Fighting Fake News with REAL, 2/11/23, More deaths in 3 weeks than Ukraine, Mr Fish, Netanyahu, Truth and Threats, Loyalty Backfires,

 

Speaking at an IPA event in London, former AUS PM Tony Abbott says he's never believed in human-driven climate change as he vowed the "climate cult" would one day be defeated. Same old Abbott: same Far Right denial of climate science facts.  #auspol #ClimateCrisis

 

 

The number of civilians killed by Israel in Gaza, in three weeks, has now exceeded the number of civilians killed by Russia in 19 months of the Ukraine war. How likely is it that Western mainstream media will deem this milestone newsworthy?

Grim milestone: Civilian deaths in Gaza exceed those in Ukraine

By John V. Whitbeck

 

Dutton Voted YES to Israel and Netanyahu but No to Indigenous Australians. Yes to those with a 3000-year claim to connection with the land but No to those with a nondebatable 65000-year connection.

“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass,” (1 Samuel 15:3). ( Netanyahu)

Prime Ministers Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott, Turnbull, and Morrison have signed a statement drafted for them by the Zionist Federation of Australia in support of Israel. In doing so, were they aware that on Sunday, in launching the ground offensive into Gaza, Netanyahu invoked a genocidal precedent for his war on Gaza?

Modern day Israel is not a continuation of the northern nation state of the same name that disappeared and was absorbed into the Assyrian Empire in 720 BC. Nor is it a continuation of the southern State called Judah which disappeared in 586 BC absorbed into the Babylonian Empire. On the other hand, it is true that Jewish people have cultural, religious, and ancestral ties, along with many other peoples, with this land for 3000 years.

Modern Day Israel was not created by fiat of the Divine. It was created through an act of partition by the United Nations in 1948. This partition was infamously preceded by the Balfour Declaration of 1917. That Palestinians were not jumping for joy in being told from afar they were about to lose 50% of their ancestral lands, is not surprising. In fact, they have lost 78%. Apparently, Israel considers 78% to be insufficient.

You six prime ministers who have signed a statement prepared for you by those who demand not 78% but 100%, will you issue another statement which clearly articulates the state of play which you believe should exist post the ‘war’, setting out your moral and legal arguments to support what you think should be the ‘new normal’?

You may also be interested inPaul Keating’s article regarding his refusal to sign the same draft:

 

Source: Netanyahu invokes Genocide – Pearls and Irritations

There were six principal reasons why the “No” campaign triumphed.

The first was its shameful, morally bankrupt slogan: “If you don’t know, vote ‘No’.” The “No” campaign essentially argued “Why bother? Nothing to do with you. Don’t bother to find out. If you know nothing, welcome aboard the ‘No’ campaign.” Many “No” voters never understood what the referendum was about, and there was no imagination, sympathy or understanding.

The second boon for the “No” campaign was its public faces: Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Nyunggai Warren Mundine to the right, Lidia Thorpe to the left. They gave a leave pass to the unsure and disengaged, promoting uncertainty and confusion. The argument for these people was: “If the Aboriginal community is divided about the Voice, how can I make a judgement?”

The third key point for “No” was its exploitation of the idea of “division”. This masterstroke was Trumpian. Words were taken and turned to mean their opposite. “Yes” became characterised as a vote for division and “No” was a vote for unity. It did not matter that the inverse was true.

 Price and Mundine argued the Voice would entrench division along racial lines, giving privileges to First Nations people that would be denied to other Australians. “Division” became the central theme of the “No” case and proved to be a winner.

Price exploited the “unity” issue relentlessly. If she saw a conflagration in the distance, she was eager to help by bringing more petrol. She said the Australian Electoral Commission had interfered with the referendum process and insisted most First Nations people in the Northern Territory were opposed to the Voice. Many believed her, but polling on October 14 indicated remote communities voted “Yes” at a rate of more than 70 per cent.

 

Fourth among the factors that favoured “No” was Australia’s curious relationship with the Constitution. This document, unread and unrecognisable in the context of constitutional practice as it has evolved, was invoked during the campaign as a Holy Grail – revered, unknowable, untouchable. Each assertion by the “No” campaign that the Voice would be “risky” was demonstrably false, but the country’s worship of its ill-understood Constitution was enough to scare people away from change.

 

Fifth, the government and Yes23 were very vague about the structure and powers of the Voice itself, even in broad outline, and that looked shifty, although it followed normal practice in referendums.

 

Finally, the media overall played a shameful role. This was a campaign defined by Murdoch and Musk. The lies circulated on social media were strategically targeted: First Nations people would be given free houses, free cars, free education at private schools. The “Yes” campaign was allegedly being run by the United Nations, or by Jews, or by condescending urban elites. The Voice would apparently push millions of people off their land. Taxes would rise exponentially to pay for Aboriginal welfare and the country itself would be forced to adopt an Indigenous name.

The government and the “Yes” campaign failed to attack these lies head on. The ABC was overly cautious and News Corp was brutal.

Source: Truth and the threats to liberal democracy

 

  Did he expected them confirm his apartment was 31m2 and not 11m2? Facts like that aren't merely not opinion. To do so when applying for bank loans and insurance is fraud. Trump will be convicted not because of differing opinion but for factual misrepresentation on legal documents.

“If I went to jail for Donald Trump,” says a former administration official, “I don’t think he would even give [me a] lifetime Mar-a-Lago membership” 

 “Trump’s view of loyalty is one way, and that one way benefits only him. Donald has a history of using and abusing his associates, and he has shown no hesitation in throwing them under the bus when it suits his needs,” Michael Cohen, a former Trump fixer and attorney who experienced that lack of reciprocal loyalty firsthand, said. “This is not the kind of person that people are willing to or should sacrifice their freedom for.”

Trump’s Demands for Extreme Loyalty Are Starting to Backfire

Adam Rawnsley and Asawin Suebsaeng

•