I've Changed My Mind - November 2023

I've changed my mind. About a great many things. Mainly thanks to Covid and the stupid response to it. 

I came to realise my shift in opinions last time that I completed a "political compass" quiz. Over the last (probably) 10 years or so, I check in with an online "political compass" which not only gives you a graphic indication of where you sit politically, it's a good device to get you thinking about your own principles and prejudices rather than just policy of the day. (There are a few available online. Try this one yourself HERE.)
When I last checked in, I found that a lot of my answers were different from previous tests. This got me thinking about what has changed for me and how I might be thinking about some things a bit differently. Following is a list of those things. It is by no means complete and not in any particular order. 

United Nations. From the most noble of beginnings, the United Nations was born out of WWII with the intent to prevent war.
Since then, this bloated, self-appointed, autocratic, bureaucratic behemoth has expanded exponentially and uninvitedly into the lives of all of us.
The UN influences and coerces governments around the world to yield to their ideas and agenda. (Mainly, they convince democracies to ignore the evils of dictatorships). The UN imposes destructive policies upon the western world but pretends to benefit humanity.
In fact, it is nothing more than a money syphon from wealthy countries into demanding and unappreciative economies. Its policies punish enterprise and wealth creation while plunging the poor further into despair regardless of their location. The UN is pushing its socialist agenda across the globe by promising an impossible utopia, and sucks billions of dollars from the economies (and therefore, the people) of productive member nations. All the while, being unable (unwilling) to fulfil their original charter and prevent conflict around the world.  The UN experiment has failed. I once thought that the UN was an essential presence in the world. I'm now convinced that we'd be better off without it in our lives. 

Hot on the heels of the UN is its malignant spawn, the World Health Organisation (WHO).  The WHO was supposed to be an information-sharing organisation where medical professionals could share information, data, statistics, procedures and ideas, all for the benefit of humanity.
Like the UN, the WHO has become a wealthy bloated bureaucratic autocracy imposing its ‘wisdom’ upon the world, whether invited to do so or not. They are now attempting to convince world governments (including ours) to cede control of health options for their own citizens, and place the WHO as the ultimate purveyor of truth and power. If the thought of your health options being controlled by another group of unaccountable, self-important do-gooders (who do no good), and commanded by self-described socialists doesn't frighten you, then check your pulse. Think about it. It will be the disastrous Covid response on steroids. 

Then there's the World Economic Forum (WEF).
To be honest, I've never been a fan of these people, but feel that I should mention them as their reach into the lives of everyone gathers momentum and probes deeper into every aspect of our lives.
The WEF invites people to join the organisation and then attend its bloated meetings where they sit and sup at the feet of Klaus Schwab in Davos, Switzerland.

Yes, this is Klaus. This photo is not Photoshopped. This is the man who is instructing governments and influential elites on how to run our nations, economies and societies. Seriously, our ‘elites’ are beyond parody. Have a read of some of the attendees at this year’s meeting thanks to the AFR.

According to Schwab: “We penetrate the cabinets. I know that half this cabinet—even more than half—are actually young global leaders of the World Economic Forum. It's true in Argentina, it's true in France—now with the President, who is a young global leader.”

Elites - and future world leaders - fly their private jets at least once a year to Davos, to formulate rules that are discussed and set so people like you and me are banned from things like flying holidays, personal transport (cars), eating meat, or private property ownership.   Their agenda - which they do not hide! - is designed to make you poor and them wealthy. And rules that don't apply to these elites themselves. These Bond-villain bastards must be resisted at all costs. Our stupid Liberal/Labor monoparty seems to be swallowing their virtue-signalling, happy-feels agenda hook, line and sinker. It's destructive, evil, anti-liberal, anti-democratic and anti-prosperous. None of this is conspiracy theory. It's there to see on their website. 

Julian Assange. Like many, I saw Mr Assange as a traitor.
Divulging government secrets to the public, to me, was an abhorrent betrayal. But that was back when I trusted our governments.
If the last three years have shown me anything, it's just how easily our leaders, politicians, the executive and big business leaders can be bought. How they stupidly abandoned all common sense. How they stupidly play 'follow the leader' and abandon established protocols and fall into line, with orders from the WHO, WEF, UN and the egregious Dr Anthony Fauci being blindly followed. Policy was being made with the consultation of social media and social groups, rather than established, scientifically supported programs.
While the truth behind the Covid disaster is still being slowly uncovered, much of it is being hidden and/or destroyed and we are being gaslit.
I'm now of the opinion that Governments need to be more transparent and it's people like Assange who have gifted us the truth. I've only recently realised that people like Assange are simply doing what our own media should be doing but refuse to do so; that is, pushing and exposing the truth, making governments and the executive accountable, and exposing corruption in government and big business. 

Doctor-patient relationship of trust and confidentiality. Once, the doctor-patient relationship was sacrosanct. A doctor's decisions about an individual's health were made with the benefit of the doctor's uninfluenced knowledge under consultation with the patient. But not any more.
It's become very apparent that a doctor's decisions are becoming less individual-based and more dictated by pharmaceutical companies, the elite, the WHO and politicians.
Perhaps, more egregiously, governments are punishing doctors who stray from the set narrative. My doctor insisted I get Covid jabs. She did not respect the decision of her patient. Fortunately, I have found a doctor who does.
Three years ago, I never questioned my doctors and medical professionals, thinking that they had my personal best interest at heart. Too many of this noble profession have proved themselves to be otherwise. 

Pharmaceutical Businesses. I remember quite clearly taking a friend to task on Facebook when she suggested that pharmaceutical companies existed to only make money, not for the benefit of people's health. She saw pharma companies targeting income at all costs, even if that cost was health itself. To me, I saw making money as a justified end to innovation and discovery. I reasoned that pharmaceutical companies have every right to profit from doing or making something that others can't, and in doing so provide essential medicines, equipment and procedures that improve and/or save lives. Over the last few years, the pharma companies have done an excellent job of proving me wrong. It is now clearly evident to me that money is their only incentive, public health be damned. Fake Covid "vaccines" (have you got your latest booster for the eighth wave, yet?) are still being pushed onto a trusting public, despite evidence of their continuing and compounding harm. The vaccine harm epidemic is real, and was preventable. Robert F Kennedy Jr has written an exceptional book about it. Read this book!

Governments working with Big Business always seemed to me to be a great idea. The financial resources of government combined with the efficiency and broad knowledge base of Big Business is surely a recipe for a successful endeavour.  What has happened now is business and government have brought in a third arm into their model. Namely, a compliant public media. With traditional "legacy" media suffering in the digital age from decreased revenue and in many cases bleeding money, they (the media) have become puppets and mouthpieces of government and big business. The truth is hidden and the public are treated as fools as the media gaslights us into believing the unbelievable, and not daring to question the questionable. There is a word that describes this coalition. Fascism. It needs to end. Now.

Liberal Democracies are Liberal and Democratic. Our governments are there at the behest of the people. It is the people that tell the government what to do, right? Politicians are here to serve the people, right? Well, that's the way it's supposed to be. Covid proved the surprisingly autocratic power of state governments in particular. Our government leaders suspended and bypassed democracy and appointed themselves as the only arbiters of truth and instruction. The behaviour of state premiers was narcissistic, impetuous and autocratic. They exposed gaping loopholes within our government structure which must now be closed.
Premiers based their orders upon social media posts, focus groups, marketing and spin organisations, and playing "follow the leader" by copying Communist China’s authoritarian Covid response, and the corrupt WHO. All the while they were saying "follow the science", or, "best science", it turns out that actual science was far from their decision making.
Government and their executive have clearly forgotten that their role exists only upon the behest of us, the voting citizens. And it's our fault! Once upon a time, the role of government was administration, defence, health, law and order. Now our governments have morphed into our de facto parents. Government has its fingers in every aspect of our lives, controlling (egregiously but quite successfully) what we do, think, and say. They control personal lives, businesses, charities, families - interference that would have been unthinkable just a generation or two ago.
As soon as something goes wrong we blame the government for not preventing it, we look to the government to help, and we look to the government to make sure that the problem doesn't happen again. Not because we asked them to. But because we DEMAND it. We are idiots. Government isn't the cure of our problems, it's the cause.
Government in a liberal democracy (or a constitutional monarchy, for that matter) should be minimalist, supply minimum, tax minimum. Provide an even playing field, get out of the way of the individual, allow those same individuals to prosper, and we would all reap the benefits. It's no coincidence that the more egalitarian we have become, the more divided our society is. 

Government as an arbiter of truth. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said, "We will continue to be your single source of truth," and, "Unless you hear it from us it is not the truth."
If that's not Orwellian, I don't know what is. Ms Ardern was obviously speaking about information circulating on social media relating to the impending lockdowns with the outbreak of Covid, and the world's response to it. This very information was labelled "misinformation" which, of course, turned out to be accurate. But I digress.
It's not only our Kiwi cousins that suffered from this manipulative and evidently harmful ideology. Just about every jurisdiction in the world blindly followed the dictates of Dr Anthony Fauci and, as I mentioned, the Chinese Communist Party. Fauci was the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 right up until 2022. Almost forty years!   Every day, it is now becoming more apparent that these orders, rules, guidelines, laws and procedures were fundamentally flawed. The decisions of the elites within our societies were made based upon personal power, personal promotion, personal virtue-signalling, and personal greed and wealth creation. Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine protocols, which were always safe, proven safe for decades, and have since been proven effective, were poo-pooed, dismissed and then eventually outlawed by practically every government around the world. It is a fact that this simple, cheap and obtainable treatment would have saved thousands of lives had it been implemented when first formulated by several medical professionals from around the world. But the adaptation of these protocols was stopped for one simple reason; the development and deploying of the "vaccines". Having existing treatments would have made "emergency usage" of the experimental Covid "vaccines"  impossible under law. This would have resulted in a loss of billions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies, and millions of dollars of lost revenue from those heavily invested, such as Dr Fauci, and Mr Gates. Those that decided for us, chose to protect their personal profits over the lives of others. Simple as that.  Learning nothing from the recent past, learning nothing from history, and having learned nothing from Orwell or Huxley, our own federal government is pushing ahead with it's own "Ministry of Truth", "Thought Police" policies. The proposed laws are nothing short of an affront to personal freedom and liberty. More details here.

Carbon Dioxide "Pollution" and Climate Change One of my first posts on this blog in April 2021 was a look at the world's response to climate change. I stated at the time that "climate change is real" and "science agrees that human activity is causing most of our climate change". Well, two and a half years later, I've changed my mind.
I looked into climate change and its causes. I read great books from environmentalist Michael Shellenberger, academic and author Bjorn Lomborg, Greenpeace founder Dr Patrick Moore, Australian geologist Professor Ian Plimer, and Steven E Koonin, to name a few.
Despite Mr Lomborg's insistence that human activity is driving climate change, after looking at some facts and unmolested data, I'm of the opinion that the insistence of man-made climate change is a nonsense, and just another ideology designed to plunge the developed world back into the dark ages, and boost a one-world socialist government.
Just like the Covid debacle, all you have to do to find the truth is "follow the money".
The idea of carbon pollution is multi-layered and complicated, so I won't elaborate too much here. But I will summarise thus: Carbon Dioxide, an invisible, tasteless, trace element in the atmosphere is essential for all life.
We need CO2 for, well, everything. During the last couple of hundred years CO2 has increased from 0.03% around 1850, to 0.04% today. Scientists declared that, despite the low numbers, this increase is significant, and that proposition originally had me siding with the "warmers".
However, when I looked deeper, things changed somewhat. What they don't tell you is, of that 0.04%, 3% of carbon emissions is man-made. Meaning 97% of carbon emissions are natural and therefore uncontrollable. What has become obvious to me, is that everything that we are doing around the world isn't reducing CO2, will not reduce CO2 in any significant way in the future, and sending everyone broke in the meantime. Everyone, that is, except China who manufacture wind turbines and solar panels for the world, and the already wealthy elites who, from the comfort of their private jets, finger-wag and tut-tut the common person for leaving their TV on standby mode.
Interestingly, and not spoken about by any news outlet, is the effects that increased CO2 is actually having upon the planet. Mainly, that the planet is actually becoming physically greener. In the last 20 years or so, an area the size of the USA has been ‘greened’. The world's deserts, particularly in Africa, are shrinking. Increased CO2 allows plants to survive in more arid conditions.
"Climate Action" has nothing to do with climate change, and everything to do with the implementation of socialist policy and rule throughout the world. A world where the private individual will "own nothing" and become totally dependent on government for everything. No thanks. 

John Howard. I always considered Mr Howard to be one of our great PMs. And, to be sure, Mr Howard and his government did achieve a lot of good and positive things during their tenure.
At the time of the infamous firearm buy-back scheme, I reluctantly agreed with the policy. I don't want to sound hyperbolic but as governments around this country and around the western world have proved over the last couple of years, tyranny is only one manufactured disaster away. Who would have thought the police response to covid would have been so militant and un-liberal?
Then there's my old millstone, Net Zero. Mr Howard brought this insanity into our national conscious, albeit by stealth. I wrote about this in a little detail last year. While Mr Howard did not implement any overt policies (such as a "visible" carbon tax), since the mid-1990s, successive governments have embraced the net zero religion. The results of the adoption of this ideology are there to see every day. Upwardly spiraling energy costs, unreliable energy provision, banning of natural gas in some places, and the manufacturing sector unable to commit long term investment due to all of these variables and unknowns. Which brings me to the ...

Nationals Party. The party for the country people and the farmers. Right? Maybe not.
Earlier this year I attended the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Sydney. Nationals heavyweight, former leader of the Nationals and former deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce spoke about the destructive consequences of  Net Zero. He spoke about the impacts on business, manufacturing and agriculture. He spoke about the environmental destruction taking place at the sites of wind turbine installations. He spoke of the folly of it all, how the energy used to produce a wind turbine is roughly the same as the energy it will produce in its lifetime.
However, agriculture is the industry that stands to lose the most.
If Australia were to implement similar policies that have been brought in around the world, our productive, profitable and un-subsidised farming industry would be devastated.
But here's the thing, and it's something that the adoring CPAC audience seems to have forgotten. The latest round of "decarbon" policies which included seemingly impossible targets was signed off by the Morrison government. Beside Mr Morrison's signature is Mr Joyce’s.
Now, Mr Joyce made it clear that he wants to reverse the policies. He wants to end the construction of wind turbines and solar arrays. He wants to build nuclear power generation. Which makes sense. It's just a pity that he wasn't saying these things 10 years ago when he was in government. (I'm sure that he was thinking those things).
If he had started the ball rolling then, we'd have at least one nuclear generator by now. I, for one, am sick of conservative politicians and party heavyweights folding once they are in power. I don't know how we can shake some sense into these people. But it appears to me that they spend too much time listening to focus groups and social media, and not their base of voters. 

Ned Kelly. I never really "got" Ned Kelly. I didn't fully understand how one could fall foul of the Police unless he actually broke laws. I couldn't understand the idea of him and his family being targeted by authority unless they deserved it. I couldn't see how people could be harassed by police unless there was evidence that justified it. I was naive in my thinking.  I came to realise that, 150 years ago, despite our current law and order system being based upon the same ideas as then, that it was a different world. While corruption still finds ways to infiltrate today's systems, the reins weren't held so tightly in those days. Police had more autonomy and authority (official or not) in the days of slow communications and vast distances between the individual police and the brass. Even though, in Kelly’s case, there's plenty of evidence to indicate that the higher authorities support victimisation and harassment of the Kellys. Then, about two years ago, I got it. The plight of the Kellys dawned on me. My eyes were opened to just how easily totalitarian rule can weasel it's way in to a democratic society. I could see how it happens.  The Covid madness revealed that authoritarianism can manifest itself any time and anywhere. Even here in a liberal democracy where police operate (supposedly) separately from government.  We witnessed the establishment of draconian rules that were implemented with the force of law. We saw government abandon democracy and appoint themselves the arbiter of all things true and correct. We witnessed police brutality on a scale not seen in Australia for a very long time. We witnessed the arrest of individuals because of the content of their social media posts. We saw the arrest of people for daring to question government authority. We witnessed police harassment of journalists and influencers for daring to speak out in support of those that had things to say. And some of that harassment continues today, three years on.

Finally, I get it. 

Thank you to David for your invaluable input.

CPAC 2023 - A Missed Opportunity (for the Liberal Party)? - September 2023

Last year (2022) I attended my first CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) event in Sydney. The weekend was very enjoyable thanks to the interesting and varied speakers that offered a range of ideas and perspectives on many varied topics. During the weekend I met many people in the audience, all of who had a story and opinions to share, and varied in their background, lifestyle, location and jobs. I also was pleased to meet several media personalities, politicians and what you might call "business heavyweights" during the weekend. I wrote about last year's event here.

So this year I attended with high expectations. And yes, I did enjoy the conference weekend, but this year's event was quite different to last year's. One of the main differences was the presence and approachability of politicians and media personalities... or lack thereof. At the '22 event I met and spoke with some of these people and was amazed at just how approachable they were. They are, after all, in a 'safe space' where you can be pretty sure that everyone there is pretty much on the same page when it comes to political philosophy. They sat in the crowd along with us, the great unwashed, mingled in the foyer during breaks, and seemed to be available for, at the minimum, a handshake and G'Day.  But at this year's event, they changed the seating arrangements where the speakers were squirrelled away in 'corporate boxes' that demanded a ticket price which is higher in value than my car. Even though I spent more than a mortgage payment on my particular ticket, I did not get to converse with any of the speakers. Even at the Gala Dinner, where last year I believe that speakers were split up on to separate tables, I was not able to meet any. We'll get back to this point later.

Now, whilst it is not my intention to write a review of the event itself, I'd like to briefly reflect upon a couple of the key points raised by some of the speakers.
Tony Abbott, 28th Australian Prime Minister was a keynote speaker. Mr Abbott proved popular at CPAC with the crowd rising to it's feet upon his arrival. His message was not dissimilar to last year's, mainly calling for Liberal Party voters to "keep the faith", and instructed that the only way to defeat Labor/Greens/Teals coalition at the next election was to vote Liberal or Nationals.
Sitting MP Ted O'Brien spoke about Net Zero and the need for nuclear power production in Australia.
Hon Barnaby Joyce spoke in his usual affable style, calling upon the crowd to join him in pushing back against the Net Zero nightmare.
Senator Alex Antic, (one of  only a handful of sitting politicians who are worth their salt in my opinion), spoke out against censorship and the Albanese Government's "misinformation laws". Mr Antic is 100% correct in his condemnation of the proposed censorship laws, and really had the crowd on side. Even though he might have forgotten to mention that the laws were initially a Morrison Government idea!
Professor Ian Plimer is always great to listen to and was a highlight of the event. He is highly intelligent, informed and researched, not afraid to speak his mind, and always entertaining. He has a great laid-back "bushie" style about him, including the larrican sense of humour. I spoke with Professor Plimer while he graciously signed my copy of his book "Green Murder" and found him to be humble, interested, observant and funny. 
Mr Tal Tsfany from the Ayn Rand Institute was a surprising inclusion. His thoughts and statements were far more Libertarian than, well, than I am, that's for sure. And possibly more than most of the audience. But Conservatism does blend into Libertarianism on some points and all of his points were considered and thought-provoking. 

And then there was another highlighted speaker, Mr Allan Jones. Hearing Mr Jones speak is worth the price of admission alone. I don't have to tell you who he is. Love him, or hate him, (most people fall into one of those extreme categories) Allan Jones is an amazing oritor. His talks are always researched, referenced, concise, factual and entertaining. He spoke about many topics, And he spoke (as he did last year) straight to me (and I suspect many others there) when he discussed the "thousands of conservative voters looking for a home". These people have traditionally been Liberal or Nationals voters who feel let down by conservative governments and oppositions, especially over the last three or four years. 
The Liberal party in particular bangs on about their beliefs. Seemingly, each one of those beliefs being abandoned in recent times. Not that the Liberals realise that. 
Mr Jones is correct in his summation that there are thousands of conservative voters looking for someone to rest their vote with. I would say that everyone I spoke to during the weekend (and I spoke to two or three different people every break and at the end of the day- around twenty or thirty strangers) all agreed on several points. Points also made by Mr Jones, namely being
* The disastrous Turnbull leadership coup
* The Morrison era of leaderless reactionary politics and Twitter policy guidance
* The impotence (or willful blindness) of the Morrison government during covid
* The abandonment of sensible fiscal policy by federal and state governments and their oppositions
* The expensive folly that is Net Zero

If the Liberal party was serious about finding it's way, changing direction, and bringing the conservative vote back, what better place to learn what the grassroots supporters think than at CPAC? Every conservative politician, as a speaker or not, should have been there. They need to sit in the cheap seats and talk to the punters who care enough to buy an expensive ticket and travel from all over the country. Talk to the potential voters who at considerable cost to their time and finances make the effort to attend and absolutely love being a part of our democracy. 
My message to the Liberal and National party politicians and leaders is this: Forget the focus groups and Twitter summaries. Go to CPAC. Not to speak to the crowd, but to listen to it. Listen to the everyday conservatives who want to vote for a strong conservative party. Then watch things turn around. 
With one more CPAC before the next federal election, I doubt that they will learn and take positive action before then. But maybe the one after? 
One thing seems certain. Nothing will change until we change the way we vote.

Labor's Evil "Misinformation" Bill - July 2023

The Albanese Government, while everyone is distracted by the "Voice" debate and upwardly-spiraling cost of living, is attempting to silence the voices and quash the opinions of everyday Australians like you and me. Their plan is to create an Orwellian-style "Ministry Of Truth" within the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA). This new legislation will enable ACMA to force the removal of posts (such as those on FaceBook, Twitter etc) Youtube video posts, Podcasts, or even personal blogs (like this one) if the post/article opposes or questions the established Government narrative. Basically, this bill gives government the power to sensor information that it doesn't want online. 
It sounds like I'm being hyperbolic, but bear with me, because I regard this to be the greatest threat to our nation right now. This legislation will give the government, federal or state, the power to silence dissent, disagreement, or even those questioning the narrative of the day. Right here in Australia. Not the former USSR, not China, not North Korea. Australia. 
I read a quote a couple of weeks back that I fortuitously saved to my phone- ‘Mis and disinformation sows division within the community, undermines trust and can threaten public health and safety. The Albanese government is committed to keeping Australians safe online.’
The Albanese government is proposing that something as simple as a Facebook post or a meme on Twitter can cause actual harm to the reader. How on earth did we come to this? Since when did an emotion such as offence become an injury?
This new law will apply to all users of Social Media (like you), Citizen Journalists (like lockdown hero Rukshan Fernando,) or amateur opinion writers (like me).
My question to you is this: Who do you trust to determine what is true or desirable? A government bureaucrat? Facebook? Or yourself? 
The Australian Government intends to fine social media companies, to the tune of millions of dollars if they don't comply to the government's dictats. Wanting to avoid these fines, social media platforms and big tech will kowtow to the government, scan your posts, and pull offending posts from their platforms. Your on-line discussions will be monitored and filtered by big tech on behalf of a government bureaucracy. 
Of course, this rule applies to you and me, but not the Government itself. The government can post whatever it wishes, true or false, informative or misguiding. But if you call them out on something that you don't agree with, or question what they are saying, the censorship laws will apply to you. Same applies to, for example, opposition politicians or dissenting members of the government's own party. 
And don't think the big tech giants won't censor people. It's been going on for years, which we will discuss below. 
Also exempt are the legacy media outlets. According to the draft bill, automatically excluded from this new draconian law: ‘professional news content’ and ‘content that is authorised by the Commonwealth, and/or state’.
Why would a government of a free and liberal democracy introduce this blatantly anti-liberty law? And why now? An article from the Sydney Morning Herald offers a clue. It read: "Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will link the growing international wave of misinformation to the campaign against the Indigenous Voice to Parliament... In an attempt to discredit his critics, Albanese will on Sunday claim that democracy is under threat…’ . In my opinion, few things are as undemocratic than this new disinformation bill! In my opinion, this is the biggest threat to our democracy since WWII.

Way back in the year 1984 I was in my final year of high school. Our English teacher Mr Goss (who I under-appreciated at the time) introduced our cohort to George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-four. Written in 1948 following World War II, the novel told the story of  Winston Smith, and the  ...consequences of totalitarianism, mass surveillance and repressive regimentation of people and behaviours within society. Orwell... modelled the authoritarian state in the novel on the Soviet Union in the era of Stalinism, and Nazi Germany. More broadly, the novel examines the role of truth and facts within societies and the ways in which they can be manipulated. (Wikipedia)
I don't know if this tome was mandated by the curriculum of the time, or if it was selected my our eloquent and articulate educator. Regardless, I enjoyed the book, but it took me a couple of years to "get it" and begin to understand the important lessons that the book offered. I revisited the book probably once between leaving school and a couple of years ago. I have now read the book a couple of times since and can plainly see the connections between Winston Smith's communist hell, and the changes happening in the world today. 
I would guess that this book has been widely read. Something like 30 million copies have been sold worldwide. The book is so prolific I would suggest that most people know the story despite perhaps not having read it. 
One thing is for sure. We have forgotten "1984"s horrors and it's lessons. We failed to learn from life in Oceania's Airstrip One. We lost our sympathy for Winston Smith and Julia.
We failed to learn from the Covid response. Many have forgotten (or maybe refuse to remember, or maybe even acknowledge) the pure insanity of the world's Covid response. (I outline my personal thoughts on the covid response here) 
During Covid, government and health bureaucracy pushed a single narrative. It's (now) no secret that dissenting or alternative views were quashed by social media platforms and big tech at the request of governments.  What you might not know is that commercial broadcasters, the legacy media, the nightly TV news, received a 100% refund of their Commercial Broadcasting Tax obligations in return for supporting the government's narrative and quashing or discrediting alternative ideas and opinions. In other words, they were bribed by the government to hide what could have possibly been the actual truth. This happened here in Australia and the mainstream media was also bribed in New Zealand. These same people who received these tax breaks diligently created covid hysteria and (almost) universal fear. They discredited people who spoke out or raised opposition to covid measures or completely censored and deplatformend those who were brave enough to speak out. These very same media outlets will be exempt from the new "Disinformation" bill. 
For three years we have seen the suppression of views that were promptly labelled "disinformation" which turned out to be actually correct. For example, the Trump Russia collusion was a hoax, the Covid Lab Leak theory, Hunter Biden's Laptop, Covid "vaccines" don't stop transmission, or indeed that the "vaccines" lead to blood clots, stroke or heart damage. 
Think of the contradictions that were not questioned by an obedient media. Attending a Black Lives Matter protest is safe, but attending an anti-lockdown protest is not. It's unsafe to go to an ANZAC day commemoration, but perfectly safe to attend the ANZAC day AFL football match. Masks are mandatory for everyone at all times, but not for politicians when the cameras are off. 
Over the last several months, much of the information given out by government during covid is now found to be untrue.
Albanese's proposed bill is a reward for everyone who blindly and obediently followed the government's dictats during the pandemic. For those free-thinking and defiant individuals who refused to become the loyal subjects of dictatorial politicians, you will be censored at the minimum. More than likely, you will be cancelled, deplatformed, or "unpersoned", as Mr Orwell put it.
When government bureaucracy proposes to act as the arbiter of fact, and filter what people can and cannot say, what they can and cannot read or listen to, they are proposing and attempting to control what you think. Just like in Orwell's 1984, it is a massive authoritarian overreach.
What our governments need to realise is that the only weapon against misinformation is free and open debate. It's been working for hundreds of years in western societies. Free and open debate IS democracy. It's no coincidence that the suppression of open debate is leading to many of the problems that our world faces today. 
Instead of a liberal and democratic approach to conflicting ideas and information, the government has chosen censorship and suppression. Since the beginning of recorded history, many governments and authoritative regimes have appointed themselves as the arbiter of truth. It hasn't ended well for them or the people. 

Many years ago I presented a show on community radio. During the training and before I was permitted to broadcast, I was instructed on some common sense laws around what you can and can't say when broadcasting publicly. For example, you cannot verbally defame or attack an individual. You can't incite riot or violence. And for good reason. The new disinformation bill isn't about these rules. Laws already exist to protect the public and individuals, and suppress this kind of behaviour. But that kind of conduct is very different to simply expressing your own opinion. 
To me, the problem with a heinous bill like this is the impotency of the federal opposition. Let's not forget that the Morrison Government toyed with similar legislation. As did the Gillard Government.
Mr Dutton has stated that he is opposed to this legislation. But I've not heard anything from him since. My feeling is that Mr Dutton is personally opposed, but the party machine of the Liberals, most of who are incompetent bed-wetters, are quietly supporting the idea, wanting the censorious power themselves once they are (one day maybe) returned to power. 
Mr Dutton has made gains in popularity since taking a strong stance against the Voice. If he were to come out swinging against this new legislation, he would cement himself as the ideal leader of an opposition and possible a genuine candidate for Prime Minister. However, if he continues to appease the ideologically confused in the party (think Julian Leeser et al), he will struggle to win back the conservative vote that was destroyed by Turnbull, and taken for granted by Morrison.
If you are reading this, and if you agree that this legislation must be defeated outright, you must act and now.
1. Contact your local member of Federal parliament and register your protest. If you don't know who your member is, click HERE enter your postcode in line 1 for your answer.
2. Submit your protest to the ACMA website HERE . Keep it polite and your voice will be heard.
3. Share this article via email or Social Media. Links are in the boxes at the end of the article.
If this bill is passed in to law, it will remain in place, regardless of who is in power. And your right to complain about it will be forever removed.

Making Sense of "The Voice" - June 2023

I really don't know what to make of  "The Voice". 

I wanted to know more about what the actual proposal is, but factual information is distinctly lacking.
"The Voice" is a measure proposed by the "Uluru Statement from the Heart", but an investigation of the statement web page reveals nothing in the way of mechanicals, schematics, or indeed any any information on what The Voice might look like or how it will work. Some vague information has been offered by Prime Minister Albanese, but again, this information has been unclear on concept, yet alone details. 

I have no doubt that Mr Albanese and his Government are well-intentioned, and I truly believe that all Australians despair at the plight of our remote Aboriginal Communities in particular. Mr Albanese and a plethora of talking heads have indicated that The Voice is a step towards true reconciliation, justice, and improved life outcomes for those in the communities. So, naturally, the old heartstrings are tugging away and the default position for Yes vote. While voting Yes may make you feel virtuous, what are the real life percussions of a successful Yes vote?

The lack of details from the Government and Aboriginal lobby groups is concerning. I can't think of a time when we have been asked to risk so much and offer so much trust with so little information given. Mr Albanese is telling the voting Australian public to trust the Government to deliver an outcome that we all will embrace. Just vote YES and worry about the details later. But if you honestly trust the Government, and believe that they are capable of determining what is right and fair and just, then you haven't been paying attention over the last few years. Why are the details remaining hidden? I can only assume that means full implementation of the Uluru Statement? Unlike the truth behind the Covid response which is slowly emerging, we will never have the opportunity to hold those responsible for any failures with the voice. Once enshrined within our constitution, it is set in stone regardless of what public opinion may become at any time after enactment, or how corrupt, divisive or acidic The Voice may become. 

Mr Albanese hasn't indicated to us just how the many voices of Aboriginal Australia will be heard. There are something like 350 traditional 'nations' of aboriginal people. How will each of them be represented by The Voice? Will there be a representative from each group reporting to The Voice? Will these representatives be meeting in Canberra (or some other location) to pass on and share their thoughts and opinions? If so, is this an additional house of parliament?

For the last several decades, Aboriginal activists have worked hard to bring their causes to every Australian. I think that they have done a good job with more and more people becoming aware of the Aboriginal people's wants and needs. I also believe that racism has declined significantly within my lifetime and any individual that wants to participate and contribute will always be given a fair go regardless of race or background. The Voice looks like it will undo all of this hard work by dividing our nation into two distinct classes of people, dependent upon your ancestry. The increase in unity that we have seen in recent times is destined to be destroyed by the establishment of a class of citizen with unprecedented privileges and rights not available to the rest of the population. I suspect... no, I am certain, that this will breed resentment and, regrettably, set reconciliation back 100 years.

Successive governments have all contributed generously towards Aboriginal causes, with the blessing and encouragement of the Australian taxpayer. Federal Government spending alone is approaching something like one billion dollars per week, and yet outcomes for our Aboriginal people are not improving. 

It has been reported that National Indigenous Affairs employs more than 1,000 bureaucrats, and that there are over three thousand Aboriginal corporations providing services. No wonder that money is not being spent how and where it does the most good. 

Clearly, the top-down approach of all of these corporations that has been happening for decades isn't working. A top-down approach never works in favor of the people. Successful organisations, ranging from independent nations, to bush school P&C associations are all bottom-up structures, where the people rule the "government", and any attempt to reverse that structure, (like we saw during Covid), leads to civil anger, unrest and revolt. Why should Aboriginal affairs be any different? The Voice looks like it will be a top-down and ultimate authority not just upon the Aboriginal people, but upon all Australians, with a group of 24 decision makers far removed from remote communities making decisions which affect those same communities, without any sign of input from the ground level, or any sign of democratic process.

The lack of details makes things very unclear, but one thing you can be guaranteed of is a massive increase of bureaucracy and size of government across all three levels, which will lead to further waste of money and resources, and, further alienation of those people who need the most help sooner.

For what I suspect is the majority of  "Yes" supporters, the facts above are either not known, not believed or not acknowledged. They believe that a successful Yes vote will settle once and for all all of the conflict and frustrations surrounding Aboriginal claims. From what I can see, it will embed it permanently within our national psyche, perpetually funded by the taxpayers.

"No" proponents are arguing that it is wrong, at the most basic level, to place race class within our constitution. This will give one group of people a collection of rights that are denied to all other citizens. This flies directly in the face of the principals Liberal Democracy, and Christianity for that matter, on which our free and successful society has been built. We, Australians, live in a society where each individual is free to peruse their own destiny, where each person has the same rights and responsibilities as every other citizen, where one person has one vote regardless of their position or social stature. Regardless if your family has been Australian for ten minutes or ten thousand years. Regardless of your gender, sexuality, or political beliefs.  A Yes vote is to deny these truths, and granting additional rights to a (around) 4% section of the community is sacrificing democracy to tribalism. And the social costs of that would be immense.

Historically, the most successful programs aiming to "close the gap" in Aboriginal communities are programs devised by the community themselves. For example, Fitzroy Crossing. Their self-imposed restrictions on alcohol resulted in "hospital presentations ... fallen from 85% down to below 20%, and alcohol-fuelled domestic violence incidents fell by 43%". 

The Aboriginal population is around 4%. Currently in our Federal Parliament we have eleven or twelve representatives in the two houses that identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. This would indicate that the Aboriginal population is over-represented within our parliament. But many of these elected representatives don't seem to be listened to by the Albanese Government. 

Two Northern Territory Senators, Senator McCarthy (Labor) and Senator Price (Country Liberals/Nationals), both Aboriginal women, pleaded for the reversal of the Government's decision to lift several restrictions in the Territory including alcohol. They warned that the results would be destructive, they were ignored, and it turns out they were correct. Why was the "voice" of these two women ignored? Why did the Government think that the opinion of city-dwelling Aboriginals was better than those that actually live in the affected communities? Will The Voice represent those in the bush, or just the city dwellers that are the main people pushing for a Yes vote? Just which Aboriginal voices will be represented by The Voice?

I don't know about you, but I'm sick of being told that I am personally responsible for the plight of a group of people that I have had very little contact with, or that their plight is a result of the actions of my grandfathers. Yet this is what we are being told daily, and also what our children are being taught in schools and universities. 

It has become verboten to challenge the notion of "invasion". Or, indeed, to challenge the notion that we must accept that  another group of people own the land that you live on, work on, play on, or even buried within. We are being continually told that the Australian Flag symbolises the oppression of Aboriginal people by cruel and brutal colonialists.

While most of the workings of The Voice are hidden, ambiguous, or simply unknown, some details have been leaked. Documents from the group preceding the Uluru Statement, released under the freedom of information act, says: ‘Any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process,’ and that the Treaty must include ‘a fixed percentage of Gross National Product’. There is also mention of rates, land tax and royalties. There is no mention of what this treaty, rates, commissions will cost the taxpayer. You.

If Mr Albanese's proposal was to simply add a paragraph or two to the Constitution to formally acknowledge the Aboriginal  and Torres Strait people as the original custodians of Australia, then the Yes vote would romp it in. I would vote yes to that. A singular Voice to Parliament under legislation would also be viewed favorably and would be a popular decision. 

However, with so many questions unanswered, and so many questions still to be asked, and the risks being so high, I can't see how the proposal will get over the line.There's just too much at stake. 

One last thing. The thought of dividing a people into groups, the haves and the have-nots, the cans and the cant's, the wealthy and the poor, or whatever deliniage you choose; during a time of high national debt, spiraling inflation, increasing taxes, increasing tyranny and declining democracy; class struggle and revolution... has a dreadfully familiar ring to it.

Brett, My Friend, and an Uncaring Media. April 2023

On the 29th of April I published here a post about a friend who's life was destroyed partly due to an uncaring and sensationalising media.

As I wrote more and as the story developed, the post became more about the friend, who's recent passing was (and is) still fresh in my mind, rather than the media itself.

Recently, I was contacted by a mutual friend who asked me to take the post down, for several personal reasons that are poignant and sincere.

If you have come to this page to read the article in question, I apologise that it is no longer available. However the respect that I have for my small group of friends is important to me and I fully respect their wishes. 

Thank you for your understanding. H