Elite left-wingers say racist voters are duped by misinformation, but the Taranto Principle suggests that, once again, it is the elites who are duped by the reverberations in their own echo chamber
There does seem to be a massive disconnect between the media/political agenda, and the everyday people.
I am increasingly impressed by how so many people are considering the issues in a very thoughtful way, and just how capable most people are of nuanced thinking about this issue.
Thank you, Rebekah, for your previous article about this. And it's not just our recent immigrants!
I have family members who are favouring different sides of the debate - but they all have been thoughtful and considered about their process of decision making.
I agree, in a democracy, one would hope each side could respectfully acknowledge that there are different views on how best to achieve a flourishing society.
One would expect that the messaging would instead be 'everyone has a right to question - we will answer your question and be transparent about it.' Yet, what we see here is more abuse of the people.
Anyone who still uses the term "conspiracy theorist" in this day and age is either completely and utterly clueless or has nefarious intentions themselves. There is NO DOUBT in my mind about it.
I don't think the AEC head and his minions are clueless so...
In all my many communications with AEC on twitter, their tone was that of utter narcissistic woke capture. 100% unprofessional. I have no confidence in the AEC at all, simply from the twitter voice. No distant impartiality was conveyed.
I agree with you about the AEC. Their clear bias will forever be a stain on the results if yes wins. But to say so will undoubtedly be framed as a right wing conspiracy started, of course, by Russian bots.
…and remember what happened the last time we were bullied into something by the Australian government. I would bet the 'yes' vote has almost the very same group of rabid supporters as the 'vaccine'.
It wont be a miracle if the yes vote wins, it will mean the fix has succeeded. A friend of a friend who works in a certain relevant area of the government stated that it makes no difference what the vote is, the yes campaign will win. So, it may just be that the no vote needs a miracle, a miracle of so very many votes that the fix is underestimated, and fails. We can only pray!
A friend of a friend.....of a friend...of a person they passed in the street was overheard saying the PM was an alien from another dimension who had come to earth.....please. What rubbish.
Guess what else Diane. When I was meter reading in Brisbane's inner-city Moorooka, most of those with vote YES placards on their fence, also had the placard "CLIMATE ACTION NOW!!" Clearly, they are not aware that anything spewing forth from the UN and Cyborg Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum, is a HUGIEEE SCAM.
For me, the biggest scam is the Catastrophic Climate Change Scam ... but hey ... their are plenty more Globalist scams to choose from where that came from! :) :) The VOICE being another poignant case in point. So was the COVID jab scam and indeed the US 2020 election and its 2022 mid-term.
This article compliments a recent one by Alison Bevege. It's begs the question, how is the misinformation bill a boon for the corporate world? I can't work out the angle for the amount of dollars dropped by big business into the yes campaign. What's the short term gain for them? I don't see them playing a too longer game on this, given current global instability.
"The owners have a problem. The United Nations has claimed for decades to care about indigenous peoples and their rights. How to get around this?
The first end run is psychological. In politics if you control language, you control ideas. Put the indigenous at the heart of government policy, and blend their interests with the State. “Homeland” was once understood as tribal lands. Now the homeland is the State. In terms of language, it has appropriated tribal lands.
The second end run is legal. Give the indigenous people the right to their ancestral lands, including the right to reclaim them from settlers — or at least to demand payment or compensation from those who have built homes and factories on the land.
The third end run is bureaucratic. Create a special assembly for the indigenous — who in the future can be given a puppet leadership. They can effectively then be swept out of the way and their land and resources be “managed” or allocated by the State, through the Great Reset, to stakeholders or guardians."
Indeed, it's all part of a documented plan to subvert our constitution by creating a new body outside of the constitutional balance. Also, opening up the constitution to modification without explicitly stating all the changes that will be made by politicians who have demonstrated repeatedly that they cannot be trusted, that should be warning enough. I do recommend reading the full Uluru Statement with its addendums, which make it very clear that 'recognition' is not enough, but the first step on a path to a treaty, reparations and reclamation of sovereignty over the country, and a guaranteed % of gross national product diverted the Voice (not the aboriginal people). I.e., it's about the money, which explains why all the banks and corporate interests are behind it. They all stand to get a cut of the windfall.
"I do recommend reading the full Uluru Statement with its addendums ..."
This is probably the best advice there is for all Australians, and it probably also should be considered the solemn duty of all citizens.
I'd hazard a guess that there would be lessons and insight in those documents of relevance and erudition for all humans in every land, not just in Australia.
All donors will get favourable treatment under the voice, Rio Tinto will be approved to mine, Pfizer will get control of your autonomy (as you must have an mRNA jab to keep first nations people safe, as no details were given to you re "The Voice", you suddenly find out the Voice can override other sections of the constitution - your current rights under law - if it is to protect first nations people - all voice members are selected not elected, bet there's a lot of UN WEF characters lined up too)... So corporations have a lot to gain by the voice, in fact I'd guess it's an angle to get corporate power into government, along the WEF lines...
This lady has done some great work (as has Rebekah!), this plays on the back of other work done to highlight the fact we are in a coup... There's a thin veneer of democracy, but we've been infiltrated by WEF graduates, highly brainwashed to their corporate world government narrative, most of us have been blissfully unaware of this for years (I know I was), but now, it's so obvious once you know... It's wrapped in confusing terms, sometimes presented as weaponised compassion, but this is the push, we're in the middle of it... Covid was just the start, the excuse to incur on your rights and freedom...
That the Post Modernist ?Cultural Marxist leftist cancellation crew are so incredibly vocal that they can turn Coon cheese into Cheer cheese, and they've scared the companies into donating?
Imagine you're Marcia Langton talking to Big Mining: "Give us money to get this through, and we'll see that you get an easy path to some land to mine".
Perhaps the mining companies know of other purposes of the voice, and consider they stand to profit by it passing.
Maybe the companies have created most of the problems, blowing up sacred sites, etc, and they've been ordered to put in money.
The re-engineered constitution could give the global players better access points to Australian policy - WEF+ could be demanding that corporate money be given to the Yes campaign?
Thanks again Rebekah, for giving also this matter greater context, and for revealing more of the subtle layered structure of the current affairs in the public domain.
Thanks, as always, for your excellent independent, fact based journalism; something that is not available much in the MSM today. I noted with interest, even surprise, yesterday that Jacinta Price said the words “advice, advice, and advisory” appear nowhere in the referendum question or any of the documents that support the referendum. It seems Albo has been gaslighting us all, again, and it has stuck. Surely if it were to be an advisory body, it would say that in the proposal.
Loved your article. One point. I assume you are not Australian, or that familiar with Australian politics. You called the Labour Party ‘left wing’. I stopped voting for them some years ago as they were no longer ‘left wing’. This is a rather big mistake. Apart from that,thanks for the article.
Haha fair enough Tony. I take your point. I've added a caveat at the bottom of the article to clarify that while Taranto made the point about left-wing media and politics, it really applies to any mutually beneficial mass media/politics relationship.
The ALP and the Liberals DID become the corporate parties. Indeed the ALP was no longer left wing but together with the liberals.
HOWEVER, did you notice, the corporations have now been captured by woke, left wing totalitarians, with their rainbow lanyards, all-sex female toilets, and Yes campaign sponsorship?
So that's where the ALP and almost all of the liberals are now too.
I have voted no already at the embassy in Paris. There are no arguments except abuse from the yes campaign. I stopped watching Chris Kenny ages ago. His main arguments have been fatuous to say the least. We all want the best for all Australians. My feeling is that Labor government does not.
RB uses the phrase First Nations. This is a gift to the enemy, as it were., see also text from Josephine Cashman below on the importance of language. Because the phrase is imported I believe from Canada.
The point is twofold: Canadian native Indians/Indigenous formed groups of extended families, hence "nation" as I understand it, was much greater than the typical size of an Aust. Aboriginal tribe numbering in the low hundreds. The insinuation of "Nations" is thus that a largish number of persons had a common will.
Secondly, the word Nation is also used to mean modern nation-states, hence: national, nationalism, etc. So a First Nation is actually a nation state which is more moral and better for having been First and even more so because the evil whitefella has been preventing it from coming into being as a real state, with its own army, currency, borders etc. since 1788.:-)))But of course the flag already exists and flies from many whitefella buildings.
Taken in combination with the left-liberal mantra of "Always was, Always will be" and "Sovereignty (sic) was never ceded", the phrase First Nations is thus a verbal hand grenade with the pin pulled, and it is sitting in our laps if we use it, IMHO.
Cashman on her Substack: " The global practice of Indigenous Land Acknowledgment/Welcome to Country has gained significant attention in recent years.
While it is often presented as a gesture of respect towards Indigenous peoples and their connection to the land, there are sinister implications, at play.
This practice serves as a divide-and-conquer device, subtly conditioning the general public to accept the notion of separate First Nations.
Grooming us into becoming "global citizens" with no loyalty to our fellow countrymen; and no nationality; belonging nowhere.
With no allegiance to anything or anyone.
They are trying to sever the connection to our forefathers, our history.
They want to dismantle our connection to each other and our country."
Secondly. "conspiracy theory": I think this phrase, peddled by the CIA in the famous memo of early 1967 to discredit anyone who questioned the official story of JFK's death is quite engrained in the mind of the normie sheeple as meaning any narrative which government has condemned.
The Sheeple's neurons, such as they are, are now worn in such a mass media groove IMHO that any statement by us about nefarious secret planning (unless done by official enemies i.e. Iran,. N. Korea, China, Cuba. Belarus Russia) is automatically booked as conspiracy theory.
So I suggest we just use the word "explanation" instead.
The sledging is what makes people think twice. It might be OK in parliament or in sports but it is not OK in general discourse, then it is just abuse. I copped plenty of abuse for not getting jabbed, but I did not expect it to become the norm this quickly. It really needs to stop because the children are listening and we are already in a domestic abuse crisis. If it is OK to abuse me, then it is OK for me to abuse paramedics or school teachers or my own loved ones.
why do we suddenly need a voice, when we already have many? it will be used to put all the voices into one box, and silence voices from the many aboriginal nations in australia.
plus, i wonder who will collect the rent, so to speak? will it be the communities in the outback (i have heard many aboriginal friends call them prisons) or the half casts in the city, who already get special treatment?
it is also divisive. i was born here. i love this country too. why should someone who has a genetic link to past ancestors receive preferential treatment?
The Voice is fundamentally racist because it would continue to exist even if Australia closed the gap on Aboriginal disadvantage. In any case, the Aboriginal community is not homogeneous. There are some Aborigines whose voices are vastly over-represented in the media and have been for decades. They are not disadvantaged by any measure and have become adept at capturing government funding intended to address Aboriginal disadvantage. Their power stems from Aboriginal disadvantage, without which they would lose much of their leverage over governments. That is why Australia needs a comprehensive audit rather than an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which would only serve to entrench existing power structures that do not serve the interests of remote Aboriginal communities where disadvantage is concentrated.
In Tasmania, every person who claims Tasmanian Aboriginality has overwhelmingly non-Aboriginal ancestry. Moreover, many of those ancestors were European colonisers, a fact which is conveniently ignored when they attempt to divide Tasmanians by race.
I resent being asked to vote on this. Do you want to change constitution with unknown long term consequences? Labour has trouble implementing anything of substance that adds value to Australians. That alone is a good reason for no.
One of my sub-continental workmates asked me today, "Do I have to vote in this election?"
When I explained the difference between a *referendum* and an election, he answered: "The priest at our Sikh temple told us to vote yes. No-one has any idea what it is for."
I suspect that many of the "Yes" voters will be in this category too. Truly clueless and simply doing what they are told.
Trump vs Clinton... All I can say is that every fta TV news station must be strongly in the hands of the left wing. Via twitter footage of rallies there was no energy behind Clinton and Trumpists were raging. There was no way that Clinton could win, and yet all our news stations promoted her - as if Australians could actually vote. #PalmsUpturned
I have this new idea that Indigenous left wing activists need Alice Springs to keep looking very dysfunctional, to keep bringing the money in. If I was a researcher in the field I'd look at changing disparities in Indigenous wealth/ses.
That previous paragraph is co-informed by a very guilt-inducing TV ad I saw last night. If it isn't effective at extracting Yes votes it's going to have a negative long term impact.
I don't like to stray into speculation too much, but the benefit of losing the referendum would be that it provides a strong reason to implement the government's misinfo bill.
If No got up it would be insulting to the majority voters to claim that they voted No due to misinformation. They wouldn't get away with it in a genuine public space - perhaps only in the left wing media. What did Hillary do/blame when she lost? She went straight to MeToo?
And I don't think people are voting No due to misinformation - we vote on incredibly broad terms at a time when we're unable to stop bad legislation getting up.
"Politicians need pretexts. They no longer have the confidence or honour to act because something is right. They always manipulate and manoeuvre, using the media, to claim that they never had any choice."
".... the benefit of losing the referendum would be that it provides a strong reason to implement the government's misinfo bill."
Why, of course! How fiendishly cunning would that be?
It isn't entirely speculation - this is indeed how the government justifies ramming through the most odious and malodorous legislation.
Which is why I can't help suspecting the government's seeming incompetence with the campaign and promotion of the 'Yes' choice. They have have mountains of analytics and the prognostications of legions of analysts to draw from: was a plan devised to bungle the 'Yes' platform in order to make the 'No' counter more appealing and more likely to succeed, which is what the government really wants so that it may then respond by driving home the misinformation bill?
The Voice Referendum is one of the major strategies to divert attention away from Australia transferring Half a Trillion Dollars to a failed US economy and the Covid19 jabbing tragedy.
Well said., and a great analysis.
There does seem to be a massive disconnect between the media/political agenda, and the everyday people.
I am increasingly impressed by how so many people are considering the issues in a very thoughtful way, and just how capable most people are of nuanced thinking about this issue.
Thank you, Rebekah, for your previous article about this. And it's not just our recent immigrants!
I have family members who are favouring different sides of the debate - but they all have been thoughtful and considered about their process of decision making.
And really, that's the point, isn't it?
I agree, in a democracy, one would hope each side could respectfully acknowledge that there are different views on how best to achieve a flourishing society.
in a democracy, we should be equals.
In reality, we are not equal.
that because we do not have a true democracy, and we are heading towards dictatorship and tyranny.
Well yes that's true enough, but it's also because we are not equal.
Someone like Jacinda Adhern for example is not equal to Alexander the Great.
what is a true democracy ?
try this. https://justgeorgeous.net/politicaltheory.html
It’s almost as if openly despising people alienates said people. Somehow our “best and brightest” haven’t figured that out yet.
As the saying goes Rebekah: "don’t count your chickens before they hatch".
Do you remember the 2019 federal election? That one Shorten supposedly couldn't lose...
Polls can and do get manipulated to lull the other side into a false sense of security.
I am also not entirely convinced that the AEC is indeed the unbiased umpire they are supposed to be. Are you?
Either way, we'll know soon enough...
I agree totally with all points of this comment.
"Australian Electoral Commissioner slams 'tinfoil hat wearing' conspiracy theorists." https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12543299/Indigenous-Voice-Australian-Electoral-Commissioner-slams-tinfoil-hat-wearing-conspiracy-theorists.html
One would expect that the messaging would instead be 'everyone has a right to question - we will answer your question and be transparent about it.' Yet, what we see here is more abuse of the people.
Anyone who still uses the term "conspiracy theorist" in this day and age is either completely and utterly clueless or has nefarious intentions themselves. There is NO DOUBT in my mind about it.
I don't think the AEC head and his minions are clueless so...
In all my many communications with AEC on twitter, their tone was that of utter narcissistic woke capture. 100% unprofessional. I have no confidence in the AEC at all, simply from the twitter voice. No distant impartiality was conveyed.
I agree with you about the AEC. Their clear bias will forever be a stain on the results if yes wins. But to say so will undoubtedly be framed as a right wing conspiracy started, of course, by Russian bots.
…and remember what happened the last time we were bullied into something by the Australian government. I would bet the 'yes' vote has almost the very same group of rabid supporters as the 'vaccine'.
It wont be a miracle if the yes vote wins, it will mean the fix has succeeded. A friend of a friend who works in a certain relevant area of the government stated that it makes no difference what the vote is, the yes campaign will win. So, it may just be that the no vote needs a miracle, a miracle of so very many votes that the fix is underestimated, and fails. We can only pray!
Everyone has to turn up - that's what has to happen.
A friend of a friend.....of a friend...of a person they passed in the street was overheard saying the PM was an alien from another dimension who had come to earth.....please. What rubbish.
Please...actually I just told it as I heard it. My friend is very reliable. Whether her friend is reliable is another matter. Take it how you will.
Guess what else Diane. When I was meter reading in Brisbane's inner-city Moorooka, most of those with vote YES placards on their fence, also had the placard "CLIMATE ACTION NOW!!" Clearly, they are not aware that anything spewing forth from the UN and Cyborg Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum, is a HUGIEEE SCAM.
Hence, I was thus compelled to create my own ringtone which you can listen to at https://vincebarwinski.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/SCAM_SCAM_SCAM_SCAM_SCAM.ogg.
For me, the biggest scam is the Catastrophic Climate Change Scam ... but hey ... their are plenty more Globalist scams to choose from where that came from! :) :) The VOICE being another poignant case in point. So was the COVID jab scam and indeed the US 2020 election and its 2022 mid-term.
I also wrote about the Catastrophic Climate Change SCAM at https://vincebarwinski.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/essay_on_climate_change_scam_saturday_11th_march_2023.pdf. The state of the Great Barrier Reef is an eye opener as well as Al Gore's "A convenient LIE."
I can well believe it Vince. Your ring tone has potential...if a little lacking on errr 'tone' LOL. Maybe some backing vocals could jazz it up LOL?
Your Climate Change write up is very interesting, thank you very much for posting it.
Yes, I was thinking of adding background music from another ringtone. :)
This article compliments a recent one by Alison Bevege. It's begs the question, how is the misinformation bill a boon for the corporate world? I can't work out the angle for the amount of dollars dropped by big business into the yes campaign. What's the short term gain for them? I don't see them playing a too longer game on this, given current global instability.
https://open.substack.com/pub/lettersfromaustralia/p/australia-to-vote-on-a-constitutional?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1ko5qv
Well for big businesses, there's budget for ESG.
"I can't work out the angle for the amount of dollars dropped by big business into the yes campaign."
Moneycircus explains it quite clearly ( https://moneycircus.substack.com/p/crisis-update-indigenous-people-under ):
"The owners have a problem. The United Nations has claimed for decades to care about indigenous peoples and their rights. How to get around this?
The first end run is psychological. In politics if you control language, you control ideas. Put the indigenous at the heart of government policy, and blend their interests with the State. “Homeland” was once understood as tribal lands. Now the homeland is the State. In terms of language, it has appropriated tribal lands.
The second end run is legal. Give the indigenous people the right to their ancestral lands, including the right to reclaim them from settlers — or at least to demand payment or compensation from those who have built homes and factories on the land.
The third end run is bureaucratic. Create a special assembly for the indigenous — who in the future can be given a puppet leadership. They can effectively then be swept out of the way and their land and resources be “managed” or allocated by the State, through the Great Reset, to stakeholders or guardians."
Indeed, it's all part of a documented plan to subvert our constitution by creating a new body outside of the constitutional balance. Also, opening up the constitution to modification without explicitly stating all the changes that will be made by politicians who have demonstrated repeatedly that they cannot be trusted, that should be warning enough. I do recommend reading the full Uluru Statement with its addendums, which make it very clear that 'recognition' is not enough, but the first step on a path to a treaty, reparations and reclamation of sovereignty over the country, and a guaranteed % of gross national product diverted the Voice (not the aboriginal people). I.e., it's about the money, which explains why all the banks and corporate interests are behind it. They all stand to get a cut of the windfall.
"I do recommend reading the full Uluru Statement with its addendums ..."
This is probably the best advice there is for all Australians, and it probably also should be considered the solemn duty of all citizens.
I'd hazard a guess that there would be lessons and insight in those documents of relevance and erudition for all humans in every land, not just in Australia.
Thanks for your elaborations.
I read it and what a mind numbing document it is. My year 8 remedial English class could have done better.
All donors will get favourable treatment under the voice, Rio Tinto will be approved to mine, Pfizer will get control of your autonomy (as you must have an mRNA jab to keep first nations people safe, as no details were given to you re "The Voice", you suddenly find out the Voice can override other sections of the constitution - your current rights under law - if it is to protect first nations people - all voice members are selected not elected, bet there's a lot of UN WEF characters lined up too)... So corporations have a lot to gain by the voice, in fact I'd guess it's an angle to get corporate power into government, along the WEF lines...
https://open.substack.com/pub/josephinecashman/p/the-empire-20-un-veiling-the-global?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=tymb5
https://open.substack.com/pub/josephinecashman/p/the-empire-20-un-veiling-the-global-91d?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=tymb5
This lady has done some great work (as has Rebekah!), this plays on the back of other work done to highlight the fact we are in a coup... There's a thin veneer of democracy, but we've been infiltrated by WEF graduates, highly brainwashed to their corporate world government narrative, most of us have been blissfully unaware of this for years (I know I was), but now, it's so obvious once you know... It's wrapped in confusing terms, sometimes presented as weaponised compassion, but this is the push, we're in the middle of it... Covid was just the start, the excuse to incur on your rights and freedom...
big business is not Australian and cares nothing for National boundaries, human beings or anything that makes life worthwhile.
Fact checked. You are correct sir.
Possible ideas:
That the Post Modernist ?Cultural Marxist leftist cancellation crew are so incredibly vocal that they can turn Coon cheese into Cheer cheese, and they've scared the companies into donating?
Imagine you're Marcia Langton talking to Big Mining: "Give us money to get this through, and we'll see that you get an easy path to some land to mine".
Perhaps the mining companies know of other purposes of the voice, and consider they stand to profit by it passing.
Maybe the companies have created most of the problems, blowing up sacred sites, etc, and they've been ordered to put in money.
The re-engineered constitution could give the global players better access points to Australian policy - WEF+ could be demanding that corporate money be given to the Yes campaign?
Thanks again Rebekah, for giving also this matter greater context, and for revealing more of the subtle layered structure of the current affairs in the public domain.
Thanks, as always, for your excellent independent, fact based journalism; something that is not available much in the MSM today. I noted with interest, even surprise, yesterday that Jacinta Price said the words “advice, advice, and advisory” appear nowhere in the referendum question or any of the documents that support the referendum. It seems Albo has been gaslighting us all, again, and it has stuck. Surely if it were to be an advisory body, it would say that in the proposal.
I heard her say this but will have to re read the Statement docs to double check
Loved your article. One point. I assume you are not Australian, or that familiar with Australian politics. You called the Labour Party ‘left wing’. I stopped voting for them some years ago as they were no longer ‘left wing’. This is a rather big mistake. Apart from that,thanks for the article.
Haha fair enough Tony. I take your point. I've added a caveat at the bottom of the article to clarify that while Taranto made the point about left-wing media and politics, it really applies to any mutually beneficial mass media/politics relationship.
Hold on a minute...
The ALP and the Liberals DID become the corporate parties. Indeed the ALP was no longer left wing but together with the liberals.
HOWEVER, did you notice, the corporations have now been captured by woke, left wing totalitarians, with their rainbow lanyards, all-sex female toilets, and Yes campaign sponsorship?
So that's where the ALP and almost all of the liberals are now too.
I have voted no already at the embassy in Paris. There are no arguments except abuse from the yes campaign. I stopped watching Chris Kenny ages ago. His main arguments have been fatuous to say the least. We all want the best for all Australians. My feeling is that Labor government does not.
In general agreement, but I have two caveats:
RB uses the phrase First Nations. This is a gift to the enemy, as it were., see also text from Josephine Cashman below on the importance of language. Because the phrase is imported I believe from Canada.
The point is twofold: Canadian native Indians/Indigenous formed groups of extended families, hence "nation" as I understand it, was much greater than the typical size of an Aust. Aboriginal tribe numbering in the low hundreds. The insinuation of "Nations" is thus that a largish number of persons had a common will.
Secondly, the word Nation is also used to mean modern nation-states, hence: national, nationalism, etc. So a First Nation is actually a nation state which is more moral and better for having been First and even more so because the evil whitefella has been preventing it from coming into being as a real state, with its own army, currency, borders etc. since 1788.:-)))But of course the flag already exists and flies from many whitefella buildings.
Taken in combination with the left-liberal mantra of "Always was, Always will be" and "Sovereignty (sic) was never ceded", the phrase First Nations is thus a verbal hand grenade with the pin pulled, and it is sitting in our laps if we use it, IMHO.
Cashman on her Substack: " The global practice of Indigenous Land Acknowledgment/Welcome to Country has gained significant attention in recent years.
While it is often presented as a gesture of respect towards Indigenous peoples and their connection to the land, there are sinister implications, at play.
This practice serves as a divide-and-conquer device, subtly conditioning the general public to accept the notion of separate First Nations.
Grooming us into becoming "global citizens" with no loyalty to our fellow countrymen; and no nationality; belonging nowhere.
With no allegiance to anything or anyone.
They are trying to sever the connection to our forefathers, our history.
They want to dismantle our connection to each other and our country."
Secondly. "conspiracy theory": I think this phrase, peddled by the CIA in the famous memo of early 1967 to discredit anyone who questioned the official story of JFK's death is quite engrained in the mind of the normie sheeple as meaning any narrative which government has condemned.
The Sheeple's neurons, such as they are, are now worn in such a mass media groove IMHO that any statement by us about nefarious secret planning (unless done by official enemies i.e. Iran,. N. Korea, China, Cuba. Belarus Russia) is automatically booked as conspiracy theory.
So I suggest we just use the word "explanation" instead.
The sledging is what makes people think twice. It might be OK in parliament or in sports but it is not OK in general discourse, then it is just abuse. I copped plenty of abuse for not getting jabbed, but I did not expect it to become the norm this quickly. It really needs to stop because the children are listening and we are already in a domestic abuse crisis. If it is OK to abuse me, then it is OK for me to abuse paramedics or school teachers or my own loved ones.
why do we suddenly need a voice, when we already have many? it will be used to put all the voices into one box, and silence voices from the many aboriginal nations in australia.
plus, i wonder who will collect the rent, so to speak? will it be the communities in the outback (i have heard many aboriginal friends call them prisons) or the half casts in the city, who already get special treatment?
it is also divisive. i was born here. i love this country too. why should someone who has a genetic link to past ancestors receive preferential treatment?
is you don't know, vote no.
The Voice is fundamentally racist because it would continue to exist even if Australia closed the gap on Aboriginal disadvantage. In any case, the Aboriginal community is not homogeneous. There are some Aborigines whose voices are vastly over-represented in the media and have been for decades. They are not disadvantaged by any measure and have become adept at capturing government funding intended to address Aboriginal disadvantage. Their power stems from Aboriginal disadvantage, without which they would lose much of their leverage over governments. That is why Australia needs a comprehensive audit rather than an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which would only serve to entrench existing power structures that do not serve the interests of remote Aboriginal communities where disadvantage is concentrated.
In Tasmania, every person who claims Tasmanian Aboriginality has overwhelmingly non-Aboriginal ancestry. Moreover, many of those ancestors were European colonisers, a fact which is conveniently ignored when they attempt to divide Tasmanians by race.
the non-indigenous aboriginals/activists will gain from this, not the true indigenous nations or peoples.
I resent being asked to vote on this. Do you want to change constitution with unknown long term consequences? Labour has trouble implementing anything of substance that adds value to Australians. That alone is a good reason for no.
One of my sub-continental workmates asked me today, "Do I have to vote in this election?"
When I explained the difference between a *referendum* and an election, he answered: "The priest at our Sikh temple told us to vote yes. No-one has any idea what it is for."
I suspect that many of the "Yes" voters will be in this category too. Truly clueless and simply doing what they are told.
Vote "Yes!" No.
I think that would be true on both sides.
Trump vs Clinton... All I can say is that every fta TV news station must be strongly in the hands of the left wing. Via twitter footage of rallies there was no energy behind Clinton and Trumpists were raging. There was no way that Clinton could win, and yet all our news stations promoted her - as if Australians could actually vote. #PalmsUpturned
I have this new idea that Indigenous left wing activists need Alice Springs to keep looking very dysfunctional, to keep bringing the money in. If I was a researcher in the field I'd look at changing disparities in Indigenous wealth/ses.
That previous paragraph is co-informed by a very guilt-inducing TV ad I saw last night. If it isn't effective at extracting Yes votes it's going to have a negative long term impact.
I don't like to stray into speculation too much, but the benefit of losing the referendum would be that it provides a strong reason to implement the government's misinfo bill.
If No got up it would be insulting to the majority voters to claim that they voted No due to misinformation. They wouldn't get away with it in a genuine public space - perhaps only in the left wing media. What did Hillary do/blame when she lost? She went straight to MeToo?
And I don't think people are voting No due to misinformation - we vote on incredibly broad terms at a time when we're unable to stop bad legislation getting up.
Hillary went 'they're sexist', but the voters were no more sexist than they were racist voting in Obama - she had bad history and no charisma.
So the yes campaign will go 'they're racist'. Maybe they'll go 'misinformation'. The embedded youtube ad was 'racist, patronising, excuses'.
This, also from a very recent Crisis Update by Moneycircus ( https://moneycircus.substack.com/p/crisis-update-israel-gaza-clash-is ):
"Politicians need pretexts. They no longer have the confidence or honour to act because something is right. They always manipulate and manoeuvre, using the media, to claim that they never had any choice."
".... the benefit of losing the referendum would be that it provides a strong reason to implement the government's misinfo bill."
Why, of course! How fiendishly cunning would that be?
It isn't entirely speculation - this is indeed how the government justifies ramming through the most odious and malodorous legislation.
Which is why I can't help suspecting the government's seeming incompetence with the campaign and promotion of the 'Yes' choice. They have have mountains of analytics and the prognostications of legions of analysts to draw from: was a plan devised to bungle the 'Yes' platform in order to make the 'No' counter more appealing and more likely to succeed, which is what the government really wants so that it may then respond by driving home the misinformation bill?
Post referendum: It does seem as though the creepy people are trying to describe the No vote as misinfo (774 Melbourne ABC radio).
The Voice Referendum is one of the major strategies to divert attention away from Australia transferring Half a Trillion Dollars to a failed US economy and the Covid19 jabbing tragedy.
Albanese is the worst Labor PM ever.
Someone was recently asked by Optus for a face recognition photo, just to open a new account. I think it's distraction for the digital corralling.