Where's my hoverboard?

Science, yeah, science is amazing

But not to me though 'cause I am sick of waiting

I've been patient, I really have, I've been reasonable

Now it's time to say what I needed to

Dear science, cheers for the iPods

White goods, yeah, thank you for the cyborgs

Top work on the light bulb

That was quite cool, but where's my hoverboard?

When I was a child, my favourite TV show to watch was Beyond Tomorrow (or Beyond 2000).

It was a late night (...late night for a child) showcase of what experts think future technology will look like, from a 1990s Australian perspective.

Last night I had a flash back and started thinking about the show. I hadn't seen it in decades.

I went on YouTube and searched for an episode, and the first one I found was "AU Beyond 2000 (1990) predictions for 2020!".

Well, it's 2026 now, so lets see what was happening..

The first 13 minutes (20%) of the show was dedicated to an immigration debate. The show starts with a call to action to act before it's too late.

This was on free-to-air TV, it was in every home in Australia at the time.

The entire fabric of our population will under-go drastic changes.

[The people of Australia] don't want it!

The standard of living will go down to a point where you'll be eating [nothing but] bread and jam again.

The show estimates in the year 2020 Australia's population will be 25 million, which was strikingly accurate.

Experts on the show begin by calling the numbers criminal.

Some suggested even doing away with the west-minster democracy in favour of a strong-man candidate to prevent this from happening.

Veteran property developer Sid Londish (who pioneered much of Australias shopping culture) stated the most important policy to pursue was to encourage existing Australians to have more children (by way of cash incentives). The problem he outlines, is the inability of the Australian nation to maintain a competitive manufacturing base with such a small work force.

As the patriotic Returned Service League (RSL) always advocated for (until it became physically unfeasible to do so), represented by Victorian President Bruce Ruxton, is the restriction of immigration to like populations.

The narrator doesn't push back against him at this stage, but draws attention to the failure of new immigrations to assimilate, instead forming their own suburbs.

Bruce states he believes multiculturalism has fractured Australia beyond repair, and as a culture have lost a cohesive harmonious element of our character.

Multiculturalism has divided Australia.

Bruce was a World War II veteran. He fought the alleged evils of White-Nationalist Fascism with the British and American Anglo empire. Yet here he is saying something... racist?

The segment ends by referring to a potential un-vetted Asian invasion of Australia, which could be considered rude to our asian friends but is valid in the idea of keeping a cohesive culture.

My jaw had dropped listening to the standard rhetoric of the past which today would be considered radical extremist points of views.

We live in a climate where Anglo [white] Australians are considered no more legitimate than anyone else, we're told all groups contribute equally and the Aboriginals kicked this nation off.

If I went out publicly and stated these view points I would be ostracised and ignored at best, removed from my workplace and potential future opportunities in a normal situation or arrested at worst.

There's no segment of Australia that isn't equally represented by immigrants, and if there is, then there won't be for long because DEI policies will come for it and make sure a young Indian immigrant gets a 120k a year job over a white racist, so there's no place these words could even be heard by a similar audience as this show was broadcasted to.

I'm reminded of a joke I heard from a European bitcoin-economist, which acurrately (or terrifyingly) depicts the current political climate in regards to freedom-of-speech.

[The police] tell you that you are now arrested and have to come with them into the police car.

While driving you have to listen to public broadcast radio which is funded by a mandatory subscription fee that everybody is required to pay.

[The radio host asks], "Mr Expert, what is the state of the European economy?"

[Mr Expert replies], "Well since we have not reached Liberal-utopia yet, the only scientific conclusion here is that we simply have not imported enough migrants."

The German police officer (named Omar Abdul Ali) takes you to the court room.

The judge reads your crime outloud, it's a tweet you posted in 2019 - "I would give 100% for my country."

The punishment is a fine of $30,000, as this tweet could have destabilised democracy.

Australia has become one of the most multi-cultral countries in the world, quite rapidly, despite these opinions (which would likely be considered irrational by liberal politicians). Australian political dissident commentator Celina1010101 wrote a risky hit-piece recently on the pop-culture and politcal trending idea of scientific-multicultralism. Her literature reviews and journalism focus on analysisng and measuring the effects of multi-culturalism.

"Diversity is our strength" is repeated as though it were the settled conclusion of decades of social science.

But research from Australia, Denmark, Sweden, France and the United States repeatedly finds that greater ethnic diversity is associated with lower social trust, weaker civic participation, reduced support for redistribution and a greater tendency for people to withdraw from communal life.

This article looks at the work of Robert Putnam, Andrew Leigh, Peter Dinesen, Kim Senderskov, Maureen Eger, Dora Costa, Matthew Kahn, Yann Algan, Camille Hémet, David Laitin, Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser and others.

The evidence show that diversity carries social costs that are routinely ignored by the people most eager to celebrate it.

Celina1010101 in her substack journal documents her review on the sociological topic of diversity and trust.

The economist (now federal minister) Andrew Leigh’s 2006 study [is] very valuable. In “Trust, Inequality and Ethnic Heterogeneity,” Leigh combined a large Australian social survey with fine-grained neighbourhood data to model both localised trust (in people in your area) and generalised trust (in people at large).

In contrast to the American literature, Leigh found no apparent relationship between neighbourhood income inequality and trust in Australia. Second, both ethnic and linguistic diversity were associated with lower trust. Linguistic diversity depressed localised trust for the native-born and immigrants alike, and depressed generalised trust among immigrants. Instrumental-variable specifications, a technique designed to reduce the risk that the correlation is spurious, produced similar results.

Cont.

Across different datasets, volunteering, membership of organisations, charitable giving, census response, trust, participation in community lending schemes, willingness to fund public goods and local schools, greater community ethnic diversity was repeatedly associated with less civic engagement.

People, it seems, find it easier to act collectively with people like themselves.

And in regard to military engagement

More diverse companies bled deserters. Men facing identical dangers, under identical discipline, for an identical cause, were measurably more willing to risk death alongside men who resembled them.

Needless to say after watching the TV episode I was shocked, not because I had learnt a new scientific truth, but because people actually used to talk about it.

If this went on air in the Albanese-Labor goverened Australia the response would be an immediate condeming, an inquiry into institutional racism, and a $200 million donation to multicultral communities to strengthen internal cohesion.