The Neoliberal Wolf as the Good Shepherd of Mass Immigration

By Dr Wildlife Ecology

Democratic societies prove their credentials by the worth of their public debate.

But for over a decade the bipartisan plans to accelerate our immigration intake have been pursued without so much as a murmur of consultation with the electorate.

Australia now has one of the fastest rates of population growth among all developed countries.

Population growth produces a worsening outlook for our sustainable use of resources in virtually every way. Yet most of us have compliantly tiptoed around even some of the more obvious indicators of unplanned growth – such as declining living standards in our major cities due to the lack of corresponding infrastructure investment.

In an odd alignment of interests, political correctness has provided a distraction from the neoliberal motivations responsible for our swelling numbers. Scientists, academics and environmentalists have been gagged by the real prospect of character assassination should they speak up.

Dissent of population growth per se has all too easily been conflated with the rantings of xenophobes and bigots. By salivating over trigger words the little debate that has bubbled to the surface has invariably been quickly silenced with a politically correct knee-lift and a lecture about the primacy of economic growth and its co-dependence upon population expansion.

While it would be silly to dispute the existence of racism in any society, the ever present ‘racist under the bed’ and monotonous tactic of trawling over language for signs of moral turpitude has promoted self-censorship. These days, a fear of receiving a savaging from the pit-bulls of political correctness for speaking out about population growth is far from irrational.

A cannon ball could be lobbed down the middle ground of Australian public opinion on population and multicultural issues without the risk of hitting a single politician from either major party.

They’ve jumped from the car after putting a brick on the population accelerator.

Amidst the ruin of public debate the political courage to defend Australian secular values has also taken flight. It’s a casualty of a new demand to ‘tolerate’ all things without analysis. Accordingly, we’ve arrived at an impasse about what public values Australia actually stands for.

Many of our political leaders can be found sharing podiums with the devout in order to offer warranties about so-called ‘religions of peace’ or offering their support to thinly veiled religious education agendas such as the National Chaplaincy Program.

In doing so our government sails ever-closer to the open betrayal of the very secular principles they are elected to defend. These are now highly malleable; twisted at will to appease economic, political and cultural interests they do not serve.

Yet our constitution leaves no room to doubt that Australian governance must be secular, pluralistic and based upon the rule of law with a separation of church and state. Such ground rules are not negotiable to political opportunity, religious sympathy or wishful thinking.

But in the pursuit of Big Australia, neoliberal Rumplestiltskins on both sides of politics have spun and weaved a distorted vision of secular Australia, adopting the rhetoric of multiculturalism whilst tossing out the values that best served it in the past.

Their common battle cry seems fair enough at first blush; that we are a ‘successful multicultural society’ hence our past success is presumed to anticipate more of the same. But this implies the context and rationale for Australia’s present immigration policies are based upon some historically consistent aims and values.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Even a superficial analysis reveals that both the context and motivation for Big Australia is vastly different to that of Arthur Calwell’s Populate or Perish era of immigration. After WWII, we unashamedly asserted the defence of secular values and embraced multiculturalism as a way to protect them against a perceived threat from Asia. What we are now witnessing is the opposite; an embrace of Asia rather than a fear of it – which is a very good thing.

But the devil in the detail has slipped like a submarine beneath the stormy PC seas raging above. For the underlying difference in the rationale and modus operandi of today’s Big Australia is that it has arisen from the agonal gasping of a failed macroeconomic paradigm.

In recent times our population bubble has been accelerated to ease the pressure on the other bubbles that have followed in the wake of a neoliberal love affair with finance, speculation and debt.

In doing so Australia has been cemented into the poor-man’s alternative to a culture that might otherwise embrace innovation. We have become stuck with a paradigm that demands a never ending human pyramid scheme. In the process, much of what was unquestionably successful and valuable about Australia’s approach to multiculturalism of old has been commodified. It has been taken to the roulette table like a desperate gambler putting down the family silverware.

A policy of using human population expansion to maintain economic growth has set us apart from more progressive western societies that have successfully embraced technological and intellectual industries despite demographic contractions and the aging of their populations. Once Australia half-heartedly tried to follow a similar path, attempting to metamorphose into a ‘clever-country’.

But old habits die hard.

An emergent new economy that invents and makes things based upon intellectual property can barely get off the ground if it has to compete with tax-deductible asset speculation and a fixation on boom and bust commodity cycles. There is no way to negatively gear the science and education programs needed to build such a culture and little way to compel banks to invest in ideas as an alternative to finance instruments and debt.

Both sides of Australian politics have decided to go on with business as usual and this has become the elephant sitting on the chest of innovation; crushing the potential of our young hearts and minds.

After having the fiscal bejesus scared out of it by the GFC, Australia’s government panicked and reached for the population lever once more rather than taking the difficult path of reform. Promoting economic scarcity by cramming them in became the duel population and economic policy. It was a quick and nasty fix for a systemic addiction to casino capitalism and debt that brought us the GFC in the first place.

Unfortunately, demographic tinkering only kicks the can a little further down the road. It is where that road is heading that should concern us more.

Like the USA has before it, Australia instituted a program to pilfer skilled people from developing countries; those most needed by their own nation to develop a middle class and social institutions. Simultaneously we syphon off the foreign aid tank, chomping on a cigar as we snarled that we could no longer afford even token generosity as compensation.

Big Australia is being filled by a brain-drain that commodifies potential citizens based upon their economic prospects. It is a classic piece of economic rationalism that seeks to avoid investing and developing local minds in the rust belt if others can be picked up cheaply and easily as ‘human resources’ in some other place where an investment of someone else’s money in them has already been made.

Overall, Australia has embraced a neo-liberal economic ideology, not a plan for a multicultural society.

Because the genesis of Big Australia has nothing to do with plans to reinforce our secular values as a society nor does it pay heed to our past recipe for success. In reality, it puts it all at risk. Those nations who’ve dabbled in multiculturalism as a vehicle of cynical economic pragmatism show that human trafficking to prime economic development is a risky business.

France’s troubles began with a mix of a humanitarian and deeply pragmatic immigration to obtain cheap labor after WWII. Their failed 457-like experiment ultimately revealed that liberté, égalité and fraternité were not to be secular values embraced by all. Such concerns had been pushed into the background by economic pragmatism and a naivety that state values will be acquired by osmosis.

Fundamentally you cannot blame immigrants for rejecting your nation’s values if their residence or citizenship is predicated upon economic convenience. Because when you sow the wind with opportunism you risk reaping a whirlwind of the same.

Today we perceive only too well that Australia’s promise to immigrants is no longer as it once was; that it would invest in them if they shared our secular way of life. Instead their selection process has become more like a bank interview and test of credit worthiness that might qualify them for a mortgage in an economy with beaches and kangaroos. Citizenship has become the equivalent of a gold watch offered for service to the finance industry.

This is light years away from the criteria that once attracted Australian immigrants with little wealth and education but with a big appetite for risk and a capacity for hard work as they came down the gang-plank to face off with uncertainty. Our nation’s fortunes grew in a way that were surprisingly well aligned with a quintessentially Australian ethos forged some 150 years before.

A colonial outpost that began as a prison would first offer a second chance to its prisoners and then immigrants with an understanding that their lack of wealth and status did not define their worth or future prospects. Perhaps more than anything the current neoliberal experiment in Big Australia shows just how much we’ve broken with ourselves. We’ve willfully forgotten where our luck came from and along the way developed a lasting amnesia about who paid the price for our success.

Investing in indigenous Australians and those left behind by neoliberal politics would seem to be the moral choice, should we be a moral nation.

But one thing needs to be unpicked from this tangled web. Race and identity politics has no bearing upon the key issues that motivate the vast majority of those who promote or oppose Big Australia. Instead, economic pragmatism is in the national driver’s seat and has been for the last 17 years. In that same period the objectives of the political class have progressively diverged from the values of the Australian people. Race, skin colour and boat people are ostensibly powerful triggers of knee-jerk debate that’s got nothing to do with the social and environmental impacts of Australia’s population expansion. These topics are frequently a decoy, throwing us off the scent as we are led down the garden path to the neoliberals’ grand vision of Big Australia.

In part that’s because the failed neoliberal paradigm, now widely seen as the root cause of inequality and a cancer of participatory democracy, can no longer openly show its face in public. Nowadays it comports its politics via the tradesman’s entrance using executive power rather than democratic process. It roots about in back rooms looking for crises and division to exploit like a pig in search of lipstick.

Lazy and nagging censorship of language has seen us loose the will and capacity for discourse about where Big Australia came from and the dark place it might be headed. In the PC ‘much ado about nothing’ we’ve lost the basic will and intelligence to defend Australian secular values that built our society and swapped them for a soulless neoliberal economy created by a political magician’s trick.

It’s high time to recapture our culture’s once famous capacity for uncomplicated truth and plain speech and confront the neoliberal wolf disguised as the good shepherd of multiculturalism who’s been busily counting in the sheep.

For the wolf is far more concerned with lunch than the welfare of the swelling flock.

Comments

  1. I watched many interviews of migrants heading to Germany in 2015. They said many things but what I never heard once was, ‘we respect your culture and share your values’. In the past in Australia our migration policies were successful because we chose migrants who had a good chance of succeeding. Yet now we accept migrants who don’t even seem to like us. We are too frightened to discriminate or to judge. We would rather put ‘diversity’ bollards up protecting our pedestrian precincts from auto attacks than than ask ourselves if this immigration thing is really working out like it was supposed to. It is a sign that we have lost confidence in our civilization; we are no longer willing to defend our values.

    My feeling is that civilizations don’t really stand still. You either build civilization or it goes backwards. Yet we have been deconstructing our civilization for decades now. I guess at some point there’s not much left to deconstruct. We’ll just become like the US: a gormless unit built to serve the needs of the economy rather than a society or civilization.

    • fitzroyMEMBER

      I agree. In my view the civilisation atrophy has been a byproduct of the abrogation of policy makers of their duty to look after the local populace in a confluence of interests between big business and their lackeys on one hand, and the PC insolent megalomaniacs on the other, who have such disrespect for the interests of the locals that they impose their views on their neighbours without inquiring as to their wants, with an arrogance that is breathtaking.. Greed on one hand and power on the other. The civilisational values that once distinguished this society have been eroded by the influx of migrants whose assimilation into the host society has never been achieved anywhere, and has not been achieved here, with the predictable obfiscation of the PC commentators on the ABC, One tends not to read about the changing nature of crime, especially the crimes against women, that occur but do not find their way into the press, that strike at the mutual trust that a successful society has between its constituents. Still the money and the people flood in, I wonder who voted for it?

      • fitzroyMEMBER

        I wonder who decided that we didn’t need to vote for it and that their opinion was all that was required.

    • “My feeling is that civilizations don’t really stand still. You either build civilization or it goes backwards.”

      See Toynbee – Civilization is a movement and not a condition, a voyage and not a harbor.

      • It’s hard to disagree with his:
        ‘Civilizations die from suicide not murder’
        At least when the barbarians invaded Rome the Romans put up a fight. In Europe, when they came banging on the door Merkel and Co just let them in.

        I got this from MarketWatch:
        “The election of Emmanuel Macron as the new French president now means that the leaders of the four European countries in the G-7 biggest economies — Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister Theresa May, and Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni — are all childless.

        Other prominent European leaders also have no children — Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.”

        You have to wonder if having no direct personal stake in the future contributes to these decisions.

      • fitzroyMEMBER

        Victor Oban has implemented policies to raise Hungary’s birthdate and has been successful by taxing Multinationals and giving the money to families. The target is above 2. Germany in particular with Sweden are committing suicide. France is not far behind. Rotherham and the ubiquitous sex trials and bombings are beginning to cause pushback in the UK. Oban has recently made a speech saying in1990 Hungary’s future was Europe, now Europes future is Hungary’s.

    • Kurt,
      Quoting you:
      “In the past in Australia our migration policies were successful because we chose migrants who had a good chance of succeeding. Yet now we accept migrants who don’t even seem to like us.”

      What a load of fucking ignorant crap, obviously you’re too young to remember immigration from Itlay, Greece and southern Europe in general during the late 50s, 60s and into the 70s. Then late 70s early 80s with the Asian boat people.

      For starters our politicians from both sides may have welcomed them with open arms, but we didn’t. They were vilified just as muslims are now. People claimed they wouldn’t assimilate, they’d take our jobs etc just as is happening now, except there is most likely a lot of truth to that now. They were also involved in crime; drugs and gambling. In return on the social front you wouldn’t get any self-respecting European parent happy to have their son go out with or marry a white Australian female slut, as they were viewed by them. They did not like our way and pretty much kept to themselves, they thought Australians were lazy, they worked hard for themselves, but when on the payroll they were no different to us, and I worked with a lot of them. In Perth the northern suburbs of Osborne Park, Balcatta, Tuart Hill, Mt. Hawthorn were predominately immigrants, while Freo and Hamilton Hill / Spearwood areas were the same.

      As teenagers they socialised in groups and fights between them and Australian youths was the norm. All this broke down over the decades and now people like to remember a rosy coloured past of how everything was wonderful. The difference between how and then was politics and business were aligned, no media attacks.

      Yes, they succeeded, but because their was opportunity here then, work hard and you could make good money. Plus with the large influx there were business opportunities to supply immigrants with what they missed from home. There were more market gardens in my and surrounding suburbs than you could poke a stick at.

      When the boat people started arriving they were on the receiving end, just as the wogs and daggos were in the past, and even the former immigrants hopped on the bandwagon. Come to today and everyone says now it is different, the immigrants won’t assimilate like the former. What a load of crap, this time isn’t different, except for the lack of opportunity that was available then.

      Your idea past immigration was some sort to utopia comes from ignorance.

      As to civilisation, since when has it sat still? It will go as far as we take it; forward or backwards, as we take it. I think you pine for a perceived lack of whiteness.

    • Well said and I totally agree.

      It is only when the populous storms the houses of the elite with pitchforks and fire to round them up for public hangings will the top 1% stop to think about what they have allowed and encouraged to be created,

    • It seems we do have a lot of migrants who don’t seem interested in engaging with us.

      Rather than befriend their work colleagues or neighbours, or perhaps smile at a passerby, they are more keen to get their whole extended family and friends from their home country here and make that there social circle, and merely be economic participants in the Australian economy.

      There is no interest in really engaging with the locals (of a diverse backgrounds) beyond for the purpose of economic benefit.

    • Kurt,

      No, I don’t live in an all white neighbourhood, in actual fact high asian head count.

      I have no argument re the level of immigration and would agree with the viewpoint that its been hijacked by vested interests, but not whom you claim; you cannot seem to point the finger where it belongs: political and business interests, not the immigrants themselves, and certainly not the LW. As to your dad’s complaint that they received no welfare, well they were entitled to the same welfare as any Australian, and your complaint about the level of UE among immigrants, did you not read what I wrote? The difference today with back then is that there is not the same level of opportunity now. So we bring in these immigrants from disadvantaged countries and dump them with little opportunity to gain employment along with the fractured political position of today compared to then with a hostile RW media playing it up.

      Btw, you poor little softie, calling your crap ignorant crap is violent and offensive, is it? I find your opinion offensive, racially so.

      I guess you ignored how immigration wasn’t so well received back in the day because you know that was case, thus the use of dogs and dagos. I was never subjected to hearing any of that crap from my parents.

      You accuse me of drivel, well you should go look in the mirror, your writing for a uni grad is bloody shallow.

  2. Even if the ALP loves mass immigration, why have Aussie degrees been dumbed down?

    USA let in heaps of immigrants – did they dumb down their degrees for immigrants?

    Who benefits from dumbed down degrees? Not the federal budget. Not Aussie graduates. Not even foreign graduates.

    And consider the Youth Allowance. Plus the HECS debt of $10k/year. So a 5 year degree costs taxpayers $87k!

    May as well give 18 year olds $87k worth of shares in SYD airport or a bank instead.

    • I had started to type something about the USA and Europe but then realised it was also the Chinese others that have educational institutions of unquestionable merit. It would seem only Australia has universities who have sold out on many generations of reputability.

  3. “USA let in heaps of immigrants – did they dumb down their degrees for immigrants? ”

    yes, but not just for immigrants – everyone, including its enormous, all-encompassing affirmative action program that has to deal with very large numbers of academically underachieving ethnic minorities that australia does not have. u.s education is significantly more “dumbed down” than australia’s – grade inflation there is rife to the extent that the most common possible grade is an A (something like 45% of all american students get A’s in any given class). the equivalent of an A in australia is a distinction and i can tell you that getting those (and high distinctions) still isn’t something most students achieve.

    whatever perceived dumbing down of our education system there has been makes perfect sense when you consider the underlying ideological forces that have resulted in this process. a prevailing view now is that human capital is effectively fungible – all people are equally smart, motivated etc. or capable of being so, given the correct environmental stimuli. all people are ‘university ready’ — despite the mountain of psychometric and behavioral genetic research that has accumulated ot the contrary — so letting as many people into higher education as possible is just fine.

    capital is simultaneously fine with a large university student pool, because it doesn’t directly pay for it, and if there are too many university graduates being cranked out to the point that degrees are not serving as effective applicant selection mechanisms they can just unreasonably raise the stakes. no 15 unpaid internships on your resume? no entry level 45k job for you. no masters degree? no graduate position for you. the expansion of university to a broader base of the population — while ostensibly well meaning (yeah right..) just increases the number of pointless hoops students, who just want a job punching numbers into a computer in a cubicle all day for a decent wage, inevitably have to jump through to prove themselves to their future capitalist masters. but of course, because it’s “education” — one of the great sacred cows of our time, it is not to be criticized, questioned or scrutinised in any way. more “education” is always better, regardless of whatever effects it is having on the job market or people’s lives.

    • Well, a case could be made to expand midwife training:

      http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/010717/1st-baby-born-on-board-in-jet-airways-named-jetson.html

      But not useless degrees like “sports management” and “international business”. I suggested probably 10 years ago that 18 year olds should be interviewed for jobs before they begin a degree and the bosses should say “ok, if you do that degree I will probably hire you but not if you do a sports management degree”.

      Thus saving the 18 year old from a lot of grief.

      I am not sure that printing degrees like mad is good for Aussie bosses either. Consider the case of Mr Bhavesh Shah. He got a “degree” from UWS and was hired by a hospital but then fed dishwashing fluid to a patient. The hospital then asked him to prove that he knows English and he failed the English test 6 times. Then got sacked.

      A lot of immigrants were hired – instead of Aussies – because they bribed professors at uni while I never did such a thing and thus I failed uni. Yet, my English is better than their English and I even know what Morning Fresh dishwashing fluid looks and smells like.

      457 visas screwed everything up. Rather than forcing Atlassian to improve the quality of Aussie degrees, the rort allows them to import 30 year old staff from Vietnam. And the staff are willing to work for $2000/month to boot!

      IT should have been an avenue of employment for Aussies, with doctors switching from paper records to computers, with mechanics going from “cash only” to digital payments. But the nutty ALP gave out 457 visas for $0 each.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        457 visas screwed everything up. Rather than forcing Atlassian to improve the quality of Aussie degrees, the rort allows them to import 30 year old staff from Vietnam. And the staff are willing to work for $2000/month to boot!

        Do you have any examples of Atlassian employing 457s for “$2000/month” ?

      • “A lot of immigrants were hired – instead of Aussies – because they bribed professors at uni while I never did such a thing and thus I failed uni.”

        I was an academic until quite recently and I find this statement very hard to believe. What actually happens is there is pressure from faculties to scale the course mark of entire classes to fit a standard average resulting in students passing when they shouldn’t, and there’s of course the wide reports in the media of international students cheating. However, I think you might need to look in the mirror for the reason you failed, not believing in myths of students bribing professors.

      • TDJ…

        Concur and I can report the same pressure from others reports, to wit, market dynamics determine X number of grads are required to fill market demand, hence X grads have to be. And yes standards are lowered with the disclaimer that once in the market that any dramas will be rectified in the field or washed out.

        I am sad to report that is not working out as envisioned, people in critical service areas are under increasing pressure and resultant loss of institutional memory is occurring due to attrition rates. This leaves less knowledgeable and experience people to assist in the administration of the aforementioned which will ultimately fill these caretaker roles.

        The results of this is made even more disturbing by the plug and play of credentialed-[ism of “un-experienced” people into positions just to have them filled.

        disheveled… also concur that the person that you have responded to might have issues with externalizing.

    • Might seem like a stupid question but wtf:
      Exactly what stops these University graduates from applying their skills and knowledge towards self betterment?
      Is there a law that says you must work for someone else? If so WHY?
      I suspect that our global economy is devolving into a web of semi free agents all selling products/services, all buying products/services. In such a world, what respect is due the individual that can’t stand on his(or her) own two feet? Your education has a purpose, it’s not primarily to serve my interests but rather to serve your interests. It’s pointless asking me what I want you to achieve through your educational process, (like why would I care what you achieve), however it’s extremely important to ask yourself what you hope to achieve. I suspect it’s this last point that most people fail to realize.

    • Relevant StakeholderMEMBER

      “whatever perceived dumbing down of our education system there has been makes perfect sense when you consider the underlying ideological forces that have resulted in this process. a prevailing view now is that human capital is effectively fungible – all people are equally smart, motivated etc. or capable of being so, given the correct environmental stimuli. all people are ‘university ready’ — despite the mountain of psychometric and behavioral genetic research that has accumulated ot the contrary — so letting as many people into higher education as possible is just fine.”

      This. The belief of liberalism that people are equal blank slates at birth is what drives their desire to change society, “If a group/individual/nation fails it must be because of the culture/environment/violence they were subjected to! We must fix it!”.

      Capital doesn’t mind, everyone is equal when walking through the checkout at Harvey Norman.

  4. JunkyardMEMBER

    A great read. I love this line “Citizenship has become the equivalent of a gold watch offered for service to the finance industry”

  5. Tassie TomMEMBER

    Great article.

    Slightly “scatter-gun” – it would do well as a thesis with chapters, but then it wouldn’t get a post on MB.

    It’s a very complex, multi-faceted problem, and this article covered a lot of the major issues really well. The only thing it missed was how the property developer and banking lobbies have bought control over the major parties, hence the bipartisan support. I can’t quite work out why there is tripartisan support though.

    • It is a really good article, but yes the power of business lobby groups shouldn’t be underestatimated. If only us peons had the same voice and sway..

    • My observation is Greens have become yet another establishment party with career politicians. They have achieved this status by securing the minority vote. Hence the race card.

      I disagree with your suggestion that Labor are under the thumb of Banking and Property Developers. Mark Latham pointed out that Labor pandering to recent migrants for branch-stacking purposes.

      I will also suggest that CFMEU are making a fortune out of the population ponzi. It is about expanding union membership rather than protecting wages.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        I disagree with your suggestion that Labor are under the thumb of Banking and Property Developers. Mark Latham pointed out that Labor pandering to recent migrants for branch-stacking purposes.

        Mark Latham says a lot of things that are at best hysterical exaggeration, at worst malicious fabrication, and more typically just biased opinion masquerading as fact.

        He is not someone who holds any credibility as an unverified source.

      • fitzroyMEMBER

        I’m a verified source smithy. In Gellibrand there was plenty of ethnic based branch stack in the ALP preselection. I was helping one of the other candidates.

      • Sure Smithy. We should ignore one of the few politicians that has acknowledged the betrayal of an entire generation of young Australians. Lets instead put our complete trust in the likes of the Greens who facilitate population growth by intentionally conflating the discussion with racism.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        I’m a verified source smithy.

        Yes, indeed. When I want to know what’s going on in the right-wing white nationalist Youtube echo chamber, you’re one of the first people I think of.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        We should ignore one of the few politicians that has acknowledged the betrayal of an entire generation of young Australians. Lets instead put our complete trust in the likes of the Greens who facilitate population growth by intentionally conflating the discussion with racism.

        You’re right. Your false dichotomy wrapped in a non-sequitur is the only possible conclusion.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Not good enough for you? How about 2 former premiers.

        Note that I wasn’t passing any comment on branch stacking itself. Simply Latham’s lack of credibility. This is a bloke who claims to be a traditional Lefty but has joined up with the LDP, possibly the only party further to the right in Australian politics than the Liberals (I particularly enjoyed reading their immigration policy, which seems to be largely endorsing all the stuff Latham faux-rage-du-jour is about)”.

        Anyway, Labor has much bigger problems than branch stacking, like excising the neoliberal cancer that’s _actually_ been driving high immigration for the last decade or two.

        (Though it would good if we could get the story straight on the ethnics. Depending on what’s convenient to the argument, they’re either frantically pulling up the ladder to stop anyone else coming here and we should heed their wisdom, or they’re desperately to bring their extended family over and we should ignore their greed.)

        I am sorry not to fit into your prejudiced preconceived view. Such is the danger of identity politics.

        Not sure what “prejudice” or “identity politics” has to do with anything. My comment is based on the material you typically link to.

      • Your italicised words included ethnic branch stacking. If you read the articles I linked you will see references to it. The branch stacks in gellibrand were ethnically based. period. They form the basis support for a number of power brokers. I do not think much of Islam, that is true. That becomes “white” in your reply, the rapes by Boko Haram I linked to above would suggest not, “right wing”? what’s right wing about condemning Islam? Nationalist? I see nothing perjoritive in that. You try to play the race card smithy, when my posts are exclusively about religion.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        You try to play the race card smithy, when my posts are exclusively about religion.

        Ah, there we go, the semantics argument. As predictable as it is hollow.

        However, since we’re talking semantics, I didn’t call you racist. I said you had a penchant for referencing material from far right white nationalist youtubers.

  6. SweeperMEMBER

    So why was Calwell’s “populate or perish” mass immigration program a success v today’s program seen as the central cause of so many problems? Article touched on this but didn’t really deliver an answer.

    • I believe previous immigration worked because there was a genuine need to support the production of goods that could be sold to the rest of the world, as well as to support the development of services and infrastructure that supported such production.

      We also had migrants who weren’t just economic migrants. A breed of migrants who survived great hardship (civil unrest, wars, repressed freedoms), who therefore embraced what Australia offered (beyond the economic), and were grateful and keen to be an active part of Australian society (and not just the Australian economy).

    • The first intercontinental ballistic missile was launched in 1957. Till then, it kind of made sense to have a bigger army via a bigger population. And given how ignorant politicians are, they probably did not know about nuclear missiles till 1965.

      In 1965, Mr Menzies committed Aussie troops to Vietnam. Which then probably confirmed that AUS should have a bigger population in order to have a bigger army.

      But now, there are cruise missiles and drones. And over 28% of AUS is foreign born. A hell of a lot come here to work for $9/hour – thus throwing a lot of Aussies onto the unemployment scrapheap. Heck, Aussie degrees have been dumbed down for foreign “students”. And that did not happen in the 20th century. Aussie degrees were always hard to get till PM Howard lost the election.

    • St JacquesMEMBER

      Exactly. And done so with glee by our corrupt and disloyal business elites and their political puppets. The article pretty much said what MB has been alluding to in so many ways, and why I have long thought that Argentina is our inevitable destination.

    • McPaddyMEMBER

      Sold out to protect windfalls, pure and simple. The epitome of rent seeking. Sad thing is how many people just meekly accept it. That’s where the wolf and sheep metaphor really kicks in.

      But what we as a nation need to acknowledge and confront is that this was the approach from the very beginning. Steal a continent from those too weak to defend it, call it settlement and live off the proceeds of the crime. That’s the basic national template. Sure, there have been exceptional periods, but we shouldn’t be surprised at the reassertion of the lazy, rent seeking impulse. The only way to root this out is an honest self assessment of history. Likely?

  7. Proponents of multiculturalism always fail to explain why if all cultures are equal then why is just about everyone is trying to get to a western country?

    Some cultures are superior to others. Why do we continue to dance around this fact? Its PC nonsense. The strongest nations are also generally monocultural. There is definitely an argument to be made for quality as well as quantity when it comes to immigration without devolving into “muh racism”. Apparently western countries are racist for not embracing multiculturalism but Japan, South Korea, Israel, etc all escape that criticism.

    My 2 cents.

    • It’s all relative. Less to do with culture and more about quality of existence. Low pollution. Lots more space. Far fewer people. More opportunity.

      Funny thing is if we leave the model to run long enough the whole thing will see entropy and decay to some middle ground. Probably one we’re all under or just bones on top of…because the planet will, at some point, have its come to Jesus moment and collapse our civilisation’s carrying ability under the weight our relentless growth

    • drsmithyMEMBER

      Proponents of multiculturalism always fail to explain why if all cultures are equal […]

      Who says they’re all equal ?

      The strongest nations are also generally monocultural.

      The great empires have been multicultural (Persian, Roman, Ottoman, British, American, etc).

      • St JacquesMEMBER

        There is always a dominant group in an empire, and so long as it dominates with a fist of iron, the empire survives.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        I think you’ll find when the “fist of iron” comes into play, the empire starts failing because it spends too much time on internal policing and enforcement of “correct” behaviour.

        The empires that last are the ones that focus on enforcing the critical core principles and leaving the peoples leeway to pursue their irrelevant differences with harassment.

      • St JacquesMEMBER

        I think you’ll find that empires are established with a fist of iron, everyone is intimidated Pax Romana or Pax whatever and everyone quickly learns their place When it starts falling apart, well, out comes the fist again, but it is confused, weak, not so intimidating anymore, other counter fists emerge, the empire loses coherence, all hell breaks lose.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        I’m no expert, but my recollection is that the Romans (for example) were generally happy to let the locals continue on mostly “as-is” after they were conquered, so long as they supplied the requisite soldiers and resources.

        Roman culture – or aspects of it – were adopted because they were better, more so than because they were imposed.

      • The deline was marked by Gibbon from a time when the first families of Rome would not put their children in the front line of the legion. Empires tend to be built by a socio ethnic group.

    • Ronin8317MEMBER

      Mutliculturalism, back when it was first used, means integration : and anyone regardless of where they’re born can take part in the Australian culture. It was a counter to the ‘White Australia Policy’ where only white people are recognized as Australians. It has since been hi-jacked the phrase and flipped it to means cultures don’t need to integrate. Mark Latham got it right when he took a walk in Fairfield.

      http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/mark-latham-says-australian-multiculturalism-is-a-disgrace-after-walking-the-streets-of-fairfield-in-sydney/news-story/5e43e280f102d928d6b155668a0b7f43

      • An overarching unifying monoculture is required.

        This is not to say this dominate culture is not open to change.

        And this is not to say that other cultures cannot be incorporated to this dominate culture.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Mutliculturalism, back when it was first used, means integration : and anyone regardless of where they’re born can take part in the Australian culture.

        That remains what it means to most people. In particular, relevant to the yoof-bashing post about Q&A today, if you ask your typical teenager or twenty-something, that’s likely what they’ll define it as.

        Notable exceptions being the culture warriors of the right, their useful idiots and a handful of loony lefties (at least I’m assuming there’s some of the latter out there – while they’re supposedly everywhere I’ve never met, or even heard, one; meanwhile, the former are on the radio, TV and filling out newspaper space every day).

  8. “””
    Today we perceive only too well that Australia’s promise to immigrants is no longer as it once was; that it would invest in them if they shared our secular way of life. Instead their selection process has become more like a bank interview and test of credit worthiness that might qualify them for a mortgage in an economy with beaches and kangaroos.
    “””

  9. I will add, as some have already mentioned, the free pass the education industry is given. Walk down the Melbourne or Sydney CBD and all you hear is Hindi or Mandarin. Two cities that are addicted to that international student money studying rubbish courses to try and get PR, to the detriment of the rest of us.

    If mass immigration is to be reigned in it starts with students as when you apply for a student visa you are essentially applying for PR.

  10. Oppress the people of South Africa with a foreign minority, they fight back. the people of Zimbabwe, they fight back, the people of anywhere – will fight back – and fair enough.

    Its ok because its benign, its a reasonable assertion of their culture and identity.

    When the same is done by whites – its wholly terrifying and hence why it should be utterly avoided.

    However the problem is how you avoid it – instead of shutting it down, silencing it, shaming it, humiliating it and outlawing culture and ethnicity amongst whites – avoid it be recognising them, acknowledging their grievances and taking on board their problems and accept as legitimate their culture and ethnicity.

    It is time to end the extremist global sexist, racist assault on people of white skin and male gender in order to prevent the absolutely inevitable response – we have seen it over, and over, and over again for thousands of years – and here it is again

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY5uQRQZFnA

    Honestly – there is no one else to blame except the extreme politically correct, ultra-moralism of the far left. I have no time for the right, for the corporate assault on society – I am a socialist who believes passionately about equality – but his is absolute bullshit.

    .

    • The future of a country is in its demographics
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SUINmKOZ24U
      Islam is an aggressively prothletising supremacist Ideology. It’s victims are of different colours depending on the location. In Africa the victims of Boko Haram are black, When yazidi women are burned alive they are brown, in the Philippines they are yellow, in Europe they are white. The aggressive ideology masquerades as a religion like others. It is not like others.

    • drsmithyMEMBER

      Indeed. Cry for the suffering of poor white men whose meagre influence only extends to most of the economic, political and scientific institutions and power structure of note on the planet.

      • Relevant StakeholderMEMBER

        He wasn’t crying, it was more of a warning… in the words of Cromwell “I beseech you in the bowels of christ think it possible you may be mistaken.”

        Regarding your point, it depends on your definition of ‘white’.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        He wasn’t crying, it was more of a warning… in the words of Cromwell “I beseech you in the bowels of christ think it possible you may be mistaken.”

        Happy to consider it.

        You’ll need a bit more than paranoid hysteria to convince me that I’m being oppressed because I’m a white bloke, however.

        Regarding your point, it depends on your definition of ‘white’.

        LOL. Of course. It’s teh Jooz !

      • Relevant StakeholderMEMBER

        I prefer to look at who controls the means of production. Surely the Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese (not people I would include in the definition of white) have a large stake?

        Get your mind out of the gutter:)

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        I prefer to look at who controls the means of production. Surely the Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese (not people I would include in the definition of white) have a large stake?

        The asians are oppressing white men ? That’s a new and interesting twist. Tell me more.

      • Relevant StakeholderMEMBER

        Who said anything about oppression? I was just pointing out that you give us too much credit.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Who said anything about oppression?

        The poster at the start of this discussion that I responded to, whose position you seemed to be supporting ? Remember ?

        “It is time to end the extremist global sexist, racist assault on people of white skin and male gender […]”

        I was just pointing out that you give us too much credit.

        Really ? How many global, national and, indeed, even local power structures can you point out that are not dominated by (usually old) white men ?

  11. Many high technology export countries also house top 10 banking centers thast presumably offer lower than 9% financing to tech. startups; but with 2 exceptions: Canada and Czechoslovakia. Canada is a vacant house disaster like us and I know little about Czechoslovakia (Knomea.com). Does anybody understand how these two did it?

  12. isnt the simple point the quality as well as the volume of the migrant intake ?

    In the last decade we have taken in 4.5 million mostly unskilled non assimilating migrants.
    2.4 million via citizenship & PR grants. (2006-2016)
    2.1 million via temporary visa grants. (Dec 2016)

    85% in Sydney & Melbourne.
    We have 1.1 million Australians unemployed.
    We have 1.1 million Australians seeking work.
    We have 530,000 seeking affordable housing.
    We have 35,000 plus homeless.
    We have seen our education sold out as a visa pretext.
    Over two thirds of the half million ‘international students & secondary visa holders doing nonsensical courses available free online or in their home country.
    Over 600,000 on NZ special category visa but had now coming in aren’t NZ born, using NZ as a transit stop.
    Widespread fraud in backpacker, (and the visitor, tourist visas).
    Widespread fraud in relationship & special category visas.
    We have seen mass third world ethnic slums arise across our cities.
    We have seen a $105 billion migrant guestworker black economy emerge.
    We see only $4.5 billion come in (declared funds) but $36 billion flow out in remittances & foreign criminal agent procurer ‘repayment’.
    We have seen Australia become the hub for Asian vice money laundering and Indian & middle eastern organised crime.

    Isn’t that the crux of the issue ?

  13. nexus789MEMBER

    The key paragraph is this one…”An emergent new economy that invents and makes things based upon intellectual property can barely get off the ground if it has to compete with tax-deductible asset speculation and a fixation on boom and bust commodity cycles. There is no way to negatively gear the science and education programs needed to build such a culture and little way to compel banks to invest in ideas as an alternative to finance instruments and debt”. This means that without root and branch reform Australians will rapidly become poorer as ‘wealth’ has been built on an illusion which has over the last few decades gutted the productive part of the economy. The economy is going to train wreck.

  14. Tblaming the population ponzi on the churches is a bit of a stretch and speaks of another agenda.