The proportion of Aboriginal adults married (de facto or de jure) to non-Aboriginal spouses was 69% according to the 2001 census, up from 46% in 1986. The census figures show there were more intermixed Aboriginal couples in capital cities: 87% in 2001 compared to 60% in rural and regional Australia.

At the 2006 census, 31% of aborigines lived in major cities and another 45% in or close to rural towns, a major increase compared with 46% living in urban areas in 1971, with the trend towards intermix set to continue.

When Captain Arthur Phillip stepped ashore at Sydney Cove, most authorities place the Aboriginal population of Australia at between 250,000 and 300,000. The last accurate census on the number of full blooded Aborigines was in 1961; today the number may be no more than 30,000 out of a total “Indigenous” population of 517,200.

Based on current estimates, is it more likely than not that the dysgenic traits carried by Australian aborigines and nature will see to their demise as an ethnic minority on the Australian continent?

I don't think the census has the category of "intermixed," CJC. It's either Aboriginal or not.

Could you explain the term "dysgenic"?

The last census on the number of full bloods was in 1961. But the intermarriage rate is recorded. So we can extrapolate the figure for the current number of full bloods. About 30,000.

Dysgenic traits are those that disappear with interbreeding.

Thanks, Captain Cook. I have no doubt that "full blood" Aboriginals are on the wane. However, I've heard that "half-castes", "quarter-castes" and "octoroons" are on the rise. Whether this is due to breeding or an increase in the number of people identifying as Aboriginals is another question.

After all, the census is a questionnaire, and not a medical examination. We can extrapolate how people identify themselves from a census, but not their racial characteristics.

Something should be done to preserve their race in its purity.

DILLIGAF wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 1:26am:

Something should be done to preserve their race in its purity.

Not pimping their pre-pubescent girls for booze would be a good start.

No chance of them breeding thamselves out while there's money to be made.

Quote:

When Captain Arthur Phillip stepped ashore at Sydney Cove, most authorities place the Aboriginal population of Australia at between 250,000 and 300,000.

I've heard double that number.

We're all mongrels anyway. Racial purity nonsense is just that, nonsense.

I got that figure from Rodney Liddell's "The Savage Frontier". Whatever it was then, a full blood population of 30,000 now seems about right if the intermarriage rate has reached 69%.

But with respect to the future, what about aboriginal DNA?

If there any possible way it will survive?

Or should have I said traits.

Captainjcook wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 4:33pm:

I got that figure from Rodney Liddell's "The Savage Frontier".

Never heard of him, and no wonder. Ten seconds of googling shows he's literally a nobody and sold his books from his home in a caravan park. Claims that Aboriginals came over from Sri Lanka or thereabouts only a thousand years ago. Random crazy dudes are a dime a plenty in this world. I recommend sticking to academics.

FYI, scientists agree that the ancestors of Aboriginals came to Australia over at least 40,000 years ago.


Captainjcook wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 4:33pm:

Whatever it was then, a full blood population of 30,000 now seems about right if the intermarriage rate has reached 69%. But with respect to the future, what about aboriginal DNA? If there any possible way it will survive?

What are Aboriginal traits?

The current estimate of the number of full bloods is 30,000 whatever the estimate of the number in 1788 was.

Someone told me that after about 4 generations of intermarriage you need to be highly qualified to tell them apart.

Andrew Bolt is right: it seems white is the new black in Australia.


p.s. With regards to Mr Liddell, it is interesting that Boomerangs as he says are not distinctively Australian.

Look up "Tutankhamun Boomerang".

Captainjcook wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 8:12pm:

The current estimate of the number of full bloods is 30,000 whatever the estimate of the number in 1788 was.

What's the definition of a full blood again?


Captainjcook wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 8:12pm:

Someone told me that after about 4 generations of intermarriage you need to be highly qualified to tell them apart.

Can we still call them Aboriginals if they don't 'look' Aboriginal? Personally I'm not prepared to say that you're only an Aboriginal if you look black. I mean Cathy Freeman is pretty dark, but she's not as dark as people once were.

Captainjcook wrote on Mar 20^th, 2011 at 7:33pm:

The proportion of Aboriginal adults married (de facto or de jure) to non-Aboriginal spouses was 69% according to the 2001 census, up from 46% in 1986. The census figures show there were more intermixed Aboriginal couples in capital cities: 87% in 2001 compared to 60% in rural and regional Australia. At the 2006 census, 31% of aborigines lived in major cities and another 45% in or close to rural towns, a major increase compared with 46% living in urban areas in 1971, with the trend towards intermix set to continue. When Captain Arthur Phillip stepped ashore at Sydney Cove, most authorities place the Aboriginal population of Australia at between 250,000 and 300,000. The last accurate census on the number of full blooded Aborigines was in 1961; today the number may be no more than 30,000 out of a total “Indigenous” population of 517,200. Based on current estimates, is it more likely than not that the dysgenic traits carried by Australian aborigines and nature will see to their demise as an ethnic minority on the Australian continent?

How can the aborignes breed themselves out when its has always been white people that fear genetic destruction. In fact I look at the system of racism having come into being because the white population recognized, after they went around the world, that they were a tiny minority on the planet. They realized that they could be genetically annihilated and white people could disappear. So white people worked out a system for white survival, which entails dominating all of the black, brown, red and yellow people on the planet.

Since the practice of racism is the practice of WHITE GENETIC SURVIVAL the expectation that white people can change this behaviour is a high level expectation. White people are playing a white genetic survival game which has to inferiorize the functioning of black and other people of color.

Thus people of color (who are most capable of producing white genetic annihilation) have to be subdued, oppressed, suppressed, or indoctrinated to support an infrastructure which does not lend itself to our survival, but instead, to the survival of white genetics. White people’s mania to suntan and the new chemical and genetic techniques that they are developing to allow people to have skin coloration is evidence that they feel at deep subconscious levels that something is missing and something is wrong. At the same time you have mass murder on the continent of africa of Black people, domination of the indigenous aboriginal population in Oz.


You have white supremacy through HIV/AIDS killing tens of millions of people on the continent of Africa. And now you have World war 3 in the middle east. If all of the resources are in the areas of the world where non-white people are, then people who classify themselves as White can go in and take those resources. They set up whatever pretense is needed to justify going in and taking control over those resources. The non-white people are not supposed to have any means to protect and defend themselves from this ultimate aggression.