We've been told that we're a "nation of immigrants" and have no reason to want to maintain our culture as we see fit because we "don't have one" for ages now (particularly by Aboriginals and non-white immigrants).  But why is this relevant even if it was true? Why can't a nation get to a point in its history where it can eventually decide to define itself however it wishes, and thus, the nature of the individuals who should be allowed to arrive in it, if they even should be allowed to arrive in it?

Right, I'm getting sick of this. I had typed up more than 3/4th of my response to you and the Ozpol site locked up on me. I think there's a problem with my browser.

Quote:


If it was true (and don't act like there's no differentiation to be made between an immigrant, a pioneer and a conqueror) it does not necessarily imply that it has relevance in the argument described. If a nation is a nation of immigrants, can such a nation not decide it does not want to be a "nation of immigrants" anymore? Can it not become a nation of natives? If a nation was created by immigration, why does that mean it can't choose to restrict immigration, or halt it completely? The "nation of immigrants" argument is used invariably to argue against these things; I'm just saying that it does not necessarily have to follow that because a nation is a "nation of immigrants!!!", therefore, for some reason or another, it must support immigration in all its forms, whenever it should occur. One does not have to mean the other, as much as we're browbeaten with the idea that it does.

Quote:


I'm just saying that a people can, or should at least be allowed to, define themselves and the territories that they inhabit according to how they wish. That's controversial now though, isn't it?

So what islamists contributed to Australia?

Quote:


"Australia", like all nations, is defined by a majority consensus. However, this does not necessarily mean that consensus cannot be changed -- a nation or a people that chooses to remain in statis would ultimately find itself destroyed, and there are many examples of this in history actually occuring. Obviously I object to multiculturalism and multiracialism because I consider them to be deleterious social policies that largely have been forced upon the people as a whole. I would like to see them done away with. I don't really think, deep down, Australians really like them as policies; many have a very shallow conception of them to begin with, many have not really been exposed to the other side (as is forbidden by our masters), and many simply say nothing openly because they are terrified.

Quote:


When it comes to immigration I think that largely only "white European immigration" should be considered. Does that mean that I don't have a problem with it in any possible situation, juncture or instance? No.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 8:33pm:


No I didn't.
Quote:


I can't give you a massive list of what I think makes up "Australia" or what the general consensus of what "Australia" is in every single possible way. I neither can recall everything nor (obviously) know everything. The answer to that question is best given that the general link that everybody perceives to be at the core of "Australia" arose from a consensus amongst its inhabitants; Australia is defined by what the majority of Australians think and wish it to be! There's nothing more to it than that.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 7:48pm:



What? You don't know who you are??
And you need others to tell you??

Seems to me what you want for Australia is a fractured and disharmonious society based on airy fairy thoughts that don't prove to be the reality.