RPG,
We actually do have a right to demand that disruptive voices be silenced.
Do Bolt,Alan Jones and Chris Smith have the right to turn Australians against each other?
Robert Spencer has no right to speak to Norwegian kids about taking back their country because he's not one of them, he has no loyalty to them.
Andrew Bolt has no right to talk to young White people about "the state of things" because he's not one of us, yeah he looks like us but like his colleagues in the media he has no loyalty to us.
Bolt & co are as anti progress as the Left, they too have a childish need to lock everything down and destroy anything they don't believe in.

The Elephant is that before Multiculturalism there was no "White Australia" there were only Australians, what immigration has done is create a new ethnic group, the White Australian.
The test for the Left will be if they allow the White Australian to integrate into Multicultural Australia.
Seeing as the destruction of the "Anglo Australians" was their stated objective I'm guessing they won't recognise us, we see their attitudes toward us on this board every day.
Shouldn't a multiracial society be under the stewardship of Racialists drawn from all ethnic groups?
Why should people who don't believe in race and want to destroy the very notion be allowed to have a voice?

This thread is by far the loopiest I have ever seen.

Now we are implying that someone massacred some people in Norway not because he wanted to alter his own country's domestic future- but to encourage a far-away second-world country like Australia to start making carbon trading deals.

Perhaps Martin Bryant REALLY went on a shooting spree because he was secretly trying to put further pressure on Bolivia to Privatize their water?

Of course, if you don't believe this, then there is no reason at all for this thread to mention carbon or Australia's environmental policy at all.

King Hazza

The author of the article made the very tenuous connection between the Norway killings and white male anger over the loss of dominance of western civilsation. Unsurprisingly, thats where the ideas began to go off in different directions!

Breivik is a peculiarly disturbed individual. Media comments beyond that are usually to do with propping up someones pre-existing belief system, paying back old scores to political opponents, or simply just stirring the pot.

I'm sure the issue of who is dominant in the world rarely occurs to most white males.

Cherful,you say you cant see any elephant in the room but then you go on to show that you see it clearly when you say that we can lose our sovereimty at the ballot box in time to come.
That is precisely the situation in Israel and countries like Norway,Denmark,Holland and Belgium to name the obvious ones.
Behring was one who sees this emergence more than any Labour politician who is prepared to let it happen.
The only thing moreI have to sday is...are you happy to surrender your sovereignty?
Not only will the nature and character of governance be radically altered but so will the social fabric.The legal system we have will be supplanted by sharia. All this very democratically established with the blessing of all do-gooders and human rights activists and the main culprit behind the facade..the UNO.
It is as simple as that. The gnashing of teeth and crying into your cups later on will prove un "democratic" and it is the avowed intent of the UNO to maintain and defend the application of "democracy" anywhere in the world.

Come on Jay, does Juliar and her posse have the right to turn Australians against each other? Look around Australia right now, people hate her and she thinks she can change that by toughing it out? She has taken the side of a mob with 12% of the vote, against the other 88% who did not vote for the Greens.

Does Getup have the right to turn us against each other? They certainly are, as are various climate groups, some people want skeptics branded, or like Jill Singer, gassed and these groups are deliberately trying to turn Australians against each other.

I'm waiting for the government's call to dob in a carbon neighbor .. for profit and fun. Nothing would surprise me with this sleazy mob, look at the stuff sliding in now in the fine print of legislation .. who voted for that?

Getup is trying to silence Alan Jones, who I have never heard, but is this going to start a litigious war, based on egos with Getup the proxy for the ALP, silencing anyone with threats and court action?

people clearly like Alan Jones, maybe in Canberra they don't .. so what, he's been broadcasting for over 20 years and now some bunch of political upstarts decides they will oust him with legal challanges, I hope they know what they are doing .. people don't like this stuff and will take sides.

Do we shut everyone up who offends me .. or you?

That's crazy talk, who decides what is disruptive language? What is disruptive today is rational tomorrow, or even might have been yesterday.

You guys worry me when you talk about silencing dissent or people who speak out about anything .. that's just unAustralian and immoral, and is the way to totalitarianism and nepotism.

Go visit some of the ex-communist block in Eastern Europe, ask them how they feel about this sort of behavior .. ask a Czech for instance.

RPG,
Maybe I didn't construct that post very well.
We do have a right to shut them up, Leftists included, their morals are not ours, they have no right to validate much less misuse the feelings of anger and betrayal among the misguided and immature of OUR castes.
Breivik is being called a "Right Winger" but only because he appeared to seek assent from that sector, it's akin to the way Al Qaeda sympathisers (who are basically leftists) seek a fatwa from religious authorities before acting.
Terrorism only works if the terrorists have the assent of an interested third party, Leftist terror is effective because they have the backing of political parties and the intellectual caste, be it in Jedda or in New York.
Look at the way the people Breivik assumed would consent to his actions have behaved? They're shrieking in terror and mewling that "We had nothing to do with this! This isn't our fault!"
Breivik is guilty of incredible stupidity in assuming he had the assent of a third party, especially right wingers.
But in the end, Breivik, growing up in Communist Norway can't help but behave like a Leftist, it's so ingrained that it's unshakable.
What his manifesto really represents is one gigantic Leftist style WHINGE.
It's exactly what Leftists like St Mandela and St Che did, whinged about oppression and disenfranchisement until they felt validated by third parties then launched into terrorism and political violence to galvanise the people into joining the revolution.
Utoya was based on the Leftist template of revolutionary action validated by Breivik's erroneous presumption of right wing assent.
A right winger would have been focused on converting those kids, what is the point of killing the best and brightest young White people? If they're intelligent enough to follow Communism at 15 they'll almost certainly grow up to be social conservatives..for 'tis the way of things.
A right winger would have joined the Communist Party and created his own faction within then launched a coup not shot up a group of potential recruits in some sort of grotesque, ANC wannabe massacre.