Langton's threat of the withdrawal of smoke-polluted ‘welcoming’ ceremonies was just another one of the many lies coming from a minority of a 3% minority of the Australian population. If Australian audiences of these recently-invented interruptions to their entertainments had the backbone, they would boo these clowns off the arena.

These clowns yabber about an ‘invasion’ that never was, yet more than two centuries after our ancestors arrived, they now want to welcome us! What a load of bullsh-t. What a load of racist bullsh-t.

It's time for us to drop the “kind-hearted and generous” bit - that these jerks spit on - and teach them about real life in 21st. Century Australia.

I went to a community hall meeting in SW Tas that began with an Acknowledgement of Country. Trouble was that no actual local indigenous people had been sighted for over 100 years and one living person who claimed to be aboriginal was actually from Torres Strait. An Acknowledgement of the Pademelons as the prior inhabitants would have been more appropriate. Same goes for airlines that do an AoC on landing. I'd kind of prefer if they focussed on aircraft maintenance not political correctness.

Mostly agree, but I don't think that voicing a particular opinion can be said to be un-Australian. Freedom to express an opinion is surely part of Australian culture.

Welcome to country is a very recent outcome, that's simply claims land once lived on by this or that clan.

Much of which was traded for grog and other durables like tea, sugar, blankets and tobacco. I believe the voice should be legislated. And be done with.
Alan B.

Most remembrances/celebrations are annual events with majority public support. Welcome/acknowledgement of country seems to be a part of nearly every public, sporting and business event. I don't remember this being done on the basis of either public demand or support. It even seems to be part of every program put out by the national broadcasters.

It needed to be part of the referendum. I find it a highly insulting and undemocratic practice. It wouldn't be out of place in an authoritarian regime like North Korea, yet it is a pernicious part of my daily life with a very nasty undercurrent for anyone who might call it out for what it is. Disgusting!

I just saw the Australia Day ceremony in Canberra on TV.
Four "aborigines" danced around chanting something.
The tall one who seemed to be the leader was as white as I am.
The rest of them were white also.
He should be careful being in the sun that long as the researcher
that developed the cure for melanoma was saying on the radio this
morning we take sun exposure too lightly these days.

Aborigines never ever claimed sovereignty over tribal land, just custodianship. And their mother for which they gave care. Care included mosaic cool burning Which destroyed non fire tolerant flora and fauna that couldn't run.

Hundreds of spider species eliminated along with their webs. The consequence an imbalance in the insect world and far too many flies. Lizards, frogs, Wombats, tortoises, slow Kolalas and who knows what!?

Rainforest flora eliminated along with their massive moisture aspiration and as a consequence reduced rainfall all over the joint. A land covered from coast to coast in verdant rainforest,

All proven in the undeniable fossil record which never lies or engages in traditional humbug. As nomads who wandered wherever the game took them. It's hard for any to lay claim over any part of it. More so when there are several claimants.

Burning wasn't care giving but an adjunct to hunting as the mosaic burn resulted in new green tender graze, and that is all.

Their so-called care turned a virtual treed paradise into a mostly arid desert surrounded by a narrow green coastal fringe.

Only the north which was by and large, too wet to burn survived this highly destructive "cool" burning practice.

Mr little, before you get on your high horse, let me reiterate, the undeniable fossil record doesn't lie or engage in endless humbug. That's mostly in the province of urban "blacks" looking for a million dollar pay day.

I believe DNA testing would eliminate a huge chunk of the latter who would qualify under the 25% test, which ought to be enforced when such land claims are made. Bah humbug!
Alan B.

Would qualify, should as originally posted, read, wouldn't qualify.

And here I reiterate, many urban "blacks" wouldn't get past a 25% DNA test. It takes a little more than just feeling black to qualify.

It doesn't help to go on an abusive rage to try and intimidate a white audience into acceptance, when it is your own tribal forebears that reject on the grounds of, too white.

One day, several generations from now we will be one golden race with no tribal restrictions or claims. Just all Australians trying their best to tolerate each other as just one nation.

In which there will be no place for reverse apartheid!!

We are one and from many lands on earth we come! I am you are Australian.
Alan B.

Hi Alan,

( GOOD) ONYA!

Ben Pobjie in his book "Error Australis: The Reality Recap of
Australian History," reminds us that the decision to transport
convicts to New South Wales sent shockwaves through the
convict community who has always believed they had a firm social
contract with the government: they would commit minor
insignificant crimes , and the government would imprison them in
dank hellholes.

The prospect of being sent to the far end of the world to a
strange unknown land, was terrifying.

The powerful emotions generated were eloquently expressed in
the classic old song - "Botany Bay,":

Farewell to old England forever
Farewell to my rum coes as well
Farewell to the well-known Tim Bailey
Who used to teach me to spell
Singing two-ra-li-oo-ra-li addity
Singing bing bong dum doo dad fi-fey
Singing spinkly pom pinkly bom baddity
It's shyte down in Botany Bay

And just as the song predicted more than 700 convicts
found themselves bound for that mysterious far away land.

Of course not everyone on the First Fleet - named after the
fact that it was a fleet - was a convict.

In addition to some 775 convicts there were around 300
sailors, 250 Royal Marines, 15 officials and passengers and
50 wives and children of the marines.

Also on board the fleet were six horses, four cows, one bull,
44 sheep, 19 goats, 32 pigs, five rabbits, 18 turkeys, 29
geese, 35 ducks, 122 fowls, 87 chickens, assorted cats, and
the governor's greyhounds. Several of the pigs were thought
to be marines in disguise.

The book is worth a read if you can get a hold of it.
It's only by looking at where we've been that we can
understand who we
are, what we stand for, and why things work the way they do.
Or not.

Enjoy your day!

"Australia's first governor, Captain Arthur Phillip, could never have witnessed a welcome to country ceremony in 1788 because they did not exist at that time."

Charles Sturt, in the early years of Australia, travelled/explored through vast tracts of south-eastern and central Australia. He meticulously recorded his travels in his diaries. Not once, NOT ONCE, does he mention a welcome to country ceremony performed by any of the tribes he came across, even though, in many cases he had good relations with those tribes.

Its all made up. Just another way to separate fools from their money.

.

Dear David (the author),

.

You wrote :

« The definition of racism is treating people differently on the basis of race. The result of the Voice referendum demonstrated that Australians are profoundly anti-racist; Australians do not want to be treated differently according to race. They just want to be treated the same as everyone else, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion or cultural origins. As George Orwell would have put it, no Australians should be more equal than others »
.

By that, you infer that the Voice referendum failed chiefly because of racial considerations and perhaps also due to differences in ethnicity, religion and culture. Race, of course, is a social construct based on the physical appearance of a person, whereas ethnicity refers to the cultural (language, religious, national, tribal) identity of a person.

Unfortunately, you offer no evidence or argument to back up that as the explanation for the failure of the Voice referendum. You simply state that “The result of the Voice referendum demonstrated that Australians are profoundly anti-racist”. You could just as easily have said exactly the opposite: “The result of the Voice referendum demonstrated that Australians are profoundly racist” – no evidence or argument either way.

I guess you’re just counting on the fact that most people would never admit to the fact that (deep down inside) they are racist (to some extent) and take comfort in your explanation.

The fact is, our indigenous people were precisely that and the British crown colonised the land they had inhabited for over 65,000 years forcefully, not only without offering them the slightest compensation but slaying and enslaving many of them, treating them as a sub-human race.

That could certainly be interpreted as racism on the part of our British colonisers and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it were responsible for planting the seeds of racism in the hearts of some of our indigenous compatriots as well.

Nobody is perfect and there is no easy explanation for any of it.

.

Thanks Foxy, another book worth reading is, Van Demien's land. It tells a story of a number of convicts who escaped from the hell hole that was Sara Island.

One of those convicts was my forbear Alexander Piece, who reportedly killed and ate his escapee companions, all starving while surrounded by food.

Eentually, he was taken in by an Aboriginal tribe where his services were in constant demand as many of the men were killed by white settlers.

He apparently sired a dozen or more Piccininnis, one of whom became my forbear.

The Pieman river was named thus because it became associated with the first white cannibal in Tasmania's history. Perhaps also the Savage River?

All faithfully recorded in court documents as Alexander was tried, convicted and hung.

All because he stole shoes to prevent his Irish kids from suffering winter chilblains.

Imagine being transported in chains halfway around the world and wrenched from your ancestral homeland for a petty crime of that nature. Others transported for stealing a loaf of bread when they were starving.

My half caste Grandmother told me many such stories and filled me with tribal law and custom.

She used a lot of white powder and always wore gloves when going out, as being a half caste back then was considered shameful in the white society in which we mingled.

Both my parents had Aboriginal forebears. I think I might be one eighth.

I never thought of myself as part aboriginal just a triple distilled Celt with both displaced Irish and Scottish forbears.
Alan B.

I was born here.
I am part of this country.
I belong here.
I don't need anyone telling me I am an intrusion.
And too many people live in the past.
We all have ancestors going back thousands upon thousands of years.
They all lived somewhere.

A few peoples were isolated on this island by climate change?
I don't see that as being a reason to claim some kind of superiority.
Especially as changes and improvements they made were very rudimentary.
And the fact is we are all here now.
We must use reason to plan a way of living together quietly and productively.

And none of us were alive over two hundred years ago.
We have no responsibility for anything, good or bad, which happened in those times.
The idea of claims against us, and compensation to be paid, is absurd.
Someone is trying to 'hoodwink' the majority of the people?
Trying to make them feel responsibility, and even guilt, where none can exist.
This can only be a ploy to achieve a doubtful end?

And just for the record.
The first settlers didn't need permission to settle here.
They just did, and it became a fact of life.
That was the way of the world back then.
And if you read the news, you will find it still is.
Only these days, it is far more destructive and bloody.

And I object to a second 'flag' I often see being shown in news items.
And I object to statements about 'custodians' of our country.
Governments are the ones who are in control of all we do.
The people collectively, through their government, are the custodians of the land.
And we don't need to be told that every day.

Hi Alan,

I'm a bit of a mix as well. My Gran was Russian. She
married a Lithuanian. I also have British, Swedish,
German and Ukrainian ancestry. I grew up in rural
Australia and love this country and its diversity.

My brother taught Indigenous kids - and so I got
to know the Indigenous history.

I also catalogued the oral Indigenous history for the
State Library - and found it fascinating listening to
all the experiences recorded.

The bottom line is that all of us must live according to present day community standards.
These are set by law, and also by 'average' behaviour in everyday living.
They are not aligned to the way it was a thousand years ago.
There have been far too many changes between then and now.
Yet, there are those who peddle the idea that nothing has changed.
That standards and ways of the past must be prominent today.
It is clear they have not thought it through.
Or perhaps they are deliberately 'stretching' the truth, to create an alternate reality?
If so, it can only be a false reality.
And falseness will not be accepted by the majority of those who can think.
The recent voice referendum showed that to be true.

.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

.

You wrote :

« I was born here. I am part of this country. I belong here ».
.

That’s interesting, Ipso Fatso. It’s quite exceptional. Only 0.2% of humanity was born in Australia and you are one of them, one of the 18 million, i.e., 0.000005% – and you are 0.000000013% of all the humanity in the world.

Like us all, you are the product of your progenitors: your distant ancestors, grandparents, and parents. You are a unique combination of what they were and are, both biologically and culturally. Your history is a unique combination of their history. You can deny it. You can ignore it, and turn your back on it, but you can’t change it. It is the condition “sine qua non” of your existence.

You can live your life differently from the way they lived theirs. You can change the present. You can forge a different future. But you can’t change the past.

If yours happened to be a glorious and noble legacy of the past I’m sure you would have no hesitation assuming it with pride. But given the deplorable circumstances of our European forefathers' colonisation of the vast pristine land that had been occupied by primitive indigenous peoples for over 65,000 years, it takes a certain amount of courage to assume the backlash of the terrible crimes of the past – particularly those of the not-so-distant past.

As it happens, some present-day “true blue” Australians have that courage. I guess it's what makes them who they are.

.

Hi Banjo,

Homo sapiens are one species, originating in Africa. The difference you see in the appearance of people from different parts of the world does not indicative of different species, so are you suggesting that people are somehow different because their ancestors lived in different parts of the world? That strikes me as racism, so a clarification from you would be nice.

History can be represented as you like, although the great nation that Australia is today is quite a turnaround from the genocidal colony that you claim Australia was. The past cannot be altered. The best we can do is to look after the present.

"it takes a certain amount of courage to assume the backlash of the terrible crimes of the past "

I don't fully understand this comment, but I'd suggest that guilt and alleged injustices are not inheritable either individually or collectively. Further, thanks to the Voice being defeated, all Australians are treated equally and without regard to their heritage.

We need to learn the history of our country.
We need to burrow beneath the mythology to
provide an intimate look at where we have been
so that we can understand who we are, what we stand for,
and why things are the way they are.

There's so many Australians who made our nation grand -
There's pioneers such as Charles Kingsford
Smith, whose groundbreaking efforts moved the country forward,
Artists and entertainers such as Joan Sutherland, who shaped
our national cultural identity. Humanitarians such as Mary
MacKillop, and Fred Hollows both of whom dedicated
their lives to others. And many more.

Many of us love watching reality TV these days. And yet we so
often neglect the greatest reality of all. The reality of our
nation and how it came to be.

Hear, hear and well said, Fester.

Yes Foxy, when we work together as a nation, we can achieve almost anything, i.e., the best Olympic games ever.

All that has prevented that at any time, was and remains the ideological imperatives of political idiots serving foreign masters.

Yes, our best have done us proud, no thanks to the ideologs that have and do hold this back as they sell our economic sovereignty at fire sale, bargain basement prices.
Alan B.

In a sense given that "the Australian people were never asked about high levels of immigration" it may be necessary to act in support of Whites to correct the un-mandated anti-democratic anti-white policies.

CM,

What's wrong with a society where everyone is treated equally? Isn't that the gold standard? And would you agree that skin colour is no more than a consequence of adaptation to a particular latitude? People are people surely?

In answer to your questions Fester-

Q- What's wrong with a society where everyone is treated equally?
A- People in different parts of the world are different.
A government (and a nation) should be of a people otherwise there is competition for dominance. I'm sure that isn't all but there's a couple of things wrong... Equal society in it's modern form is based on certain principles and events- the French Revolution and it wasn't very equal for some (Marxist Communism refers to this)- Locke Liberalism. Small societies can be more equal. Some say families work like communism but societies can't. Mothers say they treat their children the same by treating them differently. It all depends what you mean by treating people equally. Muslim's focus on the concept of justice, Christian's focus on the concept of love, Business has it's own concepts, so does Communism- all of them claim the high moral ground- this is relativism of culture. In my view traditions are the result of thousands of years of experience and knowledge. Science can inform views but it shouldn't be there dictator. Remember Communism claimed to be proceeding from a position of science when they killed millions of people.

Q- Isn't that the gold standard?
A- No equality isn't the gold standard. Equality shouldn't be used as an excuse to subvert the will of the people. But the will of the people can be manipulated. So education is important.

Q- And would you agree that skin colour is no more than a consequence of adaptation to a particular latitude?
A- No- over hundreds and thousands of years culture and traits diverge- the way one culture solves a problem is going to be different than the way another culture, family, person solves a problem. Even genetics changes. But as people of the world interact more over greater distances there is greater probability for conflict in each interaction. Psychologists say that people need to have a shield this becomes more difficult as their environment becomes more "diverse" or "unstable" or "complex"- at some point everyone will breakdown.

Perhaps there are groups in society that purposely create conflict for their own benefit. Communist's admit to wanting to tear down the system to it's elements- this is nihilism. When confronted by threats animals will respond in different ways- act, run, freeze. Physical attributes such as "skin colour" enables animals to recognise members of their own tribe and family and to recognise potential threats. Facial recognition in human's is one of the more developed parts of the brain- especially for individuals closer genetically.

Q- People are people surely?
A- This is a tautology. But no people are different both because of nature and nurture. But communists tend to deny the influence of nature on character even though it is obvious in animals.

Strong fences don't stop a committed invader or traitor but it can prevent different tribes from going to war over minor sleights.

I believe that all cultures need their own territory probably based on their traditional history.

Human cultures have evolved over about 5 million years and some traits are much older as Jordan Peterson says lobsters have a hierarchical disposition similar to humans- if all life is based on genetic incrementalism then it's inevitable that human's have traits that predate humans.

Human migration pattern's, language groupings, genetic markers all help track down why people are what they are. Science is supposed to be descriptive not ethical- so there are limitations to science.

One theory of scientific human development is the "Out of Africa" another is the "Multi-Origin Theory" which apparently explains Neanderthal genetics in European and other races of humanity. Apparently Neanderthal's were less aggressive than Australopithicus. Britain has Neanderthal digs dated 500,000 years. Just like dogs- humans that look different have different attributes- even though it is more complex in humans.

I have answered your questions Fester in good faith hopefully you will use the answers I have given in a similar spirit.

Lobster's and Human's and Trees come from the same genetics but they are all different.

.

Dear Fester,

.

You wrote :

1. « … are you suggesting that people are somehow different because their ancestors lived in different parts of the world? That strikes me as racism, so a clarification from you would be nice. ».
.

You're referring to my post on page 2 of this thread in which I wrote :

« Race, of course, is a social construct based on the physical appearance of a person, whereas ethnicity refers to the cultural (language, religious, national, tribal) identity of a person. ».

The “physical appearance” to which I refer relates to skin colour, slant-eyes, ‘pygmy’ stature, eye colour, crinkly hair, etc.
.

2. « … the great nation that Australia is today is quite a turnaround from the genocidal colony that you claim Australia was. »
.

I did not claim that Australia was a ‘genocidal’ colony, Fester. I wrote in my post on page 2 :

« … the British crown colonised the land … without offering them [our indigenous peoples] the slightest compensation but slaying and enslaving many of them, treating them as a sub-human race. »

The British claimed that the land belonged to no one, by application of the international legal concept of “Terra Nullius”. The colonisers did not seek to exterminate them, per se. They sought to chase them off their land, albeit by slaying and enslaving many of them.
.

3. « I'd suggest that guilt and alleged injustices are not inheritable either individually or collectively. Further, thanks to the Voice being defeated, all Australians are treated equally and without regard to their heritage. »
.

It’s not a question of inheritance, Festor. It’s a question of disapproval of what they did and what we decide to do about it ?

All Australians should be subject to our common law (no special treaties) but State and Federal legislation should accommodate our indigenous peoples' lore and culture and allow their elected representatives to have a say in such matters.

At present, as you say, all Australians are treated equally. But, they're not equal. That’s the problem.

.

"I did not claim that Australia was a ‘genocidal’ colony"

Yes you did Banjo. Here is a definition of genocidal:

"relating to or involving the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group"

"It’s a question of disapproval of what they did and what we decide to do about it"

Banjo, all the people involved are dead, so yes it does involve inheritance. Also, indigenous people do have native title over more than half of Australia, so traditional ownership is recognised. Where Australia has been settled you have people who are Australian citizens living in the community. Are you suggesting that some be treated differently than others because of their heritage or ethnicity?

"State and Federal legislation should accommodate our indigenous peoples' lore and culture and allow their elected representatives to have a say in such matters"

That's racist, Banjo. No group or ethnicity should have special recognition. That is what equality means in a society.

"all Australians are treated equally. But, they're not equal. That’s the problem."

Do you mean in the sense of not being identical? I think it a good thing that people are different. I'd call it diversity.

Thank you for your candor CM.

You remind me of the people who'd go on about pure "English bloodlines".
The irony is that England is very much a multicultural society with a history of much migration from surrounding lands.

Regardless of where it happened, would you agree that when modern human beings evolved they were much the same as one another? So why do people from different parts of the world look so different from one another today? To me, white skin is an adaptation that helps the body make active vitamin D in higher latitudes: in more equatorial latitudes it predisposes to sunburn and skin cancer. I don't see how ethnicity is an accurate measure of attributes. Shouldn't you just take people as you find them? I read of your annoyance at anti-white sentiment, but wouldn't it be better to take a generalist approach and object to any discrimination based on any ethnicity?

You might note that I am also arguing with Banjo: I think of you two like poles of a magnet: Both arguing for inequality, but pushing in opposite directions.

Interesting discussion.

.

Dear Fester,

.

You wrote :

« Here is a definition of genocidal: "relating to or involving the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group” ».
.

I quite understand what seems to you to be an evident relationship between my description of British colonisation and ‘genocidal’ crime as you define it – and sympathise with you. But it is not that simple.

This is what I wrote :

1. What the colonisers did : [They] “colonised the land … without offering them [our indigenous peoples] the slightest compensation but slaying and enslaving many of them, treating them as a sub-human race”.

2. Why they did it : “The colonisers did not seek to exterminate them, per se. They sought to chase them off their land, albeit by slaying and enslaving many of them”.

3. How they justified it : “The British claimed that the land belonged to no one, by application of the international legal concept of ‘Terra Nullius’”.

While, at first sight, that may seem to correspond to your definition of a ‘genocidal crime, on closer scrutiny, it is not – which is why I did not write what you accuse me of having written.

Please don’t take offence, but it would be far too long for me to explain all the intricacies of the legal context that justifies this negative outcome. The best I can do is to provide you with the links to some of the relevant documentation that I suggest you consult if you have the courage and time to wade through it all. It is worth the effort. I think you will find it quite enlightening :

UN Genocide Convention :

http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Genocide%20Convention-FactSheet-ENG.pdf

Human Rights Article :

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUJlHRights/2004/22.html

Senate Inquiry Anti-Genocide Bill 1999 :

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/publications/tabledpapers/11788/upload_pdf/HPP032016003800.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22publications/tabledpapers/11788%22

Report - Inquiry into the Anti-Genocide Bill 1999 :

http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/1999_02/anti_genocide/report/c03_pdf.ashx

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA - Nulyarimma v Thompson

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/1999/1192.html

.

It seems that Fester is just repeating the same questions he asked before... anyway...

Some years ago Woke/ Communists made unproven assertions in my view- asserters have the burden of proof- but certain powerful people went along with them because they were able to grow their own personal power franchise- and good people did nothing- at some stage society will decay from these mistakes. People that believe in distribution of power understand that sometimes we have to realise that some things are beyond us- and if we try anyway we will destroy what we have committed to save. ie. Don't squeeze the bunny too tight.

Q- You remind me of the people who'd go on about pure "English bloodlines".

A- Maybe. In Australia the people were never asked what they wanted- both parties conspired to avoid debate on immigration (Peta Cretlin referred to Hawke's Memoir's). What about 'cultural continuity' in other contexts- say with Hebrew's or Aboriginal's or Palestinian's or Japanese or Tibetan's. China could argue that forcible changes to ethnicities including Tibet are multiculturalism not genocide or cultural appropriation (where they are literally appropriating Tibetan cultural territory). Perhaps "the people who'd go on about pure "English bloodlines"" have a perspective- not saying it's perfect.

Q- The irony is that England is very much a multicultural society with a history of much migration from surrounding lands."

A- Disagree. Few Chinese in Dickensian/ Shakespearian England- despite Netflix insertionism. Did you see the movie about Mary Queen Of Scots?- offensive cultural appropriation- also The Last Samurai but gave Cruise a pass to explain Japanese civil war history to a Western audience.

Q- Regardless of where it happened, would you agree that when modern human beings evolved they were much the same as one another?

A- Depends what you mean. As I said you could say that "when land animals evolved they were much the same as one another". But that doesn't mean that all land animals are the same- the 'lung fish' evolved into reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians.

Human's have about 50% of the genetics of a pumpkin from memory- doesn't make human's pumpkins- well at least most human's. Human's have separate genetic lines over many hundreds of thousands of years. People struggle to adapt to changes over 10 years. I suspect that the length of human lifetime is important here to train young skills and traditions.

Q- So why do people from different parts of the world look so different from one another today? To me, white skin is an adaptation that helps the body make active vitamin D in higher latitudes: in more equatorial latitudes it predisposes to sunburn and skin cancer. I don't see how ethnicity is an accurate measure of attributes.

A- To me skin colour indicates the iceberg lying beneath phenotypes and the nature and nurture that led to their cultures. Living in the desert is different to ice, near the sea, near a river, etc let alone to ancient man. Also the same problems can be solved in divergent ways based on cultural traditions. In chaos theory small starting deltas lead to large end deltas. Agriculture and animal domestication are different by geographies. Just 100 years ago 90% of humanity lived in rural communities working in primary industries and had since the stone age. It's easy to see how humans and animals mistrust the inherent unstable influence of strangers from other cultures and tribes.

Q- Shouldn't you just take people as you find them?

A- Elon Musk says people reason by analogy/assumption because starting every interaction from first principles is inefficent and draining and you wouldn't get any production done through the day. People from the same culture share attributes but are different from other cultures. Why should people from all cultures be forced to be the same as each other? Isn't this in contradiction of the principles of democracy. Even if people choose to do the "wrong thing" shouldn't they have the freedom to make that choice. In philosophy there is much discussion about free will.

Some use science to justify morality- there is a long standing view that science is descriptive not moral- and shouldn't be used for moral purposes. There isn't always a right way of doing something. Marx said that culture is an elitist conspiracy the solution being Class Consciousness.

Q- I read of your annoyance at anti-white sentiment, but wouldn't it be better to take a generalist approach and object to any discrimination based on any ethnicity?

A- No. Everyone discriminates not just white people. Is overpopulation in China a form of discrimination as a proportion of world population? Multiculturalism discriminates against western nations. There are reasons related to both nature and nurture. Those naively discounting natural alliances are doomed to be exploited by them. All animals try to maximize their genetic impact on their environment "The Selfish Gene". At any rate views of "natural law" principles such as so called Anti-Racism/ Multiculturalism shouldn't be used to subvert a communities right to manage it's own affairs (even if Anti-Racism was actually Anti-Racism).

Q- You might note that I am also arguing with Banjo: I think of you two like poles of a magnet: Both arguing for inequality, but pushing in opposite directions.

A- Different equality systems. I believe that I am supporting a policy that 'all cultures' should 'equally' live in their traditional territories according to their own cultures and languages or we should try to create opportunities for this to occur. There are disruptive people within societies (perhaps of dark triad personality types) that perhaps want 'war'- should we allow them to dictate policy to the whole of 'peaceful' society- based on their arbitrary opinions- they are free to leave if they want. Don't we want to reduce instability in society and globally rather than increase conflict, complexity, and turbulence. Communism killed 100 million people for equality.

Many Traditionalist's are from moderate (socialist) politics until realizing this position is manipulated by deceptive extreme self interested dictatorial forces including woke/ communism- 'The Overton Window'. Woke/ Communist forces are well organized and resourced seemingly through universities- and foreign education industry trillion dollar funding.

Traditionalist forms of government are the oldest and well tested but reframed from "moderate normality" to "extremist far right"- because the one dimensional landscape of left/ right politics doesn't allow for nuance- another form of communist dictatorship- tyranny of distorted reality. The left right continuum from French Revolution which Communists seem to consider the pinnacle of 'anti-elitism' The Terror murder of thousands of Aristo's. What about universities academic aristocracy "Aristo's"- perhaps having no basis in productivity- or public interest. It seems those assumed to be professionally objective are biased.

Banjo,

Thank you very much for the explanation. You are very patient and courteous with me. I will take the time to read the links as I do have a bit to learn about the arguments you present.

Thank you CM. You think a lot about the world, like AC. I guess that my positive view of multiculturalism has a number of foundations. One is that I view the culture of indigenous Australians a consequence of having little or no interaction with the rest of the world. So, I see the incredible sophistication and diversity of humanity today a direct consequence of the interaction of human beings, not from their isolation from one another. I get disappointed that some people today feel that the arrival of the First Fleet was a catastrophe, whereas I look at Australia today, giving so many people lives of great diversity, to be an undeniably good outcome. I wish that was what people would celebrate on Australia Day, and I think that the great majority of Australians do want to celebrate, not condemn.

Another reason is that I interact with people from diverse backgrounds and enjoy the experience, which is why I look at urbanised Australians with indigenous heritage seeing themselves as distinct from other Australians as a bit silly, a bit like the Nazis developing the Aryan fantasy to make themselves feel special. I see it as a divisive path, one well trodden by the PM. Be proud about your heritage for sure, but realise that the diversity and richness of life today has many origins.

Fester said- "Thank you CM. You think a lot about the world, like AC. "

Answer- AC is more about current affairs than I. We all have our strengths and weaknesses some more than others. I just read different/ more books- perhaps more controversial- than other people. I see myself as fairly balanced based on my reading material- others would disagree based on my opinion. I don't expect to convince anyone of anything based on one post but hopefully I can help them think- hopefully I have been able to partner with you in this regard Fester.

Your views are very different than mine- and at certain levels I find them offensive- but at least our conversation has been constructive.

Orwell talks about weak and strong nationalism though he's a little ambiguous and doesn't define his terms well- but it may be helpful. Even Australian Neo-Nazi's could be seen as being in the "Soft-Nationalism" camp in a sense.
See what you make of it...
http://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/

I'm sure that Orwell isn't correct about everything- no one is- but he had some interesting and perhaps more importantly useful perspectives