to THE AGE
     John Roskam is right to argue ('An Indigenous treaty would divide, not unite, us', 31/5) that all Australians, no matter what their ethnicity or ancestral background, must be seen as equal under the Constitution and thus under the Crown and at law. This approach to recent demands for constitutional recognition of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders is our best guarantee of maintaining national security and civic peace on this continent.

     The great majority of Australians respect our heritage of Aboriginal culture and currently show this in many ways. We appreciate and value the unique position within our Commonwealth of those having Aboriginal ancestry. What would Australia be without the beauty and profundity of Aboriginal culture? And we recognise the pain of past dispossession. But two wrongs do not make a right.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     According to S. Terbeck (et al.), “Propranolol Reduces Implicit Negative Racial Bias,” Psychopharmacology, February 28, 2012, the use of the drug propranolol, used primarily to treat a variety of medical conditions such as high blood pressure and irregular heart rate, can also “abolish implicit racial bias.” This was tested in 36 volunteers.
     Be that as it may, I know almost that number of people, myself included, who receive this drug to control hypertension. All of these people, except for myself, I being a loving kind of guy, are strong racists, by the system’s standards. I asked everyone in my smaller sample if they had become more racist after taking the drug, and they said that the drug did not effect their attitudes, which were a product of current political events, such as mass immigration.  Although it would bring a tear to my eye, I suppose the socialists would put me into that camp as well.
But, where goes the Terbeck (et al.) hypothesis? Surely it is wrong, for a complex social behaviour could not be regulated just by the administration of β-adrenoceptors. It is biological determinism and reductionism gone mad.

     As pointed out in a confronting article at https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10430/terrorism-candles-teddy-bears, Europe, and arguably the rest of the West, has not woken up to the realities of the cold winds of war which are blowing through societies at an alarming pace.
    The death toll from Islamic terrorism so far is: Madrid: 191. London: 58. Amsterdam: 1. Paris: 148. Brussels: 36. Copenhagen: 2. Nice: 86. Stockholm: 4. Berlin: 12. Manchester: 22.  There are, as well, hundreds of Europeans murdered in  Bali,  Sousse,  Dakka, Jerusalem,  Sharm el Sheikh and Istanbul. On average there have been terrorist attacks in Europe on an average of one every nine days. But, as the Gatestone article cited above notes,  Europe is fighting back with teddy bears, candles, flowers, vigils, Twitter hashtags and cartoons.”

     We have often commented on how this is likely to end, but recently Roosh v, who himself is non-White, has given a frank statement on where open borders immigration leads. Are you ready for it? The May 15, 2017 article is entitled “The Barbarians Will Solve Your Sterile Existence”:

     The issue of a supposed “white pathology,” a product of “pathological altruism”: https://www.amazon.com/Pathological-Altruism-Barbara-Oakley/dp/0199738572, is a concept closely related to Garrett Hardin’s notion of “promiscuous altruism”: Garrett Hardin, “Discriminating Altruisms,”  Zygon, vol. 17, 1982, pp. 163-186. The central argument here is that the present behaviour of whites, such as with open borders immigration, is a universalism quite inconsistent with evolutionary biology. Here is the abstract from Hardin’s classic paper:

“Reliable Darwinian theory shows that pure altruism cannot persist and expand over time. All higher organisms show inheritable patterns of caring and discrimination. The principal forms of discriminating altruisms among human beings are individualism (different from egoism), familialism, cronyism, tribalism, and patriotism. The promiscuous altruism called “universalism” cannot endure in the face of inescapable completion. Information can be promiscuously shared, but not so matter and energy without evoking the tragedy of the commons. Universalism is not recommended even as an ideal. Survival now requires the creation of an intellectual base for a new patriotism.”

     Most people I know think that I’m crazy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtJq56cp_dk, for not jumping on the Bitcoin train, even a bit. But, in a recent article Mike Adams hoses down the present market euphoria about sky high Bitcoin: http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-05-24-do-the-math-heres-the-rational-analysis-why-99-of-current-bitcoin-owners-will-never-be-able-to-sell-bitcoins-for-anything-close-to-the-imagined-current-value.html.
     He makes the logical point that the Bitcoin bubble, like all bubbles will burst, and those who have put their savings in it will be squashed. Not only that, but it is going to be hard to even bail out of Bitcoin. Here is the maths:
“# of Bitcoins currently in circulation: Roughly 16,350,000
Current Bitcoin price vs. the USD: Roughly $2500
1,000 bitcoins represents roughly 0.006% of the total number of Bitcoins that exist
Average drop in Bitcoin price from selloff of just 1,000 bitcoins: $30 (see raw data of price moves at Bitcoincharts.com)
Estimated drop in Bitcoin price that would occur from the sale of 10,000 bitcoins (just 0.06% of the Bitcoin supply): $300
Estimated drop in Bitcoin price from sale of 100,000 bitcoins (just 0.6% of the Bitcoin supply): $3000 (but wait, Bitcoin is only worth $2,500, so wouldn’t a selloff of 100,000 Bitcoins plunge the price toward zero? YES, it would.)
Value of Bitcoin if just 1% of current Bitcoin owners try to sell all their Bitcoins: Approaching $ZERO

     What percentage of current Bitcoin owners think ALL their Bitcoins are worth the current high price: 100%
Actual percentage of current Bitcoin owners who can unload Bitcoins without crashing Bitcoin values toward zero: Perhaps 1% – 2%
(and that’s generous)
Percentage of current Bitcoin owners who are going to learn a very expensive lesson in “tulip bulb mania”: Perhaps 98% – 99%.”
     Adams says that this is like a Ponzi scheme: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme, because the only way of sustaining the price of Bitcoin is to find an increasing number of new people buying into Bitcoin. But, this is not sustainable. The bubble is set to burst, as all financial bubbles do.
     Do you still have faith in the system after the Cranston affair, anyway? http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/robert-gottliebsen/160-million-cranston-tax-affair-highlights-deep-weaknesses-in-tax-system/news-story/8382c9b2cf6ad2dbeecb025c8d7a3481.

     One needs to always look on the bright side, as my dear old mum used to say. If life hands you a lemon, make lemonade. Well, there has been much published at this site about the likelihood of a coming nuclear war. That, I know, is bad, because radiation is bad for humans.
However, there is now hope that an new drug developed at Stanford University, a drug belonging in the class of PHP inhibitors, may be able to protect the gastrointestinal tracts of humans from radiation. This area of the body is the most susceptible to damage from radiation: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/05/14/new-oral-drug-may-prevent-death-from-radiation-poisoning.html; http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/05/drug-could-protect-against-radiation-exposure.
     The original mention of the drug was in 2014, but there has not been much published since, so we don’t know if and when the drug will be available.  If they don’t hurry up though, it won’t matter too much.

     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.

     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.

     There has been a healthy debate at this site about the anthropology of Northern Europeans, with yours truly defending our kind from the charge that Northern Europe was a backwater, and Northern Europeans savages who ate each other. There is considerable evidence of advanced cultures existing, and collapsing in Europe, with architectural remains documenting this. You can use the wonder of the Google search engine operating at this site to read my articles over the years. In the old days the articles may have ended up as a book, but sadly people don’t read books now preferring the fast cut and thrust of the internet article, banged out, week after week, after week…

     Now comes the news that Europe, not Africa may be the birthplace of mankind: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/. The find, which is challenging the “Out-of-Africa” politically correct status quo, is of two fossils of a 7.2 million year old creature, Graecopithecus freybergi, found in Bulgaria and Greece. The so-called “missing link” between humans and chimpanzees, would thus be placed in the Mediterranean, rather than Africa: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127.
    This then would make Europeans older than the standard African Eve orthodoxy, and give time for the emergence, and fall of higher cultures. I see such evidence as supplying one more plank in the restoration of the Nordic thesis: https://archive.org/details/TheAryansAStudyOfIndo-europeanOrigins, something a deracinated and cucked people dearly need: http://www.brill.com/uniqueness-western-civilization.

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

    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.”

to THE AGE
     It is reasonable for our media to have an ‘Anglo-Saxon/European focus’ as in their news presentation of the Manchester bombing (Letters, 26/5), because we are a nation with predominantly British origins and because a majority of our citizens have some British ancestry. One can approve of this coverage and yet also feel indignation at the West’s violent intrusions in the Middle East.
     A different area of imbalance concerns the campaign for Aboriginal ‘constitutional’ recognition. Almost daily we read of the latest pronouncements on this by Aboriginal spokespeople. Why is so little comment on the proposal by ordinary Australians opposed to its injustice and potentiality for national division appearing in our media? The Anglo-Saxon/European bias is nowhere to be seen!
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

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

    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.

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.

     The government tells us that the “official’ unemployment rate in Australia is 5.7 percent, which is “vote for me, good.” But, as pointed out in an article by the razor-sharp Adam Creighton (The Australian, May 22, 2017, p. 12), the official figure is nonsense, with the unemployment rate being at almost three times that, at 15 percent.

     Rather than 732,000 Australians not being able to find work, more than 2.26 million are unemployed. The way the government fakes the figures is to use a definition of "employment” that has any one working more than an hour a week as employed!  To be unemployed, the test is much harder: one needs to have applied for a job in the past four weeks and be ready to start work.

     There is a lot in the papers recently about what a great bloke and leader Bob Menzies was: “Menzies Taught Us to Strive and Never Yield”: The Australian , May 22, 2017, p. 12.

     Now wait a minute! This is the same Bob Menzies called “pig iron bob,’ who gladly sold Australian steel to the imperial Japanese, who then used it to make weapons to be fired back at Aussies? See: http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/image.aspx?id=tcm:13-22114. If you research this on the net, you will see trade unionist sites and also old, not new Left sites, which in those days supported Aussie workers, as advancing the pig iron bob criticism. You will also find academics poo-pooing this, saying that it is an urban myth, just like the “Brisbane line,” Bob’s alleged plan to abandon all of Australia above a hypothetical line going through Brisbane.

to THE AGE
     The great majority of Australians are unlikely to endorse 'constitutional' recognition of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, no matter what formula is produced at the  Uluru meeting ('Call to be bold on recognition', 25/5). This is because it is so obviously against the national interest as a whole. We are not willing to yield the sovereignty of any part of our nation to a very small ethnic group, no matter what their ancestry or the past sufferings of their ancestors during dispossession.

     Thus, their talk of 'indigenous sovereignty' at once arouses our opposition. So do demands that 'substantive change' must 'tell the truth about history.' We insist on maintaining open debate on all aspects of human history. Moreover, the current public debate in the media is not doing justice to non-Aboriginal Australians. A good example is the extraordinary assertion by Cheryl Saunders ('Constitutional recognition is a work in progress', 24/5) that the question of the meaning of recognition 'can only be answered by those being recognised.' Those doing the recognising have rights too!
NJ, Belgrave, Vic   

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Australia has badly needed for some time the statement on 'constitutional' recognition provided by Greg Sheridan ('Misguided, squeamish liberals are failing Aborigines', 25/5). Yes, any such recognition is fundamentally unjust as well as being nationally divisive. While Sheridan is right to object to the one-sided government campaign in support of this misguided project, the Liberals are by no means the only culprits. What about the foolish idealists of the left who have learned nothing from their predecessors' contribution to the disaster that is Zimbabwe? And what about external enemies only too eager to weaken our nation in pursuit of their own ambitions? 
NJ, Belgrave, Vic   

     Another day, another slaughter from terrorists, this time in Manchester, where a home-grown Islamic terrorist suicide bomber murdered 22 people, including mothers and children. Salman Abedi was the British-born son of Libyan refugees, and recently returned to Britain from Libya, and had been in contact with Syrian Islamic fundamentalists: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/everything-know-salman-abedi-named-manchester-suicide-bomber/.

     Abedi is thought to be only one of many ready suicide bombers, and Manchester police, along with most of Britain is on red-alert. Even in sleepy Australia, authorities intend to check all bags taken into the weekend football, which is a sound idea. The lack of security in Australia is just making it easy for the Manchester tragedy to be repeated here.
Indeed, the NSW coroner has found that the NSW police took too long to storm the Lindt café during the Monis siege, as well as numerous other errors: The Australian, May 25, 2017, p. 1.  In response, the NSW police will be given rifles to deal with terror threats. One hopes, given other incidents where innocent bystanders took friendly fire: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-09/four-injured-as-police-shoot-man-hornsby-shopping-centre/7496102,  that adequate training with rifles will be given.