What the government need to do is maintain the fear and narrative of covid long enough to achieve a few objectives part of which is mass vaccinations.

I believe they could also be laying the groundwork during this pandemic for the next one.
Yes, it seems they rely a lot on people's belief systems to get away with doing what they want. Coronavirus could very well become deadly to those who are vaccinated. After all, it's not really that deadly now. The"trick" would be to prevent people from connecting the vaccination with death or poorer outcomes. So far, they've done that a lot with vaccines.
 
Yes, it will. The game isn't over. I'm amazed at the redundancy of Earth, that it can be so dysfunctional, yet here we are still going about and learning lessons.
I'm thinking it's not the Earth that's redundant here. Our 'great and mighty leaders' would tell us that it's actually humanity which is redundant. Or perhaps it's all those 'useless eaters' getting about, those 99%?
 
An article overviewing the latest Bill Dan Andrews has introduced to parliament called the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Amendment Bill. It gives the Secretary of the Department of Health the power to appoint any public servant, regardless of qualifications or experience, as 'authorised officers' with the same powers as the police. Further, there is no mention of what training these 'authorised officers' will receive or what type of equipment they will be issued with. Additionally, a person who is deemed to be a risk can be detained indefinitely.

The Victorian Labor government has introduced a bill to parliament that coupled with other measures is one of the most egregious attacks on civil liberties seen in war or peacetime.

The Bill would allow people to be detained indefinitely and give sweeping powers to untrained people to become “authorised officers” with sweeping powers to arrest and detain fellow Victorians.

Called the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Amendment Bill, it overrides all other laws and legislation with the exception of the Charter of Human Rights (which the government ignores as it is not binding), the State Constitution Act 1975 and the laws created by the Bill itself.

The Bill confers and extraordinary power to the Secretary of the Department of Health to appoint public servants as “authorised officers” with the same powers as police.

However worse than that is a provision which allows the secretary to appoint any of the following as an “authorised officer”:

[A] person the Secretary considers appropriate for appointment based on the person’s skills, attributes, experience or otherwise…
This will expand the persons who may be appointed as authorised officers. It is intended to include additional public sector employees from Victoria as well as such employees from other Australian jurisdictions, and individuals with a connection to particular communities to ensure that certain activities, such as contact tracing, can be conducted in a culturally safe manner.
This sweeping power means the Secretary could appoint anyone as an “authorised office”; a member of the ADF who already patrols Melbourne streets with police or even a member of the Hell’s Angels.

The Bill is mute on the specifics of who could be appointed. The Secretary has been given carte blanche to appoint anyone who has the “skills, attributes, experience or otherwise”.

The word “otherwise” so broad and non-specific it gives rise to real concerns about who the Secretary could or would appoint.

Critically there is no mention in the Bill of what sort of training these “authorised officers” would be given or the equipment they would be issued with.

If you thought the hotel quarantine scheme was a fiasco image the damage and drama that could be wrought by this proposal.

The Bill also “provides that an authorised officer may be assisted by any person in exercising a public health risk power under an authorisation given by the Chief Health Officer.”

That’s right. An untrained “authorised officer”, be they a public servant, a member of the ADF, or a Hells Angel would be able to co-opt any unsworn citizen in their duties.

The Bill outlines some of the roles and powers these “authorise officers” may able to exercise under the State of Emergency powers.

They include being able: to detain any person or group of persons in an emergency area for the period reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce a serious risk to public health;to restrict the movement of any person or group of persons within an emergency area; to prevent any person or group of persons from entering an emergency area; and, to give any other direction that the authorised officer considers is reasonably necessary to protect public health.

These powers given to untrained “authorised officers” could lead to shocking outcomes, particularly if citizens can be co-opted to assist.

We have already seen examples of police heavy handiness in Victoria with police raids on housewives, the busting down of doors and so on simply because people have promoted on social media protests against the current health regime.

Under the Bill designated authorised officers may be able to detain if “a direction has been given in the exercise of an emergency power” or if the officer “reasonably believes that a person who is required to comply with the direction is a high-risk person and is likely to refuse or fail to comply with the direction.”

A high-risk person is someone the person has been “diagnosed with COVID-19 and has not been given clearance from self-isolation or they have been notified that they are in close contact with a person diagnosed with COVID-19.

The Bill provides an emergency power to detain any person or group of persons in an emergency area for the period reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce a serious risk to public health.

Once detained you have no rights under law and can be detained for an indefinite period:

Section 200(6) of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 requires an authorised officer to review, at least once every 24 hours during the period that a person is subject to detention under section 200(1)(a), whether the continued detention of the person is reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce a serious risk to public health.
Put simply, this means you can be locked up and detained indefinitely at the whim of a designated officer.

There is no provision whatsoever for a review of the detention. Ultimately a person may have to apply to the Supreme Court to grant an order of Habeas Corpus for release.

These extraordinary powers are arbitrary and extreme.

They are a draconian attack on civil liberties the like of which Australia has never seen before.

Further because all laws are overridden there would appear to be little recourse to any excesses by an authorised officer or their civilians co–opted by them. These laws are so broad and ill-defined that you could be detained for almost anything.

Remember the emergency powers give “authorised officers” power to “detain any person or group” or “restrict the movement of people” or “prevent a person or group from entering an emergency area” or “give any other direction”.

Nowhere in the Bill or its Explanatory Memorandum is a reason or justification given for the introduction of these extraordinary sweeping and ill-defined laws.

These laws will operate side by side with the powers that already have Melburnians locked in their own homes for 22 hours a day; where the first-ever curfew in Australia’s history is in place; where freedom of movement is banned; where police and ADF personnel patrol the streets to enforce mask-wearing; where $5000 fines are handed out if you attempt to breach internal state borders and so on.

These proposed laws are unjust, unnecessary and unjustified. They are a direct attack on citizens’ civil liberties.

Even if this Bill is not passed it says much about the mindset of the Victorian government that it is prepared to assail its citizens’ rights.

This Bill is a direct assault on our democracy.

It should be rejected by the parliament.

So, here come the 'finger men' a la V for Vendetta.

Then there is the man that pretty much dropped his bucket at the police when he was pulled over for 'driving a motor vehicle on the highway'. Seriously! Even just driving a car can be a suspicious activity in Victoria!

In an article from the Australian Financial Review, it is revealed that there are no epidemiologists for infectious diseases or immunologists on Dan Andrews advisory team and claiming that he has cherry picked his modellers to suit his agenda. The Doherty Institute of Infectious Diseases, part of Melbourne University has been modelling for the government since the beginning of the year and has not been approached for advice leading epidemiologist Catherine Bennett to state that the 'government has been given the model it asked for'. The article tags her as someone who is 'a veteran of bureaucratic turf wars' so it seems that she is aware of exactly what is going on.

New Zealand Epidemiologist whose career has focused on cancer, smoking and computer modelling, Tony Blakely, who is on Dan Andrews advisory team has recently recanted his position and claims that Dan Andrews isn't following models given to him anyway.

Once again, there's a bunch of blame shifting or hiding sources of information that is being relied on for decisions made by the Andrews government. In any case, the call for kicking Dan Andrews out is gaining momentum, though there are still peeps that adore him and support everything he says - crazy! It's sickening to read their comments.

One of the mysteries behind Victoria's plan out of one of the most extreme pandemic lockdowns anywhere is: why did the government select a team of highly opinionated non-specialists to advise when normal life would be safe to begin again.

The lead researchers who built the model used for Daniel Andrews' COVID-19 "road map" aren't infectious diseases scientists.

The team does include epidemiologists such as New Zealander Tony Blakely. But his career has spanned computer science, economics, smoking and cancer.

Fellow Melbourne University professor Mark Stevenson is a road safety specialist who works in the Department of Architecture, Building and Planning. Jason Thompson is a psychologist who studies self-driving cars. The one non-Melburnian contributor, the University of New England's medical dean, Rod McClure, is an injury prevention expert. They are experienced in their fields, but infectious diseases like COVID-19 raise unique challenges.

"It's a strange choice to go to inexperienced [infectious disease] modellers," says Catherine Bennett, the professor of Epidemiology at Deakin Universityand the leader of a national study of staphylococcus infections.

Andrews could have sought help from another part of Melbourne University immersed in the pandemic, the Doherty Institute, which has been modelling infections for the federal government since the beginning of the year.

The institute wasn't asked. "We are always available to assist the Victorian Government," a spokeswoman said.

The government was given the model it asked for.
— Epidemiologist Catherine Bennett
Moreover, the Andrews government knew that Blakely and his colleagues believed the virus could and should be eliminated by confining people at home.

On July 17, the scientists argued in the Medical Journal of Australia that COVID-19 could be wiped out in six weeks and the economy then reopened.

"Victoria’s Premier Daniel Andrews (and indeed all state and territory Premiers) should explicitly declare ‘elimination’ as the goal'," they wrote.

Today, elimination is a strategy that no Australian politician admits to pursuing because of policymakers' belief it is futile and inordinately expensive. Victoria's stated approach is "aggressive suppression".

Blakely recently recanted his support for elimination, given NSW's tolerance of infections makes continental-wide eradication challenging.

But on September 4, two days before Andrews' road map statement, he updated the journal article to argue that elimination would have been possible if the government had followed his advice. It was the scientific equivalent of: "I told you so."

The right answer?
Why then would the Victorian government choose a team critical of its own approach to produce the analysis used to determine when it will be safe for Victorians to return to work and school?

Bennett, a veteran of bureaucratic turf war, has a theory. "The government was given the model it asked for," she says.

Like some other experts, Bennett argues the lockdown-end conditions are too strict. Federal health department secretary Brendan Murphy has urged Victoria "to take a somewhat less conservative approach to their restrictions".

To lift the curfew requires fewer than five new cases a day. Ending restrictions on gatherings and private parties requires no new cases for 28 days in Victoria, no active cases statewide and no outbreaks "of concern" anywhere else in Australia.

The requirements are based on the modellers' predictions that anything less stringent will likely lead to a third wave of infections.

Melbourne University's dean of medicine, dentistry and health sciences, Shitij Kapur, says his colleagues' model doesn't distinguish between infections that come from a known source, and can therefore more easily be contained, or are a mystery.

"You have to square off models with common sense," he says. "No real other city of our size and density of infections has been able to bring it down to less than five – with the exception of Wuhan."

Blakely's model has consequences for the 6.7 million residents of Victoria, where resentment is starting to emerge in scattered protests.

Disappointment with the slow and uncertain emergence from the enforced winter hibernation triggered violence on Sunday in the usually placid Queen Victoria fruit and vegetable market.

The police force, tasked with enforcing Andrews' strict rules, are experiencing mounting criticism over their tactics and behaviour.

For his part, Blakely says it is ridiculous to suggest he is manipulating the government. "It is important to make clear that we haven't directed policy with our model," he wrote last week.

But in a report card he published on Sunday on Andrews' plan – which he scored eight out of 10 – Blakely asked himself the same question others have. "Is it elimination by stealth?" he wrote. "Yes and no."

Under the plan, he wrote, free life will be permitted when Victoria is "on the cusp of, or actually achieving, elimination of community transmission".

"Although, the hard reality is that the chance of us achieving elimination is remote now."

So if Andrews' plan is to eliminate the virus, and his modeller doesn't believe that's feasible, what's the point of the road map?

I don't think that any of these measures will be contained to Victoria and wonder if and when the rest of the states will follow suit.
 
Its worth remebering why 'the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it' mantra of old is so true not just an empty Nazi slogan .

Its worth remembering that this is based on a solid-neuro science understanding that telling lies is stressful for humans. We are all capable of small ones and even large-small ones - they are a survival mechanism - and they are to some degree manageable in the darkness of our minds. But very, very few humans can begin to comprehend the BIG LIE because they know physiologically that even large-small ones into big medium ones are hellish difficult to maintain so how could you ever get to a level 6 or 7 let alone LEVEL 10 - such a place would be incomprehensible, utterly shaming, just too damn stressful to think of sustaining.

Its worth just remembering this is why the vast majority of humans - including authoritarian types - can only go so far with their lies before they face their own dismantling. So essentially most humans cannot comprehend that anyone could tell and promote a BIG, GROSS, BRAZEN WORLD CHANGING LIE and be able to live with themselves. This is an unconscious belief that most do not even know they have.

That is why they cannot believe it is possible when it happens - because they themselves couldn't comprehend trying to get away with something so dangerous, life-threatening and (they think) impossible to maintain.

Its worth remembering that all power systems are built on the pyramid model whereby:

(1) the further up you go, the more you know, the more you have to accept, the more you have to bend and corrupt your humanity, the narrower the bottleneck becomes - all this to gain 'power/status'
(2) that each level of the pyramid is based on a need-to-know basis and that those above 'know' more, hold more power and 'know what they are doing and are to be obeyed
(3) that each person in the pyramid only rises up if they prove they are suitable in personality type to the next level - and are suitable to join the club
(4) You get promoted to the level of your incompetence where you just flounder and hope to get away with it, taking away your capacity to think beyond your own game of hide and seek.
(5). Or you get promoted to your nature of anti-social nature and your ability to channel, manage and maintain it for the good of you and other pathological types..

If we think about what is going on, the BIG LIE therefore only has to exist right at the top of the pyramid - and indeed from the famous icon - it can effectively be separate from the rest of the pyramid but still 'manage' the host below through its own control of the apex which has an entirely secret set of values and rules but whose influence, weight and power, filters down to set the tone and being of all levels... pathology from above.... without anyone in the body of the pyramid knowing this is what is happening. Its just 'felt' as a pressure, a tone, a prescriptive set of practices that must be adhered to but only in terms of each level of the pyramids 'awareness'.

In these terms most of the people making this COVID machine function don't know that its fraud (or mostly or all fraud), they don't know what its real function is, they don't know that they are making something happen that will in effect destroy their lives as well. They just respond in line with the rules of this game and keep going as instructed.

The pathology of this is hidden to most eyes. The belief in what they do is driven by confirmation by the system that they have invested their lives in. Many of them may suspect something is not quite right, but for many reasons, continue to pour all their energy in to sustaining its purpose.

The bigger the lie, the more people believe it... the code that keeps everyone in the pyramid heading in the same direction... towards the cliff at which point X% of the pyramid will be detached and 'perish' as being no longer useful. But it will have fulfilled its purpose of those tiny number of puppet masters at the top. And as they fall, they will have no idea how it happened or how they made it all possible... without ever even knowing who or what they are.
 
I don't think that any of these measures will be contained to Victoria and wonder if and when the rest of the states will follow suit.

My thought is we should all be paying strict attention to what's happening in Australia. It could well be a trial run for what's planned for the other major countries of the western powers (i.e. United Sates, Canada, Great Britain and other European countries)

Quite possibly the most disturbing piece of proposed legislation yet! Ripe for unrestrained fascist take over.
 
c.a. said:
As of now, Berkeley will fine residents violating public health orders up to $100 for the first violation, increasing the cost for repeat violations. Current public health orders in Berkeley state that one must wear a face mask when visiting an indoor business, indoor workplace, waiting in line for public transportation, dining outdoors whilst up from the table, and exercising outdoors (i.e. everywhere that is not inside your home).

Wow, didn't know we could be fined. What happens if you rack up a huge bill? Jail time? Law enforcement in this state doesn't even lock up heroin dealers because of the "fear of spread". They're arrested, case given to DA who does nothing and then released back to the druggie scene. But they're likely wearing masks. :curse:

Two days ago we were on the water in Berzerkeley for what will likely be the last time and seeing zombies kayaking alone with masks was just too much. We'll be moving our marine interests far from the cities.

Color said:
Things probably CAN get worse but let's not dwell on it. You are where you are, time to 'escape' is gone. It may return at some point, but who can tell the rest of the world won't be even worse by then?

Not sure I agree with you here Color. Or maybe I misunderstand. Certainly if the opportunity for Ketone Cop to physically relocate out of her "hellish" situation to a safer place with more like-minded people, she should jump on it, imo. Being stuck where we are is atm a mental exercise only. Here in the Smokey-land anyway.

I hear from acquaintances that Idaho could a very good choice, alignment-wise. :v:
 
Last edited:
Up to 90 per cent of people diagnosed with coronavirus may not be carrying enough of it to infect anyone else, study finds as experts say tests are too sensitive
Health experts say PCR testing - the most widely used diagnostic test for COVID-19 in the US - are too sensitive and need to be adjusted to rule out people who have insignificant amounts of the virus in their systems because they're likely not contagious.
PCR tests analyze genetic matter from the virus in cycles and today's tests typically take 37 or 40 cycles, but experts say this is too high because it detects very small amounts of the virus that don't pose a risk.
The first part of this statement is unproven, but repeated incessantly. Presumably PCR tests for the alleged presence of SARS-CoV-2 (or remnants thereof), an alleged virus. This should not be confused with COVID-19, which is the alleged disease caused by the alleged virus.
The test’s threshold is so high it detects people with the live virus and those with few genetic fragments that are leftovers from infection and no longer pose risk, Mina says. It’s like finding a hair in a room after a person left it.
In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been considered negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Mina said.

'I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,' he said.
Despite all the smoke and mirrors, reducing the number of test cycles is a very good thing.

 
The AZ study gets more interesting. A woman suffered from MS in July and Del Big Tree is hearing whispers there's a second case of this myelitis adverse reaction out there.

They brushed the woman who got MS in July by saying she was going to get it regardless of the vaccine.

In the UK, the occurence of transverse myelitis is 1 in 250,000. It looks like with the AZ vaccine it is around 1 in 12,000.... That's a MASSIVE increase.

What do you want... Covid or transverse myelitis?

 
We need moments of just great joy and humor. Whether you like sport on not don't tell me the absurdity of this isn't just priceless!

Coronavirus: Football team loses 37-0 in socially distanced match


A German football team lost 37-0 to their local rivals after fielding only seven players who socially distanced throughout the match. :clap: :wow: :rotfl:

Ripdorf fielded the minimum number of players on Sunday because their opponents SV Holdenstedt II came into contact in a previous game with someone who tested positive for Covid-19.

Their team tested negative but Ripdorf said the conditions were not safe. :perfect:

If Ripdorf had not played, they would have faced a €200 (£182) fine.

They had asked for the match - in the 11th tier of German football - to be postponed but the local association refused.

Ripdorf said they did not feel safe as at the time of the game 14 days had not yet passed since Holdenstedt players had come into contact with the person who tested positive.

Holdenstedt's first team did not play in the match and the club fielded their second team.

At the beginning of the match, one of Ripdorf's players stepped onto the pitch, passed the ball to an opponent and the team then walked to the sidelines.

Ripdorf co-chair Patrick Ristow told ESPN: "The Holdenstedt players did not understand. But we did not want to risk anything."

He added of his players: "They did not go into direct duels and observed the social distancing rules, keeping two metres between them and Holdenstedt players.":rotfl::thup::wizard::rotfl:

Holdenstedt did not hold back, scoring a goal every two or three minutes.:wizard::thup:

"There was no reason not to play this game," Holdenstedt coach Florian Schierwater said.
 
Could this be the man that the Victorian Government is really taking direction from? Earlier Rockefeller Foundations 'Resilient Cities' were mentioned, and the Chief Resilient Officer for Melbourne is Toby Kent.

"Prior to joining the City Of Melbourne, Mr Kent worked with leading Melbourne businesses, including MMG mining corporation and ANZ bank, where he was head of sustainable development."

An article from the Australian:
Meet the man helping to future proof Melbourne

Melbourne City Council’s chief resilience officer Toby Kent first warned in 2015 that a pandemic was among the 20 things that could threaten Melbourne’s liveability.

Melbourne had just been crowned the world’s most liveable city for the fifth consecutive year and the notion of a deadly disease outbreak that would close schools, shut pubs and cafes and cancel footy games was the stuff of dystopian fantasy for most Melburnians.

Melbourne City Council’s chief resilience officer Toby Kent first warned in 2015 that a pandemic was among the 20 things that could threaten Melbourne’s liveability.

Melbourne had just been crowned the world’s most liveable city for the fifth consecutive year and the notion of a deadly disease outbreak that would close schools, shut pubs and cafes and cancel footy games was the stuff of dystopian fantasy for most Melburnians.

But in a report released just months after Mr Kent became the first chief resilience officer in Australia, he named a pandemic - assumed to be influenza - as among the “acute shock events” that could threaten the city.

“It may be uncomfortable to think that the future may not be simply better than today, but we should acknowledge it as a possibility,” Mr Kent wrote the following year.

Sound prescient?

“There are definitely times you don’t want to be proven right,” Mr Kent told The Sunday Age in an interview.
For the past five years Mr Kent has been helping Melbourne prepare for the shocks and stresses it will face this century including crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The role of the chief resilience officer is to really understand the context of the city and the chronic stresses, which weaken the fabric of the city on a day-to-day basis,” he says.

“In Melbourne’s case they are things like rapid growth – both densification combining with urban sprawl – social inequity, housing unaffordability and transport congestion.”

These stresses are often amplified when a sudden shock event – such as a pandemic, heatwave, bushfire or extremist act – threatens a city.

Mr Kent says research into the Fukushima tsunami and nuclear accident and Hurricane Sandy in the United States showed that one of the strongest determinants of the ability of a community to cope during and after a disaster was community connectedness.

He says great work is being done across Melbourne to support the most vulnerable during the coronavirus lockdown.

“A couple of good examples are services to ensure that elderly and people living in isolation are getting food and medication but also many of our homeless and rough sleepers are now for the first time in accommodation.”

Mr Kent says an important part of resilience work is to learn from what is done well during a crisis to enable a better future.

“How do we amend our service delivery on an ongoing basis so that we actually continue to support people so they will no longer be homeless when we emerge from this?”

In 2014, Melbourne was one of the first wave of cities to receive funding from the prestigious Rockefeller Foundation to employ a chief resilience officer.

Melbourne was among the first 33 cities selected from 372 applicants because it faced a range of natural hazards, had a rapidly expanding population and was seen as a city that would be willing to test and adopt innovations.

Mr Kent, a former head of sustainable development at ANZ, was paid a salary of $473,088 over two years and tasked with creating a resilience strategy for Melbourne – the first produced by any Australian city – by the end of his tenure.

“It’s a job that comes with a curious title and a generous ... salary, but Melbourne’s first ‘chief resilience officer’ could have the toughest gig in town,” The Age wrote at the time.

The 2016 resilience strategy had three flagship actions: an urban forest strategy, an emergency management community resilience framework for Victoria and a metropolitan bike path network.

“In the face of Super Storm Sandy, many New Yorkers used bicycles to make their way home from the city centre when buses, subway and overland trains could not operate,” it says.

Fast forward eight years and fear of contagion has turned Melbourne’s trains and trams into ghost rides. Coronavirus has led to a boom in city cycling.

When Melbourne City Council declared a climate emergency in February it vowed to try to deliver 44 kilometres of bike lanes in four years rather than 10.

“Now with a COVID overlay we are saying ‘How can we bring forward the expected bike lanes even faster to take advantage of the city being quiet?” Mr Kent says.

“That’s a really good example of resilience thinking where you try to take advantage of disruption to make a change while you are going through change.”

When Mr Kent started in his role resilience was a relatively nascent field.

This month – on the back of bushfires, drought, floods and COVID-19 – NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian announced the creation of a new government agency, Resilience NSW, to drive disaster preparedness and recovery.

“They are learning from the cities that have had these positions in place,” Mr Kent says.

“I would love to say I don’t see a role for chief resilience officers going forward because the world is a safer, easier place. But what is undeniable is the world is more complex, more interdependent and hence more vulnerable. The role of the chief resilience officer is to try to put in measures to help us deal with complexity.”

So, all the buck passing between ScoMo and Dan Andrews over nursing home deaths and mismanagement that saw residents go without care and between Dan Andrews and Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton over the curfews are perhaps covering up that it is Toby Kent that is calling the shots.

It seems that it is Toby Kent's responsibility to ensure that the elderly and people living in isolation are getting food and medication.
 
Tucker discusses how the mayor of Nashville, where I live, is hiding the numbers on Covid cases from restaurants and bars, which is my particular source of income, because they are too low.

Re the above with Tucker; good grief, and did Tucker actually say Nashville raised property taxes 34% as an aside - yup (I'm sure that is just the start of it in backstopping their incompetencies that people will have to bear). :mad:

The minions, as Tucker mentions, control unwanted questions like they are above being questioned at all - falling back on their woke script, and never mind they have no cloths, being bare for all to see.

In climate change, it was hide the decline, with covid, it is the same, hide the decline.

Sorry for your vocational economic woes, genero81, and sure hope these clowns soon exit the stage. Enough is enough.
 
Sorry for your vocational economic woes, genero81, and sure hope these clowns soon exit the stage. Enough is enough.

Well thanks, but it's the people I work for who are really getting the shaft. I'm doing okay for now, but I could be out of a job for real if they don't stop with all the nonsense. But they probably won't.

I actually didn't realize our mayor was a democrat. Explains a lot.
 
"...where he was head of sustainable development."

The 's' word here is a tricky one, a key-word of the technocrats and AGW crowd, according to Patrick Wood who discussed its genesis word-use between Rockefeller and the Technocrats from Canada back in the 50's - think it was said in the Mercola interview here. It is a tricky one indeed, and is hard to argue against in its main use; contrast is everything. Sustainable food, environment, cities/development, population growth and economics say different things to different people. Kent's role in this may speak volumes.

People like Kent have filled the 'sustainable' office slots that opened up in governments and corporations a good twenty years ago or more, and a lot has been going on under its title in offices, as agreed upon by certain people (wink and a nod between them). Some use it benovolently. However it is a word to pay attention to - how it is used, as are those who hold those sustainable positions and the fruits they offer when evoking its use.
 
I don't think that any of these measures will be contained to Victoria and wonder if and when the rest of the states will follow suit.
My thought is we should all be paying strict attention to what's happening in Australia. It could well be a trial run for what's planned for the other major countries of the western powers (i.e. United Sates, Canada, Great Britain and other European countries)

Quite possibly the most disturbing piece of proposed legislation yet! Ripe for unrestrained fascist take over.

Think it likely, especially if the gauge being used to measure is a population that does nothing but capitulates, at least at first. The people psychopaths in the wings watching their planning must indeed be rubbing their hands together in deep wishful thinking. If their arrogance continues in this unrestrained 'take over,' at some point there will be a backlash - there is always a point that people start to realise their suffering among the great harm created, and perhaps, unfortunately, it must come to this suffering before anything can change.

Its worth remebering why 'the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it' mantra of old is so true not just an empty Nazi slogan .
[...]

If you were ever to write up an article on what you began with, Michael B-C, I for one would read it with a gusto. Good one!
 
Back
Top Bottom