Scoprire messaggiEsplora contenuti accattivanti e prospettive diverse nella nostra pagina Scopri. Scopri nuove idee e partecipa a conversazioni significative
I am still having this problem with Truthbook with App on Mobile.
Does anyone know what's happening?
I like to do more here by posting videos that is not happening.
Can someone assist thanks
Viesha Lewand
1660360293PLEASE KEEP UP YOUR support as we must have free uncensored Australian sites to communicate (just in case).
Agenda 21: un futuro sombrío con credenciales ecológicas
Por Karin SIlvina Hiebaum
Para entender lo que está sucediendo en este momento, en qué consiste el Gran Reajuste, hay que retroceder un poco en el tiempo y examinar más de cerca, entre otras cosas, la génesis de la Agenda 21.
El pistoletazo de salida de la Agenda 21 y de la palabra sinónimo de sostenibilidad, que encontramos estos días en todas partes, lo dio el grupo de reflexión El Club de Roma, formado por "científicos, intelectuales, educadores y líderes empresariales".
En 1970, emitió una declaración en la que afirmaba que el mundo se encontraba en un estado terrible y que había llegado el momento de una regulación general y sistémica del destino del mundo.
Es hora de un "nuevo orden social".
Uno de los llamados problemas que había que abordar con urgencia era la superpoblación, de la que se resentían la tierra y el medio ambiente.
Que la raíz del mal no es la superpoblación, sino el desequilibrio masivo de riqueza y pobreza, y la explotación de continentes enteros por una pequeña élite, no se le ocurrió a este club elitista.
Al menos no sobre el papel.
Así se puso la primera piedra de la ideología que siguió.
Los humanos eran demasiado, ensuciaban demasiado y una gran parte de ellos tenía que desaparecer.
("Mantener la humanidad por debajo de los 500 millones".
El CO₂ ya no se consideraba vital y bueno para las plantas y las personas, se declaró un peligro, y se dijo a la gente que no respirara tanto.
La campaña mundial lanzada por el Club de Roma, que altera la mente, ha tenido un gran impacto en pocas décadas.
Así que a la gente de hoy no parece importarle que el 1% de los súper ricos, con sus megacorporaciones destructoras de recursos, estén predicando al 99% que por favor mantengan su huella ecológica lo más pequeña posible.
Pero volvamos a cómo empezó toda esta locura.
Río de Janeiro 1992
El grupo de reflexión, con palabras floridas, tenía que comunicar a los países el plan del nuevo y valiente futuro. Se eligió la conferencia de la CNUMAD en Río de Janeiro, donde el tema se presentó por primera vez bajo el lema Agenda 21.
Con más de 19.000 participantes, representantes de gobiernos de 178 países y 2.400 empleados de diversas ONG, la conferencia superó todo lo que se había visto antes.
La nueva agenda debía ser comunicada al público de la manera más eficaz posible.
Pero en lugar de desarrollar estrategias claras para una coexistencia justa y positiva de los seres humanos, los animales y el medio ambiente, por ejemplo en lo que respecta a la tala de los bosques tropicales, todo resultó ser bastante vago.
Muchas grandes palabras -incluida la sostenibilidad- pero nada tangible.
Ha nacido la mezcla verde en torno a la Agenda.
Pero, ¿qué hay realmente detrás de la Agenda 21?
Reducción de la población (deshacerse de los comedores inútiles)
Control de la población
Control sobre nuestros alimentos (los que controlan la producción de alimentos controlan al pueblo)
No Human Zones on the land (prohibición de que las personas vivan en el terreno)
Smart Cities (ciudades gigantescas con todos los habitantes del país)
No hay propiedad privada
Formación de comunas (si una persona va a trabajar, otra puede usar el piso para dormir)
¿Qué pretenden realmente los financieros mientras anuncian una utopía a los partidarios de la agenda?
Continuará
This Was Very Sad To Read...3 accidents with 2 Fatalities!
https://rapidcityjournal.com/n....ews/local/three-rall
#sturgismotorcyclerally2022
FEATURES AUSTRALIA
Gender behind bars
Housing trans prisoners is not straight forward
Tanveer Ahmed
Tanveer Ahmed
6 August 2022
90 AM
As a psychiatrist who visits jails, I’m concerned about biological men being placed in women-only facilities. We’ve been through heated debates about the trans issue in elite sport and in our schools, but prisoners are not a group that is flush with advocates.
Biological female prisoners are some of the most victimised people on Earth. The vast majority experience sexual abuse or physical violence, chaotic upbringings, foster care and many descend into drug abuse.
The policy self-declaration of gender identity hurts biological women. Yet it has been adopted in the bulk of Australian jails as an established norm in our criminal justice system, even though the principle has not yet been incorporated into common law.
This is not just the case in NSW, where the Daily Telegraph confirmed this month that there are three trans women in jails, but also in Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT. Western Australia has no clear policy whereas South Australia, the Northern Territory, and Queensland assess inmates on a case-by-case basis.
Definitive, uncontested figures about the size of the trans prison population are not available however a lawyer writing in Lawyer’s Weekly in November 2020 estimated that there may be as many as several hundred trans inmates in jails around the country. Whatever the number now, you can bet it will go up in parallel with the cultural zeitgeist. If referrals to a single gender clinic can go up by a factor of eighty, as they have done in Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital between 2011 and 2021, you can guarantee some of these individuals will filter through into our jails, especially given the markedly higher rates of mental illness trans people suffer, which automatically put them at greater risk of committing crimes.
Although jails have mostly adopted the policy that an individual’s declared gender identity should take priority over their biological sex, this is widely contested. One reason the policy should not be adopted is because it prioritises the wishes of those who identify as transgender over the rights of others, particularly biological females, not least their right to single-sex facilities. Why should the interests of a trans minority be put ahead of biological women? Why should the trans tail keep wagging the dog?
Sex remains the single biggest predictor of criminality. Ever since such statistics have been collected, for over a century, males make up around eighty per cent of offenders. But when it comes to sexual crimes, the figure is above ninety per cent.
The evidence suggests overwhelmingly that biological males who identify as trans women retain male patterns of criminality including a much higher risk of committing acts of sexual violence in jails. Furthermore, recording trans women as anything other than biological males has the potential to skew future data on criminality.
Female prisoners can be physically violent but much like society in general, aggression in women-only prisons is more likely to be relational, taking the form of damaging gossip or exclusion.
The environment in jails, especially among males, acquires a primitive edge. Inmates often organise themselves into tribes, often linked to their ethnicity. There are the Lebs, the Kooris, the whites, and the Islanders. Those that don’t fit neatly into the designated tribes try to make changes to do so. Inmates feel under threat and act in more primal ways. Conversion to Islam is one such way to ensure a degree of protection.
While the NSW Department of Corrections says that it considers security risks and assault-related crimes of the inmate, reserving the right to overturn the policy, the probability remains that trans women are at a much higher risk of committing a sex-based crime in jail. Britain’s the Prison Service estimates that trans women are five times more likely to carry out attacks in women’s prisons.
I don’t suggest the issue is clear cut. It never is with the trans debate. The calculus changes further if the inmates have had or are planning to have reassignment surgery.
I have assessed several clients who identify as trans women. None were incarcerated. All were terrified of being placed in male prisons for fear of being attacked. I am sympathetic to such fears. International studies show higher rates of trans females being attacked in male-only prisons. As a result, civil rights groups, such as the Human Rights Commission, are usually at the forefront of those advocating for inmates to be incarcerated according to their gender identity rather than their biological sex.
Yet just last month, the state of New Jersey opted to alter its policy of treating its inmates on the grounds of their chosen gender identity in response to the discovery that a trans inmate, Demi Minor, had impregnated multiple inmates. Minor, who is serving thirty years for manslaughter, was housed in a women’s prison, following a court case mounted by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of another transgender prisoner who successfully sued the New Jersey prison administration in 2019 for preventing her placement in a women’s jail. Other US states and Britain are now reviewing their policies given the spiraling growth of the trans category in the wider population.
In a recent paper for British think tank, Policy Exchange, lawyer and feminist Maureen O’Hara outlined some of the risks I have alluded to, arguing in her conclusion: ‘All trans-identifying prisoners should be housed within the prison estate which aligns with their biological sex or housed in a separate unit which does not form part of the women’s estate if being housed in the general men’s estate is considered unsafe for them.’ Granted jails are overcrowded, and resources limit the extent to which the special needs of trans prisoners can be met with unique facilities, but such a recommendation should be strongly considered within our criminal justice system.
All people, even those who face serious charges or are guilty of serious crimes, should be treated with dignity and compassion but it’s time to reconsider housing prisoners based on their self-declared gender. By doing so we are the placing the rights of trans-identifying male-bodied offenders above those of women in fear of male violence.
https://spectator.com.au/2022/....08/rise-of-the-race-
Maurice Newman
6 August 2022
90 AM
One of the striking findings of Australia’s 2021 census, is the growth in the indigenous population. In the five years since the last one, the number of people identifying as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders has increased by 162,800 to 812,728. That is a staggering 264,328 more than recorded in the 2011 census. In other words, in just one decade, the indigenous population has exploded by 48.2 per cent, more than three times the rate of growth of the population as a whole. If true, this would take the Aboriginal share of the population from 2.5 per cent to 3.2 per cent.
But is it true? It certainly isn’t the result of natural increase. Indigenous women may have 12 children more per 1,000 than all Australian women, but that doesn’t account for the anomaly.
Because each census is conducted in anonymity and under strict privacy laws, it is impossible to know how many indigenous people have previously hidden their ancestry or, the number of non-Aborigines who engage in ‘race shifting’. But, as whiteness continues to be devalued and, as guilt for the dark side of colonisation gathers intellectual and political momentum, pretending to be of Aboriginal descent has become fashionable.
Michael Mansell, chair of Tasmania’s Aboriginal Land Council, has been outspoken on this and pointedly called on high profile author, Bruce Pascoe, to stop claiming Aboriginality. Pascoe has variously identified as non-Aboriginal, as a Yuin man and as being related to the Boonwurrung people. However, checks on his genealogy reveal no evidence to support his claims, and he refuses to produce documentation.
Mr Mansell’s disapproval is echoed by many prominent Aborigines. They point to a ‘growing cohort of fraudsters’ with non-indigenous background who are making dubious claims to Aboriginal heritage and are cashing in on indigenous scholarships, corporate sponsorships, top jobs and welfare benefits. All of them see race shifters as diverting attention from more meaningful forms of engagement.
They are right. Whatever the motivation, race shifting, and the popularisation and, appropriation of indigenous culture, devalues public understanding and become detrimental to Aboriginal ambitions.
Take the customary acknowledgement of traditional custodians ‘and their elders past, present and emerging’. Some Aborigines see this as ‘paternalistic’ and, ‘tokenistic’. Acknowledgement presumes a mostly absent welcome to country and undermines the very ideal of inclusivity and attachment to the land. Moreover, the concept of ‘future’ (as in ‘emerging’), has no place in Aboriginal culture where time is multidimensional and circular.
Tokenism and the misunderstanding of Aboriginal traditions of kinship, have led authors of a Tasmanian government-commissioned report to highlight:
palpable resentment, anger and frustration among many Aboriginal people about the burgeoning numbers of Tasmanians claiming Aboriginality and of allegations of government facilitation of this phenomenon.
Indeed, until 2016, the test for Aboriginality in Tasmania was stricter than that of the Commonwealth. At that time, the census counted 18,000 Tasmanian Aborigines, while the Tasmanian government recorded only 6,000. In the five years since, that number has exploded to 30,000 descendants.
The legal historian, John McCorquodale, observes that since the time of white settlement, governments have used at least 67 classifications, descriptions or definitions to determine who is an Aboriginal person.
Historically, different states have adopted different definitions. In Western Australia, the test was ‘a person with more than a quarter of Aboriginal blood’. In Victoria, it is ‘any person of Aboriginal descent’. The definition most commonly used by the Commonwealth is:
a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he (or she) lives.
When consistency varies, even within jurisdictions, disputes over interpretation are inevitable. And, for many, having to prove descent is offensive. But that still doesn’t explain the census anomaly.
Inarguably, the number of people claiming indigenous status exceeds reality. Aboriginal academic Victoria Grieve-Williams says the ‘race shifting phenomenon is pervasive and well recognised by Aboriginal people…The race shifters hold the power; they stifle debate and resist scrutiny in various ways…’
Aboriginal playwright Nathan Maynard believes ‘This issue around identity is a result of the government not letting respective Aboriginal mobs determine who belongs to their communities’. ‘When we’re distracted fighting for control of our identity, we’re not fighting for our other rights like land rights and treaties.’
This is the Aboriginal dilemma. Enjoy modern day materialism or return to pre-European-settlement life.
Fortescue Mining chair Andrew Forrest says he has grown up among Aboriginal people and has seen the ‘wanton destruction of their culture and their livelihoods through welfare and royalties’.
Indeed, the evidence is in. Despite annual expenditure on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of $45,000 per person, double that on non-indigenous people, their misery abounds. And that expenditure excludes the hundreds of millions of dollars received in mining royalties and the 40 per cent of Australia now covered by native title, both exclusive and shared.
Clearly, fiddling with census data, expanding already generous budget allocations, land rights and tokenism may be good for the heart of sanctimonious elitists and rent seekers but keeping Aboriginal people set in aspic and out of the mainstream of modern society has done little to alleviate their misery.
Now elitists want to institutionalise this segregation through a constitutional ‘voice’ to parliament. This will encourage envy and more race shifting with the majority of genuine Aboriginal people seeing few tangible benefits. Moreover, they risk the commoditisation of their culture and the inevitable loss of public goodwill. The 2021 census says it all.
Victorian "Code Red" By Topher and Rukshan ?
