For many years I have been arguing that “foreign investment” – actually no more than selling off the “family farm” – will lead to the dispossession of Australians.
The Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has said that Australia’s sovereignty is threatened by the sale of farmland to foreigners. (The Australian, October 27, 2016, p. 8) As well, patriotism gets undermined.

He said: “It is the essence of patriotism, the love of one’s country, (and) it is best delivered when you own that country. And there’s one thing that people are not prepared to do, and that’s to die for a rented country.”
I could not have put it better myself!  Perhaps this is the first sign of a mainstream awakening to the great sell-off of Australia that both parties have allowed, and encouraged?

Alan Kohler, “The Rise of the Machines and the Next Trump, at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/alan-kohler/the-rise-of-the-machines-and-the-next-trump/news-story/8c54b44f1e3d792930c67e29604b298e, gives a predictable response to the Trump phenomenon, but adds a twist. The short of the long is that Clinton will win, because, well, the good guy globalists always win, but beware Trump 2.0, because next time the Republicans will find a candidate who has not committed the unforgiveable sin of liking to have sex with women. Well, we will see, it’s early days yet and who knows if all this may blow away, or blow into an all-out civil war.

What I find interesting are Kohler’s remarks about the rise of robotics and IT. With technological advances robots through advanced-control algorithms, could replace not only drivers, but surgeons and even journalists. There did not appear to be a recognition that Kohler himself could be replaced by a machine in all this. And why not; surely much of the comments that we attack here each week from the mainstream press could be produced by a machine. Maybe it really is. In any case, globalisation will end because robots, no matter where they are located around the world, are simply cheaper than humans. Who needs people anymore?
So, what will people – remember them? – do for a living? One idea is a universal income, suggested by Elon Musk of Tesla, who is working on the driverless cars, which will create massive unemployment. Certainly the corporates won’t pay for this, so governments will have to.
Kohler gives no answer because the governments are already struggling with debt, and it is difficult to see how governments could do this under orthodox finance/economics.
Clearly there is no orthodox economic answer to this, so there will either be mass bloodshed or else the time for the social credit economy has arrived and the elites will fall.  This will only happen if the common man and woman work together until the pressure is irresistible and the political class yeild!

I am always on guard when the government starts talking about how well off people on welfare are. (The Australian, October 28, 2016, p. 1) Hence the shock! horror! that a single parent with four children could receive around $50,000, equivalent to someone earning $65,000 a year. The Liberals and the capitalist elite class are in horror of people getting money and not “working” and the Liberals are busy, busy, busy at work overhauling welfare, so I presume the single parent with four kids will have to work in the salt mines.

Never mind that there is no work out there. Or that it will be damn difficult for any parent with four children to work. So what do the Libtards want: let the kids be neglected, turn to crime and cost society even more? It is the typical attitude of an economically-obsessed political class who have lost any basic concern for social cohesion and sustainability. The feminists should be hammering them on this one, but as we saw with the Gillard cuts, single parents don’t rate high on their list of priorities. And we haven’t even got to putting a social credit spin on all of this, that the entire “work or die” philosophy needs  to die, because it does not work.
Brian Simpson has an excellent article that takes this issue further, especially in light of the machine and computer age - the fourth industrial revolution - that opens this whole argument up to the social credit answer of a "universal dividend for all" while the machines do the work, paid from the National Credit Authority.

To THE AUSTRALIAN
Henry Herzog claims (5-6/11) that restricting 'hate speech' under section 18C is not an attack on free speech, but, alas, it has often proved to be so. The term's vagueness and subjectivity are conducive to its misuse; and significant elements in the Jewish community, for which Herzog speaks, have had it unjustly applied to the writings of revisionist historians, thus achieving censorship while pretending that no such affront to free speech has occurred.

A recent decision of the NSW Court of Appeal illustrates the problem ('Toben denied day in court to deny Holocaust', 5-6/11). It is alarming to read that a judge has upheld a finding that Fredrick Toben may not express in court 'banned views on Jews and the Holocaust'. His views are controversial and may be partly or wholly wrong; but in principle historical dissidents should not be prevented by government or the judicial system from publishing their views. Nor do such views necessarily proceed from or promote hatred.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

It’s been exhausting covering the US election for readers, with my fellow Aussie/American journalist friend here, Chris Knight. Everyday there seems to be new revelations of Clinton evil, but she just gets away with it, so far.
Beginning in no particular order, the Clinton foundation itself has confirmed that it accepted a $1million gift from Qatar while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. She had signed an ethics agreement in order to become Secretary of State to notify the State Department’s ethics official if a foreign government such as Qatar wanted to make donations, so that any concerns could be raised. However, the State Department found no record of the Clinton Foundation submitting the Qatar gift for review and that it was “incumbent on the foundation to notify the department about donations that needed review.”
At least eight other countries donated to the Foundation without the State Department being informed:  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation-idUSKBN12Z2SL. This is but one more example of Clinton placing herself above the rule of law, let alone morality. Conflicts of interest seem to matter nothing to the Clintons.                                        

The Remnant (http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/itemlist/user/607-elizabethyore),  reports on the Soros/Clinton/Vatican partnership, or should we call it conspiracy.  Soros’ Open society granted $650,000 to PICO, a radical organisation for a meeting in the Vatican about the 2016 election. Here is what the article says about the outcome:

Obama is going into immoral panic mode for Hillary Clinton, and has said in an interview with Gina Rodriguez that illegal aliens should vote, for Hillary Clinton of course, and that they won’t be caught, deported or punished.
According to “the man,” the illegals are citizens because they contribute to the economy – presumably the cash-in-hand economy: http://www.naturalnews.com/055906_illegal_aliens_voting_Obama_interview.html.

This is an extraordinary example of the open political corruption which the West has fallen into. It is against the black letter law for illegals to vote, yet here is Obama advocating that people should break the law.
For him, and all cosmopolitanists, the law is strictly what they make it to be. This is a form of lawlessness because the fundamental principle of the rule of law is that the laws stand above people and constrain all. Obama and the Clintons put themselves above the law. So, Obama in failing to uphold his presidential oath, is a real traitor.

I am not amazed at the bias shown by the print media against Donald Trump, since even given his inadequacies – which are many – he has come to represent a challenge to our politically corrupt globalist system.

The Australian has been examined by this American (me) now temporary in Australia, and I found that the usual articles, even if stating that Clinton was “unfit to be president” because of well, all the scandals (more below), Trump was worse! (The Weekend Australian, October 29-30, 2016, p. 22) Trump is “sexist” and “racist” and a “deplorable human being.” No mention is made of Hillary Clinton’s 1996 comments about black children in gangs being “super-predators,” without conscience or empathy, who should be brought to “heal,” presumably like dogs: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronda-lee/hillarys-superpredator-comment_b_9655052.html. Hillary Clinton is “a clear and unequivocal lesser of evils.” And everybody Bernard Salt knows is anti-Trump (The Weekend Australian Magazine), October 29-30, 2016), which says more about his circle of friends than Trump.

Ahhh, the excitement of the journalistic world, as news rolls down the wire and stories need to be pounded out to reach deadlines! No sooner had we hard working journalists thought that we finished our work, and prepared to go to the pub to drink large quantities of alcohol,  then this news came relevant to our coverage of the US elections:
“Indictment Likely for Clinton,” or “Bret Baier: FBI sources Believe Clinton Foundation Case Moving Toward “Likely an Indictment,” at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html.

The Murdoch press/Fox News has a milder version of this:
“FBI’s Clinton Foundation Investigation Now ‘A Very High Priority,’ sources Say,’” at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/02/fbis-clinton-foundation-investigation-now-very-high-priority-sources-say.html.
Here is a transcript from Fox New’s Bret Baier which puts the latest news in a nutshell:
BRET BAIER: Here's the deal: We talked to two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations.
One: The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far... Several offices separately have been doing their own investigations.
Two: The immunity deal that Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, two top aides to Hillary Clinton, got from the Justice Department in which it was believed that the laptops they had, after a narrow review for classified materials, were going to be destroyed. We have been told that those have not been destroyed -- they are at the FBI field office here on Washington and are being exploited.
Three: The Clinton Foundation investigation is so expansive, they have interviewed and re-interviewed many people. They described the evidence they have as 'a lot of it' and said there is an 'avalanche coming in every day.'

of THE AUSTRALIAN
It is puzzling that Michael Sexton finds it 'puzzling that several groups representing the Jewish community' have not defended free speech ('Section 18C as it now stands is here to stay despite its obvious faults', 3/11). Their determination to suppress Holocaust revisionism played a major role in the passing of the Racial Hatred Act in 1994, as ALP MP Graeme Campbell noted in the debate in Parliament at that time. They have maintained their opposition to free public debate on this topic ever since.

What is more puzzling is why this aspect of the free speech debate has hardly been mentioned in the enormous coverage of the controversy over 18C in recent months. Repeal of 18C is needed for several reasons, one of which is to ensure that historical revisionists are not wrongfully punished in Australia as they are in Germany, France and other European nations.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Please listen to Alan Jones who talks about the threat to our underground water as talks to the former senior Queensland bureaucrat (Water Allocation and Planning) about the threat of damage from mines in the Galilee Basin and 200 square kilometres
Learn about the threat of 1^1/2-2million tonnes of salt being fed into into the Great Artesian Basin.
Listen here… http://www.2gb.com/article/alan-jones-%E2%80%93-tom-crothers#oKg9RkR44R4MusYy.01
 
A VERY SERIOUS QUESTION FOR THE KATTER PARTY
David Pascoe’s Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/OVHRepro/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf
Yesterday you voted with the LNP to give mining companies free access to all the water they want.
The water trigger laws will give mining companies rights over the farmers and rural communities access to water
So here’s a question for you. How did the donations that have been made by the CFMEU to your party affect your decision to vote against the farmers?
We know the role the CFMEU is playing right now as the stooge union for New Hope Group - and we know they are 'looking after the numbers' for the vote in Queensland Parliament.
So tell us, boys.
Has a party that the people of Queensland always believed to be decent, hardworking and fair dinkum now lined up to get their little pink snouts in the trough as well?
What an absolute tragedy. We thought you were so much better than this, but that vote clearly seems to tell us otherwise.
Political parties can no longer afford to use the old “job jobs “ mantra over the nations requirements for its food and water security.
We will only support parties that are willing to put our nation first – and their own political careers second.
Shame on you. The people of rural and regional Queensland have always believed in you and put their trust in you - and now you turn around and do this to them.
Sold out for a drink of water. Now, that's quite an epitaph for a party headstone, isn't it?

In terms of the theme of “the system is rigged,” how about these two items of cultural war from the gender agenda?
First, the federal government funds a website on student health and wellbeing. That sounds good. But the site “has potentially exposed young people to explicit information about anal sex, gay saunas and searching for sex online.” (The Australian, October 24, 2016, p. 3) Don’t worry, the links have now been removed. Surely no innocent students, legal minors, would have been curious and surfed the world of gay sex online? They just would have ignored the links and done extra maths work, wouldn’t they?

Not to worry, we can always direct our children to hating men, who, we have been told by another program are “globally and historically,” “the greatest threat to women.” (The Australian, October 25, 2016, p. 1) That nonsense is apparently taught in some Western Australian “top schools” by a group running a “respectful relationships education program.” The slide pushing this was shown at a “Men of Respect” workshop at a Perth high school. A student photographed the slide using his trusty mobile phone and placed it online.

Apart from the philosophical implications of section 18 C, from a legal perspective, I am concerned about the consequences of a successful “Yes” vote from the constitutional recognition of Aborigines. This issue is pushed as a big social justice issue, like same sex marriage, and dissents are slammed for disagreeing. Probably discrimination law will be used to silence any critics, because that is the real reason the elites put it in place.

hus it is good to see social critic Keith Windschuttle speaking up. (The Weekend Australian, October 22-23, 2016, p. 20), saying: “Australia as we know it will not survive the agenda of those seeking greater autonomy.” The aim of many, if not most, in the Aboriginal movement, is not to make the constitution complete, but to “get their country back,” and he quotes the title of a recent book on this, It’s Our Country, to illustrate the thought processes. The aim is political autonomy and sovereignty, traditional law in their own separate nation. It is not explained how all of this fits in with multiculturalism and Asianisation, but no doubt, as I see it, China will work all of this out for “us” in the future.

Ref: http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-wall-streets-loosing-horse-constitutional-crisis-whats-the-end-game/5553922

Ref: http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/hillarys-watergate/
After posting Friday’s column, “A presidency from hell?” about the investigations a President Hillary Clinton would face, by afternoon it was clear I had understated the gravity of the situation. Networks exploded with news that FBI Director James Comey had informed Congress he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email scandal, which he had said in July had been concluded.
“Bombshell” declared Carl Bernstein. The stock market tumbled. “October surprise!” came the cry.

The only explanation, it seemed, was that the FBI had uncovered new information that could lead to a possible indictment of the former secretary of state, who by then could be the president of the United States.
By Sunday, we knew the source of the eruption.
Huma Abedin, Clinton’s top aide, sent thousands of emails to the private laptop she shared with husband Anthony Weiner, aka Carlos Danger, who is under FBI investigation for allegedly sexting with a 15-year-old girl.
The Weiner-Abedin laptop contains 650,000 emails.

I have been criticising section 18 C of the Race Discrimination Act for many years now. I have read much on the topic and have yet to see any sound intellectual defences of it; it remains in the domain of ethnic power politics.
The best legal and journalistic minds have torn its ideological foundations to pieces, but like the “walking dead,” the law remains, spreading a plague of misery.

We have seen increasingly absurd consequences of this suppression of free speech, from the university students case, now to the cartoon case of Bill Leak, which by the way, has been said to be an accurate portrayal of what police face, according to the Western Australian Police Commissioner. (The Australian, October 21, 2016, p. 1)

The gun control debate recently resurfaced over the issue of the import ban of the Adler A110 lever action shotgun, which has become the latest hate symbol of the castrating gun control lobby. Turnbull and Abbott had a tiff about whether horse-trading had taken place to get NSW senator David Leyonhjelm’s vote. Leyonhjelm said that the federal government backed out of a written agreement to trade his vote on other legislation in exchange for an end to the Adler prohibitions and he claims being deceived by the Coalition. Yet more “rigging”.

Tony Abbott denied that any citizens outside of those protecting pollies, such as law enforcement, require a rapid-fire gun, and said the idea was just “crackers,” especially with terrorists out there. (The Australian, October 20, 2016, p. 4) That is a good reason why Abbott lost his position as prime minister because he doesn’t act and think like a classical liberal, but is more of the mold of Hillary Clinton.

Ref: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/separatism-through-indigenous-recognition-an-irrational-fear/news-story/b042fef00118e5a6b727bdaf9ee731b2
Shireen Morris unjustly and ineffectively disparages concerns that the push for Aboriginal constitutional recognition masks a plan to press for full Aboriginal sovereignty involving the political division of this continent ('"Separatism" through recognition an irrational fear', 29-30/10). Her claim that 'very few indigenous Australians want a separate state in the international sense' contradicts Keith Windschuttle's view, based on his quotation of mainstream Aboriginal leaders such as Patrick Dodson and Marcia Langton. Morris simply ignores the detailed evidence he provided, wrongly suggesting that only 'far Left' Aboriginal extremists seek full sovereignty and that they pose no threat.

Other matters Windschuttle mentioned that are also inadequately addressed by Morris include: (1) the danger of UNO interference through its Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (partly written by Dodson!), (2) the possibility of ill-advised constitutional change through 'legal adventurism' by High Court judges, and (3) the likelihood of an Aboriginal state's forming alliances with other nations against Australia's interests.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Ref: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/jennifer-oriel/open-borders-inevitably-stoke-xenophobia/news-story/4d7e85601106514769a8ae16d7ab82c4

Jennifer Oriel refers to the 'once great UN' ('Open borders inevitably stoke xenophobia', 31/10), but the UN was never great: it has always been an instrument devised by elites to achieve the control of populations. In 1963 Rumania's former anti-communist foreign minister Prince Michael Sturdza exposed the wickedness of the UN operation in the early 1960s against Katanga in his essay 'World Government and International Assassination'. A year later G. Edward Griffin published a devastating full-length critique of the UN in his book 'The Fearful Master'. And in 1973 Jean Raspail gave us his novel 'The Camp of the Saints' warning of the danger to Europe of uncontrolled third-world immigration.
Almost the whole of Oriel's thesis has been known and promoted for forty years by right-wing Australians. What a pity that the left-wing establishment in this nation suppressed the truth so rigorously for so long!  The UN has not been alone in censoring the truth about the corruption of Western European nations by ruthless elites uncaring of the interests of ordinary people.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Continuing with This Week's Theme: The System is Indeed “Rigged”
In Britain, Blair’s Labour used mass migration to “rub multiculturalism” into the nose of conservatives. In Australia mass migration has been used to political advantage with ethnic groups favouring one or other party being represented over the years in our so-called “non-discriminatory” immigration policy. There have been scandals of ethnic vote stacking. And in the United States, illegal Hispanic immigration supplies millions of illegal voters for the Democrats. As Steve Sailer says at Taki Mag.com, October 19, 2016:

“Democrats and their auxiliaries in the media routinely boast of their dream of turning America into a one-party state through changing who gets to vote in American elections… To protest, or even to notice, the open machinations to adulterate the value of your vote by importing millions of foreigners to increase the numbers of votes cast for the Democrats brands you as a deplorable.”

Continuing with This Week's Theme: The System is Indeed “Rigged”
The US election campaign is instructive to us in Australia for many things. One notable one is that the globalist elite are quite willing to use violence to achieve their goals, even against fellow Americans. The firebombing of a North Carolina Republican Party office, with the spray-painted message: “Nazi Republicans, leave town or else,” is one example.

Scott Foval, who used to work for the George Soros-funded People for the American Way, has been caught on video bragging about how homeless and mentally ill (“naturally psychotic”) individuals were paid to disrupt Trump rallies.
Paid agitators staged a violent protest in Chicago in March forcing Trump to cancel a rally: http://nypost.com/2016/10/18/trump-rally-disrupted-was-once-on-clinton-campaign-payroll/.
In Australia, socialist thugs can beat people up, destroy property, but seldom get arrested. If this isn’t a conspiracy, then as Bart Simpson says, I’ll eat my shorts!