I am a passionate supporter of multiculturalism; indeed I have spent much of my working life promoting the value of cultural diversity. I am also an advocate of a moratorium on migration or more precisely a moratorium on migration of choice. By migration of choice I am distinguishing between asylum seekers and refugees who are not migrants of choice - these are generally people who would much prefer not to migrate but they have no realistic choice but to migrate. Similarly the family reunion programme falls outside of the moratorium A moratorium on migration does not imply a denial of the value that cultural diversity has brought to Australia, nor should it give comfort to the racists whose opposition to migration is limited to a certain type of migrant.
Equally a moratorium on migration implies the need to put in place a well considered migration policy. Those of us who have been working in this area are only too well aware that the existing migration policy is a dog's breakfast.

Dick's program pointed out that the 4% growth since Howard was not matched with appropriate infrastructure spending. The growth benefited very few financially, and disadvantaged many through crowded hospitals, roads, schools and the lack of police, housing, schools, etc.
Sorry if this may risk associating immigrants with the issues that uncontrolled, irresponsible immigration causes...but to ignore the real issues because of a small racist crowd is missing the point and frankly, disingenuous.
Australians have some genuine issues with incompatible cultures. Folks have a right to defend their own culture against peoples who would come here and demand things done *their* way. Raising the "racist" card every time population or cultural issue are raised is a pretty tiresome and offensive form of argument.
It is not skin colour or genetics, it is *behaviour* that folks are objecting to. It is not only OK to expect standards of behaviour, it is the reason western cultures were able to develop into the modern economies and industries that the world enjoys today. Liberal (thats the small "l" variety) is a necessary trait when dealing with experts, professionals and enlightened workforce. The conservative top-down society cannot work with high technology as modern tech requires that expert labour be empowered, not controlled.
If multiculturalism succeeds in winding back the culture that enabled modern industry and economy then it is no less than killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Perhaps the imported cultures can learn a little humility and learn about us before they discard and abuse our culture.
I'm sick of people winging about the rights of imported cultures while systematically abusing and destroying the local one. Don't expect the fix the situation by demanding more respect whilst refusing to offer the same to those who were born here. Gross hypocrisy tend to make people angry, and this does not help anyone.

Hi Baygon

I wonder if it's possible to have a calm rational discussion about this usually emotive issue ?

Considering the topic "Sustainable"= "need diverse cultures" is quite irrational, I hope we can make a go of it.

The professor has simply restated his particular bandwagon, and I always wonder when someone who's ethno/religious/cultural background is NOT mainstream Aussie, makes such calls?

It should be abundantly clear that 'cultural diversity' has absolutely zero to do with 'sustainability'...which is more of an economic issue.

But to our discussion. Could you explain how 'cultural' diversity contributes to 'racial harmony' ? Because culture is usually connected to race...right?

So.. you have a number of groups with different social and/or religious values, often which conflict with others....
Is that more likely to result in conflict or.. peace?

Examples are too numerous to cite many, but one from the UK where Hindu's were adamant that a 'holy cow' they had embraced religiously could not under any circumstances be culled as a precaution over foot and mouth disease.

This immediately polarized the community.

Do you (Baygon) see a way around this ?

a) Give in to the Hindu's and the Anglo's are angry, frustrated and will begin to have ill feeling for those they identify as "Hindu's"
b) Deny them and the Hindu's will have ill feeling toward Anglo's.

Who wins here?

algoreish
I agree the linking with culture and sustainability is somewhat odd. But your substantive question relates to the possibilities of diverse cultures living together.
There is ample evidence that cultural diversity is not necessarily divisive. The notion of core values is central to any discussion of Australian multiculturalism. It also known as the idea of public reason
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#PubRea) In essence it holds that when we demand that everyone conform to a particular standard we must be able to justify that standard independently of a particular belief.
For example the recent WA court decision demanding that a witness discard the Burqa for her court appearance respected the Woman's religious beliefs but was based on the fact that the role of the court is to ensure procedural fairness for all parties in a dispute. However, to demand that the woman discard the Burqa when she is just walking down the street would be unreasonable for whilst we may find that an odd way to dress our feelings are irrelevant. A more common complaint is when people object to people using a language other than English when speaking to one another - how people choose to carry on a private conversation is no one else's business but theirs.
The polarization that you refer to is due to an expectation that everyone behaves as we do I would argue that is unreasonable expectation.
It is also clear from our experience in Australia that as we become familiar with other cultures they also become less threatening. In the sixties there were lots of objections to Italian and Greek cultures, in the late seventies we saw objections to Asian cultures today it is African and Arab cultures part of the reason we are uncomfortable with those cultures is because we do not understand them but over time the hard edges of the different cultures become softened.
It is a complex issue perhaps one of the best discussions is to be found in Hofstede's book Cultures and Organizations.

cont. The specific example you raise regarding the Hindu cow is catered for by an appeal to public reason. There is simply no question here - foot and mouth is a threat to the entire community, the only known solution is the killing of infected animals - the cow is infected so it has to be put down.
If the Hindu community were able to come up with a solution that guaranteed that the cow would not infect other animals, that it would not leave the potential of fresh outbreaks of foot and mouth then there would be no problem - for example it may well have been possible for the Hindu community to create an island on which the cow lived the remainder of her days in isolation then that may well have served the purpose.

Why do so many people want to see the White population of Australia diminished?

Racial diversity (not cultural, another lie,culture is transferable and means nothing in this context) means reducing the White population, it means less White babies will be born, how is this a good thing?
Why not just re stock the "Aging"country with young White people from Russia, Poland,Hungary or Romania?
I mean they're poor too right? The level of poverty in some parts of Eastern Europe is actually worse than India, around 60%.
They bring skills as well as diverse attitudes and cultures don't they?
What about poor White people? Don't they deserve a better life or does Brown skin automatically make someone more deserving?
The program is White Genocide through assimilation and Ethnic conflict is the model that's being used to batter us into compliance.
My advice to non white migrants: Stay out of the way and live your lives, there's another global civil war brewing between the Pro Whites and those who are Pro White Genocide, it doesn't concern you and taking sides will only see you dragged before the coming Tribunals with the pink cheeked Traitors and their allies.

[“Australians have some genuine issues with incompatible cultures.”]

Yep....I agree, I’ve always thought that the reason European and Australian culture is always at odds is because they are completely “incompatible”. Australian culture is communistic, I mean from the point of always sharing the goodies amongst the family e.g. the spoils of the daily hunt, are distributed for all to eat.

When the hunt becomes insufficient for the people’s needs, they simply moved on to another site allowing the area to regenerate naturally.

Major Les Hiddins who authored the Army's Combat Survival manual in an attempt to enlighten Europeans in bush survival techniques was always in awe of the Australian’s nomadic existence and how it was in complete harmony with the natural Australian environment.

[“It is not only OK to expect standards of behaviour, it is the reason western cultures were able to develop into the modern economies and industries that the world enjoys today.”]

Hmmm......That’s not what is being taught in schools today! According to honest historians and social anthropologists all of the factors governing the development and wealth of the West were stolen from nations now reduced to the status of “the developing world”.

Much of this pillaging occurred in the 19th century when Europeans burst out of Europe in a stampede to be the nation with the largest empire. Natives of the newly conquered lands were either enslaved and put to work extracting their lands resources for shipment back to Europe or exterminated if they got too uppity. Rwanda is a classic example of European conquest, subjugation and pillaging of the land that over the years culminated in genocide. India is another classic example of the divide and conquers strategy. Funny how European standards of behaviour were never questioned?

[“I'm sick of people winging about the rights of imported cultures while systematically abusing and destroying the local one.”]

But isn’t that exactly what Europeans have done to Australia and many other parts of the world?

[“Gross hypocrisy tend to make people angry, and this does not help anyone.”]

Yes indeed. I’m glad we are in total agreement.

So Westralis you're against White people, you're Pro white genocide on the basis that two wrongs somehow make a right?
Your view is that Aboriginals are better than White people just by virtue of being Aboriginal.
How many Rwandans have you murdered in your lifetime?
How many Aboriginals have you raped?
Who are these Europeans you speak of?
Name them, name their descendants who should still be brought to book for the sins of their ancestors.
See we can name the people we blame for the state of the White Race, we can see the ones who want us ethnically cleansed not only from this country but from all countries.
If the goal is not White genocide and ethnic cleansing then why are Africans and Arabs being brought, on purpose to Finland?
Name the Finnish colonies if you would please.
See that's the Hypocrisy of the Anti White Hate movement,you want us gone from this land butwant to pour the third world into every possible refuge we might take back in europe.
We're 10% of the World's population yet we don't have one single country to ourselves.
Japan for the Japanese.
China for the Chinese.
Nigeria for the Nigerians.
White countries for EVERYBODY.
If you told an African you wanted to bring millions of non Africans into his country to punish his children for past wrong doings he'd probably knock you on your backside.
Yet any White man who objects to millions of non Whites coming to his country to punish his children for "Racism" is called a Naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews and runs the risk of being jailed.

J of M

What is your proposal for the original inhabitants of Australia, or should that read "final solution"?

If you really believe that colour of skin is indicative of behaviour, I suggest Australia is not right for YOU. Go somewhere completely WASPish and lots of luck finding that mythical nation.

@ Johnny Rotten.
So how many Aboriginals have YOU killed?
How many did your father kill?
How many your father's father?
Ten? A thousand?....NONE?
The Aboriginal genocide was racial assimilation, that's what a REAL genocide looks like and it continues to this day.

If there was a country for White people I'd gladly move there but there are none.
The Japanese have a country of their own, they're an aging population with a shocking record of colonial brutality, economic woes and a high standard of living but they don't allow millions of non Japanese to racially assimilate with their people.
Yet this is perfectly fine with you.
The final solution for White people is Racial assimilation.
Is ethnic cleansing from White countries and only White countries fine with you then?
If the goal is not White Genocide then why are Blacks being transferred from Africa to Finland and Norway ON PURPOSE?
Why do it?

Dear J of M

Thank you for your civil and restrained reply :P

I understand the entire world to be populated by a jumped-up primate called Homo Sapiens; some are far of skin, others dark, some tall and long limbed, others short and squat - that we can all interbreed with each other is a good thing, because with continued mixing of the gene pool, as people travel and/or change nations, we may eventually eradicate the dreaded screaming bigot. It will take time and I do believe it will happen.

R.I.P. The Screaming Hysterical Bigot.

@Johnny
You're only calling me a bigot because I'm White.
I'm "screaming" because I'm angry that a minority of vocal but mentally sick pink skinned people like you want to kill off my race, the White Race. See I have a White cultural background, not an "Aussie" or "Caucasian" or "Multicultural" or whatever euphemism you people are hiding behind these days, this is how a WHITE man writes when he's angry.
You hide behind these weasel words like "diversity", "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" because you are a Coward.
The world is not one big melting pot, that's another outright lie that cowards like you hide behind because you're too gutless to stand up for your own right to exist and a future for White Children.
Now go back through this thread and find a "bigoted" remark by myself, a remark that would get me in "trouble" under your laws.
I've made it clear that YOU are the enemy, not the non White migrants, not the Aboriginals but YOU.
Tell me Johnny, ARE YOU PRO WHITE OR PRO WHITE GENOCIDE?

>Posted by Johnny Rotten, Saturday, 21 August 2010 12:44:22 PM
>we may eventually eradicate the dreaded screaming bigot.

I find this comment highly offensive. Talking about eradicating people because of their beliefs, is not only unacceptable, it is threatening behavior which is illegal.

@ ALGOREisRICH
You asked the question if it is possible to have a balanced rational debate about this issue.

I responded that I thought it was.

It is equally clear from subsequent posts that any attempt at a rational debate gets drowned by the myths fueled by fear.

What we haven't learned from post war cultural diversity is that superficial differences of skin colour and cultural practices are no obstacles to living together.

We have failed to understand that cultural diversity is in effect a strength - culture is essentially a survival mechanism; it is a tool that people use to respond to the particular challenges posed by their unique environment.

The strength of cultural diversity has been that we have used these various unique insights to develop a more complex understanding of how we as a humanity can solve the problems of living on this planet.

We have also failed to understand that we cannot wind the clock back and pretend that we are not living in a global society.

Basically if we fail to understand that the world is not about us and them but that there is just us - a global mass of humanity facing increasingly complex challenges, a global mass of humanity that either cooperates regardless of race colour or creed or, if that rapprochement cannot be achieved is doomed to collapse.

If recent posts reflect human sentiment globally then we are facing collapse.

Well stated Baygon

"Basically if we fail to understand that the world is not about us and them but that there is just us - a global mass of humanity facing increasingly complex challenges, a global mass of humanity that either cooperates regardless of race colour or creed or, if that rapprochement cannot be achieved is doomed to collapse."

I find white supremacist comments like "Tell me Johnny, ARE YOU PRO WHITE OR PRO WHITE GENOCIDE?" - very threatening, a racial 'my way or the highway'.

I am neither, I am in favor of dealing with the reality that the world has many different shades of people - not different races, or we would not be able to interbreed.

I also find taking a single line out of my posts and placing it completely out of context highly threatening as well - an attempt to silence my comments. Obviously, if more people mix their genes there will be less very dark skins and may be less very white skins - big deal. Skin colour is the most superficial of differences between people and to use it as a divisive tool is nothing more than an example of bigotry at work.

Scream away JoM and DS - your views are anachronistic and self-defeating.

While I think that Andrew Jakubowicz is drawing a rather long bow in linking sustainability with multicuralism, his point that the current population debate is likely to alienate many immigrants is quite valid. We can see why in some of the deranged responses to his article.

My view is closest to that expressed by BAYGON in the first post of the thread. Surely we can have a discussion about sustainable population which includes immigration, but which doesn't merely serve as a platform for the racist and xenophobic contingent?

@CJ In other articles Andrew Jakubowicz links immigration, population and the Holocaust, he must have a cupboard full of bows that are stretched beyond breaking point.

@ Johhny Rotten.
You genocidal monster!How could you say such things in public!
Follow me if you can.
When White looking people just like you arrived on this continent they said "Oh well, there's no such thing as Aboriginal culture, they don't seem to have a country as such,in fact let's just bring millions of non Aboriginals here to "assimilate with them"
I mean the White looking people who were just like you thought that the Aboriginals were dying out anyway, white not just mix them all up with the the "scum" Whites and breed them out of existence?.
Then when Aboriginal men DARED to get angry about the destruction of their race and started screaming about your evil you shot,imprisoned and exiled them. Death to the Screaming Tribesmen!
Now White looking people JUST LIKE YOU are saying, "Wait a minute, all these "Scum" Whites think it's their country now! That won't do!"
"Let's bring in millions of non Whites to interbreed with the "Racist Scum" and wipe them out"
After all there are no White countries are there Johnny?
There's no White culture?
White people are dying out, not having babies so let's just push them over the edge, get them out of the way then everything will be right in the world"

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

JoM

You don't know anything about me - let alone my skin colour. So give your white supremacist clap-trap a rest will ya?

We live in a multi-cultural world, get over it. I understand you can't leave, space flight not being as advanced as we'd like yet, so learn to GET ALONG WITH PEOPLE - its not hard, you can do it, man. Deep breath and say, "I will treat people as I would like to be treated myself - with respect".

Now quit trying to create arguments with me that just don't exist.

Johnny, you started this not me, you can't back out just because you're squeamish about your Whiteness.
It's an Iron question.
ARE YOU PRO WHITE OR PRO WHITE GENOCIDE?.
A White person doesn't even have to think about a reply.
Ask an Aboriginal "Are you pro Aboriginal or pro Aboriginal Genocide?"
They don't even blink, the response is automatic.
Do you ask every Indigenous person you meet "Are you REALLY an Aboriginal?.
I'm actually sorry that I have to come to these fora to shut down pro White genocide discussions and it gives me no joy to shoot fish in a barrel.
You, Johnny have lost even the vocabulary to debate me, I don't blame you, it's not your fault, you've been made that way but you have to face up to reality.
You can't hide from your race, there's no escape because non White people can see you as well as I can, you have to take responsibility for it.
Will you answer the Iron Question?

Anyone who thinks “multiculturalism”, which is marketed as an appeasing alternative to “Assimilation”, is an OK policy –

fails to acknowledge, as most collectivist ideas, fail to acknowledge-

“assimilation”, like “evolution” and “breathing” is a natural process,

whereas “multiculturalism” likens to “revolution” and “homosexuality” – abnormal or unnatural processes

which impose a heavier and unnatural price on the fabric of the population compared to the natural processes.

If a migrant does not want to accept the values of the nation he is moving to… why move there?

It is the responsibility of the migrant to conform to the values and practices of the country they are moving to, it is not the responsibility of the host nation to conform to the expectations of practices of the migrant.

And before you ask

I migrated to Australia, so too my wife and we have, as well as bringing hard earned personal skills and abilities, which were in demand in Australia with us, assimilated Australian lifestyle and values

-

rather than expecting some “multicultural” stupidity, which can only find success in separate “ghetto” living.

a "sustainable Australia" needs "multiculturalism"

like a body needs cancer

Interesting viewpoint Col.
I wonder how you'd respond the the idea that "Multiculturalism" was designed to fail in order to bring about Racial assimilation?
As we see every day our "Aussie Way of life" is portrayed by the Right as being imperiled by potentially hostile minorities or on the Left by "Racism".
Frankly I see that hysteria as a load of Garbage myself, just two aspects of the same program with one goal in mind.
When I talk to non White migrants I get the impression that they find all this bickering a bit silly, in fact the most sensible views in the media come from White Racialists, Muslims and Third World commentators.
The Left and the Right are kind of between a rock and a hard place because, (horror of horrors!) White racially aware people, Muslims and other minorities are starting to talk to each other and sort out their differences.
The Left and the Right hate it when I say this but:
I'm more than happy for Muslims to form enclaves, wear Burqas, practice FGM, send money to whatever offshore organisations they see fit and have Sharia courts.
I'd gladly support a treaty with Indigenous Australians, support their declaration of sovereignty over the continent and cede the 40% of the landmass they are asking for to their exclusive control.
But...can I have part of the country exclusively for my people?
Can I have all White enclaves, schools and hospitals?
Australia is a big country, as Adolf Hitler noted it's plenty big enough to hold several states, some Asian, some White, some "multicultural", we could have a thriving continent like Europe and America were before the start of the White Genocide

@Johnny Rotten
>I also find taking a single line out of my posts and placing it completely out of context highly threatening as well - an attempt to silence my comments

Making comments about eliminating people, because their beliefs are not the same as yours, is threatening behavior, no matter what "context" you try to dress it up in.

JR, if you feel threatened by words, that you put on the Internet, with your IP attached to them, then it is because you know you have done something illegal and it has potential consequences in the real world.

Interesting that Dereck Smith affects to take offence at JR's obviously facetious throwaway line, while ignoring completely the racist filth promulgated by Jay of Melbourne. Speaking of whom, I really hope Jay lives in the actual electorate of Melbourne - it would be poetic justice for him to be represented by a Green.

Ditto for dear old Col, of course - who seems to have overcome his identity crisis. Welcome back, Col.

Hey CJ old Chum.
Why don't you debate me anymore?
Racist filth...well that's one of the dozen or so phrases you're officially allowed to use when referring to other White men who don't agree with you.
Johnny has already used "White Supremacist" and "Bigot" so that leaves what?
"Spewing Hatred", "Holocaust Denier", "Inbred Redneck".
When you get permission from your masters down at the university to use "White Man's Lingo" let me know and I'll oblige you with a discussion.
It's sad, really sad, you guys have lost your language, your identity, your BALLS, you are literally neutered, domesticated animals.
You just want a quiet life with no conflict, no confrontations and heaven forbid that you'd ever step out of line and get "Angry".
What's the point of "diversity" if it comes at such a price?
Migrants have the balls to say "This is MINE", "This is what I want", "This is where I'm going". "I claim this for my sons".
When your sons are standing cap in hand at the counter of McDonalds begging some Indian manager for the chance to flip burgers so they can feed their kids for another week, all because you didn't have the guts to say "This is mine", what are you going to tell them?

J of M, living in a very multicultural city like Melbourne, do you eat at restaurants or have take away food that is cooked by Indians, Chinese, Lebanese, or from any other foreign culture?

Do you buy goods made in or by people from other countries?
Do you use goods and services provided by people from other countries?
Do you work for or with people from other countries?

If you do, then you are participating in the joys and diversities of a multicultural country.

You would also be considered a hypocrite, given the hatred you spew forth about 'non-whites' on these pages.

Suzie,

I dare say -–if you had the right connections--you could probably find some pretty nice ethnic restaurants & goods in North Korea too—though it could hardly be called multicultural.

What you are referring is the kindergarten –“Let’s tomorrow have a bring in your favourite dish day ” – version of MC.
That level of MC has been around since Adam & Eve visited his relos across the valley.

Core MC as practised in OZ is a good deal more insidious.It involves the viewing of the community as separate, monolithic, static groups. It involves the allocation of special resources according to what group you are in. And it involves the measuring and playing off of such cultures against each other or the “dominate” culture .

Suzieonline,

I live in Melbourne. Last week I opened my paper to read about

A Sudanese refugee Stephen Tito who killed another man by punching a screwdriver through his skull.
An Indian taxi driver who tried to abduct a young woman.
Two Pacific islanders who viciously bashed another man.
Another Indian taxi driver who bashed an 81yr ( yes that's not a typo, an 81 year old lady) lady.
A police raid on the Kurdish Community for possible links and support of terrorism.

The week before I read about a gang of 13 Asians bashing a man and causing extensive facial injuries.

A few years ago I saw a young boy as a patient. His father came with him at the time. A week or so later that father viciously stabbed two family members to death.

Before that a medical practitioner who works near me was stabbed to death by a refugee.


Please tell me if I too am participating in the joys and diversities of a Multicultural country?

@CJ Morgan
>Interesting that Dereck Smith affects to take offence at JR's obviously facetious throwaway line,

Interesting that you have no problem with "jokes" made about the eradication of people you do not like.

Do you and your friends often "joke" about such things?

Are "jokes" about eradication, something that is common in the circles you run in?

It would be interesting to learn what your intentions are.

Hi Dereck - no, I don't normally joke about eradicating people. However, the eradication of racist bigots over time via miscegenation is a decidedly pleasant prospect to consider :) I think that's the sort of thing that Johnny was wistfully suggesting.

Not that it would be any kind of panacea though. I guess there'll always be a relatively unevolved minority who'd just find something else to be bigoted about - like religion, for example. Or maybe football codes or hair colour, or something equally vital.

I take it that you don't have any problem with the racist filth that Jay loves to espouse? Personally, I find it so over the top that I can't take anything he posts seriously.

@CJ Morgan
>no, I don't normally joke about eradicating people

So if you don't normally "joke" about eradicating people, how often do you do it? Once per day? Once per week? Once per month?

I see by your name calling of J of M, you have the dehumanization part going already. Do you think it will ever progress beyond the "joking" phase? I am just wondering when you think it will progress to the stage where you will take action.

>However, the eradication of racist bigots over time via miscegenation is a decidedly pleasant prospect to consider :)

Interesting. Are you "joking" now?

What conditions would you create, in order to facilitate your eradication solution?

I am also wondering if you support the eradication of any other groups via miscegenation, or other means. If so which group or perhaps race, would you target and how would you create the conditions for it to occur?

Case in point, will you be targeting Papuan New Guineans, Japanese, Chinese, Tongans, The Bushmen of Africa, or Europeans? What about the Inuit?

>I take it that you don't have any problem with the racist filth that Jay loves to espouse?

I'm more concerned with your comments about the eradication of people you don't like, because I find them particularly disturbing. However if you want to discuss specific racist quotes of J of M's from this thread, post them and we will compare them to the definition of racism.

>Personally, I find it so over the top that I can't take anything he posts seriously.

You may not take his posts seriously, but I take your posts very seriously and I'm sure others are very interested in them as well. So feel free to tell us what you are thinking.

Dereck, I haven't called Jay any names except Jay of Melbourne. However, I have described the hateful nonsense he writes, with which you don't seem to have any problem, as "racist filth".

You need to look up the term 'miscegenation'. If current trends continue, within a few centuries everybody will be coffee-cloured - which is of course what racists are terrified of. If everybody was much the same colour, then there'd be no basis for racist ideology so they'd have to hang their bigotry on some other point of essential difference.

Instead of disingenuously feigning offence in order to distract from the truly offensive racist drivel that Jay has posted here, why don't you tell us your position with respect to the blatant racism he expresses? Indeed, if you put your mind to it you could also address Andrew Jakubowicz's article rather than trying to divert attention from it.

Here's an election wrap-up from one of Jay's heroes*:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pNDLzx9vyU&feature=youtube_gdata

Enjoy!

*http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10857#180602

@ Baygon

Hi.. actually.. I'm not sure what to make of your last post mentioning me.. because your previous post responded to mine and I thought we were doing ok.. I've not yet posted since then.. so I suspect your 'fear' thing is more directed at others ?

I take your point about the "workaround" re the cow, but while it is well intentioned, there are 2 points worthy of note.

1/ If we look for a "workaround" for every instance of cultural/religious clash, we will spend out days and our dollars doing nothing but 'working around' trouble spots. Just imagine the Jehovah's witnesses and blood transfusions?

2/ We also need to avoid instantly consigning negative attitudes over multiculturalism to 'fear' and lack of understanding.
It seems to me that to do that is just as shallow as the very thing it criticizes.

Different cultures can get along reasonably ..until there is a crisis or a shortage or.. and this is the most damaging one, where one group develops the perception that, because OF their culture or race, they are being 'neglected' or.. 'targeted' by non them. I've seen this in living color... where it seemed to me that there was an agitator and a planned act of undermining going on at a "Human Rights" event in Kensington flats about a year back.

Remember when the last major terrorist raid took place? (not the one over the past few days) Most of them were Somali's with a couple of Lebs along for the ride. At the 'placation' event, white Aussies in the form of Helen Szoke and Graham Innes waxed eloquent about 'their rights', but said zilch about their 'responsibilities'.

During the 'open time' the agitators went to work.. claiming that the whole terrorism raid was an exercise in "Get the immigrants..all of them"

Do you see the problem?

@CJ MORGAN

QUOTE:
a) While I think that Andrew Jakubowicz is drawing a rather long bow in linking sustainability with multicuralism,

b) his point that the current population debate is likely to alienate many immigrants is quite valid.
UNQUOTE.

COMMENT.... a) Yes indeedy, it is not only a long bow...it seems to me to be deliberate misuse and abuse of scholarly position and credentials for a questionable agenda. It is entirely irrational to link 'sustainability' to multiculturalism.

b) err..'why' ?

If so.. if 'immigrants' are aliented by a talk on 'population'... they have serious issues which need remedial therapy.

Or..it could mean they each have their own agenda which is to bring as many of 'them' to the country as possible. Otherwise..it makes no sense for them to feel alienated. They are here... perhaps they have plans to bring the extended family or the whole tribe down the track?

Can you explore for us your reasons on why 'immigrants' who are already here, might feel alienated by a discussion on either multiculturalism or population?

Any serious discussion on MC will simply state and affirm government policy which is that they can celebrate and practice their culture to the extent where it does not violate Australian law.

Who (apart from the nerfarious agenda mob) could have the slightest problem with that?

Whoever lifted the rock under which JoM and Derek crawl about please put it back.

What a load of deliberate distortion of my posts. Yes, as CJ said, I want to see more interracial breeding so that we do all end up much the same colour as each other. That would put an end to this nonsense.

Please feel free to use the phrase "put an end" as implying genocide - morons.

Col Rouge welcome back. Still hanging with Boazy? Hows that working out for you?

JoM & Derek you will be relieved to know the above dudes are both white skinned, no fraternisation with shock, horror people of colour, but you might want to ask Boazy AKA ALGOREISRICH the colour of his wife's skin - he does love to talk about his clearly heroic wife. See, with Boazy it is not the color of skin that gets him in a lather but religion.

Whatever it takes to get a bigot thru the night; skin colour, religion, gender.

One of the more fascinating features of OLO is the way that it exposes the thought processes that underlie our views.

If we came across such rubbish when chatting in the pub, we'd probably walk away and forget about it. But these posts are destined to stay around for a very long time - an absolute goldmine for future historians.

Boaz, as ever, leads the pack. The past master of the misinterpreted fact, the half-baked sound-bite and the perennial shoulder-chip.

>>[in the UK] Hindu's were adamant that a 'holy cow' they had embraced religiously could not under any circumstances be culled as a precaution over foot and mouth disease. This immediately polarized the community.<<

Poppycock. Tosh. Balderdash.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/religion/holy+cow+hindus+urge+cull+alternative/658747

"We believe government needs to look at whether or not the slaughtering of anything that is ill is actually a wise policy... However, where instances occur of a heard being infected by foot and mouth then the community would obviously listen to the advice and follow the guidelines as laid down by Defra and the appointed vets as a matter of priority."

How did this, perfectly reasonable plea come to "polarize the community", Boaz?

Yet another blatant case of manufactured outrage.

Fortunately, on this occasion your efforts have been drowned out by the strident white-supremacy rants that have surfaced.

>>But...can I have part of the country exclusively for my people?
Can I have all White enclaves, schools and hospitals?<<

The very idea of a "whites-only" enclave, filled with people who think along the same lines as Jay Of Melbourne, is a very sobering concept.

Imagine one of them moving in next door...

There goes the neighbourhood.

@algoerich
You may recall that originally you asked if it was possible to have a rational debate about multiculturalism.

I said that it was.

BIG MISTAKE

Words like multiculturalism seem to threaten the hell out of lots of people. But any subsequent posts were not directed at you.

I really am not sure if it is worthwhile trying to keep posting in this thread - maybe OLO could find a way of establishing what could loosely be called private threads - this would mean that those people who simply want to use this as a vehicle to vent their spleen can do so.

Your point about the workaround being clumsy is reasonable but it needs to be seen as a principle for guiding public policy.

Your comment about a crisis is spot on. I was reading a travel guide about Dafur written about 15 years ago. In the tiny village of Madu there are two mayors, two schools, two market squares and invisible boundry that runs through its centre - the reasons for this dualism that there are two tribes the Berti and the Meidob in times of plenty there are no problems but when there is a shortage you do gets strife as we have seen in recent years in Dafur.

This is why it is so important that we have a sensible population policy. Population pressure in the big cities is already leading to a situation where the vicious bile that has been evident in some of these posts is in danger of becoming a justification for the arbitrary denial of human rights to some members of the Australian community.

So maybe Andrew Jakubowicz was not drawing such a long bow after all. If we recognize that cultural diversity is normal then we will remove the justification for discriminating against people on cultural grounds.

@ALGOREisRICH,
I am writing in response to CJ Morgan.
You state:

"If so.. if 'immigrants' are aliented by a talk on 'population'... they have serious issues which need remedial therapy.
Or..it could mean they each have their own agenda which is to bring as many of 'them' to the country as possible. Otherwise..it makes no sense for them to feel alienated. They are here... perhaps they have plans to bring the extended family or the whole tribe down the track?"

There is more plausible reason why migrants feel alienated that has nothing to do with any underlying agenda.

Migrants tend to keep in touch with their countries of origin or where other members from their communities have migrated to. Many would therefore be acutely aware that the population debate in Europe is primarily about repatriating people (eg Sarkozy has just repatriated Gypsies back to Romania.)It also tends to be code for a racist agenda - this is why we need to take case how we present the population debate in this country.

With respect to multiculturalism there is one major frustration that I have with the debate and that relates to the assumption that it is possible to have a mono-cultural society. Apart from very small groups of people who may have just the one common/shared culture, in the main society, regardless of whether or not you have immigration programme, will be multicultural. You only have to look at the very large immigrant communities here to see this: Italian, Greek, Vietnamese, Chinese are all culturally diverse.

Even the only migration in to Australia had been from Britain we would have been a multicultural society - Queenslanders are different to people from Tasmania. Go to Cairns and you will find people being suspicious of all Southerners including their fellow Queenslanders.
Cultural diversity is part of the reality of any society.

Good to see you all fighting amongst yourselves.
I think I might drop Andrew Jakubowicz a line and ask him how HE would deal with opinions such as mine, then I could post my own rebuttals and save you all the embarrassment of looking so intellectually paralysed.
I'm not going to delve into Immigrant Crime or any of the other sordid topics raised in my absence, my issue is White Genocide, I'm yet to be convinced that there are Racist gangs of Non Whites roaming around specifically targeting us.
@CJ,Hero? This is the same Hitler who wanted to turn all of the Pacific over to the Japanese including Australia?
You've been taught by your professors that Hitler was a White supremacist, well that's not the truth, ask Hitler's friends MK Gandhi and Subhas Chandra Bose, it's all on the internet, just look for the articles marked CONTROVERSIAL!
@Suzeonline, Yes I do enjoy the odd "Multicultural" meal without contradicting myself, I can highly recommend Akkar bakery on Sydney Rd for their Halal Pizzas and there's a Chinese stall at the Preston market where you can stuff yourself silly for ten bucks.
I'd be a hypocrite if I patronised businesses owned by White people but EMPLOYING non Whites, there's a big difference.
My issue is with WHITE people, not migrants.
White people sign the visas, White people profit from running the detention centres, White people bring in 457 workers and White academics write walls of text justifying these actions.
But are they doing all this for the good of the White Race or for money?

@CJ Morgan
>Dereck, I haven't called Jay any names

You expressed a desire to see JofM hurt mentally and put a :) after it. Wishing pain, physical or mental, on another and taking pleasure in it, is a classic symptom of dehumanization.

As for your name calling of his opinions and the use of emotive words like "filth" and "hateful", you are in effect, saying she is irrelevant and should be overridden forcibly, or otherwise. This dehumanization technique is not new.

We have:
1 A desire to hurt JofM psychologically and I suspect physically.
2 Name calling to discredit and dehumanize him.
3 "Jokes" about the eradication of "her kind".

This paints a very disturbing picture CJ.

>You need to look up the term 'miscegenation'.

I am aware of the definition of miscegenation.

> If current trends continue, within a few centuries everybody will be coffee-cloured

So are you saying that creating the conditions for the eradication of a race or people, through miscegenation, is morally right and legal?

Are you saying it is morally right and legal, to forcibly or otherwise, oppose those who resist their eradication, even if the eradication uses peaceful means?

>why don't you tell us your position with respect to the blatant racism he expresses?

As for your question, I cannot answer you, until you answer question 1 below.

In case you have forgotten, these are the questions you have not answered yet:

1) Post specific quotes from JofM in this thread, so we can compare them to the definition of racism.

2) Which races/groups do you want to target for eradication by miscegenation? What action or policies will you support, in order to ensure this occurs?

Examples of possible targets:
Papua New Guineans, Japanese, Chinese, Samoans, Maori, Tongans, The Bushmen of Africa, Europeans, Icelanders, Inuit. Political Parties/Groups, Church Groups, etc.

Of course there are many other peoples and groups to choose from, so please add the ones you wish to target.

I would have added Tibetans, but the Chinese govt are already well progressed in the peaceful eradication of that ethnic group.

Thanks for the assist Derick but you've neglected one point.
Aboriginal Genocide.
It was Liberal,progressive, well meaning Whites and academics who came up with the "Half Caste" laws and the other tools of Genocide used on Indigenous people.
Forced removal of children and racial assimilation of Aborigines were seen as "Humane" solutions.
Now if, as we all know these policies were Genocidal, if moving millions of non Aborigines into Aboriginal homelands was a bad idea how is moving millions of non whites into White countries NOT Genocide.
Theres another unexpected windfall for White Nationalists from these "Progressive", "Humane" policies....and boy are these guys going to hate my next comment.
Just as an example,I am a blood relative to Mick Dodson and a good proportion of the other Aboriginals.
Mick's father was Irish, my family are Irish, when you look at genetic maps you see that Mick and I are genetically related to most Irish people.
So Mick is Aboriginal and I'm White, we're still distantly related but there it be, two different races.
Now Mick and I may be Cousins in a fairly loose way but are either of us related to the same degree with, say, Sudanese people, or Chinese?
This isn't as simple as CJ and Baygon and others make out.
If I'm now related to a good number of Aboriginals, but not of the same race as them, doesn't that mean race is probably a more significant factor in our society than they'd like to believe?
What Baygon and to an extent the author really wants is a discussion of Immigration that doesn't include RACE,especially my race the WHITE RACE only then would it be "Sensible".
This is why I come to this board to breathe fire on your discussions, otherwise they tend not to be real discussions at all, just pseudo dialectic musings.

@Jay Of Melbourne
>Thanks for the assist

No offense, I didn't intend to assist you as such. I just see this threatening behavior on political websites and think it is getting out of hand. The least I can do is a hold a mirror up to these people, to show them what they are doing and where it logically leads.

>So Mick is Aboriginal and I'm White, we're still distantly related but there it be, two different races.

I am the same. I have Aboriginals as close and more distant relatives, though am not Aboriginal myself.

>Forced removal of children and racial assimilation of Aborigines were seen as "Humane" solutions.

I like you view what was done and is still being done to the Aboriginal people as genocide. How can it be called anything else, when for the most part, their system of self governance, institutions, culture and way of life, has been replaced with alcohol, drugs and welfare payments? And all of this was done using policies of assimilation.

I also see the policies these eradicators espouse, as the final nail in the coffin of the Aboriginal people. If Australia's population becomes as large as they want and the majority are non-White, Australia's new masters will have no special regard for the Aboriginal people. They will see them as non Whites like themselves and give them no quarter.

So if the Aboriginal people want to continue to exist as a distinct people and culture, they must demand a homeland of their own, as well as self rule and it is the same for all distinct peoples of the world.

The people at the top and their followers may use flowery words to sell their Multiculturalism, Assimilation and Globalism, but destruction, division, and profits are their only motivations.

Ozzie, as a Doctor I would imagine you have also dealt with many patients who have been the victim of white Australian violence?

Given the larger numbers of 'white' people in this country, I would think you see far more violence involving them?
As a nurse, I certainly have.

What about the 'first' Australians- Aboriginal people?
Do you have a problem with them too?

Why are you then concentrating on violence involving refugees or non-white Australians?

As a Doctor, you would have sworn an oath to care for and deal with all people equally, regardless of race or colour?
We live in a multicultural society whether you like it or not

Hey Dereck, you might be interested in this link:
http://www.treatyrepublic.net/
And this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6V82LD51UA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flVs1AjJwRM
This Blog:http://whitakeronline.org/blog/
These Podcasts:http://whiterabbitradio.net/

If you wanted to correspond further with me I'm here:

http://www.whitenewsnow.com/forums/members/jay-of-melbourne.html

On the forums I normally frequent intimidation, threats of legal actions etc are not tolerated and I'm not always this combative, this is my "War Face".
Don't worry, we're not jack booted Nazis, they only exist in Hollywood and a few groups of weirdos in the U.S, we're just normal White people and we're not looking to get you into any trouble.

Anyway I'm finished with this thread for now but there'll be a next time, as long as people write these nonsense articles there'll be people like me firing up the flamethrower.

"On the forums I normally frequent intimidation, threats of legal actions etc are not tolerated and I'm not always this combative, this is my "War Face"."

On the forums Jay of Melbourne normally frequents only the 'right' views and the 'right' people are tolerated.

Makes the big "L" liberal bias of OLO appear positively benign in comparison.

Thank you J o M and Derek S for reminding us that human rights require constant vigilance.

JoM's "War-Face" http://www.tinyurl.com.au/i27

On Sunday I asked "Surely we can have a discussion about sustainable population which includes immigration, but which doesn't merely serve as a platform for the racist and xenophobic contingent?".

Apparently we can't. I for one don't intend to give them any more oxygen, now that they've completely derailed the discussion.

I miss-posted the following, it. should be here

JoM “I wonder how you'd respond the the idea that "Multiculturalism" was designed to fail in order to bring about Racial assimilation?”

Not sure what you are suggest JoM but ultimately, “assimilation” will prevail because for “multiculturalism” to be “sustained” would mean its proponents would demand people of different culture would retain their “ethnic purity” by not intermarrying (intermarriage being the primary path for “assimilation”) and any ethnic minority which thinks that is a sustainable prognosis is seriously deluding itself to the point of extinction and I say that as an Anglo-Saxon, recalling that to be an “Anglo-Saxon means you are part “Angle, part Saxon and probably a bit of ancient Briton, some Celtic and of course mixed with bits of Roman, Norman, Gaelic Viking… oh do I need to go on?

Designed or not, multiculturalism will fail because it contains the seeds of its own destruction within the abnormal and abhorrent philosophy, which thinks it could possibly work but then, so many theories of collectivism harbor similar failngs and this is just another one, that it should be no surprise to anyone.
Whilst I doubt there is great difference between our views, I personally, see no merit in diluting the quality of our legal tradition by abdicating anything to Sharia law or the barbaric practices of a medieval religious-feudalism.
I always assumed among the multiplicity of reasons motivating Muslims migrating to a Christian country was to adopt the practices of that Christian country, as is demanded (in reverse) by Christians who may wish to migrate to any number of Muslim countries (the Seychelles to name but one)

Ah Johnny Rotten seems to think he has the right to be obnoxious to everyone … I am adopting a new policy for response to the likes of him

Susieonline different eating habits and food shops etc. is not a hallmark or valid claim of evidence of “multiculturalism”. Such things have been common in many countries in which the operators of such establishments have fully assimilated into the host nation before “multiculturalism” was invented.

Col Rouge

"Ah Johnny Rotten seems to think he has the right to be obnoxious to everyone"

Mate, explain clearly why my objection to a whites-only Australia is obnoxious?

Also detail how your support of a whites-only Australia fits with your self proclamation as a Libertarian, given that you have not made any effort to remonstrate with the pro-white posts written by JoM and Derek S?

As a migrant yourself, you are a direct beneficiary of Australia's multicultural community. According to you, you have done very well for yourself and living in a cosmopolitan city like Melbourne, no doubt your business is with a variety of people from Australian born through to immigrants. How do you manage, when meeting your clients face to face and discover their skin colour is darker than yours

JR "Mate, explain clearly why my objection to a whites-only Australia is obnoxious"

because, like most propaganda, it is a lie

Australia is not a "whites-only" community, as some of my best friends (Sri-Lankan) and my wife (Philippino/Spanish) evidence and all of whom arrived here having waited, like me, in the migration queue for visas to be issued and then embraced Australian values on arrival.

but don't let the truth get in the way of your rhetoric Johnny, I always enjoy watching you humiliate yourself by entertaining us with your profound ignorance.

Col

Please reread JoM's and Derek's posts again - they are trying to promote a whites-only Australia. I find racism objectionable. I use my freedom of expression to state such clearly and unequivocally. I count myself among the fortunate to be born into the multiculturalism that is Australia.

You are indeed a lucky man to be living here, therefore if you value the egalitarianism that is Australia, why do you not take issue with those who work towards a whites-only Australia? Nice try to dangle asylum seeker bait - not buying into it. You and your partner were among the lucky who did not have to flee for their lives, you were able to wait in a queue - as I said you're a very fortunate man.

The only one displaying rank ignorance here is yourself.

You are so eager to deride anything I posit, that you wind up looking like a racist git

Hi Baygon...

I'd like to pick up on a point you made in one post there...

[With respect to multiculturalism there is one major frustration that I have with the debate and that relates to the assumption that it is possible to have a mono-cultural society.]

I don't think 'monoculture' is an unfair assumption, but in our case it is an evolved 'Aussie' culture which includes the primary colors of Irish/English/Scots/Celts who all tended to blend into the intial layer so to speak.
Yes..it was mainly white, and Christian-ish in values. But it certainly had an accumulation of the normal social woes and evils which would include looking down on perhaps indigenous people?

With regard to non European migrants who were brought here as a result of 'populate or perish'.. and with a background of the White Australia Policy, there was both positive (political) and negative (social/man on the street) reaction as I see it.

Too much 'furren' stuff, people..culture..language is threatening to people who do not go out each day and recite the 10 commandments of their culture.. they just live it.

History and experience tell us that when very different cultures are mixed, there can be problems. I'm glad you even conceded or underlined that very point about Dafur.

That 'is' the experience and history I refer to.
It's common to all mankind, not just trembling whitey.

But back to 'monoculture' We did have one (the blend) and there is nothing wrong with expecting or even encouraging newcomers to embrace our ways..with the additional blessing that some of their ways might rub off on us..producing a new evolved blend.

I see "multiculturalism" as more of a 'divide and rule' strategy than anything positive.

I have to buy back into this game.
I didn't say anything about a mono cultural society, I'm talking a mono racial White state which embraces the many and varied cultures of Europe.
I'm like the character Thiemann in Jost's play Schlageter, "When I hear the word culture I release the safety on my Browning".
As he says in that scene, an invitation to talk about culture,brotherhood and egalitarianism always ends up being a trap in which free thinkers are either made to conform with fascism through peer group pressure or ratted out as enemies of the regime.
Don't talk to me about culture, you can't Genocide a culture, only a race.

As someone I know, Jack Pettigrew, once said:

"All I can do is help to sound the clarion call, and hope that the call will not go unanswered"

Please stop Jay, race is meaningless. The biological diversity of our species is not correlated with the cultures our species live in. What has been shown is that culture and attiudes are passed on to our descendants, and that 'races' do not have genetically determined predispositions.

Genocide of the 'white race', how is that to achieved exactly?

"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."

"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."

"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."

"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"

"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"

"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"

"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."

"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."

"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."

1) Zero net population growth is as much about preserving good standard of living for the children of former immigrants as it is about preserving it for the children of British descendants.

2) Let us not confuse multiculturalism with wholesale re-colonisation which is what current immigration policies amount to.

"If immigrants are made to feel somehow they are the cause of problems other Australians face, this sets up a very dangerous basis for the debate". The whole issue of a sustainable population is simply diverted by the origins of the people! Unless we are indigenous, and even many indigenous people are of "mixed" heritage, then this applies to us all. The issue is NOT about race, ethnic origins, nationality, but of numbers. Australia is already multicultural.
Keeping our numbers stable and sustainable is not racist, and this is simply a tool to keep the debate under wraps. Considering 2/3 of our population growth is from immigration, and also a similar proportion of our "natural" growth, then the topic of immigration cannot be avoided. If we "offend" foreigners, so be it!
It can't be assumed that recent immigrants want more people in Australia either. The public aren't consulted anyway. The Immigration Department consults with business elites, not the public.

Multiculturalism is a side issue from the issue of population numbers. Multiculturalism may or may not have merit in its own right (I personally prefer the concept of multiracialism rather than multiculturalism) but the bottom line is that it is an environmental question: how many people can this nation (or the world) support at a certain standard of living? Doesn't really matter whether they are black, brown or white. Nature doesn't care. Right now almost every environmental indicator in Australia is going down, that is, we are not living sustainably. So we have to stop, take a deep breath, and work out how we will reduce our impact on nature. What do we address? Technology? Population? Consumption? How about all three.