The West is importing Third World 'children' they couldn't bother having themselves without a thought for the demographic implications.

Every bollard should be painted with a picture of mooohamed so we can never forget why they're needed.

Frank wrote on Dec 27^th, 2017 at 5:27pm:



Good one, Frank.

That the politicians won't deal with this prospect for the future of Europe and that the media keeps a lid on it is all due to Leftwing liberalism.

You know, I wish amateurs would give up on demographic predications.  They are invariably wrong, usually wildly wrong about how the future will pan out.   It is impossible for a comparatively tiny minority of people to out breed the overwhelming majority.   The overwhelming majority would have to stop having babies for ever, for that to work.   Tsk, tsk.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 29^th, 2017 at 12:59pm:

Says the bloke who doesn’t even know what a strawman is!

Tsk tsk 

You’re nothing brother 

TheFunPolice wrote on Dec 29^th, 2017 at 1:05pm:


I say, I knew the old boy must have added something to our lives.

But of course he's an accountant. University of Balogney, innit.

UnSubRocky wrote on Dec 31^st, 2017 at 12:48am:


The assumptions in your beliefs are invariably wrong.

Birthrates for new migrants to the West invariably fall, within one generation as the new migrants become just as aspirational as the original inhabitants and aspirational people don't have time or a need for massive numbers of children to support them in their old age.   The State does that.   This means that new migrants have falling birthrates.   There is also an assumption that the dominant population ceases breeding.   It invariably doesn't.   It will hover around the replacement rate or just below it.   This will be because the original inhabitants are as if not more aspirational than the new migrants.

Demographics are based on such assumptions.  The actual birth rate in most Western society is far more dependant on circumstance than you realise.   After WWII when all the men folk came back from war, there was a massive "baby boom".   That was completely unforeseen by demographers.   Similar events have occurred after natural disaster and other wars.   In Romania under Ceausescu there was a "mini-Baby Boom" because he became afraid that the Romanian people weren't breeding fast enough and so banned condoms (the only available contraceptive).   This caused all sorts of problems in education and other facets of society.   You cannot predict what will happen tomorrow let alone twenty-five to a hundred years in advance. 

Now, here is a question - why do you care what happens to your society long after you have died?  You have no effect on German or British or French or even Australian society beyond your death.   Those societies will sort themselves out.   One thing I am sure though, is the new migrants become new citizens and they will defend their new society against Xenophobes/Racists/Islamophobes who are scared of their own shadows.   

Why do we care bwian?

I think there is a double standard you show in your posts that contradict one another. 230 years ago (25 days away from the anniversary), a bunch of Europeans landed and claimed Australia. They were few in number, and could have been overwhelmed by the thousands of natives that lived around the now known as Sydney region. But they generally were unmolested by the natives -- except for numerous reports of being robbed or having to skirmish with the aborigines. 180 years later, the descendants of these new settlers numbered 12 million, whilst the aborigines numbered 200,000. Numbers of aborigines went from an estimated 750,000 to 200,000 in 180. Mainly through introduced diseases. Sometimes because of a genocidal hunting policy that was abandoned in the 1890s. The other reasons due to the families being broken up which forced a reduction in birth rates among aborigines.

Keep in mind now that there are 22 million white people in Australia and 3 million non-white people. But keep in mind that this 3 million came about with non-white immigration mainly in the last 40 years. That is the kind of difference we are witnessing. Imagine then if you can see that we are talking about immigration numbers coming from most sources in a 7 billion strong world? White people make up 1 billion of the 7 billion people in the world, and the numbers are dwindling. In 50 years, there may be 800 million white people in the world and 9 billion non-white. And I know what you are thinking: "What does having non-white people in the world have to do with anything?". The answer to that strawman proposition is that the non-white societies mainly do not celebrate or undertake cultures that make them strong in character. You can cite various Asian societies that do have good cultural values. But I don't think we are importing them into numbers to replace the potential migrants that come from non-ideal cultures.

And whilst I agree that migrants have fewer children after a generation of being in Australia, it is quite a high number of children they do have when they get here. Added to the fact that they would have come from a country where the birth rates are unsustainable that they have to move overseas for the sake of relieving some population explosion. The number of migrants that leave those sort of societies will only give a mild relief for about the time it takes for women there to have another child. I don't know about you, but I don't think Australia benefits from Apex gangs where theft and other violent activity is the norm. And I don't appreciate the excuses that people give them about their post traumatic stress issues. If PTSD was an excuse for violent behaviour, then I would have a criminal record as long as my arm.

Quote:


The same reason as why I blame my ancestors for the mess that they put Australia in to get us to some reasonable level of standard of living. They could have done better. They could have done worse. Though I think hindsight gives 20/20 vision, I figure that this country could have been much better off if such short-sightedness issues could have been addressed many years ago, rather than in the last decade. I will probably die of some age-related issue at 80. I do not want my grandchildren to have to suffer from problems of persecution from an overpopulated world having to send their excess people to countries that have their birth rates in check.

Do not ever condemn white Australians over being invaders, if you want to defend refugees from having the right to come to Australia.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 31^st, 2017 at 11:52am:

You have no evidence that it is only an assumption.

Muslims continue to have lots of kids, generation after generation.


Based on Census 2016 data, Australian women of Islamic faith have, on average, 3.03 births per woman, while the average for all women in Australia is 2.02 births per woman.

Frank wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 4:01pm:


Lets just check that "fact", shall we, Soren?

You appear to have gleaned it from here, FactCheck Q&A: the facts on birth rates for Muslim couples and non-Muslim couples in Australia.

It was based on an assertion on ABC's Q&A that Muslim couples, on average produced 4.5 children each, whereas Australian couples produced only 1.5 children.

As the factcheck found, in reality it appears on the basis of the 2016, Muslim couples have an average of 3.03 children each while the average for all women in Australia is 2.02 births per woman.

It is correct to say that Muslim women in Australia currently have a higher birth rate than other women in Australia. It’s not reasonable to say, based on current figures, that Muslims in Australia will outnumber non-Muslims in “a couple”, or even many more, generations.

We cannot predict what the birthrate for various religious denominations is going to be, any more than we predict if el Presidente Trump will be reelected in three years time.   However, it is obvious that the birthrates for migrants do fall, within one or two generations, to that approaching the surrounding culture.   

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 5:14pm:


White people generally adhere to the basic principles of human rights. The equality of men and women. The rights of people who are of different cultures, religions, nationalities, sexualities, abilities, etc. You find those rights and responsibilities we enjoy and work towards considerably apparent today in a lot of first world countries, irrespective of racial background. But you will find that it is mainly white majority countries that are the pioneers of these rights and responsibilities. Like Greek democracy and Roman law, the foundations had to come from somewhere. Meanwhile, smart societies around the world adopted European customs and rules of law to be able to develop a fully functional and regulated society. Non-European customs of beheading apostates, sexual discrimination, corporal punishment for minor infractions, tribalism and might is right authoritarianism does not prevail well in a first world society.

Lots of new migrants do adopt an allegiance to Australia at some point after arrival. Some make that conscious decision before they leave their former homes. Unfortunately, no matter how integrated some migrants are in Australia, they will keep their allegiances to their former homeland forever. African gang members are not intermingling with Australians and being productive members of society. They continue to try and play the victim whilst perpetrating crimes.

And if you are interested in where you have contradicted yourself, go back through your posts on related subjects and see how often you defend non-white non-Christian people from any form of criticism. Perhaps note how you seem to think that anyone on this forum holding a viewpoint that criticises Muslims for any reason cannot go unchallenged. Admittedly, I am tired at the moment and have no real incentive to go through your ramblings to prove my point. But someone has been posting under the username "Brian Ross" with a clear agenda of challenging anyone who does want to vent against a certain religion. By the way, you also have a habit of validating an opponent's view by inviting them to show proof of their assertions.

Obviously, you have missed the point about the 25 million vs 7000 million. Our Australian immigration is at a premium in that we can import 200,000 people in our migration program, and there would be plenty of people that miss out who would love to move to Australia. The problem being that the United Nation can have an overwhelming influence on our immigration program to a point that they could enforce Australia to double our immigration intake. They have been on record claiming that our strict refugee program is discriminatory. It is not an incredible concept that the UN could meddle in our general immigration, too. But the point (and back to the topic about the Western civilisation) is that we are not the only country that has to deal with an expanding world population. The western societies of the world are getting burdened with the third world running in their direction looking to be saved by guaranteed welfare and a chance at a better life. If the third world does not change their culture to more suitably reflect western values, then I am afraid that Western society will eventually collapse and be absorbed into third world standards.

Frank wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 9:58pm:


Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  You are assuming that the resident population ceases to breed, Soren.  Such an assumption is fraught with problems, big problems.   How do you know that in 10 years, we are not involved in a World War again?   All our men folk go off to war and then return, we have another Baby Boom.   How do you know that Muslims don't suddenly lose the desire to procreate because it prevents them from buying the new car/TV/house/etc. that they have heir eyes on?   How about we are struck by the remains of a Comet and the world is plunged into a new Ice Age?   How about we get runaway Greenhouse Gas led Global Warming and the Ice Caps melt and we all drown?  Each is slightly more strange than the last but all are possible.   You make assumptions that cannot be sustained, Soren.  There is no way that 3.6% of the population can outbreed the other 96.4%.  It is physically impossible, unless the greater majority stop having children and that just isn't going to happen.

Quote:


In a democracy you do, Soren.   Care to name a country with a minority Muslim population that has been, "buggered up good and proper"?  Not your imagination but documentary proof.   All nations continue to function, all nations continue to exist and none are buggered up, "good and proper".  Indeed, how do you define "good and proper"?   Is it that we have open civil war?  We have Muslim gangs roaming the streets, killing non-Muslims on a whim?  Really?  Where?   Remember this is a place where the Muslims, by your own definition, constitute less than half the population.   

Quote:


Islamopobic thinking.  Completely bonkers, Soren, just bonkers.   

Quote:


Utterly, utterly, bonkers.  You really cannot believe this Islamophobic bullshit, Soren.  Do you?   

Quote:


So, no evidence, just your impression?  Tsk, tsk, doesn't count for much.  Sorry, you cannot make such an assertion and not present any evidence.  All you sound like is a petulant child.   

Quote:


Oh, dear, now demonising the UN!  The UN is powerless.  What power it has, is what we let it have.   We are a member state, we control how much influence the UN has.   I'd have thought the current Governments efforts at it's Pacific Gulag solution was evidence of that!  Oh, no, it's not, in your mind.   The UN does not control our policies, unless we want it to.   We sign treaties, we abide by those treaties.   If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Government, not the UN!   

Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2018 at 3:09pm:




Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk.  Poor, poor, Soren.  You don't like being held to a civilised level of behaviour, do you?  When you've removed your foot from your mouth, yet again, we might be able to discuss matters.  Until then...   

Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2018 at 9:26pm:




Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk.  Poor, poor, Soren.  You really do hate your fellow Australians, particularly those ones that disagree with you, don't you?   Seems a shame that you've never really assimilated to downunder society.   Perhaps you should consider migrating back to Denmark?  I hear Copenhagan is nice, this time of year...   

Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2018 at 9:40pm:




Oh, lucky, lucky me.  Such joy in the air tonight.  Right, Soren?   You really don't like being criticised, do you?  Tsk, tsk.   

I think you need to work on that expression a little bit, Soren.   I really do.   

Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2018 at 10:58pm:


I doubt people are "anonymous" about telling me about it, Soren.

Work on the expression.  Look up the different meanings for the words "anonymous" and "unanimous".   You might be surprised.  I understand English is your second language so I can understand why you have problems with some of the tricky spellings in it.   Work at it a bit harder, Soren.  You might find Australians accept you a little better...   

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 5:14pm:


Let's do this the old fashion way --- Thank you for accepting that you show a double standard in your post that contradict one another.

Quote:


Brian, there are countries in the world that CAN afford to have many children because they don't have access to high cost tvs, homes, cars. Then there is the main issue that they have lots of children because it is part of their communal plan to keep safe and strong in number. Or that they don't have a choice. Once these people move to Australia, in the 10s of thousands, it does not mean that their children will have fewer children. Some of these countries are comparatively 200 years behind Australia's social standards, that once here, they seek out their own kind to continue their barbaric way of life. What you continue to ignore is that there are millions of their kind willing to hop a number of flights to get to Australia. So the point is that these "minorities" can outnumber Australians to become a majority through immigration -- not birthrates.

Quote:


Go through all the cultures that relate to European origins. Go through them all and sort out all the good and the bad. Then concentrate on the European cultures that relate to contemporary times, and find out which of the old cultures have been eliminated or outlawed. Then go research cultures that have a non-European origin. Find a few countries that have a non-white majority and then sort through which cultures these non-European countries still use that are outlawed in European countries. Then try and determine how much better European culture seems to be.

Quote:


You are probably too old to care because you are probably researching ways to spend your retirement. But I and anyone 15 years old than myself and those younger than me, are getting burdened with the consequences of your generation trying to show the world that you are not racist by importing anyone from anywhere without any thought of how they impact Australia. I think Australia has a much better quarantine program to eliminate undesirable species from entering this country and creating havoc. Why import people who have no desire to contribute to Australia, sit on welfare, commit crimes and antisocial behaviour, and try to encourage the rest of Australia to import more of their kind. That is neither a racist assumption, nor a fear or hatred of other cultures belief.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2018 at 3:58pm:


Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Really?  And I was always taught that the reason why people in the Third World have large families was because there was no social security system to care for them in their old age and instead they relied upon the brood to do it for them.   I know of no country, with an adequate social security system where large families are encouraged.  Indeed, I don't know of any society where large families are encouraged, period.  They occur because there is no social security system and because of a lack of contraception methods which are cheap and easily affordable.   Until you can produce evidence, otherwise, I think I'll just ignore your claims.

As for what happens when they arrive in Western societies, they get the aspirational bug - they want the cars, the tvs, the houses, the big fancy schools for their kids and so on and so on.   Just like the society that surrounds them.  Their birthrates rapidly fall to that of the surrounding society.   How inconsiderate of them, hey?   

Quote:


It is all a matter of opinion.  You have Western Europe, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Mittel-Europe, Eastern European countries.  All have varying levels of socio-economic power.   An example is Greece.  Back in the 1950s, it was impoverished by war, civil unrest and people emigrated to overseas destinations like Australia.  In the 1980s, it joined the EU.  It got back a democratic government, jettisoning the Colonels Junta.  It joined the Euro.  It go poor again.   People fled overseas again.   Today, Greeks are considered solid members of the Australian Multicultural Society.   The fortunes of their old country have risen and soured.   Their old country's fortunes have no effect on the present day Greek-Australians.   

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 1^st, 2018 at 5:14pm:



That's only in the big cities Brian. In the bush the "White Australia Policy" is still alive ... and we love it that way out here. It's peaceful and tranquil, it's friendly and co-operative when we need things done, we understand each other perfectly when we converse and the Aussie sense of humour is also still alive. What we don't want or need is black Africans, Indians, Pakis, Asians and muslims stuffing it all up

If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it

Shared customs and traditions bind people together in a society, not consumer goods or passports.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2018 at 5:41pm:

Actually Holt and the Libs overturned and set in train the end of the white Australia policy and It was not until the Fraser Liberal government's review of immigration law in 1978 that all selection of prospective migrants based on country of origin was entirely removed from official policy.

Very recently bwian the media have been extolling Holts virtues and they said he brought the policy to an end.  i think you will find I am more correct than you.
As usual.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2018 at 4:36pm:


A little slow, are you Brian? You have accepted that I claimed you contradict yourself in posts by asking me to further validate my claim against you with proof. In the everyday world, accepting that your opponent has a point by asking him to "prove it" does validate your opponent's claim against you. You have accepted that someone has a valid point against you because you think that asking for proof puts the burden on someone that you have just validated with asking for evidence.

The burden of proof is upon the person making the assertion. But if you validate their assertion asking them to provide evidence, then it is the same as saying "That's interesting. Please continue with your critique of me". Going on about asking people to prove their cases against you and then finishing with a "tsk tsk" ad hominem, makes you sound like you have nothing to respond to an effective debate. It also makes you seem, informally, like some desperate troll. Looking to pick a fight whilst using deflection seems to be your main strategy.

Could I implore you to try a different approach to your monotonous auto-responder responses by simply denying that someone has said something true? "There is no evidence that I have contradicted myself" may be an acceptable response. A strong response might be "That is not true". THEN the onus goes back on the opponent to prove his case. I can't be bothered going through your posts to find something in one forum topic that contradicts a post in another forum topic. If I did, then I would have wasted some valuable reading time.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2018 at 4:49pm:


I have no intention of moving out of my quiet, regional town of Rockhampton. I am quite happy with the gentle nature of the environment, and even the redneck to sophisticated people whom I live, play and work. My house I live in is either going to be given to me in an inheritance or bought for the price of a cheap song, seeing that the house's value is not much more than Tay Allyn's "Mass Text" song.

The reason us Generation Xers are complaining about our state of affairs is because we are having to deal with our adulthoods competing with casual workers. I am a casual worker. I think that any fulltime job available to me would be snapped up in no time. Baby Boomers grew up in a time of free university education, plentiful employment, and a relatively safe environment. If modern young adults had that kind of deal, we too would be less pessimistic about our futures. Ergo, the reason why I am motivated to be a realist in this forum topic.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2018 at 9:48pm:


Actually, what I am doing is rejecting your claim, you need to prove it.  You have thus far failed dismally to do so.  Keep trying, though, it is amusing to watch as your flounder.   

UnSubRocky wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2018 at 10:47pm:



Take it up with the Government which has encouraged the spread of casualisation of the workforce.   I have not been in favour of the ending of free education, the casualisation of the workforce, any of it.  However, it appears the majority of voters don't care about it.   

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 4^th, 2018 at 5:17pm:


You fell on your sword accepting my position by asking me to reinforce my point with proof. Ask any reputable lawyer, and he will put you in your place by making you agree with me about the rules of burden of proof.

Katharine Betts and Bob Birrell,  26 October 2017
Australia’s population grew by a massive 384,000 in the year to March 2017, some 217,000, or 60 per cent, of which was due to net overseas migration.

Immigration is the dynamic factor in this population surge, reflecting a record high permanent migration program and generous settings for temporary-entry visas.

The consequences are becoming obvious and are being reflected in increased public concern about quality of life and questions concerning ethnic diversity.

The Australian Population Research Institute (TAPRI) commissioned a national survey of Australian voters in August 2017 to assess the extent of this concern and its causes.

The survey found that 74 per cent of voters thought that Australia does not need more people, with big majorities believing that that population growth was putting ‘a lot of pressure’ on hospitals, roads, affordable housing and jobs.

Most voters were also worried about the consequences of growing ethnic diversity. Forty-eight per cent supported a partial ban on Muslim immigration to Australia, with only 25 per cent in opposition to such a ban.

Despite these demographic pressures and discontents, Australia’s political and economic elites are disdainful of them and have ignored them. They see high immigration as part of their commitment to the globalisation of Australia’s economy and society and thus it is not to be questioned.

Elites elsewhere in the developed world hold similar values, but have had to retreat because of public opposition. Across Europe 15 to 20 per cent of voters currently support anti-immigration political parties.

Our review of elite opinion in Australia shows that here they think they can ignore public concerns. This is because their main source of information about public opinion on the issue, the Scanlon Foundation, has consistently reported that most Australians support their immigration and cultural diversity policies.

How could Australia be so different from other Western countries? It has long been argued, including by the Scanlon Foundation, that Australians were insulated from the economic shocks of the Global Financial Crisis in 2008-2009. This means that we have a lower share of angry ‘left behinds’ than in Europe and the US, that is, people suffering from economic stress who can be mobilised around an anti-immigration banner.

This is why Labor’s shadow Deputy Treasurer, Andrew Leigh, can assert that Australian attitudes to migrants are warm and ‘becoming warmer over time’ and that ‘there is solid support for the principle of non-discrimination’. It is also why, according to prominent writer David Marr, ‘more than almost any people on earth, we are happy for migrants to come in big numbers’.

The TAPRI survey refutes these findings. It shows that 74 per cent of voters believe that Australia does not need more people and that, at the time of the survey, 54 per cent wanted a reduction in the migrant intake. This includes 57 per cent of Liberal voters and 46 per cent of Labor voters. This result is far higher than the 34 per cent of respondents wanting a lower migrant intake reported in the last Scanlon survey (in July-August 2016).

Australian voters’ concern about immigration levels and ethnic diversity does not derive from economic adversity. Rather it stems from the increasingly obvious impact of population growth on their quality of life and the rapid change in Australia’s ethnic and religious make-up.

Such is the extent of these concerns that they could readily be mobilised in an electoral context by One Nation or any other party with a similar agenda, should such a party be able to mount a national campaign. If this occurs, the Liberal Party is likely to be the main loser.

The full text of the report is here.

Muslim Labour  Mayor of London,  Sadiq Kahn  said on Twitter "We cannot allow a populist, anti-feminist narrative to take hold in Britain". This is a picture from a Labour Party meeting in Kahn's Britain.



  Tsk, tsk.

 

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 6:06pm:



Yeah this is the reason why, a racist reason


"But the party is pinning its hopes on securing support from the Asian community to hold the seat which was won in May with a 15,000 majority."



Meeting attended by Labor candidate and high profile MPs

Photos of the event, organised by Labour Friends of Bangladesh and attended by the Labour candidate and several high profile MPs,



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3339241/Fury-Labour-s-segregated-rally-S...

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 3:19pm:


So, you support the separate sitting of men and women, do you?

Auggie wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 8:45pm:


Erecting strawmen, Augie?  How unbecoming of you.  Tsk, tsk.   

I don't think he's going to answer the pertinent question there Auggie.
He never does...

Facing reality, admitting when you are wrong, apologising for your Trolling and name calling, discourtesy, etc, etc, etc... might be a good start on the way to credibility bwian... then there's the lies, the dishonesty, the hypocrisy, etc, etc, etc...  but Rome wasn't built in a day hey...

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 6:06pm:



Is the picture inaccurate? Photoshopped? No.  It is a real photo of a real British Labour Party meeting.
That's the point, Bwian. This is Britain's Labour Party today.

Why shoot the messenger?

Stop it bwian...  please... my stomach hurts from all the laughter.

Auggie wrote on Jan 19^th, 2018 at 10:20am:


Why bother?  No, Augie, I didn't call you a fascist. I suggested you were purveying a fascist viewpoint by posting that video.   If that makes you a Fascist, well, you're the one whose donned the hat...   

Quote:


Oh, I know what Fascism is.   I once attended a David Irving lecture.  He's the closest I've come to hearing a real Nazi speak.   How about you?  Have you seen/heard a real Fascist speak?   

Quote:


As the migrants if they're looking forward to them having to pass yet another exam.  Tsk, tsk.   

Quote:


Here?  No, not really.  It is primarily about Muslims, not Islam.  Immigration?  Nope, not here again.  It centres around groups rather than numbers.  I am still waiting for a good thread about numbers.   One where the nature of migrants is forgotten about.   

And before you cry, shiftily, lyingly that. 'Oh, that not Australia', - it is happening in Australia too.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/radical-group-hizb-uttahrir-segregate...

Look at all the beautiful people....      Addressed by Wazzup D.   

Wazzap demanding open mindedness and intellectual rigour!!!! 



His boss in Ankara called for death and jihad.





Who to believe?????  Bwian?  You must believe both, as a Bwian.  Gandalf? Paki faqir?  They speak one way in English, another way in Arabic.  There is a word for this in Arabic, no?  Starts with T and ends with aqqiya.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 19^th, 2018 at 4:23pm:


Ok, if you want to talk about numbers let's talk about numbers. I have said many times on this forum that I do not support discrimination of any culture, race or ethnicity. I support a harder road to citizenship.

I support a reduction in the number of asylum seekers we take in and other migrants to about half of what we take in now, progressing down slowly. This policy affects everyone, so it affects persecuted Christians in Muslim-majority countries.

I have never advocated, unlike the Australian Liberty Alliance, that we suspend immigration from Muslim-majority countries. It's simply a matter of number because it's easier to integrate people when there are less of them coming in.

My view is with regard to this issue: whether you're increasing immigration or decreasing it, everyone has to be treated exactly the same. Either no one gets in, or people get in on equal terms - that's my viewpoint. Which means once the quota is up persecuted Christians can't get in. This is a different viewpoint from Trump and other more conservative parties who support special programmes for Christian minorities. I don't support this.

Either everyone has the right, or no one has the right. You can't pick and choose.

Grendel wrote on Jan 19^th, 2018 at 6:23pm:


We do discriminate, but only based on citizenship; not race, creed or ethnicity.

Yes, we all discriminate on a daily basis, but that's much different from the government discriminating against people.

Hizbut Tahrir meetings like the ones at Lakemba are segregated by sex too bwian...  google images will prove that...  

Women walk behind...

Grendel wrote on Jan 19^th, 2018 at 7:51pm:


I think it's 5 metres behind.

Bertie wrote on Jan 29^th, 2018 at 10:27pm:


Unlike many here, I don't make bullshit up.  Do you?   

Elites brought about a “profound transformation” of Belgian society without any public debate by manipulating immigration figures as more than one million migrants poured in, a liberal senator has alleged.

Writing in Le Figaro, Alain Destexhe said the realities of demographic change are being concealed across Europe by “the multiculturalist lobby which dominates universities, NGOs, public institutions and the media”.

“Like France, Belgium has changed dramatically in a relatively short time, and was transformed into a mass immigration nation without any public debate,” he said, noting that its population rose from 10.2 million to 11.3 million in a relatively short period as a result of mass migration.

Between 2000 and 2010, Belgium’s net migration figures ran “nine times higher than in the Netherlands, four times higher than in France and Germany, and even greater than in the U.S.” in proportion to the nation’s size.




It is the same in almost every Western country - demographic transformation without any mandate for it. No wonder there is white flight in areas where third worlders form ghettos.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 30^th, 2018 at 2:07pm:



You are too thick to make it up, granted.

But you propagate it, push it, voice it.  You are just lying. Dishonesty and distortion is what you do.