20 August 2010 Thought for the Week:
Large financial interests financed Lenin's Bolshevik takeover of the Soviet Union, the rise of Hitler's National Socialism in Germany, and Chairman Mao's Communist revolution in China. In none of these centrally controlled tyrannies was the lot of the poor made better; however, those in power exercised tremendous control over those below them.
“Food Stamp Use Hits Record 40.8 Million in May: The number of Americans who are receiving food stamps rose to a record 40.8 million in May as the jobless rate hovered near a 27-year high, the government reported yesterday. Recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program subsidies for food purchases jumped 19 percent from a year earlier and increased 0.9 percent from April, the US Department of Agriculture said in a statement on its website. Participation has set records for 18 straight months”.
ASIANISATION AND THE DEMISE OF TRADITIONAL AUSTRALIA
by James Recd and Brian Simpson
And the bottom line is that a cut in immigration will impact negatively on that holy of holy, retail sales (“it’s so bloody obvious,” he said). Yes – and just as obvious is the fact that we will never shop at Harvey Norman again for those remarks – our consumer freedom.
The Herald Sun (29/7/20120), “Australia’s migrant intake soars,” reports that the Asian migrant population has exploded reaching almost a million Chinese, Vietnamese and Indians, etc., in Australia over the past decade. The Asian-born population has risen from 5.3 per cent in 1999 to almost 9 per cent according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is almost certainly an underestimation of the number of people of an Asian race in this land. It does not consider the racial composition of people from now multiracial countries like the UK, New Zealand and the US. Clearly most migrants to Australia (perhaps 90 per cent) are non-white. Australia has thus gone from a White Australia policy to a Yellow Australia policy.
Demographer Charles Price in 1999 (“Australian Population: Ethnic Origins”, People and Place vol.7) estimated that Australia’s Anglo Celtic share of the population fell from 90 per cent in 1947 to 74.5 per cent in 1988 to 70 per cent in 1999. He estimated on what were relatively low immigration levels that Anglo Celtic share of the Australian population would fall to 62.5 per cent by 2005.
On more realistic figures it is likely, in our opinion, that the Anglo Celtic share of the Australian population is now less than 50 per cent. Whites of any shade and shape, with the present high migration levels, will be minorities in Australia by about 2040, about the same time US whites will become minorities. It may happen sooner if business leaders get their way, just to keep their sales up! Open migration is not an impossibility with hundreds of millions of people pouring into Australia.
So, let us run with this
Unfortunately for them, none of the champions of unlimited growth have shown how, with such unprecedented changes, social stability can be preserved and society saved from descending into crime and anarchy. When one’s sole focus is a crass concern with profit maximisation, bigger issues escape one’s grasp.
GREENS THRIVE AS PART OF GLOBAL-LEFT MOVEMENT
by James Reed
The Green Party supports all Leftist politically correct causes such as refugee “rights”, same-sex marriages, multiculturalism, ad nauseum. The immigration issue is always skipped around. In a nutshell, the Greens are not an ecological party concerned with protecting the ecological sustainability of the planet, but are a Leftist movement with a “green” veneer. Environmentalists prior to WW II had a more ‘right wing’ orientation. Thus US anti-immigrationist Madison Grant defended Nordics in his 1924 book “The Passing of the Great Race” (published by a leading publisher) and also championed conservation themes.
Today, with the politicisation of environmental research (e.g., the ‘Climategate’ scam) we are obliged to take a critical stance towards environmentalist claims. Nevertheless a conservative approach to the environment (conservationism) is possible.
Social Credit seeks to go beyond crass commercial consumer society and to create a world where the individual’s true human nature and creative potentials can flourish. That is the real environmentalism.
WILL THE REAL JULIA STAND UP ? WILL THE REAL CHRISTIAN STAND UP !
Under the heading “Will the real Julia please stand up?” Peter Stokes of Saltshakers sent out an email to those on his email list. He wrote:
Exaggeration? Possibly, but only slightly, because this is certainly the direction towards which the real Julia Gillard would take this nation if elected on August 21.
Barney Zwartz also writes:
Even the mild mannered Barney Zwartz put it this way:
The Australian Christian Lobby was happy to uncritically welcome, and even congratulate, Julia Gillard on becoming the Prime Minister (Media release 24 June) following the dumping of Kevin Rudd two days after their ‘Make it Count’ Presidential style presentation of Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd. Now they have given Julia a chance to convince us Christians that she is really on our side.
In the past week we also have seen Julia praise the chaplaincy program and announce additional funding for 1,000 more chaplains in schools. Yet last year she said that she wanted to see the school chaplaincy program ‘secularised’. Which Julia do we believe? Has she changed her mind or is she just trying to win the ‘Christian Vote’?
Now, in yet another appeal to the 'Christian vote' she has announced that she will help fund the celebrations of the Roman Catholic sainthood of Mary MacKillop to the tune of $1.5 million. “Gillard announces $1.5m for MacKillop” SMH, August 5, 2010. If ever there should be a call for a separation of church and state this should be it! We totally oppose this funding effort by Julia Gillard.
A GLIMPSE OF OUR FUTURE?
Andrew Bolt’s Blog: 10/8/2010.
WOULDN’T YOU KNOW IT - RUDD CONFIRMED IN U.N. JOB
Source; ABC- Online political correspondent Emma Rodgers: Former prime minister Kevin Rudd has been appointed to a United Nations panel on global sustainability, the UN has confirmed. A statement from the UN says secretary-general Ban Ki-moon has announced the panel's main aim will be to help lift people out of poverty. Mr Ban says he has asked the panel to "think big". As well as Mr Rudd, the panel includes other politicians from around the world including the former prime ministers of Norway, South Korea, Japan and Mozambique.
HOW FAR WE HAVE FALLEN
by Peter West
Imagine India or China’s reaction if weak little Australia treated them with the same contempt! Am I alone in being ashamed to be an Australian, to be a nation that is like a lamp post available for the relief of any?
FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE: EROTIC LOVE v RAPE
by Ian Wilson LL.B.
To show what the Western view of erotic love is, Naffine discusses things said by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and the more recent French philosopher Luce Irigaray. This discussion takes up eight pages. A discussion of two philosophers hardly constitutes a characterisation of the Western view of erotic love. There is no scientific methodological discussion of how one would even investigate such a question; no matter, Nietzsche and Irigaray are topical among feminist postmodernists so we need not bother about the mere details of social scientific investigation.
Then, following these philosophical speculations we have a discussion of “possessive love in Western legal thought” (pp. 18-20). This is brief but competent. Stated simply, in the past women at law as wives were subservient to their husbands. Authorities such as Sir Matthew Hale, English Chief Justice in the seventeenth century and William Blackstone in his Commentaries at the Laws of England, for example, did not recognise rape in marriage, as Naffine notes (p.19).
However, about the same time, there were also trials of witches in the United States and capital punishment of men, women and children for minor property offences. These were harsh times. Naffine does not consider the laws of non-Western countries at the same time or even today, where women were and still are treated much worse. For example, Islamic law (Sharia law) requires four male Muslim witnesses who actually saw the acts of alleged rape or adultery to establish rape or adultery. Women who lack such witnesses self-incriminate. Thus this year in Abu Dhabi an 18-year old girl alleged that she had been gang raped by five men but she did not have witnesses. The men, bar one, were acquitted of rape by the court, but found guilty of lesser charges. Although the girl’s body was severely bruised it was held that the sex was consensual (with one of the men who was sentenced to one year in gaol). The girl therefore received a sentence of one year in gaol.
Now, returning to our article, why was the author restricting her attention only to Western law? Wouldn’t Islamic law have supported her thesis even better? Let the reader guess why. Finally we come to the climax, pun intended of course. Naffine says that Australian law has de-gendered rape so that it is just a sexual crime of persons against persons involving areas other than the vagina and objects of assault other than the penis (p.23). Men can, and do, rape men, and women, in principle could rape men. She says: “Women have been granted equal rights with a vengeance. We have been given precisely the same rights formerly possessed only by men and we now have imposed upon us precisely the same prohibitions.” (p.24) Well, what is wrong with that: isn’t that what feminists want? Apparently no because “Australian feminists” (why not “Australian women?”) “know that it is still men who are raping and women who are being raped.” (p.24) Agreed: rape is primarily a crime of men against women.
Naffine thinks that the law is problematic because it is not reflecting the behaviour – but the behaviour can be prosecuted by gender-neutral laws perhaps more efficiently now than ever in history. What she objects to is that the new rape laws have not eliminated economic and social disadvantages which women allegedly have “which diminish their ability to make uncoerced sexual choices.” (p.25) There we have it: a radical leftist agenda for social transformation! But rape laws are to protect people from rape and to punish rapists. The law itself cannot address every socio-economic demon of the left and nor should they: that is politics and social work. It is far from clear what Naffire expects the law qua law to do. In the final section of her paper “Towards Change”, she thinks that the retention of a sex-specific rape law is a positive move. This allegedly protects the sexual autonomy of women. This, in my opinion, is not justified by the arguments which we have reviewed. I agree with her though, for conservative reasons, in her criticism of pornographic/sexual images of women which I think would go some way to supporting a feminist critique.
But the paper was written in 1994 and in 2010 things have moved on. With high male suicide rates, male unemployment, female prime ministers and Governors-General, and with the majority of law students, female, Naffine’s paper is dated. Young women pursuing “rage” culture would perhaps crack a smile, if that is what they do. Thus in conclusion, this “classic” paper in feminist jurisprudence, well-referenced and otherwise scholarly, does not in my opinion present a logically cogent argument. In the weeks to come we will examine more such material produced in the ivory towers of the modern law school.
OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE FRAUD?
From David Flint’s Opinion Column
This was introduced to prevent fraud...
But are they all bona fide?...
As we said then, Mr. Mawrey would know. Sitting as a High Court judge, he found six Labour councillors guilty of electoral fraud in the British 2004 Birmingham Council election. This made news not only in the UK, but around the world. He said this fraud was so appalling it would disgrace a banana republic. He subsequently found that Conservative councillors had engaged in fraud in the Slough Council election.
The point surely is that if the system gives the opportunity for fraud, that opportunity will be taken up. On this occasion the AEC has indicated that proof of identity will be needed. This is not because of any vigilance by the High Court. It is because it will be physically impossible - on this occasion - to include the names on the rolls. This will not apply in the future unless Parliament closes the clear incentive to defraud which is present in the system.
IT’S OKAY TO SPEND THE WORKERS’ MONEY WHEN THE ALP NEEDS IT
It was reported Labor’s desperate attempts to use union money to keep in the race has some pips squeaking angrily: A dispute over a $500,000 union donation to the ALP is headed for the Federal Court in a blow to Labor’s efforts to place the election focus on Tony Abbott.
But the donation is being challenged by renegade unionist Dean Mighell, who leads the union’s electrical sub-branch. Mr Mighell was granted an injunction against the donation.
HUH ? OBAMA’S FATHER(S) WENT TO WAR ?
From a supporter: It surfaced on the internet that Barak Obama claimed in a campaign speech that his father served in WW ll. See link below for video in which he makes this claim. Maybe this is why his handlers insist on his using a teleprompter whenever possible.
Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv4jnlkxOaw
THE MAKINGS OF A WORLD POLICE FORCE?
Source: The Independent http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardai-get-new-powers-to-tackle-terrorists-overseas-2281787.html?service=Print
“Gardai get new powers to tackle terrorists overseas by Tom Brady Security Editor, 3/8/2010: Highly trained members of the Garda's elite squad - the Emergency Response Unit - could be deployed on foreign streets as a result of a change in the law. The legislative measure, currently being drafted, will allow the ERU to be dispatched to another European state to help local police tackle a terrorist or criminal-related crisis. It will also give the go-ahead for the authorities here to request the assistance of a special intervention unit from another European force if this country is confronted by a similar crisis…”
"On Target" is published by the Australian League of Rights, Box 1052. G.P.O. Melbourne 3001.