Please do not be intimidated or cowed into thinking you cannot speak up for traditional marriage and for family and for children. You can and you should. There is absolutely nothing wrong with speaking up in the face of this attack on our society's foundations.
Longtime reporter and commentator Mark Anderson of www.thetruthhound.com and www.steemit/@truthhound explores the major media's post-Charlottesville assault on nationhood and on truth, under the clever guise of stamping out "hate," and asks: Is Nationalism the core problem, or is it internationalism?
Remember that Nick X team, who claim to stand for freedom and independence, voted against the reforms to section 18 C, for reasons you can well guess: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/03/31/senate-votes-down-18c-reforms.html
“Labor, the Greens, the Nick Xenophon Team and crossbencher Jacqui Lambie opposed changes to the wording of 18C, robbing the government of the 39 votes it needs to get it through the upper house.”
A story showing the degeneracy of the universities, as reflected in the wider society, is the saga of the mattress, as discussed by Bettina Arndt in The Australian, but covered by many others for a long time in the US: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/mattress-girl-saga-a-warning-to-unis-on-sexual-assault-cases/news-story/daecd8a0b17438c2a2fc4a681d159da5.
“Last week the long saga over the Columbia University mattress girl came to an end. It was a costly lesson for the New York university and a sign that buying into the notion of a “campus rape culture” can prove a big mistake for esteemed centres of higher learning. Australian universities take note.
In 2015 the mattress girl, Emma Sulkowicz, became a global celebrity by turning what was found to be a false rape allegation into performance art by carrying her mattress with her everywhere on campus. She was protesting against Columbia’s decision not to take action against a young German student, Paul Nungesser, whom she’d accused of choking and anally raping her.
Columbia has now reached a confidential settlement with Nungesser following his lawsuit claiming the university supported “an outrageous display of harassment and defamation” by allowing Sulkowicz for three years to use her mattress to hold campus protests where people openly called him a rapist. Sulkowicz was given academic credit for the performance as part of her visual arts major and was allowed to carry the mattress in her graduation ceremony.
It’s most unlikely any jury would have convicted Nungesser given the facts of the case. There’s a Facebook message from Sulkowicz to Nungesser two days after the alleged rape saying she was keen to join in a party in his room. A month later she sought more contact: “I want to see youyououo¬you”. The following month she messaged: “I love you Paul. Where are you?” Hardly surprising that the university’s investigation found Nungesser not guilty of assault.
Similarly murky facts emerged in accusations made by two other women about Nungesser. Investigations were held. The man was found not guilty.”
Any economic activity that is created with the purpose of “creating Jobs” (i.e. human work) is irrational, wasteful, regressive, immoral and tyrannical. Increases in production efficiency should provide our needs and wants while releasing us from toil.
Distribution is an entirely different issue, to be effected increasingly by specific and appropriate means other than by earned income as technology displaces labour as a factor of production.
One of the neglected aspects of immigration and multiculturalism is the problem of enclaves, the creation of nations within nations, which was raised in the 1980s, but is not heard much nowadays. However, there is an informative article by Bernard Salt about “non-English-speaking clusters” in our capital cities:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/the-curious-nature-of-nonenglish-speaking-clusters-in-our-cities/news-story/4eaf844601ae657450e40c9c942b4473
“Last year’s census figures confirm our extraordinarily diverse cultural and linguistic composition. About 18 million out of 24 million speak English. About three million were born overseas but are English proficient, including about 1.5 million British and Kiwi immigrants. However, there are 820,000 Australian residents who described their English proficiency as poor and a further 193,000 who are about as proficient in English as I am in Mandarin.
Indeed, the number of residents who say they do not speak English is up from 118,000 a decade ago, which suggests that this cohort is growing by an average of 7000 people a year. If Australia is to remain one of the most welcoming and inclusive immigrant nations on earth then we also need to develop our language skills. And this doesn’t necessarily mean that all migrants must immediately learn English. I think that given the basis of modern Australian prosperity it is entirely appropriate for Mandarin to be taught universally in schools. I learned French in secondary school in the 1970s; today’s kids should be learning the language of our single most important trading partner.
Across the country 16 per cent of the population does not speak English at all or well, but in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide this proportion is closer to 18 per cent. And in parts of each of these cities there are well-defined non-English-speaking enclaves including the northern suburbs of Adelaide centred on Salisbury, the southwestern suburbs of Sydney between Lakemba and Cabramatta, and in Melbourne’s west around Sunshine and southeast around Dandenong. Brisbane’s southside centred on Logan and Sunnybank is also a non-English-speaking hotspot.”
The “indigenous recognition campaign ditched” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/indigenous-recognise-campaign-ditched/news-story/b444305a94a3acccc26f1cb96a1223000, headline, refers to the abandonment of the Recognise Campaign, which gobbled up tens of millions of our taxpayer’s dollars over the last five years. This is a specific campaign, distinct from the entire referendum issue.
Therefore, do not mistake this piece of news for any end of the Aboriginal constitutional recognition threat. Aboriginalists and the politically correct establishment have abandoned any “minimalist” proposal, and have showed their true colours, by now advocating substantial constitutional reform, with a referendum probably being held in May 2018. The main issue will be to add an indigenous voice to parliament, which I see as being to implant a new Aboriginal overlord committee to rule over Australia. As every law impacts on Aboriginals, there will be an influence over all Australian laws, and the culture of subservience set up. The sovereignty of parliament will be lost, and that is the clear agenda.
Big Mal has said that he will not begin his Republic push until the Queen dies or abdicates, but plans for our Queen to step down and let Prince Charles take the throne have appeared in the mainstream media:
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/report-queen-elizabeth-set-to-abdicate-and-make-charles-king-in-all-but-name/news-story/efdd3294dfefbd83d78b26b856e958b5
We, of course love the “people’s prince,” but be aware that the Left will see this as their chance to get a Republic up in Australia, because everything decent, must be defiled and destroyed.
So, put the Republic battle up on your fridge along with the fast-approaching postal vote on same sex marriage.
to THE AUSTRALIAN
Graham Richardson says that ‘gay marriage is an idea whose time has come’ (‘Expensive opinion poll lets PM ditch principles’, 14/8). This remark is of the same quality as claims that the monarchy is ‘out of date’. It is vivid but has no validity.
Observation of the current controversy suggests that the nation is not ready yet to make a final decision on whether or not to adjust the legal definition of marriage. Whatever the result of the postal vote, it should be used as another tool to get an end result that takes note of the welfare of all Australians present and future and not just of gay people. The best possible compromise is yet to be articulated.
The whole debate has many ramifications and supporters of a ‘yes’ vote should not try to ungenerously stampede other Australians into premature acquiescence.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic
The governor of Virginia, declared a state of emergency after a large-scale clash between right protestors and counter-protestors, including Black Live Matters, antifa and “religious” groups, whoever they are, at the “Unite the Right” protest rally. The protest was over plans to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from a city park in Charlottesville. It sired critical segments of self-righteous political correctness such as this one, which has everything:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LinG32vnqqk
An alternative viewpoint by Mike Adams is this:
Are conservatives and Christian – I know that there are still some out there – taking the same sex marriage vote seriously, seeing it as the existential threat, which it is? By that I mean exactly what Paul Kelly has said (The Weekend Australian, August 12-13, 2017, p. 15), namely that a “Yes” vote is likely to be returned, and religious freedom “will have a second and far more important consequence — an assault on religious freedoms made possible by inadequate laws that will see a major shift in Australian society.”
These avenues include: “intimidation against individuals, schools, charities, businesses, adoption agencies and civic organisations. This includes consumer boycotts promoted by social media and even commercial boycotts against other commercial entities.” Those supporting traditional marriage will be treated just like immigration critics are now.
to THE AGE
In the current marriage debate, it ought to be widely admitted that more than the welfare of gay people is at stake. Also to be fairly considered are the welfare of children (in a number of contexts), the welfare of adherents of Christianity and other religious traditions and the welfare of the whole nation. Issues of freedom of speech and religion are intimately tied up in the controversy.
In recent correspondence to ‘The Age’ there have been too many over-simplistic remarks, including ‘smart jests’, at the expense of supporters of the ‘No’ case. My feeling is that the nation is muddled and divided on this issue. More thought needs to be given to how best the needs of all parties can be met in the best possible compromise for us all. Thus a provisional ‘no’ in the postal vote remains the wisest option.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic
It seems that Barnaby is a New Zealander, and that a whole host of other MPs may not have done enough to denounce their foreign citizenship, in accordance with section 44 of the constitution. The Australian of August 15, 2017, p.1, mentions that “South Australian senator Nick Xenophon yesterday conceded he never heard back from Greek and Cypriot authorities when he attempted to renounce any possible foreign citizenship, raising fresh questions about his election.” Well, he should have done more, as this was his duty. This is one MP who needs to go, given his blockage of reforms to section 18 C. And what an irony if an old Australia clause takes out modern multiculturalism and political correctness.
There are a host of Labor MPs that could be hit as well. But, in reality, with a few exceptions such as Pauline Hanson, what is called “our” politicians are nothing of the sort, but are the puppets of the globalists, and they dance to the cosmopolitan tunes they play. All are happy to see Australia as an Asian Republic with same sex marriage, run by an Aboriginal review council, with no freedom of speech.
In my opinion, they are all have alliances to a foreign power, and thus are from our point of view, traitors.
It is now the aftermath of the Charlottesville riots. If you read only the mainstream media, you would be reading that a group of neo-Nazis bashed poor innocent antifa folks, who were holding flowers, and then a crazed killer drove around killing people in his Mad Max car, or nearly that bad.
Let’s start with the killing of Heather Heyer by 20-year-old James Alex Fields. Of course, the media was quick to portray this tragic event as a deliberate murder by a Nazi. Fields may or may not have been a Nazi, but it does not follow that he committed murder, and nor does this annul his legal rights. There is a case that he was attacked by antifa prior to the event and sped off to save himself, accidentally killing Heyer:
http://www.vdare.com/posts/car-that-crashed-was-reportedly-being-swarmed-by-antifa-was-it-self-defense
to THE AUSTRALIAN
Graham Richardson claims (‘Spouting feel-good fluff is no proof of foreman material’, 7/8) that constitutional recognition of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders is ‘within reach if both sides get behind the campaign.’ On the contrary, irrespective of what MPs do, the Australian people will almost certainly reject any form of constitutional recognition, provided that they have been adequately informed beforehand by a fully articulated ‘No’ case supported by equitable government funding (50% of allotted funds to each side).
This is because there has been too much gung-ho talk by the Aboriginal lobby about a treaty and Aboriginal sovereignty, to say nothing of special seats in Parliament or an entrenched advisory body, and the people are too savvy not to realise that success in achieving constitutional recognition would be used as the basis for pushing the more wide-reaching demands in the future. In short, widespread public faith in the whole campaign has been irretrievably lost. True statesmanship would recognize this and seek other ways of honouring the Aboriginal peoples, ways that do not threaten national unity and security and which are just to other Australians.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic.
mThe political class have really wanted a national ID card, as it is just the thing which any fashionable authoritarian anti-freedom government has. This card was defeated in the past, but now it is coming back, like a zombie, to eat the flesh of our freedom:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/id-card-back-on-agenda-in-national-security-overhaul/news-story/68b6a39817cf4b59c6fed03c7129f058
This time round terrorism is being used to scare us into adopting this most un-Australian of documents, and Pauline Hanson has fallen for the need for it, because of her knee-jerk fear of terrorism and welfare fraud:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/one-nations-pauline-hanson-pushing-for-national-id-card-to-combat-welfare-fraud/news-story/518510e317397482ab904bdf07a89fad
It will do nothing of the sort, and is useless against home-grown terrorism. They will just commit terrorism, with their ID card in their back pocket.
Contact Pauline and tell her to wake up to the loss of freedom which this ID card is going to bring. We will join the family of Islamic and Middle Eastern countries in having this, and where it does nothing to stop terrorism.
Forget about knife and car attacks, Sweden, a once Nordic country, now has embraced further diversity and pluralism, with an increase in – yes, you guessed it – grenade attacks! Here is a reliable true news source on this one:
“The number of hand grenade attacks in Sweden has risen by 550 per cent in just three years, with police describing the situation as “completely unacceptable”.
Police data shows that in 2014 the Swedish force investigated eight grenade incidents, none of which involved a detonation. But last year this figure inflated by a massive 550 per cent, as officers saw a total of 52 grenade-related incidents, 27 of which involved detonations.
At first, the grenade attacks were mostly directed at cars and homes linked to criminals and their relatives — but from two years ago perpetrators began to target the nation’s “society and state”, an expert at Sweden’s National Police Department told SVT.”
At: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/08/06/hand-grenade-attacks-sevenfold-sweden/
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/handgranatsattacker-har-okat-markant
to THE AUSTRALIAN
Noel Pearson is at best only half right in claiming (‘Memo Richo: Facts count, not lazy fictions’, 8/8) that ‘constitutional conservatives’ are ‘passionate advocates’ for the proposed ‘indigenous voice in Parliament’. What about the real conservatives on this issue: Keith Windschuttle, Andrew Bolt, John Roskam, Frank Salter and Greg Sheridan? Moreover, on this particular matter Julian Leeser cannot validly be described as a ‘hardcore constitutional conservative’. He has long been supporting constitutional recognition.
The true conservative position is warm and respectful recognition of Aboriginal history and culture, but not by misuse of the Constitution. It would set a bad precedent, too, for future ideological meddling with what at present is a proven national treasure.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic
to THE AGE
Lyn Mitchell asks why Malcolm Turnbull is ‘taking on nearly all of Tony Abbott’s policies’ (8/8). Perhaps because they are wise and he is bowing, albeit reluctantly, to reality. ‘Stopping the boats’ is a vital first step in curbing immigration into this continent and maintaining a reasonable quality of life here. A plebiscite on marriage gives all Australian citizens a chance to indicate their wishes. Climate change is a reality, but whether and to what degree it is caused by humankind is a question still being debated.
On one issue the PM will be wise not to follow in Abbott’s footsteps: constitutional recognition. The Constitution should not be tampered with to favour one small group at the expense of the great majority. Recognition, yes, of course; it already happens in many ways; but not by unjust and destabilising change to our book of rules which has long protected our free way of life and largely civil society.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic
to SUNDAY AGE
No better example of political gobbledegook could be found than the promise of the Leader of the Opposition to make the constitution ‘better, more equal, more Australian’ (‘Shorten backs Indigenous “voice”’, 6/8). Equality does not permit of degree. To what does he intend to ‘equalise’ our constitution, which is already completely Australian?
It is chilling to see the ALP leader backing a ‘truth-telling commission’. Shades of Stalinism and Maoism! His language (‘the right-wing rump’ of the Liberal Party) is also coarse and uncivil. As for his support of a ‘treaty’, the Australian people are currently one; and a people does not enter into a treaty with itself. He says that Aboriginal Australians do not need a ‘lecture about the difficulty of changing the constitution,’ but he evidently does.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic
