THE JOYS OF MULTICULTURALISM

by James Reed:
Every 'Australia Day, there are always articles by journalists about 'Australia 's identity, the changing national character - you name it. (Example: Nick Bryant 'I Love a Sunburnt Anomaly The Weekend Australian 24-25-/1/09).

Now let 's trade headlines about this 'anomaly. 'Asian Refugees the Death Knell for White Australia, The Australian 1/1/09: South East Asian countries wanted Australia to stop being White and European and to let them in. Logic: even though we are all more racist than you, the White Australia policy must go because we want to show our power over you my interpretation of the Cabinet Papers. What a disgraceful bunch of 'leaders we have had. So, what have we now? Consider: 'Australia a Top Pick for Smugglers, The Weekend Australian 10-11/1/09 p.8: Australia as No.2 best destination.

' 'Ethnic Tensions Erupt Again at Open, The Weekend Australian 24-25/1/09 p.3: Serbs versus Bosnians.
' 'Skilled Migrant Door Left Open, The Australian 18/12/08 p.2 no cuts to Australia 's present record high migrant intake, despite global economic crisis, and the repeated exposure of this scam.
' 'Bashing Victim Urges Migrants to Reflect, The Weekend Australian 27-28/12/08 p.5: man with an apparently Asian wife bashed by assailants with 'black skin.
' 'Shape of the Future, The Weekend Australian 20-21/12/08 p.16. Rudd continues to push ahead with his vision of an EU style Asia-Pacific community with open borders-style globalism.

At the end of all this, his vision is for the complete elimination of Australia and all its institutions. Even if Hitler had defeated us in WWII, we would not have faced these prospects of complete ethno-cultural dissolution. What have all the sacrifices been for?

THE VICTORIAN BUSHFIRES: A SYMBOL OF OUR PLIGHT

by James Reed
While the Greenies have been beside themselves with the latest catastrophe that allegedly confirms heir twisted world view that the Victorian bushfires are a symptom or signature of climate change the real facts have slowly emerged. The bushfires are really a final product of the misplaced politically correct viewpoints of the powerful 'environmentalist lobby. Here are the facts.

The Nillumbik Shire Council, the 'green wedge shire is responsible for an area from the Yarra River to Kingslake National Park. This Shire Council covered many of the areas hardest hit by the bushfires. The Council was warned that a policy of restricting the removal of vegetation, pushed by 'green groups was a potential fire disaster, but the Council went ahead anyway.

According to bushfire expert Rod Incoll, regulations encouraged the planting of trees around homes to give the 'appearance from the outside of being in a forest. ( 'Council Ignored Warning Over Trees The Australian 11/2/09 pp.1, 7). This, in short is just greenie nonsense. The Department of Conservation and the Environment also was at fault: 17 years ago Victoria 's Auditor-General criticised the department for allowing the build-up of combustible material on the floor of the forest. (The Australian 11/1/09 p.7) David Packham of Monash University 's School of geography and Environmental Science ( 'Inferno Stoked by Green Vote The Australian 10/2/09 p.14), has said that such forest fuels can pile up at a rate of about one tonne a hectare a year.
It is this source of potential 'rocket fuel that enables fires fanned by strong winds to roar like jet engines out of control. The build-up of forest fuel has occurred right across Australia because of the Greenies belief that prescribed burn-offs are a threat to 'biodiversity ', that is to 'cute and cuddly creatures and the plants and trees of Aboriginal Australia. ( 'Burn-offs a 'Threat to Biodiversity, The Australian 12/2/09 pp. 1, 4)
David Packham has said that environmentalists were like 'eco-terrorists waging a jihad against prescribed burning.
He also said: 'The green movement is directly responsible for the severity of these fires through the opposition to prescribed burning. He is spot on. The bushfires are as much the fault of green extremists as they are the arsonists who lit them and killed over two hundred (or more) people.

Why do Greenies want to make residential areas as much like bush-land as possible? The bush-land of 'native trees for them is 'good being close to the Aborigines. The Aborigines were supposedly in this land for 40,000 or more years (even though, according to present-day evolutionist ideology, modern man has only existed for 100,000 years or less. Eucalypt forests, therefore I suppose, have a spiritual connection to the 'Dreamtime '.

All this is mythology, refuted even by consideration of 'establishment books. Tim Flannery in his 1994 'The Future Eaters argues that humans (=Aborigines or their ancestors) killed off all of Australia 's large animals. The Aboriginal use of the fire stick 'farming led to a depletion of biodiversity and a degradation of Australia 's soils.
For some within the Green movement and environmentalists, it is the 'Western Worldview that is responsible for the 'environmental crisis '; it is our anthropocentrism of putting human interests over the interests of other species. Science, technology, Christianity and the White race are targets. Bizarrely, 'eco-feminism produces a grand theory of exploitation based on 'maleness. But you won 't find these feminists criticising Aboriginal society or any other 'traditional society for their treatment of women which by definition is 'discriminatory '. Immediately the politically correct censorship mechanism clicks into place.

Writer Michael Crichton in his address to the Commonwealth Club in May 2005 ( 'Our Greatest Challenge ') correctly described environmentalism as a new religion. It is a religion of urban atheists who have reworked traditional Christian beliefs and myths. According to the greens we have fallen from the original green Eden by White man 's science and technology. We need to abandon this unsustainable order to get harmony with the spirit of Gaia, mother Earth again.
Environmentalism as a religion is thus a threat to Western civilisation. To combat the threat of environmentalism, like all other ideological threats, we need the weapons of truth and logic. Challenge these assumptions. Of course economic globalists hate (and love at the same time) the greens. The other side of the extremist coin, the globalist sees the greenie as a 'useful idiot and hopes to manipulate their causes for their own ends. The two camps polarise the debate and attempt to drive out the sane middle ground.

The sane middle ground is what we need. Following the tradition of Western civilisation this is defined by reason yes Virginia 'male logic. To save Western civilisation we must never surrender an inch on reason, logic and truth. Yes, there are truths independent of society. Social conditioning doesn 't determine much. The world exists independent of ethnic minorities and Feminists - and will continue to exist when they are long dust.

LO, THE ANTI-SEMITISM 'DEBATE '

by Peter Ewer
The headline says it all 'Critics of Israel Giving Voice to anti-Semitism (Frank Furedi, The Australian 15/1/09 p.10). Anti-Israel comments are morphing into anti-Jewish/anti-Semitic ones, Furedi says. Supporters of Hamas have chanted in Europe 'all Jews to the gas ', 'kill the Jews and 'Jews to the oven '.
Frank Furedi, a professor of sociology at the University of Kent in the UK is right to be concerned about these indefensible comments. Yet, who are the Europeans chanting this anti-Semitism? Are they not primarily 'migrants and 'minorities '?
Furedi says that the new anti-Semitism is not a product of a 'minority of Islamists or pro-Palestinian protesters '. But the article gives no evidence about who those with the anti-Semitic chants and placards actually are.

Furedi goes on to describe a culture of accommodation of the new anti-Semitism among the intelligentsia. And he says that European sociologists were far too busy pouring over their latest training manual on diversity to express any objection to anti-Semitic comments made on an online European-Sociologist discussion group. But could there be a cause and effect relationship here: leftist cultural creations such as diversity, identity politics, multiculturalism and postmodernism, allow all that Furedi objects to, to flourish?

Consider this hypothesis in the Australian context. Malcolm Fraser, champion of diversity etc., says that Israel 's actions 'cause anti-Semitism (see The Australian 22/2/09, p.19). Then there was the case of Michael Backman of The Age who blamed Israel for Islamic terrorism, 'Israel Living High on US Expense Account (see The Australian 20/1/09 p.11).

I am not so much interested in Backman 's argument as to the origin of his ideas. Doesn 't he write from the same type of postmodern multicultural relativist position as Malcolm Fraser? Isn 't there a common thread to all of these arguments, namely that rightness is in the eye of the beholder?

Returning to the Furedi article, I believe that the root cause of the rise of anti-Semitism may well lie in the hard-core leftist doctrine of cultural relativism and multicultural plurality; doctrines which many Jewish intellectuals, among others, have supported. Is it time for these intellectuals, Jews and others, to rethink past positions?

WHEN IN TROUBLE, CALL FOR A LEFT-WING LESBIAN!

by James Reed
The Nordic Viking outpost of Iceland has hit bad financial times. So, Icelanders have elected Johanna Sigurdardottir as the country 's prime minister. She is the world 's first openly gay head of government. (The Australian 3/2/2009)
She is called 'Saint Johanna for her championing of social justice causes. And she is married to her lesbian partner.
Don 't snigger when Rudd is replaced, a little later in the play, we will have our own Asian lesbian prime minister. Mark my words, we have not seen anything yet. Obama, etc., is just the beginning.

Reflecting on all the politically correct appointments of heads of state around the world, I am dismayed that no country is yet enlightened enough to elect a gay dolphin as head of state. How long can this discrimination, racism, bigotry, sexism, speciesism continue? Help us Professor-philosopher-Peter-animal-rights-Singer! Why should a lack of ability to communicate with humans be a reason for keeping a 'person from office? It hasn 't stopped other politicians from being elected!

After eight years of Obama, Americans need to do something to really top themselves and electing a gay dolphin (preferably a disabled one of a minority dolphin sub-species (race)), would go down nicely! Now that you are in the swing of things America, don 't backslide and re-elect the Terminator, Arnie (now a dated model). Political correctness has ever-new frontiers to conquer.

A 'FRAUD BIGGER THAN MADOFF 'S PONZI SCHEME?

Senior US soldiers investigated over missing Iraq reconstruction billions, The Independent (Britain), 16/2/09:

In what could turn out to be the greatest fraud in US history, American authorities have started to investigate the alleged role of senior military officers in the misuse of $125bn ( '88bn) in a US-directed effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The exact sum missing may never be clear, but a report by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) suggests it may exceed $50bn, making it an even bigger theft than Bernard Madoff's notorious Ponzi scheme.

"I believe the real looting of Iraq after the invasion was by US officials and contractors, and not by people from the slums of Baghdad," said one US businessman active in Iraq since 2003. In one case, auditors working for SIGIR discovered that $57.8m was sent in "pallet upon pallet of hundred-dollar bills" to the US comptroller for south-central Iraq, Robert J Stein Jr, who had himself photographed standing with the mound of money. He is among the few US officials who were in Iraq to be convicted of fraud and money-laundering.

Despite the vast sums expended on rebuilding by the US since 2003, there have been no cranes visible on the Baghdad skyline except those at work building a new US embassy and others rusting beside a half-built giant mosque that Saddam was constructing when he was overthrown. One of the few visible signs of government work on Baghdad's infrastructure is a tireless attention to planting palm trees and flowers in the centre strip between main roads. Those are then dug up and replanted a few months later.

Iraqi leaders are convinced that the theft or waste of huge sums of US and Iraqi government money could have happened only if senior US officials were themselves involved in the corruption. In 2004-05, the entire Iraq military procurement budget of $1.3bn was siphoned off from the Iraqi Defence Ministry in return for 28-year-old Soviet helicopters too obsolete to fly and armoured cars easily penetrated by rifle bullets. Iraqi officials were blamed for the theft, but US military officials were largely in control of the Defence Ministry at the time and must have been either highly negligent or participants in the fraud.

American federal investigators are now starting an inquiry into the actions of senior US officers involved in the programme to rebuild Iraq, according to The New York Times, which cites interviews with senior government officials and court documents. Court records reveal that, in January, investigators subpoenaed the bank records of Colonel Anthony B Bell, now retired from the US Army, but who was previously responsible for contracting for the reconstruction effort in 2003 and 2004.

Two federal officials are cited by the paper as saying that investigators are also looking at the activities of Lieutenant-Colonel Ronald W Hirtle of the US Air Force, who was senior contracting officer in Baghdad in 2004. It is not clear what specific evidence exists against the two men, who have both said they have nothing to hide.

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-fraud-bigger-than-madoff-1622987.html

THE ABORIGINAL REFERENDUM

from David Flint 's Opinion Column:
One of the most misunderstood constitutional changes in Australia has been the 1967 Aboriginal referendum, introduced by the Holt Liberal-Country Party government and supported by all parties, including the Labor Party and the Democratic Labor Party. I reflected on this on the recent launch of an important new study on housing in the remote Aboriginal communities by a former Keating Government Minister, the Hon. Dr Gary Johns. It is provocatively called No Job No House, and it is in the tradition of a growing critique of federal Aboriginal policy.

That policy was based on the results of the much misinterpreted Aboriginal referendum. In an opinion piece some years ago in the Sydney Morning Herald a university professor referred to the referendum as giving Aborigines the right to vote and making them citizens.
It was neither. The Aboriginal population always had the same status as British subjects as the rest of the population. When separate Australian citizenship was established in 1948, they were included.

Aborigines had the right to vote in four states at the time of Federation. This was whittled away federally, but restored and made universal well before the 1967 referendum.
The referendum did two things.
Most importantly it granted to the federal Parliament a power to legislate with respect to the Aboriginal race.
It also allowed the counting of Aboriginal people for technical purposes not associated with their welfare.
Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, this did not relate to the census. The proscription against counting 'Aboriginal natives had been introduced to limit the size of the population of Western Australia and therefore the number of its seats in the House of Representatives and of its financial grants.

Sir Robert Menzies had proposed a referendum, but only related to the question of counting Aboriginal people. A cabinet member at the time tells me that Sir Robert argued that the Federal government could always help the Aboriginal people through conditional grants to the States.

He warned that if the Federal Parliament had the legislative power the result would be that an enormous bureaucratic monstrosity would be created which would do little to improve the lives of the Aboriginal people. Sir Robert was one of our greatest Prime Ministers*; this anecdote is surely further evidence of this. When Sir Robert retired his successor proceeded with the referendum. But now it included the power to legislate with respect to the Aboriginal race.

Editor 's note:
Professor Flint 's reference to Robert Menzies as one of Australia 's 'greatest Prime Ministers doesn 't quite 'gel with me. Sadly, Mr. Menzies was another of those 'socialist wolves in Liberal-sheep 's clothing '.
I have before me an early 1970s League publication and the headlines read: 'Australia 's Liberal-Socialist Road to Serfdom '.
Mr. Menzies is quoted in The Age 3rd March, 1941 as saying:
'I always tell my Opposition friends that the only difference between us is that I am theoretically non-Socialist, yet an amazingly practical Socialist, while they are theoretical Socialists. People will take things from us they wouldn 't take from the Labor party It is a question of speed. You get two views, which in theory, are violently opposed. In practice, the extreme course of today is a commonplace of tomorrow.

US FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS EXCEED WORLD GDP

On 13th February 2009 Jerome R. Corsi of MONEYNETDAILY asked: Does $65.5 trillion terrify anyone yet?

As the Obama administration pushes through Congress its $800 billion deficit-spending economic stimulus plan, the American public is largely unaware that the true deficit of the federal government already is measured in trillions of dollars, and in fact its $65.5 trillion in total obligations exceeds the gross domestic product of the world.
The total U.S. obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid in the future, effectively have placed the U.S. government in bankruptcy, even before new continuing social welfare obligations embedded in the massive spending plan are taken into account.

The real 2008 federal budget deficit was $5.1 trillion, not the $455 billion previously reported by the Congressional Budget Office, according to the "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" as released by the U.S. Department of Treasury.
The difference between the $455 billion "official" budget deficit numbers and the $5.1 trillion budget deficit cited by "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" is that the official budget deficit is calculated on a cash basis, where all tax receipts, including Social Security tax receipts, are used to pay government liabilities as they occur.

But the numbers in the 2008 report are calculated on a GAAP basis ("Generally Accepted Accounting Practices") that include year-for-year changes in the net present value of unfunded liabilities in social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Under cash accounting, the government makes no provision for future Social Security and Medicare benefits in the year in which those benefits accrue. "

As bad as 2008 was, the $455 billion budget deficit on a cash basis and the $5.1 trillion federal budget deficit on a GAAP accounting basis does not reflect any significant money [from] the financial bailout or Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which was approved after the close of the fiscal year," economist John Williams, who publishes the Internet website Shadow Government Statistics, told WND:

"The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fiscal year 2009 budget deficit as being $1.2 trillion on a cash basis and that was before taking into consideration the full costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, before the cost of the Obama nearly $800 billion economic stimulus plan, or the cost of the second $350 billion in TARP funds, as well as all current bailouts being contemplated by the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve," he said.

"The federal government's deficit is haemorrhaging at a pace which threatens the viability of the financial system," Williams added. "The popularly reported 2009 [deficit] will clearly exceed $2 trillion on a cash basis and that full amount has to be funded by Treasury borrowing. "It's not likely this will happen without the Federal Reserve acting as lender of last resort for the Treasury by buying Treasury debt and monetizing the debt," he said.

"Monetizing the debt" is a term used to signify that the Federal Reserve will be required simply to print cash to meet the Treasury debt obligations, acting in this capacity only because the Treasury cannot sell the huge amount of debt elsewhere.

The Treasury has been largely dependent upon foreign buyers, principally China and Japan and other major holders of U.S. dollar foreign exchange reserves, including OPEC buyers purchasing U.S. debt through London. "The appetite of foreign buyers to purchase continued trillions of U.S. debt has become more questionable as the world has witnessed the rapid deterioration of the U.S. fiscal condition in the current financial crisis," Williams noted.

"Truthfully," Williams pointed out, "there is no Social Security 'lock-box.' There are no funds held in reserve today for Social Security and Medicare obligations that are earned each year. It's only a matter of time until the public realizes that the government is truly bankrupt and no taxes are being held in reserve to pay in the future the Social Security and Medicare benefits taxpayers are earning today."

Calculations from the "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" also show that the GAAP negative net worth of the federal government has increased to $59.3 trillion while the total federal obligations under GAAP accounting now total $65.5 trillion. The $65.5 trillion total federal obligations under GAAP accounting not only now exceed four times the U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, the $65.5 trillion deficit exceeds total world GDP.

"In the seven years of GAAP reporting, we have seen an annual average deficit in excess of $4 trillion, which could not be possibly covered by any form of taxation," Williams argued. "Shy of the government severely slashing social welfare programs, federal deficits of this magnitude are beyond any hope of containment, government or otherwise," he said.

"Put simply, there is no way the government can possibly pay for the level of social welfare benefits the federal government has promised unless the government simply prints cash and debases the currency, which the government will increasingly be doing this year," Williams said, explaining in more detail why he feels the government is now in the process of monetizing the federal debt.

"Social Security and Medicare must be shown as liabilities on the federal balance sheet in the year they accrue according to GAAP accounting," Williams argues. "To do otherwise is irresponsible, nothing more than an attempt to hide the painful truth from the American public. The public has a right to know just how bad off the federal government budget deficit situation really is, especially since the situation is rapidly spinning out of control.

"The federal government is bankrupt," Williams told WND. "In a post-Enron world, if the federal government were a corporation such as General Motors, the president and senior Treasury officers would be in federal penitentiary."

** But sadly, none of these people lamenting the US debt offer a genuine alternative to the Money Lenders debt system. Only Social Credit proposals do that.