Daily Insight

If you live in Australia, you may have noticed a lot of rain of late. But this wasn’t exactly predicted. Quite the opposite. Our esteemed Bureau of Meteorology, BOM. You’re not allowed to call them BOM anymore. Australians might get confused and think they’re an actual bomb, so you have to call them The Bureau. But, the rebranding was set to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there was quite a big backlash, so the Bureau now says people can refer to the body “in any way they wish”. That’s good, because I’m planning to call them The Bureau of Mythology and Unicorns. In March this year, the ABC announced that “An 'El Niño Watch' has been declared — here’s what that could mean for Australia's weather in 2023”, with a picture of a dead fish on a dry lake bed. Later in June, they proudly announced, “BoM declares El Niño alert, signalling higher chance of warm, dry winter conditions”. This was only an alert, and not a fully-fledged El Niño declaration, but it had real-life consequences. Cattle farmers took these warnings seriously, as can be seen in the cattle prices. As the warnings came and fear of drought increased, farmers reacted and sold their stock, resulting in lower cattle prices for all. In September, “Bureau of Meteorology formally declares El Niño weather event, as hot and dry conditions sweep south-east Australia”. What do you think happened to cattle prices, they plummeted, robbing farmers of income all based on a prediction. … And as we know, rains came in November, a lot of rain. “Major storm event on the horizon across Australia as El Niño takes a raincheck”. The media outlets were confused, “Why is Australia this wet in El Niño?”. According to the Bureau, November rainfall was well above average in many parts of Australia, with blue and purple indicating 200, 300, and even 400% of average rainfalls. For those farmers who still had some cattle to sell, prices understandably went up (a little bit), but still didn’t get back to initial prices seen before El Niño alerts were made. Garry Edwards, Deputy Chair at Cattle Australia, said cattle prices are undervalued and spending all year talking about El Niño did not help. He said, “My personal opinion is that there’s been a chronic overreaction to the Bureau announcing El Niño. I think the Bureau potentially go earlier and stronger in those El Niño announcements than they might have in the past, which may force or encourage producers to make more significant and dramatic decisions earlier than what they’d previously make. There are no global indicators that support Australia’s cattle prices being so low. I expect prices to improve over the next two to six months.” Meat and Livestock Australia Managing Director Jason Strong, who recently announced his resignation, also commented on the El Niño predictions, “This prospect of El Niño has been discussed since very early in the year. When it got declared it probably carried more weight in people’s thinking than it should have. The lesson for us is that people are going to respond to this information much quicker than ever before, so how do we make sure there’s better context around it and do that quicker?” My opinion is that the Bureau should probably stick to more dependable predictions, such as daily and weekly forecasts, and weather warnings. Predictions made months, or even years ahead is a game fraught with danger, and as we saw with cattle prices, has real-life consequences. The ABC should probably stick to the news. This climate alarmism that they’ve been caught up in is essentially speculation and crystal ball gazing. But they can’t seem to help themselves. “Bureau of Meteorology and AFAC summer outlook looks hot across all corners of Australia, with heightened fire risk”. Summer will be hot? What sort of madness is this? Look, all I need to know, and all we should expect from the Bureau of Meteorology is, “Do I need to bring an umbrella tomorrow?”, and “Can I wash my clothes on the weekend?”. DID AUSTRALIA'S CATTLE INDUSTRY HAVE A 'CHRONIC OVERREACTION' TO THE EL NIÑO FORECAST? https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2023-11-26/did-cattle-market-overreact-to-el-nino-forecast/103145824 MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

“One person gives freely, yet gains more; Another withholds what is right, only to become poor.” ~Proverbs 11:24. If everyone lived like me, the world as we know it would end. There would be a major recession, indeed depression. I am extremely frugal. I shop at the cheapest supermarkets. I eat tofu and beans instead of meat. I almost never buy clothes, mainly because relatives keep giving them to me, but when I do, I shop at Kmart, or Big W. I don’t care what people think about what I wear. When I do shop online, I always change from Sort by: Recommended to Sort by: Price (Low to High). I don’t need the supermarket recommending me what to buy. I don’t need expensive cars. Heck, I almost don’t need a cheap car. 95% of my travelling is done on foot. I live within walking distance of almost everything I need. I don’t enjoy shopping and consumerism. I find it boring. I don’t enjoy travelling and tourism. I find it annoying. I don’t like eating out. I find it too expensive. I don’t pay for any subscriptions like Netflix or Disney+. I don’t pay for video games. I don’t drink alcohol. I don’t smoke. I essentially only buy the necessities in my life. I almost don’t have any discretionary spending. When I earn money, I save it. I earn interest in the bank, and earn dividends from the share market. But I have nothing to spend it on. I have nothing to buy. Perhaps some of you can relate to me. Perhaps some of you think I’m crazy. But one thing I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, if everyone did what I did, the economy would collapse. This is essentially called the Paradox of Thrift. Basically, if everyone stopped spending, then lots of companies would close resulting in massive jobs losses due to nobody buying anything, and then people would have no income and no ability to save. Paradoxically, everyone saving would result in no one saving as no one would have any income to save. My extreme frugality is extremely bad for the economy if everyone does it. Thriftiness would destroy the world. A few of us can get away with it, but the economy needs people to spend all the time. Luckily, it seems like many people can’t help it, and just waste their money as a matter of course, allowing people like me to live our frugal lives. Independent economist Saul Eslake has commented on this before. He said, “If everyone cut their spending back to the basics, and did it immediately, the result would be an almighty recession — indeed, a depression. The impact would actually be greater than $424 billion or 26% of GDP, because businesses would cut back their investment spending as well, in response to the sudden drop in economic activity and prospects for future sales of their products. And of course there would be significant second-round effects, because people currently employed in providing ‘non-basic’ goods and services would lose their jobs.” ABC journalist David Taylor who has written extensively on economic matters, also commented, “Things like movie tickets, entertainment — including video games, TVs and iPads — holidays, dining out, furniture, and some types of clothing. So the types of jobs that would go first are department store sales assistants, supply chain workers — the people getting the products to the stores. The hospitality industry would also be hit hard: waiters, chefs, cleaners, bar attendants, actors and musicians.” Mr Eslake commented on the paradox I mentioned earlier. He said, “This illustrates what famous economist John Maynard Keynes called the Paradox of Thrift. Because one household’s spending is, in effect, another households’ income. If all households try simultaneously to increase their saving by reducing their spending, no-one will be able to increase their saving because everyone will experience a large drop in their incomes.” Mr Taylor commented on people’s savings, “Deposits act as a nice bit of insulation for the economy. While they do facilitate lending, economists view savings as a ‘leakage’ of money out of the economy.” So what is one to do? If everyone saving too much is bad, what should the average Joe do with their money? Mr Eslake concludes, “As a general proposition, it is a good idea for people to save a bit of their income if they can. Starting early, and saving a consistent amount over a long period, can produce big returns. On the other hand… if everyone tries to increase their saving all at once, the result will be bad for almost everyone.” So basically, the world needs people to spend. I’m pretty sure there’s no shortage of people who are happy to do that. But people like me, people who are almost philosophically against wasting money will probably just continue doing what we do. Sure, the world would collapse if everyone was like me, but everyone isn’t like me. There’s plenty of people out there willing to work long hours and buy expensive cars while I sip on my green tea and eat tofu and beans. #frugalliving #frugality #savingmoney MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

Indigenous Journalist and Professor Stan Grant is angry (again), or perhaps ‘still’. This time over the results of the Voice Referendum. “‘Evil’: Stan Grant breaks silence on failed Voice to Parliament referendum.” In a speech delivered at the Australian National University on Monday, he criticised No voters for inflicting pain on Indigenous people and the Australian psyche. But before we get to that, just a quick backstory. I grew up with Stan Grant on my television screen. I didn’t think of him as Indigenous or non-Indigenous. I just thought of him as the news reporter guy. Around 2017, he started writing articles for the ABC, which for the most part, I thoroughly enjoyed. He certainly has a way with words. In this first article about Ken Wyatt from 2017, Australia’s first Indigenous minister, he asks the question, should being Indigenous really matter? And he basically answers, no it shouldn’t. He said, “What I did not want to ask is how he felt about being the first Indigenous anything. Mr Wyatt is a federal Minister — he is there to be held accountable. He is there to represent all Australians.” And I think that’s a really moderate and valid statement. In his article about Australia Day from 2019, he argues that Australia Day should be a time for hope, not resentment, and argues that the world is torn apart by conflicts fuelled by toxic resentment of past injustices. Again, I think this was a very moderate view. But by the early 2020s, or so, I found his views getting more and more divisive, more and more extreme. For example, in March 2022, a pro-Russian audience member on the Q+A program dared to take an opposing view on the Ukraine-Russian conflict, and then Stan Grant famously (or infamously) asked him to leave the studio. Apparently in democratic Australia, you can’t hold a view that’s contrary to the majority opinion, and if you do, Stan Grant will kick you off his show. In August 2023, Grant announced that he would be resigning from the ABC due to “grotesque racist abuse”. He now works at Charles Sturt University as the Vice Chancellor's Chair of Indigenous Belonging, and at Monash University as the Director of the Constructive Institute. Now that he has a sweet new gig at Monash university, he should be happy right? Well, no. Have you ever noticed of late that he always refers to “my people”, as if we’re not all the same people? Aren’t we all Australians? Aren’t we all part of the human race? But yet, he acts like his people are somehow different from our people. Indigenous vs Non-Indigenous. It’s very divisive language, and not the language I remember him using just a few short years ago. “It is hard to think of Australia as a place of evil, there is just so much sunshine, smiling faces and wide open spaces – but evil has happened here. What else should we call it? People beheaded, flour poisoned, frontier raiding parties. That it happened in our past, does that make the evil any less? My historical wounds are Australian… the evil is known to us – the First People of this country – and this may be our curse, to see an Australia others don’t see and have no words to convince others it is real.” He then went on to say the most honest thing I’ve heard during this entire campaign, “The Voice was never a modest ask, it was monumental, perhaps this was the opportunity lost by the yes campaign, to not let the Voice truly speak.” If you remember, the Prime Minister (and everyone else in the Yes campaign), were saying it was just a modest request. They were obviously lying to us. Luckily, the people of Australia saw through it. Grant continues, “Instead it was shushed… shrunk small enough to fit into politics. In the consultants’ suites and the lawyers’ dens, it was determined that if the Voice was made so inoffensive people may say yes – instead it was so inoffensive people found it so easy to say no.” Basically, not only is he angry with No voters, he also condemned the actions of the Yes campaigners, arguing that they turned the Voice into a “lecture about unity”. Stan Grant is angry, and I think he is having trouble finding peace in this world. STAN GRANT REFLECTS ON FUTURE OF RECONCILIATION AFTER VOICE TO PARLIAMENT RESULT IN ANU ADDRESS https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-31/stan-grant-keynote-speech-anu-voice/103042468 Q+A HOST STAN GRANT ASKS PRO-RUSSIAN AUDIENCE MEMBER TO LEAVE THE STUDIO AFTER UKRAINE CLAIM https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-03/stan-grant-tells-audience-member-to-leave-qanda/100880520 AUSTRALIA DAY CAN BE A TIME FOR HOPE, NOT RESENTMENT https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-26/stan-grant-on-australia-day/10747000 BEYOND THE FACT OF OUR HERITAGE AND IDENTITY SHOULD BEING INDIGENOUS REALLY MATTER? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-19/stan-grant-heritage-aside-should-being-indigenous-really-matter/8195420 MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

As part of my work agreement at one of the universities I work for, I must participate in this so-called First Nations Cultural Capabilities Training. Just as this guy is blowing some smoke in this smoking ceremony, someone was blowing some smoke when designing this training material. Understanding the Importance of First Nations Cultural Capabilities at Uni. Of course, they do the obligatory acknowledgement of the traditional custodians. The module is approximately sixty minutes in duration – It took me at least that long, mainly because I was taking all these screenshots to share with you in this video. It is designed to inform and empower you towards: Culturally appropriate work practices; and Building and maintaining respectful relationships and partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders, peoples and communities.  My first thought is why does the university think that only Aboriginal culture needs a special explanation about it? If I was Aboriginal, I’d be insulted by all this. Not only do they think I need a special module about me, they also need to force everyone in the university to participate. They feel the need to teach non-Indigenous people how to approach me, how to talk to me, how to not offend me, like I’m some sort of creature from another world. It’s a divisive joke, but the university keep pushing this garbage. To be clear, I’m not calling traditional Aboriginal culture garbage, just this forced Cultural Capabilities training about our fellow Australians. Anyway, let’s see a sample of some of the “training”. First of all, you need to know the difference between Acknowledgement of Country and Welcome to Country, you know, all the stuff Aussies love to hear constantly. I don’t know about you, but I love being welcomed to my own country at every possible opportunity. They go on about how we have to engage with Aboriginal people differently. There are social and political barriers which have marginalised Indigenous groups throughout history. There’s other lesser known barriers such as inter-generational traumas, and traditional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander speech patterns known as Aboriginal English (AE). The training tells us to consider our own bias. It is important to always reflect on our own cultural biases and standpoints before we engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities. Again, it’s as if Aboriginal people are so different from the rest of us that we have to take special steps before engaging with them. It’s very disparaging I think. They talk about Aboriginal Law, and how these Laws have functioned to inform Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people about how to live sustainably on the land. Non-Indigenous law operates differently in that it shifts to suit the interests of humans. As part of the training, there was also significant dates we had to learn. Survival day, you know the day formally known as Australia Day: Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples choose to mark Australia Day as a day to highlight the invasion of Australia by Europeans and to acknowledge the survival of their cultural heritage. I like how they lump all Aboriginal people into one basket. They are all against Australia Day and see it as an invasion. What a load of crap! Apology Anniversary, National Close the Gap Day, Mabo Day, NAIDOC Week, just to name a few more. But the biggest one that I love the most, and perhaps the most divisive of all: Cultural and Ceremonial Leave. Isn’t this discrimination? Only people of a certain ancestry are entitled to certain entitlements. As I said earlier, equality is no longer the goal. That was already attained. They’re pushing this as far as they can now, elevating Indigenous Australians above everyone else, which as I said, will create resentment, and is a disaster just waiting to happen. This won’t bring unity. This will bring the opposite. This one was funny: Never make eye contact with Indigenous people because it’s disrespectful. This obviously was one of the incorrect answers, but it’s funny that they included it. Again, they’re making Indigenous people sound like some kind of foreign being that we have to take special precautions around. It’s very disparaging to Indigenous people. One thing I quickly realised about this “training”, is that it’s not training at all. It’s propaganda! Since the Voice defeat, they’re pushing this more than ever. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’d be fired from the university for talking about this publicly like I’m doing now. We supposedly live in a free country, but you can’t talk badly about First Nations training modules. MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

The ABC is supposedly funded by the tax dollars of all Australians, but you probably wouldn’t be able to tell based on their recent New Year’s Eve Sydney fireworks display. It was more of an exercise in propaganda. I think they were probably expecting the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum to win, which it didn’t, but they went ahead with the program all the same. Here’s how the hosts introduced the evening: “I’m Zan Rowe, and I’m Charlie Pickering. We are thrilled to be coming to you live from Gadigal land for the New Year’s Eve celebrations, and evening of incredible music from some of the nation’s biggest artists.” So despite standing in front of the Sydney Harbour Bridge which spans Sydney Harbour in the city of Sydney, the biggest city in Australia, they never once mentioned the word Sydney in their introduction. It’s Gadigal land, don’t you know? Of course, there was the obligatory Welcome to Country that we all love: “And to kick things off, our Welcome to Country performed by Aunty Joan Bell and Pequita Bell. We honour our elders and leaders including Barangaroo, Pemulwuy, and many others who fought the first boat people who landed in Sydney Cove. Welcome to Gadigal Eora country. Welcome to my country. Welcome.” Welcome to MY country, not your country. In it, they honoured the warriors who slaughtered those evil first boat people that many of us are descended from. Not divisive at all! At least she used the word Sydney. Don’t worry, the division continues! “And I’m joined right now by Triple J’s Nooky, one of the curators of what you’re about to see.” He chose to wear a giant QR code on his shirt. After the Indigenous Voice defeat, Nooky famously said these words live on Triple J: “We ain’t licking our wounds today. We’re sharpening our spears!”. We’re sharpening our spears. It’s all very war-like with Nooky. It’s probably no surprise that his organisation is called waw, W-A-W, We Are Warriors. Just out of interest, here’s Warrior #005, Felicia Foxx. She’ll kill you with her Mascara. “Well I’m Felicia Foxx, I’m an extravagant, strong, black woman who don’t take s*** from no-one.” Anyway, back to Nooky’s tolerant and unifying language, “I started to showcase blak excellence and create pathways for our youth and just elevate stories of blak power and blak success and blak love.” You know, all the stuff that brings us together as a nation, blak success, blak love, blak power. Then an Indigenous band called “3%” played a rather divisive song – 3% referring to the percentage of Australians who identify as Aboriginal. Here’s some of the lyrics: “They locked us up and then they threw away the key, It’s the stolen generations hauntin’ trauma that I see, They stole the land in the name of their kings, Now look at how they act when you mention Alice Springs, I see my people always locked up, locked up, locked up, locked up, Why my people always locked up, locked up, locked up, locked up? Free my people always locked up, locked up, locked up, locked up, Here my people always locked up, locked up, locked up, locked up!” Anyway, you get the idea. Noting that this song was put on just before the family fireworks at 9pm. So lots of kids would have been watching all of this. After the song finished, they proceeded to blow up the Harbour Bridge, well, not really, but they plastered it with messages such as ‘Warriors’, ‘Rise’, ‘We Are Sea’, ‘Be Strong’, and so on. It wasn’t just about Indigenous people. Melbourne singer Angie McMahon had some words to say about the Israel-Palestine conflict. Just before her last song, she said: “Thanks again. Palestinians should be free.” Prominent anti-Voice campaigner Warren Mundine commented on the politicisation of the ABC’s New Year’s Eve entertainment labelling it ‘disgraceful’. He said, “We just want to have a relaxed start to the year and have fun. New Year’s Eve is an incredible landmark occasion for Sydney, and the world, in fact. It’s telecast all over the world, and I think people are getting sick and tired of the politicisation of things. We’re sick and tired of the politicisation of everything.” It’s not the first time the ABC have been accused of sapping the fun out of New Year’s Eve. In 2022, they had rap duo Barkaa and Dobby who performed their song I Can't Breathe while wearing Black Lives Matter t-shirts. They also had Blak Douglas as curator of the Welcome to Country fireworks theme who said, “We are taking over one of the most famous icons on the planet [the Sydney Harbour Bridge], an icon that was never consulted amongst either the Gadigal or Cammeray people.” So yes, the ABC have again spoilt New Year’s Eve by making it all about blame and victimhood. Thankfully, I turned it off straight after Charlie Pickering failed to mention the word Sydney during his introduction. MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

January 26th is coming up – Australia Day – a time to celebrate everything Australian. Australia Day’s traditionally a time for sporting events, citizenship ceremonies, barbeques and fireworks. It’s a time to bring Australians together to be thankful for our way of life and hard-won freedoms. What could possibly be wrong with that? Well… in recent years, some Indigenous Australians and supporters have protested its celebration labelling it Invasion Day, Survival Day, or Day of Mourning. The day is seen as a sadistic celebration of the invasion of their traditional lands. Some call for the date of Australia Day to be changed, while others call for the holiday to be abolished entirely. Although this is only a minority position, some big companies and organisations have jumped on board. In 2017, publicly-funded national Australian youth radio station Triple J announced that they would no longer play their annual music listener poll The Hottest 100 on 26th January due to “growing dialogue around Indigenous recognition and perspectives on 26 January”. Last year, 2023, the Victorian government quietly axed its Australia Day parade and fireworks without any sort of formal announcement. Cricket Australia also stopped referring to Australia Day in any promotions for games held on January 26. Kmart announced they would no longer be selling any Australia Day merchandise to ensure it is “inclusive and respectful to all”. The Australian Open also shelved the holiday. And now in 2024, the supermarkets have now jumped on the bandwagon. Australia’s biggest retailer Woolworths have announced they will no longer stock Australian Day merchandise stating, “While Australian flags are sold within BIG W all year round, we don’t have any additional themed merchandise available to purchase in-store in our supermarkets or Big W ahead of Australia Day. There has been a gradual decline in demand for Australia Day merchandise from our stores over recent years. At the same time there’s been broader discussion about 26 January and what it means to different parts of the community.” German-owned discount supermarket chain Aldi have also followed suit announcing they will no longer be stocking Australia Day merchandise. In 2014, they famously stocked a shirt that read, “Australia est. 1788”, and was accused of being racist, despite approval from the federal government. Serious question: Is it only Australia that attacks its traditional customs and values as much as we do? I have never been to another country that is so set on destroying itself. In response to Woolworths move, Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton said, “I think people should boycott Woolworths. I would advise very strongly to take your business elsewhere… until we get common sense out of a company like Woolworths, I don't think they should be supported by the public.” In a media release, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson commented on the controversy stating, “Big business in Australia appears to be completely out of touch with the rest of us. Today I was in a Bunnings store where an employee told me staff had been instructed to wear no items associated with celebrating Australia Day because it might offend someone.” Coles is apparently the only major supermarket that hasn’t yet joined the woke brigade, although give them time, I’m sure they’ll come round. A spokesperson said, “We are stocking a small range of Australian-themed summer entertaining merchandise throughout January which is popular with our customers for sporting events such as the cricket and tennis, as well as for the Australia Day weekend”. It’s interesting, these big companies like Woolworths pretend to be virtuous, but yet, they’re happy to underpay their staff, participate in price-gouging during a cost-of-living crisis, and generally treat farmers and suppliers with disdain. They claim to want to help Indigenous Australians, but for five years pushed to build a giant Woolworths-owned Dan Murphy’s liquor store in the nation’s most inebriated city of Darwin, with public health groups arguing the store would increase the rate of alcohol-related harm and put nearby Aboriginal communities at risk. Although, Woolworths have since backed down from this plan placing it on the back burner. It seems like these big companies just don’t learn. Woolworths famously supported the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum, which the Australian people ended up voting against, so for no reason at all they, they decided to alienate more than half their customer base. Look, companies are free to do what they want, but so are customers. If companies choose to pick a side that doesn’t align with your own, you’re free to pick a different company. As I said in previous videos, and I think this is the best advice for them, Woolworths and the like should stop taking sides in divisive social issues. Bluntly speaking, they should shut up and stick to selling groceries. MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

Steven Miles, the newly unelected Premier of Queensland seems to think Queenslanders are mugs. He only attained his office after the previous premier resigned. Despite former Premier Palaszczuk essentially ruling out the Path to Treaty due to lack of bipartisan support from the Liberal National Party, Premier Miles (whose from Labor’s Left faction) seems to think he can go against all that and is pushing ahead with the Treaty nonetheless. “Premier pushes ahead with Treaty as 6000 fight against it”. The Premier is quoted as saying, “My government remains committed to continuing on a Path To Treaty, as legislated by Parliament”. He seems to have ignored the will of the people. Here’s a map of how many states supported last year’s Indigenous Voice referendum. The answer is zero. All states voted No. Only the relatively tiny Australian Capital Territory voted majority Yes. Queenslanders overwhelmingly voted No at almost 70%. Why does the new Labor leader continue to push for this divisive Treaty? Does he want Labor to fail in the upcoming 2024 election in October? As the headline indicated earlier, there is a current petition to the Parliament being run called the “Repeal of Path to Treaty Act 2023” which has over 6,000 signatures. The petition highlights the “emphatic ‘NO’ from Queensland to the National Voice Referendum. On that basis your petitioners also reject the notion that the Government has the ‘mandate of the people’ to legislate Treaty.” An alternative petition was also set up “In support of the Path to Treaty” with approximately 2,300 signatures. If we do the maths, there’s a total of 8,348 people who have signed these petitions. 2,300 for Treaty, 6,000 against. This works out to be approximately 27.8% for, 72.2% against, clearly along similar lines as the federal Voice referendum result. The majority of Queenslanders don’t want this, but yet, Premier Steven Miles and the Labor Party in their infinite wisdom continue to support it. There’s only one logical way out of this that I can reason. Queenslanders need to vote against Labor in the upcoming election. MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

We take a look at the Queensland Government’s Great Keppel Island Draft Master Plan, well, the Woppa Draft Master Plan. Great Keppel Island has been relegated to a smaller font and placed in brackets. Apparently, there’s something wrong with Western place names, and we have to start using Aboriginal names instead. When I hear the name Woppa, I imagine a Hungry Jack’s burger (or Burger King burger). Or perhaps I imagine the English definition: Whopper, informal, “a gross or blatant lie”. For example, “Queensland Premier Steven Miles is telling whoppers about Woppa (Great Keppel Island) in brackets”. Joking aside, Woppa is named after the Woppaburra People who were the original inhabitants of the island pre-colonisation. Great Keppel is named after 1st Viscount Augustus Keppel, Admiral in the British Royal Navy in the 1700s. My question is: What is the purpose of renaming these islands? Is it to erase Australia’s colonial past? Is that what people want? To forget history? Is it to appease the 3.2% of people who identify as Aboriginal, noting that not every Aboriginal person would agree with these name changes, so it’s actually less that 3%. What ever happened to democracy? Shouldn’t the majority of people support these name changes? But we already know the Government will never take it to a vote, because they already know the result. Queensland already has many Aboriginal place names that have been named that way for many, many years. Caboolture, Coolangatta, Goondiwindi, Mooloolaba, Noosa, Toowoomba, Yeppoon, just to name a few. It’s not like Queenslanders have been against Aboriginal place names. What if we tried renaming these cities to Western names? Nobody would agree, no matter what their ethnicity or ancestry. People have grown up with these names and are very fond of them. So why do the Government think they can do the opposite, renaming Western names to Aboriginal ones? Brisbane people are already very fond of their city name. A name change should not even be entertained. Luckily, the Government can’t go too far with this without pissing everybody off. But they’re trying. Last year, the Government renamed Fraser Island to K’Gari. I wasn’t consulted. Renaming a bridge is one thing, but renaming the world’s largest sand island without seeking approval by a democratic vote or whatever, that’s just wrong in my opinion. This animal, a dingo, apparently is now called a wongari. I thought dingo was an Aboriginal word. This is what happens when we just allow the willy-nilly renaming of things. Nobody can agree. Look, I understand name changes in certain circumstances. If there was a place name that contained some kind of profanity, say, F**kstone Ridge, then yes, I understand why we might change it to Frogstone Ridge, and I’d guess most Queenslanders would agree with, or at least understand the name change. But renaming perfectly good names such as Great Keppel Island, is there really any need for this? Is this just the appeasement of the minority at the expense of the majority, democracy be damned? Welcome to Whopper (Big Hamburger). Flame-grilled to perfection. MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics National Health Survey, Australians are a pretty unhealthy bunch. Only 4.2% of us eat enough fruit and vegetables. Less than one quarter of us get enough exercise. Almost half of us mostly sit throughout the day. Almost two thirds of adults are overweight or obese. Half of us have at least one chronic condition, such as mental health conditions, back problems, arthritis, asthma, or diabetes. But the most telling statistic is that eight in ten people have at least one long-term health condition. Only 18.6% of Australians are considered “healthy” according to the ABS. As I said, we’re an unhealthy bunch. #shorts #health #australian

We all know shops such as Woolworths, Aldi, and Kmart are refusing to stock Australia Day merchandise. Okay, whatever. People can choose to shop elsewhere. Last year, four Australian councils scrapped Australia Day citizenship ceremonies, including three in Melbourne, as well as Hobart City Council, which passed by only one vote with calls of “shame” from the public gallery. This year, however, 81 councils have scrapped their Australia Day ceremonies. This is out of a total of 537 Australian councils meaning 15% of councils will no longer hold these ceremonies on Australia Day. The reason for such a rapid rise in dissenting councils is that the Albanese Government scrapped a rule that forced all councils to hold citizenship ceremonies on January 26. All the Prime Minister had to say on the matter was, “The Government still supports Australia Day.” LOL! Here’s the Geelong City Council website who “held a six-month conversation about 26 January to understand and acknowledge the experiences of First Nations Peoples”. As a result of the feedback, the council have decided they will “Re-schedule citizenship ceremonies to another day within three days of 26 January”, “Cease referring to 26 January as Australia Day in all communications and refer to the day as 26 January”, and, “Council has also reaffirmed its commitment to the Uluru Statement of the Heart”, you know, the one Australians voted against in last year’s referendum. Here’s the University of Sydney’s News Website. Just by accident, when I searched for Australia Day, I got the following results: “International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Interphobia and Transphobia”, “Lesbian Visibility Day”, “International Transgender Day of Visibility”, “International Day of People with Disability”, and, “Global Accessibility Awareness Day”. That’s all. There’s absolutely nothing about Australia Day. And I’m not even joking here. These are real results. You can try it out for yourself (link below). Here’s the Coffs Harbour City Council website. They conduct Citizenship ceremonies on Harmony Day, on Citizenship Day, and around Australia Day, not on it, around it. Heaven forbid you hold an Australia Citizenship ceremony on Australia Day. You might offend somebody, right? University of Wollongong’s Vice-Chancellor Professor Patricia M. Davidson announced a New respectful work arrangement for Australia Day basically allowing employees to work on 26 January instead of taking the day off in “a show of respect for First Nations people”. They state that although for many people Australia Day is a time of celebration, for Indigenous Australians, this date translates to invasion, survival and murder. So if you celebrate Australia Day, you’re celebrating murder you barbarian!, at least according to the University of Wollongong. The City of Stonnington in Melbourne has some upcoming events. Guess what happens on January 26? A healing ceremony! Don’t worry it’s free, and there’s no mention of that evil Australia Day. Actually, there’s no mention of the word Australia, which is just a European colonial creation after all. Look, I could go on forever, but I think you get the idea. Australia Day is under attack, which means Australia is under attack. The PM might pretend that nothing is happening, but it couldn’t be further from the truth. UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY NEWS WEBSITE (Search “Australia Day”) https://news.library.sydney.edu.au/ MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

They claim to be representative of all Australians, but Woolworths have done away with Australia Day dumping all Australia Day merchandise, and now they’ve made a commitment to flying the Aboriginal flag outside stores “where practicable”, whatever that means. But recent news suggests that they’ve backflipped on this plan, or perhaps clarified their position. In a statement, a spokesperson said, “We don’t plan to add flags outside our supermarkets. The specific statement refers to displaying the flags ‘where practicable’. The locations deemed practicable are those where the Australian flag is already flown.” Whatever, I’m done with Woolworths. Instead of bringing harmony to society by taking a neutral position on divisive issues, they instead continue to try to divide their customer base based on their political beliefs or ancestry. Coles made an announcement that they would continue to stock “a small range of Australian-themed summer entertaining merchandise”. I downloaded their latest catalogue just to see what they mean by “a small range”. This is their catalogue dated 17-23 January 2024. First thing I noticed, they have this ‘Australian Grown’ flag plastered throughout the catalogue. Rock lobster. King prawns. Leg of lamb. They even have a picture of an Aussie farmer – Australian Grown. Another leg of lamb. Beef burgers. Beef steak – All proudly flying the Australian grown flag. This entire page is covered with the Australian Grown flag. This page is titled “Summer” and has some Aussie Aussie mugs, paper plates, napkins, bunting, and so on, a G’day Mate can cooler, and some cups with “I love… something”. The something is strategically hidden from view. Aussie Grown tomatoes, strawberries, mushrooms, and sweet potatoes. There’s Australian flags everywhere! But did you notice one thing they didn’t mention? Australia Day! There is not one mention of Australia Day. They’re happy to show heaps of flags and sell Aussie cups and so on, but they don’t want to say the words “Australia Day”. You know, that might cause offence. On the other hand, they have two pages dedicated to the Lunar New Year, a traditionally Asian celebration. It’s funny, they’re not scared to use those words “Lunar New Year”, which is the correct name of the celebration, but Australia Day, nope! Not one mention of it. The Australia Day page is instead labelled “Summer”. So although Coles have kind of supported Australia Day, they also kind of haven’t. Drakes Supermarkets, on the other hand, are proudly including Australia Day in their latest catalogue, also dated 17-23 January. “Ingredients for Australia Day”, with Aussie flags for sale, and so on. “Celebrate Australia Day with your wingman!” I know, it’s all just marketing gimmicks, but so what? They’re having some fun with it. Is anybody calling for a boycott of Drakes because they dared to mention Australia Day? Of course not. It’s only the companies that are abandoning Australia Day that are being rightfully criticised. That’s what I don’t get about Woolworths and others. What are they trying to do? What’s their end goal? Why are they so set on removing Australia Day from their stores? Even if a small percentage of Australians hate Australia Day, so what? That’s not a reason not to include it. A small percentage, or perhaps a large percentage of people don’t like Halloween, yet they’re happy to include all that tat in their catalogues. But yet, they continue to play this divisive game of going against the majority of their customer base to appease a small minority. After careful thought, there’s only one word I can use to describe the leadership at Woolworths. Idiots! MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

The Cook Labor Government in Western Australia is drafting a bill to give away 20 million hectares of land, approximately 8% of the total area of Western Australia, equivalent to three Tasmania’s worth of land, to “Traditional Owners”, i.e. Aboriginal people. Apparently there are 142 permanent Aboriginal settlements settlements in the area home to an estimated 12,000 people. I’m a maths guy, so I like to crunch numbers. If this bill goes through, 12,000 people will have control of 8% of the land. WA has a population of approximately 2.8 million people. So 12,000 people represents 0.4% of the population. This means 0.4% of the population will own 8% of the land, almost 19 times more than their fair share if we were to distribute land evenly to all Western Australians. If all land was distributed evenly, then 12,000 people should own 1.1 million hectares, not 20 million hectares. Look, I’m not suggesting that all land is equal in Western Australia. Perhaps much of this land is not very inhabitable. Perhaps it’s not very good for growing crops, or raising animals, or anything else. I don’t know. But I wonder, will the Traditional Owners be paying council rates on this land like the rest of us? Will they be paying land tax? According to the WA Government, “You must pay land tax if you own land valued in excess of $300,000”. Man, the land tax on 20 million hectares must be astronomical! Of course, I’m being facetious. I presume these communities will be exempt from paying land tax, while the rest of you foot the bill. According to the Western Australian Government, the purpose of this massive land transfer is “to empower WA First Nations communities by giving them direct control over their land”. The land is currently under the control of the Aboriginal Lands Trust, which apparently has prevented land development in these communities, leaving Indigenous people mostly locked into public housing. In a written statement, the Government said, “The Cook government is committed to delivering on its objective to divest the Aboriginal Lands Trust (ALT) estate into the direct control of Aboriginal people and entities, to facilitate social and economic outcomes that can be delivered through land tenure. A draft bill is being prepared for parliament to remove barriers to divestment and open up more opportunities for Aboriginal people living on the ALT estate. The draft bill has been informed by consultation with ­Aboriginal community residents, native titles parties and other stakeholders, and will be subject to a further round of consultation. A key outcome of legislative change is to maximise opportunities for Aboriginal land ownership and management and economic activity.” Again, it seems like only certain people were consulted. I wonder if the vast majority of Western Australians were ever consulted on this? I doubt it. The biggest thing I have reservations about, something that has been brought to light during the disastrous Indigenous Voice campaign, is that it seems again that only people of a certain ancestry will be entitled to certain land. It was only last year when hundreds of farmers succeeded in killing off Labor’s Aboriginal heritage laws in Western Australia, which were introduced to protect Indigenous culture at the expense of land owners, but the laws were axed just weeks after coming into operation after a massive backlash. But the WA Government doesn’t give up. They’re set on giving WA back to its traditional owners, your opinion and democracy be damned. MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

An Australia lady by the name of Alex Marks recently opened a sushi restaurant, Sushi Counter, in New York City serving Aussie-style sushi. Some people took offence to an Australian person making sushi, specifically, Eric Rivera, a Seattle chef, who accused Ms Marks of cultural appropriation. “Give me a break coloniser. If you don't see why this is a problem you are part of the problem.” Rivera has since deleted this thread, but did not address his own plans announced last year to open a Puerto Rican/Japanese restaurant in North Carolina, despite him being of Puerto Rican descent, not Japanese. Obviously, this isn’t the first case of accusations of cultural appropriation. Canadian artist, Amanda PL, who states she is of Italian descent, has used Canadian Indigenous paintings as inspiration for her artwork. Consequently, a Toronto gallery cancelled her show after complaints that her artwork ‘bastardises’ Indigenous art. In the same vein, one of my son’s classmates, a young girl, started painting an Australian Aboriginal dot painting, but she was soon scolded by the teacher (a non-Indigenous lady) who took it upon herself to say that only Aboriginal children can do dot paintings, which my son thought was ridiculous, and she ended making the little girl cry. Student union officials at the University of East Anglia banned a Mexican restaurant from handing out sombreros to students, because for anyone other than a Mexican, wearing a sombrero amounted to “cultural appropriation”. In 2018, English girl group Little Mix singer Jesy Nelson posted a picture to Instagram of herself wearing her hair in dreadlocks. Nelson was accused of “cultural appropriation” and told to apologise. For 30 years, Dr. Hibbert from The Simpsons was voiced by Harry Shearer, but in 2021, the producers decided that the voice actor’s real ancestry had to match Dr. Hibbert’s fictional ancestry, so they changed the voice actor to Kevin Michael Richardson. Food, art, fashion, hairstyles, is it all off-limits now unless you can prove you match the correct ethnicity? This is bonkers! Yes, I get very angry now when I see Gordon Ramsay cooking a curry or a pasta dish. How dare he cook anything but porridge or haggis! All those white people learning Spanish or Chinese, or those who enjoy watching Bruce Lee movies? How dare they participate in something that’s not their own culture! Let’s take this madness to its logical conclusion. Segregation. Only Japanese can eat at Japanese restaurants. Only Mexicans can eat at Mexican restaurants. The first modern-day automobile was invented in Germany by Karl Benz in 1886, so obviously, only Germans should be allowed to drive cars now. Learning a new language? That’s cultural appropriation! Only Koreans should be allowed to speak Korean, and only people from England can learn English. And now nobody can communicate with one another anymore. Let’s go back to the stone age. This whole notion of cultural appropriation is just a fool’s errand, and a backwards step in my opinion. It’s the opposite of equality. Actually, it’s not even based in reality. It’s very much a modern, Western, liberal view of the world. I’ve travelled and lived in other countries, and every country I visited enjoyed foreigners participating in their cultural practices. Of course they did! Personally I think participating in other people’s cultures is a great thing! We open up the world, instead of shutting it out. Sharing each other’s cultures brings us closer together. It promotes unity and togetherness. Unfortunately, these people who are constantly crying “racism” and accusing people of “cultural appropriation”, are probably the most racist people of all. All they constantly seem to do is categorise people into racial and ethnic groups. I think that probably they are very unhappy people. They’re certainly not interested in unity and togetherness, quite the opposite. They’re more interested in hatred and division. UNCONVENTIONAL SEATTLE CHEF ERIC RIVERA PLANS A PUERTO RICAN IZAKAYA IN RALEIGH https://carolinas.eater.com/2022/11/8/23446926/chef-eric-rivera-raleigh TORONTO GALLERY CANCELS SHOW AFTER CONCERNS ARTIST 'BASTARDIZES' INDIGENOUS ART https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-gallery-indigenous-art-cancels-amandapl-1.4091529 STUDENT UNION BANS 'RACIST' SOMBREROS https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/uea-student-union-bans-racist-sombreros LITTLE MIX SINGER CRITICISED FOR WEARING DREADS https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-43126568 THE SIMPSONS SAYS IT WILL STOP USING WHITE ACTORS TO VOICE NON-WHITE CHARACTERS https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-27/the-simpsons-to-stop-using-white-voices-for-characters-of-colour/12399760 JAPANESE FANS REACT TO ‘GHOST IN THE SHELL’ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/japanese-fans-react-ghost-shell-992255/ MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

The Queensland treaty is going ahead, assures the interim body charged with implementing it. The group is called the Interim Truth and Treaty Body. Looking at their website, they call for the Queensland Government to stay committed to Truth and Treaty. They ask, What is Truth? It sounds like something the Ministry of Truth might ask from George Orwell’s 1984. Of course, the Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because in reality it serves the opposite. But what we’re interested in in this video is, What is Treaty? Inclusion: Treaty is a conversation for all Queenslanders. Oh, that’s nice. But at the bottom of the page, they have some bubbles answering, What could a Treaty involve? Just by accident, I’ve cut off their name: Interim Truth. You know, like Provisional Truth. How fitting. Some of the things that are involved include: School curriculum, Education about truth telling, and Cultural education for children. Yes, this is sounding more and more like the Ministry of Truth. Tackling Inequality. Redress / reparations for Stolen Generations. There’s that word that everyone keeps saying won’t happen, but it’s there right on their website. Language. Naming of places. The Premier says that it’s absolute nonsense that we’ll be renaming the capital Brisbane to Meanijin, but on the other hand, she was happy to rename an entire island, Fraser Island to K’gari. Where is the line drawn? What can and can’t be renamed. There seems to be no rules. Culture. Cultural Heritage. This is a big one. Outside of Queensland, there’s been some cultural heritage issues, for example in Victoria, rock climbers have been threatened with $346,000 fines under the state’s cultural heritage laws. Country. Return of land to Traditional Owners. We must have known that this was what this was all about from the beginning. Ultimately, they want their ancestral land back, even if it currently belongs to you. Because it wasn’t yours to own in the first place, according to their logic. There will also be changes to Law and Justice to help First Nations people stay out of prison. And of course, under Legal, Enforceability of treaty. Obviously, this treaty is no good unless they can enforce it. Queensland Police Union president Ian Leavers has had enough of this Treaty talk and wrote an opinion piece for the Courier Mail yesterday. “It appears that Queensland’s own version of the Voice 2.0 has a divisive agenda to further segregate our society. The Truth and Treaty’s own website states that there will be reparations paid to First Nations people, return of land to traditional owners, brainwashing of our children with changes to the school curriculum to include truth-telling and cultural education, and ‘revive naming of places’ meaning widespread place name changes, and most dangerously of all, changes to the justice system to favour First Nations people. In this woke world there may be the concept of sharing your own truth, however in the world of policing, truth is not subjective. It is objective. Either something is the truth or it is not.” Of course, the usual suspects attacked Mr Leavers for having an opinion. ABC, “Queensland Police Union president Ian Leavers condemned for comments claiming Path to Treaty legislation would give Indigenous criminals 'free pass'”. Minister for Treaty, Leeanne Enoch, wrote a disparaging message on Facebook. Minister for Transport, Mark Bailey, tweeted, “Ian Leavers’ ignorant and factually wrong diatribe is an embarrassment to the Qld Police Union.” He sent out a total of four tweets disparaging Mr Leavers, which I can’t be bothered reading. The Guardian, “Police union boss condemned for ‘ludicrous’ and ‘factually incorrect’ opinion piece on treaty in Queensland”. And our favourite person of the decade, the Premier herself, Ms Palaszczuk, said in response to the Police Union president’s article, “I think they are very unhelpful comments and they are divisive. We want to unite Queenslanders and we want to make sure that we do go down the path of reconciliation.” Oh I see! She just wants to unite us by dividing us by our ancestry. Welcome to the Ministry of Truth. QUEENSLAND TREATY IS GOING AHEAD, ASSURES INTERIM BODY CHARGED WITH IMPLEMENTING IT https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/20/queensland-treaty-is-going-ahead-assures-interim-body-charged-with-implementing-it INTERIM TRUTH AND TREATY BODY – WHAT IS TREATY? https://www.truthandtreatyqld.org.au/resources QUEENSLAND POLICE UNION PRESIDENT IAN LEAVERS CONDEMNED FOR COMMENTS CLAIMING PATH TO TREATY LEGISLATION WOULD GIVE INDIGENOUS CRIMINALS 'FREE PASS' https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-25/police-union-ian-leavers-truth-treaty-first-nations-mark-bailey/103018512 MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

Australian political cartoonist, Mark Knight, is in the firing line again. In 2018, he drew a cartoon depicting Serena Williams having a tantrum, which she did, which drew accusations of racism and sexism, despite the Australian Press Council ruling that it did not breach any media standards. Knight recently drew a cartoon of the new premier of Victoria, Jacinta Allan – here’s a real-life picture of her – where she is walking down a runway at a fashion show wearing nothing but her glasses. The caption reads, “From the Commonwealth Games cancellation collection… The Premier’s new clothes”. Obviously, this is linking the Premier’s involvement in the Commonwealth Games fiasco to the Hans Christian Andersen fable, The Emperor’s New Clothes, where an emperor is conned into wearing a magnificent set of clothes that are invisible to stupid or incompetent people. As he proudly marches in a procession before the whole city, the emperor’s servants and townsfolk go along with the pretence, not wanting to go against popular opinion. As expected, the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork criticising the cartoon for being ‘sexist’. “In 2023, to be going through that sexualised imagery… is just not on.” Ben Carroll, Deputy Premier of Victoria. “I think it uses sexism. I doubt Mark Knight would think it’s sexist but it’s definitely something we see happen a lot with women in authority, that the focus is on their clothes and their bodies.” Niki Vincent, Victoria’s Gender Equality Commissioner. “Today’s Herald Sun cartoon of Premier Allan is disgraceful. It says more about an old guard establishment that can’t cope with women in leadership. So, they try to ridicule, sexualise and minimise us. Yet another reason we need more women in power.” Samantha Ratnam, Leader of the Victorian Greens. The Premier herself said, “It’s 2023. I think it’s pretty reasonable to expect – very reasonable to expect – that women can be depicted without using sexualised imagery.” I don’t think it was sexualised, no more than you could say that a copy of the children’s book The Emperor’s New Clothes is sexualised, and I certainly don’t think the cartoon was sexist. What would be sexist is if the cartoonist refused to draw the Premier in this way because she’s a woman. That would be sexist. To be fair to the cartoonist, he has drawn many images of male politicians in similar ways. Here’s former Premier Daniel Andrews swimming naked underwater chasing those 0-case-donuts. Here’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott not wearing a mask, and when he gets a fine, he uses his Speedos to cover his face. Did anybody claim this was sexualised or sexist? Here’s another one of Daniel Andrews being objectified in a cartoon as a scantily clad firefighter. Doesn’t this espouse outdated male beauty standards? What about Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton wearing a loin cloth? Actually, this cartoon was nominated for an award! I don’t remember any of the Greens complaining about this one. What about on the cover of the New Yorker, or any other of the many versions of this cartoon showing a naked Trump, again using The Emperor’s New Clothes analogy. Because he’s a man, does it not count? Now who’s being sexist? Mary Crooks, Executive director of the Victorian Women’s Trust seems to think that it’s different when it’s a man. She said, “The depiction of a naked female political leader does not convey the same meaning as a male leader, such as Tony Abbott in his budgie smugglers. In a weird, kind of perverse way, that was… a subliminal appeal to the manliness and the alpha male, testosterone male, so it was a different subliminal intent.” Oh was it now? A subliminal appeal to manliness? Does this image of Daniel Andrews reek of manliness to you? I think not. You know what we should do to people who criticise these cartoons as being sexist? Politely disagree with them, or simply ignore them. HERALD SUN CARTOONIST DEFENDS NUDE CATWALK DEPICTION OF VICTORIAN PREMIER JACINTA ALLAN https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-24/jacinta-allan-victorian-premier-herald-sun-cartoon-mark-knight/103013652 JACINTA ALLAN KNEW COST OF COMMONWEALTH GAMES HAD NEARLY DOUBLED MONTHS BEFORE EVENT ABANDONED, INQUIRY HEARS https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-09/commonwealth-games-jacinta-allan-knew-costs-doubled-months-ago/102951612 MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

I suppose it comes as no surprise to many of you that Australian independent Senator Lidia Thorpe is part of the so-called Blak Sovereign Movement. Just looking at the name alone and based on Senator Thorpe’s previous actions and comments, I presume the Movement is only open to certain people based on their ancestry. That immediately indicates to me that it’s very divisive. Sovereignty is defined as “supreme power or authority”. So I can only assume that the ultimate goal of the Blak Sovereign Movement is for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to have total control and authority over Australia. I don’t think this could ever be achieved peacefully. For example, she confronted police last year during a protest outside Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation where a busload of handcuffed detainees were being transferred to Christmas Island, and she screamed at the officers, “You are the criminals, you are the only criminals on this land! How dare you do that to innocent people!” She also walked into parliament and called the Queen a coloniser while making her oath of allegiance in the Senate, “I sovereign, Lidia Thorpe, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the colonising her majesty Queen Elizabeth II.” Throughout the entire performance, she gave a black power salute, no not that salute, although she didn’t have many nice things to say about Israel recently while wearing a Palestinian scarf into Parliament. At various times, Senator Thorpe has called Australian occupation a war. For example, at an Australia Day (Invasion Day) protest this year, she brandished a war stick and screamed, “This is a war! They are still killing us! They are still killing our babies! What do we have to celebrate in our country?” Obviously, she has done so many other controversial things, far too many to mention here. Imagine if you did even half the stuff she’s done. Do you think you’d still have a job? It’s amazing the Parliament let her get away with all this. I doubt she’d have the same freedoms elsewhere. Believe it or not though, there is something that Senator Thorpe and I agree on. We both did not want this recent referendum, “This referendum has done nothing but hurt people, divide communities, divide families, and we know literally Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people right now as a result of this referendum”. Senator Thorpe has stated many times that sovereignty was never ceded. In an interview in December last year with Junkee, she made it clear that the end goal of the Blak Sovereign Movement is for Australia to cut ties with the Crown and Commonwealth and form a self-governing nation, a so-called Blak Republic. “We need to, to end that war first and then through a treaty, we could have a republic… We need Blak people, First Nations people in this country to be in the driver’s seat.” In her own words, “This country has a strong grassroots black sovereign movement, full of staunch and committed warriors, and I want to represent that movement fully in this Parliament. First Nations sovereignty is crucial. My focus now is to grow and amplify the Blak Sovereign Movement in this country, something we have never had. There is a Blak Sovereign Movement out there that no one wants to listen to, so I will be their Voice, to defend our sovereignty, to save black lives. This is my goal. Keep infiltrating. Keep your integrity, and keep the fire burning. But, more importantly, keep our fight alive.” To be clear, not one of you listening stole anybody’s land, and not one of you listening had any land stolen from you, because none of you are more than 200 years old. We’re talking about our ancestors. Yes, some of our ancestors committed crimes, and yes, some of ancestors had crimes committed against them, but those people aren’t us. We didn’t participate in whatever horrors happened in history. But as Senator Thorpe said right at the end of that clip, the most important thing for the Blak Sovereign Movement is to keep the fight alive. That is, they don’t want to forget what happened 200 odd years ago. They want their members to be perpetually angry so that this fight rages on. And they won’t stop. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. For them, this won’t be over until they have sovereignty over every last piece of Australia. BLAK SOVEREIGN MOVEMENT https://blaksovereignmovement.com/ WHAT IS 'BLACK SOVEREIGNTY'? THE INDIGENOUS MOVEMENT LIDIA THORPE WANTS TO PURSUE IN PARLIAMENT https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-07/lidia-thorpe-what-is-black-sovereignty/101937924 “MORE THAN A VOICE”: SENATOR LIDIA THORPE ON WHY IT’S TIME FOR A BLAK REPUBLIC https://junkee.com/longform/lidia-thrope-interview-blak-republic MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

Almost 70% of Queenslanders voted against the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. This is a clear message that the majority of Queenslanders just don’t want this. The only electorates to vote for the constitutional amendment, were the federal seats of Griffith, Brisbane, and Ryan. And they were close. It wasn’t like their constituents overwhelmingly supported the Voice. It should be noted that all three electoral seats are held by the Greens. Despite this, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk pushes forward with her state-based Path to Treaty. Based on the referendum results, no Labor federal electorate in Queensland supports her on this. Only the Greens do. Is she now only working for the Greens? But in a major turn of events, the Liberal National Party has dropped its support for the Path to Treaty, as they should. Their constituents do not want this. Technically, Labor constituents do not want this. Although initially, LNP leader David Crisafulli did support the Path to Treaty legislation, today he realised that his electorate just don’t support him on this, and as a politician, who are you beholden to? Your constituents. You are a representative of the people. If you no longer represent the people, then you should no longer be in parliament. Politically, he’s done the right thing. He wrote, “It’s clear to me Queenslanders do not want to continue down a path that leads to more division and uncertainty. Pursuing a path to treaty will lead to greater division, not reconciliation, and I cannot support that. When Queenslanders speak it is the duty of leaders to listen. Queenslanders have spoken and I have listened. We must find a better way forward to improve the lives of Indigenous Queenslanders that unites us all in this cause. The LNP can no longer support a Path to Treaty and will not pursue one if elected to government.” So we have one of the major parties listening to the people. Katter’s Australian Party and One Nation have always been against this from day one. I believe they were the only ones to vote against the Path to Treaty in Queensland. The Greens, well you might not like them, but they do exactly what their supporters want. The only political party that seems to be ardently against their supporters are the Labor Party. They just don’t want to listen to their constituents, at least, not on matters regarding Indigenous treaty. They’ve just abandoned their voting base. You don’t stay in government by appeasing three or four percent of the population. You are their to govern for the majority. Hospitals, schools, housing affordability, electricity prices, community safety. You fix these things, you improve these things, then you improve the lives of all Queenslanders regardless of their ancestry. Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has walked away from a pledge to hold a second referendum to constitutionally recognise Indigenous Australians, because he can see the writing’s on the wall. The electorate don’t want this anymore. He’s a politician after all. If he pushes ahead with something that’s going to cause more division, it would be a major political mistake. This is kind of breaking news as I was almost ready to publish this video. It turns out that the Premier has backed away from the Path to Treaty as well! The Premier has backflipped after the LNP backflipped. It’s a full on acrobatics performance! Thank you to the viewers who inform me of these changes, because I can’t keep up with all this news. According to the Guardian, “Queensland treaty appears doomed as Annastacia Palaszczuk makes it contingent on LNP support”. When asked if she thought Queenslanders still support treaties being negotiated with Indigenous people, she said, “That’s a long way off and that would require bipartisan support. It’s obvious these laws were put in place with bipartisan support, and they are now walking away from that bipartisan support. For effective reconciliation, and Path To Treaty – that would require bipartisan support. We need unity in this state and we need to be talking about the issues that really matter out there amongst Queenslanders – and that is cost of living.” There you have it. It seems like we’re all on the same page (except the Greens). I guess the Premier saw that her political neck was on the line. Either way, the people of Queensland have spoken, and finally, their leaders seem to be listening. QUEENSLAND OPPOSITION LEADER DAVID CRISAFULLI SAYS PATH TO TREATY 'WILL ONLY CREATE FURTHER DIVISION', RETRACTS SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED LAWS https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-19/david-crisafulli-backflips-on-path-to-treaty-support-queensland/102984166 QUEENSLAND TREATY APPEARS DOOMED AS ANNASTACIA PALASZCZUK MAKES IT CONTINGENT ON LNP SUPPORT https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/19/queensland-treaty-qld-premier-annastacia-palaszczuk-lnp-backflip-indigenous-first-nations-truth-telling MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

“At the end of the day, there’s one unavoidable reality…” said Chris Hipkins, the defeated New Zealand Labour prime minister, “We lost because not enough people voted for us.” Perhaps it’ll go down as one of the most insightful things ever spoken by any world leader. In 2020, the centre-left Labour party under Jacinda Ardern won 50% of the vote, a historic high, winning 65 seats, but on Saturday, Mr Hipkins only attained a dismal 27%, and 34 seats nearly halving Labour’s seats in parliament, with conservative former businessman Christopher Luxon winning a decisive election victory and he will become New Zealand's next prime minister. So what went wrong for Labour? Well, we all know Ms Ardern sensationally left office in January this year citing occupational burnout, but I suspect she had a suspicion that Labour were on the nose and she wanted to get out before the electorate got their revenge. Her replacement, Chris Hipkins, managed to say a couple of stupid things. He famously said that it was not compulsory for New Zealanders to take a certain medicine. Yeah, it wasn’t compulsory. It’s just that, if you didn’t take it, you’d lose your job. That’s not compulsory. Compulsory. Adjective. Required by law or a rule; obligatory. Involving or exercising compulsion; coercive. See, it wasn’t compulsory. It was just not optional. I think Mr Hipkins, like most leaders nowadays, enjoys playing word games. Compulsory, optional, mandatory… These are just words! Now let’s get back to playing Boggle. He also thought himself a bit of a comedian at times stating, “It is a challenge for people in high density areas to get outside and spread their legs when they are surrounded by other people.” Yes, that certainly was a challenge. Under Mr Hipkins watch, New Zealand started giving priority to Māori and Pacific elective surgery patients, while European New Zealanders and other ethnicities, like Indian and Chinese, are lower-ranked. Yes, ethnicity is being used as a factor to determine when you can get surgery in New Zealand in a bid to “combat racial inequalities”. The whole idea is completely unethical and medically indefensible in my opinion. It goes against all traditional triage practices where patients should be prioritised on how sick they are, how urgently they need treatment, and how long they have been waiting for, not on their ethnicity or ancestry. It’s absolutely disgusting. Anyway, New Zealanders have spoken, and Chris Hipkins and the Labour Party are out. Good riddance, I say. PROLOGUE Two days after the 1896 US presidential election, Democrat William Jennings Bryan conceded defeat to Republican rival William McKinley by sending the very first concession telegram. He wrote, “I hasten to extend my congratulations. We have submitted the issue to the American people and their will is law.” Not bad, not bad. But it wasn’t as good as Mr Hipkins. IN THE NZ ELECTION, THERE WERE SWINGS TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT, BUT ALWAYS AWAY FROM LABOUR https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-15/nz-election-analysis-labour-loses-support-in-both-directions-/102976938 NEW ZEALAND STARTS GIVING PRIORITY TO MĀORI AND PACIFIC ELECTIVE SURGERY PATIENTS https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/20/new-zealand-starts-giving-priority-to-maori-and-pacific-elective-surgery-patients MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

South Australia, which got the second lowest Yes result in the nation at 35.2%, is going against its electorate and forging ahead with a state-sanctioned legislated Voice. Apparently they don’t seem to care how South Australians voted and are pushing ahead nonetheless. These are the ten federal electorates in South Australia, and every one of them voted No. It’s hard to imagine that the constituency are okay with pushing forward with this new state-based Voice. Despite the resounding objection to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, Premier Peter Malinauskas remains confident that residents “know the difference” between the rejected federal Voice and the his brand new, shiny state Voice. Apparently, they’re completely different. He said, “South Australians are pretty smart… I think they know the difference between a constitutional change and a piece of legislation, so I’m not too concerned about that. It’s very different by nature. It’s also a proposition that’s had bipartisan support from a state Liberal party in the past. So it’s not an extreme proposition. And like I said, it doesn’t involve constitutional change. So I think they’re very different. I think most people appreciate that.” If you’re South Australian, do you appreciate that? Do you think this is completely different, and therefore, you have no objections with it? Personally, I think he’s playing word games. Perhaps he should stick to Boggle. Although the Queensland Opposition are not against the Queensland treaty, the South Australian Opposition are certainly questioning Mr Malinauskas. South Australian Opposition leader David Speirs said given the proportion of people that have voted No, he’d like to reassess whether the Voice should go ahead. He said, “We’ve got a state-based Voice here in SA. I’m not sure we really know what to do with it now. SA has overwhelmingly rejected our interest in having a mechanism such as a Voice to the federal parliament and there are clearly going to be misgivings around a Voice to state parliament as well. I’ve always said we were very open to amending this legislation, should it be deemed not to be working, or should we conclude that South Australians don’t want this state Voice. They clearly don’t want a federal Voice. Do they want a state Voice either? I think they’d be immensely surprised that we have a legislated Voice.” One Nation’s Sarah Game, Member of the Legislative Council, posted a tweet calling for the First Nations Voice Act to be repealed. She said, “An overwhelming majority of South Australians voted no to The Voice. The division caused by The Voice Referendum has been sad to watch and experience. There is no place for the remnants with the legislated South Australian Voice. I’ll be introducing my Bill for an Act to repeal the First Nations Voice Act 2023 this week. It’s time for a plan for needs-based support, not race or heritage-based support.” I’m not South Australian, but I wholeheartedly agree with her on this one. Mr Malinauskas responded, “I think it's important that politicians honour their commitments. It'll demonstrate that a non-binding advisory committee can occasionally make representations to the parliament on various matters. It'll be up to the parliament to determine whether they accept or reject that advice. It's not particularly controversial and will roll out as planned.” Basically, Mr Malinauskas is saying, “I don’t care what South Australians think, I’m going ahead with the Voice NO MATTER WHAT!” WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO SOUTH AUSTRALIA'S FIRST NATIONS VOICE TO PARLIAMENT FOLLOWING REFERENDUM DEFEAT? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-16/what-happens-to-sa-voice-to-parliament-after-referendum/102977318 THIS STATE HAD THE SECOND-HIGHEST NO VOTE, SO WHY IS IT INTRODUCING ITS OWN VOICE? https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/this-state-had-the-second-highest-no-vote-so-why-is-it-introducing-its-own-voice/qxrasyk03 MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

Indigenous Voice to Parliament – REJECTED. Despite all the celebrity endorsements. Despite all those people writing Yes on their hands. Despite all the big companies with their Yes23 campaigns. Despite the politicians telling you how to vote. What did you do? You didn’t listen! This was all about listening and you f***ed it up! These are only preliminary results, but the result is clear. Australia voted against the Voice. I’m not here to celebrate. I’m not holding anything against anybody. I said from the beginning, I would accept the outcome no matter what happens. I know a couple of Yes voters, and their reasons for voting Yes were pretty straightforward. They just wanted to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. They wanted to help their fellow Australians. You can’t blame somebody for wanting to help. Obviously, they had good intentions, and I presume the vast majority of Yes voters had the same thinking. But Australia is a multi-cultural country. People won’t accept if one of those cultures is given some constitutional advantage over the rest of us, no matter how slight that advantage might be. One thing that we pride ourselves on in Australia is our egalitarian society. The principle that all Australians are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Under the law, we are already equal, and when people try to toy with that, well, you saw what happened. Australians overwhelmingly voted no. So what could have the government done? Obviously, just telling us to vote Yes didn’t work. Importing famous NBA all-stars from overseas didn’t work. To be fair, we’re not nine years old. I’d hope that no adult Australian would be swayed by such a stunt. Not to mention that there was so much confusion over how the Voice would operate. The constitution represents all Australians. The moment this amendment started to cause division, was the moment we realised it just didn’t belong. But what I really didn’t like about the whole campaign was that they told us that a No vote will change the way we see ourselves. It will change the way the world sees us. That we will be seen as some sort of racist backwater, and send the most unloving of messages to Indigenous Australians. Well, I think that’s unfair and almost coercive. At the very least, it’s very threatening language, isn’t it? I didn’t ask for this referendum, and I’m sure many of you were in the same boat. We didn’t want this. The very act of holding this referendum was what caused all the division and hurt feelings. The Albanese Government pushed this at the expense of everything else. He was a man obsessed. The Government could easily have trialled the Voice. They could have legislated it at any time, even though that wasn’t what the Uluru statement was calling for. But who’s in charge here? The Uluru statement, or the Australian Government? They could have trialled the Voice for a couple of years during Albanese’s term, and then see how Australians reacted to it. If it truly helped out Aboriginal people, then they could have said, “See, it works!”, and then pushed for constitutional change. But just blindly putting it in the constitution with very little framework, expecting us just to accept a body for one group of Australians based purely on their ancestry, common sense would tell us that this was always doomed to fail. If the Government’s goal is to truly stop racism and its effects, wouldn’t it make more sense to remove all mentions of race from the constitution? I think Australians could have really gotten behind that. And if they didn’t get behind it, you’d have to question why? Section 25. Provisions as to races disqualified from voting. And in Section 51. Legislative powers of the Parliament: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: Part 26, the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws. If the Government are truly against racism, why not remove this? Because I think they like having this power to divide. Not only did they not offer to remove this, they wanted to actively insert more racial language. It’s absurd that they thought that this was okay. It’s a false narrative that Indigenous people don't have a say. They have just as much rights as the rest of us. They can elect representatives to the parliament, and have done so. We already have so many bodies in Australia dedicated to helping Indigenous Australians, but yet, they have delivered such poor outcomes. Perhaps we need to bring a measure of accountability to these existing bodies. With all their billions of taxpayer money, how is that they’ve failed so drastically? Anyway, the people of Australia spoke, and they spoke loudly. The constitution is not a document to be toyed with. It is not a place to divide us by our ancestry. MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

I’m not a big fan of Black Lives Matter, as you probably would have already known from my previous videos. But now they’ve really started to show their true colours. BLM Chicago, apparently unaffiliated with the global network, posted this since-deleted tweet showing a paraglider with a Palestinian flag and the words, “I stand with Palestine”. The paraglider is in reference to the Hamas terrorists who paraglided into Israel and started shooting civilians. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is what BLM now support. To make their message clearer, they should probably have just posted a picture of a famous Austrian and changed the words slightly. It shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. Here’s BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors from 2015 calling for the end of Israel: “If we don’t step up boldly and courageously to end the imperialist project that’s called Israel, we’re doomed”. Wasn’t it funny how all these politicians took the knee a couple of years ago in support of BLM? #shorts

I don’t claim to be an expert in Middle Eastern relations, but one thing is clear, some members of one religion wish to completely annihilate all members of another religion. “From the river to the sea!”, they shout, in reference to the establishment of a Palestinian State from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, erasing the State of Israel and its people in the process. To be clear, I’m not here to side with one religion over another. My ethical stance is clear. Everyone should be allowed to peacefully practise their religion – “peacefully” being the operative word. The moment people are no longer peaceful, well, they’re no longer practising religion. They’re practising extremism or fanaticism. Case in point, the events that unfolded on the forecourt of the Opera House this week. “F*** the Jews!”, “Shame Israel!”, “From the river to the sea!”, “G*s the Jews!”. Yes, this is Australia – the tolerant country – in 2023. We are harbouring extremists. The NSW Government lit up the Opera House in Israeli colours, and the fanatics came out of the woodwork, lighting up flares and burning and stomping on Israeli flags. Not only that, the police allowed this to unfold. Jewish people were not welcome. Actually, one Jewish person who was waving the Israeli flag got arrested, not because he committed a crime, but for “his own safety”. While the fanatics were allowed to shoot off flares and shout out religious and racial epithets unchallenged, peaceful protesters, or even people there to peacefully support the Jewish community, were not allowed. Burn the flag, you’re okay. Wave the flag, you’re breaching the peace! Don’t worry, some politicians came out in support of the radicals. Senator Lidia Thorpe, former Greens Senator, for some reason, she’s still on the Greens website. “In 2023, Lidia left the party to advance the Blak Sovereignty movement. By the way, you spelt ‘black’ wrong. Yeah, I know, it’s on purpose. But you see, spelling was something the evil colonialists thrust upon us. Anyway, on X, just after Hamas had invaded Israel and killed innocent people, she wrote, “I stand with Palestine”, with a map of Israel over the last few decades, and the writing, “Unprovoked They said”. Another Greens Senator, and Greens Deputy Leader Mehreen Faruqi, who migrated here from Pakistan, also sent out a tweet in response to the Parliament House being lit up in Israeli colours. She tweeted, “One colonial government supporting another. What a disgrace. #FreePalestine”. What exactly is she trying to say? Is she condoning the attacks on Israel because it’s a colonial state? Is she implying that it’s okay to attack Australia, because we’re a colonial state as well? Noting that modern Australia gave her citizenship here. This is probably a good time to point out that all those people protesting on the forecourt of the Opera House who were calling for the death of other Australian citizens because of their religion, they were also granted residency here as well. Perhaps Australia needs to do a bit of reflecting on its immigration policy. To be fair to the Premier of NSW, Chris Minns, he did announce the following… Anyway, as I said, I’m no expert, and I’m not here to favour one religion over another. I’m all for peaceful religious practice, and peaceful protests, but this is not peaceful. We can’t accept this extremism in Australia. SYDNEY PRO-PALESTINIAN PROTEST ORGANISER FLAGS LEGAL CHALLENGE AFTER PREMIER VOWS CRACKDOWN ON WEEKEND RALLY https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-11/nsw-protestors-minns-legal-challenge-rally-sydney-weekend/102961840 SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE RALLY: POLICE DEFEND ARREST OF MAN CARRYING ISRAELI FLAG AMID OUTRAGE OVER ANTISEMITIC CHANTS https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/police-defend-arrest-of-man-carrying-israeli-flag-after-antisemitic-chants-heard-on-steps-of-sydney-opera-house LIDIA THORPE STILL ON THE GREENS WEBSITE https://greens.org.au/vic/person/lidia-thorpe MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

“This is just a non-racial advisory committee… That’s all it is!” This will be my final commentary on the upcoming Indigenous Voice Referendum before the vote this Saturday, but I will certainly have something to say about it after the results are known. I’d just like to point out that I’m not here to sway anybody’s vote. I assume that all of you have already made up your minds. I’m not stupid enough to think that I can convince you to vote one way or the other. Guess how this Albo voted? I’ll give you a clue: It rhymes with ‘mess’. As in, this entire f***ing referendum has been a complete and utter mess! When we see all these polls showing that some people are still undecided, I think they’re lying, not in a bad way, I think they just want to keep their vote secret. Fair enough. That’s their right. The latest polls show that only Tasmania is swinging towards Yes. The entire mainland is polling No! The Voice is often touted as simply an advisory committee. If you look at the Uluru Statement website, it states, “You’re the Voice!”, well, you’re the Voice as long you’re one of the 3.8% of Australians who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. The other 96% of you or so are not the Voice, and never can be. Further down they state, “The Voice will be an advisory body that gives First Nations Australians a say on matters that directly affect them.” An advisory body. That’s all it is. The Government’s Voice website also reinforces this idea, “The Voice will give independent advice to the Parliament and Government”. Advice. Nothing else. My only question, we’ll be voting on a constitutional amendment, where in this amendment does it say anything about advice? You might be asking, why am I looking up dictionary definitions? What am I trying to do? Well, what I’m doing is exactly what constitutional lawyers will be doing in the High Court. This is the constitution. This is not our opinion on the latest sporting event. If I can see ambiguity in this constitutional amendment, so will they. This will be debated in court, exactly what I’m doing now. And decisions of the High Court are final. There are no further appeals once a matter has been decided by the High Court, and the decision is binding on all other courts throughout Australia. “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.” Okay, so as far as I can tell, there is nothing in here stating that this is only an advisory body like the PM has been going on about in all of his interviews. Next, is the Voice actually non-racial? According to the PM, “And what this is about is Indigenous issues, not race. So, that is what this is about.” He’s not the only one to claim that this is not about race. On the ABC’s Q&A program, one of the panellists, Director for Centre for Indigenous Training Wesley Aird, mentioned race in connection to the Voice and the panel didn’t know quite what to say. The Yes campaign seem to be stating that this referendum is not about race, and therefore it’s wrong of the No campaign to accuse it of being racially divisive. But then a quick question comes to mind, “Can Indigenous people in Australia experience racism?” Of course! they will answer. Then doesn’t it follow that this is about race? I think this has become a game in semantics. They say the Voice is not about race. It’s about one’s cultural identity. It’s about one’s ancestry. One’s Indigeneity. One’s ethnicity. Are these not all one and the same? Okay, let’s not use the word ‘race’, but then we could still say, “Only people of a certain ancestry can become members of the Indigenous Voice”. Is this not a racial notion? If I said, only people of Scandinavian origin may join my club, what do you think the activists would say? Racists! Of course they would. Mr Albanese has said that he will walk away from the Voice if the referendum flops, which in all likelihood, it probably will. “If Australians vote no, I don’t believe it would be appropriate to then go and legislate anyway”. Don’t worry, this is just a non-racial advisory committee… That’s all it is! Do you buy their BS anymore? PRIME MINISTER TRANSCRIPT INSIDERS: INDIGENOUS VOICE TO PARLIAMENT REFERENDUM https://www.pm.gov.au/media/television-interview-abc-insiders LABOR WON’T TRY TO LEGISLATE INDIGENOUS VOICE IF REFERENDUM FAILS, ANTHONY ALBANESE SAYS https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/08/labor-wont-try-to-legislate-indigenous-voice-if-referendum-fails-albanese-says THE ULURU STATEMENT https://ulurustatement.org/ REFERENDUM QUESTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

Prominent Yes Campaigner Noel Pearson, an Indigenous Australian lawyer and land rights activist, gave a speech to the National Press Club last week. When asked by an SBS journalist about how the Yes campaign is resonating with culturally and linguistically diverse Australians knowing that many come from countries where democracy has been so fragile, and that perhaps the Yes vote will undermine the status quo, Pearson replied with a somewhat illuminating comment about people’s colour not matching their opinions. He said: “I say to Multicultural communities in the campaign that I’m involved in around the country, I say to them, listen, where do you fit into Australia? It’s a bit unclear. Are you with the mob from the UK? Are you kind of honorary settlers? Because, some of you are the wrong colour… or you don’t come from northern Europe. You come from Africa, you come from Asia, you come from South America, you come from all over the joint. You come from China. I say to them, where do you fit in Australia? Because we can move to an Australia where the Indigenous, the British descendants, and the Multicultural mob become one.” Yes, Mr Pearson sees us, and perhaps encourages us to be a divided nation based on our ethnicity. This is Noel Pearson’s game. Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton responded, “It’s a confused campaign the Yes activists are running at the moment. It started with people like Alan Joyce and others dictating to Australians as to how they should vote. Now you’ve got leading people in the Yes campaign like Noel Pearson talking about our country being segregated, and different people being worth different amounts depending on when they came here. I don’t understand the logic behind it.” I think I understand their logic. They want this. They want us divided. It furthers their perverse goals. Every polling firm, no matter what their affiliation, has found that the Yes vote is sliding dramatically. To pass, the Australian Constitution requires the proposed amendment to attain a double majority in the referendum, that is, a majority of votes nationwide, and a majority in at least four of the six states. It’s just not going to happen based on recent polling without some sort of intervention, divine or otherwise. Even Prime Minister Albanese has essentially accepted that this is not going to pass. He recently told the Guardian that the referendum is worthwhile even if it is rejected by voters, because it has succeeded in bringing Indigenous disadvantage front and centre. Mr Dutton responded, “The Prime Minister says that now it doesn’t matter whether it’s Yes or No, it’s been a worthwhile exercise. It’s cost half a billion dollars! And it’s dividing our country.” So we’ve got Marcia Langton, another highly paid activist, who famously said, “Every time the No case raises one of their arguments, you get down to base racism… Or, just sheer stupidity.” We’ve got Noel Pearson essentially telling multicultural people that if they support the No case they’re the “wrong colour”. Not to mention that Mr Pearson said some choice words regarding No campaigner and Indigenous Senator Jacinta Price. He said, “Jacinta Price is trapped in a redneck celebrity vortex and being used by right-wing think tanks to punch down on other black fellas”. Links to these statements below. Actually, I think this whole campaign has been worthwhile, because it’s made it abundantly clear to Australians what these people are all about. They’re about division. That’s what they want. They want Indigenous Australians to continue to think that they are victims. It keeps these people relevant. They’re intelligent people, don’t get me wrong, so that makes me tend to think that they know exactly what they are doing. They’ve got power, and they don’t want to give it up. NOEL PEARSON CONTROVERSIAL COMMENTS NATIONAL PRESS CLUB https://www.youtube.com/live/5aDiWiDOU7g?si=IcFCq5AT3vD1KJ0E&t=2544 ANTHONY ALBANESE SAYS VOICE REFERENDUM WORTHWHILE EVEN IF REJECTED BY VOTERS https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/27/anthony-albanese-says-voice-referendum-worthwhile-even-if-rejected-by-voters MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn

There’s been this article floating around on the internet published on The Conversation, our beloved ABC, and SBS. In this video, we’ll be taking a look at the SBS version titled, “What are the philosophical concerns about the Voice referendum? An ethicist explains”. It was published on 25 September 2023 by Paul Formosa. Paul Formosa is a Professor at the Department of Philosophy at Macquarie University in Sydney. Of course it comes as no surprise that he’s probably a Voice supporter as we’ll see throughout his article. It’s supposed to be a piece on ethics, but it reads more like a Yes23 campaign. Professor Formosa posits two ethical concerns. First, is it appropriate for members of one group to decide what rights members of another group get? Why should non-Indigenous Australians get to decide if the First Peoples of Australia are granted an institutional Voice? Okay, without diving too deep, I would suggest that of course non-Indigenous Australians should have a say in this. If they didn’t, then it would only be Indigenous Australians voting on this. Essentially, the minority would be able to change the constitution of the majority, and that would be an absolute disaster if we allowed it. Whatever we have left of our democracy would be dead. Second, is it appropriate to give members of one group rights that members of another group lack? Isn't our system of government based on the idea that we are all equal and therefore we should all have the same rights? I would answer Yes to that last sentence. Of course we should all have the same rights! It’s the first Yes I’ve answered this whole campaign. I don’t like this question. It’s making it sound like that there are two distinct categories of Australian citizens, Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people, with one requiring constitutional protection, as if they’re not already covered by the same constitution that all Australians are covered by. Moving on to the second concern: Should one group get something others don't get? This leads to the second issue, whether there is something undemocratic about members of one group having different rights to members of other groups. Something similar would apply to the Voice, with First Nations people having the right to elect members to the Voice that members of other groups would not have. Okay, but it still raises the ethical question, why should First Nations people be entitled to this Voice, where other Australians will not? First Nations people of Australia have suffered specific and significant injustices that other groups have not, such as the loss of sovereignty over their traditional lands, and they are therefore entitled to redress, which could (in part) take the form of a Voice. If you go back far enough in history, we have all suffered some sort of significant injustice. For example, many of us are descendants of convicts who were forcefully transported to Australia. We didn’t ask to be taken here. We were made to. “We match the rights to the kinds of disadvantage being compensated for”. For example, Australians with a disability are entitled to certain rights, such as disability support, that members of other groups are not. On a range of measures, from health to education and wealth, Australia’s First Nations people face significant disadvantages, and it's therefore reasonable that members of that group receive specific rights to counteract the specific forms of disadvantage they experience. I just don’t think that’s comparable. You know what I think? I think this entire article, and other articles like it, serve one purpose: To allow comfortably middle and upper class Yes voters to bask in their own sense of self-importance and profoundly superior moral righteousness. They’re blinded to their own racism. It’s almost like they’re trying to convince themselves that it’s okay to give one ethnic group a constitutional advantage. And they don’t even realise that these articles with their questionable arguments do nothing to sway people’s vote. Do you think Terry who works down at the local IGA is going to be swayed by the ethically superior ramblings of a professor from Macquarie University? No, of course not. Actually, the whole debate is kind of pointless. Any answer will very quickly conclude that the sovereignty and power of a nation state is pretty much arbitrary. Nations don’t need to be right and good. Just look at any country across the globe. It’s a perversely contemporary Western ideal that our countries should be ethical and justified. WHAT ARE THE PHILOSOPHICAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE VOICE REFERENDUM? AN ETHICIST EXPLAINS https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/what-are-the-philosophical-concerns-about-the-voice-referendum-an-ethicist-explains/xt5w7xm1a PAUL FORMOSA DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/persons/paul-formosa MUSIC Allégro by Emmit Fenn