tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post495306925933584437..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Tony Abbott prattles on about conservatism then adopts radical liberal policiesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-73270867593573130632010-01-29T19:41:40.171+11:002010-01-29T19:41:40.171+11:00Senator Bolkus (who was the minister at the time) ...<i>Senator Bolkus (who was the minister at the time) said that because people from that country had been discriminated against in the past the Labor government was attempting to "put right the wrongs of the past" by discriminating in favour of them this time around.</i><br /><br />Geoffrey Blainey alleged in his 1984 book on immigration, <i>All for Australia</i>, that the Hawke Government was giving special preference to Asian groups at the expense of Europeans. He cited the example of Polish refugees, fleeing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_Poland" rel="nofollow">martial law in Poland</a>, being refused permission to join relatives already resident in Australia. At the same time, the Hawke Government was accepting massive numbers of Indo-Chinese refugees and then allowing them to bring out their relatives en masse.RDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-3344598834679528852010-01-28T23:20:26.256+11:002010-01-28T23:20:26.256+11:00As for RJ Hawke, who can remember the silly old bu...As for RJ Hawke, who can remember the silly old bugger crying and snivelling on TV when the Tiannmen square thing happened? He said that, because of that incident, no overseas student that was here at the time (from that country) would have to leave and go back against their will. <br /><br />After 20 years I still can't work out what the 20,000 people living and studying in Melbourne and Sydney had to do with that incident in Beijing (which was very short lived) and why they were all given residency without having to go through the proper immigration channels.<br /><br />At the time people complained that it was discriminatory to allow this group special access to residency (as a block) when there were far more deserving cases already in the queue. <br /><br />Senator Bolkus (who was the minister at the time) said that because people from that country had been discriminated against in the past the Labor government was attempting to "put right the wrongs of the past" by discriminating in favour of them this time around.<br /><br />Between "the three stooges" Hawke, Bolkus and the other key decision maker, Andrew Theophanous - what other outcome could there possibly have been? And the outcome? Slack border protection by bleeding hearts with a vested interest in creating new ethnic minorities leading to a new generation of non-english speaking Labor voters forever in debted to the ALP and its policies of multiculturalism and mass immigration.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-33113604903632079332010-01-28T20:05:06.349+11:002010-01-28T20:05:06.349+11:00"It turns out that his version of keeping fai..."It turns out that his version of keeping faith with his ancestors is to promote the fastest possible demographic change to his country via mass immigration"<br /><br />Incredible.<br /><br />You would think that someone who is "engaged in their country's history" and committed to "having both ancestors and descendants to keep faith with" would not defend mass immigration. Conservatives want to keep things the way they are - that includes our culture and people. Drastically changing the demographic composition of Australia into something it has never been is hardly a conservative position.RDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-34731096640369349082010-01-28T13:08:26.610+11:002010-01-28T13:08:26.610+11:00Gack, the entire Western world is infested with th...Gack, the entire Western world is infested with these political gadgets masquerading as human leaders. Here in the U.S. one might have predicted that the current serious economic problems, including disturbingly high levels of unemployment, would have compelled the ruling open borders political class to pragmatically hush up, or at least tone it down a bit. But to the contrary, they've taken drained food banks, families in the streets, and the appearance of tent cities as a signal to crank up, to psychotic levels, their demand for more, more, more, and yet more, immigration.<br /><br />The more obviously deleterious this becomes, the more irrational, the more strident and bullying Western leaders are getting in pushing it. (It's bad enough when relatively young nations, like Australia and the U.S., are subjected to endless idiot propaganda claiming that they are not, and never have been, anything but culture-less global strip malls. But you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that The Crazy is besetting the West, when even the English and French are now being screeched at by their masters that their nations, too, do not have, and never have had, any historical or cultural significance beyond being immigrant depots.<br /><br />I used to think these gadgets were rational, in the sense that profoundly venal people do rationally pursue their own self-interest. Now I'm beginning to believe that they're just flat-out insane.Rohan Sweenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-23517578147466283402010-01-27T20:49:37.886+11:002010-01-27T20:49:37.886+11:00Did anyone watch the 7.30 report population specia...Did anyone watch the 7.30 report population special tonight? What a bunch of enviro weenies.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-84419346676343362042010-01-27T08:46:23.666+11:002010-01-27T08:46:23.666+11:00"Why does Australia have to be transformed vi..."Why does Australia have to be transformed via massive immigration? What have they got against it?"<br /><br />Good post.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-83478610180987012812010-01-27T01:17:49.615+11:002010-01-27T01:17:49.615+11:00"My instinct is to extend to as many people a...<i>"My instinct is to extend to as many people as possible the freedom and benefits of life in Australia". <br /><br />If that isn't an unequivocal, unambiguous statement that he's "A Big Australia Man" (or more probably a HUGE Australia man) then golly gosh I really don't know what is.</i><br /><br />Excessive immigration is already ruining our environment, degrading our quality of life, straining our infrastructure, pushing up housing costs, driving down wages, intensifying job competition, eroding our historic national identity and culture, and threatening to transform Australia into an incoherent hodgepodge of conflicting peoples and cultures. And yet both the major political parties want MORE, MORE, MORE. What did Australians do to deserve such treasonous, repugnant "leaders"? <br /><br />Both Rudd and Abbott need to explain why they believe Australia needs to be running the largest per capita immigration programme in the world. They also need to explain to us how such massive immigration helps, rather than hurts, the interests of native-born Australians. <br /><br />While they're at it, perhaps they could explain why they wish to transform the Australian nation as it had evolved by the late 20th Century (a demographically European nation of mostly British Isles ancestry).<br /><br />Why does Australia have to be transformed via massive immigration? What have they got against it?Sebastiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-46828667220094567332010-01-26T21:00:32.107+11:002010-01-26T21:00:32.107+11:00"I find it quite bizarre that the ALP wants t..."I find it quite bizarre that the ALP wants to give us a referendum on changing our constitution to a republican model but never gives the Australian people any say whatsoever on far more important matters."<br /><br />We wouldn't need a referendum unless we're changing the constitution but a plebiscite (which is basically the same thing) would be quite reasonable given the scope of that change to Australia that is proposed.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-46585717174366207782010-01-26T18:49:39.401+11:002010-01-26T18:49:39.401+11:00So you see Jesse, Abbott's speech upon closer ...So you see Jesse, Abbott's speech upon closer scrutiny reveals absolutely no silver lining for traditionalists whatsoever. It's just more bad news unfortunately. He talks about knocking a few recalcitrant heads into place so that the elites can continue to con the public that migration actually works in their favour. <br /><br />As for me, I wasn't born in this country but I don't regard myself as an "immigrant" or the descendant of immigrants. Abbott can shove his "we're a nation of immigrants" speech where the sun doesn't shine as far as I'm concerned. That kind of talk is a cynical attempt to neutralise the growing public opposition to the continued mass immigration that he and his party crave. <br /><br />Both Abbott and Rudd (and those that came before them from Whitlam on) are hell-bent on maintaining insane levels of immigration until traditional Australia is dissolved into a multicultural polyglot with a massive identity crisis, loads of street crime, ethnic gangs, bashings and racial tensions (which we never had before) all so that their greedy mates in big business can fatten even further their already bulging wallets.<br /><br />I find it quite bizarre that the ALP wants to give us a referendum on changing our constitution to a republican model but never gives the Australian people any say whatsoever on far more important matters. Even questions such as whether the nation should go to war are decided by cabinet alone and are not even required to be put to the parliament for consideration. Our policians are not public servants at all - they merely serve themselves and powerful lobbyists and vested interests. What we have with Lib-Labor bi-partisanship on immigration (and many other issues) is not democracy at all - it's just a bloody travesty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-51203502711113746202010-01-26T16:56:18.085+11:002010-01-26T16:56:18.085+11:00RJ Stove wrote:
"In Australian history, yes,...RJ Stove wrote:<br /><br /><i>"In Australian history, yes, it would seem Howard did. Peter Wilkinson's fascinating book The Howard Legacy is full of tables and graphs on the subject."</i><br /><br />History will record that Kevin "Big Australia" Rudd and his dopey immigration minister Chris Evans wasted no time in surpassing Howard's immigration record.<br /><br />By the way, for those interested in Australia's immigration disaster and who haven't yet read Peter Wilkinson's <i>The Howard Legacy</i>, I highly recommend purchasing a copy. You can read RJ Stove's VDARE.com review of the book <a href="http://www.vdare.com/stove/071126_australia.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Be sure to subscribe to Wilkinson's quarterly <a href="http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/" rel="nofollow"><i>The Independent Australian</i></a> while you are at it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-13413611156479604662010-01-26T16:25:57.219+11:002010-01-26T16:25:57.219+11:00Except for the half million or so who identify as ...<i>Except for the half million or so who identify as Aboriginal, every other Australian is an immigrant or the descendant of immigrants since 1788. Unlike any other, we are a nation of relatively recent immigrants ... This means, of course, that the immigrant who feels like a stranger in our midst is really at the heart of the Australian story.<br /><br />To the extent that it is a celebration of our nation, Australia Day is necessarily a salute to an immigrant culture.</i><br /><br />So, according to Abbott, anyone who is not an immigrant, or who does not identify with immigration as an integral part of their own identity, is not really an Australian. <br /><br />It seems he would have us believe that a newly-arrived Third World immigrant is just as "Australian" as somebody descended from the early pioneers who founded and built this country.<br /><br />In any case, the "nation of immigrants" mantra is historically incorrect. The British and Irish pioneers of colonial times, the ancestors of Australia's historic Anglo-Celtic majority, did not merely transplant themselves from one existing nation to another (which is what defines immigration), but from the British Isles to a new territory where no nation-state previously existed. They were not immigrants, but settlers. Immigrants only came later to the nation already formed by those early settlers.<br /><br />Mark Richardson wrote:<br /><br /><i>"It turns out that his version of keeping faith with his ancestors is to promote the fastest possible demographic change to his country via mass immigration"</i><br /><br />A strange form of conservatism, isn't it? How does one preserve the legacy of their ancestors by destroying any kind of trans-generational inheritance through massive, population-replacing immigration?<br /><br />As the late American commentator Sam Francis pointed out:<br /><br />"You cannot expect to switch populations and demographic majorities through massive immigration … and not expect also to switch civilizations and symbols that represent them. You cannot expect millions of aliens from one civilization to enter the country, abandon all loyalties and values of their old civilization and sign up with all of those of the new one they have entered."<br /><br />Mark wrote:<br /><br /><i>"In the same speech, Mr Abbott rewrites history and denies that a distinctly Anglo-Australian nation ever existed. It seems that apart from the Aborigines, everyone else has been an immigrant and part of a multi-culti society and culture"</i><br /><br />It seems there is no place for the 'old' Anglo-Celtic majority in the 'new' Australia. We founded and built this nation, and continue to constitute the majority (at least for now), but yet we find ourselves marginalised, nameless, voiceless and awkwardly wedged into a no man's land between officially-celebrated Indigenous Australia on one hand and the equally state-lauded Multicultural Australia on the other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-55060646686821481092010-01-26T14:20:13.889+11:002010-01-26T14:20:13.889+11:00Jack said:
"Unfortunately many, if not most,...Jack said:<br /><br />"Unfortunately many, if not most, of these institution authorities have become unsound"<br /><br />You make a good point Jack. However, the authority of these institutions is undermined on a daily basis by the left. How so? For example a kid in school. "This is your homework ...", whether its said aloud or not the kid will think "who are you to tell me what to do". If you're an ethnic kid and the teacher's white you may pick up the left wing script every time you don't feel like doing something, "you don't understand what I've been through, this is white indoctrination" or some other such thing. The kid who can tell the teacher off in such an environment is a hero. He stuck it to authority.<br /><br />Movies and news are all about the corruption and incompetence of this, the hidden agenda of that, the rampant exploitation of the other. Being "cynical", ie not willing to submit yourself to another's authority is now considered a public virtue, because the other person must be trying to use you in some negative way or another.<br /><br />When authority has been whittled down like this two things happen I think. <br /><br />1. The people in responsible positions of authority care less (in my opinion). Why should I bust my gut for this, I'll just be criticised. With the result that the lowest common denominator becomes more acceptable.<br /><br />2. Forms of authority that are indisputable, such as law, money and force, become more obvious and are arguably used more nakedly. (Somebody can disagree with me on this point if you like because we also have a general "softening" of society which seems to be in contradiction with this). <br /><br />If you look in a bookstore you'll see a lot of books about mercenaries. I would have thought this to be a largely disreputable profession but its popular now because being a mercenary is about force and money and it isn't distracted by anything as squalid as country or national loyalty.<br /><br />I would agree that a sense of group is critical to the maintenance of morality. Ultimatly I think a liberal autonomous life is an amoral one. No matter how much moral posing goes on. (Oh I'm lecturing now).Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-80209992273178423322010-01-26T13:31:19.519+11:002010-01-26T13:31:19.519+11:00By "established institutional authority"...By "established institutional authority" I mean those several agencies of state and civil society that act as "cultural conditioners". Most obviously the historical nation state itself, mainstream churches, established professions, great public schools, stone-blocked universities, blue-chip companies, ancient sporting clubs and of course the patriarchal family.<br /><br />Unfortunately many, if not most, of these institution authorities have become unsound following <a href="http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2003/10/26/conquests-second-law-of-politics/" rel="nofollow">"Conquest's Second Law of politics"</a>: "Any organization not explicitly right [-corporal] wing sooner or later becomes left[-liberal] wing."<br /><br />Environmentalist groups, which were once traditionally conservative in some sense, are a classic example of this. The Protestant churches and stone-blocked universities are another. You could probably throw in the legal profession too, given its heavy dependence on state-subsidized make-work and right-mongering.<br /><br />The job of conservatives is to defend established order, which means social organizations that embody legitimate institutional authority. It would be nice if conservatives of all parties recognized their primary ideological duty for once.jack strocchihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534084770633227131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-66284680757316341772010-01-26T09:59:12.408+11:002010-01-26T09:59:12.408+11:00Its particularly crazy for a supposed supporter of...Its particularly crazy for a supposed supporter of corporal agencies* to give the conservative stamp of approval to the liberal free-for-all these days. Evolutionary biological scientists are reviving group* selection as a valid counter-part to individual selection. <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071128151814.htm" rel="nofollow">EO Wilson</a> is perhaps the most distinguished proponent of this view.<br /><br />This proves that the traditional institutions of group solidarity (family, church and state) did, and perhaps still do, have a critical function in the evolution of morality.<br /><br />Instead of giving ground to fashionable liberalism Abbott should go on the offensive on behalf of traditional "corporalism". But he does not have the proper theoretical grasp of the problem or his ideological opponents. In fact his view is fatally compromised because the Right is wedded to liberalism as a recipe for mindless (as opposed to mindful) industrial growth, commercial turnover and financial churn.<br /><br />Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves for this folly. They have failed in the simple task of articulating a social philosophy of governance that gives a proper role for established authority.<br /><br />* "corporalism" = institutional authority<br /><br />^ "liberalism" = individual autonomiesjack strocchihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534084770633227131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-12849259625831948362010-01-25T22:34:50.735+11:002010-01-25T22:34:50.735+11:00Well good on Kevin Thompson!! Do we know what argu...Well good on Kevin Thompson!! Do we know what arguments he's using? On the point about Howard's influence, I didn't mean that he wasn't dominate within his party but rather that large immigration began before his term and was heralded by the left. I'm not sure which group is more influential on that issue the business lobby or the cultural left.<br /><br />On the matter of the uni's I agree that user pays isn't great but living off the Government teat causes complacency. I don't really have a strong opinion on that score.<br /><br />On which major party is better on immigration can we say that the Andrews group within the Liberal party is stronger than the Kevin Thompson group within the Labor party? The 7.30 report is about to put out a 6 part special on the issue and I'll be very interested to see how that's presented.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-13730398095210967142010-01-25T22:05:34.397+11:002010-01-25T22:05:34.397+11:00Jesse, I think you may be confusing me with someon...Jesse, I think you may be confusing me with someone else which is entirely understandable given my anonymity.<br /><br />Kelvin Thomson is one of only two MPs in the parliament that are prepared to go on the record and publicly call for a large reduction in immigration. The fact that he is doing it in his demographically 'enriched' electorate (Wills) is especially noteworthy and indicative of the strength of his convictions. After all, how much more comfortable would it be for him to simply toe the party line?<br /><br /><br />Interestingly enough, the other MP is the former Minister for Immigration under Howard, Kevin Andrews. <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/andrews-call-for-debate-on-slashing-immigration-20091210-km93.html" rel="nofollow">He's now arguing</a> for an intake of just 35,000 a year. This demonstrates how much influence he had under Howard in setting the intake numbers - even as the minister - zip, none, nada - which illustrates perfectly my earlier point about Howard calling all the shots in the previous govt.).<br /><br />Thomson is a special case because his position is hersesy for his party that assiduously courts the ethnic vote and he's even put himself directly at odds with Kevin "big Australia man" Rudd.<br /><br />As for the Uni sector, the funding cuts had less to do with slapping down the lefties that were there, and more about setting up a user-pays system in keeping with the Libs economic priorities which included not investing in infrastructure or education.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-36880226007928405322010-01-25T20:26:59.046+11:002010-01-25T20:26:59.046+11:00To Anonymous,
How is Kevin Thompson a voice of re...To Anonymous,<br /><br />How is Kevin Thompson a voice of reason? I've seen his electorate its got a pretty high ethnic population.<br /><br />"This also echoes what's happened in our higher education sector which has become a "place of earning instead of learning""<br /><br />But you were arguing not long ago that left wing organisation should be starved out. Arguably this is what happened in the Uni sector. The Howard Gov cut back funding, because they were tired of subsidising their opponents, and instead the Uni's looked to foreign students to make up the shortfall.<br /><br />RJ, <br /><br />"In Australian history, yes, it would seem Howard did. Peter Wilkinson's fascinating book The Howard Legacy is full of tables and graphs on the subject."<br /><br />Bloody hell!Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-74921770601711547362010-01-25T14:42:38.902+11:002010-01-25T14:42:38.902+11:00Jesse, politicians base their careers and politica...Jesse, politicians base their careers and political lives on avoiding the "tough questions" not answering them. <br /><br />I saw an interesting piece on Youtube recently in which Labor MP Kelvin Thompson (one of the lonely few voices of reason in the Australian parliament) spoke about how political parties used to have to get volunteers from the local community to do letter box drops for them. Now, of course, he said it's all outsourced to slick mass-marketing specialist companies. <br /><br />What he was trying to say (betweeen the lines) is that the Australia's major parties have completely lost touch with the grassroots electorate they are supposed to represent and whose interests they are supposed to protect. They have been hijacked by corporate interests - and <a href="http://candobetter.org/node/1781" rel="nofollow">the ALP itself</a> has been transformed into a corporation. <br /><br />This also echoes what's happened in our higher education sector which has become a "place of earning instead of learning" to the great detriment of our young people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-63891104428228801132010-01-25T07:59:15.105+11:002010-01-25T07:59:15.105+11:00"Did Howard really run the largest immigratio...<i>"Did Howard really run the largest immigration program in history</i> [asks Jesse_7]<i>? Its not a rhetorical question I'm seriously curious."</i><br /><br />In Australian history, yes, it would seem Howard did. Peter Wilkinson's fascinating book <i>The Howard Legacy</i> is full of tables and graphs on the subject.R J Stovenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-2861132090176760982010-01-25T07:18:10.981+11:002010-01-25T07:18:10.981+11:00"if you think that Australia ran the largest ..."if you think that Australia ran the largest migration program in its history without his explicit approval and blessing then I'd respectfully suggest you need to get our more my friend."<br /><br />Will do buddy. Did Howard really run the largest immigration progam in history? Its not a rhetorical question I'm seriously curious. <br /><br />""My instinct is to extend to as many people as possible the freedom and benefits of life in Australia"."<br /><br />I'm not sure that proves much one way or the other. On the "forecast numbers" issue I think it will soon be time for Abbott to be put on the spot and say what kind of Australia, size wise, he wants. Answering the "tough" questions is what politics is all about.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-78448936305462720092010-01-24T23:54:45.916+11:002010-01-24T23:54:45.916+11:00Jesse, my apologies, I should have punctuated that...Jesse, my apologies, I should have punctuated that comment differently. I didn't intend to give the impression that Abbott actually used the words "a big australia man" in his speech. <br /><br />However, if you look at <a href="http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=3908" rel="nofollow">the precise text of his speech </a> he does in fact say: "An alternative to discouraging immigrants ...is to ensure that the facilities exist to cope with current <b><i>and forecast numbers" </i></b>.<br /><br />And, "My instinct is to extend to <b><i>as many people as possible </i></b> the freedom and benefits of life in Australia". <br /><br />If that isn't an unequivocal, unambiguous statement that he's "A Big Australia Man" (or more probably a HUGE Australia man) then golly gosh I really don't know what is.<br /><br />As for Howard, we will never know what went on behind the locked cabinet doors. But rest assured he had the Liberal Party by the balls for the better part of a decade. And if you think that Australia ran the largest migration program in its history without his explicit approval and blessing then I'd respectfully suggest you need to get our more my friend.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-47927241052676034622010-01-24T23:46:08.904+11:002010-01-24T23:46:08.904+11:00IF conservative values are deeply ingrained within...IF conservative values are deeply ingrained within people and society then giving people freedom is not a bad thing. They will choose traditional values. The point has been made on an earlier thread by a right liberal that most right liberals lead quite conservative lives (possibly higher divorce rates etc). <br /><br />On the other hand if conservative values are not ingrained or dominant then "freedom" is disastrous and quickly leads to social disorder. For a society we have to look at how the values affect us as an entirety rather than accepting a liberal option, which is as long as I'm allright everything’s fine. <br /><br />The mistake I think right liberals make is thinking of freedom as an end in itself, which it clearly isn't. <br /><br />We've had a pretty good run in Australia. We could afford to take immigrants in without upsetting the applecart too much. We could afford to be more "liberal" without dramatically changing cultural practices. As AC said flag waving etc goes on. However, the "spending" of this cultural resource can only go on for so long. There's only so much disregarding of the old and incorporation of the new that can be accepted. After a while the capital must be built up again. We hear a lot of "change is a universal", as if continual flux is the normal state of affairs. I wouldn't say that that's normal. Nor is excitement and difference a suitable substitute for stability. <br /><br />Large immigration is the core example of the foolishness of liberal thought. This lesson will be brought home to our political masters. If the penny doesn't drop we dissolve as a people. I really don't think Australians want that.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-9134545685471423412010-01-24T23:26:00.076+11:002010-01-24T23:26:00.076+11:00Hmmm, I don’t see anywhere in the extracted quotes...Hmmm, I don’t see anywhere in the extracted quotes where Abbott says he’s a “big Australia man”. Reaching out to immigrants, who are a sizable percentage of the electorate is only good politics and an inclusive thing to do (before) Australia day. The point has been made that a traditional life is not compatible with large scale immigration. Sooner or later the parties are going to have to make a decision one way or the other on this, as the numbers of immigrants and the effect this has on Australia becomes obvious. <br /><br />As for Howard whatever impact he had on the immigration issue he cannot carry the can alone.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-1453129652578912102010-01-24T22:45:42.425+11:002010-01-24T22:45:42.425+11:00On the positive side, Abbott is, at least, nailing...On the positive side, Abbott is, at least, nailing his colours to the mast early on in the piece, declaring himself a "Big Australia Man" the same as his mate Kevin who also makes "no apology" for radically transforming our nation culturally in the pursuit of never-ending growth for growth's sake. <br /><br />So at least no-one can accuse him of being unclear or misleading in his views unlike that deceitful, lying rodent who was his mentor, that cultural warrior and "defender of traditional Australia" who paved the way for the human tsunami we are experiencing now in our capital cities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-41624961814427188522010-01-24T22:30:00.571+11:002010-01-24T22:30:00.571+11:00"...Mr Abbott said immigration had been a suc..."...Mr Abbott said immigration had been a success almost unparalleled in history, but it regularly featured as an issue of concern."<br /><br />This is basically politician-speak for: "I know full well the electorate doesn't like it (mass immigration). But my masters in big business absolutely love it. And they are my true constituency and I their faithful servant..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com