Race wars against Yellow people are ok.
You can use napalm and nukes.

Race wars against Black people is not ok.
That's racism.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 7:56am:



Happened all across the world....still going on.... the Indian sub-continent has now negotiated with Albocorp for exactly the same thing.... and we Indigenous people of Australia didn't even get a say in this amazing race treaty.

Our Great Leaders have done it to us again....

Noe:-  even the Aboriginal small groups did it - a group would 'negotiate' the traditional way - fight it out - then occupy and hopefully increase their 'footprint' ... this movement of peoples has been going on since time immemorial - it's not just something 'inflicted' on 'native populations' by certain groups.  Every tribe everywhere is not the original settlers there...

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 7:56am:

The issue of land needs for farming was one of the primary causes of NZ's land wars of the 1860s...

With its major city, Auckland, growing exponentially from what it was a mere 20 years before, the need for farmland became urgent. With Maori landowners refusing to just hand over their land - respect for tribal ownership of which had been assured by the Treaty of Waitangi - confrontation was inevitable.

Over 100 years later it was the cause of one of the rarest monarchical acts of the British Empire/Commonwealth where the sovereign is head of state - A formal apology from the sovereign, herself, for the Crown's treatment of the Tainui tribe - for waging war on the Crown's own subjects for the purpose of confiscating land.

Even India, which the British looted with impunity, cannot secure a royal apology.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 10:27am:

You need to understand the term Indigenous before flinging it around like faeces in your monkey cage.

But, anyway, now that you've used it to characterise yourself... You'd have some understanding then of the actual indigenous and their grievances... and why there is a drive to reclaim some land as exclusively their own.

And that discrimination is sometimes justifiable.

So now you reckon people born here of multiple generations are not 'Indigenous'?  When did they set a date?

We have Aborigines who are Indigenous - and we have the rest of us who are Indigenous but not Aboriginal.  The inhabitants of Britain were once called 'the Aborigines'....

Now leave your monkey faeces at home.... boy!

I'm Indigenous!  And so is the neighbour's dog!

"a drive to reclaim some land as exclusively their own."

I've long advocated that they receive SOME land Freehold to own and build on - as a base etc... and that their Native Title rights continue in the ability to wander, camp, hunt, fish, carry out traditional rites etc anywhere but on OWNED land or with permission.

This craze for handing over massive swathes simply on the basis that they reckon it's theirs - when it is actually owned by everyone as national park etc.... is way off the reservation.... on which subject - Arnhem Land is a remaining 'reservation' exclusively for the local Aborigines and all others by invitation... so much for the vilification of the old-style 'reservation' system.

Just because ONE reservation is a success (relatively speaking) is no reason to now go about creating the same things by different means.... such as the recent handover of the Kimberley Coast from Derby to Nununurra IN TOTAL.... pure nonsense...  just because few people go there doesn't mean that those national parks are unused - they are ALWAYS in use as national parks.

Home base, chance to OWN some land of their own and to build a home etc (which they would do with massive assistance), and then the right to Free Range across the national parks alongside everyone else - along with a few genuine Ranger jobs to protect wildlife and genuine sacred sites etc - is the go.... not this dividing up of Australia into small states to suit some mythical idea of past ownership and some perceived need to preserve nature as it is.  As properly managed National Parks all those exist already... even in a sense of being a small separate state.... but owned by EVERYONE as is right.

There's at least one here who imagines that the use of a 19th-century form of lawfare regarding land ownership justifies land dispossession.

By that reckoning, if a foreign people invaded and took possession of Australia, they could justify the same by arguing that land ownership not registered and recognised within their legal system was forfeited to their state.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 18^th, 2024 at 12:11am:

So, you live alone, then... with your private language as a 'sovereign citizen'.