I know where you're coming from mate, but i've got a slightly different view on that. Whose paid most of the taxes? Whose built the country up from virgin territory into a first world economy? (mostly :lol Whose misusing our dumass welfare system? All important points to ponder...
On this occasion i disagree with you. i've used the term "chink" on many an occasion and certainly don't regard it as an ethnic slur. neither will i tolerate anybody telling me WHAT I MEANT by using such a term - i.e. ethnic slur or whatever. it's no more of a slur than is wop, wog, limie, ruskie and the like... I don't agree with you on that count either. There is nothing wrong with having national pride. it involves knowing the history from whence you've come and knowing and appreciating your cultural values - including amongst many thing - language.
Immigration is the scapegoat. Higher crime rates? Look to the drug war. Less jobs? Government. People living off the public purse? Welfare policies. If immigration results in less jobs then why is there still low unemployment now when we have a few million more people than say 10 years ago? Or 20? Surely, countries with more massive populations than ours should have sky-rocketing unemployment? They don't because that's just not how economies work. Socialist policies will kill the economic engine of any economy. Looking to outside for the problem is completely missing the point.
i agree 100% - Dandee is being very short sighted, and a bit of a d1ck i expect :lol: Another effective way to resist a coercive state is to bleed them dry of funding... i.e. stop funding your own downfall. This becomes deadly effective once the number of people who have become fedup reaches a critical mass. Certain countries in southern Europe are fast approaching this point i believe...
I think you're misinterpreting. There's a big difference between pride and knowing and appreciating history and culture and nationalism which has a strong tendency to fuel hate and intolerance. Other's have posted more eloquently on this topic than I can, but essentially nationalism is the antithesis of libertarianism (generally, not always) and is a force historically used by Governments to enact some heinous injustices. Hayek (and Mises) wrote about it. W.r.t. slang versus slurs the line is obviously fat and grey and really depends on the context of the person using it which of course is much harder to judge on an internet post. Like most language, its definition also changes over time. It could easily be a term of endearment between two parties but equally could be indicative of extreme intolerance. I wasn't accusing Byron of being either and like you am 100% for freedom of speech. Irrespective, I would say that the average person would assume it was a slur as that is its current definition.
It's all treating symptoms. That's what you are missing. It's what society always does. You take away the immigration and then the jobs decrease anyway. What's next on the list? What are you going to blame next? It's like all the people who blame businesses when they put up prices. Exact same principle.
I think you're rather blind when it comes to the point of immigration... We are following down the same rotten parth of the UK specifically and Europe in general, and most would agree that it's turned out to be a royal f..up!
So the economies of the UK and Europe going down the socialism path had nothing to do with it? Bursting property bubbles had nothing to do with it? Extreme welfare policies had nothing to do with it? Having an entire area under one monetary policy had nothing to do with it? There may be problems with immigration in some areas. I'm sure not everyone is happy to see people of other cultures living in their neighbourhood. But you can't blame them for the economic woes. They are self-inflicted (or I should say govt inflicted, which may or may not be the same thing). In fact, govts in many ways are looking for them to alleviate some of the woes caused due to govt (mis)management. And I agree that policy is as misguided as pretty much any other. But I'm not blaming them(immigrants) for policies that have been enacted before the majority ever got here and mostly have been endorsed by the white majority over the decades. EDIT: clarification
Acedemics made it clear. 1) too many people not enough jobs. 2) overseas students are rorting the system. 3) there will be more youth unemployment if this level continues. Hawkeye you speak in very general terms without any sort of evidence (fair enough) and you are far removed from the reality of the situation on the ground in places like VIC and NSW. There is nothing wrong with lowering immigration levels as natural growth is on the upswing. I would even say Aust should become more selective with who is allowed to stay here. This will insure non-contributants and drains on the public purse are minimised.
Never said there weren't problems. I said they are symptoms, not the disease. As the economy gets smaller and smaller, you have more and more people fighting over less jobs. The out groups will be alienated even more with attendent social problems. As government tries to fix it's welfare policy problem by encouraging more and more immigration people as a whole will start to ask questions of the governments actions in this regard, which is what is happening. The questions people don't want to ask is, hey, maybe this great Australian system isn't so great after all and that's what's causing all these issues. But people won't look that deep.
of course I'm being short sighted ya dick! I'm old! time for talk is over! Time to get off ya arses and do something about all the crap youse whinge about. "a little less conversation, a little more action baby" - Elvis
OK, so not a "violent" revolution, but intellectual revolution? Pfft... takes way too long and not enough intellectuals willing to do anything. Holding hands, singing Kumbaya, and discussing how we're all getting shafted?? what's that going to achieve? Time to act.
Calling for violence is very caveman like and careless. Where does violence end? A sword? Gun? Nuke? What about the weak?? Just smash them violently?? VIOLENCE IS NEVER OK.
Nationalism and patriotism are two very different things. patriotism is pride on your country, nationalism is xenophobic, separatist and exclusionary and is always negative and damaging.
I'm not a fan of either to be honest Jonesy. I'm happy to accept your definition of both for the purpose of this debate, but I view patriotism as a false god. I put Australia day and to some extent ANZAC Day into the same basket of "false gods". Soldiers used to march for "God, King and Country". It's an interesting phrase but what is even more interesting is the order of the proper nouns. We're largely a godless society now, and the monarchy is mostly irrelevant, I guess some have to replace those idols with "country". Why should anyone be patriotic?