The ABC reported on ANZAC day this morning, and to their credit reported correctly that booing was featured at most of the capital city services, only during the Acknowledgement to country/ Welcome to country. Unfortunately their coverage also featured a bunch of whipped woke-ists, inverting Aboriginal subversion, and it's calling out.

Many Australian's are sick of being 'welcomed to their own country', and the associated woke signalling proxy warfare.

Australia Day is about those that have made the ultimate sacrifice for Australia- not Aboriginal's, so why do Aboriginals get special treatment during ANZAC day ceremonies. It seems that Aboriginal's and other woke are extorting the RSL under threat of disruption by Aboriginal Counter Protests similar to the farce that Australia Day has become. RSL seems to believe it's safer to have a strategic retreat rather than confront this evil. Some activist's have tried to call this out, by the booing of this Aboriginal subversion. Good on them.

If Aboriginal Ex-Service Men want to march with everyone else fine, but not even the branches of the military get a speech, not the Army/ Navy/ Airforce get a platform, but Aboriginal's get a platform, this is inappropriate.

Aboriginal's don't seem to ever want to work with white people, and "want to push us into the sea", this is effectively what they are saying when they say "welcome to 'our' country". Let Aboriginal's have their own Autonomous Territory with their own borders, but don't let them subvert White Australia. If Aboriginal's come to White Australia they need to accept White Rules.

How are we going to convince young people to serve, when we are telling them that they don't own their own country.

Maybe the Far Left Extremist's want to subvert Australian Defense

It's true some people are getting really fed up with being welcomed to the country they were born in.
But I'm not sure ANZAC day is the right time or place to carry on with this argument.

I know that writing this won’t dent the conscious of people like Canem Malum, but I can’t let his ranting go unchallenged.

I know that he won’t acknowledge the injustices dished out to Indigenous soldiers returning to Australia after the world wars. Or the indignity of an indigenous athlete, part of the “Australian” team in the 1962 Tokyo games, who was considered a non-citizen and needed to travel with a British passport. Or the horror of memories of stolen children when John Howard implemented the military intervention in 2007. Or the massacres across the continent, or the blowing up by miners of centuries old sacred sites. None of this even enters into the thinking of people like Canem Malum.

Yet, despite all these rejections by white Australia, the original inhabitants still welcome us to country. An act of genuine welcome, just as I welcome others into my own home. What a gracious gift. A gift that the Canem Malum’s of this world are too stupid, or blind, or frightened to acknowledge.

This 4th generation Australian graciously accepts the welcome to country extended to us by our indigenous brothers and sisters and was horrified by the actions of the few on Anzac Day.

Hi Aries54, totally agree with what you have posted.

A fanatical rant by the Forums resident white supremacist,the Kudos Kid, claims he's not a fascists, but there's hate in every word.

At several ANZAC services around Australia this morning, a small but vocal groups booed and jeered the Aboriginal person as they delivered the "Welcome To Country". Fortunately the vast majority of the crowd cheered and applauded to show their displeasure at the disgusting behaviour of a few thugs in attendance (who promptly exited stage right).
I don't know if you were at any of these services, but if you had been, would you be a BOOER or a CHEERER? I certainly would be a CHEERER. Third option is STICK YOUR FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH, as part of the "Silent Majority".

"Australia Day is about those that have made the ultimate sacrifice for Australia" I don't think so fool, its the day of the illegal invasion, with its murder, dispossession and genocide of Aboriginal people, they made the ultimate sacrifice with their lives.

BTW; The white mans foreign wars has seen 100,000 Australians dead as a result. European colonisation has seen 250,000 Aboriginal dead as a result. Maybe there should be an "ANZAC" Day to remember all the Aboriginal deaths.

CM,

Agree with you on aboriginal yobs. They are just one of the idiotic minorities we have in this country. I believe that they are also a minority of aboriginal Australians.

You ask:

“How are we going to convince young people to serve, when we are telling them that they don't own their own country”.

I don't see why anyone would fight for a country that has been trashed by its political class for over two decades, plus having its only living war hero persecuted just before Ancac Day.

Australia's charging of its own military personnel with allegations occurring 15 years ago in a war against a non-uniformed enemy is outrageous, and it should be a lesson for anyone thinking of enlisting in the ADF.

An official investigation in 2020 “found credible evidence of war crimes committed by Australian special forces, including instances involving soldiers under investigation”.

A Federal Court Judge found that the ‘reports’ that BRS was involved in the “murder of four unarmed Afghan men were ‘substantially’ true. Substantially (to a large degree) is somewhat confusing.

But, in 2002, the Howard government created offences of international concern to “ensure Australia’s jurisdiction was ‘complementary’ to that of the International Criminal Court”. Australia would do its own prosecutions.

A willingness to investigate one’s own was seen as what civilised nations do to maintain integrity in the theatre of war. And, now typically for this country, Australia went in boots and all, “placing itself at the more expansive end of comparable democracies”. Our puffed-up politicians want to be ‘the best’, ‘the first. In contrast to those of the U.S and the UK, who care more about sovereignty and their personnel.

No Court Martial. Just a jury of ordinary people picked at random. Civilians.

The usual clowns are barking for the removal of Roberts-Smith's Victoria Cross, as they usually do before anyone is found guilty or not guilty.

No one in his or her right mind would want to fight for this country under either party capable of forming a government.

I haven't heard anything here from commentators here to indicate why "Aboriginal- acknowledgement of country" should be part of Anzac Day- that ostensibly is about the Australia and New Zealand Army Corp's.

So I'll continue to believe in my original assertion.

Our culture appears to be under siege by ideological forces that have infiltrated many of our institutions. The source seemingly is the universities- hopefully we will be able to clean the rot out- before it eats the heart out of the western world.

I wonder how these ideological forces have become as powerful as the are. We need to understand this better or be enslaved by them.

Anzac Day is one of our most precious cultural rituals tying our present with our past through the thread of blood.

The problem with bowing to extortion is the price gets higher. The Anzac Day council needs to stand up to these nihilistic bullies.

Ttbn- BRS is slightly off topic, but I like him, and he showed a lot of class at the Currumbin Service, and received a lot of support, as to other things, it's a matter for the courts, assuming that they still have integrity in the current politicized environment.

We need to find a way of dealing with politicized Judges and other gatekeepers for the sake of our nation and people. These gatekeepers seem to have lost touch with the people, they need to be removed.

These ideological forces will go after other valuable Australian rituals.

From AI-
"There is a significant school of legal and social criticism that views "Contemporary Community Standards" as a vehicle for "moral entrepreneurship". This critique suggests that the legal system—rather than reflecting a broad, grassroots consensus—often codifies the specific goals of highly organised interest groups."

This is interesting...

It appears that RSL National President, Tinley is an ex-SASR, WA Labor Minister.
There was also pressure by 'GetUp' on the Aboriginal ANZAC Day issue.

From AI-

Your mention of B.A. Santamaria aligns with his long-standing warnings about "The Movement" of far-left influence within Australian institutions. Santamaria spent his career fighting what he saw as communist and anti-Western subversion of unions and the ALP. For those who share your view, the appointment of Peter Tinley AM as RSL National President in October 2025 is seen as a sign of this shift, given his background as a former Labor Minister and his vocal defense of the current "inclusive" protocols.
The RSL is currently a "house divided," with the central leadership following a progressive path while a significant portion of the base—including those who participated in the booing—sees this as a surrender of national sovereignty.

Peter Tinley
AM served in the Western Australian (WA) State Government, not the Federal Government.
Political Career Highlights

State MP (2009–2025): He was the Labor member for the electoral district of Willagee in the WA Legislative Assembly for 16 years.
Cabinet Minister: Under the Mark McGowan Labor Government, he held several senior portfolios from 2017 to 2021, most notably as the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Veterans Issues.
Transition to RSL: After retiring from state politics at the March 2025 WA election, he moved quickly into veteran advocacy, eventually being elected as the RSL National President in October 2025.

Political Context of the "Pressure"
The "heavy political pressure" you noted regarding the 2020 RSL WA reversal was largely driven by his then-colleagues in the WA Labor Party. As the Minister for Veterans Issues at the time, Tinley was one of the primary government voices criticizing RSL WA's short-lived ban on Indigenous ceremonies.
This background is exactly why many traditionalists see his current leadership of the national RSL as a continuation of his Labor political agenda, rather than a neutral military one. For critics, his shift from a Labor Minister who pressured the RSL to its National President represents a "captured" institution.

I thought that ANZAC Day services were about recognising the people who fought and died for Australia. "Welcome to Country" suggests that nearly all fought and died for someone else's country.

The Voice referendum was an attempt to legalise apartheid in Australia.
The race provisions in the constitution need to be removed. Legalised racism should have no place in the nation that our soldiers fought and died for.

I note that the New Zealand Ambassador to Turkiye was wearing a Maori ‘korowai’ during the combined Australian, New Zealand and Turkiye early morning service at Gallipoli. Would anyone suggest that as the Maori people never ceded sovereignty of Aotearoa to the British crown, just as Aboriginal people did not cede sovereignty of their land to the British, its inappropriate for the NZ Ambassador to wear a 'korowai' at official ceremonies.

I say to those who are so grieved by the inclusion of Aboriginal ceremonies at an event, DON'T ATTEND!

Anzac Day has been cheapened by the negative and vile left.

But, on the matter of the bellowing of a section of aboriginal Australians, they are welcoming 'to country' whitey's billions of dollars in handouts, not whitey himself.

Currently a bare majority of 52% of able-bodied people say that they would defend Australia. Of the 52%, 62% were males, 41% females.

Alarmingly, but not surprisingly, only 37% of people under 45 would front up. 42 years of age is considered to be the cut off for military service.

This despite 68% of Australians believing that we could be in a military conflict with another country within 5 years.

In the last 2 years, expectations of terror attacks rose from 55% to 72 %.

Fewer than 20% think that we are prepared for defending the country.

There is the distinct possibility that the aboriginal industry will be welcoming a very different “coloniser” or “invader” sometime in the not too different future - if they survive and prosper as they have done since 1788, that is.

62% were males, 41% females. 103% WOW! That 3% is no mean number, its 810,000 Australians who think they are both male and female, hermaphrodites, don't laugh, ttbn could have been asking the question of earthworms, snails, slugs, and barnacles, Aussie ones of course! No one could expect a foreign barnacle to defend Australia!

Personally, I think the British should be thanked and appreciated for bringing a civilised society. Imagine it was the Dutch or Japanese here first. Being welcomed to one's own country was invented by Marxist wanting to divide the nation by race. Canadian thing, wasn't it? They love identity politics. There are still many places in Australia where families are still fighting over who gets huge sums of white 'guilt ' money. Grubs in power obviously ignore the 61% who said no to this garbage.

'Bravery and Betrayal' on 7 last night depicted the bravery of the SAS soldiers and the betrayal of them and their families by their leaders and their shite country. U.S soldiers who fought alongside SAS troops in Afghanistan were amazed at the way Australia treats its heroes compared to the way the U.S does.

Welcome to country was invented by Ernie Dingo.

"The story, as told by Dingo and Walley themselves:

A group of Maori and Cook Islands (South Sea Islander) dancers had been invited to perform.
The visiting performers refused to go on stage without a traditional welcome or blessing on the land they were visiting — a custom from their own Pacific cultures.
In response, Dingo, Walley, and their Middar Aboriginal Theatre troupe quickly developed and performed a ceremony on behalf of the local Noongar people to allow the show to proceed."

As a money making venture, its pretty smart. In terms of truth and social cohesion, not so much.

_____________________________________________________________________

"Personally, I think the British should be thanked and appreciated for bringing a civilised society. Imagine it was the Dutch or Japanese here first. "

The aboriginals should be thankful it was the British. The alternatives were the French or the Chinese and if either of those had been first, we wouldn't have an aboriginal issue because we wouldn't have any aboriginals.

______________________________________________________________________-

"Or the horror of memories of stolen children when John Howard implemented the military intervention in 2007. "

That's pure fantasy. The intervention was to save aboriginal children who were being abused within their community. It was fully support (even instigated) by the Labor NT government AND fully supported by the Rudd oppostion in Canberra who continued the policy after gaining power.

Regardless of whether or not you approve of welcome to country ceremonies, it is despicable and disrespectful to boo at an ANZAC Day service. For many attendees, especially veterans and their families, these are raw and powerful events. We may view ANZAC Day through different ideological lenses – for some, confirmation of the horror and futility of war; for others, honouring the courage and skills of those who have fought – but the common thread is thoughtful respect for those who have fought, and particularly those wounded or killed in war.

I agree with Paul – if you don’t like what’s in the ceremony, don’t go.

'Regardless of whether or not you approve of welcome to country ceremonies, it is despicable and disrespectful to boo at an ANZAC Day service'

Yes and only a complete grub who deserves no respect would celebrate Charlie Kirk's murder. Our Melbourne ' first nations speaker' did that!

Hi Trumpster, the bit you left off;

"While the specific, public, and frequently performed "Welcome to Country" format was introduced in 1976, it was designed to mirror traditional protocols of welcoming visitors to land."

Most indigenous cultures have a welcoming protocol, Aboriginal is no exception.

Ernie Dingo mast have been very busy, as it was not that long back YOU were claiming he also "invented" the Aboriginal Smoking Ceremony.

"as it was not that long back YOU were claiming he also "invented" the Aboriginal Smoking Ceremony."

Never said it, never thought, never considered it. Just more of the lies Paul makes up. Its a measure of how wrong he is that even he knows he has to lie to try to make points.

"it was designed to mirror traditional protocols of welcoming visitors to land."

That was the claim made up after people started mocking the made-up 'Welcome to Country'. But there's no evidence that such a thing existed prior to 1976. Go through the chronicles of the 19th century explorers and those who lived with the aboriginal tribes and you won't find any mention of any such ceremony.

Mhaze I wish you would get your head out of your arse and acknowledge some facts. The tradition of asking permission to enter another group's lands and being welcomed is widely acknowledged to be centuries old. The modern version of this ceremony was first performed in 1973 at the Aquarius Festival here in Nimbin. Your story about Ernie Dingo occurred years latter in 1978. It was in the 1980's that the wonderful Rhoda Roberts coined the phrase "Welcome to Country". So your snide retelling of the "facts" is totally inaccurate. It would be generous of you to acknowledge that, but I won't hold my breath.

Quoting who supported the military intervention in 2007 does not expunge the trauma it caused indigenous people.

I'm horrified to hear so many claim that indigenous people 'should' be happy that it was the British who colonised this country and not someone else. Like that somehow washes away all the atrocities they committed.

Why would they want to welcome people who came to kill them and take their lands anyway?
Many of us don't wish to be welcomed to the country we were born in and see it as an affront of sorts, but is it not also humiliating for them to come out every time and pretend to welcome the invaders?

If it was a 'get outta here you white effing dogs' ceremony, I reckon plenty more indigenous would take part in that.
That's probably closer to where the last piece of their pride exists.
In resentment.

I always acknowledged that 'If anyone has a right to be racist in this country, it's them'. (maybe not so much us)
I think that for them it's like some kind of post traumatic stress disorder on a people-wide level.

My wife's Maori people still perform a welcoming ceremony called a "Powhiri" when visiting groups arrive at the marae during an important event such as a tangi. Today its a ritual thing, but at one time it was a way of ensuring the visitors came in peace, by following a strict set of protocols. Today protocols still have to be followed, such as having women enter before the men. I'm sure Aboriginal tribes followed a "welcoming" in some form to ensure the visitors were coming in peace.

Hi Aries54,

That old furphy that Aboriginal people should be thankful it was the civilised British that colonised Australia and not Attila the Hun and his barbarous hoards, its like saying; The Jews should be thankful it was the cultured Germans stuffing them in the gas chambers, and not the uncivilised Slavs!

"Mhaze I wish you would get your head out of your arse and acknowledge some facts."

It seems Aries is getting quite overwrought that we aren't genuflecting at his unresearched assertions.

"The tradition of asking permission to enter another group's lands and being welcomed is widely acknowledged to be centuries old. "

Widely acknowledged? By whom. Evidence? Or is your unresearched assertions all the evidence you need.

Hilariously Aries thinks that by asserting (no evidence mind you!!) that the Welcome to Country boondoggle was invented in 1973 rather than 1978 (actually the Dingo invention was 1976 but accuracy isn't on Aries agenda), that this somehow salvages the story.

Its quite likely that aboriginal societies didn't have a Welcome ceremony because they didn't welcome their neighbours but instead fought interminable wars against those who adjoined their land.

"Quoting who supported the military intervention in 2007 does not expunge the trauma it caused indigenous people."

There was little trauma except for those who were abusing aboriginal kids. There were no stolen kids. There WAS general agreement that the intervention was required to help the kids being abused by their kin.

"I'm horrified to hear so many claim that indigenous people 'should' be happy that it was the British who colonised this country and not someone else. Like that somehow washes away all the atrocities they committed."

In the adult world, we recognise that the inevitability of the colonisation of Australia. I know that some dills fantasise about the aboriginals living in glorious isolation through the centuries but that's just Disneyland thinking. So, given that they were going to be colonised, it was best for the aboriginals that it was done by the most benign power around ie Britain.

Paul, mhaze and Aries

At a concert in Perth last year I heard Richard Walley tell the story about he and Ernie Dingo devising and performing the first contemporary welcome to country ceremony in 1976. It is rooted in ancient aboriginal customs, but according to Walley that was the first time it was performed for non-indigenous people.

Many reports on the internet support this account, e.g.

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/history-culture/2016/03/richard-walleys-welcome-to-country/

Here we go, Mhaze shifts the goal posts again. Suddenly "Welcome to country was invented by Ernie Dingo" becomes the first time it was performed for white people. As you love to point out sunshine ... two entirely different topics.

Apart from denying that the ceremony in some form has existed for millennia, (the article referenced by Rhian opens with "... An indigenous Australian tradition millennia-old, Welcome to Country’s mainstream popularity began to snowball 40 years ago.")

Mhaze's extensive and lazer focus on accurate research makes this claim:
Its quite likely that aboriginal societies didn't have a Welcome ceremony because they didn't welcome their neighbours but instead fought interminable wars against those who adjoined their land.

"... It's quite likely ..." that that is something Mhaze pulled out of his arse yet again.

And finally I love Paul's analogy when talking about that galling statement that indigenous people 'should' be 'happy' that they were invaded by the British when he says it's like saying "... The Jews should be thankful it was the cultured Germans stuffing them in the gas chambers, and not the uncivilised Slavs!..."

"Here we go, Mhaze shifts the goal posts again. Suddenly "Welcome to country was invented by Ernie Dingo" becomes the first time it was performed for white people."

Where did I say it was merely the first time performed for whites? No goalpost shifting here, just Aries running for cover. Just making stuff up isn't a good look. As I said to Paul elsewhere, if you need to fabricate to make a point and you KNOW you need to fabricate, that says it all.

Now back to the issue...

After Dingo and Walley created the ceremony, they were happy to talk about their inventiveness. But them came the backlash since they were admitting it was invented. So then they, especially Walley, started claiming it was based on some ancient practice....claims he only made AFTER he was criticised for admitting it was invented.

Again, there is no evidence the pre-1788 people practiced such a ceremony. (Nor the pre-1976 people for that matter). "Major ethnographic works (e.g., A.P. Elkin's classic The Australian Aborigines) do not describe a formalized "Welcome to Country" ritual akin to today's version. Critics note the absence of widespread documentation in colonial records, explorer accounts, or early anthropology for public welcomes to outsiders in the modern sense."

Reading accounts from early explorers and escaped convicts who lived for long periods in tribal Aboriginal tribes yields no examples of such ceremonies. Sturt's diaries don't mention it even when he came across friendly groups.

It didn't exist, probably because they rarely welcomed adjacent tribes to their land. Warfare was much more prevalent.

"that indigenous people 'should' be 'happy'"

I never used the word 'happy'. You alone did so. (See above concerning the use of fabrication to try to make a point)

I remember a thread here a while back about how it wasn't appropriate to read a prayer at the start of parliamentary sittings. In that instance the prayer is read because of standing orders voted on by the mps.

When we had the Voice referendum, I remember a campaigner saying that we could all forget about wtc/aoc if the Yes vote didn't prevail. Who knows what effect that threat had on the vote. The claim is that wtc/aoc has strong public support, but I've not seen polling nor much interest in proving the point.

Perhaps the No vote prevailed because most people felt that your heritage did not make you more important as an Australian citizen. Similarly with ANZAC Day ceremonies, what is of relevance is perhaps the service and sacrifice of veterans.

Does anyone know of any petitions about the matter?

mhaze you probably think that we lighter skinned people are like the Israelis and that the Indigenous are like the Palestinians, right?

Hi Trumpster,

You're in good company, a 24 year old Neo-Nazi Eli Toby has been charged by NSW Police after booing at Sydney's ANZAC Dawn Service in Martin Place. Seems you'll be one short at your next clan meeting.

Trumpster where is your evidence for this claim;

"ts quite likely that aboriginal societies didn't have a Welcome ceremony because they didn't welcome their neighbours but instead fought interminable wars against those who adjoined their land."

Where is your evidence for these "interminable wars" you claim took place

"The claim is that wtc/aoc has strong public support, but I've not seen polling nor much interest in proving the point."

Maybe it's not about having support.

We elect some 'lesser evil'...
Paying too much attention to voting someone OUT
New leader comes in, they sell us out, do what they want...
Do all this stuff the majority would never support...

And they say 'Well you all voted me in'

- So maybe its not about support mhaze, but obviously they have to claim it is.

It's really about enough people standing against it loudly enough to oppose it when politicians do the 'do whatever they want' part.

I watched this video yesterday, and I thought about this 'booing'.

I've haven't cared much for ANZAC Day for the last few years.
It feels like an opportunity for politicians to grandstand and make themselves relevant, promote the next war and drum up some support for military spending...
And the ANZACs, well I'm a descendant on both my mother and fathers sides, and these last few decades has felt like every other day of the year EXCEPT ANZAC Day these same politicians ingratiating themselves of ANZAC Day more or less attack the (white ANZAC decendants) for being racist and nationalist far-right pieces of shite...

But as for the the day itself, none of us have any right to disrespect it or take the day away from other Australians,

- Or so I thought...

I watched this video.
It was the best argument I heard so far that maybe, just maybe, the outbursts were possibly 'required' as unfortunate as it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep3TdI9Kj_A
(SKY News, and no anti-semitic hysteria, very strange)

And I thought, maybe we are putting all this up on too much of a podum anyway.
If the ANZACS were alive, many of whom died young on the battlefield...
What would they think about all this, really?
I wonder what would offend them most about Australia in 2026?

Maybe the fact that it came to this, ON AN ANZAC Day, might mean we should've taken the issue more seriously earlier?

It's a pity we have to have an ANZAC Day at all, it shows the failings of humanity. Since we do, and it should be a remembrance of ALL who died because of the futility of war, I believe it should be an inclusive gathering, and not another exercise in division furled by a minority of haters.

The RSL is reconsidering the "Welcome To Country", as its a day to remember the courage of the past, I hope the RSL shows the courage to stand up to the vocal minority of haters, and continues the remembrance as it is.

Hi AC,

"Maybe it's not about having support."

But that is the reason given for wtc/aoc. Everyone loves it apart from a few neonazis apparently. In light of this I think that the best way to deal with dissent is to have the odd poll or petition to show that there is popular support. I believe that there are petitions for and against it.

Hi Fester,

Well, I just looked at other issues.
Did Aussies collectively demand transgender toilets?
Are the majority trans? Of course not.

Women be like:
'I don't want some dude in a dress creeping around the ladies toilets trying to make small-talk'

The government does what it wants, the people being used to such things accept it because they can't do much about it, all they can do is jump up and down in opposition to try and roll it back.
But at that point to roll it back would be discrimination, right?
Just like they let all these immigrants in here, and if the people who were here first complain, then at that point complaining is racism.

Like I said I don't support anyone disrespecting or ruining ANZAC Day for others.
Even if I didn't care about it, it's still not my place to ruin it for others.
WTC has been pushed like a song on the radio they played to the point many are just sick of hearing it. And if the indigenous are taking the opportunity to use wtc as a platform to finger wave everyone and decisively remind us this is their country, and we took it from them, then I'm not sure this is the right message either.

Do Aussies, who come out to remember the fallen from their own families 100+ years after the event:

DO WE REALLY NEED TO BE WELCOMED TO OUR OWN COUNTRY 6 generations after the fact?

It's not a day out for tourists or immigrants.
It's family of the fallen, wearing their medals, generations later.

I don't wish to diminish indigenous standing or disrespect them or ANZACs in any way, but seriously, WTC should stay at the airport for when newbies arrive or maybe when gaining citizenship, they've turned this WTC/AOC into a religion, more acknowledgements that Muslims commit to daily prayers..

Is it welcome to country or an exercise in all being required to lay on the ground and pee our pants in collective guilt?

My Great-Grandfathers and their brothers were ANZACS, one of my Grandfathers married a part-indigenous girl after he came back from playing with the Japs, and I have a very small, completely non-noticeable bit of indigenous DNA in me, which probably dates back to around the time wombats and emus were invented in this country.

I don't need to be welcomed, I was born here just like 11 generations on my fathers side before me, and honestly I take some offense to it.
I don't need to acknowledge indigenous fought alongside ANZACS, I know they did and it's not a day for division, and that's what WTC seems to be making it.

I've got books and stories - records of my own indigenous family dating back to the Frontier Wars.

after the total humiliation that Albo and the grievance industry received from the voice referendum, you can be sure the tyrants would never put the wtc humiliation ritual to a vote. So sad so many of the Indigenous people are being used as useful idiots by the western hating ideologues.

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/5020237

Gungarlook : the story of the Aboriginal Riley family of Burragorang Valley / Ivy Brookman & Jim Smith

AI Overview

>>Gungarlook: The Story of the Aboriginal Riley Family of Burragorang Valley (2010), by Ivy Brookman and Jim Smith, documents the history of the Gundungurra Riley family. It details their life on the Burnt Flat and Gungarlook properties, their early land ownership, and their persistent connection to the land despite displacement by the Warragamba Dam.

Key Aspects of the Riley Family Story:

Ancestry: The family descends from Dundowra (George Riley), a Gundungurra man, and his wife, Ellen Clayton.

Settlement: The family settled at Burnt Flat and later Gungarlook, an area in the upper Burragorang Valley featuring a significant waterhole from the Gurangatch dreaming story.

Land Ownership & Community: George Riley was a respected community leader and among the first Indigenous people in Australia to enrol to vote in 1869. The family managed an unbroken connection to their country, holding large community gatherings, including a major party at John Riley's selection at Burnt Flat in 1900.

Impact of Development: Many of the family's historic sites were submerged by the creation of Lake Burragorang (Warragamba Dam), impacting their ability to visit and maintain connections.

The Book: Published by Den Fenella Press, it features genealogy tables, maps, and photographs documenting the family’s history.

The Riley family continues to maintain a strong connection to their country today and has expressed strong opposition to further, potential destruction of their cultural heritage.<<

* My grandmothers birth is in the genealogy tables in the book.
It's some 90 pages, 21cm by 30cm and quite detailed.
- I think Indyvidual once said that he'd known the Rileys.

I was very disappointed with my local ANZAC Day service, their was no 'Fairy Foss' machine, out of order, disgusting! AND, they turned off the 'Dodgem Cars' mid ride while they played the Lass Post, how disrespectful!
BUT, The Nazi bros were able to hold a torch light procession around the car park! That certainly brightened up the festivities.

There was a petition six years ago that claimed to stop wtc at Anzac Day services by RSLWA. It got 268 signatures. There is currently a petition to remove wtc from Anzac Day dawn services. It has over 200 signatures and a target of 100,000.

"mhaze you probably think that we lighter skinned people are like the Israelis and that the Indigenous are like the Palestinians, right?"

Wrong. As with most things you write. Although to tell the truth I've got no idea what you're talking about here, and I suspect that makes two of us.

________________________________________________________________________

"You're in good company, a 24 year old Neo-Nazi Eli Toby has been charged by NSW Police after booing at Sydney's ANZAC"

Paul, you'll note (well not you but anyone with two brain-cells to rub together)...you'll note that I haven't supported or even talked about the booing. For the record, I think it was disgraceful. While the WTC is just woke rubbish, that doesn't justify booing at an ANZAC memorial or anywhere else for that matter. They do a WTC at every AFL game. My attitude is just to ignore it and attend to other matters while they get it out of their system.

__________________________________________________________________

Re: polling....

"Key findings from the Dynata poll (May 2025):

* 56% agreed or strongly agreed that Welcome to Country ceremonies have become divisive (only 17% disagreed; 27% unsure).

* 49% said they should no longer be performed before sporting matches (30% wanted them to continue; 21% unsure).

*46% said they should no longer be performed at ANZAC Day ceremonies (34% wanted them to continue; 20% unsure).

* Among 18–24 year olds (often assumed to be more supportive): 48% agreed the ceremonies are divisive (more than double the 22% who disagreed). Views on sporting events and ANZAC were split more evenly in this age group."

"Where is your evidence for these "interminable wars" you claim took place"

Paul does this all the time. Just pretends there's no evidence for things he'd prefer weren't true.
We've had this discussion on aboriginal wars in the past, so I suggest Paul goes back and reads up on that. But knowing this is beyond his abilities I'll offer this from that previous thread....

"Blainey quotes:

After describing one battle where two men were killed he writes:

"Occasionally, there were pitched battles or raids in which many men took part. The causalities might not, at first sight, seem large; but the death of two men in a battle involving 40 meant the causalities were approaching the scale of the Battle of the Somme. An aboriginal fight could absorb a large proportion of adults within a radius of fifty mile - indeed could involve the a far higher proportion of able-bodied adults in any war of the 20th century could possible involve."

Then after a long discussion about all the evidence around deaths in aboriginal warfare he writes:

"If we go on to accept a very cautious estimate of the number of fighting deaths, we arrive at the conclusion that the annual death rate in warfare equalled 1 for every 270 in the population. That death rate was probably not exceeded in any nation of Europe during any of the last three centuries".

He also talks about how William Buckley, who spent time with, and fighting for, one native group and had previous fought in the Napoleonic Wars, was shocked at how brutal the aboriginal battles were compared to those against Napoleon.

These are all in the Chapter 7 "Birth and Death" of "Triumph of the Nomads"."

I'd also remind Paul of the time he tried to downplay the rate of warfare deaths among aboriginals by referring to a story of a few whites marooned in Moreton Bay where you were made to look the fool when you claimed it showed no deaths in war and I proved it showed the exact opposite.

With Mhaze's claim that aboriginal people never had anything resembling a custom remotely akin to welcome to country because they were all too busy killing each other, I dread to wonder what his explanation is for how so many combined celebrations/corroborees were held, how trade between far flung tribes was conducted, or what was the use of the amazing song lines. All of which probably didn't happen in Mhaze's state of intentional ignorance and racism.

Dynata poll, aka the Institute of Public Affairs, who are they you might ask, this Institute of Public Affairs. Th IPA is a far right pressure group that lobbies governments on various issues in the interests of their financial backers. What a surprise they so call Dynata polls always come up with results that favour the views of the Institute of Public Affairs.

Hi Trumpster,

"Occasionally, there were pitched battles" you said they were "interminable wars", INTERMINABLE: seemingly without end, a very long time. Were they daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, what? Did they last for a day, a week, a month, a year, how long? What evidence do you have of pitched battles taking place pre-1788. 2 deaths in 40, is not evidence of large scale battles! You could get that in the main street of Mount Druitt Sydney today.

The 'Aboriginal Battle of the Somme' on what date did it take place? I'm sure the Somme reference is for dramatic effect. The real Battle of the Somme (July 1–November 18, 1916) over 1 million casualties, total losses included roughly 420,000 British, 200,000 French, and 450,000–600,000 German soldiers. The first day alone saw 57,470 British casualties.

Yesterday was the 30th Anniversary of the Battle of Port Arthur involving 500 people with 35 dead and 23 wounded, obviously approaching the scale of the Battle of the Somme, wouldn't you say Trumpster.

Well Aries, we've gone from "[t]he tradition of asking permission to enter another group's lands and being welcomed is widely acknowledged to be centuries old" to someone somewhere sometime might have done something vaguely similar to the current stage-show. Except they didn't get paid!

Seems my work here is almost done.

But its untrue that aboriginals didn't have some mechanisms to try to placate visiting tribes. Chief among them was the practice of sending some of the more comely women of the tribe over to the visiting tribe as sexual offerings. If the visitors took up the offer and reciprocated with similar sexual offerings, then all was well. Now that's a welcome ceremony I can get behind. Of course we aren't allowed to talk about such things because we are supposed to pretend that aboriginal society was highly egalitarian and that the women had equal rights and to not notice that they were little better than slaves to the elders.

Of course, if the sexual offerings weren't accepted, war would ensue.

_____________________________________________________________________

"you said they were "interminable wars", INTERMINABLE". So now you want to play with semantics? The wars were interminable in that they recurred regularly since it was unusual for one tribe to be wiped out all together in which case they would seek revenge. (I've told you about the Finke River Massacre before although I'm sure you memory-holed it.)

"2 deaths in 40, is not evidence of large scale battles!"

Didn't say there were large scale battles. In pre-1788 Australia there wasn't large scale anything. But 5% of combatants dying is on the same scale as the worst European wars. Remember I taught you about that in regards to the wars in the Moreton Bay area?

____________________________________________________________________

" All of which probably didn't happen in Mhaze's state of intentional ignorance and racism."

And there it is. If you don't fall for every piece of rubbish thought up by the aboriginal industry, you're racist. In the end, that's the level of thinking from the likes of Aries.

Oh no no no Mhaze. I don't think it, you have demonstrated it to be true. With every post you dive deeper and deeper into crackpot racist ranting.

Hi again Trumpster,

"Chief among them was the practice of sending some of the more comely women of the tribe over to the visiting tribe as sexual offerings" Now YOU are saying anything that comes to mind.

Two dead in some supposed battle, in the year 4,000,000BC equates to the Battle of the Somme with a million dead. 5% a huge number, the Battle of Port Arthur with 7% dead far greater than the Battle of the Somme, as our resident fool wouldn't you agree Trumpster.

Your view of the Aboriginal Welcome To Country and that of the Neo-Nazi Eli Toby and other like minded are in unison, YOU both don't want it.

BTW, The Poms Anglo-Saxons gave women and children to 8th century Viking raiders, hoping to avoid mass brutality. Maybe Great, Great etc etc Granny Mhaze was offered to the Vikings, but being comely as she was they knocked her back, and then proceed to chop Great Great etc etc Grandpa Mhaze to pieces for offering reject goods. That's a fact Trumpster, its in the "History" book!

We need to remember why our diggers fought for us, so we can defend their principles as they age, and repel pretenders.

ttbn said- "Currently a bare majority of 52% of able-bodied people say that they would defend Australia. Of the 52%, 62% were males, 41% females." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10776#375505)

Ans- Thanks for the data ttbn.

Runner said- "Personally, I think the British should be thanked and appreciated for bringing a civilised society." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10776#375511)

Ans- I agree Runner. I don't think that certain activist Aboriginal's ever want peace with Whitey, so if we buy into discussions with them, we are buying into their bad faith disenginuous tactics, negotiation theory says that at some point you have to have to walk away from the negotiation, and say I don't want to make a deal with you because I don't trust you.

Aboriginal's can and do participate in ANZAC Day, if certain Aboriginal activists and their Woke Marxist friends want more than their sacrifice, they should be the ones to stay home. Do Aboriginal's only want to respect their own culture and stamp over the sacrifice of our ANZAC's.

In business you can take from competitors market pie segment or you can make a bigger pie. It seems that certain Woke Marxist Aboriginal's prefer destroying the White competitor.

But even if these activist Aboriginal's have a point, they don't, but they shouldn't be making that point at ANZAC Day. Sadly it appears that the new President, ex-Labor minister has been involved in pushing the WTC/ AOC. It appears that the Labor party hates ANZAC Day, and seek to destroy it using similar tactics to what has been used to invert Australia Day. What's next Easter, or Christmas. Sad to see that this president is ex-SAS. I believe he has betrayed the SAS, the veterans, and Australia

Usually ANZAC Day is a place to put politics aside, but when the RSL President brings politics to ANZAC Day, at the ceremony, that's enough, if some want to say, "not in my name", by booing, I say let them, this is their exercising direct democracy.

There's a point where you have to say, he may be the president of the RSL, but if he isn't fulfulling the duties of the office, we need to invite him to leave. It's important to remember that in order to preserve ANZAC Day we need to be members of the RSL.

Labor politicians appear to have been bringing politics to ANZAC Day for a while in their speeches. And Woke politics has been inserting its politics, into ANZAC Day, now some including ex-service men and women have been making their own speeches, from the crowd, in support of the integrity of the sacrifice of the diggers.

Most of those that made the ultimate sacrifice were young white men (the 'in' group), that thought enough about the Australian diaspora made up of other groups (the Australian 'out' group/ broader group), that they engaged in brutal combat to preserve the Australian cultural identity. In my mind I see these young mainly white men as the heros of their communities- standing out front to defend generations of their families, their old, their women, their children, their friends, their communities, their culture, their nation, their standards. Their sacrifice are the pillars of our world, we often take these pillars for granted, remembering them every year reminds us how our safety endures, or not. Even if we don't make a similar sacrifice, at least we can respect theirs, and remember how we benefit from it, and 'defend them' when their idea is threatened. They defended us! Now we defend them

This is where it always ends up with Paul. I make a factual statement about the aboriginals....he demands evidence...I provide evidence...he then races to say "yeah, well others did it too"...while creating some fantasy about Vikings.

I wasn't saying that what happened to the aboriginals was exceptional, just that it happened despite the Disneyfied fables about how peaceful they were. But Paul prefers Disneyfied fables.

Whereas Aries has decided that pointing out anything detrimental to the aboriginal culture is (boo) racism. I never quite understood how people prefer to be wrong rather than run the risk of being called racist.

Hi Trumpster,

There is plenty of evidence that the Anglo Saxons, I assume your ancestors, would hand over women and children alone with other bounty to Viking raiders in the hope of avoiding the carnage that the Vikings were known for. BUT there is no evidence for your claim;
"Chief among them was the practice of sending some of the more comely women of the tribe over to the visiting tribe as sexual offerings"

That may be true, from a biological perspective that would make sense, spread the gene pool. And the Aboriginals were not restricted by your Protestant virtues, the women could have been rather willing. We know it was common for the white fella, despite his Protestant virtues to get it off with Aboriginal women. Have you checked your DNA? BTW every where the European went he liked to get his rocks off with the local women.

Sadly, a good thread from CM has turned into a feed-the-the-troll exercise.

"There is plenty of evidence that the Anglo Saxons, I assume your ancestors, would hand over women and children alone with other bounty to Viking raiders in the hope of avoiding the carnage that the Vikings were known for. BUT there is no evidence for your claim;"

Actually there's NO evidence for your claim. Whereas the evidence for the acts of the aboriginals is clear eg Blainey and William Buckley who lived with an aboriginal tribe for 30-odd years and wrote of it.

There is in effect the noble savage hypothesis, which often seeks a dissociation from the violent roots of humanity that are not lacking in examples. A recent one is "payback". When redneck white people do this, it's probably called a lynch mob. Of course, the pile of 50 odd women clocked on the head and chucked in a hole in Western Australia, perhaps for the crime of behaving like human beings, never happened.

"How are we going to convince young people to serve, when we are telling them that they don't own their own country."
- At this point, they would have to be delusional just to enlist.

This nation doesn't stand for 'Unity in Self-Sufficiency', so it's hardly a nation.
We don't have the right to say 'Who or how many when it comes to newcomers'.
We barely even have a right to say what we think without being labeled something.
We DO NOT stand have neutrality, and risks being dragged into other peoples wars.
Those things mean we're not sovereign, and certainly not if we are America and Israels lackeys.

Penny Wong too frightened to ever say anything more than 'It's deeply concerning.'
We're a vassal state and a half-way house with weak incompetent leadership more likely.

Hi Trumpster,

Why we can't accept your "evidence". Firstly you rely on the silly old commentator Geoffrey Blainey, known as the Nutty Professor by all the right thinking people, such as myself. Then you cough up the long gone William Buckley, known as the "Wild Man", a crazy Pom who went bush, then went troppo for 30 years, how could anyone rely on anything that poor unfortunate said. History is all about facts, time and places the who and the what, eg, The Battle of Hastings, fought on 14 October 1066, was a decisive Norman victory that initiated the Norman Conquest of England. Duke William of Normandy defeated the Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson on Senlac Hill, near present-day Battle in East Sussex. Harold was killed, ending Anglo-Saxon rule and leading to William I's

You even tried to say the Battle of the Somme was fought between 40 Aboriginal blokes and 2 got killed, you described it as "horrendous"! There is help out there for old delusional folk like you, and its covered by your Pensioner Concession as well..

So that's a 'NO' from Paul as far as providing evidence that Britons handed over women to Vikings. Just more made up rubbish from the site's chief fantasist which he tries to hide by making up more rubbish. Boy what a dill.

Why not just admit that when you made the claim about Vikings you just hoped no one would bounce you on it?

And then to compound his lunacy he claims that one of Australia's premier historians is 'nutty'. Why? Because he writes facts that Paul would prefer not be mentioned.

Hey mhaze,

So how are you coping with all this Israeli hatred towards Christians?
IDF smashing in the heads of Jesus crucifixion statues with sledgehammers and stuff, and Donald attacking the Pope.

Google? 'Christians are noticing Israels hatred for them'

>>AI Overview
Reports indicate rising concern among Christians regarding hostility in Israel, including harassment of believers, vandalism of churches, and spitting incidents by extremists, particularly in Jerusalem. While many Christians support Israel, some document personal experiences of discrimination, while others argue that unwavering political support for the modern state is not mandated by scripture, urging a focus on justice.<<

There's been quite a steady stream of reports of attacks on Christians lately.

Latest one was an attack a 48 year old French Catholic nun in Jerusalem.
http://x.com/Truthtellerftm/status/2050277605073400180

If acknowledging the horrors inflicted upon the indigenous peoples of this continent by the British coloniser’s since 1788, if acknowledging the fact that the indigenous peoples were treated as non-citizens until the 1967 referendum, if acknowledging that despite these slights, indigenous men enlisted in the military forces to fight and die for “Australia”, if acknowledging that any aboriginal soldier who returned when hostilities ceased, were shunned and not allowed to share a drink with their white comrades in pubs, if all this and lots more means that the likes of Mhaze Canem Malum or Geoffrey Blainey, are prepared to rant in such a chaotic, unhinged and convoluted manner (Mhaze with Britons and Vikings. FFS?) or to claim that people like me are “left wing, woke Marxist etc. etc.’ (CM) or have a ‘black armband view of history’ (Blainey) then let them rage. It makes for an interesting psychological profile and provides plenty of laughs along the way.

Hi Trumpster,

Looking into your Blainey and Buckley claims. What did Geoffrey Blainey actually write; "it is probable that nearly every tribe in Australia traded something with others". From that the Trumpster extrapolates; "Chief among them was the practice of sending some of the more comely women of the tribe over to the visiting tribe as sexual offerings"

What we do know from Blainey is; Aboriginal women were stolen and traded by white Bass Strait sealers, rather than referring to a practice of Indigenous people trading women.
Trumpster was your Great Grandpa a Bass Strait Sealer?

As for William Buckley, ONLY BEEN DEAD FOR 130 YEARS, the book, 'Life and Adventures of William Buckley' was written in 1852 by a journalist John Moran,the modern edition is introduced by author Tim Flannery. There is nothing found that even suggests Buckley said; "Chief among them was the practice of sending some of the more comely women of the tribe over to the visiting tribe as sexual offerings" Maybe you have channelling powers that us mere mortals don't possess.

BTW What have you got against fugly women? AND why didn't they send them all, and why didn't they send the good lookn' ones? I bet Grandpa mhaze wasn't that choosy!

MYTH BUSTED!

Pay the rent. Anthony Albanese Alice Springs
http://youtu.be/da0IiDfOpxU

As there is a day, ANZAC Day, to remember the 100,000 Australians killed in war, all except a handful died in far off foreign lands, fighting other peoples wars, would it not be appropriate to have a national day of remembrance for the 250,000 dead Aboriginal people killed here in Australia during the days of colonial genocide, which began in 1788, NATIONAL ABORIGINAL GENOCIDE DAY. I think it is very neglectful of Australians not to remember the deaths of a quarter of a million innocent Aboriginal people, children, women old people etc, their deaths caused by disease, dispossession and outright murder. I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE ON THAT.

Hi Paul,
I'm not opposed to your suggestion, but I wonder if it's a double-edged sword.

Would recognition of past wrongs mostly by people long dead help end the animosity?
If we did that and changed the date of Invasion Day to sometime else would it ever be enough?
(Or would changing the date of Australia Day just piss the white Australians off more?)

Sometimes bad things happen and there's just no going back to change them.

I wish I could be more than skeptical there was a path to ending the animosity.

On the other hand will it just further permanently entrench their self-identity, feelings and status as victims.

Is there more to gain from this recognition than what there is to lose?
I think that recognising past wrongs are important for victims to heal from wrongdoing done to them, though this is not always possible..

You know, the perpetrators are all dead, just as all the original victims are, I don't know how you can heal or mend the fences with descendants of victims generations later.

The whole voice thing was a debacle.
I didn't support it, but I do think it would've been better if Albo hadn't have blown millions on that referendum, and just spent the money trying to do just a little more for these remote aboriginal communities so they can better help themselves (handup, not handout)

Hi AC,

You're probably right, we don't need a National Genocide Day, rather a NATIONAL RECONCILIATION DAY around May 27th ( National Reconciliation Week annually from 27th May to 3rd June) Both remembrance and celebration, significant enough to have a public holiday, a bit like New Zealand's Waitangi Day (Feb 6th). The vast majority of Australians want to move forward, but to do that we have to recognise the past, but not dwell on it exclusively, rather be positive for the future. Its not a matter of money, more so a matter of will power from both Aboriginal people and the rest of Australia to promote equality in everything from housing to health, whilst recognising culture.

When some old fart on this forum says; "Aboriginals should be thankful the British colonised Australia" that's like saying to an old Digger; "You should be thankful it was the Japanese who looked after you in Changi prison" extremely insensitive comments.

I remember Marcia Langton saying when a reporter asked her; "Isn't it remarkable that Aboriginal people are still here after 60,000 years?", she replied something like; "What's remarkable is that Aboriginal people are still here after the past 200 years". I think that summed it up.

More valid is learning from the past. Why is Kumanjayi Little Baby dead? Would intervention by child safety be regarded as child stealing or attempted genocide? Was a group of hundreds of rioters traditional justice or a lynch mob? And how is it that indigenous Australians get twice the funding of non-indigenous Australians, with many millionaires, yet very little of it found that poor kid.

The acknowledgement that is glaringly absent is that we are all human beings and need to be treated with an equal measure of care and respect.

Hi Fester,

It does you no good trying to use the death of an innocent child as a cynical political weapon.

The truth about Aboriginal funding; The vast majority (roughly 80-90%) of this expenditure is not Indigenous-specific funding; it is the cost of providing mainstream services (such as hospitals, education, and policing), driven by higher rates of health issues, lower incomes, and higher interactions with the justice system requiring more intensive use of services. A higher proportion of Indigenous Australians live in remote areas, where the cost of delivering services (health, education, infrastructure) is significantly greater. The Indigenous population is, on average, younger, leading to higher per capita spending on schools and childcare. Higher spending is generally required to achieve the same level of service access that other Australians are accustomed to, rather than indicating higher discretionary income for individuals.

Cynically you imply that Aboriginals who are millionaires have gained their wealth thorough government handouts, and not their own resources, are they incapable of that? Can we say there are white billionaires, and there are poverty stricken white people in this country. Why is that?

Hi again Fester,

You might find this interesting;

The Australian federal government has committed over $1 billion in loans subsidies, grants and tax concessions to companies backed by the billionaire Gina Rinehart, Australia's richest person. This includes $200 million from the National Reconstruction Fund and roughly $840 million in the form of subsidies and tax concessions! Well, well, Billionaire Welfare, anything to say my friend.

" (Mhaze with Britons and Vikings. FFS?)"

Aries,
Please try to keep up with the rest of the class. It was Paul who raised the claims about the Vikings. I was just at pains to set him right. But to be fair to you, I can see how you got confused. After all, after Paul had been exposed as having brazenly concocted his story about the Vikings, he's been trying very hard to pretend he never heard of these Viking fellows.

"if acknowledging the fact that the indigenous peoples were treated as non-citizens until the 1967 referendum"

Factually incorrect, but just another one of those myths that the left buy. The 1967 referendum didn't give citizenship rights. The aboriginals already had them.

Fester,
"Was a group of hundreds of rioters traditional justice or a lynch mob?"

I'm generally opposed to allowing aboriginals to practice their stone age cultural lores, but in this case allowing them to practice their 'pay-back' lore might have been acceptable. At least it would have saved us the cost of a trial and housing this waste of carbon for his natural life.

Is welcome to country appropriate?
No! It is not!
There are many cultures in Australia.
Probably dozens.
Why single out one particular one, and give them centre stage?
A stupid idea.
And the truth is aboriginals don't own this country.
They don't control it because:
They don't have a parliament.
They don't have an army.
They don't have a navy.
They don't have an air-force.
They are not in a position to call the shots in any way whatsoever.
There is nothing of a practical nature which would indicate they have any form of serious control.
And trying to claim something because your distant ancestors used it is simply not valid.
We can only claim the knowledge and infrastructure given to us by living persons.
And we have absolutely no way of changing history.
What happened in the past is now simply fact, and it is unchangeable.
Whether it was good or bad, it is beyond our control.
We can only live in the present, where we can make changes.
And we must use the hand we are dealt today.
And not fish around under the table looking for discarded cards.
I think Libby Mettam was right.
When any group tries to claim separate title to this country, and tries to divide the country along racial lines, that is WRONG.
Trying to emphasise it with flags and chants is also WRONG.
And saying welcome to us as if they own it and we are visitors?
The stupidest idea of the century.
They should be thanking us for the handouts.

Hi Trumpster,

Try reading the 8th Century Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (780-800 AD) which provide detailed, records of Anglo-Saxon royalty, Viking raids, and ecclesiastical events. They give a full account of women and children being offered to Viking raiders in the hope that their town or village would be spared Viking brutality.

"allowing aboriginals to practice their stone age cultural lores, but in this case allowing them to practice their 'pay-back' lore might have been acceptable." Why do you right wing extremist always call for violence in the first instance. Can't agree the accused is entitled to a fair trial.

Hi Paul,

"Cynically you imply that Aboriginals who are millionaires have gained their wealth thorough government handouts, and not their own resources, are they incapable of that?"

There are plenty of people who have made a career out of indigenous funding, and some of them have little or no indigenous heritage. Also, I did not say that indigenous people cannot do well off the gravy train. You state that 80 to 90 percent of spending is non-specific (remoteness etc), but that still leaves 10 to 20 percent, or up to 40 percent of that spent on non-indigenous Australians, so why wasn't the little girl helped?

No cynicism on my part, just concern.

mhaze,

I was taken by the ABC's euphemistic descriptions of the rioters, but the BBC was worse, describing them as protestors and making no mention of assaults of police and paramedics, damage to public and private property, or the theft of about $200,000 worth of goods.

Hi Fester,

To the riot and looting etc on Thursday night, I do not condone that what so ever, and those responsible should be subjected to the full force of the law.

"There are plenty of people who have made a career out of indigenous funding" Not sure about the "plenty", I don't see that "career" as "evil" but necessary. There is abuse of the system by some, which is not exclusively confined to "indigenous funding", wherever there is money there is criminality, that applies across government. Should there be one wroughter, and nine genuine, are you saying disposes all ten to avoid the one? I think not, yes go after the one, while always supporting the nine.

"I did not say that indigenous people cannot do well off the gravy train." I'm not sure what "gravy train" you are referring to. BTW excluding home ownership there is estimated to be about 90 people who are millionaires (Not billionaires), and also identify as indigenous in Australia, not one indigenous person is listed in Forbes 200 richest Australians. Given that 3% of the population identify as indigenous, should we not expect 6 in the top 200.
About 14% of the Australian population live below the poverty line, for Aboriginal people that is around 35%. Can't be doing all that well from your "gravy train".

Now that's funny. Paul claims to have read some history...."Try reading the 8th Century Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (780-800 AD) which provide detailed, records of Anglo-Saxon royalty, Viking raids, and ecclesiastical events. They give a full account of women and children being offered to Viking raiders in the hope that their town or village would be spared Viking brutality."

From one review I read...."The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle does not record any such instances in the 8th century.
The Viking raids on England began toward the end of the 8th century, with the most famous early event being the 793 raid on Lindisfarne monastery. The Chronicle's entries for this period are brief and focus on portents, plunder, slaughter, and some internal Anglo-Saxon politics or battles. Key relevant entries describe sudden raids involving looting, killing, and destruction rather than negotiation, tribute, or any offer of women (or anything else) to "save the village."

No mentions of offering women: Searches of the Chronicle text (8th–9th centuries) and related historical discussions yield no references to Anglo-Saxons offering women, daughters, or maidens as tribute, ransom, or to appease Vikings in this era.

This specific motif (offering women to raiders) does not appear in the primary records for 8th-century England. It may stem from broader medieval tropes, later folklore, or confusion with practices in other periods/regions (e.g., ransoming high-status captives or general slavery). For reliable primary material, the Ingram translation or modern editions like Swanton's are good starting points."

So Paul digs himself further into the quagmire of his own fantasies. And hilarity ensues.

Paul, from your extensive knowledge of these Chronicles (/grin), can you give us a quote that demonstrates your claims.

""allowing aboriginals to practice their stone age cultural lores, but in this case allowing them to practice their 'pay-back' lore might have been acceptable." Why do you right wing extremist always call for violence in the first instance. Can't agree the accused is entitled to a fair trial."

Paul,

Are you saying we shouldn't support aboriginals practicing their traditional law? I'm shocked at your racism. </sarc>

Hi Trumpster,

Just as we don't allow YOU to practice your Nuremberg Laws in Australia, we only have one recognised law, and that's Australian law, that's not racists. So those Aboriginal elders in Alice Springs who were calling on their own people to allow the western law to take it course are racists?

You want a quote; "hither mine viking friend i grant thou this woman" Its not a Billy Blogs modern interpretation.
BTW, William Buckley wrote nothing about giving of Aboriginal women to other tribes. In fact he never wrote anything. All that is known is European men kidnapped Aboriginal women for their own sexual pleasure.

Paul,

"hither mine viking friend i grant thou this woman"

Just making stuff up doesn't help your cause...

I couldn't find the quote so I asked AI. This is its response....

"I searched for the exact phrase (and variations) linked to the Chronicle, as well as broader contexts — no matches appear in translations, scholarly editions, or discussions. It sounds like modern fantasy/medieval role-play, LARP, a comedy sketch, meme, or fan-made content imitating old English.
If someone told you it was from the Chronicle, it was likely a joke, a misremembered attribution, or creative fiction. "

I'll go with creative fiction.

I've had enough fun. I'll let you try to extract yourself from the hole you've dug without my help.

I like adding thoughts.
Welcome to country somehow gives the aboriginies the illusion that they own this country.
They don't.
They have no practical control over it.
So they cannot truthfully say they own it.
To say so is insulting to we who were born here.
We are not visitors.
We are citizens.
And so are naturalised Australians.
And it is also insulting to the aboriginies themselves.
We are pretending they are something they are not.
We are making them believe they are right in their claims.
Leading them on.
We should know better.
So it is time for Albo to stand up and tell the truth without preamble.
It is time for him to lead.
I doubt he will.

Hi Paul,

"Can't be doing all that well from your "gravy train"."

It certainly didn't help the little girl, but it has helped a fellow of English heritage who wrote a fantasy history of indigenous Australia, as well as a guy with a Polish mum and a Philippino dad with his signature on the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which some people believe to be a single page document after Magoo claimed it was in parliament.

What concerns me Paul is wastage of public funds. I care not whether it's the CFMEU ripping $15 billion off Victorians, disabled Australians having $20 billion pilfered annually from the NDIS, pilfering of indigenous funding that seems to escape scrutiny with guilt tripping and racism accusations, $20 billion a year to koala clubbing grifting con artists, or any other public rort or wastage. It's all wrong.

WTC/AOC seems to me to be a small example of public rorting. It's portrayed as well meaning and inclusive, but that all changes the moment it is questioned. There was that guy who lost his job in Victoria, and many feel that it carries the same expectation as smiling at a Kim Jong Un parade in North Korea. I think of Australia as a land of free expression and inclusion, not a nation of pernicious coercion.

"If you don't like it then F off and don't come."

That should be reason enough to get rid of it.

I think we should be generous, and say to those who would be separate...
WELCOME TO OUR COUNTRY.
This is Australia.
We are a democracy.
We are governed by a democratically elected parliament.
There is a group of persons amongst us who think they are separate from the rest.
They seem to think they have many inalienable rights, which they demand we provide.
That is not so, and I reject their demands.
But I think I can say to these persons, on behalf of almost all Australians...
Welcome to our country.
You can stay for as long as you like.
However, you WILL be expected to comply with our laws.
You WILL be expected to adhere to our standards.
We hope you can integrate successfully with our society.
If you can do so, you will be valuable citizens.
So thank you for your attention.
I wish you well.
And welcome to our country.

Hi Trumpster,

I've shown how YOU lied with the Blainey quote, I gave the exact quote from Blainey's book, said nothing about giving of Aboriginal women, YOU have Buckley's chance of being right on that score. BTW, William Buckley didn't write a word about his 32 years living with Aboriginal people, other white fellas attributed their writings to Buckley so they could cash in.
Just because you can't find the relevant facts on that steam powered Commodore 64 'puter of yours doesn't mean they don't exist. YOU the brainless believe AI is the answer to all ignorance, not so, YOU would be better off asking a monkey in the Zoo.

Throw in the question to AI; Who is mhaze?
Answer; Mazikeen, commonly known as Maze, is a fierce demon from Hell who serves as Lucifer, Morningstar's devoted ally, bodyguard, and former head torturer. IS THAT YOU!

Hi Trumpster,

Maybe you might answer this;

Are you (Paul) saying we shouldn't support aboriginals practicing their traditional law? I'm shocked at your racism.

No, I'm not saying that, it was several Aboriginal elders in Alice Springs who were on Friday morning calling for western justice be allowed to take its course, not traditional Aboriginal law . ARE YOU SAYING ABORIGINAL ELDERS IN ALICE SPRINGS ARE RACISTS AGAINST THEIR OWN PEOPLE? I expect you will avoid the question! Just as you failed to acknowledge you lied about Blainey and Buckley, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. You must stop making these things up.

Hi Trumpster,

A direct quote from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, town of York, about women and Viking raiders, let your AI work it out for you. I can't be bothered doing it all and spoon feeding you.

Wearþe mildheorte wið us, ge ða mildheortan, swa ðæt seo gingest wifmann bið gesend ofer to ðam egle fram feorran of ure byrig Eoforwic.

I think you'll get the gist of it... eventually.

"I've shown how YOU lied with the Blainey quote"

That's rubbish. I gave a quote and noted the book and the chapter it came from. You haven't even tried to address that. All you did was find a different quote from Blainey talking about different issues and tried to claim that was relevant. As to Buckley, it shows just how weak your claims, more accurately wishes, are that you rely entirely on the fact that Buckley's story was ghost-written rather than personally written.

"A direct quote from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles"
According to the three translators I tried, your quote is written in old-Icelandic. The Chronicles were written in Old-English. What a dill.
Additionally two AIs report it isn't even authentic old-Icelandic but a modern writing using modern grammar but Icelandic words inter mixed with old-English words.

I know you won't provide a link to where you're getting all these so-called quotes because it'll expose your idiocy even further, but just for the sake of it I ask that you provide such a link.

But keep digging Paul. It gets funnier by the day.

Hi Trumpster,

You said; "William Buckley who lived with an aboriginal tribe for 30-odd years and WROTE OF IT." WHERE DID HE WRITE OF IT? Now you say; "Buckley's story was ghost-written rather than personally written."

"I (Trumpster) know you (Paul) won't provide a link" Do YOU want to borrow my copy of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. Sorry I'm not lending it to YOU! Be misled by AI. "According to the three translators I (Tumpster) tried" You have to stop using internet rubbish, where do you get all this garbage from, anonymous posters on Facebook.

"Based on historical accounts of his research methods, there is no evidence that Geoffrey Blainey conducted extensive direct interviews with Aboriginal people as a primary source for his 1975 book, Triumph of the Nomads"

In a number of comments by people elsewhere they referred to Professor Blainey as "The Nutty Professor".During his career, Blainey was described as a "pugnacious and provocative intellectual of the right," a "controversialist," So Geffo just made it up! A thought bubble to make a quid. MYTH BUSTED.

"my copy of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles."

In the original old-English ... or is it old-Icelandic.

Now that's funny.

We all know you're making this up as you go. But keep it up for the comedic value.

Thanks ttbn, Fester, Armchair Critic, Ipso Fatso, Indyvidual. Kudos.

Hi Trumpster,

"my copy of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles." Try looking up FACETIOUS. That's on Google as well.

How about addressing the fact Blainey never actually spoke to Aboriginal people about anything, maybe that was because they were too black for a white dude like Blainey to speak to. Same with Buckley, probably illiterate. I would think to boost book sales Buckley's ghost writer, the journalist John Morgan might have gilded the lily somewhat, besides Buckley was a convicted criminal, couldn't lie straight in bed! If I wanted to write about the Eskimos, don't you think it would be a good idea to speak to some Eskimos first. Just a few words like, "Do you guys ever trade women with other tribes?"

Hi Kudos Kid,

I am shocked and mortified, you have not included me for a little of you wonderful Kudos. I feel rejected, shunned, cast out, unwanted. Please, please, can I have just a little of your wonderful Kudos, I'll trade you some of my Pixi Dust for it. Ah?

I looked up 'FACETIOUS'. It said its a word used by liars trying to get out of being found to be lying.

"the fact Blainey never actually spoke to Aboriginal people about anything,"

That's not a fact. It something you made up. Read Triumph of the Nomads for more information. Its probably right next to your copy of the Chronicles.

Buckley lived with the aboriginals for 30 years. He might know a little about their culture. But since you don't want it to be true, you'll never accept the facts. That's why your always on the wrong side of history.