Racist, Gun-Toting, Dopey Australian Embarrassments

Yeah um, no. Refugees do not get more money than pensioners. Here’s the proof:


1. How do you remove people who follow a religion from society? Wouldn’t people just start lying about their religion if Gerard went on a deportation witch hunt? It’s all well and good to want to eliminate people from society… actually, no, it’s not. But Gerard would choose to overlook other dregs just so he can carry out his xenophobic and bigoted whitewash.

2. Does Gerard realise that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are those who fly here and overstay their Visas? There are over 80,000 of these ‘illegals’ in our country right now.

3. Does someone want to let Gerard Scaballagher that Aboriginal people are not the only people who are entitled to financial and housing assistance? As for free cars – WTF?

One day, like so many children-of-bogan-arse-hats, these two children will grow up and wish that daddy hadn’t acted like a complete bell-end on a public social media website using a photo of them in his profile picture.

Meet John Atherton. He’s now into his 4th marriage (no lie – check his Facebook profile out). He’s into fucking up his life and then blaming non-whites. Obviously didn’t get much out of his Catholic education.

Ed McDonald: “Like it, love it. Should have pushed his baton through his ears and picked the scum up by the handles”

(Is that the kind of comment that should be made by someone in the defence force? The kind of guy we give guns to?)

juxtaposition |ˌdʒʌkstəpəˈzɪʃ(ə)


the fact of two things being seen or placed close together with contrasting effect: the juxtaposition of these two images, ie. a racist gun-owner and his beauty therapist dog wife/sister.

Joseph White: “If I was the copper I would blow a hole in the top of his fuckin head”

25 thoughts on “Racist, Gun-Toting, Dopey Australian Embarrassments

  1. You’re doing amazing work, thank you for taking the time. It’s truly saddening that you have people with such attitudes, makes me worry about bringing up my family in Australia, guess I gotta consider going back to where I came from…. New Zealand

  2. look at the wannabe tough guy who needed a scoped rifle to kill a snake.

    A cursory glance at this Joseph White’s facebook profile would tell me that he sure likes the kiddies….

    • How exactly do you know he killed the snake with the rifle pictured?

      You do realise a rifle would leave a very, very obvious penetrating wound on something as thin as a snake; which is observantly lacking in the said photo.

  3. So whats your cause davoe? Why have you decided to support all things multicultural? I’m wondering if you have a personal reason, or are just getting caught up in it all?

    • Hello grug / forward not backwards / Harryfartpants / Troll, a brand spanking new personality presents itself!

      And I’ve got to ask, what’s your cause Mr “Multiple Names”? Why have you decided to focus on all things Davoe, ignoring all other posters and chasing out his comments. I’m wondering if you have a personal reason.

    • I didn’t realise I had a fan.
      I do not ‘like all things multicultural’. All societies are multicultural with the possible exception of North Korea. Being against multiulturalism is the same as being against procreation, it’s a fact of life.
      What I am against is bigotry and ignorance. Those who selectively follow the laws of our land while haranguing ethnic minorities in the instances where they commit crimes. Those who selectively espouse Christianity and proclaim Australia as a Christian nation, ignoring the history and the constitution of Australia which says Australia as a secular nation. Those whose critical thinking ends as soon as Bolt/Jones/Ackerman finishes speaking.. In other words bogans.

      • Yes well said davoe, the thing farty pants doesn’t realise is that multiculturalism probably does not have any affect on him at all as he can provide no specific examples of it impacting on his life. Farty pants may have an online following of fellow bogans, but he is so bigoted and ignorant that he is a one man show.

    • This goes beyond right and left I think, it seems like a cultural thing to me not a political and social “stance”, it is just a base human trait that unfortunately these sorts of people display with no thought for the consequences or how they look to decent open minded people.

  4. So now TAB has sunk to the abyssal new lows of equating gun ownership with racism, bigotry, anti-social aggression, sub-par intelligence and the lower-income demographic?

    I love what you’ve done with this site guys. Way to paint in broad strokes. Taking cues from American low-brow, eco-mentalists and liberals seem to the be hot, new trend amongst the “concerned” Aussie middle-class.

    You’ll find Australian gun owners are some of the most law-abiding citizens in this country, as virtually any dirt on your record can prevent you from owning firearms and can result in the revocation of your firearms licence given how thoroughly stringent our gun laws, and if you think any beer-bellied, “troo-bloo” manual labourer has the money or the will to jump through the required hoops to actually get a permit to have firearms, you’re severely deluded.

    It would be prudent for you to remember that 85% of murders committed with firearms in Australia are done with illegal and unregistered firearms and that the majority of firearm-related deaths in Australia are suicides. 0.06% of licenced firearms are actually stolen in a given year.
    Knives are 3 times more likely to be used in assaults and robberies than firearms. And it goes without saying that criminals don’t obey the laws in the first place.

    This country might have a racism problem, but I can only assume you’re dragging guns into the debate because you do indeed have an axe to grind, which I’ve assumed for some time given the direction this site is heading.

    • I’m sorry Spiro, but I don’t see the connection. I see racist comments posted by racists. The gun ownership is there, but apart from the title it’s barely referred to, until you brought it up.

      In other words, I believe these people’s comments were only published here because they published racist, idiotic and antagonistic comments. Are you telling me that you believe these people have only been targetted because they had guns, and if they didn’t say anything racist they would have still been published here regardless?

      It sounds like, honestly, you wanted to have a fight about gun rights in Australia. Sadly, as I can see below, you got your wish.

    • Well if you want to be really pedantic about it (the onus isn’t on me to prove anything but on TAB to more accurately back-up their generalizations), Ed McDonald is quite obviously a private security contractor who is working or was working in Iraq; that’s as clear as day from that photograph.
      So that’s absolutely irrelevant to domestic gun ownership.

      The other two guys I sincerely doubt are stupid enough to have illegal firearms and then post pictures of themselves with said firearms on Facebook; nevermind the fact that the kinds of people who have illegal firearms are not the kind of people to broadcast their personal details in the public domain and make themselves easily identifiable as illegal firearms and career criminals go hand-in-hand.

      Also judging by the context in the photo and his location, Kenneth Donohue most likely does have a firearms licence.
      Plenty of folks in Toowoomba have guns, it’s a fact of life in in-land cities, especially in QLD.

      As for Gino Vella, I’d give him the benefit of the doubt given the fact he seems to be a 4×4 enthusiast and likes to hunt.

      • Plenty of folks in Toowoomba have guns, it’s a fact of life in in-land cities, especially in QLD.

        Not something we’d be inclined to celebrate and which is one reason that Queensland is not high up on our list of places to visit.

        Fact is no one in Australia needs to hold guns privately.

        Licensed professional shooters under strict conditions can dispose of feral animals on properties and in national parks. Recreational sports shooters can use guns held at gun clubs for target shooting and the disposal of skeets and clay pigeons.

        There is no reason in this country for anyone to hunt animals for food or sport using guns. Indigenous people do not need guns for traditional hunting.

        If men need a penis substitute go buy a rubber dildo.

        • Fact is you’re so out of your depth commenting on gun control it’s mind-numbingly painful to read.

          I’m not in the mood for a bitter debate, I’m just trying to say you’re an Anti-Racist Blog. You do that quite well. Stick with your bread and butter and focus in on that niche.

          Branching out into some kind of a free-wheeling morality and ethics board that dispenses life advice for the Aussie middle-class is really where you lose me because due to your inherent anonymity and closed-source policy, most of your actual opinions on political matters are inherently unqualified (we have no idea who you people are and what you’re experience is) and also suspect due to what I perceive is a strong bias on your part.

          There’s nothing wrong bias, as it’s all-pervasive, but you fail to disclose it and then proceed to always claim the higher moral ground which because you’re supporting a good cause you believe yourself to be above transparency, verifiability and criticism… which wreaks of the kind of sensationalist, ACA-style public interest journalism that wouldn’t cut it for most first year Media/Communications students.

          Every couple of articles you keep dragging in a diverse array of subjects which have at best, a tenuous connection to racism in Australia (Feminism, Facebook, Aussie Politics, Julia Guillard and just flat-out brainless, elitist humour taking a jab at this profile you have in your head of a “Bogan Racist” which overlaps with so many Australian demographics it’s a wonder you just haven’t come out and labelled this entire country racist) which you justify your support of by some copy-pasted blog from another anonymous blogger.

          It wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for the fact that you outsource the actual critical thinking behind your opinions to other people and it’s not just that but these sources you swear by come from the most unreliable of places, i.e. The Huffington Post (quite possibly one of the most divisive and well-known advocacy spin blogs out there).

          If you want to get serious about all this, then maybe more of an effort and less lazy copy-pasting/screenshot spam is in order for people to take you
          seriously as a political activism blog.

          Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but I find it highly ironic that you yourself are a supporter of the 9/11 Truth Movement (if a previous post was anything to go by) and yet you can’t seem to put 2 and 2 together and realize whom stringent gun control benefits the most.

        • When did anyone here mention the 911 truth Movement?

          And while we are on your pet topic

          1991 Wade Frankum killed eight people and wounded six at Strathfield Mall

          1996 Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded 23 at Port Arthur

          Take a look at the number of police officers killed by firearms while on duty.

          And the one thing of value left by John Howard


          And if you don’t like our blog you don’t need to read it. Perhaps you’d be happier chasing and eliminating some defenceless local fauna

  5. One final thing I felt compelled to write. Australia has ratified the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This charter states in NO uncertain terms that all of humanity has the right to “life, liberty and security of person and private property.”

    The UN, the same organization whose principles we abide by when we accept people seeking asylum in this country under the UNHCR’s many international conventions and declarations.

    Naturally, the mainstay of the Australian government is hypocrisy (regardless of the administration in office) and while it whole-heartedly some aspects of UN International Law it entirely disregards others.

    The basic, most self-evident rights and responsibilities you enjoy as a citizen of most Western nations are null and void if you do not have the right of self-defence.
    You only enjoy those rights by staying alive and by having the means to protect your person from unreasonable and unwarranted force, regardless of whom is directing it at you and regardless of whether it could be legally justifiable.

    Unless you have the right of self defence, which includes the right to use effective means, you do not own yourself. You are a slave to the state.

    The state and more specifically Law Enforcement, are not there to keep you alive. They are a reactionary force, they have no duty of care (and this has been tested in court) to ensure you are not killed or injured in the commission of a crime.
    That falls solely upon yourself.
    When seconds count, the police are minutes away as the old saying goes.

    Self defense should always a valid reason to own protection, and the firearm is the best protection know to man today. In a truly moral and civilised society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.

    Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    If a person carries a gun, you cannot deal with them by force.
    You have to use reason and try to persuade them, because they have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

    The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 50kg woman on equal footing with a 90kg mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. That to me, is the definition of uncivilised.

    The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
    It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
    The firearm is not the oppressor, it is the great equalizer.

    States cannot enjoy a monopoly on the use of force. History shows us that this only leads to a society where the people fear the government, instead of vice-versa, and as a result the government exceeds it mandate. The 20th Century’s worst genocides were precipitated by authoritarian regimes that restricted their citizen’s access to, amongst many other things; firearms.
    The Ottoman Turks, the Nazis, the early Bolsheviks and Stalin, Pol Pot, Maoist China, Rwanda, the list is endless.

    I could go on, but sufficed to say, most Australians have become so far-removed from self-sufficiency and taking responsibility for their actions as well as developing an unhealthy dependence on a welfare/nanny-state system that they are no longer capable of independent thought even, they prefer it to fed ideas and principles intravenously.

    Australians don’t want to hold guns privately because they have been conditioned to not want to hold guns privately.

    This issue has never been debated openly in our society and most likely won’t be because this isn’t an Australian issue at all.
    This is an issue of states versus the people, and states all around the world with the exception of a handful have disarmed their populaces and convinced them they can be trusted with a monopoly on the use of force; monopolies are not accepted in almost any other industry.

    Go ask a Syrian how well that works out when the government no longer works for the interests of it’s people.

    • Mate the law as it stands in Australia in regards to self defence as a defence for a charge of assault all the way up to murder and manslaughter is that if you genuinely fear for your life and safety or for someone’s life and safety you are responsible for, you can retaliate to an equal or lesser amount of force to neutralise that threat to your health, safety and well being.
      That’s it, no more, if you cop a whack in the pub and in defending yourself lash out and hit your attacker, you have a valid defence of provocation as you were a) getting assaulted and b) would reasonably expect to be fearful of your safety and well being. If however you then proceed to kerb stomp and strike your assailant with a stool or pool cue, you have absolutely no defence and will be charged (if identified and arrested) with whatever charges are applicable.
      You allude to an argument that gun ownership is a “right to defend yourself or property”, matter and that the police are not there to protect you but react to crime. True to a certain extent, laws, penalties and punishments are designed to discourage violence and theft, and the police cannot man every street corner to watch for bad guys. Civil behaviour and education keeps the majority of people on the straight and narrow, as they should, and as they expect other to behave.
      With your argument about guns and such on here I assume you are a gun owner or would like to see a similar system as in the US where people can be armed when not in an occupation that needs or warrants it? Am I right?
      That then would give rise to that hoary old chestnut of the home invader being shot by the home owner because the home owner feared for his and his families safety. The person shot is then found to not be carrying a gun but a baseball bat, the home owner has shot and killed someone he legally had no right to, he had the right to respond in kind if you like like hitting the offender with his gun, or another object and rendering the offender incapable of further action, but that would be it.
      If there was a gun in every house the potential for deaths goes up exponentially and jails would start to fill up with home owners found guilty of negligent homicide, or unlawful death etc…
      I know the opposite argument is it would make shitheads think twice about breaking in somewhere as they might get shot, but believe me these people are already risk takers, feeding drug or alcohol or other habits and the risk would never outweigh their needs and they would accept the risk and keep offending.
      Unfortunately there will always be crime, and violent crime, but the law applies a test of reasonableness on each response to those crimes and we have to live within those bounds, to some that isn’t fair but that is the way it is. I know as a security officer I am at risk from people who are committing crimes and would be a good bet they have a firearm, whereas I am not afraid of everyday people I deal with who don’t have guns and I prefer it that way.

  6. This Vella bloke is striking an Ivan Milat pose !

    “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”- that rubbish again.
    All u have to do in a fit of blind rage is point a loaded gun at a person and pull the trigger. Alot more people have that kind of capability than those that are willing to inflict the same amount of damage with a knife.

  7. Pingback: A Networked Society, United Under Fear. | Britt Andrews

What do YOU think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s