I invented the historical spy meme

https://youtu.be/tGSUjuSBt1A

 

Annabelle @ The Art of Flag-waving

Advertisements

The merits of a tune

 

Most Australians would agree with Briggs when he states that change does not come from being comfortable. However, most Australian would also agree that forced changes are only to be implemented for the better otherwise the change is nothing more than a downgrade.

The current Australian infrastructures and systems in place have been designed predominantly by English. For several decades our infrastructures have been heavily neglected and our systems have been steered into socialism. Regardless, they are still managing to hold Australia together, allowing it to function as a first world nation – a testament to the strength and resilience of the English social and economic architectures.

For several past decades, the Aboriginal peoples have been given support from Australia financially, culturally and territorially. You have been given ample opportunity to implement your own systems and infrastructures. However, your communities have, for the most part, only spiralled downwards and backwards. The towns where aborigines are concentrated have much higher criminal, paedophilia, rape, incest, drug and alcohol abuse, incarceration, suicide, murder and unemployment rates than the national averages. But instead of owning and addressing these issues, seeking help and advice to try to come up with solutions, you demand more money and assets whilst shifting the blame on to white Australians, using political correctness as a shield to censor statistics and counter-arguments. We are now at the point where you are no longer satisfied in having the freedom of showcasing your own flag or the freedom of creating your own anthem, you also desecrate and demand the removal of our symbols, our anthem and our heritage. You use reparation to conceal an agenda of vendetta.

I do not deny that in the past there were instances where Aborigines were treated in an inhumane manner, the removal of Aborigine children from their parents being the prime example, but I cannot help wonder as to why this was implemented. Perhaps they, too, saw atrocities committed against the Aborigine youths at the hands of their own parents, as we see it today. Perhaps they, too, witnessed abnormally high levels criminality, paedophilia, rape, incest, murder, suicide and alcohol abuse within the Aboriginal communities. Perhaps the urgency of the matter led them to act in haste without considering the long term repercussions. I think further historically investigation is warranted.

Before you point your finger and screech racism, I’ll remind you that Hong Kong was also under British administration at the time, yet the British did not opt to confiscate children from the Hong Kong-Chinese. I’ll also remind you that Hong Kong is now in the hands of their own kind, yet it is being oppressed by greedy, corrupt rulers. What guarantee can you give to non-Aborigine Australians that your leaders/representatives will not sell out their people if one of your very own has selfishly contracted out the Aboriginal flag for his personal gain? What guarantee do you have that others of your own won’t contract your lands and resources for their personal gain? The treasonous behaviour of a few could place the whole of Australia in peril, geopolitically and economically, not just the Aborigines.

And have you ever considered that if England had not conquered Australia it is very likely that today Aborigines would be living as inferiors in a Sharia province of Indonesia, with no say and certainly no financial benefits? Need only look at Western New Guinea and Tibet to understand Oriental colonialisation.

Briggs, 35 years is indeed a substantial time for a young nation such as Australia, so unless you come up with a melodious, multi-layered complex symphony of the likes of Alexander Alexandrov’s Russian Anthem, then we’re not changing anything. Let’s face it, your music sucks, it relies on rhythm rather than melody, lacking the necessary complex layering to handle an anthem. Besides, with the current global political climate, it would extremely unwise to change anything in the Australian constitution, the flag or the anthem.

We’re not changing the Australian anthem. Deal with it.

https://youtu.be/AOAtz8xWM0w

 

Annabelle @ The Art of Flag-waving

 

Queen’s Birthday

Having the good fortune to have been born in mid-June has given me the privilege of getting a day off to celebrate my own birthday, as well as that of the Queen. A nice perk, by all means, but it has also served to remind me of my heritage, my history and my connection to England. Today, on the Queen’s 93rd birthday, I reflect upon my life, as we all do on our birthdays, and I whisper to myself, “I am proud to be an Australian. I appreciate my English heritage. And I am honoured to share my birthday with a historical living symbol.”

Long live the Queen and may God bestow us with 100 more birthdays!

Annabelle @ The Art of Flag-waving

Freedoms for me but not for thee

If we’d built a more civically minded culture we would not be having debates about, say, whether Julian Assange is a nice guy, or whether what he does is responsible journalism. We would instead be asking whether the basic elements of the crime he’s alleged to have committed against America – encouraging a whistleblower to disclose classified information – are the same basic elements of so much investigative journalism. The point is not Julian Assange. The point is the way the crime is framed – not the alleged criminal, but the things being criminalised. Just as the point is not whether the person being raided is a journalist or a citizen, but the extent to which those powers are ripe for abuse. If the only freedom you care about is freedom of the press, soon enough that will fold too because you’ve created a culture that’s insensitive to civic ideals.  

Waleed Aly, Sydney Morning Herald 06.06.2019

 

 

As a stand-alone paragraph, the above has been constructed in a chaotic style. Please permit me to restate your oddly convoluted reasoning:
1. “Civically minded” cultures would not be debating Assange’s winning personality and ethics.
2. “Civically minded” cultures would be debating whether whistleblowing encouragement is the equivalent of investigative journalism.
3. Julian Assange is only a symbol being used to further the loss of journalistic rights narrative.
4. The Assange narrative is false and it sucks and it’s dangerous.
5. Such a narrative leads to abuse of power.
6. Freedom of the press is only as good as its culture.

That’s better, I feel more intellectually organised, now. Let me respond.

1. Civilised cultures inhabited with civilised people would not need to debate the infringements which 18c imposes.
2. Civilised cultures would be debating whether freedom of speech infringements are the equivalent of inferior cultures’ censorship and what that type of censorship leads to, ie, a throw-back.
3. 18c is only a symbol and it’s only a baby step to further the loss of rights narrative.
4. The multicultural narrative on freedom of speech is false and it sucks and it’s dangerous.
5. This fake narrative will lead to abuse of power.
6. Freedom of speech is only as good as its culture.

One peel leads to another peel. It’s like an onion. So when MSM cry but muh journalistic rights, I can’t say that I am surprised and you cannot deny that you weren’t warned. Yet, to this day, you stand by the 18c freedom of speech narrative.

I have not seen any comments on whether Julian Assange is nice or not, but I’ll grant you that that could be due to our very different reading and researching diets. I have, however, seen on the ABC (your mates), the Most Holy Father Peter Greste stating that journalistic protections ought to be reserved only for a select few and that Julian Assange was not included in the club.
I could, at this point, sit here and describe the glee and joy I am currently feeling, but I shan’t. Well, maybe just a little.

Annabelle @ The Art of Flag-waving

 

 

 

Chinese fake ass Inflation

An extremely interesting video article on the Chinese colonisation strategy occurring in Ethiopia, explaining China’s attempts to limit Ethiopians’ economic independence by engineering a donkey inflation.

https://youtu.be/TMVt7_7Uni8

 

China’s Donkey Show is a video article spelling out the Chinese economic colonisation strategy they attempted to implement in Ethiopia: an engineered donkey inflation to limit economic independence and wealth.

I highly recommend this short video because it beautifully and simply illustrates the first phase of land expropriation engineering being implemented by China all around the world.  The donkey inflation strategy explained in this video is identical to the land and home inflation that has also been successfully implemented in Australia.  Financial independence and wealth in Australia have become a dream for most millennials due to property prices.   Our donkey slaughterhouse was designed by restricting land releases, encouraging an unregulated asset-based industry on to the global market, permitting entrance to a constant surplus stream of immigrants and by concentrating commuting infrastructures within short distances of CBDS.  Synthetically built competition.

Unlike Ethiopians, who united and fought back against a communist and oppressive economic attack, Australian cultural atomisation was unable to muster the power of cohesion to fight back.  We now find our feet deep in the l waters of the communist Chinese economic and geographical takeover – phase 2.   Australian landowners are now facing loans of higher value than their properties.  Here on end, our soulless and corrupt banking systems have the legal right to default such loans and appropriate the property.  Once this inflation bubble is fully burst, taking the Australian dollar value down the gurgler with it, China can roll in with phase 3 – purchase and expropriate our land at will and for next to nothing.

Like the Ethiopians, Australia must unite and fight back or we shall lose all.  Worth watching to get your noggin joggin.

 

Annabelle @ The Art of Flag-waving

 

Don’t let them eat MY cake!

https://youtu.be/wPyavgxrSq0

ABC News 24.05.2019

ABC News presenter of no consequence:
Can I just summarise how I understand the professor Peter Greste University which is that on one side there are journalists and newsgathering organisations that go through data and try to interpret it and try to make it relevant for people and try to make it do as little harm as possible when it comes out. And on the other side, there are whistleblowers who are at the coalface, who are breaking the law, who deserve better protection for whistleblowing bad things going on. But in the middle, there is a vacuous nebulous, grey area where a person like is Assange, who is not actually a whistleblower, and he’s not actually a journalist, he’s just someone who dumps information.

Visual representation of the ABC News inconsequential presenter’s narrative of MSM journalistic un-achievements.

Never heard of him Prof Peter Greste, University of Queensland:
That’s right, and that’s what the digital world has done for us, it has created this very difficult space where anybody with a website can call themselves a publisher, that doesn’t mean that I think that anybody with a website deserves the kind of protections and deserves to be called a journalist and deserves press freedom protections.

Visual representation of the inconsequential Queensland Pro’s narrative of who has deemed as to who is entitled to call themselves journalist and who is worthy of journalistic protection.

Delusional moments of mutual masturbatory exchanges from the authoritarian extremist left are becoming a staple in the West. A recent exchange of the sort took place on the ABC news yesterday, where a lesser news presenter facilitated a teacher of journalism to conspire, live, as to why the competition needs to be eliminated. The presenter even went so far as to employ the oldest journalistic psyop trick in the book of summarising and reiterating the interview, in his own words, so that the viewers who fell asleep or used the opportunity to take a toilet break would not miss out on the vitally important message. What agent 86 and 99 don’t realise is that their thinly veiled un-journalist techniques, on the rare occasion that people actually note them, only achieve to anger mentally healthy Australian.

I would love to counter argue the fellatio-exchange of these two men, but I find myself unable to do so because they did not provide any arguments. The prof did nothing by whine, stating that only the MSM journalists had the right to be journalists. So, now I find myself forced to counter-argue a whinge, not an argument. But I’m always up for the challenge.

1. The teach’ is a classist snob supporting MSM media privilege by stating or implying that the alternate media is immoral, unprincipled and should all be locked up.
2. The teach’ interpretation of the world and the people who occupy it, and his push to jail Assange and other alternative media is conspiratorial in nature. At best.
3. The teach’ peddled MSM journalistic entitlement which was anti-free speech, undemocratic and anti-competitive.
4. The teach’ is unwilling to allow journalism to evolve into a merit-based system. He’s a dinosaur.
5. The teach’ used fear speech to justify the MSM media appropriation of information and narratives.

I really wanted to play debate this evening but the teach’ has forced me to attack his sneaky tactics instead of his ideas. I wanted to play fair, but the game is rigged so I am left with no other choice.

Time to learn to code, teach’.

 

Annabelle @ The Art of Flag-waving