Sick of showing them

It's been a complex series of events that have really caused a stir over the past five years, hasn't it?

From a pandemic to the swift expansion of wind farms and electric vehicles, significant immigration, rainbows appearing everywhere, business closures, civil unrest, rising unemployment, increasing homelessness, escalating poverty, declining healthcare, and the soaring cost of living even for dual-income households... What happened, Australia?

Let's analyse this, Australians.

In 2020, the contentious Covid situation (which many, including everyone at Radio Washroom, consider neither a genuine virus nor a health issue) led to unwanted changes. This came on the heels of a series of bushfires in Australia and Scott Morrison's decision to commit the country to the unsuccessful Paris Agreement, adhering to the 17 Sustainability and Development Goals without a referendum or the approval of the Australian public.

How were these 17 rules, which lacked unanimous agreement, put into effect?

This question delves into the complexities of governance and the legal frameworks that underpin the establishment of rules and regulations in a democratic society.

The process of implementing rules that do not enjoy the consensus of all parties involved raises significant concerns about legitimacy and representation. In many cases, such rules may be enacted through a majority vote or through the mechanisms provided by the governing constitution, which may allow for the passage of legislation even in the absence of unanimous support.

Particularly without your approval? This statement highlights the potential for disenfranchisement or the perception that certain groups or individuals may feel when decisions are made without their explicit consent.

It underscores the importance of understanding the mechanisms of governance that allow for such actions to occur, as well as the implications they have on the populace. The question invites an examination of the balance between majority rule and minority rights, as well as the ethical considerations involved in decision-making processes that affect a wide array of stakeholders.

Section 51 Australian Constitution

Examine section 51 of the Australian Constitution... read it carefully and comprehend it. Section 51 is a pivotal part of the Constitution, outlining the specific areas in which the Australian Parliament has the power to make laws.

This section enumerates various matters, such as trade, taxation, and immigration, among others, which fall under federal jurisdiction. By providing a clear delineation of legislative powers, section 51 enables the Parliament to enact laws that can impact the lives of citizens, even if those laws do not receive unanimous support from all sectors of society.

Furthermore, understanding section 51 requires a careful analysis of its implications for governance and the legislative process. It reveals how laws can be passed through established parliamentary procedures, often reflecting the will of the majority while potentially side-lining minority opinions.

This dynamic can lead to tensions and debates about the fairness and equity of the legislative process, prompting discussions about the need for reforms or mechanisms that ensure broader representation in decision-making.

The implementation of these 17 rules, despite the absence of unanimous agreement, raises critical questions about the nature of democracy, the role of the Constitution, and the responsibilities of lawmakers. It is essential to engage deeply with these concepts to fully grasp how laws are formed and the impact they have on society as a whole.

According to the Magna Carta, which grants authority to the crown, no government in Australia can enforce anything on you without your consent.

This authority is delegated to the police to safeguard the public. Politicians are never above or in a position of crown authority.

Crown authority establishes law through due process, not through prejudice, ignorance, or ideological pressure from a weak and unappealing media. Socialists and communists will attempt to persuade you otherwise, and, quite frankly, they are succeeding in doing so.

These 17 "Sustainability and Development Goals" are increasingly becoming a significant negative influence in your life, imposed by unelected individuals without any legitimate authority. Since the onset of Covid, or what is referred to as the "Great Reset," there has been a strategic move to create a global state of emergency, allowing them to bypass constitutional laws, reminiscent of Hitler's actions in Germany following the Reichstag fire. The Covid "pandemic" served as the pretext for this, leading to the imprisonment, punishment, and social shaming of those who do not comply.

Have you investigated which "state of emergency laws" have been repealed since then? Or considered how any Australian state parliament can enact changes or conduct an election when there is an obvious and undeniable bias due to restrictions on freedom from pandemic "state of emergency laws" that hinder other parties from campaigning? How have immigration numbers surged despite these supposed threats of additional "viruses"? Where does that hypocrisy stop?

Most people tend to respond with a resounding "no" or express criticism toward Radio Washroom for even posing the question in the first place. This reaction is not surprising, as many individuals have a tendency to dismiss inquiries that challenge their established beliefs or comfort zones. It's like asking a cat if it wants a bath—you're more likely to get a disdainful glare than an insightful discussion about hygiene.

The Presumptuous Pundits

A smaller subset of individuals, however, might take a more presumptuous stance, making assumptions about the intentions behind Radio Washroom's inquiry. This assumption can lead to a variety of interpretations, many of which may be misguided or overly simplistic. Among these, there exists a particularly amusing category of respondents: the so-called social commentators.

These individuals often present themselves as knowledgeable experts, confidently sharing their opinions as if they possess a deep understanding of the topic at hand. Yet, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that their insights are superficial at best—like a kiddie pool masquerading as an Olympic swimming venue.

Their knowledge seems to extend no further than the confines of their computer screens, where they have honed the ability to regurgitate information found elsewhere without adding any original thought or critical analysis.

The Loudest Voices and the Great Misinformation Circus

This phenomenon raises important questions about the nature of discourse in our society. It highlights a troubling trend where the loudest voices often drown out more nuanced perspectives—think of it as a circus where the clowns are the main act, and the insightful acrobats are stuck in the audience. The reliance on keyboard prowess rather than substantive knowledge can lead to a culture of misinformation and misunderstanding.

As these social commentators multiply across different platforms, their nauseating, narrow-minded influence expands, frequently eclipsing those who participate in thoughtful, informed discussions. Perth, Western Australia, seems to harbour the most cowardly, backstabbing individuals masquerading as a "Freedom Family," who have only succeeded in significantly harming the freedom, status quo, and confidence of all Western Australians.

In essence, the reactions to Radio Washroom's inquiry reflect broader societal attitudes toward questioning and knowledge. The tendency to criticize or dismiss can stifle genuine exploration of ideas, while the prevalence of superficial commentary can obscure the truth.

So, let’s embrace the weirdness of inquiry! After all, if we only ever asked questions that everyone agreed with, we might as well be asking goldfish for stock market tips.

Perhaps if we could provide and develop better environments where open dialogue is encouraged, and where individuals are motivated to seek deeper understanding rather than merely echoing the views of others—because who knows? Maybe the next great idea is just one quirky question away!

Al boy.