Airbus Albo !

The right-wing nutters on Sky-after-Dark are beside themselves with righteous indignation that…

The Major Questions Doctrine: The US Supreme Court…

The US Supreme Court has been frantically busy of late, striking down…

Australia needs a Bill of Rights

Australia is at a crossroads. The decade of Coalition government showed how…

Opposition to continue recycling old policies, while the…

1 Apparently, after being soundly defeated at the election, the Coalition still…

Let's Stop This Woke Agenda In Our Schools...

Woke: adjective INFORMAL•US alert to injustice in society, especially racism. "we need…

Scrap the digital workhouse. An open letter to…

We know you are new in your job, Tony and face not…

Refugees and Changing Political Narratives

By Andrew Klein The challenges of the Global Refugee Crisis often appear unmet…

Overruling Roe v Wade: The International Dimension

American exceptionalism can be a dreary thing, and no more so than…

«
»
Facebook

Terror Australoss

23rd May 2020. Report on Press Conference.

Yesterday, the Australian Government held their annual press conference to report that for the third year running everything was just fine thanks to the fact that we had a strong government prepared to do whatever it took in order to do whatever was needed to keep this country strong and, if not entirely free, certainly at a very reasonable price.

The Minister for Speaking To The Public, Mr (REDACTED), went on to say that this didn’t mean that there hadn’t been some terrorist activity but, thanks to our excellent security forces, we were able to prevent any actual incidents occuring. The policy enacted in 2019 where our newly formed security agency, Reporting Incidents of Great Harm To Our Nation (RIGHT-ON – which was formed by combining the Human Rights Commission with the Wind-farm Commissioner and appointing a private security firm to run it), was given extensive powers to prevent such incidents by allowing them to arrest people, charge them and sentence them without the need for an expensive court trial has made our country one of the safest in the world. The Minister went on to say that not only was their policy of arresting some people before they’d even thought of committing a terrorist act a great way of ensuring that dangerous people weren’t roaming our streets, but the elimination of court trials had gone a long way toward bringing the Budget back into surplus.

The exact figure saved was, of course, not specified because of a “commercial in confidence” arrangement with the company that the government hired to run RIGHT-ON, and, as such, was none of our business.

It was also revealed that since the last press conference in 2019 that we’d had a change of Prime Minister, but, as with all ministerial appointments, this was an operational matter and the exact name of the PM wouldn’t be revealed. (This policy was an extension of the decision to remove the tax disclosure laws because they made millionaires and their families potential kidnapping victims, In 2018, it was pointed out that if it was good enough for millionaires to be protected from kidnappers by anonymity, then it should be good enough for the government.) This change of Prime Minister had been an internal party decision and not caused by the general election which the Minister announced had been held last September at an undisclosed location and had given the government another overwhelming mandate.

On the economy, there was nothing but good news. Growth has continued thanks to the total elimination of all red tape such as those ridiculous laws requiring firms using overseas workers to tell the government. House prices just keep going up and up which, as Tony Abbott told us back in those days when he was PM, is a really good thing because we don’t want them going down. Unemployment is now non-existent since last year’s announcement that the Employment Minister would be given the power to strip the unemployed of their citizenship.

The Minister went on to say that while once only a privileged few drove imported cars, thanks to decisions made by the Liberal Government in its early days, we were all driving them now. Except the poor, who don’t drive because they’re in a detention centre having had their citizenship taken away.

When a young ABC journalist asked if questions were allowed, he was quickly taken in to custody for asking a question, prompting the Minister to wonder about how poorly the ABC was training its journalists on press conference protocol and suggesting that there’d have to be even further changes to ensure that it wasn’t just a breeding ground for potential terrorists. Apparently removing their entire buget hadn’t stopped their anti-Australian agenda.

The Minister concluded by announcing that this would be the last annual press conference and that future announcements by the government would happen on a “need to know” basis. If anything happened that the government felt we needed to know, then he’d call one, but until then, he was taking an unnecessary risk by appearing like this. Until then, he told us, we could just continue to tell everybody that everything was fine, the adults are in charge, the economy’s booming and there’s no excuse for anybody not being a billionaire.

 

 94 total views,  2 views today

36 comments

Login here Register here
  1. stephentardrew

    The trend is clear the goal?

    Government by corporate dictatorship.

  2. Aortic

    I can do no begetter than quote Lincoln on President Polks decision to go to war with Mexico and extrapolate it to the current PM’s situation. ” and trusting to escape scrutiny by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory, that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood…… that serpents eye that charms to destroy…. He now finds himself he knows not where..

  3. Free-Thinker

    I am not sure this article should be viewed by Abbott and his cronies.

    I suspect their ‘collective’ ( will I still be able to use that highly offensive word, under another 5 years of Lieberal Party hegemony? ), interpretation would be that the article offers a host of magnificent ideas for the development of Lieberal Party policy and practice running out to 2020.

    Rossleigh, you need to be very careful of what you don’t wish for, given that the ever-alert Tony has indicated, KDAISH are coming to get get every one of us here in Terror Australoss, and stopping boats allegedly on route to New Zealand will soon become a routine on-water practice.

    Indeed, extrapolating from your scenario, it is probably only because Margie Abbot hailed from New Zealand that prevented the Abbott government (2013-2017) from declaring that that ‘customers’ ( we are no longer citizens of the country) fleeing Terror Australoss to the land of the long white cloud, be deemed ‘ security risks’ and be brought to the attention of the the contracted out ‘ Department of Border Protection and Aliens Prosecutions ‘ (directly responsible to the Minister for Immigration, Islamic Departures and Borders Cleansing) .

    The government subsequently led by Scott Morrison had no such reservations.

    A chilling article Ross that deserves a wide reading

  4. Bilal

    This might be truer than you imagine. Why the new big prison on Christmas Island? Is it for the 100s stripped of citizenship, on suspicion, who cannot be deported? Are we to get a concentration camp culture under this radical right wing, anti-conservative regime?

  5. Keitha Granville

    I think you have should have checked the plagiarism of “1984” here Rossleigh – far too many similarities for my liking. You may have to be sent to a re-education facility in a country as yet unspecified.

  6. vivienne29

    Well that is what they are thinking, wanting to do.

  7. mark delmege

    I suspect Man Haron Monis like many/most of the school and other mass shootings around the US and elsewhere was either on prescription drugs or withdrawing from them. Terrorism, racism guns are all issues but the push factor was Big Pharma. Could we have a commission on that?
    Sorry off topic and maybe a stretch in the case of Monis, I know but that’s all I got.

  8. Terry2

    I think I now understand why the Prime Minister wants to leave it to Peter Dutton to have absolute power over removing a suspect’s citizenship and not allowing the courts to decide on guilt.

    As Abbott eloquently explained on 2GB (where else), the courts might ‘let them off’ or in other words, a suspect might be found innocent and be acquitted – much better that Peter Dutton, an ex Queensland copper be given the sole discretion.

    The good ship Australis has a mad man at the helm : heaven help us !

  9. mars08

    In the 1928 elections the National Socialist Party could manage only 12 seats out of the 491 in the Reichstag. In effect, less than 3% of voters picked the NSDAP and the future looked bleak.

    However, the NSDAP did well in rural areas. And by the end of 1928, in spite of its relatively tiny federal vote, the NSDAP was well-organised nationally and was developing emotive propaganda techniques that enabled it to target specific groups and campaign very strongly on specific hot-button issues.

    Everything that Hitler’s party did after 1928 was legal under German law…

  10. Harquebus

    Rossleigh.
    You forgot to mention the secret courts and their secret decisions that rewrite the constitution legally because, they have decided, secretly, that they can.

  11. Harquebus

    @mark delmege
    Off topic maybe but, accurate.
    I googled “murderers on prescription drugs” looking for something that I read once.
    There were lots. This is the one I remember reading.

    Medicated to Death: SSRIs and Mass Killings

  12. eli nes

    Would judges want to offend the rabbott, with an acquittal?
    They would, quickly, find themselves in front of a royal commission to prove an affiliation with a union.

  13. Matters Not

    the courts might ‘let them off’

    Hilarious isn’t it? Under our ‘current’ legal system, that’s always a possibility. And rightly so, given it proceeds on the assumption of everyone is assumed ‘innocent until proven guilty’. But now it is proposed that Dutton, a Minister without any legal qualifications, (otherwise known as ‘potato head’) will decide ‘guilt’ with the onus on the individual to prove otherwise, provided that some type of appeal process will be in the legislation. And we don’t know anything about the details

    By the way where is the legal fraternity in toto protesting this proposed denial of the justice system as we, and they, know it. While Bret Walker has been upfront on this affront to the justice system, where are the various law ‘unions’?

    http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/government-legal-adviser-says-powers-for-minister-to-revoke-citizenship-without-court-conviction-unconstitutional/story-fns0jze1-1227399192010

  14. mars08

    I wonder… the bigots, bed-wetters, bogans and boofheads who have no problem handing these laws to Dutton… do they ever consider that (one day) there could be a Greens minister wielding the power? That should scare the crap out of them!!

  15. Harquebus

    Can anyone remember John Howard’s government legislating one of his backbenchers I think, not guilty or did I dream it?

  16. David Bruce

    The choice of the Australian (English Maritime) law as governing law for the colonies and their agreements, facilitates the circumvention of the Australian Constitution and international human rights obligations. We are facing exactly the same issues facing the Greek (Hellenic) Parliament, but they are prepared to protect human rights. Fraser had the Hilton bombing false flag, to declare a State of Emergency during CHOGM, Howard had the Port Arthur massacre, to bring in Gun Control legislation, and Abbort had the Lindt cafe to bring in the equivalent of the Patriot Act? Am I missing something? What is next?

  17. Loz

    Good article but scary, very very scary.

  18. Lee

    “I googled “murderers on prescription drugs” looking for something that I read once.
    There were lots. This is the one I remember reading.”

    So how do you explain the millions of people on SSRIs who don’t kill anyone?

  19. Harquebus

    The point was, how many murderers are not on prescription drugs?

  20. Roswell

    I read somewhere recently, can’t remember where, that over the last ten years 114,000 Americans have died, in hospital, as a result of the drugs prescribed to them, while in hospital.

  21. Lee

    “The point was, how many murderers are not on prescription drugs?”

    Well what is the point? 100% of murderers have got parents. 100% of murderers have recently breathed oxygen. Correlation does not equal causation.

  22. Lee

    “I read somewhere recently, can’t remember where, that over the last ten years 114,000 Americans have died, in hospital, as a result of the drugs prescribed to them, while in hospital.”

    Yes there are a lot of errors made in hospitals. A growing number of them are now promoting a culture of reporting the errors without blame, in an effort to eliminate risks and reduce such errors. The alternative medicine industry does not operate a system of this nature at all. They refuse to accept the part they play in patient deaths and like to keep their heads buried firmly in the sand.

  23. Harquebus

    Lee.
    100% of parents do not breed murderers. 100% of victims also breathed oxygen.

    The point being made is, do prescription drugs play any part in murders, especially mass murders? On the later, evidence seems to suggest it does. If you can prove otherwise, good, do it. I would love to see it.

    Cheers.

  24. Lee

    Harquebus, you’re the one insisting that prescription drugs cause murders, therefore the burden of proof lies with you. There is no credible evidence to demonstrate that they do. It’s a rare person who goes through life without taking any form of prescription drug. Most of us don’t commit murder. Even SSRIs have been taken by many millions of people worldwide. I used to have a dog on SSRIs. He also didn’t bite anyone, much less kill. SSRIs are typically prescribed for depression and anxiety disorders. Depressed people are more likely to kill themselves than others. Non-medicated depressed people kill themselves too.

  25. Lee

    From Harquebus’ link:

    “SSRI stands for Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitor, and it is a class of drugs that is often used to treat depression and anxiety. It includes Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa, Paxil and a host of other commonly prescribed antidepressants. And the perpetrators of a raft of school shootings, mass murders and other violent incidents in recent years have been taking them.

    And so it was perhaps not surprising when the culprit of this month’s mass shooting at Fort Hood, Specialist Ivan Lopez, turned out to be taking unnamed antidepressants himself.

    Although it has yet to be reported (and may in fact never be revealed) precisely what type of antidepressant Lopez was taking or whether it was an SSRI, the number of confirmed SSRI shooters in recent years has raised the question of a causal link between the medication and incidents of violence.”

    Do you know what most mass murderers have in common? They’re mentally ill. How many mass murderers are female? If the SSRI is responsible, why aren’t we seeing approximately equal numbers of male and female mass murderers? I’ll tell you why. Because James Corbett is waffling shit.

  26. Harquebus

    Lee.
    I am not insisting. I believe that they do, going on what I have read. Don’t agree? Good!
    When I see evidence to the contrary, perhaps I’ll change my mind.
    There are not many things where it is all black and white and there are always exceptions.
    Not all drunks who get behind the wheel will kill someone either however, the probability is increased.

    What is the proportion of male/female suicides for the mentally ill and those on medication. Is it the same proportion of male/female murderers. I don’t know the answer. Just askin’?

  27. Lee

    “When I see evidence to the contrary, perhaps I’ll change my mind.”

    In other words, your mind is made up without any evidence and you won’t change it for anything. There could be dozens of studies performed on every continent, involving several thousands of people over several years and if they all failed to find a link between prescription medication and murder you still would not accept it.

    Pharmaceutical companies have to perform clinical trials to demonstrate safety and efficacy before they can register a drug. If it’s on the market then they satisfied the criteria of the local regulating body (in the US it’s the FDA, in Australia it’s the TGA).

    If anyone else, like you or James Corbett has an axe to grind, it is *your* responsibility to prove your case. It is no one else’s responsibility to disprove it. It is impossible to prove a negative anyway. All anyone else can do is fail to find a link. In science and medicine it’s the same as a court case. The burden of proof lies with the party making the accusation or claim. The pharmaceutical company met their burden of proof when they registered the drug.

  28. Harquebus

    “perhaps I’ll change my mind” = “won’t change it for anything” and “still would not accept it”
    “from what I have read” = “without any evidence”
    “could be dozens of studies” != “are dozens of studies” (!= does not equal)
    “Pharmaceutical companies have to perform clinical trials to demonstrate safety” and they are very good at it. There are trials and then there are trials, depending on who and what they are testing and trying to prove.
    Proof perhaps however, as you have repeated my search, you have seen some evidence.
    And I happen to like James Corbett. He makes more sense and does more to raise awareness of issues than most.

    “In other words”, stop putting them in my mouth.

  29. The AIM Network

    What is the proportion of male/female suicides for the mentally ill and those on medication. Is it the same proportion of male/female murderers.

    We really don’t think anyone cares.

    Can you please stop dominating posts with discussions that you want?

    We are growing tired of it.

  30. Lee

    ““Pharmaceutical companies have to perform clinical trials to demonstrate safety” and they are very good at it. There are trials and then there are trials, depending on who and what they are testing and trying to prove.”

    I am not putting words in your mouth. It is so full of shit there’s no room for anything else. You of all people – who can’t be guaranteed to accept evidence if presented – is judging someone else’s practice of science. What a joke! You don’t have the faintest idea how clinical trials are conducted. We conduct several in my workplace, for multiple manufacturers and they have to be performed to a standard. Every shipment is tracked and signed for in both directions, inventoried and careful records are kept of all product used and all product returned to the pharmaceutical company. Doctors and nurses administer both active drugs and placebos without knowing which one they are administering. That’s the gold standard – a double blind trial. Then they record the patient responses and report that information back to the pharmaceutical company. The trials are taking place in multiple locations around the world simultaneously to identify any anomalies that may occur in one location for whatever reason. The trial teams get to read the final report. If the pharmaceutical company reported different observations to the ones made by our clinical staff, we would know it is bogus.

  31. The AIM Network

    I am not putting words in your mouth. It is so full of shit there’s no room for anything else. You of all people – who can’t be guaranteed to accept evidence if presented – is judging someone else’s practice of science.

    Lee, you are probably right, be we’re asking people to move on from this discussion.

  32. Lee

    Glad to. your response came through while I was typing mine. Sorry, I’m really over the verbal diarrhoea.

  33. rossleighbrisbane

    An excellent example of confirmation bias from Harquebus!

  34. Harquebus

    Thank you rossleighbrisbane for teaching me a new term. You should take a look in your own back yard.

  35. mark delmege

    The thing is normal people don’t go around shooting school kids – even racists with guns. It’s not normal behaviour. There was a push factor and I reckon it was quite likely prescription drugs and there is plenty of evidence – it’s even listed as a contraindication on the box. A little humanity would suggest something is wrong when it happens so often – even just straight up suicides – which are quite common and if you think about it long enough I’m sure most people can think of a few people on these drugs who have gone overboard. Not every body of course – just some and that is the thing. Men and Women young and old react different to drugs throw in a desperado culture…
    Quite often when a small fraction of people have serious side effects to a certain drug they are withdrawn – but this lot of drugs makes big pharma very rich. Get the picture.
    The popular meme might be racist and guns or even according to TABbot, terrorism – who was so wrong about Monis – but if you think about it and do a little research its not hard to work out.

    Another Mass Shooting, Another Psychiatric Drug? Federal Investigation Long Overdue

    https://www.rxisk.org/Default.aspx

    School Shootings

    If this is too complicated for you move on or take a bex and lie down or better still try and understand the problem and get yourself a little humanity.

  36. Lee

    “Quite often when a small fraction of people have serious side effects to a certain drug they are withdrawn – but this lot of drugs makes big pharma very rich. Get the picture.”

    Yeah. This is the picture I get. http://i.imgur.com/Sf5sRZU.jpg

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: