If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

A new youtuber called American Patriot has come on the scene and does what women should be doing. Making more white babies and not running off at the mouth. That is a true feminist.

Another point of view on the election task force. What Faith "Trudeau's Task Force to Secure your Smartphone" Goldy won't tell her gullible fans.

Brive would probably find this video interesting:

Faith Goldy's conspiracy theory colleague and new buddy Owen Benjamin debunks one of the lies the lame stream media has been telling us for years.

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:46 pm

Faith Goldy's conspiracy theory colleague and new buddy Owen Benjamin debunks one of the lies the lame stream media has been telling us for years.

Worth reading the whole thread.

It turns out Faith is not a big fan of Jordan Peterson and neither is her new astrophyicist sensei.

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ It turns out Faith is not a big fan of Jordan Peterson and neither is her new astrophyicist sensei.

Peterson has many flaws, but at least he's not a white identitarian. I don't like his po-mo approach to truth, or some of his socially conservative ideas, but I don't think he's an authoritarian, either. He's the Reza Aslan/Deepak Chopra of Christianity, and sometimes he's a bit of a crazy lolcow (like when he attacks Disney movies as "reprehensible propaganda"), but not someone you'd find trying to argue about Great Replacements, making videos about how non-white people in Paris are going to cause the end of France, or hanging out with the guys of the Daily Stormer.

Hilarious. :twatson:

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ It turns out Faith is not a big fan of Jordan Peterson and neither is her new astrophyicist sensei.

Peterson has many flaws, but at least he's not a white identitarian. I don't like his po-mo approach to truth, or some of his socially conservative ideas, but I don't think he's an authoritarian, either. He's the Reza Aslan/Deepak Chopra of Christianity, and sometimes he's a bit of a crazy lolcow (like when he attacks Disney movies as "reprehensible propaganda"), but not someone you'd find trying to argue about Great Replacements, making videos about how non-white people in Paris are going to cause the end of France, or hanging out with the guys of the Daily Stormer.

I don’t agree with JBP, but I can’t agree with someone else who agrees with me because I disagree with something else they agree with

Classic Kirb.

If any man had the chance to turn me to unrequited love ...






:lol:

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Faith Goldy's conspiracy theory colleague and new buddy Owen Benjamin debunks one of the lies the lame stream media has been telling us for years.
https..://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXGW4KZzFGo

Faith should drop the long form vlog and return to data driven argument.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ It turns out Faith is not a big fan of Jordan Peterson and neither is her new astrophyicist sensei.

Peterson has many flaws, but at least he's not a white identitarian. I don't like his po-mo approach to truth, or some of his socially conservative ideas, but I don't think he's an authoritarian, either. He's the Reza Aslan/Deepak Chopra of Christianity, and sometimes he's a bit of a crazy lolcow (like when he attacks Disney movies as "reprehensible propaganda"), but not someone you'd find trying to argue about Great Replacements, making videos about how non-white people in Paris are going to cause the end of France, or hanging out with the guys of the Daily Stormer.

I don’t agree with JBP, but I can’t agree with someone else who agrees with me because I disagree with something else they agree with

Classic Kirb.

More like: their reasons for not liking Peterson are not the same as mine, and they're not very good reasons, either.

If a flat earth believer makes a video about how anti-vaxxers are dumb because autism is actually caused by early exposure to the "spherical earth lie", they don't deserve much credit for being against anti-vaxxers, because they're still supporting an idea that is deeply wrong.

If you have a criticism maybe you should make a case rather than launch into a SJW style argument by ad hominem.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ If any man had the chance to turn me to unrequited love ...






:lol:

So you could say that you're an atheist supporting the idea of a state based on preserving a specific religious faith.

Is that correct?

By the way, Hungary used to have a strong Jewish minority before World War Two. Do Jews have a right to return to Hungary, since they were a significant part of Hungary's past, or are they excluded from the Hungarian Christian state?

Under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, many Czech, Polish and German speakers lived in Hungary. Their numbers declined after World War One, and fell even further after World War Two. Should Hungary encourage thrir descendants to come back, too?

Would that be an acceptable form of multiculturalism?

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ If you have a criticism maybe you should make a case rather than launch into a SJW style argument by ad hominem.

The main points of Goldy's criticism of Peterson in the video above with the Moon Landing Denialist are that he doesn't support her side, he's too focused on the individual, and that he worked for the UN (and so, she implies, for "globalism").

Goldy's argument is about putting laws in place to preserve ethno-cultural collectives, at the cost of individual human rights if necessary,

This is why she dislikes Peterson's focus on individual achievements and right, singling out how he'snmore interested in protecting freedom of speech instead of making men accepting that they have a right to be as hell.

As someone who has opposed the SocJus for their focus on collective narratives at the expense of individual rights, I side with Peterson over Goldy in this specific issue, even though I disagree with Peterson about other things he says.

If you wsnt an argument as to why individual rights are more important than collective narratives, that's a atory for another post, since this one is already long enough.

I’m happy for Hungary to retain its ethnic identity and not have it strip mined by MC and liberal self hate. I pity and suspect anyone not revulsed by that interviewer.

If you want to make a pitch for the restitution of the Hapsburg Empire go for it. Poland fluked it after WWI

Alas. There is a dynamic you missed that might hamper a final solution to your Jewish Question.

(I left out the argument by Goldy's pal with the pornstache about how Peterson's position is "satanism", because the video stops before we can see whether Goldy agrees with him or not)

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I’m happy for Hungary to retain its ethnic identity and not have it strip mined by MC and liberal self hate.

So is it fair to say that your focus is on preserving ethnic purity trough laws, even if those laws might infringe on individual rights?

If you want to make a pitch for the restitution of the Hapsburg Empire go for it. Poland fluked it after WWI

Alas. There is a dynamic you missed that might hamper a final solution to your Jewish Question.

My argument was about how Hungary's monoculturalism is far more recent than what the main in the interview claimed, and it's largely the product of acts of force between the two World Wars and after World War Two.

It should read: "and during World War Two"

I’m sure the Magyars are far less confused than you appear to be. And that’s only natural.

If Goldy’s limits on human rights extend to gas chambers I’d agree. It she removed your liberty to travel without a passport, well you might lose me on that one.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:09 am

I’m sure the Magyars are far less confused than you appear to be. And that’s only natural.

If Goldy’s limits on human rights extend to gas chambers I’d agree. It she removed your liberty to travel without a passport, well you might lose me on that one.

There's a lot of ideological space between the two options you present. Revoking asylum rights, enscribing discrimination based on ethnic origin into laws, favoring a specific ethnicity and religion in public institutions (for example by undermining separation of church and state), proposing and supporting "population transfers", repressing minoritarian dissent, etc.

Hungary has already experienced issues of reduced separation of powers, strong restrictions of the right of asylum, and attacks on dissent and freedom of the press.

Historically speaking, identitarian movements have a record of escalation. Even the Nazis didn't START with the gas chambers, after all.

Once you've accepted ethnic identity as the foundation of a country, where exactly do you draw the line? It's not as easy or straightforward as you seem to think.

There's a lot of ideological space between the two options you present.

Indeed. Which is why your original complaint was so hollow.

Hungary has already experienced issues of reduced separation of powers blah blah blah

You just can’t let a happy homogeneous island of content rest until it is turned into some sort of ghettoised hellhole.



Shame on you.

Is it fair yo say that you care more about preserving ethnic identity than about liberal democratic/Enlightenment values, Brive?

Do you see preservation of identity as more or less important than separation of powers, asylum rights as recognized by international bodies, separation of church and state, or freedom of speech and of the press?

Would you be in favor of Australia putting courts under the control of the government, revoking asylum rights, dismantling separation of church and state, and restricting freedom of speech and of the press to defend your idel of Australian identity?

Brive1987 wrote: ↑

There's a lot of ideological space between the two options you present.

Indeed. Which is why your original complaint was so hollow.

Hungary has already experienced issues of reduced separation of powers blah blah blah

You just can’t let a happy homogeneous island of content rest until it is turned into some sort of ghettoised hellhole.



Shame on you.

So separation of powers and freedom of the press are barely worth a "womp womp"?

Good to know.

These measures didn’t appear necessary in times gone by. In fact the unique Australian fusion of heritage, land and culture produced a society that prized a “fair go” but which looked askance at anyone “putting on the dog”. Church and state lived in uncontentious simpatico, courts had an established place and people pinballing around the globe looking for maximum economic ROI received short shrift.

Your strawmen are the same as your overwhelming fixation on the “far right”. Intellectual low hanging fruit.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ These measures didn’t appear necessary in times gone by. In fact the unique Australian fusion of heritage, land and culture produced a society that prized a “fair go” but which looked askance at anyone “putting on the dog”. Church and state lived in uncontentious simpatico, courts had an established place and people pinballing around the globe looking for maximum economic ROI received short shrift.

Your strawmen are the same as your overwhelming fixation on the “far right”. Intellectual low hanging fruit.

Are Enlightenment principles intellectual low hanging fruit? Is the "high hanging fruit" only reserved for identitarian arguments?

Would you accept authoritrian measures to enforce your identitarian ideals? Do you think that it's fine for a government to control the judiciary? Do you think that supressing freedom of the press is fine id the goal is to preserve heritage purity?

Even accepting your premise that "times gone by" in Australia were some sort of naturally balanced equilibrium without any need for checks and balances (which I doubt) how far are you wiling to go to go back to the status quo in those times?
Would you support a government that overrules by executive fiat the verdict of a court over immigration or asylum matters (it happened in Hungary)?

Would you support a law that criminalizes offering information and legal support to immigrants/,asylum seekers, or reporting about the legal and human rights violations and distortions in the immigration system (such a law was passed in Hungary)?

Would you support the obligatory teaching in public schools of the tenets of a specific religion deemed important to the preservation of ethno-cultural identity?

Would you support mass expulsions ("population transfers") of socio-ethnic groups deemed a danger to the preservation ogc ethno-cultural identity?

Macron or Viktor Orbán. That’s all it comes down to eh?



Then there is the counterview.



Here we’ve got dingy street lights, dodgy refurbishments, an opposition spokesman claiming the brainless people’s vote was manipulated and anti Soros being equivalent to a war on disabled kids.

The only sense in the whole show was a govt spokesman explaining the solution to illegal immigration was to stop it at the border and positive intervention at the source of the problem.

Now I’m sure Orbán is the next literal Hitler. I’m sure Hungary, just like any country east of Austria, is unable to hide its corruption as effectively as, say, Merkle (with her packs of nazis hunting migrants through the village streets). I’m positive you’d be happy for Fidesz’s two thirds majority to be democracy overturned.

But you’ll understand if I don’t believe much of anything I hear from liberal mouth pieces.

By the way, Wikipedia says this on the Constitution of Australia:

. The Constitution was approved in a series of referendums held over 1898–1900 by the people of the Australian colonies, and the approved draft was enacted as a section of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp),[1] an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) became law on 9 July 1900, and entered into force on 1 January 1901. Even though the Constitution was originally given legal force by an Act of the United Kingdom parliament, the Australia Act 1986 removed the power of the United Kingdom parliament to change the Constitution as in force in Australia, and the Constitution can now only be changed in accordance with the prescribed referendum procedures in Section 128.

So the constitution has been in place since the early 1900s.

The existence of three separate chapters dealing with the three branches of government implies a separation of powers, similar in principle to that of the United States but unusual for a government within the Westminster system.[15] Thus, for example, the legislature cannot purport to predetermine the legal outcome, or to change the direction or outcome, of a court case.

Separation of powers is codified within the Australian constitution.

Section 116 establishes what is often called "freedom of religion", by forbidding the Commonwealth from making any law for the establishment of a religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the exercise of a religion, or religious discrimination for public office.

Separation of church and state is also codified within the Australian constitution.

Hungary is conducting ethnic cleansing? I’m shocked.

I’ve got no idea what ‘cultural flexibility’ exists in Hungary. I visited in 1987 and was left in no doubt I wasn’t in Sydney anymore.

But there are laws in Hungary against aiding “refugees and asylum seekers” ? I assume you meant “illegal immigrants”. Which makes the morality less clear cut. I think need to consider “aiding and abetting”.

I know all about Australia’s constitution, no need to Swiss-splain. The religious laws were to stop re-runs of Protestant vs Catholic BS. Think Bloody Mary more than Hemant Mehta.

So you can let your secular-liberal erection subside. :cdc:

Our modified Westminster system has been a remarkable success story derived from, and culturally attuned to the Anglo milieu.

Your literary review of Wikipedia failed to pick up the complexity of high you speak.

Whenever Parliament sits, the House of Representatives begins with two prayers. For the first, Speaker Tony Smith says: "Almighty God, we humbly beseech thee to vouchsafe thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of thy glory, and the true welfare of the people of Australia."

Smith then recites the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer: "Our Father, who​ art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

These prayers symbolise Australia's Christian and, more particularly, Protestant heritage. They show how certain religious values are embedded into our institutions and civic life. Other examples include the opening words to Australia's Constitution, which invoke the blessing of "Almighty God", and the fact that Australia's head of state, the British monarch, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

But don’t despair. We have our share of libtards determined to pull us into a fractured globalised world of equivalency.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:19 am

Here we’ve got dingy street lights, dodgy refurbishments, an opposition spokesman claiming the brainless people’s vote was manipulated and anti Soros being equivalent to a war on disabled kids.

The only sense in the whole show was a govt spokesman explaining the solution to illegal immigration was to stop it at the border and positive intervention at the source of the problem.

Now I’m sure Orbán is the next literal Hitler. I’m sure Hungary, just like any country east of Austria, is unable to hide its corruption as effectively as, say, Merkle (with her packs of nazis hunting migrants through the village streets). I’m positive you’d be happy for Fidesz’s two thirds majority to be democracy overturned.

But you’ll understand if I don’t believe much of anything I hear from liberal mouth pieces.

You left out the issues with an independent press and the threats to journalistic investigations into corruption. Also the part about how power is concentrating within the hands of a few, connected people, while independent sectors of a democratic society are controlled more and more by a specific parties and cronies. Nothing really important in your view, probably, as long as the migrants are kept out.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I know all about Australia’s constitution, no need to Swiss-splain. The religious laws were to stop re-runs of Protestant vs Catholic BS. Think Bloody Mary more than Hemant Mehta.

So you can let your secular-liberal erection subside. :cdc:

Our modified Westminster system has been a remarkable success story derived from, and culturally attuned to the Anglo milieu.

Your literary review of Wikipedia failed to pick up the complexity of high you speak.

Whenever Parliament sits, the House of Representatives begins with two prayers. For the first, Speaker Tony Smith says: "Almighty God, we humbly beseech thee to vouchsafe thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of thy glory, and the true welfare of the people of Australia."

Smith then recites the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer: "Our Father, who​ art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

These prayers symbolise Australia's Christian and, more particularly, Protestant heritage. They show how certain religious values are embedded into our institutions and civic life. Other examples include the opening words to Australia's Constitution, which invoke the blessing of "Almighty God", and the fact that Australia's head of state, the British monarch, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

But don’t despair. We have our share of libtards determined to pull us into a fractured globalised world of equivalency.

So as an atheist it doesn't bother you that your representatives are expected to make a proclamation of religious faith to operate institutions that are supposed to represent all Australians regardless of their faith?

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑

Brive1987 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:19 am

Here we’ve got dingy street lights, dodgy refurbishments, an opposition spokesman claiming the brainless people’s vote was manipulated and anti Soros being equivalent to a war on disabled kids.

The only sense in the whole show was a govt spokesman explaining the solution to illegal immigration was to stop it at the border and positive intervention at the source of the problem.

Now I’m sure Orbán is the next literal Hitler. I’m sure Hungary, just like any country east of Austria, is unable to hide its corruption as effectively as, say, Merkle (with her packs of nazis hunting migrants through the village streets). I’m positive you’d be happy for Fidesz’s two thirds majority to be democracy overturned.

But you’ll understand if I don’t believe much of anything I hear from liberal mouth pieces.

You left out the issues with an independent press and the threats to journalistic investigations into corruption. Also the part about how power is concentrating within the hands of a few, connected people, while independent sectors of a democratic society are controlled more and more by a specific parties and cronies. Nothing really important in your view, probably, as long as the migrants are kept out.

Sounds like a typical western ‘democracy’. Just more overt. But you’re right. Open the borders. Overturn the election. Make magyar a dirty word amongst a new minority majority. And drive the dirty Catholics into dark recesses.

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I know all about Australia’s constitution, no need to Swiss-splain. The religious laws were to stop re-runs of Protestant vs Catholic BS. Think Bloody Mary more than Hemant Mehta.

So you can let your secular-liberal erection subside. :cdc:

Our modified Westminster system has been a remarkable success story derived from, and culturally attuned to the Anglo milieu.

Your literary review of Wikipedia failed to pick up the complexity of high you speak.

Whenever Parliament sits, the House of Representatives begins with two prayers. For the first, Speaker Tony Smith says: "Almighty God, we humbly beseech thee to vouchsafe thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of thy glory, and the true welfare of the people of Australia."

Smith then recites the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer: "Our Father, who​ art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

These prayers symbolise Australia's Christian and, more particularly, Protestant heritage. They show how certain religious values are embedded into our institutions and civic life. Other examples include the opening words to Australia's Constitution, which invoke the blessing of "Almighty God", and the fact that Australia's head of state, the British monarch, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

But don’t despair. We have our share of libtards determined to pull us into a fractured globalised world of equivalency.

So as an atheist it doesn't bother you that your representatives are expected to make a proclamation of religious faith to operate institutions that are supposed to represent all Australians regardless of their faith?

As a cultural Christian, a social conservative and a proud Aussie I’d expect nothing less. FIFO.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:32 am

Hungary is conducting ethnic cleansing? I’m shocked.

I’ve got no idea what ‘cultural flexibility’ exists in Hungary. I visited in 1987 and was left in no doubt I wasn’t in Sydney anymore.

But there are laws in Hungary against aiding “refugees and asylum seekers” ? I assume you meant “illegal immigrants”. Which makes the morality less clear cut. I think need to consider “aiding and abetting”.

Appealing to the right of asylu doesn't make one an illegal immigrant (who is someone who acts beyond the laws, national and international).

Like Australia (but unlike the US) Hungary has signed both the 1951 UN Convention and the 1967 Protocol on refugees, which establish that:

The contracting states shall not
discriminate against refugees (Article 3)
take exceptional measures against a refugee solely on account of his or her nationality (Article 8)
expect refugees to pay taxes and fiscal charges that are different to those of nationals (Article 29)
impose penalties on refugees who entered illegally in search of asylum if they present themselves without delay (Article 31), which is commonly interpreted to mean that their unlawful entry and presence ought not to be prosecuted at all[18]
expel refugees (Article 32)
forcibly return or "refoul" refugees to the country they've fled from (Article 33). It is widely accepted that the prohibition of forcible return is part of customary international law. This means that even States that are not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention must respect the principle of non-refoulement.[17] Therefore, States are obligated under the Convention and under customary international law to respect the principle of non-refoulement. If and when this principle is threatened, UNHCR can respond by intervening with relevant authorities, and if it deems necessary, will inform the public.[17]

Article 31 establishes that the countries which signed the 1951 convention cannot prosecute refugees in search of asylum if they present without delay. But by criminalizing the act of providing legal aid and information to asylum seekers, Hungary is making sure that the asylum seekers don't have the necessary information to present their demand of asylum without delay. Quite the catch-22.

You will love Section 127 of the constitution:

127. In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted."

Ok this got repelled in 1967

Between prayers and apartheid, it was only one word off Mein Kampf.

You will enjoy reading this.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... 001/01RP05

The European Court of Human Rights in the case M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, judged on 21 January 2011 that both the Greek and the Belgian governments violated the European Convention on Human Rights by applying the EU's own law on asylum seekers and were given fines of €6,000 and €30,000, respectively. Recently, voices have been heard calling for the imposition of tougher sanctions, should similar cases of trying to follow EU asylum laws occur in the future.

Yeah. I wouldn’t be too concerned with a ‘work to rule’ mentality. :lol: :lol:

But if you want to be all sticky over the EU ....

The European Court of Justice (ECJ), supreme court for the European Union (EU), has ruled that would-be migrants must seek asylum in the first country they reach.

CNN, one of the many media outlets reporting on the ruling, says this: "The European Union's top court has ruled that refugees must continue to seek asylum in the first European country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances like the migrant crisis of 2015

Which means Hungary only need fear a horde of Ukrainian braid-babies.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑

Brive1987 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:19 am

Here we’ve got dingy street lights, dodgy refurbishments, an opposition spokesman claiming the brainless people’s vote was manipulated and anti Soros being equivalent to a war on disabled kids.

The only sense in the whole show was a govt spokesman explaining the solution to illegal immigration was to stop it at the border and positive intervention at the source of the problem.

Now I’m sure Orbán is the next literal Hitler. I’m sure Hungary, just like any country east of Austria, is unable to hide its corruption as effectively as, say, Merkle (with her packs of nazis hunting migrants through the village streets). I’m positive you’d be happy for Fidesz’s two thirds majority to be democracy overturned.

But you’ll understand if I don’t believe much of anything I hear from liberal mouth pieces.

You left out the issues with an independent press and the threats to journalistic investigations into corruption. Also the part about how power is concentrating within the hands of a few, connected people, while independent sectors of a democratic society are controlled more and more by a specific parties and cronies. Nothing really important in your view, probably, as long as the migrants are kept out.

Sounds like a typical western ‘democracy’. Just more overt. But you’re right. Open the borders. Overturn the election. Make magyar a dirty word amongst a new minority majority. And drive the dirty Catholics into dark recesses.

For a guy who loves to accuse others of straw manning, you're pretty eager to paint your critics in the worst possible light, regardless of what they actually say (or write).

Brive1987 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:15 am

You will love Section 127 of the constitution:

127. In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted."

Ok this got repelled in 1967

Between prayers and apartheid, it was only one word off Mein Kampf.

Always read the small print, I guess.

I'm not the one claiming that Australian Old Times were perfect and we should go back to before the Multicultural Nightmare. :bjarte:

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ You will love Section 127 of the constitution:

127. In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted."

Ok this got repelled in 1967

Between prayers and apartheid, it was only one word off Mein Kampf.

I guess the unpersonning of Aboriginals is the kind of good old days of Australia you would like to go back to. Having a superstitious ritual and compelling politicians to recite magic words isn't primitive and stupid enough for your tastes you need to go all the way?

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ You will love Section 127 of the constitution:

127. In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted."

Ok this got repelled in 1967

Between prayers and apartheid, it was only one word off Mein Kampf.

I guess the unpersonning of Aboriginals is the kind of good old days of Australia you would like to go back to. Having a superstitious ritual and compelling politicians to recite magic words isn't primitive and stupid enough for your tastes you need to go all the way?

Nah. It was an amusing aside for Kirb to ponder as he swung his 1901 copy of the constitution like a liberal cudgel.

The Aboriginals being welcomed into an alien culture and society was a virtue flare which did absolutely nothing for their underlying problems.

Give them their patch of bush and they rightly ignore the rich Kangaroo hunting on offer and retire to the townships.
Give them housing and it’s destroyed.
Give them scholarships and a means to integrate and you are accused of replacing the Dreamtime with white mans culture.
Give them money and it translates to drink and drugs.
Give them vouchers and you destroy their self respect with paternalism.
Remove their children from the cycle of abuse and it’s a stolen generation.
Set up Aboriginal councils etc and they devolve to corruption, communism and never ending financial shakedowns.

But hey. Give them the vote and “bobs your uncle”. 1966. 1967. 2019. Not much has changed except for more hollow liberal gestures - apologies and “invasion day” rallies. Progress indeed.

Funny, I seem to recall Hungary is falling away from democracy and becoming quite corrupt, with power structures realigned to keep the ruling party in perpetual power. I suppose it's a small price to pay, huh?

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ The Aboriginals being welcomed into an alien culture and society was a virtue flare which did absolutely nothing for their underlying problems.

Give them their patch of bush and they rightly ignore the rich Kangaroo hunting on offer and retire to the townships.
Give them housing and it’s destroyed.
Give them scholarships and a means to integrate and you are accused of replacing the Dreamtime with white mans culture.
Give them money and it translates to drink and drugs.
Give them vouchers and you destroy their self respect with paternalism.
Remove their children from the cycle of abuse and it’s a stolen generation.
Set up Aboriginal councils etc and they devolve to corruption, communism and never ending financial shakedowns.

All documented decades ago:

Faith isn't looking too alt-lite here. I'm sure none of this stuff is made up. :lol:

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Faith isn't looking too alt-lite here. I'm sure none of this stuff is made up. :lol:

I remember watching this last year. I don’t normally (ever) watch Alex Jones. Made an obvious exception here. I wasn’t really the target group for this rant.

The UN Pact was a piece of post-national shit that America, Australia and the sensible half of Europe ran from. Once more any iberal criticism was still born. And requiring others to carry the load.

Here I see Faith being hyperbolic in a way which will ensure her talking points align to audience Zeitgeist. I see her use a collective concept of “globalist” to reference groups whose agenda is inimical to nationalist goals. I see Faith cockblock an attempt by Jones to link the Jews to the founding of the UN - instead she jokes about German ambition.

Pray tell. What did you see that placed Goldy outside the right wing of the alt-lite?

Here I see Faith being hyperbolic in a way which will ensure her talking points align to audience Zeitgeist.

She's being hyperbolic when she repeats neo-nazi conspiracy theories but only does it because she wants to agree with her disgusting hate mongering friends. If true, that is disgusting and makes her as bad or worse than the "real" nazis, because she is pandering to them while not believing it.
Meanwhile, her pathetic stupid fans, who unlike you :P , may not have the flour sifting tools to tell when she is being hyperbolic, lying, "nuanced", metaphorical, or just repeating neo-nazi talking points because she doesn't want to offend the creeps she hangs out with come away with some really toxic false propaganda.

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑

Here I see Faith being hyperbolic in a way which will ensure her talking points align to audience Zeitgeist.

She's being hyperbolic when she repeats neo-nazi conspiracy theories but only does it because she wants to agree with her disgusting hate mongering friends. If true, that is disgusting and makes her as bad or worse than the "real" nazis, because she is pandering to them while not believing it.
Meanwhile, her pathetic stupid fans, who unlike you :P , may not have the flour sifting tools to tell when she is being hyperbolic, lying, "nuanced", metaphorical, or just repeating neo-nazi talking points because she doesn't want to offend the creeps she hangs out with come away with some really toxic false propaganda.

Are you going to be specific at any point here?

Are you going to be specific at any point her

To quote an aspiring historian and dodgy sophist: "prove me wrong".
Any quotes there you don't believe are true or do you want to own everything she says and nods along with?

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑

Are you going to be specific at any point her

To quote an aspiring historian and dodgy sophist: "prove me wrong".
Any quotes there you don't believe are true or do you want to own everything she says and nods along with?

Ha. I’ve already invested time trying to pin down an arbitrary charge that Faith crossing an undefined line.

Personally I think she succeed in her mission of communicating the peril of the Migration Charter to a large but weirdo audience. And I don’t think she was on a Riefenstahl Reich Reach-around.

So thanks, but I’m good.

Engaging with the Alex Jones crowd as part of a broader outreach program is nasty work requiring more pinhead dancing than I’d be prepared to do. Even Christ had to sup with the sinners.

Mark 2:17

I do think the UN-Globalist-Jewish-German pivot was a 9.6.

Does that help you?

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ Also, I'd really like to know where you stand on Trump's anti-vax and climate demialism.

So I played your game. Now maybe you could give us your take on Beto‘s open border policy. He is now on record as wanting to pull down walls because they force asylum seekers away checkpoints and into the desert. And apparently its a right for anyone to cross the border to be with family or to work.

You good with that?

Which of the current (d) declared candidates has your preferred border policy and why?

If you support borders, do you in principle support measures that encourage or require would be asylum seekers to arrive via a designated port of entry? Or is fleeing into the wild until caught acceptable?

Are you good with the democratic 1600 page bill that makes it not OK to seperate anyone within an indeterminate distance of a random child?

To recap, congressional Democrats put language into an appropriations bill that both makes it more difficult for ICE to do its job of apprehending aliens illegally present in the United States (for which, by the way, the appropriators did not include additional funding) while at the same time providing greater incentives for parents and legal guardians to pay to place children in the hands of some of the most vile criminals on the face of the earth.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ Also, I'd really like to know where you stand on Trump's anti-vax and climate demialism.

So I played your game. Now maybe you could give us your take on Beto‘s open border policy. He is now on record as wanting to pull down walls because they force asylum seekers away checkpoints and into the desert. And apparently its a right for anyone to cross the border to be with family or to work.

You good with that?

Which of the current (d) declared candidates has your preferred border policy and why?

If you support borders, do you in principle support measures that encourage or require would be asylum seekers to arrive via a designated port of entry? Or is fleeing into the wild until caught acceptable?

Are you good with the democratic 1600 page bill that makes it not OK to seperate anyone within an indeterminate distance of a random child?

To recap, congressional Democrats put language into an appropriations bill that both makes it more difficult for ICE to do its job of apprehending aliens illegally present in the United States (for which, by the way, the appropriators did not include additional funding) while at the same time providing greater incentives for parents and legal guardians to pay to place children in the hands of some of the most vile criminals on the face of the earth.

Not a fan of Beto, nor open borders in general, although I'm very much for immigration reform. I do believe separating parents and children is pretty appalling, no matter who does it. Yes, it's not always "their" children, but until this is well-established, error on the side of humanity. This isn't hard. The asylum system is under-funded, and has a waiting list of two years or more. They are often sent back into the very places they're fleeing. People can't always get to a port of entry. The whole thing needs a review and revamp. Security needs to be balanced with humanity.

While I respect and have long-time friends that are border agents, ICE has abused its authority and hassled a lot of legitimate citizens. If they don't respect the CONTUS, they get their leash yanked. Law enforcement needs to be held to the highest standards. When they fail that, they need to be held accountable.

I know actual asylum seekers. I've mentored immigrants and asylum seekers in getting their citizenship, part of a program long ago to burnish my then-employers image. It's not what Fox News or right-wing Twitter says it is. These are real people, often good people coming from horrific circumstances. My nation may not always live up to its ideals, but I'm in favor of us trying to do so. Yeah, there's bad actors, and we need to do a better job vetting them. But pretending it is what Trump says it is is rich, especially as he has no problem hiring illegals himself, or greasing the wheels to get foriegn wives and their parents in the country.

As to the candidates, I'm not at all certain that anybody other than Beto (and to be honest, I haven't heard his yet. He isn't in serious contention) articulate their border policy. Post a link here and I will let you know,

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ Engaging with the Alex Jones crowd as part of a broader outreach program is nasty work requiring more pinhead dancing than I’d be prepared to do. Even Christ had to sup with the sinners.

Mark 2:17

I do think the UN-Globalist-Jewish-German pivot was a 9.6.

Does that help you?

Mark 2:17 New King James Version (NKJV)
17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, [a]to repentance.”

I didn't hear Faith calling for any racist/xenophobe/conspiracy kooks to repent of their hateful horrible rhetoric. In fact, she enthusiastically agreed and cheered them on. Kind of like an evil, female anti-Christ . Or a Jezebel demon with mutilated gross collagen injected lips.
Is there any hateful bigoted behavior that Faith would do that you wouldn't stumble around and make a half assed excuse for?

I wouldn’t make a “half assed excuse” for anything. You on the other hand still haven’t pointed out where she hurt you.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I wouldn’t make a “half assed excuse” for anything. You on the other hand still haven’t pointed out where she hurt you.

:lol: Well that sorry little thing about her hanging out with neo-nazis and bigoted conspiracy freaks as Jesus-like doesn't even qualify as a quarter assed excuse.
When did I ever say Mudskipper Lips ever hurt me? I just happen to dislike toxic grifters.

She motivated you to pull down a vid from last year so you could accuse her of being a neo-nazi.

Re Jesus. Sometimes I like to test how bereft of humour this board has become. :lol: