The real definition of White Privilege.
White Privilege – a social construct by the left; a myth to cause a division within the community especially between an already divided white and black communities.
The real definition of White Privilege.
White Privilege – a social construct by the left; a myth to cause a division within the community especially between an already divided white and black communities.
The folly of identity politics has now turned on people’s race. We have cultural marxists who want to think gender is fluid. Now apparently ‘race’ is fluid.
A white glamour model, Martina Big, has transformed herself into a black woman so much so she intends on visiting Africa to learn more about African culture.
It is no wonder why we have confused people like her when we see cultural marxist throw down our throats that ‘gender’ is fluid. Any decent human being knows that gender is not fluid on the basis of simple science. This is science is known as Biology.
If cultural marxists ignore simple science and claim gender is fluid, then why can’t race be fluid? After all the idea of multiculturalism is to allow all cultures to mix. Globalists and left wingers are all pushing for borderless states therefore why bat an eye lid when Martina Big transforms herself in a big black woman?
The world is becoming a crazy place which one would ask the question why is the establishment ignoring the risks of identity politics? I have written before that we are seeing the beginning of the end of Western Civilisation and sadly can someone stop the planet – because I want to get off!!
I don’t give a monkey’s continental if gay marriage is legalised. The constant screeching by the media about this issue is as sickening as Adolf Hitlers lonely testicle. The noise made from the ‘yes’ campaigners about the plebiscite is hypocritical at it’s finest, I have always believed in direct democracy and by having a plebiscite it neutralises the debate. You cannot deny that same sex marriage is controversial. It is controversial because you have had centuries of tradition whereby marriage is between a man and a woman. Historically marriage was a religious institution until the state took it over and legislated for it. Maybe that is the problem, the State should never have got involved. Anyway to suggest that individuals who do not believe in same sex marriage are bigots is nothing more than bullying. On the other hand I understand where same sex couples are coming from. They feel that given man and woman can marry, why can’t they share the life sentence of pain and misery too?
Many opinion polls around the country are showing that majority of Australians want same sex marriage. Many opinions polls are also saying that they want a vote on the matter rather than politicians making it for them. By having a plebiscite vote on this issue – whatever the results – the other side must acknowledge this and move on. For instance, if the vote is a YES then those who oppose same sex marriage must accept that the majority want this and it is time to move on. I suspect they will. On the other hand if the majority of people say NO then the marriage equality types also need to move on and accept the result. I suspect they won’t.
Given the vote we are about to receive is a postal vote, I suspect that there will be many anomalies. I do agree that it is a waste of money and that we should be having a proper plebiscite done under the same principles when we vote at a general election. The two parties that are to blame for this waste of taxpayers money are the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens. We know these two parties like to waste money and this is more proof of this. Given the majority of people want a say and want same sex marriage why do these parties want to deny the public a say? I would have thought given the high emotion of such issue it would be beneficial for the people to choose.
Whatever your view is, and however you vote, same sex marriage in Australia is inevitable. Conservatives however need to ensure that religions and individuals are protected under law if they refuse to marry same sex couples. You wouldn’t expect a Jewish Baker to bake a cake for a Nazi therefore you shouldn’t expect a Priest or an Imam to marry a gay couple.
Remember to get yourself registered and vote. Isn’t democracy great?
As a supporter for direct democracy and a former member of the Liberal Party, I welcome the grassroots support of the Warringah motion to allow all party members a say in the preselection process. It is humbling to see Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian also getting behind the Warringah motion given their previous allegiances to the so called moderates. One must understand, however, that this victory is just a smoke screen to the bigger woes of the Liberal Party.
The Futures Convention which was held at Rosehill on 22nd and 23rd July 2017 allowed grassroots members a vote on a motion which will democratise the Party. The problem with this convention is that any motion passed is not binding, meaning that the Party’s governing body – State Council and the State Executive – can reject this move. According to news reports 748 people voted yes for the Warringah motion compared to 476 who voted no. That is approximately 61% of people who want party reform the other 39% either don’t want it or want a watered down version. It is still staggering that 39% of people within the Liberal Party do not believe in democratic reform, this figure is alarming and the right who wanted democratic reform should not be cheering just yet.
It is to my understanding that factions that are not controlled by the right, control the State Council and have a majority on the State Executive. If you have control of a governing political party you would do everything you can to hold onto that power. This is why I fail to see any resolve in this issue. When it comes to the crunch in a couple of months time at a State Council meeting you can better your bottom dollar that the Warringah motion will either be rejected or amended to suit the powers to be. If this happens, some on the right are championing the thought of the Federal Executive to intervene. If the Federal Executive of the Liberal Party decides to intervene then this whole process will be drawn out. If anyone knows anything about the internal workings of the Liberal Party or any political party for that matter things don’t happen overnight.
Meanwhile in the real world, hard working Australians are being taxed through their nose and cost of living is rising; taxpayers money is being wasted on useless government programs; we see the rise and rise of green and red tape on businesses in Australia; we see a rising threat of radical islam and immigration spiralling out of control, all this under an alleged conservative Liberal Government. As mentioned previously the issue of democratising the Liberal Party is good but the problem within the Liberal Party goes beyond Party reform. It goes right down into the depths of what does the Liberal Party really stand for? Whilst the Liberals are playing politics we have a group of Conservatives that have joined together to work on the issues that hold dear to most Australians. The Australian Conservatives.
I would urge all those within the NSW Liberal Party who want democratic reform to make a wise decision to join the Australian Conservatives. The NSW Liberal Party will never embrace party reform and if they do then you still have to deal with lefties from other states. Stop wasting your time and join a new political revolution. There is a better way.
There is a lot of talk at the moment about the thought of banning Islam in Australia. Queensland Senator, and Leader of One Nation, Pauline Hanson has introduced this as part of her policy. Senator Hanson has recognised that before banning Islam, constitutional constraints hold this policy back.
Section 116 of the Australian Constitution states:
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonweath
One Nation has called for a Royal Commission into Islam to see whether or not it is a religion or a political ideology. By determining whether it is a political ideology or a religion, Senator Hanson believes this will solve the constitutional constraint to ban Islam.
The concern I have with such Royal Commission is that any religion that has a vast history such as Islam will always be determined as a religion not a political ideology. All religions have a certain degree of political ideology and that is due to it’s past existance. For example you only have to look at the Roman Empire to see that it had a catholic ideology behind it’s governance. Therefore having a Royal Commision into Islam would be a waste of time, effort and taxpayers money.
One Nation could adopt a policy whereby that they will push to have a referendum to ammend section 116 of the Australian Constitution. This referendum would also cost taxpayers a lot of money and with a Double Majority rule for constitutional change, could mean that such move could be lost. Not many referendums are successful. On the otherhand One Nation will be giving the people a say on the matter.
The other areas where One Nation could focus their attention is to adopt a discriminatory immigration policy. One Nation has already upset the apple cart by saying that they want to ban Islam – as I pointed out this is hard to do – so by having a discriminatory immigration policy whereby there is a halt of immigration on those from Islamic Arab Nations, will slow down the rise of Islam in Australia and will not hinder One Nation’s political capital.
Many on the left, centre and even the right will say that we can’t have a discriminatory immigration program as it will take us back to the White Australia Policy – the fact is Australia already has a discriminatory immigration policy, we discriminate on the basis of health and occupation therefore this argument is flawed. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation as I see it right now is the only hope for Australia to follow in Trumps lead, they just need to clean up their policies first.
When was the last time you caught a taxi? What was the experience like? If you were like myself, you probably thought a flea infested camel was more adequate than jumping into an old filthy worn out ford falcon with almost unreadable words ‘Combine Taxi’ written on the doors. Often the stench of Taxi’s is enough to make you puke into your own mouth and then you are forced to swallow it thinking that torture is probably more humane than travelling in this heap of junk. To add insult to injury, the driver doesn’t speak a word of english and gets lost trying to find your destination. It is no surprise that the folk from Uber are making a killing, in today’s free market world, consumer’s are opting for a cleaner and easier mode of transport and Uber are our saviors, saving us from our own bile.
Recently the leader of One Nation, QLD Senator Pauline Hanson was visting Marcoola on the Sunshine Coast, she announced a scathing attack on Uber stating that they are destroying the Taxi Industry. Senator Hanson has called for either the State Government to cut costs to Taxi Drivers or increase the cost to Uber Driver’s to ensure that there is a level playing field.
On face value I agree, there needs to be a level playing field. Why should Uber Drivers who are subsequently ‘taxi drivers’ be able to drive customers to their destination without the additional costs yet actual Taxi Driver who do the same job, have to pay through their nose be able to operate?
Senator Hanson has made an error though in her statements. The mere fact she has proposed to increase costs to Uber is typical socialist mantra. One Nation wants to be an alternative to the major political parties therefore they need to come up with an alternative policy. Firstly, One Nation should be addressing why people are turning to Uber, rather than punishing Uber and Uber customers. It doesn’t take a QLD Senator to work out why Uber is thriving.
Just in case people are not sure here are some points. (Disclaimer: Generalising here, of course not all taxi’s and taxi drivers fit this generalisation)
A lot of these issues can be easily address without increasing costs to the taxi industry, except the last point, which I will discuss later.
If the taxi industry cleans up their act then they are on the road to a level playing field, almost!.
To finalise the journey to a level playing field, One Nation should be pushing to decrease the costs and regulations on the Taxi industry on the proviso that they clean up their act first. As mentioned, many people are moving away from Taxi’s because they are expensive. Often they are expensive because of the large amount of money they have to pay State Governments in costs and regulations. This however should not come free. The Taxi Industry often whinges about Uber, but Government needs to put pressure on them to clean their act up. This is an opportunity for One Nation to develop sound policies that once the Taxi Industry cleans up their act they will move legislation to cut regulation and bring down costs to the industry.
In essence, Senator Hanson has touched on an issue which needs to be discussed. The fact that there are hard working people who are suffering under a socialist mantra of regulations and increased costs goes to show Hanson is the only one that is addressing such issue. Hopefully the Qld Division of One Nation will develop a common sense approach to this, this is one topic I will be watching closely.
Australia is such a wonderful place, amongst its pristine beaches and warm weather it espouses a Greek concept called Democracy. A system whereby we are all equal, no one is above the law and that we all must have equal access to the legislative process. Every three years Australians go to the polls to vote in a federal government. This notion is envied in many countries which don’t hold democracy as part of their values.
Sadly, there are some people who want to take advantage of the principles of democracy. On Wednesday 30th November 2016 protestors stormed Parliament House, glued their hands to railings and disrupted a democratic process called Question Time.
The Greens praised these ill-informed nitwits, congratulating them and saying that they are proud of their actions. Those with any form of decency have condemned the actions of these Marxists, but I note many on the left have stated that this is their democratic right to protest. As mentioned, Australia does have a proud history of the concept of Democracy, however there is a huge difference between protesting peacefully outside, and protesting in a house whereby it has rules and regulations to uphold the very same principle we espouse; DEMOCRACY.
What we have seen today is a Green View of Democracy. A viewpoint whereby we must shut down debate that is in opposition to the left-wing agenda. Those nitwit Marxists who protested today were not exercising their democratic right to protest, what they were doing was shutting down freedom of speech.
The right are not innocent either, I was the first to complain when the right stormed Gosford Anglican Church dressed as Islamists and disrupted the service provided by Father Rod, the difference between that incident and the one today at Parliament House, was that all those on the right, including Pauline Hanson, condemned the actions of those involved.
Richard Di Natale, as the Greens Party leader you must show leadership and condemn these actions and inform these protestors to go elsewhere to protest rather than holding our democratic process to ransom. Adam Bandt needs to apologies for his ungodly tweet praising the protestors and the rest of the Greens need to be educated on the concept of DEMOCRACY.
Having a leg on the Trump Train was everything but in vain.
American politics is something that I never really was interested in. Their system compared to the Westminster system is confusing and this is merely due to my ignorance. As a right wing advocate I have always leaned towards the Republican Party rather than the Democrats. I believe in low taxes, less spending and more protection of borders. In saying that I do believe in government assistance to the most vulnerable in our society. What we have seen in America and around the world, are leaders who have dismissed these beliefs and have only pushed agenda’s according to whoever has donated the most to their election campaign. The 2016 Presidential Election campaign offered a real alternative to the status quo of politics, Hillary Clinton was seen to represent the establishment whilst Donald Trump in the eyes of many political commentators represented the ‘forgotten people’. Never in my time have we seen two presidential candidates that had complete opposition views on issues, mind you I am only young.
Hillary Clinton is a polished politician with many decades of political ‘wisdom’ and ‘astuteness’, her husband is a former President and Hillary Clinton herself was a lawyer. This provided the Clinton Campaign both pro’s and negatives. Pro in that she has had experience in government and as a ‘leader’ but negative in that the electorate saw her as a typical politician.
Donald Trump isn’t a politician, he is a businessman, a multimillionaire and a reality tv star.
On face value Donald Trump appeared to be a ‘Clive Palmer’ of US politics and at times I agreed with this notion. Under the bedrock of this idea the electorate felt that they needed change, and like many countries around the world this change is growing; you can only look at the rise of UKIP, Gert Wilders Party and in Australia, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.
I had a leg on the Trump train because of three reasons.
Firstly, as mentioned earlier, I believe in three principles;
1. Low Taxes
2. Low Spending (whilst protecting the most vulnerable)
3. Strong Border Protection
Unfortunately Hillary Clinton and the Democrats have never held these beliefs. The Democrats like the Australian Labor Party believe in higher taxes to be able to afford more social programs rather than empowering people to find work and earn a living. As Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott once said “..the best form of welfare is a job.” This is something the left no matter where you are in the world does not believe in.
In regards to Border Protection, this clearly has been an issue in America, like it is currently in most Western Countries, the only candidate that addressed this issue regardless of how extreme it is which in my opinion isn’t that extreme, was Trump.
Automatically I was compelled towards the trump factor.
Second reason why I had a leg on the Trump train is because around the world the media have been taken over by left-wing liberal socialists who kept down-playing the rise of support for Trump. We saw this during the Brexit campaign. As a result of this bias I felt that supporting trump would be putting the middle finger up to the chardonnay latte sipping socialists.
Thirdly, the Western World needs change, and given that United States of America are the leaders of the Western World it is important that this change starts with them. The fact that Trump now is President it makes it easier for people to vote for an alternative political party or candidate. It sends a message to the electorate, regardless of country, that it is okay to vote for UKIP, it is okay to vote for One Nation, it is okay to vote for Gert Wilde. This is a game changer.
These reasons why I had a leg on the Trump train clearly has resonated across America. I was over in New York during the election. All media outlets, including the ultra right-wing Fox News even thought Trump wasn’t going to win prior to the closing of the Polls. What we have seen is a revolution. The electorate wants action, they want change, they want to be listened to. This is a wake up call to both the media and our political elites that the system they have put in, under the right circumstances, can actually backfire on them. People Power.
GetUp! claim to be impartial when it comes to politics. According to their website it states
“Our work is driven by our values, not party politics. GetUp is, and always has been, an independent organisation.”
Then why is it that they are campaigning against right wing politicians and have come out to support Nick Xenophon and Glenn Lazarus? They have released how to vote cards for the Senate and key lower house seats. They have also asked for volunteers to help them on election day.
GetUp! is a left wing activists arm of Labor, Greens and other leftwing lunatic fringe groups, it’s about time there is a real alternative activist group that caters for centre right politics. When will GetUp! admit that they are not an independent organisation but merely lap dogs for the leftist elite?
Australia can benefit greatly from UK’s decision to exit the European Union but it would need balls from both leaders of retrospective countries. Once the United Kingdom finally takes the shackles off, placed by members of the EU, it will have an opportunity to strengthen the Commonwealth and be a leader on the world stage.
Fifty three (53) countries are members of the Commonwealth from Africa, Asia, Caribbean & Americas, Europe and the Pacific region. Leaders of these countries now have an opportunity to work with the United Kingdom to bring about better free trade deals as well as the possibility of free movement of peoples.
Tory leader contender, Boris Johnson, once flagged an opportunity for countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand to have a visa free migrant bloc. This would be great news for young Australians who want to work and live in the UK and vice verser.
The recent referendum for #brexit is fantastic news and whilst I have always conceded that there will be short term pain, there will be long term gains such as strengthening the Commonwealth. Having a strong Commonwealth means that republicans such as Malcolm Turnbull will need to argue more strongly for a case to become a republic. Well done Britain!