Tag: australia

Don’t Let the ‘Infaux Thugs’ Close Down Debate

Today’s censors wield cudgels with the word ‘information.’ Content they don’t like they call ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation.’ The justification is fake. The protection is faux protection. Pretending to protect people from bad information by means of censorship may be called infaux thuggery.

The cudgels are hidden, of course, but it is not hard to see through the pretence and discern the underlying message: knuckle under or we will hurt you.

The UK’s Online Safety Act exemplifies infaux thuggery, as does Brazil’s recent action against X (formerly Twitter). The Australian government is dominated by another gang of infaux thugs. The UK, sadly, not only practices infaux thuggery at home, it tutors the world in infaux thuggery.

The same goes for where I live, the United States. Kamala Harris threatens: ‘If you act as a megaphone for misinformation… we are going to hold you accountable.’ Hillary Clinton calls for criminalization of speech not to her liking. Harris’ running mate Tim Walz threatens: ‘There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation and hate speech.’

Thankfully, that’s not true, at least in the US. As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. responded, the US Constitution ‘is exactly what prevents the government from stifling dissent by labeling something “hate speech” or “misinformation.”’ Alarmingly, former Secretary of State John Kerry recently lamented that the First Amendment ‘stands as a major block to…hammer it [“disinformation”] out of existence,’ and implied that that ‘is part of what this race, this election is all about.’

Of course, malicious actors, including enemy states, may spread lies to sow discord – especially online. So too can those who are simply ill-informed. Yet in the absence of censorship, big lies will be torn to shreds. In this battle, the infaux thugs are on the wrong side.

The infaux thugs use ‘information’ to confuse matters. The content they suppress is more aptly termed narratives, interpretations, opinions or judgments. Those terms are more capacious, befitting frank and open debate and controversy.

In their hostility to open debate, the infaux thugs are mounting an attack on modern civilisation. They evoke our crude instincts from pre-modern life, instincts for a small, simple society, in which the leader’s narrative must be believed by all and enforced upon the members of the band. If you don’t share the leader’s narrative, you are a miscreant. You are to be corrected, expelled or destroyed. At the very least, you are to shut up.

Keep reading

Scientists Say “Substantial Risk” of Cancer from mRNA Vaccines

The Australian Government should immediately suspend the use of Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines due to accumulating evidence of high levels of synthetic DNA contamination in the shots.

which present a “substantial risk” of genomic integration and long-term health impacts, including cancers, say leading scientists and academics.

In a letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Russell Broadbent, independent MP for the federal seat of Monash, said that “immediate action through a suspension of these products is critical to mitigate further risk”,.

After independent testing of Australian vials of modified RNA (mod-RNA) Covid vaccines detected residual synthetic DNA at levels up to 145 above the legal limit.

The letter, circulated to all Australian MPs and Senators, is co-signed by 52 scientists and academics, many at the top of their fields, including Professor of Oncology Angus Dalgleish.

Emeritus Professor Wendy Hoy, an expert in chronic disease, Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy, an immunologist who developed a bronchitis vaccine, geneticist Professor Alexandra Henrion Caude and microbiologist Professor Sucharit Bhakdi MD.

An accompanying science summary describes the concerns of Broadbent and co-signatories, who are asking the PM to adopt a “precautionary approach”, with the recommendation that “the Minister for Agriculture initiate a Biosecurity Import Risk Analysis of these products, potentially leading to the suspension of these products due to the risks they pose to human health”.

“Excessive synthetic foreign DNA encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles can integrate into human cells, potentially leading to genomic instability, cancers, immune system disruption and adverse hereditary effects,” explains the summary, which details the results of independent testing of the vaccines to date.

Residual synthetic DNA, a byproduct from the mod-RNA vaccine manufacturing process, is allowed under TGA regulations in levels of up to 10 nanograms (ng) per vaccine dose, a regulatory limit that was set for traditional vaccines and was not amended for mod-RNA products using lipid nanoparticles (LNPs).

The summary goes on to explain why the LNP packaging of residual synthetic DNA makes these products different to traditional vaccines that may contain “naked” residual DNA.

“Crucially, naked DNA has no ability to cross cell membranes and enter cells. In contrast, synthetic DNA encapsulated in LNPs possesses a high transfection efficiency, meaning, the LNP-modDNA complexes are efficient at delivering synthetic DNA into human cells,” the summary states.

The summary cites research indicating that the presence of foreign DNA within the cell alone can induce cancer, but the risk is increased if the DNA enters the cell nucleus.

This can occur in dividing cells, and the presence of an SV40 enhancer sequence (in Pfizer only), which is “long known to assist entry into the nucleus, even when cells are not undergoing cell division”, increases the risk further.

Once synthetic DNA is inside the cell nucleus, genomic integration is possible, the summary explains.

Keep reading

The Australian Government Reboots the Misinformation Bill

This week Australia’s Labor Party reintroduced its misinformation and disinformation bill. I did a deep dive into the bill last May. Among its many flaws, the biggest is its very origins.

As Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said in Parliament on September 12, “This bill seeks to strengthen the voluntary code by providing a regulatory backstop.” That code was co-written by First Draft, participants in the Aspen Institute’s coordinated effort to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story.

If that story is new to you, the Twitter Files revealed that in August 2020 the Aspen Institute organised a “table-top” exercise with Twitter, Facebook, First Draft, and a host of media organisations including the New York Times and Washington Post, that ran through a day-by-day playbook of how they would respond to the release of a Hunter Biden laptop. The story didn’t break publicly until October, so how did the Aspen Institute know two months in advance?

Keep reading

Proposed Australian plans for “energy efficient” homes will destroy private home ownership

The ClimateWorks Centre has devised a “renovation wave” plan for household upgrades and preparing occupants for more frequent extreme temperatures, heatwaves and climate-related events.

It is claimed that upgrading homes built before 2003 to be more energy efficient with better insulation, electrifying appliances and heating, and adopting rooftop solar can save Australian households up to $2,200 annually on energy bills. The majority of existing residences across Australia (11 million homes) can benefit from thermal efficiency upgrades, making a renovation wave a feasible and impactful initiative, so it is claimed.

It is also claimed that by designing or renovating homes to account for expected climate impacts, such as increasing temperatures and extreme heat events, can mitigate the effects of climate change.

ClimateWorks Centre’s report identifies 16 archetypes of homes that cover approximately 80% of single-storey detached homes and townhouses, and over 50% of apartments. These archetypes provide a framework for homeowners, policymakers, and industry stakeholders to prioritize renovation efforts.

By investing in climate-ready homes, Australia can create a more resilient and sustainable built environment, while also addressing the cost-of-living crisis and mitigating the impacts of climate change, so they say.

Keep reading

Genetically edited food to be deregulated in Australia and NZ

If this goes through it will remove our right to know if our food is natural or genetically edited. And yes, this includes organic food. FSANZ is Australia and New Zealand’s Food Authority.

They have a current proposal open (ending COB Tuesday 10th September) to allow genetically edited food to be grown and sold without any safety testing or labelling. FSANZ Proposal P1055 – Definitions for gene technology and new breeding techniques can be found here: https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/food…

Answer questions on the FSANZ portal here: https://consultations.foodstandards.g…

Or email FSANZ your own submission- submissions@foodstandards.gov.au FSANZ asserts that genetically edited food is the same as natural- conventional food, that it has the same “characteristics”.

Under this definition lab meat may be seen as the same as meat, as the lab meat has added synthetic vitamins and minerals which match the natural levels of vitamins and minerals in meat.

Keep reading

Excess Deaths in Australia Correlated to Covid Vaccine Uptake — Study

A peer reviewed study has found a correlation between Covid vaccine administration and excess mortality in Australia. While correlation does not imply causation, it indicates a plausible causation that should be further researched, which it has previously and causation has been confirmed including in Australia.

“The study explores the relationship by Australia State between COVID Booster Vaccinations and excess deaths. There is evidence of a very strong correlation in ordinary least squares regression analysis. Cross-validation tests support the strength of the regression relationship. The results suggest that it would be worthwhile to explore these associations in greater depth as it is an important public health issue,” the study said in the ‘Abstract’ section.

A positive correlation between the shot and extra deaths has been discovered.

A positive correlation describes how when one factor increases or decreases (Covid vaccination) the other factor (excess mortality) moves in the same direction. While correlation does not verify a direct cause-effect relationship between the first and second factor (causation), it does indicate a causal factor may be at play.

Booster doses have the biggest effect on death rates it appears.

Keep reading

Trans advocate Roxy Tickle wins discrimination case after being banned from women-only app Giggle in Australian court

An Australian male has won his case against the female founder of women’s only app Giggle for Girls after she said the male, who identifies as a woman, was not permitted on the app due to his being male. A judge has awarded the male, who goes by Roxanne Tickle, $10,000 in compensation for being kicked off the platform. Giggle founder Sall Grover has vowed to continue fighting, and the decision can be appealed. 

She wasn’t surprised by the ruling, writing “Unfortunately, we got the judgement we anticipated. The fight for women’s rights continues.”

The court determined that Tickle, in the case called Tickle v. Giggle, has been “indirectly discriminated against” in being disallowed from accessing Giggle. “The indirect discrimination cases succeeded because Ms Tickle was excluded from the use of the Giggle app because she did not look sufficiently female according to the respondents,” said Justice Robert Bromwich. 

He said that Giggle could not be an app for women only and had to accept men who identify as women, thought he attempted to differentiate discrimination by gender identity from discrimination based on sex. Tickle had sought $20,000, but Bromwich only awarded half of that, $10,000. Tickle had been blocked from the app in 2021 despite his birth certificate having been changed to reflect his gender identity. Tickle claimed that “Up until this instance, everybody has treated me as a woman.”

Tickle had sought the excessive damages after claiming that Grover had been, essentially, too vocal about the case, and Tickle, on Twitter, later renamed X. In a clip posted to X, Tickle can be seen explaining the transformation from presenting as a man to presenting as a woman. On the Australian show Insight, Tickle was asked “Roxy, you’re a transgender woman from regional New South Wales. You played hockey for 10 years when you were 16-years-old, but you stopped when you 26. Why?”

Keep reading

Unveiling Australia’s World Economic Forum’s Shadow Network

The WEF’s influence over Australian politics is both deep and broad, permeating various levels of government through a network of high-profile politicians who have become key advocates for its globalist agenda. These figures, often celebrated for their visionary leadership and international stature, have played crucial roles in integrating the WEF’s ideology into the fabric of Australian governance. Their participation in WEF forums, as well as their alignment with its objectives, has facilitated the introduction of policies that reflect the WEF’s broader goals of global cooperation, sustainable development, and digital transformation. This alignment is not merely coincidental but is a result of the WEF’s strategic efforts to position its agenda at the forefront of political discourse in Australia, ensuring that its principles are embedded in national policy-making.

These influential politicians have not only endorsed the WEF’s vision but have actively worked to implement its principles within Australia’s political and economic frameworks. Figures such as former Foreign Ministers and Prime Ministers have used their platforms to champion WEF-aligned initiatives, from climate change policies to economic reforms that prioritize global interconnectedness over national interests. Their involvement with the WEF has often been portrayed as part of a broader commitment to internationalism and progressive governance, yet it also raises questions about the extent to which these globalist ideologies align with the needs and desires of the Australian public. As these leaders continue to shape policy and public opinion, the WEF’s influence becomes more entrenched, subtly guiding Australia’s political trajectory in ways that may increasingly reflect global priorities at the expense of local autonomy and sovereignty.

Keep reading

The Kafkaesque Phaseout of the Pandemic Penal Colony

Every so often, a narrative plays out on the national or international stage that can only be described as “Kafkaesque”—a term, according to Merriam-Webster, that refers to anything that might be “suggestive of Franz Kafka or his writings; especially, having a nightmarishly complex, bizarre, or illogical quality.” 

A quite recent echo of one of the iconic early 20th-century writer’s more bizarre literary creations can be found, I believe, in the experiences of two of the top participants in this summer’s Paris Olympics. Rather than evoking one of his more celebrated works, like The Trial or the sci-fi-style short story, “The Metamorphosis,” what they brought to mind was a somewhat lesser-known tale of his called “In the Penal Colony,” which describes the final episode of a sadistic practice carried out on an island used for that purpose overseen by bureaucrats involving an elaborate execution device that slowly tortures its subjects to death by inscribing the name of their capital offense—in this case, disobeying and disrespecting a superior—on their body over a 12-hour period, during which the victim has ample time to decipher and understand the nature of his crime.  

As the story unfolds, a traveler who has been invited to witness such a procedure and even offer an opinion about it becomes aware of just how far out of favor it has fallen with both the island’s administrator, who inherited it, and its population that as he watches, the officer charged with overseeing it frees the condemned man and takes his place, substituting the inscription with one that says, “Be just,” at which point the now-defective machine immediately kills him.  

But it is in Kafka’s description of how this devilish device and its being used to make examples of rulebreakers goes from mesmerizing the island’s inhabitants to ostensibly losing its hold on them, culminating in the officer’s decision to sacrifice himself, that it becomes applicable to contemporary events, as reflected in the separate yet related sagas of those two aforementioned champion athletes.

“This process and execution, which you now have an opportunity to admire, have no more open supporters in our colony,” he confides to the traveler. “I am its only defender…When the Old Commandant was alive, the colony was full of his supporters. I have something of the Old Commandant’s persuasiveness, but I completely lack his power, and as a result, the supporters have gone into hiding. There are still a lot of them, but no one admits to it.”

So what, you might ask, is the correlation between this strange century-old morality tale and the separate trials and triumphs of those two aforementioned competitors?

Keep reading

Is the stupidity of Australians terminal?

On 15 September 2021, Australia’s Anthony Albanese Labor Government agreed with America’s Biden and UK’s Sunak to form together against China in the Southern Hemisphere a Pacific Ocean mutual-‘defense’ Treaty like America’s 1949 original one for the Northern Hemisphere and the Atlantic Ocean (NATO), to be called AUKUS, for U.S., UK, and Australia, thus jointly committing themselves to wage a war against China, which is Australia’s main trading-partner. For Australians, it’s insanity.

Ever since 2022, Australia’s Lowy Institute polling organization has polled Australians about this, and has been finding that, pretty consistently, half of Australians think that AUKUS “will make Australia/our region more safe”; only 8% say “less safe”.

On 14 June 2023, Australia’s Financial Review headlined “Labor’s internal dissent over AUKUS is building”, and reported that behind the scenes, “criticism of AUKUS that has been levelled by Labor elders Paul Keating and Gareth Evans, as well as” others, was growing in the Labor Party.

Finally, on 8 August 2024, Britain’s Guardian bannered “Aukus pact will turn Australia into ‘51st state’ of the US, Paul Keating says: Former prime minister argues Australia has made itself a target by aligning with American ‘aggression’ towards China”. It reported that on that night, Australia’s former Prime Minister, Keating, was interviewed at length about AUKUS, and,

Australia had no quarrel with China, Keating said, and concerns about China’s designs on Taiwan were not justified because the island was “Chinese real estate”.

“Taiwan is not a vital Australian interest,” he said, adding that the American attitude to Taiwan was like China deciding that Tasmania needed help to secede from Australia.

“What Aukus is about in the American mind is turning Australia into suckers, locking us up for 40 years with American bases all around … not Australian bases,” he said.

“So Aukus is really about, in American terms, the military control of Australia. I mean, what’s happened … is likely to turn Australia into the 51st state of the United States.”

Keating told the show’s presenter, Sarah Ferguson: “We’re now defending the fact that we’re in Aukus.

“If we weren’t in Aukus, we wouldn’t need to defend it. If we didn’t have an aggressive ally like the United States – aggressive to others in the region – there’d be nobody attacking Australia. We are better left alone than we are being ‘protected’ by an aggressive power like the United States. …

Keating, a longstanding opponent of Labor’s support for the pact, said Australia had not been threatened by China, whose expanding military presence, he said, was in line with its position as the world’s second superpower.

“What do they expect [the Chinese] to do?” he said. “To move around in row boats? Canoes, maybe?

Keep reading