Dirk

My rather terse response was only 1400 words.

Apparently I broke the forum rules by posting four posts across two threads. I'm awaiting clarification from the Software engineer. I want to now post two parts on your thread today and two parts tomorrow. But I'm checking before I post.

I've received a first and final warning so I'm going to go into my shell and become less extrovert. I was going to say become conservative but that would sure as hell be misinterpreted.

Btw I think Lebanon would have been an adrenalin pumping experience... I've never been there but I would have loved to have gone there in the late 60's or early 70's before the time of the green line. I have a little contact in Brisbane with families who came here in those times. Tough and fair in business and beaut socially.

Hopefully my posts will materialise on your thread soon. I look forward to your considered response.

I do have a very manly mien. It has it's curses and it's blessings. I've learned to live comfortably with both.

Dirk I noticed an apology from OLO to Alan Jones.. for you attributing words to him in your article which were in fact uttered by another Journo... maybe I was a bit hasty in applauding your detailed analysis :)

KEITH why not write to Dirk directly ? his web site is on the public record.

Dirk. yes, I'm sure we disagree about a few things. In my case I don't accept that 'no discrimination' is a noble or sensible goal. Mainly because we discriminate every day against particular forms of behaviour and belief.
So, 'socially positive discrimination', is that which is based on sound principles of social cohesian etc.. (ala Geoffry Blainey who I heard yesterday was 'on' about this in the past)

If I may direct your attention to another post of mine, (Out of Africa thread) which includes A MULTI CULTURAL EXPERIENCE.. TODAY as part of it, you will see a personal anecdote from yesterday regarding some Australians of Cypriot background.

It might seem noble and praiseworthy to have a 100% non discriminatory immigration policy, and this might be workable IF and ONLY if, settlement policy is pro-actively managed. Example Putting 750 sudanese refugees in Toowoomba was an act of culpable stupidity that they will regret severely. Placing small numbers in VARIOUS towns and making location a condition of assylum for 5 yrs or something, giving them a chance to integrate non threateningly would have been far better.

I take serious issue with 'ideological incompatability' which I would extend to members of the communist party even today. Why ? simple- I see how they had infiltrated the union movement, promising unsustainable outcomes (simply to gain power) which will destroy business viability and the jobs they provide. They don't care if the businesses are destroyed, as long as the dialectic proceeds towards creating conditions of unrest more likely to promote proletarian revolution.

I have similar issues with Islam, (In spite of what you might be told by 'mainstream' Muslims) but not with Buddhism or most other non Christian religions as they don't seek to establish a 'Buddhist State' etc

First, thanks Chek for your encouraging posting!

Second, ok, Keith, I'll sit tight. I too would have liked to have visited Beirut in the early 70s, but I was still in shorts.

Third, the Jones issue: I took the quotation from an article in the HERALD. In the event, the quotation was not by Jones by by another radio talk backer, that is, the HERALD article was wrong.

Fourth, BD, I'll take a look at your other postings, but as I wrote before, I don't think we'll be able to convert one another.

Have a nice day,

Boaz, I have of late held back from continuing to remark upon the dangerous course you have set yourself, but the symptoms are still there, I'm afraid. Clearly, you still haven't read "My Life".

The fact remains that your concept of "'socially positive discrimination'... based on sound principles of social cohesian etc" is little different from the rallying cries of tyrants through the ages.

In order to control the actions of his followers, a would-be tyrant first selects a concept that can be painted in the colours of "a common enemy". It doesn't much matter what this is, since his power of rhetoric and persuasion - based upon an intimate understanding of the irresistibility of fear as a motivator - will cover over any cracks in the logic. The enemy has been identified over the years in many different forms, Jews and communists, capitalists and blacks, gypsies and Philip Ruddock. It really isn't significant which the tyrant chooses, as it is pretty easy to identify elements to fear in any situation.

At any given opportunity, our tyrant will bang his drum of fear, pointing out how the common enemy is threatening livelihoods, comfort, safety, security, health, financial well-being, traffic congestion, whatever. The message is delivered as often as possible to the audience, who then mindlessly repeat the "danger, danger" mantra to each other, in a process of continual mutual reinforcement.

If the fear button is pressed hard enough, at some point the non-believers become a minority, or are persuaded to become neutral observers. That is when the movement's own personal Kristallnacht is either manufactured or allowed to happen. Again, it is irrelevant what form this takes – a boatload of refugees will do nicely – as it is simply a symbol, underlining the fear factor.

Boaz, don't let the fear of different ideas, and people with different ideas, lead you down this path.

I am sure you are not a tyrant, but I can see you very easily becoming a tyrant's willing follower.

Part 1 of 4.

Parts 1 and 2 are posted today and parts 3 and 4 will be posted tomorrow

Dirk

You raised the spectre of the pogrom when you started ‘bagging’ the Devine sheila.
You laid the blame for the alleged pogrom upon Australians when you said:
‘Pogroms are violent attacks by majorities against minorities.’ and when you continued in the same paragraph describing the behaviour the majorities exhibited in a pogrom the racist inference then arose because you never isolated the behaviour to the few people involved at Cronulla. Your inference, either intentional or unintentional, was the majority of Australians were involved in a pogrom. That inference was then reinforced throughout your article.

That in any truckers language says you’re labelling Australians, including me, racist.

That was one of the prime points of your article. The sentiments you expressed in your article up to that point were well reasoned and reasonable. It gave you ‘cred’ but once you embarked on your journey of bagging people and the racist slur there really was no going back. You became critical of Australia and Australians. You attempted to equate the media and it’s writers and their attitudes with Australians and their attitudes.

‘…senior journalists and other elites are now effectively justifying it in the same way as the authorities of central and eastern Europe did a century…’

One point: You may have said it’s jurno’s etc who are doing the justifying etc but the behaviour they are justifying you attribute by inference to lots of other Aussies and they’re not all ‘Anglos’ and they weren’t at Cronulla.

‘By identifying the Lebanese-Australian community’s supposed inability to integrate, by focusing on the bad beach behaviour of youths “of middle eastern appearance”… Now Australian media leaders are excusing the wrath of the people here.’

Two points: (1) Do you see how you repeated blaming the people for the wrath and not just the few at Cronulla. (2) I haven’t seen real wrath since my Dad’s smoked Christmas leg of ham was carved up and eaten by a bunch of his beer-sodden best bowling mates

Part 2 of 4

‘Moreover, the ethnic self-defense of the native born is natural and normal; it should not be pathologised by what that newspaper recklessly calls “the multiculturalism industry” (whatever that is). The problem, we must conclude, is the supposed inability of Lebanese-Australian youths to assimilate’
Three points: (1) that ethnic self-defense isn’t only exhibited by native born, it’s exhibited by the community which includes your ‘wogs’.
(2) I’d dispute community attitudes reflect your assertions re an assumed divide between wogs and Australians. That attitude died a natural death not long after Malcolm Fraser formalised our Multicultural Policy.
(2) Despite your denials, you’re part of the multiculturalist industry. You assume you own it. That’s so wrong. We all own it. My mates don’t assess people on their ethnicity. It’s on such things as reliability, truthfulness, decency, self-awareness etc. If they condemn anyone it’s because of some unfathomable feeling or some bloody obvious quirk of character. And you’d be condemned for being roundly out of touch. Equally, exhibit some humility, and you’d be forgiven. I don’t really know what ethnicity my mates are…it’s not an issue.
(3) We haven’t concluded a problem of assimilation but rather the behaviour of the Lebanese Arab Muslim youth gangs and the refusal of their community to condemn their behaviour.

Your particular spin shows you are not listening to the people. Those people you so erroneously cast as racist. Most of us don’t read the papers. They contain too much crap. They are not representative of us. Much like OLO on this issue. You’ve read too much into what the papers say.

‘But why are Australians of Muslim Lebanese descent the despised “other”, and why now? The reasons are complex, certainly more complex than pointing to the lawless hill tribes of northern Lebanon. Part of the answer lies in the local reaction to the geopolitical situation since the 9-11 and Bali attacks. In their wake, a blatant exercise of cultural exclusion has gone on against Australian Muslims and Arabs by the media commentariat’

No bloody wonder we don’t read the papers? Why do you bother?