Waio,

You have directed the last few paragraphs of your reply not to me, or the subject of which I speak, but in a common attempt to improve your image, or sustain it.
This is what I argue against, as soon as one might fear the entrance of racism or predjudice into discussion, they immediately are pressured into supplying reasons to show themselves innocent of such community crimes.
And thus you proceeded to try and justify your position with people of different races by expressing your liking, supposed or not, for their cultural food.

Now it is not a culinary, or indeed racial topic on which I speak, it is a national topic.

I do not intend to say that one race is superior to another - I intend to, I have, and I will say that races are different - and difference is not superiority, that is impossible.
I argue not that nationalism in Australia is railroaded by a vast variety of restaurants, nor literature, or philosophy, or the great amount of languages spoken one after the other in Airports. No!
I write, and argue, that nationalism fails because the different races that introduce these ideals and lifestyles do not even attempt to unite themselves under a single goal, and end for their country that they wish to become dedicated to.
Instead, they all want completely separate things from their residences, and pull conformity to shreds in doing so.

This discussion is not yet concluded, however, I will explain why it is near impossible to have this conversation with an Australian, aside from their fear of predjudice.
Mark how you have taken comments and ideas that did not exist in my speech, but rather in the impression you have taken from a person you have not met, and attempted to use them against me as rebuttals.
You reprimand me dismissively for saying the the European people are more passive than the Asian people, yet I have not said this, this is what I wrote,

"and now the Aborigine and the Asian control the European through the apologetic, passive attitude of the latter.",
neither was proclaimed more so than the other, and this statement was meant not as a racial slur but to comment upon how first one ruled the other by genocide, and then the one was ruled by their own regret. Neither is fair or correct - Neither are practical things!
You have also accused me, charged me with wishing for a nation to be cut off from other cultures completely, to eradicate all but one. But you have disregarded my example of an Empire maintained by several cultures, and how this is possible. You disregarded this and placed efforts that you wanted to despise in my words.
I have said that international media, created in the light of, and for the international community - not, the national communities, do positive harm. This means not to censure literature, or geography, or any factual information that can never be exploited but only provide knowledge, it censures international news and media which are in almost all cases not factual - but opinionated, and therefore completely vulnerable to the charms of what is known as propaganda!

I think that you will be unable of arguing with me fairly, and upon the subject I wish to speak of, until you resign yourself to a neutral seat as I have, and see us not talking about your, or our country, but Australia, or any country with a large multi-culturalism. Because you view all that I say not only with the natural defensive attitude one takes in discussion of their own home, but also with regard to your own personal awareness of the audience of all this, and the dire need to express favour and kindness to cultures and people not present.
As for Mikeus, whose apparent last name I shall not mention for the vanity of it, (Dare not use it in novelty!), if you declare the use of one's freedom to make immature jokes at the expense of the most popular leader of another land, and another populace quite justified, then why do you not, in your defence of truth and freedom - attack the very idea of publishing laws - which in their very definition cause offense to the freedom you scorn KrooK representatively.

Idealism may very well be the anti-christ of the Nationalist religion, the right to suppose as many ridiculous propositions as one might admire - and not do a damned thing to create reality in any one of them.

As for all this fairness and justice and goodness being so outwardly and quickly shown to every race in the, 'family of man', as soon as a different culture is mentioned - Aristotleles is quite correct in his theory that wealth is a greater good than justice, for that which a man would seek without any other knowing of it is to be considered the greatest good, and though all men would seek wealth in all things without the public knowledge, no man sees justice as rewarding and good unless it is known to others.