@MrSensitive888
Account based inAustralia
About this account
- Account based in
- Australia
- Connected via
- Web
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
🇦🇺 A concerned citizen.
Australia
Joined March 2023
- Tweets10.4K
- Following305
- Followers165
- Likes31.8K
Mr Sensitive retweeted
"...George W. Bush had a rare opportunity after 11 September.
He could have attempted to reverse the most toxic tide in the Western world: the sappy multiculturalism that insists all cultures are equally valid, even as they're trying to kill us.
He could have argued that Western self-loathing is a psychosis we can no longer afford..."
Mr Sensitive retweeted
Wild how there's only 22 million Australian citizens in the country.
Is that a normal ratio for the G20?
from @DrCameronMurray
Mr Sensitive retweeted
Women were never oppressed. There was NO oppression. What women call oppression today was just PROTECTION.
Let me break it down for you:
1. VOTING:
Women say "we couldn't vote." But back then, voting was not a right, it was a RESPONSIBILITY. Only people who owned property, paid heavy taxes, held public office, or were drafted to DIE in wars could vote.
100% of the people dying in wars were men. You want to vote to send men to war, while you sit at home safe? Makes zero sense. Voting was linked to the DRAFT. You vote, you go to war. Men understood that.
2. BANKING:
"You needed your husband's signature!" Yes, because by LAW, a woman was LEGALLY PROTECTED from debt. Her husband was the head of household and by law HE was 100% liable for ALL debts she made. If she borrowed and couldn't pay, THEY CAME FOR HIM, not her. Creditors went to jail or lost everything - the husband.
So of course his signature was needed. He is the one who goes to prison if you don't pay.
3. PROPERTY - COVERTURE:
They cry about coverture. Coverture meant when you marry, your property merges under ONE name, the husband's, because there was ONE tax filing per household, not two like today. ONE household, ONE name, ONE tax.
It was not to steal from you. It was because the husband was legally responsible for you. If you got sued, he paid. If you owed taxes, he paid. He took your debts too.
These men had mothers they worshipped and daughters they would die for. They were not oppressing women, they were covering them.
4. CONTROLLING WOMEN'S BODIES:
The biggest lie. Back then there were NO abortion pills, NO condoms that worked, NO diapers, NO formula, NO government money to raise a child alone as a single mother, NO good jobs for women to survive alone.
Who bears the most risk in unprotected sex? THE WOMAN. She gets pregnant for 9 months, she risks death during childbirth, which was very common then.
So what did society do? They made sure women stayed virgins until marriage, and made sure men MARRIED them before sex. That is not oppression, that is PROTECTION from becoming a single mother with 3 kids and no food.
And it WORKED. Single motherhood rate was less than 5%. Marriage rate was 90%. Children grew up with fathers.
Today you have "freedom" - 40% single mothers, fatherless homes, abortions everywhere, and women crying that men don't want them.
There was never oppression. There was a system that understood biology and protected women from the consequences of their own choices.
Mr Sensitive retweeted
This afternoon the Senate rejected my order for production of documents regarding the Australian Bureau of Statistics decision to replace its long-standing excess mortality methodology.
Why would the Labor Government vote against it?
Australians are still in the dark about the real excess mortality figures in Australia.
Mr Sensitive retweeted
Our time is coming.
The world-conquering spirit of European Man, long dormant, is beginning to stir.
Mr Sensitive retweeted
Why has the Australian Bureau of Statistics changed its methodology for calculating expected and excess mortality?
Today I will move a motion demanding every document behind the ABS decision to ditch the old method for a new model.
We need the full picture, baseline choices, treatment of COVID years, what 2024–25 figures would have been under the old method, and the exact impact of the switch.
Australians deserve to have answers.
Mr Sensitive retweeted
The war memorial exists to honour those men (& some women) who fought for their country, not to fossilise the misleading narratives that dragged us into wars & kept us in the dark for decades afterwards whilst the nation was thoroughly subverted.
Mr Sensitive retweeted
>The AfD won because of mass third world immigration
>Brexit was because of mass third world immigration.
>Trump won both elections because of mass third world immigration.
>The right wing is rising in every country in the entire western world because of mass third world immigration.
If there wasn't mass third world immigration the EU, the UN the USA and every single major liberal institution would be under absolutely zero threat right now. The entire elite global power structure would be as unchallenged as it was in the 1990s.
But even still, they just will not stop the mass immigration.
That tells me that the replacement of homogeneous, white populations isn't a side effect or unintentional consequence of their worldview, but it's most essential element. Otherwise they wouldn't be willing to burn down everything they spent decades building to keep it going.
Mr Sensitive retweeted
“You hurt Israel, Blaster hurts you!”
As the British government considers forcing British companies to boycott portions of Israel, it should be aware that a Florida law that I passed as a member of the Legislature would ban any British company forced to comply from doing business with any state or local government in Florida.
It would also end any British business participating in that boycott from doing any business in Florida if it needed any official interaction with state or local government to operate (permits, tax collection).
Florida is one of Britain’s largest trading partners. They should understand that their vanity project in support of Muslim terror could cost them billions of dollars.
And for those who doubt the power of this policy, it was this same law that broke Airbnb’s misguided effort to boycott portions of Israel in 2019. They realized that this law would have bankrupted their company.
Florida has made it clear. Any company — or nation — that boycotts Israel is boycotted by Florida.
Mr Sensitive retweeted
The White Australia Party Inc. v. The Commonwealth of Australia is truly a landmark ‘David vs. Goliath’ High Court case.
All six Australian states have intervened in the case, alongside the Commonwealth, arguing that these laws are constitutionally valid.
But this case is about far more than the White Australia Party.
At its core, the Commonwealth argues that Parliament has the constitutional power to create a regime allowing organisations to be listed as prohibited hate groups, with criminal offences attached to membership, participation, recruitment and funding.
The Commonwealth says the listing itself is not punishment, because any criminal guilt still has to be established by a court.
White Australia Party Inc. and Thomas Sewell argue the opposite.
They say the Commonwealth does not have the constitutional power to ban a political party in this way, that the legislation places a severe burden on political communication, and that allowing the executive to effectively destroy a political organisation before a court has determined it has committed a crime raises serious separation of powers concerns.
Their case rests on three fundamental constitutional arguments:
The Commonwealth lacks the constitutional power to prohibit a political party in this way.
The laws impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication by restricting involvement in a political organisation, including membership, participation, recruitment and funding.
The laws breach the separation of powers under Chapter III because the executive can prohibit an organisation and trigger serious criminal consequences without a court first determining that the organisation has committed a crime.
And that is what makes this case so important.
The High Court isn't being asked whether you like the White Australia Party, or whether you agree with its politics.
It is being asked how far the government can go in restricting a political organisation, and what constitutional limits apply when the executive decides that organisation should be prohibited.
Whatever the Court decides could have consequences far beyond this one party.
Because governments change.
And the powers governments create today don't necessarily stay in the hands of the people you agree with tomorrow.
Mr Sensitive retweeted
'At least 62,199 people in Britain have been arrested for such offences in just the past five years - 18,150 were later charged and 12,292 convicted.'
