Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Black Red Devil

Senator honours White Australia Policy

64 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Black Red Devil
Posted (edited)

 

Quote

The Katter's Australian Party senator, formerly of One Nation, used his first speech to the Senate on Tuesday to lament the demise of "our predominantly European identity" of the 1950s and '60s.

As a remedy, the Queensland senator proposed radical changes to Australia's immigration program, including a "drastic" cut to the annual migrant intake and the resumption of discrimination based on race.

"Diversity should be managed to remain compatible with social cohesion and national identity," he said. "We as a nation are entitled to insist that those who are allowed to come here predominantly reflect the historic European-Christian composition of Australian society." link

 

I wonder what the aborigines think about his euro-christian proposal? 

Also, Bob Katter, the founder of this far Right Party, is of Lebanese origins! :P

Edited by Black Red Devil
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
10 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

I wonder what the aborigines think about his euro-christian proposal? 

There is a group in the American Midwest called "One Nation United" which wants to disband tribal governments and empty reserves. It sounds like he's on a similar vein. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
33 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

I wonder what the aborigines think about his euro-christian proposal? 

Also, Bob Katter, the founder of this far Right Party, is of Lebanese origins! :P

It sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle non-white.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

well he is a senator democratically elected by people, right? so when you vote for him, you let him do what he sees fit. if aborigines do not like it, they can have one of them run and work on their behalf.  elections have consequences.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

It's like the whole world has gone mad.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
11 hours ago, Piney said:

There is a group in the American Midwest called "One Nation United" which wants to disband tribal governments and empty reserves. It sounds like he's on a similar vein. 

It's a crazy mindset in this day and age, specially in lands that initially belonged to non white Europeans....

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
8 hours ago, aztek said:

well he is a senator democratically elected by people, right? so when you vote for him, you let him do what he sees fit. if aborigines do not like it, they can have one of them run and work on their behalf.  elections have consequences.  

In fact, this was his maiden speech, his introduction into politics.  Condemned by the PM and the main opposition leader in Parliament as well. This guy entered the political arena with a bang and will probably exit it with a wobbly fizz.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 minute ago, Black Red Devil said:

In fact, this was his maiden speech, his introduction into politics.  Condemned by the PM and the main opposition leader in Parliament as well. This guy entered the political arena with a bang and will probably exit it with a wobbly fizz.

and a swift kick where the sun never shines.....

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

lol, he is off to a good start. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

It's a crazy mindset in this day and age, specially in lands that initially belonged to non white Europeans....

Yeah, over here in the US, I find myself wondering who Piney thinks the "illegals" are. 

Lol.

Like...all of us. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
8 minutes ago, GlitterRose said:

Yeah, over here in the US, I find myself wondering who Piney thinks the "illegals" are. 

Lol.

Like...all of us. 

Probably....but we are grandfathered in and he doesn't hold a grudge, unless you personally cross him. :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

The difference here in Oz (and hopefully it remains so) is that yes, a few racists and lunatics may sneak into parliamentary positions, but once they fully reveal themselves... they generally do not rise any further, let alone get into the highest positions of power.

Not so in some notable countries....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Hmm.. what - exactly - did he say that was so objectionable ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
19 hours ago, aztek said:

well he is a senator democratically elected by people, right? so when you vote for him, you let him do what he sees fit. if aborigines do not like it, they can have one of them run and work on their behalf.  elections have consequences.  

Yes, 19 whole ****ing people voted for him.

not 19%, 19. As in “fewer people than you or I have fingers and toes”. 

But, because we have had a cluster**** over citizenship (yuo can’t be a dual citizen and in parliament) bloody everyone else was ruled out.

 

Donald Bloody Duck got more votes than Anning.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
36 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. what - exactly - did he say that was so objectionable ? 

Well, we sort of have a few hold ups over the words “White Australia Policy”, so invoking it sort of riles the populous. Except for the 19 mouth breathers who voted for Anning, obviously.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. what - exactly - did he say that was so objectionable ? 

Apart from the racist White Australia policy that sort of goes against the principles of multiculturalism which Australia holds in high regards, there are a variety of Visas under the migration program that are provided to foreigners who invest or study in Australia.  Most of these foreigners come from Asia whose countries we trade heavily with.  But, his attribute to the "Final solution" through a plebiscite was what irritated the leading political parties. 

Basically a plebiscite is similar to a referendum where money is spent to test out the waters of the populace.  Knowing how Aussies think, it would be a futile exercise and waste of money on a proposal raised by a racist politician of an extreme party which would be detrimental to any major political party in favor of such an outdated idea.  

Edited by Black Red Devil
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
55 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Well, we sort of have a few hold ups over the words “White Australia Policy”, so invoking it sort of riles the populous. Except for the 19 mouth breathers who voted for Anning, obviously.

Oooh right.. gotcha. 

Ummm...... 

Did he use those words ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
4 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Apart from the racist White Australia policy that sort of goes against the principles of multiculturalism which Australia holds in high regards, there are a variety of Visas under the migration program that are provided to foreigners who invest or study in Australia.  Most of these foreigners come from Asia whose countries we trade heavily with.  But, his attribute to the "Final solution" through a plebiscite was what irritated the leading political parties. 

Basically a plebiscite is similar to a referendum where money is spent to test out the waters of the populace.  Knowing how Aussies think, it would be a futile exercise and waste of money on a proposal raised by a racist politician of an extreme party which would be detrimental to any major political party in favor of such an outdated idea.  

Oooh right... gotcha.. thanks for that BRD. 

Sooooo...... there would be no problem - other than the expenditure of money - in holding the plebiscite ? Just to confirm what people REALLY think, as opposed to what the metropolitan elite in Sydney think ? You know.. just to prove that the whole idea of managed immigration is disproved of, and all that ? :P 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
20 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Oooh right.. gotcha. 

Ummm...... 

Did he use those words ? 

Yeap.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Oooh right... gotcha.. thanks for that BRD. 

Sooooo...... there would be no problem - other than the expenditure of money - in holding the plebiscite ? Just to confirm what people REALLY think, as opposed to what the metropolitan elite in Sydney think ? You know.. just to prove that the whole idea of managed immigration is disproved of, and all that ? :P 

Obviously, only the "metropolitan elite" would find something wrong with "White Australian policy" and "final solution." 

Lol. 

Couldn't be anybody else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Oooh right... gotcha.. thanks for that BRD. 

Sooooo...... there would be no problem - other than the expenditure of money - in holding the plebiscite ? Just to confirm what people REALLY think, as opposed to what the metropolitan elite in Sydney think ? You know.. just to prove that the whole idea of managed immigration is disproved of, and all that ? :P 

No, it means that there are three negatives and no positives, it (White Australia Policy) is bad for business, it's a waste of time and it's racially motivated which goes against what Australia stands for. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
pleb·i·scite
[ˈplebəˌsīt]
NOUN
plebiscites (plural noun)
  1. the direct vote of all the members of an electorate on an important public question such as a change in the constitution.
    "the administration will hold a plebiscite for the approval of constitutional reforms"
    synonyms: vote · referendum · ballot · poll
    • roman history
      a law enacted by the plebeians' assembly.
 
ORIGIN
mid 16th century (referring to Roman history): from French plébiscite, from Latin plebiscitum, from plebs, pleb- ‘the common people’ + scitum ‘decree’ (from sciscere ‘vote for’). The sense ‘direct vote of the whole electorate’ dates from the mid 19th century.
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

No, it means that there are three negatives and no positives, it (White Australia Policy) is bad for business, it's a waste of time and it's racially motivated which goes against what Australia stands for. ;)

Well then... surely the plebiscite would clear that up, and demonstrate what Australia actually stands for ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
7 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Yeap.

Oooh right. 

Umm... but not in any of the quotes in this forum ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
21 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

This guy entered the political arena with a bang and will probably exit it with a wobbly fizz.

Probably... but these days, you nevah know... I seem to recall a guy who was mocked mercilessly from the moment he rode down his escalator to announce his first political run.  The Left still don't seem to grasp that all this upheaval isn't about crazy leaders as much as it's about disaffected, angry voters who are feeling marginalized, if not actually ignored.  The Trump phenomenon was created by a Prog overreach during 8 years of power.  If Barry had said no to his environmentalists and union donors a little more often, he'd have had much better economic numbers and HRC might well have won.  Instead, she got smacked by a backlash of anger in the very states she ignored and took for granted.  When one group within a body politic decides they can control the other through various means of force, it always ends badly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.