The 5% figure I spoke about is the remainder of the figure you gave for Australia's immigration intake re: having 95% of Australia immigration being consistent with the demographics of 1977. (And thank you for reminding me how old I am getting, btw).

I reiterate that this is not really realistic. Australia can't just go and adopt a 95% white immigrant policy, just to keep the elderly happy with their nostalgia. For what it is worth, I would not mind if we had 95% of Australia as a caucasian, secular society of technologically savvy people who have an egalitarian culture and a fine appreciate of sport and the arts. But that is just not the way things work out in the interconnected web of the international community.

One other factor that I did not state, that I thought went without saying, was the fact that the women of Australia are not having children in abundance anymore. Women in the 1960s would average about 3 children per female. My father was one of a "6 boys and 1 girl" family. My mother was a one of three children in her family. I have a brother and a sister. And I am at the age where my brother has no known children. My sister has 2 children. And myself having about unofficially 6 or 7 illegitimate children (of which only one of them have declared to my parents as being their grandchld). But I digress. Typically, we are not seeing these three children per household situations these days, as the cost of living gets out of control, and no one is guaranteed a job like they were 50 years ago.

So, unless I get a job going around impregnating 5000 single women and having perhaps an average 3 or 4 children per woman, you can imagine that Australia would either have to see women have a change of priorities by having that extra child per family. Oooorrr, we need to see that immigration brings in the number of migrants we need to keep increasing the population of Australia.

Now, where are you going to get those 200,000 caucasian immigrants to make up the 210,000 immigrants we need? Europe? Perhaps there are plenty of applicants that could still make up the numbers for a few years. But they are looking at declining fertility rates as well. Plus, they are importing Middle Easterners, Africans and South Asians to make up the numbers. North Americans do not seem to want much to do with Australia. They have a good standard of living and I see no reason for them to move to Australia. Or perhaps the white people from South America? The Rio Games last year gave us a good look at how the region is a social hell hole and there is not much reason for people to stay.

The only way we are going to see western societies starting to reproduce in prolific numbers again is if Asia, India, the Middle East, and Africa have this sudden one-child policy come into effect immediately to the point where they need to hang on to their people and avoid emigrating to Australia/America/Europe. Our politicians will be talking about cutting immigration without choice due to a population implosion from those regions. And then we might see a shift in priorities from having a couple children per family to a situation where child minding centres, baby formula factories, and crib makers would become unable to cope with demand. Do you see that as a possibility? Because I can't.

Quote:


Such is my education, I had to look up the meaning of "caricature", just so I did not make any mistake as to what you meant. For I surely did not see "atheist, post-modernist" as an insulting description of the Australian people.
"Atheist" - people who do not believe in god. "Post-modernist" - extremely modern.
I do hold certain foreign cultures with suspicion. But I don't see most of them as automatically bad.

Australian politicians are not trying to eradicate white Australians or their culture from Australia. I am no census taker, but the amount of Asian and Eurasian people around town here seem to show me that I am more foreign than are they. As it is, I like to read up on foreign cultures and partake in foreign cuisines, and I want to learn a foreign language in the next few years. People not of my racial background, though who are Australian born, seem to want to be part of the egalitarian, agnostic/secular, post-modern society more conspicuously than I.

And for what little I know as a non-census taker, white women won't have large numbers of children, simply for the sake of keeping Australia a majority white country, come the year 2100. The government is more concerned about having poor people produce goods for Australia to import cheaply because they know that they are going to die off in the next 20 years, just as those poor foreigners will. Ergo, gotta get whilst the gettin' is good. Need that retirement fund, etc.

As for Japan and China not having an open immigration policy, they probably export more people than they import. And I know that Japan will see a bit of an implosion in their economy within the next 10 years, since the elderly will outnumber the youth. There are 65,000 people over the age of 100 years old in Japan. Who knows how China, with 1.6 children per woman, will cope right now with the population going backward. I think using Japan and China as examples of economic powerhouses does illustrate my point.

UnSub ... good post, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on what comprises a 'homeland'.

There are the homelands that existed prior to the post-war conspiracy to transfer great masses of Third Worlders into white Western Christian-style societies so as to eliminate White nationalism, White privilege, and perceived White racism ... and then there are the 'utility'-type homelands of the American kind in which it's all about the acquisition of wealth for a huge number of Third World immigrants who regularly commute 'home' to India, the Philippines, Vietnam, etc.

Have a look at London's airports during the holiday season. Thousands of hijabs and saris and bearded men with funny caps all going home during the break .. all going home to countries that are uncompromisingly what they are and who they are.

It's strange indeed that although our leaders tell us that Third World immigration is an imperative if Western countries are to maintain their economic advantage - and yet none of these Third World countries subscribe to the same immigration policy to enrich themselves with.