Multiculturalism: Voluntary Segregation or Fantastic Social Integration Theory? (1 Viewer)

[*bright spark*]

With a pen stroke, Australian Prime Minister John Howard recently ended a concept that has dominated Australian immigration policy for more than 30 years: multiculturalism.​

​

​

The philosophy has lead Australia into trouble. For at least a decade now, the evidence has shown that instead of ethnic communities living happily within the diversity of social pluralism, multiculturalism bred ghettos characterized by high levels of unemployment, welfare dependency, welfare abuse, crime and violence.

http://www.sydneyline.com/Multiculturalism%20in%20WSJ.pdf​

 

[Optophobia]

Look!

Johnny Howard is doing so much to keep Australia safe from the revolutionary armies of political correctness. He renamed a department. I know who I'M voting for!

--------

With a pen stroke, Australian Prime Minister John Howard recently ended a concept that has dominated Australian immigration policy for more than 30 years: multiculturalism.

Responses like this ^^, are EXACTLY the problem.

People who are disgruntled see no problem with what they perceive to be the effect of what John Howard has done. The person who wrote this article is just as delusional as the idiots who believe in abolishing multi-culturalism.

They need to understand that he hasn't actually done anything, and they need to stop emphasising that he has done something, because you get armies of today tonight viewers thinking that good old johnny is doing something to *stop* the (media inspired) hatred.

If a *today tonight* viewer was to read that article, they would view it from a different perspective. They imagine the author to be some "politically correct" person.

the demise of government enthusiasm for multiculturalism was only a matter of time

INCORRECT.

No, there has been no demise of government enthusiasm for multi-culturalism.. But hearing this above quote, would be absolute music to the ears of racists.



I have read quite a bit of literature like this article lately. It's a *tad* outdated in its way of viewing the situation. The authors tend to be stuck in the 1990's in their way of viewing things.

They don't appear to be aware of the element of manipulation that newer commentators are.

 

[lengy]

Something tells me this account is made by a former user, I forgot the name... some chick who was asking how do tell who had big penii and other things. ur_inner_child wasn't a fan of her.

 

[Josie]

I recognise the irritatingly small font...

 

[*bright spark*]

And you're both wrong. It was simply the font that copied in from the article. And I have never mentioned anything about penii on these forums. Have a lovely day.

 

[Black Faery]

Responses like this ^^, are EXACTLY the problem.

People who are disgruntled see no problem with what they perceive to be the effect of what John Howard has done. The person who wrote this article is just as delusional as the idiots who believe in abolishing multi-culturalism.

You have no idea who Keith Windschuttle is do you? Regardless, I would like to clarify that Windschuttle is a very strong supporter of multiracialism, the idea that many races can successfully blend together in a modern society. For him, multiculturalism, as it is increasingly being understood, means the promotion of distinctive, mutually exclusive communities in Australia. I fail to see how this view makes him delusional. Further, Windschuttle helped publicise the works of the long dead Bruce Smith, the only Australian parliamentarian to completely and consistently oppose the White Australia Policy. Bruce Smith was a free trader.

Every society from which we have drawn our immigrants have been successful multiracial societies where, over time, a distinctive national identity has been formed. The United Kingdom - Celts, Picts, Jukes, Angles, Saxons etc. Greece - Albanians, minorities of Jews, Slavs, Copts. And so on, and so forth. If we are to criticise Australia for proposing such a society, surely we must chide every single immigrant who lives in ethnic-based communities in this nation? A consideration of the history of the world shows that homogenous societies are far more stable than heterogenous societies. When race is not a central issue of identity, then ethnic tensions are reduced and ethnic violence ends. I hardly see how a Balkanisation policy is either moral or just. The fact remains that we are not trying to make everyone anglo-saxon. I am not an anglo-saxon, but I am proud to be Australian. My grandparents were born in Greece but very strongly support Howard on this issue. They see it as common sense. Finally, don't forget that for many years there was a strong split between Irish and other British citizens in this nation. Their unity is a relatively recent occurrence. Please don't argue against someone without properly considering what they actually said.

 

[_dhj_]

Multiracialism??? One thing is for sure. Keith Windshuttle is definately a right leaning revisionist.

 

[Black Faery]

Multiracialism??? One thing is for sure. Keith Windshuttle is definately a right leaning revisionist.

Keith Windschuttle is a strong supporter of multiracialism. Search through the records on www.sydneyline.com.

Secondly, by revisionist, do you specifically refer to his book the White Australia Policy? I can't comment any further without knowing exactly what you mean, to do so would be ...well... left-wing 'intellectualism'.

 

[Optophobia]

I didn't say that he wasn't.

I'm saying he's wrong. He, any many other people, are being manipulated. There are those who have good intentions are manipulated. There are those who have bad intentions, who are being manipulated. They are all, however, being manipulated.

I would like to clarify that Windschuttle is a very strong supporter of multiracialism

Did you even read what i said?

 

[Black Faery]

I didn't say that he wasn't.

I'm saying he's wrong. He, any many other people, are being manipulated. There are those who have good intentions are manipulated. There are those who have bad intentions, who are being manipulated. They are all, however, being manipulated.
Did you even read what i said?

It made no sense. Howard has made substantial changes in the culture of the immigration department and related authorities. You are mistaken.

 

[Optophobia]

Howard has made substantial changes in the culture of the immigration department and related authorities. You are mistaken.

Yes, MAJOR changes.



No.

 

[Black Faery]

Yes, MAJOR changes.



No.

I'm sorry, have you had any experience personally with the immigration department? DFAT? You don't find anything remotely major about refugees being locked up? Australian citizens being deported because they didn't look white? What the fuck are you on? The rhetoric of Howard and co has definately changed the way the departments act because public servants follow the directions of ministers, and they all want promotions. Muslims are harassed and hounded because of Howard and other liberals views. Multiculturalism is dead, and assimilatory multi-racialism is back in favour.

 

[ogmzergrush]

I'm sorry, have you had any experience personally with the immigration department? DFAT? You don't find anything remotely major about refugees being locked up? Australian citizens being deported because they didn't look white? What the fuck are you on? The rhetoric of Howard and co has definately changed the way the departments act because public servants follow the directions of ministers, and they all want promotions. Muslims are harassed and hounded because of Howard and other liberals views. Multiculturalism is dead, and assimilatory multi-racialism is back in favour.

If you're going to insist upon trying to make a point, it's pertinent to note that the word definitely does not feature the letter 'a'. Good day to you, keep up the good work.

Edit: I'm not all about destroying arguments via spelling or anything like that, but seeing that in there just puts me right off.

 

[*bright spark*]

If you're going to insist upon trying to make a point, it's pertinent to note that the word definitely does not feature the letter 'a'. Good day to you, keep up the good work.

Edit: I'm not all about destroying arguments via spelling or anything like that, but seeing that in there just puts me right off.

right grammar nazi. so completely ignore a perfectly good post on account of a single misspelt word. fuck off and go harass another thread. please and thankyou. goodbye :wave:

 

[ogmzergrush]

right grammar nazi. so completely ignore a perfectly good post on account of a single misspelt word. fuck off and go harass another thread. please and thankyou. goodbye :wave:

1) I was rather explicit in stating that I wasn't going to go all nazi about it, and that I was simply making the observation that it's a far-too-common mistake which peturbs me.

2) I tend to harass people, not threads, and in this case I wasn't even doing that, unless said individual is particularly thin-skinned.

3) It wasn't a "perfectly good" post. It's a largely baseless rant, and the first half fails to take into account the fact that the post which it's replying to said "MAJOR CHANGES" not "MAJOR INCIDENTS WHICH I SAW ON TODAY TONIGHT". If we pretend that each of the points listed is a valid observation, we can move on to the second half of the post, and I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who has given it some thought that the current treatment of muslims within our society may be due to factors slightly more prominent on the radar than Howard's puppet-mastery of government departments. There's also no indication that these "trends" wouldn't have occured under different leadership, so the link between them and Howard is tenuous at very best (meaning that this doesn't really do much other than observe some interesting happenings in our recent history, in attempting to make a rather strongly worded point).

I didn't think it warranted a terribly lengthy reply, which is why it got the response that it did. Seeing as you're up for making an issue about it though, I have replied at more length this time, and I hope you are satisfied in knowing that you've attracted a more detailed criticism than would have originally be received, thumbs up right there, you really have made a big difference in the world.

4) I think the trick when you're being condescending is to not be utterly shit. Try harder next time.

 

[Black Faery]

If you're going to insist upon trying to make a point, it's pertinent to note that the word definitely does not feature the letter 'a'. Good day to you, keep up the good work.

Edit: I'm not all about destroying arguments via spelling or anything like that, but seeing that in there just puts me right off.

I have an IQ of 180. Look, I can make appeal to intellect fallacies too! I'm sorry that my drunken spelling is poor. English is my second language. Nevertheless my central argument is that Windschuttle dealt with a symbolic act by Howard, the changing of the name of the department. This move reflects the significant changes that have occured over the past decade in the way government thinks about immigration policy and citizenship laws. As a result, changes are set to occur to the citizenship process, and the behaviour of government departments has changed to reflect the government's thinking. Multiculturalism, which Windschuttle clearly defines as the process of promoting the segregation of different ethnic communities in Australia, is therefore at an end. In its place is a new policy of multiracial assimilation (as distinct from the White Australia Policy).

Optophobia has seriously misrepresented Keith Windschuttle, and you have provided absolutely no evidence to contradict this assertion.

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who has given it some thought that the current treatment of muslims within our society may be due to factors slightly more prominent on the radar than Howard's puppet-mastery of government departments. There's also no indication that these "trends" wouldn't have occured under different leadership, so the link between them and Howard is tenuous at very best (meaning that this doesn't really do much other than observe some interesting happenings in our recent history, in attempting to make a rather strongly worded point).

No, I don't think it is slightly more obvious than the directions being set by the Prime Minister of Australia. I think he is pretty important, don't you? Indeed, there is no indication that these 'trends' wouldn't have occured under another conservative leader. Would Paul Keating have gone down this path? Your assertion is rather dubious. John Howard has spoken widely on the issue, as have other members of his government. You suggest that irrespective of their comments, the multicultural debate would have occurred in a similar fashion to what is recorded in the historical record. Could you please provide some reasons for why you believe this?

You have effectively completely undermined the prominence of the Prime Minister in Australian society, and have provided no reasoning other than an appeal to superiority 'anyone who has given it some thought'.

 

[ogmzergrush]

I have an IQ of 180. Look, I can make appeal to intellect fallacies too!

K?

I'm sorry that my drunken spelling is poor. English is my second language.

Now this I can empathise with. When I go out and hit the piss, first thing I want to do when I get home is try my hand at scathing political commentary. We could be twins.

Nevertheless my central argument is that Windschuttle dealt with a symbolic act by Howard, the changing of the name of the department. This move reflects the significant changes that have occured over the past decade in the way government thinks about immigration policy and citizenship laws. As a result, changes are set to occur to the citizenship process, and the behaviour of government departments has changed to reflect the government's thinking. Multiculturalism, which Windschuttle clearly defines as the process of promoting the segregation of different ethnic communities in Australia, is therefore at an end. In its place is a new policy of multiracial assimilation (as distinct from the White Australia Policy).

My interest in your point is actually somewhat limited, BUT, good work, despite the obstacles life has put in your way, you've managed to expand eloquently enough upon what you said before.

Optophobia has seriously misrepresented Keith Windschuttle, and you have provided absolutely no evidence to contradict this assertion.

I wasn't interested in contradicting anything. I was just pointing out that your previous post made you look like a moron through the strong assertions coupled with lack of (expressed) justification. Someone interested in debating the topic with you (no, not me), may actually have something worth responding to here now, so hey, 10 points for teamwork.

I think he is pretty important, don't you?

I suppose not, you appear to attribute much more importance to him as an individual than I do. Limited relevance seeing as I don't intend to engage in any debate with you on this, but an interesting an accurate observation, so I'll respond to that.

Indeed, there is no indication that these 'trends' wouldn't have occured under another conservative leader. Would Paul Keating have gone down this path? Your assertion is rather dubious.

As I'm lacking in the time machine department, I am unable to demonstrate that he would have. Similarly, the point I was making was that it's difficult to believe that there is no possibility that he would have, or anyone else for that matter. In saying this, I was prompting for some form of justification or perhaps a degree of restraint in what you were saying (qualifiers perhaps), rather than trying to debate your views.

John Howard has spoken widely on the issue, as have other members of his government. You suggest that irrespective of their comments, the multicultural debate would have occurred in a similar fashion to what is recorded in the historical record.

What I actually suggest that it is conceivable that it could have. I have little doubt that he's made the situation worse, and my point was simply that there are other factors to be aware of.

You have effectively completely undermined the prominence of the Prime Minister in Australian society...

Good, fuck the little koala man. In case it's still lost on you, I'm not a fan at all and wasn't seeking to justify anything he's done. It was more a criticism of the manner in which you presented your opinion than it was a disagreement with anything you said.

 

[Optophobia]

Nevertheless my central argument is that Windschuttle dealt with a symbolic act by Howard, the changing of the name of the department. This move reflects the significant changes that have occured over the past decade in the way government thinks about immigration policy and citizenship laws.

I disagree, and suggest that both you and 'Windschuttle' are being naive. No deep changes have occured, nor has there been any shift in how the government thinks about immigration policy. To believe so gives false hope to the mindless masses of bigots who believe that they are finally getting somewhere (when they never will).

Suggesting that there has been major change in the way that the government thinks about immigration is giving Howard too much credit.

This act was simply a cheap point-scoring activity. The core of the immigration department has not changed at all and this move was designed to make bigots feel happy. By you (and "Windschuttle") observing this incorrectly, you are also falling for Johnny's manipulation.

You need to stop treating these puney things that Howard does as if they are a "shock horror" issue, because you make bigots think that john Howard is actually "working" for them. He is not.

 

[Bendent]

yeah these kind of issues happened in usa as well, though there are also as you can tell many benefits of multiculturism.

 

[Black Faery]

I disagree, and suggest that both you and 'Windschuttle' are being naive. No deep changes have occured, nor has there been any shift in how the government thinks about immigration policy. To believe so gives false hope to the mindless masses of bigots who believe that they are finally getting somewhere (when they never will).

Don't be an idiot. Windschuttle and I are pro-multiracialism unlike the millions of maniacs that reside here. Howard is giving the impression of doing something, but in reality he is promoting immigration very strongly in the best way possible for Australia. Howard has increased rather than reduced immigration. Perceptions are reality in politics. Please refrain from disagreeing with this point, I was under the impression that you didn't want Comrade Rudd to win.