2009 Jihad Watch Award Winners!

Is it customary for you to use the Lord's name as an expletive? Some of us find it objectionable and unnecessary.

Tommo

(warning to everyone else: this is OFFTOPIC and between me and Tommo: kindly ignore).

I have to say that I personally don't see any necessary and automatic connection between opposing Jihad, and subscribing to Albrechtsons' and Windschuttle's views about Australian colonial history!

Albrechtsen may be sound on Jihad - I haven't seen what she's written on that - but as for the other subject, I have to say that there she and Windschuttle, though very comforting to many, no doubt, in their strident reassertion of the sunniest possible interpretation of the process by which Australia came into the possession of English-speaking Europeans, don't convince me.

Their assertions re Aboriginal history (as far as I can see, an absolute denial that anything very bad happened from 1788 to the present day; denial [Windschuttle] that there was ever *any* significant deliberate killing of Aborigines, and insistence that very few Aboriginal kids were forcibly removed or if they were, it was all done for the noblest of reasons by the nicest of people and that therefore all who testify to the contrary, must be deluded or lying) are fully and flatly disproven by, for example, the mountain of material that informs evangelical Anglican church historian John Harris's monumental and solidly-researched tome, 'One Blood: 200 Years of Aboriginal Encounter With Christianity" a story of hope". (His book focused on the Church Missionary Society in Northern Australia, 'We Wish We'd Done More', is also worth a read).

I read Harris's book mid-1990s after it was recommended to me by an elderly Aboriginal Christian worker, Auntie Jeanie Phillips, who visited my church. She stated at the time that she recommended it to all Australian Christians because Harris's account of what happened to her people was substantially accurate and consistent with her own life experience and her family's oral history, and with what she had heard and seen during a lifetime working among her people *as a Christian evangelist* (I may add, an evangelist of the most unapologetically 'evangelical' kind, who does not dispute that Aboriginal society ancient and contemporary had plenty of failings and outright sins). If *she* says Harris got the picture right, then I believe her.

This is what Harris says, summarising the facts of child removal, and the legal context of same:

On page 577 -

"In all Australian States, quite different laws applied to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, and the control of children was a particularly unjust example. Police, Protection Board officers and others had wide and arbitrary powers to remove children from aboriginal parents. Often they [the children] were sent to distant institutions and, if taken when young, they had no knowledge of their ancestry and frequently lost contact with family.

"This [i.e. the loss of contact] was the intention of officials such as Commissioner Aubrey Octavius Neville in Western Australia, in his desire to 'breed out' the Aboriginal race. He hoped as recently as 1947 to discourage those of Aboriginal ancestry from 'going back to the black', but to encourage them instead to marry Europeans and 'be advanced to white status'. The process would be completed when 'there were no more virile fullbloods remaining alive'". (BTW Harris consulted Neville's original statements, which are saturated with boilerplate late 19thC/ early 20th C ur-fascist eugenic/ social engineering theories; as far as I am concerned, since I am a Christian, for someone to use the language of a cattle-breeder when describing human marriage and childbearing, is disgusting, and makes me immediately wary of Mr Neville's grand project).

And on page 593: "Aboriginal children taken from their parents became State wards. In some ways, their lives differed little from that of white State wards. *The major difference was that Aboriginal children so frequently became State wards merely because they were Aboriginal* {my emphasis - dda}. They may have come from materially impoverished homes, but they were often warm and loving homes which they missed bitterly. *It was legally far easier to remove Aboriginal children from their parents than it was to remove white children* {my emphasis -- dda}."

I do not think that Harris would say this sort of thing - remember, he is a Christian clergyman who has had a lifetime of pastoral experience among Aboriginal people, including personal contact with many who *were* removed, and has also spent a *lot* of time in the archives, especially church archives - if he were not convinced he was describing what in fact was the case. And if Harris is telling the truth - and why in God's name would he not be? - then Albrechtsen, in her article, relaying Windschuttle's contentious claims, is wrong.

Honestly, I recommend Harris's book. It's not about self-hate; just ruthless honesty; there *is* a huge difference. You will meet in its pages many great Australians, both black and white.

Now, back to the most urgent matter: the Jihad.

My own feeling is that the people we have to get on board, to inoculate Aboriginal Australians against Muslim da'wa tricks and bribery, are the descendants of ex-dhimmi populations who now live in Australia - Greeks, Armenians, Serbs, Copts, Lebanese, Assyrians, Jews from Mizrachi background. We have to find those who have managed to shake off the habit of denial, and get them talking to Aboriginal people. For their own bitter community memory of having lived as virtual slaves at the mercy of Muslim imperial overlords, liable to abduction of children, pogroms, and perpetual petty acts of injustice and bullying, should resonate with all those Aboriginal people who remember only too clearly their own 'Killing Times', and what it was like to be 'Under the Act'.

Having so recently fought their way out from under the draconian likes of the 'Protection Board' - which reduced them to a condition of powerlessness not unlike that of the 'protected' [same Orwellian language, observe well] dhimmis - Aboriginal people should be the last people on earth to want to swap their now-reformed former imperial overlords (with whom they have finally achieved equality before the law), for subjection to a monstrously arrogant and totally ineducable bunch of conscience-free Arab or wannabee-Arab supremacists who most likely, already, since Aborigines are 'black', view them [Aborigines] as so much potential slave-fodder, abeed, blackslave, the Arab equivalent of 'nigger' or 'coon'.

meekee wrote, replying to Cornelius:

Is it customary for you to use the Lord's name as an expletive? Some of us find it objectionable and unnecessary.
......................

Perhaps so, meekee—but Cornelius is the staunchest of anti-Jihadists, and will do more than most people to ensure the freedom of Christians to continue to worship in the face of Muslim supremacy.

Personally, I think Christians should be far more offended by the sort of cringing Dhimmitude found in so many of our "leaders" these days (see above)—and the consequences for religious freedom that this represents—than any flippant expletives from stalwart posters.