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.

.