DT, would you mind elaborating on this?

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1184114128/15#15

There are small, but practical steps that can be taken.

Deport all peoples who do not follow the Anglo-saxon culture.

Asians, Africans, Middle easterners, Most Meds and Slavs for example.

By remove, do you mean kill?

freediver wrote on Jul 26^th, 2007 at 5:25pm:

DT, would you mind elaborating on this? http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1184114128/15#15 There are small, but practical steps that can be taken.

Okay, for starters... close all Islamic schools. There's nothing practical about schools that promote this garbage.

and ban all sects that promote violence.
ban all books that promote violence

So you want to put an end to religious freedom? Isn't that against Aussie values?

If a belief states they cannot live in peace with us ............ by their own words be it.

But you're the one saying they cannot live in peace. Most muslims say they can.

most of them say thay can. Some of them say they can't.

what happens in muslim countries ?
Oh, looks like thay can't there

You are the only one here saying you can't accept another religion.

where did I say that ?

When you say to ban books, does that include the Koran?

Are you going to answer my question ?

Any book that promotes the use of violence or seditious behaviour to meet their wants should be carefully scruitinised if not banned immediately.

I'm trying to answer you. So, does that include the Koran?

freediver - "Any book that promotes the use of violence or seditious behaviour to meet their wants should be carefully scruitinised if not banned immediately. "
In particular if people use it as vindication for seditious actions.

Why, what are you setting me up for ?   :)

Well, if you ban the Koran, then basically you are saying you can't live with other people. You are the intolerant one. There are plenty of Muslim people who are happy to be a peaceful part of our society.

Also, many hollywood movies and books promote violence to a greater extent than the Koran. People have used that 'cop killer' song as an excuse for killing policemen. Does that mean we should start banning them?

This is a very slippery slope you are on. It only makes sense while you keep it vague. Once you try to flesh out a 'policy' based on that, most people would see it as unacceptable. Pretty soon you would get arrested for trying to organise an anti government protest.

Good points you raise there freediver.

many movies and books do portray violence. I cant recall any that recommend/promote/advice the use of it.

I think a rap singer has been banned from aussie due to his songs/behaviour.
prob has to be domne on a case by case method

This is one of the contradictions in a  freedom of speech. That within it, people are allowed to try to stop  freedom.

I cant recall any that recommend/promote/advice the use of it.

So when Arnie solves his problems and becomes a hero by gunning people down, that isn't promoting violence? What about suggesting we invade Iraq? Is that promoting violence? What about selling tickets to a boxing match? Who decides what violence is OK to promote? The Koran is tame compared to what is considered a normal part of our society. It is tame compared to what we consider entertainment for our kids. If you look at it objectively, it would be a very long way down the list of things to ban. What puts it at the top of some peoples' list is fear, ignorance and intolerance.

http://www.threechordsandthetruth.net/u2lyrics/rattleandhum.htm

Silver and Gold... This song was written in a hotel room in New York City round about the time a friend of ours, Little Steven, was putting together a record of Artists Against Apartheid. This is a song written about a man in a shanty town outside of Johannesburg. A man who's sick of looking down the barrel of white South Africa. A man who is at the point where he is ready to take up arms against his oppressor. A man who has lost faith in the peacemakers of the West while they argue and while they fail to support a man like Bishop Tutu and his request for economic sanctions against South Africa.

Am I buggin' you? I don't mean to bug ya.

no, it is not saying to gun down all the cops in all the small towms .
The message movies like this give across is not my preference, but they do not state to follow his actions/example to achieve any goal.
See the significant difference ?

The Koran did not say to blow up the WTC.

you are entirely correct freediver

freediver wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 9:41am:

So you want to put an end to religious freedom? Isn't that against Aussie values?

Who are you addressing? Sprintcyclist or me?

I think it was sprint, but you are welcome to respond if the same applies to you.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Labor-supports-terrorist-book-ban/2007/08/15/1186857564186.html

Federal Labor has united with the government to ban books, films and computer games that advocate terrorism, after a majority of the states refused to pass their own legislation.

Quote:

So you want to put an end to religious freedom? Isn't that against Aussie values?

No... I don't want an end to religious freedom... I just want Islamic schools to be banned/closed.

If you consider that restricting religious freedom... then I guess I'm against religious freedom. Tough. I just don't think Islam is a safe religion. The Quran and the acts of Muslims worldwide is good enough for me.

Do you think religious freedom is part of Australia's values? That's an interesting concept. So are you basing this off the constitution?

And if we DO have religious freedom... why are prayers banned in public schools and politics? -Or were you just talking about religious freedom... meaning.... 'types' of religions.

No... I don't want an end to religious freedom... I just want Islamic schools to be banned/closed.  

If you consider that restricting religious freedom... then I guess I'm against religious freedom.

Of course it's a restriction on religious freedom - a freedom many Australians have fought and died for.

And if we DO have religious freedom... why are prayers banned in public schools and politics?

It is not illegal to pray in public schools. It is illegal to force public school children to listen to sermons based on one particular religion. That would effectively be a state endorsed religion, and questionable use of taxpayer's money.

Quote:

It is not illegal to pray in public schools. It is illegal to force public school children to listen to sermons based on one particular religion. That would effectively be a state endorsed religion, and questionable use of taxpayer's money

you know the part that confuses me, is private religious-based schools still get government funding. which is unusual since i used to think "private" meant that it was privately owned & operated (i.e. it is free of taxpayer funds). so i don't know why they still get taxpayer funds.

but on the note of religious schools, if u want Islamic schools to be banned, then u should call for a ban on all religious-based schools and only have secular schools in operation.

if u only want Islamic schools banned, but Catholic schools remain, then it's double standards on your part.

so i don't know why they still get taxpayer funds

Provided they provide a reasonable education on top of whatever religious stuff they do, I don't see why not. They are reducing the burden on the public system, so the government may actually be saving money by subsidising them.

public vs private education:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172911103

This freediver is a prime example of the apologist mindset that undermines and puts Australia and other Western cultures at risk.

bump

In my view monoculturalism is the opposite of multiculturalism in only the semantic sense but even then only very weakly. (The opposite of many is not one but few).

In cultural terms the opposite of multiculturalism is civilisation. Multiculturalism corrodes it because it relativises cultural practices and makes them out to be of equal value, especially in the sense that one cultural impulse (say, the maintenence of group solidarity) is as valid as another (say, freedom of conscience).  

Civilisation (there is only one) changes because its goal is the ongoing improvement on conviviality. Cultures embody civilisation to varying degrees. Insisting too much on cultural preservation may prevent civilisational improvement and in this sense can be reactionary.

Cultures are not equal in their degrees of civilisation. In Australia, for example, the Brittanic heritage carries the greatest degree and is the agent of any further betterment of the lives of Australians.  It makes room for other cultures to have their freedom of conscience ( a britannic trait). This does not mean that these other cultures are equal to it.
The corrosive effeect of of multiculturalism, whether in policy or sentiment, is this false equality. It reduces people's ability to tell the difference between betteer and worse, between improvement and reaction.

Quote:

And if we DO have religious freedom... why are prayers banned in public schools and politics?

Last time I listened to the parliament on newsradio they opened with the Lord's prayer (ie. the standard Christian prayer), and funnily enough, every other day I listened to it, they did the same...

Multiculturalism corrodes it because it relativises cultural practices and makes them out to be of equal value, especially in the sense that one cultural impulse (say, the maintenence of group solidarity) is as valid as another (say, freedom of conscience).  

Do you see that freedom as being somehow less valid than solidarity? Do you see them as mutually exclusive?

Do you have an answer to the original question? It's all well and good to bitch about what you think is wrong with our society, or blame it's faults on the latest buzzword, but unless you can come up with a cure that isn't worse than the disease, what's the point?

soren,

Quote:

Civilisation (there is only one)

That's a little absolutist isn't it?

At any given time in the world, there's perhaps only one dominant civilisation, but to suggest all other civilisations are not civilisations is a little self-centred don't you think?

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 5^th, 2008 at 3:08pm:

soren, Quote: Civilisation (there is only one) That's a little absolutist isn't it? At any given time in the world, there's perhaps only one dominant civilisation, but to suggest all other civilisations are not civilisations is a little self-centred don't you think?

No. There are many cultures. There is only one civilisation.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2008 at 1:52pm:

Multiculturalism corrodes it because it relativises cultural practices and makes them out to be of equal value, especially in the sense that one cultural impulse (say, the maintenence of group solidarity) is as valid as another (say, freedom of conscience).   Do you see that freedom as being somehow less valid than solidarity? Do you see them as mutually exclusive? Do you have an answer to the original question? It's all well and good to bitch about what you think is wrong with our society, or blame it's faults on the latest buzzword, but unless you can come up with a cure that isn't worse than the disease, what's the point?

I believe i said that multiculturalism relativises values and THEREBY presents them as equal. I DO NOT believe that values are equal. I do not believe that the values I gave as examples are equal.

I responed to the original question by pointing out that it is framed wrongly. Monoculture is not the response to multuculturalism, civilisation is - which is also the right response to monoculture.
I am trying to draw attention to the difference between culture (the local practices, customs, habits, etc) and civilisation.

Are civilisation and multi/monoculturalism mutually exclusive?

Another stupid bloody title fd?

How do we get rid of Multiculturalism.

Replace it with its former policies either assimilation or Integration

Stop the wasted spending on it and sell off SBS.


It'll save us billions, better spent on real things and real social harmony for a change.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2008 at 9:37pm:

Are civilisation and multi/monoculturalism mutually exclusive?

No.
But they err on the two ends of the same spectrum - multiculturalism talks up the 'Other' too much, as if every cultural practice deserved  the same respect and room at the table  while monoculture, if practiced as an ideology, talks up the 'ein volk', ein reich'.

Civilisation, while grammatically a noun, signifies a quality. Or if the word is used to denote a thing, it is the stuff that makes a culture more or less civilised.

multiculturalism talks up the 'Other' too much, as if every cultural practice deserved  the same respect and room at the table

Not exactly every one. Only those that fall within the law. At least, that's how it works in the west. Within that, most cultural practices are baggage that are fairly neutral in terms of 'civilisation'. Perhaps the law is equivalent to what you see as civilisation. Or maybe you should give an example of a cultural practice that is better than others.

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 9:39am:

[i][quote]Or maybe you should give an example of a cultural practice that is better than others.

Buying your meat at the butcher's rather than slaughtering it in your bathtub.
Not having a bone in your nose is better than having one.
Loving life is better than loving death.
Providing for sustained free inquiry is better than not allowing it.
Freedom of religion is better than religious persecution.
Personal responsibility is better than collective responsibility.
Having aa father and a mother is better that having two of the same.
Being literate iss better than being illiterate.
Studying literature and history is better that not having either.
Making music is better than forbidding music.
Personal hygiene is better than lack of it.
Tolerance is better than intolerance.
Confidence in what is best in one's own culture is better than lack of confidence.
Recognitioin of human dignity is better than slavery.

Most of those are not 'practices'. The ones that are, are pretty trivial. The rest are values that tend to transcend culture.

If someone wants to stick a bone in their nose, why shouldn't they? Does it actually harm society?

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 11:27am:

If someone wants to stick a bone in their nose, why shouldn't they? Does it actually harm society?

Seriously, I think you'll find that some people do stick bones and other pieces of metals in their nose as well as other body parts like ears, nipple, tongue, lip, peenis, rosebuds etc

;D ;D ;)

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 11:27am:

Most of those are not 'practices'. The ones that are, are pretty trivial. The rest are values that tend to transcend culture. If someone wants to stick a bone in their nose, why shouldn't they? Does it actually harm society?

You asked about "cultural practice that is better than others".

Not every practice that is worse is to be prohibited. Sticking bones iin your face is primitive, sticking itemss of ironmogery in your face iss primitive and stupid. Corse, stupid and primitive and other inferior practices harm society by making it also corser, stupider, more primitive. But of course it is not possible to prohibit stupidity. Luckily for the rest of us, it is mostly its own punishment.

One significant drawback of being excessively deferntial to the cultural 'other' is that by now many people are unable to bring themselves to identifying primitive, backward or corse and stupid cultural practices out of multicultural piety.
As with almost every cultural aspect of our lives, we happen to speak in terms of categories when in fact things are, like colours, on a scale.

Corse, stupid and primitive and other inferior practices harm society by making it also corser, stupider, more primitive.

They are decorations, nothing more. They don't make society stupider. This is like arguing that the Mona Lisa makes rich people stupid by bringing cave drawings into their living room.

One significant drawback of being excessively deferntial to the cultural 'other' is that by now many people are unable to bring themselves to identifying primitive, backward or corse and stupid cultural practices out of multicultural piety.

Either that, or it never was as clear cut as they assumed and they are now more enlightened.

I'm having trouble why you lump together such important values as personal freedom, life, education, tolerance, dignity etc with such trivial crap. It's almost like you want to raise your own set of personal cultural baggage to the same level of importance.

"Buying your meat at the butcher's rather than slaughtering it in your bathtub."

Fair few small Australian farmers do home kill and butchery for themselves and friends. Nothing wrong with saving some money and hassle.

As for "practical steps towards monoculturalism" canceling dual citizenship would help.

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 1:28pm:

[quote] Either that, or it never was as clear cut as they assumed and they are now more enlightened.

Q.:You make the shrewd observation of how political correctness engenders evil because of "the violence that it does to people's souls by forcing them to say or imply what they do not believe, but must not question." Can you talk about this a bit?

Dalrymple: Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

So we've gone from monoculturalism to civilisation to political correctness to communism to evil.

Can you explain how that is relevant Soren?

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 7:07pm:

So we've gone from monoculturalism to civilisation to political correctness to communism to evil. Can you explain how that is relevant Soren?

Here's the dot point version:
- monoculture versus multiculture is an ill-formulated question
- the right way to look at it is in terms of what promotes or hinders civilisation
-some cultures, such as the Britannic heritage in Australia, is more civilised than most if not all other cultures valorised under the doctrine or policy or piety of multiculturalism
- promoting or valorising cultures that are merely tribal but do not promote greater civilisation (ie are more primitive) is done out of an excessive sense of deference to the 'other', a.k.a. political correctness. (as well as various forms of resentment we haven't touched on)
-Political correctness, one of the emotinional well-springs of multicultiuralism, is communism writ small
- because of its unuthfulness, political correctness nurtures small, daily acts of mendacity
-Lots of that is evil.


As I said, all this stuff is like the spectrum - it runs along a scale rather than present in clear and distictss categories.

So the inferior cultural practices are degrading compared to their betteer alternatives, whether expressd in cultural/sociological/political ideas (equality of cultures, say) or small, daily banalities of primitive corseness (ironmongery in face, tatoos, etc, etc).

Britannic heritage in Australia, is more civilised

How so? Are you basing this on some kind of correlation, or something inherent to the culture?

Political correctness, one of the emotinional well-springs of multicultiuralism, is communism writ small

I thought it was all about not beating up ethnic people. Is that merely political correctness? Should we return to british traditions like beating up people who are different?

because of its unuthfulness, political correctness

What exactly is the lie?

Soren wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 7:47pm:

... -some cultures, such as the Britannic heritage in Australia, is more civilised than most if not all other cultures valorised under the doctrine or policy or piety of multiculturalism ...

Isn’t multiculturalism part of Britannic culture with all them Celtic, Roman, Germanic and what not components? Then there are two conclusions to be made: 1 Britannic culture is not as good as you say it is or multiculturalism is not as bad as you say it is.

Just in case it was missed I repeat: “As for "practical steps towards monoculturalism" cancelling dual citizenships would help.”

Yes I noticed that tallow. I think you were the first to make a practical suggestion.

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 8:03pm:

Quote: Britannic heritage in Australia, is more civilised How so? Are you basing this on some kind of correlation, or something inherent to the culture? One can immediately tell that Australia wa not colonised by Belgium, for example. Or the ottomans. Or the Javanese. All the political and social institutions are British. Reason is the basis of public life. [quote]Political correctness, one of the emotinional well-springs of multicultiuralism, is communism writ small I thought it was all about not beating up ethnic people. Is that merely political correctness? Should we return to british traditions like beating up people who are different?

That is not a British tradition as you well know it and not even a clever quip. Britain has its tradition of equality before the law and has taken it seriously. It was the driving force behind the abolishing of slavery. It has been on the right sidee of history in every conflict for a veery long time.



Quote:

because of its unuthfulness, political correctness[/i] What exactly is the lie?

The equality of cultures. That discerning qualitative differenece is discrimination. In other words, our everyday practice of telling the difference between good and bad things in our personal lives and dealings should not apply to other people's cultures because their feeling might get hurt.

tallowood wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 8:05pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 7:47pm: ... -some cultures, such as the Britannic heritage in Australia, is more civilised than most if not all other cultures valorised under the doctrine or policy or piety of multiculturalism ... Isn’t multiculturalism part of Britannic culture with all them Celtic, Roman, Germanic and what not components? Then there are two conclusions to be made: 1 Britannic culture is not as good as you say it is or multiculturalism is not as bad as you say it is.

Or we couldd say that the Britannic culture was able to pull them all together, take what was best in each for the promotion and eenhancement of civilisation, which is what I would say.


Quote:

Just in case it was missed I repeat: “As for "practical steps towards monoculturalism" cancelling dual citizenships would help.”

If  that's what people want, that could be a practical step.
My view is that the only thing really worth saving is civilisation. Some cultures favour it or embody it to a greater degree than others (none are perect, of course). Australia has inherited a great deal of civilisational values from Britain and has built on it and is rightly proud to be one of the very few of truly civilised countries in the world.



The Germans wanted monoculture - is it only me who is sensitive to this?

One can immediately tell that Australia wa not colonised by Belgium, for example. Or the ottomans. Or the Javanese.

So you can tell it is there, but what makes you think it is more civilised?

That is not a British tradition as you well know it and not even a clever quip.

So they didn't go round beating up chinese miners in the mining camps?

Britain has its tradition of equality before the law and has taken it seriously.

Now that they can afford to they do. They didn't take it seriously 200 years ago. If you were poor - off to Australia with you.

It was the driving force behind the abolishing of slavery.

That they do deserve some credit for.

The equality of cultures.

Multiculturalism does not hinge on equality of cultures, but on personal freedom. That is, you can practice your culture, even if it is some useless baggage from England, like insisting on eating apples instead of tropical fruit even though you live in Darwin. People are free to decide whether to practice that culture, but the government isn't going to tell them what sort of facial adornments are allowed.

In other words, our everyday practice of telling the difference between good and bad things in our personal lives and dealings should not apply to other people's cultures because their feeling might get hurt.

When has it ever stopped you criticising what others do?

Or we couldd say that the Britannic culture was able to pull them all together, take what was best in each for the promotion and eenhancement of civilisation, which is what I would say.

So you think it is parasitic of other cultures? It wasn't enough just to takle their natural resources?

The Germans wanted monoculture - is it only me who is sensitive to this?

Yes, that's why I started this thread. To point out that there are no acceptable steps towards monoculturalism.

So we agree on monoculture not beeing the answer.

I say civilisation, you say multiculturalism.

I suggest that Ockham's razor is a good rule of thumb here - civiisation is a simpler, clearer principle than multiculturalism.

While I agree in part about multicultuiralism - I think it was just a trick to stop bogans beating up ethnics - I don't think civilisation makes it any clearer. I'm still not sure what you mean by the term. You make it sound so anglocentric.

Terms like anglocentric or eurocentric are seething with resentment.

I am not afraid to acknowledge my valuable inheritance. This inheritance also enables me to put it to the test of civilisation - the human projct that arches from Greece and Rome to Australia. Britain has done more than most to keep civilisation alive and viable. Europe has done much also but significant cultures in Europe are tainted with bouts of barbarism, much more than Britain (or Denmark, a much smaller but honourable player).

My quip about Belgium shows how much difference there is between neighbours, even. It would be a poor show not to acknowledge and salute the achievemnets of Britain and the effects of those achievements on Australia and our personal lives today.
Australia is no longer a trasnplanted Britain but it would be shortsighted and churlish to deny its genes and upbringing, if you like. I was in England last year and was heard remarking on how like Australia it is (on a wintry day).
I love Australia and I love England and I recognise one in the other.
And I have chosen them, I was not born into either. I am not a nationalist or a schauvinist.
You should not be afraid of being called 'anglocentric' just because you might properly recognise Britan's quite disproportionate contribution to civilisation.

So why do I get the impression you are equating the importance of meat pies and the French revolution?

Beats me.

Soren wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 8:42pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 8:05pm: ... Isn’t multiculturalism part of Britannic culture with all them Celtic, Roman, Germanic and what not components? Then there are two conclusions to be made: 1 Britannic culture is not as good as you say it is or multiculturalism is not as bad as you say it is. Or we couldd say that the Britannic culture was able to pull them all together, take what was best in each for the promotion and eenhancement of civilisation, which is what I would say.

That is like putting a cart in front of a horse, possible but not effective or practical



Soren wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 8:42pm:

Quote: Just in case it was missed I repeat: “As for "practical steps towards monoculturalism" cancelling dual citizenships would help.” If  that's what people want, that could be a practical step. ...

So it is with multiculturalism as a way of civilisation.



Soren wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 8:42pm:

The Germans wanted monoculture - is it only me who is sensitive to this?

Not only Germans but also all flavours of skinheads.

Actually there is a theory that a civilisations flourish there where is interaction of different cultures.

take 2...

Another stupid bloody title fd?

How do we get rid of Multiculturalism.

Replace it with its former policies either assimilation or Integration

Stop the wasted spending on it and sell off SBS.


It'll save us billions, better spent on real things and real social harmony for a change.

tallowood wrote on Oct 7^th, 2008 at 12:05pm:

[quote] Actually there is a theory that a civilisations flourish there where is interaction of different cultures.

Undoubtedly.
Interaction, however, should not lead to the loss of discernment and the loss of the ability to perceive the hierarchy between ideas, cultures, traditions, ways of life, social organisation and so forth.
Discrimination in the sense of telling the difference between better and worse is as ordinary and unremarkable core of our daily lives as it is essential. It should not be banished from discussions about cultures, traditions etc.
To put it provocatively - not all prejudice is bad. Only a fool does not learn from experience. (How often do people go back to the shop that ripped them off? Trust someone caught lying?)

It should not be banished from discussions about cultures, traditions etc.

Was this ever a risk? I think the only thing the people tried to stop was ignorant knee-jerk responses along the lines of 'that must be bad because it is different'. Also, given the most of culture is intellectual baggage of neutral objective value, the approach of 'viva la difference' is not unreasonable.

Actually social science shows that diversity leads to social disharmony.
Check out Putnam's findings which you pig headedly ignore.


one more time...

Another stupid bloody title fd?

How do we get rid of Multiculturalism.

Replace it with its former policies either assimilation or Integration

Stop the wasted spending on it and sell off SBS.


It'll save us billions, better spent on real things and real social harmony for a change.