BD, "Finally, I totally do appreciate that my posts must seem a bit surreal :)" - well I for one are hoping that you are just being provocative to stir up discussion rather than making a genuine attempt to form a small team of people who would respond to a banner with the proposed words.

I'm hoping that you are not silly enough to expose your family to the type of extremists who would be encouraged by your banner.

Keep in mind that some of them may have more dramatic means in mind of achieving "ONE RACE" than your plan to mingle the blood lines (leaving aside the debate about race and genetics). My guess is that part of your slogan is more likely to attract the "RACIAL PURITY" crowd than the mixed race marriage crowd.

Please tell me you are not silly enough to think that your banner will attract the racially tollerant.

R0bert

Rob.... read Hosea Chapter 1 verse 2.

You are having concerns for things which are yet to be tested.
Glad you are thinking about my family.
People of the views you are mentioning, will hold those views anyway.
If it brings some out of the woodwork, what is the likely result ? If they speak in praise of the message, we can hopefully correct their narrow minded view, if they don't accept correction based on the clear contradition between the banner and the people under it, and the explanation in the handout we will have, then they have not changed at all..and its status quo.

If people who think only in terms of racist isolationism are brought a bit nearer to tolerance and crossing racial and cultural barriers, then it would be worthwile.
Please bear in mind, I have already run the idea /concept past the special event police who are happy to ensure no trouble occurs.

It would be a 'guerilla' style event.. not a big crowd.. just passers by, the main goal is to video it, and that is where the usefulness will be.

CONCLUSON.
1/ Staunch Racists are unlikely to change their minds about others.
2/ Open minded people who are simply the victims of a ethno/cultural isolationism and the Multicultural party line,would be more likely to embrace a positive and inclusive message, as the police I spoke to already have.

cheers mate. "Unity Australia"

BD, I'm not thinking in terms of the event as such but rather your intention to form a team based to some extent I assume on the "ONE NATION, ONE CULTURE, ONE RACE, ONE FAITH" plan. (OK I added in the ONE FAITH bit but I think we all know that is part of your plan).

Do you take your team around to your place for tea and bickies? Will you vet them really well first to ensure that you are not bringing someone who could be a threat to your family into your home?

My impression is that very few people would read your ONE RACE bit as anything other than a call to racial purity. Even after years of posting here you are failing to convince others that you are not racist so how much chance to you have operating under a banner like that where people have not seen the context you put it in.

I suspect that I'm one of your few regular sparing partners on this site who is not convinced that you are a racist (and I'm not certain that you are not).

I don't think that public calls for ONE RACE are going to contribute anything to reducing racial intollerance, more likely the opposite.

R0bert

Well, Boaz, I am genuinely sorry that you perceive my continuing warnings as demonstrating tunnel vision. They were meant originally to be a wake-up call to you, in case you didn't realize where your path was taking you. But I am obviously now talking to someone with so little self-awareness that no amount of reasoning will get through to you.

Far from being "traumatized" by my grandfather's experience in the thirties, I consider his actions to be totally understandable in the context of his times. He did not have the example of Nazi Germany to guide him as he was led along a path of protest by a charismatic and credible intellectual. He, and the mob around him, were fed a diet of half-truths and outright lies in order to convince them that government was corrupt, foreigners were a constant threat, and the only way forward was through cleanliness of thought word and deed.

The message was carefully constructed to appeal to prejudice, fear and national pride. It was only after following the banner for a while that he realised he was being manipulated into a position where prejudice was transformed into hatred, fear massaged into a form of mob-supported bravery and national pride elided into the violence of "self defence" against the chosen enemies.

I think I will leave it there for a while, as far as my advice to you goes. I know it is too much to imagine that you will take a blind bit of notice, but please, before you go too far along the path of racial hatred, think very very carefully where it might take you.

Pericles... there were some valuable parts of your post, but also a confusing bit.

This part was good.

[The message was carefully constructed to appeal to prejudice, fear and national pride.]

Is it possible, that a message can be constructed to appeal to common sense (rather than prejudice), fear (This is legitimate), and national defense (rather than pride) ?

Your words would apply if the name behind the message was Goebells, but not Boaz.

Was Churchill appealing to 'prejudice fear and national pride' ? or was he more perceptive than Chamberlain who showed himself simply ignorant of reality ?

Now.. these 2 men symbolize the two types of response to potential threat against a people. You seem rather in denial about this or am I wrong ? Please explain because I simply don't get you on this. I prefer to see myself more towards Churchills end, and you appear to be a Chamberlain. Where am I going wrong ?

The part about 'Racial Hatred' was decidedly off the mark. Since when have I hated people because of their race,if so, 'which' race ? (respond please)

ROB.... 'one faith' ? mate.. that could not be further from the truth.
Surely by now you understand that I know faith cannot be legislated ?
You are a classic example of free choice.

You seem to be confusing the faith side of my life with the political.
It is possible to separate them you know. We have to recognize the limits of faith in the political realm. I almost feel like echoing our Lords words "Have I been with you so long and yet you do not know me"...

I don't know how we could ever be 'ONE faith'.... but you know what we can be ? We can be a country where we are always free to choose which faith we follow.

I'm prepared to goto considerable lengths to push this point home, and allay fears of a 'Theocracy' approach, but I confess, it surprises me that you still keep coming back with this concern.

My political goals are basically:

-Reverse "MultiCulturalism and replace it with 'Integration/assimilation'
-Immigration to be selective based on the long term well being of Australia.
-Selective Tarrifs to punish Slavery.
-Awaken Australians to the threat of militant Islam.

My Spiritual goals are:

-Proclaim Christ, make disciples.

This goal can often be achieved as a flow on from activity on the Political. Simply disussing those goals leads into such things as our position before God, our need of Grace and forgiveness, and the potential for discipleship.

Would you deny me my democratic right to free expression and political activity simply because I name Christ as Saviour ?

I don't see much to cringe foetally in a corner about there.. do you?

If so... where ?