With regard to the author of the initial article. Although some of us agree and/or disagree with him. Our posts don't reflect upon him personally, or they shouldn't and mine certainly don't.

He seems like a lovely young man, and am glad to know that we have young people like him.

Well, actually, Boaz, yes.

>>To Pericles and others, it is our diverse unity where we can all carry on our merry ways in different directions, but suddenly when there is a threat.. we all will miraculously pull together and be ONE<<

I'm not sure how much more diverse you could get than the British Commonwealth in 1939.

Buddhists, Christians, Muslims and Hindus (and that was just the Burma Rifles) plus a mix of the same from Canada, India, Malaya, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa all pulled together, as a matter of course and without complaint.

Other countries with greater apparent cultural similarities but without the Commonwealth ties either came on board late (USA) or remained "neutral" (Ireland).

>>Lets test that ? The threat happens to be a massive influx of Chinese capital buying up properties<<

This is a threat to whom?

Are you seriously suggesting that we should not sell houses to the Chinese? Could you please give me an idea how you would a) introduce such a scheme and b) police it?

>>One particular ethnic group with close cultural and racial ties to China, has been aware of this for some time, and has proceeded to buy up property in advance.<<

I'm still trying to get my head around this. Is your idea that no-one should be allowed to buy property outside their native land? Where, in this scheme of things do you fit OPEC, or GATT, or the EU, or MERCOSUR?

You appear to be exhorting your fellow-countrymen to become entirely insular. Introverted, in fact.

>>The Saudi government decides to make Australia the next major recipient of 'aid' in the form of funding for massive 40,000 person mosques in prominent locations so as to highlight the religion of Islam in the skyline of say Melbourne.<<

Local planning laws should prevent this, whether it is a mosque or a supermarket.

Although, if the Grollo Group got the contract, that is probably a bad bet.

Frank.. my brain didn't flip,its finely_tuned to this issue.
I didn't call the author a 'racist' I said 'involved with 2 racist organizations'. This is not about "him" its about the issue of MC and the role of various bodies re that.
..and Yes.. British ethnic societies are racist.

I'd already seen ECCV during previous excursions into this grazing ground. Such visits only confirmed my views. Here is a sample.

[For over 30 years ECCV has remained the principal liaison point between ethnic communities, government and the wider community in Victoria.]

[ECCV advocates and lobbies all levels of government on behalf of multicultural communities...]

Lets deconstruct this. Key words. "ethnic and multicultural" clearly meaning non mainstream members of society, and those who fall outside the predominant Anglo/Irish/Scot etc members of the community.
Now..I ask.. is this not 'discrimination based on race' ? yes. .it absolutely is! It is differentiating 'non' mainstream from mainstream, and seeks to advance 'their' interests. Why the word 'ethnic' ? Why needed at all ? Does the government discriminate against them ? If it does so, it would be in line with Australian law. ie.. NO Female Genital Mutilation.

Pericles is correct about the Commonwealth and it rising to the task in the face of a World War. No argument there.

No suggestion either of not selling 'any' land to people because they happen to be Chinese or Arab but Planning laws should be subject to an overlay of cultural and social cohesian and solidarity. With strict limits. BUT.. "planning laws" ? aaah.. now we get to the nub of it. I'm waiting with baited breath to see how it goes for the mega mosque in London.
Planning laws are closely connected to VESTED POLITICAL INTEREST.... lets not kid ourselves. My not being able to subdivide my place is connected to Labor wanting the green vote.(while their cousins and business associates buy up land in the growth corridors ?)

Councils makes exceptions.. and are open to corruption.
Australian Nationalism which seeks a united, racially and culturally blended inclusive Australia is a nobler goal than 'multi' culturalism.

Here we have a young man who, probably living in an area of Melbourne which has lost the dominant aussie culture, has understandably defined himself by his ethnic heritage. Further, he has invested his career in the multiculti industry. All of a sudden, there's a smoke signal on the horizon, and there's a panic: "the rednecks are coming! the rednecks are coming! how do I look like an aussie? do I blend in or do I fight? what's an aussie? what do they do? what do they say?".

Such highlights the limits of tightening citizenship, because in the large parts of Sydney and Melbourne that have lost their dominant culture, they look around and don't see any aussies and so wouldn't have the faintest idea how to assimilate if they tried. And nor do they have a need to, they're happy in their insular ethnic communities. They're on a completely different channel.

"Critical mass" is indeed the key point. Tightening citizenship, whilst helpful, is again another case of legislation trying to enforce a lost culture. And the sad part about that is no-one wants to be the one enforcing it e.g. hands up who wants to be a police officer in south-west Sydney? So few, they have to lower to entrance standards. Hands up who wants to work for ASIO and chase terrorists in ethnic communities - they too are struggling to find recruits. Hands up who wants to be a nurse? Nah, they can't find them either. They're even struggling to find posties to work in the immersion zones.

JY paints a picture of an "ingrained reality" of multiculture - in his small world it is.

JY's hurt is apparent, he's starting to attack the host with the offensive description of Australia as "some vague, homogeneous set of values that are derived from simply living in the same place.". Ouch. Be careful dude. There's a lot of "Anglo" anger amassing of late. I don't think you want to make it worse, do you?

[continued ...]

My interpretation of Cronulla and Tamworth should not give you much cause for concern. I believe tolerance for immigrants was stretched to the max with European and Asian immigrants. The entry of Muslim and Sudanese, however, have exceeded folks' tolerance. They are culturally and/or visually incompatible. Call me racist if you like, but it's not about hate. They are simply too far out of the tolerance range for most folks. It's biological, not racist. Blind Freddy can see that most folks prefer homogeneous communities.

Look at the facts on diversity:
http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2006/04/what-matters.html

"What gives us a sense of wellbeing? The results of some Australian research might surprise you ... The survey ... connected electorates with high ethnic diversity to low personal wellbeing. The research did not, therefore, support the orthodox idea that we are enriched in our personal lives by multicultural diversity."

The sad fact is diversity is a failure and a weakness. The young folk accept it. The middle aged tolerate it. And the old folk can't even tolerate their tea going cold, let alone immerse themselves in a new life of successive waves of welcoming, unique, unifying, rich tapestry of diverse opportunities.

David

You now say you didn't call Jieh-Yung Lo a racist. You are either a dishonest weasel or a fool. You reiterated that Jieh-Yung is an Officer of the ECCV and Executive Member of Chinese Culture Month. You then said they were racist organisations. How can he be a senior member of what you label 'racist organisations' and not himself be a racist? Has he fooled these two racist organisations?

It's like saying Rickie Ponting is a member of the Australian Cricket team but he's not a cricketer.

You assert that the ECCV is a racist organisation because it discriminates against people on the basis of race. Yet you quote from their Purpose: 'For over 30 years ECCV has remained the principal liaison point between ethnic communities, government and the wider community in Victoria.' What part of that mission statement is racist and discriminatory? 'Liaison'? 'Wider community'?

Would you assert that organisations that try to assist people with a disability discriminate against able-bodied people? Or that youth clubs are ageist? Your thinking is all cock-eyed; but I don't think anything I say will change the way you think because you are prejudiced and closed.

You're clutching at straws when you drag into a debate about multiculturalism in Australia a 'mega' mosque proposed for London. Or are you alleging a world conspiracy? Is that what you are getting at with your simplistic economic theory about a 'massive influx of Chinese capital buying up properties in urban areas, causing the price of land and houses to skyrocket out of the reach of ordinary Aussies'. Hitler laid the problems of the world at the feet of another scapegoat. At least you're giving the Muslims a break.

I'm still waiting your answer to my question: why do you find it necessary to distort Jieh-Yung Lo's article? Where did he say or imply: "All your cultural development as Australians since European settlement is now of little value." How did you construct such a weird meaning from the article? A dishonest weasel or a fool?