our own, that all we are is damn lucky we've had these recent arrivals the last 30 years to 'spice things up a bit' and allow us to share in some of 'their culture and identity', people are actually starting to believe it.

That doesn't mean however people will line up for this proposed $300p/w to house certain foreigners - personal experience: haven't come across one person yet who hasn't thoroughly lambasted the notion as utter nonsense.

hyidi
Thursday, May 10th, 2012, 06:21 AM
Then what's the point of having boarder control when the government lets any joe blow In?

Also, whites from Europe and around the world must have a passport to enter an overseas country or they will face deportation. So doing the right thing lands you a deportation and doing the wrong thing lands you a free roof over your head! This world has gone mad!!!!

I'm never voting for labour again- even before I saw this thread, I was not going to vote for labour ever again.

Primus
Thursday, May 10th, 2012, 05:55 PM
What the hell..?

Nachtengel
Saturday, June 16th, 2012, 10:47 PM
THE federal government has been accused of advertising for asylum seeker arrivals after telling new boat arrivals what they can expect on arrival in Australia on the Immigration Department website. The website, dubbed a "how-to guide" by the opposition, includes a flow chart of the arrival process showing how they are screened, lodge claims, undergo primary assessments and are subject to client decisions before undergoing health checks and visa referrals if successful or deportation if not.
Labor 'advertising for asylum seekers' | thetelegraph.com.au (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/labor-advertising-for-asylum-seekers/story-e6freuy9-1226396400079)

svartleby
Sunday, June 17th, 2012, 01:43 AM
Today's immigrant, tomorrow's voter base ;)

Not unlike the pandering our executive branch over here has recently been doing for Hispanics. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18460894)

Kiel
Thursday, July 5th, 2012, 07:24 AM
Don't you guys have any rope down in Australia?

Untersberger
Thursday, July 5th, 2012, 07:52 AM
The present day Australian Government is doing this open border blight deliberately and will pay the price accordingly at the next federal election. The left wing movement is hell bent on destroying the strong Anglo/Celtic Australian heritage which has seriously been eroded in the major cities. It is no real surprise considering a former communist is the current prime minister and the most unpopular prime minister in Australian history.

hyidi
Thursday, July 5th, 2012, 10:08 AM
I dislike Gallard, she is too soft and she has no idea. I am not a liberal voter, though, John Howard had guts and he seem to be tough with illegals and refugees. When John Howard were PM of Australia, we had hardly no boats and hardly no onshore visa application for Que jumpers.

Kevin Rudd I voted for and I am angry that my PM were voted out of office for a women that as no idea how to lead a nation. I had notice the year Gallard had become PM that Illegals and refugees received more rights than the average Aussies and Aussies looking for a government house to live in.

By allowing these Indonesians to view our policy on arrival on boats seems like Australia is holding out her hand. God Almighty! :thumbdown

Primarius Krone
Thursday, July 5th, 2012, 02:22 PM
I dislike Gallard, she is too soft and she has no idea. I am not a liberal voter, though, John Howard had guts and he seem to be tough with illegals and refugees. When John Howard were PM of Australia, we had hardly no boats and hardly no onshore visa application for Que jumpers.

Kevin Rudd I voted for and I am angry that my PM were voted out of office for a women that as no idea how to lead a nation. I had notice the year Gallard had become PM that Illegals and refugees received more rights than the average Aussies and Aussies looking for a government house to live in.

By allowing these Indonesians to view our policy on arrival on boats seems like Australia is holding out her hand. God Almighty! :thumbdown

I must admit, I laughed out loud at this one (see bold part above.) I don't think I've read a more accurate and succinct description of her!

I agree with you (re: Liberals.) I find that there is something untrustworthy about Tony Abbott. His actions against Pauline Hanson were deplorable. On the other hand, he is a self-confessed Anglophile so maybe he isn't completely evil? :D

Chances are, if he doesn't stuff things up, he and his party will gain power in the next election. At least he has plans to stop the current fleet of invaders, instead of rolling out the red carpet :|

We're not exactly overflowing with enthusiasm about our current set of leaders are we?

Untersberger
Thursday, July 5th, 2012, 02:39 PM
90% of these refugee claimants arriving by Indonesian crewed fishing boats are from the middle east. Mostly from Iran, Afghanistan and a smattering of Iraqis and the remainder tend to be Sri Lankan Tamils and a few Burmese.

The overwhelming majority are middle eastern Muslims and they arrive with full expectations to be granted Protection Visas including the huge number of them who are bogus asylum seekers, otherwise known as economic refugees. Each boat is arranged by mostly middle eastern refugee rejects turned people smugglers from the Howard era of early 2000's when he basically put a stop to the debacle after the Tampa incident off Christmas Island. These people smugglers charge between $5k to sometimes $15k for a place on a stinking overcrowded Indonesian fishing boat.

Kevin Rudd and his left wing Labor Government effectively opened up Australia's borders in 2007 and allowed illegal boat arrivals to surge out of control resulting in all of Australia's illegal immigrant detention holding centres being full to the brim ever since with new centres having to be opened to cope with the thousands arriving. Under the now Gillard Labor Government she effectively carried on the non action policy doing nought to stop the illegal arrivals. People are now seriously contemplating this whole thing was a secret 'black op' policy of Labor with them knowing well the Australian public would be totally against it if they were asked. Kevin Rudd is a big supporter of a massive increase in multi-culture in Australia and it was he who started this open border madness... hmm!!

Since the surge in these illegal boat arrivals crossing from Indonesia many have gone missing out at sea. Up to five boats crammed full have vanished without a trace while others that had been spotted from the air by Australian coastguard later ran into trouble at sea sinking and Australian naval vessels responding to save these self proclaimed refugee asylum seekers from drowning.

Several hundreds of these people have already drowned at sea since 2007 and in the last few weeks two more boats sank with the Australian navy partly successful in picking up survivors from the first boat but with still over a hundred drowned.

The entire border protection policy under this left wing Labor Government has become a farce and as I have mentioned before they will pay the price for their betrayal to the Australian nation at the next election.

Sawyer
Sunday, July 8th, 2012, 01:11 AM
MULTICULTURALISM has won the battle for Australia. The 2011 census reveals that Australia has become a melting pot of races, with more than one in four Australians having arrived here as migrants, while almost one in eight has Asian ancestry.

Less than 40 years after the White Australia policy was buried by the Whitlam government, the census results unveiled yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics reveal a land of many cultures, many ancestries and many religions. In the decade to 2011, the growth in Australia's population was mostly among people of Asian ancestry. From just 982,519 in 2001, the number of Asian-Australians has swollen to 2.4 million in 2011 - or from 5.5 per cent of us to 12 per cent.

Article here: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/land-of-many-cultures-ancestries-and-faiths-20120621-20r3g.html

hyidi
Sunday, July 8th, 2012, 01:25 AM
I was about to mention that Indian and Muslims race will over take the Asians very shortly. Around my area, hardly no Asians but masses of Indians and Muslims.

Richmond, a once all white suburb where my grand parents and my mother were born and grew up is totally Asian and the surrounding suburbs of Richmond is all Asian today.

They run a poll early this year or late last year and 90% of Australians said that Australia was better off when Australia were the white policy. G.Whitlam had no choice to abolished the white policy. The International Jewry threatened to cut Australia off from the world. The Australian government never wanted to go multiracial multicultural country. My mother were born living in Australia at this time and this is what she said what had happened.

Sawyer
Sunday, July 8th, 2012, 01:27 AM
I was about to mention that Indian and Muslims race will over take the Asians very shortly. Around my area, hardly no Asians but masses of Indians and Muslims.

Richmond, a once all white suburb where my grand parents and my mother were born and grew up is totally Asian and the surrounding suburbs of Richmond is all Asian today.

They run a poll early this year or late last year and 90% of Australians said that Australia was better off when Australia were the white policy. G.Whitlam had no choice to abolished the white policy. The International Jewry threatened to cut Australia off from the world. The Australian government never wanted to go multiracial multicultural country. My mother were born living in Australia at this time and this is what she what had happened.

What is amazing is how incredibly fast the foreigners are filling up the gaps in Australia. It is really shocking.

Luckily most Australians are rather racist, so there is more hope than other nations. In the chaos of the future, International Jewry shan't be able to threaten Australia;)

hyidi
Sunday, July 8th, 2012, 01:33 AM
Yes, Australians have more guts and will.


International Jewry shan't be able to threaten Australia
Hopefully I can take your word. Sounds promising.

Forest_Dweller
Sunday, July 8th, 2012, 01:37 AM
Where's Hando when you need him:
http://content6.flixster.com/photo/10/98/70/10987096_gal.jpg
:D

Seriously though that is quite shocking, considering how many of them there are though it's not surprising that they are one of the largest minority. There is absolutely no danger of them going instinct yet Australians are supposed to shut up and accept "diversity":thumbdown

Geroth
Sunday, July 8th, 2012, 01:45 AM
I gotta say I always thought the Asian population was much more than 12%. Suburbs in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane that were lily white just 10 or 15 years ago are now toilets and unfortunately it's only going to get worse,
Indians, Middle Easterners, Polynesian Islanders and Africans are coming over in droves also and it's only a matter of time before they start infiltrating current white suburbs and destroying them too. I think our only real hope is with small, country towns but even some of them are being swamped. Tasmania, Northern Queensland, Northern Victoria and some parts of South Australia are really the only places left with still overwhelmingly white populations.

hyidi
Sunday, July 8th, 2012, 01:57 AM
Suburbs in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane that were lily white just 10 or 15 years ago are now toilets and unfortunately it's only going to get worse,
Indians, Middle Easterners, Polynesian Islanders and Africans are coming over in droves also and it's only a matter of time before they start infiltrating current white suburbs and destroying them too.

I never saw a African in real life only on American Television. 10-15 years ago my suburb were all white. Today, I see 100's of Africans everywhere from, my local suburb, the main shopping centre Fountain gate,nightclubs,pubs etc... (night clubs were all white patrons,now full of Asians,Muslims and Africans,hardly no whites) I can remember going to a club near my house (2003) no Muslims,no Indians and no Africans,few Asians, and the club mostly boosted white patrons.

I first saw my first African in Australia in 2006, now they are everywhere. 2006 is when first mass African migrants entered Australia. First only male Africans came over, now there is female Africans.

The white suburbs' today, Pakemham, Berwick, beaconsfeild, Warragul will soon be turn into (in 10-15 years time) African, Muslims and Indian. The whites will move to the next suburb and history will repeat itself.

Sawyer
Sunday, July 8th, 2012, 02:12 AM
I think our only real hope is with small, country towns but even some of them are being swamped. Tasmania, Northern Queensland, Northern Victoria and some parts of South Australia are really the only places left with still overwhelmingly white populations.

This is the bad side, the fact that Australia's population is so cramped around those major cities. Americans luckily have many many towns to fall back on, we don't have the same percentage as they do. Goes to show the outback stereotype is false, eh?;)

Geroth
Sunday, July 8th, 2012, 02:15 AM
I never saw a African in real life only on American Television. 10-15 years ago my suburb were all white. Today, I see 100's of Africans everywhere from, my local suburb, the main shopping centre Fountain gate,nightclubs,pubs etc... (night clubs were all white patrons,now full of Asians,Muslims and Africans,hardly no whites) I can remember going to a club near my house (2003) no Muslims,no Indians and no Africans,few Asians, and the club mostly boosted white patrons.

I first saw my first African in Australia in 2006, now they are everywhere. 2006 is when first mass African migrants entered Australia. First only male Africans came over, now there is female Africans.

The white suburbs' today, Pakemham, Berwick, beaconsfeild, Warragul will soon be turn into (in 10-15 years time) African, Muslims and Indian. The whites will move to the next suburb and history will repeat itself.

I know, it's shocking. I dont live in a big city anymore but I used to live in Cairns in Far North Queensland. Cairns has always been a hot spot for tourists and there has always been an Asian presence there but not long before I left I noticed large numbers of them buying homes and setting up residences all over the city. Despite that, Cairns was always a very Anglo-Celtic city. I recently went back there for a holiday, only to find the streets infested with Asians, Tongans and New Guinean immigrants who I hear are coming over in droves and have taken over entire suburbs. Townsville apparently is even worse. This is going on all over the place and it's really worrying.

hyidi
Sunday, July 8th, 2012, 02:44 AM
I find that Asian population in Australia normally buys up big within the cities boundaries,while other migrants move to the outer suburbs while the whites keep on moving away. Asians (from and living in Asia) buy up Aussie homes, what the hell is going on?. Its disgusting how the world had become.

Æmeric
Sunday, July 8th, 2012, 05:16 AM
I was about to mention that Indian and Muslims race will over take the Asians very shortly. Around my area, hardly no Asians but masses of Indians and Muslims.

Doesn't Asian include South Asian in Australia? I know it does in the US (But Iranians are "White"), in the UK Asian typically means South Asian.

I prefer the Canadian terminology of "Visible Minority" which covers everyone not European, including Hispanics & Middle Eaterners.


In the decade to 2011, the growth in Australia's population was mostly among people of Asian ancestry. From just 982,519 in 2001, the number of Asian-Australians has swollen to 2.4 million in 2011 - or from 5.5 per cent of us to 12 per cent.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/land-of-many-cultures-ancestries-and-faiths-20120621-20r3g.html#ixzz2008IdPKS
Asians are like Hispanics in the US (nearly the same proportion) in that they are recent arrivals with very shallow roots in the country. It wouldn't be a hardship to make them return to where they, or their parents, were born.

Primarius Krone
Sunday, July 8th, 2012, 05:35 AM
From just 982,519 in 2001, the number of Asian-Australians has swollen to 2.4 million in 2011 - or from 5.5 per cent of us to 12 per cent.

Only 12 per cent? In all honesty, it seems a lot higher here in Melbourne. Maybe the majority moved here? :|


Asians are like Hispanics in the US (nearly the same proportion) in that they are recent arrivals with very shallow roots in the country. It wouldn't be a hardship to make them return to where they, or their parents, were born.

The $64,000 question is what it would take for this to happen? That applies to all Western Countries.

It's hard to grasp how far along the mulit-kult path Australians are. I know a number of people who are not keen on it (and keep it mostly to themselves, as it's a bit of a taboo topic), but I know an equal number of people who are well and truly for it.

IMHO, It would require a fundamental shift in philosophy and mindset of the populous.

paraplethon
Sunday, July 8th, 2012, 09:59 AM
Only 12 per cent? In all honesty, it seems a lot higher here in Melbourne. Maybe the majority moved here? :|


Yep, probably did. And the figures would seem alot higher in certain areas of at least Sydney, Brisbane and Perth as well. Whereas here - they're still a bit of a novelty - much like the few Africans about the place.

Showing how rapidly the engineering has gone on - in 1997 Australia had only 4% of its population identified as Asian. At that point - the forecast was for an increase to 7% by 2007/8. Seems we've trumped that forecast.

Sawyer
Sunday, July 8th, 2012, 12:38 PM
Doesn't Asian include South Asian in Australia? I know it does in the US (But Iranians are "White"), in the UK Asian typically means South Asian.

I prefer the Canadian terminology of "Visible Minority" which covers everyone not European, including Hispanics & Middle Eaterners.

Asians are like Hispanics in the US (nearly the same proportion) in that they are recent arrivals with very shallow roots in the country. It wouldn't be a hardship to make them return to where they, or their parents, were born.

I am not sure whether 'Asian' includes Indians, but it certainly includes everyone from Japan to Burma.

I can attest to it being similar in Australia. Most Asians don't consider themselves 'Australian', or try and adopt the customs. They always call themselves 'Asians' and generally stick to themselves.

Australia is kind of lucky because generally people don't identify with the Australian identity. This is lucky, because even though the country is being flooded with immigrants, none of them consider themselves Australian, and they stick to their roots. Whereas the total opposite seems to be happening in Britain, and I have heard 'Lebanese-British' people here complain that we don't recognise them as British:).

What gets a bit misleading though, is the fact that the highest two groups of 'immigrants' are just Brits and Kiwis.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~Country%20of %20birth~54

The Aesthete
Monday, July 9th, 2012, 01:35 PM
Asians here have a better matriculation rate than Aussies; they almost have a monopoly over many of the highest paying tertiary degrees.

China is the largest purchaser of Australian debt.

China followed by Japan are our largest trading partners.

Chinese immigrants top Australia's migrant intake.

China is also buying up Australian farmland big.

Our Asian neighbours (who despise us) are well aware of the demographic changes taking place in Australia; a few years back at an ASEAN conference a Singaporean official said Australia could join when they were over 50% Asian.

The Asian media also promoted the connection of racism to the Aussie nationalist leader Pauline Hanson.

Asians have a high rate of intermarrying with whites.

Asians are the biggest threat to Aussie identity, but as they are generally less troublesome than Arabs and Africans it is not as apparent.

Angela
Tuesday, July 10th, 2012, 08:45 PM
From just 982,519 in 2001, the number of Asian-Australians has swollen to 2.4 million in 2011 - or from 5.5 per cent of us to 12 per cent.

This is scary. They more than dubbled their numbers in 10 years. Give it another 10 years and they will be about a quarter of the population in Australia.

paraplethon
Thursday, July 12th, 2012, 12:18 AM
This is scary. They more than dubbled their numbers in 10 years. Give it another 10 years and they will be about a quarter of the population in Australia.

Meanwhile all we hear about in the media are boat arrivals of refugees - a yearly intake that amounts to around 15-20,000.

What is actually effecting a rapid change in the Australian populace - mass-immigration - doesn't warrant a mention. If it ever does it's the old story about how "we're a nation of immigrants etc., etc. ad nauseum..."

Ignoring of course the fact there were very few groups that actually built the country and directed its development - all these recent arrivals haven't changed any of that - their 'contributions' are only a gloss to which is already in place.

ablutive
Thursday, July 12th, 2012, 12:41 AM
and I have heard 'Lebanese-British' people here complain that we don't recognise them as British:).

In Britain "British" people tend to say they're English, Welsh or Scottish. Immigrants call themselves British. I always figured it might be an Empire thing, they're subjects of the Empire but they'll never be English, Welsh or Scottish because those are ethnic designations.

renownedwolf
Thursday, July 12th, 2012, 12:49 AM
Funny thing is the British are made up of those ethnic nationalities, so by default they can never identify as that either. Not that I really identify as British either. It would be a cheap copout to let third world scumbags claim that tag. I'd see it as a back door to false nationality.

hyidi
Thursday, July 12th, 2012, 04:15 AM
Its ridiculous how whites with *invalid* (meaning that whites do have visas and passports to enter Australia but there is a minor glitch associated with their personal identification) Visa's and passports are returned back to where they had come from (without even setting foot on Australian soil) yet, Asian refugees coming in by illegal boats (without Visa's or passports) are permitted on Australian soil with a chance of residency. Try to work that one out. Liberals way of thinking and doing things, it never makes any sense.

Dead Eye
Friday, July 13th, 2012, 06:52 AM
They are getting desperate to get more and more into Australia.I fear for the saftey of those bleeding heart Liberals who will no doubt go ahead and think its a marvelous idea.Guilt will win in situations like this and the whites will end up dead,or if not,half of their belongings will be gone when its over.

ampersand
Friday, July 13th, 2012, 11:27 AM
Meanwhile all we hear about in the media are boat arrivals of refugees - a yearly intake that amounts to around 15-20,000.

What is actually effecting a rapid change in the Australian populace - mass-immigration - doesn't warrant a mention. If it ever does it's the old story about how "we're a nation of immigrants etc., etc. ad nauseum..."


Exactly, which is one of the reasons I hate John Howard more than pretty much any man alive. Under him mass non white immigration increased to absolutely astounding levels, while at the same time he managed to complete subvert the strong anti-(mass) immigration feeling which was around when he was elected and direct it completely against the insignificant numbers of boat people. Nowadays, there simply is no mainstream opposition to mass immigration here at all, it is entirely directed against 'boat people'.

hyidi
Friday, July 13th, 2012, 02:10 PM
Exactly, which is one of the reasons I hate John Howard more than pretty much any man alive.
Are you new to Australia? Mrs Gallard had let so many refugees into Australia that caused all these new masses of boats to head for Australian shores. John Howard (I am not a liberal voter by the way) he was very tough on boat people. Not many risk coming over to Australia due to John Howard's tough policies.

ampersand
Friday, July 13th, 2012, 03:46 PM
Are you new to Australia? Mrs Gallard had let so many refugees into Australia that caused all these new masses of boats to head for Australian shores. John Howard (I am not a liberal voter by the way) he was very tough on boat people. Not many risk coming over to Australia due to John Howard's tough policies.

Boat people represent a tiny proportion of the people coming over here. They have certainly increased since Labor took office, but they are insignificant compared to legal immigration, which John Howard increased massively.

For example, in the last 5 years since 2007, 29,000 boat people have arrived in Australia. That is far too many, but it's nothing when you consider that in the same period the net migration was about 1,300,000 people!

I hate John Howard because by his action he destroyed the anti-immigrant sentiment.

Genrol
Tuesday, July 17th, 2012, 12:18 AM
I wonder if most people realise that the $300 they receive is just their tax back. Don't people know that AUSTRALIANS are homeless right now? We're housing and feeding immigrants over our own people. It's not a matter of being inhumane whether or not we should let someone live in poverty (because we have to), it's matter of who to let live in poverty. At the moment, we're choosing to let our own Australians who have lived here for generations, no matter what their race, live in poverty in order to house and feed those who would not even stand and protect their own country.

AustralianJack
Tuesday, July 17th, 2012, 11:08 AM
Don't people know that AUSTRALIANS are homeless right now?.

Exactly, if you have ever had experience assisting the Salvation Army or any similar organisation, you can see that this sort of funding is desperately needed for our own unemployed and homeless, or better yet, to be put towards initiatives aimed at transitioning them into areas currently lacking in manpower. With the recent announcement by Gina Rinehart to import some 1000+ semi and unskilled migrants for roles in the mining sector also, it's a wonder more fuss isn't being made.

AustralianJack
Tuesday, July 17th, 2012, 11:27 AM
Arrivals by boat are hardly significant when compared to those numbers allowed to migrate legally, it's just a very convenient diversion. With Australian fertility rates presently at approximate to or below replacement level and a predicted population growth to somewhere between 30.9 and 42.5 million by 2056, at the current rate anyway, it's pretty easy to see the end result.

The ramifications of the changes currently taking place are just enormous, yet this is the way it is. We can't even get a referendum on something as unpopular as the Carbon Tax, so I'm not sure what I expect.

Sawyer
Tuesday, July 17th, 2012, 12:07 PM
Exactly, if you have ever had experience assisting the Salvation Army or any similar organisation, you can see that this sort of funding is desperately needed for our own unemployed and homeless, or better yet, to be put towards initiatives aimed at transitioning them into areas currently lacking in manpower. With the recent announcement by Gina Rinehart to import some 1000+ semi and unskilled migrants for roles in the mining sector also, it's a wonder more fuss isn't being made.

Yeah not to mention all of the retired pensioners who can barely afford to live, some of them end up eating dog food. It makes me sick, shame on the government.

AustralianJack
Tuesday, July 17th, 2012, 12:47 PM
Yeah not to mention all of the retired pensioners who can barely afford to live, some of them end up eating dog food. It makes me sick, shame on the government.

After news of the Carbon Tax rollout and everything that is set to come with it, my parents told me they would be recieving a fortnightly increase of $1.30. My reply; 'don't spend it all at once..!'.

It is very disappointing, that many are forced to live below the poverty line is just unacceptable.

ampersand
Thursday, July 19th, 2012, 07:29 PM
Another sad milestone. Last year China overtook the UK for the first time to become the number 1 source of migrants here, this year India overtook China:

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-07-19/india-is-largest-source-of-migrants-to-australia/983308


Australia's Immigration Minister Chris Bowen says for the first time India is now Australia's largest source of permanent migrants.

Migrants from India comprised more than 29,000 or 15.7 per cent of arrivals under the permanent migration program last financial year.

'For some time, India has been a source of increasing numbers of new migrants to our country and it is now our largest source of permanent migrants,' Mr Bowen said.

China and the United Kingdom were Australia's second and third largest sources of permanent migrants, with more than 25,000 new arrivals from each country.

Seven of the top 10 countries supplying migrants to Australia are in Asia: India, China, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, the South Korea and Vietnam.

The Australian Government says that almost 185,000 permanent migrants entered the country in the 2011/12financial year, including more than 125,000 in the skilled migrant program.

"Skilled migration is essential to support our economy and help overcome the challenges of an ageing population," Mr Bowen said.

"Today's skill stream is highly targeted towards employer sponsorship, the regions and high value occupations, with over 60 per cent of skilled migration visas going to employer, government and regional sponsored places to help fill critical skills needs.

Australian employers, particularly in the booming mining industry, have been calling for a greater migrant intake to fill shortages in a range of skilled occupations.

ABC/Reuters

InvaderNat
Sunday, July 22nd, 2012, 06:48 AM
Less than 40 years after the White Australia policy was buried by the Whitlam government, the census results unveiled yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics reveal a land of many cultures, many ancestries and many religions. In the decade to 2011, the growth in Australia's population was mostly among people of Asian ancestry. From just 982,519 in 2001, the number of Asian-Australians has swollen to 2.4 million in 2011 - or from 5.5 per cent of us to 12 per cent.

12% in just 40 years... demographic invasion doesn't take very long when you've got billions of them next door. In fact that has to be a worse rate of decline than even Britain or America. Why can't we just have our nations to ourselves!!! Why do Liberal/Marxist pricks think every European nation (and only European ones) HAS to be multikulti now?? :thumbdown

The whole situation stinks of hypocrisy - they would never put up with such levels of immigration in their nations yet they bitch and moan if we protest it here. :(

I've said it once and I'll say it again - Europe's colonies down-under (including mine) are gone. By 2100 they'll be completely Asian demographically, culturally and Geo-politically. Then where will their precious 'multiculturalism' be! ;)

Gottesteilchen
Sunday, July 22nd, 2012, 08:17 PM
Australia is in fact not part of the natural habitat of Caucasians, just like America. This is why I personally don't care about the so-called "invasion". We should rather be concernced of the foreign invasion in Europe, our home.

And everything we condemn nowadays is the result of our deeds. Without the deeds of the Caucasians, all this couldn't have happened after all.

Primus
Sunday, July 22nd, 2012, 08:31 PM
Australia is in fact not part of the natural habitat of Caucasians, just like America. This is why I personally don't care about the so-called "invasion". We should rather be concernced of the foreign invasion in Europe, our home.

And everything we condemn nowadays is the result of our deeds. Without the deeds of the Caucasians, all this couldn't have happened after all.

I categorically deny this sort of position.

North America and Oceania, no big deal! Nevermind those settlers, migrants, explorers, exiles and other brave souls from Old Europe who established the great countries in these lands, no big deal! Let's give countries founded by Anglo-Saxons, Germans, etc. over to the coloreds, no big deal!

Shocking.

When Australia, the US, etc. are "diversified" enough- then they'll come for Europe.

Sawyer
Monday, July 23rd, 2012, 03:50 AM
Australia is in fact not part of the natural habitat of Caucasians, just like America. This is why I personally don't care about the so-called "invasion". We should rather be concernced of the foreign invasion in Europe, our home.

And everything we condemn nowadays is the result of our deeds. Without the deeds of the Caucasians, all this couldn't have happened after all.

Neither is every single location outside of this red area, so you better high-tail it back to Mother Russia. ;):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Chariot_spread.png

ablutive
Monday, July 23rd, 2012, 01:38 PM
More or less what Theodericus said. Go back far enough and none of it is our native lands, at some point it might make sense to strategically retreat to some particular part of the world and accept that the rest of what was once ours is lost, but it's not quite there yet!

I often used the "screw colonials, Europe is all that matters" idea but in the end, taken to it's logical conclusion it accepts no-one has a right to anywhere really, which itself then gets to the idea that people have a right to whatever they can claim and defend, which gets back to the idea of why should we then abandon the colonials? I guess part of the problem is, for the most part (I know there were a couple of exceptions) when the Germans expanded their empire they did it outward on their own continent, we on the other hand did it over the oceans, the Germans mostly conquered people who were not that different to themselves (Serbs, Balts, Celts) but in the colonial period the British conquered people so different that the notion of actual assimilation was an absurdity to most people until very very recently.

Pretending that these two different ways of conquering others gives Germany the moral highground is just foolish, in history no-one has the moral highground. There's peoples who did terrible things, that is all the peoples that aquired power over others, and there's peoples who didn't and they are the ones that never had enough power to do good things either. Only the impotent came out of history with clean hands.

Hersir
Monday, July 23rd, 2012, 01:52 PM
Asians are the biggest threat to Aussie identity, but as they are generally less troublesome than Arabs and Africans it is not as apparent.

I think we need to look at ourselves first. Our own peoples are the largest threat.

Ingvaeonic
Monday, July 23rd, 2012, 02:00 PM
Australia is in fact not part of the natural habitat of Caucasians, just like America. This is why I personally don't care about the so-called "invasion". We should rather be concernced of the foreign invasion in Europe, our home.

And everything we condemn nowadays is the result of our deeds. Without the deeds of the Caucasians, all this couldn't have happened after all.

From before the time of the Völkerwanderung and from then onward it has been the nature of the Germanic peoples to settle new lands. Write off the Germanic descendants of Germanic settlers in Australasia, North America, and Southern Africa and you are doing the whole cause of Germanic preservation a tremendous disservice. We could just as easily dismiss Europe, which contains a population of 54 or 55 million Moslems, as a lost cause and write off the ancestral Germanic homelands as racially and culturally doomed.

Ingvaeonic
Monday, July 23rd, 2012, 02:11 PM
Doesn't Asian include South Asian in Australia? I know it does in the US (But Iranians are "White"), in the UK Asian typically means South Asian.

I prefer the Canadian terminology of "Visible Minority" which covers everyone not European, including Hispanics & Middle Eaterners.

Asians are like Hispanics in the US (nearly the same proportion) in that they are recent arrivals with very shallow roots in the country. It wouldn't be a hardship to make them return to where they, or their parents, were born.

"Asians" usually refer to East Asians in Australia, though technically it could include Indian Subcontinent Asians such as Pakis and Indians, or for that matter Iranians and Iraqis and assorted Arabs, Pashtus, etc from the Middle East or West Asia.

Sawyer
Tuesday, July 24th, 2012, 03:26 AM
More or less what Theodericus said. Go back far enough and none of it is our native lands, at some point it might make sense to strategically retreat to some particular part of the world and accept that the rest of what was once ours is lost, but it's not quite there yet!

I often used the "screw colonials, Europe is all that matters" idea but in the end, taken to it's logical conclusion it accepts no-one has a right to anywhere really, which itself then gets to the idea that people have a right to whatever they can claim and defend, which gets back to the idea of why should we then abandon the colonials? I guess part of the problem is, for the most part (I know there were a couple of exceptions) when the Germans expanded their empire they did it outward on their own continent, we on the other hand did it over the oceans, the Germans mostly conquered people who were not that different to themselves (Serbs, Balts, Celts) but in the colonial period the British conquered people so different that the notion of actual assimilation was an absurdity to most people until very very recently.

Pretending that these two different ways of conquering others gives Germany the moral highground is just foolish, in history no-one has the moral highground. There's peoples who did terrible things, that is all the peoples that aquired power over others, and there's peoples who didn't and they are the ones that never had enough power to do good things either. Only the impotent came out of history with clean hands.

What we need to remember is that in reality, we're all in this together. To me, (and I may be alone in this view), not caring about the colonies as an England-born, or not caring about England as a colonial-born; is as strange as not caring about the Midlands, etc.

Granted that we are much farther apart, yet our culture is the same, and Australia, Canada, New Zealand, have provided haven for millions of Britons leaving the Isles for various reasons.

This is different for other Germanics (bar the Dutch), of course, because they have no surviving colonies outside of Europe, for whatever reasons.

To give you an idea though, when I was at school I had best friends from England and South Africa, good friends from Scotland, Texas, New Zealand and Canada. Reflecting on this and the times I had with these people, I realised that the only difference is accent, essentially. They're regional differences in a vast Anglo-Saxon Empire. I compare this as well to my European relatives and German exchange students that I know/knew as well, and they were vastly different and noticeably foreign.

Ingvaeonic
Tuesday, July 24th, 2012, 05:30 AM
Article here: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/land-of-many-cultures-ancestries-and-faiths-20120621-20r3g.html

Lee Kuan Yew, the erstwhile Singaporean PM, once said in the early or mid-1980s that about 7 percent of the Australian population could and should be [East] Asian and that would be enough--not that the presumptuous old bastard has any right to comment on the racial mix of Australia or any other country let alone what proportions the racial composition of Australia or another country should be. Anyway, 12 percent Asian has exceeded the old man's expectations: and it is far too many East or South Asians in this country.

People tend to forget or ignore that although the Australian land mass looks big on a world map, most of the Australian interior is uninhabitable, except for a few hardy souls such as beef-cattle graziers and miners, and Australian towns and cities cling to the coast and the coastal plains, or in the case of the wheat-sheep belt in Eastern Australia, especially New South Wales, the lower parts of the eastern and western flanks of the Great Dividing Range and the plains to the Range's west , up to about 300-800 Km from the coast. And it is in the cities that Asians gather: I would like to know the proportion of Asians living in all the state capitals and the major regional towns and conurbations in or adjacent to the state capitals' hinterlands, I suspect it would be significantly higher than 12 percent in these areas.

Most East Asians that are in Australian rural areas are usually Chinese buying up and [often badly] running Australian farms for food production and eventual export to China and those prospecting for coal-seam gas and other mineral deposits. We are surrendering our food supply to foreign interests.

Sawyer
Tuesday, July 24th, 2012, 05:52 AM
Lee Kuan Yew, the erstwhile Singaporean PM, once said in the early or mid-1980s that about 7 percent of the Australian population could and should be [East] Asian and that would be enough--not that the presumptuous old bastard has any right to comment on the racial mix of Australia or any other country let alone what proportions the racial composition of Australia or another country should be. Anyway, 12 percent Asian has exceeded the old man's expectations: and it is far too many East or South Asians in this country.

People tend to forget or ignore that although the Australian land mass looks big on a world map, most of the Australian interior is uninhabitable, except for a few hardy souls such as beef-cattle graziers and miners, and Australian towns and cities cling to the coast and the coastal plains, or in the case of the wheat-sheep belt in Eastern Australia, especially New South Wales, the lower parts of the eastern and western flanks of the Great Dividing Range and the plains to the Range's west , up to about 300-800 Km from the coast. And it is in the cities that Asians gather: I would like to know the proportion of Asians living in all the state capitals and the major regional towns and conurbations in or adjacent to the state capitals' hinterlands, I suspect it would be significantly higher than 12 percent in these areas.

Most East Asians that are in Australian rural areas are usually Chinese buying up and [often badly] running Australian farms for food production and eventual export to China and those prospecting for coal-seam gas and other mineral deposits. We are surrendering our food supply to foreign interests.

That's the major problem, they flock to the cities (as all immigrants do), but our country is so urbanised that we don't really have much to retreat to.

All of the stereotypes of Australia, just bushland and everyone's a farmer (who rides Kangaroos or something), are so unfounded, but I wish we did have something comparable to agrarian USA or Europe, but last time I checked something upwards of 80% of the population live in large metropolitan centres.

There are entire (derelict) suburbs in my area packed with Vietnamese and various other Asian groups. So I can confirm that the amount of Asians is a lot larger than 12%. Last time I went to Sydney I noticed you guys don't have a problem the Asians as much as every other motley pack of immigrants; I saw Lebs, Pakis, Indians, everywhere I went.

Primus
Tuesday, July 24th, 2012, 03:22 PM
Neither is every single location outside of this red area, so you better high-tail it back to Mother Russia. ;):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Chariot_spread.png

I was thinking of having to move back to the Baltic Sea area- then I remembered that I'm also equal parts Celtic, pre-Celtic Briton, and so on. I'd have to move back and forth between locations as diverse as the Bay of Biscay, the Jutland, etc. if I wanted to return to the ancestral lands of my forefathers. :P

Steinadler
Thursday, July 26th, 2012, 11:38 AM
Hello,

As far as I know, after WWII the "White Australia policy" was steadily reduced and finally abolished in 1975 culminating in the "Racial Discrimination Act".

So far so good, but what I do not understand is, why Australia must change its immigration policy?

Was it a form of enlightment or maybe changing circumstances?

Primus
Thursday, July 26th, 2012, 02:50 PM
Hello,

As far as I know, after WWII the "White Australia policy" was steadily reduced and finally abolished in 1975 culminating in the "Racial Discrimination Act".

So far so good, but what I do not understand is, why Australia must change its immigration policy?

Was it a form of enlightment or maybe changing circumstances?

Given that Australia is 12% non-white (and darkening) at the very least and it is the desire of many Australian citizens (as compared to Australian politicians who, as politicians tend to be, rule agains the best interests of the people) to reform immigration (a trend all across the First World, US, Europe, Oceania- people want solid immigration reform and not amnesty of the sort President Obummer just snuck by via executive order).

What a glorious future to look forward to, a mongrelized Australia that's probably nothing more than an economic colony of the Chinese. :-O

Æmeric
Thursday, July 26th, 2012, 07:05 PM
Hello,

As far as I know, after WWII the "White Australia policy" was steadily reduced and finally abolished in 1975 culminating in the "Racial Discrimination Act".

So far so good, but what I do not understand is, why Australia must change its immigration policy?

Was it a form of enlightment or maybe changing circumstances?

I think the rationale was "populate or perish". That is increase their population significantly or be overran by the yellow horde to the north. So they started allowing in Asians.:oanieyes

The "White Australia" policy was compromised before the 1970s. Non-White immigration was never actually illegal - the governor-generals, acting on behalf of Westminster, vetoed such legislation to avoid offending the Indians (during the decades leading up to independence) or the Japanese who were their allies before WWII (the British actually expected the Japanese Navy to defend Australia at one time). There were regulations regarding oral & written exams in English, health concerns or finances that managed to shut out most non-Whites. After WWII immigration controls were loosen with 1/2 caste Eurasians from India & other Asian colonies allowed in, followed by Lebanese & other Middle Easterns. This was prior to the White Policy being totally disregarded after 1970.

Sawyer
Friday, July 27th, 2012, 04:29 AM
Hello,

As far as I know, after WWII the "White Australia policy" was steadily reduced and finally abolished in 1975 culminating in the "Racial Discrimination Act".

So far so good, but what I do not understand is, why Australia must change its immigration policy?

Was it a form of enlightment or maybe changing circumstances?

Well in 1972, a Labor government under Gough Whitlam was voted in, the first centre-left government in a generation. Many rapid 'reforms' were introduced, including the removal of the immigration policy you mentioned, and the restriction of free speech under the 'Racial Discrimation Act 1975', 'hate speech' laws. There were a lot of other things such as welfare state laws, etc. This was the first ever Prime Minister to be fired by the Governor-General, too, and he was never re-elected.

Just to make things clear with regards to population, it would not be right to compare the population of the USA to that of Australia. Think of Australia like this, The East and West Coast States of the USA with just Arizonas in between. It can't be populated like the USA. Also, Australia is 200 years younger in terms of population settlement, and far harder to sail to in comparison to the short Atlantic journey to the USA, which is why it isn't as populated.

The Aesthete
Thursday, August 23rd, 2012, 01:39 PM
Australia to increase refugee intake to 20,000 annually.

PM Julia Gillard said the jump of 45% was the biggest increase in 30 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19352716

Australia has recently been inundated by boat people arriving here illegally, an average of 733 asylum-seekers have been arriving each month.

The Labour government tried to broker a deal with Malaysia (which fell through) so they could take some, anyway we were still required to take more ‘refuges’ as part of the failed agreement with Malaysia.

In recent months we have even been sending our navy into Indonesian waters to pick up the boat people, after a number of boat people died there on the way to Australia, sparking outcries by refugee groups.

Anyway our refugee intake is to increase by 45%.

So we end up with more ‘asylum seekers’ than ever!

Bloody refugee groups and the idiotic major parties:thumbdown.

Staal
Thursday, August 23rd, 2012, 02:37 PM
As a South African that has seen first hand the consequences of not protecting the demographic integrity of your country I find reports such as this is very disturbing, even if they are not new.

Offshore detention centres are a great idea but any number of non-European asylum seekers is a long term disaster for their ethnic survival. Why can they not see the results in Europe? An increase in violence, gangs and sexual assault against the most vulnerable parts of your society, women from poorer backgrounds, is inevitable.

"White Australia" was one of the most enlightened policies they had and they have the almost perfect geography to pull it off.

SaxonPagan
Thursday, August 23rd, 2012, 11:18 PM
Australia to increase refugee intake to 20,000 annually.

PM Julia Gillard said the jump of 45% was the biggest increase in 30 years.

I'm sorry to hear this, Aesthete, although not unduly surprised :(

Upon reading such news, I used to naively think to myself 'OMG, what a terrible mistake they're making!' :-O but of course now (along with many others) I realise that this is all part of 'The Plan' ;)

Here in the UK, we were initially told that 3rd-world immigrants must be accepted 'because of our post-colonial obligations' and after they'd all arrived we then had to accept a new wave of eastern Europeans 'under the terms of our agreement with the EU'. If neither of these criteria applied, (such as with, for example, asylum seekers from Ethiopia or Iranian refugees) we'd simply get presented with a load of 'humaritarian' hogwash and be reminded of our 'moral duty' :oanieyes so there will ALWAYS be a reason given by the Marxist social saboteurs to justify filling up a country with rubbish that the public doesn't want :|

Going back to the start of all this nonsense, I recall that there was a shortage of males after WW2 and immigrants were deemed 'indispensable' to fill holes in the employment market. This excuse was highly suspect at the time but it's certainly been invalid for the past 40+ years, and yet we're still letting them in despite unemployment figures standing at over 3 million. Naturally, they've given this dogma a bit of an update and now inform us that they're coming in 'to do jobs that the English refuse to do' (:nope) You really do wonder what pack of lies they'll dream up next to flood our lands with economic migrants that we don't need and who have no desire to live like us in any way.

As you say, Staal, Australia has a lot of geographical advantages that would serve her well should she ever be blessed with right-thinking politicians but the current band of NWO hirelings will simply force through their own internationalist agenda, come what may :thumbdown

OneWolf
Friday, August 24th, 2012, 12:28 AM
It's a shame that every modern nation has to deal with these so called "Refugees"and what's even worse is their countries encourage them and
even prints how to manuals for them.It honestly seems that this is the price
of progress and has now become the bane of all modern nations.

Until we fix the so called labor shortages,our countries will continue to see
this trend.It's a shame that their respective countries cannot replicate the
same working conditions and compete with us on a level playing field instead
of sending us their poor,unskilled workers.:|

velvet
Friday, August 24th, 2012, 04:25 AM
There is no such thing as a "labor shortage" anywhere. It's the fairy tale the polytraitors tell naive people so that they accept the flooding of their nations with the scum of the world, who then serves as the mechanism to dump down our wages and ultimately our living standard.

There's no 'naivety' involved on the part of those who hand out the how-to manuals and that are "western" capitalist/leftists and the club who organised two world wars for profit. Do you really think they dont know what they're doing? Do you really think the effects of mass immigration, race-mixing and the dumping down of our countries are not known to them? Indeed they do know, and it is exactly the reason why they are doing it.


Same with the refugee streams. They're part of the design, and apart from profit, they make war all over the globe to generate ever new streams of refugees. They shuffle the world's population criss cross in order to create the "eurasian-negroid race of the future", as outlined by Kalergi in 1912 or so, "the diversity of peoples and cultures will be replaced by a diversity of individuals". Nothing of this happens unintended.

Ingvaeonic
Friday, August 24th, 2012, 05:05 AM
Gillard may well be playing politics. She's getting in and increasing the refugee intake to appease and satisfy the multiculturalist-Marxist fanatics in her own party and the Greens in order to gain their cooperation in pushing through her remaining legislative program before she is kicked out at the next election, when Labor should be annihilated electorally, but probably won't.

The Aesthete
Friday, August 24th, 2012, 07:15 AM
If I was a refugee I would go to the nearest safe port of call, but they come half way around the world and pay smugglers in Indonesia thousands to get here illegally.

Ingvaeonic
Friday, August 24th, 2012, 07:33 AM
If I was a refugee I would go to the nearest safe port of call, but they come half way around the world and pay smugglers in Indonesia thousands to get here illegally.

That's right. It is farcical. No genuine refugee would be heading for Christmas Island.

Nachtengel
Sunday, October 23rd, 2016, 03:45 AM
Statistics from Australia’s Department of Immigration and Border Protection show that most immigrants from 2014-2015 came from India, with China coming in a close second. In total, around 50% to 60% of immigrants came from non-Western countries.

Immigration statistics from just a few decades ago show that there has been a huge turn-around from when most immigrants came from Europe, and which has put Australia on track to becoming minority White.

Did this just happen by accident? Read on and judge for yourself.

During the 1970’s and 1980’s, some of Australia’s politicians were privately talking about how they were going to make the country “Eurasian”.

In 1983, former Foreign Minister, Bill Hayden said “There’s already a large and growing Asian population in Australia and it is inevitable in my view that Australia will become a Eurasian country over the next century or two. Australian Asians and Europeans will marry another and a new race will emerge; I happen to think that’s desirable.”

“[We] should welcome the process of gradually becoming a Eurasian-type society. We will not just become a multicultural society – which seems to me to be a soft sort of terminology anyway – we will become a Eurasian society and be the better for it.”

Former Liberal Prime Minister, John Gorton, put this in even more blatant words:

“I think that if we build up inside Australia a proportion of people without White skins, then there will be a complete lack of consciousness that it is being built up … and that we will arrive at a state where we will have a multi-racial country without racial tensions – and perhaps the first in the world.”

This is why we call these guys anti-White. They want White genocide – despite how much they call it “diversity”.

http://whitegenocideproject.com/australian-politicians-anted/

Sasa
Tuesday, November 8th, 2016, 04:06 AM
Sadly this is the case and Australia is becoming Asianized at an alarming rate. East Asian, SE Asian and South Asian communities are growing enormously. These regions are the primary sources of new immigrants to Australia.

This process was turbo-charged in the 1990s when then Prime Minister Paul Keating decided Australia should have more Asian faces if it wanted to be part of APEC, which at that time was touted as the EU for the Asian region. This was largely in response to Asian leaders such Malaysia PM Mahatir, who insisted Australia needed to be Asianized if it wanted to be part of Asia, not just economically, but culturally.

Ingvaeonic
Tuesday, November 8th, 2016, 11:58 AM
Yes, the 1983 quote from Bill Hayden was quite famous at the time but no-one really believed it would happen. Now, in late 2016 and 33 years later, it is getting nearer and becoming more and more a reality.

Ahnenerbe
Wednesday, November 9th, 2016, 03:04 AM
A fully Eurasian society would be an interesting experiment indeed, but then it would need to be planned carefully. You cannot just dump all kinds of random people into an existing society, hoping it will turn alright.

Kazakstan (https://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=12913) is one such country that describes itself as primarily Eurasian in its identity and racial makeup. However, they are polluted by some impure blood from the Caucasus and elsewhere in the South, which is why they have retained the Moslem system. A true North European / North East Asian mixed race would be an interesting thing to observe.


https://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=112642&stc=1&d=1478660644

Wulfaz
Wednesday, November 9th, 2016, 09:07 AM
The Khazaks are similars of the Turkish Hungarians, the descendats of the Cumans, Pechenegs and Khazars. This people nowadays live in the Plain area of Hungary and the distance of them and the average Hungarians is very visible.

The average Hungarians rather have Germanic, Slavic, Balkanic and Finno-Ugric tendency, however this Turkish Hungarian have significant Mongolid influence. Here is a rightwing Anthropologist in Hungary, he uses to organise "Turanist Meetings" and he forced that the original Hungarian was Central-Asian.

However the fact of the History shows us, that a few, but well organized Finno-Ugric group take over the power of many Steppe-tribes with Slavic, Germanic, Caucasian or Turkish origin.

Nachtengel
Friday, November 11th, 2016, 08:42 PM
At current rates of nonwhite immigration, Australia is set to become a minority white nation within the next fifty years, according to Canberra-based white rights activist Matthew Grant.

Grant, who attracted national media attention when he spoke at the recent Bendigo anti-mosque rally in Victoria, said in an exclusive interview with the New Observer that most white Australians oppose the idea of becoming a minority in their own country, but are currently intimidated into keeping quiet.

This problem is something he, and other activists, intend to correct by embarking on extended political campaign and electioneering in the near future.

The interview proceeded as follows:

Q. Please tell our readers a little about yourself.

A. I’m a Scottish Presbyterian who spends lots of time in the National Library; I’m also a Nationalist, in the traditional Australian sense in the word, in that I believe in the National Community as the basis from which all other political ideals should be derived and fought for, the security and health of the nation (in our case, the white European settlers of Australia) being of the utmost importance.

Q. Please tell our readers about your activity for Australian nationalism. Are you with any party/movement?

A. I run a Fraternity for people under the age of 25 who are of European heritage. We are a self-help organization designed to build solid lifelong ties and moral convictions in the membership.

Politically I’m not officially associated with any party as of yet, however I am growing rather close to the likes of the United Patriots Front and the Australia First Party.

I am an advocate for White Australia in my generation, and I have been working slowly to increase the spread of information on the topic through my website and my Facebook page, Generation: Tradition.

Q. Tell us about your recent Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) interview.

A. My ABC Interview was secured when I met a reporter at the October Bendigo rally. She was interested in what she thought was an “anti-Islamic” nationalist movement, and as the UPF wouldn’t speak to her, I said I would.

She had prepared a large set of questions pertaining to Islam, and was not expecting me to advocate a White Australia policy and express opposition to non-European immigration.

About five minutes of the half hour interview was aired, and the producer has refused to hand over any of the edited-out parts.

What I said was that race-consciousness does not consist of hating other races or people, but is simply the motion that all countries ought to remain racially and culturally homogeneous. In this way, the strongest sense of common identity and community spirit can be established. This is what I as a nationalist believe in, given that community self-help is better than a welfare state.

It leads to the best kind of community in which there is excellent cohesion and which fosters an environment of decent morality.

Q. What is the current racial-state-of-play in Australia?

A. The actual figures are impossible to know. Firstly, since 1972 the department of immigration has not been allowed to record the religious or racial backgrounds of any immigrant passing through our borders. They are just “people” and the national census does not list race, only nationality. In this way, any Chinaman or African can just write “Australian” because he feels like an Australian this year.

I would estimate the country is still 80 percent white. The cities however are reaching Asiatic populations of 35–40 percent in many places, which isn’t very good.

At the current trend of immigration, we are taking in 190,000 people a year. I would bet a few dollars that the majority of those immigrants are nonwhites. This means that we are in the dire situation where, in the next half century, the white race could indeed be a minority in the country we have built.

Q. Are there any parties actually concerned over this issue? If so, which ones?

A. Australia First and Nationalist Alternative are the only two parties that I’m aware of that openly show concern to this issue. Both have very interesting pasts as parties and I would recommend that nationalists look them up.

Q. Are there any indications that average white Australians are concerned over these issues?

A. Absolutely. You may not see it on the TV or the Internet too frequently, mainly due to very carefully instructed omission by government agencies and the media, but around the dinner table and at the barbecue, people are waking up to the destruction of their country.

All it will take is a big gulp of courage and the majority will openly advocate for a “White Australia” again.

The only reason they haven’t yet, is because they think they are a minority. The average Australian who likes the idea of White Australia thinks he is a “racist minority,” and so, all true Australians feel isolated and too afraid to have their viewpoint heard. Little do they know that they are indeed the majority.

Q. Tell us about your plans.

A. In the next couple years I will be moving out into rural New South Wales, which I believe is a strong heartland for nationalist sentiment in this country.

I will be organizing with the locals and some of my assistants, who are already interested in the project, and we will fight elections, liberate towns from their communist-inspired mayors, and build a fortress of nationalism in the rural regions of NSW.

This is something that the establishment parties are going to be dreading, but the time has come—they have betrayed the country folks for far too long.
http://newobserveronline.com/australia-whites-minority-in-50-years/

Wulfaz
Saturday, November 12th, 2016, 10:26 AM
Th mainstream media just want shows neonazi idiots like as the Australian movie Romper Stomper and it never speak about those larger and larger groups of intellectuels whos want stop the migration.

Sasa
Sunday, November 13th, 2016, 10:54 PM
It really is unfortunate.
I agree that we're told that Australians are happy that we're so multicultural, but it's obvious that we're not. Most people I know, including my family, are unhappy about the current rate of immigration in Australia. I don't think Australians are happy with this level of multiculturalism AT ALL.
Also, being a university student, I can't STAND the amount of foreign students I see at school, when I'm sure there are many Australian-born people who wish they had an opportunity to study at University and can't. It's unfair.

Yeah I felt like a minority at university with the vast majority of people in lecture theatres and outside being Asian. The universities are run like businesses and the money from Asian students is their major source of income.

Spjabork
Tuesday, March 7th, 2017, 08:47 PM
A fully Eurasian society would be an interesting experiment indeed[...] A true North European / North East Asian mixed race would be an interesting thing to observe.You can observe this since long. Go to Russia. Ask any Ukrainian about the Russians, he will answer: "The Russians are no Slavs, they are half-mongols."

Catterick
Tuesday, March 7th, 2017, 10:52 PM
Sadly this is the case and Australia is becoming Asianized at an alarming rate. East Asian, SE Asian and South Asian communities are growing enormously. These regions are the primary sources of new immigrants to Australia.

This process was turbo-charged in the 1990s when then Prime Minister Paul Keating decided Australia should have more Asian faces if it wanted to be part of APEC, which at that time was touted as the EU for the Asian region. This was largely in response to Asian leaders such Malaysia PM Mahatir, who insisted Australia needed to be Asianized if it wanted to be part of Asia, not just economically, but culturally.

Mahathir Mohammed was correct, but in context he was not referring to racial mixture. Asian Values of his kind were largely a positive force for the world.

Catterick
Tuesday, March 7th, 2017, 10:53 PM
A fully Eurasian society would be an interesting experiment indeed, but then it would need to be planned carefully. You cannot just dump all kinds of random people into an existing society, hoping it will turn alright.

Kazakstan (https://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=12913) is one such country that describes itself as primarily Eurasian in its identity and racial makeup. However, they are polluted by some impure blood from the Caucasus and elsewhere in the South, which is why they have retained the Moslem system.

A true North European / North East Asian mixed race would be an interesting thing to observe.


https://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=112642&stc=1&d=1478660644

The Chuvash? Mixed northern European and Mongoloid.

Ahnenerbe
Wednesday, March 8th, 2017, 05:20 AM
Yes, the Chuvash are a remarkably harmonious and stabilized NorthAsian/North European blend.

But in all those Central Asian states, no true civilization could emerge, unlike in the places that border the sea. It seems real cultures only develop along shorelines. Maybe British Columbia will become the first such Euro-Asian state with a specific Euro-Asian culture... who knows. Vancouver is already 30% Northeast Asian.


The Chuvashs' own version of Tengrism (https://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=152468) is called Vattisen Yaly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vattisen_Yaly).


Their main god is Tura, a deity comparable to the Estonian Taara, the Germanic Thunraz and the pan-Turkic Tengri.

Generally Tengrism is highly interesting, as it combines both "monotheism" and "polytheism", exactly as the Armanists do. Monotheism is more addressed to the spiritual seekers and higher castes, while the polytheist and shamanist aspects of the religion are mostly used by the householders. There is no incompatibility between the two in Tengrism.

Spjabork
Wednesday, March 8th, 2017, 02:55 PM
Mahathir Mohammed was correct,Why a country must adapt to another country just beause it would like to do some trade? Did the european slave traders become negroes, just because they bought some negroes from some negroes, and forwarded them off?

but in context he was not referring to racial mixture. He was. He just did not speak it out, because he knows as a statesman he must not talk of 'races', or else he will trigger a shrill, hysterical outcry of the 'international community' (i.e. the jooish monitors of world news), which then could be prolonged for months, and irreparably harm his international reputation.

Asian Values of his kind were largely a positive force for the world.Dear Catterick, what you call 'Asian values' in fact are Confucian values, they are not 'asian' in a geographical sense. The Malayan brownies hardly are as disciplined and as diligent as are Chinese or Koreans. Let alone that they 'culturally' belong to the turbanoids, which additionally compounds to their racial laziness and ignorance. There is no 'asian race', and there is no 'asian culture' likewise. The mere term, the mere word 'asia' should be banned from a highbrow forum like ours.;)

Catterick
Wednesday, March 8th, 2017, 03:05 PM
If Asian Values drove the Asian Tigers then they're fine by me. And yes America is somehow "negrified" as per Evola, long before rap and such entered mainstream American consciousness. The philosopher Evola wrote a piece about this citing the difference between fist fights and pugilism, and between American and European soldiers.

Spjabork
Wednesday, March 8th, 2017, 03:20 PM
If Asian Values drove the Asian Tigers then they're fine by me. Would you avoid, hence, the word asian? Please, do me the favor. The so called 'tigers' were all countries with a strict, harsh Confucian social code. In Singapore, the ethnic Chinese made up 3/4 of the population. Originally, after independece, it was tried out whether Singapore could become just a federal state of Malaysia, which would have been more advantageous, economically. Yet it did not work, and Singapore seceeded from the 'federation' after 3 years or so. This was because in Singapore, the Chinese have the say, whereas in Malaysia, they are a minority, and are treated as such.

If Mr. Mahatir did like so much to see Australia become 'more Asian', then maybe he should have better seen to it that his own Malaysia became 'more Asian', in the first place.

And yes America is somehow "negrified" as per Evola, long before rap and such entered mainstream American consciousness.This would have been a smart reply:) had I referred to the Americans. Yet I did not refer to the Americans (i.e. the settlers), but to traders, who were european.;)

For example, Brandenburg and Courland also took part in the slave trade, yet there were negroes there, also no Yatzmyoosik.:)

The philosopher Evola wrote a piece about this citing the difference between fist fights and pugilism, and between American and European soldiers.Evolia himself is of quite dubious descent. I am always skeptical if such kind of people want to tell & teach me something about races, and such. They basically turn & exhibit their innermost side out.

Up to around 1950, in all white countries one could clearly distinguish and tell apart even the europid subraces, in europe as well as in north america.

Catterick
Wednesday, March 8th, 2017, 03:35 PM
Evola was a Sicilian by descent though his claims of pure Norman descent are considered questionable. I doubt any pure Normans exist in Italy. Probably he signalled himself apart from others with such a statement, but in any case the descendants of Sicilian Normans exist only as Sicilians and no one has evidence Evola lied about that.

Spjabork
Wednesday, March 8th, 2017, 03:51 PM
The Asian nations who are our neighbors will be getting what they always wanted (The Singaporean PM once indicated that they expect us to become more than 50 percent Asian). The education system here keeps telling everyone how good multiculturalism is, but polls show that most Australians feel otherwise. Soon those polls will not albeit those immigrants themselves decide to stop immigration. This should give a good representation of where this country is going; it is the names of students who got a perfect university entrance score or the top marks in 2008:

Sen Lin - James Ruse
Christine Zhang - James Ruse
David Pham - James Ruse
Nathan Wong - James Ruse
Caroline Banh - James Ruse
Ruby Kwong - James Ruse
James Xu - James Ruse
Victor Chan - James Ruse
Melissa Chen - James Ruse
@Catterick:
By their names one can discern that 7 out of the 9 are ethnic Chinese (Lin, Zhang and Xu from the 'communist' mainland, Wong and Kwong from Hongkong, Chan, Chen could be both), and 2 out of the 9 are Vietnamese. Among them there are no Malaysians, no (ethnic) Indonesians, no Filippinos, also no Thais, no Burmese, also no Bangladeshi, no Hindi, no Pakistani, also no Lebanese (Lebanon also is in 'Asia') are among the high scorers, although they number now in the several hundreds of thousands. All the 9 are children in above list, all were born and raised under the Confucian social code.

And because the Vietnamese do belong to this group, not only the term 'Asian' is misleading and improper, but also the term 'East Asian' does not fit, as it does not describe the geographical location correctly. Because Vietnam is not 'East Asian', yet it fully belongs into the group. The same goes for Singapore, which is located on the equator. Singapore has been a British colony in the political sense, yet in the literal sense of the word (=settlement) it was, and still is, a Chinese colony.

So, these people, if there arises need to mention them, should not be called 'Asian', and also not East Asians, but should be always referred to as 'Confucian people'.

They are as 'Confucian', as we, the Germanics, are 'Faustian'.

What is going on in Australia now, is not an 'asianization'. As for the population as a whole, it gets de-whitenized. Yet as for the leading upper class, a new Confucian upper class does replace and supersede the former Faustian (alias Germanic, alias 'European') upper class.

Whether this is intentionally planned, or whether it just happens is a good question. In 'communist' mainland China, females take English major courses at the uni, or English language classes at private schools, already with the clear aim in mind to emigrate to Canada or Australia. And the central government is doing nothing to inhibit it, although this leads to a considerable loss of blood for the country. When the females get not admitted as regular immigrants, then they would evade this by applying for 'foreign exchange student programs', enter Canada and Australia as 'exchange students', and chase for a local husband, to get permanent residence, then nationality.

Rupert Murdoch, that 'white catholic Australian', after he divorced his jooish first wife, at high age has married a chinese woman (with allegedly super intelligence) and got two Sino-jooish hybrids with her. Maybe these two are the first prototype samples of the upcoming 'Eurasian master race' we are longing for?:D

Sasa
Thursday, March 9th, 2017, 02:55 AM
@Catterick:
By their names one can discern that 7 out of the 9 are ethnic Chinese (Lin, Zhang and Xu from the 'communist' mainland, Wong and Kwong from Hongkong, Chan, Chen could be both), and 2 out of the 9 are Vietnamese. Among them there are no Malaysians, no (ethnic) Indonesians, no Filippinos, also no Thais, no Burmese, also no Bangladeshi, Hindi, Pakistani, also no Lebanese (Lebanon also is in 'Asia') among the high scorers, although they number now in the several hundreds of thousands. All the 9 are children who were born and raised under Confucian social code.

And because the Vietnamese do belong to this group, not only the term 'Asian' is misleading und improper, but also the term 'East Asian' does not fit, as it does not describe the geographical location correctly. Because Vietnam is not 'East Asian', yet it fully belongs into the group. The same goes for Singapore, which is located on the equator. Singapore has been a British colony in the political sense, yet in the literal sense of the word (=settlement) it was, and still is, a Chinese colony.

So, these people, if there arises need to mention them, should not be called 'Asian', and also not East Asians, but should be always referred to as 'Confucian people'.

They are as 'Confucian', as we, the Germanics, are 'Faustian'.

What is going on in Australia now, is not an 'asianization'. As for the population as a whole, it gets de-whitenized. Yet as for the leading upper class, a new Confucian upper class does replace and supersede the former Faustian (alias Germanic, alias 'European') upper class.

Whether this is intentionally planned, or whether it just happens is a good question. In 'communist' mainland China, females take English major courses at the uni, or English language classes at private schools, already with the clear aim in mind to emigrate to Canada or Australia. And the central government is doing nothing to inhibit it, although this leads to a considerable loss of blood for the country. When the females get not admitted as regular immigrants, then they would evade this by applying for 'foreign exchange student programs', enter Canada and Australia as 'excange students', and chase for a local husband, to get permanent resindence, then nationality.

Rupert Murdoch, that 'white catholic Australian', after he divorced his jooish first wife, at high age has married a chinese woman (with allegedly super intelligence) and got two Sino-jooish hybrids with her. Maybe these two are the first prototype samples of the upcoming 'Eurasian master race' we are longing for?:D

Actually those clever Confucianists usually end up in technical roles at work, eg., statistical depts of banks, medical roles, science etc. Managerial roles are still dominated by Europeans, Legal professions by Europeans and Jews, Politics by Europeans, Education by Europeans etc etc...so their intelligence is only really leading to certain types of roles. The Confucianists do not raise well-rounded kids. They force their kids to study, study, study and not much else. They do not produce leaders, but good tools for leaders.

The Asianization however is real. And we are talking about Asians of all corners of that continent. Walk down the street of any major city and you will see what I mean. It no longer resembles a European outpost in the Pacific.

Spjabork
Thursday, March 9th, 2017, 01:32 PM
Actually those clever Confucianists usually end up in technical roles at work, eg., statistical depts of banks, medical roles, science etc. Managerial roles are still dominated by Europeans,They are not creative, they are imitative, of course. Yet 'modern' society, to a large extent, is based on thoughtless imitation, which is essentially needed to uphold such a 'modern' system. For example the hyperconsumerism, the whole system of advertizing, is based on imitation sans critique (which contributed to the 'miracle' of Chinese economy).

The white, european 'managers', in the long run, must reproduce biologically in sufficient numbers, and thereby keep their racial composition. If they do not do this, they will get replaced, no matter what, out of sheer lack of alternatives. And as there is no spiritual bond between white europeans, exept their dim self-picture of being 'white', and having some crude, confused, crank ideas of liberalist laissez-faire, and nothing else, the shrinking numbers of them have no inner consistency and adhesion, which will hasten their downfall and replacement.

Catterick
Thursday, March 9th, 2017, 02:18 PM
They are not creative, they are imitative, of course. Yet 'modern' society, to a large extent, is based on thoughtless imitation, which is essentially needed to uphold such a 'modern' system. For example the hyperconsumerism, the whole system of advertizing, is based on imitation sans critique (which contributed to the 'miracle' of Chinese economy).

The white, european 'managers', in the long run, must reproduce biologically in sufficient numbers, and thereby keep their racial composition. If they do not do this, they will get replaced, no matter what, out of sheer lack of alternatives. And as there is no spiritual bond between white europeans, exept their dim self-picture of being 'white', and having some crude, confused, crank ideas of liberalist laissez-faire, and nothing else, the shrinking numbers of them have no inner consistency and adhesion, which will hasten their downfall and replacement.

The opposite is true. Needham published a two volume encyclopedia on the subject of Chinese inventions. However the Chinese failed to imitate one another. Same with the Roman Empire: they had inventors like Hero of Alexandria and there is evidence of things like germ theory and something like Darwinism but knowledge did not spread through the Empire. Scientific culture in Europe is Germanic and in Asia the rangaku scholarship was a prototype for rapid imitation of American technology.

Was there a genetic component to this? Intuitively, yes. But is imitation at odds with invention? No. Did China fail to innovate? No. Is this a deep seated difference between Confucian and Western cultures, or a reflection of racial differences? Not really.

Spjabork
Thursday, March 9th, 2017, 06:19 PM
The opposite is true. Needham published a two volume encyclopedia on the subject of Chinese inventions.
Would you be more cautious with claims. Needham was a fag, a German- and self-hater, quite similar to the fags that run around now and here, and thus in a way he was 'avantgardist'.

I would like to know, from you, Catterick (you may recourse to 'Needham' for that matter): what did Chinese invent during the last 500 years? Because it was this time, the last 500 years, which brought (one part of) 'mankind' substantially forward.

If Justus von Liebig had not invented artificial fertilizer, in the 1830s, the number of Chinese would never have exceeded 500 million, which is one third of what they are now.

Catterick
Thursday, March 9th, 2017, 06:24 PM
Well I did not realise Needham was a homosexual nor was I aware it's relevance to his two volume encyclopedia set. When he wrote about Chinese mining technologies, was he making stuff up?

And Vietnam is the country of Indochina that is most China and least Indian. Referring to them as E rather than SE Asian is fine by me.

Spjabork
Thursday, March 9th, 2017, 09:36 PM
Well I did not realise Needham was a homosexual I use the word 'fag' as a derogative, to express my utter contempt for any unmanly behaving male, not necessarily in the pathological sense. Though I must add, in many many cases, such men who behave unmanly, and treacherous, in fact also are fags in the strict pathological sense.

nor was I aware it's relevance to his two volume encyclopedia set.What is this encyclopedia good for? Chinese boy uni students believe Ford invented the car. And Chinese girl uni students think, human rights are not strong enough in China. You really must have too much time.

When he wrote about Chinese mining technologies, was he making stuff up?We have German mining technology. The Bergakademie Freiberg was the very first higher training school for mining in the world. We do not need Chinese to teach us something about mining, or minerals.

And Vietnam is the country of Indochina that is most China and least Indian. Referring to them as E rather than SE Asian is fine by me.Do what you want. You missed my point.

Catterick
Thursday, March 9th, 2017, 10:52 PM
I have little idea what your point was. But I recognised faulty statements. ;)

Spjabork
Thursday, March 9th, 2017, 11:39 PM
I have little idea what your point was.It doesn't matter. Anyway you are no Australian, and I do not think you really care about them Ozzies. It may well be I am more concerned than you.

There were actually two points, and maybe I should have made two separate posts, but the posts might have been merged by the moderation afterwards.

First, I wanted to make clear the difference between Confucian people, and other 'asian' people. To you, so that you hence might keep them apart.

Second, I wanted to make clear what is going on in Australia. To Australians, or people who would like to know.

But I recognised faulty statements. ;)None of my statements was faulty.

Catterick
Thursday, March 9th, 2017, 11:45 PM
I have nothing against Australians but even without racial mixture some Asianisation was inevitable based on geography, being next door but one to Indonesia and nowhere near Europe. I still don't think Marathir Mohammed was suggesting gross race replacement; just that Australia join the Asia-Pacific states.

Stealth
Tuesday, March 14th, 2017, 11:49 AM
Good on you "Out of Germania".

Unfortunately our leaders are not patriots, or supporters of European culture. Their policies are weak, are blinded by incompetent economists, our manufacturing base is non existent, so to level the balance of payments, the deficit and fund the aging population, they are selling off our country and importing millions of people from the wrong part of the world to chase the $.

Australia the lucky country is sinking before our very eyes.

The worst is when i see ignorant aussies so pro immigration.

Immigration is good, when controlled and from similar cultures.

Sasa
Tuesday, June 27th, 2017, 04:52 AM
AUSTRALIA is becoming more Asian than European, with Census 2016 data revealing little more than half of its residents — 50.7 per cent — have two Australian-born parents.

This is down from 54 per cent in the 2011 census and means second-generation Aussies will soon be a minority.
More than a quarter of our residents (26.3 per cent) are now born overseas, and for the first time in our history, the majority of people born abroad are from Asia, not Europe.

Just over 6,150,000 people were born overseas in census 2016, compared to 5,280,802 in 2011.
he 2016 Census shows that two thirds (67%) of the Australian population were born in Australia. Of the 6,163,667 overseas-born persons, nearly one in five (18 per cent) had arrived since the start of 2012.

While England and New Zealand were still the next most common countries of birth after Australia, the proportion of those born overseas who were born in China and India has increased since 2011 (from 6 per cent to 8.3 per cent and 5.6 per vent to 7.4 per cent respectively).
The Philippines has swapped places with Italy in the top 10 “country of birth” list, moving from number eight to number six.
Malaysia now appears in the top 10 countries of birth (replacing Scotland) and represents 0.6 per cent of the Australian population.

A breakdown of the country of birth includes 907,570 people from England, 518,466 from New Zealand 509,555 from China, 455,389 from India, and 232,386 from the Philippines
More than one million new migrants have come to Australia since 2011, with China (191,000) and India (163,000) the most common countries of birth for new arrivals.
This is followed by migrants from the UK (8.3 per cent growth), New Zealand (7.4 per cent growth) and the Philippines (4.9 per cent growth). Cities have absorbed the bulk of the migrants, with most settling in Sydney and Melbourne.

Australia remains predominantly an English speaking country, with 72.7 per cent of people reporting they speak only English at home. But that is down from 76.8 per cent in 2011.
After English, the most common languages are Mandarin, Arabic, Cantonese and Vietnamese of the 300 languages being spoken in Australian homes.
Mandarin is spoken by 2.2 per cent of Australians, up from 1.6 per cent, and Arabic by 1.4 per, up from 1.3 per cent. Vietnamese and Cantonese are each spoken by another 1.2 per cent.

The 2016 census data reveals Australia’s population has doubled in the past 50 years, soaring by two million since 2011.
Australia’s estimated population at December 31 was 24.4 million.
Source (news.com.au) (http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/aussies-more-asian-than-european-news-census-data-reveals/news-story/62f4c3b4955897d944b6aa69cb1f5821)

The Aesthete
Tuesday, June 27th, 2017, 02:20 PM
The importation of a foreign born population and the demise of those who gave the country its identity this is nothing to celebrate. Things are so bad here the Asians are even saying there are too many Asians here.

Sasa
Wednesday, June 28th, 2017, 12:19 AM
The importation of a foreign born population and the demise of those who gave the country its identity this is nothing to celebrate. Things are so bad here the Asians are even saying there are too many Asians here.

Nothing to celebrate indeed

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, June 28th, 2017, 08:26 AM
One overseas-born Chinese woman I dealt with in business once told me that there were too many Arabs and other Moslems in Australia.

In 1998, Lee Kwan Yew said that East Asians ought to be a proportion of about 7 percent of the Australian population. Now it is over 12 percent.