Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 21st, 2024 at 7:40pm
Agree... been making sideways comments on that for ages now... clearly many of the women want a better deal, and they can see they will not get that by sticking to the 'old ways'.... the days of Pre-1788 Game of Empire are long gone now... you don;t get to claim something just because you want to and some government supports you in your demands. As I said - England no longer 'owns' India or Australia or any other part of its once Empire... the days of just grabbing and enforcing are gone... time the Abos caught up there - and also the 'political masters' who run around like Nazi Gauleiters or Soviet Kommissars dictating to everyone what they will or won't have and do.
Women (not all - some are adequately civilised), of course, are the worst at that since they have little experience of the real world and have generally been steeped in the idea that they rule over children and family AND have been bent out of shape by society's pliers through being handed affirmative action and such - and they simply cannot help themselves about translating that into their work etc - and especially if/when they get a seat in government, either elected or appointed.
Suddenly, to them - all power in the land accrues to them as the Anointed One(s). Men do it, too... but women are worse... look how many women elevated to power suddenly think they can dictate to all others - we had one get up and say '50% sheilas in the top spots or we'll legislate it' - now that's dictatorship and such a legislation would be an unjust law ....we have a bombastic tyrant here who comes in sniping and demanding respect..... leaves flat on her face every time... THAT is the general value of such types.
Anyway - was listening t'day on the wahless to a tale of the 'sovereign citizen' - the sovereign citizen, so the story goes, should be entitled to the same tax deductions as a business - equal's equal, right? Fair enough. Also the sovereign citizen is a voluntary member of the government culture within which he or she dwells, and thus can pick and choose which rules to follow and which to not follow... well... hmmmmm.... yes and no....
I prefer my description here (about the voice at one time):-
"We're a semi-autonomous, quasi-anarchic egalitarian assemblage of rules-bound free individuals who vote every three years on our elected representatives, who then sit down and natter out the best way forward, and if we disagree with them we can write to them or vote them out next time around, or even refuse to abide by their dictates under the guiding principle that 'an unjust law – (or decision or policy for that matter) – is no law - (or decision or policy for that matter) - at all'!
You may say this is essentially the same - and I will not argue with that basic premise - but the difference lies in our choosing to remain within the social/government structure for the sake of security and stability and so forth and exercise the right at the ballot box to demand proper/meaningful change (get started, people - long way to go - remember what I said this morning about the primary reason for insurrection beginning)...... while essentially retaining the Right - as did the Southern states at the start of the US Civil War, to secede from the Union.
The question then becomes - how much of the benefits of that Union can the Seceder continue to collect - and this is relevant to discussion of 'Aboriginal sovereignty'.....
All these areas need to be clarified and set down..... not just left wide open for one to grab everything they want and others to be excluded by government decree.... if the Abos are indeed a sovereign people who claim a right to Lake Eyre - they have no right under our society's rules to claim it at all since it is part of Australia now - same as India is India and Britain has no claim over it, and nor do segments of Indian society have the right to lay absolute claim to huge swathes because it was once their kingdom** - and is not part of their Promised Empire Land.... for instance....
Over to you dorks...
** Aye - Wessex... Northumbria.... etc... do THEY get to claim Lake Eyre or its equivalent?
Women (not all - some are adequately civilised), of course, are the worst at that since they have little experience of the real world and have generally been steeped in the idea that they rule over children and family AND have been bent out of shape by society's pliers through being handed affirmative action and such - and they simply cannot help themselves about translating that into their work etc - and especially if/when they get a seat in government, either elected or appointed.
Suddenly, to them - all power in the land accrues to them as the Anointed One(s). Men do it, too... but women are worse... look how many women elevated to power suddenly think they can dictate to all others - we had one get up and say '50% sheilas in the top spots or we'll legislate it' - now that's dictatorship and such a legislation would be an unjust law ....we have a bombastic tyrant here who comes in sniping and demanding respect..... leaves flat on her face every time... THAT is the general value of such types.
Anyway - was listening t'day on the wahless to a tale of the 'sovereign citizen' - the sovereign citizen, so the story goes, should be entitled to the same tax deductions as a business - equal's equal, right? Fair enough. Also the sovereign citizen is a voluntary member of the government culture within which he or she dwells, and thus can pick and choose which rules to follow and which to not follow... well... hmmmmm.... yes and no....
I prefer my description here (about the voice at one time):-
"We're a semi-autonomous, quasi-anarchic egalitarian assemblage of rules-bound free individuals who vote every three years on our elected representatives, who then sit down and natter out the best way forward, and if we disagree with them we can write to them or vote them out next time around, or even refuse to abide by their dictates under the guiding principle that 'an unjust law – (or decision or policy for that matter) – is no law - (or decision or policy for that matter) - at all'!
You may say this is essentially the same - and I will not argue with that basic premise - but the difference lies in our choosing to remain within the social/government structure for the sake of security and stability and so forth and exercise the right at the ballot box to demand proper/meaningful change (get started, people - long way to go - remember what I said this morning about the primary reason for insurrection beginning)...... while essentially retaining the Right - as did the Southern states at the start of the US Civil War, to secede from the Union.
The question then becomes - how much of the benefits of that Union can the Seceder continue to collect - and this is relevant to discussion of 'Aboriginal sovereignty'.....
All these areas need to be clarified and set down..... not just left wide open for one to grab everything they want and others to be excluded by government decree.... if the Abos are indeed a sovereign people who claim a right to Lake Eyre - they have no right under our society's rules to claim it at all since it is part of Australia now - same as India is India and Britain has no claim over it, and nor do segments of Indian society have the right to lay absolute claim to huge swathes because it was once their kingdom** - and is not part of their Promised Empire Land.... for instance....
Over to you dorks...
** Aye - Wessex... Northumbria.... etc... do THEY get to claim Lake Eyre or its equivalent?
