Hear, hear.
Rhrosty.

Sorry but multi-CULT-uralism is a polluted river that was designed by communists at the height of the cold war to be polluted, so that it would die.

Australia is the most failed multi-CULT-ural nation on earth. Per capita we have more problems than France. It is only a matter of time before thousands of us are killed & tens of thousands of women are raped.

We must return to monoculturalism ASAP.

"Former Commonwealth chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks wrote in The Dignity of Difference that "universalism is an inadequate response to tribalism and no less dangerous."

Yes, and let us not forget that nationalism is no less dangerous either!

Of the three, tribalism is best so long as your tribe is not aggressive towards other tribes - and the smaller your tribe is (including the author's own tribe), the less likely it is to be aggressive.

imacentristmoderate has just demonstrated just how tenuous his grip on reality really is.

Some good has come from Tony being deposed. He is now speaking the truth openly rather than waffling on like those who backstabbed him are.

Yuyutsu

"Universalism being no less dangerous than tribalism."

Unexamined that sounds correct.

But universalism can be peaceful when all agree on the same aspects of
Government and religious belief.

Universalism however,can become dangerous when one group, religious,
Tribal or otherwise gets the numbers to start pushing their own agenda and ideas for living on another tribal group.
And fundamental religions are bloodline tribes, Because they only marry within
Their own religious circles. They are very aware of this tribal bloodline connection.
So they help and succour their own first.

This is why multiculturalism is a potentially dangerous threat to any country that
Embraces it. How often do we see demands for separatist states and civil wars over territorial control happening all around the world as we speak.

I would come to the conclusion that universalism is less dangerous than bloodline tribalism. Once you inject any form of tribalism be it religious or otherwise.
Into universalism that's when the civil wars can occur.

As you say, multiculturalism is relatively stable at the moment for the reason that your tribe and others here don't yet have the numbers to challenge the main tribe for control.

I have always said multiculturalism will result in Australia being divided up into
3 countries in a few generations, but there will be civil war and a lot of bloodshed
First.
The terror attacks in our cities are a mere forerunner to this and in a generation or two will descend into full blown riots and civil war.
Muliculturalism is dangerous

Runner,

I agree, Abbot although socially awkward, was a firm leader.

His own man, not given to trying to please people.

This is why the groups always trying to weaken Australian authority
And sovereignty hated him.

Would the Darwin port have been leased to the Chinese for 99years
Under Abbot I wonder. Or was it already set up before he
Was deposed.

Heh, yeah multiculturalism is great until you question it, then it shows it's true face, violence, intimidation and blackmail await anyone who dares voice concern over any aspect of the holy program.

Dear CHERFUL,

If you are either a nationalist or a universalist then no doubt that you find multiculturalism to be dangerous.

If groups of people seek autonomy, whatever be their reason (religious, tribal or otherwise - especially otherwise) and your national/universal state opposes it with force then no wonder the outcome can descend into terror and bloodshed. But then why would you oppose rather than welcome their autonomy? What right has the state (be it national or universal) to force its way of life over others in the first place?

I welcome the breaking up of larger states into smaller states because it will enhance individual freedoms: smaller states will then compete to attract good people by offering them more freedom (more precisely, by denying them less freedoms).

While the problem of malignant tribes would not go away, it should not require the rest of us to compromise our lifestyle, throwing the baby with the bath-water by living out of fear in large monolithic states (or in the extreme, in one huge planetary state). For solving this problem, real as it is, suffices a NATO-like alliance of many small independent states.

We are a multi-racial society but monocultural as we expect all to fit into our basic social standards and governance which we inherited from Westminster.

We allow some aspects of other cultures that happen to fit to ours but widely varying ways and practices are either against the law or not socially acceptable.

All the imposed ideology of multiculturalism has done is achieve the widest diversity of people without any consideration as to whether they will adapt to our society or not.

There are many features of other cultures that are not acceptable in Australia and I trust never will be.

Anyone who considers Australia to be multicultural is having them selves on.

Dear Banjo,

I support neither the ideology of monoculturalism nor the ideology of multiculturalism: whatever culture one pursues is their private business, including the freedom to change cultures if one so wishes.

<<we expect all to fit into our basic social standards and governance which we inherited from Westminster.>>

Please do not include me in this "we" as I do not have similar expectations nor am I a heir to the above.

Didn't those Westminster social standards welcome beer-drinking, horse-gambling and fox-hunting?

Multiculturalism was never anything more than paying off the leaders of ethnic groups to buy the ethnic vote.

It expanded into paying a fortune to all ethnic groups other than the mainstream.

Greeks, Italians & many other European imports changed Oz, but only slightly for the worse. Most became Ozzies over time.

Many of the later imports from Asia & the middle east are from such dreadful cultures that they are destroying this once great community. It will never again be safe for a girl to walk home at midnight up a poorly lit suburban street.

Yuyutsu,
I couldn't care less if you are included in the 'we' of mainstream Australia. But like it or not you are living in a monocultural society, so if you don't like it I suggest you leave.

Yes the system we inherited did give us beer drinking, horse racing and fox hunting, none of which is bad. There are many alien cultural practices that are far worse that we could import or operate here now secretly.

Our culture is not perfect but is far better than most and I want my grand kids to enjoy it

If Australia was still a mono cultural society, then there would only be Indigenous Australians living here. All cultures who migrated to this land after the Aboriginals were added to the cultures living here...thus it is a multicultural country.
Any fool can see that.

We are also a very successful multicultural society, and one that is prized as a migrant destination from many other countries. If anyone is not happy living here in our multicultural country, please feel free to move ...

I am going through a period of questioning about multiculturalism. I was once a huge fan of multicultural richness as an antidote to the oppressiveness of bland monocultures.

However, I now find myself wondering if multiculturalism is all it's cracked up to be. At this stage, I honestly don't know anymore about its benefits. And I honestly don't know what my final assessment will be.

What makes me question multiculturalism is that so many ancient cultures have been so decimated by war, economic sanctions, destabilisation and regime change that migration has become the only option for many people who want a peaceful life. I can't believe that people actually want to uproot themselves from their ancient cultures and leave their family and friends, their jobs and their communities for a life in a culturally foreign land in which they will always be a suspect minority.

I also despair at how the origin countries must feel about having so many of their skilled workers leave for other countries, thus draining their societies of valuable workers.

In terms of the 'host' country, there are so many problems that it must deal with. The belief that new arrivals drain the public purse and take jobs away from the 'host' workforce has been grossly downplayed, but is still a significant problem. So too, the problem of people's concerns about foreign cultures and religions taking root in their own ancient cultural spaces is unfairly framed as bigotry.

I myself am the grandchild of refugees from Ireland, who felt - rightly or wrongly - that centuries of British rule had left them with little hope of a future in the country in which they were born and raised. In recent times, I have embraced my Irish roots and decided to return there to live. It's hard to describe, but the sense of belonging in Ireland has been overwhelming - a feeling I never had in Australia.

To be continued ...

Hence, I am coming to increasingly question what the real agenda of multiculturalism is. There seems to be some global agenda to uproot people everywhere and create all kinds of cultural mix-ups and flashpoints, while claiming that this is all a good thing.

As I said at the beginning of this post, I really don't know how I feel about all this. But I suspect we are being conditioned to accept multiculturalism as some inevitable natural order of things.

Now I'm not so sure.

Yuyutsu, sorry but there is such a thing as 20/20 hindsight & when you use it multi-CULT-uralism was made up by Trotskyists at the height of the cold war to destroy western capitalism. Monoculturalism works, it is intelligent, sensible, practicle & reasonable. Rome fell because of accepting refugees & the islamic crusades, HISTORICAL FACT.

Episode six: The Fall of Rome
At the start of the 5th century AD Rome was under siege, Rome was defenceless, even the remnants of its garrisons abandoned their posts. The events that brought Rome to the brink of disaster had their roots in a betrayal two years earlier.

Alisdair Simpson’s opening narration
The Roman Empire is under barbarian assault from Huns and Vandals. Emperor Honorius’s chief general and adviser Flavius Stilicho has negotiated a treaty with the Goth leaders Alaric and Athaulf, but the Emperor has him executed for conspiracy. Honorius orders Olympius to slaughter all Barbarian families within the Empire and the survivors flee to Alaric’s camp. The Goths sweep through Italy to set siege to Rome, trapping the Emperor’s sister Galla Placidia within. Senator Atalus rides to the Imperial capital at Ravenna and Honorius agrees to the Goths' demands.

The Goths withdraw but Honorius break the agreement, sending reinforcements to Rome that Athaulf intercepts and eliminates. Alaric speaks directly to the Senate and they elect Atalus as Emperor, but Honorius has Rome’s grain supplies cut off and Atalus loses authority. Alaric travels to meet Honorius at Ravenna but is ambushed by his old rival Roman General Sarus, who is beaten into retreat. Alaric finally takes Rome, and captures Galla Placidia. Following Alaric’s death, Athaulf marries Galla Placidia and his people finally settle in Southern France.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome:_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_an_Empire

it is very simple really Rome took in 40,000 refugees & like ALL left wing governments it over promised, under delivered. So the refugees rioted, left the refugee camp, looted the treasury, looted the homes of senators, took the Emperors little sister hostage & moved to Southern France. When the islamic crusades began Rome was too weak to resist, fell & the dark ages began.

Dear Banjo,

<<Yes the system we inherited did give us beer drinking, horse racing and fox hunting, none of which is bad.>>

Drinking, gambling and killing... Muslims are only into the last vice of the three.

<<Our culture is not perfect but is far better than most and I want my grand kids to enjoy it>>

Nobody even suggests to take away the "pleasure" of your corrupt culture from your grand kids if so they wish, including even drinking, gambling and killing. If however they don't, then not even you can make them "enjoy" it, yet you wish to force it onto others who definitely have no joy out of it and your only excuse is that the British navy happened to take this continent by force some 240 years ago.

<<But like it or not you are living in a monocultural society>>

The jury is out: I'm asking my friends whether this statement is correct and yet to receive an answer.
(and just before posting, I notice that Imacentristmoderate suggests there are actually two cultures here, one s/he calls "closet communists", the other "wowsers", while Suseonline adds the aboriginal culture to the list)

Regardless, I'm not going to leave because I haven't came here for the culture. I came to live in this continent because other places were worse - the Australian culture for me is basically a nuisance which I somehow need to live at its fringe rather than having to live at the fringe of some worse culture.

---

Dear Killarney,

I think you have overlooked the possibility of people being fed up with their culture of origin. One doesn't even have to migrate in order to seek a new culture, only if one's culture is oppressive.

---

Dear imacentristmoderate,

I am glad that Rome fell: I hate even the thought of still having to live today under Roman rule (most likely as a slave)!

Ima-whatever,

" When the islamic crusades began Rome was too weak to resist, fell & the dark ages began."

The events you relate occurred 200yrs BEFORE the rise of Islam.

Good grief!

suseonline,
"If Australia was still a mono cultural society, then there would only be Indigenous Australians living here. "

If so it would still be multicultural because when Cook arrived there wasn't a monoculture but myriad cultures and languages, not to mention spectacular levels of warfare, misogyny, infanticide.

I know that among the kumbaya-set it was paradise before Cook but in the real world these were stone age people living short brutish lives. And we can be sure that a good number of them were also immigrants/invaders. If we want to pretend that only the original settlers were indigenous then probably the Tassie aboriginals are the true indigenous group having been forced out by later invaders, who in turn were forced out by still later invaders. (What happened to the Bradshaw people?).

That we are multicultural is self-evident, irreversible and probably beneficial.

But that's not the same as having multiculturalism. At its essence this is a government invented, sponsored and financed policy to assure all the various cultures that they are equally relevant and valuable and that no one culture is better or worse than the other. And that's falling apart.

Personally, I don't care to argue that one culture is better per se than another. If your culture finds it necessary to cut the clitoris of little girls, I'm not going to get into an argument as to whether that is a superior or inferior one to a culture that doesn't.
But I will say that our culture is better for me and my country. You think your culture is better for you and your country - fine I don't care. here, however you are welcome to come and even to practice your little national quirks, so long as you respect the basic tenets of our culture, law, traditions.

The west has lost respect and love for its culture and needs to find it again.

We could do worse than remember Napier, an British leader in India:

To Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati religious funeral practice of burning widows alive on her husband’s funeral pyre.

“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

mhaze,
You put your finger right on a bug problem with MC, and I am glad you chose FGM as an example as I see another couple have been charged with FGM offences. We encourage immigrants to retain their culture and those that engage in FGM, forced marriage, underage marriage and other practices that are illegal are deliberately thumbing their nose and are contemptuous of our laws. A woman doctor that runs a migrant womens advisory centre, in Sydney, not long ago said she could name 100 underage marriages at any given time.

The problem is that the laws are not enforced. For example, for FGM hospital records need to be made available to police and the 'at risk' girls undergo medical examination to determine if they have been cut. If so the parents are charged. France does this and has a big reduction in FGM. Our politicians are to weak for this and are chasing the ethnic vote. It is our politicians that let us down time and time again.

Yuyutsu
<If groups of people seek autonomy, whatever be their reason (religious, tribal or otherwise - especially otherwise) and your national/universal state opposes it with force then no wonder the outcome can descend into terror and bloodshed>

your comment assumes that wars are about intolerance.
this is the fallacy taught in our universities.

The two causative factors, present in all wars.
are tribal bloodlines-(in muddy the waters academic speak,ethnic groups)and control of countries and land(territory)
The reason for wars is biological not physcological.

observe the racist like behaviour of a lion when another lion
comes onto it's territory, it acts with aggression,intimidating
behaviour and extreme dislike.

But it is not the other lion that it hates, no matter that it is
a different colour. It is the other lion being on it's territory,
that provokes the aggression. And we all know whats at stake for the
lion or a any species that loses control of its terriroty.

Well, the same rule of nature applies to the human species as well.
And the reaction by the lion is correct at the survival level.

Also people of other tribes coming to someone else's land
are also being territorial in their behaviour, because they
immigrate to gain access to the territorial wealth.
they couldn't care one bit about the people already there.
it's not the people they come here for.

And Isis and terrorists don't attack us because of any religion,
although that is the excuse they use to justify the murder.
No, the attacks are racially,territorially, motivated, and they are not terrorist attacks. It is classic guerrilla warfare.
You may say they run from war. Usually from overpopulated
countries, where war is basically caused by poverty or lack of
access to abundant,territorial resources.

The Japanese didn't attack Australia because of their racial hatred
of Australians, they attacked because they wanted the land, so they could live in prosperity for generations.

Dear Cherful,

<<your comment assumes that wars are about intolerance.>>

I was referring to internal suppression of freedom, not to wars. It can descend into civil wars.

Indeed, modern science has gained significant knowledge about the way genes operate, including how they drive lions and cause blood-line relatives to support each other against other blood-lines. As Richard Dawkins pointed in his depressing book, "The Selfish Gene", genes are there to serve themselves, not us!

The question arises, why don't we who are intelligent enough to be aware of the genes' mischief, rebel against them?!

Regardless, please don't confuse nationalism with tribalism or the mischief of the genes: having such a large "family" which includes that many blood-lines and when one doesn't even know and couldn't recognise 99.999% of the others, is simply unnatural!