Australia launches anti-terror raids

[samran]

The comedy duo strike again.

The conflicts will last a long time but the more diversity and multiculturalism in Australia, the more we can develop our identity away from that stuff from the past.

Sorry, but there are just too many people disagree with you.

Rifts within Australian society, right through history, whether by denial of rights to the indigenous people or, on the contrary, by way of feelings of victimisation by the settling communities, and in recent times, the effects of cultural identity and assimilation taken to the extreme in the form of riots, street violence and ethnic gangs on both, the settled and the migrant communities, pose major challenges to multiculturalism in the country.

Sound familiar ?

Lets have a wee look at what some Australian Academics have to say.

From the late 70’s Australian Academics have been critical of multiculturalism.

The earliest academic critics of multiculturalism in Australia were the philosophers Lachlan Chipman and Frank Knopfelmacher, sociologist Tanya Birrel and the political scientist Raymond Sestito. Chipman and Knopfelmacher were concerned with threats to social cohesion, while Birrell's concern was that multiculturalism obscures the social costs associated with large scale immigration that fall most heavily on the most recently arrived and unskilled immigrants. Sestito's arguments were based on the role of political parties. He argued that political parties were instrumental in pursuing multicultural policies, and that these policies would put strain on the political system and would not promote better understanding in the Australian community

BooHoo them all you like, I would believe what they have to say, rather than a couple of keyboard commando's. I digress, the precedent has already been set. The UK being the perfect example.

As samran kindly donated.

From this time forward

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

whose democratic beliefs I share,

whose rights and liberties I respect, and

whose laws I will uphold and obey.

As Muslim ideology does not lend itself to democracy, how does that fit in with the Oath of Allegiance that is part of the process that they need to go through. It is interesting to note, that this Oath is slightly different from the original Oath. Perhaps someone could explain why it had to be changed ?

Back from evening prayers jock?

[jacky54]

I thought we had a warning that baiting and insults was not allowed, did you not read it?

[JockPieandBeans]

I thought we had a warning that baiting and insults was not allowed, did you not read it?

Probably doesnt apply to minority groups, they will start throwing the racist card.

[Tep]

Demonstrated revival of otherwise dying country towns and communities of people from these places moving to the regions. Tick.

Rural MPs lobbing for more of these people to come, tick.

Australian owned abbotoirs being able to produce halal meat and other products ready for export, abbotoirs which before these people came couldn't find enough locals to work in them and risked shutting down. Making our live stock industry interesting to new markets. Tick

Export income. Tick

A new generation of Australia conversant and familiar with the cultures of one of the fastest growing regions of the world. Better ready to take advantage of the economic opportunities these places will bring. Tick.

Well that didn't take long to get over 5. You are clearly closer to the current situation than me. Must have been away too long. But I do recall reading some stuff about abattoirs providing meat exports and the rural revival stuff. I have lived in rural parts of Australia and getting qualified people for basis services like doctors, teachers etc is difficult the more remote you area.

I wonder if others have any additions?

[samran]

There is no doubt that sometimes those that blow the hardest are hypocrites, but in this case I don't think the comparison quite fits. There are plenty of posters who have been blowing anti-Islam rhetoric for a very long time. They are now salivating because they have their moment to come out of the shadows and have less to fear about getting their material removed from the forum.

The outrage is based on fear and the fear is exacerbated by watching videos of people being beheaded and being behead by native English speakers. How did this happen? Why are they doing it to us?

We try to make sense of this nonsense, but we can't. It's not always helped by our politicians who wish to score points with their tough talk.

Islam and Muslims aren't the enemy. Like us, many of them have to live with this fear much closer to home than we do.

It's very scary. This boogey man might not be hiding in the closet, but we still need to take a peek to make sure.

It might be that these were just cockroaches waiting in the dark corners waiting for their day in the sun, but it is just a gut feeling, something just ain't right.

There are what I call your considered conservatives on TV. Your UG's, neversures and a few others. Consistently conservative, and who will defend their ground, but scare mongering isn't their modus operandi.

But there is a new breed. And the tone on TV has changed drastically of late.

Now despite what people have accused me of, it is really hard not avoid reading about the extremists. When you read about them you really get a feel that they are using new methods of to spread their terror.

And let's be clear, even the most fanatical jihadi knows that they can't kill every one, so the aim is to literally speed terror amongst their enemy as efficiently as possible.

You used to be able to have to kill a lot of people to achieve this aim, but the internet has given rise to a new brand of terrorist, the you tube jihadist. It allows more with less need to murder many people. It goes viral.

They spread their fear via the internet. It is helped along by the fools who think they are defending truth justice and the English defence league way who aren't smart enough to realise they are helping in doing their jihadis bidding. In other words, Isis has outsourced their PR work to the tabloids and right wing keyboard warriors.

I'm a little bit familiar with political spin, and websites these days are filled with spinners and operatives on one side or a other. It's basic tradecraft and wouldn't surprise me that people who are acting as the biggest blowhards actually have another agenda - to spead fear.

It might be a bridge too far for some to accept, I understand that, but whatever the case the fear mongers are doing the jihadis work for them. Whether they are doing it inadvertently or intentionally, the result is the same - helping the enemy.

[samran]

I thought we had a warning that baiting and insults was not allowed, did you not read it?

Probably doesnt apply to minority groups, they will start throwing the racist card.

You'd know about being a minority in your own country. Isn't that the EDLs refrain?

[Tep]

Met GF from work and went to dinner, Aussie steak, not fussed if it was halal or not.

But nice to see you can still chuck the insults and ignore the post. Well done.

Who cares? What's this got to do with Australia, a place that you have absolutely no connection with or understanding of? You just have a motor mouth I think. Can't help yourself. Do you have tourettes? You want us to discuss your eating habits? You want us to discuss your girl friend? What do you expect to achieve with this lame nonsense?

[JockPieandBeans]

It might be a bridge too far for some to accept, I understand that, but whatever the case the fear mongers are doing the jihadis work for them. Whether they are doing it inadvertently or intentionally, the result is the same - helping the enemy.

You are absolutely correct. They are normally called liberals, although I am pretty sure they get called a lot of other things also.

Of course they do the work of the jihadi's for them, they insist on giving them free passage to Countries that they have no affinity for, and in a lot of cases actually abhor that Country and their beliefs.

They start of slowly, taking over small areas, then they bring in their extended families, encourage others to come, forcing out the indigenous population, until it becomes a Minority ghetto.

Australia only has a 2.2% Muslim population, when it gets to around 3%, the demands will start. We want Sharia Law and all sorts of other things.

Even though aspects of Sharia Law is currently being quietly used, multiple wives, forced marriages, perhaps even honour killings ( Now there is a misnomer ). All contrary to Australian Civil Law.

You think they care ? They care not a jot. You have already seen that, I dont need to labour the point.

So, yes indeed, their is an enemy, they are already deeply entrenched within Australia and its only going to get worse.

[JockPieandBeans]

It might be a bridge too far for some to accept, I understand that, but whatever the case the fear mongers are doing the jihadis work for them. Whether they are doing it inadvertently or intentionally, the result is the same - helping the enemy.

You are absolutely correct. They are normally called liberals, although I am pretty sure they get called a lot of other things also.

Of course they do the work of the jihadi's for them, they insist on giving them free passage to Countries that they have no affinity for, and in a lot of cases actually abhor that Country and their beliefs.

They start of slowly, taking over small areas, then they bring in their extended families, encourage others to come, forcing out the indigenous population, until it becomes a Minority ghetto.

Australia only has a 2.2% Muslim population, when it gets to around 3%, the demands will start. We want Sharia Law and all sorts of other things.

Even though aspects of Sharia Law is currently being quietly used, multiple wives, forced marriages, perhaps even honour killings ( Now there is a misnomer ). All contrary to Australian Civil Law.

You think they care ? They care not a jot. You have already seen that, I dont need to labour the point.

So, yes indeed, their is an enemy, they are already deeply entrenched within Australia and its only going to get worse.

Liberals?

Liberals, the enemy within, that help the other enemy to get in

[JockPieandBeans]

Perhaps the vocal 2, rather than throw insults and abuse.

Would actually like to comment on something that is on topic ? I had posted this previously, but as usual it was totally ignored.

Quote

The conflicts will last a long time but the more diversity and multiculturalism in Australia, the more we can develop our identity away from that stuff from the past.

Sorry, but there are just too many people disagree with you.

Rifts within Australian society, right through history, whether by denial of rights to the indigenous people or, on the contrary, by way of feelings of victimisation by the settling communities, and in recent times, the effects of cultural identity and assimilation taken to the extreme in the form of riots, street violence and ethnic gangs on both, the settled and the migrant communities, pose major challenges to multiculturalism in the country.

Sound familiar ?

Lets have a wee look at what some Australian Academics have to say.

Quote

From the late 70’s Australian Academics have been critical of multiculturalism.

The earliest academic critics of multiculturalism in Australia were the philosophers Lachlan Chipman and Frank Knopfelmacher, sociologist Tanya Birrel and the political scientist Raymond Sestito. Chipman and Knopfelmacher were concerned with threats to social cohesion, while Birrell's concern was that multiculturalism obscures the social costs associated with large scale immigration that fall most heavily on the most recently arrived and unskilled immigrants. Sestito's arguments were based on the role of political parties. He argued that political parties were instrumental in pursuing multicultural policies, and that these policies would put strain on the political system and would not promote better understanding in the Australian community

BooHoo them all you like, I would believe what they have to say, rather than a couple of keyboard commando's. I digress, the precedent has already been set. The UK being the perfect example.

As samran kindly donated.

From this time forward
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.

As Muslim ideology does not lend itself to democracy, how does that fit in with the Oath of Allegiance that is part of the process that they need to go through. It is interesting to note, that this Oath is slightly different from the original Oath. Perhaps someone could explain why it had to be changed ?

[Tep]

The comedy duo strike again.

The conflicts will last a long time but the more diversity and multiculturalism in Australia, the more we can develop our identity away from that stuff from the past.

Sorry, but there are just too many people disagree with you.

Rifts within Australian society, right through history, whether by denial of rights to the indigenous people or, on the contrary, by way of feelings of victimisation by the settling communities, and in recent times, the effects of cultural identity and assimilation taken to the extreme in the form of riots, street violence and ethnic gangs on both, the settled and the migrant communities, pose major challenges to multiculturalism in the country.

Sound familiar ?

Lets have a wee look at what some Australian Academics have to say.

From the late 70’s Australian Academics have been critical of multiculturalism.

The earliest academic critics of multiculturalism in Australia were the philosophers Lachlan Chipman and Frank Knopfelmacher, sociologist Tanya Birrel and the political scientist Raymond Sestito. Chipman and Knopfelmacher were concerned with threats to social cohesion, while Birrell's concern was that multiculturalism obscures the social costs associated with large scale immigration that fall most heavily on the most recently arrived and unskilled immigrants. Sestito's arguments were based on the role of political parties. He argued that political parties were instrumental in pursuing multicultural policies, and that these policies would put strain on the political system and would not promote better understanding in the Australian community

BooHoo them all you like, I would believe what they have to say, rather than a couple of keyboard commando's. I digress, the precedent has already been set. The UK being the perfect example.

As samran kindly donated.

From this time forward

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

whose democratic beliefs I share,

whose rights and liberties I respect, and

whose laws I will uphold and obey.

As Muslim ideology does not lend itself to democracy, how does that fit in with the Oath of Allegiance that is part of the process that they need to go through. It is interesting to note, that this Oath is slightly different from the original Oath. Perhaps someone could explain why it had to be changed ?

Who are these people who disagree? How can we tell. You provide no references for your quotations. How are they to be tested, explored, discussed. We just take your word for it? Too many people? How many; who are they; what is their context?

You don't fight fair do you? You post unattributed quotes to support some general statement of your own and think this is intelligent debate.

You are anti-intelligent. You are a polemicist. You never waver from your central, bigoted thesis. In a previous post, now deleted, you commanded me in your typical style to find where you have made statements that were bigoted. I did not have to respond. It was clear that you could not help yourself and here were see it in your concluding paragraph. Muslim ideology is incompatible with democracy. You arrogantly dismiss entire swathes of the world moving from Indonesia, Malaysia, through India and Pakistan to the countries emerging with difficulty from the Arab Spring. What - 2 billion people you dismiss. You then apply this wild, unsupported, erroneous accusation against the Australian pledge and in your bigotry tell us that Muslims will not comply because they are Muslims. Please understand that this is a textbook definition of bigotry.

Finally your weak attempt at a disourse on Australian anti-multiculturalism. Who are these people you quote? There is no attribution. You google and then cut and paste a bunch of irrelevancies. You expect to convince how many people with this? I can state with clarity that your attempt at demonstrating the Australian opposition to multiculturalism entirely fails because you have no understanding of our culture. You cannot discuss context even if your quotes were attributed because you do not bother to try and understand Australian society. This comes from your bigotry. You assume we all think like you. Your first quote raises the settlers. You know what this term means? You know the role of settlers in colonial Australian history? You know anything about the historical, geographical, cultural, socio-economic context in which settlers moved? Actual Australians do. We got it in school. We discussed it. Learned facts about it. Analysed it in the context of our current society. You didn't and so you quote is so wide of the market that it makes the point and you irrelevant to the argument you attempt.

Your second quote found from somewhere. Academics in the 70's. Again, no attribution. No idea of context. How does this demonstrate your complete ignorance of Australia and our culture? Let's just take one part. The allegation that immigration will put stresses on political parties. I used to watch Parliamentary Question Time in the Senate where a Chinese Australian right wing senator often spoke. I went to primary school with an Italian kid who went into the local council and is now MP in the lower state house for the place where we grew up. He is on my Facebook. Australians of Asian descent in politics. Australian muslims in politics. Do you know our political parties? Did you grow up listening to parents talk about politics and the parties? Have you ever engaged on political issues with Australian politicians? No. You have not idea of Australian culture and your snippet is meaningless as a result.

What have you got to teach us about anything. Your presumption to lecture us on muslims, immigration and now multiculturalism. And when you try to support your bigotry, your laziness produces this anti-intellectual pap.

Keyboard commando? I know imitation is the sincerest form of flattery (and I didn't have to google that quote, unlike your fool's mouth quote), but please find some originality in your insults. I claimed that you were engaged in a fantasy epic battle so I am claiming dibs on this one. Come up with your own.

[JockPieandBeans]

Or how about

Child brides

Forced marriages

Polygamy

Female Genitalia Mutilation

Honour killings

No such thing as rape in Marriage

Apostasy

How does the above fit into Australian Culture. It certainly does not comply with Australian Civil Law.

[Tep]

Met GF from work and went to dinner, Aussie steak, not fussed if it was halal or not.

But nice to see you can still chuck the insults and ignore the post. Well done.

Who cares? What's this got to do with Australia, a place that you have absolutely no connection with or understanding of? You just have a motor mouth I think. Can't help yourself. Do you have tourettes? You want us to discuss your eating habits? You want us to discuss your girl friend? What do you expect to achieve with this lame nonsense?

Misquotes and abuse.

What more can I say

Someone provides a logical argument that doesnt fit your agenda.

And the result is there for all to see

No misquotes here Jihad Jock. Just exactly what you said. What abuse? I asked a series of questions about what your silly post had to do with anything. Where is the logical argument in telling us what you had for dinner? Please keep reposting for more to see. That is why I made this comment.

[samran]

Or how about

Child brides

Forced marriages

Polygamy

Female Genitalia Mutilation

Honour killings

No such thing as rape in Marriage

Apostasy

How does the above fit into Australian Culture. It certainly does not comply with Australian Civil Law.

Broken record there jihadi jock. The man who lectures others on geography but has never been to the place of which he speaks.

Spreading the fear just like a good Isis lackey. Do they pay you much Mr 3%?

[Tep]

Or how about

Child brides

Forced marriages

Polygamy

Female Genitalia Mutilation

Honour killings

No such thing as rape in Marriage

Apostasy

How does the above fit into Australian Culture. It certainly does not comply with Australian Civil Law.

As far as I am aware, these are not allowed in Australian law. Next question please. Unless you are trying to make some bigoted point and say that Australian muslims all believe this stuff should be allowed.

I forget, we are still below 3% so it doesn't matter then for a while.

[JockPieandBeans]

The comedy duo strike again.

The conflicts will last a long time but the more diversity and multiculturalism in Australia, the more we can develop our identity away from that stuff from the past.

Sorry, but there are just too many people disagree with you.

Rifts within Australian society, right through history, whether by denial of rights to the indigenous people or, on the contrary, by way of feelings of victimisation by the settling communities, and in recent times, the effects of cultural identity and assimilation taken to the extreme in the form of riots, street violence and ethnic gangs on both, the settled and the migrant communities, pose major challenges to multiculturalism in the country.

Sound familiar ?

Lets have a wee look at what some Australian Academics have to say.

From the late 70’s Australian Academics have been critical of multiculturalism.

The earliest academic critics of multiculturalism in Australia were the philosophers Lachlan Chipman and Frank Knopfelmacher, sociologist Tanya Birrel and the political scientist Raymond Sestito. Chipman and Knopfelmacher were concerned with threats to social cohesion, while Birrell's concern was that multiculturalism obscures the social costs associated with large scale immigration that fall most heavily on the most recently arrived and unskilled immigrants. Sestito's arguments were based on the role of political parties. He argued that political parties were instrumental in pursuing multicultural policies, and that these policies would put strain on the political system and would not promote better understanding in the Australian community

BooHoo them all you like, I would believe what they have to say, rather than a couple of keyboard commando's. I digress, the precedent has already been set. The UK being the perfect example.

As samran kindly donated.

From this time forward

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

whose democratic beliefs I share,

whose rights and liberties I respect, and

whose laws I will uphold and obey.

As Muslim ideology does not lend itself to democracy, how does that fit in with the Oath of Allegiance that is part of the process that they need to go through. It is interesting to note, that this Oath is slightly different from the original Oath. Perhaps someone could explain why it had to be changed ?

Who are these people who disagree? How can we tell. You provide no references for your quotations. How are they to be tested, explored, discussed. We just take your word for it? Too many people? How many; who are they; what is their context?

You don't fight fair do you? You post unattributed quotes to support some general statement of your own and think this is intelligent debate.

You are anti-intelligent. You are a polemicist. You never waver from your central, bigoted thesis. In a previous post, now deleted, you commanded me in your typical style to find where you have made statements that were bigoted. I did not have to respond. It was clear that you could not help yourself and here were see it in your concluding paragraph. Muslim ideology is incompatible with democracy. You arrogantly dismiss entire swathes of the world moving from Indonesia, Malaysia, through India and Pakistan to the countries emerging with difficulty from the Arab Spring. What - 2 billion people you dismiss. You then apply this wild, unsupported, erroneous accusation against the Australian pledge and in your bigotry tell us that Muslims will not comply because they are Muslims. Please understand that this is a textbook definition of bigotry.

Finally your weak attempt at a disourse on Australian anti-multiculturalism. Who are these people you quote? There is no attribution. You google and then cut and paste a bunch of irrelevancies. You expect to convince how many people with this? I can state with clarity that your attempt at demonstrating the Australian opposition to multiculturalism entirely fails because you have no understanding of our culture. You cannot discuss context even if your quotes were attributed because you do not bother to try and understand Australian society. This comes from your bigotry. You assume we all think like you. Your first quote raises the settlers. You know what this term means? You know the role of settlers in colonial Australian history? You know anything about the historical, geographical, cultural, socio-economic context in which settlers moved? Actual Australians do. We got it in school. We discussed it. Learned facts about it. Analysed it in the context of our current society. You didn't and so you quote is so wide of the market that it makes the point and you irrelevant to the argument you attempt.

Your second quote found from somewhere. Academics in the 70's. Again, no attribution. No idea of context. How does this demonstrate your complete ignorance of Australia and our culture? Let's just take one part. The allegation that immigration will put stresses on political parties. I used to watch Parliamentary Question Time in the Senate where a Chinese Australian right wing senator often spoke. I went to primary school with an Italian kid who went into the local council and is now MP in the lower state house for the place where we grew up. He is on my Facebook. Australians of Asian descent in politics. Australian muslims in politics. Do you know our political parties? Did you grow up listening to parents talk about politics and the parties? Have you ever engaged on political issues with Australian politicians? No. You have not idea of Australian culture and your snippet is meaningless as a result.

What have you got to teach us about anything. Your presumption to lecture us on muslims, immigration and now multiculturalism. And when you try to support your bigotry, your laziness produces this anti-intellectual pap.

Keyboard commando? I know imitation is the sincerest form of flattery (and I didn't have to google that quote, unlike your fool's mouth quote), but please find some originality in your insults. I claimed that you were engaged in a fantasy epic battle so I am claiming dibs on this one. Come up with your own.

You claim to be Australian, but you do not know who these people are.

I will ask you again to point out my bigotry. You are the one that has post removed for containing racist comments, not me.

You are supposed to be the Aussie, according to you I know nothing about Australia, so go do your own research and put me right on what I have said is wrong.

[jacky54]

Jacky no brains is a jock too then?

Baiting and racial abuse, not surprised they sacked you as a mod.

[Tep]

You claim to be Australian, but you do not know who these people are.

I will ask you again to point out my bigotry. You are the one that has post removed for containing racist comments, not mine

You are supposed to be the Aussie, according to you I know nothing about Australia, so go do your own research and put me right on what I have said is wrong.

I did not say I did not know who these people are. I said that you did not attribute your quotations. I have to assume that you do not know who those people are.

I made a clear, unequivocal statement that your claim that Muslims are incompatible with democracy is bigoted. I elaborated on this. I thought I was quite clear. You wish for more?

You continue to think that you can give orders to posters.

My contention is clear. Your statements are irrelevant to the anti-multicultural argument because they are out of context. They are out of context because you have no understanding of Australian culture or society and do not know how to use them to make your argument. I elaborate this with examples from my own Australian experience. You cannot counter these because you no nothing about Australians. This is my contention and has been my contention since your first piece of anti-immigrant nonsense I saw on this thread.

Do not presume to give orders to anyone in the future.

[Tep]

Jacky no brains is a jock too then?

Baiting and racial abuse, not surprised they sacked you as a mod.

The saying is correct. Stand up to a bully and he will crumble and run away like a little girl. Case in point.

[JockPieandBeans]

Or how about

Child brides

Forced marriages

Polygamy

Female Genitalia Mutilation

Honour killings

No such thing as rape in Marriage

Apostasy

How does the above fit into Australian Culture. It certainly does not comply with Australian Civil Law.

Broken record there jihadi jock. The man who lectures others on geography but has never been to the place of which he speaks.

Spreading the fear just like a good Isis lackey. Do they pay you much Mr 3%?

Your assumption is amazing

[JockPieandBeans]

How about Frank Salter, he doesnt agree with you either.

Australian political ethologist Frank Salter, author of On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration, has argued against the principle of a multicultural society, asserting that "multi-ethnic societies are often confronted with the problem of discrimination and group conflict." According to Salter:

Cross-cultural comparisons reveal the wisdom of Australia's first prime minister Edmund Barton who believed that ethnic homogeneity must be the cornerstone of Australian nation-building. More ethnically homogeneous nations are better able to build public goods, are more democratic, less corrupt, have higher productivity and less inequality, are more trusting and care more for the disadvantaged, develop social and economic capital faster, have lower crime rates, are more resistant to external shocks, and are better global citizens, for example by giving more foreign aid. Moreover, they are less prone to civil war, the greatest source of violent death in the twentieth century.

Salter has linked multiculturalism to growing ethnic socio-economic stratification in Australia, stating:

Inequality in Australia increasingly has an ethnic face. Aborigines continue to occupy the lowest rung on the socio-economic ladder. Despite the points system for assessing immigrants, some ethnic minorities have high rates of unemployment and criminality. Many white Australians are losing out to competition from immigrants. Selective public schools show spectacular overrepresentation of Chinese and other Asian students, an imbalance that feeds through to elite universities and thence to the professions. Ethnic socioeconomic stratification is growing as the population becomes more diverse.

Salter has argued that multiculturalism forms "part of an ideological-administrative system that is helping swamp the Australian nation through ethnically diverse immigration." This, in turn, is "putting at risk the nation’s ability to produce the public goods that nations excel in producing: relative cohesion and harmony, public altruism, trust, efficient government and political stability.

You can research his articles here

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/01/frank-salter-on-race-and-nation-in-australia/

[samran]

How about Frank Salter, he doesnt agree with you either.

Australian political ethologist Frank Salter, author of On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration, has argued against the principle of a multicultural society, asserting that "multi-ethnic societies are often confronted with the problem of discrimination and group conflict." According to Salter:

Cross-cultural comparisons reveal the wisdom of Australia's first prime minister Edmund Barton who believed that ethnic homogeneity must be the cornerstone of Australian nation-building. More ethnically homogeneous nations are better able to build public goods, are more democratic, less corrupt, have higher productivity and less inequality, are more trusting and care more for the disadvantaged, develop social and economic capital faster, have lower crime rates, are more resistant to external shocks, and are better global citizens, for example by giving more foreign aid. Moreover, they are less prone to civil war, the greatest source of violent death in the twentieth century.

Salter has linked multiculturalism to growing ethnic socio-economic stratification in Australia, stating:

Inequality in Australia increasingly has an ethnic face. Aborigines continue to occupy the lowest rung on the socio-economic ladder. Despite the points system for assessing immigrants, some ethnic minorities have high rates of unemployment and criminality. Many white Australians are losing out to competition from immigrants. Selective public schools show spectacular overrepresentation of Chinese and other Asian students, an imbalance that feeds through to elite universities and thence to the professions. Ethnic socioeconomic stratification is growing as the population becomes more diverse.

Salter has argued that multiculturalism forms "part of an ideological-administrative system that is helping swamp the Australian nation through ethnically diverse immigration." This, in turn, is "putting at risk the nation’s ability to produce the public goods that nations excel in producing: relative cohesion and harmony, public altruism, trust, efficient government and political stability.

You can research his articles here

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/01/frank-salter-on-race-and-nation-in-australia/

Who?

An academic who talks up Australia's first PM, who's very first act after federation was to pass the white Australia policy?

A bit like quoting academics who supported the founding of apartheid South Africa really or those who supported the Jim Crow laws in the south.

Your kidding me aren't you? That is what you consider passes for discussion? Chuck out a link, any link.

What next? Quoted from Pauline Hanson?

Again, a bit rich, but showing your true colors.

A hint, I know Australian politics very very well.

[Tep]

How about Frank Salter, he doesnt agree with you either.

Australian political ethologist Frank Salter, author of On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration, has argued against the principle of a multicultural society, asserting that "multi-ethnic societies are often confronted with the problem of discrimination and group conflict." According to Salter:

Cross-cultural comparisons reveal the wisdom of Australia's first prime minister Edmund Barton who believed that ethnic homogeneity must be the cornerstone of Australian nation-building. More ethnically homogeneous nations are better able to build public goods, are more democratic, less corrupt, have higher productivity and less inequality, are more trusting and care more for the disadvantaged, develop social and economic capital faster, have lower crime rates, are more resistant to external shocks, and are better global citizens, for example by giving more foreign aid. Moreover, they are less prone to civil war, the greatest source of violent death in the twentieth century.

Salter has linked multiculturalism to growing ethnic socio-economic stratification in Australia, stating:

Inequality in Australia increasingly has an ethnic face. Aborigines continue to occupy the lowest rung on the socio-economic ladder. Despite the points system for assessing immigrants, some ethnic minorities have high rates of unemployment and criminality. Many white Australians are losing out to competition from immigrants. Selective public schools show spectacular overrepresentation of Chinese and other Asian students, an imbalance that feeds through to elite universities and thence to the professions. Ethnic socioeconomic stratification is growing as the population becomes more diverse.

Salter has argued that multiculturalism forms "part of an ideological-administrative system that is helping swamp the Australian nation through ethnically diverse immigration." This, in turn, is "putting at risk the nation’s ability to produce the public goods that nations excel in producing: relative cohesion and harmony, public altruism, trust, efficient government and political stability.

You can research his articles here

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/01/frank-salter-on-race-and-nation-in-australia/

Finally. Attibution. Keep those fat little fingers goggling. One day you might find something that is in context. I will read this particular gem. I suspect that you will not know the true meaning of this article because of your ignorance of actual Australian culture. So forgive me if I don't fall into a heap crying with despair over this. Did you read the article or just the paragraph that google found for your? Be careful now because often issues and people are more than 2 dimensional which is I guess you experience and you cannot assume anything. We'll see.

I note already references to Barton. This raises the white Australia policy. Not knowing about Australia you do not know the anathema of this particular bit of nastiness. I can already see cracks in the armour.

[JockPieandBeans]

How about Frank Salter, he doesnt agree with you either.

Australian political ethologist Frank Salter, author of On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration, has argued against the principle of a multicultural society, asserting that "multi-ethnic societies are often confronted with the problem of discrimination and group conflict." According to Salter:

Cross-cultural comparisons reveal the wisdom of Australia's first prime minister Edmund Barton who believed that ethnic homogeneity must be the cornerstone of Australian nation-building. More ethnically homogeneous nations are better able to build public goods, are more democratic, less corrupt, have higher productivity and less inequality, are more trusting and care more for the disadvantaged, develop social and economic capital faster, have lower crime rates, are more resistant to external shocks, and are better global citizens, for example by giving more foreign aid. Moreover, they are less prone to civil war, the greatest source of violent death in the twentieth century.

Salter has linked multiculturalism to growing ethnic socio-economic stratification in Australia, stating:

Inequality in Australia increasingly has an ethnic face. Aborigines continue to occupy the lowest rung on the socio-economic ladder. Despite the points system for assessing immigrants, some ethnic minorities have high rates of unemployment and criminality. Many white Australians are losing out to competition from immigrants. Selective public schools show spectacular overrepresentation of Chinese and other Asian students, an imbalance that feeds through to elite universities and thence to the professions. Ethnic socioeconomic stratification is growing as the population becomes more diverse.

Salter has argued that multiculturalism forms "part of an ideological-administrative system that is helping swamp the Australian nation through ethnically diverse immigration." This, in turn, is "putting at risk the nation’s ability to produce the public goods that nations excel in producing: relative cohesion and harmony, public altruism, trust, efficient government and political stability.

You can research his articles here

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/01/frank-salter-on-race-and-nation-in-australia/

Who?

An academic who talks up Australia's first PM, who's very first act after federation was to pass the white Australia policy?

A bit like quoting academics who supported the founding of apartheid South Africa really or those who supported the Jim Crow laws in the south.

Your kidding me aren't you? That is what you consider passes for discussion? Chuck out a link, any link.

What next? Quoted from Pauline Hanson?

Again, a bit rich, but showing your true colors.

A hint, I know Australian politics very very well.

Keep chucking out the rhetoric, but as you said, you havent been in Aus for a long time. he was actually addressing your Parliament this year on said subject.

[Tep]

As someone who likes to critique my education level (I help finance the projects you were a spanner monkey on), it is of note you pulled your quote from Wikipedia, which I think even my eight year old daughter knows is an academic faux pas. Actually, an 8 year old knows how to reference their sources too.

But you know these jihadis better than I do jock, anti intellectual in the extreme, so you are reverting to type.

Spanner monkey, not a term that I am familiar with, Do enlighten me. But you certainly did not put a dime into any projects that I worked on.

As you seem to be right in bed with them, it is highly unlikely that I know these jihadis better than you.

Learn to speak Australian then for pity's sake. You presume to talk with them. You presume to tell us what to do.

[NeverSure]

Islam and Muslims aren't the enemy.

Some of them certainly are. The problem is figuring out which ones are supporters of radical Islam.

It's actually easy. Just wait until one of them beheads someone in your town or blows up a bus. Then you know.

Trouble is, by then it's too late for that one, and that's why many of us watch all of them.

Last week for the first time, three of them worried me. Maybe it was just me. I was in a convenience store and they walked in. Normally in the US the men dress like Westerners. But these guys had the flowing robes or whatever they are called, the turban headgear, beards and the whole look I haven't seen before except on TV and other pictures. They were also filthy as if they hadn't cleaned up in weeks.

Maybe everyone here will shout me down, but I got nervous. I slipped off to a corner of the store and waited until they had gotten what they wanted and left.

I have seen enough in the news to give me an idea that maybe I should be alert. I certainly wouldn't have reacted that way had they been Catholic priests in their robes.

[Tep]

Islam and Muslims aren't the enemy.

Some of them certainly are. The problem is figuring out which ones are supporters of radical Islam.

It's actually easy. Just wait until one of them beheads someone in your town or blows up a bus. Then you know.

Trouble is, by then it's too late for that one, and that's why many of us watch all of them.

Last week for the first time, three of them scared me. Maybe it was just me. I was in a convenience store and they walked in. Normally in the US the men dress like Westerners. But these guys had the flowing robes or whatever they are called, the turban headgear, beards and the whole look I haven't seen before except on TV and other pictures. They were also filthy as if they hadn't cleaned up in weeks.

Maybe everyone here will shout me down, but I got nervous. I slipped off to a corner of the store and waited until they had gotten what they wanted and left.

I have seen enough in the news to give me an idea that maybe I should be alert. I certainly wouldn't have reacted that way had they been Catholic priests in their robes.

I too Neversure have experienced exactly that feeling. It was in Guangzhou in the early 90's. There were three in the street. Their faces were all angles and beard. Kind of intense look in their eyes. They were all very lean, almost emaciated from memory. I remember it to this day very clearly. I think it was irrational and I try to overcome these irrational thoughts and fears.

I think the message you draw from your experience is that nothing happened. They may have been distasteful and not to your liking but you left the store alive and kicking. Probably that will be the outcome on all similar occasions in the future.

[cdnvic]

If you guys don't stop bickering I'm sending you all off for a couple days. That includes those who bait others then click the report button when someone disagrees with them. If you are throwing out insults, do not expect us to come to your aid when it comes back at you.

[samran]

How about Frank Salter, he doesnt agree with you either.

Australian political ethologist Frank Salter, author of On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration, has argued against the principle of a multicultural society, asserting that "multi-ethnic societies are often confronted with the problem of discrimination and group conflict." According to Salter:

Cross-cultural comparisons reveal the wisdom of Australia's first prime minister Edmund Barton who believed that ethnic homogeneity must be the cornerstone of Australian nation-building. More ethnically homogeneous nations are better able to build public goods, are more democratic, less corrupt, have higher productivity and less inequality, are more trusting and care more for the disadvantaged, develop social and economic capital faster, have lower crime rates, are more resistant to external shocks, and are better global citizens, for example by giving more foreign aid. Moreover, they are less prone to civil war, the greatest source of violent death in the twentieth century.

Salter has linked multiculturalism to growing ethnic socio-economic stratification in Australia, stating:

Inequality in Australia increasingly has an ethnic face. Aborigines continue to occupy the lowest rung on the socio-economic ladder. Despite the points system for assessing immigrants, some ethnic minorities have high rates of unemployment and criminality. Many white Australians are losing out to competition from immigrants. Selective public schools show spectacular overrepresentation of Chinese and other Asian students, an imbalance that feeds through to elite universities and thence to the professions. Ethnic socioeconomic stratification is growing as the population becomes more diverse.

Salter has argued that multiculturalism forms "part of an ideological-administrative system that is helping swamp the Australian nation through ethnically diverse immigration." This, in turn, is "putting at risk the nation’s ability to produce the public goods that nations excel in producing: relative cohesion and harmony, public altruism, trust, efficient government and political stability.

You can research his articles here

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/01/frank-salter-on-race-and-nation-in-australia/

Who?

An academic who talks up Australia's first PM, who's very first act after federation was to pass the white Australia policy?

A bit like quoting academics who supported the founding of apartheid South Africa really or those who supported the Jim Crow laws in the south.

Your kidding me aren't you? That is what you consider passes for discussion? Chuck out a link, any link.

What next? Quoted from Pauline Hanson?

Again, a bit rich, but showing your true colors.

A hint, I know Australian politics very very well.

Keep chucking out the rhetoric, but as you said, you havent been in Aus for a long time. he was actually addressing your Parliament this year on said subject.

Never said that. Lived there for 3 years till July 2013. Was there in December for work. Just had a baby so not travelling much.

Only foreign dignitaries address parliament, and only on special joint sittings. Japanese PM was last one from memory.

[samran]

Sorry cdnvic just saw your post. Apologies.