Boazy

This should make you day:

I agree entirely that JoM should be free to display to all what he is truly about.

JoM

For the edification of all, could you comprehensively explain the difference between your belief system and that of a white supremacist.

Regards

JR

Rainier.
Again, I'm not here to argue against your viewpoint and I don't expect Indigenous people to trust Whites, that's why I use the term "side by side" instead of "together".
The "white supremacist" angle is old hat, nobody I know believes in it anymore and nobody who does has any business involving themselves in a pro White movement.
We have as our motto "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children", that's our core belief.
Serious White Nationalists support Indigenous sovereignty and reconciliation because it's in our interests to do so, you can believe me or not but we're trying to create a White race that treads lightly on the earth, non interventionist, neutral and supportive.
I'm not a Nativist or a Nationalist, I don't even call myself Australian, I'm White or I'm a Northman, my roots are in the northern Hemisphere, not here.
Indigenous sovereignty puts White occupancy of these lands in it's proper context, we're the largest of many diverse ethnic and racial groups, not the heirs to all that we survey.
I seriously believe we should have exclusively White homelands in Europe and that there should be a long term plan to return as many people as possible from the new worlds of the Diaspora.
Unfortunately we have no countries of our own to return to at this point,so we're stuck with each other for the time being. We're working on short and medium term solutions such as the Northwest Migration in the U.S and PLE's dotted about the Globe but it'll take a radical shift, a revolution even to get other Whites to see the value in what we're proposing.
As I said, it's difficult even to get White people to admit their Whiteness even when we're trying to do something good for them, if they're under duress or subject to ridicule, intolerance and violence from the Anti Racists within our Race it makes it nigh on impossible.

For my money, Jay's views do not warrant sensible, thoughtful or reasoned discussion. They don't warrant that beause (i) we've been through it all before with him and (ii) the views he is touting are so patently absurd and irrational, not to mention overstated, that it would be unfair to ask any reasonable person to give up their time to debate with him.

But I genuinely respect the efforts of CJ, Rainier, Johnny Rotten and Ericc.

What Jay's posts deserves is gentle ridicule. Not outright abuse. But gentle ridicule.

I would have thought that in a town hall type discussion that gentle ridicule would be allowed and that's what I was aiming at with my posts.

[Deleted for arguing moderation decisions on the forum].

David you can try to twist my posts out of proportion but you can't argue against them, here for the thirtieth time is The Mantra.

"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."

"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."

"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."

"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"

"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"

"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"

"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."

"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."

"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."

I don't get it either, David.

In fact, I think that it reflects very poorly on OLO as a public forum. However, I think that's about as much as I'm allowed to say ;)

Rainier’s right about one thing, he hasn’t changed his colours – he still has his distinctly pinkish tinge!

And for all his rote learnt clichés , he still hasn’t absorbed the basics.

1) Rainier uses the term “reverse racism” a number of times. Reverse racism carries the implication that real racism is white-on-other. To support such an proposition is , itself, RACIST! Racism is not endemic to any race.And coming from someone who portrays himself as having conducted a “life long struggle’ against racism, it is rather damning.

2) Rainier despite all his rhetoric :
i) “Whiteness stands for the relative privilege, profit and power of those occupying the structural social positions of whites in a hierarchically ordered racial society, as such, racist states are states of whiteness”
ii)“ institutional racism is the expression of a whole organisation's racist practice and culture”

Shows no understanding, nor real commitment to, racial harmony.
The most blatant examples of “institutional racism” are special provisions based on race.

As one non-white recently related to me : to get into university my family had to sacrifice greatly –but just down the hall is someone who because of her race got a much earlier passage ---what damage does such do to our social cohesion?

Rainier massages the sore that outcomes are not proportional –Yes! there is disadvantage, and especially outside main cities and towns—and the more remote you are the poorer the amenities and prospects—for BOTH black and white. But remedy it without reference to race, so it does NOT become a divisive issue. And it doesn’t become a sublimate for someone’s personal failings, or tool to further their ambitions as in “Me and mine” against yours.

3) Rainiers “Me and mine” talk is a gloss. Rainier doesn’t speak for Aborigines. Aborigines are not one monolithic group –never were.
Rainier is no more a spokesperson for Aboriginals than his fawning cheer squad on this thread are spokespersons for whites!
A better alternative, & antidote, can be found in a lot of the writings of Noel Pearson.