WHAT'S IN A NAME AND WHY DO WE NEED LABELS.

As the term First Nations comes to be more commonly used, amongst certain vested agendas, to refer to Australians with Aboriginal ancestry we need to think about what this label means.

It refers to a tiny group of Australians. I have no doubt those who use it think it is a positive reference but the reality is that it it a distorted concept of respect which in truth is patronising racism toward those who have some Aboriginal ancestry - whether a lot or a little.

I have no doubt those who use the term mean well, or believe their use of it is positive but the term is divisive and insulting to the vast majority of Australians. These labels are all about differentiating, separating, dividing, singling out, a tiny group of Australians as something special because of some of their ancestry.

We frequently see someone applauded for achieving something that other Australians do all of the time and yet it becomes exceptional because they have some Aboriginal ancestry. There may be no trace of that small bit of Aboriginal ancestry remaining physically and one can be a blue-eyed blonde and claim Aboriginality, but, because of that ancestral drop, any achievement is miraculous and in need of recognition.

To my mind that is terribly racist, patronising and insulting to those with Aboriginal ancestry. The argument would be that kids in remote communities, the few who are still struggling in our modern world because they are the least assimilated, can benefit from seeing what others with Aboriginal ancestry achieve. But that ignores the reality of tribal affiliations and the fact that most of the achievers are patently more Anglo-European than they are Aboriginal and this sort of information doesn't get to kids in communities and, even if it did, is meaningless unless they are being trained to believe that achieving anything when you have some Aboriginal ancestry is nothing short of miraculous.

This dividing into First and Second Australians does not make a nation, that destroys a nation. The group in question were once called Indigenous, or even more radical, Aboriginal, but now they are called First Nations. Why the change?

I doubt the change is because everyone born in Australia is Indigenous and most of those who register Aboriginal ancestry have such minimal ancestry they are not in the least Aboriginal, so First Nations covers all bases and elevates them above everyone else.

What's in a name you might say? Quite a lot actually and the pen is mightier than the sword and the word has powers beyond its meaning.

First Nations means some Australians because of some of their ancestry are superior to all of the rest - they are first. Everyone else is second.

This is a group where the range is from 100% Aboriginal ancestry, descended from from one or a couple of the hundreds of different tribal/clan groups here in 1788 and not many of those, to less than 1%, lots of those.

We are talking about TEN generations since the British arrived with so much intermarrying and mixing and with most of those who register Aboriginal ancestry in mixed marriages today and fully assimilated into the broader community for generations. And yet for some strange reason they need to be singled out, to be made other, to be deemed above all else.

The majority of the roughly 700,000 who register their Aboriginality are so minimally Aboriginal in ancestry they could not register as such in any other country in the world. But strangely some like to define themselves by this little bit of their ancestry and some do it even while denying they are doing it, but have long boarded the Aboriginal industry gravy train.

They like to see themselves as FIRST amongst all Australians, as exceptional, as special, as superior. I have no doubt that most would not see it that way but instead see it as establishing their Aboriginal validity but that is not what the term means. First is First. Second is Second. And nation, a modern European term, applied to stone-age hunter-gatherer tribal groups, is just a modern projection onto a mythical past.

But, here they are under the dubious label of First Nations. So, what does that term mean?

There were no nations in Australia when the British arrived, just 350 or so tribal groups, many no more than clans, without a common language which is part of the definition of nation, and generally at war with each other.

Nation is a historically recent concept and even Italy and Germany were not nations until the middle of the 19th century so it is patently clear Aboriginal tribal/clan groups were definitely not nations in 1788.

The first and only nation to ever exist on this land was and is the Australian nation.

The term, First Nations is American in origin and was applied in past centuries to a Confederation of Indian tribes. It has no relevance to Australia and has no relevance to Aboriginal peoples in the past and no relevance to their descendants today.

But the use of the term First Nations for those with Aboriginal ancestry, just a smidge would do, relegates other Australians, those devoid of such a 'precious' ancestral quality, to Second Place.

If First Nations means those with Aboriginal ancestry then everyone without it and the Australian nation are Second. That does not sound very democratic or fair since more than 25 million Australians don't have or don't register Aboriginal ancestry.

And in a modern democracy why divide ourselves along such backward primitive lines which reflect tribalism? Time to stop using the First Nations label and to make it known that such a divisive term has no place in modern, democratic Australia.

Like

Comment

Share

When we let fear rule

 One thing has become very clear in the time of Covid and that is, the most compliant are the most frightened.

The lack of rational thinking on the issue seems to increase with each Jab and the mere fact anyone can think that two Jabs, let alone four Jabs, would be required for something which is supposed to be a vaccine, i.e. create immunity, indicates a severe lack of reason and capacity for rational thought.

This is why the Jabbed so fear the Unjabbed because any challenge to their decisions or positions intensifies their sense of fear. This is how societies have always been divided and how tyranny rules. Some people are more easily frightened than others; some ages are more easily frightened than others, but the vast majority of people fear disease and death and anything which embraces those two fears is powerful indeed and terribly dangerous.

The Government handling, with the help of science-medical advisers (one hesitates to call them experts) and the media, has constituted a terrorist attack on society and on the minds of individual. It has been traumatic. It was meant to be traumatic because the fearful are more easily controlled.

Understand how fear works. What calms the compliant and the Jabbed is the belief they were right and everyone else agrees.

Quote: The impact of fear on the human brain is very powerful: it completely changes the way we process information.

“When people are frightened, the parts of the brain that are responsible for rational thinking cease to dominate”, Dr. Bruce Perry explains, quoted in an article published on the Time magazine website.

When faced with a threat, the cortex, which is responsible for risk assessment and actions, ceases to function. In other words, logical thinking is replaced by overwhelming emotions, thus favoring short-term solutions and sudden reactions.

On the other hand, interpretation of the environment helps us to survive disasters. Joseph LeDoux, professor of psychology at New York University, explains that this mechanism “monopolizes the brain resources to help face the threat”.

This type of behavior has advantages and disadvantages. Rapid response helps us guard against unexpected attacks. Furthermore, the risk assessment failure can be as dangerous.

A traumatic event has long-term consequences. Anything that reminds us about the threat triggers an involuntary state of fear. Events of this type lead to chain reactions in the human brain: people become more anxious, the reaction rate increases as well as attention to any sensations that might be related to the traumatic experience.

Regarding terrorist attacks in Boston, the researchers quoted in the article believe that this general fear effect is wanted by villains. Choosing symbolic events or places is not so random.

Unfortunately, due to this impact of fear, people prefer to take refuge in harmful habits in an attempt to cope with these unsettling emotions. For example, they may start drinking more alcohol or taking sedatives. Sleep does not help to eliminate negative emotions and painful moments fixed in our memory or reduce the risk of post-traumatic stress (PTSD).

But statistics show that approximately 80% of those exposed to trauma will not suffer from PTSD. Studies also suggest that socialization and expressing emotions have a calming effect.

Valerie Soleil, B.A., LL.B.

Content editor & staff writer at Learning Mind

Valerie Soleil is a writer with over 5 years of experience and holds a bachelor's degree in law and a B.A. in Psychology. She is a physical & mental health enthusiast who constantly expands her knowledge about the mysteries of the human body and mind.

Let this be a time

 Let this be a time, when

you remember who you 

hoped to be, and brought

together in mind, all the

best that you as a human

and your own unique self

could become. It is a sharp

and scrambling task, which

will drag you beyond the 

known, through sad valleys,

across cold mountains, into

raging seas to breathe the

solemn air of hope, taste 

the salted tang of freedom, 

and set you a course to

the stars where being

resides, and beckons

always, even when dim

from fear and diluted 

by lies: let this be a time

when you demand to 

find the best of yourself,

knowing that no-one 

else can complete such

a journey of becoming. 

For it is yours and yours

alone, and is the diadem

which crowns your life,

if you reach out and

take it from the fates.

When life hurts

 When life hurts, which it so often

does, how do we find meaning and

purpose to go on? Is there not some

thing twisted in believing or needing

to believe, that pain can be positive,

that hurting can heal, that suffering

can be not just necessary but good?

In this dance of reason, rage and 

grief, for all walk hand in hand

with pain, can we remember the

steps and remain faithful to their 

execution, telling ourselves that

it is all, in its own way, beautiful?

And is there anything else to do,

or which can be done, to soften 

the hard edges of life, to smooth

the jagged jaws of reality, so that

we can, just for a moment, breathe?

Dreams in tatters

 Dreams in tatters,

shard-shouldered on

dried earth; bright 

broken moments as

night laughs deeply,

and whispers in the

remnants of stunted

teeth; surrendering. 

Drowning

You were drowning and

I called you back to life.

Across time, space, echoes

of sodden wave and foam.

Holding on from far 

distant dreams, but still

connected, even though

you did not know it. It

was only later, when you

told me the story of how

you had nearly died: were

pulled inexorably into the 

salted suck of sea, that I

understood why I had 

been holding on, drawing

you back to the light, to

yourself, to the world 

and to me. For that is 

the power of love when

it connects across time,

distance, fear, doubts,

delusion and dreams.

The screaming force

of ocean is nothing by

comparison, although

we forget that truth

constantly. And yet,

in the corridors of 

night I heard you call,

even as your mouth was

swollen with the fury of

the sea; heard it dance

upon the edges of my 

distant dreams, in slow

crusted whispers of 

fear. That call across

eternity and space, was

heard, is always heard

even from your mute

silence; your angered

disconnection, for the

depths of love can 

never be drowned by

fear, doubt, suspicion...

I heard you call and still

I hear you call.  

Wear a mask

 WEAR A MASK.

Pollute and poison yourself, other people and the planet.

Teach the children fear-based decision-making; craven compliance with any Government dictate no matter how stupid; rejection of common sense, reason and facts when deciding how it is best to live. Children are malleable and the most powerful lessons they learn are unspoken. Actions speak louder than words.

We have a duty to ensure they will fit the system whatever the system may be, some appear to believe. I personally believe we have a duty to help children make their way through an often challenging world but to do so with courage, common sense, integrity, independence and a questioning mind, albeit, to lesser and greater degrees.

Remember, what you are doing is for the good of all, we are being told. That approach is always a great vote-winner. Either what you do is what you truly believe is for the greater good or it is what someone else tells you is for a greater good which only they understand properly. Which is why it can be so confusing. That ploy also works well with a lot of people.

However, for those prepared to think outside the box, or actually within the box of facts, reason and common sense, some data taken from the Australian Government website which demonstrates the level of risk from Covid is very low. https://www.health.gov.au/.../coronavirus-covid-19-case...

It is harder to find the research articles showing masks are useless on this count, including surgical masks, because the censors now hide it, but do some research into virology and decide if you think a mask prevents viral particles escaping. As one cardiologist said, it would be like controlling mosquitos behind a chain fence.

But, let us trust that there will always be some research being done and it can be found. At least temporarily. Anything which challenges the running narrative is subject to interference so it does not come up quickly in any online search.

Quote: For scientists, the prospect of continued mask use in everyday life suggests areas for further research. In our view, further research is particularly desirable in the gynecological (fetal and embryonic) and pediatric fields, as children are a vulnerable group that would face the longest and, thus, most profound consequences of a potentially risky mask use.

Basic research at the cellular level regarding mask-induced triggering of the transcription factor HIF with potential promotion of immunosuppression and carcinogenicity also appears to be useful under this circumstance. Our scoping review shows the need for a systematic review.

The described mask-related changes in respiratory physiology can have an adverse effect on the wearer’s blood gases sub-clinically and in some cases also clinically manifest and, therefore, have a negative effect on the basis of all aerobic life, external and internal respiration, with an influence on a wide variety of organ systems and metabolic processes with physical, psychological and social consequences for the individual human being.

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4344/htm

Australian Government data.

Australia has 25.7 million people as at July 2021.

There have been 32,269 cases of Covid diagnosed. That represents 1.2 people per thousand.There have been 915 deaths recorded out of the 32,269 cases recorded.

⁠

That means the survival rate in Australia is 92.78%. Currently 1,068 cases. They are classified as mild, serious, critical. 99% of all Covid cases in Australia are considered mild. At present, and this is a couple of days since these numbers were crunched from the Federal Government site, of cases, 1,590 were deemed mild, isolating at home and 18 are serious or critical.

⁠

In the last 24 hours 180,180 tests performed. 23 million 310,294 tests done since Covid was recognised. Each test costs a minimum of $100 to perform.

⁠

For every 1,000 people tested 1.4 people are diagnosed in Australia. 183,180 tests in last 24 hours and less than .7 people per thousand diagnosed.

⁠

Covid deaths – 317 deaths were in people 90 plus, 381 deaths in people 80-89; 162 deaths in group 70 to 79, 38 deaths in 60-69; 21 deaths in 0-59. No female under the age of 50 has died from Covid in Australia. Five males under the age of 50 have died of Covid. That includes everyone who is chronically ill, with co-morbidities.

⁠

So this is not a disease of everyone statistically. It is no threat to the young and not a great threat to the healthy of any age.

⁠

9,149,817 shots administered with 39,077 reports of adverse effects. So 4.3 people per thousand experience an adverse reaction.

⁠

According to the TGA 377 people have died after the jab. The TGA confirmed four died FROM the jab, with 883 confirmed cases of bloodclotting. Other diseases and syndromes reported by the TGA and many others are being investigated. What those investigations reveal may or may not be made public I would guess.

⁠

Three times more likely statistically to report or suffer an adverse reaction to the vaccine than you are to get Covid following Government guidelines.

⁠

It is worth tracking the US system of VAERS while remaining aware that estimates are less than 10% of vaccine injuries are reported. In other words, while Australia might do better, the reported injuries/deaths are not going to be accurate given human nature and the power of the system to repress such information.