Dear David,

I've done a bit more investigating into 'Aztlan.' I was curious to know more about them.

It seems that it isn't some sort of a 'cult' but a legitimate Chicano Student Organisation - that promotes Hispanic issues and studies of Hispanic culture - especially on campuses whose student body is made up of more that 50% Hispanic.

One of the most popular web-sites in California is:

http://www.Aztlan.net/... or

'La Voz de Aztlan.'

With over 100,000 hits.

It's run by the 'Aztlan Communications Network,' which is a very large Network in Los Angeles, California.

Thanx Foxy.. all relevant information is valuable. I just add though.. with that 'movement' there appear to be some at the top.. who wish to use it for revolutionary purposes. This fits the classic 'pick an issue of social disenfrancizement and build on it' strategy of Marxists. I noted that a picture of Che Guavara was in the crowd...

PERICLES..

"Should we ban them, even if they pursue their aims peacefully and legitimately?"

Depends on what they 'AIM's are Pericles. If their 'aim' is to take over Australia and establish a 'Black Rule' government, where European Settlers are instantly relegated to some backwater....or become the 'slaves' of the new Black Power regime... then.. they should be banned. If they persue such an agenda with 'peaceful' means, i.e.. letter box drops.. pamphlets.. information days.. it makes no difference.. the ultimate goal is our subjugation.
So.. we'd have to examine the actual goals.

The apparent contradiction in my posturing in these issues is due to the complex nature of them...and the simple fact that all history is a chronicle of "might not be right, but it rules".

F.H. *vigorous handshake*.. welcome back. My purpose here, is to present Christ, and to highlight anything which seems like a danger or threat to freedom to do that. Many may have missed it, but a long time ago, I said..that the ICV action against the 2 Dannies utterly galvanized me.

You can trace pretty much all I say about Islam.. to that single event. Since then, my knowledge of Islam has expanded vastly, and I totally know the difference between 'your' version of Islam, and that of lets say "Abu Izzadeen" recently (at LONG last) arrested in London for inciting hate/violence etc

Unfortunately for you, not all Muslims share your gentle approach. Nor do they see Islam as you do. Now..I can appreciate how 'you' from your own mind-set, can seek to project your calm and friendly Islam as though it was 'the' Islam. We all do it.(me2) and that's the dilemma.. I don't attack 'your' Islam but that of Izzadeen and company.

I think this has taken us about as far as we need to go, Boaz.

You have changed the question so often, that it has become meaningless.

You started off asking:

>>should indigenous movements for restoring lost sovereignty be encouraged or discouraged?<<

You have now qualified this to the point where it is no longer a realistic question.

You are now apparently only talking about movements that involve wanting to "take over Australia and establish a 'Black Rule' government, where European Settlers are instantly relegated to some backwater....or become the 'slaves' of the new Black Power regime", and "where such movements seek to attain their goals by violent revolution", and "create chaos and suffering for millions."

There is clearly no place in a civilized society for violent revolutions that oppress a section of the community.

However, an answer to the original question would still be more informative, if you can bring yourself to address it.

My own answer would be that such movements should be neither encouraged or discouraged, but so long as they remain within the law they should not be banned.

If your next question is "should we therefore change the law?", my answer would be a firm "no".

Pericles.. yes.. it has pretty much exhausted itself.

My view would be as is yours. "As long as they remain within the law"

For me..that includes 'not advocating anything outside the law'

If also means that if 'they' seek to change the law to advance their cause, I'll do my bit to fight such changes.

Sound reasonable?

The only dimension where I become 'hysterical' so to speak is where people are advocating 'beheading'.. 'exterminating'... 'overthrow of governments'.... and I hardly think you would not have some concerns over those things...right?

cheers.

Boaz says he is going to fight law changes that may lead to
"Subjugation ".
He is worried about becoming "Slaves of the Black Power Regime" - and all this is done legally in a democratic process.

Boaz is leaning towards sedition himself .

This divisive sort of thinking simply encourages those actions by politically aware black and white people that Boaz is so concerned about .

Why would you invent such a beat-up ?

Boazy: "The only dimension where I become 'hysterical' so to speak is where people are advocating 'beheading'.. 'exterminating'... 'overthrow of governments'.... "

I dunno about that old chap - you've seemed pretty hysterical to me about much less serious issues, like halal food, taxi drivers and university timetables, not to mention a few obscure passages from Muslim scripture.

But I guess it's all a matter of perspective.