MORE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ON RACE

by Brian Simpson
Here is one of the latest politically correct books: "Drawing the Global Colour Line: White Men's Countries and the International Challenge of Racial Equality" (MUP) by Henry Reynolds (and Marilyn Lake).

This time Reynolds globalises his black armband view of Western history. The "White men's countries" of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the U.S. worked to exclude non-whites. Their nations were based upon aboriginal (i.e. native inhabitants') dispossession. The usual stuff found in most books of the same genre is then trotted out.

The last part of the book, 'Towards Universal Human Rights' says that Whites were under pressure (from whom? guess who?) to repeal discriminatory legislation. How the 'racists' could do this is a mystery.
These types of books never deal with tough issues such as China's colonial past in Asia, its genocide of the people of Tibet, or anti-White racism in Africa. It's all too inconvenient for the convenient myths spun by the writers.

It could be argued with greater plausibility that Whites - especially Nordics - have been very weak on racism compared with other races. That sort of book though, will never get a mainstream publisher. The international guilt industry will never permit it.

Playwright David Mamet has confessed that he is "no longer a brain-dead liberal" (The Weekend Australian 22-23/3/08, p.17). That is an improvement. But hell will first freeze over before we see our equivalents arising from the 'dead'.

WILL THE WHITE HOUSE BECOME THE BLACK HOUSE?

by Brian Simpson
Guilt-ridden middle-class liberals have been salivating at the prospects of Barak Hussein Obama becoming the first 'black' president of the USA. So beside themselves they have become in a self-induced euphoria, no difficult questions have been asked of Obama's policies and agendas.

First, as www.rense.com reports: Obama's foreign policy guru is new world order man Zbigniew Rrzezinski and his son Mark is Obama's top advisor. His pet project, according to this site is the "destruction of Russia." Other advisors have similar militaristic agendas. And you thought Bush was dangerous!

Second, according to rense.com Obama and Hillary Clinton are followers of Saul Alinsky, author of "Rules for Radicals" (1971). This school of Leftism advocates the long march through the institutions. Hillary Rodham (Clinton) wrote a thesis on Alinsky's methods and was nurtured by the Alinskyites. Obama spent time teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. According to rense.com he also worked for an Alinskyite group called "Developing Communities Project".

Obama claims that the race card is not part of his campaign, but the liberal press are quite open about his racial appeal to blacks. Oprah Winfrey supported him because -Why?- he has the best policy on Climate Change! Don't believe that! Indeed I have seen respectable 'green' websites attacking Obama's environmental credentials. Better hone up on that one Mr. "Clean 'n Fresh".

Third is the Muslim father issue: Liberal websites have delighted in knocking concerns that Barak Hussein Obama is a secret Muslim. On balance, probably he is not. But as Daniel Pipes in "Was Barak Obama a Muslim?" 2/12/07 at FrontpageMagazine.com argues, the real issue is whether Muslims will see him as a murtadd (apostate). That could raise a whole host of questions and difficulties. Obama critics need to work on that one.

Fourth, Obama says that he believes in Jesus and the rights of gun owners. Oh sure. Obama has a strong record of voting for gun control. Yet he is now saying that his record indicates that he has "no intention of taking away folks' guns." He seems to have forgotten that he supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. So Obama is your typical Democrat gun banner. And someone who is willing to play with the truth to suit the moment. Like Hillary, an Obama presidency will see the end of private firearm ownership in America.

Finally, what about Obama's church? Ron Strom in "Obama's Church: More About Africa than God?" 9/1/08 at world.NetDaily.com points out that Obama's church is African-centred and has a race-based philosophy, the church having a "non-negotiable commitment" to "Mother" Africa. Christians, one would have thought, would have only a "non-negotiable commitment" to God.

Barak Obama's wife Michelle Obama in a speech given by her in New Hampshire said that blacks are fearful and isolated from each other because there has never been a black president. Everything bad about America for her is connected to this. Obama is the answer. Commenting on this Lawrence Auster has said: "This woman is negative about everything about America, describing us over and over as a mean, fearful country, and in a tone of unwavering resentment."

Yes, all the candidates are new world order puppets. However in a relative sense, Obama and Hillary are the worst of a rotten bunch. Obama, in my opinion is the worst of all because he is playing the race card but betraying the real interests of black Americans. He is an 'open borders' man like his endorser Ted Kennedy, a true grave digger of the White and Black world. Obama voted for complete amnesty for in excess of 20 million illegal aliens. These aliens directly compete with poor black Americans for work. In some parts of America blacks face a 50 per cent unemployment rate and 40-50 per cent of black students fail to graduate from high school. If that's not a problem, what is?

Yet Obama's speeches are all motherhood froth and bubble, never confronting the real problems of America. Just empty talk about 'unity and a new beginning'. But what about people who are hurting, who the politically correct have no use for? Black Americans should not vote for this man - or his twin Hillary Clinton.

THE ECONOMIST AND HOLOCAUST DENIAL

by Peter Ewer
Now that the existence of Human Rights Tribunals has penetrated more and more into the public arena it is worth revisiting a 25 January 2007 article by The Economist: "Holocaust Denial is profoundly Wrong. But Should It Be Illegal?"

Following Jacques Chirac it accepts that "Holocaust denial is a perversion of the soul and a crime against truth" but that still leaves open the question of whether it should be a crime to deny the Holocaust.
In the course of setting up the argument, the article notes that Hitler got the "final solution" not through written orders but through his minions' understanding of his book "Mein Kampf". (Of course no proof that his minions actually read this most rambling of books is offered.)

So, a pre-emptive banning of "Mein Kampf" would have prevented the Holocaust? At this point the argument wanders on to its pragmatic objection to holocaust denial laws: that such laws have unintended consequences. Once they have been passed then it is irresistible to extend them to every other matter causing ethnic and religious offence. The Economist article points out that in Europe (and here as well) there are anti-incitement rules.
These operate where there is an offence to religious and ethnic groups, which means "that something is a crime if the victim says so - an unhappy legal principle, and an encouragement for people to take offence at every opportunity."

But I believe that is exactly what Australia's race hate laws have done - the rule of law has been replaced by the rule of ethnic victim.

"MARKET FULL OF OIL AND 'PRICE TREND' FAKE- AHMADINEJAD"

Reuters published (June 17, 2008) the following observations from a televised speech by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when opening a meeting of the OPEC Fund for International Development in the central Iranian city of Isfahan.

"The market is full of oil and the rising price trend is 'fake and imposed,' Iran's president said on Tuesday, partly blaming a weak U.S. dollar which he said was being pushed lower on purpose.
At a time when the growth of consumption is lower than the growth of production and the market is full of oil, prices are rising and this trend is completely fake and imposed. It is very clear that visible and invisible hands are controlling prices in a fake way with political and economic aims.'

Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, has repeatedly said the market is well-supplied with crude and blames rising prices on speculation, a weak U.S. currency and geopolitical factors. The President continued: 'As you know the decrease in the dollar's value and the increase in energy prices are two sides of the same coin which are being introduced as factors behind the recent instability.'

Oil steadied after touching a record near $140 the previous day, with traders caught between a weaker dollar and expectations that top exporter Saudi Arabia will ramp up output to its highest rate in decades. Iran has often said it sees no need for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to boost output.

Ahmadinejad reiterated his view that oil should be sold in a basket of currencies rather than U.S. dollars, an idea which has failed to win over other OPEC members, except Venezuela.
'The ever-increasing decrease in the dollar's value is one of the world's major problems. A combination of the world's valid currencies should become a basis for oil transactions or (OPEC) member countries should determine a new currency for oil transactions,' he said.

Iran, embroiled in a standoff with the West over its nuclear program, has for more than two years been increasing its sales of oil for currencies other than the dollar, saying the weak U.S. currency is eroding its purchasing power.
Source:: <https://www.uruknet.de/pic.php?f=image615909x.jpg>

BREAKTHROUGH TO SAVE US FROM THE OIL MONOPOLY?

BUSINESS - IS BUSINESS

David Robertson Timesonline (UK) reports:
"Anglo to 'review' '200m investment in Zimbabwe": Anglo American, the London-listed mining giant, said today that it was "reviewing all options surrounding the development" of its $400 million ( '202 million) platinum mine in Zimbabwe.

The company's decision to press ahead with the Unki mine in central Zimbabwe has prompted outrage from politicians who claim it will provide support to the regime of President Mugabe.
Under pressure from politicians and from its own shareholders, Anglo said that it would review the project but did not want to abandon the 650 people working at Unki. In a statement issued today, the company said: "Anglo American is deeply concerned about the current political situation in Zimbabwe and condemns the violence and human rights abuses that are taking place. The company is monitoring the situation in Zimbabwe very closely and is reviewing all options surrounding the development of the project."

The Foreign Office is investigating whether Anglo's investment breached sanctions against Zimbabwe. Anglo insisted yesterday that its involvement in the country did not break the law.
The decision, which was criticised roundly as likely to give succour - and possibly money - to the Mugabe regime, is in stark contrast to the policy of nearly all other main British corporations in Zimbabwe. They are either withdrawing from the country or waiting for Mr Mugabe to be deposed before expanding their businesses."

Comment: Notice that 'Big Business' has no trouble working with tyrannical dictators of any type, colour or shade - only when the facts come to the attention of an enraged public who haven't lost all moral scruples.

WHAT A GOOD JOKE !

by Betty Luks
The copied article from the International Express 17-323/6/08 came via the postal service. The envelope was marked Urgent Dispatch and alongside my name, in brackets was (of the Keith Clan). On the back of the envelope were the words: Treason!! What thinketh Thou?? and ended with, God Save the Queen.

Upon receiving it, I did hope that should ASIO have learned of the wording on the envelope, it had remained 'alert but not alarmed'! The reference to the Keith Clan was, of course, code for a 'call to arms' being as how my British-Australian blood, and maiden name, proof positive of a vague historical link to the Keith Clan. Good fighting Scots! The material was from two of my dear POME-Australian (People of Mother England) friends, who are also involved in the work of the Australian League of Rights.

But what a good laugh when I digested the contents:
The front page headlines read: "Get Rid of the Queen UN Tells Britain" and on page 2: "UN report calls for a referendum on Royals". In an official report, the UN Human Rights Council says the UK must 'consider holding a referendum on the desirability or otherwise of a written constitution, preferably republican.'

The paper observes: "The UN comments about the Queen were included at the request of the council's Sri Lankan envoy, Dayan Jayatilleka."

No matter that "Amnesty International recently revealed that hundreds of people have been kidnapped and murdered in Sri Lanka by shady forces allied to the government."

Not to be outdone Syria and Sudan added their names to the document. The Sudan criticises the UK's record on treating migrants from that part of the world and Syria accuses the UK of discriminating against Muslims.

And as for Iran "where a woman was stoned to death for adultery last year" that nation "takes issue with Britain's record on tackling sexual discrimination." (If these people dish out such cruel punishment - why wasn't the male also stoned to death? Surely that is a genuine type of sex discrimination?...ed)

The western world has much to be ashamed of, but I don't think we can be accused of the above.

UK COURT REJECTS BID TO FORCE REFERENDUM

The Guardian, (UK) 25/6/08:
A legal bid to force the government to hold a referendum on the EU's Lisbon treaty failed today. The Conservative millionaire Eurosceptic Stuart Wheeler had argued that the public was entitled to a referendum because of a commitment made in Labour's 2005 election manifesto.

But today two judges ruled against Wheeler, who had sought judicial review of the government's decision to ratify the treaty without a referendum. Wheeler, a spreadbetting tycoon, argued that the public had a "legitimate expectation" that there would be a referendum because Labour promised a referendum on the EU constitution, which is similar to the Lisbon treaty.

After the ruling, Wheeler said that he would appeal. Source: https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/25/eu.foreignpolicy

LETTERS TO THE PRESS

The Irish NO vote to the Treaty of Lisbon is not being respected by EU leaders ('EU still in the hands of Irish', The Australian 21-22/6). The truth is that the NO verdict should be leading to reconsideration by other member governments of their previous failure to allow referendums in their own nations.
At present it looks as though minority elites are seeking to deprive their own peoples of political sovereignty and independence without authorisation. What kind of EU will emerge then?
'The Irish Government has been given four months to devise a strategy resurrecting Europe's grand reform project.' Perhaps 'control project' might be more accurate.
The case of Britain is especially significant for Australia. There seems little doubt that a referendum there would produce a NO result as well. That is why the UK Government in March resorted to promise-breaking and deceit when it forced endorsement of the Treaty in the House of Commons.
It is no small thing for the majority of Australians if Britain ceases to be, if its territory becomes merely a county or province in a superstate. Our motherland will be gone; the 1100 year-old rule of the Crown will be fatally eroded if not destroyed; and many of the traditional liberties enshrined in British law will be removed.

- - Nigel Jackson, Belgrave Victoria.

Debt-Creating and Power-Centralising Policies:
Dear Editor, Canadian Press:
How unfortunate, if not entirely unexpected and certainly anachronistic, that Linda McQuaig should promote the debt-creating and power-centralising policies of economist John Maynard Keynes as a "solution" to our problems. What we do today and have been doing is essentially that which Keynes advocated and it has landed us in a mess from which we may never recover -- but could easily extricate ourselves through application of the policies of Keynes's contemporary, Clifford Hugh Douglas.
Keynes mentions Douglas in his magnum opus "The General Theory" and I understand, as has oft been related, that when the Chairman of a British engineering society convention introduced Keynes as "the world's greatest living economist", he demurred--saying that he was not such, but that that person (C. H. Douglas) was sitting beside him.
In any case, Keynes was a well-known Fabian Socialist whose monetary policy, quite aside from some of his seemingly radical "anti-establishment" statements, served the interests of the entrenched debt-mongering credit monopoly quite effectively by condemning society to the endless escalation of unrepayable debt, with its attendant ceaseless inflation of financial prices, and the relentless centralization of political and economic power which continues to achieve even the destruction of national sovereignties--all to the enormous and disastrous detriment of the ordinary citizen.
These catastrophic consequences are what Douglas described as "the tragedy of human effort.*"

- - Wallace M. Klinck, Canada.
* Douglas' booklet "The Tragedy of Human Effort" available from all League Book Services.

Carbon Footprints:
Dear Editor,
How dinkum is Australian business, and Australians in general, about their carbon footprint? The difference between the ambient temperature and that inside business premises is far too high. This high temperature difference represents a large consumption of energy whether produced by gas or electricity.
For example, the bank of which I am a customer pushes the concept of reducing your carbon footprint, yet enlarges its own footprint by excessively heating in very cold conditions and over-cooling in very hot conditions. Customers bake in winter and freeze in summer in these conditions while the staff work in shirtsleeves year round.
But don't let anyone tell you you must cut your greenhouse gases to save the world from overheating. Global warming ceased in 1998 and has been in decline since 2001. The normal cycle of a few years' warming and a few years cooling has come into play.
You won't get that information from politicians who are happy to accept the theory in order that they may be seen to be doing something to save us from ourselves.
Willy nilly, they will invoke a futile tax that has the potential to ruin the economy through inflation and the concomitant interest rate hikes. -

- -Yours truly, Ron Fischer Sebastopol, Victoria