Boazy: "Like I said.. if ur going to act like a dill...don't so it so publically (sic)"

It might pay you to take heed of your own counsel, old boy. While it's amusing to watch you squirm in a semantic quagmire of your own making, your attempts to rationalise your defence of white supremacism are truly pathetic. And you wonder why you get compared to Mosely et al?

Try googling "white supremacy" and see what comes up. After a quite reasonable Wikipedia entry that says "White supremacy is a racist paradigm based on the assertion that white people are superior to other races", you'll find yourself presented with links to the 'Aryan Nation', 'Stormfront' etc etc.

You are indeed in good company, Boazy.

Sieg Heil!

Rainier “Col's unremarkable contribution, I'd rather read the words and ideas of a jurist than those of a door to door salesman.”

We note you bring with you the irrepressible cynicism common among those with a sense of self importance larger than their intellect.

Now maybe you will challenge my view rather than simply make enfeebled attacks on me.

As for Mabo, that was just the machinations of apologists, a socialist strategy bereft of real thought or quality judgement (quite typically socialist in that respect). But you have a vested interest in things like Mabo don’t you – that hardly means anything you say on the matter can ever be viewed as “objective”

AAA “How interesting again the predominately NON-INDIGENOUS voices are here.”

I could give several reasons for that but will suffice with one

It is because in australia the “NON-INDIGENOUS" PREDOMINATE.

kartiya jim “dragging their knuckles on the ground defending their territory “

If seeking a level playing field, free of preferences based on ethnic origin, colour, gender or religious fealty is "defending the territory", then I am proudly gguilty as claimed.

I have a belief that all people are equal. Giving particular preference (be it the old school tie, paternalism, feminism, affirmative action or special privilege based on ethnic origin) to any group is morally offensive to me.

Because something is right does not necessarily mean it is new.
But it does mean that old but true ideas give opportunity for small minded morons to claim the supporters of such historic truths do "drag their knuckles".

David BOAZ “Formerly in Zimbabwe it was 'White' supremacy.”

Not that I support or supported the Smith minority government of Southern Rhodesia but if you were to ask most of the blacks in Zimbabwe, they would say it was a better system than the “Mugabe Charnel House” system they currently suffer.

So Rainier and Jim, I look forward to something more substantial than your petty sniping and projectile vomiting (but I am not holding my breath anticipating you could ever aspire to anything more than that which you have already demonstrated).

Col Rouge: "As for Mabo, that was just the machinations of apologists..."

Wrong, Col. It was a successful claim of Indigenous property rights under Australian law .

Of course, the only reason those rights had to be asserted in Law was because they had been ignored or actively suppressed during the previous century or two of 'white supremacy'.

Col,
You say you could be guilty of "seeking a level playing field" and "I have a belief that all people are equal".

What I can't understand is that in the same breath you can then say that Affirmative Action "is morally offensive ".

I suspect you are having a lend of us .

Affirmative Action when offered, and Not imposed ,can help a group [Or individual] that may be disadvantaged and is to be encouraged be it in the family or community we live in .

The Liberals and Nationals taking away Aboriginal Land Rights without consultation in the Northern Territory is another nasty example of Howard and Brough's smug indifference to the belief that "All people are equal" .

CJ Morgan “Wrong, Col. It was a successful claim of Indigenous property rights under Australian law .”

Adjudicated by a bench stuffed with socialist apologists who were out of touch with the realities of life, motivated by their own misplaced sense of guilt or possibly anti-libertarian malevolence and with the complicity of socialist federal government who were looking for yet another grandiose scheme to squander tax payers money on, rather than represent the expectations of there electoral majorities.

Kartiya jim “Affirmative Action when offered, and Not imposed ,can help a group [Or individual] that may be disadvantaged and is to be encouraged be it in the family or community we live in .”

Nonsense. “Affirmative action”, in terms of level playing field is to tip the field in favour of those to be “affirmatively favoured”. It is a lie, a corruption of “fairness” and the sort of rubbish which breeds suspicion, contempt and community division.

I thought the reason Land and social management in the NT were retrieved by the Federal government was simple, the social fabric was rent and threadbare and evidently corrupt to the point that children’s lives and basic safety were at risk of being lost, to say nothing of a sense of anarchy and indifference by their drunken and drug hazed parents and the inability of the Labor controlled Territory government to execute its civic responsibilities with even a cursory impression of competence.

Regrettably, I hardly understand a meaning of “European supremacy”.

What I have read about, studied of and am experienced in is a simple English xenophobia and racism having been spread worldwide by pirates, bandits and other Irish, catholic separatists, of whom offspring had become a ruling class of a British Commonwealth round a globe – Australia is one of the latest acquires among lands grabbed as the US kicked out English crown two centuries ago.

Understandably, oppressed, discriminated “tolerated” others behave accordingly towards different the indigenous populous has been traditionally within.

And all whites receive a feed-back wherever it is possible as so-called “multiculturalism” that is a relatively-newly invented local definition for traditional apartheid and segregation of English colonists, supposed such a legitimacy to factually sustain.

That is, perhaps, a only positive outcome from “the policy of tolerance and multiculturalism”.