1. Australia has a "culture", no need for "multi" "culturalism".
2. What is Australian culture? Answer: "Multiculturalism".
3. Conclusion: We do not need "multi" "Multiculturalism".
Anyone who is not happy with "Multiculturalism" , is not happy with Australian culture.
Can we "change" the "culture"?

Australia's culture, like every other culture, is constantly changing with influence from the new and already established communities.

Cultures have changed throughout time for a variety of reasons such as neccesity, immigration, revolution and new technology. But even more so in the last 80 years have the worlds cultures changed dramatically due to the ability of mass movement of people long distances cheaply and the invention of TV and more recently, the internet.

People who try to stop culture change are delaying the inevitable, not too say people who preserve their heritage are going to die out, but people who do not adapt to changing technologies and culture are in for a fair bit of strife.

Ofcourse culture can be changed. Everybody knows that. If I am not wrong I think P_Dox meant change from Multicultrulism to Monoculturalism.

Multiculturalism is divisive and weakens the nation. It helped destroy the Roman Empire.

Do any apologists for multiculturalism ever wonder why this creed is only forced on White nations? Is China multicultural? Japan? Indonesia? Iran? Zimbabwe? The list goes on.

Do you want the Australian national identity to fade away?

We should always remember... that cultures don't 'change'...they are CHANGED.. and governments have a big hand in determining the direction and extent of the change.

If Government policy is structured in a way that is tantatmount to saying "There is no 'Australian' Identity" then any newcomer here who is passionate about his/her own culture will feel free to promote and advance their own, with no thought to how that might impact those already here.

Alternatively, if government policy sends a LOUD message "We have a culture and identity" then the likelihood is that people will tend more to identify with and adjust to that.

NEVER FORGET... that no change in a country, cultural or otherwise is without its political dimension. When governments 'do' things, they do it for a political reason, often couched in terminlogy like 'The National Interest".... but we were not born yesterday Mark(Vale) there is no 'vale' over our very seeing eyes.

You only have to ask 'who benefits' from the direction migration policy it given to know which party is behind it.

LABOR .. Blue collar emphasis. (refugees, trades migrants)
LIBERAL..White collar emphasis (Business migration)
GREENS..."Marxism State"
DEMO...who? "huh"?

BOAZ,

Seriously please read some history, and please take the scales from your eyes before you start reading.

Cultures change all the time. The late roman empire was a very different beast to the early version. Carolingan Europe is different to Hapsburg Europe.

Even Christian culture has changed over the two thousand years it has existed. From the early Christians (who were basically jews with different ideas) to todays roman catholics, evangelists and coptics, things have changed.

Change happens, get used to it. Sure it can be guided but it cannot be denied.

JSP1488,

Oh boy, multiculturalism brought about the end of the roman empire? You have got to be kidding me. The romans had for hundreds of years imposed their culture on other people, and while they were pretty relaxed about letting subject peoples practice their own religions, they had no problem with crushing a people if they felt they were getting to big for their boots.

What killed off the Roman Empire was politics. Once the republic was killed and it was established as an Empire, it was started down the road of fragmentation.

James P wrote "multiculturalism brought about the end of the roman empire? You have got to be kidding me".

The later Roman Empire allowed mixing with the southern Mediterranean races which, along with the introduction of Christianity, weakened the polluted Indo-European make-up of the Romans.

The original Romans were of a fair racial type - just look at the ancient sculptures etc. The dark, dare I say it, woggy look came through mixing with the lesser races, partly through decadence and partly through the so-called Christian all-men-are-the-same preachings.

James, there is a big difference between cultural change and cultural extinction. History is littered with examples of civilizations disappearing under the weight of large immigrations of people indifferent to the host culture.

If present demographic trends continue, it is likely that Australia's current majority population will become a minority in its own birth-country within a few generations. Such a massive demographic transformation will undoubtedly spell the end for the Western culture and traditions that most of us would call Australian. The cities and towns will continue to grow, but the civilization that built them will be facing extinction.

Australia has taken an existential risk in importing such large numbers of non-assimilating peoples from nations vastly different from our own. And if we are making a fatal blunder, it is not a decision we can ever revisit.

Writing about the decline of Roman civilization, U.S. historian Will Durant noted:

"The rapidly breeding Germans could not understand the classic [Roman] culture, did not accept it, did not transmit it; the rapidly breeding Orientals were mostly of a mind to destroy that culture; the Romans, possessing it, sacrificed it to the comforts of sterility. Rome was conquered not by barbarian invasion from without, but by barbarian multipliation within."

Australia and the rest of the Western world seems to be going down the same path towards self-destruction.

Dresdener,

First off, what massive demographic change? Our two biggest sources of immigrants remain the UK and New Zealand, two nations which have very similar cultures to our own.

Secondly, the romans did not fall due to contact with southern Med races, they were a souther med race. You can't really get more southern med without hitting africa or the middle east. Pretty much all of Europe hails from indo-european stock, with the exception I think of the celts.

Thirdly, there is ample evidence that many of the germanic tribes did actually take on roman culture. They were soldiers in Roman Legions and fought against other germanic tribes who were on their way through.

Fourthly, the romans fell because they had weakened themselves through centuries of low level civil war(roman v roman) which had started long before the germanics arrived on the scene. By the time the last sack of Rome occurred, Rome was an empire in name only, having split into basically two different empires, East and West. The West fell and the successor states took over. It took a while longer for the East to fall, but it did, helped in no small part by the successors of its Western holdings.

JSP
your pretty rude and stupid
"lesser woggy types" you wrote
thats shocking rascist talk
Australia was built by a wonderful mix of colours, we are all Aussies now, including our mixes of Aussie Aborigional
Im a whit Aussie_english and Irish and from a line of cocky white breeding_whom considered themselves more fortunate than others when it came to DNA, but i my friend , would have preffered colour of the skin, not only does it look great with a T_shirt and shorts...nbot to mention swimwear, one dosent Turn beetroot red with quite the fury when one has colour
you dont sound like an Aussie to me_true Aussie's arnt so damned ignorant, Phooey to your skin colour / rascist/ rotten write up!

"First off, what massive demographic change? Our two biggest sources of immigrants remain the UK and New Zealand, two nations which have very similar cultures to our own."

Immigrants from the UK and New Zealand comprise less than a third of our annual immigration intake. The rest are from non-Western countries. In fact, the real intake levels are perhaps much higher considering the large number of foreign students using our education institutions as visa factories.

Australia's population is set to grow to 26 million by 2030 and 29 million by 2050. Yet, Australia's total fertility rate is below replacement levels. All net population growth occuring today is almost exclusively due to ongoing, historically unprecedented levels of immigration. This means that, while Australia's native-born population will continue to shrink in both absolute and relative terms, the immigrant population will grow by leaps and bounds in the coming decades.

In fact, not a single Western country has a fertility rate that will enable it to survive in its present form through this century. For example, it is predicted that Americans of European ancestry will become a minority in their country by 2050. I think it's fair to say that Australia won't be far behind in mirroring that trend.

James Purser

I'm not saying change does not happen, I said it is caused. You agree that the causes can be guided. Good... we are on the same page.

But telling me to read history ? c'mon.. I am a history buff. That is WHY say it doesn't just 'happen' it is allowed or controlled or pushed.
It can happen in 2 ways... "by default" when governments don't actually do anything to guide it, and "by design" where they do something.

Demographic Change. UK it would be interesting to note the various ethnicities coming from UK because a casual trip from Vermont South into Melbourne by tram will show its a matter of 'spot the caucasian' among the sea of Indians. I don't have figures, but I'd guess there are a lot of non caucasians among those from the UK, and quite possibly many of the Islamic faith.

Neither of those things are of major concern apart from where they may become over-represented, or..where the perctages arriving can alter our existing demographic balance in ways unexpected.

James..I've seen 'migrants' used as political pawns in other places, all depended on who was chief minister, and which religion he was.
They ensured that 'immigration' policy was more friendly to their mob.

You only need to have lived through political/religious/race riots to realize 'why' they do that.

POLICY is the key to controlling change.

"1. Australia has a "culture", no need for "multi" "culturalism".
2. What is Australian culture? Answer: "Multiculturalism".
3. Conclusion: We do not need "multi" "Multiculturalism".
Anyone who is not happy with "Multiculturalism" , is not happy with Australian culture.
Can we "change" the "culture"?
Posted by P_Dox, Thursday, 9 August 2007 5:35:53 PM"

ABSOLUTE BULL-EYE!! I understand exactly what you mean.

Your last line? NO! And we should consider that a positive.

James wrote “Our two biggest sources of immigrants remain the UK and New Zealand, two nations which have very similar cultures to our own”. The very fact that their cultures are similar means that they assimilate, unlike those immigrants who drag their mediaeval cultures here with them and push to have it part of normal Australian life.

The Romans did were not a southern med race. They lived on the north of the Mediterranean. The south of the med is Africa. They were of Indo-European stock before they started allowing mixing with southern med types. The Celts were also of Indo-European stock, being closely related to the Italics (ancestors of the Romans). Also, Germanic, Slav, Baltic and Indo-Iranian types were all Indo-European. This has all been proved by linguistics and genetics.

Mariah, how can I reply to that!!??
If I’m ‘pretty rude and stupid’, am I at least articulate and literate? If it’s ‘shocking rascist (racist) talk’ to use the ‘W’ word, do you protest when the media continually use the term ‘Pomm’? Do you hate the comedy movie, ‘The Wog Boy’?
As you would prefer to have ‘ colour of the skin’ that might explain the quality of your posting as you certainly seem to have the intellectual equivalent.
When you wrote, ‘you dont(don't)sound like an Aussie to me’, weren’t you being rascist…oops I meant racist?

"............mixing with the lesser races.....

......the so-called Christian all-men-are-the-same preachings." (Quote: JSP1488)

EXCUSE ME??..'lesser' races!! Who says?

Christian all-men-are-the-same? WOT'? Are you blind?? Not on OLO they're not!

p_dox and Ginz,

What rot you blokes talk! Australia has never been Multicultural let alone our culture being multicultural.

We have been multi-racial, at least since 1788, but the basic or core parts of our culture have come from British origin and thankfully still remain. Our laws and Governance, defence, courts, social standards, civic institutions, language, dress, transport, town planning and even road rules all are derived from Britian. Certainly some changes have naturally evolved but the core elements remain.

If you want to talk multiculturalism try a country like India where there are different laws for different groups of people. I have never met a true multiculturalist yet where they are willing to allow all cultures live without any restrictions. All people here can choose any religion or none and eat various national foods but that does not make us multicultural.

All people here have to obey our laws and social standards that we set.

There are many aspects of other cultures that are not permitted here. For example, polygamy, arranged marriages, child marriages, age of consent,female circumcission, inequality of women,firearms laws, slavery, some foods, honour or revenge killings, incest, cockfights and bullfights, to name a few. Some of the above are important part of some cultures so to claim we are multicultural is a furphy.

For the last 30 odd years we have had imposed on us a thing called multiculturalism which has in fact simply been the promotion of foreign nationals at our expense. This has divided our nation into groups along ethnic lines. Thankfully both the Government and Opposition have seen the error of this and are now promoting integration to bring about more cohesion in the community.

Hello Ginx 'EXCUSE ME??..'lesser' races!! Who says?'

Who says otherwise and where's the proof?

'Christian all-men-are-the-same? WOT'? Are you blind?? Not on OLO they're not!' Care to explain? Your post was somewhat enigmatic.

Banjo: Rot eh?

Like you; I put my view. I think your view is rot. It's in the eye of the beholder isn't it?

JSP1488: OK. Fair enough. I'll be clear. Explain to me WHAT is your version of a lesser race, and WHY?

I have yet to see an all-men/-equal thing from a Christian; 'specially here!

Is that less enigmatic?

Ginx, isn't it enigmatic to answer a question with a question? I asked ‘Who says otherwise and where's the proof?’ to which you replied ‘Explain to me WHAT is your version of a lesser race, and WHY?’ Once you get round to actually answering my question, I’ll be happy to answer yours. BTW, were your capital letters little ‘shouts’?

As for 'I have yet to see an all-men/-equal thing from a Christian; 'specially here!', just because you don't think that it applies to this forum thread doesn't mean that it doesn't apply in the real world. There is another life outside of the internet.

Actually, JSP there is no such thing as a "lesser" race. The proof is in genetics, apart from some superficial cosmetic differences emphasised by separation in tribal groups by virtue of geography and history, the genetic variation of human beings is pretty similar across the board. The "pollution" of Romans mixing with southern Mediterranean races never happened, Romans mixed with other races all the time, in fact the Romans were supposed to be immigrants to the Italian peninsula themselves. There are many more reasons that the Roman Empire changed and fragmented, racial mixing is just one that was made up.

I am a Christian who mixes with all races of people who also are Christian we work well together.

It is not race or skin colour that forms culture, it is persons world views.

The fact that almost one whole race eats hot curry is because of local culinary customs. That one culture does not eat beef is not based in skin colour but in world view. My best friend is dark skinned Indian and we BBQ beef regularly. He does not hold cows as sacred. Both he and I can eat curry, though I believe his taste buds have been destroyed.

Customs can be based in local attitudes like not handing food to an asian by the left hand. However in Australia these customs observed in the old country are modified otherwise they would take offense.

We must uphold all men are equal, however not all personal habbits are equally hygenic or based in a good understanding of reality.

"Ginx, isn't it enigmatic to answer a question with a question? I asked ‘Who says otherwise and where's the proof?’ to which you replied ‘Explain to me WHAT is your version of a lesser race, and WHY?’ Once you get round to actually answering my question, I’ll be happy to answer yours. BTW, were your capital letters little ‘shouts’?

As for 'I have yet to see an all-men/-equal thing from a Christian; 'specially here!', just because you don't think that it applies to this forum thread doesn't mean that it doesn't apply in the real world. There is another life outside of the internet.
Posted by JSP1488, Saturday, 11 August 2007 7:56:51 PM"

I'll do it my way; you do it yours. So I'll make this very un-enigmatic. I will respond to any post as I choose to. I would have thought a couple of things were obvious though....

It isn't for me to prove a negative.
It is for you to provide evidence of such a statement, which you chose to put here.
It comes as no surprise though, that you twisted the thing around to avoid answering. That is your choice.

On the Christian thing, I suspect we are at cross purposes. No matter.

There being another life outside the internet has come as a complete surprise...., though you have perhaps inadvertently raised another issue.
Do you not believe that internet correspondence IS part of the real world?
As for capitals/shouting;- I promise to text them quietly next time..

Thank-you Philo.(Btw: Curries don't destroy the tastebuds!)

JSP1488,

The field of eugenics has been pretty much shot to pieces thanks to certain practitioners during the mid 20th century.

The concept of "lesser races" is oh so definitely not based in science. Instead it generally comes down to some sort of religious concept getting dressed up in pseudo-scientific babble. Much like intelligent design (they still haven't answered the fundamental question about that one either).

Now please enlighten us as to what you consider to be a "lesser race", also please point to scientific studies that conform to scientific method(ie the results can be proven or disproven, there are control groups, etc, etc), and without reference to any religious tract.

Ginx,
The big difference between us is that my views against MC are supported by rational, reason and facts, whereas you have just chanted MC, MC, MC and expected to be believed. You have not put forward one reason to support your views. You cling to an ideology and like "Unity in Diversity" the ideology has failed.

Interesting to note that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship delivered an eight page speech last week, in Sydney, about immigration and not once was the MC word used, but the word integration was used many times. This would have been unheard of, only a short time ago. The Opposition has not found reason to contradict or question what the Minister said. Both major parties are in agreement about the dumping of MC.

I am glad you cannot contest what I had to say in my previous post as I have better things to do than argue with you.

I look forward to us being far more selective in the migrants we allow with the emphasis on those nationalities with a proven record of integration.

Here's a radical thought. What if multi-culturalism and integration aren't mutually exclusive?

What if we can expect people to integrate at least as far as accepting our system of laws and learning the language of the nation (that of course would require the government to stop underfunding the english language classes), but at the same time say that we can accept that people have different religions or cultural beliefs.

Believe it or not, we have always been a multi-cultural nation. From the Irish, Chinese and Afghanis in the 19th century, to the greeks, italians, vietnamese and so many others of the 20th century. All of them have brought something to this country which we really couldn't do without.

You cannot realistically claim that those who support Multiculturalism want to "destroy" our system of laws and government, any more than I can claim that the majority of those opposed are neo-nazi skinheads. There is a middle ground which can be found.

Quite so, James Purser, Mariah and Ginx. There is nothing incompatible between multiculturalism and integration, nor is there any reason that Australian culture should (or could) remain static. Cultures adapt and change over time or they die out - which is the best lesson our various history buffs and armchair eugenicists can take from history.

The clowns on this thread who babble on about "lesser races" and a "multi-racial" Australia are by definition racists. Anthropologists generally agree that the biological term 'race' is not applicable to humans, since there is much more genetic variation within the so-called 'races' than between them.

Those who attach unwarranted significance to trivial phenotypic differences such as skin colour are racist - but most of you are in denial. Your bleating about the supposed dangers of multiculturalism is a way for you to express your racist sentiments in slightly less obvious ways than used to be the case - with the exception of the execrable comments by JSP about "wogs" and "lesser races".

Bugsy, by using the term race, you admit that differences do exist. Therefore, if there are differences, why can’t certain differences make one race ‘better’ than another? East Africans are better runners than I am. Genetics proves race differences. As for your Roman hypothesis, you must have different history sources from mine. The Indo-European Italics migrated south into the peninsula around 4000 years ago. In later times they did mix. How else can you explain the typical Italian look of today and reconcile it with the typical Italic as portrayed in ancient Roman sculptures etc.?

Ginx, if it isn’t for you ‘prove a negative’, that’s a cop-out for refusing to answer a question and asking another in return. Yet you accuse me of twisting it round. If this is you doing it your way and responding as you choose, I’m wasting my time trying to have you reply as you will only respond with another question.

I do believe that internet correspondence is part of the real world, but only part. It’s just that when you wrote 'I have yet to see an all-men/-equal thing from a Christian; 'specially here!', I was pointing out that outside can be different from on-line.

James, the field of eugenics has been assaulted by certain practitioners during the mid 20th century. This was done at the cease-fire of hostilities of the mindless war of the twentieth century by leftists whose purpose was to undermine the West. They started in the colleges and universities and produced professors and teachers to go out and ‘educate’ the young in their creed. This was the beginning of what would become ‘political correctness’. The students were gradually indoctrinated into the various views that were designed to undermine the West, White world. Sexual equality, racial equality, gay rights etc., while anyone who simply questioned these changes to the normal way of life was vilified as chauvinist, racist, homophobe. Most valid questions were answered by angry outbursts and name-calling instead of constructive discussion. The end result is a generation or two that think as their teachers have taught them

The concept of ‘lesser races’ can be proved by science. Each race can be physically and mentally tested (read ‘The Bell Curve’) and results charted

I would consider most non-White races to be ‘lesser races’. When the White voyages of discovery reached the Americas, the natives had not even invented the wheel, apart from on toys. When they explored Africa, all sub-Saharan tribes were primitive. In Australia they discovered a Stone Age people (possibly the survivors of the Neanderthals). For scientific studies I again mention ‘The Bell Curve’ and also ‘Genes, Peoples and Languages’. Also, I do not consider the ancient Chinese as a ‘lesser race”, considering their achievements in science and exploration. They did degenerate in later times. Possibly they were subjected to the same kinds of pressure that the White Race is now under by the PC movement.

So, CJ Morgan, if you don’t agree with my views, I’m a ‘babbling clown’? That’s rich coming from you after you commend posters such as the illiterate and inarticulate Mariah. As for you labelling me a racist, is that meant to hurt me? If believing your own race is better than others is racist, that’s what I am. But as you claim race doesn’t exist, how can racists?

‘Cultures adapt and change over time or they die out’ Not true. Some cultures take over from their host culture. Christianity took over the Celtic world, the Roman world and, at one time, a large part of the civilised world. Now the muslims are looking to go down the same road.

You refer to ‘trivial phenotypic differences such as skin colour’. If you paint an African white, would he look like a White man? What about facial feature, lips, jaw, nose? Curly, woolly hair? Never thought of that, did you?

Are you serious or are you just using your pre-programmed high-school-inducted ‘anti-racism’ thought processes to try and grab centre stage? How can you accuse some posters of ‘bleating’ when your views expose you as the sheep?

JSP1488: "I would consider most non-White races to be ‘lesser races’. When the White voyages of discovery reached the Americas, the natives had not even invented the wheel, apart from on toys. When they explored Africa, all sub-Saharan tribes were primitive. In Australia they discovered a Stone Age people (possibly the survivors of the Neanderthals)... Also, I do not consider the ancient Chinese as a ‘lesser race”, considering their achievements in science and exploration. They did degenerate in later times. Possibly they were subjected to the same kinds of pressure that the White Race is now under by the PC movement.

So, CJ Morgan, if you don’t agree with my views, I’m a ‘babbling clown’?"

No, it's because you write racist claptrap.

JSP1488: "As for you labelling me a racist, is that meant to hurt me? If believing your own race is better than others is racist, that’s what I am. But as you claim race doesn’t exist, how can racists?"

Racists are people who believe in human 'races' and act and speak as if they exist, usually to the detriment of people whom they categorise as other 'races' to their own. I'll give you credit for admitting it, but that doesn't make your ideas any less stupid or offensive.

"Ginx,
The big difference between us is that my views against MC are supported by rational, reason and facts, whereas you have just chanted MC, MC, MC and expected to be believed. You have not put forward one reason to support your views. You cling to an ideology and like "Unity in Diversity" the ideology has failed." (Quote:Banjo)

Whatever. Don't go getting yourself all upset. If you are the master of rational/reason/facts there is no reason to be is there? Poor boy.

"Interesting to note that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship delivered an eight page speech last week, in Sydney, about immigration and not once was the MC word used, but the word integration was used many times." (Quote:Banjo)

OH MY GIDDY AUNT!.....he never mentioned it? Not once? Not one itty, bitty time? Any one would think he was a grubby little neo-con.NOOoo..., that can't be. (Adjourns to get the smelling salts.)

"Ginx, if it isn’t for you ‘prove a negative’, that’s a cop-out for refusing to answer a question and asking another in return. Yet you accuse me of twisting it round. If this is you doing it your way and responding as you choose, I’m wasting my time trying to have you reply as you will only respond with another question." (Quote:JSP1488)

JSP-er......; it's debatable whose time you are wasting. Glad you're going to give it up; it's a bad habit to get into.

"The concept of ‘lesser races’ can be proved by science. Each race can be physically and mentally tested (read ‘The Bell Curve’) and results charted..."etc..,etc..,zzz...,etc..,zzzzzz..,et..,zz.,e...,zzzzzzzzz.(Quote:JSP:1488)

Pathetic. Poor boy

JSP,

Hmm lets see why eugenics was discredited. Oh yes, thats because it was adopted as a core by such luminaries as Hitler and the Japanese military. Who then conducted some truly horrific experiments in order to prove themselves correct.

The Bell Curve that you so helpfully point out has been pretty much debunked by the scientific community as being poor science. Have a read of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Contradictory_findings

I don't generally trust ranking systems like IQ as they reflect the subjects access to educational facilities as much as any innate intelligence.

If you were truly going to run an experiment to prove or disprove the concept of racial superiority then you would need to take 100 of each "race" and raise them in exactly the same manner, conduct examinations of each group at the same time over the course of their lives and then correlate the data.

Of course by the time thats done, a whole new field of pseudo-science might have cropped up which proves that because a certain groups hair coils one way they are obviously only good for menial labour.

CJ, you just confirmed your programming by dismissing my posts as ‘racist claptrap’ while failing to address my questions and statements addressed to you in my previous post. Also, how can an idea be ‘stupid or offensive’? I’m not offended by your ideas, only amused. Maybe your skin is pretty thin.

If you don’t believe in human ‘races’ here’s another question for you to avoid. The Chinese and Japanese look on other races as inferior or ‘devils’. The muslims see us as infidels and kuffar that have to be conquered. The jews see Gentiles as inferior, and refer to our women as ‘shiksa’ which comes from the Hebrew, ‘sheketz’, which translates as ‘abomination or ‘detestable’. Are these examples racism?

Every time you avoid a question or statement just strengthens my views.

Ginx ‘JSP-er......; it's debatable whose time you are wasting. Glad you're going to give it up; it's a bad habit to get into’. So it’s a bad habit trying to have you make a straightforward reply to a question is it? Not only are you a waste of time but a waste of space. Tell your giddy aunt that one. As for ‘etc..,etc..,zzz...,etc..,zzzzzz..,et..,zz.,e...,zzzzzzzzz’, that’s really constructive. If you are intellectually unable to make an intelligible reply, maybe you shouldn’t bother. I await your next funny post. BTW, what’s your ‘poor boy’ obsession? You’re not a Catholic priest are you? Or a scoutmaster?

James, I already told you about the assault on eugenics, but you came up with the old, hackneyed arguments about Hitler et al. Eugenics is older than Hitler and has outlasted him.

‘The Bell Curve that you so helpfully point out has been pretty much debunked by the scientific community as being poor science. Have a read of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Contradictory_findings’

Of course there are always contradictory findings, just as the holies debunk evolution. It doesn’t make them right. Also, you should understand that Wikipedia is not a fail-safe source of information as anyone can edit it until the next editor changes that and so on until eternity.

If you don’t ‘trust ranking systems like IQ’, what is your method of measuring intelligence? Many studies have proved that IQ is independent of education. Take the ‘upper class twit’ as portrayed by Monty Python. Most of us have encountered such types who have been to all the posh schools and colleges yet lack the sense that those of us, who never had their education, possess. Just look at our politicians.

‘If you were truly going to run an experiment to prove or disprove the concept of racial superiority then you would need to take 100 of each "race" and raise them in exactly the same manner, conduct examinations of each group at the same time over the course of their lives and then correlate the data.’ As far as was possible, the subjects in ‘The Bell Curve’ were taken from similar types of backgrounds and situations.

The reason I mentioned how ‘a certain groups hair coils one way’ was to point out the obvious. That it is more than a matter of skin colour. Otherwise, by the end of summer I would look African, wouldn’t I?

GINX....

you have yet to hear 'all men are equal' especially from a Christian ?

err.. ALL MEN ARE EQUAL... there you have it. But equality before God is an aspect of creation, 'moral' position is a different kettle of fish.

"Behavior" is what separates the sheep from the goats. If God has said "A,B,C" and men seek to do 'NOT_A, NOT_B, NOT_C' ....then.. they are incurring a just 'reward' for that, or at least a moral assessment of such conduct.

"I was hungry, and you didn't feed me" "I was cold and you didn't clothe me" that kind of thing.

Intrinsic 'equality' is nothing to do with moral performance, or spiritual position, based on ones relationship to the Creator through faith or non faith, acceptance or rejection.

In Gods eyes there is no such thing as 'lesser/inderior' races, but it is possible that a 'culture' could be inferior to another, depending on the degree of it being permeated with God honoring values.
But 'inferior' is a very relative term, and not one which should in practice be applied to particular cultures. It is, however possible to observe that some cultures are 'hostile' to Christian values or not.

One such example is a tribe in Irian Jaya which was the subject of the book 'Peace Child' where their highest virtue was 'treachery' and when they heard the story of Jesus.. "JUDAS" was hailed as a hero

OK. Here's the thing.

I dislike dislike.
I am intolerant of the intolerant.

I do not like ANY of it because it is nasty; it is unkind; it is cruel.
I am fully capable of responding with technical detail/history etc.,..you know the stuff.
I don't do so because that is what I do for a fair percentage of my time.
I don't do so because OLO has many members who are well up for handling this kind of rubbish, and they do it eloquently with some of the best responses I have ever seen on any forum.

Above all else....;I don't do it because I cannot take those who spew this bile seriously. It never fails to disgust me that so-called intelligent people can be so full of themselves and their vicious views.

I will engage as I choose to.

One more thing. ALL forums have Left/Right/Racist views. All espouse their views; they argue/discuss.

But D.BOAZ you use this forum as a church pulpit. You do not discuss; you preach. You are using OLO as a vehicle to spread the Gospel according to D.BOAZ. I have never seen that before; it is an ugly thing to do, because it is a dishonest way to preach.

CJ Morgan said: "Cultures adapt and change over time or they die out."

So you admit that cultures can be displaced and become extinct? Do you accept that a dramatic immigration-driven demographic transformation is enough to cause such a cultural extinction? Is, for example, the Asianisation of Sydney and the resultant demographic phenomenon of 'white flight' not an example of one cultural group displacing another?

A few points about mass immigration and multiculturalism and why such policies are destroying our country's sense of nationhood.

1. All nations are nations of immigrants, it's just that their immigration was quite gradual. Even Australia (until recently) had a more gradual immigration pattern with periods of time between waves for assimilation.

2. There is currently no "resting period" for the new immigrants to assimilate into the mainstream.

3. The current wave of immigrants are coming from nations vastly different to our own and in unprecedented numbers. Most of these new immigrants have almost nothing in common with the predominant European-derived culture of Australia.

4. Not only has our nation's cultural absorptive capacity been completely overwhelmed, but the Australian mainstream is actually shrinking in both absolute and relative terms. New immigrants are less likely to assimilate into the mainstream if the present mainstream culture disappears.

5. There is now an active movement opposed to any form of assimilation (the clamorous multiculturalists). Rather, 'diversity' is encouraged at the expense of Australia's national culture. This is leading us inexorably down the nation-destroying road toward separate development - apartheid with a feel-good multiculturalist facelift.

James Purser,
Your thoughts about MC and integration are not so radical. In fact I tend to agree with much you said in that post.

I think you will find, with the demise of MC, the emphasis will change from the promotion of foreign national cultures to that of being part of Australian community firstly. Of course people will still be able to follow much of their birth culture, within the limits of our laws and social standards.

Those that introduced MC may well have had good intentions, but in practise it did not work out that way. It divided us along foreign nationalist lines and did nothing to promote unity. That is my main objection to MC.

One other matter was that the term multiculturalism is indefinative. It means different things to different people. An example of this is that you claim that we have always been MC. I disagree with that and say that we have always been multi-racial i,e, population made up of people from different groups, but all people had to adapt to the central culture if they chose to live here. It was not untill the 1970s that MC was imposed and the emphasis was shifted to the promotion of foreign national cultures ahead of Australian culture.
People were then encouraged to retain foreign cultures and languages. Commercial signs went up written in foreign languages, media broadcasts in foreign languages and so on.

I believe the change will benefit our community and I will not mind at all if some of the funds that previously went to the MC industry are used to provide more english language courses.

Boaz David said: "Demographic Change... Neither of those things are of major concern apart from where they may become over-represented, or..where the perctages arriving can alter our existing demographic balance in ways unexpected."

This is indeed the problem we are experiencing in our capital cities. Read below:

A split for Australia

Reporter: Bryan Seymour
Broadcast Date: July 18, 2007

It's official. New immigration figures from the Bureau of Statistics show Australia is being split in two.

Migrants from Asia now outnumber those from Europe and New Zealand, while multicultural Australia is now divided by race.

Dr Robert Birrell runs the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University. He's an authority on the subject and he's worried.

"Sydney and Melbourne are diverging from the rest of Australia," Dr Robert Birrell said.

Immigration figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show Asia has now overtaken Europe and New Zealand combined. Almost all new Asian migrants are heading to either Sydney or Melbourne.

"(We now live in) two Australias, because Melbourne and Sydney can be regarded as one Australia where you've got very high proportions of persons born overseas," Dr Birrell said.

"In Sydney, about 40 per cent of all adults are born overseas, in Melbourne it's about just over 30 per cent."

"I don't think facts lie. Australia's population is changing.

"Sydney and Melbourne are diverging from the rest of Australia.

"In the case of Sydney, by far the biggest single source of migrants in recent years is China and in the case of Melbourne it's now India," Dr Birrell added. "We're a nation that's now split."

Full article:

http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/40078/none/split-australia

Dresdener,

You are seriously quoting Today Tonight in a serious discussion? Thats like the Pope quoting Ginger Meggs.

Of course our two biggest cities have high rates of immigration, if you have a look all over the world, big cities attract more people. You want to balance things up, give people a reason to move out to the regions.

No, I was citing Dr. Bob Birrell, an expert on immigration and other demographic matters. If you disagree with Dr. Birrell's conclusions, then please provide some reason why. Do you dispute that these socio-demographic trends are occurring?

Do I doubt that immigration is happening? Nope, do I believe that it signals the end of the country as we know it and the start of a hundred years of wailing and gnashing of teeth? Nope.

Lets have a look at some numbers shall we?

Total immigration from the UK: 1,038,156
Total immigration from China: 206,590
Total immigration from India: 147,101
Total immigration from New Zealand: 389,464

The above are ABS figures for the whole country. So please tell me which country we are in danger of being flooded by?

Dresdener: "Do you accept that a dramatic immigration-driven demographic transformation is enough to cause such a cultural extinction?"

No. However, I agree that immigration is a major factor in culture change in Australia, as is globalisation. If you think that the extinction of Australian culture is imminent, you really should take a cold shower, a Bex, and have a good lie down {perhaps while watching "Today Tonight"?).

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.
.
Lets not join the bandwagon!

Lets do an exercise will we?
If every writer just puts his/her background down including his or her religion, maybe we can create an amicable conclusion on being or wanting to stay an Australian who speaks Australian English and help create a "true" Australian Constitution.

Ginx
I take your point about me using the forum as a 'pulpit' but have to disagree on a technicality. I use it as a 'marketplace' of ideas, and a marketplace such as Paul found himself in where he argued daily with 'whoever was there' about Christ, seeking to proclaim Him as Messiah, and Lord.

A pulpit is not so much for proclamation, but for consolidation and exhortation. It is preaching to the converted.

Saying I don't 'discuss' is quite wrong...factually. I will look at the question, and then, will give/offer a Christian perspective on it from time to time (most of the time).

Christian perspectives are just as valid as atheist perspectives and are shared by many members of the community.

One major problem I find, as you outlined, is that most forums have 'left right racist' etc.. yes thats so true, and usually the 'Leftoids and the ranting rights are simply at each others throats from the viewpoint that 'they' actually have the 'solution' to human affairs.

History and human nature both testify on behalf of the prosecution here and the charge is "We are all sinners". I have not seen, and I guarantee I will NEVER see either a 'left wing or a right wing government or approach to human society which will 'work'.

Those who live in "Cloud (Socialist Utopia/Fascist) Cuckoo land" are deluded and misguided. History is well and truly agin them.
I contend:
a) Mankind is alienated from its Creator.
b) Only through re-establishing the rightful connection, through repentance and faith (In Christ), will society become as it should.

BUT... I do NOT advocate any kind of theocracy, I simply advocate widespread renewed hearts at the individual level.

So, by all means offer your political/social perspectives, and I will offer mine.

Ramblin' BOAZ,
Ramblin' BOAZ,
Why he rambles, no-one knows.....

Cut the .rap.
You use OLO as a pulpit.

Actually Ginx, I think it's more of a soapbox than a pulpit.

CJ.... this is almost 'irc' :) with the quick responses....

Ok.. Ginx... feel free to trot out snide comments, whatever floats your boat.. do what you feel you should, consider the other cheek offered.

I will accept the soap box thing CJ.. have a look at how it works here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHOKBwGLdz0

But now.. for a TOTAL aside... a different direction, something that I want to share with you as a 'simple human being' but it illustrates how people can be transformed...changed.. touched.. in a moment of time. NOTHING to do with Christianity or religion.. so fear not to tread in this video
I guarantee you will be touched also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oxTy7KIAaA

Our culture has` already been raped by succesive govts. Importing lesser races of people with low IQ's and prone to violence.

All this under the heading of multiculti crap, this country was built by real men and women of good and dubious stock. And now the sons and daughters of thier legacy is sitting back and watching this once great christian valued country be handed over to dregs of the third world after turning thier own countries to crap thier gonna do it to ours.

We deserve everything we get, this is what happens to stupid, ignorant and spoilt countries where the population has it to good for to long. You end up with an academic, middle management leftist agenda that drives political correctness into the heart of the country like a knife and twist it till the only thing left is a dominant minority and population of self hating whiteys with no real culture at all.

What's with all this paranoia about so-called "culture" anyway?

How are we so significantly different from most other english-speaking western countries such as the USA, UK or even New Zealand?

Except for the tall-poppy syndrome, there's not much we can regard as being uniquely our own - everything is just an amalgam of what we are fed through the TV and read in the newspapers.

This is not the same country I grew up in back in the 50's and 60's and I find it extremely difficult to pinpoint any major changes on the single concept of immigration. Some people call it progress, others see an evil conspiracy.

If a culture can be so easily threatened by the idea of being overwhelmed by foreigners, it's probably in trouble anyway and not likely to survive.

As for religion preaching racial equality but moral superiority - I couldn't have put a better argument against the concept myself.

Our culture has` already been raped by successive govts. Importing lesser races of people with low IQ's and prone to violence. Posted by SCOTTY, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 11:41:46 PM

Extraordinary! You put forward this kind of racist garbage to suggest that 'THEY' are less intelligent.....?

Strewth! That's debatable...

This Country IS MULTI-CULTURAL; get over it!!

I know the rationale against that, and for 'multi-racial' has been that the system here has always been a white British system, ergo Australia is White with the later addition of other races = multi-racial.

So the stork still has his head firmly embedded in the sand eh?

Australia IS Multi-racial..; which is WHY it IS Multi-cultural. One begets the other.
I enjoy the food; the culture of my fellow Australian's, and attend Indian/Italian/Greek/Polish.....and Turkish/Pakistani/....Middle Eastern (shock/horror!!) Festivals.

Paranoia has been mentioned. Too right! I am sick to death of those who see White culture as the only valid culture; as the superior culture/race.
What absolute rollocks!

What is so burned into your souls that you see only yourselves as the residents of Australia, and those of other cultures, ( and we are talking colour/religion here, aren't we?)- to be the interlopers.

Twaddle. Many different cultures make up Australia, and they have as much right to be here as you do. Many have been here for MANY years.

But that is not the point is it? The point is to target non-white races. To vilify them; put them in their perceived place; bully them.

And you wonder why anger is growing with them? You wonder why Islam fundamentalism is growing?

Hate them. They hate you.

Be dammed to the Governments that actively encouraged this.

It will blow up in our faces. Which will be good.....; then you can hate even more..

"Actually Ginx, I think it's more of a soapbox than a pulpit.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 8:40:06 PM"

To be honest CJ, I see all these forums as a soapbox, and I'm happy with that.

I'm going to stick with pulpit though; in the context in which I brought it up!

Ginx wrote ‘You put forward this kind of racist garbage to suggest that 'THEY' are less intelligent.....?
Strewth! That's debatable...’. If it’s debatable, how can you put it down as garbage? A debate consists of opposite sides giving valid arguments for their opinions.

’This Country IS MULTI-CULTURAL; get over it!!’ That’s also debatable. Switch off your computer and go out into mainstream Australia where the vast majority of people are of White western descent and values. Then get over that!

’Australia IS Multi-racial..; which is WHY it IS Multi-cultural. One begets the other.’ Rubbish. A multi-racial society should still follow the culture of the parent, dominant culture. If you went to Saudi Arabia for example, do you seriously think that they would entertain any notions of expressing an alien culture, let alone embracing it as equal? I love Indian, Mexican and Chinese food but that doesn’t make me a multi-culti.

It’s not paranoia to see White culture as superior. It’s reality. Do you accept that the lion is a superior animal to the gnu? The eagle to the mouse? The laws of nature set one species ahead of another. And so it is with the human races. While we share a common ancestry and biology some races have advanced further and faster than others.

’You wonder why Islam fundamentalism is growing?
Hate them. They hate you.’ Islamic fundamentalism first grew over a thousand years ago when they decided to conquer the world and forcibly convert it to islam. After an ebbing, what we now see is a resurgence. Once the White world unites, islam will once again be pushed back, hopefully this time for ever.

Poor Wee Ginx
Poor Wee Ginx
What a lot of rubbish she thinks
Most would say her opinion stinks
You’d get more sense from Jar-Jar Binks.

"Poor wee Ginx" LOVE THAT!!

I've been called out. But look forward to further discussion with you, Bard!

Mornin' JSPer.

Your first para; you totally misunderstood. Still, I'd expect no more.

OK. You are not discussing Multi-Culti/Racial are you?

You are discussing Black/White. White Supremacy!

I was going to tell you to take the safety pin out of your nose and bin the steel tipped shoes...; but more correctly I tell you to take that ridiculous sheet and witches hat of your head.

Completely repugnant.

I won't bother to try any further with a rational discussion

JSP1488: "It’s not paranoia to see White culture as superior. It’s reality. Do you accept that the lion is a superior animal to the gnu? The eagle to the mouse? The laws of nature set one species ahead of another. And so it is with the human races. "

Classic racist rubbish. Ginx is correct: if you really believe that crap then you're well on the way to donning jackboots or a Klan bedsheet. Non-anglo Australians are no threat to Australia's ever-evolving culture, but white supremacist racists like JSP1488 are.

It's really funny how when some people talk about the "laws of nature", they actually know very little about them. Think on this JSPer, if the lion disappeared, what would happen to the gnu? They would multiply and be quite happy. But if the gnu disappeared, what would happen to the lion? It would starve quite quickly. Predators are much more reliant on their prey than vice versa. So who is superior?

What's that arcade game, where you whack something that pops up, and as soon as you do, another appears?

Welcome to the Boaz "One Nation, One Culture, One Race" fan club, JSP1488.

Your take on it is subtly different to Boaz, of course, your Culture being White Supremacy (as in: "It’s not paranoia to see White culture as superior. It’s reality."), and your Race... well, you make that rather obvious. But the Slogan fits perfectly, doesn't it?

(If Boaz spots this, he might notice that it is precisely as I predicted when he coined the phrase; not everyone will see it as bland and harmless)

JSP trots out all the old furphies.

>>If you went to Saudi Arabia for example, do you seriously think that they would entertain any notions of expressing an alien culture<<

Why, JSP1488, should we use Saudi Arabia as our role model in this? Wouldn't it be better all round if we tried to be more, rather than less civilized than other countries? In fact, it would be reasonable to suggest that if you prefer their way of handling things to ours, why don't you go and join them. I'm sure they would find your authoritarian bigotry highly attractive.

>>Do you accept that the lion is a superior animal to the gnu?<<

This is a classic. Clearly, by "superior", JSP1488 means "stronger", in the sense that one is higher up the food chain. This is simply an extension of the schoolyard taunt "my dad's bigger than your dad", and has about the same level of relevance to "superiority".

>>Once the White world unites, islam will once again be pushed back, hopefully this time for ever<<

This, as opposed to the rest of the fatuous mouth-flapping, is actually dangerous. Whether or not Islam forms itself into a more cohesive political form, it cannot be "pushed back". The days of the Crusades are gone, and are not coming back.

Much better we learn to live with the ideas, and continue to eliminate the criminals.

Pericles,
The Lion in this story is the armies of the western nations whom, protect cretins like you. Fact mate without the white pimply faced kids going off to do the governments and by proxy the white majorities bidding to send a clear message to muslims that thier crap will not be tolerated our societies would not exist.

Sooner or later the clash of civilisations will have to drive Islam back under its rock from whence it came for everybodies safety.
Wait till the oil starts running out. Then we can go and change thier culture.

The one prerequisite of being called a racist is you have to have white skin, ironic dont you think..

No Tabouleh

Scotty; how the hell did you get out of your cage?

SCOTTY: "No Tabouleh"

Now there's a political slogan with punch. You ought to use it at one of Boazy's promised demos. Failing that, Pauline Hanson might even run with it.

Hi Ginx, I can understand how you would expect to be misunderstood. Is English your ‘second language’? I suspect that your main tongue is Gibberish. As for ‘I won't bother to try any further with a rational discussion’, you haven’t done so in the past so how will we know the difference? Poor Wee Misunderstood Ginx!

CJ, when you mention jackboots, do you mean German ones or those as worn by the Red Army of the freedom-loving equality-promoting Socialist workers’ paradise of the USSR? I sometimes wear Doc Martens, but if you can point me to a good pair of jackboots, I’ll goosestep up and down the street for you. If I’m a threat to Australian culture, you’d better hide under the proverbial bedsheet. That’s a good double act that you are developing with Ginx. Like semmit and drawers. Or fush and chups.

Bugsy, as you claim that I know very little about the laws of nature, your comments make you out an expert…..not! No gnus is good gnus. You should join up with Ginx and CJ. We need a new Larry, Mo and Curly.

Pericles, where have you crawled out from? Haven’t heard from you in ages. I used Saudi Arabia as an example when I could have cited almost any muslim country as they are all intolerant. We don’t have to try to be more civilised. We already are. ‘Much better we learn to live with the ideas, and continue to eliminate the criminals’. Fine by me. There won’t be many muslims left after that.

Well, hi there JSP1488.

>>Pericles, where have you crawled out from? Haven’t heard from you in ages.<<

From under my usual rock, JSP1488. It's pretty damp at the moment, and more than a little slimy due to the inclement weather, but hey, it's home.

Nice to see that you are maintaining a consistent standard in your ideas and responses. It's a refreshing change from having to think, isn't it?

>>I used Saudi Arabia as an example when I could have cited almost any muslim country as they are all intolerant<<

'S all the same to me mate. I simply don't accept that in order to address your fears, we have to become intolerant as well. Surely, if you are going to criticize other countries for being intolerant, it would be more convincing if you were yourself a model of tolerance, would it not?

>>We don’t have to try to be more civilised. We already are.<<

In your view. But you are arguing that we should become less civilized. Not entirely sure this is a good thing. Unless of course you believe that being uncivilized is somehow a plus factor. Given the quality of your argument, that wouldn't come entirely as a surprise.

>>‘Much better we learn to live with the ideas, and continue to eliminate the criminals’. Fine by me. There won’t be many muslims left after that<<

I knew that concept would be a little difficult for you to follow. Best find one of the other inmates to explain it to you.

"Hi Ginx, I can understand how you would expect to be misunderstood. Is English your ‘second language’? I suspect that your main tongue is Gibberish. As for ‘I won't bother to try any further with a rational discussion’, you haven’t done so in the past so how will we know the difference? Poor Wee Misunderstood Ginx!" (Quote:Jasper)

You can understand gibberish? Well done! No surprises there.

...er,...JSPer,...um,...has anybody mentioned to you that when you don your fetching white ensemble, you,..er,..have to cut out some holes for the eyes?

Clearly you've sustained some brain damage from blundering around colliding with trees whilst seeking your two strong bits of wood.

James Purser said: "The above are ABS figures for the whole country."

Those figures are meaningless as they do not show long-term demographic trends. For example, the last census revealed a significant decline in the number of Italian, Greek and German-born Australians - major source countries of post-war migrants. The UK may still be the most common birthplace for foreign-born Australians, but I suspect British-born Australians are in decline as a proportion of the population as immigration from Europe has been reduced to a mere trickle over the last decade or two.

There is an arithmetical certitude about some aspects of demography. For example, Australia's current native-born population cannot have more young adults of childbearing age in 2020 than it has teenagers, children and infants today. A below-replacement birth rate means that no long-term population growth can occur without immigration. And with our population predicted to hit nearly 30 million by 2050, we can expect immigration - lots of immigration - in the coming decades.

The decline of Australia's founding majority, both in proportional and absolute terms, combined with mass immigration from the Third World will result in a major cultural change here in Australia. Simply put, the Australia we know and love as our own will disappear under the weight of unrelenting mass immigration. Such an unabating deluge of people could best be described as a new wave of colonisation.

Such a transformation will delight the multiculturalists. On the other hand, those who prefer Western civilisation have a real reason to be concerned. There's not a single category of enlightened governance in which the West broadly speaking isn't superior to the rest of the world. Democracy, religious freedom, social mobility, and tolerance, the guarantee of rights and liberties in law, prosperity — you name it, and we beat them hands down (though in family unity and social solidarity, they have the edge on us). Moreover, in terms of science, innovation, commerce, philosophy, religion, art, literature, the West still leads the world.

But ultimately, it's a numbers game, and the demographics don't look good for Western civilization, Australia included.

Pericles, I never advocated that we should become less civilised. I would much rather live in a civilised world. When a people is confronted by an alien menace, it’s no use to turn the other cheek and be civilised about it. If an invasion force landed on our shores, would you be ‘civilised’ and stroll down to explain how they weren’t being nice and that, if they didn’t mind, would they please go away? The only answer is to fight fire with fire. Then, once we are safe, we can be civilised.
BTW, what ideas do you recommend that we ‘live with’? That part was difficult to follow. Perhaps if you wrote more clearly, even I could grasp your concepts. None of the inmates understood either.

Hi Ginx, I have learnt Gibberish by necessity; otherwise how could I keep up our riveting correspondence? Poor wee gibbering Ginx.

Dresdener
How right you are!

Today I was driving through the bush and listening to some old Slim music. Then I switched on the radio and it was playing- I still Call Australia home.
I kept driving thinking of the old days with the billy on the camp fire and some of the old timers who fought for our country and wondered what they would say now.

Suddenly I realised their were tears in my eyes and I felt very sad.
I pulled over and watched a few birds larking about in a tree near by and some stock grazing.
Sitting there I thought about the shopping center I had been in hours earlier and the people mostly speaking in another langauge with lots weraing their head gear.
I came to this conclushion- I DONT LIKE IT.

I dont like it and I find the head gear offensive and actually scarey.
There was this funny little kid at the center and she was screaming terrified of these women.

I dont my country changed and I reckon we ALL have a right to SAY SO

PALEIF: "Suddenly I realised their were tears in my eyes and I felt very sad."

I've noticed how sad the xenophobes in this forum seem to be.

"I dont like it and I find the head gear offensive and actually scarey."

Yes, xenophobia means fear of foreigners, so I suppose that's at the bottom of it. What a miserable life you must have.

Our society and culture have changed irrevocably from the supposedly halcyon days of the British Empire and the White Australia Policy. Most of us recognise that our nation is the richer for it - culturally, socially and materially.

On the other hand, there are some people who doom themselves to sad, embittered and fearful lives by clinging desperately to an imagined homogeneous past. In my opinion, it is they who don't belong in contemporary Australia.

When I was about 10 years old and on a boat there was this (adult) negro and we just ended up talking. He asked me how come I talked to him and others where shunning him. I recall to make known that the colour of his skin did not worry me. Now this was many decades ago in Europe, not Australia. I grew up where racism was part of life, but I refused to participate in it. People used to warn about the blacks, the yellow, the communist and whatever. It never worried me.
My wife tells me there are to many coloured people in Australia and she feels uncomfortable about it (she is herself from middle Europe) but it never worried me.
My wife doesn’t like to go to certain churches because of the coloured people being there in droves, I do not practice religion but accompany her anyhow but the coloured people never worried me.
But what does worry me is when the Federal Government is spending a lot of money on coloured people in killing them , such as in Iraq, as those people never worried me and why then should my tax money be spend on killing them!
While the Federal government will say it has to be done to get rid of the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and TERRORIST and to make us all safer, I think that I rather prefer how I always had it, let the coloured people be around me and I never feared them and it was a lot cheaper then having our tax dollars spend to fight illusive enemies.
If just we saw others not for the colour of their skin but for being a fellow human beings, then we might all be a lot safer and avoid wasting out taxation monies!
The irony is that more then likely those you trust may harm you and those you distrust me actually turn out to be trustworthy after all. Hence look at all people with a disregard of their colour of skin!

"Hi Ginx, I have learnt Gibberish by necessity; otherwise how could I keep up our riveting correspondence? Poor wee gibbering Ginx.
Posted by JSP1488, Saturday, 25 August 2007 11:10:52 AM"

I KNOW you have learned (learned!!) gibberish by necessity. How could you post otherwise?
Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious!

Weak gibbering Jasper.

Hi Ginx, I’ve missed your highly valued input for the last few days.

‘I KNOW you have learned (learned!!) gibberish by necessity. How could you post otherwise?
Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious!’

Maybe you should read a dictionary. It’s a big book of words and meanings but, sadly for you, no pictures. There you would read the following:-
Learnt - Past participle, past tense of learn
Learned – Deeply read, erudite. (obviously this does not apply to you).

You’re clutching at straws if you are resorting to imagined spelling mistakes.

Poor wee unlearned Ginx.

Mr Gerrit
Good to see you on this thread.

Morgan I ignored your utter rubbish until you started up yet again.
I have "all my life" been involved in working with Aboriginal people whom I especially love.

Secondly you know very well I work with Muslim Leaders.

Many from all walks of life. Often they stay with me at my property rather than public accomadtion. Because I like! to have them.

The way in which friendships are formed Morgan is with honesty.

Yes- I was at a shopping center which before being built years ago was used as a cow pasture.

Yep Slim Dusty used to ride with Dad a life time ago down Kempsey.

Yep they played I still call Australia home when I was driving through the bush on the way to help yet another farmer in hard times-

and yep I had tears in my eyes thinking about how bloody tough it is on the land now and how it was sad things were changing so fast.

Nope! I dont like seeing the full burkas` around everywhere when I go shopping.

Nope I dont want these things all over Australia and I am honest enough to say so.
Your the racist against Australians.

I love Australia and the bush , bushys Morgan and I dont want it changed so much we "dont recognise it anymore".

Now if my Muslim friends [of whom I am proud to say I have many] can understand and dont have a problem with my being honest about Burkas whats your problem?

Being honest Morgan is welcomed by "all" the Muslim people that I have had contact with.

This may come as a "big surprise"! to you Morgan but many Muslims dont like Burkas being worn here either as a personal preference.

As a matter of fact they themselves held a meeting to discuss it a year ago.!
So what does that make them? Muslims suffering from xenophobia according to you?
I call them friends who want to intergrate.

Good friends most of them!

Progressing slowly Jasper.

Now look up learned and learnéd.

(Gawd!...it's an uphill grind.)

Poor wee Jasper.

Ginx, my dictionary doesn't use acute accents. Maybe you are using a French dictionary?

Triste petit Ginx.

How about 'Oiu Ginx'?

JSP1488, in your attempt to appear learned, you have made a bit of an ass of yourself.

Fowler, who is the absolute arbiter on such issues, has an entire section devoted to -T and -ED endings, and is absolutely fine with the use of either learnt or learned. As in "have you learned nothing from all this?" being just as valid as "have you learnt nothing from all this?"

He elaborates as follows:

"At present the -ed forms still prevail in print over those in -t in most of our list. It should be pointed out that, if the past tense were distinguished from the past participle, the preponderance of -ed for it would be slightly greater. The figures are arrived at by counting the occurrences in all OED quotations of the 19th and 20th centuries."

So if you are going to pick a fight on trivia, it is probably better to check your facts first.

You poor sod, Jasper. Haven't you got anything to contribute to OLO other than this?

Get a proper dictionary.

For the rest; Pericles' post will do nicely

Pericles, who let you out of your box? If you’d been paying attention, you would have noticed that Ginx started this with her post of 1st September, ‘I KNOW you have learned (learned!!) gibberish by necessity’ She stooped to the gutter level of trying to find spelling mistakes (even when they were non-existent).

You wrote, ‘JSP1488, in your attempt to appear learned, you have made a bit of an ass of yourself.
Fowler, who is the absolute arbiter on such issues, has an entire section devoted to -T and -ED endings, and is absolutely fine with the use of either learnt or learned. As in "have you learned nothing from all this?" being just as valid as "have you learnt nothing from all this?"
He elaborates as follows:
"At present the -ed forms still prevail in print over those in -t in most of our list. It should be pointed out that, if the past tense were distinguished from the past participle, the preponderance of -ed for it would be slightly greater. The figures are arrived at by counting the occurrences in all OED quotations of the 19th and 20th centuries.
So if you are going to pick a fight on trivia, it is probably better to check your facts first’.

So what you are stating is that both forms can be right. I agree that the matter is trivial but all I did was reply to the pathetic little minx. BTW, your post, as above, devotes a lot more to the trivia than I did. Makes you wonder who the ass is.

Ginx, ‘Haven't you got anything to contribute to OLO other than this?’ As I already stated above, this started with your post, or have you forgotten? As for ‘Get a proper dictionary’, isn’t the Concise Oxford good enough? What are you using? Wikipedia?

Poor wee daft Ginx.

PS, as the learnt/learned saga is trivial, maybe it would be a good idea to return to the main thread. I couldn’t give a toss about how you want to spell it. Over not out.

No, JSP1488 - you 'started it' with an idiotic comment to the effect that multiculturalism brought about the end of the Roman Empire.

The quality of your contributions to the thread went downhill from there.

It's difficult trying to get through to the little twot isn't it?

(Psssssst! Jasper, learnt/learned/learnéd ain't got nuffin' to do with it has it? You've got yourself all obsessed with having a shot at me. I reciprocate. No big deal. You get more and more sidetracked in an endeavour to 'beat me'. You won't. Give it up old son, obsession is very unhealthy.)

The third stooge returns: Welcome back CJ Morgan. With, "you 'started it' with an idiotic comment to the effect that multiculturalism brought about the end of the Roman Empire." you confirmed your status as cretin of cretins. Which part of my previous post, where I outlined the learnt/learning saga and how Ginx had started it, didn't you understand? You couldn't grasp that and referred to my original post of 10th August where you thought that I wrote 'multiculturalism brought about the end of the Roman Empire' To digress back to that, if you read my first post again, you would see that I wrote 'It helped destroy the Roman Empire'. To make it clear for someone of your brain-damaged state, multi-culti was one factor in Rome's downfall.
Try and follow the current 'arguments' if you feel compelled to make a stupid little comment.

Poor wee Ginx, it's all a bit over your head isn't it? You can't even remember how it actually started (or who did it). My previous to you suggested dropping such a trivial 'argument'. I don't see the point of it. Try and forget it and I'll forget that you spelt, oops I meant spelled, twat as twot. As for trying to beat you, what is that all about? Don't you want me to reply to your meanderings?

Silly wee Ginx.

Sigh,..................................I didn't misspell THAT word. I DELIBERATELY changed one letter....., as I did before....

You have become so obsessed that you haven't looked at other threads have you?

Interesting bedfellows. Seeing what they want to see.

There are Right/Left wing posters on OLO, but it's becoming obvious that there is another group. The complete nutters! And there you are!

Jaspaloony.

Of course Australia is multi cultue and we should all feel proud of it. Those wo only want control from a caucasian anglo culture are nothing but racists. We have the indigenous culture and we should strive to maintain that heritage. The beauty of Australia is that we all come from different walks of life and we can share and enjoy each others culture without having to travel. Long Live Multicuturism it is wonderful and must be enjoyed.

I know that it hurts being told you are wrong, JSP1488, but you do yourself no favours by digging a deeper hole.

>>So what you are stating is that both forms can be right. I agree that the matter is trivial but all I did was reply to the pathetic little minx. BTW, your post, as above, devotes a lot more to the trivia than I did. Makes you wonder who the ass is.<<

Let's backtrack. Yours was the error when you said:

>>Maybe you should read a dictionary. It’s a big book of words and meanings but, sadly for you, no pictures. There you would read the following:-
Learnt - Past participle, past tense of learn
Learned – Deeply read, erudite. (obviously this does not apply to you).<<

I simply pointed out that this was incorrect. Learned and learnt are both valid past participles.

Your response shows that you a) didn't know this and b) that your first preference is to trade insults.

Let's face it, if you hadn't resorted in the first place to a pretence of intellectual superiority in trying to score a trivial point, you wouldn't have made such an ass of yourself.

Good to see that Pericles and Ginx are up to their usual standards. Unless anyone has anything relevant to the original topic to contribute, what's the point of continuing this thread?

Before this thread vanishes into cyber space may I just throw in a little observation?

JSP1488,

The Romans appear light skinned on their sculptures because they used white marble mostly.

Is Mise, I meant that the facial features on the Roman sculptures were typically Aryan, which no amount of hue changes can disguise.

JSP1488,

Ever been to India or the lands of the Afghans?

Loads of typically Aryan faces.

Language is another good indication; all the Germanic tongues and English and Gaelic etc are Indo-European languages. The ancient, and still the religious language of the Hindus, Sanskrit is a close relative of the Indo-European languages but not of Latin which has a different origin altogether.

I doubt that the majority of Romans were Aryans.

Is Mise, I should also have written that the Romans used to paint their statues and that traces of paint had been found on some that indicated they had been painted to portray fair complexions.

I agree that India and Afghanistan have loads of typically Aryan faces.

Indo-European languages include Germanic, Celtic, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian (including Sanskrit), Hellenic and Italic (the ancestor of Latin). Latin is most definitely part of the family as its ancient forms have relation to ancient Celtic, as both were of the western branch of Indo-European.