What is a proportionate response?

The world has just witnessed an act of barbarism! It is hard to accept human beings perpetrating the atrocities we have seen. Israel has vowed to destroy the barbarians responsible and to ensure it cannot happen again. Most Western leaders have expressed their support and reaffirmed Israel's right to self-defence. A few, however, have qualified their support, demanding that any response by Israel be 'proportionate'.

What, I ask, is a proportionate response to such heinous war crimes? The common use of the word 'proportionate means 'of relative equal magnitude'. What would be of relatively equal magnitude to 5000 rockets launched indiscriminately towards large built-up areas, the massacre of over 1000 mainly women and children of all ages, and the brutal abduction of over 150 hostages.

Would a proportionate response be randomly firing 5000 rockets back into Gaza, capturing 1000 men, women and children, massacring them, and then abducting 150 random civilians off the streets of Gaza? No one could argue that would not be of equal magnitude.

What would the civilised world say of that? What would Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong say to that? After all, in one of her earliest tweets on the attack by Hamas she added; - 

"Australia urges the exercise of restraint & protection of civilian lives."

Restraint? Protection of civilian lives? Would that be proportionate? I don't think many would think so. Did Hamas show restraint? Did they protect civilian lives? Certainly not!

Of course, she is not alone. Many, too many, so-called leaders and commentators urge restraint on Israel when they would never do so for other countries faced with terrorist attacks. Did they urge restraint on the US after the 9/11 attack? Of course not. The US started the war on terror, invaded Afghanistan, and later Iraq. They did not hold back. Nor did their citizens want them to. It seems Israel alone is singled out for such advice on proportionality, restraint, and the protection of civilians.

I hope these leaders never face Israel's dilemma, but if they do, I expect they would truly identify with Israel, perhaps for the first time, and then say proportionality be damned. If these barbarians target my people, we will use disproportionate, unprecedented, unforgettable force to ensure that these perpetrators will forever remember there are severe, brutal, disproportionate, consequences to such atrocities. Consequences harsh enough to build a wall of deterrence that lasts for decades.

J'Accuse all journalists of betraying their duty

 J'Accuse, I accuse all journalists of betraying their sacred duty. A duty not just to their profession, but to the very soul of humanity. Have you forgotten your role as the watchdogs of society? All journalists? Yes, every single one who has turned a blind eye to the truth, who has failed to probe the uncomfortable questions, who has silently observed the spreading web of deception.

We see those who know the answers but dare not unveil them, those who allow the fabrications of others to fester in the public mind, those who cower in fear of losing their paychecks, their stature, or becoming the target of their peers' scorn. Is this the legacy they wish to leave?

Had they but found the courage to speak out, to seek the unvarnished truth, to do the job they were called to do, our world would be different.

Consider what we would all have gained had they done their job by;-

• exposing sexual abuse by Harvey Weinstein, Rolf Harris, Bill Cosby, or Jeffrey Epstein when they first heard of instances

• calling out China's infiltration into the Western World through stealing intellectual property via the 1000 Minds projects, the harassment of ex-Chinese citizens via the illegal Chinese Police Stations or its tentacles in the upper echelons of governments worldwide

• reporting honestly about the Antifa-led riots and not condoning them by calling them 'mainly peaceful' 

• reporting honestly and accurately on the riot at the Capitol on Jan 6 and not mislabeling it an 'insurrection' and the 'worst since the Civil War'

• calling out the origin of the COVID virus as most likely from the Wuhan WIV

• not encouraging mandatory vaccination when using an emergency authorised vaccine

• discouraging climate hysteria by providing an accurate IPCC perspective and calling out terms such as 'global boiling' 

• calling out the immoral support of Hamas and Hezbollah by European countries calling it aid knowing the money is diverted to funding terrorists

• accurately reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop 

• exposing Joe Biden's cognitive deficit before he was elected. There was ample evidence for every one.

A free society will only stay free if the Fourth Estate does not squander its mandate to report the truth without fear or favour. 

You have one job, do it!

"Making Life Even Worse for Us"

 I recently came across the Quadrant Article about Bess Nungarrayi Price dated 5th September 2023 titled "Making Life Even Worse for Us" and felt that every Australian should read it. Seeing I had missed it for a month, perhaps it was worth putting out a post dedicated to it.

It would be unfair for me to quote it in its entirety as Quadrant has published it and would like you to subscribe ( See Quadrant online).

Nevertheless I include some snippets in order to encourage you to read it in full; - 

This is Bess Nungarrayi Price’s foreword to the new book The Spirit Behind the Voice: The Religious Dimension of the “Voice” Proposal, edited by Gabriël Moens and Augusto Zimmermann and published by Connor Court, retailing for $29.95. Stephen Chavura, Senior Lecturer in History at Campion College in Sydney, says of this book:

“One could be forgiven for thinking that the only Christian response to the Voice to Parliament is Yes, if we went by the pronouncements of prominent churchmen and theologians. But I think these prominent churchmen and theologians are misguided on this issue. It is my conviction that when all things are considered, Christians should vote No to this divisive constitutional change. This book is a unique contribution to the debate in that it takes the question of the Voice to Parliament very seriously from a Christian, Jewish and secular point of view. I urge everyone who is pondering how to vote on this momentous question to carefully read this book and give serious consideration to voting No."

And some snippets from Bess Price from the Foreword to her book; -

"Naturally those who control the national debate are those people of indigenous descent who speak English and are well educated kardiya way. They have access to the media and politicians and are the loudest in their criticism of governments and kardiya (white men) in general. They criticise the old missionaries, but they don’t live by the Old Law and never have. They romanticise it, creating what I call a Disneyland version. They never talk about the down side, the acceptance of violence as a way to settle conflicts, the misogyny and acceptance of violence against women, the forcing of young girls into marriage with old men, the belief in sorcery. These old ways still cause a lot of problems, like continued violence against women, family feuding and the humbugging that forces so many to give their money to addicted kin for grog and gambling. All of these things come from the culture we were taught as children. The so-called First Nations Leaders tell us that all of these things are caused by kardiya, by racism and colonisation. They have made everything worse but all of these problems come from our own culture. The “leaders” call any kardiya racist if they say this and they put great effort into “cancelling” Aboriginal people like me who want the truth to be known."

and,

"My joining the Country Liberal Party has made me anathema to the Labor Party since. They think they own us, and they can’t tolerate our dissenting from their narrative. And they don’t forget.

My family was denied royalties that we were entitled to by the Central Land Council. My father’s role as a senior traditional owner for the country and Dreamings involved were simply denied. When we made a formal complaint we were denied the most basic natural justice. We have witnessed violence at Central Land Council convened meetings. They don’t hesitate to use intimidation and manipulation to achieve their goals. We are at their mercy. I was told to my face by a white Central Land Council staff member, “I am a lawyer. I can tell you that you can’t win.” But I have not given up."

and,

"The Voice advocates are polite and well-mannered in the light of day but many are offensive and aggressive in the shadows. My daughter, Senator Nampijinpa Price, and I have been threatened with death several times. In the Northern Territory we women are used to that. We are routinely vilified in obscene, racist and misogynist terms simply because we disagree with the Left’s narrative. GetUp sends young Aboriginal women, mostly from Down South, to campaign against us in elections in favour of kardiya who have done nothing for us. We have been ignored or defamed by the mainstream media. I was awarded an Australia Medal on Australia Day this year. I was contacted by commercial media from all over the country but I have not been contacted once by the ABC, even in my own town of Alice Springs. The Green/Left wish we didn’t exist. We have a different point of view that they don’t want to be heard."

and finally,

"I will be voting No and I urge all Australians with a conscience, whatever their religion, to do the same. I am sick of burying our children, seeing education denied to them, seeing them incarcerated, living in dire poverty and taken from families that don’t know how to care for them. We want real solutions and decision-makers willing to listen to all of us, whatever our politics and the languages we speak. We need open ears, not a constitutionally embedded, bureaucratised, highly selective Voice set up and run by those who have controlled the narrative and the funds for decades while everything got worse for us."

Some home 'truths' that we do not hear from most of the media. Well worth reading the whole article at "Making Life Even Worse for Us".

The Voice : Consider the Consequences

With but one week to go, we are in the 'home stretch' of this extended Voice referndum. Given the 24/7 media we now know what 'saturation' advertising really means. So no doubt you are getting 'over it'. Despite this if you are still in doubt about your vote, let me add a few words to try to sway you.

Despite the fine words by many a YES advocate downplaying the impact of the Voice, never mind the details, you owe it to our indigenous citizens, it is the moral thing to do, nothing could be further from the truth.

This is a momentous decision that will shape the nation's future. The Voice referendum carries significant implications for the country.

I have already recorded my reasons for voting NO (see Why I am voting NO to the Voice ), however,  that was not an exhaustive list, and in this note want to focus on some of the consequences of a successful YES vote.

One of the commitments Anthony Albanese announced on election night was that he would "implement the Uluṟu statement in full". The authors of this statement have made it clear that the Voice is just the initial step in 3 stage process emblazoned on many a T-Shirt " Voice, Treaty, Truth".

While Albanese has tried repeatedly to divert discussion from Treaty or Truth, preferring to narrowly focus our attention on the 'Vibe', it is nonsensical to simply vote YES and ignore what follows. After all Albo has repeatedly stated that he wants to implement the Uluru statement in full. So, we cannot but conclude that the Treaty and Truth steps are the necessary consequences of a YES vote.

Given the government's refusal to even discuss these steps there is no detail or formal policy position to review. However, we can rely on the authors of the Uluru statement to gauge their thinking. There are some 100 pages of notes recording formal discussions between the authors that are available The full document is printed in full here: Uluru Statement from the Heart. They cover a wide range of topics and these in turn trigger a whole range of questions. Questions like; -

• Questions about Treaty
• How does a country create a treaty with a subset of its own citizens?
• Who signs the treaty when government representatives are indigenous themselves?
• Will there be reparations?
• How much, who will pay and who will receive it?

• Questions about Truth telling and its implications?
• Have we not been telling the truth until now?
• Who determines what is true?
• Will the process build unity or cause more division ?

I will leave you to fill in the possible answers to these, but you should consider Voice, Treaty and Truth as a package. If the referendum passes Treaty and Truth are sure to follow. So if you don't like the possible implications of either of these additional processes and their consequences, you should vote NO.

Examining Excess Mortality Beyond COVID: A Call for Open Discourse - updated 3 October

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the world has been grappling with the staggering toll it has taken on lives. However, there's an alarming factor that has largely remained in the shadows – excess mortality. This surge in mortality, which extends beyond the direct impact of the virus, has not received the attention it deserves from politicians, the medical establishment, or the media. What's more concerning is the minimization and censorship of any attempts to link excess mortality to vaccine side effects by major tech companies.

Recent studies have shed light on the unexpected magnitude of excess mortality due to vaccination, challenging the narrative we've been led to believe. These studies have presented findings that go beyond questioning vaccine efficacy; they raise a troubling possibility that COVID vaccines might not only have failed in protecting the population but may have contributed to greater mortality than the virus itself.

I learned of the first of these studies via Dr John Campbell's YouTube video ONS, overall deaths in unvaccinated lower that has now been removed. Not sure why?

Nevertheless I have managed to find the source for Dr Campbell’s video. It was from this site the nobody who knows everybody The specific article is ANNUS HORRIBILIS - In England - Were there Over 154,300 Extra Deaths because of Covid-19 Vaccination Status ?

The paper provides a summary of a relatively straight forward analysis of publicly available data in UK, It calculates the overall mortality rates  for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK over identical period. The surprising, really shocking, result is that the mortality rate for the unvaccinated is lower than the mortality rate for the vaccinated. This demands explanation.

The paper is very detailed and provides extensive source material, but I have not checked it, so must remain cautious, especially given that John Campbell video was removed. Not sure if it was a case of censorship or whether John decided the data was suspect.

The second source for concern is a large study COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere released by Correlation, a Canadian not for profit organisation. This is an extensive research paper looking at vaccine induced mortality in the Southern hemisphere during the COVID Pandemic. Again it has a number of distressing conclusions. 

The paper is based on 17 countries in the Southern Hemisphere and equatorial region. A definite causal link is shown between many peaks in all-cause mortality and rapid vaccine rollouts. The authors quantify the fatal toxicity risk per injection, which is exceedingly large in the most elderly.

and most alarmingly concludes vaccination caused

17.0 ± 0.5 million COVID-19 vaccine deaths worldwide, from 13.50
billion injections up to 2 September 2023, ...(1 death per 470 living
persons, in less than 3 years), and did not measurably prevent any deaths.

The implications of these findings are profound and require immediate attention from our leaders and society as a whole. If these studies hold true, it signifies a monumental failure in our efforts to safeguard our citizens' health. Therefore, it is imperative that we shift the spotlight onto this issue and encourage open and honest discussions.

To address this matter effectively, several critical steps must be taken:

• Open Discussion: We need our leaders and experts to engage in open discussions about these findings. This is not a time for political bias or suppression of differing views. All voices, regardless of their perspective, should be heard and considered.
• Thorough Medical Investigation: The medical establishment must conduct comprehensive studies on the topic. These studies should be rigorous, transparent, and impartial. The results should be published in peer-reviewed articles, allowing the scientific community to scrutinize and validate the findings.
• Media Responsibility: Media outlets must play a responsible role in disseminating information. It is their duty to present the findings without sensationalism or censorship. The public has the right to be informed about potential risks associated with vaccines, as well as the benefits.
• Tech Transparency: Big tech companies should resist the urge to suppress information. Censorship, particularly in matters of public health, only fuels distrust. Instead, they should ensure that all perspectives have a platform for discussion.

At this stage, we cannot definitively say whether the vaccines have caused more harm than the virus itself. What we do have is a substantial body of evidence suggesting that there is more to this story than we've been led to believe. Only through open, honest, and transparent communication can we address this critical issue and chart a path forward that prioritizes the well-being of our citizens. The time for a comprehensive, open examination of excess mortality is overdue.