Calm down.
"Our country"?
What? The same country that we annexed 200 years ago that was occupied for how many thousands of years by the original inhabitants? Yep, sure, it's "our" country now, eh?
"Not give them more power to destroy our sovereignty"?
Wtf? Lol.
"We need to take our country back".
I cannot believe that people still think like this. Yet they do. It's quite sad tbh.
Vote how you will. But don't be afraid of losing sovereignty or any other right's you think deserve. There's alway's the Dutton's and Abbott's that will keep you safe.
What annexed?
Mate imagine that you came across a massive valley surrounded by a sea of desert. This valley was filled with wildlife, vegetation and water so plentiful that 50 thousand people could easily live there and with a little care and effort you may even be able to green some of the desert too expanding the ceiling of occupants even further. The only problem is there was a family of 100 people already living and roaming around that valley who had an imaginary fence right around the whole valley and even though that said they didn't own it as such, it was all their sacred land. What would you do? A. stay and settle anyway or B. leave and never return?
Or lets imagine that you and your family sailed across the sea and came to a new found land that was so large and fertile in parts that 50m people could with the right practices and technologies be supported easily over time. But at the time you arrived there was only around 1m inhabitants and they weren't all that good at sustaining the land or the wild fauna that were there and many had become extinct By your standards they seemed primitive and didn't have much of their own like the civilisations back home. But this group of people had an imaginary line claiming all of this new land as sacred and not owned by them but theirs nonetheless.
What would you do? A. stay and settle anyway or B. leave and never return?
Murray Rothbard the famous libertarian proposed a very similar scenario. Guess what his answer was. Just because a family or group of people arrive first then claim all the land as theirs directly or indirectly, doesn't make it theirs. Otherwise man and civilisation would never have gotten far in the first place. Because we all know what man is like and the first settlers or owners of anything valuable would have been monopolized and the rest of us would never get the opportunity to own anything.
He obviously didn't advocate killing or to subjugate people, but he recognized that a small group of people can't and couldn't hold on to nor should they, a vast resource of land that they didn't have the means or people to do so. That isn't fair to the rest of the people that came after them in a very similar way as the original wave who found it in the first place.
Also lets not live in a delusional world with rose coloured glasses. Anyone who thinks that in over 100 thousand years of Aboriginal migration and occupation that no aboriginal family or tribe(mob) killed or wiped out another aboriginal family or tribe(mob) then they are living in their own dreamtime. Right up to the time of white settlement the 400 odd different aboriginal tribes(mobs), many of them were constantly at war with each other and lets not ignore the superstitions and feuds over centuries that played a major role in all that too.
Bottom line is there was no way that Australia was ever going to stay as it was. White settlement, by no means perfect has ultimately enhanced the lives of most Australians including aboriginals of course. Anyone that thinks that the law as it stands does not represent all Australians equally and fairly, has loony tunes glasses on.
This vote is only going to divide us as it already has. Then the the Aboriginal industrial machine will kick in and f**k us all over, including the average aboriginal, royally. This is insanity and should never be allowed.
Don't fret my man, there is always the Globalist to keep you safe. They aren't going anywhere, no matter what happens with this vote.
www.aap.com.au
