You will find that the vast majority of Australians, if given a chance, will not stand for a multicultural society either. It is not like they were consulted before or after the imposition of this bizarre social policy. It was forced down their throats. How about a public debate?

Boaz, I strongly recommend that you read "My Life", the autobiography of Sir Oswald Mosley, once described as "the greatest orator of the twentieth century", and certainly of massively higher intellectual capacity than the fragrant professor Flint.

Mosley argues cogently and persuasively for the kind of cultural protection advocated by Flint, and had the moral courage to stand up for those beliefs over his entire lifetime. My grandfather actually attended one of Mosley's Limehouse rallies, and was able to attest personally to the ability of the man to get his message through to the average joe-in-the street.

Mosley's cultural target was "the Jews". He was intelligent and capable enough to couch his attacks in sufficiently neutral language to avoid being pigeon-holed as simply a hater-of-Jews, and even recruited some prominent Jewish thinkers into the British Union of Fascists - including, somewhat incredibly, Bill Leaper, who edited their magazine "The Blackshirt". However, when you heard him speak, it was pretty clear what he was getting at.

Sir Oswald fiercely rejected the label "racist" or - as was more popular in those days "anti-Semite". Despite this rejection, there can be no doubt, when you examine the historical records, that Mosley incited racist reactions in his audience. This was the basis of my remark "perfectly pitched to the racist ear".

To quote Mosley for a moment:

"We are treated as a nation of children; every item of social legislation is designed, not to enable the normal person to live a normal life, but to prevent the decadent from hurting himself. At every point the private liberty of the individual is invaded by busybody politicians who have grossly mismanaged their real business - which is the public life of an organised nation."

You can perhaps begin to see the equation with those mysterious "elites".

[You will find that the vast majority of Australians, if given a chance, will not stand for a multicultural society either. It is not like they were consulted before or after the imposition of this bizarre social policy.]

If anti-multiculturalism is such a huge vote winner, why don’t major political parties incorporate it into their policy platform? The David Flints of this country insist that only a tiny minority of Australians (those mysterious “elites”) support multiculturalism, so surely an announcement of a party’s intention to put an end to multiculturalism would see a massive increase in popular support – what are they waiting for?

[It was forced down their throats. How about a public debate?]

This is one of my favourites – the claim that people aren’t allowed to challenge multiculturalism because of “political correctness” and so on. If people believe their opposing view to multiculturalism doesn’t get a hearing in the media may I suggest they open a newspaper and read a column by Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman, Miranda Devine, Janet Albretchsen, or the Murdoch press editorials, or have a listen to Alan Jones. If I had a dollar for every letter to the editor I read proclaiming “The end is nigh if we don’t reverse multiculturalism” I’d be going into early retirement. There IS a public debate. The problem is that some people want to have their say and not have to defend their views or face counter argument – and when their views ARE challenged they claim they’re being “shouted down by the PC Brigade”.

BD –
At what point did I use the word ‘superior’? Are you putting words in my mouth? Or twisting to get the meaning you can refute?

I said successful. And my point (as you so obviously missed) is that anyone who claims the ‘Australian’ culture can thank foreigners for that culture. Ours is made up of parts of thinking from different cultures – including middle eastern, southern European, English, American (more every day) and Asian. You did say ‘OURS’, didn’t you?... ironic really.

Thanks for the snide comments though. You have no idea about me, my education or my life experience. The more you use that style of commentary, the more revealing of yourself you are. It can only help to put your comments and thoughts in a truer light.

I would agree that villages are microcosms. I have seen those microcosms at work. Perhaps your tainted worldview is the problem. When missionaries fail (not that I say yours did), it is easy to blame the culture instead of the desired goal – which maybe the people were just too smart to fall for the spin?

BD, try to avoid snide and condescending comments.

Regards,

(name withheld)
PhD (History), BPsy (Hons)… Cheers BD

I have no problem with Professor Flint's use of 'elites', Pericles', but I need your coaching in just how 'fragrant' applies to the Professor. Does the man have a pleasant odour; is he sweet scented; is he delightful; is he pleasant or, does he bring you fragrant memories? Perhaps I consult the wrong dictionaries, or perhaps I am just ignorant of the argot of your particular elite.

Reason

I take your pedantic point .. 'superior' was not directly used by you. Apologies.

Successful + Racist= ‘superior’ If you avoided the R word, I would not have used ‘superior’.

You correctly identified the 'English/European/Asian' in terms of their arrival order.
But how you jump from that good observation to
"if we took all the bits.. armchair+shrimp" ? now that’s well reasoned isn't it :)
(sorry mate, Hoge’s was just a tourism Ad)

Yes, 'we' came from other places. and then we formed an identifiable body of tradition and lore, and we became 'Australian', which comprises 'predominantly' or even better put 'overwhelmingly' the Anglo European stream. I would not even call it 'more successful' I would just call it the 'prevailing/predominant' and quite legitimately so.

To suggest that it lacks identifiable cultural trademarks is rather shabby history.
Have you read the prose of Lawson and the poetry of Patterson ? I'm sure you have.

To suggest the anglo/European mob would not be perturbed by any attempt to 'Islamize' (for example) our legal system, or give special exceptional treatment to Muslims, is poor psychology.

We need to avoid the danger of "'learning much, but knowing little".

To use the 'village' illustration further. We have a village, which contains a particular tribe.
They all speak the same language, except for about 5% where other races have married into the tribe.
Those 5% all now speak the tribal language, and they observe and respect the customs of the founding/original village. If they don't they will be ostracized for insulting the history and traditions.
Its not rocket science.

How many people would reasonably charge the founding villagers with 'intolerance' if the head man berates one of those 5% who wants to suddenly change village law because it 'does not suit his own culture'.. I mean.. c'mon.
He can follow his own ways among them TO THE EXTENT that they don't infringe on the tradiitons and values of the existing village.

How is it that the concept of 'Anglo/European' 'village' mentality seems to escape those on the 'multi-cultural side of the debate ?

Pericles..thanx