OH, HOW BASE IT IS!

by Nigel Jackson

There is an ancient tradition that one should allow one's enemies access to the battle field to bury their dead. It is a matter of magnanimity and piety. It is a pity that the editors of The Australian did not remember this custom when deciding to publish Philip Jones' malicious opinion article on Eric Butler as an obituary ('Anti-Semitic zealot held surprising political sway', 13/6).
There is, of course, no way of checking the authenticity of Jones' gratuitous personal opening with its barrage of petty insults. Judging by the rest of the article, I expect it is fiction.
To take a simple example, it is completely false to claim that Butler believed 'the existence of German concentration camps was a myth'. Readers may well ponder why a powerful national newspaper has stooped to such scurrilous defamation of a dead man who is not here to reply, but who, to the best of his ability and in accord with his deeply researched and considered worldview, worked arduously for sixty years to preserve political freedom in Australia.

DESCENT INTO HELL : REPLY TO BRIAN SIMPSON

by James Reed
I agree with Brian Simpson (O.T. 16/6/06) that there are many aspects of the Aboriginal violence issue that I did not discuss, such as homosexual rape. That does not alter the basic point that violence against women in such Aboriginal communities is at even greater levels. Worse, there is a strange traditional aspect - no doubt twisted and perverted by alcohol - to some of the violence.

Journalist Paul Toohey in The Weekend Australian (14/4/06 reprinted 19/5/06 p.15) cites Kevin Lee, a former Northern Territory forensic pathologist, who observed from examining the bodies of Aboriginal women that it is "surprisingly frequent to find that [a firestick has] been part of an assault. It's not sexual assault in the way people think of it; it's an assault directed at the sexual organs."

Toohey goes on to say:
"Aboriginal men traditionally have had disciplinary rights over women, but whether a firestick and promising children to drunks are part of customary law seems doubtful." I agree.
Ideas, such as "sending in the army," as made by Kimberley Land Council director Peter Yu, for a military reconstruction effort (The Australian 17/5/06, p.6) are well meaning suggestions, but doomed to failure unless the problems of alcohol and pornography are dealt with. The firestick idea - a horrible assault on womanhood - is really a twisted, alcohol-based version of White-fella's porno magazines. I spare the reader the gruesome details - there is enough misery in this debate.

The "descent into hell" (Wesley Aird, The Australian 18/5/06, p.12) that Aborigines face is a by-product of tolerated racially suicidal evils that are eating away, somewhat slower, and at lower abuse rates at White Australians as well.
A debate in the coalition party room on 23/5/06 heard that American hip-hop video clips with Black gangster rappers singing misogynist lyrics along with hard core pornography was the fuel of violence in indigenous communities (source: "Hip-Hop Blamed for Violence," The Australian 24/5/06, p.6).
Rap music celebrates violence and the degradation of women - especially White women. Songs by Black rappers freely advocate shooting White police officers and raping White women. Black women are treated as sex objects. This music would clearly be contrary to the race-hate clauses of the Racial Discrimination Act but it is sold freely in big music shops because it is pushed by the music industry.
If a White said even one hundreth of what these groups said, he would be goaled. This music of hate is even more socially destructive than pornography.

EYE ON CHINA

by James Reed
Chinese President Hu Jintao in his recent visit to the US has allegedly moved to ease trade tensions with the US by cutting its trade surplus. What would he do about China's disregard of intellectual property rights and piracy as well as giving access to China's markets? Steps will be taken to resolve this he said. Sure, when hell freezes over.
China promised to deliver a flexible exchange rate but still keeps a tight grip on the rate. The visit was "lightened" by a "security breach" when a New York doctor Wenyi Wang who was given accreditation as a reporter was able to scream at Hu to stop killing the Falun Gong. Chinese TV immediately dropped the coverage at that point and reconnected after the incident.

Many of the prisoners of the spiritual movement Falun Gong are beaten unconscious to save on anaesthetic and then harvested for their organs. (source: The Advertiser 21/4/06, p.34) This is one of China's big businesses: supplying organs to wealthy foreigners and local Chinese.

The New York Times reports that the main concern between China and the US was oil. The White house said: "China is acting just like everyone else: subjugating its foreign policy to its energy concerns. That leaves the world with two options. The first is to manage energy resources better. The other is to look for another planet." In fact the third unstated option is war.
The Pentagon has said that the US is shifting its military power to the Asia-Pacific and equipping for high tech warfare against China. At the same time global financiers have worked to build up China so that this apocalyptic encounter may occur.
After obtaining ultimate money and power there can only be one final 'kick" - that of global death and destruction. It is a situation which only makes sense in Biblical terms.

THE SANDS OF TIME

MASS IMMIGRATION 'AKIN TO BARBARIAN INVASIONS' - REAR ADMIRAL

One of Britain's most senior military strategists has warned that western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman empire. In an apocalyptic vision of security dangers, Rear Admiral Chris Parry said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while north African "barbary" pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years. Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries - a "reverse colonisation" as Parry described it. These groups would stay connected to their homelands by the internet and cheap flights. The idea of assimilation was becoming redundant, he said.

The warnings by Parry of what could threaten Britain over the next 30 years were delivered to senior officers and industry experts at a recent conference. Parry, head of the development, concepts and doctrine centre at the Ministry of Defence, is charged with identifying the greatest challenges that will frame national security policy in the future.
If a security breakdown occurred, he said, it was likely to be brought on by environmental destruction and a population boom, coupled with technology and radical Islam. The result for Britain and Europe, Parry warned, could be "like the 5th century Roman empire facing the Goths and the Vandals".

Parry pointed to the mass migration which disaster in the Third World could unleash. "The diaspora issue is one of my biggest current concerns," he said. "Globalisation makes assimilation seem redundant and old-fashioned…[the process] acts as a sort of reverse colonisation, where groups of people are self-contained, going back and forth between their countries, exploiting sophisticated networks and using instant communication on phones and the internet."
Third World instability would lick at the edges of the West as pirates attacked holidaymakers from fast boats. "At some time in the next 10 years it may not be safe to sail a yacht between Gibraltar and Malta," said the admiral. Parry, 52, an Oxford graduate who was mentioned in dispatches in the Falklands war, is not claiming all the threats will come to fruition. He is warning, however, of what is likely to happen if dangers are not addressed by politicians.
Parry - who used the slogan "old dog, new tricks" when he commanded the assault ship HMS Fearless - foresees wholesale moves by the armed forces to robots, drones, nanotechnology, lasers, microwave weapons, space-based systems and even "customised" nuclear and neutron bombs.
Lord Boyce, the former chief of the defence staff, welcomed Parry's analysis. "Bringing it together in this way shows we have some very serious challenges ahead," he said. "The real problem is getting them taken seriously at the top of the government."

Ancient Rome has been a subject of serious public discussion this year. Boris Johnson, the Conservative MP and journalist, produced a book and television series drawing parallels between the European Union and the Roman empire. Parry, based in Shrivenham, Wiltshire, presented his vision at the Royal United Services Institute in central London. He identified the most dangerous flashpoints by overlaying maps showing the regions most threatened by factors such as agricultural decline, booming youth populations, water shortages, rising sea levels and radical Islam.
Parry predicts that as flood or starvation strikes, the most dangerous zones will be Africa, particularly the northern half; most of the Middle East and central Asia as far as northern China; a strip from Nepal to Indonesia; and perhaps eastern China. He pinpoints 2012 to 2018 as the time when the current global power structure is likely to crumble. Rising nations such as China, India, Brazil and Iran will challenge America's sole superpower status. This will come as "irregular activity" such as terrorism, organized crime and "white companies" of mercenaries burgeon in lawless areas. The effects will be magnified as borders become more porous and some areas sink beyond effective government control. Parry expects the world population to grow to about 8.4 billion in 2035, compared with 6.4 billion today. By then some 68% of the population will be urban, with some giant metropolises becoming ungovernable. He warns that Mexico City could be an example.

In an effort to control population growth, some countries may be tempted to copy China's "one child" policy. This, with the widespread preference for male children, could lead to a ratio of boys to girls of as much as 150 to 100 in some countries. This will produce dangerous surpluses of young men with few economic prospects and no female company. "When you combine the lower prospects for communal life with macho youth and economic deprivation you tend to get trouble, typified by gangs and organised criminal activity," said Parry. "When one thinks of 20,000 so-called jihadists currently fly-papered in Iraq, one shudders to think where they might go next."

The competition for resources, Parry argues, may lead to a return to "industrial warfare" as countries with large and growing male populations mobilise armies, even including cavalry, while acquiring high-technology weaponry from the West. The subsequent mass population movements, Parry argues, could lead to the "Rome scenario".
The western Roman empire collapsed in the 4th and 5th centuries as groups such as Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Suevi, Huns and Vandals surged over its borders. The process culminated in the sack of Rome in 455 by Geiseric the Lame, king of the Alans and Vandals, in an invasion from north Africa.

Parry estimated there were already more than 70 diasporas in Britain:
In the future, he believes, large groups that become established in Britain and Europe after mass migration may develop "communities of interest" with unstable or anti-western regions. Any technological advantage developed to deal with the threats was unlikely to last. "I don't think we can win in cyberspace - it's like the weather - but we need to have a raincoat and an umbrella to deal with the effects," said Parry.

Top strategist:
Parry, one of Britain's leading specialists on amphibious warfare, once commanded the assault ship HMS Fearless and was in charge of amphibious warfare training at Portsmouth naval base and headed a joint British-Dutch taskforce before moving to his post at the Ministry of Defence. https://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2220267,00.html

SURPRISING QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY INDISCRETION

From an opinion column by David Flint, Australian's for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM):
"Surprising Queen's Birthday indiscretion: "Queen will go, says governor"
It would have been par for the course had it come from a politician. But a Governor? In a surprising story in the Melbourne Herald Sun of 10 June, 2006, "Queen will go, says governor", Danny Butler reports on an interview with the new Victorian Governor. My first reaction was that no Governor would be so ill advised, so unmindful of the divisive nature of his comments, as to give an interview which would justify such a headline. To do this on the Queen's Birthday weekend was extraordinary.
But in the interview the Governor, Professor David de Kretser, is reported as saying he believes it is inevitable that Australia will become a republic, and that it was only a question of when Australians would decide to "ditch" their ties to the monarchy. At least the Governor declined to say whether he personally favoured a republic. But then he said that most Australians would favour a republic and it was inevitable. "I would think probably it is in the longer term. When that would be is a very hard question to answer. I think if you asked a lot of people whether Australians wanted a republic you would probably get an answer yes," he said.

Governor should have sought advice:
Had the Governor sought advice before he so unwisely spoke, he would have found out that the latest polls just do not support the proposition that most Australians favour a republic. This is particularly so in relation to the nation's youth, a matter which republicans have been slow to understand. He also had no hesitation in joining in the criticism of the question in the 1999 referendum:
"At the last referendum some of the questions weren't asked as clearly as one could have." (The implication in this curious statement is that people were misled by the questions, and if the questions had been clear more would have voted for a republic. There are two problems with this. First, it leaves the Governor open to the criticism that he is entering into a partisan political debate, and secondly it is factually wrong.

There was only one question, which was quite clear.
The appointment of a State Governor by The Queen on the advice of the Premier is a constitutional process unique to Australia. After a long struggle between the politicians, and then only with the direct intervention of The Queen herself, this process was established to protect the autonomy of the states.

The appointment of the Sri Lankan born Professor de Kretser, a respected authority on reproductive biology and male infertility, met with widespread approval. His intervention in a contentious political matter is at the very least, disappointing. That the issue on which he spoke relates precisely to the Crown, which he represents, and that it was published on the very eve of the celebrations in honour of the Sovereign make this intervention extraordinary.

In a paper on the role of the Sovereign to the recent Samuel Griffith Society conference, I stated the obvious, that "…speaking in favour of a republic seems inappropriate for one who has represented the Crown, but to do so in office is at the very least, a most inappropriate entry into politics, apart from being an act of gross disloyalty to the Sovereign to whom the viceroy has sworn allegiance."
Referring to some Canadian proposals to allow a Governor-General to participate in the political debate, I argued that apart from a Governor-General (or Governor) being free to speak on matters clearly not on the political agenda, all of these proposals are "inconsistent with the concept of constitutional monarchy." I said they may well flow from the mistake of seeing, consciously or subconsciously, the office as separate and autonomous from the Crown. This is not so - the office can have no existence apart from and independent of the Crown.
Recalling that the republican campaign in Australia has but one objective- to get rid of The Queen, I said that the argument that we could retain all the benefits of the Crown while dispensing with the Sovereign is completely fallacious. Apart from the serious constitutional consequences, I pointed out that that the Governors-General and Governors would also lose the guidance and example The Queen gives them - those "impeccable standards" which she has set for herself. Her Majesty's dedication, her personal standards and her sense of judgement are celebrated, and rightly so. Indeed, a Governor-General or Governor in a quandary as to what behaviour would be appropriate could do no better than ask himself or herself: "What would The Queen do in a case like this?"

To serve the Sovereign and the People:
One thing The Queen never does is to intervene in the political debate. She is and is seen to be above politics. The actions of a former Governor of Tasmania have shown the dangers of not following this sensible prescription. It is an unfortunate fact that when new Governors are appointed they sometimes inform the media of some or other agenda which they wish to achieve in their term. They should not do. Their only agenda should be this: to serve their Sovereign and the people as a representative of the Crown, our oldest institution at the heart of our constitutional system, an institution which is above politics.

Not under a Constitutional Monarchy:
On this, I stated no more than the prevailing convention: "A viceroy is the representative of the Crown, nothing less - and nothing more. As Walter Bagehot observed: 'We must not bring The Queen into the combat of politics or she will cease to be reverenced by all combatants; she will become one combatant among many.' Obviously, this advice applies equally to a viceroy."

The Victorian Governor is new to his position, and his reference to the referendum indicates some confusion in his mind as to the facts. He is entitled to his views, but as Governor he is not free to enter this debate. That is what a constitutional monarchy requires, whatever happens under a republic. The Governor would be wise to recognize his indiscretion, and in future to seek appropriate advice if he must speak on such matters. This is especially so in relation to those which so crucially relate to the Australian Crown to whom he owes his allegiance and whom he represents.

Referendum question: was it misleading?
A story has long circulated, and is in the process of becoming something of the equivalent of an urban myth. This is that the question in the 1999 referendum campaign was misleading, or in the ill advised words of no less than the Victorian Governor, in the Melbourne Herald Sun of 10 June, 2006: "At the last referendum some of the questions weren't asked as clearly as one could have."
There was in fact only one question about a republic on the ballot paper.
Under this statement:
"A proposed law to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and the Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two thirds majority of the members of the Parliament, " voters were asked "Do you approve of this proposed alteration?"

The two principal protagonists had each proposed change:
ACM pointed out two errors of fact in the question. The President, at least in relation to his appointment at least, would not replace The Queen - the politicians would. Nor would he replace The Queen as to his dismissal, the prime minister would.
The question, we argued should not only refer to the mode of appointment, but also the crucial mode of dismissal. As we pointed out, this was the only republic in the world, or in history, where it would be easier for the prime minister to sack the president than his cook.

Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Barns, for the republican movement, to the amazement of the nation, and the ridicule even of the republican media, asked for two words to be removed : "republic" and "president".
The question, while inadequate, was clear. Every voter had received a document setting out the arguments from both sides. The matter was widely debated in the media. Comment was overwhelmingly in favour of a yes vote.
To say the people were misled by the question is a furphy to negate the overwhelming defeat of the referendum."

JAMES BOND, WHERE ARE YOU?

KEATING AND HOWARD CUT FROM THE SAME TREE

by James Reed
Multiculturalist George Megalogenis has recently published "The Longest Decade," a book examining the regimes of Keating and Howard. Many writers to our journal have said that on most issues of importance - Asian immigration, economic rationalism, globalization, deregulation and the jettisoning of tariff protection Keating and Howard are "cut from the same tree". On immigration, Megalogenis shows that Howard ceased cutting immigration after the 1998 election - when the threat of Pauline Hanson had passed.
In Howard's own electorate of Bennelong Chinese and Korean immigrant numbers are growing. The Asian-born in Howard's electorate constituted about 13.7 per cent of voters in 1996 but by the 2001 election they constituted 18.4 per cent of voters.

In 1996 the "Anglo-Celtic-Continentals" (=Whites) comprised 56.7 per cent of total population, whilst under Howard's direction through massive Asian immigration the numbers had fallen to 49 per cent. In my opinion these sorts of official statistics shouldn't be trusted for a variety of reasons - some conspiratorial, others not. For example, we don't know how many illegals enter Australia and melt into their ethnic enclaves to live a tax-free cash-in-hand life.
Howard only differs from Keating in matters of emphasis. Howard though has for some time been able to manipulate the dwindling remains of Anglo-Australia and convince them that he is "really on side".

But even leaving aside the Asian immigration scam, the AWB scam, and all the other lies, what defender of Western civilisation would agree to sell uranium to India even if India refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? ("Canberra to Sell Uranium to India," The Australian 11/5/06, p.1). Economic rationalism and the lust for a fast buck has morphed into the Asiatic death cult of Kali.

LETTER