The last two sentences of today’s ABC report on the inquiry into Victoria’s hotel quarantine program reveals important information:
Ms Coate [head of the inquiry] has told the inquiry that evidence on “lines of accountability” has been “varied”.
She is due to deliver her final report to the Governor of Victoria, Linda Dessau QC, by November 6.
By November 6 it won’t matter, the ABC have their headline:
What matters is always the first headline. Intriguingly, it has been updated:
Follow ups and correction have minor impact on the first impression – that first impression is what remains in the public mind.
Miss Coate may very well find, after some forensic investigation, that certain people, departments and institutions are very much responsible for the Victorian outbreak. Mind you, expecting the Victorian judiciary to rule against Daniel Andrews or his government is like expecting Iona Nikitchenko to rule against Joseph Stalin regarding the Rape of Germany.
Regardless, whatever she reports will matter little, and their Marxist ABC is all too happy to pounce. Some key quotes reinforce the headline’s message:
“There’ll be no suggestion from those assisting that those engaged in setting up this program worked other than with the best of intent or to the best of their ability,” he told the inquiry.
“Bad faith or corruption is not what the evidence shows.”
“It will be not be suggested that a single decision or a single actor caused the hotel quarantine program to fail in its objective to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the community,” Mr Neal said.
We can provide evidence that Victoria’s approach to the plandemic was bungled:
This is yuge. https://t.co/4jON5uuKvk
— XYZ (@itsyourxyz) September 23, 2020
We can point out Dictator Dan’s lies:
— XYZ (@itsyourxyz) September 20, 2020
None of this matters. Even if Andrews goes, it will not be cause for celebration. Daniel Andrews is not an aberration, he is a feature of the system. This invention of democracy is most intimately related to a quality which in recent times has grown to be a real disgrace, to wit, the cowardice of a great part of our so-called ‘leadership.
Take a look at one of these political bandits. How anxiously he begs the approval of the majority for every measure, to assure himself of the necessary accomplices, so he can unload the responsibility at any time. And this is one of the main reasons why this type of political activity is always repulsive and hateful to any man who is decent at heart and hence courageous, while it attracts all low characters-and anyone who is unwilling to take personal responsibility for his acts.
As Adam Piggott has stated:
The democratic leader is not a leader at all. Rather, he is a seeker of mediocrity through moderation; a vacillator who fears above all else having to make a decision. But this state of anxiety is ultimately nonsensical; the democratic leader is a leader who faces no consequences for his decisions. At worst he will lose the following election. At the very worst he will lose his seat, but he will never lose his head.
The disposition to make a decision and stand by the consequences is not a requirement for democratic systems of government. Rather, it is the ability to remove responsibility from authority. This process then attracts the scoundrel, and in this habitat he prospers.
Democracy is by its nature unsustainable. No democracy has ever lasted. It is followed either by dictatorship or the destruction of a people. This knowledge of history impresses on us the importance of securing the existence of our people.