Excellent article. Thanks, John.
Can't find anything factually wrong or unfair in this anywhere. It probably seems offensive to white Australian sensibilities because it is such a stark contrast to the information and analysis dished up by most government and media sources.
The smear campaign by Murdoch's The Australian against progressive Indigenous voices last month was probably the most shameful of all in that publication's tawdry history.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/1435896.html

Arjay,
Who's we? How many Aboriginals have you killed?
Why is it that in the context of Settler/Aboriginal history the "Worst of the Worst" White people, ie murderers, rapists and thieves are always held up as representatives of the White side?
The rest of your post goes seriously awry:
-The state doesn't represent White people.
-Race is more than genetics or skin tone and White genes are not a pollutant, you wouldn't get away with saying people with African genes are "laden", which a reasonable person would interpret as "burdened".
-The so called "New World Order" would logically have come about in the 1960's or 70's when the anti Whites had everything going their way,the assimilationist agenda is croaking out it's last breath.
Notice how "Multiculturalism" is suddenly back in the headlines?
That's not "revisionism" it's butt covering, assimilation is Genocide. There have already been several complaints made to the U.N by people of European heritage alleging attempted Genocide of Whites in Canada and the U.S. and there are groups here promising to arrest and try Australian politicians for treason and Genocide if they are elected.

Once someone has publicly supported "Assimilation", which is a code word for Genocide then they've walked onto very thin ice. I'm sure the people who tried to assimilate Indigenous Australians out of the picture never dreamed they'd be reviled and pilloried by future generations and I'm damn sure people today who push the "race is a social construct" BS think of themselves as "good" people.

I am new to this country and do not know what happened before my times. But I do know what I saw when, fifty five years ago, I succeeded in spotting the conditions Aborigine lived in Melbourne and since, noting the treatment meted to them by policemen and Councils in consort.

To my mind it was as if they had been severely wounded and then blasted for being lame.

What Pilger says in this last article is academic, what I have come to note is real, factual.

It is about organizations legally parading as ‘charitable’, whose entrepreneurs live as kings with the proceeds from people of good will and grants of governments, while the intended recipients are left with crumbs.

All Tax-free transactions and no question asked, while Attorney Generals and Directors of Public Prosecution indulge in pursuing so called criminals or waste well paid time in politicking.

All this invisible to the ordinary man, blinded as he is by the many anxieties of his own existence

Appreciate your article John and your tireless investigative journalism exposing injustices elsewhere. We who have lived in this country a long time know this has been going on for many years. There are many historical documents of atrocities and massacres of Aboriginal people; for example Gribble's 'Dark Deeds in a Sunny Land'.

Spotlight on the Murdoch press as biased is also entirely appropriate. The 'Australian'is one eyed conservative; editors and commentators writing opinion as fact. For example omission of rigorous scientific reporting on climate change while repeatedly reporting the opinions of a few 'flat earthers' and climate change deniers (e.g Monckton and Plimer); biased reporting of the mining tax etc the list goes on.

PS. You may have noticed that some of your detractors in these columns are the same old nest of vipers who rail against anything progressive or truthful, never providing constructive arguements or providing relevant evidence to support their destructive rantings.

Interesting use of statistics, John. I suspect that, as a man of the world, you know that you are sensationalising things when you compare present-day Australia to South Africa under apartheid. For example, when you note the rate of imprisonment (5:1) of indigenous people in Australia and apartheid South Africa, you fail to note the enormous disparity in populations of respective indigenous groups.

In South Africa in 1980, there were just shy of 24 million black Africans. In Australia in 2006, there were just over 500,000 indigenous people. That's a ratio of about 48:1. Statisticians (at least those without axes to grind) understand that comparisons of large samples and small samples are unreliable.

The gist of your argument is relevant and interesting, but I am sure you are far more intelligent than some of your arguments. It would be nice if you gave your readers credit for some intelligence as well.

roses1 "PS. You may have noticed that some of your detractors in these columns are the same old nest of vipers who rail against anything progressive or truthful, never providing constructive arguements or providing relevant evidence to support their destructive rantings"

This is an opinion site, posters are not required to provide evidence or to contruct arguments in a manner suitable to your sensitive demeanor.

Posters can put up an opinion, regardless of whether you agree or disagree.

If you don't like it, and can't refrain from insults, perhaps you should reconsider posting on the internet.

I suspect you would like to have a site where differing opinions are not allowed?

Have you considered having your own site? Then you could control the entire content.

Is censorship your preferred method of free speech, that is, you are free to speak but anyone who disagrees or does not see the world similarly must not be allowed a voice? (indeed it requires some immediate insult to warn others of the presence of differing opinions and your own opinion of them? PS, I think they know without your helpful little bile spit you seem unable to refrain from every time you post)

I guess even the ABC these days allows differing views, but I'm sure you can still find sites to discuss and examine hatred of conservative views, unencumbered by differing views.