FrankGol, diversity in the baneful form envisioned by multiculturalists is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Emphasize difference enough and of course ethnic tribalism will be the end result. It's a classic case of circular reasoning.

Nobody is denying that Australia is a multi-ethnic country. In fact, almost every nation on the planet is multi-ethnic to a certain degree (even a culturally-closed country like Bhutan, my culturally promiscuous dear FrankGol). Yet, multi-ethnic is not the same as multicultural. In most cases, common community underpinned by shared culture eventually overcomes ethnic differences. Only here do we encourage disintegration and division all in the name of celebrating diversity.

I must say that this discussion is becoming nauseatingly trite. At the first sign of dissent, FrankGol is dispatched from Diversity HQ to chastise my alleged "mirages" and "weak history". However, these sniping attacks delivered in the usual self-righteous, supercilious manner do not disguise FrankGol's intellectually mendacity. He still refuses to even acknowledge, let alone concede, the fact that Jieh-Yung Lo's self-declared identity directly confutes FrankGol's denial that multiculturalism encourages allegiance to ethnicity over nationality. One could not ask for a more blatant example of evasiveness on behalf of a multi-culter. It seems FrankGol's propensity to bloviate is surpassed only by his propensity to dodge and duck reality.

FrankGol,

Now you give me the impression we have been confusing each other.

Have you not heard Muslims trumpeting, "Islam is a way of living"? (Seriously, even though it's April Fool day)

I say, Islam started as a hoax by Muhammand (who bluffed people he met an angel that gave him the words of Allah godhead). Mainly through violence initially, the hoax grew, expanded and gained a critical mass.

The way of living as recorded in Koran/Quran forms the basis of a common culture for foolish believers. There are African fools, Asian fools and blonde-hair-blue-eye fools.

While they grow in number & strength, Muslims in western democracy are borrowing tolerance from their hosts, mainly from unwary people who believe in cultural diversity. But believe me Islam does not expound diversity. It is a closed-minded ideology that will not return the tolerance that its followers once borrowed.

Once a Muslim population reaches a critical mass, the process to reverse Multiculturalism will begin - purging of non-Islamic cultures.

Have you seen cultural diversity flourishing in any Islamic state? No, in fact it is ever diminishing.

Multiculturalism is misguided, is a dirty word so long as Islamic culture is an integral part of it. If Multiculturalism is an unwitting casualty of any attempt to slow down Islamisation, then so be it.

I recommend this important site (and may you buy Ali Sina's book about Islam) :

http://www.faithfreedom.org

ps. I was in Shanghai on new year eve. To my dismay, the NY concert at XinTianDi were fenced in with tall timber planks. So was the concert at Nanking Rd. Such exclusion would be unacceptable in Australia. China is only good for the rich.

<China is only good for the rich.
Posted by GZ Tan, Sunday, 1 April 2007 10:22:32 AM> - may one, please, explain, who is Australia good for?

This will be my last post on this thread. My time is valuable; and I'm sick of people failing to read or distorting what I write. What characterises OLO more than ay other forum I know is the habit of constructing false representations and then attacking these with feigned outrage. Multiculturalism is an prime example.

Oligarch, I made a clear distinction between difference and diversity. On Friday I wrote: "I don’t emphasise difference - rather diversity." So your claim: "Emphasize difference enough and of course ethnic tribalism will be the end result. It's a classic case of circular reasoning" is wilful nonsense.

Colourful language ("FrankGol is dispatched from Diversity HQ") and personal insults ("self-righteous, supercilious manner do not disguise FrankGol's intellectually mendacity") are no substitute for reasoned argument. Nor is semi-literacy dressed up in big words or non-words ("FrankGol's propensity to bloviate")

GZ Tan, on Tuesday last, you said: "Multiculturalism is not my topic of interest." Now that you've told us all you know about Islam, perhaps you really meant to say that Multiculturalism is not your topic of expertise?

Nor is popular culture. You had to pay for a concert in Shanghai. "Such exclusion would be unacceptable in Australia," you say. "China is only good for the rich." What's the price of a ticket for The Rolling Stones concert in Melbourne?

FrankGol, I suspect your decision to retreat back into your pseudo-intellectual fantasy land has more to do with the fact I questioned your evasiveness.

I asked a relevant question three times in response to your assertion that multiculturalism does not encourage loyalty to ethnicity and old culture over Australian nationality. You claimed that the notion of multiculturalism promoting ethnocentricity at the expense of nationality was merely "fiction" in Banjo's "fevered imagination." I countered with a pertinent quote from Jieh-Yung Lo. The straightfoward question about Jieh-Yung Lo was put to you three times. Each time you found the time and energy to respond with thinly veiled ad hominem attacks, but patently failed to answer the question.

In my humble opinion, such evasiveness when probed is an act of disingenuousness. I can sympathise with the frustration felt when outnumbered in a debate, but you dug your own grave in this case. I suspect your attempt to claim victim status will be met by other posters with some cynicism.

FrankGol said: "Nor is semi-literacy dressed up in big words or non-words ("FrankGol's propensity to bloviate")."

Frank, you do have a tendency to speak at length in a pompous manner. The alleged "semi-literate" phrasing was an attempt on my behalf to label you a conceited windbag in a less affronting manner. Feel free to consult a dictionary in the case of these supposed "non-words".

FrankGol,

I think once again you fail to read or distort what I wrote.

I was merely referring to New Year celebration concert of the type that the public should enjoy, free of charge. Not any commercial concert.

I suppose yes, the poor everywhere must feel sorry they cannot afford Rolling Stone concert tickets. But hey, with all that mighty Aussie dollars that you are used to spend in Asian countries, can you imagine what it's like being poor in China?