to THE AUSTRALIAN
So the Maritime Union and others are agitating for acceptance of the divisive Uluru Statement (‘Unions lead push for Uluru proposal’, 12/6). Nothing new here! As former communist Geoff McDonald wrote in his 1982 book ‘Red Over Black’, nearly 70 years ago communist leaders were saying how the first step towards making Australia a communist nation would be to establish black republic areas on our continent. These included J. B. Miles, Lance Sharkey, Barnard Taft and the Aarons brothers.
And what would it mean if we went communist? Eventual subjection to an international tyranny operating through the UNO. In whose interests would that be? Certainly not those of our Aboriginals!
NJ, Belgrave, Vic
to THE AUSTRALIAN
Marc Randazza , a Las Vegas-based lawyer who specialises in free-speech cases, is representing the publisher of a leading neo-Nazi website, Andrew Anglin. Anglin is being sued for allegedly orchestrating an anti-Semitic online trolling campaign against a Montana Jewish family. The mainstream press give no reason for why he chose this particular family to “harass,” but his website gives his point of view. I should add that I do not support the Anglin site, and what he represents, and see many of his articles as alarming and fanatical. But, as a free speech advocate I still have an interest in the case, which raises fascinating points of law.
According to Mr Randazza:
“Everybody deserves to have their constitutional rights defended… Nobody needs the First Amendment to protect Mr. Rogers. That’s not what it’s there for.”
See: http://www.timesofisrael.com/first-amendment-lawyer-defending-neo-nazi-website-publisher/; https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/06/09/us/ap-us-internet-trolling-lawsuit.html?_r=0.
The point is that real free speech laws protect unpopular speech.
Alt Right intellectual F. Roger Devlin, penned an important essay published in The Occidental Quarterly in Summer 2006: “Sexual Utopia in Power.” In 2015, the essay was expanded into a 192 page book, and published by Alt Right publishing company, Counter-Currents: https://www.counter-currents.com/sexual-utopia-in-power/. The book traces the breakdown of morality and sexual roles which began in the 1960s, and the disaster which it has brought for social life today.
All of this is not new to us, but Devlin goes further, challenging the typical conservative response to the crisis, which strangely has much in common with feminism in blaming men. Instead, Devlin looks at the sins of women, such as female hypergamy (mating up), infidelity, narcissism and deceptiveness. This is unusual because conservatives seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker, the feminist world view, that women can do no wrong. Men are fearful to call out women, and Trump’s dealings with various female journalists is an example of this. Perhaps the lack of testosterone in many men has led to them becoming de facto women: http://www.rooshv.com/the-decline-in-testosterone-is-destroying-the-basis-of-masculinity.
As we all now, the chattering class in Australia have gone out of their way to deny that there is an elephant in the room as far as terrorism is concerned, and that elephant is Islam. Here is an insightful post by freedom fighter Bernard Gaynor, made on June 2, 2017, bringing some sense into this issue. I hope that you enjoy his earthy metaphors as much as I did:
“During Senate estimates, Pauline grabbed a big, fresh and steaming pile of truth dropped by the unacknowledged elephant and pitched it at the ASIO boss, Duncan Lewis, under the cover of a euphemistic lie, asking:
“Do you believe that the [terrorist] threat is being brought in possibly from Middle Eastern refugees that are coming out to Australia?”
We need to pay attention to what happens overseas so much, because often various countries are the testing grounds for what is coming our way.
Thus, in Sweden, for example, school girls as young as 16, are frequently sexually assaulted by the migrant other, but authorities call them “racist” for complaining: http://pamelageller.com/2017/06/sweden-16-sexually-assaulted-girls-called-racists-islamophobes-complaining.html/; https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=sv&sp=nmt4&u=http://www.friatider.se/joakim-lamotte-nyanl-nda-sextrakasserar-skolflickor-men-ingen-g-r-n-got.
Question: if it were your daughter, or your wife, what would you do? My guess is that it will not be long before decisions like this become part of our daily life, along with these products of indiscriminate mass migration and demographic swamping: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/03/europe/london-bridge-incident/index.html. It is only a matter of time before a dirty nuclear bomb is exploded in a major city. The mass migration class need to explain how many of this will increase diversity, when the diverse are blown to pieces and the pieces irradiated: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-terrorism/overview#.WTOK1dp95aQ.
Well, well, well – or should I say, “unwell.” The feminist founder of the early feminist magazine Spare Rib, which started back in the prehistoric era of 1971 (https://www.bl.uk/spare-rib/articles/spare-rib-and-the-underground-press), has come out and said that the obesity crisis has been fuelled by feminism: The Weekend Australian, June 3-4, 2017, p. 12.
The “womyn” in question is Rosie Boycott, an interesting name for the profession, and she was speaking as a senior British food policy advisor: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4564628/Obesity-crisis-partly-says-leading-feminist.html. Look, I am not making this up; here is the take from The Daily Mail: “prominent feminist says she feels ‘partly responsible’ for the childhood obesity crisis because she urged women to stop cooking and go to work.
Rosie Boycott, who chairs the Mayor of London’s food policy unit, launched the feminist magazine Spare Rib in the 1970s.
Yesterday, she said her advice to women not to worry about making meals for their families had inadvertently helped to fuel childhood obesity.
One good positive sign is the rise of the honey badgers, women who champion men’s rights and deconstruct feminist ideologies: http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/; The Australian, June 5, 2017, p. 14. This is part of a thriving female community who have had enough of the “silent war on men” and are fighting back against the feminist elites, the femocrats: http://www.marieclaire.com/culture/news/a15964/honey-badgers-mens-rights-movement/.
As an introduction, there is the You Tube video, “Feminism and the Disposable male”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA, and numerous hard-hitting talks by Karen Straughan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vagVf5cf-V0, Janet Bloomfield https://www.youtube.com/user/JudgyBitch1, and Alison Tieman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVK7KhschW8. There are many hundreds of videos and tapes taking apart all aspects of feminism. There is even going to be a Honey Badgers debate on ABC2’s Hack Live on June 20, 2017, where no doubt the sparks will fly.
It brings tears of joy to this old lady’s eyes, to see young women at last fighting against the final chains that bind them, the chains of feminism.
The article referred to here: https://survivalblog.com/new-frontier-compact-x-liberal/#more-42852, is from the US and is a controversial creative reworking of part of its constitution from a Christian traditionalist perspective.
Its goal is to provide an alternative framework to the existing undermining which the legal new class have done to the US constitution. What interests me is the criticisms following the article by readers which detail all the difficulties in trying to put together a Christian constitution, or even one that escapes the attacks of the new class lawyers:
see further: https://survivalblog.com/the-rawles-rationale/#more-42542.
from THE AUSTRALIAN
The New Zealand parliament, in its wisdom, decided to enshrine the “principles” of the treaty of the 1840 Waitangi into legislation. This has led to endless litigation between Maoris and the government, and endless payments by the New Zealand taxpayer to Maoris to compensate them for apparent “breaches” of the treaty. Such payments have not improved the lot of ordinary suburban Maoris one iota.
Defining the “principles” of the treaty has led to endless interpretations and permutations, most never envisaged by the original signatories. Judicial activism has been kept alive and well with attempts to satisfy claimants and quests to define and apply the “principles” of the treaty to an ever-increasing list of injustices suffered by Maori at the hands of white settlers and their descendants. The only winners have been lawyers and a select few Maori elite to have received treaty settlements.
Far better for all Australians to simply get on with their lives and take advantage of what the country has to offer. A treaty will not be the magic bullet for those living in impoverished, remote areas offering no employment opportunities, and it will not help children being brought up in dysfunctional households, nor will it keep people out of prison who make free choices as to the crimes they commit. Most important, a treaty will divide Australia on race. Do we really want to go there?
MH, Northwood, Vic
The papers have reported that South Africa is heading to a bloody race war, with growing numbers of farm invasions, and the threat of further illegal confiscations of white farms: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4457280/Is-South-Africa-heading-civil-war.html. Liberal globalists objected to this article, as the recognition of the clear failure of the multiracial dream is unpalatable to them.
Meanwhile the victims of this supposed war begin to pile up, not just in farm invasions and deaths and tortures: https://mg.co.za/tag/farm-invasions; http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-escalate/news-story/3a63389a1b0066b6b0b77522c06d6476, but in the day-to-day ghoulish rapes/murders.
The latest horror: Hannah Cornelius, a 21-year-old student, who was raped, stabbed and strangled to death in Stellenbosch South Africa, by four blacks who had carjacked her. Two suspects have, at the time of writing, been caught. No doubt, this will not be seen as a hate crime:
Here is the conclusion of the indigenous summit: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/indigenous-summit-rejects-recognition-pushes-for-treaty-and-voice-in-constitution-20170526-gwe389.html.
An all-indigenous convention wants to enshrine a “First Nations Voice” in the constitution in a referendum to be held next year. The politically correct compromise, favoured by the liberals and conservatives, of giving a mere token recognition, was rejected. The Aboriginal lobby now means business, with a “commission,” perhaps much like that in South Africa, a “Makarrata Commission” to “supervise agreements between Indigenous groups and government and a period of truth-telling about the treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.”
We should not be surprised about an Asian nuclear arms race, because Asians do not have the liberal cucked world view that has come to dominate our world. Thus, it has been reported that Asian is about to embark on an inevitable nuclear arms race, fuelled by fears of North Korea, but no doubt reinforced by long-standing fears of China’s increasing power and aggression: The Australian, May 26, 2017, p. 1. This will almost certainly lead to a nuclear exchange occurring somewhere; recall that India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed sit eternally on a knife-edge: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/forget-north-korea-nuclear-war-betweeen-india-pakistan-19901.
Australia, from the time of Mr Populate and Perish, Fabian socialist Arthur Calwell (1896-1973), the “father of multiculturalism” and Asianisation: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-speech-that-changed-australia-20141204-1208h3.html, has pursued a policy of dismantling its ethno-racial Anglo-Saxon heritage and culture. If you are 50 years old or more, you would have seen first-hand how this was done, and it is now celebrated for what it truly is, but it was not openly proclaimed as this at the time by the elites: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-speech-that-changed-australia-20141204-1208h3.html. How could “Australian nationalism” be founded on this basis of Fabian socialism, as some still seem to think? If you think so, then read more carefully the article above.
Along with this, even the Christian moral and legal framework that past Anglo-Australians grew up with has been slowly deconstructed, brick by brick, so that today not only is homosexuality mainstream, and same-sex marriage likely to soon be law, as it is in America and Ireland, championed by the same class of elites, but transgenderism and beyond are moving up the ranks: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sam-dorman/camille-paglia-transgender-mania-symptom-cultural-collapse.
President Donald Trump’s sole attempt to keep an election promise, has come unstuck by the court system, populated by globalists from the dream run they have had stacking the system.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld an injunction against Trump’s executive order curtailing travel and immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, claiming that: even an executive order that makes no mention of Islam in its text can be invalidated for violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. This is apparently based on comments Trump and his associates made during and after the 2016 presidential election. According to Chief Judge Roger Gregory’s opinion for the court calls the travel ban “an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”
“Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute.” Well, given the way the judiciary think, the power to control borders is virtually non-existent. The claim that any decision about immigration control is rally about disfavouring Islam, could only be made in the context of a society suffering from advanced decay: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/25/travel-ban-blocked-again-possible-supreme-court-showdown/. Thinking that the US Supreme Court would be any different, is an illusion since clearly the legal system, and everything else has been corrupted beyond any duct tape repair.
Thus, former US president Hussein Obama, freely proclaims the virtues of Merkel’s open borders destruction of Germany, while slamming Trump saying that “We can’t hide behind a wall”: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/25/barack-obama-europe-taunts-donald-trump-isolationi/. No mention though of Israel’s highly successful wall.
The ASIO director-general has said that there is “absolutely no evidence” of a link between Australia’s refugee intake and terrorism: The Weekend Australian, May 27-28, 2017, p.1. This was a bit hard to swallow, and even The Australian said that the remarks were made “despite multiple Islamic terrorist acts in the past three years involving individuals on humanitarian visas, or their children.”
The debate exploded with the Attorney General defending the ASIO boss’s comments: The Australian, May 31, 2017, p. 1, saying that Middle East refugees are not the source of the terrorism problem. There is, he observed, many aspects to the Islamic terrorism problem, including the radicalisation of young people by terrorist organisations. True, but trivially true. This is really a superficial response to the issue, as other experts admitted that even if the actual refugees were not a terrorist risk, the sons and daughters of refugees were at danger of radicalisation: The Australian, June 1, 2017, p.1. Thus, it is true that merely being a refugee from the Middle East did not automatically make one a terrorist, but who has said that? No Australian authority has said that the children of refugees have radicalised solely because their parents were refugees, for clearly other cultural factors must be at work.
If you are trying to understand Scott Morrison’s Budget, which someone has described as a ‘Labor Budget’, then the following quote from Mr Robert Menzies (Leader of the Liberal Party) in The Age, March 3, 1941, p. 7, may bring some enlightenment.
Mr. Menzies is reported to have said:
“I always tell my Opposition friends that the only difference between us is that I am theoretically non-Socialist, yet an amazingly practical Socialist, while they are theoretical Socialists. People will take things from us they wouldn’t take from the Labor party. That is outstandingly true in Australia. It is a question of speed. The whole process has been a magnificent justification of the Parliamentary system despite its superior critics. You get two views which, in theory, are violently opposed. In practice the extreme course of today is a commonplace of tomorrow. I claim to think, and that seems to be a most unpopular pastime with a great number of people.”
The EU is just a form of globalism designed to ethnically destroy primarily Northern European people as an ethnic group and demographically displace them. The European Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos recently gave a speech at the “Conference on Migration, Security and how they affect the Future of Europe” in Geneva: https://needtoknow.news/2017/03/616/.
We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart:
Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs.
This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.
This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.
How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?
With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.
Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.
We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution. Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.
I am taking this opportunity to write to you with regard to decisions made by the meeting of more than 250 community leaders forming the Indigenous Referendum Council (or as they call it ‘the 2017 National Constitutional Convention’ held at Uluru this week.
The Referendum Council grew out of the multi-million dollar federally funded Recognise organisation formed to gather support for the “recognise” (in the Australian Constitution) movement.
to THE AGE
There is no just and equitable path to any form of ‘constitutional’ recognition of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, if the interests of other Australians (the great majority) are to be taken into account as well. The key proposals of the Uluru Statement from the Heart (‘Summit calls for Indigenous voice, a path to treaty’, 27/5) need to be firmly rejected. Ideally, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should politely respond by saying that they are unacceptable to Australians as a whole, so that no referendum on them will be arranged.
What has happened is that a very small minority of Australians who, while sharing indigenous heritage, also in many cases share non-indigenous heritage too, are trying to secure unjustified advantages for themselves. It is not even certain that the participants at the all-indigenous convention truly represented Aboriginals as a whole. The Uluru proposals will not win in a referendum; and our politicians must be told that no introduction of them through Parliament without a referendum is acceptable.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic