Firstly, congratulations to aqvarivs for such a rational and perspicacious post. It is indeed unfortunate that this discussion has degenerated into pseudo-scientific piffling about race. I guess it was only a matter of time before the insipid apostles of multiculturalism resorted to labelling their opponents "racist".

Ronnie Peters said: "Among others, British culture, Indigenous culture, Irish culture, German culture - all these bring their own culture to the mix. They are many and thus must help comprise a multicultural society.

It is offensive that you disregard the other cultures that have and do contribute to this country's greatness. Your assertion that British culture is dominant doesn't negate the others. There is no contradiction in my statement."

Please, there is no need to feign offence. I'm not disregarding other cultural contributions. Rather, I am being forced to state the blatantly obvious, and that happens to be that mainstream Australian culture primarily reflects its Anglo-Celtic origins. By the way, I'm not some hardcore Anglophile. In fact, I'm a second generation German-Australian. My grandfather served in the Luftwaffe during WWII. My great-grandfather died as a result of the Allied firebombing of Dresden. However, I'm Australian above all else, and if that means recognizing and adopting Australia's mainly British-derived culture, so be it. It's the "brutal bargain" that my father and his family made when they became Australian.

Elements of migrant cultures should by all means be added to the mix. However, the current multiculturalist regime is virtually encouraging the segregation of migrant cultures from mainstream society, thus facilitating greater social fragmentation. This "us" and "them" mentality clearly does not add to Australian society.

As this tiresome thread continues I am more interested in its capactiy to reach the double ton - or will it falter like Ponting at 196?

Only time will tell

BENNIE SAID

"Wouldn't it be more accurate to say Militant Islam is what we should keep an eye on?"

In terms of 'accuracy' yes. But in terms of where the militants come from, no. We need a broad brush in this regard.
It is abundantly self evident that :

"No Muslims, No radicals."

On the other end of the spectrum, "Lots of Muslims, many radicals."

The same can in a way be said of Buddhists. The difference is, a 'radical' or passionate Buddhist has no scriptural or historical foundation which would shape him as a suicide bomber or to become part of a militant group. The worst we are likely to see is his self emolation outside some government office. Scary yes, life threatening (for us)...no.

Failure to ACT in a planned, responsible (and 'no fear') manner regarding
-immigration and resettlement issues.
-Assimilation/integration.

...will (not 'might') utlimately result in the following knee jerk extremist actions from the "White supremacists".

This type of reaction can only be understood historically and socially in the same way "anti semitism" must be.. i.e. without 'Semitism' or the perceived unfair advancement of Semitic interests and power, there will be no 'anti' of that.

From the Herald Sun today:

<In what Le Parisien newspaper called “le cocktail” of racism, anti-semitism and human beastliness, about 100 right-wing extremist fans of PSG, furious after their club lost 4-2 to Tel Aviv, tried to lynch a black plainclothes police officer who was protecting a French Jewish fan of the Israeli team.
Witnesses, including a journalist from Express magazine, heard the mob shouting “Filthy Jew”, “Dirty nigger” and screaming death threats. Other attackers made Nazi salutes and yelled “Blue, white, red - France for the French” and “(Jean-Marie) Le Pen for President”>

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION.
Active Social planning for social harmony and balance is needed.

"Multiculturalist are responsible for all the social strife in Australia and have retarded real equality for society"

If Aqvarivs and Oligarch see that comment as rational and perspicacious then i think we have a new definition of the word 'rational'.

The Prime Minister's refusal to say that he, as our leader, was sorry for the 200 years of non-recognition of Aboriginal rights since the 1788 First Fleet's declaration of 'terra nullius' and thus make a genuine attempt at healing a deep and socially divisive wound of more than 2 centuries making, is but the more recent example of how 'Monoculture' is responsible for many of the social ills in a nation that permits entry as citizens of people from all world culture's while trying to uphold one as being of Prime Value through the Australian Constitutional Monarchical system of government we enjoy and the long-held tradition of closely following Mother England.

'Multiculturalism' (still hate that word, not least for it's utter inaccuracy in defining Aus) may have been introduced in the 70's by Labor as a way to help steer our Nation away from the Ties of Empire while we learned to stand on our own two feet more, and to try and give us a more unique identity that would allow us better trade with our asian and world neighbours, but many today still can only see it as a threat, to their 'Status Quo' as holders of some form of power.

As this discussion shows it is able to be used by everyone to justify their own selfish bias and theories while simultaneously having virtually no real validity in Australia.

We aren't 'Multicultural'. We share One Culture, the Australian Culture, with all it's history and it's social cohesion and division. We are a nation of individuals who tend to form groups of like-minded people, clubs, sports, states, religions and 'races' all united under a love of the Land we call our 'own'.

(cont.)

Oligarch says: “Please there is no need to feign offence.” I said: ” It is offensive.” I didn’t say how it affected me. I hold that “It is offensive” for you to disregard others’ cultures that make up Australian history. You just have to see the Indigenous’ side of things to see the offence your British only position may cause. Your assumption that I “feigned “ is wrong . You’re wrong to present your opinion as my thinking.

You said: …. I always assumed that Australian culture was predominantly influenced by its British origins. In fact, your statement is downright contradictory. If multiculturalism is a reality, then there is no such thing as "Australian culture". Rather, we are simply "the colony of every nation on earth" as well-known professor Geoffrey Blainey put it.”

Your assumption : disregards the other cultures including “Australian culture” which, I think, among other things - because we have “people of every nation on earth” - has developed into, and must be, a multicultural society. That is blatantly obvious.

Aqvarivas. Where is your evidence that multiculturalists use culture to “affect social fragmentation”? What are talking about? Some conspiracy nonsense? And the idea that multiculturalists are promoting “governance by ethnic division” doesn’t make sense. I think multiculturalism is about promoting social cohesion. I haven’t seen any evidence or logical penetrating argument to suggest otherwise.

I support multiculturalism and your supposed insight into the “true nature” of multiculturalists’ thinking is wrong. You don’t actually dispute multiculturalist’s position; you just rely on unsubstantiated nonsense. I think multiculturalists are the opposite of “cultural marxists” if by that you mean someone who thinks that through dialectical processes we will eventually all be the same and somehow equal – if so, I think, it is multiculturalism that will ensure that Australians don’t become a great mass of like-minded people (an integrated whole) void of cultural difference and individuality and living under the illusion that they are free. Your thinking is more marxist than you think.

People who want to enjoy their culture are not responsible for all the strife in Australia. continued

Seems to me militants come from everywhere, regardless of the dominant religion, though religion sure seems to inspire it more than, say, who won the football. (Then again, football IS religion).

Difficult to see DB how we might exercise active social planning without sacrificing individual choice. Totalitarianism does work, but at what cost?

A monk was once asked what he would do if was found a tenet of buddhism was wrong. "Buddhism would have to change" was the simple answer. Oh, if only other religions were so simple...