Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

One last link for you before I go:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/03/1041566221402.html

Very relevant today. Building a fairer Australia
remains a work in progress. But intereaction and
civilised discussion will hopefull solve the problems.

Thanks Foxy, that's a brilliant article !

Love,

Joe

Foxy,

Most would see through you rather obvious rhetorical trickery such as naming a book, while heavily implying that the author somehow supports your opinion. Why is it always impossible for you to provide quotes and show how the author supports your jaundiced opinions of Australians and their treatment of the Lithuanians who came here immediately post-WW2? The answer is that both Australia and those migrants did the very best with what was available at the time.

Australia was deeply affected by the transition from the war economy, war production and the devastation loss of life and return of thousands of crippled servicemen. There was no deliberate ill-treatment, unfairness or discrimination was there and you have no evidence to support your sledging of Australia's generosity.

You cherry-pick and generalise to support your prejudice, all the while judging authorities back then against the Left victim industry expectations of a modern, developed State in peacetime.

It is interesting that you always duck and disregard all evidence that challenges your storytelling and factoids, such as the information I provided from the Sydney Lithuanian Information Centre.

There will always be good upstanding people who are prepared to weather your lecturing, posturing and insults, and challenge you to provide direct, specific evidence to support your assessments and opinions, which you have consistently failed to do.

As I said previously, the monkey is on your back.

Foxy "The world is full of diversity"

And how do think that came about?
By everyone opening their castle doors to any upright hominid that walked past, mixing merging and morphing away any distinctions?

No, all these different peoples exist because they did the exact opposite.
Refusing, rejecting and resisting "them" (whoever "they" were).

"Some people still believe that a unique Australian society and identity emerged with Federation"

It happened long before then, or Federation would never have occurred.
People were calling themselves "Australians" before there was technically an "Australia"!

"How many [languages] do you speak?"

I only *need* to speak, read and write one: English.

"So when you keep referring to "Whites" you are espousing a myth."

Most of the ethnicities you refer to ARE White. Sheesh!
And what PROPORTION were these "others"? A tiny fraction.

Maybe you should take another look at those museums (general ones, not ones that cherry-pick to suit an agenda).

Look at the photos.
Crowds at an event? White.
School class? White.
Sports team? White.

Sure you'll find a few exceptions, but mostly you'll see White, White, White.

Thanks for the kiddie poem.
That's sums it up: multiculturalism is only suitable for naive people who know nothing about human nature, society or history.

I don't want to "fight" anyone.
I'm simply aware of the realistic probability of "fighting" should this policy continue.
No people has EVER passively accepted the loss of their social dominance or territory.

There are hundreds of separatist movements in the world.
Almost all are defined along ethnic lines.
This is the reality of "diversity", not your naive Disneyland fantasy.

Is Mise "Did your history book forget to mention the Negroes on the First Fleet?"

All two of them?
Again you and Foxy like to cherry pick the *anomalies* and pretend they are the norm.

Yes, there was an Xantho here and a Yepiti there.
But the overwhelming majority were White/Europeans, primarily from the British Isles.

Go with Foxy and look at the photos.
White, White, White.

Joe,
It seems foxy has left this thread, if not I thank her for the link and I commend it to you.

Although now dated, it has some very useful information. I started to copy and save some quotes and ended up saving the whole article. Some I agreed with and some I do not and am not sure what the intention of the author was.

I am sure that you, and others, will find many sentences and phrases interesting and worth thinking about.

Foxy,
It's not possible to have a civilised discussion of immigration or any other aspect of the "Progressive" agenda when the elite groups in society, the media, the parliament, the churches and the chamber of commerece are all biased in favour of "progress".
The millions of nice, pious, middle class French people who exercised their democratic "rights" and rallied against same sex marriage last year were genuinely surprised and horrified when riot police began clubbing them to the ground.
Pro immigration advocates are not peace activists, they're more than willing to use violence, in fact in a lot of cases it's their first act in suppressing dissenting opinions so this idea of a "civilised" debate is pie in the sky.