Gnads wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 12:34pm:


They'll let you climb the rock if you pass a DNA test, Gonads, that's fine.

This is just about keeping Whitey off Boong property, so unfair.

But don't worry, when the money runs out, they'll take down the fence for sure. Australia will be free again - in so many countless and unknowable ways.

Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 12:38pm:


Is sarcasm you're only forte or do you multi task at all facets of being a TNUC?

issuevoter wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 12:40pm:


Right. Explorers discovered this big red rock in the desert that hadn't been seen for 50,000 years.

We've got money. The spiritual connection is the only thing Australia needs, even if this is for the tourists alone. Ularu is a journey to Aboriginal Australia. Chinese tourists don't hear about Ayer, they buy Aboriginal tea towels.

But this is just dust on the surface of a millennial dreaming. Aboriginal sacred sites have been turned into mines and cattle stations. The rock is one of the only sacred sites ever given back. The One Nation crowd might want to turn it into a quaint geological curiousity, but they can't. Ularu is owned lock, stock and barrel by the locals, and they're gracious enough to rent it out to the tourists - as an Aboriginal sacred site.

FD would go there, but he says he can't be bothered spending hours driving through boring scenery - unlike East Asian tourists, who have about a week to see the whole of Australia.

Those tourists, with their selfies and their postcards and their tea towels know more about Aboriginal Australia than One Nation chumps like FD, and yet, all this is dust on the true history of this country.

Open the country back up. Only one ban required and thats a ban on these disconnected fwits making decissions on our behalf.
If you want to climb it then go for it.
Sh1t hole out there anyway. Look at the pictures and save your money.

its really really sad for aborigines.

if we look at the empirical evidence, then ever since the do-gooders in canberra started to interfere, we have escalating rates of

drug use
petrol and glue sniffing
domestic violence
obesity and diabetes
teen suicide
blindness
renal dialysis
incarceration
child abuse
pornography
STD's.

the interference from canberra has been to the detriment of aboriginal people.

why?

because when you convince a once very strong and physically fit people that they will move up the narrow road to success by asking for more rights, you screw them over.
you move up the narrow road to success by asking for more responsibilities.

when you have a mummy ( in this case the leftie government ) who do everything for you, its a bit like the story of hansel and gretel.

the grandma feeds them lots of candy and makes them think they can remain perpetual children.
but grandma is really a wolf who wants to eat them
the aborigine would be wise to run away very quickly from that sort of grandma .

Gnads wrote on Nov 6^th, 2017 at 6:29am:


Exactly my point.  Captain Cook rules only apply when they can get something for nothing and 'make a statement' about it by keeping whitey away from it.  This is like those idiots wanting to deface the statue of Robert E Lee to appease the Blacks.

No more treaties, gifts and agreements - join the mainstream or go walkabout .. get back to your traditional roots etc,and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy our own nation in peace.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 6^th, 2017 at 7:22am:


What does this have to do with FD not being allowed to climb the rock after 2019?

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 11:08am:


How is it a strawman? You realise people like to climb mountains in our national parks, don't you? And that whether everyone else who sets foot in the national park does so is irrelevant to them?

Do you realise the opera house is a building while Uluru is a rock?

Also, did you know that the number of people climbing was actually much higher before the aborigines started a strong campaign of guilt tripping people into not climbing? How many of those people do you think were informed that their choice would be used to ban everyone from climbing?

Did you know that the counters used to estimate the percentage of people climbing are known to be faulty?


John Smith wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 1:15pm:


Are you aware of any other property in Australia that is 'owned' by a racial group? How many other national parks would you describe as being 'owned' by groups or individuals? How do the rules preventing them from banning non-Aborigines until now fit in with your concept of ownership?

Do you think 'managed' might be a better term? Or even, 'mismanaged'?