FrankGol, post the list on your mirror where it belongs.

You have repeatedly belittled and insulted others.

Only ever address mistakes they make (didn't use the EXACT CORRECT WORDS), but never notice any wise observations that contradict you.

Fail to understand even the simplest analogy (The Soviet New Man, The Austria-Hungary Empire, multiple personality disorder).

Refute that there's any connection between race and culture?!

And wrap your elitist ego in your dusty hundred-year-old speeches instead of seeing what's happening today. We live in 2007 not 1901.

I quote your precious Deakin back at you:
"We should be one people without the admixture of other races. They do not and CANNOT blend with us; we do not, CANNOT and ought not to blend with them."

CANNOT BLEND? Is he referring to biology here?

ANY race can blend physically with another, so how could he say this "cannot" happen?

Could it be, just as I have said all along, that the underlying factor is culture?

Was Deakin, in fact, referring to the impossibility of cultural blending?
Can someone born in and programmed mentally with the values, beliefs, concepts and behavioural patterns of a NON-EUROPEAN culture (remember the test?) ever really "blend" with us?

Mind and body cannot be separated.
If a person born and raised in China has Chinese body (race) they also have a Chinese mind (culture).

If a government wanted to exclude CULTURAL groups, they would have to by default exclude RACIAL groups, wouldn't they?
This doesn't mean the INTENTION was racial, that is a by-product.

You have mentioned in your posts that multicultural immigration is a "choice" the public must have accepted because we didn't throw the governments involved out of power.

How is there a "choice" if we are "non-discriminatory".
We cannot CHOOSE to have MORE Icelanders, or LESS Lithuanians, because that would be "discriminatory". Therefore, WE aren't choosing anything, the only one choosing is the migrant.

"Non-discrimination" in migration, is effectively shrugging our shoulders and going "Whatever!". Is this how you build a strong nation, indifferently shrugging your shoulders.
Who cares! Whatever!

Multiculturalism has become a bad word for the same reason political correctness in general has.

We've seen it right here in FrankGol: the arrogant, tedious, rude, and ironically intolerant attitude of those supporting the agenda.

In political correctness, there is ONE and ONLY ONE correct answer to any question.
One correct policy, one correct opinion.

Nuclear Power: No.
GM crops: No
Abortion: Free universal access.
Immigration: Massive non-discriminatory multicultural

These opinions may sound great in theory, as ideals.
But they impose a dictatorial "thought regime" on everybody.

Any alternative opinions or answers are dismissed as stupid or evil.

Any intelligent person knows the world is not so simple that only one single answer can exist for every question.
There are millions of possible answers (and some of them you won't like).

Take immigration. We could have policies that are based on:
1 Age
2 Wealth
3 Family type
4 Language
5 Education
6 Cultural background
7 Religion
8 Sexuality
9 Race
or any combination of those factors or other factors.

We could increase, decrease or omit any factor.

We could have rich African families only, middle class unmarried Asians only, poor Lithuanian lesbians only.
And only a certain number of them.
And for a limited or unlimited period of time.

We could theoretically INCLUDE any type of migrant, and EXCLUDE any type of migrant. Using ANY criteria.

Or we could have no immigration at all. Which is also an option.

And don't mention "anti-disrimination" law as a justification for an indifferent migrant intake as that, like all laws, can be repealed or amended.

I'm glad I met FrankGol here, it's made me all the more certain that it's impossible to debate anything with these people.

Shockadelic has omitted the most important selection’s criterion, which is ability of a newcomer to be rapidly converted into a cattle ready for any “volunteer” -paid WITH dole- work, while just silently obeying stupid illiteral orders of a boss because of agreeing to have in generations oncoming been a lower creature happy only for having the of-England-native sheppard, while dobbing on so-workers for securing this dirty workplace.

Please, read Howard's IR and correct me.

Shockadelic

You started this thread with the claim that: ‘There was no "infamous White Australia Policy". We had a BRITISH-biased immigration policy.’

I produced the evidence from the original sources to demonstrate that the policy was indeed race-based. You then accused me of living in the past, with my ‘dusty hundred-year-old speeches’. But look back to your first posting: you took us to the past with your no "infamous White Australia Policy" assertion.

You then tried to twist Deakin’s meaning by saying he wasn’t talking about race but culture. But the fact is that he and his PM Barton at the time made it perfectly clear they were talking about biological races not being able to mix. It was a dominant belief at the time the White Australia Policy was introduced.

Having been chastened in the debate on the historical facts, you then broadened the debate to ‘political correctness’ with the claim that ‘people like me’ think there’s only one correct answer to any question. And you link immigration to other hot topics as if people fall into a ‘For’ or ‘Against’ camp on them as a job lot.

‘Nuclear Power: No.
GM crops: No
Abortion: Free universal access.
Immigration: Massive non-discriminatory multicultural.’

Sorry to disappoint you again with the facts, but the truth is I don’t hold a simple view on any of the four issues you artificially yolk together. Nor do I ‘impose a dictatorial "thought regime" on everybody’. I have nuanced views on each of the topics, and so do many of my friends.

As you correctly say: ‘Any intelligent person knows the world is not so simple that only one single answer can exist for every question.’ I’d go one step further: intelligent people understand that there are many different ways of framing the questions that need to be answered.

You say that my debate with you has made you ‘all the more certain that it's impossible to debate anything with these people’. To which I say: I debate with anyone who’s prepared to rely on proper evidence and clear, logical argument.

As usual, you "mischievously distort" my words (and Deakin's: he said blend, not mix).

I never said you held any agenda, I said you were symptomatic of the ATTITUDES of certain people.
You seem to have great difficulty understanding non-literal language: analogy, metaphor, hypothesis, illustrative.

You "deceitfully omit" reference to my hypothesis: that ANY of millions of possible immigration policies could exist.
Why is the current policy more preferable?

I didn't "take us to the past". The article did.
I personally don't care what the motivations of Deakin and Barton were.
I'm concerned about the present.

It's "perfectly clear" that in 1901 the words "race" and "white" had much more complex meanings than they do today.

Yvonne and Oligarch had already referred to political correctness.
Multiculturalism IS a "politically correct" ideology.

The SAME people support both:
the "pinko/leftist/ABC/Fairfax/union/Muslim/feminist/gay/green/chardonnay swilling/latte sipping/humanities lecturers/Marxist/state school teachers/Howard-Haters conspiracy".

The people involved in this agenda hold the exact compulsory opinions that I noted about nuclear power, abortion, and GM crops.

Try joining the Greens if you disagree with ANY part of their agenda. You will be osctracised.

John Anderson called them "watermelons": green outside, red inside.
An appropriate metaphor (uh-oh). It shows their inherent contradictions.
The green part wants freedom, the red wants to control everything.

The watermelons:
Want to maintain indigenous cultures around the world, but ban FUR.
Oppose capital punishment, but don't blink an eye at the abortion of millions of foetuses.(Save the Baby Killers. Kill the Babies.)
Want vegetarianism, but oppose genetic modifications to increase the protein content of vegetables.
Want women's rights, but also Muslim migrants.

They want their cake and eat it too.
Or rather, they want several different cakes and try to eat them all at once.

The watermelon agenda is definitely "For" or "Against".
All or nothing.
They want to live in an IDEAL world, not the real one.

The problem is two perfectly reasonable ideals may contradict each other.
And a less than ideal policy like "White Australia" might actually work better in the real world.

I have offered many "clear, logical arguments". You just ignore them.

Schockadelic,

You seem to infer that I claim that Multi Culturalism is the same as political correctness. I did not. And why do you think that political correctness has to do with one correct opinion, one correct policy?

I support multi-culturalism. Therefore, I have enormous problems with people, of any ilk, confusing this with multi-nationalism. They are very different things. The EU is a multi-national entity for instance. Multi-cultural Australia has Australian patriots who have different cultural backgrounds.

Political correctness is another discussion altogether. Personally I prefer people to openly express what they think. This is the only way to 1. know what they ARE thinking and 2. encourage debate and exposure to allay fears. I’m not really one for political correctness at all, it drives irrational fears towards other humans underground and becomes like festering wounds ready to erupt.

Otherwise you make some strange claims. Anti-capital punishment = pro-abortion (the US in reverse), vegetarianism = anti GM, pro indigenous peoples = anti fur (did I get this right?), feminist = pro Muslim migration. How, oh how did you come to these conclusions?

People and their opinions are not so neatly divided into two opposing camps.

And another thing, the latte sipping, Chardonnay swilling thing is getting very tiresome don’t you think? Australia makes some of the world’s best Chardonnay, so it’s probably bordering on rank anti-Australian sentiment to bag Chardonnay. ‘Lefties’ I know like strong black espressos and Shiraz or beer, none drink latte. I also know a committed conservative Christian non-feminist woman who only drinks latte. I like a flat white, never a cappucino-too much hot air with all the froth.