BEYOND OUR ROTTEN AND CORRUPT UNIVERSITIES

by James Reed
I am pleased to have received many letters of support for my thesis that universities are so rotten and corrupt that they need to be closed. But to sell this idea to the Australian public we need to operationalise things a bit. What I am suggesting is that since universities no longer meet their traditional role as places where free thought takes place, but are now migrant recruiting centres for Asians, funding from governments cease. All arts and social sciences will be closed down and their decadent lecturers sacked. Their superannuation should be ceased under a special Act of Parliament and the money used to help homeless Australians, Aborigines and all the people left-wingers championed.

The sciences can be made into research and teaching centres. The remaining core of the university buildings could serve as independent research and teaching schools. Medicine and doctoring could be taught in the hospitals. Law could be taught by Law Societies as a practical skill, not an academic one dominated by fat-cat feminists. All of the extensive ovals and playing fields could be made into public parks and playgrounds. Australia would be a better place for it.

Meanwhile perhaps we need a campaign at the grass roots level, not to employ university graduates. As one great supporter wrote: “Show me a modern-day uni grad and I’ll show you a puffed-up lout incapable of defending, even in conversation, his race or his nation”. So true. University parasites have been attacking traditional Anglo Australia for decades. It’s high time they got a serve - and sacking and closure is the way.

ANYHOW HAVE A STEAK !

by John Steele
Red-blooded, hairy-chested men like me, love meat. By “meat” I don’t mean processed sandwich meat or hot dogs and the like – even sausages. I mean real meat – big steaks – juicy – eaten with all the healthy salads you like. But isn’t that a recipe for heart disease? Not according to some authorities. Harvard scientists have published a study in the medical journal “Circulation” which conducted a “meta study” of 20 other studies which looked at the red meat issue.

It comers down to this: processed meats like hot dogs, sausages and bacon are bad for you re: heart disease and type 2 diabetes. However red meat, especially from grass-fed animals rather than grain-fed, was not found to be associated with either heart disease or type 2 diabetes. Grass-fed organic beef, lacking antibiotics and hormones, was the best yet. So, to paraphrase the Paul Hogan cigarette ads from an era now past : “Anyhow, have a steak!” And that’s good news for the farmers!  

ING DUTCH BANK RIDICULES QUEEN IN ADVERTISEMENT

From: Philip Benwell, National Chairman Australian Monarchist League:
The words ‘ever vigilant’ should, if not already, be imprinted on the minds of all monarchists. So, perhaps, should the phrase, ‘it never rains but it pours’. This time it is the Dutch banking group ING who, in their latest advertising, (The ING advert appeared in the Daily Telegraph 17/8/2010) have the audacity to deface an Australian $5 note to ridicule the Queen, putting her into large hair-rollers. For what purpose, other than denigration of our Sovereign, I do not know.
What I do know, it that we must express our indignation. If you have funds with ING, please tell your local manager that you are outraged at this vilification of the Queen. How would ING like it if the same thing were done to Queen Beatrix?

Whether you have funds with the bank or not, you can express your concerns about this insult by writing, phoning or emailing as below demanding that ING immediately remove this advertisement and apologise for their insult to the Queen of Australia.

You can write to: Mr Don Koch, Chief Executive Officer ING DIRECT Reply Paid 2682, Sydney NSW 2001 :
By phoning Freecall: 133 464 :
By using the email form at: https://www.ingdirect.com.au/Secure/forms/saving_enquiry.aspx  

THE “PROFITEERS OF HATE” NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS !

by Chris Knight
Although this issue is a little distant to Australian readers, the Spring 2010 edition of “The Social Contract” (www.thesocialcontract.com) is devoted to deconstructing and debunking the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Editor Dr. Wayne Lutton goes on the attack on the very first page saying that while there have been over 20 Islamist terrorist plots in the US, the Southern Poverty Law Center “dishonestly insists that Tea Partiers and “militias” are the real danger”.

The SPLC claims to be a watchdog over “hate groups and racial extremists throughout the United States”. SPLC has programmes which cash in on “black pain and white guilt”. Masses of money is raised in fundraising to combat ‘white racism’ and ‘anti-semitism’.
Reason magazine of March 3, 2010 has said: “The Southern Poverty Law Center would paint a box of Wheaties as an extremist threat if it thought that would help it raise funds”. I could go on, but interested readers can easily access the on-line version, and be thankful that our opponents here are not as well organised as that … yet.  

JENUINE JULIA AND THE SPIN OF LABOR’S WITCH DOCTORS

Political elections are just so false these days, surely more and more Australians are seeing through the lies, spin, and more damned lies and spin . Whatever the makeup of the new Federal Parliament, Australians are going to face the continued push for more centralised power, more ‘climate change’ propaganda and push for a carbon currency and taxes for the UN, more and more increases in utility charges and tax hikes, more flooding of the country with migrants, less social stability and of course the push for a socialist’s republic.
We can only hope that more and more Australians come to realise just what a farce the political system has become – and take some of the responsibility upon themselves for the state of affairs. It is time to bring your local representative to account – be he/she federal, state or local, government.

We hope Australian voters took Louis Cook’s recent comments seriousl:
“Voting in elections should be seen as a deadly serious business it is not a “game-show” or some type of pantomime with “good guys and bad guys”. You are voting for someone who will make decisions on your behalf, someone who will make decisions affecting your personal, financial, religious and cultural freedoms, and if these freedoms are infringed then you MUST take some of the blame yourself….
Will you vote for more of the same or will you take some responsibility for the state of the nation and try something different? Make the candidates in your electorate earn your vote by making them responsible for their actions.
Your purpose should be to break up the power bases of the major political parties if you must vote, alternatively you could place the sitting member last in the House of Representatives and whatever you do make sure to vote for a different party in the Senate.
If you are concerned about the "immigration invasion" then you (should have) let your feelings be known by writing "reduce immigration" on the ballot paper where it would not interfere with your vote.”

Now read on - Source: Tim Blair Blog, Tuesday, August 17, 2010 at 06:59am: http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/jenuine_julia : "To nationwide astonishment, Julia Gillard yesterday delivered a 40-minute campaign speech – without notes! Labor health minister Nicola Roxon was amazed:
She’s amazing not to need notes or anything to do this sort of thing and I think that has actually highlighted what we stand for.

You’re right, Nicola, but not quite in the way you might imagine. The press (and others) shared Roxon’s awe:
• Reuters: “speaking without notes”
• Crikey‘s Bernard Keane: “The Prime Minister’s speech – given off-the-cuff”
• The Ten network’s Paul Bongiorno: “without notes”
• The Australian‘s Matthew Franklin: “Speaking off the cuff”
• The SMH’s Lenore Taylor: “no teleprompters, no notes”
• Dow Jones: “Gillard’s 40-minute off-the-cuff speech”
• The Herald Sun‘s Alison Rehn: “without notes or autocue”
• AFP: “speaking without notes”
• The ABC’s Heather Ewart: “she proceeded to speak off the cuff”
• The Australian‘s Dennis Shanahan: “she spoke without notes”
• AFP: “speaking without notes”
• The SMH’s Mark Davis and Jacqueline Maley: “The PM is apparently speaking off the cuff, with no auto-cue. She’s being real-as, bro.”
• The ABC’s Nick Harmsen: “The Prime Minister spoke without notes”
• South Australian Labor Premier Mike Rann: “Extraordinary performance by PM in off the cuff speech at Brisbane launch.”
• And the Age‘s Michael Gordon – in a piece headlined “The day the heart replaced the spin doctors” – had the finest line of them all: “Julia Gillard threw away the script for modern election launches yesterday when she spoke off the cuff for 40 minutes”

Far from it. Labor spin doctors gamed the entire press pack, as Tony Wright revealed: Ms Gillard used neither autocue nor notes, a point drilled into the large media contingent by her minders. And rather than throwing the script away, it was placed on the lectern just prior to Gillard’s speech – as can be seen in this clip at the 2:11 point:

The script placement is shown more clearly here at 23 seconds, although this was missed by many on Twitter:
• “It was pretty impressive that Gillard did her ALP launch speech without an auto cue or notes.”
• “Gillard finishes live campaign launch with no notes & no teleprompter”
• “Seriously impressed with the way Gillard can talk for so long without reference to notes.”
• “OMG, Julia Gillard is speaking without notes. How does she do that? On a nationally broadcast launch. Awesome x10”
• “Gillard is doing well speaking without checking notes”
• “Julia Gillard will be speaking at launch extemporaneously. No prompter, no notes.”
• “PM Gillard to speak off the cuff, with no written speech or notes.”

Killing this myth is going to take some work. The ABC’s Annabel Crabb made an early attempt: The rumour was that she would be unsupported even by written notes, and this seemingly was confirmed by La Gillardine’s ascent, empty-handed, to the stage.
As it happens, a written version of her speech awaited her at the lectern, but the suggestion of spontaneity had by that stage already been successfully contrived, and much was made afterward of Ms Gillard’s skill in speaking off-the-cuff….”
Also http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/ Julia’s missing notes turn up on her lectern  

WHY DID LABOR HAVE SUCH A LATE OFFICIAL ‘LAUNCH ?

Why, because up to the time of the official launch the expenses for the PM could be charged to you the taxpayer – after that it had to come out of Labor’s own coffers. So thank you fellow Australian – we all helped pay for Labor’s spin and extravagance.  

GOOGLE BOSS WARNS ON SOCIAL USE OF MEDIA

Source: BBC News, 18 August 2010 - Google’s boss, Mr Eric Schmidt said society needed to think about the consequences of having so much data online.
Young people may one day have to change their names in order to escape their previous online activity, Google boss Eric Schmidt has warned. Mr Schmidt told the Wall Street Journal he feared they did not understand the consequences of having so much personal information about them online.

The firm has been busy bolstering its social networking presence recently. Google has acquired Slide and Jambool, two firms specialising in providing services for social networks. Slide is a gaming firm, whilst Jambool provides virtual currencies and payments. Google has also reportedly invested in another social network gaming firm called Zynga.

Many believe the acquisitions are a sign that the search giant is about to launch another social network. Some commentators have already given the rumoured product a name: Google.me. It already owns two other social networks; Google Buzz, launched in February 2010 and its first foray known as Orkut. Buzz proved controversial when it linked up with people's Gmail accounts without asking their consent, meaning that their contacts were publicly visible.

Young folly: On his prediction that people may change their names, Mr Schmidt said:
"I don't believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by everyone all the time... I mean we really have to think about these things as a society."  

A PHILOSOPHY AND CULTURE OF LIFE – OR DEATH ?

Readers will remember the article by James Reed “Scandalous Disregard for Most Things Beyond Re-Election” (OT Vol46 No31. James expressed his disgust at the Victorian Abortion Law Reform Act 2008, which allows abortion of unborn babes, even right up to birth, resulting in late-term babies being born alive and then (presumably) left to die. As James observed “that is murder”.

It is not as though we as a community, a nation, cannot produce enough to feed and clothe and house these aborted babies. We could. What is lacking is the insight and the will to investigate how to distribute our production so that expectant mothers would be secure in the knowledge that when the little life they carry in their womb is born into this world, it will be provided for.

All that is lacking is the policy stemming from a Philosophy for Life and life more abundant. In any case, whatever happened to adoption for the ones who don’t want to keep their babe?  

WHAT ABOUT THE TOTALLY DEFENCELESS CHILD’S RIGHT TO LIVE?

Another male, Wallace Klinck of Canada, has also expressed his opinion to other ‘pro-choicers’ - this time in the USA. A campaign manager for a politician wrote to him:
"Dear Wallace: This election presents one of the clearest choices in the nation -- on jobs, health care, Wall Street reform, climate change, and so many other issues. But one of the starkest contrasts is on a woman's right to choose:
Barbara Boxer is one of the Senate's leaders in protecting a woman's right to choose, while Carly Fiorina wants to take away that choice…. Carly Fiorina says she's a "real pro-life candidate." And Fiorina says she "absolutely would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade." Meanwhile, more than 70% of Californians describe themselves as pro-choice. There's no doubt about it: Fiorina is wrong on choice, and she's wrong for California. Now we need to make sure that everyone who cares about a woman's right to choose knows where Fiorina stands…."

To which Wally replied:
Dear …..,
I am afraid that I am not in agreement. A woman's right to choose – what ? She certainly has a right to choose with whom she is going to associate and the basis upon which she is able freely to do so. Having made such choice she (and, of course, the other party) surely must accept and bear responsibility as to consequences of such a relationship, especially when a third party is involved.
My concern here is that there seems to be one little omission with regard to the "woman's right to choose" advocacy: What about the totally defenceless child's right to choose? I could only consider abortion in some extreme medical case where life appeared to be clearly at risk or perhaps where the woman had been forced beyond her wishes in a manner that resulted in a pregnancy. But even then, I find it very difficult to play God in choosing who shall live and who shall die.
I fail to understand why the child should be made to pay the supreme sacrifice because of some factor external to its control. So far as abortion by choice as a matter of "convenience" is concerned I think this is totally self-centred, self-indulgent and immoral - something equivalent to pre-meditated murder which only a person of psychopathic personality, without ethics or compassion, could even contemplate.
Surely the sacred duty of any adult is to protect a child who has no means of self-preservation or defence. I would think that any "normal" person would have a compelling empathy in this regard.
As a non-citizen, of course, I will have no role to play in the matter insofar as U.S. political decisions are concerned and offer no opinions regarding your opponent, Carly Farina. But you have communicated and this is my reply based upon principles applied in the context of love as I understand the matter, quite apart from consideration of personalities.  

TARIQ AZIZ SAYS WEST MISJUDGED SADDAM HUSSEIN

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-10888385 :
Former Iraqi deputy PM Tariq Aziz has staunchly defended Saddam Hussein in an interview with The Guardian newspaper. Interviewed by the UK daily in his north Bagdad, Iraq prison cell, Aziz said the West was wrong about the former Iraqi president. "He is a man who history will show served his country," he said, adding that Iraq was now much worse off.
He also criticised US President Barack Obama for pushing forward with the US troop withdrawal, saying he was "leaving Iraq to the wolves". Former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz was the face of Saddam Hussein's regime on the world stage for many years.

In his first interview since he was captured shortly after the fall of Baghdad more than seven years ago, Aziz said that pulling out US combat troops before the country was stable would be lethal for Iraq. "We are all victims of America and Britain," he was quoted as saying. "They killed our country in many ways. When you make a mistake you need to correct a mistake, not leave Iraq to its death."

He also said that Iraq was in a much worse state now than when Saddam Hussein was leading the country. "For 30 years Saddam built Iraq and now it is destroyed. There are more sick than before, more hungry. The people don't have services. People are being killed every day in the tens, if not hundreds. I was encouraged when [Obama] was elected president, because I thought he was going to correct some of the mistakes of Bush. But Obama is a hypocrite. He is leaving Iraq to the wolves."

Aziz claimed that even during the time when Iraq was subject to UN-enforced sanctions and the oil-for-food programme, the country was stable and Iraqis were properly fed. "Even during the time of sanctions, which is a difficult time in the life of any country, every day, every man, woman and child was taking 2,000 calories per day."

Churchill comparison: With his fluent English, trademark black-rimmed glasses and Cuban cigars, Aziz first came to world prominence while serving as foreign minister during the first Gulf War in 1991.
In his interview with The Guardian, Aziz claimed he tried to persuade Saddam Hussein not to invade Kuwait in 1991, because it would lead Iraq into a war with the US. "I asked Saddam Hussein not to invade Kuwait," he said.
"But I had to support the decision of the majority. When the decision was taken, I said to him this is going to lead to war with the US, and it is not in our interests to wage war against the US. But the decision was taken. I was the foreign minister of the country and I had to defend the country and do everything possible to explain our position. I stayed on the side of right."

Aziz also said he loved and respected his former leader and refused to condemn him for decisions he made. "Didn't Churchill make mistakes? Didn't Brown make mistakes?" he asked. However, in one cryptic remark he seemed to imply that his loyal view of Saddam Hussein's leadership was not the full picture.
"If I speak now about regrets, people will view me as an opportunist. I will not speak against Saddam until I am a free man. Wisdom is part of freedom. When I am free and can write the truth, I can even speak against my best friend," he said.