Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 ... 43
Send Topic Print
Has there been a more outrageous porky here? (Read 56480 times)
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 41980
Re: Has there been a more outrageous porky here?
Reply #405 - Sep 19th, 2019 at 1:24pm
 
Frank wrote on Sep 18th, 2019 at 6:22pm:
Multiculturalism means different things to people. Switzerland has four official languages and they are culturally compatible cultural and linguistic groups. Movement of people in Western Europe across countries is largely uncontroversial for the same reason. They are culturally compatible.

But the further away you move culturally the less support there is because there is less compatibility. Multiculturalism in the Bwianesque sense means everyone can get along with everyone else in Australia in particular and in Western countries in general  - an obvious nonsense since there are lots of cultural aspects that are not compatible with other cultures - a commonsense point hardly needing to be made was it not for the Bwians of the world and the militant multiculturalists like him - and the cultural underminers whose fellow-travellers he and his ilk are.

The second part is the selective celebration of all-inclusive 'multiculturalism'. It's to be celebrated only in Western countries (which are naturally tolerant and outward-looking), even to the extent of adjusting their own cultures to those of incompatible immigrants.

The only culture that must not be celebrated in Western multicultural countries, on pain of being labelled a bigot, privileged, hegemonic, white, colonialist, etc - is Western civilisation itself. Only the host civilisation, the one that alone makes multiculturalism possible, Western civilisation, is stamped as always already incompatible with the wonderful 'multicultural' utopia.


Your problem is, Soren that you ignore the very real contract between the host culture and the migrant and their culture.  Their culture is allowed and indeed encouraged to flourish under the auspices of the host culture on the condition that the host culture predominates and that they must abide by the existing legal system.   The migrants agree to this when they sign on  to come to Australia.   You however attempt to paint them as still acting as if their culture predominates.  It doesn't and the know that and are well aware of that.

In Australia, Multiculturalism is the official Government settlement policy for migrants.  It is popular with them and the majority of the rest of the population.  You are very much in the minority.  Australia has proved that Multiculturalism works the majority of the population, the majority of the times.   It is not perfect.  No Government policy is perfect.  You, however over-emphasis the relatively few failures of Multiculturalism without considering the overwhelming success stories.   This is because it suits your warped and strange thought processes.  You are not one of the 85% of the population that supports Multiculturalism, Soren.  You are very much in the other 15%.  Indeed, I'd actually suggest you're in the very small minority who utterly reject Multiculturalism.

So, lets ask a few questions about your behaviour, shall we?   Do you reject ethnic food completely?  Do you only consume meat and three veg at every dinner?  Do you reject Danish food completely?  Do you reject your old culture absolutely?  Nothing of Danish design/manufacture in your house at all?  Do you limit yourself to Indigenous Australian design/manufacture?  Really?  Or in reality do you have a mix of Danish and British and White Australian?   

Soren, always remember, you flew here, I grew here as did at least 50% of the Australian population.  Don't you think it's time you gave up your pretence to being a white, Anglo-Saxon/Celtic descended white settler?  You're Danish.  You're Nordic in origin.  You belong with your own people.  However, as you'll discover, you really can't go back to Denmark.  It's multicultural as well now.  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Has there been a more outrageous porky here?
Reply #406 - Sep 19th, 2019 at 2:36pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 1:24pm:
Their culture is allowed and indeed encouraged to flourish under the auspices of the host culture on the condition that the host culture predominates


This, sadly is what it has become. But it was not the original intent. The original model as implemented in the 70s was a radical shift away from this sort of thinking, and would of course be considered heresy today.

Frank is right about one thing - multiculturalism absolutely is designed to dilute, and even undermine the host culture. But this is not a bad thing - if you consider that the words 'undermine' and 'dilute' are merely another way of saying 'evolve' and 'reinvigorate'. Cultures should never remain stagnant and static. This is what stick in the muds like Frank want - to never evolve or adapt to a changing world. Of course, he would retort by saying we are being forced to incorporate inferior ways and cultures into our already great culture - thus making our cultural transformation a change for the worse. But most of us understand that multiculturalism consists of adopting the best aspects of different cultures, not the bad. We actually have institutions in place to prevent the bad aspects infiltrating into our culture. Muslims are actively prevented by law to take more than one wife, for example.

Now the Franks of this world are slowly but steadily having their way, and the spirit of true multiculturalism, as it was originally envisaged, is being dismantled, piece by piece. It started in the 80s when (for example) John Howard started the moral panic on Asian immigration. But we weren't really scared of immigration per se (white European immigration was, and remains, our highest intake), it was good old fashioned fears of foreign cultures taking over. It escalated once the liberal party in government panicked over Pauline Hanson and started adopting her positions on demonizing non-whites. Little by little both major parties have been sliding ever to the right on multiculturalism. And with them, it seems, they have dragged society across too, sadly. Hence the sorts of sentiments articulated in your statement quoted above.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Has there been a more outrageous porky here?
Reply #407 - Sep 19th, 2019 at 2:52pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 1:24pm:
Their culture is allowed and indeed encouraged to flourish under the auspices of the host culture on the condition that the host culture predominates and that they must abide by the existing legal system.   The migrants agree to this when they sign on  to come to Australia.   You however attempt to paint them as still acting as if their culture predominates.  It doesn't and the know that and are well aware of that.


One of the main purposes of multiculturalism, as formulated in its original form, is to reassure migrants that they are welcomed as equals, and to not feel inferior, or even worse, to feel like the host population has some God-given moral hold over them - ready to be exercised at any moment as some perverse way of keeping them in submission. And to do this, we have to dispense with any notion that they are beholden to a 'superior' culture, and thus clearly broadcasting to them that their culture (and by implication, themselves) are inferior to the hosts. I highly reccommend reading Ghassan Hague's provocative book 'White Nation', which explores this very theme - where white natives in Australia feel this entitlement to assume moral superiority over non-white immigrants. In this scenario, 'multiculturalism' is accepted only on the implicit understanding that foreign cultures know and adhere to their inferior status alongside the dominant (and therefore superior) culture, and accept the God-given right enjoyed by members of the dominant culture to assert their moral and cultural dominance over members of the inferior cultures.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: Has there been a more outrageous porky here?
Reply #408 - Sep 19th, 2019 at 4:01pm
 
A culture which believes in Dhimmitude, oppression of women, child marriage, sex with babies, all non believers are of lower status, killing non believers, killing apostates and hypocrites to name just a few of the depravities of said culture, has to be respected and accepted as equal?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 41980
Re: Has there been a more outrageous porky here?
Reply #409 - Sep 19th, 2019 at 4:12pm
 
Christianity, a religion which believes in slavery, oppression of women, child marriage, sex with babies, all non believers are of lower status, killing non believers, killing apostates and hypocrites to name just a few of the depravities of said culture, has to be respected and accepted as equal?   Roll Eyes


Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 46597
Gender: male
Re: Has there been a more outrageous porky here?
Reply #410 - Sep 19th, 2019 at 6:53pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 4:12pm:
Christianity, a religion which believes in slavery, oppression of women, child marriage, sex with babies, all non believers are of lower status, killing non believers, killing apostates and hypocrites to name just a few of the depravities of said culture, has to be respected and accepted as equal?   Roll Eyes





Every time you do this, Bwian, you prove again that you simply have no reason on your side, only stupidity, selective editing and distortion.


You are so vain and shallow that you cannot simply shut up when your argument has been shot to pieces. You have to do the Peter Sellers Party trick of the idiotic multicultural bugler who never dies, no matter how demolished your idiocies are.

Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 41980
Re: Has there been a more outrageous porky here?
Reply #411 - Sep 19th, 2019 at 7:09pm
 
Every time you do this, Soren, you prove again that you simply have no reason on your side, only stupidity, selective editing and distortion.

You are so vain and shallow that you cannot simply shut up when your argument has been shot to pieces. You have to do the Peter Sellers Party trick of the idiotic multicultural bugler who never dies, no matter how demolished your idiocies are.    Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 46597
Gender: male
Re: Has there been a more outrageous porky here?
Reply #412 - Sep 19th, 2019 at 7:42pm
 
I rest my case, drongo - you'll die before you have an idea of your own.

Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 41980
Re: Has there been a more outrageous porky here?
Reply #413 - Sep 19th, 2019 at 7:47pm
 
I rest my case, Soren - you'll die before you have an idea of your own.   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95964
Gender: male
Re: Has there been a more outrageous porky here?
Reply #414 - Sep 20th, 2019 at 12:19am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 2:52pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 1:24pm:
Their culture is allowed and indeed encouraged to flourish under the auspices of the host culture on the condition that the host culture predominates and that they must abide by the existing legal system.   The migrants agree to this when they sign on  to come to Australia.   You however attempt to paint them as still acting as if their culture predominates.  It doesn't and the know that and are well aware of that.


One of the main purposes of multiculturalism, as formulated in its original form, is to reassure migrants that they are welcomed as equals, and to not feel inferior, or even worse, to feel like the host population has some God-given moral hold over them - ready to be exercised at any moment as some perverse way of keeping them in submission. And to do this, we have to dispense with any notion that they are beholden to a 'superior' culture, and thus clearly broadcasting to them that their culture (and by implication, themselves) are inferior to the hosts. I highly reccommend reading Ghassan Hague's provocative book 'White Nation', which explores this very theme - where white natives in Australia feel this entitlement to assume moral superiority over non-white immigrants. In this scenario, 'multiculturalism' is accepted only on the implicit understanding that foreign cultures know and adhere to their inferior status alongside the dominant (and therefore superior) culture, and accept the God-given right enjoyed by members of the dominant culture to assert their moral and cultural dominance over members of the inferior cultures.


It's not the "host culture" that's superior, G. We have to import our superiors too. You know, those who like Danish are a pressing case in point.

Always absolutely never ever, no?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bias_2012
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 10766
Gender: male
Re: Has there been a more outrageous porky here?
Reply #415 - Sep 20th, 2019 at 12:38am
 
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 4:12pm:
Christianity, a religion which believes in slavery, oppression of women, child marriage, sex with babies, all non believers are of lower status, killing non believers, killing apostates and hypocrites to name just a few of the depravities of said culture, has to be respected and accepted as equal?   Roll Eyes




If Christians are like that it's still no excuse for muslims to be the same
Back to top
 

Our Lives Are Governed By The Feast & Famine Variable
 
IP Logged
 
Bias_2012
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 10766
Gender: male
Re: Has there been a more outrageous porky here?
Reply #416 - Sep 20th, 2019 at 3:03am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 2:52pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2019 at 1:24pm:
Their culture is allowed and indeed encouraged to flourish under the auspices of the host culture on the condition that the host culture predominates and that they must abide by the existing legal system.   The migrants agree to this when they sign on  to come to Australia.   You however attempt to paint them as still acting as if their culture predominates.  It doesn't and the know that and are well aware of that.


One of the main purposes of multiculturalism, as formulated in its original form, is to reassure migrants that they are welcomed as equals, and to not feel inferior, or even worse, to feel like the host population has some God-given moral hold over them - ready to be exercised at any moment as some perverse way of keeping them in submission. And to do this, we have to dispense with any notion that they are beholden to a 'superior' culture, and thus clearly broadcasting to them that their culture (and by implication, themselves) are inferior to the hosts. I highly reccommend reading Ghassan Hague's provocative book 'White Nation', which explores this very theme - where white natives in Australia feel this entitlement to assume moral superiority over non-white immigrants. In this scenario, 'multiculturalism' is accepted only on the implicit understanding that foreign cultures know and adhere to their inferior status alongside the dominant (and therefore superior) culture, and accept the God-given right enjoyed by members of the dominant culture to assert their moral and cultural dominance over members of the inferior cultures.


That's BS Gandalf. That's only your feelings directed towards the opponents of multiculturalism

Govt policy of multiculturalism was never needed because migrants were always going to practice there original cultures anyway. Before 1970 Chinese in OZ did, Greeks did, Italians did, and so on

But because these immigrants never saw themselves as Aussies, they banded together and formed ethnic lobby groups to persuade govts to officially make their cultures officially part of Australian life. It was nothing more than a takeover of the control of social life in OZ

However, the Govt made one very big mistake, they failed, and continue to fail, in explaining how they could keep Australia unified by implementing multiculturalism in Australia. They can only do it by dictatorship with a LibLab bipartisan approach. The concept of "Diversity", in principle, can only mean one thing - a divided society

Read this excerpt from the link below

The FitzGerald Report argued that the need for a sharper economic focus in the selection of immigrants is the most central issue in immigration reform.[45] The Report also suggested that the government needed to more strongly affirm Australian identity in order to render multiculturalism less threatening or divisive to the community.[46]

In the same year the initial bipartisanship that had characterised the introduction of a multicultural framework was effectively broken when then Opposition Leader, John Howard, called for the abandonment of the term multiculturalism, and a focus on 'One Australia' that:

    respects our cultural diversity and acknowledges that we are drawn from many parts of the world but requires of all of us a loyalty to Australia at all times and to her institutions and her values and her traditions which transcends loyalty to any other set of values anywhere in the world
. (this is also the sentiments of the ALP, because of the bipartisanship of both major parties)

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_...


So I'll ask you again Gandalf - Do you think that muslims should or should not stand for a judge in court? ... and when do you think muslims killing people in Australia will stop? given that no one has yet been able to say when they will stop

Let me post this bipartisan concern again before you answer
"but requires of all of us a loyalty to Australia at all times and to her institutions and her values and her traditions which transcends loyalty to any other set of values anywhere in the world."




Back to top
 

Our Lives Are Governed By The Feast & Famine Variable
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95964
Gender: male
Re: Has there been a more outrageous porky here?
Reply #417 - Sep 20th, 2019 at 8:31am
 
Yes, I see what you mean. Paramassala and Chinese New Year: the takeover of Australian Cultural Life.

Oh well, no more beach and cricket for you, Aussie. You can have dim sims instead.

Or, as the Multiculturalists would have it, a Chico Roll.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Has there been a more outrageous porky here?
Reply #418 - Sep 20th, 2019 at 9:19am
 
Bias_2012 wrote on Sep 20th, 2019 at 3:03am:
So I'll ask you again Gandalf - Do you think that muslims should or should not stand for a judge in court? ... and when do you think muslims killing people in Australia will stop? given that no one has yet been able to say when they will stop

Let me post this bipartisan concern again before you answer
"but requires of all of us a loyalty to Australia at all times and to her institutions and her values and her traditions which transcends loyalty to any other set of values anywhere in the world."


Again, its the same theme over and over: we'll accept you, and pretend we're all for acceptance and diversity - but in reality its all about asserting and maintaining dominance over you lot of inferiors.

Thats why you insist (as most people here do also) on framing this as a "us" vs "you/them" dynamic. Thus its not simply a run-of-the-mill problem of a few miscreants flouting our law and murders happening - as happens in every single society, multiculturalism or not; no it has to be a problem with "them" or "you people". And furthermore, you have the right to pick out at random any member of a cultural group you perceive as a problem, who may be a perfectly good law-abiding citizen, and give them the humiliating and dehumanizing interrogation treatment as if they are responsible for criminal behaviour as the criminals themselves, and can somehow make it stop.

Thats your entitled privilege as a member of the dominant and superior culture.

Ghassan Hage would have a field day with you bias. Speaking of who, here is a recent piece that hits the nail on the head about your paranoia:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/15/fears-of-white-decline-sho...

Basically its likening white paranoia over the people they persecute finally getting back at them with our paranoia about the natural world getting revenge on man for environmental destruction - as depicted in popular culture. eg Planet of the Apes.

In summing up, he says:

Quote:
In both the case of white colonial control over non-whites as well as in the case human control over nature, what is certain is the fragility of white/human control over the colonial/natural world. That the fragility of this domination gives birth to such fantasies of decline and reversal is more an indication of an incurable psychology of domination. That is, what we are dealing with are people whose viability is predicated on being dominant.

Humans who cannot see themselves other than in a relation of domination with the natural world and whites who, despite their protestations of being anything but racist, find it hard to be in anything but a dominant colonial position vis a vis non-white people.

It is only for such people that even a minor dent to the fantasy of domination that sustains them ends up being imagined as a catastrophic threat of disintegration.

Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 46597
Gender: male
Re: Has there been a more outrageous porky here?
Reply #419 - Sep 20th, 2019 at 9:34am
 
The efforts to civilise are often unforgiven.

The White Man’s Burden
1899

TAKE up the White Man’s burden—      
  Send forth the best ye breed—      
Go bind your sons to exile      
  To serve your captives’ need;      
To wait in heavy harness,             
  On fluttered folk and wild—      
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,      
  Half-devil and half-child.      

Take up the White Man’s Burden—      
  In patience to abide,              10
To veil the threat of terror      
  And check the show of pride;      
By open speech and simple,      
  An hundred times made plain,      
To seek another’s profit,              15
  And work another’s gain.      

Take up the White Man’s burden—      
  The savage wars of peace—      
Fill full the mouth of Famine      
  And bid the sickness cease;              20
And when your goal is nearest      
  The end for others sought,      
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly      
  Bring all your hope to nought.      


Take up the White Man’s burden—              25
  No tawdry rule of kings,      
But toil of serf and sweeper—      
  The tale of common things.      
The ports ye shall not enter,      
  The roads ye shall not tread,              30
Go make them with your living,      
  And mark them with your dead.      

Take up the White Man’s burden—      
  And reap his old reward:      
The blame of those ye better,              35
  The hate of those ye guard—      

The cry of hosts ye humour      
  (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:—      
“Why brought ye us from bondage,      
  “Our loved Egyptian night?”              40

Take up the White Man’s burden—      
  Ye dare not stoop to less—      
Nor call too loud on Freedom      
  To cloak your weariness;      
By all ye cry or whisper,              45
  By all ye leave or do,      
The silent, sullen peoples      
  Shall weigh your Gods and you.      

Take up the White Man’s burden—      
  Have done with childish days—              50
The lightly proffered laurel,      
  The easy, ungrudged praise.      
Comes now, to search your manhood      
  Through all the thankless years,      
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,              55
  The judgment of your peers!
Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 ... 43
Send Topic Print