Yindindji, Australias newest state.

Remove this Banner Ad

cartoon from 1805, So true and evidence they knew exactly what they were doing


pudding.jpg
 

Log in to remove this ad.

One of the most honest white versions of Australia day and social movements.

 
One of the most honest white versions of Australia day and social movements.

Where honest = agrees with you?

I'm not going to bother watching, but if anyone does, does it talk about the aliens little graham says helped the aborigines colonise Aus?
 
5fef7a208d9dbb52dece3bb52a9e977c.jpg


Every single statutory law in this country is immoral and unjust to a black felluh, every single one. Our whole justice system, our whole political system is built on lies to hide genocide. Common law is different, hence why they show respect to people running the illegal unjust systems.

So many bigots in here. So many bigots who are adults and access to the net, should know better.

One day we'll talk about the villages the red coats burnt down, then lied they ever existed

So rape is a racism law against the first tribes? Murder is a bigoted rule?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

5fef7a208d9dbb52dece3bb52a9e977c.jpg


Every single statutory law in this country is immoral and unjust to a black felluh, every single one. Our whole justice system, our whole political system is built on lies to hide genocide. Common law is different, hence why they show respect to people running the illegal unjust systems.

So many bigots in here. So many bigots who are adults and access to the net, should know better.

One day we'll talk about the villages the red coats burnt down, then lied they ever existed

Why does being first to a spot of land mean automatic ownership? Natural law says ownership goes to those most powerful enough to take and control it. It was essentially a war between first Australians and second Australians and second won. What's so immoral about that?
 
Why does being first to a spot of land mean automatic ownership? Natural law says ownership goes to those most powerful enough to take and control it. It was essentially a war between first Australians and second Australians and second won. What's so immoral about that?

If one was to come your house. Take your things.Kill you family. Would tthat be OK? Is that not identical on a smaller scale? What is so immoral? Natural law

Not trying to be smart. I can't see the difference
 
Last edited:
theoretically whats to stop the Australian government claiming ownership by conquest tomorrow? I know it'd never happen but would it be legal if it did?
 
theoretically whats to stop the Australian government claiming ownership by conquest tomorrow? I know it'd never happen but would it be legal if it did?

Ownership by conquest, pretty much by definition is saying 'we don't really care about legal, it's ours'. I'm sure there are fancy legal terms to avoid saying so that bluntly, but let's face it, we're doing that whatever way it gets phrased.
 
If one was to come your house. Take your things.Kill you family. Would tthat be OK? Is that not identical on a smaller scale? What is so immoral? Natural law

Not trying to be smart. I can't see the difference

My personal reaction would be to fight, as some indigenous clans did. But that doesn't mean ownership under the laws of nature wouldn't transfer to the murderers if they took possession. It's a hard one to remove yourself personally from but my underlying purpose here is to challenge the "we were here first" way of thinking by saying it doesn't mean first inhabitants get to have the land for eternity.
 
If one was to come your house. Take your things.Kill you family. Would tthat be OK? Is that not identical on a smaller scale? What is so immoral? Natural law

Not trying to be smart. I can't see the difference

Look at it the other way.

Let's just gather all the aboriginals together and massacre them. After all, we're going to be accused of that anyway due to the actions of the ancestors of a small proportion of the population (and forced to bear the guilt/pay the price) regardless, so why not do what we're accused of and once we're done, there will be no more issues.



I'm not actually suggesting this in any way, just showing that pushing arguments to the extreme is stupid.
 
If one was to come your house. Take your things.Kill you family. Would tthat be OK? Is that not identical on a smaller scale? What is so immoral? Natural law

Not trying to be smart. I can't see the difference

Pretty much how the Aborigines used to operate.
 
theoretically whats to stop the Australian government claiming ownership by conquest tomorrow? I know it'd never happen but would it be legal if it did?

Send in the tanks and start a siege, offer a treaty on the terms of unconditional surrender, get treaty signed after waiting period until thirst and hunger kicks in.
 
My personal reaction would be to fight, as some indigenous clans did. But that doesn't mean ownership under the laws of nature wouldn't transfer to the murderers if they took possession. It's a hard one to remove yourself personally from but my underlying purpose here is to challenge the "we were here first" way of thinking by saying it doesn't mean first inhabitants get to have the land for eternity.

Palestinians found that out
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top