one thing crocodile tears Albanese did achieve was one of the greatest mis-directions of the Australian people away from the greater than 30,000 Excess Deaths over 2021-2022 .. and still rising in 2023 .. as a consequence of the previous government and now his government, pushing the 'safe & effective' C19 shots
now the media can stop fussing over whether it was one tear or two from Tony, perhaps they can ask him about investigating the Excess Deaths across our nation
but of course to do so will find all roads leading to his and every other State and Territory government door
What the yes camp ie the government, should have done is to make all workplaces force their employees to request an absentee mail in vote, bring the ballots to work and have a workplace commissar supervise all employees freely and voluntarily ticking the “yes” box, failure to do so resulting in being fired. Then require all applicants for any future jobs to show proof of a “yes” vote in their application . Australians live this kind of freedom. If you’re not going to run referendums safely and effectively what’s the point?
This article highlights a point I have made before -
1) Rebekah Barnett is perhaps Australia's best journalist (not currently being locked up and tortured)
2) The voice was resoundingly successful in it's (to me) clear aim of dividing the population, distracting them from the Covid Crimes, along with the usual funnelling-of-resources-semi-legal-corruption of any state action. It is akin to a nationwide discussion on which colour hair looks better while the owner of the hair commits treason, democide, and steals billions.
What disturbs me is this notion of control. It is clear that the ruling class no longer (if they ever did) consider themselves servants of the people. Albo on TV called the referendum a "failure." The only way the referendum could have been a failure is if we achieved no result. The people have spoken but apparently we said the wrong thing.
On kindness... I've only just realised how much we lefty types are used, manipulated and abused on the value of 'kindness'.
The poor young during the pandemic...
"Be kind to the old people and lock down" for a disease would barely impact you (and don't tell the young about the banning of drugs that could obviate any need for pandemic action at all, nor about the financial costs that will burden their lives).
"Be kind to the old people and take this vaccine" that certainly carries more risks than benefits to this cohort, and that didn't stop transmission to the old people.
"Be kind to the Indigenous and vote Yes" to goodness knows what final consequence.
And they're been propagandised through their school life with Climate Change Terror that will facilitate their willingness to lockdown for Climate (as promised by Victorian Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton), no doubt into Smart Cities to come. The kids have been given the imperative to advocate for their imprisonment.
Just because we can use a single phrase "indigenous Australians" to describe a subset of the population doesn't mean that those people think alike or have the same experiences and needs. Firstly, they come from hundreds of language groups and locations thousands of kilometres apart, and so developed largely independent of other groups. All these groups of did, however, have the same general experience of invasion, dispossession, novel diseases, oppression and murder - in some states to the point of few survivors. All can now benefit from Western civilisation and be harmed by its excesses.
Secondly, many are mixed race - with quite a few seeming, to the eye at least, to have primarily non-indigenous ancestry. Thirdly, they live in many places with different degrees of urbanisation. Finally, they are individuals.
Governments can and do consult with indigenous people. It is likely better to do so at a local and individual level, rather than primarily via a peak body with multiple layers of division and competitive, political, argument through which individual experience, knowledge and choices need to fight upwards against groupthink and contrary viewpoints, in order to arrive at the top where they might be heard as part of whatever the Voice would state in public.
In any political system, the noisiest and most motivated people tend to hold sway and suppress the views of those not so ideologically bent. This can lead to remarkable, enlightened, people wisely representing the positions of many of the group's constituents. However, it often rewards bitter, argumentative, people who accentuate differences and generate the controversy which brings them publicity - the oxygen of politics and prominent public discourse.
Look at BLM vs. ordinary African Americans, or the best known feminists vs. women. Look especially at trans activists and their legions of people who think they are trans due to the current social contagion compared to the actual, relatively small, number of real trans people, most of whom want to get on with their lives without oppression, with support and without making a scene about it, or shoving anything down other people's throats. Most women did not rise en-masse to suppress the worst excesses of the most prominent feminists. I guess the same is true in many social movements which have some basis in liberation, but which develop strongly along the lines of accusations of oppression and so cause intense divisions and likely misrepresentations of the people the movements are supposed to liberate.
According to polls, the Voice started with majority approval. I suspect that a major factor in the decline in approval was all the guilting (my spellchecker objects) of the entire public on the national stage, month after month, pushed hard by the ABC, Guardian et al. that this poorly defined constitutional amendment was the only kind, respectable, way to help indigenous people. Some respond positively to this - recent electorate maps indicate they were mainly in dense urban, and so successful middle-class suburbs. Others think it is a mistake to succumb to such emotional and likely unbalanced arguments, which would be to encourage more of the same. This is especially the case since some of the strongest proponents stated that the voice was the first step towards a treaty (not necessarily a bad idea, I think) and reparations, which are extraordinarily divisive.
As the months wore on, I guess more and more people wondered whether they really wanted the constitution to be changed to give a special place in federal parliament for the very same people - and over time, the same intense and often highly aggrieved type of people - to be given a special voice concerning legislation and executive government and perhaps the judiciary.
It is not hard to consult locally, and I guess this is an ongoing process all over the country. Nor is there any problem with one or more national or state based indigenous organisations lobbying and stating whatever they like to the public and different levels of government. Sometimes, the local indigenous people's best advice and pleas are ignored - for instance when women and elders requested indigenous alcohol bans in outback Australia be continued, but left-leaning woke-infested governments decided they couldn't possibly continue such a racist arrangement.
The question was whether we wanted a constitutionally mandated, peak indigenous body, with all its levels of politics, and likely guilt-based political suppression of viewpoints, permanently installed as an adjunct to federal parliament. This would surely result in the parliament itself likely being disinclined to decide anything different from what that body proclaimed was in the interest of all indigenous Australians, for fear of generating more arguments, feelings of rejection and accusations of racism, lack of care etc.
There is one thing governments can and should do for indigenous Australians, without arguments about colonialism, guilt or politics. To the extent that they have darker skin, spend more time indoors or wearing clothing than their ancestors, they are now are at very high risk for having insufficient circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D for their immune systems to work properly. Australians with white skin are already at high risk for this, but in the absence of vitamin D3 supplements in quantities 8 (oops "80" was a typo) or more times those very small amounts recommended by the government (0.015 mg a day - 600 IU - https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/nutrient-reference-values/nutrients/vitamin-d), indigenous Australians are even more at risk of devastating health problems due to their immune system being unable to work properly. The most pertinent research on vitamin D and the immune system is cited and discussed at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/ .
The 'Yes' campaign was so poorly structured that one wonders whether it was designed to fail......... I have little faith in the honesty of the AEC & was extremely shocked that the referendum failed. One can only conclude that it was never meant to be successful. Did Albo only win office if he promised to hold the referendum? And, now that it has been held & failed, will he disappear into obscurity, having served his purpose?
Always were, always will be........... distracted. The vote for NO probably would have been higher if the "stick it up your bum sideways" votes had been counted. Great campaign material for any savvy, unemotional, fairdinkum alternative parties out there in our there land, moving forward. What a gift from the navel gazing, lint picking brigade. The only reflection they'll do is looking @ their stupid mugs in the mirror. Great work again Rebekah, I'm surprised they haven't tried to recruit you to their side, so they can shut you down.
Well done what an amazingly well-written piece. Good observation on the Motte and Bailey fallacy. That is exactly what it was. And good quote selection from Jacinta on the instrumentalisation of remote people for the agenda of others. They have had their racial identity dragged through the public square held up to a vote, and are now being told by the ABC among others that the No vote is a setback for them. Just setting them up for a fall and for nothing. No benefit. Could anything be more disgraceful? And the total waste of more than $400 million
I am proud of the Australian population. Their motives for voting No may vary greatly but in general it shows that they are no longer the sheeples they were during the last three years. The timing of this referendum was no accident. Our leadership, puppets of the globalists, tried to take away 'the first people's sovereignty' for an easy job of surrendering our country. This has failed.
Australia's emphatic rejection of the Voice to Parliament at the weekend's referendum reveals some home truths
one thing crocodile tears Albanese did achieve was one of the greatest mis-directions of the Australian people away from the greater than 30,000 Excess Deaths over 2021-2022 .. and still rising in 2023 .. as a consequence of the previous government and now his government, pushing the 'safe & effective' C19 shots
now the media can stop fussing over whether it was one tear or two from Tony, perhaps they can ask him about investigating the Excess Deaths across our nation
but of course to do so will find all roads leading to his and every other State and Territory government door
What the yes camp ie the government, should have done is to make all workplaces force their employees to request an absentee mail in vote, bring the ballots to work and have a workplace commissar supervise all employees freely and voluntarily ticking the “yes” box, failure to do so resulting in being fired. Then require all applicants for any future jobs to show proof of a “yes” vote in their application . Australians live this kind of freedom. If you’re not going to run referendums safely and effectively what’s the point?
This article highlights a point I have made before -
1) Rebekah Barnett is perhaps Australia's best journalist (not currently being locked up and tortured)
2) The voice was resoundingly successful in it's (to me) clear aim of dividing the population, distracting them from the Covid Crimes, along with the usual funnelling-of-resources-semi-legal-corruption of any state action. It is akin to a nationwide discussion on which colour hair looks better while the owner of the hair commits treason, democide, and steals billions.
What disturbs me is this notion of control. It is clear that the ruling class no longer (if they ever did) consider themselves servants of the people. Albo on TV called the referendum a "failure." The only way the referendum could have been a failure is if we achieved no result. The people have spoken but apparently we said the wrong thing.
On kindness... I've only just realised how much we lefty types are used, manipulated and abused on the value of 'kindness'.
The poor young during the pandemic...
"Be kind to the old people and lock down" for a disease would barely impact you (and don't tell the young about the banning of drugs that could obviate any need for pandemic action at all, nor about the financial costs that will burden their lives).
"Be kind to the old people and take this vaccine" that certainly carries more risks than benefits to this cohort, and that didn't stop transmission to the old people.
"Be kind to the Indigenous and vote Yes" to goodness knows what final consequence.
And they're been propagandised through their school life with Climate Change Terror that will facilitate their willingness to lockdown for Climate (as promised by Victorian Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton), no doubt into Smart Cities to come. The kids have been given the imperative to advocate for their imprisonment.
This also tested people’s trust in Government to do the right thing. Why couldn’t we have 60% of population questioning last 3 years?
Just because we can use a single phrase "indigenous Australians" to describe a subset of the population doesn't mean that those people think alike or have the same experiences and needs. Firstly, they come from hundreds of language groups and locations thousands of kilometres apart, and so developed largely independent of other groups. All these groups of did, however, have the same general experience of invasion, dispossession, novel diseases, oppression and murder - in some states to the point of few survivors. All can now benefit from Western civilisation and be harmed by its excesses.
Secondly, many are mixed race - with quite a few seeming, to the eye at least, to have primarily non-indigenous ancestry. Thirdly, they live in many places with different degrees of urbanisation. Finally, they are individuals.
Governments can and do consult with indigenous people. It is likely better to do so at a local and individual level, rather than primarily via a peak body with multiple layers of division and competitive, political, argument through which individual experience, knowledge and choices need to fight upwards against groupthink and contrary viewpoints, in order to arrive at the top where they might be heard as part of whatever the Voice would state in public.
In any political system, the noisiest and most motivated people tend to hold sway and suppress the views of those not so ideologically bent. This can lead to remarkable, enlightened, people wisely representing the positions of many of the group's constituents. However, it often rewards bitter, argumentative, people who accentuate differences and generate the controversy which brings them publicity - the oxygen of politics and prominent public discourse.
Look at BLM vs. ordinary African Americans, or the best known feminists vs. women. Look especially at trans activists and their legions of people who think they are trans due to the current social contagion compared to the actual, relatively small, number of real trans people, most of whom want to get on with their lives without oppression, with support and without making a scene about it, or shoving anything down other people's throats. Most women did not rise en-masse to suppress the worst excesses of the most prominent feminists. I guess the same is true in many social movements which have some basis in liberation, but which develop strongly along the lines of accusations of oppression and so cause intense divisions and likely misrepresentations of the people the movements are supposed to liberate.
According to polls, the Voice started with majority approval. I suspect that a major factor in the decline in approval was all the guilting (my spellchecker objects) of the entire public on the national stage, month after month, pushed hard by the ABC, Guardian et al. that this poorly defined constitutional amendment was the only kind, respectable, way to help indigenous people. Some respond positively to this - recent electorate maps indicate they were mainly in dense urban, and so successful middle-class suburbs. Others think it is a mistake to succumb to such emotional and likely unbalanced arguments, which would be to encourage more of the same. This is especially the case since some of the strongest proponents stated that the voice was the first step towards a treaty (not necessarily a bad idea, I think) and reparations, which are extraordinarily divisive.
As the months wore on, I guess more and more people wondered whether they really wanted the constitution to be changed to give a special place in federal parliament for the very same people - and over time, the same intense and often highly aggrieved type of people - to be given a special voice concerning legislation and executive government and perhaps the judiciary.
It is not hard to consult locally, and I guess this is an ongoing process all over the country. Nor is there any problem with one or more national or state based indigenous organisations lobbying and stating whatever they like to the public and different levels of government. Sometimes, the local indigenous people's best advice and pleas are ignored - for instance when women and elders requested indigenous alcohol bans in outback Australia be continued, but left-leaning woke-infested governments decided they couldn't possibly continue such a racist arrangement.
The question was whether we wanted a constitutionally mandated, peak indigenous body, with all its levels of politics, and likely guilt-based political suppression of viewpoints, permanently installed as an adjunct to federal parliament. This would surely result in the parliament itself likely being disinclined to decide anything different from what that body proclaimed was in the interest of all indigenous Australians, for fear of generating more arguments, feelings of rejection and accusations of racism, lack of care etc.
There is one thing governments can and should do for indigenous Australians, without arguments about colonialism, guilt or politics. To the extent that they have darker skin, spend more time indoors or wearing clothing than their ancestors, they are now are at very high risk for having insufficient circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D for their immune systems to work properly. Australians with white skin are already at high risk for this, but in the absence of vitamin D3 supplements in quantities 8 (oops "80" was a typo) or more times those very small amounts recommended by the government (0.015 mg a day - 600 IU - https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/nutrient-reference-values/nutrients/vitamin-d), indigenous Australians are even more at risk of devastating health problems due to their immune system being unable to work properly. The most pertinent research on vitamin D and the immune system is cited and discussed at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/ .
The 'Yes' campaign was so poorly structured that one wonders whether it was designed to fail......... I have little faith in the honesty of the AEC & was extremely shocked that the referendum failed. One can only conclude that it was never meant to be successful. Did Albo only win office if he promised to hold the referendum? And, now that it has been held & failed, will he disappear into obscurity, having served his purpose?
Congratulations on a great conservative victory for Australia.
Thanks for another thoughtful and thought provoking piece Rebekah.
Always were, always will be........... distracted. The vote for NO probably would have been higher if the "stick it up your bum sideways" votes had been counted. Great campaign material for any savvy, unemotional, fairdinkum alternative parties out there in our there land, moving forward. What a gift from the navel gazing, lint picking brigade. The only reflection they'll do is looking @ their stupid mugs in the mirror. Great work again Rebekah, I'm surprised they haven't tried to recruit you to their side, so they can shut you down.
Well done what an amazingly well-written piece. Good observation on the Motte and Bailey fallacy. That is exactly what it was. And good quote selection from Jacinta on the instrumentalisation of remote people for the agenda of others. They have had their racial identity dragged through the public square held up to a vote, and are now being told by the ABC among others that the No vote is a setback for them. Just setting them up for a fall and for nothing. No benefit. Could anything be more disgraceful? And the total waste of more than $400 million
I'd like to congratulate Rebekah on holding back from written comment until the vote was largely counted :)
hehe
When you get a plant to self seed in your garden you say the plant has become indigenous to that environment.
Using this analogy, everyone with an Australian birth certificate is an indigenous Australian.
I am proud of the Australian population. Their motives for voting No may vary greatly but in general it shows that they are no longer the sheeples they were during the last three years. The timing of this referendum was no accident. Our leadership, puppets of the globalists, tried to take away 'the first people's sovereignty' for an easy job of surrendering our country. This has failed.