"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
|
15 August 2014 Thought
for the Week: |
|||
TARGETS FOR THE WEEKDear Reader,
Family First Senator Bob Day announced he will introduce a bill to amend the Racial Discrimination Act. "Someone has to champion the cause of freedom. You can't allow yourself to be intimidated by any particular group," Senator Day told News Corp Australia. Our Readers need to encourage Senator Day and send a message to other politicians - ‘mendacity’ does not win votes. The latest jobless figures defy understanding... if a person does 1 hour of paid work per week then they are considered employed. Is that regarded as a ‘liveable wage’? Who makes these rules? The ABC reports ‘unemployment surges to 12-year high at 6.4 per cent; youth jobless figure hits 14 pc’. With new immigrants looking for work (or do they) and older people kept in the workforce until 70 years of age, what opportunity does that offer the most vulnerable young people. With changes to education arrangements Australia is developing into a very ‘mean and lean’ economy to appease the ‘GDP god’ of Treasurer Hockey. He wonders why people do not jump for joy over his budget policies. They know it cannot work! It is time to ‘screw’ the Abbott back -bench without mercy! Write those letters. ND |
|||
GOVERNMENT RETREATS ON RACE ACT, TOUGHENS TERROR LAWS
FROM THE AUSTRALIAN TAPAYERS’ ALLIANCE
PS: Make sure to forward our survey to all your friends! |
|||
CRAVEN CAVE IN ON FREE SPEECHby James Allen
Apparently it was not worth the fight. Not enough votes in it, they must have reckoned. Of course that sort of calculation depends on the people who want this hate speech legislation kept in place voting for the Coalition because it succumbed to them. Good luck with that. It depends too on there being a lot of MPs in electorates where there will be more votes for them in caving in than there would be for proceeding on principle. I'm sceptical. Heck, the government did not even put their repeal proposals to the Senate. I know the government is calculating that people like me will vote for the Coalition anyway, come the next election, that, like the government itself, we don't really care about free speech. Otherwise it would at least have introduced its bill, passed it through the House and made the Senate block it. But some Coalition MPs obviously did not want to be in this position. Yet, there are no hate speech laws of any sort in the US and the various Jewish, Islamic and other lobby groups that oppose repealing our hate speech laws do just fine there. Better than in almost every European country with hate speech laws. Apparently the government now implicitly agrees that you can't trust your average Australian to see through the rantings of Neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers. Yet, this is the same government that has yet to dump its paid parental leave scheme. And is going to take some set of proposals on amending our Constitution, to put in place Lord knows what, to recognise indigenous people, whatever ''recognise'' means. Any recognition of indigenous people, in the preamble or elsewhere, could well be used by our High Court to strike down and invalidate democratically enacted laws. It could turn into a tool that serves as a sort of proto-bill of rights. In the last decade our High Court has, in my view, made up a limited right for prisoners to vote. The textual warrant for that was supposedly the one that says that our senators shall be "directly chosen by the people". Shortly after that the High Court decided that it, not parliament, could decide when the electoral rolls could close. And the High Court struck down a democratically enacted law on no basis other than a couple of dozen references to the earlier prisoner voting case and the "directly chosen by the people" phrase. Those back at Federation who argued about each word, comma and phrase would have been stunned at the results in both cases. So don't tell me that inserting a few words about recognising indigenous people might not have serious ramifications. Neither Brandis nor Abbott will interpret these new words. It will be a committee of ex-lawyers. At least, though, the constitutional referendum is motivated by good intentions, however much we might worry where they lead. By contrast, yesterday's decision to leave in place our hate speech laws was a terrible and cowardly one made worse by the cynical political calculations that lay behind it. James Allan is Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland. |
|||
THE EROSION OF AUSTRALIA’S SOCIAL CAPITAL HAS BEGUNby James Reed
Instead of tackling this, the Libs have turned their attention towards those on welfare, especially NewStart (the dole). Mutual obligation obligations, have been increased with the extra requirement of up to 25 hours a week of “community work” to keep dole payments. Even people aged 50-60 will be required to do 15 hours of an approved activity. It is well known that men over 50 have little chance of getting a job and at present middle-aged men wind up on the disability pension, which pays more than the dole anyway. All of this social decay is showing up in family breakdown, which more often than not has an ultimate economic cause to it. The Australian Family Courts have been said to be “swamped by an epidemic of domestic violence, mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse”. (The Australian 28 July 2014, p.9) This will get much worse as globalist elites put the economy into their economic rationalist pressure-cooker. That is why the League has a new online publication, The Crossroads, which tries to give positive strategies for coping with the terrible times we now face. |
|||
STATEMENT ON THE SITUATION IN GAZAIreland’s David Norris: "Israel bombs first and weeps later" A must watch Video: Israel is Afraid of Palestinian Unity and America has a shameful role in all of this. Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152366789063353&set=vb.637933352&type=2&theater U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel, Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC)
Washington is Complicit in Israel's Crimes - Paul Findley August 3, 2014
The Israel Lobby: The Only Explanation for America's Morally Bankrupt Policy By Stephen M. Walt |
|||
CRITICISING ISRAEL’S INVASION OF PALESTINE IS ‘ANTI-SEMITIC’
from Paul Eisen Blogspot
And there’s something very odd, isn’t there, about our reactions to these two outrageous death tolls. In Gaza, we plead for a ceasefire but let them bury their dead in the sweltering slums of Gaza and cannot even open a humanitarian route for the wounded. For the passengers on MH17, we demand – immediately – proper burial and care for the relatives of the dead. We curse those who left bodies lying in the fields of eastern Ukraine – as many bodies have been lying, for a shorter time, perhaps, but under an equally oven-like sky, in Gaza. Because – and this has been creeping up on me for years – we don’t care so much about the Palestinians, do we? We care neither about Israeli culpability, which is far greater because of the larger number of civilians the Israeli army have killed. Nor, for that matter, Hamas’s capability. Of course, God forbid that the figures should have been the other way round. If 800 Israelis had died and only 35 Palestinians, I think I know our reaction. We would call it – rightly – a slaughter, an atrocity, a crime for which the killers must be made accountable. Yes, Hamas should be made accountable, too. But why is it that the only criminals we are searching for today are the men who fired one – perhaps two – missiles at an airliner over Ukraine? If Israel’s dead equalled those of the Palestinians – and let me repeat, thank heavens this is not the case – I suspect that the Americans would be offering all military support to an Israel endangered by “Iranian-backed terrorists”. We would be demanding that Hamas hand over the monsters who fired rockets at Israel and who are, by the way, trying to hit aircraft at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport. But we are not doing this. Because those who have died are mostly Palestinians. More questions. What’s the limit for Palestinian deaths before we have a ceasefire? Eight hundred? Or 8,000? Could we have a scorecard? The exchange rate for dead? Or would we just wait until our gorge rises at the blood and say enough – even for Israel’s war, enough is enough. It’s not as if we have not been through all this before. From the massacre of Arab villagers by Israel’s new army in 1948, as it is set down by Israeli historians, to the Sabra and Shatila massacre, when Lebanese Christian allies of Israel murdered up to 1,700 people in 1982 while Israeli troops watched; from the Qana massacre of Lebanese Arabs at the UN base – yes, the UN again – in 1996, to another, smaller terrible killing at Qana (again) 10 years later. And so to the mass killing of civilians in the 2008-9 Gaza war. And after Sabra and Shatila, there were inquiries, and after Qana there was an inquiry and after Gaza in 2008-9, there was an inquiry and don’t we remember the weight of it, somewhat lightened of course when Judge Goldstone did his best to disown it, when – according to my Israeli friends – he came under intense personal pressure.
Comment: The Neocons are not all in America. Readers would do well to reread “It’s Official – John Howard a “Neo-Con” https://alor.org/Volume40/Vol40No21.htm Let’s Imagine: In a simplistic attempt to justify Israel's Old Testament style slaughter of the Palestinians in Gaza, Israeli apologists always seem to ask the question ''how would the United States respond if a militant group fired thousands of missiles at its population centres from Canada or Mexico?'' These yammering Zionists seemed to think they score heavily in the arena of public opinion with this childish argument. So let me try my own hypothetical question. How would Americans react if, with the blessings of the great powers, a huge number of heavily armed aliens from Eastern Europe arrived on our shores and claimed our country as their own by insisting that their god had bequeathed it to them via their mythical patriarch somewhere back in the Bronze Age? And after defeating an inept American military, they succeeded in driving most of the American people into either Canada or Mexico or west of the Mississippi. And then not being satisfied with the lands east of the Mississippi, two decades later, they initiate another war that results in their successful conquest of all the territory west of the Mississippi to the Pacific. And while promising the Americans west of the Mississippi an eventual state of their own, they nevertheless begin a program of massive colonization of these territories and also erect an apartheid barrier around all of their settlements. Furthermore, imagine a small enclave in the southwest near the Mexican border where millions of Americans took refuge on some worthless land. Originally the aliens hoped to colonize it, but reluctantly they turn it over to the Americans to run for themselves as a sort of city state/refugee camp/ open air prison with no powers generally associated with a sovereign state and also reserving the right to move in at any time to protect their interests. Further imagine that after the election of an America government deemed hostile to alien interests they proclaim a crippling blockade which reduces the population to abject poverty and near starvation. Not satisfied with the blockade, the aliens then unleash the full force of their modern military on the helpless inhabitants whose only way of striking back is with crude rockets made from sewer pipe that carry a low yield explosive made from sugar and fertilizer. And finally imagine an alien dominated media that continues to label the Americans as terrorists. |
|||
MORE TAX DOLLARS ON INDIGENOUS BRAINWASHINGby Richard Miller |
|||
‘POLITICALLY CORRECT’ ACTIVISTS’… DREAMING?
Andrew Bolt’s Blog: Abusing our good nature, 4 August 2014 Why have refugee activists taken up their cause, rather than that of the countless real refugees in real danger right now? Why are we now keeping these 157 at our expense in Nauru, when they should have been flicked right back to India? This is an abuse of our good nature and our reason. Australia has always been prepared to help people fleeing for their lives. But these people? |
|||
LETTER TO THE PRESS
The Editor of The Australian 5th August 2014
Here is what anthropologist Barry Maley had to say in The Australian Recommendation 3 proposes that Section 51A should say |
|||
WE ARE CAUGHT UP IN A PSYCHOPOLITICAL WARThe following is an excerpt from Eric D. Butler’s “The Truth about the Australian League of Rights” written in 1985. It bears directly on the present political scene and the issues now confronting Australians. He wrote: “Students of psycho-political warfare understand how the original meaning of words has often been perverted, while other words are used, not to convey a concept of reality, but to make rational discussion impossible. By constant perversion the term “discrimination” has been turned into one of abuse. Discrimination is a natural law and all forms of life discriminate in favour of themselves. Discrimination requires the making of choices. At one time “a person of discrimination” was looked up to. “Racism” is another blatantly political swear word. When a person is called a “Racist” this means that he is automatically assumed to be guilty of some evil and that there is no basis for any discussion about what a person may have said…
The Equality Dogma: One of the legacies of the French Revolution, the equality dogma, disputes the reality of the uniqueness of each individual and the many differences between racial groups. Equality means no quality. Christians who preach the doctrine of equality are surrendering to a view for which there is no evidence in The New Testament. Pope Leo XIII, in Humanum Genus, said: “No one doubts that all men are equal in regard to their being of the same race and nature and having the same final end to be attained by each, and as far as the right and duties that follow from that end are concerned. But as they are not all equally gifted, as they differ in qualities of mind and body, and as there exists amongst them almost innumerable distinctions of manners, tastes, and characters, nothing is so repugnant to reason as to wish to apply the same measure to all and to introduce a strict mathematical equality into the regulation of civil life.” The League of Rights has opposed the policy of multi-racialism and multi-culturalism, not because it believes that, for example, Asians and Africans are inferior or superior to Europeans, but because such a policy must fragment Australia as it has fragmented other countries. It is the natural right of all nations to select the type of migrants they think will cause the minimum of friction. I have never met an Australian who finds it offensive or “racist” that the Japanese impose one of the strictest immigration policies in the world and that Malaysia does likewise. Coinciding with the national debate on Aboriginal Land Rights during 1984, the immigration question generated a new intensity with the warnings of well-known historian, Professor Geoffrey Blainey. The Marxists have long campaigned against the traditional Australian immigration policy of maintaining, as far as possible, a homogeneous nation, so it was not surprising that the Marxists along with Left-wing radicals and totalitarian University academics united in a campaign of both violence and denigration of Professor Blainey. But Zionist leader Isi Leibler also intervened to criticise all those opposed to the policy of attempting to make Australia a multi-racial nation…” |
|||
THE CASE AGAINST ‘HUMAN RIGHTISM’by Ian Wilson LL.B.
However, the European approach differs from the position of US courts who recognise no such right, as do Australian courts. The European courts have upheld the French ban on wearing full-face veils in public, valuing social cohesion over freedom of religion. But in the US, freedom of religion trumps social cohesion. This all shows the social relativity of human rights and the danger of giving weight to foreign rulings in Australian cases. |
|||
THE BIO-INVASION OF AMERICAby Chris Knight
The percentage of infected immigrants, such as those with tuberculosis, is much higher than the rates found in the sending nation. Adams quotes one blogger who observed: “preferentially the sick and diseased are managing to, despite their illnesses, travel long distances across Mexico to get to our borders. We are beyond statistically probability and into purposeful action”. In short, a “bio-invasion”. Adams quotes other news services indicating that illegal’s with scabies have been released into the general population and that FEMA is more concerned with processing the illegal’s than about any disease issues. And we thought we had problems. |
|||
ON THE QUESTIONS OF BIGOTRY AND RACIAL SURVIVALby Peter Ewer Articles continue to appear in The Australian putting essentially the same case against the Andrew Bolt provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act. Tim Wilson, Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner, has been fairly good as a more traditional liberal promoting freedoms, such as freedom of opinion and expression. Thus in “Censorship Laws Not Needed to Tackle Prejudice” (The Australian 26 June 2014 p.10), he puts the case that “racism” can be dealt with by other ways rather than restricting free speech, such as by community condemnation. Significantly, he has argued that since human rights are rights protecting the freedom of the individual, anti-discrimination is not a human right because rights such as free association may actually discriminate – after all, “discriminate” means “choose”. Nor are group rights, human rights. Ross Fitzgerald “Stop Hiding Behind Legislation and Allow Speech to Flow Freely” (The Weekend Australian, 19-20 July 2014, p.24) also has given a good liberal defence of free speech along J.S. Mill lines. Offensive words may hurt, but words are not weapons. By legislating against “offensive” speech the way is open to ban even more speech. While I think that this is right, it doesn’t really deal with the Left and ethnic multicultural class, who reject the traditional liberal defence of free speech, and free speech itself, because ethnic identity politics comes first. Racial vilification legislation should be seen as a weapon to keep Anglo-Australians, who have been described as primarily “racists”, under control. If writers name a particular group in comments, offence is automatic because there is always an individual who will be offended about any criticism. Anything at all, in principle, can and will be objected to. The correct response to this debate is to see this legislation as itself “racist”. Its purpose is to silence those with the heavy hand of “THE LAW” who dare get down to fine details about our dispossession. The Gillard-era changes to discrimination law, likely to be revived when the Labor Party return next election, will be a further “devolution” of this oppression, eliminating even the free speech which exists now, in the name of anti-discrimination. It seems that all the battles of the past for freedom, in one way or another, must be refought again. Comment: Nearly 30 years later: current events are proving the reality of race and culture – On Target, 2 August 1985: “There is no such thing as the successful 'multicultural' society. No society has ever been able to survive where there has not been a system of cohesive moral and social standards, a type of unwritten spiritual agreement to which all agree to abide. Diluting Patriotism: Did someone just say that one of the effects of multiculturalism would be to break down patriotism? To make it easier for World Government?” |
|||
NATURAL FARMING: THE ONE-STRAW REVOLUTIONby Richard Miller Those who are seeking to rebuild from the ruins of postmodernity would do well to consult Masanobu Fukuoka’s “The One Straw Revolution: An Introduction to Natural Farming” which he wrote in 1975. Fukuoka (1913-2008) was a Japanese philosopher of agriculture, whose ideas were somewhat similar to America’s Wendell Berry – both philosophers were disturbed by the ecologically destructive effects of modern agriculture. Fukuoka’s response was to develop “natural farming” and he pursued this idea in later books such as “The natural Way of Farming” and “The Road Back to Nature”. Back in the 1970s these books became the bibles of back-to-the-landers who were seeking alternative living for philosophical reasons. Today, things have become much bleaker and alternative agriculture, and indeed, alternative lifestyles, off the grid of consumer society, have become a matter of survival. Influenced by Zen Buddhism and Taoism, Fukuoka proposed that the “ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings”. But to do this, one needs to farm in a way aligned with nature, with minimal soil disruption, no tilling or weeding, no use of fertilisers and pesticides and one must reject in total petrochemical agriculture. The four principles of natural farming are thus:
Instead of getting rid of weeds in say a rice crop, weeds are controlled by a ground cover of white clover and mulch made of rice and barley straw. Fukuoka used uncut straw scattered on the ground to enrich the soil, eliminating the need for compost. Rice growing by Fukuoka involved planting rice seeds, white clover and winter grains all in the same fields and covering them with rice straw. The barley or rye winter grains sprouted immediately and the rice stayed dormant until the spring. After the barley and rye was harvested the straw was scattered across the field as mulch. Following the monsoon rains the rice sprouted through the ground cover. When the field is drained the clover starts growing beneath the rice plants. There was no need to transplant rice plants or grow plants in flooded fields. Labour was thus minimised, as in ancient times, leaving more time for social and cultural activities. Fukuoka wrote poetry in his spare times. Soils improve over time, unlike the soils of modern agriculture which decrease in fertility, structure and water-holding ability. However, for rice, yields are equal to chemical-based agriculture, some 1,100 to 1,300 pounds per acre. In natural vegetable growing, all organic matter is returned to the soil, along with the use of animal and human manure. Crop rotation is used to enhance fertility and diminish the problems of pests. Plant diseases are prevented by growing crops at the right time and keeping soils healthy. Insects may be picked off by hand, or better yet, by roaming chickens, which in turn produce rich and healthy free range eggs. The relevance of this for we, who are contemplating the death of agricultural civilisation and the birth of a new world is summed up by Fukuoka: “In general, commercial agriculture is an unstable proposition. The farmer would do much better by growing the food he needs without thinking about making money. If you plant a grain of rice, it becomes more than a thousand grains. One row of turnips makes enough pickles for the entire winter. If you follow this line of thought, you will have enough to eat, more than enough, without struggling. But if you try to ‘make money’ instead, you get on board the profit wagon, and it runs away with you”. Thus, Fukuoka invites us to try to become as self-reliant as possible with our own food production, even if all we have is a backyard garden. The benefit will be, not only the production of real food with flavour and tang, but the development of character that best comes from the taste of freedom. |
|||
DIESEL CAR DRIVERS ‘BETRAYED’AS EU CRACKS DOWN ON…Air Pollution: The Telegraph, 5 August 2014. As Britain is sued by the European Commission for breaching pollution limits, drivers of diesel motor vehicles are warned that they face higher costs. More than 10 million motorists who were “betrayed and misled” into buying diesel cars have been warned that they face higher costs as the European Union puts pressure on Britain to cut air pollution levels…” Joanne Nova on her website writes: “Green plan causes air pollution, may kill thousands in the UK, thanks to dirty diesel”.
|
|||
IMPLEMENTING ICLEI AGENDA AND POLICIES
A correspondent wrote: Using the Delphi method its easy to do so. (http://americadontforget.webs.com/documents/14-Delphi-Technique.pdf)
An extract from one of the items attached.... “Councils play a vital part in this process of reporting to the UN through their reports to the State government”. Council Implementation of Agenda 21 Voluntary: Councils do not have the backing of the law to force the foreign Agenda 21 program upon residents – they do so of their own initiative and because they have been bullied by state governments. As is aptly pointed out by the Commonwealth Government in their 2006 SOE (128), there is no statutory basis for enforcing this program upon the community. According to the Commonwealth: “Many local governments work in areas beyond statutory requirements, such as Local Agenda 21 and Cities for Climate Protection… This can create tensions because councils and the staff they hire consider themselves to be creatures and servants of the local areas. Instead of being driven by any specific statute, local governments use state and territory laws as toolkits to fix local problems, rather than as the instruction manuals intended by state governments.” Given this lack of legislative backing, and the decision by all levels of government NOT to seek democratic endorsement of Agenda during the normal electoral processes, the widespread adoption of Agenda 21 by Councils is alarming. Rio+20: ICLEI Members Admit “Bait and Switch” to Boost Climate Agenda June 18, 2012. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: To advance public action on global warming, participants attending the ICLEI World Congress admitted today that they are deliberately employing new terminology to misdirect opponents and gain acceptance of their efforts to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases. By utilizing terms like “sustainability” and “sustainable development,” the group wants to mask its objectives and disarm would-be critics who might otherwise oppose their agenda, ICLEI attendees confided with CFACT representatives at the conference. Thinking they can speak candidly on their home turf, ICLEI speakers reveal an unworkable economic agenda,” said CFACT President David Rothbard. “ICLEI’s bait and switch – substituting ‘sustainable development’ for ‘climate change’ – is shameless and deceptive. People need to understand ICLEI’s real agenda, before it cons other local governments into joining. ICLEI is weaving a crafty spider’s web that will entangle communities before they realize how its restrictive rules will kill jobs and reduce freedoms and living standards.” Read further: https://www.cfact.tv/2012/06/18/iclei-members-admit-bait-and-switch-to-boost-climate-agenda/ |
