You going soft in your old age Frank?

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2017 at 2:26pm:



My problem is the numbers AND that most of those large numbers come from inferior cultures, bringing their inferior outlook, practices and customs with them, cultivating, preserving and multiplying them here.

That's my problem.

I want immigration to be slowed and I want immigrants from culturally compatible countries. Those who are from culturally incompatible countries should assimilate and not spread their inferior cultures and rejoice in them as if they were equal to (or better, in the minds of the most insolent and stupid) the civilisation that took them in.

I have absolutely no interest in pretending that some Lao peasant or Afghan goatherd or Lebanese brickie's labourer or Chinese waiter has a culture equal to what he finds here, Europe, North America UNLESS he has assimilated.

The great thing about Western civilisation is that it is open to all to assimilate into it - to a large extent because it is a synthesis of the best of all cultures. That's why migration is one way - to the West.  There is no great movement of Westerner migrants to backward countries.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2017 at 6:05pm:



Indeed it exists and it does.

It's devised by the UN.  There would be others as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

I don't remember 100% of Australians even being asked about Multiculti bwian.
A Pro Multiculti pro Immigration agency is hardly likely to say anyhting else though is it bwian.

You've been shotdown many times before bwian...  you need to stop being so totally self deluded.

No sane person believes anything you say on this...

Frank wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2017 at 6:20pm:




Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk, poor, poor, Soren.  Resorting to ad hominem insults yet again?  Really, talking to you is pointless it appears, Soren.  You still live in your school bully boy fantasies.   

We are being replaced frank. That's the truth. Don't go joining the army! That's my advice. Don't be patriotic. Sabotage their wet dream.

Elsewhere in Diversity News:

Muslim school receives 'inadequate' Ofsted rating after loos did not have toilet paper for 'cultural reasons'

Frank wrote on Dec 5^th, 2017 at 6:48pm:


When visiting the subcontinent, one always eats with one's right hand, and washes with the left.

When in Rome, old chap. Superior culture. Isn't it.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 5^th, 2017 at 8:12pm:



Yeah, visit the sub-continent, Araby, 'Muslim lands'  before they visits you in Stoke-on-Trent - and Lakemba and Dearborn and Malmo, Paris etc, etc.



Do they know right from left? We all pause when that question pops up.

Frank wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2017 at 5:40pm:


I believe it's solely a numbers issue. It doesn't matter where they come from. The smaller the number the easier it is to integrate them gradually over time. It's much harder with more numbers.

I'm not sure what the numbers currently are, but we should drastically reduce immigration to around 30,000 per year, even less. Treat everyone the same, irrespective of where they're from; but reduce numbers.

NUMBERS, NUMBERS, NUMBERS. FOLKS!

Gordon wrote on Dec 5^th, 2017 at 8:44pm:


That's an issue with numbers. The less there are the easier it is for them to assimilate. And also, if they are sent to smaller cities like Hobart, Darwin or Adelaide where they can assimilate better. Problem is, everyone wants to go to Sydney.

It's important to understand that any person is capable of assimilating and integrating into another culture; although it's easier to do so in Australia, US, Canada, etc. than say Japan.

If one non-white person lives among a whole bunch of white people, he/she is more likely to see the impetus to integrate than if that person lives in an isolated community of their own culture, as happens (so I'm told) in Lakemba and other Western Sydney suburbs.

We should significantly restrict all immigration to Australia in terms of numbers, and halt all immigration to Sydney and Melbourne. It is our prerogative to prioritize whichever part of the country we wish to send migrants to.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 6^th, 2017 at 3:32pm:


I agree that assimilation is difficult to define, and you make a good point in this regard. It has nothing to do with religion, food, clothing or anything like that. From a personal experience, integration (which is probably the better word) is about loyalty to the country in which you live - i.e. nationalism, although it doesn't need to be so overt. For e.g. are you first Australian? Or are you first Christian then Australian? It largely comes down to national identity. Second, and this is more difficult to determine, but how well does a person integrate with people outside of their own cultural/religious identity?

Speaking a different language doesn't really matter; but I think it's important that migrants can speak enough English to be independent and interact with people.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 6^th, 2017 at 3:32pm:


I agree with the idea of 'live and let live', absolutely. I also recognise that there is a dangerous ideology out there - a fascist, tribal, totalitarian, militant ideology, to which a large number of people subscribe. It doesn't mean that this is always going to be case; we need to look what is happening now. If there are people entering the country who do not believe in the rule of law, our institutions, and our values, particularly in large numbers, then there is risk that these values can pass down from generation to generation. This creates isolated pockets in society, which can breed intolerance, and narrowmindedness.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 6^th, 2017 at 3:32pm:




A society, a community - solidarity, sympathy, bonding, mutual regard, respect, politeness, courtesy, shared references, memories, aims, getting what is NOT said,  and so on - are NOT lived or defined legally, you stupid, blinkered old fool.

You are parrotting this legal crap because your idiocy doesn't withstand any REAL, lived experience.

Grendel wrote on Dec 6^th, 2017 at 9:04pm:


So, just to be clear: are you saying that multiculturalism is not what proponents say it is? How do you define multiculti??

Second, when you say 'before multiculturalism', you mean before we started to accept non-British immigrants to Australia?

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 7^th, 2017 at 3:57pm:



Thank you Bwian, you silly old fool. You pretend that a society is about what is legal. It is not. And you explain it like this:

"Essentially what you're saying is that I (Bwian) don't believe in defining what you're talking about because to do so would mean that I (Bwian) cannot redefine it to what I (Bwian) want it to mean when immigrants actually start to fulfil what I (Bwian) want them to. 

The inside of your head is chaotic. No news there.

Auggie wrote on Dec 7^th, 2017 at 3:42pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 7^th, 2017 at 8:24pm:

Really?
I mean....  really?
Multiculturalism is a settlement policy.
And I think my 2nd answer was very clear.

pt 2.

In the 70s, multiculturalism was sold to the people as the tolerant, moral alternative to earlier evil policies of assimilation and integration. But assimilation and integration were not intolerant ideas. On the contrary, these policies invited migrants to Australia with the promise they, too, could become Australians and enjoy the values that made Australia the country of first choice for millions.

When migrants arrived in postwar Australia, there was a sense of obligation to the new country. The transformation of thousands of poor, displaced migrants into comfortable middle-class Australians in a matter of a few generations is one of the great success stories of integration. The traditional three-way contract was simple: majority tolerance, minority loyalty and government vigilance in both ­directions.

Becoming a citizen meant ­accepting responsibilities in return for clearly understood rights and privileges. A migrant renounced “all other allegiances” to swear loyalty to Australia.

More than 40 years later, asking for minority loyalty is regarded as a sign of intolerance. Against a backdrop of entrenched multiculturalism and a human rights frenzy pushing the right to be “separate but equal”, it’s now a case of the host nation owing the migrant.

The great multicultural con is that its proponents deliberately refused to define the term. They opted for feel-good ambiguity. So it meandered along meaning different things to different people. To some, it meant no more than promoting a culturally diverse ­society loyal to core institutions and core values. Meanwhile, a more virulent form took root, emphasising ethnic rights to be separate but equal, promoting cultural and moral relativism and identity politics where immigrants were no longer Australians, or even “new” Australians.

Multiculturalism endorsed what Theodore Roosevelt called a hyphenated loyalty to country. SBS uses the phrase Muslim-Australians, not the other way around. That hyphenated loyalty has under­mined an obligation on ­migrants to embrace a common set of values.

To be sure, tolerance is a worthy goal. But it’s meaningful only when tempered with moral judgments about what is right and what is wrong. That is a debate we must all be able to be part of.

Michael Warby
Adelaide Review 1st December, 2000

Some questions to test your understanding of recent Australian history: which was the first major Australian political party to adopt multiculturalism as official policy? Who was the first Federal politician to refer to multiculturalism in Parliament? Who was the second? Which Federal Government was the first to make multiculturalism public policy? When did multiculturalism achieve the support of a majority of Australians?
The answers are the Liberal Party, Malcom Fraser when Liberal Immigration spokesman, Michael Mackellar his successor as Liberal Immigration spokesman, the Fraser Government and not before the mid 1990s.
These are some of the fascinating facts in Mark Lopez's masterful study of how multiculturalism came to be adopted as a basic principle of public policy in Australia. The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics 1945-1975 (Melbourne University Press) is a wonderful case study of the public policy process in Australia---the real one, not the banally formal or the stupidly conspiratorial versions sometimes presented. To me, as an ex-public servant, former political activist and someone involved in advocacy work, Mark Lopez's presentation of the ins and outs of the process of the rise of multiculturalism all ring true.
Apart from careful diligence in the use of evidence, the prime source of Mark Lopez's achievement seems to be his use of interviews with all the key participants supported by careful examination of the documentary evidence. While Lopez never actually suggests anything of the sort, one does get the sense that many of the key participants were only too willing to talk about how clever they were.
What Lopez tells is a fascinating story, the story of how a small number of activists---of a variety of ethnic backgrounds, including Anglo-Celtic---sought to change public policy. They did so not by convincing the general public and using the pressures of mass electoral politics--- (what one wit has called the demand that residents adapt to newcomers). What the activists did instead is follow classic techniques of elite and pressure-point politics. They wrote papers (many were academics), they formed committees and organisations, they got into advisory structures, they tried to determine the wording of official reports and speeches, they lobbied key politicians.
Ironically, much of this activity, particularly after the election of the Whitlam Government in December 1972, was directed towards the ALP. Most of the multiculturalists came from New Left or other progressivist backgrounds and were much more comfortable with the ALP as the vehicle of political change than the Liberal Party---many were ALP members. They were so focussed on the ALP---with some exceptions such as Professor Jerry Zubrzycki---that they (and the media) completely missed the significance of Fraser's acceptance of multiculturalism when Liberal Immigration spokesman and incorporation of it into Liberal policy.
Conversely, multiculturalism was never the official policy of the Whitlam Government. It had begun to seep into government documents and reports, and Al Grassby did give a speech entitled A Multi-Cultural Society for the Future in August 1973, but Grassby himself did not become a multiculturalist until after he ceased to be Immigration Minister. Nor did the Whitlam Government take the final step and adopt multiculturalism as policy, though events were moving in that direction.
Even though the final adoption of multiculturalism as official policy by the Fraser Government was in some ways serendipity for the multiculturalists, their efforts in creating a pervasive multiculturalist presence in advisory and advocacy structures, and in developing the ideas of multiculturalism, meant that there was an entire structure of ideas and personnel able to support and extend the policy direction of the Fraser Government once it had adopted multiculturalism as policy.
There are a range of lessons from this wonderful case study. One is how narrowly based bipartisanship can be. Bipartisanship does not require that a majority in the ALP and Coalition support a policy direction: all it requires is that both spokespersons do and that they have at least the passive support of their party leadership. It is almost certain that multiculturalism would not have survived a serious debate in either the Labor Caucus or the Coalition Party room. That Fraser (and then Mackellar) were explicitly in favour, and Grassby and other Whitlam Ministers implicitly so, was enough to stop it being destroyed by political controversy. In that sense, Australian public policy processes can be much more closed than, for example, American ones where primary elections and the looseness of party affiliation provides for a much more disparate---and disputed---public policy market which forces politicians to play much closer heed to public opinion and makes politics much more a process of continual public persuasion.

pt1

Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk, appears someone cannot differentiate between a thread about Immigration (ie numbers) and Multiculturalism (ie social organisation).    Such a silly sausage.   

Grendel wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 9:41am:


I read your post, and I agree with what was posted about multiculturalism. Too often we accept virulent ideas and cultures at the expense of our own. It the responsibility of all migrants to integrate into the society in which they live.

If I lived in Japan, I would make an effort to conform to their values and beliefs, so the reverse should also be true.

BTW, I don't consider integration to be racist. Also, the idea that English is our national language is not racist as well.

Auggie wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 12:16pm:


How do you define, "integration"?  How do you measure it?  Like the term "assimilation" it means what the writer/speaker likes it to mean and when migrants even approach what has been defined as "integration" or "assimilation", it changes.   It's intent is all too often Racist/Xenophobic, despite it being supposedly a politically neutral term.    I have a neighbour, they are Muslim, he likes to dress in his cultural attire on the weekends but dresses in a suit during the week, is he "integrated" or "assimilated"?  He'd say yes but I suspect Soren and others here would definitely say, "no!"   They have their own reasons for doing so, Augcaesarustus.   Do you?   The fact my neighbour obeys Australia's laws, sends his children to a ordinary, State sponsored school and his wife works as a professional lawyer doesn't seem to make any difference to them.  Does it to you?  Or does simply because he worships a different religion prevent him and his family from "integrating" or "assimilating"?   

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 3:29pm:


I agree that it's difficult to define; but one key factor I take into consideration is how well that person interacts with the broader community. Regarding your neighbour and others like him, dressing as a Muslim doesn't mean he hasn't assimilated, or even speaking a foreign language for that matter. If he and his wife are professionals, and his children are sent to a State school, then this indicates to me, generally, they have integrated into society. I have no issue with people wearing religious attire, or speaking a foreign language.

Just one question though: does your neighbour unequivocally support our institutions, such as the rule of law, parliamentary democracy, and most importantly the 'separation of church of state'; or would he, if he could, support Sharia law and support the supplanting of our institutions with Islamic political institutions? Is he first Australian then Muslim, or is he first Muslim then Australian? This is also another indicator of integration. I'm not saying that this is case for all Muslims: many of them do 'life and let life' but some of them deep down would support a Sharia state (through peaceful means) if there was the opportunity. I would consider him to be integrated if he shunned any support for supplanting our institutions with Islamic ones.

Frank wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 4:12pm:




Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk, poor, poor, Soren.   I am willing to admit they are interconnected but one has a thread all its own and it does not belong in this thread.   Discipline is so hard for some people it seems.   

Frank wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 5:11pm:


Mmm, be careful Frank. I don't like the fact that you talk about having so many 'races'. That's has a whisk of 'racism' to it.

Auggie wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 5:28pm:


Meet the real Soren.  He has more than just a "whisk" of Racism in his attitudes/opinions/make up.  It is what makes him, him.  And he is quite happy to display it, as well...  Tsk, tsk.   

Frank wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 6:09pm:


There are different races, and there should continue to be different races in Australia; but those races need to integrate and show loyalty to the Queen.

Frank wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 5:11pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:

Bwian will disagree with that Auggie, he thinks there are no races except the human race.  How he can call people racist so often then is both hypocritical and beyond belief.
Australia is a country...  Australian is a Nationality...  NOT A RACE.
People of all races can come here and Integrate or Assimilate, even though bwian says he doesn't know what that means.  Funnily enough the government used to have definitions for those settlement policies just like the ever changing Multiculti.

Briefly...
Assimilation meant that you became Australian for all intents and purposes regardless of race.  Language, loyalty, attitudes, etc, etc, etc  you forgot for all intents and purposes your past life and way of life.
Integration meant you fitted into Australian society and way of life but could still retain links to your past life and culture etc.
Multiculti means you can come here and transfer your culture way of life etc to a place in Australia.

Auggie wrote on Dec 6^th, 2017 at 5:42pm:


A good grasp of English is vital. If migrants don't speak English when they arrive in Australia, it should be mandatory that they learn it to an acceptable standard before they're granted permanent residency or citizenship.

Brian, it needn't be a university level of English - that idea was nasty and transparent in its aim at reducing immigration from non-English speaking countries.

A poor grasp of English is detrimental to migrants themselves and those dealing with them. The resources to allow people to learn are there.

Basic assimilation has to be the goal with immigration. I couldn't care less what people eat, wear or what god they worship, but without a common language, we end up with cultural ghettos that are insular and socially isolating. That's dangerous on many levels.

Quote:


So? Lots of things are difficult. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be striven for or that they cant be achieved with perseverance.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 8:48pm:

Spot on Annie, it is just stupid to think language is unimportant.
If you cant speak English you cannot communicate and become part of the society.  Which leads to enclaves and isolation and social disharmony.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 9:23pm:


In theory, I agree with you, Annie.  However, you've noted the reasons why University Level English was being demanded of new citizens - an effort to deter non-English speakers from becoming citizens.   Il Duce' Dutton did that why?    Perhaps he feared non-English as a 1st language citizens?

The reality is that the migrants have to want to learn English for their own reasons.  Most want to learn it because it makes life easier, allows them to communicate with the host society and other people.   However, you cannot force them to learn it, against their will.   All that will be is doing what Hanson and Dutton want - prohibiting migrants from non-English backgrounds.   

Quote:



And for those who cannot persevere or strive enough?  Are they to be prohibited from becoming citizens simply because they cannot meet your criteria?   

Got nothing as usual eh bwian...  just more Trolling.

Frank wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 9:31pm:


Speak for yourself. Some of us find cultural diversity enriching. As long as new Australians bring the best of what they've left behind and leave their sh!t at the door, then brilliant.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 7:44pm:


Good God, dear, the old boy brings his pickled stool inside the door. He thinks this is brilliant.

If we didn't have the old boy, we wouldn't have such broad diversity of opinion on this board. Frank, Herbie, Bogie, Sprint, FD - they have such a wide array of views, it's a real melting pot, a venerable brains trust.

And Frank treats us all with his tasty stools, each one preserved in bile. To die for!

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 7:56pm:


A bit like a strange fruit platter.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 8:15pm:

If they did they would be assimilating, embracing, stepping up, taking in the adventure of a higher civilisation - how could anyone have a problem with that?  Western civilisation IS universal. It IS for everyone to partake in it, enter into it, be enriched by it, enrich others with it and spread it. It IS about universal humanity. It is the only universal civilisation, all the others are narrow, parochial, bogged down in tribal, atavistic crap.

Grendel wrote on Dec 8^th, 2017 at 8:45pm:


I disagree. They can integrate/assimilate. Anyone is capable of doing so. It might be harder but it’s not impossible.

I think a big part of why migrants struggle to integrate is because of the sheer number that it’s hard for us to integrate them properly. I believe we should try to integrate them (give English lessons, civics etc). It’s much harder when you have much larger numbers

I see migrants everyday living in Sydney and they don't seem happy at all. I apprecriate all the great things we have but something seems to be missing.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 10:45pm:

People aren't happy brian. Australia has changed for white people and migrants live in a alien country so they feel excluded. Australia is stale. Australia too controlled by people like you. Look at this Christmas?? Nobody cares!!

Frank wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 8:20pm:


Universal humanity.

Yes, the old boy did say that.

It is a jolly world, no?

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 9^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:


If I controlled Australia, Hammer you'd be in for a big surprise, Hammer.  A big surprise.  Australia is happy, vibrant and alive, Hammer, despite the best efforts of people like you and Soren and Herbie.   

You post so much crap over this site karnal.
You are like a dog whose owner doesn't pick up after you...

Grendel wrote on Dec 10^th, 2017 at 11:21am:

Bwian and Gandalf do not pick up ....  They scatter but do not pick up.


The best you can hope for is that kameeeeel will miam-miam his own scat. He is eager to eat up every other.

Bertie wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2018 at 7:43pm:


"Race" is a social construct.  There are more differences genetically within the various "racial" groups than between them.  "Race" as used by racists is something they have constructed out of superficial physical differences between groups of people who have adapted through evolution to different environment needs.   Anybody who believes in the concept of "race" as used by racists is being fooled by them.   There is only one "race" the Human one.   We are all members.  We are all basically Genetically identical and all come from the same ancestry.    We originated in Africa and spread from there.   We are all Africans in origin. 

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2018 at 8:00pm:

oh dear bwian is spouting crap again.
There are recognisable races bwian, you know it I know it we all know it.  Even biologists and scientists know it.
You once more are speading PC propaganda.

BTW the out of Africa Theory is simply that bwian you need to keep up with the science.  There are other theories.

If only you were as intelligent as you think you are.