Show Some Support For This Australian Senator

i want to vote in austrailian elections. :(

This is the man I want as president.

Son of a bitch can we borrow this man

I highly doubt that the victims of this massacre were inflicting violence on this scale

"Muslims are this or that", no SOME Muslims are doing this or that act of violence. Shall we punish all catholics for pedophilia?

"And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance, does not make them blameless", wtf is this shit man? PRECISELY because they were not the killers, it makes them blameless. Are 4-yo children to be held accountable then? Sick fuckers.

So out of touch with reality its sickening. Some people just need a course on logic, total idiots.

youtube.com/watch?v=3uu_5e7sWKc

I knew I shouldn't have expected much from Youtube comments but still kinda disappointed.

>Age-restricted video (based on Community Guidelines)
Also, why?

Hes the man

Well I mean the mosque was discovered to have radicalized people in the past, so....

>age-restricted video..why?
joo-tube lefty fags

Lords bless this man. He is the Most Based and Most Redpilled man on the face of this plane.

>non-flag didn't even read the damn statement the thread is about
Dialate and kys.

Okay, Moor.

>thinks islam is OK
kys cunt

People do get blamed for just being in the wrong place, at the wrong time. It's not out of touch with reality. It has always happened in human history. Also, it's impossible to compare Muslim to any other religions with the scale of its aggression and hostility.

I do not agree with shooting and killing people and children just like that. But the Muslims presence in the country will definitely provoke some reactions, this time a violent one, especially in this time of uncertainty. If you are white, you don't walk into a black neighborhood in the height of racial tensions and expect nothing bad will happen to you. Maybe it's best if Muslims stay in traditionally Islamic countries. If they spread themselves too far and too fast, don't be surprised that it will be seen as an invasion, especially when Islam isn't exactly friendly and tolerant in the first place.

>changing entire laws so you can expel the one guy who disagrees with you
How Jewish can you get? Why don't we just have a single person working in any given government, then they can just make every decision without any pesky debating

Attached: heilsenator.png (704x472, 597K)

Why the fuck do you leave an Islamic country if you're just going to bring Islam with you? They can come, but it should only be when they've renounced Islam and just really want a cheeseburger and their wife in a bikini

2019-03-19

Battle for Australia

Fraser Anning

youtu.be/hl0SarPzsDU

He’s gonna get suicided in the back of the head. Godspeed.

Yes I read something about it, not entirely sure if there's any truth to it. Regardless, as with almost any person, they can be de-radicalized and educated to be good citizens, productive and helpful to society, something that most leftists don't understand (their policies encourage ghettos and a non proper integration). Obviously we can not afford to have radicalization devices, from either side. It's Popper's paradox of tolerance.
The gunman was one example of someone who cannot be de-radicalized (imho). What he's done is unforgiving, crude and incredibly coward.

I did and you're not adding anything to the discussion, grow up.

How can something be called a democracy if representatives can just be removed by the government for having different political beliefs.

Fuck. He has my vote.

>Why don't we just have a single person working in any given government, then they can just make every decision without any pesky debating
But that's exactly what Di Natale wants.

Attached: balls of steele.jpg (700x467, 36K)

I like this senator, we need more politicians like him.

Yes true, you do have to have some common sense and be street-wise.

Totally agree with the last paragraph too.

I would say it's best so, for now, for them to stay within their communities yes. But can't we agree that given the right tools/policies of education, we could all live under one roof, as civilized humans? The arabs, chinese, european, african, latin americans, all have contributed to humanity, whether it be with algebra or culture or science, literature or music, whatever.
Don't you think we could be advancing towards a brighter future?

OBVIOUS NOTE: The integration progress should be from both ends.

PS: About Islam/ Muslims; You can see, due to capitalism/internet access/globalism, Saudi Arabia is already making some progress in terms of liberalization of moral values (women can drive now). I believe that with the growing access to info online, we will progress towards more tolerant and reasonable beliefs.

Better job opportunities. I get what you mean. But if their costumes don't clash with our culture, I don't think it should be a problem ya know? I know lots of girls who are still very shy and don't like to wear bikinis, not a problem right?
They have to respect the law and some of the culture (no wife beating, being ok with others eating meat, wearing bikinis etc)

>#notallmuslims
please fuck off to normiebook

They want to punish all responsible gun owners for the actions of a few. What's the difference? The biggest difference I see is that all those sand niggers stick together and though they may say they are against terrorism and violence, they still celebrate it at mosque. Responsible and law abiding gun owners are different in that we don't want senseless violence. We see something like this and while we may agree with the political motivation, we don't feel we should have our rights stripped away because of the actions of a few.

BTW, can we meme Anning into becoming PM like with Trump?

>"Muslims are this or that", no SOME Muslims are doing this or that act of violence.
No, it is ALL muslims, those that don't aren't real muslims since they don't follow the Quran.
>Shall we punish all catholics for pedophilia?
No, because the pedophile priests have nothing to do with the Catholic Church since they aren't following the Bible. Islamic terrorists are.
That's the big difference and the reason you can't equate the two.
>PRECISELY because they were not the killers, it makes them blameless
If you are pushing/practising a religion that is inherently violent and barbaric, are you really blameless?
If I was pushing NAMBLA and protesting for them and trying to get them accepted without actually partaking in man-boy love, does that excuse my behavior?
>Are 4-yo children to be held accountable then?
That's a harder question to answer.
Do you think a boy whose father was killed by the west for being an islamic terrorist grows up and just "accepts" what happened to his father? Or his mother?
No. He'll grow up to resent the west.
Still, I do believe a child is inherently innocent. Again, it is a hard question.
>So out of touch with reality its sickening. Some people just need a course on logic, total idiots
Ironic.

Attached: 1527246044414.jpg (762x738, 93K)

Gun ownership is another complex issue. I particuraly like Bret Weinstein's take, from one of his tweets:

"I don’t have a coherent position on gun control. That’s a bit odd. I can’t weigh the abstraction of self-defense against a future tyrannical state vs the immediacy of school shootings. I have different feelings about rural and urban environments. I fear guns, but enjoy them. Etc."

I understand your point, the many should not pay for the few that's correct. But then so shouldn't most Catholics, gun owners, Muslims, Germans, etc.. pay for the actions of the few (i.e. the massacre was unjustified)

ALMOST all humans can be civilized.

"they still celebrate it at mosque" - I don't know about this, I think you're generalizing unfairly.

"all those sand niggers stick together" - Well obvs, most catholichs hang out with other catholics lol.
Friendship is amazing in what comes to breaking cultural barriers. I hope you get to experience that for yourself if you havent one day

Websites blocked include

7+1chan
Jow Forums
Liveleak
Kiwi Farms
Zero Hedge
Dissenter
Bitchute
Mega | New Zealand File Sharing site
Lulz.com | This site was blocked because it criticised the NZ Government
Voat

citizensagainstidiocracy.com/93/internet-censorship-in-australia-and-new-zealand-who-decides

Australia's political system makes it difficult for a maverick politician to ascend to the highest position. He'd have to either lead a party with majority control, or lead a large minority party which successfully splits the major parties (so that Parliament was essentially stuck in a three-way tie, like in 1904 and 1906) and then make his support for the major party contingent on him being appointed Prime Minister. Also he'd have to be reelected as a Minister (although there's nothing legally or constitutionally preventing a Senator from becoming PM, it traditionally doesn't happen - only once since Federation (John Gorton) and they pulled some strings to make him a Minister within a few months.)

So the short answer is no. Not in our weird version of Westminster.

I'm genuinely surprised that he hasn't thrown in with Bernardi yet.

I believe that it's best we don't live under one roof. Humanity with all its races should be like a neighborhood. We can have a public park, a community center where everyone can gather and have fun. But at the end of the day, we return to each of our own places. I think that each of the groups would much rather have its own "personal space" where it can retreat to and do its own things according to its own rule.

Although I can see how that would lead to some races just rather stay in their own home and never get out. Some of them may even build their own basement and do unspeakable things in there. But then, having these people out and shoving them in other people's houses is not exactly working out now.

The only way for races to truly be living closely together is for there to be real "equality". They don't have to be the same, but they all need to prove themselves to be "good" and "worthy". Whether such a thing is even possible, I don't know.

Based Hungary is eternally based!

>No, it is ALL muslims, those that don't aren't real muslims since they don't follow the Quran.
>No, because the pedophile priests have nothing to do with the Catholic Church since they aren't following the Bible. Islamic terrorists are.
That's the big difference and the reason you can't equate the two.

Ok, so I agree with you in that they are not true muslims/catholics. I wasn't referring to the "puritans" but more to those who identify with this or that religion (most catholics I know that profess their faith barely qualify since they do not follow any of the bible). The so called moderate muslims is such a "fallacy" lets say, it just means they follow some of the costumes and believe in Allah, but don't strictly follow the quran. Lets perhaps make the distinction between strict followers and non strict followers.

It still doesn't validate the terrorist attack.

>If you are pushing/practising a religion that is inherently violent and barbaric, are you really blameless?

This comes about freedom of speech. It's a very hard question.
Popper's paradox of tolerance is quite neat. But then, what is "hate speech", and how do we use it not to do what youtube is doing? As Bret Weinstein puts it (coincidence that im using the brothers tweets haha):

"Free speech is counterintuitive. Why not ban clearly vile speech?

Because if we decide to draw that line, it will be gerrymandered against those voicing difficult truths.

So one can always score points by asking free speech defenders about X or Y despicable statement.
No thanks"

>That's a harder question to answer.

Many victims of traumatic violence don't take the same path. We agree that the child is innocent. We cannot agree on her future, since it's not determined yet. We could only offer support and education in this particular case.

>Ironic.
haha

It's actually not complicated.

Are there people out there who would want to kill you for your possessions or because of their beliefs? The answer to this is factually "yes." There is no debate - people kill each other all the time. This happens in extremely large scales when governments decide to kill.

Do you, as a human being, have the capability to defend yourself when faced with danger using whatever means available? The answer to this is also factually "yes." The laws of man do not override the laws of nature, and the laws of nature clearly show that every creature has a fight or flight response. History is ripe with examples of invasions repelled, resources taken, etc. using weapons.

What happens LITERALLY EVERY TIME that the tools necessary for defense are banned from civilian ownership? Mass killings / genocide of / replacement of that civilization. Also factual, not up for debate.

Whenever any government pushes for disarmament, the only response should be "you first." The right to keep and bear weaponry is universal and necessary to the continuity of a people.

He was right up until he turned it into an anti Muslim rant.

It's an interesting point of view. I don't know. I have met people from many different cultures, and lived with some. I think we should just leave it to the free market and people's freedom to choose. If I want to live with people from my cultural background I will. If I want to live with people from different cultures, I will.

Personally I don't think the state should have any intervention on it. In fact, it's damaging to the city to have those sort of separations like "black people in this block, indians in that block,..." etc.

I think harmonization is possible. We just need to break free from these concepts of race ((not identity)) and accept one another (from all sides), without discarting science.
See humanity as one of different colors.

>If I want to live with people from my cultural background I will. If I want to live with people from different cultures, I will.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it requires others to respect your wishes. They don't. They'll simply invade your neighborhood for no reason other than you didn't want them to.

Moderate Muslims.... youtu.be/g7TAAw3oQvg

I think you are oversimplifying a complex issue.

>Are there people out there who would want to kill you for your possessions or because of their beliefs? The answer to this is factually "yes." There is no debate - people kill each other all the time. This happens in extremely large scales when governments decide to kill.

Yes but should we facilitate the process? What kind of law should we have? "But if you're a criminal you'll get the weapons anyway", well laws are meant to be broken, otherwise they're useless.

>Do you, as a human being, have the capability to defend yourself when faced with danger using whatever means available?....

Appeal to nature is a fallacy. Some creatures eat their babies. Some humans sacrificed them. This paragraph shows nothing.
Although one of the questions would be, if anyone in that mosque had a gun (assuming it would be permitted), would the outcome be different? I know that if I certainly was in such a situation I would want to have something to defend myself with. But again, should we facilitate the gunman with the purchase?

>What happens LITERALLY EVERY TIME that the tools necessary for defense are banned from civilian ownership? Mass killings / genocide of / replacement of that civilization. Also factual, not up for debate.

Evidence please.

>Whenever any government pushes for disarmament, the only response should be "you first." The right to keep and bear weaponry is universal and necessary to the continuity of a people.

Its the wild west baby. If most people would carry a gun, I actually think murder rates would go up (imo, I have no data). A bar brawl, a street fight would be potentially more dangerous, more fatal. It's easier to shoot someone fatally even without training then with your bare hands.

I guess the reasonable way to do this is to have "free" zone where you could live with people from other racial/cultural background but also respect gated communities that want to tightly control immigration. In fact, I think this is what we already had before globalism pushing for open gate everywhere. I simply don't think human are ready or even that willing to mix anyways. Otherwise, China Town, Little Japan, Korean Town, etc wouldn't even exist.

Again, you're generalizing. If they "invade" it's because the free market is not being respected (usually because of leftist policies).

Others will respect not my wishes but the law of the country. That's it. If they are eligible to live in my neighborhood, then go for it. I can bbq pork and they can do whatever they want (again inside the law).

It works cos I've seen it in practice. Usually sports are a great way of integrating and interacting with the community. As long as everyone respects each other and the law.

Invasion is the buzz word of the moment

>Yes but should we facilitate the process? What kind of law should we have? "But if you're a criminal you'll get the weapons anyway", well laws are meant to be broken, otherwise they're useless.

Simple. "The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's much more difficult to murder someone who can shoot back. You will never un-invent the gun. Banning ownership only increases violence as evidenced by murder rates in NYC, Chicago, Washington DC, Baltimore, Los Angeles, etc. Areas that have high rates of legal firearm ownership have lower murder rates. Look at FBI homicide statistics.

>Appeal to nature is a fallacy. Some creatures eat their babies. Some humans sacrificed them. This paragraph shows nothing.
"Facts are wrong" is your argument here. It is not a fallacy. It is truth.

>Although one of the questions would be, if anyone in that mosque had a gun (assuming it would be permitted), would the outcome be different? I know that if I certainly was in such a situation I would want to have something to defend myself with. But again, should we facilitate the gunman with the purchase?

Yes, and yes. Go to youtube and look up videos of people defending themselves with firearms. There are thousands of security cam feeds that have caught violent criminals being stopped dead, or running away as soon as a gun is drawn.

>Evidence please.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

>Its the wild west baby. If most people would carry a gun, I actually think murder rates would go up (imo, I have no data).

You are factually wrong. Why not do some research into areas of high gun ownership and crime rates to justify your argument? I'm a burger, but there are EU examples (Switzerland).

A bar brawl, a street fight would be potentially more dangerous, more fatal. It's easier to shoot someone fatally even without training then with your bare hands.

(cont).
>A bar brawl, a street fight would be potentially more dangerous, more fatal. It's easier to shoot someone fatally even without training then with your bare hands.

Then don't start shit with people. Maybe you would be less likely to get robbed if the robber had a level of uncertainty that you might have a sub-compact gun hidden on your person. Maybe that group of thugs who want to beat you down because you're walking through their hood would leave you alone if they thought you might shoot a few of them. An armed society is a polite society.

For (you)

Attached: Gun Festivals.png (1312x1900, 532K)

Attached: Brazill Gun pill.png (1015x563, 36K)

Attached: Anti gun hype is bull.png (1441x894, 60K)

>We just need to break free from these concepts of race
>biology is racist
hahahahahah

user, if you chose a Euro girlfriend over an Asian one you are indeed being racist.

Attached: DIversity and Proximity study.png (549x2199, 120K)

Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim. Kys.

that's a good point yea, but I don't think people are that reasonable... Imagine being drunk or just stupid and start up some shit. Again I still don't know how to think about the whole issue

Could you provide (non biased, with good statistics) some links to look up please? Thank you.

Biology is not racist lol what.
>user, if you chose a Euro girlfriend over an Asian one you are indeed being racist.

gotta be trolling

what? All terrorists are Muslim? Your ignorance astonishes me.

Tell muslims to open up their society and remove unequal laws under shariah.
Then come back.
Imposing rules to include muslims in western societies while muslims live in nationalistic discriminatory state sanctuaries is basically colonization.
Your ilk are so short sided and biased. You make me sick.

Fairly, if they follow the Quran its a legit argument to make.
Not all muslims are engaging in terrorism but nearly all who follow the Quran support terrorism contained in Muhammed's example when the timing is right.

This looks more like scientism than science. Science is hard kiddo.

Also wtf is up with these White Blood, god do you really believe this shit? A basic course in genetics should set you up straight. White supremacists are no better than religious fanatics basing their beliefs in some stupid made up shit

Yes I have covered this in a previous answer

Attached: 1552844526423m.jpg (1024x804, 129K)

crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/explorer/national/united-states/crime/2007/2017

Here is a good resource for the US. You can look up crime rates with perpetrator + victim by race, crime type, location, etc.

I don't know where to find good EU data since your media is cucked beyond belief and many governments specifically avoid gathering racial statistics. Spend an hour or two looking through violent crime and homicide statistics and you'll start to see patterns emerge.

>Flag
Just stick to being an Americunt like me

Progress is gradual. Revolutions don't work/change anything. I've also mentioned in a previous answer how I think they will eventually open up, if they want to survive the free market. Saudi Arabia already lets women drive, which is progress as far as it concerns me. It will take time.

Europe was extremely conservative too (in respect to the respective religion if you go back in time a bit)

>This looks more like scientism than science. >Science is hard kiddo.
Does reality make you nervous?

Attached: Harvard Diversity.png (617x3902, 409K)

If people are unreasonable, as you say, why would you NOT want to arm yourself? Do you think you could handle a mob of unreasonable people by yourself?

Stop being bigots, goyim!

Attached: Jack Jersawitz.webm (1280x720, 1.89M)

Can i get a list of notable people that support eggboys actions? I have three dozen eggs that have been sitting in my garage since christmas.

thanks ill look it up.

I am not.

If Africans and Euros and Asians are all genes, if you chose a partner of a particular set of genes you are effectively discriminating against the other genes.

Attached: Doggo frens.jpg (627x404, 62K)

but hey

we are all the same!

Attached: Diversity mkaes brits miserable.png (668x1709, 378K)

to discriminate is different from racism

Racism:

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Discriminate:

verb
gerund or present participle discriminating

recognize a distinction; differentiate.

Maybe we just need better (and fairer) integration policies.

I want him as PM so fuckin bad.

Attached: 3EA0EC26-8AED-40ED-B7DF-9CDF73C269A6.jpg (1242x1757, 1.5M)

Attached: 2c0fa161d4426e7a9a3e845e7f989645f8b8c063317de30419213be25c873514.jpg (766x694, 97K)

Subscribe to his newsletter at fraseranning.com.au

Attached: 07AE2427-318D-41DC-9DF5-D9FC7F79CA81.jpg (684x960, 75K)

He has to stay, he’s our last hope. Every other cunt politician is blight on humanity.

Attached: D9E1BC32-C46B-465A-AA36-B22B6C8EC8C2.jpg (1242x1796, 700K)