The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
adam12, it’s another nasty trick of the Yes side to keep bringing up all that highly emotionally charged material of the past. Just appeals to emotion.
How Australia is now and moving forward is all that’s relevant. That stuff from the past is regrettable but no longer occurs. Australia as it currently stands, including the constitution, no longer discriminates against, nor privileges, anyone of any background.
We are blessed with equal freedom and rights. It’s the beauty of the West, particularly Australia - get on board with it!
Don’t destroy it.
sypkan wrote:The Identity Trap
"A novel ideology is haunting America. Over a stunningly brief span of time, a new set of ideas about the role that identity does—and should—play in society has taken on astonishing power.
These ideas have quickly become widespread in universities. They have transformed the animating ideas and the prevailing norms of left-leaning institutions, from activist spaces to nonprofit organizations. And increasingly, they have real purchase in terrain that was historically inhospitable to radical ideas, such as corporations or religious communities.
In my new book, The Identity Trap, I trace where this ideology originated and how it became so powerful. While I have fundamental disagreements with the thinkers whose work helped to inspire this tradition, I found their concerns to be reasonable and their work to be serious. But then their ideas entered the mainstream in the most viral—and, often, the most vulgar—possible form.
The insights of Michel Foucault inspired the bromides of Robin DiAngelo. The concerns of Derrick Bell turned into the Manichean slogans of Ibram X. Kendi.
Even at their best, these ideas are a trap. While they promise to eradicate injustices and create a better world, they make it more difficult to realize the traditional aspirations of the left. The adoption of these ideas has made it harder for progressive organizations to fulfill their missions. It has led to the adoption of public policies that actively harmed the poor and marginalized people it was supposed to serve. And far from being the most effective bulwark against the danger from the far-right, their ascendancy is a key reason why Donald Trump is now running head-to-head with Joe Biden in polls for the 2024 election. Theoretically speaking, right-wing populism and the identity trap may be adversaries; in practical and political terms, one is the yin to the other’s yang.
The corrosive influence of the identity trap can now be felt in many areas of our public and political life. The popularized version of this novel ideology is putting healthy forms of cultural exchange under a general pall of suspicion. It is responsible for dangerous attacks on the norms sustaining a genuine culture of free speech. It has helped to inspire the practice of “progressive separatism,” leading influential institutions from elementary schools to nonprofit organizations to create racially segregated “affinity groups.” And it is behind the rise and rise of the idea of equity, which mandates positive discrimination to eradicate all disparities in outcomes between different groups, pitting different ethnic groups against each other in a zero-sum competition for resources..."
https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-insidious-lie-that-we-cant-understand
This. This is good. The saddest thing about so-called post-modernism was the hijacking of identity politics into this kind of tribalism and victim-centred identifications . Post-structuralism (the theory underpinning post-modernism... and post-colonialism) was about justice and equality for historically recognised minorities... this is what we see now with the Voice and feminism waves and gender rights etc etc... all good until people start getting carried away... But the actual thing about identity is that it is an illusion or a construction. How many times does our identity change throughout life. It's actually a fluid thing capable of change etc. This kind of undermines identity politics but brings us all closer together in the realisation of a shared humanity... or at least it should.
Anyhoo, just a simple exercise now students... What's the first identity that pops into yr head when you hear the word "Aussie"... be honest now!
"With The Voice Australia has a once in a lifetime opportunity to say “no we’re not going down that path” and instead to choose to maintain equality in liberties and rights, and choose social cohesion." @costco
And this. This is stupid. "Maintain equality"... only an idiot would believe this assimilationist sleight of hand euphemistic bullshit. The Voice is about the most oppressed group of people in their own country finally being able to access some power and equality.
For god's sake u No Knobs... open yr eyes and get some reality... and try some education...like the Voice, it won't hurt.
Yep that “maintain equality” or “give indigenous people unfair advantages” argument is absolutely grotesque
#gsco "How Australia is now and moving forward is all that’s relevant. That stuff from the past is regrettable but no longer occurs"
How Australia is now is that FNP still get incarcerated at a much higher per capita percentage, die younger, still get glaucoma, still suffer, many of them from "institutional and legal oppression, discrimination, marginalisation, disadvantage, exploitation, etc, ", those things you stupidly describe as a fabrication.
It is also very easy to write off the impacts of what happened to their relatives and families and their lands this century, the one before it, and the one before that when it is not part of your own personal family history, very easy to view it all as unimportant when it isn't part of you. Especially if you are a bit sociopathic, unempathetic and self centered.
Australia will never "move forward" until this issue is addressed.
That's the whole point of the exercise. Self determination, a say in their progress, an end to whitey telling them what's good for them.
FNP were asked "how do we move forward", by both the right and the left, they responded, but half the country are telling them "No, that's going too "woke", that's putting identity politics into our constitution, that's giving them something that is too much" and all the other FABRICATED bullshit being spouted on the No side.
Don't ever ask for a say in your own destiny gsco, too "woke" all of that.
Maybe you are in fact a communist yourself.
@ gsco, full-disclosure in this chat about society, what is your view on gay people? don't ask, don't tell?
All the dinosaur talk of schools and unis being woke or whatever the latest US appropriated term is.. same as libraries, they work hard to be a safe space, accepting, and welcoming to all, hard work, and yeh, i guess by definition, it could be called a left thing, if you are the kind of limited person who needs to pigenhole the world to develop theories about the grand plan.
welcoming of any race, gender, orientation, also extends to being welcoming of blokes with southern cross calf-tats who think watching R-rated action films with their 8 year-old is ok, and the mums who call that quality-time, while sitting on their phone with a fag and a can of bourbon. The ill-mannered, and those who have had limited educational and social opportunities have to be welcomed too, and you can't call anti-vaxxers antivaxxers.. it is pretty much a come as you are party in gov't schools.
What would you change about that? The people? Or just nod 'the right people' to 'the right schools'?
Just been and voted. Free now Saturday week.
"welcoming of any race, gender, orientation, also extends to being welcoming of blokes with southern cross calf-tats who think watching R-rated action films with their 8 year-old is ok, and the mums who call that quality-time, while sitting on their phone with a fag and a can of bourbon. The ill-mannered, and those who have had limited educational and social opportunities have to be welcomed too, and you can't call anti-vaxxers antivaxxers.. it is pretty much a come as you are party in gov't schools."
Very true!
Think schools and teachers have enough going on rather than worrying about supposedly indoctrinating kids into woke Marxist culture.
Yep, nailed it, have to support kids in a safe environment as it may be the only one they have no matter what colour, religion or sexual orientation, gender etc they may have.
12-year-old girl stabbed a male student in a school near here this week.
Here's a fun fact for all those cowboy constitutional experts on this thread so enamored with their sacred untouchable document.
Britain and New Zealand have Australian constitutional recognition.
(Further to that, in theory, and in our constitution, Britain and the House of Lords still have the right to decide appeals from our High Court. They still have legal supremacy and the right to determine our destiny.)
FNP don't. The original Australians don't.
not a lawyer, but pretty sure the right to appeal to the privy council or whatever it is called in england was rescinded many years ago. think you are just wrong adam12 . but you seem like a guy who would never let facts get in the way of prejudice
adam12 I’m a bit exhausted with all that stuff now.
basesix you’ve commented on my stuff regularly and I apologise that I’ve never responded.
But I think the following roughly answers what you’re asking:
All previous and current workplaces, educational institutions etc in which I’ve been involved have been very diverse and people have gotten along with each other totally fine with little to no thought about skin colour, gender, sex, sexual preference, etc. Really was just a non-issue. It has been like this for decades, well before the rise of the inclusion and diversity stuff.
One of my best mates through my PhD was gay, another was a Kenyan Jain (the religion), my girlfriend was Chinese, one of my PhD advisors was Ukrainian and the other Polish, I lived with someone from India and China….etc… I published research with someone from Israel. Another good mate was a Muslim from Saudi Arabia. I’ve worked with people of both sexes, various genders and sexual preferences, all skin colours, and from all corners of the globe.
The mathematics community is very diverse, empathetic, inclusive and welcoming of all people of all backgrounds, including FNPs. It’s very merit driven and based only on one’s ability at and interest in mathematics, as well as simply getting along with other humans. Has been this way for decades, well before all the diversity and inclusion stuff we’re getting rammed down our throats nowadays.
This is the one/main thing that completely confuses me about things nowadays. For instance the mathematics community at least in Australia does not need diversity and inclusion or critical race theory indoctrination to be open, respectful and merit driven. But now we’re being told that everything is terrible, we’re all very badly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, basically evil human beings without realising it, and need to start worshipping critical race theory and engage in identity wars and social justice activism.
You may want to try to pin me as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, but sorry to disappoint.
But I am very against all this critical race theory, identity politics and social justice activism from the new age western Marxism progressive left. Its goal is division, class and culture warfare, and undermining our way of life.
You’re welcome to call me politically conservative, all good.
here's a more elegant link gromful, without going through the face-machine:
https://harryrichardson.substack.com/p/noel-from-noosa-where-has-all-the?
harry seems a real champ, ending on the latest glib boomer titter line, that makes glazed old men smile at each other.
@Lounge lizard, am a lawyer and it is still there in our Constitution.
It is only a majority decision by the Full Bench of the High Court which decided that appeals to the House of Lords will not be happening. I could go find the case law to reference it but couldn't be bothered. You can google it for yourself. That is why I said "in theory" but it is still there in our constitution. That is a fact.
There have been appeals to the House of Lords.
Also, it was only as recently as 1973 that an Australian Governor General sought legal advice from the House of Lords and the British Crown on sacking our prime minister.
Threatening Vid
Threatening News of Threat to not share Threatening Vid
Threatened Pollie issues Threats towards Threatening News of Threats to Threatening Pollies
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pYjVIZdNQy0
I don't think you are anything, gsco. And while you paint the world with your judgements, far be it from me to be one of those who you claim are out to 'discredit' you.
My friends and I are always making glib remarks about how, in the 80s/90s, we didn't give a shit what a person was. It was all fine. And now we have to celebrate snowflakes. I thought the gay community was a little mad for wanting marriage and the approval of an institution that has damaged them and vilified them. But I learned my knee-jerk world-view means nothing. I'm not the focus, and my opinion is just that of another arsehole. So I listened instead of talking. People who are affected should have the discussion. And we should learn.
As I have stated to you, I believe in mess and constant management, and people having a crack at what they think could improve their world. I think the world's societal woes are SOOOO much more about 'class' and lack of choices in life than anything to do with gender or race.
But you see, who cares about what I think about something that affects others? No-one should. Someone in my country asks for something that I can help with, I find a reason to say yes. I think FNP indigeneity is really a cool thing, worthy of distinction, as I have stated. I think your conga-line of mathematical non-indigenous, non-Anglos might agree.
@basesix " Someone in my country asks for something that I can help with, I find a reason to say yes. I think FNP indigeneity is really a cool thing"
Bingo!
My feelings exactly.
Like a brother from another mother basesix.
@gsco "adam12 I’m a bit exhausted with all that stuff now."
Why am I not surprised?
MSM are trying to Censor Lidia's *$#! Rant 'bout Censored Nazi Rant
ABC cut the live feed as it went next level...this is some heavy Psychotic Guilt trippin'.
Sure...this will make the Evening News but for Wot Reason...
These are yer carcassed remains ... also likely be censored by day's end.
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8375639/im-not-scared-come-at-me-...
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8ojnaw
so the full bench of the high court has decided that appeals (to england) wont be happening, yet you assert they "have legal supremacy and the right to determine our destiny". if you are a lawyer (who isnt these days?) you dont seem a very clued up one.
@Loungelizard, save the 'clips' mate.
What that means is that another Full High Court bench, made up of different justices could decide to reverse that decision and allow British Law Lords to take our appeals again. The constitution provides for that possibility. So yeah, theoretical legal supremacy, still enshrined in the Australian constitution.
That will not happen, although in these days with some of the shit that has been taking place like Scomo swearing himself into multiple portfolios and established convention and legal norms being discarded for political expediency who knows, but it is theoretically possible under our constitution, which was the original point I was making, which was that Britain and New Zealand have recognition in our constitution whilst FNP formally don't.
Clue yourself up brah if you think I'm not and get back to me.
"But I am very against all this critical race theory, identity politics and social justice activism from the new age western Marxism progressive left. Its goal is division, class and culture warfare, and undermining our way of life." @costco
Spoken like a true deconstructed fascist.
@LoungeLizard.
Here's something else to consider if you think my assertion is incorrect. Go get a copy of the Constitution and you'll see it's headed "Commonwealth of Australia", not "Republic of Australia", and inside you'll see it gives our parliament the power to legislate, but that legislation doesn't become law until it gets the assent of the Governor-General.
Now he's the GG, he's not the President, and our PM picks him, but he doesn't appoint him, no, that honor belongs to the English King and he serves by appointment "at the King's pleasure" a term that is usually 5 years. The Governor-General is the King's representative in Australia. He even writes him nice reports and is in regular contact. He is also sacked by the King.
So the guy who actually makes our laws law represents the King of England
That is our constitution.
So yeah, legal supremacy.
I believe the crown is also that of Scotland, a reverse merger
I read a very perceptive analysis of the situation on another website. I think the author (it's not me) has summarised the situation quite well, and it's in the same vein as Bob Birrell's link I posted before; to do with the grad/non grad and nationalist/internationalist split in potential voting and outcome. I'll quote in full because it's worth considering as an explanation for potential tragedy (I agree with them on this) that may happen:
"The Australian Penny drops on the Voice
At long last the national commentariat is twigging to why the Voice is highly likely to be voted down.
It isn’t that we are a nation of racists, who don’t care about the plight of aboriginal Australians. It is that the people pushing hardest for us to vote yes are those we have simply lost trust in to act in our interests, rather than their own.
The vote on the Voice has become a vote of confidence in our elites. And if the only way to get through to them, that we have no trust in them, no confidence in their ability to piece together a narrative which reflects a world we are seeing, and no belief in their ‘leadership’ is to vote no to something they are all pushing for, then it currently appears that Australia will vote no.
‘Them’ is our politicians, senior bureaucrats (State and Federal), academics, business leaders, and executives, a range of high profile institutions, and very large sections of the opinion pushing media. They need to change their game, and to start acting in the broader national interest, as opposed to the narrower sectional, institutional or personal interest.
Their problem is that they aren’t very elite at all. Their vision for us as a nation is cast in terms of bare minima. They like their cars from Europe, their electronics from North Asia or the US and their finances handled by banks in New York or London. They like holidays offshore, as well as their income streams, unless those income streams are harvesting us. Their entire frame of reference is somewhere else. For the most part they despise us, and are only too ready to point to our racism, or an access to housing and quality of life which they felt a little too easy a generation ago. Most fundamentally they are all too dismissive of the economic stress Australian households are experiencing for going along with their elite mantras for the NeoLiberal era. They want us to pay more and work harder – for them. They want obeissance or, better still, deference.
The tragedy is that they are holding aboriginal Australia, and their totally legitimate right to better life outcomes as a section of society, up as a human shield.
All the old techniques for bullshitting the public are there. The general easily supportable idea, no real detail about what it actually means or narrative on how it leads to the better outcome plenty of people want, no real identification of downsides or costs. It’s a ‘good’ which delivers for some but not much for many. The all too obvious question for far too many people is ‘what aren’t we being told about this?’ And the problems of the ‘elite’ start there. The many have been watching this unfold for years, over countless issues.
Crocodile tears on house prices – check. Immigration volumes – check. Free Trade agreements – check. Privatisation of energy – check. Privatisation of Public Services – check again. Workplace flexibilities – check. Taxation offsets for ‘investment’ which do nothing but encourage speculation – check. Taxation offsets for the relatively affluent, but not mainstreet – check. War in Iraq or Afghanistan – check. Same sex marriage – check. First home owner grants – check some more.
All the while real issues apparent on ordinary streets in ordinary Australia either don’t get answered, or, all too often, aren’t allowed to be asked, or are immediately smothered in some accusation to belittle those asking. These people think they are ‘managing’ us. They don’t think – to themselves – they are leading us, and don’t think of themselves as accountable for ‘leadership’. They think that managing us gives them the right to lie to us, or determine what facts are acknowledged or not acknowledged, and to be as spurious as they deem appropriate (to suit their ends).
What you see as the politics of the margins and the polarisation of nothing I agree with, but I see it as something else too.
I see it as ‘denial’ as psychologists might refer to it"
link for context:
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/10/albanese-government-support-sin...
(And harry what is a deconstructed fascist? I picture a dissasembled Panzer IV.)
lydia thorpe doing her best lydia thorpe...
she must think she's the first politician ever to receive death threats
but to be fair, if she's been on a four month lockdown to make albo look good...
I'd be pissed too
lydia thorpe doing her best lydia thorpe...
she must think she's the first politician ever to receive death threats
but to be fair, if she's been on a four month lockdown to make albo look good...
I'd be pissed too
sypkan wrote:lydia thorpe doing her best lydia thorpe...
she must think she's the first politician ever to receive death threats
but to be fair, if she's been on a four month lockdown to make albo look good...
I'd be pissed too
Im glad she is voting No, but OMFG she is a complete nutter and the biggest attention seeker ever.
Its probably a good thing for the Yes camp that she isn't backing them, imagine how many people she would put off.
Death threats should always be taken seriously but yeah Jacinta has also had them in the last few months.
geez that was good vj...
so so very good!
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/10/albanese-government-support-sin...
velocityjohnno wrote:I read a very perceptive analysis of the situation on another website. I think the author (it's not me) has summarised the situation quite well, and it's in the same vein as Bob Birrell's link I posted before; to do with the grad/non grad and nationalist/internationalist split in potential voting and outcome. I'll quote in full because it's worth considering as an explanation for potential tragedy (I agree with them on this) that may happen:
"The Australian Penny drops on the Voice
At long last the national commentariat is twigging to why the Voice is highly likely to be voted down.
It isn’t that we are a nation of racists, who don’t care about the plight of aboriginal Australians. It is that the people pushing hardest for us to vote yes are those we have simply lost trust in to act in our interests, rather than their own.
The vote on the Voice has become a vote of confidence in our elites. And if the only way to get through to them, that we have no trust in them, no confidence in their ability to piece together a narrative which reflects a world we are seeing, and no belief in their ‘leadership’ is to vote no to something they are all pushing for, then it currently appears that Australia will vote no.
‘Them’ is our politicians, senior bureaucrats (State and Federal), academics, business leaders, and executives, a range of high profile institutions, and very large sections of the opinion pushing media. They need to change their game, and to start acting in the broader national interest, as opposed to the narrower sectional, institutional or personal interest.
Their problem is that they aren’t very elite at all. Their vision for us as a nation is cast in terms of bare minima. They like their cars from Europe, their electronics from North Asia or the US and their finances handled by banks in New York or London. They like holidays offshore, as well as their income streams, unless those income streams are harvesting us. Their entire frame of reference is somewhere else. For the most part they despise us, and are only too ready to point to our racism, or an access to housing and quality of life which they felt a little too easy a generation ago. Most fundamentally they are all too dismissive of the economic stress Australian households are experiencing for going along with their elite mantras for the NeoLiberal era. They want us to pay more and work harder – for them. They want obeissance or, better still, deference.
The tragedy is that they are holding aboriginal Australia, and their totally legitimate right to better life outcomes as a section of society, up as a human shield.
All the old techniques for bullshitting the public are there. The general easily supportable idea, no real detail about what it actually means or narrative on how it leads to the better outcome plenty of people want, no real identification of downsides or costs. It’s a ‘good’ which delivers for some but not much for many. The all too obvious question for far too many people is ‘what aren’t we being told about this?’ And the problems of the ‘elite’ start there. The many have been watching this unfold for years, over countless issues.
Crocodile tears on house prices – check. Immigration volumes – check. Free Trade agreements – check. Privatisation of energy – check. Privatisation of Public Services – check again. Workplace flexibilities – check. Taxation offsets for ‘investment’ which do nothing but encourage speculation – check. Taxation offsets for the relatively affluent, but not mainstreet – check. War in Iraq or Afghanistan – check. Same sex marriage – check. First home owner grants – check some more.
All the while real issues apparent on ordinary streets in ordinary Australia either don’t get answered, or, all too often, aren’t allowed to be asked, or are immediately smothered in some accusation to belittle those asking. These people think they are ‘managing’ us. They don’t think – to themselves – they are leading us, and don’t think of themselves as accountable for ‘leadership’. They think that managing us gives them the right to lie to us, or determine what facts are acknowledged or not acknowledged, and to be as spurious as they deem appropriate (to suit their ends).
What you see as the politics of the margins and the polarisation of nothing I agree with, but I see it as something else too.
I see it as ‘denial’ as psychologists might refer to it"
link for context:
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/10/albanese-government-support-sin...
(And harry what is a deconstructed fascist? I picture a dissasembled Panzer IV.)
Q&A Monday was a good example of the above I reckon. I only tuned in for the first question or 15 mins or so - and was distracted so not following - so my take is loose. When asked to comment on the rate of immigration to Australia - Pearson offered the usual stock standard (along with the other female non-indig guest) "let's not be racist" or words to that effect. I felt that was a pretty cynical leadership position on a matter of national interest especially given the times. To be fair Pearson along with the other guest had some self-awareness at least to not go to the usual "You're ALL" racist and soften it with "Let's NOT" be racist when it comes to responding to Australia's population carrying capacity.
It's moments and positions along with other long term and recent policy failures like this that fuel the disengagement and distrust the article speaks to.
I'm voting yes by the way.
sypkan wrote:lydia thorpe doing her best lydia thorpe...
she must think she's the first politician ever to receive death threats
but to be fair, if she's been on a four month lockdown to make albo look good...
I'd be pissed too
Got 1.30 in and that was enough.
Geez, she is not doing her cause whatever it may be any favours.
it's just what happens when issues become insta-driven. you find a couple of damaged, weird sock puppets (who would choose to be a greta thunberg? the well-meaning girl will never now have a balanced life, where she can manage her Asperger's and OCD, etc.) and when they lose it, act surprised? anyone heard of sarah palin?
adam12 wrote:@Lounge lizard, am a lawyer and it is still there in our Constitution.
It is only a majority decision by the Full Bench of the High Court which decided that appeals to the House of Lords will not be happening. I could go find the case law to reference it but couldn't be bothered. You can google it for yourself. That is why I said "in theory" but it is still there in our constitution. That is a fact.
There have been appeals to the House of Lords.
Also, it was only as recently as 1973 that an Australian Governor General sought legal advice from the House of Lords and the British Crown on sacking our prime minister.
adam and loungelizard i am not an academic but i do know for a fact that when bob hawke was p.m. he did away with appeals to the privy council.
his reason being "we are a mature enough nation to oversee our own ruleings"...or something like that.
was at a no rally in s.a. on steps of parliament and a speaker was trying to take the fed govt to the privy council, can't remember specifics and was asking for signatures on a petition and monies (me 50c ), had a chat with his assistant about privy obsolete now and she knew what i meant and said there is still a way to the privy council but very hard and expensive process.
pretty sure privy no longer relevant to our democracy??
andy-mac wrote:Oh dear ....
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-05/united-nations-voice-conspiracy-m...
Lol... just the usual right ranting paranoiacs
@adam12, I googled it as suggested, and came up with . "1986: Australian appeals were abolished by a gradual, and messy, legislative process that began 1986 and ended with the Australia Acts 1986' from High Court of Australia Acts 1986. That sounds definitive but in my commercial dealings with Lawyers, there are always "two ways of looking at this"- even after the same person has previously drafted specific clauses to deal with a foreseen eventuality.
bonza wrote:velocityjohnno wrote:I read a very perceptive analysis of the situation on another website. I think the author (it's not me) has summarised the situation quite well, and it's in the same vein as Bob Birrell's link I posted before; to do with the grad/non grad and nationalist/internationalist split in potential voting and outcome. I'll quote in full because it's worth considering as an explanation for potential tragedy (I agree with them on this) that may happen:
"The Australian Penny drops on the Voice
At long last the national commentariat is twigging to why the Voice is highly likely to be voted down.
It isn’t that we are a nation of racists, who don’t care about the plight of aboriginal Australians. It is that the people pushing hardest for us to vote yes are those we have simply lost trust in to act in our interests, rather than their own.
The vote on the Voice has become a vote of confidence in our elites. And if the only way to get through to them, that we have no trust in them, no confidence in their ability to piece together a narrative which reflects a world we are seeing, and no belief in their ‘leadership’ is to vote no to something they are all pushing for, then it currently appears that Australia will vote no.
‘Them’ is our politicians, senior bureaucrats (State and Federal), academics, business leaders, and executives, a range of high profile institutions, and very large sections of the opinion pushing media. They need to change their game, and to start acting in the broader national interest, as opposed to the narrower sectional, institutional or personal interest.
Their problem is that they aren’t very elite at all. Their vision for us as a nation is cast in terms of bare minima. They like their cars from Europe, their electronics from North Asia or the US and their finances handled by banks in New York or London. They like holidays offshore, as well as their income streams, unless those income streams are harvesting us. Their entire frame of reference is somewhere else. For the most part they despise us, and are only too ready to point to our racism, or an access to housing and quality of life which they felt a little too easy a generation ago. Most fundamentally they are all too dismissive of the economic stress Australian households are experiencing for going along with their elite mantras for the NeoLiberal era. They want us to pay more and work harder – for them. They want obeissance or, better still, deference.
The tragedy is that they are holding aboriginal Australia, and their totally legitimate right to better life outcomes as a section of society, up as a human shield.
All the old techniques for bullshitting the public are there. The general easily supportable idea, no real detail about what it actually means or narrative on how it leads to the better outcome plenty of people want, no real identification of downsides or costs. It’s a ‘good’ which delivers for some but not much for many. The all too obvious question for far too many people is ‘what aren’t we being told about this?’ And the problems of the ‘elite’ start there. The many have been watching this unfold for years, over countless issues.
Crocodile tears on house prices – check. Immigration volumes – check. Free Trade agreements – check. Privatisation of energy – check. Privatisation of Public Services – check again. Workplace flexibilities – check. Taxation offsets for ‘investment’ which do nothing but encourage speculation – check. Taxation offsets for the relatively affluent, but not mainstreet – check. War in Iraq or Afghanistan – check. Same sex marriage – check. First home owner grants – check some more.
All the while real issues apparent on ordinary streets in ordinary Australia either don’t get answered, or, all too often, aren’t allowed to be asked, or are immediately smothered in some accusation to belittle those asking. These people think they are ‘managing’ us. They don’t think – to themselves – they are leading us, and don’t think of themselves as accountable for ‘leadership’. They think that managing us gives them the right to lie to us, or determine what facts are acknowledged or not acknowledged, and to be as spurious as they deem appropriate (to suit their ends).
What you see as the politics of the margins and the polarisation of nothing I agree with, but I see it as something else too.
I see it as ‘denial’ as psychologists might refer to it"
link for context:
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/10/albanese-government-support-sin...
(And harry what is a deconstructed fascist? I picture a dissasembled Panzer IV.)
Q&A Monday was a good example of the above I reckon. I only tuned in for the first question or 15 mins or so - and was distracted so not following - so my take is loose. When asked to comment on the rate of immigration to Australia - Pearson offered the usual stock standard (along with the other female non-indig guest) "let's not be racist" or words to that effect. I felt that was a pretty cynical leadership position on a matter of national interest especially given the times. To be fair Pearson along with the other guest had some self-awareness at least to not go to the usual "You're ALL" racist and soften it with "Let's NOT" be racist when it comes to responding to Australia's population carrying capacity.
It's moments and positions along with other long term and recent policy failures like this that fuel the disengagement and distrust the article speaks to.
I'm voting yes by the way.
bonza goodpost, ditto waveman,gsco,andym,burleigh,indo,sypkan and anyone who riles against the propaganda, appreciate your individuality and independant thinking.
onya, sameaswas, online counterculture is truly impressive.
sameaswas wrote:bonza wrote:velocityjohnno wrote:I read a very perceptive analysis of the situation on another website. I think the author (it's not me) has summarised the situation quite well, and it's in the same vein as Bob Birrell's link I posted before; to do with the grad/non grad and nationalist/internationalist split in potential voting and outcome. I'll quote in full because it's worth considering as an explanation for potential tragedy (I agree with them on this) that may happen:
"The Australian Penny drops on the Voice
At long last the national commentariat is twigging to why the Voice is highly likely to be voted down.
It isn’t that we are a nation of racists, who don’t care about the plight of aboriginal Australians. It is that the people pushing hardest for us to vote yes are those we have simply lost trust in to act in our interests, rather than their own.
The vote on the Voice has become a vote of confidence in our elites. And if the only way to get through to them, that we have no trust in them, no confidence in their ability to piece together a narrative which reflects a world we are seeing, and no belief in their ‘leadership’ is to vote no to something they are all pushing for, then it currently appears that Australia will vote no.
‘Them’ is our politicians, senior bureaucrats (State and Federal), academics, business leaders, and executives, a range of high profile institutions, and very large sections of the opinion pushing media. They need to change their game, and to start acting in the broader national interest, as opposed to the narrower sectional, institutional or personal interest.
Their problem is that they aren’t very elite at all. Their vision for us as a nation is cast in terms of bare minima. They like their cars from Europe, their electronics from North Asia or the US and their finances handled by banks in New York or London. They like holidays offshore, as well as their income streams, unless those income streams are harvesting us. Their entire frame of reference is somewhere else. For the most part they despise us, and are only too ready to point to our racism, or an access to housing and quality of life which they felt a little too easy a generation ago. Most fundamentally they are all too dismissive of the economic stress Australian households are experiencing for going along with their elite mantras for the NeoLiberal era. They want us to pay more and work harder – for them. They want obeissance or, better still, deference.
The tragedy is that they are holding aboriginal Australia, and their totally legitimate right to better life outcomes as a section of society, up as a human shield.
All the old techniques for bullshitting the public are there. The general easily supportable idea, no real detail about what it actually means or narrative on how it leads to the better outcome plenty of people want, no real identification of downsides or costs. It’s a ‘good’ which delivers for some but not much for many. The all too obvious question for far too many people is ‘what aren’t we being told about this?’ And the problems of the ‘elite’ start there. The many have been watching this unfold for years, over countless issues.
Crocodile tears on house prices – check. Immigration volumes – check. Free Trade agreements – check. Privatisation of energy – check. Privatisation of Public Services – check again. Workplace flexibilities – check. Taxation offsets for ‘investment’ which do nothing but encourage speculation – check. Taxation offsets for the relatively affluent, but not mainstreet – check. War in Iraq or Afghanistan – check. Same sex marriage – check. First home owner grants – check some more.
All the while real issues apparent on ordinary streets in ordinary Australia either don’t get answered, or, all too often, aren’t allowed to be asked, or are immediately smothered in some accusation to belittle those asking. These people think they are ‘managing’ us. They don’t think – to themselves – they are leading us, and don’t think of themselves as accountable for ‘leadership’. They think that managing us gives them the right to lie to us, or determine what facts are acknowledged or not acknowledged, and to be as spurious as they deem appropriate (to suit their ends).
What you see as the politics of the margins and the polarisation of nothing I agree with, but I see it as something else too.
I see it as ‘denial’ as psychologists might refer to it"
link for context:
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/10/albanese-government-support-sin...
(And harry what is a deconstructed fascist? I picture a dissasembled Panzer IV.)
Q&A Monday was a good example of the above I reckon. I only tuned in for the first question or 15 mins or so - and was distracted so not following - so my take is loose. When asked to comment on the rate of immigration to Australia - Pearson offered the usual stock standard (along with the other female non-indig guest) "let's not be racist" or words to that effect. I felt that was a pretty cynical leadership position on a matter of national interest especially given the times. To be fair Pearson along with the other guest had some self-awareness at least to not go to the usual "You're ALL" racist and soften it with "Let's NOT" be racist when it comes to responding to Australia's population carrying capacity.
It's moments and positions along with other long term and recent policy failures like this that fuel the disengagement and distrust the article speaks to.
I'm voting yes by the way.
bonza goodpost, ditto waveman,gsco,andym,burleigh,indo,sypkan and anyone who riles against the propaganda, appreciate your individuality and independant thinking.
Haha...the independent thinkinking conspiratards. Scary thing is if these lies and made-up rubbish ie UN bullshit are actually believed!! Worse still if they know its bullshit - like Fox news - but peddle it anyway... real lowlifes, no ethics or integrity whatsoever... just human dregs.
oops apologies to velocityjohno it was your post not bonzas, you go on my hero's list too.
i'm voteing no.
yeh, sameaswas, i was going to defend bonza too.
andy-mac wrote:Oh dear ....
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-05/united-nations-voice-conspiracy-m...
This shit is pretty whacky, surprised how much that White Rabbit vid has been shared though, ive only seen it once on FB.
Its pretty rich Albo saying others spread misinformation though, he has done his fair share of spreading misinformation.
@sameaswas “…..anyone who riles against the propaganda, appreciate your individuality and independant thinking.”
Actually it’s not independent thinking, just following the other sides propaganda
As per VJ's post.
Trust in experts, political leaders, evangelical left leaning media, advertising barrages using simplistic emotional messaging and celebrity endorsements is a little in short supply after covid. Skepticism is at full attention.
Post the hysteria, the packed stadiums, packed airports etc. tell us all that the over-reaction of lockdowns was massive and that the simplistic feared-laden narrative we were sold did not shift as new facts emerged on virulence, transmission and vax effectiveness for over a year was manipulation, misinformation and arse covering from on high. Trust the experts? The data says "no." For the average punter who just looks around the huge healthy footy / tennis / cricket / pub crowd, their gut says "no".
So when the Voice campaign begins soon after covid fades into history, with Shaq (a celebrity deeply knowledgeable on Australian FNP???), followed by endless selling by the same evangelical, virtuosity obsessed left leaning media, that is cheer led by detail-challenged Anthony "I have not read it" Albanese and then builds to a crescendo of emotional advertising and celebrity endorsement, faces skepticism, we should not be surprised.
Timing and tactics not so good. Trust in leaders, experts and the hard sell has been kneecapped for a long long time. Blaming the skeptical just adds to the doubt.
In this environment more detail was fundamental to winning back some trust.
" (a celebrity deeply knowledgeable on Australian FNP???)"
I mean, they did send Dennis Rodman to negotiate with North Korea...
Cheers to crew on reflecting on that post and respect to all of you no matter which way you vote.
I just wish the anger that is being detected was meted out on Lib/Lab/Grn in a general election, that would be a far more fitting outcome. Decimate them. Edit: and Teal.
Frog? Evangelical left?
sameaswas wrote:oops apologies to velocityjohno it was your post not bonzas, you go on my hero's list too.
i'm voteing no.
Infinite looser! ..Especially if the voice isn't successful.
Was going to say, I love it how the ABC comes up with another (at least 3 this wk) conspiracy theory/misinformation article but only implicates the No side… Exactly what purpose is the ABC serving for Australia?
VJ: deconstructionism, constructionism, post-constructionism, critical theory, critical race theory, modernism, postmodernism, post-postmodernism…it’s all just peak echo chamber, rabbit hole academic conspiracy theory activism trash with no information content, but is also what’s taught in arts and history etc degrees nowadays…
I could point to a whole history major I recently noticed at a certain regional uni that covers all this dangerous academic conspiracy theory junk but no actual history at all: no prehistory, ancient Greece, Roman Empire, Middle Ages, renaissance and reformation, enlightenment and romanticism, England or France, US, China & East Asia, India, Africa, Islamic empires, Russia & Ukraine, Americas, history of philosophy or economics, etc, none of it.
There’s something going very badly wrong with academia nowadays..
andy-mac wrote:Simple ey....
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cx84fDVSSIx/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Great find find Andy - Briggs - Yet again another FNP Gem!.... 80 % of FNP want it!! Yes Go Briggs
@Basesix "I think the world's societal woes are SOOOO much more about 'class' and lack of choices in life than anything to do with gender or race."
Exactly, class issues have never gone away and, since neoliberalism became hegemonic and eliminated class from the discussion, identity has stepped in as some sort of very poor substitute.
Uni assignment i did a few years ago. This is my take on things. I'm sure this will ruffle many feathers. I hope so.
Love Blue Diamond x
The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
Introduction – Compensatory Justice
Disparities between the standards of living of humans on this planet have long been a part of our history on this planet. From the wealthy nations of the West to the developing and undeveloped nations on this globe, the diversity in the quality of life when viewed from a moral standpoint are without a doubt grossly unfair.
In this paper I will look at why historic injustices do require some form of reparation. I take a strong stance that we are more obliged to solve current injustices than to provide reparation for every act of injustice in the past. In doing this I will first investigate the historic injustice of the Aboriginal people of Australia and I will look at the argument that they are entitled to some form of reparation and why.
I will incoroporate some interesting views from Jeremy Waldron, Robert Nozick and others which will help me slowly build to my conclusion that reparation should be in the form of Non Indigenous Australians surrendering some of our priveleges as a form of reparation.
Historic Injustices to Indigenous Australians:
Australia the continent was well inhabited for many years long before white settlement. It is commonly known that in 1788 Australia was colonised as a country under the rule of the British Empire, with total contempt for the fact that it was already inhabited by a native indigenous race of people.
The way the original inhabitants have been treated, including forced assimilation, execution, stolen families and not even allowed to be recognised as citizens for a large part of white Australia’s history are also well known facts. (Poole, 1999,pp114-142)
There exists now a situation where there is a large divide between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal Australian’s that can be traced back to the moment Australia was invaded by English settlers and the brutal and unfair treatment that has followed.
So at this point now, in 2013 what is the just and fair way to make amends for past actions?
I would argue that a moderate to large amount of reparation is overdue for this nation of people, the Aboriginal people. But there are many challenges to this view point especially that of how much reparation, and what sort of compensation.
Past injustices or present suffering?
One of the questions raised in an issue like this is whether it is better to provide compensation or reparation for past deeds, which have already been done in a previous generation and cannot be changed, or whether it is better to now provide assistance to those who are suffering in their current situations and consider that as a form of moral duty.
To understand this we need to delve a little deeper into this issue and hear some differing viewpoints.
Firstly we need to understand what the best way to provide reparation. How do we judge what is the best way of giving back and how much? Jeremy Waldron states “The historic record has a fragility that consists, …in the sheer contingency of what happened in the past” (Waldron,1992,p5 )
This is saying that we can’t trace every single injustice back to the original act therefore reparation for every act would be almost impossible because it would ultimately be guess work.
In this statement he has an objection from Robert Nozick who believes it is in fact possible to address this problem by “changing the present so that it resembles how the past would have looked had the injustice not taken place” (McKenzie, 2013)
This would be a way to ultimately provide maximum reparation, but is it the correct approach? I believe this is a fairly radical approach, although it does have some merits in the fact it would be working in a positive way for indigenous people, I don’t think it is entirely the right way to deal with these issues but it is on the right track.
Waldron argues that it is based on too many unknowns. “The status of counterfactual reasoning about the exercising of human reasoning of human freedom is unclear”(Waldron 1993,p10)
Which leaves the question somewhat open about the sort of reparation that is required, but provides one clear answer to the key question. Both agree that yes, reparation to some extent is required. But how much and in what form?
Another philosopher who leans more towards Waldron’s views is Kymlicka. He is somewhat more straightforward in his assessment that property rights in particular for Aboriginals would create “massive unfairness” and also he maintains the argument “Aboriginal rights must be grounded in concerns about equality and contemporary disadvantage. (McKenzie, 2013) I agree with both these views but I don’t think they provide any active solutions.
The Solution?
So if its not handing back all of Australia’s land to the original inhabitants that is the most appropriate way to deal with past injustices, then what is?
I look at the current country I grew up in, as a white Australian. I ask myself why I never had Aboriginal friends growing up, no understanding of Aboriginal culture and why my basic understanding of Indigenous Australians is mostly 200 years old. I look at our flag, a symbol of a nation that stole a country from its original inhabitants, with no recognition of the Indigenous people at all on it. I see that Australia considered Indigenous people as less than people until only 40 years ago and I see the way that Indigenous Australians live a completely separate life to the way of life I know as an Australian. I see that the only indigenous politician I am aware of is a former Olympian and it is because of this fact of her sporting status that I know this. I see no collective power or representation of Indigenous Australians and I see non Indigenous Australians,( a culture built on a history of stealing a land and mistreating its people) still taking, taking as much out of this land as they can, with little to no regard of sharing or giving to the original inhabitants. I see a government that says lots of words about ‘closing the gap’ and bringing the living standards of non- indigenous and indigenous Australians closer together, but apart from nice words, there is no conviction, no follow through, just assimilation , and all that still remains are injustices.
As stated by Sparrow, “Continuity gives rise to responsibility on part of present generations of Australians for our history”.(McKenzie,2013). Although deeds happened in the past beyond our control, what we do now to either ignore, or rectify these issues will reflect on us in history. So if we choose to do nothing, we are contributing to the history of the mistreatment of non- indigenous Australians. And this is simply unacceptable in my opinion.
Conclusion
So what is fair? I believe that the way forward is a surrendering of some of our privileges as non- indigenous Australians. The simple fact is it was morally wrong without a doubt what has happened in the past. And it is also morally wrong without a doubt to ignore these facts and not offer some form of reparation in the present. But how much?
I think that going back to Robert Nozick’s argument is a start. I think Nozick is wrong to make the present resemble the past in every aspect. But I do think that it would be reasonable to restore some aspects of the way things should be. The things that happened in the past were out of our control and we can’t go back to changing the way things were. But we could change the way things are.
For some examples. Why not give at least 50% of political power to indigenous people? It surely would be a fair thing to do considering this is their country. Media control. 50 percent. Industry. Realestate. The list goes on. Why do we not acknowledge the indigenous people on our flag, or better still use their flag? Why is Australia still a part of the Commonwealth when it serves little purpose to any of us and serves as a constant reminder to Indigenous Australians that they are still controlled by the original invaders. These to me are fairly simple reparations that would have minimal impact on Australia as a whole. Perhaps, it would alter the way we live but I think it is our responsibility, morally to forfeit some of our privileges for the greater good. Basically a little bit goes a long way.
In closing, it is a fact that a huge injustice occurred to the Indigenous population and suffering continues to this day. There is no easy solution to such a burden of pain. I believe the only solutions are for the non- Indigenous population to take responsibility and sacrifice our own way of life to bring about an overall equality. Sacrifice is not an easy word. But it all comes down to right and wrong. We are in a position to give, in this current generation. What are we so scared to lose, that was never ours in the first place??
Bibliography
McKenzie,C.”Prof” (2013), Lecture, Historic Injustices and Indigenous Rights, Macquarie University
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28
References
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28