Why We Need to Fear North Korean Nuclear Missiles By James Reed

     There is a school of capitalist business-as-usualism, which holds that we should not be concerned about North Korean nuclear attacks on the West because the Americans have the technology to shoot down the missiles. Recently the US shot down a mock ICBM just to show that it means business.
    However, the only successful tests have been conducted in daylight, not night, let alone in ultra-bad weather. The US has had around a 50 percent success rate shooting down 10 missiles in 18 tests, with the missiles moving over a known path: The Australian, June 1, 2017, p. 9.
This is far from satisfactory because a mass launch of missiles means that almost 50 percent of targeted cities will be destroyed. Hopefully, not our city, but who knows what tomorrow will bring: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-21710644.

The Trojan Horse of Constitutional Recognition Part Two by Nigel Jackson

     The Uluru Statement of the Heart has now been published, which means that the revolutionaries have played their hand and thrown down the glove of challenge. We can now respond as we must.

     Greg Sheridan, a distinguished veteran journalist, has led the way with his opinion pieces in The Australian. In ‘Misguided, squeamish Liberals are failing Aborigines’, (25 May) he wrote: ‘Constitutional recognition [is] extremely bad in principle because [it creates] two classes of citizens…..The Constitution belongs to all Australians. If the state changes the citizenship status of one group of Australians, it, by definition, changes the citizenship status of all Australians. In principle and in practice, this is a recipe for conflict and disaster.’

Continue reading

Letter to The Editor

     Australians as a whole have a duty of care to all those citizens who suffer serious social and health disadvantage, so Ron Spielman is right to champion the cause of Aboriginals in such need (1/6), but his call for vaguely worded 'meaningful' and 'appropriate' recognition is an erroneous response.

     He refers to 'those whose large piece of earth was occupied by strangers against their will.' All those people are dead. The task now is to work towards justice and well-being for all Australians living now and those who will follow. If it be asked was not dispossession unfair to 'the Aboriginal people', answers may differ, but the law must deal with living individuals and not political abstractions in this case.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Letter to The Editor

     John Roskam is right to argue ('An Indigenous treaty would divide, not unite, us', 31/5) that all Australians, no matter what their ethnicity or ancestral background, must be seen as equal under the Constitution and thus under the Crown and at law. This approach to recent demands for constitutional recognition of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders is our best guarantee of maintaining national security and civic peace on this continent.

     The great majority of Australians respect our heritage of Aboriginal culture and currently show this in many ways. We appreciate and value the unique position within our Commonwealth of those having Aboriginal ancestry. What would Australia be without the beauty and profundity of Aboriginal culture? And we recognise the pain of past dispossession. But two wrongs do not make a right.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

So, They think Propranolol Dampens Negative Racial Bias? Think Again! By Brian Simpson

     According to S. Terbeck (et al.), “Propranolol Reduces Implicit Negative Racial Bias,” Psychopharmacology, February 28, 2012, the use of the drug propranolol, used primarily to treat a variety of medical conditions such as high blood pressure and irregular heart rate, can also “abolish implicit racial bias.” This was tested in 36 volunteers.
     Be that as it may, I know almost that number of people, myself included, who receive this drug to control hypertension. All of these people, except for myself, I being a loving kind of guy, are strong racists, by the system’s standards. I asked everyone in my smaller sample if they had become more racist after taking the drug, and they said that the drug did not effect their attitudes, which were a product of current political events, such as mass immigration.  Although it would bring a tear to my eye, I suppose the socialists would put me into that camp as well.
But, where goes the Terbeck (et al.) hypothesis? Surely it is wrong, for a complex social behaviour could not be regulated just by the administration of β-adrenoceptors. It is biological determinism and reductionism gone mad.

The Hyper-Cucked West By John Steele

     As pointed out in a confronting article at https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10430/terrorism-candles-teddy-bears, Europe, and arguably the rest of the West, has not woken up to the realities of the cold winds of war which are blowing through societies at an alarming pace.
    The death toll from Islamic terrorism so far is: Madrid: 191. London: 58. Amsterdam: 1. Paris: 148. Brussels: 36. Copenhagen: 2. Nice: 86. Stockholm: 4. Berlin: 12. Manchester: 22.  There are, as well, hundreds of Europeans murdered in  Bali,  Sousse,  Dakka, Jerusalem,  Sharm el Sheikh and Istanbul. On average there have been terrorist attacks in Europe on an average of one every nine days. But, as the Gatestone article cited above notes,  Europe is fighting back with teddy bears, candles, flowers, vigils, Twitter hashtags and cartoons.”

     We have often commented on how this is likely to end, but recently Roosh v, who himself is non-White, has given a frank statement on where open borders immigration leads. Are you ready for it? The May 15, 2017 article is entitled “The Barbarians Will Solve Your Sterile Existence”:

Continue reading

Why Do Whites Hate their Own Ethnicity? By Brian Simpson

     The issue of a supposed “white pathology,” a product of “pathological altruism”: https://www.amazon.com/Pathological-Altruism-Barbara-Oakley/dp/0199738572, is a concept closely related to Garrett Hardin’s notion of “promiscuous altruism”: Garrett Hardin, “Discriminating Altruisms,”  Zygon, vol. 17, 1982, pp. 163-186. The central argument here is that the present behaviour of whites, such as with open borders immigration, is a universalism quite inconsistent with evolutionary biology. Here is the abstract from Hardin’s classic paper:

“Reliable Darwinian theory shows that pure altruism cannot persist and expand over time. All higher organisms show inheritable patterns of caring and discrimination. The principal forms of discriminating altruisms among human beings are individualism (different from egoism), familialism, cronyism, tribalism, and patriotism. The promiscuous altruism called “universalism” cannot endure in the face of inescapable completion. Information can be promiscuously shared, but not so matter and energy without evoking the tragedy of the commons. Universalism is not recommended even as an ideal. Survival now requires the creation of an intellectual base for a new patriotism.”

Continue reading

The Immigration Mad Elites Chris Knight

     President Donald Trump’s sole attempt to keep an election promise, has come unstuck by the court system, populated by globalists from the dream run they have had stacking the system.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld an injunction against Trump’s executive order curtailing travel and immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, claiming that: even an executive order that makes no mention of Islam in its text can be invalidated for violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. This is apparently based on  comments Trump and his associates made during and after the 2016 presidential election. According to Chief Judge Roger Gregory’s opinion for the court calls the travel ban “an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”
“Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute.” Well, given the way the judiciary think, the power to control borders is virtually non-existent. The claim that any decision about immigration control is rally about disfavouring Islam, could only be made in the context of a society suffering from advanced decay: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/25/travel-ban-blocked-again-possible-supreme-court-showdown/. Thinking that the US Supreme Court would be any different, is an illusion since clearly the legal system, and everything else has been corrupted beyond any duct tape repair.

     Thus, former US president Hussein Obama, freely proclaims the virtues of Merkel’s open borders destruction of Germany, while slamming Trump saying that “We can’t hide behind a wall”: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/25/barack-obama-europe-taunts-donald-trump-isolationi/. No mention though of Israel’s highly successful wall.

Continue reading

The Asian Nuclear Arms Race – and Australia Will Remain Unarmed and Take in Even More Migrants By Paul Walker

     We should not be surprised about an Asian nuclear arms race,  because Asians do not have the liberal cucked world view that has come to dominate our world. Thus, it has been reported that Asian is about to embark on an inevitable nuclear arms race, fuelled by fears of North Korea, but no doubt reinforced by long-standing fears of China’s increasing power and aggression: The Australian, May 26, 2017, p. 1. This will almost certainly lead to a nuclear exchange occurring somewhere; recall that India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed sit eternally on a knife-edge: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/forget-north-korea-nuclear-war-betweeen-india-pakistan-19901.

     Australia, from the time of Mr Populate and Perish, Fabian socialist Arthur Calwell (1896-1973), the “father of multiculturalism” and Asianisation: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-speech-that-changed-australia-20141204-1208h3.html, has pursued a policy of dismantling its ethno-racial Anglo-Saxon heritage and culture. If you are 50 years old or more, you would have seen first-hand how this was done, and it is now celebrated for what it truly is, but it was not openly proclaimed as this at the time by the elites: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-speech-that-changed-australia-20141204-1208h3.html. How could “Australian nationalism” be founded on this basis of Fabian socialism, as some still seem to think?  If you think so, then read more carefully the article  above.
Along with this, even the Christian moral and legal framework that past Anglo-Australians grew up with has been slowly deconstructed, brick by brick, so that today not only is homosexuality mainstream, and same-sex marriage likely to soon be law, as it is in America and Ireland, championed by the same class of elites, but transgenderism and beyond are moving up the ranks: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sam-dorman/camille-paglia-transgender-mania-symptom-cultural-collapse.

Continue reading

Out of Europe, Not Out of Africa By Brian Simpson

     There has been a healthy debate at this site about the anthropology of Northern Europeans, with yours truly defending our kind from the charge that Northern Europe was a backwater, and Northern Europeans savages who ate each other. There is considerable evidence of advanced cultures existing, and collapsing in Europe, with architectural remains documenting this. You can use the wonder of the Google search engine operating at this site to read my articles over the years. In the old days the articles may have ended up as a book, but sadly people don’t read books now preferring the fast cut and thrust of the internet article, banged out, week after week, after week…

     Now comes the news that Europe, not Africa may be the birthplace of mankind: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/. The find, which is challenging the “Out-of-Africa” politically correct status quo, is of two fossils of a 7.2 million year old creature, Graecopithecus freybergi, found in Bulgaria and Greece. The so-called “missing link” between humans and chimpanzees, would thus be placed in the Mediterranean, rather than Africa: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127.
    This then would make Europeans older than the standard African Eve orthodoxy, and give time for the emergence, and fall of higher cultures. I see such evidence as supplying one more plank in the restoration of the Nordic thesis: https://archive.org/details/TheAryansAStudyOfIndo-europeanOrigins, something a deracinated and cucked people dearly need: http://www.brill.com/uniqueness-western-civilization.

Letter to The Editor

     The New Zealand parliament, in its wisdom, decided to enshrine the “principles” of the treaty of the 1840 Waitangi into legislation. This has led to endless litigation between Maoris and the government, and endless payments by the New Zealand taxpayer to Maoris to compensate them for apparent “breaches” of the treaty. Such payments have not improved the lot of ordinary suburban Maoris one iota.

     Defining the “principles” of the treaty has led to endless interpretations and permutations, most never envisaged by the original signatories. Judicial activism has been kept alive and well with attempts to satisfy claimants and quests to define and apply the “principles” of the treaty to an ever-increasing list of injustices suffered by Maori at the hands of white settlers and their descendants. The only winners have been lawyers and a select few Maori elite to have received treaty settlements.

     Far better for all Australians to simply get on with their lives and take advantage of what the country has to offer. A treaty will not be the magic bullet for those living in impoverished, remote areas offering no employment opportunities, and it will not help children being brought up in dysfunctional households, nor will it keep people out of prison who make free choices as to the crimes they commit. Most important, a treaty will divide Australia on race. Do we really want to go there?
MH, Northwood, Vic

From Recognition to the Abolition of Australia By Ian Wilson LL.B

    Here is the conclusion of the indigenous summit: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/indigenous-summit-rejects-recognition-pushes-for-treaty-and-voice-in-constitution-20170526-gwe389.html.

     An all-indigenous convention wants to enshrine a “First Nations Voice” in the constitution in a referendum to be held next year. The politically correct compromise, favoured by the liberals and conservatives, of giving a mere token recognition, was rejected. The Aboriginal lobby now means business, with a “commission,” perhaps much like that in South Africa,  a “Makarrata Commission” to “supervise agreements between Indigenous groups and government and a period of truth-telling about the treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.”

Continue reading

Letter to The Editor

     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

Letter to The Editor

     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

Deliberations of the Indigenous Referendum Council

    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.

Continue reading


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.

Unemployment Rubbery Figures By James Reed

     The government tells us that the “official’ unemployment rate in Australia is 5.7 percent, which is “vote for me, good.” But, as pointed out in an article by the razor-sharp Adam Creighton (The Australian, May 22, 2017, p. 12), the official figure is nonsense, with the unemployment rate being at almost three times that, at 15 percent.

     Rather than 732,000 Australians not being able to find work, more than 2.26 million are unemployed. The way the government fakes the figures is to use a definition of "employment” that has any one working more than an hour a week as employed!  To be unemployed, the test is much harder: one needs to have applied for a job in the past four weeks and be ready to start work.

Continue reading

Today, There is Not Even a "Brisbane Line" By James Reed

     There is a lot in the papers recently about what a great bloke and leader Bob Menzies was: “Menzies Taught Us to Strive and Never Yield”: The Australian , May 22, 2017, p. 12.

     Now wait a minute! This is the same Bob Menzies called “pig iron bob,’ who gladly sold Australian steel to the imperial Japanese, who then used it to make weapons to be fired back at Aussies? See: http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/image.aspx?id=tcm:13-22114. If you research this on the net, you will see trade unionist sites and also old, not new Left sites, which in those days supported Aussie workers, as advancing the pig iron bob criticism. You will also find academics poo-pooing this, saying that it is an urban myth, just like the “Brisbane line,” Bob’s alleged plan to abandon all of Australia above a hypothetical line going through Brisbane.

Continue reading

Letter to The Editor

     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   

Continue reading

Letter to The Editor

     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