Tony Lavis.
See we're different, you have a biased view of history and I don't, I see the National Socialists through the same lens as all the other power groups of that era, Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, Daladier and Moscicki have to be seen within the same context.
Auschwitz sits alongside Gulag, the Warsaw Ghetto sits alongside the misery of the Kolhozy.
Your way of looking at history and your belief system is only useful if you're promoting egalitarian values, I'm not promoting any such thing so it stands to reason that I'd have an alternative viewpoint, I look at the run up to WW2 objectively so it's impossible for me to come to the same conclusions as you do.
But in the end you're just playing the anti Racist game as I've described it, to be admitted into your particular belief system requires faith in and devotion to a series of "truths" as doctrine and a strict adherence to dogma in the face of contradiction or heresy.
I can't remove you from your platform via logic or reason because, like all faith based systems of understanding the world it is neither logical nor rational.

Apartheid was a system ‘separate development’ along racial lines based on the mistaken belief that the cultural histories of each ‘race’ were so different that it would be better if each race took personal responsibility for their own separate development. Needless to say, of course, the fear driven minority race made it virtually impossible for the majority race to fulfil their true potential.

My question is this – was it wrong to entertain and promote the notion of separate cultures, separate histories, and separate interests and separate development – or was it only wrong that the fear driven, but increaslingly powerful minority, would never allow this philosophy to actually work?

'I experienced the dread spectre of racism from the day I entered the police force in 1965 until this year, when I left the force' (Col Dillon, 2000)

"There could well be some rogue coppers out there", (Anthony Dillon, 2012)

According to Anthony his Dad was just imagining racism in the Qld police force and that he should have provided hard evidence to support his claim. Shame Anthony, shame.

Those who exploit racism are even more despicable than racism itself.

I don't even know what google scholar is, but I am sure it's something good. With regard to Abbott, I think the author is suggesting that the person may be angry, but Abbott is not the cause, even though he may not like Abbott. I tend to agree with the author on this point. People can find all sorts of explanations for their anger/frustrations - none of which may be right. For about the first 50 years of my marriage, I used to think that my wife made me angry when she was late (always was let, always will be late). The facts are, she is late (constantly); I would get angry (constantly). My anger could not be denied, her lateness could not be denied. However, through some deep reflections, (and the help of some wise friends) I began to realise, my wife never made me angry, I made me angry. The day I realised this, I ceased being her puppet. Today, if I am her puppet, it is because I want to be. :) I don't question whether or not you get angry if I doubt your experience with racism, but I do question whether or not I am the cause of your anger. I see good points by the author, you and others here. But I do disagree with you on this matter. You are angry, but I am not the cause of your anger, just like my wife has never been the cause of my anger. It always felt good knowing that I had an excuse for being angry - my wife. For me, the most rewarding, and most difficult thing in my life, was to give up believing that others make me angry. We like to assign responsibility to others for our anger. I have to go, the wife is calling.

Puppydog68

Well, I have to say, you're a wise old 'Puppydog' to say the least - good to see such clear thinking with your separation of responsibilities and the end of 'victim-hood'!

Thank you.