Monday, April 7, 2014


Andrew Bolt Herald Sun April 06, 2014 

Australian of the Year Winner for 2014 Adam Goodes with Prime Minister Tony Abbott at Par
Australian of the Year Winner for 2014 Adam Goodes with Prime Minister Tony Abbott at Parliament House in Canberra. Source: News Limited
THE Prime Minister misspoke on Australia Day when he named footballer Adam Goodes “Australian of the Year”. 

The Herald Sun invests a lot of time and money programming 'authoritarianism' into its readers, so it it is important to use kid gloves when criticising a politician that the HS "barracks" for, lest, its readers start to get ideas about issuing their own contextual criticisms of Abbot & co.

“Today, we celebrate the country we love and the values that underpin it,” Tony Abbott declared.

Really? Goodes is a good man, a passionate man, and has the power to unite us.

Racist Bolt is treading carefully here. The court has already found him guilty of racism in the past.

Not only this, but, more and more people are sick of racism and are onto racism's schtick.

Which is why he has a column. With Bolt, Rupert Murdoch gets to make money off people that agree and disagree with him.  

But here is how he has since celebrated “the country we love” — and I hope Abbott takes note.

Goodes last month denounced Australia as a country with a “very dark past,

Does Bolt deny this charge? If it was me, i'd be saying that Australia is a terrorist, racist commercial enterprise and has been since 1788.

 a brutal history of dispossession”,

Maybe Bolt thinks that white people were here first?
attacking “Europeans, and the governments that have run our country” for having “raped, killed and stolen” from Aborigines.

Bolt more than likely, knows that he is writing provocative garbage with the express intent of stimulating division.

Last weekend he went further, and said our Constitution — Australia’s founding legal document — was “very, very racist towards indigenous people”.

Only a racist, or someone who is particularly stupid would deny Adam's quote.

Or someone whose motivation is to stir the pot of controversy. 

“In Section 25 in the Constitution, the states can ban people from voting based on their race.”

Except, of course, they don’t and won’t.

Perhaps we should read S.25 for ourselves?

Andrew is disguising an opinion as a fact and being as provocative and rude to his own audience as he is to those who find his rhetoric to be odious.

This section says NOTHING about banning anyone from voting.

It does refer to a situation that would exist, IF, a State law banned someone from voting, which relates to the House of Representatives, and whether the banned people would be factored into the numbers described in S. 24. 

We know this because the first words in S. 25 state: "For the purposes of the last section". 

So here is S. 24 for you to read:

It is likely that Adam has been the victim of incorrect advice, and Andrew & the Herald Sun have decided to capitalise on this by triggering the old 'divide & conquer' program.

I’ve written before how Goodes sells this country short. 

There appears to be good money to be made by writing about Adam Goodes.
Our past was never so vicious.

Says a man found guilty of racism. Says a man that denies that the Stolen generation took place. Says a man who is deliberately stoking a racist fire for financial reasons.

And what viciousness does Bolt claim was exacerbated?

This is the only quote of Goodes, that Bolt has employed thus far into the story & it should be noted that he does not actually deny this island's racist past/present.

“very, very racist towards indigenous people”. 

This is the viciousness that Bolt claims has been exacerbated.

He doesn't deny that racism occurred, so maybe he is claiming "racist" instead of "very very racist", or even "very racist" instead of "very very racist".

i ask you to think about how you feel about being stimulated and manipulated on purpose for another's pleasure and benefit? 

 That Goodes is so successful — and so widely admired — should make him slower to believe the worst of us.

The logic is that if you are doing well in the cistern you shouldn't question it. And/or, that as a black recipient of 'white' largesse, Goodes should just shut up and be grateful that he has been "accepted". 

Nor should we feel a personal guilt or grievance for what some long-dead strangers allegedly did or suffered, simply because we share their “race”. That is stupid.

You don't become a successful tabloid shock jock without being willing to state these type of divisive and violent opinions.

This is Agenda 21 stuff. Trying to disconnect us from each other by disconnecting our empathy to each other. 

This makes it easier for us to be picked off by them, and they hope that as a consequence, we wont stand up and offer support when we see our peers being picked off.

Taking this logic to its conclusion, we should not feel a connection to injustices dealt out or suffered in the ambiguous past.

How long do "long-dead strangers" need to be dead, before we lose the ability to feel "personal guilt or grievance" for these people?

9/11 was nearly 13 years ago. Do we cease caring or empathising with the victims? 

The holocaust ended nearly 70 years ago. Do we cease caring or empathising with the victims?

How about the tribal people who were never told about the nuclear bomb testing @ Maralinga between 1956-63? Testing that didn't just happen in their front and back yards, but also in their lounge rooms, bedrooms, kitchens and bathrooms.

Of course, Andrew is trading on the fact that by this stage of the article, you have taken a side and are too emotional to realise that you are being maliciously manipulated by a skilled practitioner.

But Goodes’ latest attack is more dangerous because it is part of a campaign partially supported by Abbott to change our Constitution.

It is more dangerous because he has partial support from a white man, or from a white man that HS readers are programmed to support in their, for the most part, ignorance?

This campaign won’t just divide us but risks making the Constitution as racist as Goodes now falsely claims.

Now Andrew is using 'racial fear' to create a useful dividing line to wield his 'divide & conquer' programming tools.

Truth is the Constitution has never been used to stop Aborigines voting.

Interesting. The Australian Electoral Commission doesn't agree.

   "The 1902 Franchise Act gave women a Commonwealth vote but Aborigines and other 'coloured' people were excluded unless entitled under section 41 of the Constitution.

Section 41 said that anyone with a State vote must be allowed a Commonwealth vote

South Australia got that clause into the Constitution to ensure that South Australian women would have Commonwealth votes whether or not the Commonwealth Parliament decided to enfranchise all Australian women. The Commonwealth did enfranchise all women so they did not need section 41.

But that section did seem to guarantee that, except in Queensland and Western Australia, Aborigines would be able to vote for the Commonwealth because of their State rights.

But did it mean that? 

The first Solicitor-General, (and co-author of the Quick & Garran Commentary on the Constitution) Sir Robert Garran, interpreted it to give Commonwealth rights only to people who were already State voters in 1902. So no new Aboriginal voters could ever be enrolled and, in due course, the existing ones would die out." 

(Most states gave Aborigines the vote before 1900.)

Except Queensland & South Australia. However, Andrew has missed the point that a vote in the inferior jurisdictions of the State & Commonwealth occupation does not elevate the circumstances of the tribes, but, makes it substantively worse.

It is the logic of the oppressor to steal from someone and get them to agree that you can determine what conditions they must conform to to gain limited access to their stolen item.
And let us not forget that even the word "Aboriginal" is a racist political word used by the Dutch, French, British, Spanish & Portugeuse to justify their theft of other people's land during the rather euphemistically titled 'colonialist expansion era'.

"Ab" is a prefix that basically means to depart from, which is why you have 'Abnormal/normal' amongst others. Hence, you have AB/Original and Original.

This deception helped underpin the terra nullius lie.
It was designed to do the opposite. Constitutional law professor Anne Twoomey has said Section 25, which Goodes calls racist, was actually about “penalising any state that enacted racially discriminatory voting law”.

As part of the authoritarian program, Bolt employs an authority figure. Here is what she actually has to say on S. 25: 

“Section 25 says that if a state law disqualifies all the people of any race from voting in state elections, then those persons shall not be counted when working out how many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives.”

So Adam Goodes doesn't know S. 25 of the Commonwealth  Constitution. 

He is far from the only one. 

The other part of the Constitution Goodes attacks is Section 51, which lets Parliament pass laws “for the peace order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to ... the people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”.

You may argue — aha! — this is indeed racist, and I’d agree. 

Because Andrew isn't really a racist, hence the "aha!" line.

I want it gone, but should Goodes?

This clause actually allows Aborigines-only benefits and welfare programs. It is meant to help, not hurt.

Bolt is no longer quoting Dr. Anne Twomey, despite, the fact that he is expressing part of her point about S. 51.

The power to make a law isn't just the power to help. It is also the power to hinder, as we all discovered when John Howard employed the 1993 Native Title Act as a tactical response to the High Court Mabo decision, as well as the Northern Territory intervention.

These are the words by Dr. Anne Twomey that Bolt chose not to share. 

The “reconciliation” lobby actually know this and does not want to stop such programs, so it demands this “racist” clause be replaced with one even worse.

Many want the “recognition” amendment proposed by the Gillard Government’s Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians.

It states: “Recognising that ... Australia (was) first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples ... (and) respecting the continuing cultures, languages and heritage ... (and) the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples; the Parliament shall ... have power to make laws ... with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples...”

That is racist. 


Interesting that the lawyers allowed this to be published. 

It is racist to state that the tribes were here first.

The truth is racist in Andrew's opinion.

Here is the recommendation of that panel, which Dr. Anne Twomey is a part of. 

It gives one “race” a special legal entitlement to respect for their cultures, languages and heritage, and whatever goodies Parliament chooses to give.

So Andrew has stated that no Australian 'law' presents a special legal entitlement to respect your culture, language & heritage.

Plenty of them steal from you. Summarily.

The issue is that White Australia is an invasive power on black land and are occupying it under military force.

S. 51 a is the feminine, feeling, right-side of the brain attempt to deal with white guilt that has consequented from over 225 years of military rule.

Andrew knows that as soon as you open the bag a little, it is inevitable that the cat will jump out.  

Abbott will never agree to this. 

Or so Bolt wants you to believe, Abbott is on record as supporting the racist recognition push when it was put forward by Gillard.
He wants only a symbolic recognition of the “first Australians” in the Constitution’s preamble, written so judges can’t use it.

More provocative serial racist ranting from Andrew. People that existed BEFORE AUSTRALIA are not "Australia's first people".

January 26th, 1788 bought to the Tribes, on the island known to some as Australia, Australia's FIRST IMMIGRANTS which is what the First Fleet actually is. 

And here is the rub. Mark McMurtrie and some elders have already been invited to the U.N to stick it up them for their seditious involvement & collusion with successive State/Commonwealth governments stealing the lands and resources of the tribes.

At some point the fun will stop and someone will have to pay the bill.

Hence, BOTH SIDES OF GOVERNMENT are trying to recognise the tribes UNDER THEIR CONTROL, give them some trinkets, some poisoned blankets, without giving the tribes a real platform to seek restitution. Without allowing themselves to have to pay the price for their crimes.

The State criminals in Victoria have already started as can be seen in the legally invalid Victorian Constitution Act 1975.

Good luck. Some fine legal minds, including late Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs, have said this is impossible.

What is impossible. Andrew is being deliberately misleading and vague. What did Gibbs say? When did he say it? In what context did he say it? Who did he say it to? Just as importantly, where is Andrew's proof of claim? 

And there’s this danger: saying yes to recognition of the “first Australians” encourages the dangerous division of us purely on the “race” of our ancestors.

As if there isn't a division now. Tribal people HAVE A 2O YEAR LOWER LIFE EXPECTANCY THAN EVERY ONE ELSE ON THIS ISLAND.

What racist Andrew is actually saying is that white people might lose something.

Well, he wants you to think that YOU will lose something, but, truth is, you are a means to an end for him, and he cares as much for you as any politician does.

What he really means is that the criminal powerbrokers that are illegally living off your energy might lose something.

Am i the only one that is looking forward to these criminals getting their just deserts for their contimuous and ongoing crimes against ALL the people on this island?

What racist Andrew is doing is employing the old fear programming tool.

Racist Andrew Bolt is trading on the fact that you are unaware of the fact that he is trying to set you up to promulgate violence and hate on behalf of the terrorist cistern.

He wants you to blame the tribes for the crimes committed by Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg Gotha, the English Parliament, the Commonwealth & State Parliaments, practically EVERY political party, and every P.M, Premier, Governor-General, Governor & party leader, big & small.  

How divided could we be? Hear it from Goodes: “Aboriginal people have been here a lot longer than anybody else, so just remember whose lands you are on.”

It takes a particularly psychopathic mind to use the truth as an violent accusation against a victim of crime.

Most Australians would resent this.

Really? Lets have a referendum and find out if Australians really are as racist as Andrew would like to promulgate.

If it's true then why is there bi-partisan political support on the racist recognition push?
 I, like many other people, was born here before Goodes.

Living off the proceeds of crime does not validate the action. 

But, Racist Andrew is looking for an emotional response. He is trying to trigger a fight.

According to his logic, if a Palestinian was born on Israeli land before a Jew was born on the same land, the Palestinian would have a superior claim, and we should not "feel a personal guilt or grievance for what some long-dead strangers allegedly did or suffered" because the Isreali claim to that land is so old as to make it meaningless.

And, if a Jew was born on Palestinian land....

It is a flexible logic, rather than an attempt to use logic to express truth.

Glad that Andrew has found time to sort out the Middle East situation. i feel certain that he has told the Israeli government and that they will leave very quickly, because of Andrew's strong logic. 
  He cannot claim to have been here longer than us unless we consider him not as Adam Goodes, individual, but Adam Goodes, representative of the Aboriginal “race”.

Racist Andrew, back to debasing tribal people as non-original. Adam represents a tribe, or country of people.


He claimed that "Aboriginal people have been here a lot longer than anybody else".

Big difference.

So why did Andrew Bolt lie?

He wants to appeal to the bigot & offend everyone else. That is why he used the word "us". It is both an attempt to forge an artificial connection, as well as an attempt to remove himself from liability by softening the borders between something real and provable, and something that appears to be real, but is in fact, neither real or provable.

The reason can be explained by examining the statement itself:

He cannot claim to have been here longer than us"

If you think about the statement logically, you can see that it is a deliberate distortion designed to arouse you emotionally.

The power of a word like 'us' is when it is used as a bracket that includes and confines the components of who actually is 'us', in the same way that the word 'includes' does. You say 'us' to your friend, your partner or sometimes to a few people to identify or create a unique personal bond.

In a newspaper article, the word 'us', is not about me and my lady, it is about me and a generic, unidentifiable, 'us'. Andrew doesn't know how long his readership has been here on this island. It is impossible to say that the 'us' in Bolt's article conveys a sense that the us arrived in say, 1960 and Goodes in 1965, so the deliberately vague term is used in the hope that you will fill in the blanks with your own prejudice, greed or other emotions. 

Is that really the Australia we want? 

An emotional question asked after tweaking his audience emotionally.

Australians no longer treated as individuals alike under one law?

Just like the bikies, or
Anyone who protests, or
Anyone who says no to government or private government agents, 
or asks awkward questions of the government or government agencies or their agents.

And there is more than "one law". So Bolt is lying to his audience, AGAIN.

There is (without endorsing or rejecting them) Commonwealth, State, & Local law, there are codes, regulations, rules. Some 'law' like the Road Safety Act in Victoria is administered by the Roads Corporation, then you have religious law, Judaism, Catholic, Christian, Islam, Buddhistic, Hindu, Sikh, Seventh Day Adventist, Scientology etc. Then you have the superior tribal lore, and there are (to the best of my knowledge) over 250 different countries on this island, all with similar and different law.

One law?

Judged instead — and divided — according to whether some great-grandparent of ours was Aboriginal?

As opposed to whether our mum and dad are tribal, or, maybe our brothers and sisters, and maybe the other members of the community.

No. Racist Andrew is adopting the premise that we are all white, and that people are so far away from being a tribal man or woman, that you have to check with your great grand-parent to verify this truth.

Is this how Adam Goodes learnt that he was tribal?

How about Cathy Freeman? Or Albert Namatjira? How about Bennelong? Or Gary Foley? Or Robert Thorpe?

Again, it is a deliberately provocative statement. It is offensive. It is designed to be offensive, and the Herald Sun is more than happy to promulgate this hate piece publicly.

Is Andrew airing his own views, the Herald Sun's view, Rupert Murdoch's view? Or is it an opinion that all three stakeholders agree on? 

That diminishes us. We will no longer be a person but a type.

Notice that racist Andrew has dropped attempting to prove his claims. Largely, his 'proof' was Twomey's opinions about S. 25, which Adam misinterpreted. 

So, how are "we" diminished?

The logic i expressed earlier about the word "us" applies to the word "we". Who are "we"?

It is still un-definable, an arbitrary unknowable number.

So it is more emotional stimulation?

Spellcasting is the premise that letters are small spells that become bigger and more powerful when combined to formulate words and paragraphs and articles and books. 

This is the start of something hateful and divisive.

This bloke has more front than Myers to dribble this shit after all the hateful and divisive words that he has to date in this article.

This is akin to a rapist calling his victim's attempts to secure restitution and justice "the start of something hateful and divisive".

We already have something that is hateful and divisive.

Andrew is trying to preserve and maintain it.
It creates a stage for some to preach resentment of Australia to win advantage for their “race”.

Say no to racism. Say no to racial division. Say no to this change to our Constitution.

Oddly enough i agree with these somewhat empty slogans, that is the point of the slogans, just like politicking, which is actually a large component of what is going on here.

There is no reason to change the Constitution to include the tribes because the tribes law is superior to the Constitution.