Alrighty, let's see how much support everyone has for that stupid policy called 'multiculturalism.'

This thread is NOT for debate. I repeat, it's NOT for debate.

Just state the reasons you support it... or don't support it... and try not to get too in depth about it.

Just a few quick statements or paragraphs.

Whatever you say in this thread will NOT be discussed further.

Thanks.

I support multiculturism .

Wonder who voted "no" ?

Reasons for  :  "Greek festival", "Chinese New year", Nepalese peace worship building they left after expo in Brisso,  falafels, those stunning "smoky" looking Indian women, Aboriginal art, Italain food and cars, sushi, french movies, the rugby players from the pacific islands, music from the Andes.


Imagine a white australia.  Roast lamb for dinner, watch "home and away" on tv, wear a suit to work, wee wifey at home with the 3 kids, watch/play rugby in winter, cricket in summer, listen to rock and roll, mow the lawn on weekends and bbq up sausages.

I support multiculturalism for one reason. The FOOD.

Naturally, i voted no.
How can alien cultures and religious systems live together when they all hold different aims?
There has been no nation in history who has had multiculturism and succeded in the long run.
Number one example- the soviet union.
Number two example- the ottoman empire
Number three example- the roman empire.
And what about the british empire? it only exists in white countries.
So no is my answer.

There has been no nation in history who has had multiculturism and succeded in the long run.

Only because there has been no nation in history that has 'succeded' in the long run.

What about China? They look after their minorities. They even exclude them from the one child policy. They have been round longer than any other large nation.

wrote on May 29^th, 2007 at 5:00pm:

Naturally, i voted no. How can alien cultures and religious systems live together when they all hold different aims? There has been no nation in history who has had multiculturism and succeded in the long run. Number one example- the soviet union. Number two example- the ottoman empire Number three example- the roman empire. And what about the british empire? it only exists in white countries. So no is my answer.

You seem to be forgetting a little country called the US of A. Or is America a failure too?

What about the tibet people? and non communists?

What about the aborigines and non-capitalists in Australia? Does their existence, or the fact they don't get their way and don't get their land back (in the aborigine's case) mean they aren't a minority group in our culture? Do people who vote for the communist party stop the country from functioning?

How is the US a failure?

Freediver, that was you who started debate on this thread.

Can you please follow the guidelines on the first post? -This goes for everyone else, thank you. The next person who starts debate will have their posts deleted. Wanna argue a certain point on this thread? Quote them and start a new thread.

I support multiculturalism. Travel broadens the mind. Multi-culturalism kind of brings travelling home. I am interested in other foods and ideas and religions. The only incidents where I have doubts are when I see people carrying on their traditional cultural dislikes of each other and that becoming violent. I am open to the radical idea of deporting migrants who act violently on the basis of past experiences and their traditional hatred for another culture/group present here, because if they act violently becasue of a cultural reason then they have no reason to stop doing so.

I support Multiculturalism, However I don't think we need to Kow-tow to other beliefs and censor
ourselves through political corectness all the time(for fear it might offend some cultures). There is some resentment felt,
and some people abuse the society we live in today.

For example, I can understand quite a few languages relatively well, Serb-Croat being one of them. I was in
Liverpool the other day coming off the train station and there were two serbian people talking and
chuckling to themselves in serbian. I recall them saying something along the lines of

"How good is this, We come to this country, and get paid for doing absolutely nothing"
(Which I assume they were talking about the unemployment benefits or otherwise)
I was disgusted.

Needless to say, Being serbian in part, there's some resentment surposed to surround my backgound and croation background.
I hold no hostilities to them. I was raised here, and Proud of my Australian residency, and Serbian Herritage. I don't like it either when hostilities are carried over here. We don't need that kind of tension.

I think multicutralism in Australia is bad, though multiculturalism is not nessacarily bad of itself. It is the way policy has been constructed and implimented that is the problem.

Multiculturalism in Austrailia is all about immigration. It is currently dispossing the poorer native born people of their influnence over the government. This unbalenced power relationship is also allowing migrants of bad attitude to get away with their anti-social thinking unchallenged. This is leading to the fragmentation of Australia's civic culture.

So, multiculturalism is very one-sided. The migrants have the support of the government, the acedemics and the urban elite. Thus they can neglect any concern for less favoured Australians and, with time, come to assume their superior station is their right. This is the basis of anti-settler racism evident among so many people of CALD backgrounds. Amazingly, they can even get away with persecuting the impoverished, mentally ill sons of men who have adopted orphans in the developing world and the community continues to support those migrants.

Political correctness has a lot to anwser for in this regard as it stiffles debate and suppresses critisisms which might help to improve the form of multiculturalism in Australia. Multicultural policy needs to be critically reassessed and the political bias removed.

I support multiculturalism as long as people recognise that in spite of the influx of Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai and Middle Eastern cuisine that the humble meat pie will remain a national icon to be consumed at footy matches. I still prefer "mate" to "buddy", these increeping Americanisms. And please, let us never change "recognise" to "recognize", or "night" to "nite". I am, by the way, an immigrant of 34 years, and though my children have an interest in my former country and heritage, I'm vainly proud that they are first and foremost Aussies. So in theory I support multiculturalism, but I don't think the house should be re-designed to suit immigrants.

I am proud to be part of a largely tolerant multicultural society. Australia is one of the few places on earth where a person can be judged on his/her integrity and the strength of their actions as opposed to the colour of their skin, something that they have absolutely no control over. I enjoy the food, sure, but I also enjoy the people. As another poster stated, travel broadens the mind. I've travelled just about everywhere, and I have friends of all nationalities and all religions. I've come to the conclusion that people are basically the same the world over.

For the fact that I live in a multicultural society, I say thanks, danke, merci, tusend takk, tack så mycket, grazie, gracias, spaceba, terima Kasih, arigato, hvala, obrigado, kiito, shookhran gezilen, dziekuje, moran taing, diolch, asante sana !

and the rest  ;D

What a positive post on multiculturalism - Musician.  Great attitude.

foxdemon - great reply. Intelligent, incisive, precise.

Well done

hi everyone.
i'm 60yrs old, of scots-welsh decent.
i've seen australia in a lot better state when there was no "multicultural policy".
we should stop immediately, and sort this mess out before it gets any worse.
djr.

ray_A - I agree.
"I don't think the house should be re-designed to suit immigrants. "
The tail does not wag the dog.


djrbfm - thanks for you experienced view. I also feel Aussie was a LOT better before "multiculturalism"

How can a Nation's culture be Multcultural?  
It's a conflict of logic, and reality.
You are Australian or you are not.
You support the Australian culture and way of life, or you do not.

"I support multiculturism .
Wonder who voted "no" ?"

then...

"I also feel Aussie was a LOT better before "multiculturalism" "

You having a bet each way there Mr Cyclist?

I doubt Sprint will be thinking of anything but his impending nuptials today.

Sprint is very anglo in his views, I suppose to a large extent I am too, but he really does try and look at the other person's point of view when he can. To some that may seem wishy washy, but I see it as indicating that while he has strong views in this area, he has not closed off his mind to other ideas.

Saying one loving Australia, and being Australian, should somehow blind us to our own imperfections, and not strive to improve ourselves is a pretty big stretch.
I never believe that multiculturalism is about putting other cultures above one another, just about being able to accept them for what they are.

Let the Australian culture evolve (as most cultures do), but let it evolve on it's own.  

Not by importing other National cultures into Australia and pretending Australia doesn't have a culture or that somehow Multiculture is the Australian culture.  

That's a farce and a lie.

Grendel wrote on May 3^rd, 2008 at 12:20pm:

Let the Australian culture evolve (as most cultures do), but let it evolve on it's own.   Not by importing other National cultures into Australia and pretending Australia doesn't have a culture or that somehow Multiculture is the Australian culture.   That's a farce and a lie.

Round of applause for you Grendel. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Grendel wrote on May 3^rd, 2008 at 12:20pm:

Let the Australian culture evolve (as most cultures do), but let it evolve on it's own.   Not by importing other National cultures into Australia and pretending Australia doesn't have a culture or that somehow Multiculture is the Australian culture.   That's a farce and a lie.

Australia has always been about importing other national cultures.

I say if you consider yourself Australian, you are one. If a Greek immigrant thinks of himself and what he's doing as Australian, then I have no right to say anything different. But if he still thinks of himself as somewhat Greek, then he's not completely Australian.

Holding people to one standard of Australian culture is going to fail hard. There is no one Australian culture that every Australian is going to agree with.

As much as it pains me to repeat myself.

How can a Nation's culture be Multcultural?  
It's a conflict of logic, and reality.
You are Australian or you are not.
You support the Australian culture and way of life, or you do not.

Now if you refer to someone as Greek and they consider themselves such. Then I expect they are Greek, not Australian.

It's quite simple really. It is part of our culture to be tolerant and even appreciative of other cultures. That is one of the few things that comes close to unifying us. We don't reject someone as unaustralian just because they hang on to their old culture.

Grendel wrote on May 7^th, 2008 at 1:56pm:

Now if you refer to someone as Greek and they consider themselves such. Then I expect they are Greek, not Australian.

Now what if they think of themselves as both at the same time?

Often the people who insist new immigrant abandon their history and take on every Australian quirk are the same ones who insist that whatever European country their ancestors came from has a superior culture that should be cherished above all others.

I gather you both think backing yourselves up is some form of refutation?

If someone thinks of themselves as both at the same time Blasko...  they are having themselves on.

What do you think they would do if both countries went to war with each other?

As for culture, you cannot be Greek and Australian at the same time.

As for heritage.  I haven't forgotten mine, but I am Australian and only Australian.  I live the Australian lifestyle.  I speak Australian.

What is the Australian lifestyle?

If you live here why don't you know?

Its obviously not the Greek one, or the Lebanese one, or the African one, or the English one, or the American one, or the Indian one, or the Pakistani one...  etc... now is it.

You can't define a national culture by talking about what it isn't. Please, humour me by telling me what Australian culture is.

I would never pretend that a claim to live 'the Australian lifestyle' has any meaning. I know it has no meaning because I live here.

But, I am still interested to know what you think the Australian lifestyle is.

If you live here Blasko why don't you know?
If you can identify the others why can't you identify an Australian one?

Grendel wrote on May 7^th, 2008 at 4:06pm:

If you live here Blasko why don't you know?

Because I can only tell you how I live my life, not twenty million Australians.


Quote:

If you can identify the others why can't you identify an Australian one?

Religion, food, language, clothes, rituals (like bowing as opposed to shaking hands) are all distinguishing features of cultures, but even they break down at a certain point. How much really is our culture different from the New Zealand or English or American one? How much is Pakistani culture really different from Bangladeshi?

I could tell you what many Australians do, what many Australians eat, what many Australians wear - but I could also tell you what many Australians don't do, what many Australians don't wear and so on.

Using your logic there are no cultures.

So why do you support Multiculturalism if none exist?

No support for some immigrates but some for others, each case varies. A visit to centrelink recently made me wonder how we can sustain such a strain on public money, Ive worked all my life and it does irk me at times to be funding some of this obvious insanity, why should any of them work, 5 kids and the dole, beautiful, you dont get that in the old country, do you.

Welcome to OzPolitic Lapaz.

Great to see that everyone is sticking to the rules of this thread.

Well done '.'

Its not really a forum if we have to follow one persons rules.

Grendel wrote on May 7^th, 2008 at 7:24pm:

Using your logic there are no cultures. So why do you support Multiculturalism if none exist?

I only support multiculturalism because no one will support a melting pot policy like they have in the US. A melting pot policy destroys 'Australian culture' and the 'culture' of the incoming immigrant and mixes it together. I don't really care about keeping a pure 'culture' though, so it doesn't concern me.

And multiculturalism is infinitely better than the old White Australia Policy.

lapaz62 wrote on May 8^th, 2008 at 5:38pm:

Its not really a forum if we have to follow one persons rules.

BINGO. It's not a forum, it's a poll. Check out the 1st post of this thread, and

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on May 30^th, 2007 at 12:27pm:

Freediver, that was you who started debate on this thread. Can you please follow the guidelines on the first post? -This goes for everyone else, thank you. The next person who starts debate will have their posts deleted. Wanna argue a certain point on this thread? Quote them and start a new thread.

Nunya, the guy who wrote that, who used to mod this board, is no longer around. I'm not going to enforce his rules for him. They never made much sense to me anyway.

I don't support Multiculturalism. Each country has a unique identity and multiculturalism cant be one of them (its the total opposite).  Multiculturalism leads to tension and conflict, not just in Western countries but all around the world.

steve87 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2008 at 7:58pm:

I don't support Multiculturalism. Each country has a unique identity and multiculturalism cant be one of them (its the total opposite).  Multiculturalism leads to tension and conflict, not just in Western countries but all around the world.

Intolerance leads to tension and conflict. The hard fact is that we have a mix of people currently in Australia. Most major cities in the world have a mix of different cultures. You just have to look at cities such as London, Paris, Berlin and New York to see that. Countries can have a unique identity and still have diversity. China is a good example of that. Languages within China include Mandarin, Cantonese, Min, Wu, Gan, Xiang, Kejia, Mongolian, Tibetan, Korean, Uighur and  Mia, although Mandarin is the official language. Each of these groups represent distinctive cultures all of which are encouraged.

It's difficult to find any country in the world that only has one cultural group. Hmmm maybe San Marino?

muso wrote on Jul 19^th, 2008 at 8:26am:

Languages within China include Mandarin, Cantonese, Min, Wu, Gan, Xiang, Kejia, Mongolian, Tibetan, Korean, Uighur and  Mia, although Mandarin is the official language.

..... and Hokkien, Teochew, Fuchow, Hakka....

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 19^th, 2008 at 11:38pm:

muso wrote on Jul 19th, 2008 at 8:26am: Languages within China include Mandarin, Cantonese, Min, Wu, Gan, Xiang, Kejia, Mongolian, Tibetan, Korean, Uighur and  Mia, although Mandarin is the official language. ..... and Hokkien, Teochew, Fuchow, Hakka....

xie xie ni  :)

A National culture cannot be MANY national cultures.

To belief such is to be a complete fool who believes in garbage.

A National culture cannot be MANY national cultures.

Yes it can. It tends to happen naturally. Culture knows no national boundaries. You seem to be confuising culture with nationalism.

Then according to your confused logic there are no nationalities.

You seem to forget that national Culture is what Multiculturalism is about.

You and your Multiculti cronies have up till now quoted nationalities enough.

What's up losing the argument deciding to remove the goalposts completely now?

Then according to your confused logic there are no nationalities.

Can you explain how you arrived at this conclusion?

Don't you understand the things you write?

Of course. You don't seem to, which is why I asked you to explain, so that I could figure out which of my statements you misunderstood.

rotflmao

No point trying to debate you...  you are incapable of it.

When you go back and get an adult to explain to you what you've said and you actually understand it get back to me.

Interesting that about a year and a half after first making this post, it seems that members on this board are fairly balanced on their views on multiculturalism.

hi guys,
i live in a suburb that's mainly chinese, with koreans and indians to the side.
then you've got the lebonese who don't live here as such but have numerous businesses and cafes set up. in fact, they invade this place at night for the eats.
the problem is that none of these places employ anyone outside their own race. a lot are family run, i'd say.
i reality, i'm not a fan.
i do like their food, though.
DR9.

djrbfm wrote on Oct 4^th, 2008 at 12:45am:

hi guys, i live in a suburb that's mainly chinese, with koreans and indians to the side. then you've got the lebonese who don't live here as such but have numerous businesses and cafes set up. in fact, they invade this place at night for the eats. the problem is that none of these places employ anyone outside their own race. a lot are family run, i'd say. i reality, i'm not a fan. i do like their food, though. DR9.

Welcome to the multiculturalism and race board, djrbfm. Please make yourself at home and freely partipate in discussion of all things multiculturalism and race. God knows you can't do such a thing in real life, so the next best thing is to do it here.

It's nice to see that you're well aware of the consequences of multiculturalism. And yes... the old 'food' routine is one of the number 1 arguments multiCULT supporters use to defend it.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Oct 4^th, 2008 at 4:09pm:

djrbfm wrote on Oct 4th, 2008 at 12:45am: hi guys, i live in a suburb that's mainly chinese, with koreans and indians to the side. then you've got the lebonese who don't live here as such but have numerous businesses and cafes set up. in fact, they invade this place at night for the eats. the problem is that none of these places employ anyone outside their own race. a lot are family run, i'd say. i reality, i'm not a fan. i do like their food, though. DR9. Welcome to the multiculturalism and race board, djrbfm. Please make yourself at home and freely partipate in discussion of all things multiculturalism and race. God knows you can't do such a thing in real life, so the next best thing is to do it here. It's nice to see that you're well aware of the consequences of multiculturalism. And yes... the old 'food' routine is one of the number 1 arguments multiCULT supporters use to defend it.

i am not defending MC at all.
should never have happened here.
we need Western Euro's, Brits, Yanks,  Kiwi's, etc, who share our basic heritage.
this country is now a joke, and the jokes on us.
DR9.

djrbfm wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 3:39pm:

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Oct 4th, 2008 at 4:09pm: djrbfm wrote on Oct 4th, 2008 at 12:45am: hi guys, i live in a suburb that's mainly chinese, with koreans and indians to the side. then you've got the lebonese who don't live here as such but have numerous businesses and cafes set up. in fact, they invade this place at night for the eats. the problem is that none of these places employ anyone outside their own race. a lot are family run, i'd say. i reality, i'm not a fan. i do like their food, though. DR9. Welcome to the multiculturalism and race board, djrbfm. Please make yourself at home and freely partipate in discussion of all things multiculturalism and race. God knows you can't do such a thing in real life, so the next best thing is to do it here. It's nice to see that you're well aware of the consequences of multiculturalism. And yes... the old 'food' routine is one of the number 1 arguments multiCULT supporters use to defend it. i am not defending MC at all. should never have happened here. we need Western Euro's, Brits, Yanks,  Kiwi's, etc, who share our basic heritage. this country is now a joke, and the jokes on us. DR9.

Yes, we need people who share our national interests, culture and values.

Try telling that to the multiculturalism ideologists in our society though. They refuse to believe that it's having a negative affect on our society, even though all the signs are there. What this country needs is a referendum/plebiscite for multiculturalism. Australia was never given a choice on the matter and I think it's only fair that Australians are given that choice.

The idea that Australia can be anything other then multicultural is a joke since Australia IS Aboriginal land and anything and everything else thats not domestic and natural to Australia is introduced. So the concept of a 'white Australia' is an oxymoron.

rotflmao

Well that rant flies in the face of human nature and history.

Oh and BTW dear we had Assimilation and Integration as settlement policies for longer than Multiculti.  Oh and that policy has been made over at least 3 times in attempts to make it more publicly acceptable.

Well in my opinion...  it still aint.

Oh and it has been proven in studies that diversity policy is bad for societies...

...oh and you're forgetting the most important part to begin with, unless you, I or anyone else is an Indigenous Aboriginal Australian, we're all in fact foreign. The people in society that count, that is - us non-vainglorious aussie folks know this fact and as a result have whole heartedly accepted it

lol@studied have proven...

careful your ignorance of the facts is showing...

I need not worry Grendel, your ignorance out numbers mine any day.

Mademoiselle wrote on Nov 16^th, 2008 at 12:05pm:

I need not worry Grendel, your ignorance out numbers mine any day.

A multiculturalism supporter calling someone else ignorant.  ::)

I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.

lol
Don't you just hate it when people insult you behind your back...   ;D

So Mmslle...  how about you at least try to debate the facts.  
I'll even give you a head start.

Aren't all humans not living in Africa foreign? There is some suggestion amongst certain scientists that Africa may have been reinvaded by a race from Australia.

It would be interesting to name a country in the world that is not multicultural. Ireland seems to be the least Multicultural that I can think of. Apart from that, it's difficult to think of one major city in the world that is not multicultural in some way.

Iceland is another possible example, but even Iceland started off with approximately half and half Vikings and Irish.

China is one of the most multicultural countries in the world, and the RMB (Yuan) is inscribed in Uyghur and Sogdian script as well as Hanzi.

I guess I'll go with undecided.

Because I don't mind multiculturalism. I just don't like it being forced upon me.

Like.. I personally don't like Jews and Asians. Especially the former. The latter I just don't like their governments and vicarously through that I blame the oriental people.

Now, that doesn't mean I'd want to set laws telling Jews/Asians they can't open up a bar, or live in my neighborhood, or even date my daughter. (Assuming they weren't a choicer, I don't negotiate abortion)

I just happen to not trust Asians/Jews. And I'm entitled to that mistrust.

So do I support multi-culturalism as in, respect everyone and try to learn more about others? Hell no.

But do I want everyone to be like me? Hell no. If everyone were like me you'd have to re-name the country Mad Max.

Jim Profit wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 10:05pm:

If everyone were like me you'd have to re-name the country Mad Max.

How do you know you are mad?

Quote:

How do you know you are mad?

I didn't mean mad as in crazy. I'm guessing you've never seen the movie lol!

I support multiculturalism for the simple reason of "why not?" In a truly free country, why shouldn't people from different lands and different cultures be able to come here and enjoy our freedoms and liberties?

I said no and for the simplest of reasons, it doesn't work. It never has and it never will.

Quote:

I said no and for the simplest of reasons, it doesn't work. It never has and it never will.

So you said no - and that's the end of it is it Swathe?  It has worked reasonably well and it's only occasionally we have problems with minority groups - but because the media immediately focuses on them, it takes attention away from our own thugs.

The only reason we should put a stop to immigration is because we've got enough people here already.  Australia has already got a reputation as a narrowly focussed racist country, and if we didn't have a bit of diversity we would be a lot worse.

One of the posters here believes we should have focussed on integration, not multiculturalism - but they are basically the same, except multiculturalism asks us to meet new Australians half way.

No matter what it's called there will always be small groups who won't assimilate, but that's just the way it is and there's not a thing you can do about it.

On the surface it may appear to work "reasonably well", but that is it. Multiculturalism is glammed up by the politicians, media and left wing groups. Many Australians who are happy with the ideal of multiculturalism can still see that it does not work as it is supposed too. I am not so ignorant to believe we don't have our own trash that commit crimes also,  and I believe we should punish them harshly also.

Minority groups are only that by physical numbers. Many of them have a political voice that is louder and listened to more than the common man. Race/class and religion are all factors here and if they don't want to integrate fully they should go. Even then, they should go home and help their country rather than come here, drag their families here and then cry about a country they never stayed to help. Why would we want traitors coming here?

Quote:

Even then, they should go home and help their country rather than come here, drag their families here and then cry about a country they never stayed to help. Why would we want traitors coming here?

Yes well that is true to an extent.  First and foremost - allegiance should be sworn to this country by any migrant and an oath made to defend this country under any circumstances, but you've got Howard to thank for bringing in dual citizenship in 2001 where migrants can return to their country of origin at a whim or to fight in wars of other nations, regardless of whose side they're on.

I am against culture of violence and deceit that muslims bring to this country.

mantra wrote on Jan 29^th, 2009 at 8:34am:

Quote: Even then, they should go home and help their country rather than come here, drag their families here and then cry about a country they never stayed to help. Why would we want traitors coming here? Yes well that is true to an extent.  First and foremost - allegiance should be sworn to this country by any migrant and an oath made to defend this country under any circumstances, but you've got Howard to thank for bringing in dual citizenship in 2001 where migrants can return to their country of origin at a whim or to fight in wars of other nations, regardless of whose side they're on.

Yes, I have never agreed with dual citizenship.

Mono-culturalism doesn't sound very attractive.

We would all have to eat fish & chips, wear was jeans & t-shirt and go dirt-bike racing. Boring!!

Australian's will never vote to force Mono-culturalism on everyone. Get over it.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on May 2^nd, 2007 at 2:53am:

Alrighty, let's see how much support everyone has for that stupid policy called 'multiculturalism.' This thread is NOT for debate. I repeat, it's NOT for debate. Just state the reasons you support it... or don't support it... and try not to get too in depth about it. Just a few quick statements or paragraphs. Whatever you say in this thread will NOT be discussed further. Thanks.

If you support that or not Multiculturalism in Australia is winning and you can’t do anything about that, except to complain and be cynical.

athos wrote on May 6^th, 2009 at 2:39pm:

[quote author=DonaldTrump link=1178038424/0#0 date=1178038423] If you support that or not Multiculturalism in Australia is winning and you can’t do anything about that, except to complain and be cynical.

Watch this space there chief, watch this space.

AlanIde wrote on May 6^th, 2009 at 2:35pm:

Mono-culturalism doesn't sound very attractive. We would all have to eat fish & chips, wear was jeans & t-shirt and go dirt-bike racing. Boring!! Australian's will never vote to force Mono-culturalism on everyone. Get over it.

That's a pretty shallow approach to the problem. Do you think I care what anyone eats? Do you think I care what anyone believes in the privacy of their own homes?

The only thing I care about - is that Islam is a violent supremacist ideology that is seeking to destroy our society. And it is multiculturalism that gives it a foothold and an excuse for its abhorrent behaviour. Which is a far more important problem than whether you have a range of foods to eat.

Typical idiotic reply alan...  thanks... helps one make up one's mind about your so called NAP.

athos wrote on May 6^th, 2009 at 2:39pm:

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on May 2nd, 2007 at 2:53am: Alrighty, let's see how much support everyone has for that stupid policy called 'multiculturalism.' This thread is NOT for debate. I repeat, it's NOT for debate. Just state the reasons you support it... or don't support it... and try not to get too in depth about it. Just a few quick statements or paragraphs. Whatever you say in this thread will NOT be discussed further. Thanks. If you support that or not Multiculturalism in Australia is winning and you can’t do anything about that, except to complain and be cynical.

The pendulum swings  back and nothing you can do to stop it.

tallowood wrote on May 6^th, 2009 at 8:51pm:

athos wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 2:39pm: ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on May 2nd, 2007 at 2:53am: Alrighty, let's see how much support everyone has for that stupid policy called 'multiculturalism.' This thread is NOT for debate. I repeat, it's NOT for debate. Just state the reasons you support it... or don't support it... and try not to get too in depth about it. Just a few quick statements or paragraphs. Whatever you say in this thread will NOT be discussed further. Thanks. If you support that or not Multiculturalism in Australia is winning and you can’t do anything about that, except to complain and be cynical. The pendulum swings  back and nothing you can do to stop it.

That’s right, be reasonable, rational and pragmatic in accordance with your nature.
As Romans said: “If you can’t beat it than join it” otherwise you are going to lose valuable time in your life by crying and complaining around, your time is over and after all you can’t fight with ghosts.

athos wrote on May 6^th, 2009 at 9:05pm:

tallowood wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 8:51pm: athos wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 2:39pm: ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on May 2nd, 2007 at 2:53am: Alrighty, let's see how much support everyone has for that stupid policy called 'multiculturalism.' This thread is NOT for debate. I repeat, it's NOT for debate. Just state the reasons you support it... or don't support it... and try not to get too in depth about it. Just a few quick statements or paragraphs. Whatever you say in this thread will NOT be discussed further. Thanks. If you support that or not Multiculturalism in Australia is winning and you can’t do anything about that, except to complain and be cynical. The pendulum swings  back and nothing you can do to stop it. That’s right, be reasonable, rational and pragmatic in accordance with your nature. As Romans said: “If you can’t beat it than join it” otherwise you are going to lose valuable time in your life by crying and complaining around, you time is over and after all you can’t fight with ghosts.

The Roman said:
"Minister vetuli puer Falerni,
inger mi calices amariores,
ut lex Postumiae iubet magistrae
ebrioso acino ebriosioris.
at vos quo lubet hinc abite, lymphae,
vini pernicies, et ad severos
migrate. hic merus est Thyonianus."

tallowood wrote on May 6^th, 2009 at 9:11pm:

athos wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 9:05pm: tallowood wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 8:51pm: athos wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 2:39pm: ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on May 2nd, 2007 at 2:53am: Alrighty, let's see how much support everyone has for that stupid policy called 'multiculturalism.' This thread is NOT for debate. I repeat, it's NOT for debate. Just state the reasons you support it... or don't support it... and try not to get too in depth about it. Just a few quick statements or paragraphs. Whatever you say in this thread will NOT be discussed further. Thanks. If you support that or not Multiculturalism in Australia is winning and you can’t do anything about that, except to complain and be cynical. The pendulum swings  back and nothing you can do to stop it. That’s right, be reasonable, rational and pragmatic in accordance with your nature. As Romans said: “If you can’t beat it than join it” otherwise you are going to lose valuable time in your life by crying and complaining around, you time is over and after all you can’t fight with ghosts. The Roman said: "Minister vetuli puer Falerni, inger mi calices amariores, ut lex Postumiae iubet magistrae ebrioso acino ebriosioris. at vos quo lubet hinc abite, lymphae, vini pernicies, et ad severos migrate. hic merus est Thyonianus."

Have a look at votes above, I hope you didn't cheat and voted twice.
democracy speaks.

athos wrote on May 6^th, 2009 at 9:22pm:

tallowood wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 9:11pm: athos wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 9:05pm: tallowood wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 8:51pm: athos wrote on May 6th, 2009 at 2:39pm: ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on May 2nd, 2007 at 2:53am: Alrighty, let's see how much support everyone has for that stupid policy called 'multiculturalism.' This thread is NOT for debate. I repeat, it's NOT for debate. Just state the reasons you support it... or don't support it... and try not to get too in depth about it. Just a few quick statements or paragraphs. Whatever you say in this thread will NOT be discussed further. Thanks. If you support that or not Multiculturalism in Australia is winning and you can’t do anything about that, except to complain and be cynical. The pendulum swings  back and nothing you can do to stop it. That’s right, be reasonable, rational and pragmatic in accordance with your nature. As Romans said: “If you can’t beat it than join it” otherwise you are going to lose valuable time in your life by crying and complaining around, you time is over and after all you can’t fight with ghosts. The Roman said: "Minister vetuli puer Falerni, inger mi calices amariores, ut lex Postumiae iubet magistrae ebrioso acino ebriosioris. at vos quo lubet hinc abite, lymphae, vini pernicies, et ad severos migrate. hic merus est Thyonianus." Have a look at votes above, I hope you didn't cheat and voted twice. democracy speaks.

The vote you refer to was cast when the pendulum was at its highest left but when a pendulum is displaced from its resting equilibrium position, it is subject to a restoring force due to gravity that will accelerate it back.

Channel 9 ran a national poll a couple of years ago and 93% were against Multiculti...  you have a funny way of assessing the winning side Athos.

Grendel wrote on May 7^th, 2009 at 12:41am:

Channel 9 ran a national poll a couple of years ago and 93% were against Multiculti...  you have a funny way of assessing the winning side Athos.

Don’t forget the biggest donor of channel nine was liberal party ( John Howard ), about 93% percent of their advertisings were on channel 9.
But anyway there is not much left for your consolation, the fact is that Multiculturalism is winning simply because Anglos are not sexualy active enough to produce more kids as for example Muslims are.
Average Anglo family in Australia has 1.6 kids and average Muslim family 9.1 kids.
How that works. Very simple a Muslim bloke marries three wives and each of them has, in average, three or more kids. With all of them he is married in accordance with Sharia law and officially only with one of them following Aussie rules. Two of them got big government benefits as single mums and one is supported by him (It was on TV about that ).
Just visit schools, TAFE and Uni and everything will be self explanatory. You shouldn't be upset about that.  As I said just accept that as a fact, don't complain, live with that and try peacefully to be integrated in new Australian society. Be reasonable and pragmatic because it's too late and nothing can be done about that.
I am sorry but that's the reality.

Quote:

As I said just accept that as a fact, don't complain, live with that and try peacefully to be integrated in new Australian society. Be reasonable and pragmatic because it's too late and nothing can be done about that. I am sorry but that's the reality.

Roman Empire:

Be reasonable and pragmatic because it's too late and nothing can be done about that.


Gone.

Soviet Empire:

Be reasonable and pragmatic because it's too late and nothing can be done about that, they control all of Eastern Europe and that will never change....

Gone.

Third Reich

Gone.


General Pinochet's Chile:


Gone.

Things change. Nothing is inevitable. We determine how we live, afresh every day. New times need new answers. Your defeatism is your problem, not mine, nor the rest of the people in this country with courage. You might think because your name is athos, im assuming greek derivation, that I am gunning for you. Let me make it quite clear, I do not care about any race, or ideology, nor see it as a threat of any kind - except for Islam.

 

Calanen wrote on May 7^th, 2009 at 1:10pm:

Quote:  As I said just accept that as a fact, don't complain, live with that and try peacefully to be integrated in new Australian society. Be reasonable and pragmatic because it's too late and nothing can be done about that. I am sorry but that's the reality. Roman Empire: Be reasonable and pragmatic because it's too late and nothing can be done about that. Gone. Soviet Empire: Be reasonable and pragmatic because it's too late and nothing can be done about that, they control all of Eastern Europe and that will never change.... Gone. Third Reich Gone. General Pinochet's Chile: Gone. Things change. Nothing is inevitable. We determine how we live, afresh every day. New times need new answers. Your defeatism is your problem, not mine, nor the rest of the people in this country with courage. You might think because your name is athos, im assuming greek derivation, that I am gunning for you. Let me make it quite clear, I do not care about any race, or ideology, nor see it as a threat of any kind - except for Islam.

Cale mate this is very good and positive what you’ve said. You are one of the blokes who is becoming more realistic and reasonable by accepting new Australian reality unlike those who just complain around.
Absolutely I agree with you, if those Anglo blokes want something to change they have to produce larger number of Anglo kids. For example if they don’t want to be Muslims the can be Mormons and marry as many wives as they want and have as many Anglo kids as they want.
They need to support only one wife the rest single mums will be accommodated by the government. They should stop complaining about Muslims they should learn from them.

Quote:

For example if they don’t want to be Muslims the can be Mormons and marry as many wives as they want and have as many Anglo kids as they want.

The orthodox mormon church actually abandoned polygamy.

I don't think we should become more like muslims, just close the country off from accepting more of them and adopt a zero tolerance policy for those that are already here.

Calanen wrote on May 7^th, 2009 at 6:04pm:

Quote: For example if they don’t want to be Muslims the can be Mormons and marry as many wives as they want and have as many Anglo kids as they want. The orthodox mormon church actually abandoned polygamy. I don't think we should become more like muslims, just close the country off from accepting more of them and adopt a zero tolerance policy for those that are already here.

Too late mate, too late it’s your turn to adapt on new environment the same as Aborigines had to do before you. Don’t worry this time others will be more generous, in protecting rights of minority indigenous Anglo population, than you’ve been towards Aborigines.
You remember famous proverb:

“What ever you do comes back to you”

The sad thing is idiots like Athos and Alan all back other national MONOCULTURES...  its alright for them to exist...  even within Australia and as enclaves within our culture.

hypocrisy and stupidity all rolled into one.

Grendel wrote on May 7^th, 2009 at 10:53pm:

The sad thing is idiots like Athos and Alan all back other national MONOCULTURES...  its alright for them to exist...  even within Australia and as enclaves within our culture. hypocrisy and stupidity all rolled into one.

Mate calling me idiot and other names will not help you. Take my advice and make more kids, instead 1.3 per family make 9.1 as Muslims do.
What is that? I give you friendly advice and you call me idiot, is that all right? Forget this lets be rational and solve your problem I am here to help you. I am bcking you not others you should thank me for that.
Capito sinore Englezo?

Mate...  not name-calling... addressing a fact.

One more time for the dummy...

The sad thing is idiots like Athos and Alan all back other national MONOCULTURES...  its alright for them to exist...  even within Australia and as enclaves within our culture.

hypocrisy and stupidity all rolled into one.

athos wrote on May 7^th, 2009 at 7:35pm:

Calanen wrote on May 7th, 2009 at 6:04pm: Quote: For example if they don’t want to be Muslims the can be Mormons and marry as many wives as they want and have as many Anglo kids as they want. The orthodox mormon church actually abandoned polygamy. I don't think we should become more like muslims, just close the country off from accepting more of them and adopt a zero tolerance policy for those that are already here. Too late mate, too late it’s your turn to adapt on new environment the same as Aborigines had to do before you. Don’t worry this time others will be more generous, in protecting rights of minority indigenous Anglo population, than you’ve been towards Aborigines. You remember famous proverb: “What ever you do comes back to you”

Well we shall see what comes back where. All in good time.....

We are also not a minority:


Quote:

minority indigenous Anglo population

but the overwhelming, and very angry majority, who is sick of our savings being gambled on foreign markets, our minerals stolen out of the ground and sent overseas - and our taxes going to fund the lifestyles of people who hate us.

Very very very angry regular people. If you think we are a joke - just wait.

Grendel wrote on May 8^th, 2009 at 8:58am:

Mate...  not name-calling... addressing a fact.

Stop talking and start walking, so move from 1.3 to 9.1, if you don't know how to do that go and take bugger** course fro Muslim blokes.
You need kids buddy, more kids.

Calanen wrote on May 8^th, 2009 at 10:04am:

athos wrote on May 7th, 2009 at 7:35pm: Calanen wrote on May 7th, 2009 at 6:04pm: Quote: For example if they don’t want to be Muslims the can be Mormons and marry as many wives as they want and have as many Anglo kids as they want. The orthodox mormon church actually abandoned polygamy. I don't think we should become more like muslims, just close the country off from accepting more of them and adopt a zero tolerance policy for those that are already here. Too late mate, too late it’s your turn to adapt on new environment the same as Aborigines had to do before you. Don’t worry this time others will be more generous, in protecting rights of minority indigenous Anglo population, than you’ve been towards Aborigines. You remember famous proverb: “What ever you do comes back to you” Well we shall see what comes back where. All in good time..... We are also not a minority: [quote]minority indigenous Anglo population

but the overwhelming, and very angry majority, who is sick of our savings being gambled on foreign markets, our minerals stolen out of the ground and sent overseas - and our taxes going to fund the lifestyles of people who hate us.

Very very very angry regular people. If you think we are a joke - just wait. [/quote]

Cal brother the same applies to you. You should perform better and produce more Anglo kids, that's only solution to your problem, so go and f u c k more around. Ask Muslim blokes to show you how to do that. I can't I am living ten thousand kilometres from you,  Florence is very far.

Ah i prefer a sustainable  population and not marrying within my family thanks Athos...  one more time for the dummy...

The sad thing is idiots like Athos and Alan all back other national MONOCULTURES...  its alright for them to exist...  even within Australia and as enclaves within our culture.

hypocrisy and stupidity all rolled into one.

Cant handle the FACTS eh?

Grendel wrote on May 8^th, 2009 at 8:30pm:

Ah i prefer a sustainable  population and not marrying within my family thanks Athos...  one more time for the dummy... The sad thing is idiots like Athos and Alan all back other national MONOCULTURES...  its alright for them to exist...  even within Australia and as enclaves within our culture. hypocrisy and stupidity all rolled into one. Cant handle the FACTS eh?

Ok then let Muslims overwhelm you, looks none can help you because you are too stubborn.
Hold on, or maybe you can't move from 1.3 to 9.1 because of your impotence, I didn't think about that. Anyway I am giving up as well, so sorry what can I say except Happy Muslim state.  
By for now.

Oh...  don't go away mad Athos...  just go away.

athos wrote on May 8^th, 2009 at 8:53pm:

... Ok then let Muslims overwhelm you, looks none can help you because you are too stubborn. ...

Didn't happen on this forum and that is the great lesson of Truth.

Multiculturalism has destroyed our once great nation and it should be halted and reversed, especially now that its failures are so evident and now that these so called minorities are becoming the majority we will all pay the price and become powerless to control the mobs especially when they form in packs as did the indians at flinders st out of control and not out with our interests at heart. Is there any nations in the world with a White only immigration policy because I want to move there before I become a stabbing victim. England and Australia are going to become islamic nations ruled by sharia law if people dont get active about it soon. And as for the opinion that multiculturalism is good because you get a variety of exotic food that statement must reffer to the past and is now rubbish as most food outlets are not even owned by their rightfull traditional owners for exaple most pizza shops are now owned by muslims and dont sell ham or are owned by any denomenation other than italian and cant cook good pizza, lets face it these days its usually asians and muslims who own everything. Greeks made the great fish chips souvalaki and hamburgers these days usually asians and muslims fill the takeway food needs of the nation, a few other points that make immigration wrong.
1. Immigrants chanel wealth from Australia back to their native lands.
2. The education system has dropped standards to facilitate immigrants at the expence of the youth of our nation.
3.They suck our jobs (scab labour)
4. They affect the governing of the nation and persuade our leaders to make descissions that are not in the nations best interests as well as grant them rights that we dont even enjoy.
5.They clog our legal system and our jails forcing our government to make us all subject to harsher penalties for minor offences all due to their behavior.
6. People need to learn the truth we will become a sharia ruled americanized chinese dumping ground of garbage crime poverty and famine if we cotinue on the path we are currently heading in. We need the zionist out, no such thing you say well Mr Rudd attended a zionist conference and is an avid servant to them dont beleive it google it, and no I am not saying to trust Turnbull either or Bob the politician he cant fix it, no no none of them, any way back to the topic to many people support race mixing until they become a victim of it, anyway as more and more immigrant numbers rise I suspect many people will fall victim and see the light or at least I hope they do for the peace safety and prospoerity of our children bugger the rest. I can go on for ever about immigaration its the cause of hate and racial crime its a rotten apple it brings international drug dealers and people smugglers it takes the nations wealth, wake up Australia immigration is wrong.    

The trouble with the word "multiculturalism" is that it can mean a number of different things, depending on what you mean by "culture."

The word "culture" could refer to a monoculture, a national culture, the attiude and thinking of people belonging to a particular race or followers of a particular religion or just the outward appearance of a foreign culture in the form of food, cuisine, clothing, language and habits.

Perhaps I could start by putting my own ethnic background in context. My ancestry is Chinese. My parents came from Hong Kong, a former British colony. I was born here, however and I grew up here. I grew up in ethnically diverse schools. I've read a lot of political and military history so I have a fair idea of Australia's relationship with the rest of the world. It has given me a good idea of how the world works politically, economically, socially, legally, culturally, etc. I have come to understand how Western political systems work and I like the concepts that drive them. All this reading into history has made my thinking somewhat Western. I don't know if that makes me "Australian," however.

I think it's important to make a distinction between ethnicity, ancestry, nationality and culture. They all relate to the idea of "race" but they refer to different aspects of it. Ethnicity and ancestry are closely related, to an extent that when I use the word "ethnicity" I usually also mean "ancestry." Nationality has to do with your loyalty to a particular country. Culture is about the habits, beliefs and attitudes that a group of people have in common when they belong to or possess the same culture.

This is important because it will help me explain how I feel and think about multiculturalism. For a lot of people ethnicity, ancestry, nationality and culture are all the same thing. If you consider yourself "Chinese," for example, your ethnicity, ancestry, nationality and culture are all Chinese. So you either came from or descend from a family in China. You have loyalty to that so-called "motherland." You also try to live the same way as people do in China.

I think this is where the term "multiculturalism" gets confused. Because multiculturalism is so closely related to race and therefore ethnicity, ancestry and nationality, multiculturalism becomes a blanket term for anything foreign. Those in favour of it believe we should allow "foreign elements" into the country. Those against it don't want anything "foreign" to enter the country. But they want it for different reasons. Maybe this is why they can't agree, because they're actually talking about different things.

So what is my position? My ancestry is Chinese, but that doesn't mean everything else in my life is "Chinese." Ethnically I'm Chinese, but culturally and politically I am not. If I went over to live in China today, they'd probably think I'm an idiot. I would be regarded as an alien over there. I know very little about manners in Chinese culture so even if I could speak Mandarin fluently, I wouldn't fit in. I even struggle with Cantonese, the dialect that my parents spoke. People would be able to tell almost immediately from my accent that I am some "idiot" from a Western country.

If there is a more compelling reason to think of myself as not "Chinese," it's because I have figured out that I don't need that culture or that country to figure out what lifestyle I want. Here I am living in a country with a political system modelled after the British Westminster parliamentary system, one that is also a federation and secular democracy. So this is how I decide to live. I will choose my lifestyle based on how people are to live in a secular democracy. It is a place where people think for themselves and don't lecture others on how to live. This is how I explain away the need to devote my life to a foreign country.

But I can't deny my ancestry and this is where it gets tough when deciding what country you support. You may remember what happened two years ago during the 2008 Beijing Olympics. You may remember the scale at which overseas Chinese rallied support amongst themselves for their precious olympics games. I believe most of them were either international students or Chinese born in the mainland. But I would not be so naive to think even some locally born Chinese got involved.

The concept that I don't like is the idea that even my Chinese ancestry means that I belong to the same group and therefore the same cause as those who got involved. I can imagine Mainland Chinese putting social pressure on locally born and bred "Chinese" to participate.

I personally don't know the whole/complete philosophy of why others here opposing multiculturalism are against it, but if I had a reason it would be this. Allowing members of a foreign culture to live in Australia means that they can apply social pressure to people to support a cause on their homeland. If you promote "multiculturalism," it can mean that you either tolerate or promote a foreign national culture. A national culture is more than just a culture. It is more than just food, clothing and habits. It is devotion and loyalty to another country. This is why a lot of people in this thread are against it. Multiculturalism can mean a number of things. Loyalty to another country is one of them.

The rest of multiculturalism is fine with me, but not the foreign loyalty part.

(continued)
It means that a flock of Mainland Chinese can come, settle in Australia, gather numbers and coerce locally-born "Chinese" to support a cause favouring China. For all those who are afraid of Asians drowning out other Australians, I think it's more likely for foreign-born Asians to outnumber locally born Asians. I have a Chinese ancestry, but my birthplace is Australia and I want my birthplace to take precedence. But with social pressure, it could tip in the other direction. The Chinese protestors of the 2008 Beijing Olympics are what I'd like to call "Red Guards," because I believe they were rallied in much the same way as the original Red Guards under Mao Zedong. It was a grass-roots movement authorised by the Communist Party.

The term "POM," which means "protectors/prisoners of the motherland" usually refers to someone who is British or English, but it could just as easily refer to other people of the same ancestry who have interests in their ancestral country. So there are Chinese POMs as well as English ones. There are POMs of as many kinds as there are people descended from different countries.

Basically, multiculturalism could encourage people to become POMs.

So what's my policy on multiculturalism? I believe it should be tolerated, not encouraged or promoted. We can't have a monoculture. There are too many of us Asia-descended people living here. You have to adapt. You can't force people to assimilate, but you can encourage them to do it. I am against a monoculture, but at the same time I am agaisnt anything that leads to establishment of national cultures in this country that may compel me to behave a certain way. I am an individual. I don't belong to any group.

Foreign cultures are ok, but not "foreign national cultures."

I think multiculturalism refers to two, interdependent but still distinct, concepts within the lexicon; multiracialism, and multiculturalism. Multiracialism refers to distinct biological population groups existing within the same political territory. Multiculturalism refers to distinct cultures exisiting within the same territory. The two are easily and frequently conflated because they so frequently coincide.

Your point is a good one; that multiculturalism can (and does) result in divided allegiances between national political entities, but I think that's only a minor reason why people object to multiculturalism. The major reason people bring up here I think at its core is its putative creation of internal social division within a nation, and this does not necessarily have to be the result of a divided political allegiance. This social division, as argued entails a competition of social interests between varying cultures and peoples, which translates into conflict, estrangement, indifference, and other negative social effects (as has been demonstrated -- unintentionally, in somes cases -- by certain political scientists).

In some respects, I kind of agree with your last paragraph. Multiculturalism and "diversity as unity" doublespeak is ideologically poisonous to promote, but considering the many peoples we have here already, it may not be desirable or viable to coerce them to integrate. You could send them back to their home-countries if you wished, but I don't think that's really necessary for most. However, this does not mean that I think that a nation and a national government should not serve the majority of that nation in question. In this case, white people. The interests of the white majority, exercised within reasonable and fair limits, should come before anything else. If we are to have a multiracial, multicultural society balancing this by serving the interests of white people, primarily by elminating racial quotas, egalitarian social engineering, immigration, progressive media jibberish and anti-discrimination legislation is necessary. Australia is in a fortunate position where the pragmatic consideration of mass-deporations is not required. This cannot be said about many other white nations, which are faced with ominous shifting demographic trends and intolerably large numbers of toxic peoples. When it has come to selecting non-white people to co-exist with us, we have at least been somewhat prudent about who we have chosen. Chinese like yourself are excellent and in many respects exemplary and admirable as people. In many fundamental ways, you are superior to whites.

aikmann4 wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 5:38am:

I think multiculturalism refers to two, interdependent but still distinct, concepts within the lexicon; multiracialism, and multiculturalism. Multiracialism refers to distinct biological population groups existing within the same political territory. Multiculturalism refers to distinct cultures exisiting within the same territory. The two are easily and frequently conflated because they so frequently coincide.

The two words I've been thinking of are multi-monoculturalism and multi-subculturalism.

A monoculture is an alternative society that expects people to belong and show loyalty to it. In a monoculture, people owe loyalty to a group. Anyone outside the group does not serve the interests of the monoculture. The monoculture's values and goals cannot be compromised and members of the monoculture must fight back against those who try to destroy the alternative society the monoculture created. I consider monocultures to be inherently divisive because they are exclusive and are driven by a "you are either for me or you are against me" attitude. You have to adhere to their rules and values or get out and leave.

A subculture is more about a person's individual identity. It's how they see themselves. They don't have loyalty to any particular group. They can leave whenever they want. Nobody else cares. Usually "subculture" refers to a counterculture like emo, punk, goth or hippy. But couldn't you also have an ethnic subculture where a person eats particular foods, wears a particular kind of clothing or adopts certain manners and ways of thinking/speaking? Because subcultures are about individuals, they aren't divisive. Religion is a subculture when a person doesn't try to impose his/her beliefs on others, even on fellow adherents. It becomes a monoculture when adherents feel a need to separate themselves from people who don't follow the same narrow set of beliefs.

I oppose multiculturalism when multiculturalism = multi-monoculturalism.
I support multiculturalism when multiculturalism = multi-subculturalism.

I can't really be for or against multiculturalism because some of it is good and some of it bad. If a Muslim woman wants to wear a hijab, she should wear it because it's what she wants to do, not because it's what her community wants her to do. Subculturalism good. Monoculturalism bad. Individual interests = good. Collective interests = bad.


aikmann4 wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 5:38am:

However, this does not mean that I think that a nation and a national government should not serve the majority of that nation in question. In this case, white people. The interests of the white majority, exercised within reasonable and fair limits, should come before anything else. If we are to have a multiracial, multicultural society balancing this by serving the interests of white people, primarily by elminating racial quotas, egalitarian social engineering, immigration, progressive media jibberish and anti-discrimination legislation is necessary.

I think it's ironic to say that a majority can't help itself! I think it's inevitable with a much larger, majority white population that many people would miss out. If the quality of life of the white population is determined by job opportunities then I think it's the wrong way to measure their potential opportunities. I think it's just a general lack of community-connectedness in Australia that leaves many white people living in worse conditions. People get rich and don't share their wealth with the poor. Australia has the energy, resources and technology to provide for the basic survival needs of all of its people. The problem is the distribution of wealth. The rich are too selfish to share what they have.

Wealth is distributed through jobs. With no job and no income, you can't purchase goods to increase your wealth. If you believe jobs are the only way to get wealth, then you'd be right that many white Australians are worse off. But they are only worse off because of the way the system works and you don't have to rely on the system to take you out of poverty. These is nothing stopping you from going to your neighbour and begging for money (or vice versa). This is outside the system. With a majority white population, white Australians should not be in that position. But it's not the fault of white Australians. It's people relying on the system to provide wealth and opportunities. The problem is people not being generous enough to help the poor.

Multiculturalism might be to blame, but it could also be the decline of Christianity. Christianity says to "love your neighbour as you love yourself." People are going to church less often and their minds aren't shaped around the community-centred teachings of Christianity. I am not saying it has to be Christianity. You could be Buddhist, atheist or humanist and still care about others. A lot of people are disillusioned with the "Jesus died for your sins" routine and avoid the church.

I personally make no claims about my devotion to community. But my point is that the white Australians who are poor are in that position because people haven't tried hard enough to help them. Other Australians (white or otherwise) who get rich aren't interested enough to give them more opportunities.

Quote:

A monoculture is an alternative society that expects people to belong and show loyalty to it. In a monoculture, people owe loyalty to a group. Anyone outside the group does not serve the interests of the monoculture. The monoculture's values and goals cannot be compromised and members of the monoculture must fight back against those who try to destroy the alternative society the monoculture created. I consider monocultures to be inherently divisive because they are exclusive and are driven by a "you are either for me or you are against me" attitude. You have to adhere to their rules and values or get out and leave.

"Monocultures" are hardly divisive. It is inevitable for all societies to generate a fraction of marginalized malcontents on their peripheries, but just because this is ineluctable in occurence, does not mean that the alternative is desirable, or even viable. The basis of society is exclusion, and for communities to remain properly functional and cohesive, certain customs, manners and ideals must be concordant and held in common. Societies function and define themselves by circumscribing behaviors considered collectively undesirable; even our official, multicultural society.


Quote:

A subculture is more about a person's individual identity. It's how they see themselves. They don't have loyalty to any particular group. They can leave whenever they want. Nobody else cares. Usually "subculture" refers to a counterculture like emo, punk, goth or hippy. But couldn't you also have an ethnic subculture where a person eats particular foods, wears a particular kind of clothing or adopts certain manners and ways of thinking/speaking?

I really don't get this. Are you saying that goths, 'punks' (or whatever the hell they are) aren't actually rejected by the majority of people? Those old photographs of filthy, unwashed and unkempt peaceniks being yelled at by angry observers, and in turn, them screaming into the faces of rows of police officers? Subcultures are in fact sub-cultures because they are rejected by actual cultures (and given the nature of so many of them, thankfully!) In turn, these subcultures look disdainfully on the rest of society; it seems the very purpose of so many of them is for the angsty to distinguish themselves from everybody else due to some unwarranted feeling of specialness and individualty. I don't know how anybody could subscribe to the idea that they aren't divisive; even in the teeny-bopper media you see all of those pathetic cliques depicted as warring tribes within a high-school context. I really don't know why so many of them have sprung up over the past thirty or forty years. I think a lot of it has to do with too many teenagers becoming disatisfied with being average joes and seeking some kind of vapid outlet to express their facile individuality. Too many people growing up without proper parental strictures I guess.

Or maybe what you are trying to say is that you would desire a society in which no form of personal expression is looked upon disdainfully or is rejected by any other group. A "subculture" to you becomes a monoculture only when it rejects the behavior of any other group and does not behave in a tolerant manner towards them. This requires the promulgation and elevation of the ideals of tolerance and respect, so even this state of society requires exclusion and rejection; specifically, of those that are intolerant. But in the case of a society with this inconsistency, or the case of a hypothetical society where nobody is in fact intolerant, you still only speak of desires, ideal (to some at least) states of society beyond the reach of man. Men are tribal in their nature and will always sort themselves into groups that they consider appropriate to their personal preferences. This will inevitably lead to conflict and division, as group interests inevitably disagree and identities inevitably chafe against each other. It is only the liberal who considers this state of affairs unacceptable and desires the restructuring of society for the purpose of achieving its elimination, a restructuring which will come about, in his mind, via the use of the tools that he considers to have an infinite amount of transformative power over the minds of all men; education and legislation.

Quote:

I think it's ironic to say that a majority can't help itself! I think it's inevitable with a much larger, majority white population that many people would miss out. If the quality of life of the white population is determined by job opportunities then I think it's the wrong way to measure their potential opportunities. I think it's just a general lack of community-connectedness in Australia that leaves many white people living in worse conditions. People get rich and don't share their wealth with the poor. Australia has the energy, resources and technology to provide for the basic survival needs of all of its people. The problem is the distribution of wealth. The rich are too selfish to share what they have. Wealth is distributed through jobs. With no job and no income, you can't purchase goods to increase your wealth. If you believe jobs are the only way to get wealth, then you'd be right that many white Australians are worse off. But they are only worse off because of the way the system works and you don't have to rely on the system to take you out of poverty. These is nothing stopping you from going to your neighbour and begging for money (or vice versa). This is outside the system. With a majority white population, white Australians should not be in that position. But it's not the fault of white Australians. It's people relying on the system to provide wealth and opportunities. The problem is people not being generous enough to help the poor. Multiculturalism might be to blame, but it could also be the decline of Christianity. Christianity says to "love your neighbour as you love yourself." People are going to church less often and their minds aren't shaped around the community-centred teachings of Christianity. I am not saying it has to be Christianity. You could be Buddhist, atheist or humanist and still care about others. A lot of people are disillusioned with the "Jesus died for your sins" routine and avoid the church. I personally make no claims about my devotion to community. But my point is that the white Australians who are poor are in that position because people haven't tried hard enough to help them. Other Australians (white or otherwise) who get rich aren't interested enough to give them more opportunities.

I'm not quite sure what you mean or how this relates to what I was saying; I wasn't really talking about income, wealth distribution or anything like that. Economic inequality is natural and to some extent desirable. I meant if we are to have a multiracial and multicultural society (not via encouragement or institution but as a natural result of multiracialism), it must operate in a completely different fashion from how it does now. Palpable risks such as the possibility of going minority-majority must be precluded, known HBD should factor in when making policy considerations, and HBDs that are not with certainty should be addressed pragmatically rather than through outright denial. We should not be in the habit of pandering to what can often essentially be unintegrated outgroups, or indulging or engendering their delusions. My attitudes here, which are munificient for me, are made possible only by the fact that Australia is a much less dangerous situation than many other of the Western nations.

aikmann4 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 3:31am:

"Monocultures" are hardly divisive. For communities to remain properly functional and cohesive, certain customs, manners and ideals must be concordant and held in common. Societies function and define themselves by circumscribing behaviors considered collectively undesirable; even our official, multicultural society.

Monocultures can alienate people by their rules and values. This could include things like eating habits, dress code, gender roles, marital customs, dating customs, socio-economic expectations and manners. Marital arrangements by parents, men being required to propose, women staying at home, the idea that "big boys don't cry" and the hijab are examples. The negative stigmas associated with not doing what the monoculture prescribes is what makes a monoculture undesirable.

My dad, example, criticises the way I eat. My dad considers eating to be a social activity. I have to be "decent" or elegant in the way I choose to eat my food. I like eating food in a particular order and I don't believe it's my dad's business to tell me how to eat my lunch or dinner. He believes that people like watching the way I eat. My argument is that nobody cares. It's just food.


aikmann4 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 3:31am:

Subcultures are in fact sub-cultures because they are rejected by actual cultures (and given the nature of so many of them, thankfully!) In turn, these subcultures look disdainfully on the rest of society; it seems the very purpose of so many of them is for the angsty to distinguish themselves from everybody else due to some unwarranted feeling of specialness and individualty. I don't know how anybody could subscribe to the idea that they aren't divisive; even in the teeny-bopper media you see all of those pathetic cliques depicted as warring tribes within a high-school context. I really don't know why so many of them have sprung up over the past thirty or forty years. I think a lot of it has to do with too many teenagers becoming disatisfied with being average joes and seeking some kind of vapid outlet to express their facile individuality. Too many people growing up without proper parental strictures I guess.

The punk, emo, goth and hippies were just an extreme example. I used to look down on such people. I don't have tattoos and nor do I have any of their weird hairstyles, but I understand why they chose to live, dress, act, talk and think that way. Living standards had increased to a level where the customs and manners associated with traditional cultures became unnecessary to most people. People became more individualistic. Social mobility increased. Western society offered people an opportunity to get rich and free themselves from the traditions of their local culture. You were no longer defined by your heritage or local customs. It was uncool to be defined by your heritage and local customs. People rebelled against it. Everybody who conformed was an idiot.

I didn't grow up in that generation, but I live with the consequences of that generation.


aikmann4 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 3:31am:

Or maybe what you are trying to say is that you would desire a society in which no form of personal expression is looked upon disdainfully or is rejected by any other group.

I personally favour individual choice and that people do not accuse me of not doing X and Y. I prefer not to live in a society driven by monocultures that say that I must marry at a particular age (or marry at all), be the one to approach or propose to the opposite sex, act a certain way because I am a man, dress a certain way or eat a certain way. It's my life and I should be able to live as I please. This is the problem with monocultures: they prescribe a certain way of life for the individual and associate negative stigmas against people who do not follow it. I lot of these things don't affect other people in their community, but they make life harder for the individual person.


aikmann4 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 3:31am:

A "subculture" to you becomes a monoculture only when it rejects the behavior of any other group and does not behave in a tolerant manner towards them. This requires the promulgation and elevation of the ideals of tolerance and respect, so even this state of society requires exclusion and rejection; specifically, of those that are intolerant.

People who are intolerant aren't actually rejected. They are tolerated as much as people who are different from the norm.


aikmann4 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 3:31am:

Men are tribal in their nature and will always sort themselves into groups that they consider appropriate to their personal preferences. This will inevitably lead to conflict and division, as group interests inevitably disagree and identities inevitably chafe against each other.

I don't consider myself as belonging to a tribe. If I have political views and beliefs, it doesn't make me a part of a tribe. It just makes me part of another faction.

aikmann4 wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 5:01am:

I'm not quite sure what you mean or how this relates to what I was saying; I wasn't really talking about income, wealth distribution or anything like that. Economic inequality is natural and to some extent desirable.

Sorry, I mistook what you said as referring to jobs being lost to non-whites.

Quote:

Monocultures can alienate people by their rules and values. This could include things like eating habits, dress code, gender roles, marital customs, dating customs, socio-economic expectations and manners. Marital arrangements by parents, men being required to propose, women staying at home, the idea that "big boys don't cry" and the hijab are examples. The negative stigmas associated with not doing what the monoculture prescribes is what makes a monoculture undesirable.

Quote:

I personally favour individual choice and that people do not ....

I did say that this was an inevitable aspect of the exclusive nature of cultures. A fraction of people who don't quite "fit in" (or make no effort to try to "fit in") are going to be alienated. I am not denying this; I am just saying that it isn't as bad as you are making it out to be, nor is it a good reason to attempt to impose some artificial system in its stead.


Quote:

My dad, example, criticises the way I eat. My dad considers eating to be a social activity. I have to be "decent" or elegant in the way I choose to eat my food. I like eating food in a particular order and I don't believe it's my dad's business to tell me how to eat my lunch or dinner. He believes that people like watching the way I eat. My argument is that nobody cares. It's just food.

If nobody cares is your argument, why does your father care? The reasons why he would prefer you to consume your dinner in a decent manner are very sensible; one, you will be a much more effective member of society and thus have a higher chance of being successful if you adhere to proper tableside protocol, and secondly, elegance is aesthetic. People prefer to see others eat their food properly with a knife and fork rather than stuff it into their mouths with the juices dripping down their chin because they cognitively associate the former behavior with cleanliness, and because it is far more pleasing to the eye.

Monocultures don't always just arbitrarily impose codes of etiquette and norms on people; there are underlying rationales for most norms. I say "I would like to be excused" when I need to go to the bathroom when I am eating with others, and not "I need to go take a big fat dump" because the latter more directly reminds others of fecal matter, which is unhygenic, unpleasant and foul smelling. Frankly, I don't know about you, but I would prefer a society in which people who announce their intentions to void their bowels with such vulgarity to not be particularly socially mobile. The solipstic behavior that you are describing is common of my generation which I assume you are a part; but just because certain elements of our generation embrace more lax or the complete abscence of previous social norms, does not mean that they themselves have not assumed certain (and in my view, awful) norms of their own, nor does it mean that the new behavior that they engage in has in any way been a positive change. Sharply dressed invididuals who take pride in their physical appearance have given way to negrified codes of dress like disgusting sagging pants where the underpants are visible and hairy armpits exposed by singlets stained with tomato sauce. Is this really a good thing? Most norms are in place because they promote overall social cohesion and are considered to be of net benefit to the society that internalizes them.

Your father is attempting to socialize you appropriately so that your chances of being accepted in society are maximised, and thus, your chance of being successful. A parent who would not do otherwise is not fit to assume the role. If only we all could be Chinese, no?


Quote:

The punk, emo, goth and hippies were just an extreme example. I used to look down on such people. I don't have tattoos and nor do I have any of their weird hairstyles, but I understand why they chose to live, dress, act, talk and think that way. Living standards had increased to a level where the customs and manners associated with traditional cultures became unnecessary to most people. People became more individualistic. Social mobility increased. Western society offered people an opportunity to get rich and free themselves from the traditions of their local culture. You were no longer defined by your heritage or local customs. It was uncool to be defined by your heritage and local customs. People rebelled against it. Everybody who conformed was an idiot. I didn't grow up in that generation, but I live with the consequences of that generation.

Yes, you are describing history fairly well, I just don't see why the commonly uttered liberal argument that an increase in living standards inevitably must result in the current social milleu which we are present. I would ascribe the breakdown of society more to effectively hostile Western intellectuals intent on deconstructing, inverting and subverting Western civilization for a variety of reasons.

Quote:

People who are intolerant aren't actually rejected. They are tolerated as much as people who are different from the norm.

This is simply not true. Certain social attitudes have become extremely unfashionable and alienating in elite circles nowadays. This was noted by Tom Wolfe in his excellent novel The Bonfire of the Vanities in a scene that provided spot on social observation to what we are discussing. In society as it currently exists, having the "correct opinions" about something like race is a major marker of social status and extremely important to the intellectuals who dispense the ideas that are expected that the rest of our society will espouse. This was described in a scene in The Bonfire of the Vanities where the main character, a typical New York yuppy, hires an English baby nurse to look after his children. Being English in the United States, as is suggested by this part of the novel, is a status marker, so this causes great psychological stress to his yuppy employer as he finds it difficult to order her around (as he should outrank her in status; being her employer). One day the yuppy lawyer father and his wife are sitting with the nurse watching television and there is a race riot on the t.v. The English nurse says some mildly "racist" remarks; something like "coloured people don't know how good they've got it in this country". This is what Tom Wolfe says in the novel:


Quote:

Kramer and his wife looked at each other. You could tell he was thinking the same thing she was. Thank god in Heaven! What a relief. They could let their voices out now. Ms. Efficiency was a bigot! These days the thing about bigotry was it was undignified; a sign of low rent origins, low social status and poor taste. So they were the superiors of their English baby nurse after all. What a smacking relief!

It's perfect and damn true too. New social norms have replaced the (or elites desire for them to replace) old ones though they are not embraced by many in society because elites are out of touch and basically insane, but that's another issue altogether.


Quote:

I don't consider myself as belonging to a tribe. If I have political views and beliefs, it doesn't make me a part of a tribe. It just makes me part of another faction.

I think most people subconsciously or consciously do. This is why so called "monocultures" as you entitle them are desirable to the individualistic mess that we are attempting to presently enroot; social and political ideologies that attempt to deliberately defy or break away some of the more fundamental aspects of humankind are doomed to fail from the moment they are conceived. People go along with the group because we all tend to associate better with people who are like ourselves. Most of us try to minimize conflict and stress in our lives by associating with who we share much in common. Most people want to be popular because being popular increases our chances of being successful and thus being reproductively successful, so we circumscribe ourselves, consciously and subconsciously, to social norms. We do it to fit in. If we're all more similar, we get along better, we all fit together better, our group itself is more cohesive and more competitive against OTHER groups, and within OUR group, we ourselves are more competitive as well. Being less weird makes us more fit. Women are subconsciously assessing and calculating your every move; they want a guy who they feel will be able to raise their child in a way where he or she will fit in better with everybody else, and thus have a higher chance of being more reproductively successful. Sometimes you just have to fit in to be in it to win it.

This has been an excellent discussion and I appreciate your ability to express (eloquently, I might add) your opinions without rancor.

There's no need to discriminate against rancor, you know. That's plain rancist.

Karnal wrote on Jul 1^st, 2010 at 5:29pm:

There's no need to discriminate against rancor, you know. That's plain rancist.

Being a Paki bugger, you'd want to defend the only thing that makes you you, wouldn't you??

Soren wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 10:47pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 1st, 2010 at 5:29pm: There's no need to discriminate against rancor, you know. That's plain rancist. Being a Paki bugger, you'd want to defend the only thing that makes you you, wouldn't you??

Of course, effende. Just as, being a Christian, you like to defend unconditional love.

When I was in Africa I saw the ghosts of British colonialism. It was in a place called the Nairobi Club where I was staying. They were pale, immaculately dressed gentlemen in White Jackets, all in their 80's or 90's, hunched around a very large Wireless set, congratulating each other

"Jolly good show! 230 for 7!" and they'd bark out orders in appalling Kiswahili with absolutely no grammar and a thick English accent  -  "Brandy mabili hapana  baraf"

They are probably ghosts now, because this was in 1980.

Blatant, in your face colonial bigotry has probably totally died out in Kenya, but it's still alive and well in Australia - apparently. There are still those who prefer to live in the past.

What exactly is that in response to?

The rest of multiculturalism is fine with me, but not the foreign loyalty part.

I agree, and am fine with multiculturalism also,(those who wish to assimilate and declare themselves Australians)... though don't believe we should be immigrating known problematic groups/individuals who are culturally opposed to our western values at the risk of them being offended by our Australian way of life.

;)...  See, I'm a thoughtful bigot.

My grandmother was of Portuguese decent, though referred to herself as being Australian until the day she died whenever someone asked her what her nationality was. She was a firm believer in when in Rome, do as the Romans do...(in her own words)... which is why it still dumbfounded her right up until the day she died how sometimes she would see 3rd generational Australians referring to their nationality as being either their religion, or where their parents, grandparents came from, this and would not identify themselves as being simply Australian, despite having been born here themselves.

Must they be Lebanese Australian, or Indo-Australian, Chinese Australian, etc?

Why not just Australian?

Multiculturalism can work, though I think the existing values and our Australian way of life/culture is often undermined, ridiculed, even mocked by some ethnic minorities who point-blank don't wish to identify themselves as being Australian, (until they want government  assistance this is) and whilst it's unacceptable/un-Australian for existing Australians to discriminate, some ethnic groups don't at all mind discriminating against themselves when they make this racial/cultural distinction between themselves and us.
In Switzerland, they are very strict with respects to who they allow to become citizens, there are courses immigrants are expected to attend, comprising culture, language, history, values etc, even if you marry a Swiss citizen. I think we need to be more exclusive, this and make it clear that if you move here, you are to Australianise, become an Australian citizen.  We are supposed to be in this together, irrespective of were we all originated from, yes?
:)

in my observation, it is rare if non-existent for people here to regard themselves as anything other than Australian these days if they are even the generation born here of immigrant families, but certainly the second or third generation do not generally regard themselves as anything other in the vast majority of cases.
It just isn't a sustainable perspective to regard yourself as some 'other' when you and your generations immediately before you were also born here.
Don't they say that ancestral 'memory' only extends to around 7 generations max?
I mean, how many Australians today whose families have been here since the first fleet for example would regard themselves as english?
None?
That's what will happen to all immigrant families to Australia (and any other country for that matter) eventually.
Perhaps not the immigrant generation itself, they are the ones that suffer the trauma of leaving a country and culture and settling into a new one. That's extremely tough, many people can't really do it. That's understandable. Some return to their original countries. That's understandable too. Today though there exists the luxury of that option. In Australia, particularly, in times past, once you left your original country to come here, that was it, you stay, like it or not, you simply couldn't go back, too far, too expensive, just not possible.
That's tough too, but maybe better that your original country, at the time.
If you want to know what Australia will be like in the future re multiculturalism, just look at America. That country really is twice as old as Australia in terms of it's non-indignenous immigrant population. That's what this country will be, it is already on that road. It was always going to be.

When our armed services reflects a more diverse, multicultural nation prepared to defend it's nation irrespective of where they or their parents originated from, then and only then will I agree that those who have immigrated here, and or their offspring truly value us as a race unto itself, a nation worthy of their undivided loyalty, respect and admiration.

Have you been out to the the barracks lately, tell me, why is it that a majority of those who serve in our nations armed services, don't reflect a more "multicultural" Australia?

A majority of those willing to serve their nation are caucasian, despite our obvious multicultural shift.
I think it's this brand of patriotism which speaks for itself, don't you?

Good enough to immigrate here, but not good enough to defend?

8-)...Some immigrants appear to be more willing to Australianise than others, you need to drive out to the suburbs more, might I suggest a stroll through Canley vale, Cabramatta, Chester Hill, Bass Hill, Lakemba, Guildford, Villawood, Grandville, Yennora, Merrylands, Auburn, Lidcome, Fairfield, ....  we have a 2nd and 3rd generational Lebanese/Asian youth culture, complete with their own accent and street culture/dress code,  as though they walked off the boat yesterday...and nothings been done about integrating these people into Australian society responsibly, never has it been our governments priority.

I think you need to go for a drive out into the suburbs a little more often, to the places I listed, because you don't have to be a social anthropologist to realise how many of these once thriving middle-class and safe neighbourhoods have become impoverished ethnic slums that noone with any self respect wants to buy in, due to having been both socio-economically and racially-demographically stigmatised.

Are regarded ethnic sprawls!

Not all of us walk around with our eyes closed, this and do take a drive through these revolting suburbs from time to time just to compare them to how they used to be.

We can irresponsibly immigrate true, but we cant hide our growing slums of social depravity and cultural disadvantage in OZ forever.

8-)...A word of advise, don't get out of your car.

And make sure you have glass insurance, if you do.

So, why are a majority of those willing to defend their nation Anglo-Saxon?

Where is this multicultural and "Australianised" nation of 2nd and 3rd generational folk you speak of?

;) Missing in action?i

aikmann4 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2010 at 9:55pm:

What exactly is that in response to?

Probably not you. Some of the earlier posts on this thread.

Quote:

A majority of those willing to serve their nation are caucasian, despite our obvious multicultural shift. I think it's this brand of patriotism which speaks for itself, don't you?

Are you in the defence force? If not, are you unpatriotic? There are more ways to 'serve' your country than joining the military.


Quote:

we have a 2nd and 3rd generational Lebanese/Asian youth culture, complete with their own accent and street culture/dress code,  as though they walked off the boat yesterday

What dress code are you talking about?


Quote:

A word of advise, don't get out of your car. And make sure you have glass insurance, if you do

Oh please.

I couldn't care less whether I lived in a multicultural or monocultural society. What is important are my interactions with individual people. Multiculturalism is a non-issue for me.

How boring and limiting would only one culture be in the max.

I do have difficulty though with the poll alternatives. What's with the unity /disunity? You are going to have unity and disunity along a number of lines whether or not a society is multicultural or not. People will agree and disagree on many things regardless of their culture. The two major alternatives are false and simplistic dichotomies.

Ziggy wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2010 at 7:05pm:

I do have difficulty though with the poll alternatives. What's with the unity /disunity? You are going to have unity and disunity along a number of lines whether or not a society is multicultural or not. People will agree and disagree on many things regardless of their culture. The two major alternatives are false and simplistic dichotomies.

If 'culture' is not real for you - then on what grounds do you declare that culture is not impotrtant?

What is a good ground for disunity for you? WHat unites you with others?

I definitely don't think it's the be all and end all of unity or disunity. That's the position I'm taking. Where did I say culture is unimportant? It's the way people live day in and day out.

Do you believe that someone from a different culture won't agree with you on many issues? And do you believe that someone from the same culture will agree with you on every or most issues?  What are your grounds?

I do not agree that there is any fundamental divide between people from different cultural backgrounds in Australia that entails disunity or unity above any number of lines that these can occur.

Overall, people work here and are subject to the same laws, they go to vote like everyone else for the parties around, they have TV's , the have computers, they go to the same sorts of institutions for education, the buy and sell in mostly the same places.

Where do you see  disunity, and disunity in what exactly?

Ziggy wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2010 at 9:07pm:

Where do you see  disunity and disunity in what exactly?

Things that make him spill his cocoa, I'd say.  

Australia was multicultural before white people got here.
Being, the Aboriginal Peoples were not one people, their culture was not the same, yes it had some of the same aspects, much like the Scottish, British, Irish, and Welsh. But they were not exactly the same culture, so in that way Australia has always been Multicultural.

mellie wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2010 at 10:35pm:

In Switzerland, they are very strict with respects to who they allow to become citizens, there are courses immigrants are expected to attend, comprising culture, language, history, values etc, even if you marry a Swiss citizen. I think we need to be more exclusive, this and make it clear that if you move here, you are to Australianise, become an Australian citizen.  We are supposed to be in this together, irrespective of were we all originated from, yes? :)

Learning that Swiss Language can be a real bugger.  Still it's good that Switzerland is so monolithic with everybody speaking fluent Swiss :P

I'm mostly indifferent to multiculturalism, however what I do take issue with is the elite classes who won't even entertain the idea of there being a downside to it, as they eat caviar and sip chardonnay with their wealthy foreign neighbours in their leafy enclaves.

They would do well to realise that for every refined, wealthy foreign family, there is another family of impoverished crooks colouring the views of those dirty poor people.

Of course there is a down side wesley, there is good and bad parts in every culture. We need to adopt the good and throw away the bad. We need to evolve as peoples.

... wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2010 at 12:17pm:

They would do well to realise that for every refined, wealthy foreign family, there is another family of impoverished crooks colouring the views of those dirty poor people.

Skip the word foreign and it still makes sense. We need poor people. If poverty is ever eradicated, we'll all go broke  :P

Deborahmac09 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2010 at 10:03am:

Australia was multicultural before white people got here. Being, the Aboriginal Peoples were not one people, their culture was not the same, yes it had some of the same aspects, much like the Scottish, British, Irish, and Welsh. But they were not exactly the same culture, so in that way Australia has always been Multicultural.

That is as parochial as can be expected from sentimentalist one-worlders. The Aborigines engaged in tribal warfare with each other for millenia. So did the indians of the Americas and so do the Papuans, the last of the stone-agers,  to this day.

Culture is the common, unspoken assumptions about self, others, community, the nature of human relations and the nature of the story of the community that shares these concepts.

Now, it is very obviuous even after a cursory look that there are cultural differences and that they manisfest themselves in actions and speech that is rooted in the above concepts about life and society.

For example, corrupt societies are corrupt because of the way people perceive themselves and others and the nature of the power relations in their society. That is, they are NOT just like us but sadly  mislead by their wicked leaders (or worse, corrupetd by us).

Or another example - honour societies value 'respect' above justice or personal autonomy. Our society on the other hand values justice and autonomy above accidental markers of status such as age or social position or kinship.


Assimiltaion means that incoming people should be conscious of the value differences in our culture and come into our societies with their eyes open and to accept that we do not share their ideas about the nature of human relationships. AFter all, our cultural traits make our societies desirable to come into in the first place.


Folk dancing on national feast days and using too much chilli or garlic in your cuisin is about the limit of cultural difference that can be safely allowed.  Notions of arranged marriage, honour codes, ethnic or religious special pleading, ignorance of basic notions of personal hygiene, orderly queing and honesty deserve strong rebuke, not accommodation and nurturing.

Soren, that would be why I earlier posted this.


Quote:

there is good and bad parts in every culture. We need to adopt the good and throw away the bad. We need to evolve as peoples

.

Problem is, can we recognise the good and the bad in our own? No, because we are too busy pointing fingers at others.

Here is one
Respect for parents. Something that is important to me. Our kids seem to have lost it.  Hate to see what their kids will be like.

In our culture respect is earned. If a parent wants to be respected, she must be respectable. Only then does it make sense to give the kid a clip around the ears if he is disrespectful.

All this, of course, requires a degree of confidence in the values that make for respectability. However, the generation of parents that now finds itself disrespected by their children is the generation that 20-30 years ago insisted that all the values that made for 'respectability' were fuddy-duddy or oppressive and they loudly and persistently revolted against them.

I agree that parents need to show their children how to respect, by showing respect. But it is not always returned, especially when the children are teenagers.
Families are suppose to be give and take. Many kids today take and rarely give. Agreed, many parents today take and rarely give.

Many parents and teachers are relativist gelly-backs, hand-wringing hypocrits and their children see that. These adults are inconsistent, get their moral bearings from the daly press and some even want to be friends with their children, FFS! WHat's to respect?

As I said, this society values merit, not status. Hypochrites are not in a position to expect respect and they are certainly not entitled to expect that they children will, somehow, grow into just and respectable adults.

Giving  children what they need and making them earn what they want warrents them constantly abusing their parents. Many parents give in and give them what they want, but that does not make it any better, infact it can make it worse.

Hypocrites, as in do as I say not as I do?

These are the people who give in to anyone who makes loud enough demands on them. They have no sense of, much less confidence in, what they themselves may stand for.

They think, probably, that multiculturalism means that the 'other' culture is as good as their own. STraight away, they are unable to argue in any coherent way, why their own values are worth holding on to - hence their easy giving in.

The only thing they are left with is the easy, lazy relativism that justifies their readiness to surrender to every demand, whether by their children, ethnics, any other sub-culture.  But who can respect surrender monkeys?

Quote:

But who can respect surrender monkeys?

The same people who respect those who say you are wrong and I am right. No matter what... Is admiting you are wrong a strenght or weakness?

There is good and bad in every culture. Leave the bad behind and adopt the good. But it is not as easy as that, first you have to recognise the good from the bad. That is not always straightfoward.

When Multi-Culture officially started in New York in ca. 1913, it was nothing else then a Culture of Criminal activity, which was reduced not long time ago with zero tolerance. No wonder former Labour-Chancelor of Germany, Mr. Helmut Schmidt (part-Jewish) stated, that Multi-Culture does only work in a form of dictator-ship.
Only the Australia First Party will introduce an Immigration-Policy which will serve Australians and Multi-Culti will be not more neccessary. Voting for someone else is just a waste of time, like in the last 30 years. :-*

Deborahmac09 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2010 at 10:15am:

Quote: But who can respect surrender monkeys? The same people who respect those who say you are wrong and I am right. No matter what... Is admiting you are wrong a strenght or weakness? There is good and bad in every culture. Leave the bad behind and adopt the good. But it is not as easy as that, first you have to recognise the good from the bad. That is not always straightfoward.

This is mushy pap, with respect.

Our culture is self-correcting (it values merit and justice). An awful lot of other cultures value honour and status well above merit and justice. WHat is to be learned from them? Conversly, how are they goind to learn to value merit and justice unless they discard their fixation on status and honour?

Not always self correcting soren. Ever evolving yes, and not always for the best. THe truth is, Australians, unless they are indigenous do not have a culture specifically of their own, even some of indigenous Australians have lost their cultures.

It was said back in the 50's, by a newcomer. I forget which particular country he had come from. He said "What is this culture I am to assimulate too?"  Nobody could adequatly explain the Australian culture, yet it was expected that Newcomers and indigenous Australians would assimilate to the Australian way of life. What is the Australian way of life, if not the freedom to be ourselves, within reasonable boundries of course.  

Quote:

Call to the People of Australia Australia is in danger. We are in danger from abroad. We are in danger at home. We are in danger from moral and intellectual apathy, from the mortal enemies of mankind which sap the will and weaken the understanding and breed evil dissension. Unless these are withstood, we shall lack moral strength and moral unity sufficient to save our country and our liberties. Our present dangers are a challenge to us, but in meeting the challenges of history peoples grow in greatness. The dangers demand of all good Australians, community of thought and purpose. They demand a restoration of the moral order from which alone true social order can derive. We call on our people to remember those whose labours opened this land to the uses of mankind; those who bore and reared children of a new nation; those who died in battle for us, bringing splendour to Australian arms; those who worked with mind and muscle for the heritage which we, please God, shall hold and enlarge for our children and their children. And that this may be so, we ask that each shall renew in himself the full meaning of the call which has inspired our people in their highest tasks and in their days of danger: FEAR GOD, HONOR THE KING

Written by Richard Bardon (1886-1969)

One of my favourite peaces of writing. Written to make a complex idea look and seem simple. The idea was one Nation, One people.
Sounds like right up so many of you peoples alleys today. It was written back in the 50's.

Quote:

Nobody could adequatly explain the Australian culture, yet it was expected that Newcomers and indigenous Australians would assimilate to the Australian way of life.

How would anyone 'explain' any culture?  It can not be learnt from books, it has to be lived!  

Of course nobody could adequately explain Australian culture. Nobody can adequately explain any national culture as it is never an object with physical specifications.

BTW, if national culture is so nebulous as you seem to pretend - why multiply it? WHAT exactly is being multiplied in multiculturalism?

In reality, of course, multiculturalism is precisely what you say: some westerners treating their own culture AS IF it was a nebulous, questionable thing so everyone else,  who of course does not treat theirs as such,  can prance around with their silly beards and ask ' what is this Australian culture I am supposed to assimilate to'?

... wrote on Nov 5^th, 2010 at 11:35am:

Quote: Nobody could adequatly explain the Australian culture, yet it was expected that Newcomers and indigenous Australians would assimilate to the Australian way of life. How would anyone 'explain' any culture?  It can not be learnt from books, it has to be lived!

Yes Wesley, thankyou. We all live by what we see, feel and hear.
SO do newcomers, sometimes it needs to be discussed to come to an adequate understanding. Unfortunatly many from many cultures are not willing to do that.

I used to support mulculturalism for its diversity. Now I am sick of it because it increasingly emphasies cultural differences and this, in the long term,can only spell trouble.

We all live on the same planet.

What we need to understand is TPTB do everything to create divisions between all different types of humanity, be it religious, race, colour, location of birth, whatever.

Anything is fair game for them as controvesy means the human race is redirected from what matters to what is trivial.

There are huge benefits for them. If the human population is preoccupied with these petty differences they are distracted from the reality that we are all living in a debt prison. One that they created.

Cheers
Michael

I support multiculturalism, but not excessive population growth.

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION:
--> Do people who support Multi-Culturalism (the focus upon the cultural aspects of the other 7 regions of the planet) do so because they have an inability to recognise or take an active role in the 'culture' of this Region of the World>? :-?

diligent wrote on Nov 16^th, 2010 at 3:48pm:

I used to support mulculturalism

... until I discovered Smirnoff???

TKline wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 3:28pm:

I support multiculturalism, but not excessive population growth.

Many of the introduced cultures are of the belief- 'god will love you more the more children you have'. This covers Asian, Catholic, Islamic, Hindu and African cultures.

I believe in NEW cultures that are emerging and finding freedom from the shackles of old stale cultures that think they are the bees knees.

Funny how the Fisher's Ghost cultural Festival has been killed off by 'overseas' cultural Festivals around Sydney in the name of Multi-Cultural.

Lets face it - When the PM serves the USA and the GG serves the UK and the UK serves the USA anyway, then its quite obvious that the Federal level of Politics in this Country serves the Multi-Culture of the International Scene.
::)
...the only way to make money in Politics in this country is to betray any Domestic issues and support Foreign Policies.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 12:35am:

I believe in NEW cultures that are emerging and finding freedom from the shackles of old stale cultures that think they are the bees knees. Funny how the Fisher's Ghost cultural Festival has been killed off by 'overseas' cultural Festivals around Sydney in the name of Multi-Cultural. Lets face it - When the PM serves the USA and the GG serves the UK and the UK serves the USA anyway, then its quite obvious that the Federal level of Politics in this Country serves the Multi-Culture of the International Scene. ::) ...the only way to make money in Politics in this country is to betray any Domestic issues and support Foreign Policies.

Mebbe you should hide the Smirnoff....

Soren wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 11:30am:

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 12:35am: I believe in NEW cultures that are emerging and finding freedom from the shackles of old stale cultures that think they are the bees knees. Funny how the Fisher's Ghost cultural Festival has been killed off by 'overseas' cultural Festivals around Sydney in the name of Multi-Cultural. Lets face it - When the PM serves the USA and the GG serves the UK and the UK serves the USA anyway, then its quite obvious that the Federal level of Politics in this Country serves the Multi-Culture of the International Scene. ::) ...the only way to make money in Politics in this country is to betray any Domestic issues and support Foreign Policies. Mebbe you should hide the Smirnoff....

yet another Great One liner by Soren

Is there any limit to soren's sublime wit?

SOREN - HISTORY'S SUPREME COMIC
http://www.faithinterface.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/kierkegaard.jpg

http://thehumanscorch.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/1243271414_black_guy_laughing.gif

I must admit Soren,
you've provided much more wit than the Foolish One,
since I've known you on this Forum.
Some rather good ones.

...and I don't mind a bit a vodka from time to time : fresh on the rocks with no additives.

Why quote something if you add nothing to it? -DILLIGAF

Lets be pragmatic.
You have people with many different cultures living together. What can you do?
Fist alternative is to let them to mix in the melting pot and create a an Australian cultural and national identity, that at the moment doesn't exist.
Second alternative is to force people to be all the same as the less than 50% of Anglo population in Australia.
Is it possible in present reality?

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2007 at 5:02pm:

There has been no nation in history who has had multiculturism and succeded in the long run. Only because there has been no nation in history that has 'succeded' in the long run. What about China? They look after their minorities. They even exclude them from the one child policy. They have been round longer than any other large nation.

What about America?

athos wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2011 at 2:04pm:

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2007 at 5:02pm: There has been no nation in history who has had multiculturism and succeded in the long run. Only because there has been no nation in history that has 'succeded' in the long run. What about China? They look after their minorities. They even exclude them from the one child policy. They have been round longer than any other large nation. What about America?

lol.  I wouldn't be holding the US up as a positive example if I were you.

No culture is locked down.  Ours continually evolves due to internal and external influences.

Acting like an "Australian" means a way different thing now than it did 20 years ago.

Dont get hung up on it.  The current Australian culture is a powerful force which people gravitate to. Multiculturalism lets them hold on to things that new Australians find familiar. At the end of the day, its still their choice.

... wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2011 at 2:13pm:

athos wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 2:04pm: freediver wrote on May 29th, 2007 at 5:02pm: There has been no nation in history who has had multiculturism and succeded in the long run. Only because there has been no nation in history that has 'succeded' in the long run. What about China? They look after their minorities. They even exclude them from the one child policy. They have been round longer than any other large nation. What about America? lol.  I wouldn't be holding the US up as a positive example if I were you.

They are still superpower.

athos wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2011 at 2:53pm:

They [the U.S.A.] are still superpower.

Barely, imo.

In the last 100 years, they are certainly much reduced as a power for good in this world [again, imo].

athos wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2011 at 2:53pm:

... wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 2:13pm: athos wrote on Aug 2nd, 2011 at 2:04pm: freediver wrote on May 29th, 2007 at 5:02pm: There has been no nation in history who has had multiculturism and succeded in the long run. Only because there has been no nation in history that has 'succeded' in the long run. What about China? They look after their minorities. They even exclude them from the one child policy. They have been round longer than any other large nation. What about America? lol.  I wouldn't be holding the US up as a positive example if I were you. They are still superpower.

A superpower racked by internal conflict.

If you don't support multiculturalism, what's the alternative?

Ban St Paddy's Day?  Make the consumption of Kim Chi a capital offense? Get a hit squad to take out Morris dancers (hmmm, or maybe just the accordianists) or Dragon Boat rowers?

muso wrote on Aug 4^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

If you don't support multiculturalism, what's the alternative? Ban St Paddy's Day?  Make the consumption of Kim Chi a capital offense? Get a hit squad to take out Morris dancers (hmmm, or maybe just the accordianists) or Dragon Boat rowers?

Look at Japan....they function OK don't they?

If you can't find an alternative, it's because you've got your eyes closed.  

it appears someone has voted falsely for me here.

I would have voted NO, but it says I voted yes!!!!!

i have not voted at all

it's a bogus poll

... wrote on Aug 4^th, 2011 at 3:18pm:

muso wrote on Aug 4th, 2011 at 2:49pm: If you don't support multiculturalism, what's the alternative? Ban St Paddy's Day?  Make the consumption of Kim Chi a capital offense? Get a hit squad to take out Morris dancers (hmmm, or maybe just the accordianists) or Dragon Boat rowers? Look at Japan....they function OK don't they? If you can't find an alternative, it's because you've got your eyes closed.

Japan has totally different demographics to Australia, although they have small minority groups, including Koreans and Chinese.

Even despite that, they have the Ainu culture, and there are a number of Chinese and Korean restaurants.  Of course, young people in Japan have pretty well embraced Western culture.

What I'm saying is that we're pretty well defined by our demographics and the fact that we're a nation of immigrants, excluding the Aborigines.  

muso wrote on Aug 5^th, 2011 at 11:39am:

... wrote on Aug 4th, 2011 at 3:18pm: muso wrote on Aug 4th, 2011 at 2:49pm: If you don't support multiculturalism, what's the alternative? Ban St Paddy's Day?  Make the consumption of Kim Chi a capital offense? Get a hit squad to take out Morris dancers (hmmm, or maybe just the accordianists) or Dragon Boat rowers? Look at Japan....they function OK don't they? If you can't find an alternative, it's because you've got your eyes closed.   Japan has totally different demographics to Australia, although they have small minority groups, including Koreans and Chinese. Even despite that, they have the Ainu culture, and there are a number of Chinese and Korean restaurants.  Of course, young people in Japan have pretty well embraced Western culture. What I'm saying is that we're pretty well defined by our demographics and the fact that we're a nation of immigrants, excluding the Aborigines.

A monocultural society is still not 100% of one culture - there always have been and always will be 'outsiders', just not in the same numbers as a multicultural one.  
Japan might have totally different demographics NOW, but only because in the last few decades we've travelled down the multicultural route.  50 years back we were as monocultural as japan or israel.  
Monoculturalism isn't about outlawing all other people and their traditions, it simply places greater importance on the host culture over imported cultures.  Seems a pretty logical, common sense approach to me.

... wrote on Aug 5^th, 2011 at 11:51am:

A monocultural society is still not 100% of one culture - there always have been and always will be 'outsiders', just not in the same numbers as a multicultural one.   Japan might have totally different demographics NOW, but only because in the last few decades we've travelled down the multicultural route.  50 years back we were as monocultural as japan or israel.   Monoculturalism isn't about outlawing all other people and their traditions, it simply places greater importance on the host culture over imported cultures.  Seems a pretty logical, common sense approach to me.

But now, we're Multicultural. How do you propose to put the clock back 50 years? Apart from anything else, I'd like to know how there can be an alternative given our current reality.

muso wrote on Aug 5^th, 2011 at 11:56am:

... wrote on Aug 5th, 2011 at 11:51am: A monocultural society is still not 100% of one culture - there always have been and always will be 'outsiders', just not in the same numbers as a multicultural one.   Japan might have totally different demographics NOW, but only because in the last few decades we've travelled down the multicultural route.  50 years back we were as monocultural as japan or israel.   Monoculturalism isn't about outlawing all other people and their traditions, it simply places greater importance on the host culture over imported cultures.  Seems a pretty logical, common sense approach to me. But now, we're Multicultural. How do you propose to put the clock back 50 years?

ahhha you're trying to lure me into making a silly suggestion like 'deport all foreigners' and 'stop all immigration' now.  
But I won't do that.  I'll simply suggest that we drop the nonsensical notion that all cultures are compatible with each other and alter the criteria for citizenship accordingly.  I don't really care how 'rich' your culture back home is, if you cannae speaka da english you are surplus to the requirements of this country.  There is a reason why immigrants form 'ghettoes' - it's simply that people generally prefer the company of their own people.  Denying this easily observable phenomenon in the name of a half baked newfangled ideology is sheer folly.

... wrote on Aug 5^th, 2011 at 12:09pm:

muso wrote on Aug 5th, 2011 at 11:56am: ... wrote on Aug 5th, 2011 at 11:51am: A monocultural society is still not 100% of one culture - there always have been and always will be 'outsiders', just not in the same numbers as a multicultural one.   Japan might have totally different demographics NOW, but only because in the last few decades we've travelled down the multicultural route.  50 years back we were as monocultural as japan or israel.   Monoculturalism isn't about outlawing all other people and their traditions, it simply places greater importance on the host culture over imported cultures.  Seems a pretty logical, common sense approach to me. But now, we're Multicultural. How do you propose to put the clock back 50 years? ahhha you're trying to lure me into making a silly suggestion like 'deport all foreigners' and 'stop all immigration' now.   But I won't do that.

I'm not trying to do anything like that. I'm trying to understand what you do want, because everybody seems to have their own idea of what the term Multicultural actually means.   So, for example an engineer from Singapore who speaks fluent English would be acceptable?

I do not support a multicultural society - that is - one where there are several cultures that are not integrated and assimilated. That does not mean that I do not support people of different backgrounds coming here.

If a person comes from another country they should embrace and conform to the Australian way of life and Australian values. This does not mean we ban kim chi. All it means is that there should be an expectation that people speak understandable English and have values consistent with Australian values such as freedom, democracy, peace and liberty.

Further, they should not pressure Australia into accommodating their cultures. If you want kosher/halal meat, you go to the halal butcher and you pay twice the price. You do not start a political party or pressure group to turn Australia into Jerusalem or Mecca. You do not rape women because they don't cover up. You do not live in enclaves and ghettos that isolate your demographic from everyone else. When people who come here to begin a new life start trying to make Australia conform to their beliefs/religion/culture they stop being immigrants and refugees and start becoming settlers.

I do not believe in settlers. Assimilate or perish.

Tsfen wrote on Aug 6^th, 2011 at 12:04am:

I do not support a multicultural society - that is - one where there are several cultures that are not integrated and assimilated. That does not mean that I do not support people of different backgrounds coming here. If a person comes from another country they should embrace and conform to the Australian way of life and Australian values. This does not mean we ban kim chi. All it means is that there should be an expectation that people speak understandable English and have values consistent with Australian values such as freedom, democracy, peace and liberty. Further, they should not pressure Australia into accommodating their cultures. If you want kosher/halal meat, you go to the halal butcher and you pay twice the price. You do not start a political party or pressure group to turn Australia into Jerusalem or Mecca. You do not rape women because they don't cover up. You do not live in enclaves and ghettos that isolate your demographic from everyone else. When people who come here to begin a new life start trying to make Australia conform to their beliefs/religion/culture they stop being immigrants and refugees and start becoming settlers. I do not believe in settlers. Assimilate or perish.

Well said.

Tsfen wrote on Aug 6^th, 2011 at 12:04am:

I do not support a multicultural society - that is - one where there are several cultures that are not integrated and assimilated.

Assimilated? in What?

Maybe you should start giving people for free Blue Coloured Contact Lenses to fabricate True Blue Aussies.

Maybe like that:

HOW TO BECOME TRUE BLUE AUSSIE
NOW FOR FREE subsidized BY THE GOVERNMENT


Coloured Contact Lenses (Australia)

http://www.turtlecontacts.com.au/au/images/gray_contact_lens_dual_colour.jpg

http://www.turtlecontacts.com.au/au/images/au_halloween_contacts_ice_fire.jpg

WAS $50 NOW FOR FREE

I caught a lunchtime train at Central yesterday and the only other white people on the platform were two German speaking Swiss backpackers. They seemed exotic and unususal.

I was looking at the faces of all these 'multicultural' people from SE Asia to Africa to South America and from everywhere in-between and what struck me after a while was - how dull most of these faces were. There didn't seem to be much light on inside, so to speak. They were not inscrutable but dull. I looked at the two Swiss girls and there was a spark in their eyes, a certain light of intelligence.

Tsfen wrote on Aug 6^th, 2011 at 12:04am:

If a person comes from another country they should embrace and conform to the Australian way of life and Australian values. This does not mean we ban kim chi. All it means is that there should be an expectation that people speak understandable English and have values consistent with Australian values such as freedom, democracy, peace and liberty.

That part I can agree with.  There is plenty of room for, say Robbie Burns Nights or St Patrick's Day's Celebrations or Dragon Races as long as they comply with the above. Of course people who speak another language will probably go on speaking that language at home, although the next generation usually ends up preferring English. There is broad recognition that immigrants have to speak good enough English and the Immigration Department weights applicants according to this criterion as far as I'm aware.

muso wrote on Aug 6^th, 2011 at 10:14am:

Tsfen wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 12:04am: If a person comes from another country they should embrace and conform to the Australian way of life and Australian values. This does not mean we ban kim chi. All it means is that there should be an expectation that people speak understandable English and have values consistent with Australian values such as freedom, democracy, peace and liberty. That part I can agree with.  There is plenty of room for, say Robbie Burns Nights or St Patrick's Day's Celebrations or Dragon Races as long as they comply with the above. Of course people who speak another language will probably go on speaking that language at home, although the next generation usually ends up preferring English. There is broad recognition that immigrants have to speak good enough English and the Immigration Department weights applicants according to this criterion as far as I'm aware.

There are different English (British) languages, so which one is acceptable?

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2011 at 9:14am:

I caught a lunchtime train at Central yesterday and the only other white people on the platform were two German speaking Swiss backpackers. They seemed exotic and unususal. I was looking at the faces of all these 'multicultural' people from SE Asia to Africa to South America and from everywhere in-between and what struck me after a while was - how dull most of these faces were. There didn't seem to be much light on inside, so to speak. They were not inscrutable but dull. I looked at the two Swiss girls and there was a spark in their eyes, a certain light of intelligence.

"Ah spark in the eyes" how Arian pathetic with a touch of colonial Anglo nostalgia, you mean like that:

http://www.turtlecontacts.com.au/au/images/au_halloween_contacts_ice_fire.jpg



But they are selfish and don't produce enough children.
Sir Only generous good dick counts and eventually wins.

athos wrote on Aug 6^th, 2011 at 11:16am:

muso wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 10:14am: Tsfen wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 12:04am: If a person comes from another country they should embrace and conform to the Australian way of life and Australian values. This does not mean we ban kim chi. All it means is that there should be an expectation that people speak understandable English and have values consistent with Australian values such as freedom, democracy, peace and liberty. That part I can agree with.  There is plenty of room for, say Robbie Burns Nights or St Patrick's Day's Celebrations or Dragon Races as long as they comply with the above. Of course people who speak another language will probably go on speaking that language at home, although the next generation usually ends up preferring English. There is broad recognition that immigrants have to speak good enough English and the Immigration Department weights applicants according to this criterion as far as I'm aware. There are different English (British) languages, so which one is acceptable?

Chaneil fios agam.

athos wrote on Aug 6^th, 2011 at 11:20am:

Soren wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 9:14am: I caught a lunchtime train at Central yesterday and the only other white people on the platform were two German speaking Swiss backpackers. They seemed exotic and unususal. I was looking at the faces of all these 'multicultural' people from SE Asia to Africa to South America and from everywhere in-between and what struck me after a while was - how dull most of these faces were. There didn't seem to be much light on inside, so to speak. They were not inscrutable but dull. I looked at the two Swiss girls and there was a spark in their eyes, a certain light of intelligence. "Ah spark in the eyes" how Arian pathetic with a touch of colonial Anglo nostalgia, you mean like that: http://www.turtlecontacts.com.au/au/images/au_halloween_contacts_ice_fire.jpg But they are selfish and don't produce enough children. Sir Only generous good dick counts and eventually wins.

Well, that's just it. All those dullards have just the one thing going for them: they are horny fvckers.  

athos wrote on Aug 6^th, 2011 at 11:16am:

muso wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 10:14am: Tsfen wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 12:04am: If a person comes from another country they should embrace and conform to the Australian way of life and Australian values. This does not mean we ban kim chi. All it means is that there should be an expectation that people speak understandable English and have values consistent with Australian values such as freedom, democracy, peace and liberty. That part I can agree with.  There is plenty of room for, say Robbie Burns Nights or St Patrick's Day's Celebrations or Dragon Races as long as they comply with the above. Of course people who speak another language will probably go on speaking that language at home, although the next generation usually ends up preferring English. There is broad recognition that immigrants have to speak good enough English and the Immigration Department weights applicants according to this criterion as far as I'm aware. There are different English (British) languages, so which one is acceptable?

den forståelig en

muso wrote on Aug 4^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

If you don't support multiculturalism, what's the alternative?

Exactly

Australia is a multicultural society already, so it doesn't really matter what you think, because there is no alternative.....

Multiculturalism is a western liberal fantasy. It is propagated only in western liberal societies and it is propagated as the 'best of' western liberal democracy. And it can be when all the various cultures intermingling are from the same western enlightenment tradition. Even then it' very iffy - Aborigines, for example, spent 40000 years killing each other.

When the other cultures that form the 'multi' aspect of it, they do not share the fundamental tenets of western liberal democracy.
Then it's just a way to undermine and destroy openness, tolerance and civic politeness.
If those other cultures do not accept the supreriority of western enlightened democracy then they will seek to undermine and destroy the very cultural foundation that makes multiuculturalist fantasy possible.  
Just ask Abu if there is going to be multiculturalism under the caliphate. :D Or look at the incomprehending faces f the Chinese when you talk to them about rules and the law. Or the Buddhists when you tell thm about equality at birth.

Frances wrote on Aug 7^th, 2011 at 2:21am:

muso wrote on Aug 4th, 2011 at 2:49pm: If you don't support multiculturalism, what's the alternative? Exactly Australia is a multicultural society already, so it doesn't really matter what you think, because there is no alternative.....

The alternative is a policy of assimilation.

Tsfen wrote on Aug 7^th, 2011 at 9:48pm:

Frances wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 2:21am: muso wrote on Aug 4th, 2011 at 2:49pm: If you don't support multiculturalism, what's the alternative? Exactly Australia is a multicultural society already, so it doesn't really matter what you think, because there is no alternative..... The alternative is a policy of assimilation.

Can you explain how that would work in practical terms. Do we have a Department of Assimilation? (aka the Bureau of Over Regulated Government) whose job (among other things) it is to issue spot fines for people who don't speak English in public - and do tourists and those studying English in Australia get special exemptions?

Can you think it through to its conclusions a bit for us?

Frances wrote on Aug 7^th, 2011 at 2:21am:

muso wrote on Aug 4th, 2011 at 2:49pm: If you don't support multiculturalism, what's the alternative? Exactly Australia is a multicultural society already, so it doesn't really matter what you think, because there is no alternative.....

And 50 years ago, you might have said Australia is a white country so it doesn't really matter what you think, because there is no alternative.

If you support multiculturalism, take ownership of it - pretending there is no alternative is weak.

muso wrote on Aug 8^th, 2011 at 9:25am:

Tsfen wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 9:48pm: Frances wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 2:21am: muso wrote on Aug 4th, 2011 at 2:49pm: If you don't support multiculturalism, what's the alternative? Exactly Australia is a multicultural society already, so it doesn't really matter what you think, because there is no alternative..... The alternative is a policy of assimilation. Can you explain how that would work in practical terms. Do we have a Department of Assimilation? (aka the Bureau of Over Regulated Government) whose job (among other things) it is to issue spot fines for people who don't speak English in public - and do tourists and those studying English in Australia get special exemptions? Can you think it through to its conclusions a bit for us?

Seems pretty similar to the current situation whereby the BORG, operating under the banner of the HREOC, dictate what truths we can and can not acknowledge, just in case 'someone' might get offended.

... wrote on Aug 8^th, 2011 at 3:41pm:

Seems pretty similar to the current situation whereby the BORG, operating under the banner of the HREOC, dictate what truths we can and can not acknowledge, just in case 'someone' might get offended.

OK, so let me get this right - the new BORG will no longer be a signatory to either the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights?

OK, that would put us on a par with, say Malaysia or Saudi Arabia. What's your stance on these other international treaties? Do they get the flick too?


Quote:

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide    Convention on the Political Rights of Women    International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination    Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women    Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment    Convention on the Rights of the Child    Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness    Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons    Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees    Slavery Convention of 1926    Supplementary Convention on Slavery    Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

muso wrote on Aug 8^th, 2011 at 4:21pm:

... wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 3:41pm: Seems pretty similar to the current situation whereby the BORG, operating under the banner of the HREOC, dictate what truths we can and can not acknowledge, just in case 'someone' might get offended. OK, so let me get this right - the new BORG will no longer be a signatory to either the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights? OK, that would put us on a par with, say Malaysia or Saudi Arabia. What's your stance on these other international treaties? Do they get the flick too? Quote:    Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide    Convention on the Political Rights of Women    International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination    Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women    Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment    Convention on the Rights of the Child    Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness    Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons    Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees    Slavery Convention of 1926    Supplementary Convention on Slavery    Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Don't ask me - it's your fantasy.

... wrote on Aug 8^th, 2011 at 4:27pm:

Don't ask me - it's your fantasy.

Well, this is the reality. Yours is the fantasy. I'm just interested in the implications of your brave new world.

muso wrote on Aug 9^th, 2011 at 7:47am:

... wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 4:27pm: Don't ask me - it's your fantasy. Well, this is the reality. Yours is the fantasy. I'm just interested in the implications of your brave new world.

No you're not.  You give it less than half a seconds thought and then present your half-cocked joke theories as my vision for the future.  I'd actually be interested in discssuing it seriously, but I have little tolerance for puerile time wasters.

muso wrote on Aug 8^th, 2011 at 9:25am:

Tsfen wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 9:48pm: Frances wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 2:21am: muso wrote on Aug 4th, 2011 at 2:49pm: If you don't support multiculturalism, what's the alternative? Exactly Australia is a multicultural society already, so it doesn't really matter what you think, because there is no alternative..... The alternative is a policy of assimilation. Can you explain how that would work in practical terms. Do we have a Department of Assimilation? (aka the Bureau of Over Regulated Government) whose job (among other things) it is to issue spot fines for people who don't speak English in public - and do tourists and those studying English in Australia get special exemptions? Can you think it through to its conclusions a bit for us?

Stop family reunion for non-citizens immediately.
Tighten up citizenship : minimum 10 year residency, with at least 8 years in gainful employment.
Only temporary protection visas for refugees.
No government money for ethnic causes of any kind - let the ethnic communities fund their various jamborees.
No multilingual government leaflets and websites - English only.


You will find that there is  not need a government department to teach people how to assimilate. You make it obvious that it is necessary for a normal life here.

Soren wrote on Aug 9^th, 2011 at 11:13am:

muso wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 9:25am: Tsfen wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 9:48pm: Frances wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 2:21am: muso wrote on Aug 4th, 2011 at 2:49pm: If you don't support multiculturalism, what's the alternative? Exactly Australia is a multicultural society already, so it doesn't really matter what you think, because there is no alternative..... The alternative is a policy of assimilation. Can you explain how that would work in practical terms. Do we have a Department of Assimilation? (aka the Bureau of Over Regulated Government) whose job (among other things) it is to issue spot fines for people who don't speak English in public - and do tourists and those studying English in Australia get special exemptions? Can you think it through to its conclusions a bit for us? Stop family reunion for non-citizens immediately. Tighten up citizenship : minimum 10 year residency, with at least 8 years in gainful employment. Only temporary protection visas for refugees. No government money for ethnic causes of any kind - let the ethnic communities fund their various jamborees. No multilingual government leaflets and websites - English only. You will find that there is  not need a government department to teach people how to assimilate. You make it obvious that it is necessary for a normal life here.

Fantastic, pure Fascism. When we can expect concentration camps and another HOLOCOUST in Australia. It looks your grandpa was Adolf.

Quote:

Fantastic, pure Fascism. When we can expect concentration camps and another HOLOCOUST in Australia. It looks your grandpa was Adolf.

Yep you have to scrape crap off your boots after walking around here sometimes.  ;D

athos wrote on Aug 10^th, 2011 at 9:24am:

Soren wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 11:13am: muso wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 9:25am: Tsfen wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 9:48pm: Frances wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 2:21am: muso wrote on Aug 4th, 2011 at 2:49pm: If you don't support multiculturalism, what's the alternative? Exactly Australia is a multicultural society already, so it doesn't really matter what you think, because there is no alternative..... The alternative is a policy of assimilation. Can you explain how that would work in practical terms. Do we have a Department of Assimilation? (aka the Bureau of Over Regulated Government) whose job (among other things) it is to issue spot fines for people who don't speak English in public - and do tourists and those studying English in Australia get special exemptions? Can you think it through to its conclusions a bit for us? Stop family reunion for non-citizens immediately. Tighten up citizenship : minimum 10 year residency, with at least 8 years in gainful employment. Only temporary protection visas for refugees. No government money for ethnic causes of any kind - let the ethnic communities fund their various jamborees. No multilingual government leaflets and websites - English only. You will find that there is  not need a government department to teach people how to assimilate. You make it obvious that it is necessary for a normal life here. Fantastic, pure Fascism. When we can expect concentration camps and another HOLOCOUST in Australia. It looks your grandpa was Adolf.

That's  how they do it in Switzerland. You have to be the moron we have all come to know and cherish to think that the Swiss are fascists. They just know who they are and what they want. But that is a big no-no when it comes to accommodating your moronic layabout demographic.


No accident that the Swiss are not part of the great hand-wringing federation a.k.a. the EU.

athos wrote on Aug 10^th, 2011 at 9:24am:

Soren wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 11:13am: muso wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 9:25am: Tsfen wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 9:48pm: Frances wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 2:21am: muso wrote on Aug 4th, 2011 at 2:49pm: If you don't support multiculturalism, what's the alternative? Exactly Australia is a multicultural society already, so it doesn't really matter what you think, because there is no alternative..... The alternative is a policy of assimilation. Can you explain how that would work in practical terms. Do we have a Department of Assimilation? (aka the Bureau of Over Regulated Government) whose job (among other things) it is to issue spot fines for people who don't speak English in public - and do tourists and those studying English in Australia get special exemptions? Can you think it through to its conclusions a bit for us? Stop family reunion for non-citizens immediately. Tighten up citizenship : minimum 10 year residency, with at least 8 years in gainful employment. Only temporary protection visas for refugees. No government money for ethnic causes of any kind - let the ethnic communities fund their various jamborees. No multilingual government leaflets and websites - English only. You will find that there is  not need a government department to teach people how to assimilate. You make it obvious that it is necessary for a normal life here. Fantastic, pure Fascism. When we can expect concentration camps and another HOLOCOUST in Australia. It looks your grandpa was Adolf.

SOMEONE doesn't know what fascism means.  Classic leftard strategy - hurl as many labels as you can, in the hope that 1 will stick.

Grey wrote on Aug 10^th, 2011 at 9:44am:

Quote: Fantastic, pure Fascism. When we can expect concentration camps and another HOLOCOUST in Australia. It looks your grandpa was Adolf. Yep you have to scrape crap off your boots after walking around here sometimes.  ;D

Trust you to cheer on a moron.


What is fascist about not handing out citizenship to people until they have become established, accepted and productive? Why does it get up your nose if it is suggested that there can be expectations towards immigrants? Why is it a problem that a country does not want to import people who will be only a burden on it? Why do the immigrants interests and welfare trump the hosts'?

Soren wrote on Aug 9^th, 2011 at 11:13am:

muso wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 9:25am: Can you think it through to its conclusions a bit for us? Stop family reunion for non-citizens immediately. Tighten up citizenship : minimum 10 year residency, with at least 8 years in gainful employment. Only temporary protection visas for refugees. No government money for ethnic causes of any kind - let the ethnic communities fund their various jamborees. No multilingual government leaflets and websites - English only. You will find that there is  not need a government department to teach people how to assimilate. You make it obvious that it is necessary for a normal life here.

OK, so asking you the same question as I asked Wesley -  Should Australia be a signatory to the list of International Conventions that I quoted earlier, and if not all, which do you think  should be excluded?

I ask this because just about every civilised country in the world has signed and/or ratified these conventions.  The exceptions are countries like Iran, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia.

Now I tend to assume here that if we sign a convention, we'd have an expectation of complying.

muso wrote on Aug 10^th, 2011 at 4:17pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 11:13am: muso wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 9:25am: Can you think it through to its conclusions a bit for us? Stop family reunion for non-citizens immediately. Tighten up citizenship : minimum 10 year residency, with at least 8 years in gainful employment. Only temporary protection visas for refugees. No government money for ethnic causes of any kind - let the ethnic communities fund their various jamborees. No multilingual government leaflets and websites - English only. You will find that there is  not need a government department to teach people how to assimilate. You make it obvious that it is necessary for a normal life here. OK, so asking you the same question as I asked Wesley -  Should Australia be a signatory to the list of International Conventions that I quoted earlier, and if not all, which do you think  should be excluded? I ask this because just about every civilised country in the world has signed and/or ratified these conventions.  The exceptions are countries like Iran, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. Now I tend to assume here that if we sign a convention, we'd have an expectation of complying.

What is the link between these conventions and multiculturalism?

Is japan a signatory to these conventions?  

... wrote on Aug 10^th, 2011 at 4:23pm:

What is the link between these conventions and multiculturalism? Is japan a signatory to these conventions?

The HREOC, which you brought up, and Japan is a signatory to most of them, including the convention on refugees.  

muso wrote on Aug 11^th, 2011 at 8:44am:

... wrote on Aug 10th, 2011 at 4:23pm: What is the link between these conventions and multiculturalism? Is japan a signatory to these conventions?   The HREOC, which you brought up, and Japan is a signatory to most of them, including the convention on refugees.

So, if Japan can be monocultural AND a signatory to these conventions, it begs the question: what is the link you're trying to draw?

muso wrote on Aug 10^th, 2011 at 4:17pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 11:13am: muso wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 9:25am: Can you think it through to its conclusions a bit for us? Stop family reunion for non-citizens immediately. Tighten up citizenship : minimum 10 year residency, with at least 8 years in gainful employment. Only temporary protection visas for refugees. No government money for ethnic causes of any kind - let the ethnic communities fund their various jamborees. No multilingual government leaflets and websites - English only. You will find that there is  not need a government department to teach people how to assimilate. You make it obvious that it is necessary for a normal life here. OK, so asking you the same question as I asked Wesley -  Should Australia be a signatory to the list of International Conventions that I quoted earlier, and if not all, which do you think  should be excluded? I ask this because just about every civilised country in the world has signed and/or ratified these conventions.  The exceptions are countries like Iran, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. Now I tend to assume here that if we sign a convention, we'd have an expectation of complying.

Being a signatory to the refugee convention does NOT require that you resettle refugees. Settlement and protection are two different things. That is why temporary protection is perfectly OK.

I don't know what other conventions you listed earlier but I do not see how any international convention could or would limit the way a country grants citizenship or residency or what money it makes available to any particular demographic segment.

I'm just trying to understand what you guys stand for. Obviously (correct me if I'm wrong) you would support racial discrimination when it comes to immigration policy. That in itself is flying in the face of at least one of the conventions, the "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination". These conventions in themselves don't have any weight. It's when a country signs and ratifies the convention by passing legislation that it becomes law.

Given that Australia already has a pretty mixed multicultural society, most of whom I presume are voting citizens, it seems difficult to imagine that the majority would favour a return to the White Australia Policy with all its implications.

OK, the following is a Wikipedia page, but still an accurate summary of the convention. Note that every country in the world, bar five have signed the convention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Racial_Discrimination#Definition_of_.22racial_discrimination.22

The five that have not signed the convention are: North Korea, Malaysia, Burma, Angola and Western Sahara.

If you want the full list again, it's on Reply 193:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1178038424/193

Quote:

I'm just trying to understand what you guys stand for. Obviously (correct me if I'm wrong) you would support racial discrimination when it comes to immigration policy. That in itself is flying in the face of at least one of the conventions, the "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination". These conventions in themselves don't have any weight. It's when a country signs and ratifies the convention by passing legislation that it becomes law.

In effect, you are saying that this, nor any other country, has the right to determine who migrates here, under penalty of being called racist.  Of course, it is easily circumvented in a number of ways.  First, and most sensible is to simply ignore the shrill time wasters who would call it such.  Second is to make the criteria such that it excludes 3rd world deadbeats on other than racial grounds - and this is a must because I have never advocated for 100% of 'others' to be barred, just for the numbers to be thinned. It could be health grounds - noone with AIDS or TB allowed in - sounds fair.  It could be professional grounds - skills that are not in demand are struck from the list of skilled professions.  3rd is keeping the citizenship test - not dumbing it down because it's 'too hard'.  4th is getting rid of, or at least toughening up the family reunion clause.  

The left often say 'we only take 5000 (or whatever number it is) refugees a year, but the total migrant intake is what, 200,000?  It's obvious that of the 190,000 migrants other than refugees each year, that only a fraction of those have skills that are in demand.  Under what guise are so many coming?

muso wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 9:02am:

Obviously (correct me if I'm wrong) you would support racial discrimination when it comes to immigration policy.

Obviously? How so? I am curious to see how that fine scientific mind of your (facts, my boy, give me facts) deduced this 'obvious'. Could it be that because the tinted demographic is generally lower skilled and culturally more distant - therefore being against low skilled and culturally alien  immigration must be billed as 'racist' - and never mind that there are low skilled and uncultured whites (cf prison population).

I actually believe that your way of thinking is the racists one. You do not believe that certain tinted races are capable of obtaining high skills and a certain level cultural compatibility. You excuse low skills and cultural distance as if they were the immutable characacteristics of tinted people are bortn with and can never rise above.

... wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 10:14am:

Quote: I'm just trying to understand what you guys stand for. Obviously (correct me if I'm wrong) you would support racial discrimination when it comes to immigration policy. That in itself is flying in the face of at least one of the conventions, the "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination". These conventions in themselves don't have any weight. It's when a country signs and ratifies the convention by passing legislation that it becomes law. In effect, you are saying that this, nor any other country, has the right to determine who migrates here, under penalty of being called racist.  Of course, it is easily circumvented in a number of ways.  First, and most sensible is to simply ignore the shrill time wasters who would call it such.  Second is to make the criteria such that it excludes 3rd world deadbeats on other than racial grounds - and this is a must because I have never advocated for 100% of 'others' to be barred, just for the numbers to be thinned. It could be health grounds - noone with AIDS or TB allowed in - sounds fair.  It could be professional grounds - skills that are not in demand are struck from the list of skilled professions.  3rd is keeping the citizenship test - not dumbing it down because it's 'too hard'.  4th is getting rid of, or at least toughening up the family reunion clause.   The left often say 'we only take 5000 (or whatever number it is) refugees a year, but the total migrant intake is what, 200,000?  It's obvious that of the 190,000 migrants other than refugees each year, that only a fraction of those have skills that are in demand.  Under what guise are so many coming?

You need to clarify that statement. I'll try to paraphrase.  

If you believe something, don't try to circumvent things.  What you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that we should be able to discriminate against the people who are accepted as immigrants because of their 'race' or ethnicity, and that we should look for ways to make it appear that we are not discriminating by thinking of valid excuses.

I think you'll find that health checks are already mandatory, so that's a bit of a red herring in itself.  

muso wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 11:39am:

... wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 10:14am: Quote: I'm just trying to understand what you guys stand for. Obviously (correct me if I'm wrong) you would support racial discrimination when it comes to immigration policy. That in itself is flying in the face of at least one of the conventions, the "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination". These conventions in themselves don't have any weight. It's when a country signs and ratifies the convention by passing legislation that it becomes law. In effect, you are saying that this, nor any other country, has the right to determine who migrates here, under penalty of being called racist.  Of course, it is easily circumvented in a number of ways.  First, and most sensible is to simply ignore the shrill time wasters who would call it such.  Second is to make the criteria such that it excludes 3rd world deadbeats on other than racial grounds - and this is a must because I have never advocated for 100% of 'others' to be barred, just for the numbers to be thinned. It could be health grounds - noone with AIDS or TB allowed in - sounds fair.  It could be professional grounds - skills that are not in demand are struck from the list of skilled professions.  3rd is keeping the citizenship test - not dumbing it down because it's 'too hard'.  4th is getting rid of, or at least toughening up the family reunion clause.   The left often say 'we only take 5000 (or whatever number it is) refugees a year, but the total migrant intake is what, 200,000?  It's obvious that of the 190,000 migrants other than refugees each year, that only a fraction of those have skills that are in demand.  Under what guise are so many coming? You need to clarify that statement. I'll try to paraphrase.   If you believe something, don't try to circumvent things.  What you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that we should be able to discriminate against the people who are accepted as immigrants because of their 'race' or ethnicity, and that we should look for ways to make it appear that we are not discriminating by thinking of valid excuses. I think you'll find that health checks are already mandatory, so that's a bit of a red herring in itself.

No, what I'm saying is that there seems to be a number of people who spend their time trying to find things that can be construed as racist.  Unfortunbately, these crackpots are often given the time of day when their demented musings really should be dismissed as time wasters.

A fine example is a curfew that was enacted for children in the nightclub district in Perth.  This was decried as racist because they were mostly aboriginal kids getting moved on.  This actually got airtime - It didn't occur to these geniuses that the policy was non-discriminatory - aboriginal kids were getting moved on more, because they were breaking the rules more.

... wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 11:48am:

No, what I'm saying is that there seems to be a number of people who spend their time trying to find things that can be construed as racist.  Unfortunbately, these crackpots are often given the time of day when their demented musings really should be dismissed as time wasters. A fine example is a curfew that was enacted for children in the nightclub district in Perth.  This was decried as racist because they were mostly aboriginal kids getting moved on.  This actually got airtime - It didn't occur to these geniuses that the policy was non-discriminatory - aboriginal kids were getting moved on more, because they were breaking the rules more.

OK, that's a fascinating side issue, but you haven't clarified anything regarding your (If I were Immigration Minister) immigration policy. Do you think that we should (ok I'll remove the "d" word) 'select' immigrants with some weighting based on their orgins (ethnic or otherwise). So should an engineer from say Switzerland  be given priority over an equally skilled engineer from Singapore ?

I hope you don't think there is anything shrill about my questions (they are just questions after all), but (correct me if I'm mistaken) you do seem to be dodging the answers by talking about aboriginal kids in Perth. (That's quite an interesting subject in its own right, I'm sure.)

Soren wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 11:32am:

muso wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 9:02am: Obviously (correct me if I'm wrong) you would support racial discrimination when it comes to immigration policy. Obviously? How so? I am curious to see how that fine scientific mind of your (facts, my boy, give me facts) deduced this 'obvious'. Could it be that because the tinted demographic is generally lower skilled and culturally more distant - therefore being against low skilled and culturally alien  immigration must be billed as 'racist' - and never mind that there are low skilled and uncultured whites (cf prison population). I actually believe that your way of thinking is the racists one. You do not believe that certain tinted races are capable of obtaining high skills and a certain level cultural compatibility. You excuse low skills and cultural distance as if they were the immutable characacteristics of tinted people are bortn with and can never rise above.

I did ask you to correct me if I was wrong, but I don't think you actually corrected me. You just threw up a bit of a smoke screen.

So I'll ask again. was I wrong in my assumption? Would you in fact welcome people of a myriad of different colours, shapes and ethnicities into this country if they were equally skilled?

Equally skilled and culturally compatible - yes.  One of the two is not enough. SKills help them and us for the 8 hours they are at work. Cultural compatibility is necessary for the rest of the day.

muso wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 12:05pm:

... wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 11:48am: No, what I'm saying is that there seems to be a number of people who spend their time trying to find things that can be construed as racist.  Unfortunbately, these crackpots are often given the time of day when their demented musings really should be dismissed as time wasters. A fine example is a curfew that was enacted for children in the nightclub district in Perth.  This was decried as racist because they were mostly aboriginal kids getting moved on.  This actually got airtime - It didn't occur to these geniuses that the policy was non-discriminatory - aboriginal kids were getting moved on more, because they were breaking the rules more. OK, that's an aside, but you haven't clarified anything regarding your (If I were Immigration Minister) immigration policy. Do you think that we should (ok I'll remove the "d" word) 'select' immigrants with some weighting based on their orgins (ethnic or otherwise). So should an engineer from say Switzerland  be given priority over an equally skilled engineer from Singapore ? I hope you don't think there is anything shrill about my questions (they are just questions after all), but (correct me if I'm mistaken) you do seem to be dodging the answers by talking about aboriginal kids in Perth. (That's quite an interesting subject in its own right, I'm sure.)

I'm sure you understand that asking me to formulate every detail of an immigration policy on a post is a difficult, if not impossible task.  

What I must clarify, is that I have never said 100% of migrants must be white professionals.  But, our country was built on european (white) values, so it stands to reason that those from countries with similar origins would be the best fit.  That is not to say that all whites would be better than all non-whites, but it is a general rule.  That is where the citizenship test comes in, to determine the best way to 'spend' our immigration allowance.

A very important point that seems to be overlooked, is that there is no 'right' to live anywhere you please.  Final say should rest with the governing body of that country, which in turn should reflect the wishes of its constituents.  It is interesting then, that 'rich' neighbourhoods are disproprtioately 'pro-open migration' and poorer hoods are the opposite.  Shrill leftists like to proclaim that this is because of their 'superior education' all the while overlooking the fact that it is those poor people who experience it, and may have good reason to oppose it.  

I don't know the exact  breakdown of the immigration figures, but if we're taking 200,000 every year, it's not all going to be beneficial.  there's got to be a lot of dead weight in that figure.  That's 200,000 jobs to fill every year.  If they all need skills that we need to import, it begs the question of why aren't australians getting the training they need to contribute to their own country?

Soren wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 12:19pm:

Equally skilled and culturally compatible - yes.  One of the two is not enough. SKills help them and us for the 8 hours they are at work. Cultural compatibility is necessary for the rest of the day.

So hypothetically, the two Swiss backpackers whom you attempted to chat up at the railway station only spoke broken English but were excellent ... doctors, and they came from an idyllic pastoral setting in Switzerland, whereas the two Asian girls who were meantime regarding you some suspicion for eyeing up the Swiss backpackers with such a lecherous expression,  came from Singapore, spoke excellent English since birth, and lived in the hustle and bustle of metropolitan Singapore all their lives. (They were excellent doctors too - actually psycho-analysts, which explained their grim expressions. ) They were also avid tea drinkers.

Now as newly appointed Immigration Minister, would you choose the Singaporean girls over the Swiss girls? (I mean as potential migrants of course) - given that the Singaporean girls  were culturally more compatible and would fit right in with their friends in Sussex Street?  (yes or no would be sufficient)

I want to see their... er... applications first.

They're Italian speaking Swiss by the way, but you obviously don't mind the Wops or the Dago's. IMHO, you're sweeping with too broad a brush there. I mean what about the Krauts? (Dutch, Danish, whatever)- you can't say that they represent Aussie values now, can you? Then there are the Paddys and those haggis eaters the Jocks. Surely you can't be sanctioning that bunch of Papists too?

I mean what are you? Multiculturalist or something?

I'd also like your advice on housing for Aborigines. I saw this neat example at this place in Poland.  Auschwitz I think it was called.  

Gays are obviously culturally incompatible, and who else? I guess white supremacists don't exactly fit the Aussie cultural norm of "fair go" either.

m:Pm

You talk as if PRETENDING not to discern differences will make those differences actually non-existent.
In other words, like a fool.... ;)

Soren wrote on Aug 13^th, 2011 at 5:22pm:

You talk as if PRETENDING not to discern differences will make those differences actually non-existent. In other words, like a fool.... ;)

I don't know what gave you that impression. I don't just discern differences,  I celebrate them.

On the other hand, you guys seem to be (let's say) not entirely clear what you want. Wesley, what's a white culture? Does that apply to Muslims from Albania? or Bulgaria for that matter? Does it apply to people from Belarus? (White Russia) If you're basing it on the founding of the country back in 1901, ethnicities such as the French and Germans would never have been considered culturally compatible.

If you want to return to the era of the White Australia Policy, do you want to include the prejudices against Germans, Greeks, Italians, and Irish Catholics for that matter, or is yours more of a reborn neo- White Australia policy?

The point is that it's not entirely clear what you stand for, except for the obvious that you don't like Muslims. If you're proud of your standpoint, then explain it clearly. No need for this latent hesitancy.

UI have alreay said what I stand for:

Stop family reunion for non-citizens immediately.
Tighten up citizenship : minimum 10 year residency, with at least 8 years in gainful employment.
Only temporary protection visas for refugees.
No government money for ethnic causes of any kind - let the ethnic communities fund their various jamborees.
No multilingual government leaflets and websites - English only.

Also
It is right and proper to have the cancellation of citizenship mandated as additional punishment for certain crimes stemming from disloyalty to the country since citizenship is granted in exchang of a promise, the oath of allegiance.  Those who break their promises in a certain way should have their bonds of citizenship also broken.

muso wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 8:49am:

I don't just discern differences,  I celebrate them.

That's a rather foolish thing to say, especially by a scientist who would like to be regarded as a clear headed cove.... Diversity is not a good in itself. It is only an instrumental good. It's only good if its effects are good. Evidently, not all the results of diversity are good. That is why opinion about it is variously divided, depending on which of its results are focused on. Preening in public as a reflex supporter of diversity is like mistaking your genus for your species. As a scientist, you should scorn that. I know I do.

The muddle-headed mistake is made worse by the use of Emotionally Correct language: as if celebrating anything was a morally superior attitude.  

Quote:

The point is that it's not entirely clear what you stand for, except for the obvious that you don't like Muslims. If you're proud of your standpoint, then explain it clearly. No need for this latent hesitancy.

As I've already said, formulating an entire countries immigration policy on a post is an impossible task.  You know it, I know it, we all know what you're trying to do.

But cynicism aside, I'll sum it all up in a nutshell - the host culture must take precedence over imported cultures.  No affirmative action quotas.  Discrimination, or what one perceives to be so, should not carry punitive measures - if a business owner decides to discriminate against a superior foreigner and hire an inferior local instead, then that is punishment enough.

Come to think of it, my greatest criticism is not of immigration policy itself, but rather the the raft of 'anti-discrimination' measures which simply change the traget for discrimination rather than stopping the practice.  Putting the 'them' before the 'us' is illogical and harmful.

... wrote on Aug 16^th, 2011 at 11:30am:

But cynicism aside, I'll sum it all up in a nutshell - the host culture must take precedence over imported cultures.  No affirmative action quotas.  Discrimination, or what one perceives to be so, should not carry punitive measures - if a business owner decides to discriminate against a superior foreigner and hire an inferior local instead, then that is punishment enough.

OK, I understand your position now.  The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination has been signed by virtually every country in the world, with the five exceptions that I quoted earlier, and one of those is too poor to support international conventions.  

In fact, it's been around since 1969 (42 years). While I can understand that reverse discrimination is an issue, the basic premise is based on nothing other than human decency and the recognition of the effects arising from racial discrimination.  

Now you're suggesting that it's ok to discriminate, and you want to set the clock back 40 years.

It's OK to discriminate on the basis of culture.

'Multiculturalism' is the reverse side of the West's 'Globalisation' coin!

We 'Westerners' are reaping nothing other than what we have sown!

Equitist wrote on Aug 16^th, 2011 at 9:58pm:

'Multiculturalism' is the reverse side of the West's 'Globalisation' coin! We 'Westerners' are reaping nothing other than what we have sown!

Thank you for agreeing that it is a BAD THING (the just desert for being BAD).

Soren wrote on Aug 16^th, 2011 at 10:06pm:

Equitist wrote on Aug 16th, 2011 at 9:58pm: 'Multiculturalism' is the reverse side of the West's 'Globalisation' coin! We 'Westerners' are reaping nothing other than what we have sown! Thank you for agreeing that it is a BAD THING (the just desert for being BAD).

Not necessarily - I was just pointing out the hypocrisy involved!

Equitist wrote on Aug 16^th, 2011 at 10:09pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 16th, 2011 at 10:06pm: Equitist wrote on Aug 16th, 2011 at 9:58pm: 'Multiculturalism' is the reverse side of the West's 'Globalisation' coin! We 'Westerners' are reaping nothing other than what we have sown! Thank you for agreeing that it is a BAD THING (the just desert for being BAD). Not necessarily - I was just pointing out the hypocrisy involved!

Of course you weren't. You pointed out that one bad turn deserves another.

What do you think about the gold reserve vs globalisation vis a vis multiculturalism? I hope you prefer kittens.
What?? Not necessaily?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU

;D

Soren wrote on Aug 16^th, 2011 at 9:45pm:

It's OK to discriminate on the basis of culture.

So do you think it's ok to discriminate on the basis of "white" culture? That's what I believe Wesley was suggesting.

So you can say bugger off, we don't employ people of negro "culture" or Mongolian "Culture" ?

You're just hiding behind the term "culture".

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2011 at 7:55am:

Soren wrote on Aug 16th, 2011 at 9:45pm: It's OK to discriminate on the basis of culture. So do you think it's ok to discriminate on the basis of "white" culture? That's what I believe Wesley was suggesting. So you can say bugger off, we don't employ people of negro "culture" or Mongolian "Culture" ? You're just hiding behind the term "culture".

Nonsense.  I identify with and value western culture. I also think that it is open to all races, even though it has become what it is in countries of white people. It produced everything I value about culture. It may not be perfect in all aspects but it is better than any other existing culture.
It is the only culture that has developed the cultural goods I value and identify with or has developed them to the highest degree.  Tintedness is no impediment to absorbing these cultural values. VS Naipaul is my favourite example of a West Indian Indian who has become a great Englishman (ie a European).
I think non-European cultures are inferior cultures. They may have good things about them but they are not better than the corresponding Western values.  Most if not all of them have a view of the human person that I object to and find alien and, in comparison to western values, degrading and backward. The good thing is that no-one is trapped in his culture as he is trapped in his skin. A person can learn and change. If he is free - a westren cultural good of the first order.

I fart in the general direction of any PC insinuation  that I ought to somehow wring my hands about western history or culture. It has done a great deal more good for the world than all the other cultures put together. Nothing to regret in that direction. It is better. Why pretend otherwise or why deny it?

Quote:

Now you're suggesting that it's ok to discriminate, and you want to set the clock back 40 years.

Has our world become fundamentally and undeniably better in those 40 years?

Sometimes people get it wrong.  To use some examples you might accept - the immigration restriction act 1901 aka white australia policy was widely embraced by australians for over 50 years.  Nowadays it's 'obviously' sooo wrong.  Colonising and 'civilising the natives' was the most noble of causes - now it's abhorrent.  

Were it not for brave souls (like myself) fighting the status quo, these would all still be reality.  

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2011 at 7:55am:

Soren wrote on Aug 16th, 2011 at 9:45pm: It's OK to discriminate on the basis of culture. So do you think it's ok to discriminate on the basis of "white" culture? That's what I believe Wesley was suggesting. So you can say bugger off, we don't employ people of negro "culture" or Mongolian "Culture" ? You're just hiding behind the term "culture".

White culture, western culture - what's the difference?

Quote:

An international survey of 23 countries by Ipsos has found opposition to immigration in numerous countries across the world, with majorities often considering its effects to be negative and its scale excessive. European nations were typical of this trend. Majorities in countries as diverse as Germany, South Africa, Russia, Turkey and the United States were found to consider immigration to have a "very or fairly negative impact". Anti-immigration sentiment was particularly strong in Europe, with over 65% of Spaniards, Italians and British polled strongly or partly agreeing that "there are too many immigrants in our country".Sweden and Poland were the only European countries surveyed that did not have majorities who considered immigration to have a negative impact. In no country did a majority consider immigration to have been beneficial.Majorities in most EU countries surveyed agreed that immigration had made it more difficult for citizens to find employment and "placed too much pressure on public services," such as health care and education. Anti-immigrant sentiment has put significant strain on freedom of movement within the EU. On 11 August, the European Commission approved Spain's measures to exclude Romanian workers from its labour market. The Spanish unemployment rate is by far the highest in the EU at 21%. Bulgaria and Romania recently saw their accession to the Schengen border-free area postponed. The Dutch and Danish governments, whose parliamentary majorities are dependent on the support of far-right anti-immigrant parties, have pushed particularly hard to limit immigration. In the case of Denmark, the unilateral imposition of new border controls was harshly criticised by the European Commission and Germany. http://www.euractiv.com/en/socialeurope/europeans-overwhelmingly-immigration-poll-news-507074

So much for democracy aye?

Multiculturalism is the stupidest and most insidious of 'isms (the two probably propel each other): it declares that there is nothing to discuss when it comes to different cultures and what's good and bad about them and anyone who does want to discuss differences is a racist.

It's so stupid that it expects everyone to declare that their chief value is to value everyone else's values more than they value their own values.

What can be more contemptible and stupid?

Soren wrote on Aug 24^th, 2011 at 2:05pm:

Multiculturalism is the stupidest and most insidious of 'isms (the two probably propel each other): it declares that there is nothing to discuss when it comes to different cultures and what's good and bad about them and anyone who does want to discuss differences is a racist. It's so stupid that it expects everyone to declare that their chief value is to value everyone else's values more than they value their own values. What can be more contemptible and stupid?

For a general citizen to support it is the height of stupidity.  At no time, and in no place has it ever succeeded in its stated aims, nor will it in future.

But for a person/group who's aim is to fragment society to enable greater control, it is a highly effective masterstroke of genius.

Progs wrote on May 29^th, 2007 at 5:09pm:

wrote on May 29th, 2007 at 5:00pm: Naturally, i voted no. How can alien cultures and religious systems live together when they all hold different aims? There has been no nation in history who has had multiculturism and succeded in the long run. Number one example- the soviet union. Number two example- the ottoman empire Number three example- the roman empire. And what about the british empire? it only exists in white countries. So no is my answer. You seem to be forgetting a little country called the US of A. Or is America a failure too?

You are right, the USA is a perfect example of multiculturalism. Black gangs killing white gangs who in turn kill asian gangs and mexican / latino gangs all of whom smuggle drugs, people and semi automatic weapons.

The underlying psychology is that a race needs to protect itself from other races that live in the same place. This is why multiculturalism is a failure. Many cultures can only live together if they do not identify themselves as of a different culture but understand that they have CHOSEN to JOIN a NEW CULTURE. In order to join this culture they must ASSIMILATE. A process by which one acknowledges that the culture that they are joining supersedes the culture that they are leaving behind.

If immigrants cannot do this, they should not be here.

So lets not turn Australia into the wonderful success of a little country known as US of A.

Progs wrote on May 29^th, 2007 at 4:51pm:

I support multiculturalism for one reason. The FOOD.

I support multiculturalism because of exotic chicks.
You don't need to travel around the world you can all taste them here.
Well than make choice be racist and continue jerking or enjoy all those exotic beauties

http://www.africanbeautytip.com/images/mod_14.jpg

http://loveme.com/mp/p660-1.jpg

http://media.trb.com/media/photo/2010-06/181837280-08120825.jpg

http://media.trb.com/media/photo/2010-06/182677380-08120415.jpg

The Nazis tried monoculture - it didn't work out.

falah wrote on Sep 21^st, 2011 at 10:25pm:

The Nazis tried monoculture - it didn't work out.

Not to mention Islam. No wet t shirt contests in the Sports bar of the Saladdin's Arms in Mecca on Friday nights.  

Soren wrote on Sep 21^st, 2011 at 10:38pm:

No wet t shirt contests in the Sports bar of the Saladdin's Arms in Mecca on Friday nights.

Is that what multiculturalism is all about: wet t-shirt competitions in pubs, in holy places.

Perhaps you should try your luck in the Vatican City Soren - although, given all the recent priest-abuse scandals, I worry about what kind of wet t-shirt competition you will find there.

falah wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2011 at 10:28am:

Soren wrote on Sep 21st, 2011 at 10:38pm: No wet t shirt contests in the Sports bar of the Saladdin's Arms in Mecca on Friday nights.   Is that what multiculturalism is all about: wet t-shirt competitions in pubs, in holy places. Perhaps you should try your luck in the Vatican City Soren - although, given all the recent priest-abuse scandals, I worry about what kind of wet t-shirt competition you will find there.

Pubs ARE holy places...

falah wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2011 at 10:28am:

Soren wrote on Sep 21st, 2011 at 10:38pm: No wet t shirt contests in the Sports bar of the Saladdin's Arms in Mecca on Friday nights.   Is that what multiculturalism is all about: wet t-shirt competitions in pubs, in holy places. Perhaps you should try your luck in the Vatican City Soren - although, given all the recent priest-abuse scandals, I worry about what kind of wet t-shirt competition you will find there.

The point, galah, which you very well understand despite the usual Muslim play-acting of being more incomprehending thn a 6 year old,  is that Islam is the most intolerant of cultures going.  Muslim multiculturalism is called dhimmitude and involves severe curtailment of rights coupled with extra tax - if you are lucky to live.

Saudi Arabia is entirely Islamic when it comes to the severest restriction on diversity of religion and culture.

falah wrote on Sep 21^st, 2011 at 10:25pm:

The Nazis tried monoculture - it didn't work out.

The japanese are still 'trying' it.  It's working out quite well for them wouldn't you say?

falah wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2011 at 10:28am:

Soren wrote on Sep 21st, 2011 at 10:38pm: No wet t shirt contests in the Sports bar of the Saladdin's Arms in Mecca on Friday nights.   Is that what multiculturalism is all about: wet t-shirt competitions

Why? DId you think it was about sticking you arses in the air on the public thoroghfare in broad daylight?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QfVWU-2pVL4/S6gOUgtc6OI/AAAAAAAAM-s/5zii18SfUh8/s640/Italy-islam-muslim-street-prayer.jpg

I guess you would not want Jesus to come to Australia then?

Going a little farther, he (Jesus) fell with his face to the ground and prayed...
Matthew 26:39

...he (Jesus) fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him.
Mark 14:35-36


I guess you wouldn't welcome Moses and the tribes of Israel to Australia?

And Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they fell upon their faces...
Numbers 20:6-AV



Probably you wouldn't welcome other Biblical figures like Joshua, Elijah or Jehoshaphat?


And he said, Nay; but [as] captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
Joshua 5:14


And Elijah went up to the top of Carmel; and he cast himself down upon the earth
1Kings 18:42-AV


2Chronicles 20:18-AV And Jehoshaphat bowed his head with [his] face to the ground: and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem fell before the LORD, worshipping the LORD.

falah wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 10:34am:

I guess you would want Jesus to come to Australia then?

Are trying to suggest that all those dingbats with their butts in the air believe they are Jesus???


(I have never believed in releasing loonies into the community.)

Soren wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 4:41pm:

[quote author=falah link=1178038424/240#247 date=1316824495] Are trying to suggest that all those dingbats with their butts in the air believe they are Jesus???

No Soren. They do not believe they are Jesus. They believe that they are praying in the manner in which Jesus prayed.

This is the way the prophets of God prayed.

Muslims are the true followers of Jesus and Moses.

falah wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:44am:

Soren wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 4:41pm: [quote author=falah link=1178038424/240#247 date=1316824495] Are trying to suggest that all those dingbats with their butts in the air believe they are Jesus??? No Soren. They do not believe they are Jesus. They believe that they are praying in the manner in which Jesus prayed. This is the way the prophets of God prayed. Muslims are the true followers of Jesus and Moses.

If this God of yours is all powerful, what makes you think he even wants or needs your worship?