The ASIO director-general has said that there is “absolutely no evidence” of a link between Australia’s refugee intake and terrorism: The Weekend Australian, May 27-28, 2017, p.1. This was a bit hard to swallow, and even The Australian said that the remarks were made “despite multiple Islamic terrorist acts in the past three years involving individuals on humanitarian visas, or their children.”

     The debate exploded with the Attorney General defending the ASIO boss’s comments: The Australian, May 31, 2017, p. 1, saying that Middle East refugees are not the source of the terrorism problem. There is, he observed, many aspects to the Islamic terrorism problem, including the radicalisation of young people by terrorist organisations. True, but trivially true. This is really a superficial response to the issue, as other experts admitted that even if the actual refugees were not a terrorist risk, the sons and daughters of refugees were at danger of radicalisation: The Australian, June 1, 2017, p.1. Thus, it is true that merely being a refugee from the Middle East did not automatically make one a terrorist, but who has said that? No Australian  authority has said that the children of refugees have radicalised solely because their parents were refugees, for clearly other cultural factors must be at work.

     The ongoing campaign for ‘constitutional’ recognition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is an enormous and dangerous scam, no matter how idealistic or not its various proponents are. An attempt to work a vast fraud on the Australian people is in progress; and it is difficult not to believe that there is a ‘third party’, financially and thus politically powerful, behind the whole adventure.

     This critical situation became even more apparent in a huge article in The Australian (20-21 May), ‘Renewing the Faith of 67’ by Nicolas Rothwell, journalist, authority on Aboriginal affairs and long-time advocate for ‘constitutional’ recognition. Although this article is far from impartial and thus genuinely comprehensive, it gives a useful summary of the moves towards ‘Aboriginal sovereignty’ (and thus future national division) since the 1967 referendum. It shows (unintentionally) that a clear pattern emerges of a long-term plan to destabilise the Australian nation, just as former communist Geoff McDonald predicted in his 1982 book Red Over Black.

If you are trying to understand Scott Morrison’s Budget, which someone has described as a ‘Labor Budget’, then the following quote from Mr Robert Menzies (Leader of the Liberal Party) in The Age, March 3, 1941, p. 7, may bring some enlightenment.
Mr. Menzies is reported to have said:

“I always tell my Opposition friends that the only difference between us is that I am theoretically non-Socialist, yet an amazingly practical Socialist, while they are theoretical Socialists. People will take things from us they wouldn’t take from the Labor party. That is outstandingly true in Australia. It is a question of speed. The whole process has been a magnificent justification of the Parliamentary system despite its superior critics. You get two views which, in theory, are violently opposed. In practice the extreme course of today is a commonplace of tomorrow. I claim to think, and that seems to be a most unpopular pastime with a great number of people.”

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   

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   

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 EU is just a form of globalism designed to ethnically destroy primarily Northern European people as an ethnic group and demographically displace them. The European Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos recently gave a speech at the “Conference on Migration, Security and how they affect the Future of Europe” in Geneva: https://needtoknow.news/2017/03/616/.

     He said:

    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.

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

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

     The world, especially the West, but also the Second and Third Worlds, are rapidly spirally into violence and social breakdown, and we are foolish to ignore this or put our heads in the sand, for we are likely to be kicked hard in the butt by reality: http://preparedness.news/2017-05-12-venezuelan-protesters-have-begun-pelting-government-police-with-poop-bombs.html.

America, as always is a show case of what is to come, and is rapidly falling apart: http://rioting.news/2017-05-07-the-big-breakup-residents-in-a-half-dozen-states-talking-secession-we-are-no-longer-one-nation.html,  and we can expect little old Australia to be only a few years behind in the disintegration stakes. The battles of American Civil War II (https://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Two-Breakup-America/dp/0929408179), are already taking place on the streets: http://takimag.com/article/the_battle_of_new_orleans_gavin_mcinnes#axzz4h0Vos7dR.

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     The assertions of a couple of eminent citizens on constitutional recognition (‘Conservatives back “tangible” change model’, 17/5) are unlikely to change the views of the great mass of conservative Australians, who in any referendum will not support any proposal, ‘minimalist’ or ‘substantive’, that threatens the political unity of our nation and which is fundamentally inequitable.
     We keep seeing it from republicans; now we see it from advocates of constitutional recognition: intensely uttered assertions quite unsupported by convincing analysis and reasoning. What fools Australians will be if they allow either noisy group to disrupt the peace and security of our continent and nation! Adequate recognition can and does occur without any dangerous tampering with the constitution.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic  

     Germany is now confiscating homes and giving them to migrants:
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10352/germany-migrants-property-rights.
In Hamburg authorities have confiscated six units in the Hamm district and given them to migrants. The units will be renovated and the owners of the properties billed! It is rumoured that the German New World Order authorities will next force people to share their living space with migrants.

     Expect this sort of dispossession to be standard in the future across the West, as the elites turn up the heat, to burn us to a crisp.

     Once upon a time I was known as Len the Cleaner, and I wrote a mighty fine blog, between cleaning men’s toilets. I was never permitted to clean women toilets, that being done by my evil sister, Lennette the Cleaner.  Now, we have transgender bathrooms and people all over the internet have been sending in emails wanting to know my opinion about them. Look here is the enlightened public service doing the right thing again with people’s money: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/public-service-push-for-genderneutral-bathrooms-20170511-gw2taq.html.

     I think that the more toilets and genders we have the better things will be for people like me, who were born to clean up other people’s messes. And, the more genders, the better. I think there are 32 at the moment, but I could think up that many at breakfast. As that great defender of freedom, comedian Charlie Mao said, “let a thousand flowers bloom.” Somebody who killed millions would know a thing or two about messes.

     The computer geeks are feeling pretty proud of themselves here in OZ, dealing with the “WannaCry” ransomware, which hit over 200,000 computers in 150 countries. The software is believed to have been derived from a computer bug developed by the US National Security Agency. Like biological viruses, it got out somehow and sort to replicate.

     Reports have it that this is the product of one lone wolf actor. Thus, the question is raised; what happens when, not if, the next major conflict, if not war, erupts between the United States and a country with great cyber-prowess, such as Russia, or China? Surely this present cyber-attack would be nothing compared to what IT super-powers could deliver.

     The Clexit Coalition today called on President Trump to keep his election promise to withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty and stop US payments to all UN global warming programs.
The Clexit (ClimateExit) Coalition, comprising over 175 representatives from 25 countries, aims to prevent ratification or local enforcement of the UN Paris climate treaty.
See: http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/clexit-members.pdf

    The Secretary of Clexit, Mr Viv Forbes of Australia, said that all nations will suffer from the destructive energy policies being promoted in the UN’s war on cheap, reliable hydro-carbon fuels and the backbone industries that rely on them – mining and smelting, farming, fishing, forestry, processing and manufacturing.
He was supported by Professor Will Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University who said today:

     Yet another treasurer bows to the gods of “the balanced budget” and “the surplus”.
A balanced budget is not necessarily good.
Most of the dreary comrade societies aimed at a balanced budget – “We take 100% of your income and spend it all”.
There is only one tax on the people and that is government spending.
The treasurer needs to slash that big tax.
All else is flummery.
Viv Forbes, Rosevale, Qld Australia
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

    An article that was mentioned briefly before in these pages, needs to be remembered: https://cairnsnews.org/2015/09/25/dreamtime-a-cruel-delusion-of-british-anthropologists/. The article makes the argument that following anthropologist Alfred Cort Haddon’s book, The Races of Man (1909), the Aborigines are likely to be new comers, compared to a Negrito people who allegedly originally inhabited the country. Pre-1770 explorers such as William Dampier who visited West and Northern Australia in the late 1600s saw these people. He described a race of people with hair “curled like the Negroes,” which the modern Aborigine does not have. The Aborigines may displaced them, for where else could they have gone?

    Anyone supporting this theory will need to address arguments such as that given by R. Tobler (et al.), “Aboriginal Mitogenomes Reveal 50,000 Years of Regionalism in Australia,” Nature, (2017); doi:10.1038/nature21416, which allegedly found “evidence for the continuous presence of populations in discrete geographic areas dating back to around 50 [thousand years], in agreement with the notable Aboriginal Australian cultural attachment to their country.”

    Predictably enough, Le Pen was crushed by her globalist former Rothschild banker opponent, like a truck going over a biro. I know that there is a large case to be made of dirty tactics, cheating and all the rest, but at some point the good guys need to face up to internal weaknesses that have led to a culture of defeats. Given the weak nature of modern Whites, it is necessary to constantly whistle in the dark, to keep the nerve of the weak up. But, alone here in private, we can talk frankly.

    The fact remains that the majority of the population, at least in France, are not “on side.” They consent to continual immigration and terrorist attacks. That is exactly how the ruling globalist elites will interpret Le Pen’s defeat. France will be slammed by globalism as never before, and no doubt has now reached a tipping point where no (sic) dumocratic solution to its problems is possible. Given the cucked nature of the population, France will disintegrate into chaos, ultimately with a sharia law government gaining control of its nuclear weapons. Prediction: that will happen by 2030 at the latest.

To the Herald Sun 4/5/17 
Fat cats need a diet 
As Australia's resources fat cats made the billionaires top 100 list again, I was reminded of Alaska which in 1976, nine years after oil was discovered, amended its Constitution to dedicate its yearly oil revenues, in part, to a state investment fund.
Every person since 1982, a permanent fund dividend has been paid to every Alaskan men, woman and child in recognition of the ownership, in part, of its resources.
From a 2008 high of $3269, in more recent years the PFD has been between $1000 and $1500 per person.