Today, the 6th February 2017, marks the 65th anniversary of the Queen’s accession to the Throne.
For Her Majesty this is also the anniversary of her father’s passing and she has indicated she will spend the day in quiet contemplation.
Yet, it appears that there will be no formal acknowledgement by Australian Federal and State governments nor, more importantly, does it seem that there will be any church services commemorating the first time in our shared history that a monarch has served her people for so long.
Called the “Blue-Sapphire Jubilee” it is unlikely that we will see another such anniversary for at least a hundred years and probably far longer.
The Australian Monarchist League has written on this matter to the Prime Minister and other dignitaries but without response.
Philip Benwell
National Chair
Australian Monarchist League
The La Times was beside itself proclaiming “Trump’s Shock-and-Awe Strategy Produces His First Major Setback,” http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-visa-cancellations-20170204-story.html.
Judge James Robart has issued a temporary restraining order, in a suit filed by Washington and Minnesota, claiming that president Trump’s travel ban on Muslims violated the U.S. Constitution.
Yes, the Founding fathers certainly wanted America to be full of Muslims. But of course, a “living” interpretation of the Constitution is adopted where the intentions of the framers count for nothing, and the only opinions worthy of consideration are the new class elites and globalists.
Maybe Trump has not yet caught on to what is going on here. He tweeted: “What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions can come into the U. S.?”
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the Alice Springs councillor and daughter of former Aboriginal MP Bess Price, recently had this to say about section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and the culture of political correctness:
“Political correctness is a set of rules that governs the way in which we use language about, or towards, minority groups so as not to offend them. Oddly, people of Caucasian backgrounds are exempt from this protection. They are fair game... .
If a non-Aboriginal person attempts to address any of these issues [of Aboriginal poverty and dysfunction] and an Aboriginal person is offended, they can simply call out “racist” and the debate is shut down...
What, then, are the non-Aboriginal people to do in order to address any issues their Aboriginal or ethnic loved ones are facing? How are they supposed to deal with the issues causing incredible suffering to their fellow Australians who happen not to be white?
I believe 18C invalidates the idea that we are all human and hold differing opinions. It denies basic human nature that allows us critical thinking and the means to learn and grow. It is absurd that 18C ever became legislation...
The Racial Discrimination Act has made many who identify as indigenous believe they are exempt from its provisions. That they can’t be racist and therefore they feel free to insult, offend and humiliate whomever they please. They do it to white people and they do it to other Aboriginal people who refuse to follow the “party line”.
In Alice Springs a member of the public is far more likely to be randomly assaulted, physically or verbally, if they are perceived as “white” rather than “black”. Grossly offensive racist insults are used liberally in the streets of Alice Springs against white people. I have walked the streets of this town with my white friends to protect them from this sort of thing. But there have been no complaints under 18C, which is not seen as a protection of the rights of Australians generally. White Australians feel intimidated, not protected, by this act.
Both my mother (a senior Warlpiri woman and former minister of the crown) and I have been vilified in obscene sexist and racist terms by somebody who described themselves as an indigenous activist, because we refuse to be told what to think and say. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve been called a coconut and much worse.
We have not once been insulted in racist terms by white people, not as far as we know. And if that happens we know how to defend ourselves. We aren’t victims, we aren’t afraid to stand up for our people and ourselves.
Our people are suffering and their problems are daunting and complex. We will not find the answers if we are denied the right to take part in an open and honest debate.
We can’t do that without offending those who are ideologically committed to the party line that has been laid down by the activists of the eastern cities and their white allies.
They are educated, speak English and know how to use the system against anybody with whom they disagree. We speak for the most marginalised, those whom the education system has failed, who are often illiterate and don’t speak standard English.
It is not just the white people who are closed down, it’s also the most marginalised and least powerful of the Aboriginal population who are denied a voice by the self-appointed spokespeople who know nothing of the circumstances in which they live. The agenda is controlled by an English-speaking Aboriginal middle class ignorant of the values and issues of those who live remotely.
The Racial Discrimination Act’s 18C treats us Aboriginal Australians as infants who can’t speak or stand up for ourselves. It treats non-Aboriginal people as if they have no right to hold an opinion about anything that relates to us, especially the problems of our own making that are killing us.
White people are not game to speak out. That should never be allowed to happen in a democracy.
The way to beat racism is through debate, not the closing down of debate.
We have an absolute right to find our own solutions, to find our own way forward out of this misery without being vilified by those who claim to be on our side and claim to speak for us.”
The Break-Up of Australia: Aboriginal Recognition, Treaties and Racial Separatism by Ian Wilson LL.B
Australia Day, January 26, is basically the Aussie equivalent of America’s Fourth of July. It is called “Invasion Day” by the usual university types, leftoids and radical Left Aboriginalists. In Sydney this year, a man tried to burn the Australian flag, and violence erupted with protestors duplicating Black Lives matter-style battles with police. See the action shots here: http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/violence-at-invasion-day-protest-in-sydney/news-story/5501ab73659c57e2a2936cf24eaac591
The protestors see Australia as an illegitimate nation, founded on invasion (which makes most nations illegitimate), a “day of killing” and of “genocide” which is “still going on today.” It seems that the majority of the protestors were whites, as we have come to expect from the 1960s on, the offspring of those who committed genocide.
Should they therefore engage in acts of “self-punishment” as comfortable US academics have advised their students, while these academics sit back and feel morally superior? Should they emigrate from Australia, and to where? Should all of the infrastructure and buildings in Australia be levelled and an attempt made to return the land to what it might have been prior to European settlement? Or should the white liberals just wait for Australia to fall into communist China, so that a really good society is created, as they see it? It is hard to work out their demands beyond the baby elites’ desire for violence and assaulting police. And in a few years’ time, these folk will rule us, no doubt growing up and becoming globalists. Better to follow Trump and dish out 10-year gaol terms, to put the evil day off.
In India millions of people are already in revolt against new anti-cash laws which has led to hundreds of millions of poor people being unable to access their savings:
http://yournewswire.com/india-millions-protest-new-world-order-ban-cash/
The global financial elites want to eliminate cash as this will give them even more control over the ordinary people, and India is being used as a test-run for what is planned across the world. Without cash the New World Order overlords can readily control what one buys and what one does.
The Australian government, following calls from multinational finance companies, is examining abolishing the Australian hundred-dollar note, done under the guise of reducing the “black market economy”:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2016/12117/cross-post-john-adams-we-must-resist-the-war-on-cash/
As Mike Adams points out, the attack on cash is part of a globalist offensive on freedom, including freedom of the internet (Natural News.com, December 5, 2016) There is already censorship of the social media in German:
http://collapse.news/2016-12-05-german-governments-fear-of-hate-speech-leading-to-full-throttle-censorship-on-facebook.html
Donald J. Trump uses the metaphor of a swamp, a politically-disease ridden cesspool, to describe Washington DC. Australia, though, is in many respects worse, and the appropriate metaphor for us is a desert, waterless, lacking in the life of freedom.
Of course there is section 18 C, the very latest farce being that Australia’s Grand Mufti, Ibrahim Abu Mohammed (Grand Mufti since 2011), wants Muslims to be given the same protection as other ethnic groups under section 18 C of the Racial Discrimination Act: http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/grand-mufti-warns-against-watering-down-hate-speech-laws/news-story/c7125f5beeeae8a48922692568f68e04. But they are! Well, what he wants is an amendment to the Act to create what one Liberal senator has called a “national blasphemy law” to prohibit “religious vilification” of Muslims and all religions. (The Australian, January 19, 2017, p. 5)
Radical Islamists in the West have also been pushing for global blasphemy laws to suppress criticism of Islam. (The Australian, January 20, 2017, p. 13)
One of the remarkable news stories which occurred in mid-December 2016, which was ignored by both the establishment and alternative new sites, was Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s closing of his Obama birth certificate probe. The controversial Arizona sheriff of Maricopa county had been investigating the authenticity of the birth certificate that Obama had posted on the White House website, a response that Obama made at the time to probes by Donald Trump.
Investigator Mike Zullo showed a video at a press conference, the video focussing on nine areas on the birth certificate that showed it was a fake. Essentially, the date stamps on the lower-left portion of the birth certificate, according to forensic computer experts, had their angles identical to the birth certificate of Johanna Ah’Nee, whose birth certificate was allegedly used as a template for the forged Obama document.
The document purporting to be Obama’s birth certificate seems to be a scanned and printed computer document, according to these experts.
This is fascinating viewing.
Ref: http://thesaker.is/the-neocons-declaration-of-war-against-trump/
After several rather lame false starts, the Neocons have now taken a step which can only be called a declaration of war against Donald Trump.
It all began with CNN published an article entitled “Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him” which claimed that:
from a NZ reader.
The NZ experience of a Treaty, with respect to the “original” people, would hold up as a working wonder of what should be done everywhere . It is constantly presented as having been a huge success. But the reality is that billions of dollars have gone to “settlements” which are endless and the vast majority of maori never have and never will see a cent of any of it.
Besides this, there are unelected maori advisers on the larger city councils and the costs of such are never revealed.
In several areas of Auckland (and perhaps elsewhere) property developers and home owners need a consent from the “local iwi” to make certain alterations to the property or dwelling. Usually this means a cash payment of several hundred dollars to the tribal “representative”. And who knows how much later on. Waterways and harbours are also in the pipe line for maori “representatives” to decide what does or doesn’t happen here.
Don’t dare speak about “husbands” and “wives”- if you are in Victoria. (The Australian, December 16, 2016, p.3) The Inclusive Language Guide, to be used in the public sector, bans using “heteronormative” terms such as “husband” and “wives” and requires the use of gender-neutral pronouns such as “zie” and “hir.”
The guide, according to the Victorian Equality Minister, aims to keep the LGBTI community safe by “eradicating homophobia, biphobia and transphobia.”
Now, I would not want anyone to be unsafe but to my old mind though this seems to be little more than a politically correct attack on heterosexuality. If one is heterosexual and has a husband or wife, why shouldn’t one be able to refer to that Fact? That’s discrimination!
Then we will find out if it really is the case that gender is a social construct!
Immediately prior to the Christmas break, the SA parliament passed a heap of LGBTQI (have I missed any letters?) legislation. South Australia has now formally recognised same-sex marriage. The unpopular premier Jay Weatherill also issued a formal apology to the LGBTQIers. Not only is there state wide recognition of same sex marriages, as well as those outside of Australia, but next-of-kin adoption rights. If the highly unlikely Federal referendum on the same sex marriage proposal delivers a “NO!” result, it may be possible to constitutionally challenge the state legislation as being inconsistent with the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961. But, like anything taken to court today, I would not bet on it.
The Gender Amendment Act makes it easy to change one’s gender on one’s birth certificate. I bet Uncle Len, over there in Adelaide, is wishing now that he did not work so hard to oppose the radioactive waste dump in SA! He may even change his gender, race and species!
Ref: http://www.socred.org/index.php/blogs/view/dividends-instead-of-debts
Just last week, Equifax Canada, a credit reporting agency, revealed that the total outstanding consumer debt in Canada had increased 3.6% over the course of a one-year period. At the end of September 2015, Canadian consumers owed 1.587 trillion dollars in debt. By the end of September 2016, that number had risen to 1.702 trillion dollars. Cf. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/household-finances/more-canadians-going-bust-as-consumer-debt-surges-36/article33235495/. The increase of 3.6%, while sounding small, actually involved a net increase in outstanding debt of 115 billion dollars. Please note that we are NOT told how much consumer debt was written off as bad debt during the same period. If that debt had not been wiped out, the total amount owing would undoubtedly have been even greater.
The steady increase in outstanding consumer debt occurs because there is insufficient consumer income to purchase all that is on offer in the economy. Relatively lower interest rates merely facilitate the increase; it is not its fundamental cause as the article seems to suggest. When people do not have sufficient money to purchase the goods and services that are available and that answer to some need or want, they can nevertheless obtain the goods if they are able and willing to pledge their future incomes as collateral for additional credit in the present. It must be stressed that this credit, which is obtained from private banks in the form of lines of credit, personal loans, credit cards, mortgages, student loans, car loans, installment buying programmes, etc., is, like the bulk of the money supply, created out of nothing in the form of intangible numbers and issued as an interest-bearing debt. Consumers who borrow are not borrowing from the rich with the bank acting as an intermediary; they are borrowing the money into existence directly from the bank as a money-creating agency. Consumer credit therefore represents an injection of new or additional money for the economy, money the economy desperately needs if it is to stave off recession or worse.
The United Nations special rapporteur on human rights for migrants, has been to Australia. He has concluded that politicians have given people permission “to act in xenophobic ways” and that section 18 C of the Racial Discrimination Act, the darling Act of the multicult, should be retained. As well, he was concerned about the rise of nationalist populist groups: The Guardian, 18 November 2016. No mention of democracy here, just migrants, migrants, migrants.
If people have been acting in “xenophobic ways” it is because they are suffering from immigration and multiculturalism overload. Immigration is the cause of racism; stop immigration, stop racism. It’s as simple as that.
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.”
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:
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
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.
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.
My God, don’t they ever go away? First Paul Keating has been back in the news, not only making helpful suggestions for the Labor Party, but also because he does not support the constitutional recognition of Aborigines because this does not go far enough. He wants an indigenous treaty. Thus, in a letter to academics doing a book on the topic he said: “Why would any of you want or need that document to acknowledge you?” (The Australian, November 14, 2016, p. 4)
Here is the full, classic Keating quote:
“I am not a supporter of the so-called constitutional route to recognition. The route to recognition has to be straight through the front door, with a document acknowledging prior occupation, including recognition and atonement for the dispossession.”
“A treaty is the best way to do this, notwithstanding it has to be 200 years late. If my forebears had been here 60,000 years, there is no way I would be fobbed off with some weasel words in this country’s horse-and-buggy utilitarian Constitution.”
This issue has relevance to your section 18 C (I write as an American in Australia). The point arises from Donald Trump’s closing ad which targeted the globalists such as Soros, which has been said to have “anti-Semitic over tunes.” (Huffington Post.com November 6, 2016) The ad which defended “Americanism” against “globalism” and used expressions such as “global power structure,” was said by various groups to involve “stereotypes” and “baseless conspiracy theories.”
But the “conspiracy theories” are not baseless. The evidence is clear that Soros is not a helpless man living on the streets. He is in fact a globalist with enormous financial power who acts to further an agenda against nationalism. A multitude of leaked emails confirm this. So, should Soros and others be beyond criticism?
If there was an Australian Trump you can be sure that section 18 C would be cranked up to full volume and used against this hypothetical individual’s many statements about crime, ethnicities and immigration, made in an Australian context. That is one reason why section 18 C is so wrong and why it is a pity that the Australian Constitution, an enabling document, does not have a right of free speech.
