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:

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.

Continue reading

What! Humans Settled Australia 49,000 billion Years Ago? No, My Mistake by Brian Simpson

The standard reference to 40,000 years for the alleged first Aboriginal settlement of the landmass that would come to be called “Australia” by the British keeps getting pushed further back into pre-history, according to mainstream and less than mainstream archaeology. I have heard a 75,000 year figure:  On the net, various groups even go so far as to claim that Aboriginal Australians are 400,000 years old:

There is an interesting paper about this at:
See also:
The logical conclusion of all of this is that modern humans did not arise in Africa, as the “Out-of-Africa” anti-race hypothesis posits, but arose in Australia!

Continue reading

Definition of Aboriginal needs to be clarified: Pauline Hanson


One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has criticised the lack of a set definition to determine whether a person is Aboriginal.

Senator Hanson tonight highlighted the possibility for non-indigenous people to be classified as Aboriginal by marrying an indigenous person or being accepted by elders of a community.

In an interview with conservative presenter and columnist Andrew Bolt on Sky News, Senator Hanson said: “That’s not good enough because then if you make a comment about it, well what are you? Are you an Aboriginal or not an Aboriginal?”

Chinese tycoon risks new political row defending 18C


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.

Continue reading

Letter to The Editor

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

Letter to The Editor

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                  

Section 18 C Case May Return – I Hope! by Ian Wilson LL. B.

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.

Continue reading

Everyone is Racist, Including the ABC, and SBS – Except Paul Keating by Tom North

Some media statements by notable people need to be quoted rather than paraphrased for the full impact to hit. Thus, consider Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson’s comments about the “racist” ABC (The Australian, November 22, 2016, p. 1) in the context of Paul Keating’s promising reforms which had been:

“Wrecked by ignorant ministers and malign bureaucrats, aided and abetted by the media, not the least the country’s miserable, racist national broadcaster.” The ABC was “a spittoon’s worth of perverse people willing the wretched to fail.”

Continue reading

Those Who Have Ruled Us: Blasts from the Past by James Reed

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.”

Continue reading

From Recognition to Racial Separatism: Neo-Apartheidism by Ian Wilson LL.B.

Apart from the philosophical implications of section 18 C, from a legal perspective, I am concerned about the consequences of a successful “Yes” vote from the constitutional recognition of Aborigines. This issue is pushed as a big social justice issue, like same sex marriage, and dissents are slammed for disagreeing. Probably discrimination law will be used to silence any critics, because that is the real reason the elites put it in place.

hus it is good to see social critic Keith Windschuttle speaking up. (The Weekend Australian, October 22-23, 2016, p. 20), saying: “Australia as we know it will not survive the agenda of those seeking greater autonomy.” The aim of many, if not most, in the Aboriginal movement, is not to make the constitution complete, but to “get their country back,” and he quotes the title of a recent book on this, It’s Our Country, to illustrate the thought processes. The aim is political autonomy and sovereignty, traditional law in their own separate nation. It is not explained how all of this fits in with multiculturalism and Asianisation, but no doubt, as I see it, China will work all of this out for “us” in the future.

Continue reading

Letter to The Editor

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

Genetics and Aboriginal Australia by Brian Simpson

In the lead up to the referendum over Aboriginal constitutional recognition, every scientific paper thought to support the “long-term view” gets media coverage. Thus, attention was given to A-S. Malaspinas (et al.), “A Genomic History of Aboriginal Australia,” Nature (2016): doi : 10.1038/nature18299.
The research was a genetic study of 83 Aboriginal Australians and 25 Papuans from the New Guinea Highlands.

It is said that there was diversifications in populations 25-40,000 years ago “suggesting pre-Holocene population structure in the ancient continent of Sahul (Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania)” However, the Aborigines descended “from a single founding population that differentiated ~ 10-32” (thousand years ago).”
To my mind this means that the 40,000 year or even now 65,000 years’ occupancy figure must be incorrect.
They also say: “Aboriginal Australians and Papuans diverged from Eurasians 51-72 kya  (thousand years ago), following a single out-of-Africa dispersal and subsequently admixed with archaic populations.”
So, “archaic populations,” “archaic hominins” were really here first! Is there going to be constitutional recognition of the ancestors of the Aborigines? Surely there must be, in all fairness.

The Silencing of Women in the Stifling Culture of Aboriginal Unity by Mrs Vera West

What happens when feminism clashes with multiculturalism? It seems that multiculturalism wins. As reported in “‘Women Silenced’ in Stifling Culture of Aboriginal Unity,” (The Weekend Australian, October 1-2, 2016, p. 7), in the 1970s many female Aboriginal leaders put ethnic solidarity, “standing as a people” over feminist issues.

According to indigenous researcher Suzanne Ingram, Aboriginal women are still facing racial solidarity pressures, serving as “solidarity stewardesses serving a sophisticated silencing agenda,” on issues of domestic violence in their communities. Ms Ingram believes that the issue of “silencing” has got worse with women who speak out about black-on-black violence being seen as engaging in betrayal.
Her paper “Silent Drivers/Driving Silence – Aboriginal Women’s Voices on Domestic Violence,” published in Social Alternatives (vol. 35, 2016, pp. 6-12), cites alarming statistics that “intimate partner violence” can be as high as 38 times greater for Aboriginal women than non-Aboriginal women.

Continue reading

The Meaning of “Hate Speech” by Tom North

Andrew Bolt (Herald Sun, October 1, 2016) points out that “hate speech” is taking a mutated meaning. A Perth woman seeing people posting “anti-marriage equality” stickers on a sign that she was standing in front of said: “Does anyone by chance know who is responsible for this hatred? I’d love to speak to them.” Yes, it was a rhetorical question. This is a common point of view of the “Yes” approach.

The sign said “Keep Marriage Man and Woman.” This sentiment, held by the vast majority of the human race throughout time, has now been regarded by proponents of the “new morality” as hate speech. But there is no point arguing with them: call it “late for dinner,” it will be opposed. “Hate” is fast losing any emotional impact it once had.

In an Age of Political Correctness Tyranny Expect Fear by Ian Wilson LL.B.

There has been criticism of the printer of Dr David van Gend’s book, Stealing from a Child : The Injustice of “Marriage Equality” not proceeding with the printing of the book for the publisher because the book opposed same-sex marriage. This is apparently the first time in Australia that a printing firm has refused to print a book on political grounds:  It follows on the heels of a Sydney hotel cancelling the booking made by some Christian groups opposing same sex marriage after there were threats made to hotel staff. At the present time we cannot say that it was gay activists who did this, as a matter of law, because there is not strict legal proof, but most journalists criticising this do anyway.

Brendon O’Neil, “Straight-Out Hate in Politics of Identity,The Weekend Australian, September 24-25, 2016, p. 19, sums up accurately the new identity politics which LGBTIism is a part of:

Continue reading

Letter to the Editor

Despite David McCarthy's claim to the contrary ('Keep tight leash on dogs of hate in marriage debate', 26/9) the controversy over same-sex unions definitely does involve freedom of speech.

He is right to call for mutual respect in public discussions, but wrong to depend on the concept of equality. It is the principle of equity ('fair shares') that should properly be involved and this requires consideration of the rights of children and their welfare.

Continue reading

Manhood Rising! A Feminist Defence of Masculine Virtues by Mrs Vera West

Do I understand your question, man, is it hopeless and forlorn?
“Come in,” she said, “I’ll give you shelter from the storm.” Bob Dylan, “Shelter from the Storm,” (1975).

If my memory serves me well, John Carroll in “Paranoid and Remissive: The Treason of the Upper Middle Class,” (in R. Manne (ed.), The New Conservatism in Australia (1982)), argued that the Left typically had families with weak fathers and strong mothers. Presumably this led to some sort of mental imbalance. But today it is more likely that the family has no father at all. Or a “new” family of two women.

In this scheme of things, there is no place at all for the traditional “John Wayne” man. Feminists, in general, see this version of traditional masculinity, based on the warrior model of man, tried and proven over all of human history, as flawed in their opinion. Effeminate conservatives probably do too, also falling into this model, having weak male role models, and dominant mothers.

Continue reading

Here Comes the Gay Marriage Vote by Mrs Vera West

Three days before St. Valentine’s Day, February 11, 2017, we may have the same sex marriage plebiscite: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?” The vote will be compulsory and determined by an overall national majority. Well, the plebiscite will go ahead if Labor supports it, but they are still making up their little minds on that one. They wouldn’t want the “No” side to win.

There is no guarantee of free speech for the “No” case and supporters may violate oppressive state-based anti-discrimination laws. The federal government confirmed to Family First that it will not override state suppression laws.
Of course not; such laws are in place just for moments like this, to be used as a political weapon if necessary.
What we really need is a referendum putting a robust right to free speech into the constitution so that all of these laws can be knocked down in one swoop.

Continue reading

It is Time for Anglo-Saxons, and Nordics to Embrace Identity Politics and Tribalism! by Peter West

Two trends: the first, Anglo-Saxon people in Australia, the United States and Britain are fast becoming minorities, and in the US Anglos, by contrast to broadly “whites,” already are.
Native Germans, for another example, will be a minority in one generation. In other words, Nordics, people of Northern European descend, will become only a minority tribe.

Second, as Peter Baldwin points out, “Regressive Left Puts Bigotry on a Pedestal,” The Weekend Australian, September 17-18, 2016, p. 19, the Enlightenment ideal of a universal human nature based on reason has been rejected in favour of identity politics and culture.

Continue reading

My Guess: Only the Pro-Gay Marriage Side Will be Funded by Mrs Vera West

Andrew Bolt has made stronger comments than I will make on this issue re: Malcolm Turnbull and his alleged promise to church leaders that the government would fund both sides of the debate. Thus, first, we hear that Mal denied that he made an “unambiguous” offer to fund both sides of the same-sex marriage debate to church leaders (The Australian, September 12, 2016, p. 4). He said that cabinet will decide whether the “Yes” and “No” cases receive tax payer support.

His current stated position (The Australian, September 13, 2016, p. 2), is that funding both sides of the debate would be “scrupulously fair”. Supporters of the “Yes” side worry that if things are “scrupulously fair” the “No” case might win. Hey, they know the meaning of “democracy” don’t they!

Continue reading