CREATING NATIONAL DISUNITY

Multiculturalism is an unsound political theory, advocated by liberals, academics, media personnel, social theorists, government officials, and politicians. While it is supported by a majority of those people, it is actually opposed by the overall majority of Australians.

It is a deliberate policy to actively maintain, support and build(1) foreign cultures in Australia, to the direct detriment of the Australian identity, culture and way of life.

Instead of allowing immigrants, and their native-born offspring, to naturally assimilate into the Australian culture, governments are knowingly creating bases of foreign culture in this country. These deliberately divisive policies are carried out in two areas.

First, through the multicultural policies themselves, whereby foreign cultures are sustained and encouraged. Large sums of money are granted to "ethnic" organisations, which boosts the abilities of such organisations to service and perpetuate their "ethnic culture". In schools, multicultural policies are actively pursued, whereby children are encouraged to identify with their "ethnicity", rather than to become "fully" Australian. Many, if not all, aspects of public life are touched in a myriad of ways by official multicultural policies, all of which actually encourage a "them and us" attitude between "new Australians" and "old Australians".

Secondly, immigration policies are based upon continuing mass immigration, which gives foreign cultures in Australia the ability to self-sustain their separate
development.

These deliberately divisive policies are turning Australians against each other, and are creating a country populated by a collection of separate communities, instead of a nation populated by a nationally unified society.

Multicultural Australia has thus become a breeding ground for a whole range of "micro-nations", each with their own political and cultural agendas. Indeed, Geoffrey Blainey has warned that "multiculturalism ... is a new form of colonialism, in which we are the colony of every nation on earth".(2) As Australia struggles to encompass the many little Chinas, little Japans, little Italys, and little Croatias, all determined to preserve their own national, cultural and ethnic peculiarities (including not only "lovely" dancing and foods, but sometimes strange, if not barbaric, customs; as well as some extremely strong ethnic hatreds), it is very easy to see the disunity created among these ethnic communities; as well as between them and those who see themselves as "Australians", foremost loyal to Australia.

Large-scale immigration programmes run the risk that ethnic enclaves will develop, a risk that is heightened by multicultural policies which give immigrants "little incentive to learn English and become socially and economically integrated with those outside their group". Such ethnic ghettos can provide a stimulus to the creation of "ethnic gangs that prey on their own community". Another dark side of this situation is that such enclaves "provide ideal bases for groups to engage in politically motivated violence. Indeed, the conflict over the former Yugoslavia has in Australia resulted in several incidents, including 11 unsolved fire bombings". The ethnic and political rivalry witnessed between the Greek and Macedonian communities in Australia involved "a demonstration outside Parliament House by 60,000 Greeks, a brawl at a soccer match and firebombings and vandalism", but such incidents are minor - compared with the potential for widespread inter-ethnic rivalry and violence. Such a situation is indicative of what multiculturalism can bring about.(3)

As Professor Blainey has stated: "Recent governments emphasize the merits of a multicultural society and ignore the dangers. And yet the evidence is clear that many multicultural societies have failed and that the human cost of the failure has been high. Many of our refugees actually come from multicultural societies that are faltering or in disarray". Also, Professor Loring Danforth has admitted that "Ironically, Australia's own commitment to multiculturalism may also encourage immigrants to involve themselves in the national conflicts of their homelands. This policy of multiculturalism ... defines people in ethnic categories and makes it possible for them to maintain their identities as Italians, Greeks, or Macedonians. Multiculturalism, with its emphasis on community languages and ethnic media, promotes the development of these ethnic identities and impedes the development of a strong Australian national identity."(4)

We do not need a crystal ball to see where multiculturalism will lead us. The future will bring a vast amount of inter-ethnic rivalry and resultant clashes, even leading to race riots reminiscent of those clashes in the UK and USA. Australia faces the spectre of being another disunified "multicultural" society like Sri Lanka, South Africa, Northern Ireland, Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, Fiji, etc.; not to mention the USA and the UK, with their continually strained communities, and occasional race riots. The prospects of such a disunified nation are appalling.

http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/pc/multi3.htm

Multiculturalism is a virus simply because it is a symptom of not only a culture in decline, but a culture that has been instructed to deeply despise itself. The response to the barbarism of the Second World War, slavery (which has been seen almost as a phenomeon solely propagated by white people), and the global expansion of Western empires, as dictated by the intellectuals of the west, is simply more barbarism, and the jettisoning of the "bourgeoisie values" that supposedly led to these atrocities in the first place. The underlying thought process of almost all intellectual energy created during the last fifty years is inextricably melded to the concept that white people are the source of everything evil that has ever existed in the world. This is well evidenced in the language that liberals and politically correct people use, and explains largely their reactions to certain "disagreeable" pieces of information (for instance, that there were black slaveholders in the United States, that there were more slaves shipped to the Middle East than to the New World, that primitive cultures did not live in complete harmony with each other and the world around them. This last one is especially interesting; and some of the excuses that I have heard to corroborate it have bordered on the absurd. One person tried to say that an excavated primitive fortification fraught with human remains and broken arrowheads was simply a "storage hub" for corpses that were on the way to be transported to permanent burial sites, avoiding the obvious conclusion that it was the location of a fierce battle).

Firstly, it is noteworthy to remark that nearly absolutely nobody wanted multiculturalism to begin with. Despite the democratic pretensions of our political system, the people were never consulted on multiculturalism. The politicians and academic elite set their agenda and carried it out without caring for a second what the masses actually felt and thought. The obvious reason for this is because any attempt to obtain consensus would have resulted in a near unanimous "no". An excellent example is the United Kingdom. Over 70% of British citizens backed Enoch Powell, a supposedly "racist" politician who had the effrontery to speak out against the coming multicultural reforms that the elite had in store for the nation. For his disloyalty, the brilliant Enoch, a professor at the University of Sydney at age 25 and a curator at the Museum of Australia before this, was sacked from his position, even though obviously, if Enoch had been allowed to run for Prime Minister, it would have been a national landslide. Now the name "Enoch Powell" is a forbidden taboo in the United Kingdom, and while a great majority of people probably still agree that he was right in his dire predictions, they do not dare say so out of fear of retribution from above. The multicultural project was imposed upon the nations of the West against the will of the people of the West. But because the people were motivated by "racism", their opinions did not matter.

Firstly, multiculturalism does not, and I dare say, will not, deliver on the spectacular promises that it has made. The basic idea is that filling a society with people who do not share each other's aspirations, ideas, beliefs and common history will lead to a society where people will be forced to reconcile their differences, celebrate diversity, and inevitably, create a new brotherhood of man. One must always be wary of any theoretical idea that promises spectacular results, and the people of Eastern Europe have woken up from the nightmare that was Communism only recently, but we seem to have disregarded this basic vigilance when it comes to multiculturalism, embracing it as the answer to vehement racism and all wars. Oh how wrong we are! Multiculturalism has done nothing of the sort. It has created stratified communities, sowed the seeds of distrust, created hostility, tension, and has helped shatter our once proud national identity. The biggest problem with multiculturalism is it simply ignores the obvious fact that nearly all people, regardless of political, cultural, or ethnic affiliation, are invariably attracted to people who are like themselves. This is well evidenced both in the laboratory and in the residential patterns of entire groups of people. A community is becoming majority brown, whites clear out. A community is becoming majority white, Asians clear out. It happens time and time again, and there's no getting around it. People are ATTRACTED TO PEOPLE WHO ARE LIKE THEMSELVES. They are most comfortable around people who share with them some sense of identity, whether it be cultural, racial, chronological or otherwise. Despite the age old mantra, opposites do not attract. This does not mean that there are not individual exceptions, but to look at everything from a top down perspective, to look at societies from the cross-section of the analytical tool of group dynamics, different groups on the whole, overwhelmingly, do not always get along as multicultural doctrine would predict.

(looks like I'm going to have to make a new post, one second)

Secondly, I view multiculturalism as a form of soft-totalitarianism, that is slowly becoming more and more "hard" totalitarian (especially in Europe) as time continues to go by. While multiculturalism masquerades as an ideology that is all encompassing and all tolerating, the disconnect between its pretenses and its practices can only be described as a figurative abyss. Multiculturalism is dogmatic and unrelenting, and exhibits nearly all of the characteristics of some of the strangest and most mendacious religious cults of the twentieth century. This is well evidenced in many of its mantras, the behaviors of its advocates and the garrote it has on the spoken and written word. Multiculturalism distorts the English language in the most sordid and Orwellian of fashions. "WAR IS PEACE" "LOVE IS WAR" and finally, "DIVERSITY IS UNITY".

Despite being an ideology that is supposed to tolerate dissent and provide a platform for all alternating viewpoints, multiculturalism cannot in anyway tolerate dissent of multiculturalism itself. Those who criticize it are immediately branded as "racists" (truly, the 21st century equivalent of "heretic"), or "ignorant". No matter how well reasoned the argument of the critic is, it cannot penetrate the mere ectoderm of the multiculturalist, for he has had the idea that anybody who would dare even criticize an ideology that is predicated upon the idea of universal tolerance is evil so thoroughly drummed into his mind that the eloquence and reasoning of his opponent makes no difference to him.

Multiculturalism is an ideology that posits that there are no universal truths, no sense of right or wrong, except this particular universal truth, posited by multiculturalism. A truly bizarre distortion of basic reasoning at any rate. Multiculturalism does not tolerate criticism of itself because it is itself built upon such flawed reasoning and faulty premises that allowed discussion of its strengths and weaknesses would lead to its swift demise. Period.

Did you write all of that MWSW? That was excellent.

I agree that this is the political dogma that we've had forced down our throughts.
For the white male caucasian, most especially, to be a "good person", you must first despise yourself. You must despise everything about about the history of your forefathers which once brought about success and relative freedom.
You must place a higher value upon cultures and peoples who haven't succeeded than on your own.

Quote:

You must place a higher value upon cultures and peoples who haven't succeeded than on your own.

Including one that has as its stated aim to make you a slave under its rule, and then you have to censor yourself from ever quoting those in Islam who say this - because its 'racist' apparently.

Yes the "R"word has always been the big weapon used to shut people up.
Ask Pauline Hanson or David Oldfield, look at how their party was vilified.

I think it will be all downhill from here for some in this volatile mixture of opposite self-interests.

It's been downhill since multiculti was foisted upon is unasked for and undebated.

Grendel wrote on Jun 20^th, 2009 at 1:55pm:

It's been downhill since multiculti was foisted upon is unasked for and undebated.

Everybody says it doesn't work, wherever it was tried it failed!

I wander what does it take to realise that it doesn't work?

Suppose only hope is to get elected several politicians strong enough to be able to call spade a spade.

Happy wrote on Jun 20^th, 2009 at 6:17pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 20th, 2009 at 1:55pm: It's been downhill since multiculti was foisted upon is unasked for and undebated. Everybody says it doesn't work, wherever it was tried it failed! I wander what does it take to realise that it doesn't work? Suppose only hope is to get elected several politicians strong enough to be able to call spade a spade.

Well the main reason is that you cannot even discuss it. The Holy Multiculti is Oh so sacred, take not the Holy Multiculti in vain, for it rules over all and is infallible!

So we need to get to the point of discussing it first, and then why its a really stupid philosophy.

Calanen wrote on Jun 20^th, 2009 at 6:35pm:

Well the main reason is that you cannot even discuss it. The Holy Multiculti is Oh so sacred, take not the Holy Multiculti in vain, for it rules over all and is infallible! So we need to get to the point of discussing it first, and then why its a really stupid philosophy.

And where can we do that?

If every criticism is shot down, looks like the only way to get anybody's attention would be some kind of disobedience.

Quote:

Multiculturalism is an ideology that posits that there are no universal truths, no sense of right or wrong, except this particular universal truth, posited by multiculturalism.

-Mercedes

Where do you guys find this drivel.
Watch out for lit matches. ;)

You make a hell of a lot of totally unfounded claims in that little rant of yours Mercedes, but nary a speck of evidence to substantiate a one of 'em.

As usual, the diatribes against multiculturalism are founded on a self assessed concept of what they want it to mean.

Then this little pearl of wisdom??

Quote:

Those who criticize it are immediately branded as "racists" (truly, the 21st century equivalent of "heretic"), or "ignorant". No matter how well reasoned the argument of the critic is, it cannot penetrate the mere ectoderm of the multiculturalist, for he has had the idea that anybody who would dare even criticize an ideology that is predicated upon the idea of universal tolerance is evil so thoroughly drummed into his mind that the eloquence and reasoning of his opponent makes no difference to him.

Well the people who don't want to be branded as racist, should start by not expressing racist views, or promoting racist behaviour, and the fact that there would be a crossover between racists, and those who seek to demonise multiculturalism, is hardly suprising, is it?

As far as "eloquence and reasoning" goes, from an anti-multiculturalist fanatic, if I ever come across any, I will try and recognise it, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

ROTFLMAO

Take your hands off your ears, open your eyes, and stop chanting "I can't hear you" Mozz..

Happy wrote on Jun 20^th, 2009 at 6:52pm:

Calanen wrote on Jun 20th, 2009 at 6:35pm: Well the main reason is that you cannot even discuss it. The Holy Multiculti is Oh so sacred, take not the Holy Multiculti in vain, for it rules over all and is infallible! So we need to get to the point of discussing it first, and then why its a really stupid philosophy. And where can we do that? If every criticism is shot down, looks like the only way to get anybody's attention would be some kind of disobedience.

There is a lot of talking behind the scenes, regular people saying they are sick of things.

Defenders of multiculturalism who oppose it reflexively wth racism make the same mistake as those racists who deny individual freedom. Both are deeply offensive and stupid.

It is a fact that multicultural policies exist ONLY in western liberal democracies. Debate about it is about self-government in western liberal democracies. Shouting down opposition to it reveals a reflexive oppositon to the very ideals of western liberalism. Equating it wth racism is a lazy short-hand by them saying, in effect, " I can't think about this, you should therefore shut up."

Culture and race are evidently not identical. Multiculturalists conflating culture and race are stupid, as are racists who deny that an indiviual of a given race is capable to perceive the difference between cultures and also deny his his freedom then to cultivate in himself the one he perceives to be the best.

Quote:

Where do you guys find this drivel.

What? The philosophical suggestion that there are "no universal truths" (aka moral relativism) is typically part of the argumentative repertoire of most modern intellectuals, and is a "logical" cornerstone of most people trying to justify support of multiculturalism. I "find" this "drivel" mainly from multiculturalists. Perhaps if you find it drivel you should not espouse it.


Quote:

You make a hell of a lot of totally unfounded claims in that little rant of yours Mercedes, but nary a speck of evidence to substantiate a one of 'em.

Ah, I see. The old "accuse your opponent of making unfounded accusations without actually having any founding for the accusation of a lack of foundation" trick. Could you explain to me what part of my (as you described) harangue you found particularly unfounded?


Quote:

Well the people who don't want to be branded as racist, should start by not expressing racist views,

Yes, you're basically suggesting here that if you don't want to be shut down you should not make any sort of criticism of multiculturalism, because all criticisms of multiculturalism are immediately racist, and therefore must be shut down at any cost. If this is indeed what you are saying, then you must explain to me further what part of my post you found especially "unfounded", because such an attitude completely coincides with my description of the behavior of doctrinaire multiculturalists. And even if the people making such arguments were "racist", and even if their arguments were "racist" (which they usually aren't), would this make their arguments right or wrong? The truth has no interest in copying the politically correct vogue. It transcends all things and can come from all places.


Quote:

As far as "eloquence and reasoning" goes, from an anti-multiculturalist fanatic, if I ever come across any, I will try and recognise it, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

Explain to me what was wrong with the reasoning in my post and how it was expressed then.

Conspirinut paranoia from anti-multiculturalists, who attach an evil persona to multiculturalism, as if it were anything other than a response to the changing dynamics encountered by having more mobile populations than we did when people rarely left their own village, let alone their country, is the most glaring flaw in their paranoid rants.

It was not some evil plot to destroy western society, it was simply an attempt to make the best of what was becoming more and more the norm, because of the great post WW2 migration events.

Maybe you are not old enough to remember systemic racism in action, but it is a shameful thing, and that good people would wish to see that change is something to be proud of, and no amount of jingoistic nationalism will convince me otherwise.

The perversity of arguing that we should be so proud of our own culture, yet decry some of it's greatest characteristics, of being open, tolerant, and generous, always perplexes me.

If we had such views from our inception, we would never have become the nation that you now wish to see shut down, as if we had reached our prescribed destination in 1938, or '58', or '78, or whenever some nationalist nutjob considered to be his halcyon age.

The journey however continues, we will continue to evolve and grow, and change, as a nation, and people who wish to improve our shared lot should be able to do so, without seeking to demonise others, for we have always had people like that, but they have not been significant in the shaping of who we are, and that is not likely to change, because aussies more than most, know the value of giving the new guy a fair go.

The whole racist element is problematic for your position not because it is an unfounded attack, but because racists are naturally going to be attracted to a position which blames newer arrivals for all our problems.
Not all who spout this sort of stuff will be racist, but all racists will spout this sort of stuff.
It is natural, and obvious, and would make me evaluate what it is about my argument that attracted racists, if I were the one making it, and then see how I could refine my position to not attract such extremists.

But that is not my job, because I think your whole argument is based on a false premise, even though you do have many relevant issues that could, and should be considered on their individual merits.

So what is good about Multiculturalism as it exists in the real world Mozz?
Please list in point form and with anecdotal evidence if you can
Thanks.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 21^st, 2009 at 2:14pm:

Conspirinut paranoia from anti-multiculturalists, who attach an evil persona to multiculturalism, as if it were anything other than a response to the changing dynamics encountered by having more mobile populations than we did when people rarely left their own village, let alone their country, is the most glaring flaw in their paranoid rants. It was not some evil plot to destroy western society, it was simply an attempt to make the best of what was becoming more and more the norm, because of the great post WW2 migration events. Maybe you are not old enough to remember systemic racism in action, but it is a shameful thing, and that good people would wish to see that change is something to be proud of, and no amount of jingoistic nationalism will convince me otherwise. The perversity of arguing that we should be so proud of our own culture, yet decry some of it's greatest characteristics, of being open, tolerant, and generous, always perplexes me. If we had such views from our inception, we would never have become the nation that you now wish to see shut down, as if we had reached our prescribed destination in 1938, or '58', or '78, or whenever some nationalist nutjob considered to be his halcyon age. The journey however continues, we will continue to evolve and grow, and change, as a nation, and people who wish to improve our shared lot should be able to do so, without seeking to demonise others, for we have always had people like that, but they have not been significant in the shaping of who we are, and that is not likely to change, because aussies more than most, know the value of giving the new guy a fair go. The whole racist element is problematic for your position not because it is an unfounded attack, but because racists are naturally going to be attracted to a position which blames newer arrivals for all our problems. Not all who spout this sort of stuff will be racist, but all racists will spout this sort of stuff. It is natural, and obvious, and would make me evaluate what it is about my argument that attracted racists, if I were the one making it, and then see how I could refine my position to not attract such extremists. But that is not my job, because I think your whole argument is based on a false premise, even though you do have many relevant issues that could, and should be considered on their individual merits.

Are you really, really unaware that you are using 'multicultaural' and multiracial interchangably? They are two different things, two totally different ideas - hence the two dfferent words.

The opposite of multiculturalism is not racism but assimilation. Multiculturalism says that the host should change and tacitly accept that it is no better than the immgrants who are asking for admisson; assimilaton says that the new arrival should change and become like the host. Many migrants will play the race card at the drop of a turban - but culture is not race.


Si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more- and Rome was a multiracial empire par excellance.

Quote:

Conspirinut paranoia from anti-multiculturalists, who attach an evil persona to multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is not "evil", neither are those who advocate it. It is just an extremely misguided ideology that potentially threatens Western Civilization as we know it. Its supporters tend to fall into three different camps, which I will elaborate on now and rank in order of prevalence.

The Ambivalent

The ambivalent is technically not really, vocally, a supporter of multiculturalism, but for all intents and purposes he is the lifeblood of the entire movement. Without his mild approval, multiculturalism would not exist at all. Not really interested in politics, he has not given his support for multiculturalism much thought, tending to associate it entirely with such pleasantries like ethnic restaurants and Chinese New Years. His support for multiculturalism is about as devoted as his stances on everything else political-- easily swayed of course, and ripe for opportunism. However, despite his halfheartedness, he will usually become mildly aggrieved at anything he detects to be even slightly "racist" (which includes criticisms of multiculturalism itself); but of course, he'll usually be the first out the door when his neighbourhood is becoming majority brown or black.

The Rank and File

The second line of defense. The rank and file are a fairly homogeneous group marked by a myriad of shared characteristics that distinguish them from the Ambivalents. Firstly, they all tend to be drawn from middle to upper middle class backgrounds. Secondly, they are overwhelmingly college educated, often possessing one or two degrees from frequently prestigious institutions of higher education. And finally their interest in politics runs far deeper than most, often partaking in demonstrations, rallies and so forth. The Rank and File frequently fancy themselves consummate critical thinkers, often snidely making fun of individuals who they believe to lack a possession of such faculties,  but the depth of their critical acumen runs about as far as the opinions crammed into them by their professors while they were attending school. Claiming to be "open to new opinions and world views", any criticism of multiculturalism to them is what a denial of the existence of god would be to the most dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist  baptist, invariably prompting them to enter into lengthy tirades laced with ad-hominem (indeed, their college educations did not impart in theml an ability to understand even basic logical fallacies at all) accusations of "racist" and pleas for "tolerance" and "understanding". Their interactions with minorities tend to be restricted to a handful of experiences that they have had on campus; these experiences leading them rather fallaciously to believe that everybody coming into the country is exactly like the people that they interacted with while they were at school.

The Marxists/Cultural Marxists/Anarchists

The final group and smallest group. Unlike the rank and file, who typically are guided by a mild to moderate dislike of Western Civilization (but primarily good intentions; these aren't bad people at all) the final group is characterized from the Rank and File by its sheer animus of white people, capitalism and as a result, Western Civilization in general. These normally aren't people people; they champion working class values, but haven't spent a fraction of a second among people of the working class (indeed, if they actually did, they would inevitably end up despising them). Nor are they particularly interested in the new cultures that will be arriving on our shores; multiculturalism to them is a means to the end of destroying what they perceive as the ultimate evil and source of everything bad that has ever existed in the world; "white male privilege".


Quote:

s if it were anything other than a response to the changing dynamics encountered by having more mobile populations

I don't think this is it at all. A more mobile global population maybe, but multiculturalism is not in anyway the inevitable result of such a development; hell, nor is a more open border policy. Take Japan for instance-- or South Korea. I don't think you can find a nation that is not more integrated into the global economy than these two, but the attitudes of their denizens towards foreigners are almost the same as they were four hundred years ago. The suggestion that multiculturalism is simply an inevitable result of globalism and in an increasingly interconnected world the nation state is becoming more and more irrelevant, is, to put it frankly, a baffling one. The nation state is only becoming more and more important; this is well evidenced by the complete resurgence of nationalist movements over all of Europe, obviously in large part caused by a visceral reaction to multiculturalism and en-masse immigration from the Middle East. And anyway, even if your point was valid, multiculturalism is not in anyway necessary as a response to such changing conditions. (Can we PLEASE  increase the character limit for individual posts at this place? I'm making a second reply now)

Quote:

Maybe you are not old enough to remember systemic racism in action, but it is a shameful thing, and that good people would wish to see that change is something to be proud of,

I don't know what this has to do with anything, nor do I see how (if this is what you are suggesting) multiculturalism is in anyway an antidote to said "systemic racism".


Quote:

The perversity of arguing that we should be so proud of our own culture, yet decry some of it 's greatest characteristics, of being open, tolerant, and generous, always perplexes me

When on earth have any of these fluffy concepts been the best characteristics of Western Civilization? I'm not saying that openness, tolerance, and generosity are necessarily bad things, but they are not virtues within themselves either. Absolutely no culture on earth up until this point in time has regarded any of them in precisely this way-- for obvious reasons that I hope are not lost on you. Because now we live in a society that elevates sensitivity and niceness over things that are truly beneficial and good, these "feel good" characteristics have been elevated above all others and regarded as universally, that is, applying in every particular instance, beneficial and good. This isn't just nonsense, it's pernicious nonsense. These things have never been, and never will be, the "best features" of Western Civilization. Let's cut the crap.


Quote:

The journey however continues, we will continue to evolve and grow, and change, as a nation, and people who wish to improve our shared lot should be able to do so

Why should they be able to do so? What exactly do you mean by "willing to improve our shared lot"? How exactly are they doing this? By flouting our conventions and establishing cultural and racial enclaves within the hollows of our nation? Multiculturalism is the very ideology that prevents such "shared contributions" from even happening-- multiculturalism simply creates communities that run parallel to each other that contribute to each other in only facile, deceptively "enriching" ways.

Another question to ask of course is why we should even want our nation to change if we don't want it to. Change is not a good in itself, nor has it ever been. Certainly, the nations that these people come from aren't receptive to such an idea in the slightest. And I don't think they're wrong in thinking this. God bless them for wanting to go their own way without the interference of anybody else; it's their right. But it's our right as well to say so too. And we seem to forget this in great quantities.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 21^st, 2009 at 2:14pm:

Conspirinut paranoia from anti-multiculturalists, who attach an evil persona to multiculturalism, as if it were anything other than a response to the changing dynamics encountered by having more mobile populations than we did when people rarely left their own village, let alone their country, is the most glaring flaw in their paranoid rants.

I know things for real that you would consider conspiranut paranoia. Not about multiculti. But other things, that are absolutely 100% true, and if I could tell people, they would either laugh at me and say ridiculous, or, run away with their hands over their ears shouting LA LA LA LA.

Truth is much, much stranger than fiction.  There are policy papers all over the place with the great social changes that multiculti was supposed to bring. It's just being bothered enough to collate them all. I had to read and learn them all at uni, you could stack them from hear to the moon.

So what is good about Multiculturalism as it exists in the real world Mozz?
Please list in point form and with anecdotal evidence if you can
Thanks.

Still waiting Mozz...  i'm beginning to think you can think of anything.  :D

Quote:

The Marxists/Cultural Marxists

Ah yes... The Bollinger Bolsheviks.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 21^st, 2009 at 2:14pm:

The journey however continues, we will continue to evolve and grow, and change, as a nation, and people who wish to improve our shared lot should be able to do so,  without seeking to demonise others, for we have always had people like that, but they have not been significant in the shaping of who we are, and that is not likely to change,

The pont is that it HAS changed.  The Chinese used to be "demonised" for working too hard and keeping to themselves. We didn't know our luck...

The question is - what to do with the ones who do not wish to improve our shared lot? And there are people who are hostile as a matter of religous (that is, self-defining) principle.  What to do with those who incite hatred against their host country, its social, political, cultural principles? Is that OK merely because the antidiscrimination laws do not cover hatred of the host society?


Quote:

because aussies more than most, know the value of giving the new guy a fair go.

At what percentage of the prison population does it stop being 'demonisation'?  At what percentage of the prison population will aussies say "you lot have had a far go this far - and no further"? When will the desire not to offend be overcome by a desire to preserve what is valuable?

Oh Moooooooozzzzzzzzzzzaaaaaaa...

So what is good about Multiculturalism as it exists in the real world Mozz?
Please list in point form and with anecdotal evidence if you can
Thanks.

Still waiting Mozz...  i'm beginning to think you can't think of anything.  

You're beginning to think that?

"because aussies more than most, know the value of giving the new guy a fair go."

and what is wrong to expect the new guy to be fair to his hosts?

Beggining?
Well we've been asking Mozz the same thing for a few years now. but we are still hopeful.

Don't ever expect Multiculturalists to defend their policy when prompted. They're so accustomed to people cowering at the first accusation of racist that they've never bothered to actually come up with some cogent, legitimate arguments in its favor.

tallowood wrote on Jun 29^th, 2009 at 5:36pm:

"because aussies more than most, know the value of giving the new guy a fair go." and what is wrong to expect the new guy to be fair to his hosts?

This is what one would expect from somebody given fair go.

Pipe dream, unfortunately.

Quote:

Live by our rules, judge tells Muslim arson gang From The London Evening Standard Three Muslim extremists who launched an arson attack on the home of a London publisher were jailed today and told: “If you choose to live in this country, you live by its rules.”

How bloody insenitive!



Quote:

A judge made it clear they could not claim “a la carte” citizenship — picking and choosing what British laws and customs they observe. The three men had doused the front door of the house in Islington with petrol and set it ablaze in a protest against a book they deemed “offensive” to Mohammed. In September last year the three defendants targeted Martin Rynja, owner of Gibson Square Publishing, days before Sherry Jones's novel The Jewel of Medina, which is about the Prophet's child bride A'isha, was due to be published in the UK. Ali Beheshti, 41, and Abrar Mirza, 23, had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit arson and Abbas Taj, 30, was convicted of the same offence at Croydon crown court in May. Today Mrs Justice Rafferty, sitting at the High Court, sentenced each of them to four and a half years. The judge described the victim Mr Rynja as “a principled man”. She added: “As he said, in an open society there has to be open access to literary works, regardless of fear.”

Love it. Lady judge lecturing bearded pricks on civilised behaviour. And they can't 'honour' kill her. Priceless.

Quote:

Today Mrs Justice Rafferty, sitting at the High Court, sentenced each of them to four and a half years. The judge described the victim Mr Rynja as “a principled man”. She added: “As he said, in an open society there has to be open access to literary works, regardless of fear.”

Four and a half years for trying to burn the guy's house down with him in it..seems a bit soft I might say.

Let me tell you if they were neonazis trying to burn down a mosque, which has no one living in it (compared to a house which does) they would have been sentenced to a LOT more than 4 1/2 years.

MULTICULTURALISM  IN THE NETHERLANDS

http://www.nisnews.nl/

THE HAGUE, 18/03/09 - Two out of three serious teenage criminals are children of parents born outside the Netherlands. In most cases, no prison sentence is imposed, it emerges from a study sent to parliament by Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin.

In the research, 447 case files of youngsters aged from 12 to 17 were studied. All the files involved cases in which the perpetrator was convicted of a crime for which the maximum jail sentence is 8 years or more. These were murder, manslaughter, robbery with violence, extortion, arson, public acts of violence and sexual crimes.

Only just over one-third (37 percent) of the convicted youngsters are white Dutch. Two-thirds are of immigrant origin, meaning that they themselves or their mothers were born abroad.

"The most prevalent group of youthful immigrants (among the perpetrators) are young Moroccans (14 percent)," according to the report. For another 14 percent, the parents' country of birth could not be determined. A further 8 percent of the young criminals came from Turkey, 7 percent from Surinam and another 7 percent from the Netherlands Antilles, 9 percent from the category 'other non-Westerners' and 4 percent, 'other Westerners.'

The report also reveals that most offenders did not have to go to jail. Although detention was imposed in 69 percent of the cases - whether or not in combination with community service - the sentences were largely suspended.

Some 25 percent of offenders only received suspended detention. Another one-third received a combination of suspended and real detention and just 11 percent, only an unconditional prison sentence.

Fourteen percent of the very serious crimes were committed by 12-13 year olds, 25 percent by 14-15 year olds, and 50 percent by 16-17 year olds.

Here is a visibly ethnic man fed up to the back teeth ith multicvulti pap:

Rajinder Singh is flicking through the Pakistani channels on his Sky box from his sofa in Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. Dressed in a crimson turban, he sits a metre from the ­enormous screen, translating the odd phrase for my benefit. He's trying to show me why he's determined to join the British National Party – the only party he considers "brave" enough to "break out of the burkha called ­political correctness".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/11/bnp-nonwhites-members-sikh-join

A sikh supporter of the BNP. He too has had enough of the charade about, er, Islamists. He says, 'Every Hindu and Sikh should be praising the BNP'


Takes an ethnic with balls to call it correctly. The multiculturalism I love.

It's a shame the BNP has been literally forced to accept 'ethnic' members at all, but yes, the BNP actually get a lot of support from the British Sikh and Hindu communities who hate Muslims just as much as they do. I spoke to a fascinating Indian immigrant to Britain once who not only was a full fledged supporter of the BNP but was so not just because he hated Muslims; he wrote to me frequently stating that he was only a guest in the land belonging to those who possess the blood of the Anglo-Saxon lineage and would only be completely happy when that land was firmly within their political control once again. Even though it's frankly bizarre, unnatural and unrealistic to expect, meeting the occasional ethnic minority who actually believes that it is acceptable for another nation or people to apply the same standards that his own takes for granted is always a very pleasant experience.