Politics QAnon and Sovereign Citizens

[Chief]

If you or someone you care about is under the influence of Qanon, please visit:

https://freedomofmind.com/what-to-do-about-the-qanon-and-those-ensnared-in-it-interview-with-travis-view/

 

[Episode IV]

Christ mate. Put the hood back on.

Had a quick look, can't see where you're quoting that from. Mind showing me?

*Edit - Nm, found it. "These sorts of people" referring to the types of people who stir up racist (or other) outrage or engage in populist policy in the quest for power.
Should have known you'd start seeing the KKK under the bed and clarified it, I suppose. Jeez it's hard keeping in touch with how you people "think" sometimes.
No, Chiefy boy, you can relax... I wasn't talking about indigenous folks, I was talking about shit people in general, and those who support them. Lidia Thorpe doesn't get an exemption because she's black, any more than Barnaby Joyce or Pauline Hanson should.
The danger, in this case, is some here seem to think she and her "movement" should be held to different standards.

There are quite a few people on this site who display their own prejudices more overtly, you know.
You can't claim to be anti-racist when you permit it on one side and not the other. Sort of invalidates your entire position.

 

[Chief]

*Edit - Nm, found it. "These sorts of people" referring to the types of people who stir up racist (or other) outrage or engage in populist policy in the quest for power.

OK that's fine I accept your explanation. Just looked really off to me.

Should have known you'd start seeing the KKK under the bed and clarified it, I suppose. Jeez it's hard keeping in touch with how you people "think" sometimes.
No, Chiefy boy, you can relax... I wasn't talking about indigenous folks, I was talking about s**t people in general, and those who support them. Lidia Thorpe doesn't get an exemption because she's black, any more than Barnaby Joyce or Pauline Hanson should.
The danger, in this case, is some here seem to think she and her "movement" should be held to different standards.

There are quite a few people on this site who display their own prejudices more overtly, you know.
You can't claim to be anti-racist when you permit it on one side and not the other. Sort of invalidates your entire position.

Get over yourself.

 

[Geary Is GOAT]

Ok. I'll ask you the same question I've asked before.
Do you believe that one group of people should attain political power purely on the basis of race?

I've already said what at least one ramification is. Such an action would represent the undoing of centuries of western philosophical thought with regard to political doctrine, race relations and multiculturalism.

All that progress, slow as it may have been, and you're going to go and play Jenga with it?

No I do not.

I do believe, however, that a group of people who were invaded and had their land stolen from them - have a legitimate claim to sovereignty outside of the framework set up by that invading force.

Regarding the second part of your post, I think that is largely a bunch of words that you think have a meaning. By 'Western philosophical thought' I guess you're talking about Liberalism? because I doubt you're talking about Marxism. Maybe by 'political doctrine' you mean certain aspects of Liberal Democracy?

No idea why you would attempt to frame the 'western' approach to race relations as some sort of positive over the previous "centuries" given that would include slavery, segregation, and the genocidal approach to colonialism but sure.

But yes, I don't see an issue with changing what modern liberal democracies look like in colonised countries like ours.

 

[Episode IV]

OK that's fine I accept your explanation. Just looked really off to me.

I know... of course it did, was my response.

Get over yourself.

Heh. Not even going to try defending it, are you?

 

[Mofra]

These sovereign citizens you've all got your panties in a bunch over are no real threat to the nation or its political stability.

This is what I was responding to.

There is very little to indicate that those police were killed by anything more than a couple of very disturbed people who managed to find and feed off each other. I don't believe those murders happened on behalf of the Sov Cit movement any more than I believe Man Haron Monis killed a bunch of people in the name of Islam.

Then you need to read a little harder.

And while you're at it, perhaps you'll point out where I said the Sov Cits were no threat?

As above.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

These sovereign citizens you've all got your panties in a bunch over are no real threat to the nation or its political stability.

Yet here you are conflating them with Lydia Thorpe, while claiming she is a threat to your western values.

 

[Episode IV]

No I do not.

Good.

I do believe, however, that a group of people who were invaded and had their land stolen from them - have a legitimate claim to sovereignty outside of the framework set up by that invading force.

That term "invasion" is bandied about a lot these days, but its a deliberately inflammatory term. Brings to mind images of marines storming the beaches, sort of thing.
It was definitely a colonisation, but it would serve you well to remember that a good many of the people who were sent to Australia to enact that colonisation weren't exactly volunteers. The moral climate was different across the board, nothing like it is today. Colonisation is the appropriate word, and is a hard enough thing to stomach without requiring any fuel added.

Added to which, there is barely a nation left on Earth that hasn't been invaded or colonised at some point in history - a prime example of which is England itself. So what's your statue of limitations on this sort of thing? And how much, exactly, does it have to do with race?

Some of my ancestors, including (but not limited to) recently enough to have been regarded as immediate family, have been Aboriginal. So where does that leave me with regard to Robbie Thorpe's tax? I get a piece of that too?
Well. In that case, let's get her in. I can be black enough to take some o' that ol' sit down money, for sure.
That's me being facetious, but not dishonest with regard to the ancestry.

Regarding the second part of your post, I think that is largely a bunch of words that you think have a meaning. By 'Western philosophical thought' I guess you're talking about Liberalism? because I doubt you're talking about Marxism. Maybe by 'political doctrine' you mean certain aspects of Liberal Democracy?

No, I mean the evolution of western thought in general... one feature of which is the many different philosophies being assessed and considered and which have led to the present moment. Marxism is one such western philosophy, albeit being partly a political one as well as being purely idealistic.
Political doctrine, at this point in time, is that racism is bad, all men are equal under the law, yadda yadda. There's no left or right about it, it just is.
The evolution of western philosophy, as diverse as it has been in nature, has led to this point. We're still doing the ironing, of course, but we're way ahead of most societies in this respect. Do you disagree?

No idea why you would attempt to frame the 'western' approach to race relations as some sort of positive over the previous "centuries" given that would include slavery, segregation, and the genocidal approach to colonialism but sure.

I framed it that way because it is that way. No idea why you'd think it isn't.

We're a lot further down the road from where we were 200 odd years ago. Are you inferring that things are the same now as they always were?
Are we still enslaving people? Denying them the right to vote? Still running around killing them? There are Aboriginal people represented in parliament, advisory bodies have come and gone. Sometimes society gets it right, sometimes it gets it wrong. It's a process.

Exactly what do you think you're going to achieve typing in that there hasn't been any progress on this front?

Lidia Thorpe standing up there saying things like "they're still killing our children" is just... ugly, inflammatory crap designed specifically to appeal to your emotional nature, rather than your rational one.

But yes, I don't see an issue with changing what modern liberal democracies look like in colonised countries like ours.

Neither do I. I would object to going backwards, though. Which is what the effect Thorpe's movement will probably have, having read a few of the things being touted as potential policy should they gain power.
Certainly doesn't sound much like democracy to me.

 

[Episode IV]

This is what I was responding to.

"to the nation or its political stability".
That's a qualifying statement. Do you need some time to go look that up?

Then you need to read a little harder.

I've done the reading. I already told you what I think it was. Same as Monis. Did you buy into the anti-Islam panic with him, too? Or was that "different"?

 

[Episode IV]

Yet here you are conflating them with Lydia Thorpe, while claiming she is a threat to your western values.

Yes, because as I said, she has political clout and is gaining more. I even pointed out the difference between the two groups in that respect.
Do try to keep up.

Just out of curiosity, though, what "western values" are you referring to, in particular?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Yes, because as I said, she has political clout and is gaining more. I even pointed out the difference between the two groups in that respect.
Do try to keep up.

Just out of curiosity, though, what "western values" are you referring to, in particular?

"centuries of western philosophical thought with regard to political doctrine, race relations and multiculturalism"

It appears you support colonisation, invasion, terra nullius etc, as you seem happy with the status quo.

 

[mcnulty]

I do believe, however, that a group of people who were invaded and had their land stolen from them - have a legitimate claim to sovereignty outside of the framework set up by that invading force

I agree on principle, but how would that actually work in reality? Things regarding law need to pretty clearly defined and I‘m yet to see much evidence of that.

Also the notion of separate laws is an extremely easy thing to run a scare campaign against and no major party would bring it in without a referendum, which would be doomed.

As others have posted, the Voice seems like a reasonable first step.

 

[Malifice]

So, Malefice. Where do you stand on Lydia Thorpe and the Black Sovereignty movement then?

The latter movement has been infiltrated by ****ing Sov Cit cookers:

 

[Malifice]

There's a distinct difference between Indigenous Sovereignty discussions and the Sovereign Citizen movement.

There is, but the latter (cookers) have infiltrated the Indigenous Sovereignty movement. To a large degree. In addition, a large number of Indigenous sovereignty people are getting cooked.

Sov Cit thinking has infiltrated the Aboriginal Tent Embassy with a significantly large faction of those there, being Sov Cit cookers.

Watch the video I posted above.

 

[South of the Yarra]

No, I mean the evolution of western thought in general... one feature of which is the many different philosophies being assessed and considered and which have led to the present moment. Marxism is one such western philosophy, albeit being partly a political one as well as being purely idealistic.
Political doctrine, at this point in time, is that racism is bad, all men are equal under the law, yadda yadda. There's no left or right about it, it just is.
The evolution of western philosophy, as diverse as it has been in nature, has led to this point. We're still doing the ironing, of course, but we're way ahead of most societies in this respect. Do you disagree?


I framed it that way because it is that way. No idea why you'd think it isn't.

We're a lot further down the road from where we were 200 odd years ago. Are you inferring that things are the same now as they always were?
Are we still enslaving people? Denying them the right to vote? Still running around killing them? There are Aboriginal people represented in parliament, advisory bodies have come and gone. Sometimes society gets it right, sometimes it gets it wrong. It's a process.

Exactly what do you think you're going to achieve typing in that there hasn't been any progress on this front?

Lidia Thorpe standing up there saying things like "they're still killing our children" is just... ugly, inflammatory crap designed specifically to appeal to your emotional nature, rather than your rational one.


Neither do I. I would object to going backwards, though. Which is what the effect Thorpe's movement will probably have, having read a few of the things being touted as potential policy should they gain power.
Certainly doesn't sound much like democracy to me.

We have come a long way in regard to some Aboriginal matters and we are making no progress in others. Many Aboriginal people in this country are still seen as a sub species.

 

[Malifice]

That term "invasion" is bandied about a lot these days, but its a deliberately inflammatory term. Brings to mind images of marines storming the beaches, sort of thing.

But... British marines did storm the beaches.

Do you consider the British colonization of New Zealand, Canada and the USA (where there were literal repeated military confrontations with an organized native political entity, and numerous treaties formed along the way) to be an invasion?

What about the Spanish and the rest of the Americas?

What makes what happened here in Australia any different?

 

[mcnulty]

The latter movement has been infiltrated by ******* Sov Cit cookers:

I make a point of avoiding YouTube critiques but that bloke is quite impressive, and very compelling. But it looks like they’re using each other.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Oh no! Not indigenous people gaining real political power!

What do you think the ramifications of 'these people' attaining political power are?

Aboriginal people have never had political power in this country and will not gain real political power in our lifetime.

 

[Malifice]

I make a point of avoiding YouTube critiques but that bloke is quite impressive, and very compelling. But it looks like they’re using each other.

He's probably the leading expert on cookers in Australia. His other videos are directly on point with this cohort.

What's happened with Aboriginal soveregnty peeps is they've been infiltrated by anti-vaxers and Sov Cit types.

The anti-vaxx thing comes from a deep distrust of the Commonweath 'forcing' medical procedures on them. Many (for good reason) don't trust the government. In fact many have a deep distrust of the government, and a deep distrust of the media. Many Aboriginal communities were hit hard by anti-vaxx misinformation:

newsGP - ‘There’s a lot of vaccine hesitancy out there’

Indigenous Australians Said Hit By Vaccine Misinformation

Anti-lockdown activists spreading dangerous ‘lies’ about COVID response in Indigenous communities

I've had Seppo cookers try and use Australia's supposed 'forced vaccination camps and military imposed martial law, where we were rounded up and placed in camps' in arguments with me in order to justify their abhorrent record on COVID deaths, like they actually think those things are real. Even when I told them it wasnt, they didnt believe me (Fake news apparently).

As we all know, Anti-vaxxers and Sov Cits (and Qanon crazies) are matches made in heaven, because they all get cooked by the same process (social media) and wind up in echo chambers with each other, with a lot of ideas being shared between the three groups. A lot of Aboriginal people (and non-Aboriginal leftist allies) were swept up in the COVID misinformation brainwashing, and started to genuinely believe a lot of the batshit crazy shit that was getting made up and pushed on them by their social media algorithms.

This influence was accelerated when the cookers came to Canberra in the 'convoy to Canberra' and busloads of cooked ****wits with Sov Cit and Sov Cit adjacent views tried rallying people at the Aboriginal Tent Embassy (who are invested in Aboriginal Sovereignty) a bunch of Sov Cit bullshit about how the Commonwealth of Australia isnt 'real' and how its a Corporation, and that Parliament doesnt have any actual real power 'because we're all still ships at sea'.

So a bunch of utter insanity that was appealing to the movement.

End result was a civil war of sorts at the Tent Embassy (and among Aboriginal Sovereign activists generally) where a significant number are utterly cooked Sov Cits (thinking its the way to true Sovereignty) and others are the genuine Sovereign activist people who are not cooked.

Whose sovereignty is really being fought for? What happens when First Nations People are dragged into extremist protests

Canberra police begin dismantling ‘sovereign citizens’ protest camp near Old Parliament House

Notorious Sov Cit Rod Culleton was in amongst it as well, targeting and recruiting Aboriginal people into the Sov Cit cause:

Alt-right seeks Indigenous help for fight with ‘illegal’ government

Here are one of the Sov Cit/ Qanon/ Anti Vaxx Aboriginal activists that was arrested for attempting to burn down old parliament house. A look at his Instagram shows you the usual 'Lore not Law' and 'Corporations' and usual Sov Cit bullshit, only with an Aboriginal Sovereignty slant to it:

Bruce Mukadda Shillingsworth (@buddyshillo) • Instagram photos and videos

It's a real problem sadly. A heck of a lot of cookers have corrupted the Aboriginal Sovereignty movement and are doing more harm than good.

 

[faible]

Righto. So you've gone for the "no, you are" argument, with an insult or two thrown in for good measure. Can't say it wasn't expected.
Of course, what you could have done is what you were asked to do... which is explain what you believe those differences are without resorting to rhetoric and vitriol, and in doing so perhaps educate everyone as to why your position is the stronger one and not simply a matter of hypocrisy and a lack of information and consideration.
Can you do that, or not?

Many words. Little substance

As I said, if you honestly and legitimately believe that Indigenous Sovereignty and Sovereign Citizens are the same thing then there’s little anyone can do to help you out here.

Malifice manages to be able to raise points of crossover whilst maintaining an understanding of the differences.

Perhaps you could try reading his posts.

 

[Geary Is GOAT]

No, I mean the evolution of western thought in general... one feature of which is the many different philosophies being assessed and considered and which have led to the present moment. Marxism is one such western philosophy, albeit being partly a political one as well as being purely idealistic.
Political doctrine, at this point in time, is that racism is bad, all men are equal under the law, yadda yadda. There's no left or right about it, it just is.
The evolution of western philosophy, as diverse as it has been in nature, has led to this point. We're still doing the ironing, of course, but we're way ahead of most societies in this respect. Do you disagree?

If you hadn't been such a sanctimonious ass in your responses to people in this thread, telling them to "do well to remember" and what to read I wouldn't be so rude now but since you were:

My guy, you literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Political doctrine, at this point in time, is that racism is bad, all men are equal under the law, yadda yadda. There's no left or right about it, it just is.

If you wrote that in a year 10 politics class, you would fail.

To describe your understanding of politics as 'shallow' would be an understatement.

To be clear, 'Political Doctrine' means nothing. What you're trying to say is Political philosophy/Political Theory and what you're attempting to describe our society as is Liberalism.

Bad news, there is a left and right about Liberalism and it's not 'just is' - whatever the hell that means. It's almost like you're trying to describe The End of History by Francis Fukuyama but with none of the insight.

You described Lidia Thorpe as 'Lefty Green' - would those beliefs be left or right of modern society? Or not at all because modern society just is, does it exist outside of politics? Don't answer that I don't actually care.

Describing Marxism as 'partly political' is also terrific. Well identified sir.

There's seriously no point continuing this. You haven't actually read nearly as broadly as you like to make out on the black sovereignty movement. Your objections are largely assumptions you have made about the movement and then demanding others to explain them. In fact, I think Lidia Thorpe and the Voice is quite literally your first interaction with it.

 

[Episode IV]

But... British marines did storm the beaches.

Sort of. If you count sending in a few boatloads of Marines onto a place picked out as a likely area for a colony in order to see what was around. Met by a handful of natives carrying spears and shields which, if you were to adhere to the thought processes of those who believe the Aboriginals lived in some form of early Utopia prior to British settlement, were obviously only used previously to deal with particularly vicious Koalas.
Not quite the Chinese invasion of Korea, was it.

Do you consider the British colonization of New Zealand, Canada and the USA (where there were literal repeated military confrontations with an organized native political entity, and numerous treaties formed along the way) to be an invasion?

What about the Spanish and the rest of the Americas?

What makes what happened here in Australia any different?

Nope. They were colonisations, which is a word most people use to differentiate between an armed invasion of another country, and an attempt at settlement rather than military occupation. Having said that, they weren't all the same thing either. The Spanish colonisation of the Americas, to use one of your examples, was a completely different kettle of fish to the British settlement of Australia, without going into too much detail on the subject.

Sending 250-odd marines onto a beach which had been picked out as a likely settlement spot does not qualify as an invasion to anyone other than those who seek to maximise the emotive subjectivity of an issue. The British did not come to Australia with the stated objective of wiping out the natives, they came with intent to settle a land they regarded as being not under claim. The French were planning much the same thing at the time, but were beaten to the punch - which is, by the way, a specific reason for the British to bring convicts, and later settlers, with the intent of building something permanent rather than just establishing outposts.

Nuance.
English is a language which has many words ostensibly meaning the same thing, but which when used as they were intended have levels of nuance which makes English writing, in particular, a very powerful thing indeed by comparison with other languages.
Unfortunately, there has been a constant leveling and redefinition of words, their meanings, and common usage, in what is sometimes a casual and thoughtless manner often as the result of ignorance, and other times a deliberate attempt at manipulation (with regard to the latter, particularly in modern times, a result of a more sophisticated understanding of the the subject). The result of either is much the same; the noetic levelling of man, reducing thought to the trivial and the simplistic, with concepts becoming further detached from reality and remaining more firmly in the realm of the idealistic as the control of language "progresses".
Ever noticed that the recent Chinese attempts to decry some act of the West looks a lot like someone has just used a dictionary of synonyms because they (possibly, probably) think the words all mean the same thing? Or is something else in play there?

Something which is, incidentally, at the root of all (political and social, in this case) conflict, regardless of stated ideals. Control. Control the language, control the narrative, control ideas, control the people.

 

[Episode IV]

If you hadn't been such a sanctimonious ass in your responses to people in this thread, telling them to "do well to remember" and what to read I wouldn't be so rude now but since you were:

My guy, you literally have no idea what you're talking about.

If you wrote that in a year 10 politics class, you would fail.

To describe your understanding of politics as 'shallow' would be an understatement.

To be clear, 'Political Doctrine' means nothing. What you're trying to say is Political philosophy/Political Theory and what you're attempting to describe our society as is Liberalism.

Bad news, there is a left and right about Liberalism and it's not 'just is' - whatever the hell that means. It's almost like you're trying to describe The End of History by Francis Fukuyama but with none of the insight.

You described Lidia Thorpe as 'Lefty Green' - would those beliefs be left or right of modern society? Or not at all because modern society just is, does it exist outside of politics? Don't answer that I don't actually care.

Describing Marxism as 'partly political' is also terrific. Well identified sir.

There's seriously no point continuing this. You haven't actually read nearly as broadly as you like to make out on the black sovereignty movement. Your objections are largely assumptions you have made about the movement and then demanding others to explain them. In fact, I think Lidia Thorpe and the Voice is quite literally your first interaction with it.

Actually, I was referring to the evolution of thought, philosophy, from the times of the ancient Greeks and even earlier, up until now. The outcome of millennia of thought, mostly Western as it pertains to Australia and the West. This is the second time I've said this to you.
"Doctrine" might well have been the wrong word to use there, yes, but its a very small thing to get hung up over when considered in context.
But, never mind. If your understanding of "philosophy" stops at a modern political definitions like Liberalism and Marxism, there's really, as you said, not much point in continuing this any further. Unless, of course, you'd like to detail which societies are further ahead in this regard? Which you have, so far, rather neatly avoided doing in favour of pointing in any direction other than that, which was the question raised in the initial statement.
I haven't, as you stated, demanded others explain my position - I have demanded they qualify theirs. It's a good way to find out if someone actually has any thoughts, or if they're little more than parrots. So far, the Parrots have the floor.
Heh. The word for a collection of parrots is a "pandemonium". How amusingly appropriate is that.

I didn't describe Thorpe as a lefty Green, as far as I can recall anyway. I specifically mentioned that was no longer a member of the greens at some point, IIRC. Sigh. And most of my opinions of the Blak Sovereignty movement have been garnered from actual quotes by Thorpe (among others) herself. I'm not sure who else's words I'm supposed to use, perhaps some non-Indigenous fellow on YouTube attempting to explain Bak Sovereignty better than they're apparently able to do?

Is there something more you'd like me to read? Perhaps watch Malifices little "yeah, there are similarities but those poor innocent souls have been infiltrated and corrupted and it's all whitey's fault" video again? Sitting through it once was bad enough - nearly lost me in the first thirty seconds when he referred to "white settler thinking" or something like that. And, of course, with regard to the "I'm not trying to come across as a White Knight here, but..." - what was it someone once said? "ignore everything before the But"? Can't remember if it was Nassim Taleb or the dwarf from Game of Thrones.
But I persevered. Yeesh.

As for the rudeness, I think you should probably go do a little further reading yourself. Using a term like "do well to remember" is very, very mild compared to the histrionics I'm often presented with.
If your morals and ideals aren't applied universally, they aren't your morals and ideals - they're just a tool you use to advance your own position. Tear down all the others doing the same thing, and I might listen to you more closely in that respect. Until you do, don't expect to hold me to any higher standards than you're willing to apply to all others, as well as yourself.
I'm not the same person on here than I am on other forums. Cause and effect.

 

[Malifice]

Nope. They were colonisations, which is a word most people use to differentiate between an armed invasion of another country, and an attempt at settlement rather than military occupation. Having said that, they weren't all the same thing either. The Spanish colonisation of the Americas, to use one of your examples, was a completely different kettle of fish to the British settlement of Australia, without going into too much detail on the subject.

The British Crown literally was at war with the Maoris (and Native American peoples, as were the Americans after them) as were the Spanish against the Aztecs. There were literally military campaigns, treaties signed and pitched battles between the forces of each side.

 

[mcnulty]

He's probably the leading expert on cookers in Australia. His other videos are directly on point with this cohort.

What's happened with Aboriginal soveregnty peeps is they've been infiltrated by anti-vaxers and Sov Cit types.

The anti-vaxx thing comes from a deep distrust of the Commonweath 'forcing' medical procedures on them. Many (for good reason) don't trust the government. In fact many have a deep distrust of the government, and a deep distrust of the media. Many Aboriginal communities were hit hard by anti-vaxx misinformation:

newsGP - ‘There’s a lot of vaccine hesitancy out there’

Indigenous Australians Said Hit By Vaccine Misinformation

Anti-lockdown activists spreading dangerous ‘lies’ about COVID response in Indigenous communities

I've had Seppo cookers try and use Australia's supposed 'forced vaccination camps and military imposed martial law, where we were rounded up and placed in camps' in arguments with me in order to justify their abhorrent record on COVID deaths, like they actually think those things are real. Even when I told them it wasnt, they didnt believe me (Fake news apparently).

As we all know, Anti-vaxxers and Sov Cits (and Qanon crazies) are matches made in heaven, because they all get cooked by the same process (social media) and wind up in echo chambers with each other, with a lot of ideas being shared between the three groups. A lot of Aboriginal people (and non-Aboriginal leftist allies) were swept up in the COVID misinformation brainwashing, and started to genuinely believe a lot of the batshit crazy s**t that was getting made up and pushed on them by their social media algorithms.

This influence was accelerated when the cookers came to Canberra in the 'convoy to Canberra' and busloads of cooked *******s with Sov Cit and Sov Cit adjacent views tried rallying people at the Aboriginal Tent Embassy (who are invested in Aboriginal Sovereignty) a bunch of Sov Cit bullshit about how the Commonwealth of Australia isnt 'real' and how its a Corporation, and that Parliament doesnt have any actual real power 'because we're all still ships at sea'.

So a bunch of utter insanity that was appealing to the movement.

End result was a civil war of sorts at the Tent Embassy (and among Aboriginal Sovereign activists generally) where a significant number are utterly cooked Sov Cits (thinking its the way to true Sovereignty) and others are the genuine Sovereign activist people who are not cooked.

Whose sovereignty is really being fought for? What happens when First Nations People are dragged into extremist protests

Canberra police begin dismantling ‘sovereign citizens’ protest camp near Old Parliament House

Notorious Sov Cit Rod Culleton was in amongst it as well, targeting and recruiting Aboriginal people into the Sov Cit cause:

Alt-right seeks Indigenous help for fight with ‘illegal’ government

Here are one of the Sov Cit/ Qanon/ Anti Vaxx Aboriginal activists that was arrested for attempting to burn down old parliament house. A look at his Instagram shows you the usual 'Lore not Law' and 'Corporations' and usual Sov Cit bullshit, only with an Aboriginal Sovereignty slant to it:

Bruce Mukadda Shillingsworth (@buddyshillo) • Instagram photos and videos

It's a real problem sadly. A heck of a lot of cookers have corrupted the Aboriginal Sovereignty movement and are doing more harm than good.

But once again the Black sovereignty advocates have agency. Bit disingenuous (and probably patronising) simply to refer to them as dupes. As I said, it looks like some on both side see this as mutually advantageous. That’s on both of them.

 

[Episode IV]

The British Crown literally was at war with the Maoris (and Native American peoples, as were the Americans after them) as were the Spanish against the Aztecs. There were literally military campaigns, treaties signed and pitched battles between the forces of each side.

"Having said that, they weren't all the same thing either". Simple geographical variations are another factor in those differences.
In most cases, the "pitched battles" came after the initial colonisation efforts.

I'm not even sure what the point of this line of questioning is. Is this supposed to change my view on the word invasion being used in place of colonisation in Australia, and more importantly, why that replacement is becoming the norm?