Mater’s Musings #59: And they still can’t drink ‘til 18

No. Sadly, it’s not a meme.

https://www2.education.vic.gov.au/pal/lgbtiq-student-support/policy


It was bad enough when some of the twisted ideologues that I’ve seen fulfilling the roles of either Principal and/or Teacher, were merely ‘influencing’ my children.
That they now have the ability to ‘bypass’ my authority (and responsibility) to determine what is best for my children, is horrifying.
Just think about the types of people that are now infesting that vocation.

https://www2.education.vic.gov.au/pal/mature-minors-and-decision-making/policy

Mater’s Musings #58: Does the Guardian write for the AMA?

Or do they receive the same talking points?
Or are they one and the same?

The Guardian – 16 Feb 21 – Just days before the first vaccine was administered in Australia

The Guardian – 16 Feb 21

AMA’s Submission to the Independent Review of Australia’s COVID-19 response from 31 July 2022, a whole year and a half later and, one would hope, a whole lot better informed. But alas…

Australian Medical Association – 31 Jul 2022

Both lies are so similar that it’s hard to ignore the possibility they are singing off the same set of deceptive talking points, especially considering the time difference.

Mater’s Musings #57 – Bing-Bong, You Were/Are Wrong!

AMA, RACGP united on COVID-19 vaccine rollout

So lacking ‘fully approved’ vaccines, you happily started stabbing the community with a ‘provisionally approved’ version? Did you even inform them that was the case?

Seriously, two peak professional bodies for the healthcare sector weren’t au fait with the approval process the vaccines were going though? No wonder I had stand up fights with several GPs who continued to insist they were ‘fully approved’. Does such advice from a practitioner constitute informed consent?

AMA Submission to the Independent review of
Australia’s COVID-19 response –
31 Jul 2022

Right, so nearly a year and a half later, and during a review (read: roundup) of the event, the AMA STILL hasn’t clued up to the fact that they STILL aren’t ‘fully approved’. Or are they being deliberately deceptive?

For the record, the approval process may not have the ‘emergency’ label attached, but ‘provisional approval’ is the closest thing the Australian system allows, and up until the Covid vaccine, was solely used to race through approval for unproven (but promising) medication for cancer sufferers. Medication which, incidentally, is voluntary and offered without coercion, after full disclosure of the associated risks. The Covid vaccines were assessed under “some form of emergency authorisation”, and a bastardised version at that!

But why should I be surprised; this is still showing on the Federal Health Department website:

www.health.gov.au

This is the same process as any vaccine approved in this country”?

Demonstrably untrue. The Provisional Approval pathway was only added to the process in early 2018. I’m pretty sure we’ve been vaccinating long before that.

Is anyone else getting sick of being lied to by all and sundry?

Mater’s Musings #55 – An Inconvenient Truth

Chapters on Socialism

Love this quote, but it’s all worth a read.

The difference between the motive powers in the economy of society under private property and under communism would be greatest in case of the directing minds. Under the present system, the direction being entirely in the hand of the person or persons who own (or are personally responsible for) the capital, the whole benefit of the difference between the best administration and the worst under which the business can continue to be carried on accrues to the person or persons who control the administration: they reap the whole profit of good management except so far as their self-interest or liberality induces them to share it with their subordinates; and they suffer the whole detriment of mismanagement except so far as this may cripple their subsequent power of employing labor. This strong personal motive to do their very best and utmost for the efficiency and economy of the operations, would not exist under Communism; as the managers would only receive out of the produce the same equal dividend as the other members of the association, what would remain would be the interest common to all in so managing affairs as to make the dividend as large as possible; the incentives of public spirit, of conscience, and of the honor and credit of the managers. The force of these motives, especially when combined, is great. But it varies greatly in different persons, and is much greater for some purposes than for others. The verdict of experience, in the imperfect degree of moral cultivation which mankind have yet reached, is that the motive of conscience and that of credit and reputation, even when they are of some strength, are, in the majority of cases, much stronger as restraining than as impelling forces—are more to be depended on for preventing wrong, than for calling forth the fullest energies in the pursuit of ordinary occupations. In the case of most men the only inducement which has been found sufficiently constant and unflagging to overcome the ever-present influence of indolence and love of ease, and induce men to apply themselves unrelaxingly to work for the most part in itself dull and unexciting, is the prospect of bettering their own economic condition and that of their family; and the closer the connection of every increase of exertion with a corresponding increase of its fruits, the more powerful is this motive.

Mater’s Musings #54: “You’re the voice, try to understand it”

Just as Hitler looked to American segregation for inspiration…

This is of course not our German model republic, but the American Union where one endeavors to consult reason at least partially. The American Union, by principally refusing immigration to elements with poor health, and even simply excluding certain races from naturalization, acknowledges by slow beginnings an attitude which is peculiar to the national State conception.

Mein Kampf (p 658)

…I guess we can now look to Hitler for inspiration as policy details are worked out and hung on the conceptual skeleton now referred to as “The Voice”.

The folkish State divides its inhabitants into three classes : State citizens, State subjects, and aliens.
In principle, only birth confers the status of subject. Being a State subject as such does not entitle one to hold public offices, to exercise political activity in the sense of participation in elections, be it actively or passively. In principle, every State subject’s race and nationality have to be ascertained. Every State subject is free at any time to abandon his status and to become a State citizen in that country the nationality of which corresponds to his own. The alien is distinguished from the State subject only by the fact that he is a State subject of an alien State.

Mein Kampf (p 658)

When your policies start to show shades of Nazi methodology in order to work out the political agency of your citizens, perhaps you need to have a good, hard look at yourself.

The Nuremberg Laws – Racial Identification Chart

For the pearl clutches out there; yes, it’s a distasteful comparison, but it’s also valid. That’s why the whole concept should be scrapped post haste. That it’s got this far, is an indelible stain on our nation, and a battle indicator of even more distasteful things to come.

Were they that bad? #6 – Access to Soldier Settlement Schemes

Libraries Tasmania

Firstly, lets’s dispense with the fallacy that Aboriginals were prevented from enlisting in WW1 and onwards. “Exempt” from compulsory training and service is not the same as “prevented”. I’ve already dealt with this myth here.

As for the claim about being denied access to soldier settlement schemes, perhaps Libraries Tasmania (and other interested parties) should speak to the ABC. They have found a couple of successful Aboriginal applicants.

Continue reading “Were they that bad? #6 – Access to Soldier Settlement Schemes”

Were they that bad? #5 – 1967 Referendum – Part 2 (Sect 127)

Following on from my previous post, let’s skip the step of again proving that the existence of Section 127 of the Constitution (in it’s original form) is being sold as proof of Australia’s anti-aboriginal history.

Australians Together – The 1967 Referendum

The charges against it are varied:

First Nations people were ‘dying out’ and, hence, would soon cease to be a factor in questions of representation, First Nations people weren’t intellectually worthy of a place in the political system, and/or First Nations people weren’t considered human.

The truth is, there were a number of factors at play when it comes to this inclusion in the constitution, and they had precious little to do with demeaning aboriginals, and far more to do with:

Continue reading “Were they that bad? #5 – 1967 Referendum – Part 2 (Sect 127)”