As soon as the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) approved the Australia First Party’s use of the Eureka flag as its registered logo the cucks reacted like geese being tormented with a stick.
Dingbats from the far-left, the centre-left, and the union movement were triggered. They swamped the AFP Facebook page shaking their puny fists behind their keyboards and vowing to do all they could to reverse the decision. Many had serious conniptions. Nearly all vowed to fight the decision in the name of democracy. Ballarat MP Catherine King announced her intention to use the democratic process to introduce a bill to curb the AFP’s democratic right — as upheld by the AEC — to use the flag as their logo.
Australian government information sources state that 'it is argued' that the rebellion was a “key event” in “the development of Australian democracy and Australian identity” (www.australia.gov.au/about…/
We take no issue with the idea of the 1854 uprising being instrumental in the evolution of Australian identity, but as history shows, there is no empirical truth in arguing that it was tied to the struggle for democracy.
You may ask ‘so what?’ Well, it is important because it represents the kind of revisionism employed by these multiculturalists in their rabid attacks upon the Australia First Party; imbuing this momentous event with intents and significance that were never true to either the times or when 30 miners sacrificed their lives on the Ballarat goldfields. Likewise, the Australian identity they have misused the spirit of Eureka to try and construct for their propaganda is no more the substance of fact either.
If the multiculturalists want to get into an argument with Australia First Party on the basis of “race” then they lose. They speak of a rainbow of ‘nationalities’ being present at Eureka with a sophist’s tongue, because while that was true, there were only two non-Whites among them: the rest of those present accord to AFP’s contention of Australian identity being distilled from a White European heritage.
There was: American, Australian, Canadian, Corsican, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Irish, Italian, Russian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Swiss, and West Indian. There were indigenous folks present too.
Now, with the exception of the Jamaican and the African American (the Aborigines notwithstanding), this is a representative line-up of White Nationalism. The two “coloureds” were incidental and the type of concepts of societies predicated on “diversity” and “multiracialism” was simply non-existent. Slavery was abolished in England in 1883, but that was not a signal for the races to mix freely. Nor was there any African or West Indian communities to validate such ideas as being espoused by the cucks.
Moreover, the argument by unionists that Eureka signified the first significant organising of labour in the terms they mean overlooks the fact that these were prospectors and not workers. They were miners seeking fortunes; a distinction many never raise, dismiss as irrelevant, or contradict, but one that is salient.
We speak of the “spirit” of Eureka, and it is that ‘spirit’ which the AFP adopts. But just as those oppositional elements were have mentioned come stating their “rights” to the Eureka flag based on artificial notions so too is their perception of the AFP is based innuendo and assumptions. In fact, a reading of the party’s constitution makes it absolutely clear that under a nationalist government democracy will be key to shaping policy: it’s just that those contributing to the said democracy will not have been sourced from the four corners of the non-White globe with an eye to neoliberal exploitation and anti-White population renewal. They will be Australians, as shaped from the plucky White European stock that defied the tyranny of the British and their unjust taxes on the mining licenses at Eureka
Dingbats from the far-left, the centre-left, and the union movement were triggered. They swamped the AFP Facebook page shaking their puny fists behind their keyboards and vowing to do all they could to reverse the decision. Many had serious conniptions. Nearly all vowed to fight the decision in the name of democracy. Ballarat MP Catherine King announced her intention to use the democratic process to introduce a bill to curb the AFP’s democratic right — as upheld by the AEC — to use the flag as their logo.
Australian government information sources state that 'it is argued' that the rebellion was a “key event” in “the development of Australian democracy and Australian identity” (www.australia.gov.au/about…/
We take no issue with the idea of the 1854 uprising being instrumental in the evolution of Australian identity, but as history shows, there is no empirical truth in arguing that it was tied to the struggle for democracy.
You may ask ‘so what?’ Well, it is important because it represents the kind of revisionism employed by these multiculturalists in their rabid attacks upon the Australia First Party; imbuing this momentous event with intents and significance that were never true to either the times or when 30 miners sacrificed their lives on the Ballarat goldfields. Likewise, the Australian identity they have misused the spirit of Eureka to try and construct for their propaganda is no more the substance of fact either.
If the multiculturalists want to get into an argument with Australia First Party on the basis of “race” then they lose. They speak of a rainbow of ‘nationalities’ being present at Eureka with a sophist’s tongue, because while that was true, there were only two non-Whites among them: the rest of those present accord to AFP’s contention of Australian identity being distilled from a White European heritage.
There was: American, Australian, Canadian, Corsican, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Irish, Italian, Russian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Swiss, and West Indian. There were indigenous folks present too.
Now, with the exception of the Jamaican and the African American (the Aborigines notwithstanding), this is a representative line-up of White Nationalism. The two “coloureds” were incidental and the type of concepts of societies predicated on “diversity” and “multiracialism” was simply non-existent. Slavery was abolished in England in 1883, but that was not a signal for the races to mix freely. Nor was there any African or West Indian communities to validate such ideas as being espoused by the cucks.
Moreover, the argument by unionists that Eureka signified the first significant organising of labour in the terms they mean overlooks the fact that these were prospectors and not workers. They were miners seeking fortunes; a distinction many never raise, dismiss as irrelevant, or contradict, but one that is salient.
We speak of the “spirit” of Eureka, and it is that ‘spirit’ which the AFP adopts. But just as those oppositional elements were have mentioned come stating their “rights” to the Eureka flag based on artificial notions so too is their perception of the AFP is based innuendo and assumptions. In fact, a reading of the party’s constitution makes it absolutely clear that under a nationalist government democracy will be key to shaping policy: it’s just that those contributing to the said democracy will not have been sourced from the four corners of the non-White globe with an eye to neoliberal exploitation and anti-White population renewal. They will be Australians, as shaped from the plucky White European stock that defied the tyranny of the British and their unjust taxes on the mining licenses at Eureka
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.