From a Bangladeshi website via The Gates of Vienna:

“Multiculturalism is an unnatural and unhealthy condition that can only afflict countries in national decline. (…) Greed and corruption will characterise the government coupled with oppressive measures directed against its citizens. Lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of media, politicians, and educational institutions.” Multiculturalism “is used to prevent a national consensus among the electorate. It erodes values, cultures, beliefs, religions, ethnic habits, etc. ensuring a swirling river of discontent upon which the multiculturalists rides. It is a perfect method of ensuring that there can never be accord, unity, or a commonly shared destiny among those ruled.”

So, what is the point of multiculturalism? Was it simply a convenient excuse used for displacing the traditional “white-bread” culture of Australia by flooding the country with mass immigration under the cover of “cultural diversity”? Is this inherently anti-Western ideology creating a national and civilizational identity crisis? Why do we continue to endure the divisiveness and dogma associated with multiculturalism?

Dres...the point IS as you say YES.. it is exactly all those things.

Why continue ? fear probably, certainly not any effective enhancement of national pride and direction.

Culturally, we are like the bloke who jumped on his horse and 'rode off in all directions' :)

cheers... now just wait for the racist, bigoted, anti Australia posters who oppose this enlightened view :)

ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE ONE RACE....(refer original post for meaning :)

"now just wait for the racist, bigoted, anti Australia posters who oppose this enlightened view :)"

Riiight, so those who support the view that we should limit immigration to white western europeans who believe exactly what we do are broad minded, while those who believe that we can be a pluralistic society without caving in each others heads are bigots.

Double plus good my friend. Its good to see Double speak being adopted so widely.

And in other news gravity actually propels objects away from the ground.

careful, james, there appears to be something like 'antigravity', in intergalactic space.

closer to home, plenty of evidence of 'antilogic'.

Boazy: "ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE ONE RACE"

Sieg Heil!

Maybe the way to look at it is that multiculturalism cant suceed where there are too many bigoted people. Maybe this is the case for Australia?? Do we keep banging our heads against the proverbial brick wall and forcing it down the throats of people who refuse to swallow it? I'm not sure that this is a particularly good approach. Does it make us bad people if we cant handle multiculturalism... perhaps, but even if it does, it still doesnt make it work just because some want it to. If you think there is a problem, then you need to cure the problem before bringing on the masses. If you keep going you'll end up with the same result that I get when force-feeding my 2 y.o. - spat right back at me!

CJ.... you KNOW that my position on 'ONE' etc is NOT like that, but you cannot resist MIS representing me can you.. I mean..its quite deliberate isn't it...

Here is how ur mind works.

1/ I KNOW Boaz does not mean National Socialism or anything like it.
2/ But I'll keep chipping away with SUGGESTING he does and eventually people might believe it.

i.e...it is borderline malicious what u do and definitely corrupt.

JAMES PURSER... for your benefit, as I see you haven't been around very long, only since 17/707... I wrote a piece some time back, probably 2 yrs at least, on the subject about which CJ gave me the corrupt and malicious 'seig heil'....

The concept is simple..
-NO racial superiority attitudes + people= intermarriage and a blending of culture and race.

The ONLY barrier to intermarriage is...RACISM.. "I and my type are superior to you and your type thus I don't want my son or daughter to marry your son or daughter"

So..I'm contending that eventually, we will blend into..."Australians" where our individual ethnic heritage is not a big factor in our self awareness.

Yet.. as CJ Morgan clearly demonstrated, people somehow construe THIS...as 'racism' when clearly it is the opposite.

As most know, I'm married to an Asian girl, and my mixed daughter is with a mixed Maori/Aussie bloke and my mixed son is with an Aussie girl.

After a few generations... of mixing.. we wont see a 'them'.. or an 'us' we will only be....'us'.

The only way I can explain finding racism in this is... corrupt and malicious thinking. Sorry CJ but you do deserve a decent whack sometimes :)

cgal, sit down and take notes:

capitalism exteriorizes costs when possible. this results in people with education not having enough kids to maintain population. uneducated women, particularly if religious, continue having kids but in oz, the result has been insufficient to maintain population. since corporations demand growing population to promote easy profits, they require immigration. the cabinet listens to them.

oz can't get enough people from 'like-us' countries- they have the same problems, and the same resources. so we import wogs. i have no problem with that, the ones i've met were good people. done wonders for the national cuisine, too.

like most problems in oz, people who complain about multiculturism have no notion of why it happens, no ability to affect national policy, and would live longer if they went to the local indian takeaway instead of maccas.

put your pencil down, i've decided to give you a break- no 'democracy' harangue

Multiculturalism is the natural state of affairs on all large landmasses with lots of people. It takes a concerted effort of opression to turn that into monoculturalism. Hitler and the holocaust is the embodiment of this effort. The question is not why we should choose multiculturalism, but why should we put up with the evil required to stamp it out.

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1184114128

Seeing as part of the topic is on second guessing how CJ Morgans mind works I'll take a punt as well

Maybe something like

1/ I KNOW Boaz does not think he means National Socialism or anything like it.
2/ But I'll keep chipping away with pointing out the PARALLELS and eventually he might realise where his thinking leads.
3/ If not Boazy then at least the reminders might give pause to others considering following Baozy down the path to his MONOTONE world.

Is there a prize for the most correct guess?

R0bert

If multiculturalism is such an ominous threat to our society, what then of globalisation?

Is it OK for foreigners to own our assets but just not be allowed to live here?

Multiculturalism,what's that daddy?
I come from a small village off the coast of the North Sea called London.
When I was young we had Indians, Pakistanis,Africans, Canadians Americans,Chinese,Italians,Greeks and Germans as neighbours.I never realised that I was living in a Multicultural "village."
Multiculturalism is what polititians have trained Australians to believe their country is today.Go fifty Kilometres out of Sydney or Melbourne and you are back in White Australia where so many Europeans
emigrated.

Thanks R0bert - you get the kewpie doll :)

If Boazy doesn't want to be misconstrued, why does he persist in proclaiming a slogan that is very similar to the Nazi "Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer"? He's been taken to task on this by several of us at length in this forum, but is apparently intransigent. For the record, I don't think Boazy is a Nazi, but I bet people of that persuasion would find his words useful in promoting their filth.

It's typically dishonest of Boazy to pretend that he hasn't had that potential well and truly pointed out to him. It is also arrogant to expect people to somehow source his previous stupid and divisive posts about his "ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE, ONE RACE" [cf. "EIN REICH, EIN VOLK, EIN FUHRER"} by stating "refer previous post".

Like I said on that thread, Boazy: if you walk like duck and talk like a duck...

One part of this at least is very straightforward, Boaz.

If you don't want your attitude to be misconstrued, drop that stupid slogan. You must have worked out by now that it is so similar to "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer", it cannot fail to be associated with it.

You may see it as encapsulating your "great big melting pot" concept of future harmony, but to most people it can only mean the opposite.

Perhaps CJ, R0bert and I can put our heads together and come up with a new one for you.

"One people, one empire, one leader".. a translation of Ein Volk etc..

"One Nation, One Race, One Culture" Ok..you get a 30% tick, not even a pass.

CJ.. your back in your own dishonest 'Whack a Christian' mode.. by
a) Using something I did NOT say.
b) Connecting this empty non saying with 'dishonesty' and 'Boaz'.

I don't recall ever saying 'You have not pointed out' alleged similarity in your mind of this slogan and the Hitler saying.

I used the saying as an attention getter, and a communication device, to make an 'anti racism' statement, yet you cling to its opposite direction.

Pericles has a minor point in suggesting that bad elements might 'like' what I said.. I doubt it, they can think of much better ones.

I'm beginning to think that all this fuss over an anti racist statement, is in fact a CLOAK for inner racist ideas in my critics.
Here is how it goes:

1/ "I don't want my [name the ethnicity] son to marry out of our race"
2/ "Boaz is talking dangerously by seeking to take down racial barriers"
3/ "We better rip into him and CALL him a (dishonest) racist to protect ourselves"

Its not hard when you try..... propoganda is never 'straight forward' is it?

But... moving on, I realize you blokes do this out of ignorance and possibly fear...no biggy -I hope the healing comes quickly.

The number of racist incidents, and inter communal riots which have occurred based on 'difference' is horrific.
I mentioned one example.. The Druze attack on Christians in Israel, then there was the Poso riots in Indonesia.. a Muslim boy claimed 'Chritians' attacked him over an incident in a bus, when it was he himself who was acting unruly.. but hey.. don't let that get in the way of a good story, and he 'portrayed' this as 'Christians attacked me' and 10,000 burned houses and uncountable dead bodies later.... etc.

Difference...it only takes a spark...to set a fire going.

Freediver stated: "Multiculturalism is the natural state of affairs on all large landmasses with lots of people. It takes a concerted effort of opression to turn that into monoculturalism."

The fact that you view Australia as simply a landmass rather than a nation simply reaffirms my fear that multiculturalism is rendering our country irrelevant. What defines France, for example, as a nation? Its people or simply lines on a map?

Multiculturalism may sound warm and fuzzy in theory, but it is gradually destroying our country's sense of nationhood. It has diluted our national identity and transformed us into a conglomeration of hyphenated citizens with nothing in common.

One may remember the multiculturalists a generation ago dismissing the concerns of those who worried about the changes multiculturalism would inflict upon our society. Now, the same groups are saying that yes, our societies have been changed forever. It’s good, they inform us, and it's too late to change anyway, so get used to it! Their mushy utopian propaganda was used to deceive the public in order to implement irrevocable changes with little real debate. That sounds like a concerted effort of oppression to me.

BOAZ, so whats the solution? Cloning? Should we all go bland? or should we all give up our systems of belief and become christians?

I do note in your list of riots and affrays that you don't mention the Cronulla riots. Is that because it was perpertrated by white nominally christian thugs?

Indeed James. As I recall, Boazy was standing on the sidelines here on OLO, egging them on for all he was worth.

One small problem with your rants about me on this thread, Boazy: I haven't once referred to you as racist. If you want to persist in proclaiming a slogan that makes you look like a Nazi, that's your problem.

But don't for a second think that it attracts support for your cause.

Bloody yanks. DEMOS, I have a commerce degree, so can put theories around why big business likes a growing population. I just dont agree with the theory of continual growth (and mind you neither does the mechanics of the economy, which is why we have boom/bust cycles). Yes, I also agree that the LIBERAL government tends to pander to the needs of big business. Labor governments tend to also support immigration, but more from a humanitarian point of view. Same result but different theories.

I disagree that there is nothing the average Joe can do. We have an election coming up soon, and whilst it tends to be a pick of the one you think will do the least harm, there is potential for a decent change in policies. Howard would have been thrown out on his ear long ago if Labor had put up a viable alternative leader, which they now have. I guess I also live in an area that is populated by lots of independents. Mostly at state level (as our federal member is still the ex-deputy PM), but that may change as the current federal member is retiring and most people have had a gutful of the nationals - the only reason John Anderson has stayed as long as he has is that he has a strong connection to the local community and makes a pretty good effort locally (eg his kids attend local public schools).

More than ever at the next election, the candidates will be forced to listen to their constituents or risk being ousted in favour of an independent.

One final point, Australia cant cope with providing services to the population that we currently have - all the more reason for scaling back immigration until we get better equipped to handle it.

I think I should post a new discussion about "Multiculturalism"

Dresdener - you claim that multiculturalism is a form of oppression which has resulted in a destruction of our culture. It's easy to draw that view - many people from many countries with different values = a cultural morass.

I am a non-white Australian with migrant parents. I know many people such as myself. Notwithstanding the fact that we grew up with the rich cultural history of our parents, we are very much Australian, with Australian values. Australian culture - ie white, anglosaxon, christian values - are inculcated through our education systems and our peer groups. Some of our parents came here precisely because of the values and the culture - not to threaten them. In fact, I got so sick of people asking me where I was from (because I consider myself Australian), I told them I was adopted.

If we want to encourage and protect Australian values - let's start by reducing the amount of American content in our media; let's start by reducing the amount of imported goods; let's start by participating in our local communities; let's start by protecting our indigenous children

CJ... I have to 'whack' you again old son... isn't ur rear end getting a bit tender by now ? All these malicious rants of yours...

CRONULLA
"BOAZY was sitting there on the sidelines EGGING THEM ON for all he was worth"

woooo... now thats borderline defamation... but its cool, firstly lets analyze

Egging WHO...on...and for WHAT ?

Evidence please.

And 'you' say 'I' play fast and loose with the truth ? (frown)

Country Gal said:

Labor governments tend to also support immigration, but more from a humanitarian point of view.

CG.. it took me a good 5 minutes to recover from the choking attack that that 'humanitarian' bit gave me :) (Kidding) but hey..I'd re-think that if I was you... Labor..LIKE Liberal (and Greens, and..what's that other has been party ? Dem..ah..I forget).. deconstruct issues in terms of... VOTES.
1/ Labor KNOWS that if it appears 'supportive' of Immigration it will be seen to be the 'party for immigrants'
2/ Most immigrants end up in blue collar (laboring) jobs for the first generation
3/ = "Naturally" fit into the 'Labor' mould.

JAMES Purser... your feedback is welcome, and provides an opportunity for constructive dialogue.
My contention is definitely not that we clone people into wasps. I'm simply saying that once we DROP our ideas of racial/ethnic superiority, we will more freely intermarry with non 'us', and in the end, we will have a more blended, harmonious society.
Lets face it.. Kings and Emperors often married the princesses of their enemies to ensure peace. Intermariage IS a very effective way of reducing ethnic/cultural tension.
As to the 'religious' aspect.. that's something that each couple will have to work out at the family and individual level. For people to become Christians involves a process called repentance and faith, and is something people either do, or don't do when exposed to the Gospel of Grace. That will not alter the racial blending of intermarriage, but might tend to concentrate the intermarriages into religious subgroupings.

Blackstone, I appreciate the response. Let me just say that this isn't a 'white' or 'non-white' issue. What defines 'white' anyway? The Lebanese are 'white', so why haven't they been absorbed into mainstream Australian culture? Such imprecise terms have no meaning and merely confuse the issue. 'European' is more accurate, but even then Australian culture has evolved beyond its European settler origins.

I think you did manage to hit the nail on the head though. This is fundamentally a debate about culture. The UK managed to absorb a significant number of Indians and Africans from the 1950s onwards without any major cultural dislocation. This was pre-multiculturalism when such immigrants were encouraged to assimilate and become 'British'. Several decades later and the kids of those migrants are as British as bangers and mash, irrespective of their ethnic backgrounds.

Multiculturalism is divisive and unnecessary. To quote Canadian author Mark Steyn:

"We're told the old-school imperialists were racists, that they thought of the wogs as inferior. But, if so, they at least considered them capable of improvement. The multiculturalists are just as racist. The only difference is that they think the wogs can never reform: Good heavens, you can't expect a Muslim in Norway not to go about raping the womenfolk! Much better just to get used to it."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0902/steyn082302.asp

Blackstone, agree whole-heartedly with your final para, and can appreciate your experiences. I agree with Dresdener, to me its not about black or white (or any other shade), its mostly about culture, beliefs and values. Personally I dont put much stock in judging people simply by their background (except if they're americian - got a special dislike for people that want to impose themselves on the rest of the world), BUT that doesnt mean we should throw caution to the wind and let anyone in. If certain ethnic groups seem to have a high percentage of crime, or problems, then we need to seriously question why, and what is causing it - what remedial action should be taken (to help both "us" and "them").

Boazy: "Evidence please"

I'll be charitable and say that your memory is faulty rather than suggest you're being deliberately dishonest (again). How about these snippets from some of your rabble rousing posts to OLO at the time of the Cronulla riots:

"I ask you all, if you have time, to write emails of support and encouragement to the Cronulla Life saving club at this link.

I have recommended they make a CODE which can be phoned to a network of Locals (with brawn) who will phone others, to stream down to the beach if gangs come and to DEFEND IT."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3856#22685

"Every Aussie at the moment would be quite justified in carrying a baseball bat or a concealed licenced weapon as they walk about the street"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3952#23585

"It would be in the interests of the locals of Cronulla and all beach suburbs to... form networks of communication, so that as u say, one phone call can be sent to a couple of people who can do the same to a few more etc.... Genghis Khan had a few clues. He insisted that each province or village have 1000 men in continual training and on standby for call up as needed. If each major suburb had 50- 100 guys..
Cronulla, Brighton Le sands, Bondi, Maroubra Manly etc etc..

All they would need is a code word and a location by sms to indicate what is happening and where"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2552#42869

"The one major mistake the 'Middle Eastern' thugs made, was to attack an ICON of all it means to be 'aussie' in the form of a Life Saver...
To further exacerbate it by claiming it was 'Their' beach, was tamount to infidels attacking the Holy place of Mecca...

They will never ever recover from this. I believe it signals the awakening of Australian race/religious/cultural conciousness which will only end with the total marginalization and social excommunication of Muslims as a whole"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3938#22987

There's plenty more, but I think I've made my point.

Whenever someone brings old Hitler into the argument, you know they are scrabbling for words.
I would ask, What the heck was wrong with white Australia anyway?
We began as a poor prison colony and with sheer guts and hard work,became a country of excellence. What was wrong with that?
Now we are a country of Multiculture, we have high crime,ethnic gangs and continual division within our society. We may be Multi but we sure are divided. There is everything wrong with that.

mick

The disappearance of traditional Australia is perhaps symptomatic of the decline of Western civilization in general.

Civilizations, nations and cultures can die in many ways. They can be invaded or annexed by larger powers. Or they can fail to sustain themselves and be overwhelmed by immigrants indifferent to the host culture. Rome, for example, was not conquered from without, but from the multiplication of alien cultures within.

Mark Steyn points to this:

"As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder"--as can be seen throughout much of "the Western world" right now. The progressive agenda--lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism--is collectively the real suicide bomb."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

CJ... good try mate.

You deliberately set out there to assasinate my character, implying that I'm 'egging them on' without stating 'to do what' and who 'them' is.

All of my posts during that period were based on TWO fundamental elements.

1/ LAWFULNESS.

CRIMES ACT 1900- SECT 418
(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if
-the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self- defence.
(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:
(a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or
(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or
(c) to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or
(d) to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass,
and

I.E.. "LAWFUL BEHAVIOR"

2/ DEFENSIVE.

I guess you must have missed those bits. Can you show me where I advocated ATTACKING or 'going after' people in any other context to 'lawful self defense' ? I doubt it.

The "THEY" who I was 'egging on' were the legitimate voices of peaceful protest, to lawfully defend themselves should the need arise.

Now..you can spin this as you like, but its your conscience (if you have one) not mine.

MULTICULTURALISM.

South Thailand .. an example of the dangers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poQgvVuM3jA

Insurgency in SthThailand. 'began' by self awareness of difference, suspicions of 'being neglected' and treated as 2nd class. It didn't take much to escalate this into what is now a full racial/religious 'jihad'.

Key -"Difference"

...............................................sheesh....

Multiculturalism: Natural and healthy.

Waiting.....................

"These are days to be politically correct with Islam, even when it (Islam) wants to subjugate the entire world under its fold. Many western governments have a lofty ideal—to create a society, where people of different race, religion, culture, and tradition live together in peace and harmony, without losing their root identity. For many years, this policy has sprouted large-scale migration from many impoverished Islamic nations to wealthy countries, such as the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, New Zealand, and a few European nations.

Happily adopting this Kafir[non-Muslim] multiculturalism, many migrants have successfully integrated with the host nation... There is, however, one exception—Islam. Islam is at odds with this Kafir Multiculturalism, even though they use this policy to their advantage.
The Kafir Multiculturalism promotes religious tolerance, freedom of expression, and democracy. It accords equal opportunity for all, irrespective of race religion, ethnic origin, gender, and sexual orientation. In this policy of Kafir Multiculturalism, the Islamists have found a great opportunity to advance their agenda—to create a pan Islamic world. All the cardinal principles of Kafir Multiculturalism are working in favour of the Islamists. That is why we note that all Islamists are in full support of Kafir Multiculturalism.

Nevertheless, this apparent disposition of the Islamists is just a deceptive ploy to hide their real motive. Behind the veneer of their broad smile, talk of peace, love for freedom and interfaith understanding there is a vicious plan. This plan is the design to replace the Kafir Multiculturalism with Islamic Multiculturalism. This is similar to the Islamists attempt to replace the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 with the 1981 Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (see epilogue at the end). We should have no delusion that the Islamists are right on target with the Islamic Multiculturalism, and they are advancing uncompromisingly, confidently, and stealthily towards their goal. Their weapon?—it is none other than Kafir Multiculturalism—exactly the same way they had used UDHR as a weapon in the past." by Abul Kaem
http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/Islamic-Multiculturalism-Endless-Jihad.htm

Boaz, you have to be kidding.

>>All of my posts during that period were based on TWO fundamental elements... 1/ LAWFULNESS... 2/ DEFENSIVE.<<

I wonder whether you are aware that it is against the law to carry an offensive weapon? Each State has its own particular law - NSW calls it "Custody of offensive implement" which includes a rifle, gun, pistol, sword, knife, club, bludgeon, truncheon or other offensive or lethal weapon or instrument.

So, by definition, your exhortation that it is ok for people to carry "a baseball bat or a concealed licenced weapon as they walk about the street" is encouragement to commit a criminal act.

Which, interestingly, carries a two year jail penalty.

You would, incidentally, be hard pressed to claim self-defence, since the very act of carrying a concealed weapon would be considered to indicate aggressive intent.

Is the message about rabble-rousing getting through yet?

Boazy, I'm not "assassinating your character" - I'm simply reminding you and newer forum participants of your odious behaviour at time of the Cronulla riots. The direct quotes are your own words, and I've posted the links so that other readers can see for themselves the context in which they were written.

The fact that you persist in promoting your version of the Nazi slogan does more harm to people's perceptions of your character than anything I write about you. If you were to stop proclaiming "ONE NATION, ONE RACE, ONE CULTURE", then there would be no reason for I and others to draw attention to its similarity to "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer". The fact that you are bombastically intransigent on this issue says much about your own conscience and character.

You were certainly egging the thugs along, and your promotion of carrying baseball bats and concealed weapons was nothing short of incitement. Fortunately, you seem to have moderated slightly in the past couple of years, so we may be having some effect on you - but you still have a long way to go, as evidenced by your denialism.

As for Southern Thailand, the Muslim Malay former southern sultanates were annexed by the Thai kingdom in the early 20th century, and its population subjected to forced assimilation practices which they have been resisting more or less continuously for the past century.

Nothing at all to do with multiculturalism, but everything to do with conquest and imperialism. You should read some history, given that you claim to be a "history buff".

Pericles, you do have a minor point there.. carrying an 'offensive' weapon.. agreed.

The social context of that remark though, was that DURING that heated time, where:

a) Police were arresting, convicting and jailing the likes of the Penrith Panther (the bloke with the branch) they were ALSO
-Stopping,
-Speaking to,
- and LETTING GO groups of Middle Eastern youths who actually had such weapons.

b) Groups of middle eastern youths were bailing up and bashing at random any 'skippy' they found all over Sydney

It could be argued that to carry such a weapon was indeed 'defensive' in nature and intent. Though I grant legally and technically, you are correct on the point of carrying such. (not in the case of licence firearm)

CJ.. one mans odious is anothers 'understandable'. I did not at any stage urge ANYone to go out and thump middle easterners. I was expressing frustration at the police inability (and unwillingness.. documented and on record) to deal effectively with a real threat to public safety.

Given that the police transcripts of the time when the crowd of Middle Eastern youths were gathering at Punchbowl park show they deliberately did NOT stop them out of fear of 'numbers' and further exacerbating them, with the result of many Aussies being bashed, stabbed and nearly killed in the consequent invasion of Maroubra and Cronulla, it is quite justified to take whatever measures are needed to combat such a threat, whether it is technically legal or not.

You can call that 'odious' but if you do, we can simply agree to disagree.

On South Thailand, the 'annexation' was a century ago, they had been living in peace for decades. The violence only blew up recently.
Nothing more 'imperial' than Sultanates tend to be themselves.

The 'perception' of being neglected, real or imagined lies at the root of the violence. Such perceptions are the same as "John Howard is Pork Barrelling such and such a marginal seat" but when you add 'race' and religion to the mix, it becomes more volatile.

I don't believe you can attribute this upsurge in violence to the annexure, but granted it has to be somewhat of a background factor.

The violence is only 'anti imperialistic' due to the perception of neglect and possibly the Chinawat policy making things worse.

This also underlines the intrinsic problem.. "difference" is easily exploited when race and religion are involved.. which is my basic anti MC mantra.

Drensdener:

"Multiculturalism may sound warm and fuzzy in theory, but it is gradually destroying our country's sense of nationhood. It has diluted our national identity and transformed us into a conglomeration of hyphenated citizens with nothing in common.

Wrong. We started out that way, but a we are tending towards a common culture. Multiculturalism has never been a threat to our identitiy. At times it was the only identity we had. People who don't like multiculturalism are the ones who are really attacking our identity.

"Their mushy utopian propaganda was used to deceive the public in order to implement irrevocable changes with little real debate.

Can you be more specific, or would that diminish your rant?

As a "CONSTITUTIONALIST" my concern is first of all what is constitutionally applicable.
.
Howard, rudd and other politicians are on the Christian bandwagon when it comes to the Commonwealth of Australia but are the right?
.
.
Consider this;
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. HIGGINS.-
I do not see, speaking in ordinary language, how the insertion of such words could possibly lead to the interpretation that this is necessarily a Christian country and not otherwise, because the words "relying upon the blessing of Almighty God" could be subscribed to not only by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but also by Jews, Gentiles, and even by Mahomedans. The words are most universal, and are not necessarily applicable only to Christians.
.
Those who are arguing about multi-culturalism, etc, ought first try to understand that the Constitution was based upon it, albeit "racism" is part of the Constitution to prevent what the Framers of the Constitution held inferior races to take the job of australians.
.
Well, before politician open his/her mouth, we no longer have australian jobs as such protected, instead abuse of constitutional powers to the opposite.

Freediver said: "Wrong. We started out that way, but a we are tending towards a common culture. Multiculturalism has never been a threat to our identitiy. At times it was the only identity we had. People who don't like multiculturalism are the ones who are really attacking our identity."

Once again the fallacious 'Australia has no national culture' mantra is invoked as a justification for multiculturalism.

Less than 50 years ago, Australia was very secure in its national identity, and had been so for some time. The population was homogenous, mainly Australian-born of Anglo-Celtic descent. At the time of the Second World War only 2% of the Australian population was of non-English speaking background.

By maintaining strong links to the British Empire and preferring immigrants from English-speaking countries, Australia's national identity was consolidated with a strong British influence in the first half of the 20th century. Yet, Australians were not simply transplanted Britons or Irishmen seeking to recreate a clone of the British Isles in the South Pacific.

Australians began forging a unique identity separate from Britishness prior to federation. This distinct national identity was based on generations of nation-building experiences in a unique island continent, membership in a national polity based upon Western liberal democratic principles, and sharing a predominantly Anglo-Celtic culture.

Sadly, multiculturalism has attacked the very foundations of Australian nationhood. It has left many Australians ignorant of the fact that the lifestyle we know and love are products of our distinctive Australian culture and western civilizational heritage.

Many Australians, let alone immigrants, know little of our nation-building achievements or or proud history in art, music, literature, sport and film, with achievements in every scientific field. They have no understanding of the relationship between our culture and the Australian values of egalitarianism and mateship. They have no knowledge of the inheritance we share with the other countries of the Anglosphere - common-law, democratic political institutions, and the freedoms which were prescribed in the Magna Carta.

Dresdener, with a pseudonym like that, I'd have thought you'd be aware of the Second World War - you know, the one in which the old Imperial order was forever relegated to history?

While your nostalgic description of pre-War Australian society is probably quite accurate as far as it goes, the reality is that the Australian culture you lament has been changing exponentially and irrevocably since then. As I've suggested, this is because it has to adapt to an increasingly globalised world in order to survive.

Australia will never again be the kind of monocultural, homogeneous society you desire, if indeed it ever was. Get used to it - there's absolutely no choice.

It is quite possible to engage in contemporary multicultural society positively and pleasurably, you know.

Continued from above...

The multiculturalists attempting to deconstruct Australia are either delusional, or dishonest and suffering from a particularly self-abasing form of cultural cringe.

Australian culture is unique, and it is indeed odd that foreigners recognize this but not some of Australia's own people. It may be mainly Anglo-Celtic in origin, but it is distinctly Australian nonetheless. Those who deny the existence of a traditional Australian culture only need to go out into the country to rediscover the 'real Australia', a world away from the division, confusion and segregation inflicted upon our cities by the menace of multiculturalism.

Dresdener,

I live and own a business in the bush, and I'd certainly never deny that we have a unique Australian culture. Where we differ is that the Australian culture I'm part of isn't locked in the 1950s - even here in Woop Woop.

CJ Morgan stated: "Dresdener, with a pseudonym like that, I'd have thought you'd be aware of the Second World War - you know, the one in which the old Imperial order was forever relegated to history?"

And what bearing does that have on Australia? Does this mean that Australians should be divested of their predominately Anglo-Celtic heritage and seek infusions from non-Western cultures? What is behind this burning desire to transmogrify Australia's national identity through mass immigration and multiculturalism?

CJ Morgan stated: "As I've suggested, this is because it has to adapt to an increasingly globalised world in order to survive."

With the exception of perhaps Canada, no other country has gone through such a dramatic immigration-driven demographic transformation in such a short period of time. If such massive changes are products of globalisation, why aren't other countries undergoing similar mutations?

Such mass population movements are not the global norm. Australia, for example, has the highest proportion of foreign-born citizens in the world. Something like 25% of Australia's population is foreign-born, compared to the global average for nations of around 1%.

CJ Morgan said: "Australia will never again be the kind of monocultural, homogeneous society you desire, if indeed it ever was. Get used to it - there's absolutely no choice."

Back in the early 1980s, historian Geoffrey Blainey warned:

"Our immigration policy is increasingly based on an appeal to international precepts that our neighbours sensibly refuse to practice. We are surrendering much of our own independence to a phantom opinion (that ethnic composition makes no difference) that floats vaguely in the air and rarely exists on this earth. We should think very carefully about the perils of converting Australia into a giant multicultural laboratory for the assumed benefit of the peoples of the world."

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=1667

The concerns of Blainey and others were dismissed by the multiculturalists as scare-mongering and xenophobic. But now the same multiculturalists are saying that yes, our country has been changed irrevocably within only a few decades, and it's all been done regardless of the wishes of Australia's founding majority.

Yet, all is not lost. These changes are self-induced mutations, not natural demographic trends. Last time I checked, Australia was a sovereign, democratic nation with control over its borders. Throughout history, societies have always had the fundamental right to determine who should belong to them. It is therefore hypocritical to profess belief in democracy, then deny people any democratic control over immigration policy, one of the crucial influences on a country's identity.

"It is quite possible to engage in contemporary multicultural society positively and pleasurably, you know."

The great thing about the current form of ideological multiculturalism practiced here in Australia is that it doesn't involve knowing anything about other cultures - the teachings of Confucius, the Georgian alphabet, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about every culture other than our own.

Truly multicultural societies are dysfunctional, and usually fall apart along ethnic, cultural and religious lines. If you wish to experience other cultures in their full glory, get on a plane. Personally, I prefer Western culture.

"..........get on a plane. Personally, I prefer Western culture.
Posted by Dresdener, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 11:08:01 PM"

Off you go then!

"Once again the fallacious 'Australia has no national culture' mantra is invoked as a justification for multiculturalism.

Dresdener, maybe you are not familiar with Australian history, but people immigrated here from all over the world.

"Less than 50 years ago, Australia was very secure in its national identity, and had been so for some time.

No more so than it is now. Focussing on your identity is a sign that you are insecure over it.

"The population was homogenous, mainly Australian-born of Anglo-Celtic descent.

We have never had a homogenous population since Europeans arrived.

"At the time of the Second World War only 2% of the Australian population was of non-English speaking background.

BS.

I imagine that Dresdener and his fellow (plane?) travellers will be pleased with the announcement that Pauline Hanson is registering a new political party to contest the forthcoming Senate election, whose main platform will be the expression of xenophobia.

Are snide remarks and puerile half-baked witticisms the best you lot can do?

Ginx appears unable to comprehend a simple sentence (Australia was a Western country last time I checked). Freediver responds with rhetorical gems like 'BS' and 'you are not familiar with Australian history'. Who needs to bother with opposing evidence when you've got that level of dogmatic certitude? And finally, CJ Morgan swings past with the usual air of superciliousness, launching ad hominem attacks against all those who dare oppose the sacred ideology of multiculturalism. And of course, if one even wants to discuss multiculturalism and the adverse effects it may be having due to foreign cultures not assimilating into Australia's national culture, one is called a Hansonite. But why be so polite? Why not throw 'fascist', 'racist' and 'xenophobe' around aswell? CJ, you know you want to.

To those who claim multiculturalism is not divisive, please confute this:

Ethnic diversity 'breeds mistrust'

ETHNIC diversity seriously undermines the trust and social bonds within a community, according to important new research that casts a gloomy shadow over optimistic theories about the benefits of the social melting pot in immigrant societies such as Australia.

The worrying findings about the effects of ethnic diversity were developed by Robert Putnam, a Harvard University political scientist whose previous research on community dynamics has been highly influential among policymakers in the US and cited by Australian prime ministerial aspirants Peter Costello and Mark Latham.
Professor Putnam has delayed releasing the results of his research for fear of the impact it could have on politicians and other policymakers, but he revealed its thrust yesterday in an interview with London's Financial Times newspaper.

His extensive research found that the more diverse a community, the less likely were its inhabitants to trust anyone, from their next-door neighbour to their local government.

People were even more wary of members of their own ethnic groups, as well as people from different backgrounds.

....

Professor Putnam, who is now working in Britain, told the Financial Times that, after several years of research, he had held off publishing his results until he could develop suggestions that might help compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it "would have been irresponsible to publish without that".

His most important finding was that "in the presence of diversity, we hunker down".

"We act like turtles," he said. "The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined."

His research was conducted in the US but he believes its findings are likely to be mirrored in other countries.

It will be studied closely in Australia and most European countries, where governments are increasingly struggling with the political and social fallout of immigration and ethnic and religious diversity.

Professor Putnam found that trust was lowest in Los Angeles, "the most diverse human habitation in human history", but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where "diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians' picnic."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20554070-2702,00.html

I standng at a Bus Shelter the other day waiting on a friend from Interstate who hates flying.
I saw a Muslim lady wearing her dark head gear. I am a friendly person by nature and as we stood there it was pretty warm.
I said to her. Dont you find that gets really hot? How do you stay cool?
She didnt answer me for a while but then she said- You will be wearing one soon so you had better get used to it!
I felt frightended by her and upset.

Who do these people think they are. I dont want any more in my country.

AT ALL!

Dresdener, it is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion.

>>To those who claim multiculturalism is not divisive, please confute this<<

To prove a negative is, as you know, impossible. While there are people around like you, who believe multiculturalism is divisive and act accordingly, the very existence of people of different backgrounds living in proximity will create fear. Even if there are only two of you, you and the good professor, your point cannot, by definition, be refuted.

Still doesn't mean you are right, though.

In this particular case, I can only say "I disagree with the pessimism of Professor Putnam's analysis."

The good professor has done some excellent work, and one can only assume that he still believes what he said six years ago:

"'The bottom line is that there are special challenges that are posed to building social capital by ethnic diversity,' Putnam said in 2001. 'Since ethnic diversity is in the future of the US and Canada, this means we need to devote special attention to how you build connectedness or social capital in that context.'" [Quote from Finfacts Oct 9, 2006]

He clearly recognizes the "given" here is the nature of US society since the days of:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door"

I presume those are familiar words?

Having made that commitment, the US can hardly now turn around and say, sorry, we were wrong, please go home again.

So, however pessimistic the Professor may be about the effort that has been made so far, the only option, I'm afraid, is to work harder to address the problem.

Because walking away isn't an option.

Dresdener I was hoping I could prompt you to come up with some evidence to support your more absurd claims. I guess it was too much to ask for. You don't honestly expect us to take those claims seriously do you?

TarynW: "Who do these people think they are. I dont want any more in my country.

AT ALL!"

I don't particularly want intolerant, xenophobic people like some of those above in Australian society either, but I acknowledge their right to be here so I have therefore learnt to be tolerant of them. I do, however, reserve the right to question, criticise and lampoon their hateful ideas.

Freediver said: "Dresdener I was hoping I could prompt you to come up with some evidence to support your more absurd claims."

Which 'absurd' claims are you referring to? The ones you so overwhelmingly refuted with 'BS' and 'Wrong'?

They would be a good start.

Dresdener, unless you are a breast beating, mia culpa whitey who will apologise to all foreigners for simply being, you will get nowhere with the lefty bleating hearts who infest these forums.
Australians are racist rednecks don't you know, all we do is lock up poor "asylum seekers' who ,having fled their oppressive homelands, come here dragging their oppressive habits ,hopefully to cow us with them. With the blessing of the said bleating hearts who are never racist.They just do not like white Australians but that is not racist.

Freediver, I think the onus is on you. I've attempted to engage in a rational, informed debate. In contrast, you seem incapable or unprepared to offer anything more than curt one word responses.

Is it 'absurd' to worry about the effects of mass immigration on our nation's social and cultural fabric? Oh that's right, you deny the existence of a distinct Australian national culture. Next you'll be informing us that Australia's founding majority just stepped off the boat from the British Isles yesterday or something.

Only because your claims are so outlandish. I'm not going to bother refuting every absurd claim I find online. You made the claim. You back it up. The onus is clearly on you. I am not asking you to engage me in any further debate. Not yet anyway, there's no point. That can wait until you back up those silly claims.