Mark Steyn - Speech to the IPA's Gala Dinner in Melbourne 2016

Those Who Live by the Multicult Sword, “Die” by the Constitutional Sword By Ian Wilson LL.B

     At the moment the political class is in panic about court rulings reinforcing the Constitutional requirement that prevent dual nationals from running for parliamentary office.  At present Senator Canavan seems to be in trouble because his mother, Australian-born, but Italian, signed him up for Italian citizenship in 2006, without his knowledge: The Australian, July, 26, 2017, p. 1.

     The cartoonists have made fun out of this claim, but I do not see any reason to doubt the claim as being sincere, for Italian mothers could culturally do such things for their sons. Obviously, mum did not know the consequences. What now?
    Well, I believe that section 44 of the Constitution is quite clear what needs to happen:

Continue reading

CLIMATE CHANGE: Treaties and Policies in the Trump era Alan Moran

Paperback, 165 pages $24.95 ISBN: 978-1-925501-40-7

Alan Moran has been a prominent writer on regulatory matters for thirty years. He was the inaugural head of the Australian governments’ regulatory review office and researched the issues in “think tanks”.

Working outside and within the Victorian Government, he was a major participant in the disaggregation of that state’s monopoly electricity business into a dozen independent parts and in the creation of what later became the National Electricity Market.

Dr Moran has written many books and articles on the interface between climate change, energy and economic well-being. These include editing and contributing to the 2015 best seller, Climate Change: the facts.

Climate Change: treaties and policies in the Trump era, is an examination of:
• The setting of the climate change agenda
• Its position in the international arena where nations have agreed to treaties and agreements that have increasingly placed pressures on governments to take actions in conformance with their provisions
• The developments leading to the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change, which incorporated governments’ “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs) on abatement of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
• The costs nations are actually and prospectively incurring in meeting their INDCs and in other measures designed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions
• President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement and other nations’ responses.

The book foreshadows the collapse of the Paris agreement and gradual, if not abrupt, dismantling of the costly measures it entails – primarily involving forcing consumers to subsidise wind and solar energy.

The UN and White Genocide By Chris Knight

     Back in the year 2000, there was a UN document prepared which championed the idea of “replacement migration” in Europe, to deal with the alleged problem of a declining and ageing population:  No prizes for guessing the conclusions: migration is the big answer to every problem, provided that it is the migration of non-White people to the West. They meant it when talking about “replacement.”

     Documents such as this are actually quite common, and form the standard tool kit of the pro-migration lobby. It would be a mistake to identify one document as being the key, just as old salts activists decades ago, used to single out the Lima Declaration as being the main bad guy document leading to what we now call globalism. There is no one document, but rather a cultural movement among the power elite to push for changes, undermining the traditional world.

Continue reading

Letter to The Editor - High Court Judicial Adventurers

     As James Paterson notes (‘Radical approach to Indigenous recognition will fail’, 25/7), the Referendum Council’s recommendations have 'far-reaching implications for all of us.’ He does not, however, seem to have grasped the problems associated with the proposal for a ‘declaration of recognition.’  From one point of view, why do we need an official statement of the obvious? On the other hand, is it so obvious? Government should be wary of making historical assertions about controversial matters. That’s the stuff of totalitarianism. There is some doubt as to whether our Aboriginals really were the ‘first people’ on this continent or whether they displaced an earlier group. Then again, no present-day Aboriginals existed in time before other present-day Australians.
     And who knows what radical implications future High Court judicial adventurers might claim to read into even the declaration’s seemingly innocuous statement about ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’?
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

The Shape of Oppressions to Come By Mrs Vera West

     Well on the way of making heterosexual contact illegal, feminists are moving onto the next horizon in Amsterdam:
     The Dutch Labour party has a bill to make sexual harassment on the streets a crime, with up to three months jail. For women, this initially sounds like a good idea.  And, ideally should help against migrant sexual assaults. But, on reflection, we should understand that it will do nothing of the sort, since sexual offences by non-Whites against women are not treated with the same degree of concern as sexual offences by Whites:
     The proposed measures are likely to be just more politically correct window dressing.

Cory's Weekly Dose

Australian Conservative, Senator Cory Bernardi, in his “Weekly Dose of Common Sense” shows the real agenda behind Free Trade Agreements and how the UN has morphed into a type of World Government.

He wrote, in part ………………

“As I told the crowd of over 450 people in Brisbane last night, it doesn’t mean any one of us has all the answers. Individually, we bring our unique gifts and skills and talents into the battle of ideas. But together, those gifts complement each other and strengthen our capabilities. Through working together, our individual differences become a source of strength rather than isolation.
That’s what being a community is all about. It’s that sense of belonging and contributing to something bigger than oneself that strengthens families, clubs, cities and nations. It strengthens political parties too.
However, all communities need ties that bind. They need the thread of continuity that runs through all so that we may be drawn together.
At the most basic level that thread is familial. In a political party it is idea, vision and values. As a nation, it is culture.
Culture is our language, our traditions, our laws and our expectations of each other. It emerges over successive generations, each one building upon the previous, bringing us ever closer.
Except that’s not what’s happening now. There is a new force at work within our culture. It isn’t of us and it isn’t working for us. Many refer to it as globalisation but it can take on many monikers.
Despite the reckoning of many pundits, globalisation isn’t about free trade or international markets. Those forces can and do work to our advantage. They provide local businesses with export opportunities and local consumers with a broader range of more competitively-priced goods.
Rather, globalisation is a direct attack on our national sovereignty and self-determination.
It sees unelected bureaucrats in supra-national bodies influencing our domestic agenda through groupthink, peer pressure and intimidation.
The best example is the United Nations. Formed in 1945 for the purpose of preventing another world war through dialogue, it now sees itself as a quasi-world government.
It dictates refugee policy, spruiks the great global warming scam, redefines marriage, smoking policy and so many other virtue-signalling and identity-politics agendas that it has simply become a vehicle for the globalists to push their view.
The UN’s stacked resolutions and dodgy reports are used by political outfits like the Greens to undermine our domestic policy agenda in favour of someone else’s.
These people truly believe they are the enlightened powers that should be running a world of open borders and wealth redistribution in order to save us all. Perhaps that should be ‘enslave’ us all.
It’s time for that to change. We need to reassert our self-determination. That means we need to revisit the treaties, agreements and pacts of decades past to make sure they are working in our interest.
Let’s review them to see if they are achieving what we thought they would. We could start with the UNHCR refugee treaty. It was written in 1951 and the driving forces and key players have changed since then.
Just as every prudent person would insist that every contract has a termination or review date, so too should we insist on reviewing our government’s international agreements at regular intervals.
It will help ensure a check is kept on the agenda that is intent on diminishing, rather than strengthening Australia.”…

I wonder of the Australian Conservatives have a firm position to introduce Citizens Initiative and Referenda as a "core" (non-redactable) policy-ed

Continue reading

Bill Shorten Calls for Bipartisan Cooperation For Fixed Four-year Terms

Ross Cameron commented on The Australian article: Bill Shorten Calls for Bipartisan Cooperation For Fixed Four-year Terms
     "Interesting how you can get bipartisan support to extend MP privileges, no chance of extending citizen privileges."   (or CIR-ed)

Letter to The Editor - More and More Demands Against the Interests of Most Other Australians

     Rosalind Dixon suggests (‘Strong and clear: let’s support a voice for indigenous people on legislation that affects them’, 20/7) that ‘the main criticism that can be levelled’ at the Referendum Council’s proposal is that ‘it leaves too much to Parliament.’  Not so: the main criticisms against that and all other models of ‘constitutional recognition’ are threefold. They are unjust; they endanger national unity and security; and they will lead to more and more demands against the interests of most other Australians.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

‘The Castle’ in 18th Century Australia

     Just six months after the arrival of the First Fleet in Botany Bay in 1788, one event in particular demonstrates just how important the concept of the rule of law was to the British founders of the colony of New South Wales. This is the remarkable story of two convicts, a ship’s captain and a missing package.

Continue reading

Lock Up Your Cash, When Kid Soros Rides into Town! By Charles Taylor

     Billionaire globalist, George Soros, who must be close to 4,000 years of age, is working on eliminating paper money as part of his plot to create a single world government:
This comes, allegedly from a Soros-insider, who has said that young handsome George wants to end the use of anonymous cash and have all payments monitored by the state. Wouldn’t be nice for our side to have even one person with his infinite energy and abilities?

     This does seem to fit the picture. The Indians, in the first New World Order trial run, withdrew 86 percent of the cash in circulation and put a cap on cash transactions, as has been done in France. The European Union is moving towards eliminating cash altogether:

Continue reading

Let’s Ban Police Having Guns! By John Steele

     Whenever there is a shooting, the gun controllers call for guns to be banned. Well, let me help them out here, by extending the “logic’ of their argument to the tragic US Minneapolis shooting case of White Australian Justine Damond (Ruszczky?), by Black officer Mohamed Noor:
     Official information is scanty at this time, but one line of thought has it, that this is a homicide, probably due to the officer thinking that her mobile phone was a gun. He shot first and asked questions later, much later. In due course we may know the grim details, or the story will just slip from news interest, as, after all, it is just an Australian, and conveniently, the police camera was off: The Australian, July, 18, 2017, p. 1

     Say, just imagine if the victim was Black… how many race riots would have occurred by now?  But, White lives don’t matter, so there will be no protests about this.
    My main point is that the gun controllers should now be demanding that police hand over their guns. It would be an excellent example to the wider community. If guns kill, then so do police guns.

Letter to The Editor - Privileging Them Constitutionally Would Be a Big Mistake

     There is a simple answer to a question asked in your editorial (‘Indigenous recognition steps outside Constitution’, 19/7) as to whether the Referendum Council’s first proposal (for a constitutionally entrenched Aboriginal advisory body) ‘would presage continued agitation for a treaty?’  Of course it would.  Overseas experience in several countries shows that once the descendants of former native peoples are constitutionally privileged, their claims just multiply.
     You state that Parliament should ‘take advice from indigenous citizens’.  That would include all of us who were born here and have no other citizenship. Moreover, as most of those identifying as Aboriginal have mixed blood, it is hard to see why they deserve any more rights than the rest of us. Concern for Aboriginal welfare is admirable; but privileging them in any way constitutionally would be a big mistake.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - ‘Declaration of Recognition’ is Simply Redundant

     Mark Leibler too easily dismisses the case against constitutional recognition (‘Indigenous voice to Parliament: a unifying idea’, 18/7). The deep concerns that have been expressed by many articulate and responsible commentators that any such recognition would be fundamentally unjust and a danger to our national unity and security cannot fairly be summed up as ‘cynicism and mean-spiritedness’. Nor is the stereotyping of men like Keith Windschuttle, John Roskam, Greg Sheridan and Gary Johns as ‘naysayers and scaremongers’ the least bit credible.
     As for the Referendum Council’s two recommendations, an advisory body of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders can be set up without any tampering with the Constitution; and the ‘declaration of recognition’ is simply redundant.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - National Good Sense

     The two recommendations of the Referendum Council for constitutional change should be rejected (‘One idea touted, but it leaves PM unsure’, 18/7).  An advisory body for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders can be established without any need to tamper with our founding document; and the ‘declaration of recognition’ would be redundant.
     The recommendations are being presented as minimalist, but the fact that the Leader of the Opposition acknowledges ‘a process for treaty and agreement making’ shows that they are really seen by their promoters as the thin end of the wedge. It will not be a ‘heroic failure’ if Australians reject them at a referendum, but just national good sense.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - They Might Have Made a Mistake

     The Coalition will be both sensible and ethical to continue its call for a plebiscite rather than a free parliamentary vote to determine whether Australia should significantly change its legal definition of marriage. Here are some answers to Peter van Onselen’s advocacy (‘Opposing gay marriage vote will hurt conservatives’, 15-16/7).
     There have been plebiscites in our history before and the seriousness of this present controversy demands another, if not a referendum. Moreover, the ALP wants a plebiscite on a republic. Now, while the plebiscite result might not be binding, if it proves favourable to change, it would undoubtedly be honoured by the parliament and opponents of change would not feel betrayed, which would be good for national unity.
     Opinion polls results are not always reflected in actual voting; nor do we want to live under government by such polls.
     That other Anglophone nations have gone one way does not mean we must follow; they might have made a mistake, for it is simply not true that their decisions have been happily accepted by supporters of the traditional definition of marriage. On the contrary, there is great concern at certain subsequent developments and other mooted possibilities.
     Finally, a free parliamentary vote, no matter what its result, would not be a truly representative way to proceed.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor - Separate Australian Monarch

     Michael Cooney may have said that ‘the Queen herself is undoubtedly more popular than the institution of the monarchy’ (‘Insight’, 15/7), but it must be remembered that the person and the institution are not entirely separate. Her Majesty’s prestige partly exists just because she is the reigning monarch; and monarchy can produce leaders of this calibre much more easily than any form of republic.
     This is why the largely ignored case for a separate Australian monarchy should be seriously considered. Wanting ‘our own head of state’ does not necessarily mean wanting a republic and a president.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Locking Away Your Guns, and Throwing Away the Key to Your Freedom By John Steele

     Good people of Australia, you have excelled yourself in this one, by doing nothing, so that evil triumphs once more. What have our independents done about this one? 
I have in mind the changes across the country to firearms laws. Under the guise of making the community safer from guns, even though the country is awash with ILLEGAL guns brought into Australia by ethnic crime gangs, who basically rule the streets now: The Authorities have lost control of this, and in any case have no ability to control it since organised crime now shades into the government, as it does throughout Asia:;;

     To give the illusion that something is being done, the government likes to crack down on law-abiding, primarily Anglo-Australians. The game plan since Howard’s gun grab in 1996:;;, has been to disarm the lawful citizens while doing nothing real about organised crime, because that would be contrary to globalism and multiculturalism.

Continue reading

Letter to The Editor - Holocaust Revisionists

     Matt Ridley entertains and informs perceptively with his take on how insult terminology is carefully coined and then deployed to wrong foot ideological opponents (‘Left leads the right in manufacturing words of mass distraction’, 4/7).  However, his claim that ‘denier’ is ‘a revolting word’ seems over the top. There are those who deny that man-made global warming is occurring and endangering mankind; there are also a few erratics who deny that the Holocaust happened. It’s OK to call them deniers.
     It is a pity, though, that Ridley did not seize the opportunity to point out that most of those who are damned as ‘Holocaust deniers’ are really only Holocaust revisionists. Such historians readily agree that the Nazi regime was anti-Jewish from start to finish and that many injustices and crimes against Jews were perpetrated under its authority; they simply claim that the facts have been significantly exaggerated. What is revolting in this case is not the term itself but its misuse involving a new context of persecution.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

John Howard on Free speech? A Little Bit Too Late, John By Ian Wilson LL.B

     Former PM John Howard – remember him? – wrote in The Weekend Australian, June 24-25, 2017, p. 20 about “Threats Anew to Freedom of Religion, Speech.”  Oh, the irony of someone, claiming to be a conservative, who did nothing to roll back section 18C, and who advanced the agenda of mass Asian immigration, to such an extent that he lost his own seat: Peter Wilkinson, The Howard Legacy: Displacement of Traditional Australia from the Professional and Managerial Classes, (2007).

But, that is water under the bridge now, as the once good ship Oz, slowly sinks, from taking on too much water. The pumps have long ago failed.

Continue reading