Something that you will always see in my blogs is my inability to understand the guilt of the world...the guilt of Catholics to their own humanness and the guilt of white Anglo-Saxons  to their own skin colour.

I'm very proud to be white, that doesn't make me think I'm any better than another colour, just as my pride of being a Queenslander doesn't make me think less of a Californian or a Tasmanian. Unlike my Christian upbringing's teachings, I think it IS healthy to emit pride in oneself and one's people. Though there is a fine line between beating one's own drum and beating down on someone else's head.

 Last week I watched the much anticipated Baz Lurman film 'Australia'. It made me wonder why a fantasy film carried the name of my nation.

Perhaps Baz and his stars Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman are in the team of these guilt-ridden fools who have no knowledge of the truth or perhaps they are just caught up in the fantasy of film, whatever the case this film lacked any semblance of reality.

The film reeks of the fallacy of the evil Outback white man....yes there is evil everywhere, but please let a little truth get involved in the story.

The story of the 'Stolen Generation' has been forced on our nation just as the stain of the Armenian massacre was removed from their history in Turkey .

Below is some of what the star of the film, Hugh Jackman, said whilst promoting the film recently:

"The stolen generation was a policy that was born out of eugenics. Eugenics in Europe, as we saw with Nazi Germany, was sort of popular at the time. This idea that if you mixed races or mixed breeds you lessened the blood or something and that you had an inferior human being, right?

So many well-intentioned people thought this was a good idea and in Australia if you had an Aboriginal parent and a white parent or a European parent, the government would take you away from your family, they would tell you your family had died or been killed in an accident, they would put you in an institution.

They would then make you be as European or as white as possible and then put you out into a menial service type job . . . It decimated, literally decimated, the Australian population."

The lie continually purported by these deluded fantasy land dwellers really does astonish me...especially when he is trying to get punters to watch the film, which received nearly $100 million from the Australian taxpayer to help promote and make it and be part of the connected tourism campaign.

To this day only one person of mixed Aboriginal decent has successfully sued for his being stolen. He was from South Australia and his estate is currently in turmoil as the South Australian government has won an appeal,which will bankrupt it with the government's legal fees.

Hugh Jackman claims our history is similar to that of Nazi Germany...seriously this is a stretch. The Nazis wanted to wipe out those who didn't fit in their choice of racial quality, here in Australia they were integrated and brought in as part of the community. It is my understanding that almost all university graduated Aboriginal descended people were part of the programme of integration...hardly a bad result in my book.

Still, you, at least, might like to contrast Jackman's slanders with the account of someone who actually did what this actor so carelessly damns.

Australia is set in the Northern Territory, and Harry Kitching is the man who "stole" the only Aboriginal boy there to have his claim for compensation heard in court.

In fact, the Federal Court ruled in this exhaustive test case that the boy, Peter Gunner, was not stolen at all, but had been sent with his mother's permission from Utopia station to Alice Springs. It heard that Gunner had earlier been rescued by the station manager's wife from being buried alive by his uncle, and that Kitching spent months convincing the boy's single mother that he'd be better off getting a schooling in town.

Months later she agreed. Moreover, the court added it could find no evidence of any policy in the NT to steal children just because they were black.

But hear such truths from Kitching, who told The Age he'd recommended the removal of just nine children, including Gunner, usually from single mothers deserted by their child's white father. In all but one case, the mothers agreed to have their child put in care, or had even asked Kitching to arrange it.

"I did not go in there and say, ?Right, bang, they are out'," Kitching said.

"I would try to educate the mother to improve the conditions. But families also saw their children had no future and asked me to get them into a home."

One child he had sent to a Catholic home on Croker Island was a girl crippled with polio, whose mother knew she couldn't keep carrying her around.

Later, in NSW, Kitching found a single mother in a humpy, with "this poor little fella sitting in the dirty fry pan, fly-blown, flies all over him, hadn't been washed in a week. Well, I went at the mum straight away for neglect".

Kitching now is the kind of man being sold in the US by Jackman as akin to an SS guard. And the child he took is one Jackman suggests should have been left in the fry pan with the flies.

To make matters worse, recently Germain Greer putting in her two bobs worth and revealed what is actual truth in the outback... that mixed breeding was not at all looked down upon by the stockman themselves.

'The hero, played by Hugh Jackman, is a drover, whose job is to collect cattle from the stations and drive them wherever they have to go. For the film to work at all we are required to believe that he is ostracised by his peers, simply because, years before the film begins, before the 1914-18 war, he married an Aboriginal woman, who, obligingly, died childless. The most respected drover of central Australia in this era was Matt Savage, otherwise known as "Boss Drover", a white man whose marriage to an Aboriginal woman lasted 40 years and produced many children who rode with their father. In case that should sound romantic, Savage was known to say, "I got her young, and treated her rough, and she thrived on it." Savage would have been considered beyond the pale by some, but not by the drinkers in a bar on the Darwin waterfront..."

What offended me the most was, however, the pick and choose attitude of Lurhman, Jackman and Kidman.

I mean the film starts with the Aboriginal mother drowning in a windmill-fed water tank.... No full blooded Aboriginal of that region would be unable to swim ...well, forgetting the fact that it was in a small tank, which is absurd. There is NO desert between Katherine and Darwin. Cattle are rounded to stop them, they do not stop by confrontation, they always smack into whatever is in their way. The boy returns from being removed... without a haircut... absurd. The whole idea of removal was to turn the children into fully functioning and healthy Australians... untidy hair was the paramount sign of ill health and not being cared for.

Lastly, I watched in absolute horror last night when Nicole Kidman attempted to play the didgeridoo on a German publicity stunt. It is taboo for a female to play the northern Australian instrument and absolutely disrespectful to make a mockery of it as they did.

So I ask, who has been most offensive, a nation that strived to do its best to assist its own citizens (remember all the children removed were at least half Anglo-Celtic) or these deluded fantasist's who bath in Australian taxpayer dollars and indulge in offending their own countrymen, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal.

But hey, visually it's a beautiful masterpiece, and yes Outback Australia is THAT beautiful without the use of CGI.