David Solway on After Masks and Lockdowns, Here Come the ‘Vaccines’. Read it all, but start with this.

The ramifications of the vaccines are far worse than that. Symptomatic reactogenicity is not uncommon. In just a few months, a spectrum of concerning side-effects have appeared, ranging from blood clots, erythema, cardiovascular ailments and Bell’s Palsy to anaphylactic reactions, swollen lymph nodes, chronic pain and untimely deaths. It should be no surprise that the general population will be constantly assured by a complicit network of authorities and pseudo-authorities that adverse reactions are statistically insignificant and should not be heeded. The incurious will be easily persuaded, especially as countervailing reports will be duly censored.

A typical example of what is really happening comes from British Columbia doctor Charles Hoffe who, in a letter to the Ministry of Health, reports “numerous concerning allergic reactions and neurological side effects from the vaccine,” and observes that “In stark contrast to the deleterious effects of this vaccine in our community, we have not had to give any medical care what-so-ever, to anyone with COVID-19.” He concludes that “this vaccine is quite clearly more dangerous than COVID-19.” 

We have been lied to at every turn so why should things be different now?

ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC all ignore
New York Times report on Kerry allegedly
leaking Israeli intel to Iran

For more continue here.

Following up on Is it The Age or The Oz?, the first of the articles is from The Australian: Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews promoted after she made my life hell, says female staffer. You would not think the rest of the subscribers liked the news balance reflected by the story – front page even – than I did. These are in order from the Best Liked on down:

Is this what it’s come to?  The Australian publishing every grievance and complaint as though it’s news?  It’s not. This is an HR matter. Please focus on actual news. 

Couple of comments – what about the other side of the story? Having been a public servant for 30+ years, is the complainant ‘over the hill’ and stuck in a old school rut?  Job performance not up to scratch? Getting ignored because younger, fresher talent is seen as a threat? A mature, experienced operative should have been able to manage the situation to recovery. Secondly, those that are pushing for quotas need to reflect on the inherent risk of female to female conflicts like this situation. In my working life (45 years in banking and finance) the most difficult situations I faced were in the majority, females fighting amongst themselves. The blokes just flared up one day and had a drink the next.

A busy person with big responsibilities will always be focused which often leads to abrupt behaviour and little time for niceties.  They are not necessarily bullying, they simply cannot babysit the feelings of everyone on their staff, no time and no interest.  Positions of heavy responsibility are pressure cooker – if staff are offended maybe they are in the wrong job.

It is truly amazing that all perceived problems. irregularities and complaints seem to be only reported if they are on the government side. It must be truly boring on the Labor side. All champagne and roses. Nothing to see here so to speak or is it too dangerous to speak out ??

To the Oz: Stop this nonsense. We already have the ABC.

I am the victim, I am the victim. What a culture we are degenerating into.

Everybody has upset someone, somewhere at some time some where along the line. My 45 years of business experience has taught me that if you have to “get up someone” it means that “someone” has not done their job. Of course every employee who has been told off by the “boss” feels like they have been “humiliated and victimised” Maybe, just maybe this advisor was not up to the job? Maybe she is a case of Peter’s Principle? There are always two sides to every story. 

Could someone please get back to running the country?

Employees, particularly those in the PS, today work in a fluffy, cosseted little cocoon of sweetness and soft light, inured from the rigours and arrows of life. The slightest hint of unpleasantness and they’re off to HR closely followed by a pack of baying ABC reporters.

“He said … she said …” Is anyone else getting a little tired of this?

I have trouble understanding this world of allegation we live in, where unnamed sources and unverified statements that cannot be corroborated, are the central theme of an article. It just doesn’t sound fair. 

This is getting ludicrous, I joined the workforce 45 years ago and you just did your job without complaint. My boss bellowed and yelled most of the day but we respected him and everybody accepted it because he was capable and fair. This bullying phenomena is totally out of control.

So, instead of taking this issue to the Fair Work Commission, this person waits until the day the minister is promoted and goes directly to the media.  The only logical conclusion is that this person wanted to do the most damage possible to the reputation of the minister with these actions.  How do we describe that behaviour?

So, it took six months to take action. The alleged bullying couldn’t have been too bad. Politics is not a bed of roses. Except on pay days. 

This is exactly what happened to me after 20 years working in a corporate environment, where I had the respect of the board, senior staff and volunteers for the work I did. Then a new CEO and marketing director were appointed, both women, both half my age, and the job stripping and verbal abuse started. I finally left after a year of it ~ and since then four subsequent appointees have done the same. Female managers are not always manna from heaven. 

So, you mean to ‘say’ that all ‘abuse’ in a workplace is not perpetrated by men upon women! Who would have thought it?!

Yesterday, The Australian published a story in which it stated someone needed a ‘clip behind their tin ear’ and it often includes in its headline or the story that someone needs to be ‘slapped down’. I remember a headline that claimed “Turnbull slaps down Abbott” (an article by former Oz journalist David Crowe). So on one hand we have the media promoting physical violence and bullying by clipping someone behind the ear and slapping someone else down, and now another article about bullying by Govt Ministers. Is the media confused?

She clearly lost the confidence of the Minister. Happens all the time with CEO’s and Boards in the corporate world for reasons which are often complex and yes, unfair. 

In all my years in the workplace it has women bullying other women that was the most common and damaging behaviour that I witnessed.  It destroyed more women’s careers than men ever did.  However, this problem is not reported or given any prominence, probably because it doesn’t fit with the narrative that men are the cause of toxic work environments and that the answer is simple – put more women in positions of power and the problem will go away.

Cannot understand how fair it is that the “Victim” says she wants to remain anonymous but she can name and shame anyone she likes. There is probably two sides to this story but sadly one side can say whatever they like anonymously whilst the other side is immediately condemned and because of political correctness cannot defend themselves.

She said blah, blah, blah, but cannot be named. Allegations of this kind should not be printed, frankly the public have had enough.

Women aren’t always the victim you know.  They very much can be tyrants too. 

Here’s the thing.  Sometimes employees behave badly.  Employers deal with this all the time and it is not always the employer who is bad.  I disagree that the Australian keeps the complainant out of the press whilst allowing them to vilify the minister.  Either they deal with the matter using appropriate workplace rules, but when they leak to the media they shouldn’t be able to hide whilst vilifying someone else.  The Australian has gotten this wrong.

This simply is not news.

This is not remotely newsworthy. This an HR issue. Bullying claims happen in workplaces every day 

So what we are now hearing is there are female bullies out their as well? I would never have guessed. 

I love the way the media jump on the bandwagon and are ready to dish dirt but won’t name the person.  Just more muckraking by the media.  

Anonymous former staffers who hold a gripe are neither newsworthy nor proper sources for reporting. If you put one name on the record, put the accuser’s name on the record.

These days most disgruntled employees or group members who don’t get their way complain that they are being bullied. A boss expressing dissatisfaction with your attitude or performance is not bullying. Nor is allocating tasks to others rather than you. 

…

As I said yesterday some of the worst offenders I saw during my time on the hill were women. Bad women bosses generally think that they can get away with things because they are women.  Having said that, some of these advisers need to harden up. Politics is a tough business; it’s not the Holy Order of Saint Therese.

Could we have a deadline for next Friday to have all historical claims of bullying, rape etc to be lodged or summarily dismissed so we can  1  Stop the left tacticians drip feeding this on a planned daily basis.
2 Get back to balanced media cover of the main emerging issues which are essential for our future.

The first 28 were all taken in order but the last two were added just for the additional perspective they offered, but were numbers 31 and 32. There were also plenty more along the same lines after that. I didn’t get down far enough to find someone who didn’t think this was an idiotic story, filled with sound and fury signifying nothing. Will just add this, which was perhaps #100.

It seems like every day another negative story emerges about the Federal Government. There is a distinct effort by many to damage them in the lead up to the next election.

Exactly right, it seems to me.

Growing up at nice lefty, wildly expensive private schools, I learned history as a series of progressive triumphs over conservative intolerance.

It made me happy to know that was how the world unfolded. It made me happy to know I’d be on the righteous side. It made me happy to know that the good team would win out. Each day is better than the last, and the path forward is always clear.

Religious schooling does not impart that message. It can’t. The Bible’s myths are all about chaos and complexity, sin and redemption, destruction and forgiveness, cowardice and courage, idiocy, luck.

To instill blissful confidence in me, the educational system had to downplay or ignore leftist failure. Secular, liberal Americans like me are taught a very beautiful and simple myth. It goes a little like: every progressive program that has failed or caused suffering didn’t do so because of some flaw in the plan or some misunderstanding of human nature. It failed because of forces on the wrong side of history.

This is how the system popped me out, at 22 years old, with only the vaguest knowledge of why the Soviet Union was a disaster. I had absolutely zero awareness that Jews there had any issue at all. If any of this was taught, it was fast and light enough to scuttle across my mind without leaving a mark.

My ignorance hit me hard in my Jewish 101 class, where one student was the daughter of Russian Jews, but she knew very little about Judaism from her family. I had no idea Judaism has been illegal there, that the rituals and the community had been pressured for generations to erase all traces of religiosity, all traces of difference, any part of themselves that might be Jewish. I’d never heard about any of that.

—“Why Do I Know Nothing About the Soviet Union?”, Nellie Bowles, Substack, Thursday.

Another troublesome fact has cropped up, gravely complicating the longtime dream of socialism. That troublesome fact may be best summed up in a name: Solzhenitsyn.

With the Hungarian uprising of 1956 and the invasion of Czechoslo­vakia in 1968 it had become clear to Mannerist Marxists such as Sartre that the Soviet Union was now an embarrassment. The fault, however, as tout le monde knew, was not with socialism but with Stalinism. Stalin was a madman and had taken socialism on a wrong turn. (Mis­takes happen.) Solzhenitsyn began speaking out as a dissident inside the Soviet Union in 1967. His complaints, his revelations, his struggles with Soviet authorities—they merely underscored just how wrong the Stalinist turn had been.

The publication of The Gulag Archipelago in 1973, however, was a wholly unexpected blow. No one was ready for the obscene horror and grotesque scale of what Solzhenitsyn called “Our Sewage Disposal System”—in which tens of millions were shipped in boxcars to con­centration camps all over the country, in which tens of millions died, in which entire races and national groups were liquidated, insofar as they had existed in the Soviet Union. Moreover, said Solzhenitsyn, the system had not begun with Stalin but with Lenin, who had im­mediately exterminated non-Bolshevik opponents of the old regime and especially the student factions. It was impossible any longer to distinguish the Communist liquidation apparatus from the Nazi.

—Tom Wolfe, “The Intelligent Co-Ed’s Guide to America,” 1976.

From Instapundit.