ASIANISATION AND THE DEMISE OF TRADITIONAL AUSTRALIA

by James Recd and Brian Simpson
Gerry Harvey, the executive chairman of the furniture and electrical retailer Harvey Norman has said “An Asian migrant could be prime minister before 2050 – when Treasury predicts a population of 36 million based on current migration patterns. Migrants would be leaders in academia and other professions”.
And Harvey thinks that immigration will go beyond even that: “I expect it will be a lot higher than anyone is talking about”. Harvey also said that “it was illogical to think Australia’s population could remain static compared with the already giant size of neighbours and trading partners such as Indonesia, India and China”. He continued: “One thing is certain, the make-up of the population will be enormously different than it is today”. (The Australian 26/7/2010 p.6)

And the bottom line is that a cut in immigration will impact negatively on that holy of holy, retail sales (“it’s so bloody obvious,” he said). Yes – and just as obvious is the fact that we will never shop at Harvey Norman again for those remarks – our consumer freedom.

The Herald Sun (29/7/20120), “Australia’s migrant intake soars,” reports that the Asian migrant population has exploded reaching almost a million Chinese, Vietnamese and Indians, etc., in Australia over the past decade. The Asian-born population has risen from 5.3 per cent in 1999 to almost 9 per cent according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is almost certainly an underestimation of the number of people of an Asian race in this land. It does not consider the racial composition of people from now multiracial countries like the UK, New Zealand and the US. Clearly most migrants to Australia (perhaps 90 per cent) are non-white. Australia has thus gone from a White Australia policy to a Yellow Australia policy.

Demographer Charles Price in 1999 (“Australian Population: Ethnic Origins”, People and Place vol.7) estimated that Australia’s Anglo Celtic share of the population fell from 90 per cent in 1947 to 74.5 per cent in 1988 to 70 per cent in 1999. He estimated on what were relatively low immigration levels that Anglo Celtic share of the Australian population would fall to 62.5 per cent by 2005.

On more realistic figures it is likely, in our opinion, that the Anglo Celtic share of the Australian population is now less than 50 per cent. Whites of any shade and shape, with the present high migration levels, will be minorities in Australia by about 2040, about the same time US whites will become minorities. It may happen sooner if business leaders get their way, just to keep their sales up! Open migration is not an impossibility with hundreds of millions of people pouring into Australia.

So, let us run with this
Suppose there were no borders to Australia at all. No restrictions, no customs, no disease control. Everyone and everything can come and go into and out of Australia. Are you happy yet Mr. Harvey? Suppose through that, all of the surplus population of the world from Africa and Asia decided that today they wanted free furniture and electronics. What if they decided to simply take it from whatever store they pleased?
Remember, we have hundreds of millions of people in Australia, so many people that, like in India, they are sleeping on the streets. Police are vastly outnumbered. Is this the sort of “no limits” growth that our business leaders want? Of course not! They want the rule of law and capitalism to survive. They wish for unlimited immigration on the one hand, but also a stable consumer society with law-abiding citizens on the other.

Unfortunately for them, none of the champions of unlimited growth have shown how, with such unprecedented changes, social stability can be preserved and society saved from descending into crime and anarchy. When one’s sole focus is a crass concern with profit maximisation, bigger issues escape one’s grasp.

We look forward, in the short term, to an Asian migrant replacing Gerry Harvey as executive chairman of Harvey Norman. And the sooner the Chinese buy up News Corp and sack Rupert Murdoch, the better.

Remember – in the coming federal election write on the top of your ballot papers ‘REDUCE IMMIGRATION’

GREENS THRIVE AS PART OF GLOBAL-LEFT MOVEMENT

by James Reed
One of the services which we can perform here, with our ample leisure time, is to forward-on ‘gems’ of information when we see them in the media. In an article “Green Chokehold in the Senate” The Australian 20/7/2010 p.13, there is a little column tucked away which reads “Locally Grown Greens Thrive as Part of Global Left Wing Movement”. The image in my mind is like something out of a B-grade Hollywood movie where monster plants – Triffido – threaten us all. And this is indeed so.

The Green Party supports all Leftist politically correct causes such as refugee “rights”, same-sex marriages, multiculturalism, ad nauseum. The immigration issue is always skipped around. In a nutshell, the Greens are not an ecological party concerned with protecting the ecological sustainability of the planet, but are a Leftist movement with a “green” veneer. Environmentalists prior to WW II had a more ‘right wing’ orientation. Thus US anti-immigrationist Madison Grant defended Nordics in his 1924 book “The Passing of the Great Race” (published by a leading publisher) and also championed conservation themes.

Today, with the politicisation of environmental research (e.g., the ‘Climategate’ scam) we are obliged to take a critical stance towards environmentalist claims. Nevertheless a conservative approach to the environment (conservationism) is possible.

Social Credit seeks to go beyond crass commercial consumer society and to create a world where the individual’s true human nature and creative potentials can flourish. That is the real environmentalism.    

WILL THE REAL JULIA STAND UP ? WILL THE REAL CHRISTIAN STAND UP !

Under the heading “Will the real Julia please stand up?” Peter Stokes of Saltshakers sent out an email to those on his email list. He wrote:
“Can you imagine a nation where the only real marriages take place in a few small churches which continue to preach Biblical Christianity, and where civil marriage means people of any gender construct?
Can you imagine a nation where as many babies are killed before birth, because they are an inconvenience, than are actually born in any given year?
Can you imagine a nation where socialist philosophy reigns supreme?

Exaggeration? Possibly, but only slightly, because this is certainly the direction towards which the real Julia Gillard would take this nation if elected on August 21.
Yet sadly, an article by The Age religion writer Barney Zwartz last weekend, suggested that most Christians are not worried that the real Julia actually believes these things are OK or that she is an atheist living in sin. In his article “Gillard, bid to win back the Christian vote” Zwartz states:
"Mr Conner, senior pastor at Melbourne's biggest church, CityLife, said he was not concerned by Ms Gillard's atheism: ''Primarily you are looking at them to have what it takes to run the nation" - but felt Mr Rudd's dumping would cost Labor more than the party realised." So the direction doesn’t matter? We believe it should be a very important issue for Christians.

Barney Zwartz also writes:
“ACL chief of staff Lyle Shelton said Ms Gillard's atheism might be a factor for some voters, but Christians were a discerning constituency.” “Might be a factor”? What about ‘should’ be a factor?
After her appointment by Labor as Prime Minister social commentator Scott Stephens, (ABC Religion and Ethics 19 Jul 2010) noted that Julia Gillard was not concerned about the Christian vote.
Then just last week ACL announced that Julia would do an interview with them. On August 6 after this interview was announced, Scott Stephens noted: “Now, it seems, the "real Julia" has decided that she can't ignore the Christian vote.”
He concluded “But this does raise serious questions concerning the authenticity of the Prime Minister's appeal to a lobby that, prior to this week, she seemed not to think she needed.”

Even the mild mannered Barney Zwartz put it this way:
“Prime Minister Julia Gillard has agreed to be interviewed by the Australian Christian Lobby today in an attempt to recover ground with churchgoers.” So now the Australian Christian Lobby has given Julia Gillard a platform to tell Christians what she thinks they want to hear. This is what most politicians do best, of course, spruik or spin to suit the audience.

The Australian Christian Lobby was happy to uncritically welcome, and even congratulate, Julia Gillard on becoming the Prime Minister (Media release 24 June) following the dumping of Kevin Rudd two days after their ‘Make it Count’ Presidential style presentation of Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd. Now they have given Julia a chance to convince us Christians that she is really on our side.
When Julia was interviewed by Jim Wallace, you hear nothing about EMILY’S List or her living in sin. Given that Julia was co-founder of EMILY’s List, which means she is pro abortion, and that she is in favour of homosexual rights and anti marriage (she has chosen to live in a de facto relationship), shouldn’t ACL inform people of this? Yet not a word was said in the interview on this or her avowed socialist past. Don’t they see these things as important? You can listen to the interview and what you will hear is about her 'Welsh Baptist upbringing and her church youth background at Mitcham Baptist Church in Adelaide'. So did the Welsh Baptists and those in Adelaide preach pro abortion, pro homosexuality, and anti marriage? (Neither Julia nor her sister are married they are both living with their ‘partners’ and her sister has children!) Is it now the real Julia who is appealing for the Christian vote?

In the past week we also have seen Julia praise the chaplaincy program and announce additional funding for 1,000 more chaplains in schools. Yet last year she said that she wanted to see the school chaplaincy program ‘secularised’. Which Julia do we believe? Has she changed her mind or is she just trying to win the ‘Christian Vote’?

Now, in yet another appeal to the 'Christian vote' she has announced that she will help fund the celebrations of the Roman Catholic sainthood of Mary MacKillop to the tune of $1.5 million. “Gillard announces $1.5m for MacKillop” SMH, August 5, 2010. If ever there should be a call for a separation of church and state this should be it! We totally oppose this funding effort by Julia Gillard.
Interestingly, several other commentators have questioned this new “pitch to Christian Voters” by Julia Gillard including the Age’s Josh Gordon.

As Christians we need to be extremely discerning as we approach election day. We need to see through this blatant appeal to the Christian vote and carefully assess party policies and personal character of all candidates.

- - Signed: Peter Stokes, Executive Officer, Salt Shakers  

A GLIMPSE OF OUR FUTURE?

Andrew Bolt’s Blog: 10/8/2010.
California is in danger of becoming, as historian Kevin Starr has warned, a “failed state.” What went so wrong? The answer lies in a change in the nature of progressive politics in California.
During the second half of the twentieth century, the state shifted from an older progressivism, which emphasized infrastructure investment and business growth, to a newer version, which views the private sector much the way the Huns viewed a city—as something to be sacked and plundered.
The result is two separate California realities: a lucrative one for the wealthy and for government workers, who are largely insulated from economic decline; and a grim one for the private-sector middle and working classes, who are fleeing the state.  

WOULDN’T YOU KNOW IT - RUDD CONFIRMED IN U.N. JOB

Source; ABC- Online political correspondent Emma Rodgers: Former prime minister Kevin Rudd has been appointed to a United Nations panel on global sustainability, the UN has confirmed. A statement from the UN says secretary-general Ban Ki-moon has announced the panel's main aim will be to help lift people out of poverty. Mr Ban says he has asked the panel to "think big". As well as Mr Rudd, the panel includes other politicians from around the world including the former prime ministers of Norway, South Korea, Japan and Mozambique.  

HOW FAR WE HAVE FALLEN

by Peter West
Here is a news item that Australians even in the 1980s would have been amazed to read: “Student Cutback ‘Threat’ to India ties”, The Australian 28/7/2010, p.1. The article reads: “Indian education agents have reacted with horror to news that a Tony Abbott-led government would further tighten restrictions on student visas, warning that such a move would reverse important but fragile new links between the two countries”.

Imagine India or China’s reaction if weak little Australia treated them with the same contempt! Am I alone in being ashamed to be an Australian, to be a nation that is like a lamp post available for the relief of any?  

FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE: EROTIC LOVE v RAPE

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Against the Lawyers series: In this brief paper I wish to comment on a typical article in feminist jurisprudence. I have chosen Ngaire Naffine, “Possession: Erotic Love in the Law of Rape”, Modern Law Review, vol. 57, 1994, pp. 10-37. Naffine argues for the extraordinary thesis that a form of possessive heterosexual “erotic love” “still forms the basis of English law, in which rape remains a crime for a man against a woman” and “a traditional view of sexuality still pervades the law” of Australian jurisdictions which have adopted a seemingly gender-neutral view of rape, where rape can be a crime committed by either sex in a number of ways. In other words, rape reforms in modern times, produced I should add by numerous feminist lawyers and others (and I think a good thing too) are based on “a simple, reductive and orthodox view of sexual relations between the sexes.” (p.10)

To show what the Western view of erotic love is, Naffine discusses things said by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and the more recent French philosopher Luce Irigaray. This discussion takes up eight pages. A discussion of two philosophers hardly constitutes a characterisation of the Western view of erotic love. There is no scientific methodological discussion of how one would even investigate such a question; no matter, Nietzsche and Irigaray are topical among feminist postmodernists so we need not bother about the mere details of social scientific investigation.

Then, following these philosophical speculations we have a discussion of “possessive love in Western legal thought” (pp. 18-20). This is brief but competent. Stated simply, in the past women at law as wives were subservient to their husbands. Authorities such as Sir Matthew Hale, English Chief Justice in the seventeenth century and William Blackstone in his Commentaries at the Laws of England, for example, did not recognise rape in marriage, as Naffine notes (p.19).

However, about the same time, there were also trials of witches in the United States and capital punishment of men, women and children for minor property offences. These were harsh times. Naffine does not consider the laws of non-Western countries at the same time or even today, where women were and still are treated much worse. For example, Islamic law (Sharia law) requires four male Muslim witnesses who actually saw the acts of alleged rape or adultery to establish rape or adultery. Women who lack such witnesses self-incriminate. Thus this year in Abu Dhabi an 18-year old girl alleged that she had been gang raped by five men but she did not have witnesses. The men, bar one, were acquitted of rape by the court, but found guilty of lesser charges. Although the girl’s body was severely bruised it was held that the sex was consensual (with one of the men who was sentenced to one year in gaol). The girl therefore received a sentence of one year in gaol.

Now, returning to our article, why was the author restricting her attention only to Western law? Wouldn’t Islamic law have supported her thesis even better? Let the reader guess why. Finally we come to the climax, pun intended of course. Naffine says that Australian law has de-gendered rape so that it is just a sexual crime of persons against persons involving areas other than the vagina and objects of assault other than the penis (p.23). Men can, and do, rape men, and women, in principle could rape men. She says: “Women have been granted equal rights with a vengeance. We have been given precisely the same rights formerly possessed only by men and we now have imposed upon us precisely the same prohibitions.” (p.24) Well, what is wrong with that: isn’t that what feminists want? Apparently no because “Australian feminists” (why not “Australian women?”) “know that it is still men who are raping and women who are being raped.” (p.24) Agreed: rape is primarily a crime of men against women.

Naffine thinks that the law is problematic because it is not reflecting the behaviour – but the behaviour can be prosecuted by gender-neutral laws perhaps more efficiently now than ever in history. What she objects to is that the new rape laws have not eliminated economic and social disadvantages which women allegedly have “which diminish their ability to make uncoerced sexual choices.” (p.25) There we have it: a radical leftist agenda for social transformation! But rape laws are to protect people from rape and to punish rapists. The law itself cannot address every socio-economic demon of the left and nor should they: that is politics and social work. It is far from clear what Naffire expects the law qua law to do. In the final section of her paper “Towards Change”, she thinks that the retention of a sex-specific rape law is a positive move. This allegedly protects the sexual autonomy of women. This, in my opinion, is not justified by the arguments which we have reviewed. I agree with her though, for conservative reasons, in her criticism of pornographic/sexual images of women which I think would go some way to supporting a feminist critique.

But the paper was written in 1994 and in 2010 things have moved on. With high male suicide rates, male unemployment, female prime ministers and Governors-General, and with the majority of law students, female, Naffine’s paper is dated. Young women pursuing “rage” culture would perhaps crack a smile, if that is what they do. Thus in conclusion, this “classic” paper in feminist jurisprudence, well-referenced and otherwise scholarly, does not in my opinion present a logically cogent argument. In the weeks to come we will examine more such material produced in the ivory towers of the modern law school.  

OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE FRAUD?

From David Flint’s Opinion Column
“GetUp! challenge upheld: 100,000 additional voters”: After an extraordinarily rushed hearing in time for the election on 21 August, the High Court has upheld the GetUp! challenge to changes to the Electoral Act made in 2006 under the previous government. Legislation introduced in the eighties ostensibly to make voting easier had given voters seven days to enrol following the issue of the election writs. Under the 2006 amendments the rolls were to be closed at 8pm on the day the election writs were issued for all new enrolments and three days later in relation to those recording change of address.

This was introduced to prevent fraud...
The Court decision to declare the amendments invalid was made by a majority of judges. The Court has given no details of its reasons. These will be published at some unspecified future date. The Court surely has a duty to the Australian people to explain its decision well before the election. There is no reason why this could not be done early next week. The judges have made their minds up - it should be a simple matter for them to say what was in their minds.

But are they all bona fide?...
Many Australians will be concerned that all of the 100,000 registrations now validated are bona fide. There is little point saying these can be challenged later. In our earlier report about this challenge, we recalled that when Richard Mawrey QC was asked about this and other practices ostensibly designed to “make voting easier”, he replied that what they did was to make made fraud easier. He was speaking at a seminar held at Parliament House Sydney on Thursday 25 February organised by the H S Chapman Society and co-hosted by ACM.

As we said then, Mr. Mawrey would know. Sitting as a High Court judge, he found six Labour councillors guilty of electoral fraud in the British 2004 Birmingham Council election. This made news not only in the UK, but around the world. He said this fraud was so appalling it would disgrace a banana republic. He subsequently found that Conservative councillors had engaged in fraud in the Slough Council election.

The point surely is that if the system gives the opportunity for fraud, that opportunity will be taken up. On this occasion the AEC has indicated that proof of identity will be needed. This is not because of any vigilance by the High Court. It is because it will be physically impossible - on this occasion - to include the names on the rolls. This will not apply in the future unless Parliament closes the clear incentive to defraud which is present in the system.

IT’S OKAY TO SPEND THE WORKERS’ MONEY WHEN THE ALP NEEDS IT

It was reported Labor’s desperate attempts to use union money to keep in the race has some pips squeaking angrily: A dispute over a $500,000 union donation to the ALP is headed for the Federal Court in a blow to Labor’s efforts to place the election focus on Tony Abbott.
The Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union handed over the money yesterday after a personal plea from ALP secretary Karl Bitar for more cash to boost the party’s faltering election campaign.

But the donation is being challenged by renegade unionist Dean Mighell, who leads the union’s electrical sub-branch. Mr Mighell was granted an injunction against the donation.  

HUH ? OBAMA’S FATHER(S) WENT TO WAR ?

From a supporter: It surfaced on the internet that Barak Obama claimed in a campaign speech that his father served in WW ll. See link below for video in which he makes this claim. Maybe this is why his handlers insist on his using a teleprompter whenever possible.

His father(s):
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Obama's father) Born 4/4/36… Died 11/24/82 at the age of 46. He was 5 years old when WW II started, and less than 9.5 years old when it ended. |
Lolo Soetoro (Obama's step father). Born 1935. Died 3/2/87 at the age of 52. He was 6 years old when WW II started, and 10 years old when it ended.
One of these men must have been the youngest Veteran in the WWII !!!! Beware he who stretches the truth about the seemingly inconsequential things because this tendency carries over to the big stuff. Nobody... certainly not the press... calls him on these lies, and that's a shame, too.

Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv4jnlkxOaw

Wikipedia records:
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was born in 1936 in Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya and died in a car crash in Nairobi, Kenya in 1982, leaving three wives, six sons and a daughter. All but one of his children live in Britain or the United States. One of the brothers died in 1984. He is buried in the village of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya.
Lolo Soetoro also known as Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo or Mangundikardjo, (EYD: Lolo Sutoro), ca. 1935-2 March 1987) was the Indonesian stepfather of Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States of America.

THE MAKINGS OF A WORLD POLICE FORCE?

Source: The Independent https://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardai-get-new-powers-to-tackle-terrorists-overseas-2281787.html?service=Print

“Gardai get new powers to tackle terrorists overseas by Tom Brady Security Editor, 3/8/2010: Highly trained members of the Garda's elite squad - the Emergency Response Unit - could be deployed on foreign streets as a result of a change in the law. The legislative measure, currently being drafted, will allow the ERU to be dispatched to another European state to help local police tackle a terrorist or criminal-related crisis. It will also give the go-ahead for the authorities here to request the assistance of a special intervention unit from another European force if this country is confronted by a similar crisis…”