To The Australian 
Noel Pearson's hagiography of Paul Keating is unconvincing ('A visionary of power', 22/11). It ignores the fact that the Australian people soon recognised, within one term of government, that their country was being led in the wrong direction by Keating. They chose as replacement a much greater prime minister and re-elected him several times.

Pearson's potted account of the 'three defining moments' of our history is misleading. Australia is first and fundamentally a British nation. The facts that long ago people crossed the Torres Strait land bridge and that there has been much non-British immigration in the last half century do not affect this truth. Keating attacked the prime foundation stone of our British culture - the Australian monarchy. Australians didn't buy that and they won't buy the current 'reconciliation' campaign - really a hypocritical power grab - either.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic                  

To The Age
Louise Adler correctly says that the best cartoonists 'make us reflect on our prejudices and blind spots' ('It's no laughing matter', 22/11). However, she is on less secure ground in bluntly asserting that 'in a civil society racism or sexism is deemed unacceptable' and that legislation such as 18C 'serves as an educative tool and a moral compass for a decent society'.

One problem is that opinions differ on what is or is not sexist or racist. Adler's phrase 'moral compass' tends to suggest that all good people see things the same way. They don't.
Another problem is that, as a matter of fact, laws against racial hatred and vilification have been used in many countries to achieve political censorship. Perhaps oversensitivity to alleged slurs is one of Adler's blind spots.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic                  

Ref: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/separatism-through-indigenous-recognition-an-irrational-fear/news-story/b042fef00118e5a6b727bdaf9ee731b2
Shireen Morris unjustly and ineffectively disparages concerns that the push for Aboriginal constitutional recognition masks a plan to press for full Aboriginal sovereignty involving the political division of this continent ('"Separatism" through recognition an irrational fear', 29-30/10). Her claim that 'very few indigenous Australians want a separate state in the international sense' contradicts Keith Windschuttle's view, based on his quotation of mainstream Aboriginal leaders such as Patrick Dodson and Marcia Langton. Morris simply ignores the detailed evidence he provided, wrongly suggesting that only 'far Left' Aboriginal extremists seek full sovereignty and that they pose no threat.

Other matters Windschuttle mentioned that are also inadequately addressed by Morris include: (1) the danger of UNO interference through its Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (partly written by Dodson!), (2) the possibility of ill-advised constitutional change through 'legal adventurism' by High Court judges, and (3) the likelihood of an Aboriginal state's forming alliances with other nations against Australia's interests.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

I have been criticising section 18 C of the Race Discrimination Act for many years now. I have read much on the topic and have yet to see any sound intellectual defences of it; it remains in the domain of ethnic power politics.
The best legal and journalistic minds have torn its ideological foundations to pieces, but like the “walking dead,” the law remains, spreading a plague of misery.

We have seen increasingly absurd consequences of this suppression of free speech, from the university students case, now to the cartoon case of Bill Leak, which by the way, has been said to be an accurate portrayal of what police face, according to the Western Australian Police Commissioner. (The Australian, October 21, 2016, p. 1)

It’s been exhausting covering the US election for readers, with my fellow Aussie/American journalist friend here, Chris Knight. Everyday there seems to be new revelations of Clinton evil, but she just gets away with it, so far.
Beginning in no particular order, the Clinton foundation itself has confirmed that it accepted a $1million gift from Qatar while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. She had signed an ethics agreement in order to become Secretary of State to notify the State Department’s ethics official if a foreign government such as Qatar wanted to make donations, so that any concerns could be raised. However, the State Department found no record of the Clinton Foundation submitting the Qatar gift for review and that it was “incumbent on the foundation to notify the department about donations that needed review.”
At least eight other countries donated to the Foundation without the State Department being informed:  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation-idUSKBN12Z2SL. This is but one more example of Clinton placing herself above the rule of law, let alone morality. Conflicts of interest seem to matter nothing to the Clintons.                                        

The Remnant (http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/itemlist/user/607-elizabethyore),  reports on the Soros/Clinton/Vatican partnership, or should we call it conspiracy.  Soros’ Open society granted $650,000 to PICO, a radical organisation for a meeting in the Vatican about the 2016 election. Here is what the article says about the outcome:

of THE AUSTRALIAN
It is puzzling that Michael Sexton finds it 'puzzling that several groups representing the Jewish community' have not defended free speech ('Section 18C as it now stands is here to stay despite its obvious faults', 3/11). Their determination to suppress Holocaust revisionism played a major role in the passing of the Racial Hatred Act in 1994, as ALP MP Graeme Campbell noted in the debate in Parliament at that time. They have maintained their opposition to free public debate on this topic ever since.

What is more puzzling is why this aspect of the free speech debate has hardly been mentioned in the enormous coverage of the controversy over 18C in recent months. Repeal of 18C is needed for several reasons, one of which is to ensure that historical revisionists are not wrongfully punished in Australia as they are in Germany, France and other European nations.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Obama is going into immoral panic mode for Hillary Clinton, and has said in an interview with Gina Rodriguez that illegal aliens should vote, for Hillary Clinton of course, and that they won’t be caught, deported or punished.
According to “the man,” the illegals are citizens because they contribute to the economy – presumably the cash-in-hand economy: http://www.naturalnews.com/055906_illegal_aliens_voting_Obama_interview.html.

This is an extraordinary example of the open political corruption which the West has fallen into. It is against the black letter law for illegals to vote, yet here is Obama advocating that people should break the law.
For him, and all cosmopolitanists, the law is strictly what they make it to be. This is a form of lawlessness because the fundamental principle of the rule of law is that the laws stand above people and constrain all. Obama and the Clintons put themselves above the law. So, Obama in failing to uphold his presidential oath, is a real traitor.

To THE AUSTRALIAN
Henry Herzog claims (5-6/11) that restricting 'hate speech' under section 18C is not an attack on free speech, but, alas, it has often proved to be so. The term's vagueness and subjectivity are conducive to its misuse; and significant elements in the Jewish community, for which Herzog speaks, have had it unjustly applied to the writings of revisionist historians, thus achieving censorship while pretending that no such affront to free speech has occurred.

A recent decision of the NSW Court of Appeal illustrates the problem ('Toben denied day in court to deny Holocaust', 5-6/11). It is alarming to read that a judge has upheld a finding that Fredrick Toben may not express in court 'banned views on Jews and the Holocaust'. His views are controversial and may be partly or wholly wrong; but in principle historical dissidents should not be prevented by government or the judicial system from publishing their views. Nor do such views necessarily proceed from or promote hatred.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

In his article, “An Historic, Quite Possibly Revolutionary Victory!”
Kevin MacDonald  at http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/11/an-amazing-victory/#more-81356,  gives an excellent overview of the philosophical significance of the Trump victory, which he sees as “ a victory of White Americans over the oligarchic, hostile elites what have run this country for decades. Trump accomplished a hostile takeover of the Republican Party and won without the support or with only lukewarm and vacillating support from much of the GOP elite.”

He quotes from a previous article which he published in Radix Journal, on the political meaning of Trump, which illustrates how, even if Trump did not set out initially to do so, has changed politics.

It is action on the streets of the old US of A, with the Left going bat-raving mad about the Trump victory. There are so many diverse and diffuse acts of violence that it is difficult to summarise them all, so I will be selective.

Fighting from “below” against Trump is the Leftoid “underman” and commo, revolting against civilisation and shutting down freeways.  In Portland Oregon, anti-Trump protesters wrecked businesses and lit fires.  The internet is also full of reports of acts of violence against Trump supporters and voters, with even children getting beaten to a pulp: incidents also include beating up a 74-year-old man, pounding his head into the sidewalk; a Muslim woman falsely claimed that two white males with Trump hats had attacked her – she will be prosecuted for the false claim, and numerous accounts of children being beaten up. S
ee for example, “California High School Student Brutally Beaten for Supporting Trump,” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6MDq9y8xoc.

Now that the Federal court has thrown out the Queensland student race vilification case, with one person withdrawing their complaint over the Bill Leak cartoon, and the remaining complainants saying that they want to drop the case (The Australian, November 15, 2016, p. 1), the government has moved into damage control to protect their darling law of the multicult, section 18 C.

It seems to be the case that the section will be retained, as it is the holy of holies to the powerful multicult lobby, but there will be modifications to eliminate petty claims. I suppose it all depends on what the globalist New World Order elites who run the show say that the pollies are allowed to do. Even though academic lawyers have shown in great scholarly detail that section 18 C is unconstitutional, and thus not good law at all, that issue is being ignored by our puppet parliament. A joint parliamentary committee will investigate how it can make section 18 C work, not whether the section is law at all. Nothing substantial will change because the entire jurisprudential basis of the section is fundamentally flawed.

After the “unthinkable” happening (The Australian, November 10, 2016, p. 21), and the penny finally dropping, that after Brexit and the Trump election, “this was no aberration,”  “mainstream political parties and elite groups like big business have some fundamental questions to ask about their next moves.” That is putting it mildly, because I imagine that the elites and their slaves haven’t slept since the Trump election, working on ways to eliminate or otherwise neutralise him, as they are attempting to do to Brexit. Brexit? Wasn’t that one in the bag?

The Brexit betrayal of Britain is that Britain’s High Court has ruled that the government must consult the British parliament before invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, so that Britain can exit from the EU. The Court ruled that the British prime minister does not have the authority to use the Royal Prerogative to invoke the EU exit. This is widely seen as a “backdoor” way to undermine the Brexit vote.

To THE AGE
It appears that Professor Jenny Hocking may have a political agenda - presumably republican - in her publishing of material about Gough Whitlam and the Dismissal ('Legal push to force release of Kerr's Palace letters', 22/10). This presumption comes from the peculiar claim she is reported to have made that the fate of the Governor-general's letters 'should be decided as a matter of Australian law, not by the arcane edict of a distant monarch.'

Constitutionally the Queen is not distant from our nation at all. In terms of air flight she is less than two days away, of email only a few minutes. Moreover, 2027, when the letters will be made public, is not far away, so why the hurry?
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to The Australian
One does not have to be a fan of Eustace Mullins to feel that there is truth in some of his views as quoted by Senator Malcolm Roberts ('Senator rejects Jewish slurs', 22-23/10). Surely no-one seriously disputes the facts that the founding of the US Federal Reserve came about largely through the proposals of Jewish banking interests and that Jewish influence is very powerful among Western European nations thanks to financial power wielded by some Jews.

To what extent that influence promotes socialistic world government through the UNO or uses climate change fears are surely questions that can be debated in our public forums without any need to invoke the pejorative term 'anti-Semitism'. One reason for advocating the removal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is that it could be used unfairly against someone reasonably - and not unreasonably - critical of certain Jewish activities.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian
Keith Windschuttle is not, as Gerard Hore claims (24/10), engaging in irresponsible 'fear-mongering' ('Separation, not integration, will result from recognition', 22-23/10), but issuing a wise warning which Australians will ignore at their peril. The threat of the disintegration of our nation, with the ill effects that would bring, is something genuinely fearful. Common sense, not merely 'self-interest', demands that it be opposed. Nothing immoral about that.

It has been apparent for many years that the push for 'constitutional recognition' masks a separatist political agenda. Windschuttle, with his customary thoroughness, has now provided the needed substantial documentation of this new Trojan horse. However, his article does not explore the mystery of why there is so much support in high places for such an obviously destructive policy that is against the interests of most Australians. Perhaps Senator Malcolm Roberts can explain this.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

To The Australian
Graham Hyde rightly advocates the removal of curbs on free speech that are 'vague', 'subjective' and 'imprecise' (25/10), but then recommends new restrictions that are just that ('intimidation', 'inciting hatred' and 'an anti-bigotry clause'). His phrase 'a single national test' is meaningless.

No, we do not need 'a new equal freedom of expression act' (whatever that might be), because it would implicitly indicate that government has the right to give us free speech and hence the right to remove or curtail it. We just need government to butt out by repealing 18C; and, until that happens, we need brave citizens to speak out publicly on contentious issues of race and thus challenge the iniquitous legislation to the point that it collapses under public odium.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

The battle to maintain our freedom and our culture in Australia continues. In recent days we've seen the Australian Human Rights Commission commence an investigation into Bill Leak, a cartoonist for the Australian newspaper, because a small number of people were offended by his cartoon highlighting family dysfunction in some Aboriginal communities.

Meanwhile, the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board has commenced its 32nd investigation into me. However, it refuses to let me know exactly what it is 'investigating'. I have been given until Friday to respond...
This should not be surprising. These bodies are essentially the political police force for left-wing radicals. They were always designed as such and they are simply doing the job that they were always established to do. The solution to this intolerable situation is not to tinker with sections of legislation that are probably unconstitutional anyway. Instead, the entire apparatus of the anti-discrimination industry must be destroyed.

The theme discussed in articles this week – ranging from the philosophical lessons of the US election, to gun control, section 18 C and many other topics –is that “the system is rigged,” to take a meme from the present Trump debates. The idea here is that the “system” – economic, political, and cultural – has fundamental elements of corruption and deception built into it. Social creditors would not be surprised to be told this because they have been aware since at least Major Douglas’ first writings about our flawed financial/economic system, with faults ranging from the lack of purchasing power to the “black magic” creation of credit by banks out of nothing and the debt creation on financial instabilities produced by that.

However, apart from the “big picture” corruption, relating to the fundamental contradictions of the system, we continue to find every week “micro corruptions” in the economic, political and cultural systems. To name a few from economics: there is the “discovery” of a global gold price collusion, where the world’s major banks rigged the price of gold for over a decade: The Australian, October 14, 2016; A Caminschi and R. Heaney, “Fixing a Leaky Fixing: Short-Term Market Reactions to the London PM Gold Price Fixing,” The Journal of Future Markets, vol. 34, no. 11, 2014, pp. 1003–1039.
There is also the failure of politicians across the world to address the seriousness of the exploding debt crisis. While the media falls all over Hillary Clinton, bowing to her globalism, US national debt is now a crushing $US 20 trillion, as Collapse News, October 21, 2016 reports. It would take 18 months, using the entire US GDP – which is obviously impossible – to pay this debt off No-one asks: who is the debt to, and how could a nation become essentially bankrupt? Who lurks in the shadows pulling the strings?

Will we soon have people like Dog the bounty hunter, the American who on TV chases down all sorts of bad folk who haven’t paid fines? According to The Sydney Morning Herald, September 27, 206, the Australian Taxation Office is hiring debt collectors and the ATO are “putting prices on the heads of tax debts, with individual operators promised bonuses and incentives to “convince” debtors to pay-up.”

There are fears that “high-pressure tactics” may be used and even “corruption” may occur! The article does not mention what these tactics might be. There is a photograph illustrating the article that at first looked to me like a hand holding a baseball bat – but, silly me, it was just a rolled up one-hundred-dollar bill. My mistake. How could I have thought that?
But, will we soon seen the Australian version of Dog on our reality TV? Where can I sign up?

The great section 18C “non-debate” has ended. Malcolm Turnbull has said that he has more important things to do – no doubt working with his mate Obama to get in the TPP before either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are elected president, because they both oppose the TPP.
Yes, the leader of the Liberals is too busy to defend what should be the fundamental liberal value, freedom of speech. Instead, energies must be devoted to be “freedom” of corporations – which are by definition collectivist entities – to be able to override all of the hard fought freedoms of the people through the globalist TPP.

The section 18 C non-debate closed with the multicult lobby having the final say, because, this is after all, their legislation. Free speech is not an absolute, they said, citing the example that one cannot falsely shout “fire” in a cinema. Nobody said it was and neither should be the multicult right not to be offended, especially since almost anything can offend somebody and the bar is at tripping level.