How’s this one: a mother of six is facing gaol time after selling a homemade meal to an undercover investigator: http://www.naturalnews.com/056132_regulations_food_police_California.html. The Californian woman sold a meal without a permit, and in the socialist republic of California (much like Australia), that is an offence with one year’s gaol time. She will go on trial in December. We in Australia also have our own versions of “food crimes,” but we may not be as crazy as California yet.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton may not be prosecuted by Trump, who perhaps for strategic reasons has moved away from appointing a special prosecutor, although maybe he might have changed his mind with the Democrat’s challenge of the election results: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/27/trump-threatens-prosecute-hillary-clinton-pursues-election-recount.html. Trump said to The New York Times:

Just in case one may think that we have been exaggerating about the desire of the ethnic multicultural lobby for preserving section 18 C, here is a direct quote, cut from “Chinese Tycoon Risks New Battle Over 18 C,” The Australian, November 29, 2016, p. 6:

“A Chinese powerbroker at the centre of a political donations scandal, Huang Xiangmo, has moved to rally ethnic community support for controversial hate speech laws, sparking a political brawl and claims he could be trying to minimise scrutiny of China in Australia.
In an opinion article titled “18C is a bedrock of society” published in Chinese-language newspaper Sydney Today, the Chinese billionaire argued against winding back section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which restricts speech that insults and offends.
“If the hard-line advocates of free speech succeed in having section 18C of the act repealed major cracks could open in society,” Mr Huang said. “This is the last thing we need at a time when there is heated debate in many places around the world about such things as immigration, foreign workers and radical Islam.”

Throughout the Trump campaign the mainstream media, including Australia’s (witness our coverage of The Australian), went into fits of rage and temper tantrums, about Trump’s immigration reforms. They were quick on the draw with their magic “racism” gun, expecting that people would die in fright with their legs up in the air. But, it all backfired.

Zogby Analytics conducted a poll for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR – see their on-line journal critiquing immigration, The Social Contract). It has found that 58.5 percent of Hispanic voters supported President-Elect Donald Trump’s immigration policies, while only 32.9 percent supported Hillary Clinton’s open border policy. It was also found that 83 percent of the American electorate wants immigration stopped or reduced: www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/17/exit-poll-58-percent-hispanic-voters-back-donald-trumps-immigration-policies/. So much for the racism argument!

For some time now a small group of scientists have been raising sophisticated doubts about the soundness of virtually all statistically-based research in the social sciences and medicine, with a now classic paper being John Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Findings are False,” PLoS Medicine, 2, (2005).
The problems are many and relate to a misuse and abuse of P-value significance tests to systematic biases arising from small, unrepresentative samples.

Yet another addition to this literature is by A. D. Higginson and M. R. Munafo, “Current Incentives for Scientists Lead to Underpowered Studies with Erroneous Conclusions,” PLoS Biology, November 10, 2016. These scientists attempt to account for the Ioannidis-inspired research, arguing that funding mechanisms reward small studies that are likely to produce false results.
Using an ecological analysis, they show that “fitness,” that is academic success, is produced in this way rather than by careful large studies that take more time and resources.
The problem is not merely academic. About 50 percent of research findings in medical research cannot be replicated in human trials, putting a big question mark over the use of some Big Pharma drugs.

The childhood homes of many Australian prime ministers have been “razed without a trace.” (The Australian, November 21, 2016, p. 7) The home of Paul Keating at Marshall Street Bankstown, has been levelled and units put up, probably largely occupied by Muslims.
Bob Hawkes’ childhood home at 63 Farquhar Street (another good Anglo Street name), Bordertown, is up for sale, no buyer yet.
John Howard’s childhood home now has a KFC on it. And so on.

In America and Britain, they preserve such relics, but here in Australia we tear them down, and rightly so. The legacies of these clowns should not survive and they deserve to all be swept into the dustbin of history.

The activist group Get Up! that gets up to all sorts of things Left wing (my God, that’s almost a poem), has been campaigning for a ban on foreign donations to Australian political parties. (The Australian, November 21, 2016, p. 7) That is about the only thing they do which I support. The problem though is consistency:
Get Up! itself received over $300,000 in the past two years from foreign donors, most of whom are rich Leftoid groups. And then there is the PayPal button on their site for overseas donors.

Get Up! campaigned to “put the Liberals last” in the last election, which would be a good idea if Labor could also be put equal last. In any case as it is not a political party, banning foreign donations to political parties would not harm it. What is needed is counter-organisations to Get Up! from our side of politics to oppose them, and if necessary funded by overseas organisations!
The Trump administration and new CIA should think seriously about funding Australian organisations which are pro-Trump and concerned about opposing Chinese domination of Australia.
Now let me think: who has been working on that one? To quote a Left wing guru: “you know my name, look up the number.”

One of the most delightful things about the US election, is having a cold beer and watching the liberal fallout. In America university campuses are having collective “cry ins,” and students are able to pat “comfort dogs” to help their stress levels. Mike Adams has said in a recent Natural News.com article (http://www.naturalnews.com/055980_precious_snowflakes_universities_natural_selection.html), that these sensitive snowflakes will be eliminated by natural section in the next major existential survival event, such as a global economic collapse. Isn’t that sad, bringing a tear to one’s eye? I don’t know about you, but my box of tissues is empty.

This is a generation produced by the baby boomers, who have never had to be in contact with cold hard reality, as past generations did, who tamed a savage land, built civilisation and defended it. They are the generation of levelling and destruction, who have been spoilt rotten, and now are rotten, as seen in their temper tantrums on the streets of America, and even Australia. Only a people corrupted by affluence would behave in this way.

Remember the proposal by the South Australian Labor Premier Jay Weatherill to build a facility for holding the world’s high-level nuclear waste, which would, given Murphy’s Law, ultimately kill us all and make Australia into a radioactive multicult, culturally diverse but radioactively green? Yes, that’s what your nightmares have been about. That is the real reason why you, like Uncle Len, have had insomnia, high blood pressure and an aching back.
Now our premier is going for a referendum for the doomsday dump (The Australian, November 15, 2016, p. 7) that is sure to kill us all, did I say that, for a few dollars. The Greens and Aboriginal groups have been strongly opposing this, all in accordance with my grand plan. And opposition leader Steven Marshall has withdrawn his support and opposed the project: God bless you Stevey!

Oh, the referendum requires bipartisanship because Jay thinks there is no point having a referendum if the “No” side is likely to win. That’s the spirit!
So you in the east and west, be thankful that our cash-strapped pollies may not unleash a nuclear holocaust on you. Behind the scenes Uncle Len letter-boxed daily and has even neglected his writing, disappointing his many thousands of fans, who looked forward to his zany style of dark humour, or near-humour, to wash down each week, the bitter news of politics in the age of Spenglerian decadence. What’s that Uncle Len, a literary allusion? How long before you burst into song? Well, talent I may not have, but at least I don’t glow in the dark. For now, at least.

Ref: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/definition-of-aboriginal-needs-to-be-clarified-pauline-hanson/news-story/a335deb75228ffb356e2b18bc93d9b48

Ref: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/chinese-tycoon-risks-new-political-row-defending-18c/news-story/e895c1821117bbd9543929e59108da0b

To The Age
Louise Adler correctly says that the best cartoonists 'make us reflect on our prejudices and blind spots' ('It's no laughing matter', 22/11). However, she is on less secure ground in bluntly asserting that 'in a civil society racism or sexism is deemed unacceptable' and that legislation such as 18C 'serves as an educative tool and a moral compass for a decent society'.

One problem is that opinions differ on what is or is not sexist or racist. Adler's phrase 'moral compass' tends to suggest that all good people see things the same way. They don't. Another problem is that, as a matter of fact, laws against racial hatred and vilification have been used in many countries to achieve political censorship. Perhaps oversensitivity to alleged slurs is one of Adler's blind spots.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian
Noel Pearson's hagiography of Paul Keating is unconvincing ('A visionary of power', 22/11). It ignores the fact that the Australian people soon recognised, within one term of government, that their country was being led in the wrong direction by Keating. They chose as replacement a much greater prime minister and re-elected him several times.

Pearson's potted account of the 'three defining moments' of our history is misleading. Australia is first and fundamentally a British nation. The facts that long ago people crossed the Torres Strait land bridge and that there has been much non-British immigration in the last half century do not affect this truth.  Keating attacked the prime foundation stone of our British culture - the Australian monarchy. Australians didn't buy that and they won't buy the current 'reconciliation' campaign - really a hypocritical power grab - either.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic                  

Heart disease was once the leading cause of death in America, and still is in Australia (considering all heart disease-related conditions). But as reported by Natural News.com, November 20, 2016, surprisingly enough, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease are now the world’s leading cause of death, and are so in both America and Britain. In Britain death from dementia and Alzheimer’s accounted for 11.6 percent of all recorded deaths.

This radical increase cannot be due to the ageing of populations, because heart disease is also closely linked to ageing and in many countries the death-rate for heart disease has declined. Doctors are now certainly better at diagnosing dementia and this would have impacted upon the recent morality statistics.

It seems likely that there will be an appeal lodged in the QUT student case. (The Australian, November 22, 2016, pp. 1, 6) The case has been widely condemned as one that should never have got as far as it did, but now it could proceed to trial. At stake here is the freedom to say anything, because the student comment that the indigenous computer lab was “segregation,” is surely a legitimate, basic, political comment that does not touch section 18 C. The other student comment about where the “white supremacist computer lab is,” is also a legitimate, basic, political comment, if there is any, repeat any, free speech in Australia at all.

The Human Rights Commission claims that it has examined whether section 18 C and the right to freedom of expression under article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are consistent, and has concluded that there is no conflict because free speech is “not an absolute and unfettered right.” But neither are the multicult “rights” behind section 18 C which give carte blanche legal power to offended ethnics for hurt feelings. The point is that section 18 C completely erodes all free speech worth having as the QUT/student case well demonstrates.

Matt Ridley is one of those “no limits” kind of guys, and it is not surprising to see his article welcoming the rise of the robots: “Let’s Stop Being So Paranoid about the Rise of the Androids,” The Australian, November 22, 2016, p. 10. The problem is that both low skilled and high skilled jobs are at risk. If “thinking machines” can be created, even those with a good approximation to human capacities, regardless of philosophical problems about the nature of consciousness, the thinking jobs will go too. The computer geeks like to think that they are safe: someone has to look after the “thinking machines,” but even they are delusional because ultimately a robot floating in algorithms, could do that.

Ridley says that in the past automation of work led to more jobs, not less. The pessimists are just wrong. And if they are right, well, then its the time to consider a basic income, a salary from the government. Dream on. The mainstream media are simply not dealing with this issue with the seriousness it deserves. This time, it is really different.
Fortunately, this site has a lively social credit response to the “end of work” problem, and well recommended for reading is http://www.alor.org/NewTimes%20Survey/A%20Carbon%20Currency%20Future.htm

I vaguely recall that way back in the 1990s, when Pauline Hanson released her book, Professor Robert Manne was, among others, critical of the use made of conservative thought on the new class and the new class elites. Hanson’s supporters had pointed to an abyss between these primarily university educated progressives and the beliefs of the ordinary people.

Robert Manne, “Elites Smashed by ‘Parochials,’” (The Weekend Australian, November 19-20, 2016, p. 20), penned a good piece about the causes of the present populist revolt. First, there was the cultural revolution of the 1960s overturning Western values that had been held for centuries. Then, beginning in the 1970s was the economic revolution of neo-liberalism and free trade, all part of globalism. The cultural revolution was embraced whole-heartedly by Left-leaning cosmopolitans and the economic revolution by Right-leaning cosmopolitans linked to money and big business.

The social credit writers of the League have been producing some very good work on dealing with the issue of the 'end of work'. Here I simply want to mention that I am seeing more material published on this in the mainstream press, which is no doubt a testing ground for what is to come.
There have been reviews of a new book on this topic by Tim Dunlop, Why the Future is Workless, (New South, 2016). Neo-liberalism combined with robotics has created a new class of people, the “precariat,” to use economist Guy Standing’s term. These people have uncertain part-time or short-term work, and consequently an uncertain future. And the class of the precariat will grow, with Oxford University researchers predicting that 47 percent of existing jobs will disappear in the next 20 years.
As an example, just around the corner, 3D printers might “print” out an entire house!

To deal with this social challenge there will need to be fundamental changes and Dunlop is sympathetic to the idea of a universal basic income. There is no mention of social credit, and the limitations of the basic income scheme have been discussed at this site.
One of the things following from the robotics revolution, ironically enough, is the end of globalism, or at least in part. Jamie Walker, “Robots Help Bring Jobs Back Home,” The Weekend Australian, November 19-20, 2016, p. 15, points out that both cheap energy and robotics will result in more reshoring because robots are cheaper than overseas workers. There will not be, though, many new jobs created, and those that are, will be essentially in getting the intelligent machines to work, if they are lucky, before even they are replaced.
Thus, we can indeed take it that work as we know it has come to an end and any discussion and future planning should proceed from that point.

With all the anti-Trump articles in the mainstream media, two more balanced ones did catch my eye, those articles making high quality comments.
Professor Ramesh Thakur (The Australian, November 18, 2016, p. 14), rightly noted that “Trump is neither a threat to democracy nor a symptom of its flaws but the people’s chosen instrument to refresh and regenerate democracy.” The people voted against a corrupt elite symbolised by Hillary Clinton, who represented both the cultural globalism of the politically correct Left and the economic globalism of the super-capitalist Right.

Commenting on section 18 C Professor Thakur says that the “same danger exists in Australia with weaponisation of identity politics to polarise voters.” Discussing the failure of the Human Rights Commission to protect the student’s rights, he says “It beggars belief that many politicians see no problem with section 18 C and reject the call to review and tweak it.”
Thus, in conclusion: “If mainstream Australian politicians belittle, deride and dismiss popular beliefs and anxieties, they make the rise of populist demagogues inevitable. Australia awaits a champion to drain the Canberra swamp.”

Here is a worrying sign from India, reported by Brian Maher at http://dailyreckoning.com/author/bmaher, November 17, 2016.
In India 90 percent of all transactions are by cash. But the government, in a plan so secret that even India’s financial institutions were unprepared, suddenly banned its 500-rupee and 1,000-rupee bills, worth $US 7.50 and $US 15 respectively. This led to poor people having to go back to barter, if they could.
This shows that governments could outlaw cash overnight, even in Australia. However, willing members of the legal profession could immediately initiate action in our High Court of Australia to pull the federal government back to order using our constitution as the supreme law of the land.

From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_51(xii)_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia

Some media statements by notable people need to be quoted rather than paraphrased for the full impact to hit. Thus, consider Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson’s comments about the “racist” ABC (The Australian, November 22, 2016, p. 1) in the context of Paul Keating’s promising reforms which had been:

“Wrecked by ignorant ministers and malign bureaucrats, aided and abetted by the media, not the least the country’s miserable, racist national broadcaster.” The ABC was “a spittoon’s worth of perverse people willing the wretched to fail.”