Mater’s Musings #54: “You’re the voice, try to understand it”

Just as Hitler looked to American segregation for inspiration…

This is of course not our German model republic, but the American Union where one endeavors to consult reason at least partially. The American Union, by principally refusing immigration to elements with poor health, and even simply excluding certain races from naturalization, acknowledges by slow beginnings an attitude which is peculiar to the national State conception.

Mein Kampf (p 658)

…I guess we can now look to Hitler for inspiration as policy details are worked out and hung on the conceptual skeleton now referred to as “The Voice”.

The folkish State divides its inhabitants into three classes : State citizens, State subjects, and aliens.
In principle, only birth confers the status of subject. Being a State subject as such does not entitle one to hold public offices, to exercise political activity in the sense of participation in elections, be it actively or passively. In principle, every State subject’s race and nationality have to be ascertained. Every State subject is free at any time to abandon his status and to become a State citizen in that country the nationality of which corresponds to his own. The alien is distinguished from the State subject only by the fact that he is a State subject of an alien State.

Mein Kampf (p 658)

When your policies start to show shades of Nazi methodology in order to work out the political agency of your citizens, perhaps you need to have a good, hard look at yourself.

The Nuremberg Laws – Racial Identification Chart

For the pearl clutches out there; yes, it’s a distasteful comparison, but it’s also valid. That’s why the whole concept should be scrapped post haste. That it’s got this far, is an indelible stain on our nation, and a battle indicator of even more distasteful things to come.

30 thoughts on “Mater’s Musings #54: “You’re the voice, try to understand it””

  1. That it’s got this far, is an indelible stain on our nation, and a battle indicator of even more distasteful things to come.

    Absolutely correct. But fight it we must. If not now, when?


    Report comment

    22
  2. But fight it we must. If not now, when?

    The referendum into the “Voice” to Parliament marks a good time to start the counter offensive.


    Report comment

    17
  3. If they had gene testing back then there would have been a lot of surprises on both sides. Not many people out there are pure bloods of one race. Same for the aborigines. On another note, the first university in Finland was called the Royal Academy of Abo.


    Report comment

    3
  4. Keep in mind this isnt “the last demand’, its base camp from which exploratory teams of lawyers can roam seeking new heights of “gimmedats” to to me mined and exploited.

    Hordes of Dennis Danutoes sent out to “vibe” their way through the courts looking for activist judges ready to give birth to ‘precedents” which will be hailed as oh so clever by their own peers.


    Report comment

    16
  5. Voting NO is the only answer “the voice” deserves. The hyperbole behind the reasoning for The Voice is just that, hyperbole.
    The left and the SJW are always harping on about racism. Their hypocrisy in this matter stands out like the proverbial dogs balls. That they can’t see that, or if they do see it they can’t acknowledge it, shows just how lost and depraved these people are.


    Report comment

    17
  6. Does anybody else find it passing strange that the “legitimate” way to fight “racism” and “segregation” is to INSTITUTIONALIZE the “identity separation” of ONE group of inhabitants.

    The proponents of this are essentially trying to start a civil war.


    Report comment

    21
  7. I suspect prog-lefties, who tend to be on the younger side, are too historically ignorant to realise they are invoking a version of Blood and Soil.


    Report comment

    17
  8. The referendum into the “Voice” to Parliament marks a good time to start the counter offensive.

    Yes, but who is going to champion the ‘no’ case? Last referendum we had a prime minister against it and a government minister officially in charge of the prosecuting the case. I suspect that this will be more like the homo marriage plebiscite. All major parties championed the ‘yes’ case and anyone opposed was disparaged. Australians fell for it then, why would this be any different?


    Report comment

    8
  9. Thanks, Mater. Succinctly explained.

    Jupes:
    I suspect that this will be more like the homo marriage plebiscite. All major parties championed the ‘yes’ case and anyone opposed was disparaged. Australians fell for it then, why would this be any different?

    Unlike the plebiscite, which was voluntary, everyone must cast a vote – a secret vote – this time. So the noisiest side can’t have it all their own way.

    On the marriage plebiscite, those Australians who voted yes and possibly the ones who did not cast a vote, did see the decision as not “giving up” anything – it was more the idea of removing a difference for equality sake – though it didn’t work out that way in the end with everything that’s come afterwards. (Which in itself shows the electorate that the best route is never to assume that these decisions will not bring about unintended consequences).

    This time, the whole thing is designed to separate formally one Australian from another and for all time. Australians have always prided themselves on the idea that “Jack is as good as his master” and they especially don’t like the idea of a give and take society, one part of which takes more, and gets more, than the other part. No amount of massaging this proposal will stand up against that principle once the discussions begin.

    Though Howard did not support the referendum on the republic, the SFLs did not have a formal position – there were as many “for it as a’gin it”. So the “no” case was left to a couple of grass roots organisations, that still overcame the huge “feel good” guff of the “yes” vote because of the great unknown of the politicians’ proposal.

    Australians aren’t stupid, though on occasion because of our desire to be left alone we may seem that way. And while we’re fair-minded, we’re also mostly a common sense sceptical crowd – and that was “pre-covid”. Post Covid, and we know full well that those in power do not have our best interests at heart.

    And we do have the safeguard of the double “yes” requirement.


    Report comment

    17
  10. BBS “Australians aren’t stupid”. Sorry have to disagree, just look at the rate of acceptance of the jab, or as someone said, the Toxinne. Alas, there ain’t no cure for Stupidity.


    Report comment

    12
  11. I believe that every native-born Australian should immediately claim Aboriginal ancestry. It should not be up to you to ‘prove’ you are, it should be up to ‘them’ to prove you are not. Hey, it worked for Pascoe, who is as much aboriginal as my dog.


    Report comment

    14
  12. Australians aren’t stupid, though on occasion because of our desire to be left alone we may seem that way.

    SK, you missed quoting the last part of that sentence. Imo, in wanting to be left alone, they took it for that reason and to able to get on with their lives – needing to earn a living does that to a person. This time, there is literally nothing to be gained by the majority from a “yes” vote.


    Report comment

    9
  13. I believe that every native-born Australian should immediately claim Aboriginal ancestry.

    I’ve suggested this previously. Anyone born here is indigenous by definition* It would tie the whole process in knots for years.

    * May join ‘woman, recession, vaccine’ in the currently fast running Redefinition Stakes. The Red Headed Screecher got a rails run with ‘Misogyneeeeee’.


    Report comment

    5
  14. This battle is being waged on many fronts. This strand of it is just another manifestation of the desire by those who ‘know better’ to cement their power and compel everybody else to ‘shut the fuck up’.
    Ask yourselves this question: What would happen if a recommendation or representation from The Voice were to be rejected by the elected Australian Government?
    We all know that all hell would break loose.


    Report comment

    7
  15. “What would happen if a recommendation or representation from The Voice were to be rejected by the elected Australian Government?”
    Albanese’s cute wording solved that problem. How dare you reject something that’s been approved by a majority of the Australian people? Every ‘suggestion’ would be a slam dunk, and we’d end up with the Voice effectively running the country. That, of course, being the idea.


    Report comment

    7
  16. Ask yourselves this question: What would happen if a recommendation or representation from The Voice were to be rejected by the elected Australian Government?

    Would depend on whether it was an LNP government (in which case all heck would indeed break loose) or an ALP government, in which case The Guardian and the ALPBC, The Project etc etc would say nothing – beyond perhaps that this showed The Voice was working well.


    Report comment

    1
  17. It has not escaped notice that feculent Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe has been grogging on the Bondi Sands ‘Sunscreen’ (Stan Grant edition) a little heavier of late.

    Must have had a few purer bloods in her mob telling her she needed to whiten down.

    Not fooling anyone.


    Report comment

    3
  18. And, right on cue, Sarah Sea Patrol gets a tongue-bath on their ABCess to spout gibberish about “The Voice”.

    While we are waiting for the next assault from the eco-loons, watch this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuZCLAYqSEE

    Nitrogen, the gas that makes up almost EIGHTY percent of our atmosphere is being re-designated as a “pollutant”, in much the same way that the terminal sociopaths “re-defined” Carbon as an existential crisis, even when what these malicious psychotics really meant was carbon dioxide, an essential for plant growth, (like that vile kale stuff that seems to have irreversibly poisoned their minuscule “brains”).


    Report comment

    2
  19. Clearly anything proposed by the left is going to continue the slide into hell. In the case of putting Indigenous “voices” ahead of other Australian voices it does provide then more power and influence to Indigenous over other Australians.

    Let’s not confuse this with the evil of immigration though, as this is another word for invasion. When a large group of culturally diverse people intermix history tells us it eventually creates war. Even when those 2 groups are very closely related (e.g. east and west Ukraine, or Serbia and Croatia).

    Unfortunately in the 60’s across the West immigration was opened up to all cultures, and as a result a steady erosion of Western culture has been happening. Now there is no “Australian”, there is no “American”, it is now a cultural-mix that will eventually divide into factions, and there will be civil unrest (including civil wars) as things get harder. There is no cultural likeness to pull the people together holistically. We have seen this time and again in history.

    If you’re struggling with this concept because you’ve grown up with civic nationalism, here’s a quick thought exercise for you: Imagine if you will that Japan did the same thing? Does a person of Greek decent with Japanese citizenship become Japanese? We all know that no matter how many generations of Greeks live in Japan, they will neve be Japanese. Being on the soil does not make you Japanese.

    The soil does not make you an “Australian” (whatever that is today), it is in the blood. Your cultural background is stronger and more entrenched than we realise.


    Report comment

    4
  20. ‘The Voice’ will just be a tool of the Greens and the radical left. They will take control of it, with violence if necessary. Then democracy in this country will be dead.


    Report comment

    3
  21. The Yes campaign is saying “Forget the detail. Just put your trust in the politicians to work out this incredibly complicated and problematic change to the constitution”. Have they forgotten that the Republic referendum ‘Yes vote’ failed because the people did not even trust the politicians to elect a single person in a largely ceremonial role?


    Report comment

    2
  22. The Taxation laws need to be revisited.

    If we agree that there should be no taxation without representation then the tax burden on those who have lesser representation, i.e., those without a special “voice” in addition to their vote, should be reduced.


    Report comment

    5
  23. I don’t have TV so not really up to date but, have they actually stooped to using that John Farnham song to sell it? That would be a pretty poxy move if they did.


    Report comment

  24. Dear (newly elected) local MP,
    The Prime Minister and the Commonwealth government has made several recent statements about a proposal for a referendum for a “Voice to Parliament”.

    Prior to any referendum, I want the opportunity to read and digest the details of your proposal.

    The Constitution was written to limit the powers of government. This proposal appears to do exactly opposite.

    As we long-suffering taxpayers have been painfully reminded in recent years, governments in Australia have far too much power as it is.

    The proposal to change the Constitution without analysis of the proposal can only further shift power from the people to some as-yet identified members of the “voice”

    I am using MY voice the Parliament through you as my elected representative to strongly oppose this proposal.

    All other Australians have the same voice.

    Your government needs to very clearly explain why some Australians will have the same voice as me through their elected representative, and another voice through some other body.

    Yours sincerely,


    Report comment

    6
  25. You’re a lot sillier than I thought, Mater.
    How does asking indigenous people how they would like their affairs to be managed create “segregation”.
    As the fish and chips proprietor said “Please explain!”.

    This question demonstrates that you are exactly as stupid as I thought, and remember, with the same comprehension problem.

    Show me where I used to term segregation in relation to the ‘Voice’.

    I am, however, indicating that this creates two classes of citizens, based purely on race. Support this racist concept, I take it?


    Report comment

    5

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.