Frank wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2017 at 3:26pm:




Oh, dearie, dearie, me, Soren.  You really are a sorry little misanthrope, aren't you?  Tsk tsk,  Multiculturalism works for the majority of the population, the majority of the time, Soren.   Approximately 85% of people agree that it has been good for Australia, almost identical with the proportion in the 2013 survey. in 2014's Scanlon Report on Social Cohesion in Australia.   In 2017 the total was again as high as 85% agreeing that Multiculturalism was good for Australia. You have a very long row to hoe to get that to change to your view of things.   

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2017 at 4:18pm:


How has it been good for society in Australia as a whole?  It has opened Australian society up, it has exposed it to new ideas, new concepts, new beliefs, Hammer.   And that includes the working class.

Monocultural societies don't work very well.   Iceland, Japan are the only two which spring to mind and even they are allowing Multiculturalism into their midst.  The Japanese have Ainu, Korean, Chinese and other cultural groups in their society.  In Iceland, you have Americans, British, Norwegian, Swedish and so on groups being established.   The day and age of isolationism is long gone, Hammer, long gone.  No nation can or would pull up the drawbridge and isolate itself from the rest of the world.   

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2017 at 4:30pm:


You're the first person I've come across that blames "cheap wages" and "cheap jobs" on Multiculturalism, Hammer.   You really are reaching in your Xenophobia, aren't you?   

What I'd recommend is a course in simple economics.   Pay attention to the bit about "supply and demand" in the field of labour.   No Multiculturalism there, mate, none at all.   

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2017 at 4:36pm:


They are all competing in the same market place, Hammer.  If you're not good enough to get a job, who's fault is that?   Mmmm, could it be yours?   Tsk, tsk,  no, you'd much rather reserve positions on the basis of residency or "race" or Aryaness or skin colour/eye shape/lip thickness/etc.  Right?   Yeah, that will really drive the economy upwards, now won't it?   

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2017 at 5:01pm:


You may have forgotten, nor perhaps even understood what prompted the Federal Minister for Migration, the Honourable Arthur Calwell to suggest that Australia should, "populate or perish", Hammer.   It would do you good to learn some real history about Australia, rather than your neo-Fascist pap.   In 1939, Australia had a population of only 7 million people.   Barely sufficient for us to field 1 million people in uniform in 1944.  Hardly sufficient for us to defend Victoria and the southern half of NSW, let alone take the fight to the Japanese home islands.   To remedy that, mass-migration was undertaken.   Today, our population is approximately 24 million - three times as great.   Today, we can defend all of the South-Eastern corner of the continent and the Perth region quite adequately.   That is where most of our population resides, BTW.

In 1944, the Armed Forces had to start demobilising some of it's forces.  We had gone too far and become too mobilised.   We had insufficient civilian workers to make the war-time economy work efficiently.

Our migrants didn't arrive to help the world, Hammer.  They arrived to help us, as a nation, as a society.   They provide the workers to keep our economy going and growing.   Some Australians, like you, appear to think they don't have to compete with migrant workers.   Sorry, that isn't how it works.   You need to be as well qualified, if not more so, in order to compete.   Tsk, tsk, you act as you believe you have a right to a job.   Next you'll claim you have a right to a house.   You have to work to get either, Hammer.   Simple economics dictates that. 

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2017 at 5:48pm:


Hammer, once again you are betrayed by history.   We lost 60,000 casualties.   That is one day's worth of casualties in one battle in WWI (The Somme, day one) and it took approximately four years to achieve that.   It can hardly be described as a "generation" by any stretch of an imagination.   We had a population of 5 million in 1914.   By 1939, we had added another 2 million to that total, even with the losses of WWI.   Our growth rate was not overly great by world standards.   We needed, as Arthur Calwell put it, to, "populate or perish" and so the mass migration scheme was introduced after WWII.  Without it, we would have a population of about 12 million, in my estimation.    

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2017 at 6:14pm:

No Brian. 60,000 dead men from a small country is a catastrophe. Australia had the highest casualty count to population ratio of any nation during WW1. Plus all the disabled, gassed, mentally ill men who never had children bumps that casualty figure up massively.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2017 at 6:14pm:

Calwell was wrong about 'populate or perish' unless you understand that 'perish' was about the invasion of Asian hordes.

But the 'populate' bit has now become exactly that - a sanctioned invasion by the Asian hordes. Calwell wanted Australia to be populated by Europeans not the threat he perceived, rightly - Asians.
He didn't spell it out because it was so obvious that Australia was a European country or that marriage is for a man and a woman.  So the Asian hordes creep in, the gays creep in.