GLOBAL WARMING FANTASIES

CHINA AND CARBON EMISSION CUT-BACKS

by James Reed
British oil giant BP has found that price-induced cuts in energy demands in the developed world have been offset by China's enormous appetite for coal. Global consumption of coal - a carbon-rich fuel - was up 4.5 per cent in 2006, largely due to China. Here is a problem for the world: the dragon has awoken and is breathing smoke and fire.

If the global warming scare is true - which I doubt - then China alone will bring down the tent of civilisation with its emissions. But greenies who are red inside and haters of White civilisation, cannot bring themselves to criticise China. White is bad; Yellow is good is their racist logic. So my little green friends, on your own politically correct premises - kiss your planet goodbye!

It has been said that the US Department of Defense once had an individual present a concept paper where it was proposed that a hormone weapon be created to turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals. (The Australian 16-17/7/07 p.16)

Regardless of the merit, or truth, of this proposal, it seems that something is at work in the modern age, dissolving the brain-power of a generation. Is it in the water supply or the air that is breathed? The great drug that has dumbed down our people. Where has the capacity to think clearly and deeply about a topic gone?

DON'T SAY YOU WEREN'T WARNED - TWO AUSTRALIAS

The following article was sourced from Channel 7 TV: 18 July 2007:
"It's official. New immigration figures from the Bureau of Statistics show Australia is being split in two. Migrants from Asia now outnumber those from Europe and New Zealand, while multicultural Australia is now divided by race.

Dr Robert Birrell runs the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University. He's an authority on the subject and he's worried. "Sydney and Melbourne are diverging from the rest of Australia," said Dr Robert Birrell. Immigration figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show Asia has now overtaken Europe and New Zealand combined. Almost all new Asian migrants are heading to either Sydney or Melbourne.

"(We now live in) two Australias, because Melbourne and Sydney can be regarded as one Australia where you've got very high proportions of persons born overseas," Dr Birrell said.
"In Sydney, about 40 per cent of all adults are born overseas, in Melbourne it's about just over 30 per cent."
"I don't think facts lie. Australia's population is changing. "Sydney and Melbourne are diverging from the rest of Australia. In the case of Sydney, by far the biggest single source of migrants in recent years is China and in the case of Melbourne it's now India," Dr Birrell added. "We're a nation that's now split."

Between July and December last year 27,623 people arrived here from Asia, while 27,325 arrived from Europe and Oceania, which includes the United Kingdom and New Zealand, where traditionally most new Australians came from. And here's where they're going: 10,624 Asian settlers chose Sydney, while 9,035 chose Melbourne.
Chinese Malaysians Daniel Chong and his wife Josephine came here with baby boy Timothy last year. "Well, most of the friends we made here are Asians, Chinese," Daniel said.
"At first, when we come here, our English is not very well, so we tend to join the group of people who talks our own language."

Howard doubled annual intake - and it's rising:
President of the Australian Chinese Community Association in NSW, Lucilla Leung, said new migrants liked Australia's egalitarian roots. "It is such an open society," she said.
"Everybody is Mr and Mrs average. I think that attracts a lot of people from old culture."
Ms Leung said most Asian migrants were not trying to become 'traditional true blue' Aussies.
Asked whether such migrants had a "strong policy of assimilation", she said it was more about integration. "I don't think so," Ms Leung said. "We have a strong policy of integration."

This grouping together means that in some parts of Sydney and Melbourne, 65 per cent of the adult population is overseas-born.
Under the Howard Government, immigration has doubled to 165,000 per year and rising.
"I don't see diversity in population as a threat in any way to Australia, rather than an opportunity," Voula Messimerri, from the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia, said.
"Australia is a country of migrants. We accept it and we become, in turn, proud Australians."

Ms Messimerri said migrants, especially those with skills, can only make Australia better and more prosperous.
"Increasingly, we're seeing Perth and Western Australia, because of the mining boom, becoming another satellite for economic prosperity, so I'm not really sure what Mr Birrell is talking about," said Ms Messimerri." WE ARE!

THE EROSION OF AMERICAN FREEDOMS

by Brian Simpson
Here in Australia we have already lost these freedoms, but now, under the Democrats, Americans are getting their serve. This will be a taste of what life will be like under President Hillary Clinton-Obama in the new party of colour, ringing in the world of non-White America. H.R. 1592, the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Protection Act" and the "Employment Nondiscrimination Discrimination Act" (ENDA) aim to make "hate crimes" a federal offence and to add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected classes under the US criminal code

. Such hate crimes are crimes motivated by "actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person". The idea is to add an aggregated offence to any offence against homosexuals, transvestites, transsexuals and the like. The proposal is endorsed by the majority of Democrats, even though it clearly violates the 1st Amendment of free speech and the 14th Amendment (religious expression).

As US lawyer and nationalist Edgar Steele has said: "When thoughts are outlawed, only outlaws will have thoughts."

ZIMBABWEAN AND AFRICAN MELTDOWN

by Peter West
Why so much concern from writers in this periodical about multiculturalism-style issues? Why not full-power monetary reform and economic issues? Well, it is of course true that monetary reform is a key to our long-term survival, but in the short-term, survival is the key. If there is a 'conspiracy' or even open war against White survival, then unless this issue is understood and addressed, then all our 'social credit' building efforts may only be for the benefit of those who inherit our world once the dust settles, perhaps the Chinese or fundamentalist Islam. I don't think this is what men such as Major Douglas had in mind.

The media devoted a reasonable amount of space to Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe as he set out to secure his political power until he is 89. This involved 'stacking' the central committee, which makes presidential nominations, as well as arresting, beating and torturing opposition activists. And- bingo - Mugabe was re-endorsed as presidential candidate for the 2008 one person/democracy 'election'.

'Bob the Mug' even denounced his vice president Joyce Mujuru, also known during the "liberation war" by her non-de guerre as "Spill Blood". "Spill Blood" complained about Mugabe's "paranoid delusions" which puts the matter mildly. The country is already living with daily economic chaos, with little food and fuel available. Sanctions and international condemnation of Mugabe came, not from the allowing of Blacks to kill the White farmers but solely from the crackdown on political opponents. It seems anti-White racism is to be internationally accepted.

'Bob the Mug' has told the West "to go hang" and no doubt he could show us how. Meanwhile the leaders of the Southern African Development Community, leaders of 14 Southern African countries expressed its "solidarity with the Government and the people of Zimbabwe" ("African Leaders Want Mugabe Sanctions Lifted," The Weekend Australian 31/3/07 p.13). They wanted sanctions imposed by the West lifted, they did not explain how one could have solidarity with Mugabe, and also those he tortured: talk about 'two bob each way'! But of course, their solidarity is with Mugabe and not with the mythical 'people'.

Many of these countries also have appalling human rights records, and now, following the racial principle (oppose Whites, support Blacks) they are endorsing a dictator to continue to torture and kill, mostly Black folk, but some Whites too. As Janet Albrechtsen , one of the few Australian journalists to take Mugabe to task has said "This leadership… seems to have inspired a unique African racism, blacks, killing blacks… ethnic cleansing was part of Mugabe's political repertoire."

Another journalist, UK "gay activist" Peter Tatchell (cited to give an illustration on the extent of the problem) wrote in The Independent (cited The Australian 27/3/07 p.15): "Large sections of the liberal left opinion have gone soft on their commitment to universal human rights. They rightly condemn the excesses of British and US government policy but rarely speak out against oppressors who are non-whites and adherents of minority faiths. There are no mass protests against female genital mutilation, forced marriages, the stoning of women and gender apartheid in the Middle East."

A good question from a "gay activist" apart from accepting the liberal-left nonsense that Botha "murdered" blacks. Consider South Africa today under Black rule. The Australian Beacon (Issue 20, 2007 p.5) reports on "Operation White Clean-Up," which is a plan by the police and army to eliminate all White people on the death of Nelson Mandela. The ANC slogan coined by ANC Peter Mokoba, "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer" was found by the South African Human Rights Commission not to be hate speech, but an expression of the constitutional right to free speech." (p.12) But, imagine the different response if Afrikaners starting chanting "Kill the Xhosas, kill the blacks" at the next funeral of a white farmer and his family, murdered by blacks.

In South Africa, attacks on white farmers continue unabated. Since 1994, the year the ANC took power, white farm workers and their families have been murdered. According to President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, these farm murders are "the final stage of the revolution." (Cited Australian Beacon p.12)

CONRAD BLACK CONVICTED OF FRAUD AND OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE

The Canadian-born peer was accused of stealing millions from Hollinger International where he was chief executive until November 2003. Convicted on three counts of fraud, Lord Black could face 35 years in jail when sentenced in November. He first entered the business in 1969 by buying a local paper, the Sherbrooke Record, with his friend David Radler.

Within a decade, the pair had a successful chain of papers and hit the big-time in 1985 by buying the Telegraph titles in Britain. His rise put him in the big league with Robert Maxwell and Rupert Murdoch. Robert Maxwell also fell foul of the law, and committed suicide rather than face the consequences of his criminal actions.

The jury was given details of Black's lavish lifestyle, which the Chicago court heard was partly funded through fraud. Black's co-defendants and former Hollinger International executives Jack Boultbee, Peter Atkinson and Mark Kipnis have also been found guilty of fraud.
The once-powerful chief executive was cleared of charges of racketeering and tax evasion, but could face a maximum sentence of five years for each fraud count and 20 years for obstruction of justice, as well as a huge fine.

MONARCHY PRODUCES BUMPER PROFIT

from David Flint's Opinion Column
Having just been harangued in Australia by media stories about the alleged costs of the monarchy, the true story does come out occasionally. Rather than constituting a financial cost, the British government, and presumably the British taxpayer, has once again made a very handsome profit from the monarchy.

Until 1760, the costs of the Crown were paid by The King directly from his own revenues. From that time the practice developed of the Sovereign agreeing, for the term of his or her reign, to transfer the revenues - but not the underlying properties which produce the income - in return for what was called the Civil List. Even with other grants-in-aid, as payments additional to the Civil List are known, this has proved in recent years to be a bargain for the British government.

This profit is the net income the government receives from the Crown Estate and certain other hereditary revenues. This financial year the gross income was 184.8 million pounds. In return, the government funds the costs of the British Crown, which last year were 37.4 million pounds. The profit therefore amounts to 147.4 million pounds. This is about 345 million Australian dollars.
Contrary to the suggestions of some, the government does not pay a salary or allowance for The Queen. The Civil List and grants-in- aid are mainly to maintain official buildings and to perform the functions of Sovereign.

Nor is any allowance or even provision for disbursements made by the Australian government for costs associated with the functions of The Queen of Australia, except of course in relation to State Visits, or as the Canadians put it, Homecomings. As with any visiting minister or official, it is elementary that these costs include official gifts.

Do some journalists and underemployed republican politicians seriously think that when Mr Keating, for example, gave some memento of Australia to say, the President of Indonesia, Mr. Keating rather than the Australian Government paid for this? Of course they don't. They know that official gifts are in all instances charged to the costs of a ministerial or official visit. Another canard is to add some accounting figure for security costs, as though the officers involved are not already employed to perform these services.

Blair will cost £3 million annually
According to the London Daily Telegraph of 9 July, 2007, it is going to cost three million pounds a year to protect Mr Blair in retirement from terrorists; does that mean that he should never come to Australia on an official visit as say, Middle Eastern envoy, because our police will also be involved in providing security, and some underemployed politician will carry on about it?

The fact is that the Royal Family and the Governor-General are deliberately singled out for "beat-ups" - stories - about so-called "costs," as well as for questions in Parliament and in the Senate Estimates Committee. This has nothing to do with obtaining and relaying information in the public interest. It is just another weapon in the political campaign to remove those constitutional checks and balances on the exercise of power which so annoy the political class.
I remember at the time of the 1999 referendum campaign suggesting to a prominent independent republican that the official republicans probably did not appreciate that their model would concentrate even more power in the prime minister of the day. His response was that they not only knew that, this was precisely the result they wanted.

For each Briton, this year, the cost of the Crown is about 62 pence but this is covered several times by the income from the Crown Estate. And as Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, pointed out, the 62 pence "is the annual cost, not the daily, weekly or monthly cost." Sir Alan added: "We are pleased that the total cost of the Monarchy is now 7% lower in real terms than it was in 2001. The reduction in the amount of Head of State expenditure reflects the continuous attention the Royal Household pays to obtaining the best value for money in all areas of expenditure.

"In the current year there was a real decrease in expenditure of 2.7% due mainly to a reduction in refurbishment costs at the Palace of Holyroodhouse, offset by increased costs in dealing with a greater number of Freedom of Information enquiries. [DF: These would be mainly inquires from journalists many of which would not be bona fide inquiries, but campaigns to misuse the news columns to attack the Royal Family or invade their privacy.]

The real news
Sir Alan's warning that various historic buildings are not being properly maintained attracted most media attention. The real news was the bumper profit the government is making from the monarchy. In any event Sir Alan explained that: ".since the allocation of the Property Grant-in-Aid was fixed by the Government in 1991, it has effectively been reduced by 69 per cent in real terms. Now there is a critical backlog in maintenance projects and if our historic buildings are to remain safe it is essential that the grant is increased by £1 million per year." The British government should give more of Her Majesty's money back - after all it would be to maintain the national estate.

We must not forget that our Westminster system, with the constitutional monarchy at its heart, is the only stable and democratic model of government which both works for extended periods and has been successfully exported to other countries. That is its principal benefit. But I would say that the fact that the monarchy effectively costs the British nothing, and is self financing, is surely another advantage. When I pointed this out to a republican, he seethed as he asserted: "When Britain becomes a republic, we'll nationalise the Crown Estate."
I pointed out that without just compensation that would be illegal under European and British law. The 2002 judgement in the case brought by the King of Greece about property stolen from him by Greek republicans demonstrates that, although the compensation ordered was grossly inadequate.

And let us not forget that another significant benefit of constitutional monarchy is its prodigious impact on trade. As we reported in this column on 9 March 2007, the marriage of Princess Mary to Crown Prince Frederik has led to a surge in trade between Australia and Denmark.

The UK travel authority, VisitBritain, has revealed that 57% of visitors to the UK cited the monarchy as the principal reason for coming. According to Richard Palmer in the International Express, 27 March 2007, the resulting income for the UK is around 9.5 billion pounds - about twice the value of exports by the British arms industry.
And its not just the buildings, the most frequently asked questions at the Britain and London visitor centre concern the Changing of the Guard, The Tower, Buckingham Palace, Windsor and the State Opening of Parliament. No republic does this."

THE RSPCA AND ITS QUESTIONABLE ACTIONS

The NSW Volunteer Fire Fighters' Association has established its own website and email newsletter. Mal Davies, the editor reported on the Gestapo-like tactics of the RSPCA towards a 71 year-old farming lady and writes:
" As a person who has grown up in farming, and fought for this nation, I find the RSPCA shooting of nursing cows on Ruth Downey's property, then leaving the calves without any source of milk, is a reflection of the dictatorship bureaucracy that we the people have let breed and flourish."

Mr. Davies continues: The RSPCA "converged on a defenceless farmer's property with orders to execute her cattle that they considered starving. The only sound that was drowning out the rifle shots being fired by the RSPCA Brown Shirt's muskets, was that throbbing hum of the diesel engine powering the semitrailer truck laden with feed arriving on the killing fields for the so called famished stock. This was accompanied with the anguished cries of a 71 year-old lady, the distraught victim, being restrained by attending police. Did they stop the executions? - NO BLOODY WAY…
"The truth hurts, but when it comes from Ruth Downey, a 71 year-old farming victim, the truth is damning indeed. Following on from our story in SOS-NEWS, Monday 9th July, concerning the out of order, despicable, fascist execution of a farmer's livelihood - now read the background and subsequent gung-ho mental giants of the RSPCA firing squad.

Farmer Shoots Back At RSPCA Killing: Had feed - and hope:
Below is the real truth from the victim of an RSPCA shooting spree, as published in "The Land" Thurs 12th July:
Sir; I understand it is customary to contact both parties if there is a different point of view in a story, but I was not contacted when Agriculture today printed a biased report about the cattle shooting incident at Pilliga (June 28 p.3)
My name wasn't mentioned in the article, but there has been so much publicity about this incident that it was obvious to me the "Pilliga woman" referred to was me. I have kept my cattle alive almost continuously for seven years, with very minimal losses, and I did not need orders from the RSPCA to do so. My concern for, and determination to ensure the survival of my stock was all the motivation I required. They were not, "ill and emaciated"; on the contrary, four cows had recovered from pregnancy toxaemia. I carted their feed and water, medicated them and ensured they changed sides frequently.
All four, along with 10 cows and heifers, has easily calved strong, healthy calves, with no assistance, and were feeding them well. Fourteen cows had calves, eight of which were less than two weeks old. Thirteen of these cows were shot and killed, even though it required two men to hunt them out of the holding yard where the RSPCA person waited to shoot them. "Ill" and "emaciated" cows cannot easily calve and feed their offspring.
The good size and condition of these calves when borne was due to the fact that since October, 2006, I had been ensuring that any cow showing in calf received an extra daily ration of a grain product from stockfeed specialists, Sweet Bulk, at Baradine. People only had to use their eyes, or actually listen to me.
Certainly there was no paddock feed, given the extreme drought and no useful rain for two growing seasons, but I had bought hay and supplementary feed and only missed feeding daily on two occasions since March, 2006, until June 14 when the RSPCA arrived to shoot almost all my herd.
I had enough hay and supplements on hand for a week, plus 100 bales which arrived while the cattle were being shot, and another 600 bales were coming in a week's time which would have fed the cattle until mid-September. All the older calves were weaned and the cows were strong and gaining condition, all toxaemia cases had recovered and the weather was looking more hopeful than it has for years.
However, the group of so-called experts were determined not to see this fact. The killing was done simply to satisfy somebody's spiteful determination.
- - Ruth Downey Pilliga, (NSW)

Comment: What on earth is happening to this country when such Gestapo-like tactics are carried out on a defenceless 71 year-old woman?