CHINESE STUDENTS: PREGNANT, ABORTED, LIVING IN FEAR

by James Reed
Visited Adelaide recently and caught up with Len the Cleaner. On that day The Australian had the headline: “Lecturer ‘solicited’ sex, cash for marks” (p.3), a sorry tale of a Melbourne lecturer who exploited female Asian international students. I was walking down a street and came upon a young Asian man with a protest sign. I asked him about his protest. It seems that some other individual is likewise exploiting young Asian students.

I advised him to give his thick surveillance file to the police. He said that he had heard that about 30% of the abortions performed in Adelaide were on Chinese international students. In 2008 there were 435,263 – yes, astonishing isn’t it? – international students in Australia and 22.2% of them were Chinese. If the same statistic holds in other states, that is a lot of abortions and a lot of exploitation of young Chinese girls.

China is already issuing warnings to its students to be security cautious (The Australian 8-9/08/09, p.3). Perhaps China also needs to issue cautions to its female students to beware of sexual predators down under. All the more reason not to come here in the first place.  

IF NOT ALL CULTURES GOOD, WHY DON 'T WE HAVE RIGHT OF CRITIQUE?

Barry Cohen (“Not All Cultures Are Good”, The Australian 21/8/09) is happy with a multiracial Australia, but not a multicultural one. He is also “aghast at the way multicultural advocates have taken control of the race debate by denouncing as racist anyone who disagrees with their view of the future of Australian society”.
For Cohen, it is not the government’s duty to keep ethno-racial groups divided. New migrants should assimilate, learn English and about Australia’s history, including its Anglo-Celtic origin.

I am sure if Arthur Calwell could read this article he would smile. It is all nonsense that ignores racial and demographic realities. If ethnic populations get too large, fuelled by immigration, multicultural policies are inevitable. An Asianised Australia with say 150 million Chinese migrants, could not assimilate to any Anglo-Celtic ideal. It would become a Chinese society - and that is the real meaning of Asianisation. And if we don’t resist, that is our future.  

GO FOR PROMOTION GIRLS, LET KIDS LOOK AFTER SELVES!

by James Reed
The shock-horror headline read - “Women shun promotion for sake of children”, The Australian 24/8/09. That for me is a good thing; it is a good thing for women and men to put the sake of their children over their careers. But the Australia Institute has “warned” that childcare concerns are leading to women rejecting pay-rises and promotions.
And worse yet are 2.4 million “hidden unemployed” women who in the recession have dropped out of the labour market but who would be willing and able to start work within a month.
This analysis is said to show that the official statistics which show that men do worse than women in a recession is flawed and that the jobless rate is really three times higher than what is stated.

Where do I start? The women have the ability to disappear out of the labour market because they have a working male partner. What about families where there is no working partner, single parent families with usually a mother on welfare, with kids set to also live a life on welfare? What about the homeless, what about rural Aboriginal communities…need I go on?
Viewed in the light of the suffering of the poorest people in our society, bleating about “hidden unemployed” women has no sympathy with me.

I am glad that women are shunning promotion for the sake of their children and I hope that more men will do so in the future, if there can be a wider social consciousness about the bankruptcy of decadent consumerist materialism. That too is one of the tasks of social credit with its philosophical foundation in Christianity.

TAKING THE GAS OUT OF OZ AND POURING IN NUKE TOXINS

by James Reed
The elites were over themselves regarding China’s promise to buy $50 billion worth of natural gas from the proposed North West Shelf Gorgon development. Viewed in conventional, rather than social credit/nationalist terms, this makes superficial sense. Flog off anything for money. But in racial nationalistic terms, do we really want to feed a dragon that one day may breathe fire upon us? NO – it is a policy of racial suicide to economically feed China, just as it was in the past for “Pig Iron” Bob Menzies to feed Japan iron.

Beyond that, why shouldn’t gas resources – and all other resources – be used for our use, now and forever? Only the insane illogic of liberal capitalism, which puts money, money, money above life and blood and soil would dictate such a conclusion.

Thinking along such lines, why not turn Australia into the nuclear waste dump of the world? Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke thinks so (The Australian, 19/8/09, p.3). And here comes that familiar globalist argument for this: it is our moral duty as a good environmental citizen to do so. It is the same tired old argument used for refugees and mass immigration.

Well if we must do this, then let us first, following in the footsteps perhaps of ancient Egypt, invite all of our living ex-Prime Ministers to move down into the pit with the nuclear waste, just to keep it safe! Perhaps the first crypt of waste could be deposited under Parliament House Canberra!

PUTTING PHILLIP ADAMS TO THE TEST OF LOGIC

by Betty Luks
In his satirical piece (The Weekend Australian 22-23/09), Phillip Adams has a go at those who believe in a Barack Obama birth conspiracy. As he puts it, “birthers” believe that Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate is forged. Really? All the sites on the internet that I could find from a few hours research reveal that these critics are saying that the Hawaiian birth certificate is consistent with a Kenyan birth.

So Adams hasn’t represented his opponents correctly – but what does this matter when later in his article he compares Kevin Rudd to Superman. If this is true, then Rudd is surrounded by Kryptonite and our own Deputy Prime Minister may be, for Kev 09, a walking, talking Kryptonite being.

The celebration of Rudd and Obama was also made by Adams in the previous week (15-16/09) when he rattled on about Rudd and Obama being “soul mates”. Then he goes further and matches others: Hawke and Clinton, Turnbull and Schwarzenegger, Gough and JFK, Howard and Nixon and so on. Well, even if there was a case for similarities, what does this prove and what does it matter?
One would have thought for a true believer like Adams in the coming environmental catastrophe, there would be more important things to write about.

CRITIQUE OF LAWYERS, LEWIS AND WERTHEIM ON TOBEN

by Betty Luks
As I type these words Dr Frederick Toben is in prison. He was sentenced to three months gaol on a contempt of court charge originally arising from a breach of Australia’s race/hate legislation. Steven Lewis and Peter Wertheim, lawyers with Slater and Gordon, ran the racial vilification and contempt cases against Dr Toben and they published their view of the matter in “Voice to be held in contempt” (The Australian, 18/9/09, p.12). The sub-heading summarises their position: “Freedom of speech should not be freedom to vilify”. Let us see how they try to justify their position.

First they point out that in 2002 the Federal Court found that material on Toben’s Adelaide Institute site breached the Racial Discrimination Act. Various claims of Holocaust revision were made, including that there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. Lewis and Wertheim point out that Toben did not get his prison sentence from this as there “are no criminal sanctions under the act”.
The contempt of court charge arose from Toben being “ordered to remove the offending material and he didn’t”. Does that mean that Toben did not take off the old offending material or is the claim wider, that Toben went on to continue to deny the Holocaust in new words. Did the 2002 “gap orders” stop Toben from denying the Holocaust per se?

The article as I read it doesn’t clarify this. Reading on in the Lewis/Wertheim article we do not find a discussion of the case at hand and an answer to these questions. Rather, they address the issue of freedom of speech and say:
“But does this sort of commentary, publicly attacking people because of their race, ethnicity or religion, really constitute community debate?”

But how did Toben do this? The claim that “the Holocaust did not occur”, “there were no (homicidal) gas chambers at Auschwitz” are denials of purported facts. They are not racial, ethnic, or religious attacks unless one identifies Jewishness with the Holocaust, which is arguably false. The closest claims to vilification attributed to Toben are, quoting Lewis and Wertheim, that “Jewish people who believed in the Holocaust were of limited intelligence” and “they have exaggerated the number of Jews killed during World War II to profit from what he described as “a Holocaust myth” (end quote).

The former claim is wrong-headed rhetoric but an opinion nevertheless that freedom of speech should permit – are we only permitted to think only good about people? The second statement may be controversial but is arguable if Toben established his initial Holocaust denial premises. So what, so far, justifies the claim that there is a public attack on people based on race, ethnicity or religion? Nothing, in my opinion.

Lewis and Wertheim go on to say that “the proper limits of free speech are exceeded”, when “it is about causing harm”. Public vilification of “entire groups of people”, “can only undermine, and ultimately destroy, their sense of security”. This puts one “on the defensive with workmates, friends, neighbours” and is “the invariable precursor to violence against members of the targeted group”.

If this line of argument is correct, then it would be logical to censor, using the Racial Discrimination Act, articles which may stir up anti-Israel sentiment. For example: “International fury as Israel evicts Palestinians”, The Australian (4/8/09, p.8) describes how Israel is defying the US and evicting Palestinians in East Jerusalem and moving Jewish settlers into their houses. Some of these people had lived in these houses since the 1950’s. The Weekend Australian Magazine (22-23/8/09) features the story of a Palestinian Nasser Jeber who lost his house to armed Jewish settlers.

Such stories have, arguably, more contemporary relevance in compromising “social relationships” than a discussion of the Holocaust, which is some time in the past. Closely related to this question is that of whether it should be a criminal offence to compare Israel’s activities to the Nazis. The European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism thinks that it should, because such comparisons cause “pain to Jews” (B. O’Neill, “Playing the Nazi card is vile and pathetic but hardly illegal”, The Australian 9/8/09, p.12). Nevertheless, arguing along the lines discussed above, there seems to be an arguable case for prosecuting all of those anti-Israel protestors who play the Nazi card. The gaols in the future may be full of liberal-left critics!

It may be argued that Toben is not involved in a “genuine” debate about history because established historians see Holocaust revision as crank material and false. But should a “genuine” debate be decided by a show of hands of establishment figures?
As John S. Mill in “On Liberty” argued, we can’t argue thus without begging the question as issue of the truth of status quo views. Only by allowing the irritating heretic can truth be reached. If Toben is so wrong, then debate him, not gaol him!

SENATOR SLEAZE, KENNEDY, GONE TO JOIN MARY JO

by James Reed
The death of Edward Kennedy, champion of anti-white causes, mass coloured immigration, political correctness and the 2008 endorser of B. Hussein Obama for the Democratic nomination, has produced the expected eulogies from the liberal establishment. Okay, leave aside the fact that this man has done more to destroy White America than most liberals, with his championing of Third World immigration. What about the person?

Well, in 1969 his car went off a bridge and into the water on Chappaquiddick Island, Massachusetts, on July 19, 1969. A pretty Nordic girl Mary Jo Kopechne, who was travelling in the car, died. Teddy boy was drunk driving at the time and if it was me or anybody else, would have landed in gaol. But he was a Kennedy and got off.
Ted swam to shore to save himself and left the girl, picked up for sex, to drown. It took him nine hours to report the accident. If he had taken immediate action the girl would have lived, but Ted had to have a sleep first. He later went on TV and denied that he was drunk when driving.

Common to other Kennedy’s was drinking and womanising. His father Joe established the family fortune via boot legging in the Prohibition era, proving that behind every great fortune is a crime. We are ruled by people who deserve to be behind bars.

THE BATTLE OF THE ABORTIONISTS: SIGN OF THE TIMES

by James Reed
You have just got to feel sad for your friendly neighbourhood abortionist (well actually, no you don’t). In Brisbane an obstetrician has blown the whistle on the use of contraband supplies of the abortion drug RU486, available from China and India (“Trade in abortion drugs exposed”, The Australian, 4/8/09, p.1).
It appears that the drug is being sold “in pubs…in the way…you can buy ecstasy”. And then Australia’s largest medical negligence insurer has said that it won’t cover Queensland doctors for doing “criminal” drug induced abortions.

Abortionists in Queensland want to follow Victoria’s lead and have most criminal offences relating to abortion abolished. It is a sign of the times, the end I think of civilised life when human foetuses are treated as unwanted garbage.
Why doesn’t anti-racism and anti-discrimination protect the unborn? Answer: the elites want women and men to basically be grunting animals in a great zoo. They are easier to control.

'TEMPTED TO IGNORE WISHES OF PARLIAMENT '

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
It was very good to see Chief Justice of NSW, Jim Spigelman, criticising the so-called interpretation clause of human rights legislation. Spigelman CJ, in a formal submission to the National Human Rights Consultation, was critical of the proposed power of allowing judges to read human rights protections into legislation. This could tempt judges to ignore the wishes of parliament.
As well it could lead to a violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers where courts interpret legislation “contrary to intention of the parliament that passed that legislation”.

Arguably that is the real constitutional question, although the current “debate” (if we can call it that) has focused upon the question of the constitutionality of declarations of incompatibility. In summary then, there is another nail in the coffin of the Bill of Rights ideology.

BUSINESS LEADERS RENAISSANCE THINKERS IN DISGUISE?

by Brian Simpson
- or just social terrorists? Philosopher John Armstrong, philosopher-in-residence at Melbourne Business School, said on ABC Radio’s The World Today (August 24, 2009), that “I think many people in the commercial world would be surprised to find how close some of their concerns are to the concerns of Renaissance painting and the great novelists”. Well yes, I am surprised.

All the evidence available to me indicates that business leaders are greedy, money-lusting scum of the earth, quite prepared to wage wars and kill women and children for a few dollars more.
As far as I see it, the money powers’ only interest in Renaissance painting is selling them for profit. I imagine these elites to be reptile-like in essence, gazing out of the windows of their skyscrapers to gloat at the scenes below as they munch on yet another live cockroach!

But I am being “over the top”. Yet my view of the business elites as “social terrorists” has, I contend, more scholarly books and articles to support it than the rosy view of philosopher John Armstrong.

CONTEMPT FOR OZ WORKERS: MYTH OF SKILLS SHORTAGE

by James Reed
The headlines still proclaim that there is a skills shortage and thus a need for – surprise, surprise – Chinese and Indian workers to fill the gap (e.g. “Overseas workers to fill job gaps”, The Australian, 28/7/09, p.1). Yet, surprisingly enough (in the area of the migration scam, all are surprises) these frequent claims are seldom, if ever, rigorously justified. Where is the proof of such a skills shortage? Could it not be that capitalists are too greedy for growth and even if there was a labour shortage, perhaps given the splendour of the free market, workers’ wages should rise to attract labour?

Sometimes the immigration cat is let out of the bag. According to some academics (“Migration the final drawcard”, The Australian, 5/8/09, p.36) Western nations with ageing populations should allow migrants in who accept low pay “where aspiring immigrants will take on jobs Australians won’t.”
No jobs are named or proof offered of jobs Australians don’t want. It is little more than an ideological smoke screen for bringing in cheap workers to undercut Australian wages. If we are to do this, let us start with Parliament House and the universities. Watch the squealing then.

THE GREAT SHOPPING RIP OFF

by James Reed
Sue Mitchell in “The great shopping mystery” (The Weekend Australian Financial Review, 8-9/8/09, p.19) comments on a great “mystery”. The major supermarkets seem to be having a discount war with the prices of some goods slashed. On the other hand, the prices of many items have risen at a rate that cannot be explained merely on the basis of a rise in input costs.

The price of commodities such as wheat and dairy have fallen from their highs of 2007. Authorities say that food inflation is three times greater than ordinary inflation. Now while there is much that can be said about this, the simple explanation of food inflation is the greed theory: the supermarkets like to have a few “show” discount items but in general they put up prices for as much as they think the sheople can bear at one time.

Forget about marginal cost curves and all that calculus: greed is the key. It is as simple as that. The answer though is that people need to try to grow some of their own food, buy much less and live more self sufficient, low consumption life styles. Let the supermarket giants starve! There is no “great shopping mystery”, only a great shopping rip off.

SO YOU THINK YALE IS A COWARD?

by James Reed
Christopher Hitchens (“Yale’s cowardly stand”, The Australian, 26/8/09, p.12) takes Yale University Press to task for its “surrender to religious extremism” – a book on the Danish Mohammed cartoon controversy has had its reproduction of the controversial cartoons removed before threats had even been made! The book about the cartoons will go ahead, minus the cartoons.

Hitchens sees this as a capitulation to Muslim extremism. Yawn, yawn. It is a wonder that anything gets published on this theme at all in this world of political correctness.