So she thinks bullying and name calling, obfuscation of details, and no arguments of substance, will win the yes vote! We had better all be watching the polls like hawks to be sure no cheating takes place!
We know from history that social workers and police dealing directly with indigenous people have had a record of not being on their side. This should not be made an issue at the referendum which deals with completely different issues. I think that Ms Langton is not seeing the full picture and does not see that the 'Yes' vote is a trap.
That is an ignorant statement. The vast majory of social workers are pro-Aboriginal as though this were a religion, and police are lenient to the point they contribute to recidivism. Do not believe the garbage that appears on ABC, BBC, or in fact any MSM.
Too many people believe the media reports of what was concluded by the Royal Commission on deaths in custody. Read the actual Commissioners' reports and you will find that after 8 years rigorous investigation, police and prison officers were found to be not guilty of rascism or abuse, and more white people die in custody that Aboriginese. So... how come the opposite is reported? Divide and rule? Just like the Voice
And she's right about that of course, and it carries on right up until today, I have witnessed it directly and personally many times from both social wankers and the pigs.
OK Outsider, identify yourself. I am of those communities, and also worked in welfare and closely with police. I also research and apply Aboriginal Law and in local languages. and have done for fifty years. When people make such statements, I want them to identify themselves or I will do so for them. You woul dbe surprised how easy this is to do.
Are you crazy? Who are you... I have no reason to identify myself to you. I speak from my experience, I speak the truth and I have no desire to convince you of anything.
You libeled two professions. As it happens, I am quite good at applying word usage and ideosyncratic parsing to identify people, with sometimnes hilarious results. When I have identified you, I will challenge your knowledge and experience as opposed to my own, then invite the thus-insulted police and social workers to deliver their own impressions and conclusions. Or, you could get a pair and out youurself. I would respect that.
Lame, astoundingly lame. You are incredible. You tout all your experience as an Original and yet you really want people to believe that the social workers and police are not rife with harmful abusers and psychopaths who wield far too much power? Where did I say that ALL of them are bad? The harm done by some of them and always with the solidarity of the vast majority of colleagues, including you it seems, is what has brought those professions into complete disrepute. It's as with everything that is not transparent and overseen by the correct community democratic structures. Let's not even mention the child protection services!
Wow I just read your "comment" again. Not only lame it defies basic knowledge of what libel is. I may even have more balls than you'll ever have but I don't see why I need to compete with you on your pissing contest. I certainly have no wish at this point in time to be respected by you, whatever for? I also do not see anything constructive in personal attacks or side tracking from what is the big picture and main goal.
So, unto you your path, and unto me mine, and on the Day of Judgment we may see :-)
Hold on, you have completely changed your story. You previously referred exclusively to Aborigines. I am extremey aware of social workers' abuse of their role, and I know that child trafficking and paedophile rings rely on the support of social workers, police, judges, the family law court, and politicians. Child protection authority is where paedophilia commences. Contrary to your assertions and presumptions, I outed the social work profession in my historical novel "The Lost Track", recording how I challenged them between 1977 and 1983. For some years I was published by the private media people in Australia who have been fighting this. As to libel, anything published about anyone is potentially litigious. Professions can and do sue their dertractors.
I watched Marcia Langton’s recent address to the Australian National Press club. I received an overwhelming impression that this was one helluva angry woman. Her style of speech and remarks were dripping with anger and intolerance against anyone who had a different opinion to hers. It was as if she was being emotionally driven by an overwhelming sense of grievance and hate for non-aboriginal people. The irony is that Langton herself is only partially of aboriginal descent – she would not exist if it were not for her non-aboriginal forebears. Maybe she is internally conflicted because of that. I note that she does not use an Aboriginal name.
If her address to the National Press Club was supposed to be one of generating political support for the ‘Yes’ case for constitutional change, then she failed totally. Not a skerrick of empathy for the conflicted situation of other Australians passed over her face – a face which was contorted in a mask of perpetual anger and accusation.
The essence of politics in a democratic system is to convince those who are unsure, or who may not necessarily agree with you, to come over to your side and support your agenda. In achieving this, Langton failed completely, and in fact, she must have created the opposite effect by repulsing many of the viewers – even amongst some of the po-faced fellow-traveller journalists who sat watching her speech.
The same syndrome of perpetual anger and grievance appears to drive the attitudes of so many activists of aboriginal descent in Australia – it seems built in. These activists also display a proclivity to insult non-aboriginal people and their forebears at every opportunity, such as the regular acts of defacement of statues of Captain Cook – a man of the Enlightenment who treated the native peoples of the Pacific with great humanity. Nasty acts such as these defacements only send a message of deep hate to non-aboriginal Australians – which of course is what is intended.
Perhaps the aboriginal activists are unwittingly reacting to being unloved, or having suffered abuse when they were children - and then as adults, they are driven to project their sense of hurt onto other innocent targets. Such childhood disruption events are known to create ongoing psychological effects in adults. The syndrome has been observed as common in many cultures that were once Hunter-Gather or tribal in nature, especially when led by an unscrupulous dominant ‘Big Man’. Inbred psychological damage such as this could help explain why, after the fifty-millennia of occupation of the Australian landmass, the hundreds of Aboriginal clans were never able to coalesce into larger political entities such as nations – or empires - in the way that the native peoples of other continents were able to achieve.
I agree with Rebekah’s observation – the net effect of angry people such as Marcia Langton is to repel people who might have otherwise had some sympathy for the aboriginal cause.
I imagine that Marcia Langton has good reasons to be angry, and I'm not sure I agree with your characterisation of Captain Cook as a lovely genteel man who was nothing but kind to the prior inhabitants - although I haven't read into it enough, I'm just going off vague notions from my schooling. But our conclusion is the same. Unfortunately for Langton, referendums require political skill to persuade. Langton is more activist than politician, which is great for lighting fires to get the conversation going, but could blow up the referendum.
She is at the end of the day a human and a real human would absolutely be traumatised and angry. The thing is she's being used just as everyone else, by the usual manipulators and perhaps she can't see the bigger picture, maybe she needs to sit with Elders some more.
Langton is a privileged academic who could not match wits on the open academic market. She is vitriolic because she is a nasty woman, not because she suffered from disadvantage or racism. If you were to point out she was incorrect in her assertions she would accuse you of racism or misogyny, or whatever, The truth is she has no Aboriginal culture, speaks no languages, and is pure mainstream Australian applying a mix of American black radicalism and Tavistock divide and rule. Her colleagues are no better. Worse, they do not even have the capacity to represent the people of the NT or Kimberly, where genuine Aborigines are.
FWIW I agree with you. I'm just a (very) average citizen but very well aware of her conduct over the years, and this said conduct speaks for itself. There's another aspect to it too (see: Outsider's reply) She is not being used, she is the manipulator, she demonstrated her ability to understand her own (supposedly) people. She's been in this game for every long time, with nothing to show for. Maybe she would benefit from consulting with the Elders but I somehow doubt they would care for talking to her. She is just a bureaucrat. And not of the highest calibre, despite her credentials. This is my humble opinion, I could be wrong.
Her PhD is bullshit. Dozens of stupid people have been awarded academic credentials they are incapable of justifying, based on intellect. In fact, most PhDs are stupid. I won't go into why this is so here but glance at Substack oziz4oziz article titled The New Stupid
I did not say she wasn't. And that is exactly the typical situation for countless of those who have bought into the neo-left-fascist Australien system which gives them powerful roles in destroying people's lives, I have seen such women in social worker roles and even the police. Australia is absolutely full of injustice and undesirable people of all shapes and colours and they especially get into "social services" and the police where they can legally get away with crimes which would have them hanged in any civilized nation.
That's wonderful. I hear that no one gets failed so long as you show up and it's all about the money, not sure if this applies in your graduation award case though!
Hahaha. You got it! No one failed. Not even the ones who barely showed up over three years. Lol.
And it was mostly taught by students- sure they were masters students but some of them couldn’t pronounce the ‘big’ words they tried to use and none of them had any real world experience.
I realised pretty quickly that all they were teaching me was how to obfuscate and discombobulate so no one dared ask what that pile of crap you put on the floor and called art meant. I mean anyone who understood art would know that stick you found on the street and put in as lump of clay was a comment on class, race and the clash between cultures. What are you? An ignoramus? 😂
Needless to say say I declined the offer to do honours.
I also couldn't get my head around that, but I think those were Rebekkah's words? Anyway all this racism is making me dizzy, I think I'll just call all that Ignorance from now on, it seems a far better description of "racism" to me.
To give any small group such a position of leverage that would easily bad actors to manipulate the Federal government goes against the fundamental tenants of the constitution - ie to limit power and enable transparent dialogue and due process....
We may as well adopt The Quran as constitution then. The US constitution is just as much value as me standing up in court reciting from the Quran or the Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which incidentally on paper is arguably among the most advanced human rights documents in the world.
I know some very smart and thinking people on the Yes side - I think it's a mistake to assume that all thinking people fall on side or the other - but if you mean that proper consideration of risk is a common thread on the No side, I would agree.
Why are they on the yes side? What is the rationale? Could you please share or write a post about that so I / we can better understand? Is it just positive expectation?
The government is not our friend, the government is killing us, and the people who vote no understand this.
I do not think your 'smart and thinking' people understand that the same people who decided the covid policies are now deciding the voice. I will bet that all these 'smart and thinking' people are happily vaccinated and 'trust the science.'
I can't disclose the vax status of my interviewees but I can tell you I know more than one unvaxxed person who is voting Yes. I don't agree with their reasoning, but I understand it.
I don't think we can say that there aren't "smart and thinking" people voting yes who saw through the plandemic and the regime, as perhaps they see it as a means to an end, a step in a direction they favour (as explained in many of the footnotes to the Statement) and may even be way smarter than 90% of the population, but they're just not quite smart enough or have thought enough, or have the knowledge and experience that I and perhaps you and some others here have the (mis)fortune to have gathered.
Looking forward, I hope you can include some of the reasoning about quid pro quo. That a YES or NO vote i.e. plebiscite/referendum is dictatorship (please refer to the short chapter on Plebiscites in The Green Book bit.ly/greenvirus ), which exactly backs up what the reality is and why we're having these in-depth discussions on your SubStack, as well as the handicap the New Rules Based World Order Champions of Full Spectrum Domination have faced with Australia at international venues that they dominate (UN etc) and can now show Australien regime has given "full support" to the YES campaign, but an ignorant population in spite of media and financial support, has failed to ratify it (and they may not have ever intended for it to be ratified knowing this as they know full well what the sentiment is as they have full access to Meta's data results), as well as further drive a popular wedge against the Sovereignty movement?
In short, people who vote yes think the government should solve all their personal problems. Sound harsh? It is, but listen carefully to what they say:
"The government this...the government that..."
Not "I will decide this...I will decide that..."
Example:
"The government needs to do something about fetal alcohol syndrome"
vs.
"I will stop drinking while I am pregnant."
They are two opposing worldviews. Yet, those who vote yes say they are for 'self-determination' while making government bigger with more rules, thus taking away genuine self-determination. It is an inversion of reality and they are heavily propagandised to 'be good people' in their social groups which benefit from the system they are propping up. They are higly emotional while convincing themselves they are intellectual. This situation occurrs in people who are almost in a state of perpetual childhood due to a lifetime of institutionalisation and being rewarded for compliance in these institutions - essentially, left-leaning women and beta males. See: Labor and Greens politicians crying when they talk about 'the voice.'
Can you imagine this sort of behaviour occurring even 30 years ago? It is totally ridiculous and by design. Our institutions have been designed to collapse to demoralise us and weaken society.
DK, I know some rerally lovely people who will be voting, "YES", and who work for Aboriginal organisations on the front line, and whose organisations are active pushing the yes vote, and are contributing big money to the campaign. This is a problem for we veterans who have had exposure to the real world of politics and geopolitics. We simply do not discuss it with our friends and colleagues. They are way to unworldly to absorb the depth of deceit or to absorb the ruthlessness of their senior management. It takes years to learn, and time is what we do not have.
Thanks. I am trying to get informed. Anytime I see government pushing for something, I get skeptical. :)
So, I would like to vote yes as well, but I am skeptical...I understand why people would like to vote "Yes". It is positive approach. Similar to vaccines and so many other interventionist actions.
I am not sure I understand the below:
"This is a problem for we veterans who have had exposure to the real world of politics and geopolitics. We simply do not discuss it with our friends and colleagues. They are way to unworldly to absorb the depth of deceit or to absorb the ruthlessness of their senior management. It takes years to learn, and time is what we do not have."
Are you saying we are the veterans, being skeptical and questioning and discussing in an open manner? And many others are not? If so, then I agree. However, we all have to start, we all did. It takes time. You are right. Time is what we do have. Some may think time is we do not have because Oct 14th is around the corner. Perhaps that is another tactic.
Long before i saw or heard these clips Ii have had a persistent cartoon image in my mind of the cat from Alice in Wonderland with M. Langton's face sneering down at us balefully. I know it is a mad teaparty we are attending but she makes it very, very hard to want to vote yes.
Plus this is how tyrants sell their idea... Name calling, demonizing those against an agenda...
The government hasn't spent 365 million on a giant hug... Truly... this is an agenda, and I think it's even bigger than Australia, there is the overwhelming need for a treaty to be secured by the UN I suspect... For future plans...
You are NOT racist if you'd like DETAILS of a legally binding modification to YOUR RIGHTS under the constitution...
The voice can run WITHOUT being an intrusion into the constitution, which again enshrines ALL Australians rights in law...
Any modifications can be a loophole to OVERRIDE pre existing rights...
It's not just a matter of saying you feel bad for Aboriginals and all they've been through... I do thoroughly feel terrible for what they would have suffered in the past ... and even now in the communities. I also am proud of their resilience and love learning all I can about one of the last paleolithic living people's on earth, I am in awe of their skill and spirituality.
But I'll be voting "NO"
Because this is a Trojan horse for sure...
ATSIC was the same general ideals as the voice... The voice could run like ATSIC (hopefully without all the corruption this time)... No constitutional amendment required ...
The Voice most likely will be stacked with UN WEF WHO acolytes, next thing you know...
Mandatory vaccines for life (which will be short with mRNA kill shots) to "protect first nations people"
Climate lockdowns, and no car to "fix" the climate (lol) "to protect first nations people"
Paying a "first nations reparations tax" on your house, etc etc...
Your title, bought from the crown, suddenly may be subject to native title... and the UN will manage all native title lands on "behalf" of first nations people.
All monies will disappear of course and actual real Aboriginals will be worse off than ever as they'll see none of it.
The constitution modifications means treaty, effectively stating Aboriginals now give our government power over their sovereign lands (as long as easily corrupted VOICE members think it's okay, which they will $$) next thing you know One World Government, Pandemic treatys etc etc ... As now the government will be acting on BEHALF of the sovereign owners of the nation.
Signing us up for permanent emergencies, or any WEF, UN, WHO agendas...
The World Court which exists now (due to be a court of punishment in the future, and not a court of justice for punters like you and me) couldn't rule on an issue involving Australia back in 1993 as we are one of the few countries that sit in stolen land and have no treaty with original people, who are sovereign owners... This video from 1993 starts to point out where this plan started (regarding the world court and Australia)
The fact there is no treaty currently is one of the few aces Aboriginals have up their sleeve, and consequently an ACE for all Australians...
This talk of you're either "for" their suspicious constitution amendment or you are an evil racist reeks of desperation to WEAPONISE COMPASSION to get you to agree to something that seems FISHY ...
I've stopped trusting the agenda, and when Rio Tinto and Pfizer run CAMPAIGNS saying how much they want a YES, I get even more sus....
What's it got to do with them?
They're getting something out of it, or they wouldn't put money into yes ads, in fact they'd FUND a "no" campaign if they WEREN'T getting something out of it... and they'd stay out of it if they were getting nothing from it...
So sus...
You must also think this "Voice" push came out of nowhere, and all of a sudden is the most important thing ever, there is no need for a modification of our constitution to enact this... None whatsoever... Keep what little rights we have and vote NO.
I agree, though there's also this to consider: https://telegra.ph/The-Green-Book-10-16#PLEBISCITES so I won't be voting yes, nor no. I will certainly not be helping them with their plans though, nor do I aim to fall into their either-or traps.
Marxism (and its many kith & kin) white-anted its way through the institutions, world-wide, long ago... and I - and possibly others - did nothing to stop it.
Coward-Piven & the Kalergi Plan are just two aspects of the rot in the system becoming apparent - or maybe not - to most. NDIS anyone?
Anyway, the 'consequences' of our lack of attention are now smacking us in the face, real time and as Tyson almost said, 'there goes the plan'.
Langton's recent comments occurred on the campus of Edith Cowan University which has policies against abuse, bullying and defamation. I wonder what the Vice Chancellor would think of this?
A bit of research found this, and it is a treasure trove of woke remarks that are pro-yes and very much creating a culture against anyone voting no:
"The University acknowledges that there will be diverse views on the Voice to Parliament within our community and remains committed to creating space for informed public debate that is respectful and true to our values."
Will he disavow? Are there univeristy policies against 'hate speech?' oh me oh my...quite the pickle!
Vice Chancellors have long become compromised prostitutes with absolutely no moral mettle. They need to be taken out and universities shut down. They no longer serve any positive purpose.
Having attended university as a mature age student and graduating a few years ago I fully and completely concur with this comment. Going to uni was about as useful as tits on a bull.
I presume to graduate you had to go along with a lot of BS and give them what they wanted? It takes a huge amount of effort and research to go against the unscientific grain in today's unis.
Stalineasy and his web of spiders attempt the dismantling of the Australian Constitution in preparation for the divine Marxist NWO 👏 You know, that one the Oligarchs will let the Dear Leaders control us with? This is the REAL Pyramid scheme... with a bloody great A.S.E. at top (All Seeing Eye).
If she is well meaning with Yes and has a great vision, then I fail to see her winning by calling someone something? Why would you label someone something? Am I bias in thinking she is doing it from a position of weakness? I mean we are all grown ups after all. :)
She should be saying why she is on the yes side, explaining her position in great details AND not attacking people.
She is on the yes side AND yet she is attacking a portion of the population. How is this uniting us?
"We are the moral ones, the correct ones" they love to tell us. But "leaders" don't have a monopoly on morality and the people know it.
So she thinks bullying and name calling, obfuscation of details, and no arguments of substance, will win the yes vote! We had better all be watching the polls like hawks to be sure no cheating takes place!
We know from history that social workers and police dealing directly with indigenous people have had a record of not being on their side. This should not be made an issue at the referendum which deals with completely different issues. I think that Ms Langton is not seeing the full picture and does not see that the 'Yes' vote is a trap.
To be fair, Langton made the statement about social workers and police in 2020, before the referendum campaign.
It was a lie then and a lie now.
That is an ignorant statement. The vast majory of social workers are pro-Aboriginal as though this were a religion, and police are lenient to the point they contribute to recidivism. Do not believe the garbage that appears on ABC, BBC, or in fact any MSM.
Too many people believe the media reports of what was concluded by the Royal Commission on deaths in custody. Read the actual Commissioners' reports and you will find that after 8 years rigorous investigation, police and prison officers were found to be not guilty of rascism or abuse, and more white people die in custody that Aboriginese. So... how come the opposite is reported? Divide and rule? Just like the Voice
And she's right about that of course, and it carries on right up until today, I have witnessed it directly and personally many times from both social wankers and the pigs.
OK Outsider, identify yourself. I am of those communities, and also worked in welfare and closely with police. I also research and apply Aboriginal Law and in local languages. and have done for fifty years. When people make such statements, I want them to identify themselves or I will do so for them. You woul dbe surprised how easy this is to do.
Are you crazy? Who are you... I have no reason to identify myself to you. I speak from my experience, I speak the truth and I have no desire to convince you of anything.
You libeled two professions. As it happens, I am quite good at applying word usage and ideosyncratic parsing to identify people, with sometimnes hilarious results. When I have identified you, I will challenge your knowledge and experience as opposed to my own, then invite the thus-insulted police and social workers to deliver their own impressions and conclusions. Or, you could get a pair and out youurself. I would respect that.
Lame, astoundingly lame. You are incredible. You tout all your experience as an Original and yet you really want people to believe that the social workers and police are not rife with harmful abusers and psychopaths who wield far too much power? Where did I say that ALL of them are bad? The harm done by some of them and always with the solidarity of the vast majority of colleagues, including you it seems, is what has brought those professions into complete disrepute. It's as with everything that is not transparent and overseen by the correct community democratic structures. Let's not even mention the child protection services!
Wow I just read your "comment" again. Not only lame it defies basic knowledge of what libel is. I may even have more balls than you'll ever have but I don't see why I need to compete with you on your pissing contest. I certainly have no wish at this point in time to be respected by you, whatever for? I also do not see anything constructive in personal attacks or side tracking from what is the big picture and main goal.
So, unto you your path, and unto me mine, and on the Day of Judgment we may see :-)
Hold on, you have completely changed your story. You previously referred exclusively to Aborigines. I am extremey aware of social workers' abuse of their role, and I know that child trafficking and paedophile rings rely on the support of social workers, police, judges, the family law court, and politicians. Child protection authority is where paedophilia commences. Contrary to your assertions and presumptions, I outed the social work profession in my historical novel "The Lost Track", recording how I challenged them between 1977 and 1983. For some years I was published by the private media people in Australia who have been fighting this. As to libel, anything published about anyone is potentially litigious. Professions can and do sue their dertractors.
If you can’t debate or argue a point, the fall-back position is RACISM.
Always.
I watched Marcia Langton’s recent address to the Australian National Press club. I received an overwhelming impression that this was one helluva angry woman. Her style of speech and remarks were dripping with anger and intolerance against anyone who had a different opinion to hers. It was as if she was being emotionally driven by an overwhelming sense of grievance and hate for non-aboriginal people. The irony is that Langton herself is only partially of aboriginal descent – she would not exist if it were not for her non-aboriginal forebears. Maybe she is internally conflicted because of that. I note that she does not use an Aboriginal name.
If her address to the National Press Club was supposed to be one of generating political support for the ‘Yes’ case for constitutional change, then she failed totally. Not a skerrick of empathy for the conflicted situation of other Australians passed over her face – a face which was contorted in a mask of perpetual anger and accusation.
The essence of politics in a democratic system is to convince those who are unsure, or who may not necessarily agree with you, to come over to your side and support your agenda. In achieving this, Langton failed completely, and in fact, she must have created the opposite effect by repulsing many of the viewers – even amongst some of the po-faced fellow-traveller journalists who sat watching her speech.
The same syndrome of perpetual anger and grievance appears to drive the attitudes of so many activists of aboriginal descent in Australia – it seems built in. These activists also display a proclivity to insult non-aboriginal people and their forebears at every opportunity, such as the regular acts of defacement of statues of Captain Cook – a man of the Enlightenment who treated the native peoples of the Pacific with great humanity. Nasty acts such as these defacements only send a message of deep hate to non-aboriginal Australians – which of course is what is intended.
Perhaps the aboriginal activists are unwittingly reacting to being unloved, or having suffered abuse when they were children - and then as adults, they are driven to project their sense of hurt onto other innocent targets. Such childhood disruption events are known to create ongoing psychological effects in adults. The syndrome has been observed as common in many cultures that were once Hunter-Gather or tribal in nature, especially when led by an unscrupulous dominant ‘Big Man’. Inbred psychological damage such as this could help explain why, after the fifty-millennia of occupation of the Australian landmass, the hundreds of Aboriginal clans were never able to coalesce into larger political entities such as nations – or empires - in the way that the native peoples of other continents were able to achieve.
I agree with Rebekah’s observation – the net effect of angry people such as Marcia Langton is to repel people who might have otherwise had some sympathy for the aboriginal cause.
I imagine that Marcia Langton has good reasons to be angry, and I'm not sure I agree with your characterisation of Captain Cook as a lovely genteel man who was nothing but kind to the prior inhabitants - although I haven't read into it enough, I'm just going off vague notions from my schooling. But our conclusion is the same. Unfortunately for Langton, referendums require political skill to persuade. Langton is more activist than politician, which is great for lighting fires to get the conversation going, but could blow up the referendum.
She is at the end of the day a human and a real human would absolutely be traumatised and angry. The thing is she's being used just as everyone else, by the usual manipulators and perhaps she can't see the bigger picture, maybe she needs to sit with Elders some more.
Langton is a privileged academic who could not match wits on the open academic market. She is vitriolic because she is a nasty woman, not because she suffered from disadvantage or racism. If you were to point out she was incorrect in her assertions she would accuse you of racism or misogyny, or whatever, The truth is she has no Aboriginal culture, speaks no languages, and is pure mainstream Australian applying a mix of American black radicalism and Tavistock divide and rule. Her colleagues are no better. Worse, they do not even have the capacity to represent the people of the NT or Kimberly, where genuine Aborigines are.
FWIW I agree with you. I'm just a (very) average citizen but very well aware of her conduct over the years, and this said conduct speaks for itself. There's another aspect to it too (see: Outsider's reply) She is not being used, she is the manipulator, she demonstrated her ability to understand her own (supposedly) people. She's been in this game for every long time, with nothing to show for. Maybe she would benefit from consulting with the Elders but I somehow doubt they would care for talking to her. She is just a bureaucrat. And not of the highest calibre, despite her credentials. This is my humble opinion, I could be wrong.
Her PhD is bullshit. Dozens of stupid people have been awarded academic credentials they are incapable of justifying, based on intellect. In fact, most PhDs are stupid. I won't go into why this is so here but glance at Substack oziz4oziz article titled The New Stupid
I did not say she wasn't. And that is exactly the typical situation for countless of those who have bought into the neo-left-fascist Australien system which gives them powerful roles in destroying people's lives, I have seen such women in social worker roles and even the police. Australia is absolutely full of injustice and undesirable people of all shapes and colours and they especially get into "social services" and the police where they can legally get away with crimes which would have them hanged in any civilized nation.
Langton has joined the NO voter's with a clever reverse psychology campaign. 🤣
Marcia Langton kinda said:
"I'm not rascist, but......"
Lucky for me I was doing an arts course and did the opposite of everything they told me to do. I won the graduation award.
That's wonderful. I hear that no one gets failed so long as you show up and it's all about the money, not sure if this applies in your graduation award case though!
Hahaha. You got it! No one failed. Not even the ones who barely showed up over three years. Lol.
And it was mostly taught by students- sure they were masters students but some of them couldn’t pronounce the ‘big’ words they tried to use and none of them had any real world experience.
I realised pretty quickly that all they were teaching me was how to obfuscate and discombobulate so no one dared ask what that pile of crap you put on the floor and called art meant. I mean anyone who understood art would know that stick you found on the street and put in as lump of clay was a comment on class, race and the clash between cultures. What are you? An ignoramus? 😂
Needless to say say I declined the offer to do honours.
How the hell does having racist beliefs not make you a racist? I don't see how you can separate one from the other. Can someone please enlighten me?
I also couldn't get my head around that, but I think those were Rebekkah's words? Anyway all this racism is making me dizzy, I think I'll just call all that Ignorance from now on, it seems a far better description of "racism" to me.
To give any small group such a position of leverage that would easily bad actors to manipulate the Federal government goes against the fundamental tenants of the constitution - ie to limit power and enable transparent dialogue and due process....
Not sure where you got that idea of the "fundamental tenants" of the constitution from.
From the US constitution. We should adopt that.
We may as well adopt The Quran as constitution then. The US constitution is just as much value as me standing up in court reciting from the Quran or the Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which incidentally on paper is arguably among the most advanced human rights documents in the world.
Oh this is delicious and becoming more so by the hour. No is the thinking person's vote. It's a no to racism, division, fabricated history and lies.
I know some very smart and thinking people on the Yes side - I think it's a mistake to assume that all thinking people fall on side or the other - but if you mean that proper consideration of risk is a common thread on the No side, I would agree.
Why are they on the yes side? What is the rationale? Could you please share or write a post about that so I / we can better understand? Is it just positive expectation?
I have an article coming out on that next week ☺️
The government is not our friend, the government is killing us, and the people who vote no understand this.
I do not think your 'smart and thinking' people understand that the same people who decided the covid policies are now deciding the voice. I will bet that all these 'smart and thinking' people are happily vaccinated and 'trust the science.'
I can't disclose the vax status of my interviewees but I can tell you I know more than one unvaxxed person who is voting Yes. I don't agree with their reasoning, but I understand it.
I don't think we can say that there aren't "smart and thinking" people voting yes who saw through the plandemic and the regime, as perhaps they see it as a means to an end, a step in a direction they favour (as explained in many of the footnotes to the Statement) and may even be way smarter than 90% of the population, but they're just not quite smart enough or have thought enough, or have the knowledge and experience that I and perhaps you and some others here have the (mis)fortune to have gathered.
Looking forward, I hope you can include some of the reasoning about quid pro quo. That a YES or NO vote i.e. plebiscite/referendum is dictatorship (please refer to the short chapter on Plebiscites in The Green Book bit.ly/greenvirus ), which exactly backs up what the reality is and why we're having these in-depth discussions on your SubStack, as well as the handicap the New Rules Based World Order Champions of Full Spectrum Domination have faced with Australia at international venues that they dominate (UN etc) and can now show Australien regime has given "full support" to the YES campaign, but an ignorant population in spite of media and financial support, has failed to ratify it (and they may not have ever intended for it to be ratified knowing this as they know full well what the sentiment is as they have full access to Meta's data results), as well as further drive a popular wedge against the Sovereignty movement?
Thanks. It would be useful to simulate and brainstorm why to vote yes :)
In short, people who vote yes think the government should solve all their personal problems. Sound harsh? It is, but listen carefully to what they say:
"The government this...the government that..."
Not "I will decide this...I will decide that..."
Example:
"The government needs to do something about fetal alcohol syndrome"
vs.
"I will stop drinking while I am pregnant."
They are two opposing worldviews. Yet, those who vote yes say they are for 'self-determination' while making government bigger with more rules, thus taking away genuine self-determination. It is an inversion of reality and they are heavily propagandised to 'be good people' in their social groups which benefit from the system they are propping up. They are higly emotional while convincing themselves they are intellectual. This situation occurrs in people who are almost in a state of perpetual childhood due to a lifetime of institutionalisation and being rewarded for compliance in these institutions - essentially, left-leaning women and beta males. See: Labor and Greens politicians crying when they talk about 'the voice.'
Can you imagine this sort of behaviour occurring even 30 years ago? It is totally ridiculous and by design. Our institutions have been designed to collapse to demoralise us and weaken society.
People need to read and understand this: https://www.openculture.com/2015/12/simple-sabotage-field-manual.html
The declassified CIA document on how to sabotage organisations.
They will fail. :)
Thanks. I'll read it.
Your analyses are quite perceptive, EDA!
DK, I know some rerally lovely people who will be voting, "YES", and who work for Aboriginal organisations on the front line, and whose organisations are active pushing the yes vote, and are contributing big money to the campaign. This is a problem for we veterans who have had exposure to the real world of politics and geopolitics. We simply do not discuss it with our friends and colleagues. They are way to unworldly to absorb the depth of deceit or to absorb the ruthlessness of their senior management. It takes years to learn, and time is what we do not have.
Thanks. I am trying to get informed. Anytime I see government pushing for something, I get skeptical. :)
So, I would like to vote yes as well, but I am skeptical...I understand why people would like to vote "Yes". It is positive approach. Similar to vaccines and so many other interventionist actions.
I am not sure I understand the below:
"This is a problem for we veterans who have had exposure to the real world of politics and geopolitics. We simply do not discuss it with our friends and colleagues. They are way to unworldly to absorb the depth of deceit or to absorb the ruthlessness of their senior management. It takes years to learn, and time is what we do not have."
Are you saying we are the veterans, being skeptical and questioning and discussing in an open manner? And many others are not? If so, then I agree. However, we all have to start, we all did. It takes time. You are right. Time is what we do have. Some may think time is we do not have because Oct 14th is around the corner. Perhaps that is another tactic.
Long before i saw or heard these clips Ii have had a persistent cartoon image in my mind of the cat from Alice in Wonderland with M. Langton's face sneering down at us balefully. I know it is a mad teaparty we are attending but she makes it very, very hard to want to vote yes.
Indeed, she makes it very hard to want to vote yes :) others too
Did they also get the vax? And are they rational or rationalizing?
I was being tongue-in-cheek. A simple riposte to the 'No voters are racist and/or stupid'.
You nailed it Rebekah..
Plus this is how tyrants sell their idea... Name calling, demonizing those against an agenda...
The government hasn't spent 365 million on a giant hug... Truly... this is an agenda, and I think it's even bigger than Australia, there is the overwhelming need for a treaty to be secured by the UN I suspect... For future plans...
You are NOT racist if you'd like DETAILS of a legally binding modification to YOUR RIGHTS under the constitution...
The voice can run WITHOUT being an intrusion into the constitution, which again enshrines ALL Australians rights in law...
Any modifications can be a loophole to OVERRIDE pre existing rights...
It's not just a matter of saying you feel bad for Aboriginals and all they've been through... I do thoroughly feel terrible for what they would have suffered in the past ... and even now in the communities. I also am proud of their resilience and love learning all I can about one of the last paleolithic living people's on earth, I am in awe of their skill and spirituality.
But I'll be voting "NO"
Because this is a Trojan horse for sure...
ATSIC was the same general ideals as the voice... The voice could run like ATSIC (hopefully without all the corruption this time)... No constitutional amendment required ...
The Voice most likely will be stacked with UN WEF WHO acolytes, next thing you know...
Mandatory vaccines for life (which will be short with mRNA kill shots) to "protect first nations people"
Climate lockdowns, and no car to "fix" the climate (lol) "to protect first nations people"
Paying a "first nations reparations tax" on your house, etc etc...
Your title, bought from the crown, suddenly may be subject to native title... and the UN will manage all native title lands on "behalf" of first nations people.
All monies will disappear of course and actual real Aboriginals will be worse off than ever as they'll see none of it.
The constitution modifications means treaty, effectively stating Aboriginals now give our government power over their sovereign lands (as long as easily corrupted VOICE members think it's okay, which they will $$) next thing you know One World Government, Pandemic treatys etc etc ... As now the government will be acting on BEHALF of the sovereign owners of the nation.
Signing us up for permanent emergencies, or any WEF, UN, WHO agendas...
The World Court which exists now (due to be a court of punishment in the future, and not a court of justice for punters like you and me) couldn't rule on an issue involving Australia back in 1993 as we are one of the few countries that sit in stolen land and have no treaty with original people, who are sovereign owners... This video from 1993 starts to point out where this plan started (regarding the world court and Australia)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QPRUAR2K0wwI/
The fact there is no treaty currently is one of the few aces Aboriginals have up their sleeve, and consequently an ACE for all Australians...
This talk of you're either "for" their suspicious constitution amendment or you are an evil racist reeks of desperation to WEAPONISE COMPASSION to get you to agree to something that seems FISHY ...
I've stopped trusting the agenda, and when Rio Tinto and Pfizer run CAMPAIGNS saying how much they want a YES, I get even more sus....
What's it got to do with them?
They're getting something out of it, or they wouldn't put money into yes ads, in fact they'd FUND a "no" campaign if they WEREN'T getting something out of it... and they'd stay out of it if they were getting nothing from it...
So sus...
You must also think this "Voice" push came out of nowhere, and all of a sudden is the most important thing ever, there is no need for a modification of our constitution to enact this... None whatsoever... Keep what little rights we have and vote NO.
I agree, though there's also this to consider: https://telegra.ph/The-Green-Book-10-16#PLEBISCITES so I won't be voting yes, nor no. I will certainly not be helping them with their plans though, nor do I aim to fall into their either-or traps.
Why the surprise?
Marxism (and its many kith & kin) white-anted its way through the institutions, world-wide, long ago... and I - and possibly others - did nothing to stop it.
Coward-Piven & the Kalergi Plan are just two aspects of the rot in the system becoming apparent - or maybe not - to most. NDIS anyone?
Anyway, the 'consequences' of our lack of attention are now smacking us in the face, real time and as Tyson almost said, 'there goes the plan'.
There are no accidents in the Universe.
'there goes the plan'.
Except we've never had one. They did.
Langton's recent comments occurred on the campus of Edith Cowan University which has policies against abuse, bullying and defamation. I wonder what the Vice Chancellor would think of this?
A bit of research found this, and it is a treasure trove of woke remarks that are pro-yes and very much creating a culture against anyone voting no:
https://www.ecu.edu.au/about-ecu/voice-to-parliament
"The University acknowledges that there will be diverse views on the Voice to Parliament within our community and remains committed to creating space for informed public debate that is respectful and true to our values."
Will he disavow? Are there univeristy policies against 'hate speech?' oh me oh my...quite the pickle!
Vice Chancellors have long become compromised prostitutes with absolutely no moral mettle. They need to be taken out and universities shut down. They no longer serve any positive purpose.
Having attended university as a mature age student and graduating a few years ago I fully and completely concur with this comment. Going to uni was about as useful as tits on a bull.
I presume to graduate you had to go along with a lot of BS and give them what they wanted? It takes a huge amount of effort and research to go against the unscientific grain in today's unis.
Stalineasy and his web of spiders attempt the dismantling of the Australian Constitution in preparation for the divine Marxist NWO 👏 You know, that one the Oligarchs will let the Dear Leaders control us with? This is the REAL Pyramid scheme... with a bloody great A.S.E. at top (All Seeing Eye).
If she is well meaning with Yes and has a great vision, then I fail to see her winning by calling someone something? Why would you label someone something? Am I bias in thinking she is doing it from a position of weakness? I mean we are all grown ups after all. :)
She should be saying why she is on the yes side, explaining her position in great details AND not attacking people.
She is on the yes side AND yet she is attacking a portion of the population. How is this uniting us?
Maybe she doesn't want to unite us and accepts there is a division that'll never go away? :)
Exactly my point. If so, then she would understand "No" :)