ANZAC DAY – "CHINESE POPPIES CAUSE RIFT" LETTER TO EDITOR:

I consider it ludicrous that some people are complaining about the Anzac Day poppies being made in China. After all, the Anzac soldiers who died in Gallipolli were mowed down by bullets the British arms manufacturer Vickers had sold to the Turks just prior to the conflict. Surely, national boundaries should not be allowed to interfere with trade and profits.
- - Erwin Alber, Warkworth New Zealand Sunday Herald (NZ), 24 April 2011.

Editor’s comment: The League of Rights held a ‘Flag, Crown and Constitution’ stand at the Adelaide Royal Show for quite a number of years and the only Australian flags we could buy were made in communist China. Oh well! Maybe the time is coming when our defence needs can be bought only in China too - along with their nuclear warheads, tanks, guns and standing armies! You don’t think they have armed themselves to the hilt because they like to look good during May Day Military Parades – do you?  

CHINESE WARSHIPS HEADING FOR OUR PORTS?

The Sydney Morning Herald reports: CHINESE warships could be heading to Australian ports this year after the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, took "a few small steps" towards military transparency and co-operation with President Hu Jintao. Ms Gillard told the Herald last night her key meeting with Mr Hu was "friendly in demeanour".
Western defence analysts are also concerned about the potential for a maritime accident triggering war, given China's increasingly assertive conduct and the absence of the kind of maritime incident protocols that defused incidents between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Ms Gillard said neither Mr Hu nor the Premier, Wen Jiabao, raised any concerns about Australia's military relationships with the US, or its allies, and nor did she raise concerns about the People's Liberation Army.
Instead, Ms Gillard and Mr Hu yesterday moved to build greater military co-operation including livefire exercises at sea and Chinese warships dock in Australia. Read more...

AS PROMISED, ERIC DUDLEY BUTLER’S WW2 SERVICE RECORD HERE…

Refer to “Adams Spews Forth His Vitriol…”  

CAPITALISM, MARTIANS AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER

by Nero (of Mars)
How could my old Marxist buddy Hugo Chavez down there in Venezuela be so stupid and let the cat out of the bag? Well, the Martian. The silly old commo said in a moment of weakness, while waxing lyrical about diminishing water resources, that perhaps civilisation had existed on Mars but capitalism and imperialism may have finished it off. Well, he was on the right track.

As one of the last of the Martians living here on Earth and walking among you in disguise, let me tell you that we killed ourselves off just as you are doing – through economic suicide, bringing in masses of indigestible guest workers from Jupiter and taking in asylum seekers from Uranus. In the end, liberalism, multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism just eroded our planet away until nothing was left but a burnt out mass of red sand.
And you my friends are going the same way. My fellow Martian, Julia Gillad (Julia the Red, we used to call her) will, unfortunately, see to that.  

THE CAMP OF THE SAINTS: SOON TO PLAY AT A SUBURB NEAR YOU!

by James Reed
Jean Raspail’s novel "The Camp of the Saints" – about the immigration swamping of Europe – appears to be occurring across the West. Thus we find, even in the Murdoch press, the article “No Stemming the Wave of Boats” (The Australian, 29 March, 2011, p.1) which begins:
“Boatloads of refugees are arriving on Australia’s northern coast. It is being described as an invasion and a flood and there is talk of the “yellow peril”. However the boatloads of refugees are not Asian but Middle Eastern although the quoted description referred to the 1977 influx of Vietnamese boatpeople. With the Labor government dropping Howard’s “Pacific solution”, which processed asylum seekers in Nauru and Manus Islands, the trickle of boats has reached flood proportions as “people smuggling appears to be an unstoppable force”. This is of course true so long as Australia is seen as a “soft touch”.

The present wave of asylum seekers are primarily illegal migrants rather than refugees. Greg Sheridan (“ALP Goes to Water as Boats Threaten Sovereignty”, The Australian, 24 March, 2011, p.14) is right on this issue. Present ALP “soft touch” policy has led to an increase in asylum-seeker applications to Australia by 76%.
In the West in 2009 there was a decline in asylum-seeker applications but not for Australia. Sheridan notes that about 45% of our illegal aliens had spent over three months outside of their country of origin and of that 45%, 88% of them had spent a year. Thus there was a no ‘UN-derived flight from persecution’. These people just want to migrate to Australia.
But as I see it, the message given by the ‘Big Australia’ ideology which fuels our legal migration program is that Australia is largely empty and welcomes migrants, providing, I should add, that these migrants are not white. Australia has gone from the White Australia Policy to the Non-White Australian Policy.

In Europe the National Front’s Marine Le Pen’s popularity has arisen because many Europeans feel that a Camp of the Saints scenario is being played out. Thus boats containing hundreds of Africans set sail for Europe not containing refugees but people wanting a better life. (“'Biblical Exodus' from Africa Feeds Anti-Immigration Rhetoric”, March 17, 2011, at https://www.bloomberg.com/news...) Why then stop these boats?

Libya’s Gaddafi (Daily News, 7 March 2011) put his finger on the spot when he said: “There are millions of blacks who could come to the Mediterranean to cross to France and Italy and Libya plays a role in securing the Mediterranean”. His son added: “Libya may become the Somalia of North Africa, of the Mediterranean. You will see the pirates of Sicily, in Crete, in Lampedusa. You will see millions of illegal immigrants. The terror will be next door”.

I am beyond believing that our slave masters are mistaken in their cosmopolitan ideology and are blinded to the logical consequences of their policies. On the contrary, I think that they know that ecological/national disaster does lie in store. They welcome this even though it means their own destruction as our civilisation crumbles from the multitude of crises confronting us. I think that they are nihilists who are bored with riches and want to die, so long as the entire planet crashes with them.  

MULTICULTURALISM AND ISLAM: WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG, GREG?

by James Reed
It is not too hard to find true-believers in Australian immigration and multiculturalism. Thus in the A Sustainable Population for Australia Issues Paper, in the Demographic Change and Liveability Panel Report, chaired by Professor Graeme Hugo of the University of Adelaide we find:

“Australia has experienced a profound transformation since World War II from an overwhelmingly Anglo-Celtic society to one of the most multicultural of nations… This diversity has delivered many dividends to the Australian economy, society and culture and the presence of significant communities from over 100 countries in Australia has ‘hardwired’ Australia into the global economy. Much remains to be done in terms of social inclusion of Australia’s diverse communities”. (p.43) (“We have a problem and not just with African beauty contests” says Andrew Bolt.

There it is in a nutshell. An uncritical acceptance of the demographic displacement of Anglo-Celts, the connection of multi-ethnicism to globalisation and the social agenda of multiculturalism. Of course there is no mention of the costs of this program of dispossessing the once majority ethnic group of Australia.

What about ethnic crime gangs? Well here the standard view is that “ethnic crime waves break as new communities settle in” (“Migrant Groups Going Gang Busters”, The Australian, 9 March 2011, p.11) and it is all because the migrant groups experience “a lack of social and economic services and moral support” (“Lack of Proper Support for New Migrants ‘Fuels Ethnic-Based Crime Surges”, The Australian, 8 March, 2011, p.3) Thus, ethnic groups are not more criminally inclined but rather they don’t get enough benefits. Incredible: the benefits received today outweigh those given to other groups in history who did not form ethno-racial crime groups. Other ethno-racial crime groups belong to ethno-racial groups who have performed well economically, but have these groups deeply entrenched within their society.

Greg Sheridan, “How I Lost Faith in Multiculturalism”, The Weekend Australian (Inquirer), 2-3 April, 2011 begins with the large quote: “A middle-aged white woman emerged alone from the station. Two strong young men of Middle Eastern appearance began taunting her before spitting at her and walking away laughing. She wiped the spittle off of her face and hurried off.” Sheridan begins by saying that he had supported multiculturalism for decades but now believes that the “European experience” has shown that this policy is “doomed to fail”. Sheridan believes that there is a problem with large-scale Muslim migration: “the only people who don’t think there is a problem with Islam are those who live on some other planet”, he says.
As numbers grow, Australia may have the same problems that are now seen in Europe. It is interesting to note that a “Robert Manne” of Melbourne (The Australian, 4 April, 2011, p.15) who may or not be the Professor Robert Manne, attempts to refute Sheridan by the philosophical trick of replacing “Middle Eastern” in his opening quote by “Jewish”. Then we have the anti-Semitic statement that the white woman was spat on by “Two strong men of Jewish appearance”. Then seemingly victorious Manne concludes, “Such a quote would not have been out of place in Julius Streicher’s notorious anti-semitic Nazi periodical, Der Stuermer”. But would it be anti-Semitic to say this if it was true? And in any case, it was not Jews who did the spitting, but “Two strong men’ of “Middle Eastern appearance”. Manne’s criticism of Sheridan therefore fails.

This is an interesting observation because Sheridan has been a conservative anti-racist, a critic of Pauline Hanson who essentially made the same criticism of Multiculturalism. In any case, Sheridan is essentially adopting the common sense approach to multiculturalism that Professor Blainey adopted. Further, Islam migration is the logical conclusion of the same “Big Australia” immigration that Sheridan has championed. And if he is right about Islam, then this is a reductio ad absurdum of his entire position.

Let the “debate” begin! Those who want to dig deeper should consider Dr Frank Ellis’ review of Thilo Sarrazin’s Germany Abolishes Itself
There Ellis critically examines the philosophy uncritically adopted in the Hugo quotation above namely that “the political establishments of virtually all Western States have abandoned, with complete disregard for the legitimate fears and well being of their own indigenous populations, any form of immigration controls.” Sheridan has only scratched the surface of a larger “debate” but of course the mainstream media wont go there.  

RINEHART’S CALL FOR CHEAP ASIAN LABOUR

by James Reed
Here is the true face of Australian capitalism. Australia’s richest woman, Gina Rinehart, has called for thousands of unskilled “guest workers” from Asia to help in mining in Australia’s north. (“Rinehart Calls for Asian Guest Workers”, The Australian, 10 March, 2011, p.5) And better yet she describes her proposal to bring in cheap labour as a “humanitarian” move aimed at helping poverty stricken people in Asia”.

Now, wait a minute Gina! Isn’t mining now a high tech industry employing things called … machines? Aren’t the days of the pick and shovel out? Wouldn’t the migrants just shoot through to the cities – unless the proposal is to wire them in? And if you are so “humanitarian”, why take “cheap” labour – why not pay decent wages to help the Asian poor? What then, would be the point?  

WHOSE LAND? ‘NATIVE TITLE’ REVEALING IT’S NOT THEIRS?

by Betty Luks
A video showing a rowdy meeting between Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest, multi-billionaire WA corporate miner and a remote Pilbara Aboriginal community ‘went viral’ over the internet. "Native Title Swindle"
Thanks to another internet search, many articles and statements revealed much. Main characters are: Michael Woodley, who is leading a campaign against Fortescue Metals Group head Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest. Michael and his community are challenging the legitimacy of the mining leases held by Fortescue over half the Yindjibarndi tribal country.

The leases were granted last year by the West Australian government before the company had reached agreement on compensation with the Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation, whose members are registered as legal traditional owners under federal native title law. These members have asked the full bench of the Federal Court to declare that the leases were invalidly granted by a WA government minister in 2010. A judgment is due later this year.

According to Australian National University Professor Jon Altman
“The state government has abandoned Aboriginal people, leaving them to unfairly negotiate multi-million dollar deals with mining corporations and their armies of lawyers.” Professor Jon Altman has dedicated his career to researching the native title rights for Australia's indigenous community, focusing on their compensation negotiations with mining companies.

He said West Australian indigenous people were in dire need of professional advice and support in the form of an informed independent body, or even the state government, to assist them in negotiating with large corporations.”
"The heart of this problem is that in any negotiations those native title groups are in a very weak position. They're finding out that they don't have these exclusive rights to the land. They cannot stop him, only negotiate terms and conditions."

Could we say that Aboriginal lands under Native Title have been effectively ‘corporatised’?

Read more here :

FREEHOLD TITLE UNDER THE CROWN

A number of years ago at a public meeting held in the Arkaba Hotel, Adelaide, a question was put to Constitutional authority Dr. David Mitchell on Aboriginal Land Rights: "Under Land Rights legislation, do the Aboriginal people have title to the land in the same way the owners of this hotel have freehold title? His answer was, "it is not clear!" The Aboriginal people probably did believe they had freehold title to the land but are discovering the legal situation is not quite so straightforward.

In August 2004 ‘Dave’ Barton wrote to Labor’s Mark Latham to clarify a point that he had issue with which would also be of much interest and concern to all freehold property owners in this land – should the push for a republic succeed. https://alor.org/Volume40/Vol40No34.htm

Dear Mr. Latham, Leader of the Opposition: 9th August, 2004.
I have heard you state publicly that you are personally in favour of Australia becoming a republic, and that in the event of yourself becoming Prime Minister, you would initiate a referendum on the matter within a few years of obtaining that office. I understand that at present all land titles in Australia stem from a foundational title derived from the "Crown". I also understand that since the "Mabo" and "Wik" cases in the High Court, Native Title has been firmly established as a foundational title, though at present not strong enough to replace the foundational Crown Title.

I also have a further understanding based on what I believe to be sound legal advice, that in the event of Australia becoming a republic on the abolishment of the Crown Title, before any foundational title based on a republic can be put into place, even be it less time than a nanosecond, that on the removal of the Crown foundational title Native Title immediately, and automatically slips into the place of the Crown Title as the foundational title for future land titles in Australia!

I have a question: Will you fully inform the people of Australia of how Native Title will replace the Crown Title as the basic foundational title of all land titles in Australia, on the advent of Australia becoming a Republic BEFORE the question of Australia becoming a Republic is placed before the Australian people at a referendum? An answer to my question, before the campaign for the coming Federal Election gets fully underway would be very much appreciated.
- - Yours faithfully, John David Sterling Barton, Collarenebri, NSW.

Surely it is a question all Australians should be putting to those wanting a republic.  

A STRONG RECOMMENDATION FOR JACK LANG’S BOOK “WHY I FIGHT”

by Peter Davis
For many years I have wondered how Adolf Hitler financed ruined Germany of the early thirties to build the amazing fighting machine that became Nazi Germany in about 7 years. Similarly, I have long wondered about the dismissal of the N.S.W. Lang Government due to its refusal to accept The Premiers' Plan' that resulted in our Great Depression of the early thirties. "Jack" Lang's book provides remarkable insights, in particular, the destruction of the peoples' bank, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, and its privatisation.

Over the years I have read many books relating to the world private banking system. Given that Lang's book was written over 75 years ago, I have no hesitation recommending it to any person desiring knowledge of world finance and trade, together with the negative impact upon individual nations. The book is a treasure trove of intimate precise knowledge. For example, how many people then or even now would believe that The Bank of England had a close relationship with re-establishing the German economy and banking system. This it did at the same time it imposed the restricted credit and high interest rate policy upon Australia under the guise of "The Premiers' Plan" that Jack Lang fought to defeat, but was himself evicted from Government.... At a time when Australia had no debt owing to the Bank of England.

Lang details the colossal profits flowing to various banks and associated companies, their interlocking directorships and huge negative impact upon Australia over many years. Remember, we are talking 75 years ago. He details the methods Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to reduce the impact of the depression on Americans; but failed to take the decisive step of regaining control of his Nation's credit creation arid interest rates resulting in the debacle of the now current unrepayable $13 TRILLION national debt.

Lang meticulously demonstrates that a nation that does not control its own currency, interest rates and credit creation is NOT a Sovereign Government but is held in thrall to the private banking system. The book should be compulsory reading for every student of economics and finance. Repeatedly, the book is prescient. Lang shows that private banking debt becomes impossible to repay with huge negative impact upon our nation.

First time in modern history, the People took on the government and the banks!
The current predicament of Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal are good examples. But the outstanding one is Iceland, where its Government recently refinanced their huge national debt with more private banking credit. But Iceland's constitution gave their people the right to take an issue to a national Referendum - and they did.
The government were intent on bailing out the UK and Netherlands governments who had covered the deposits of British and Dutch investors lost in the Icesave bank collapse in 2008. At the time of the (private) bank’s failure, Iceland refused to cover the losses. But the UK and Netherlands demanded that Iceland repay them for the “loan” as a condition for admission into the European Union.
On April 9, the fiercely independent people of this island-nation defeated the referendum and in effect told Europe to go pound sand!

Article explaining the Iceland situation here… (“Now for an Angle with a Populist Tilt”: https://alor.org/Volume47/Vol47No15.htm#1a) Jeremy Lee's book “Australia 2000: What will we tell our children ?" explained what Jack Lang, former NSW premier wrote about 75 years ago. PLEASE BUY THE BOOK AND DISTRIBUTE IT WIDELY. Price $28.00 plus postage.

Further: As an aside, perhaps it is worth pointing out what a Trillion dollars represents. Let us use the current 2010/11 Adelaide phone book. It contains 1250 pages.
Thus one million pages [or dollars) would require a stack of directories 800 copies high.
ONE billion dollars, [or copies) would require 1,000,000 stacks, each 800 high.
ONE TRILLION copies, [for dollars] requires one thousand stacks each containing 1,000,000 stacks of 800 directories. Thus the current steady demise of the American dollar!

What "Jack" Lang detailed 75 years ago, Jeremy Lee has similarly defined in his book, "Australia 2000: What will we tell our Children?" PLEASE BUY J.T. LANG'S BOOK AND DISTRIBUTE IT WIDELY. Both books are invaluable.  

NOT FOR THOSE WITH SENSITIVE STOMACHS

by James Reed
Dear diary, Tuesday March 29, 2011, got out of bed dizzy and feeling crook in the guts. Decided to skip breakfast. Felt like a dog. Decided to read The Australian – thought that it might resolve my stomach problem. There to my…my… “horror” (footnote, Apocalypse Now) was a full colour picture of PM Gillard about to put her mouth over Bob Hawke’s! (or so it seemed), perhaps to give him oxygen? And there in the background we have Mal Fraser grinning. Did he get such a greeting from Madame Gillardene?

Underneath the mother of all photos we find Transport Minister Anthony Albanese saying in criticism of Tony Abbot “The incoming Premier of NSW would never share a platform with Pauline Hanson”. Abbott’s sin, it seems, was being in the same place and same time as Pauline Hanson at the anti-carbon tax rally.
Now that takes political correctness to a new level! Now you can’t even be in the same place at the same time with those that the Establishment don’t like. Interestingly enough, next to all this in The Australian is “Hanson Still a Chance for Seat”, that at that time Hanson was still in the running for a seat in the NSW upper house. How does that make her a fringe dweller, or are those Australians who voted for her fringe dwellers as well?  

THE DISENCHANTMENT OF LAW: THE CASE AGAINST LAWYERS

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Not having borrowing rights I was condemned to sit in the university library, in the spot where I spent so much time as a student, reading Steven Smith’s The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse (2010) and Catherine Crier, The Case Against Lawyers (2002). The noise of the law students is extremely irritating; in my day libraries were quiet places, but now group working is encouraged, no doubt part of the socialist agenda. Steven Smith is a high-flying US professor of law and in his book he develops a devastating philosophical critique of legal reasoning. He sets out to show that even at the level of the US Supreme Court, “the actual quality of reasoning is almost invariably thin, conclusory and disappointing”. (p.9)

Quoting Robert Nagel, he says that US, and probably most common law courts, “have become places where the name-calling and exaggeration that mark the lower depths of our political debate are simply given a more acceptable, authoritative form” (p.9). The same degradation is found, Smith believes, in legal scholarship and he agrees with judge and law professor Richard Posner that much legal scholarship is “trivial, ephemeral and soon forgotten”. The same, of course, can be said about much “scholarship” right throughout the modern university. Thus Smith sees our public discourse as degraded. He has not much to offer as a solution, merely advocating “openness” (p.225), a disappointing conclusion after 225 pages of sustained attack upon the foundations of legal discourse.

Catherine Crier’s "The Case Against Lawyers", is a difficult book to open because the cover features a photograph of her – beautiful, well groomed, conservative and radiating intellect. Womanhood at its very best. Her book is not a foundational treatise like Smith’s but a practical guide as to how the legal profession have harmed society, primarily focusing on the United States, with its culture of litigation excess. Here, Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" (1840) essentially was ahead of his time when he said:
“Lawyers in the United States form a power that…envelops society as a whole, penetrates into each of the classes that compose it, works in secret, acts constantly on it without its knowing and in the end models it to its own desires.”

Crier devotes the last chapter of her book to how Americans can take back their country from the lawyers. This involves restoring personal responsibility so socialistic style principles like joint and several liability (defendants end up paying for someone else’s conduct) and the restoration of assumption of risk needs to be made. Missing from both books, as good as they are, is the recognition that law is not sui generis, but is largely a by product of social processes, a reflection of society. If law is rotten it is because our society is starting to decay and law simply goes with it. Legal reforms advocated by Crier will do little unless we first reclaim our nation. We have to regain the will to resist tyranny.  

THE "DIRT THREAT" OF FOLEY

Ah, politics, dirty one day, filthy the next! (“Foley Threatens Dirty as Things Get Personal”, The Australian, 10 March 2011, p.8) South Australian Police Minister Kevin Foley said that he will get dirty on the dirt that he saw as state treasurer.
Others warned that his own personal life could be targeted. That looked interesting and I have waited for the dirt fight to begin – but alas, silence. Such is politics, full of Mexican standoffs.