Another oblique comment:

Ah, John Howard the great humanitarian visionary and supposed "realist"!

Never mind that he was a lying rodent and a very active supporter and jingoist for the coalition of the killing. The very deliberate intentions, and the devastating results of which are described at this reference.

http://erasingiraq.com

For which he was awarded the "freedom" medal by his fellow killing-coalition partner George W Bush.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO OVERDOSE ON "DIVERSITY"?

I realise that coming from a member of a tiny minority what I am about to write will strike many as hypocritical. Nonetheless in the end things are what they are.

I am becoming increasingly pessimistic about the robustness big multi-cultural polities. I doubt their ability to survive a “stress test” such as a prolonged and severe depression. In most of the world different cultures in the same polity do not get on well. Think of Lebanon(Sunni Shia Christian), Turkey (Kurds), Cyprus (Turks and Greeks), Pakistan (various), Nigeria (Muslim North vs Christian South), Egypt (Copts), Iraq (Sunni vs Shia vs Shia vs Christian), Kenya (various tribes) and the USA.

In the heart of Europe the Czechs and the Slovaks agreed to an amicable divorce. Belgium looks as if it might break up.

Kosovo and Montenegro broke away from Serbia

Sudan split between Sudan and South Sudan.

It is likely there will soon be no Christians left in many Middle-Eastern countries.

I am beginning to think that “diversity” is like vitamins. Just as the body needs vitamins so a country needs diversity or it turns inward looking and stagnates.

But just as it is possible to overdose on vitamins so it is possible to overdose on “diversity.”

I don’t like saying this. But in the end it is what it is.

BTW I do NOT think Australia is overdosing on “diversity” just yet. I think the USA is.

Should we be proud of creating a superficial packaged-product, food-court definition of "culture", that is hardly unique to Australia, but exists, cookie-cutter cloned, in every other Western nation?

The mentality behind this supposed "sophistication" is no different to the elitist, imperial aristocratic one that wandered the globe, collecting nick-nacks to put on the coffee table back in London/Paris/wherever to impress your snobby friends.

Yet the multicultists would claim to despise such people, while mimicking them.

Here's what we *could* be proud of.

1. Maintaining our own recognisably distinct culture/ethnicity in the face of globalised universalist or multicultist tendencies.

2. Taking people *from* any background and successfully transforming them into "Australians" (rather than trying to transfrom Australia into everything-but-Australia).

3. If so desired, creating a *fusion* that incorporates elememts from other cultures into the existing one (this requires accepting there *is* an existing culture from which you must build).
Brazil is a fusion, with all the elements blended together, not kept in separate compartments with neat little labels.

Traditional and unique, assimilated multi-origin, or fusion.
We could be proud of any of those.

Cloned superficiality we cannot.