Saturday 30th of March 2024

going back in time with the mediocre hubris in the amateur hours...

1010

In an article for the Monthly, Robert Manne explains how the former PM’s memoir fails to reckon with Malcolm Turnbull's "fatal belief that all Australians shared his vision"…

 

 

Gus would like to apologise beforehand for having plunged the knife into Malcolm’s back a long time ago and about to carry on with the said political assassination nonetheless, though Malcolm is out of the general picture, despite having written his novel… 



In Malcolm’s PMship, there were many forces at work to reckon with. The main ones which taint this best of the best countries are latent racism, political amateurism and religious hubris, and Abbott — and lack of visions. Even Malcolm did not have any. If he had some he hid them very well… 

The best politicians in Australia have always been those on the left — or those with a sense of social justice, with a reckoning of the way siphoning money works. All of the underlying forces plus a sunny disposition led Australia and the “whiteys” to believe they were the ants-pants by being glorious lazy bastards like lizards on Bondi Beach and surfing like dolphins on the blue sea. Nothing wrong with this, but intellectually midgettish.

As a foreigner from the dark side of the world, I was amazed (horrified) to see kids being released from school at 2:30 or 3:00 PM so they could go and fry on sports fields and drown in swimming pools. I had learnt to swim in the sewers. We used to learn far more than our little brain could cope with, toiling daily till 6:00 PM, then cramming more historical facts, scientific experiments and poetry with homework that would see us to bed by 9:00 PM. My memory was crap. The next day I had no idea what I had learnt the day before. I could not recall, but it never left the back of my head.

I had arrived in this great country, the day after that John Gorton, a moderate conservative Prime Minister, threw himself out of government. Was this a blessing or a curse? Auguring nonetheless…. Not for me but for the country itself… At the time, the “waspish whiteys” in government could see an opportunity to make more money by sucking more blood out of the workforce, while Gorton had a tinge of social vision, opposed by the ultra-conservatives in his cabinet. The vote was 50/50 against the moderates. I believe that, having the final casting vote, John’s fateful decision to go against himself let the ultra-conservative have their wish. This was the start of the present political rot. The rorts and rot started way before this, probably with invasion day and the Rum Rebellion, but these are the modern times of Gus in Aussieland...

At the time, though the Liberals (ultra-conservatives) were Protestants (Anglicans), the Labor Party was mostly Catholic — but on the surface this distinction did not seem to count for much, except in pre-selections and which cricket team to support on Sunday. But the religious hubris ran deeper than this. 

Gorton was thus replaced by McMahon — a useless little straw-man remote-controlled by the ultra-conservatives in his party. With McMahon having nothing much to say, by the next election, the formidable Whitlam, who had been the powerhouse of the Labor party for quite a few years — fighting the somnolent granddaddy in his rocking chair Menzies years — took over. Even Mr Murdoch was on his side. 

There was an air of adulthood finally coming to Australia. Three short year later and the guy is booted out of the government by the GG, who under pressure from the Liberals (CONservatives) did the deed… We’re awaiting to see the correspondence between the GG and the Queen at the time, to be released by the end of July 2020. Crap… 

See, one of the other major problems, this lovely country has, is its immature constitutional monarchic governing apparatus designed to keep the socialist away from the levers. And with the Queen/King comes the religious hubris. Queen Liz is the head of the Anglicans. The Pope is the head of the Catholics. Prince Charles in the head of the Freemasons, which have been a discreet meeting point for the CONservatives and the Labor mobs to rule according to the “system"...

Though not exclusively, the Anglicans/CONservatives had mostly inherited the Royal red-coat structured mentality of the English army, while the Catholics/Sunday-socialist/Republicans had been transmitted from the convict days, by the boorish Irish. And each had their drinking holes. The Criterion pub in Sydney, a stone-throw from Trades Hall, was the Labor Party major headquarter, which I visited a few too many times, trying to make sense of all the political shit-fight — a luxury, in a “free” country. 

I say a “luxury” because in the country I came from, should you show some inclination to oppose the government you would end up in prison. Freedom was a novelty — a political novelty that seemed to be completely misused by all Australian political parties concerned. It was amateurism on all front as long as the cash cow was milked: the sheep, then the ores...

It would take many books to explain what I understood of this “poor fellow, my country” including racism and sexism, the to and fro amateurism that was wasting a lot of potential for real improvements without destroying the place. Let's skip a few scene from this theatre of the absurd, and Malcolm comes in with his baggage of ideals, which he never showed to anyone, except himself — probably not. 

Here is Robert Manne:

As Abbott’s reputation sank, Turnbull noticed that the number of flags at his media appearances rose. The record was 10 [see toon at top]. When Turnbull texted Craig Laundy about Abbott’s decision to knight Prince Philip, Laundy thought he was joking. Abbott’s supporters were by now becoming increasingly unhinged. Alan Jones screamed at Turnbull: “Don’t you know, everybody hates you? … You don’t love [Tony] as I do.” Turnbull felt he needed “to take a shower some days to wash off the indignity … of being part of such a shambles”. When it came, Turnbull’s inevitable coup against Abbott – 54 votes to 44 – was pleasingly “elegant” [see: http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/30824]. He promised that his government would be “positive, rational, appealing to people’s hopes rather than their fears”. To his later regret, one of the reasons Turnbull gave for challenging Abbott was his government’s loss of 30 Newspolls in a row.
... 

Ahahah! Here comes another element in this kiddy political landscape: the POLLS. and not just any poll, but the one run by the media run by the formidable Mr Murdoch. Mr Murdoch anoints PMs and presidents… The only one Uncle Rupe did not grant rights-of-being-in-charge what Ms Julia Gillard. He hated that fact. 

Julia herself had to make some unsavoury contortions in order to accommodate the ultra-religious mob (stirred by Mr Murdoch) in her Labor Party…

Abbott only got the Primeministership because Mr Murdoch had decided this unelectable prick was the only way to get rid of Julia. Mr Murdoch played Rudd versus Julia in the Labor Party. Politically, they killed each other, leaving the dork-in-chief, Abbott, the shifty mug, standing tall in the mud. End of story. 

Not quite. The saga was that Abbott was going to massively loose the next elections and the Labor “socialists” were going to win. Horror! Abbott was a massive loose dick in politics. His puppet-master, la Madam Credlin, had her hand up his arse and he nodded like a dummy. This is not the way to do politics in the best of best countries. Mr Murdoch shuffled the deckchairs and pumped up Malcolm’s ego so he would have the courage to challenge Abbott...

This was a neat trick to keep the CONservative in power. Malcolm believed in his “destiny” to lead, but overall he was yet another amateur with no idea. Please look at his $1 billion “Innovation Nation” programme. Great idea! Soon (actually straight away) one could see that this was a programme designed by accountants to find new ways to do accountancy, especially tax fiddles. In order to get a foot in the door of this great innovation idea, one needed a degree in accountancy and an army of accountants to manage the minefield of accounting hoops and tax traps. Not the way to run an efficient country or invent a better mousetrap. Taxing the mining industry would have been much easier. But this had been tried by Julia and she'd got hit for six. Taxing the mining industry is seen as the equivalent of nationalising the dirt underground (which it should be). 

So the amateur hour continued… The religious mob and the advertising executives of the CONservatives got their day. Malcolm was soon replaced by someone who is more savvy but far sneakier than Abbott… My view is that the sooner we get rid of Scott Morrison, the better for everyone. But becoming adults in this infantile political system? We can hope. Malcolm failed miserably at his elitist Republic… John Howard knew how to play the better childish game of deceit in this political landscape of little brats and young louts… 

We’re still suffering…

Meanwhile the Yanks are about to shoot themselves in the head, whichever way they vote… Strangely, the Trump might be the best option to go down the drain with caustic soda, than go flush with the hypocritical Corporate Democrats… It’s wicked… Weird...

more abbotisms...

The Media

The media were in love with Tony Abbott's visions...

 

economy

The Australian economy was run (down) by Abbott and his lackeys...

 

 

poor petal

One of the problems for Malcolm had been the same for everybody else...

At least Julia has been able to maintain a smile without a smirk or a single complaint since having been booted out of office by Democracy herself (see human loneliness and health are connected in evolution... in voter ignorance has worried political philosophers since plato till trumpism...)...

the way the statues should be...

Shrouded in black, the vandalised busts of Tony Abbott and John Howard await the restorer. Photo: Twitter

 

jwh and ta

 

It comes as Victorian police are also investigating the defacing of statues in Ballarat.

The statues of former Australian prime ministers Tony Abbott and John Howard were sprayed with red paint on Saturday morning.

They have since been covered and fenced off and a conservator will assess the damage on Monday.

 

Read more:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/indigenous-news/2020/06/14/cook-statue-a...

 

John Winston Howard should be in prison for declaring an illegal war on Saddam and Tony Abbott statue should have been thrown out at sea in a shaff-bag...

tony abbott does a good impression of his dorky self...

They may share a name but there is nothing similar about Sky News UK and Sky News Australia, at least where Tony Abbott is concerned.

The Australian Sky is wholly owned by News Corporation while Sky UK is owned by Comcast and hasn’t been part of Rupert Murdoch’s empire since he sold his shares in 2018.

Interviewing health secretary Matt Hancock, Sky News UK host Kay Burley asked if Abbott was the right person to be a trade envoy for Britain when he is a “homophobic misogynist”?

It wasn’t like anything you would hear on Sky News Australia, or any other TV network here to be fair.

“He says he feels threatened by homosexuality, he also says elderly people should be left to die naturally from Covid and men are better set to exercise authority than women,” Burley said, to which Hancock just repeated that Abbott was the right pick because he was good at trade.

Australian Sky News panellist and Herald Sun columnist Rita Panahi said the interview was “absolutely despicable” and called on the former prime minister to sue for defamation.

“Defamatory BS from a repeat offender” she said. “Tony Abbott should consult a lawyer. These unfounded slurs, pushed by his loony Left political opponents, are stated as fact by ‘journalists’ in the UK.”

But Burley wasn’t alone in her characterisation of Abbott. Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, told Burley that Abbott’s views were “deeply offensive and wrong” and he was “not the kind of person who should be a trade envoy for the UK”.

Kenny report

While we’re on Sky, we heard from Sky host Chris Kenny who was most unhappy that we wrote that “Aunty is the focus of most of his journalistic efforts at Sky News and the Australian”.

Kenny, an associate editor at the Australian, would like it known that across his two columns and six television programs a week the ABC made up just 10% of his output.

In the spirit of reconciliation, we are happy to report that on Thursday Kenny wasn’t talking about the ABC. He railed against Victoria’s “extreme lockdown” and the “nanny state” of the “socialist left premier”.

“Just imagine for a moment if John Howard or Tony Abbott were doing this, imagine if Jeff Kennett had tried to lock his whole state down,” Kenny said.

“They’d never have done it of course, but if they’d tried people would have revolted, the unions, the media, the human rights bodies would have been outraged and mobilised.”


Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/04/sky-falls-on-tony-abbott-a...

 

Read from top. See also:

the worse of the worst...

a joke? unfortunately not... turdy gets a gong...

 

patriotic refuge...

 

BY JACK WATERFORD

 

“Whose side are you on?” prime minister Tony Abbott once publicly asked the ABC when he felt that it was not sufficiently representing Australian propaganda, not to mention his own point of view, in some dispute with other nations.

He was not asking me, but had he been, I might not have spoken sententiously of the duty of the journalist to the truth, rather than to one side or another of an international conflict. I might have simply said that I hadn’t made my mind up yet, but I was pretty certain I was not on his [Abbott’s] side. I had seen by then enough of Abbott’s chronic misjudgements, poor instincts and his tendency to play defence and foreign affairs policy primarily for party partisan purposes, rather than in pursuit of Australia’s general national interests.

Abbott also set most of the Australian precedents for appearing in front of an ever-increasing number of Australian flags [see toon at top], as well as alongside a host of officials, generals, admirals and ASIO chiefs, being effectively verballed simply by virtue of being conscripted into the photoshoot.

Abbott’s call on the ABC, and on other journalists, to be patriotic in matters of conflict with other nations might have been said to follow a general example of Westminster or democratic government, or even Cabinet systems. In this, those with a voice were free to argue any point of view as hard as they wanted. But when the decision was made, particularly on an international matter, the loyal opposition would be loyal. Generally, it would agree broadly with the decision anyway, even if it had clear points of difference about how it should be carried into effect. The Americans tended to add to this a tradition of never publicly criticising their country’s foreign policy while travelling abroad.

Most Australians will take great pleasure when Australian athletes win medals at the Olympics over the next few weeks, and no doubt some hearts will swell when they hear the national anthem before an international game. A simple love of country is fairly ingrained in any citizen of almost any country. But dare we call it patriotism? And dare we pass judgement on the patriotism of others? I am inspired to ask this by an article I have recently read in an American magazine which seems to apply here as well.

The article responds to a father asking why his kids seem to “hate America”. They were not keen on the flag worship that seems to be a feature of 4 July and were embarrassed about their father’s wearing of the red, white and blue. “When did loving my country become a bad thing?” he asked.

The article comments that Gen-Zeds had the lowest rates of self-identified patriotism among all demographics, a title once held by the millennials. For many, but not all older Americans, the American flag represented the values to which they had been taught to pledge allegiance: liberty and justice for all. It represented battles fought against the Nazis and kamikaze bombers, as well as the ‘American dream’ ideal in which anyone could become who they wished, with cherished rights such as freedom of speech.

Even if most Australians are not as ostentatious in their flag worship and tend to snicker at American heart-holding, or Australian imitations of it, we have many similar rituals, including martial ones such as Anzac Day, involving the same sorts of ideas of ourselves, of Australia, and about the thing that Scott Morrison has taken to calling “sovereignty”.

But what if a younger generation does not see such things in clear-cut terms?

They live in an age in which history and notions of love of country do not come only from family and local schools. They may not be very engaged in politics, but they are often passionate about issues, particularly moral ones, such as climate change and the environment, women’s safety, indigenous rights, and same-sex marriage, that politicians too glibly consider second-tier matters.  They have a feel for the personality and honesty of the players.

They have access to a much fuller picture of history as well as of current affairs. And it is a history that is no longer, as it were, so black and white. Australia is no longer a monocultural ghetto, but a nation that has, at least in the past, welcomed immigrants, including people of different races, creeds and backgrounds. We have gone some distance, if only a small one, in recognising and incorporating indigenous Australians in our image of ourselves.

With or without black-armband theory, younger Australians are well aware that the nation’s progress since European settlement has not been one of unambiguous progress or national self-improvement. It has involved massacre, dispossession and impoverishment of the original inhabitants. It has involved active discrimination against non-Europeans, against women, gay and transgender people.

The Australian flag has flown over our overseas concentration camps where people fleeing from war and arriving on our shores by boat were deliberately treated with great cruelty so as to discourage others from exercising their acknowledged right to seek refuge here. If Australians fought bravely in wars and gave good service in peacekeeping operations, the respect of many Australians for our defence forces has been hurt by unpopular and unsuccessful deployments, and by credible allegations of serious and systematic war crimes.

There is, naturally, a “my country right or wrong” movement seeking to sweep such matters under the carpet, but the allegations won’t go away and, like our increasingly mean-minded and selfish international diplomacy, represent a stain on our international reputation.

In Australia as much as the US, right-wing nut-jobs are the biggest and most dangerous pretend-patriots of all.

After traversing similar matters in the US, the article continues that:

 

“[the gen-X’ers] have also come of age in a time when Trumpism implicitly linked the flag with a peculiar brand of conservatism that is overtly nativist, anti-immigrant, biased towards Christianity over other faiths, and vocally anti-transgender. Flag-waving and flag-wearing have become associated with rallies where speeches and merchandise capitalise on sexism, homophobia and racism – all of which are excused as being funny. (Can’t you take a joke?’ might as well be the new anthem.) In this same time Gen Z has witnessed the increase in hate crimes and seen how often the perpetrators espouse nationalist sentiment.

“So maybe your kids don’t want to fly the flag because to them it means liberty and justice for only some, or they relate it to unjust war, or they associate it with people whose values they find abhorrent. In that case, it’s as natural for them to reject the flag as it is for you to embrace it”.

 

Such a rejection of flags, slogans, and largely empty words and meaningless songs, does not mean younger folk reject the love of country. It can equally imply a more active and critical citizenship, with new and better values for the future. A citizenship that is more inclusive and embracing of the full Australian community, more kind to each other, more intolerant of injustice. Believers in an ideal society are less suspicious of the new, the alien, and the stranger, less militantly anti-intellectual, and more willing to work with each other, our neighbours and the international community to address common problems, not least climate change. It is not without significance that some of the most boorish and determined wearers of Australian flags — including the ones most given to impugning the patriotism of others – are non-believers or laggards on doing anything to address climate change and the already pressing environmental problems it is causing.

There is a growing chasm in American society between Republicans and Democrats, in which a significant proportion of the community rejects the clear result of the last presidential election. That chasm is not only about values: it has a racial basis. Adherents of the two parties scarcely communicate with each other, and many talk of an effective civil war, albeit, this time, with Republicans as the champions of white privilege.

 In Australia, perhaps, the divide is not so great or (yet) so ominous. But there is the same process of disintegration of old and established institutions of government and society, and a bigger blight of money interests, lobbies and cronies of government at the expense of public involvement in the exercise of power.  Add diminished demand for integrity, honesty and fairness in the way public power is exercised, a much-reduced role for transparency and public accountability, and a prime minister, and ministers, who flaunt their disregard for process and their willingness to lie and mislead. This has serious implications for future orderly transfers of power, for respect for politics and public life, and for that authority and legitimacy, as well as public consent,  which is critical for the survival of the state.

When Australians think of patriotism, our ideas are more about war and national history than the Americans’ constant need to reassure themselves that their faltering republic is the greatest country on earth. With senior bureaucrats, spy chiefs and publicly funded agencies lobbying receptive ministers for greater confrontation with China, it is worth reflecting on whether our politicians have the cred, or the moral authority, to command the public to follow. We have a national pretence that national security is beyond politics and that partisan politicians, in plotting our international course, shed all partisan considerations, wearing only their “national” hat.  On national security, our loyal opposition is too scared to speak at all. Will ordinary voters, particularly the younger ones, be fooled by their complicity, or inclined to forgive their cowardice?

 

Read more:

https://johnmenadue.com/patriotism-needs-more-active-more-suspicious-citizenship/

 

Read from top.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOWØØØØØØØØØØØØØ∑∑∑∑∑∑∑∑

AAT blues....

The abolition of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) is a crucial part of Attorney General Mark Dreyfus KC’s integrity platform. In the last decade of Coalition governments it had become overwhelmed by partisan appointments, creating a bedlam of incompetence and politically-motivated decisions.

Many of these Coalition appointments were unqualified, with no legal training or experience: there are rumours that AAT librarians had been asked on occasion to write findings. To pour salt on the bleeding wound, salaries of up to $385,000 were granted these politicians’ friends.

The term “competitive authoritarianism” describes the path from an elected (if flawed) democracy to illiberal democracy or authoritarianism. One of the key ways that an elected government can tilt the playing field is to own the referees.

An egregious act by Tony Abbott’s Coalition government in 2015 was the abolition of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and absorption of its role into the AAT. Expert adjudicators with an understanding of the crises faced by asylum seekers were squandered and replaced by people sympathetic to the Abbott government’s western chauvinism. As a result, roughly 70% of the AAT’s cases tested the claims of refugees refused by an immigration department determined to fast track white au pairs and to reject people it defined as “non-white” seeking safety from genocide.

These decisions carry grave weight. As the ASRC’s Principal Solicitor, Hannah Dickinson, summarised: “Administrative review bodies like the AAT make decisions that have extraordinary significance for people’s lives: whether they face indefinite detention; whether they are deported to death or torture; whether they will be separated from family or community forever.”

The Abbott AAT ran a twin-track system of appeals. Those who came by plane have access to the AAT proper and a chance of justice. Those who came by boat until July 19 2013 endured the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) offshoot of the tribunal which was designed to deny justice wherever possible.

The validity of people’s right to refugee status after Abbott and Scott Morrison’s reforms was now judged by public servants expected to reject as many as they could get away with in a Fast Track process that was designed to fail them. Some individual Home Affairs case officers would vouchsafe justice, but find their decision to grant someone protection was then overturned by the National Office in Canberra.

Access to Legal Aid for asylum seekers was cancelled in March 2014. Some filed paperwork or came to interviews unrepresented, and others came represented by migration agents, not all of whom are as scrupulous or expert as one might need facing being forced home to torture.

The notorious IAA was their appeal pathway. It was a place of justice-denying limitations and aggressive ignorance. Only very limited new information could be brought or clarified. People still physically crippled by torture were assessed by these Coalition appointments to be in no danger on being returned home to their persecutors. Rape was not recognised by this body as a weapon of war, and thus dismissed. Evidence was determined to be fake despite its authenticity.

In the public interest, findings were posted on the internet. The IAA redacts only the names, making the cases easily recognisable to foreign nations’ security forces, placing family still at home in great danger of retribution.

Immigration, AAT and IAA findings of the right to protection were made largely on the basis of the foreign affairs department’s Country Reports. These can be a poor basis for decision making, three Upper Tribunal judges in the UK found, in a “scathing” rejection of the appalling Sri Lankan report’s use. DFAT has political and diplomatic motivations to write reports in a particular light. Often the reports are formed on the basis of local employees’ information, with many coming from the ethnic majority that does not recognise the rights or stories of the minority community fleeing the country. Expert advisers giving a more accurate picture of the appellant’s fate were disdained by the partisan appointees of the IAA. Tamil Sri Lankans in particular have faced terrible injustice because of the use of this Country Report.

The replacement body for the AAT is being workshopped around Australia at the moment, hearing submissions and accepting reports. It is critical that justice for asylum seekers and refugees is part of the deliberation. As Lord Bingham, former British Lord Chief Justice, said, “asylum decisions are of such moment that only the highest standards of fairness will suffice.”

Australia must recommit to the Refugee Convention. A dedicated body such as the RRT must be reconstituted. This works to remove the unnecessary burden of cases from the AAT (and the courts) to an expert appeal tribunal. The IAA must be disbanded in disgrace.

Resources must be allocated to both bodies: years-long delays are a denial of justice.

There must be training of the tribunal members to understand the impact of trauma on memory, to understand cultural sensitivities about revealing such horrific information to interrogatory strangers. There must be support staff to aid in the mitigation of the pain of reliving a person’s worst horrors, compounded by the fear that they will be living through similar pains again if their story isn’t believed. Interpreters must be carefully selected, with an eye to ethnic tensions in the homeland.

It is essential that new information can be introduced and DFAT Country Reports must be replaced by a more accurate assessment of an appellant’s safety in their homeland.

The 12,000 people in the legacy caseload (pre July 19 2013) are in limbo, many stuck in expensive legal appeals against unjust findings from a broken process. This is a pressure the courts cannot sustain alongside the covid-era backlog. The frustration of professionals and volunteer supporters is immense: even those now out of options and due to be sent home have ominous fates looming.

Australia is determined that the “offshore cohort,” who came after the arbitrary date of July 19, will go elsewhere. Their last decade’s fate was decided by the whim of Border Force. A painful life of limbo in Australia or the grotesque torments of the Manus and Nauru prisons might depend on which side of a Border Force official’s arm they stood in a room, to be split from family and friends.

Unfortunately there are few options for them available since most countries are dealing with their own more generous intake already. Every political undertaking is changed as circumstances shift: Rudd’s “no chance” promise is unnecessary in an era of boat push-backs.

Both cohorts are being used to balance the slow mercy granted the 19,000 whose visas will be transitioned to permanent safety. The legacy and offshore groups are being sacrificed to the culture warrior bigots.

It seems that outside the courts, immigration minister Andrew Giles plans to review each case separately to see which deserve a Ministerial Intervention. This appears an outrageously labour-intensive process for a cohort where 90% have consistently been found to be genuine refugees. An amnesty, which Giles rejects because a small number come from places with no record of persecution , seems a much better option than continuing to torment these individuals and families kept in limbo.

Our politicians and complicit media have performed outrage about the relative few refugees who made it to our distant shores, as a racist distraction from their unpopular policies. In fact our intake has been measly. During a similar crisis of displacement, Australia took 70,000 refugees in a year. The post WW2 refugees, however, were largely European and somewhat less challenging for a white supremacist people.

It is great news for our democracy that the shambles of an AAT is being replaced. As part of this process, we must ensure that we provide justice for the relatively few refugees who have come to us for safe haven rather than persecuting them in the hope that their genocidal home becomes preferable to our indefinite torment.

There is no place for that crime in a healthy democracy.

 

READ MORE:

https://johnmenadue.com/the-aat-abolishing-a-system-of-indefinite-torment/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOWØØØØØØØØØØØØØ∑∑∑∑∑∑∑∑