to THE AUSTRALIAN
     June Oscar’s defence of constitutional recognition (‘Treaty “nothing to be afraid of”’, 7/6) is unconvincing. The ‘1200 indigenous land-use agreements nationwide’ she refers to are not treaties between groups claiming independent sovereignty and do not threaten the political unity of Australia. The demands of the Uluru Statement from the Heart do and must be rejected.

     More Australians need to engage in political action on this issue. Overseas history shows that politicians of all parties often betray the real interests of their constituents; and revolutionaries are adept at using gradualism to fool majorities. We need a new national movement to safeguard the constitutional integrity of our nation.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     The issue of a supposed “white pathology,” a product of “pathological altruism”: https://www.amazon.com/Pathological-Altruism-Barbara-Oakley/dp/0199738572, is a concept closely related to Garrett Hardin’s notion of “promiscuous altruism”: Garrett Hardin, “Discriminating Altruisms,”  Zygon, vol. 17, 1982, pp. 163-186. The central argument here is that the present behaviour of whites, such as with open borders immigration, is a universalism quite inconsistent with evolutionary biology. Here is the abstract from Hardin’s classic paper:

“Reliable Darwinian theory shows that pure altruism cannot persist and expand over time. All higher organisms show inheritable patterns of caring and discrimination. The principal forms of discriminating altruisms among human beings are individualism (different from egoism), familialism, cronyism, tribalism, and patriotism. The promiscuous altruism called “universalism” cannot endure in the face of inescapable completion. Information can be promiscuously shared, but not so matter and energy without evoking the tragedy of the commons. Universalism is not recommended even as an ideal. Survival now requires the creation of an intellectual base for a new patriotism.”

     The Uluru Statement of the Heart has now been published, which means that the revolutionaries have played their hand and thrown down the glove of challenge. We can now respond as we must.

     Greg Sheridan, a distinguished veteran journalist, has led the way with his opinion pieces in The Australian. In ‘Misguided, squeamish Liberals are failing Aborigines’, (25 May) he wrote: ‘Constitutional recognition [is] extremely bad in principle because [it creates] two classes of citizens…..The Constitution belongs to all Australians. If the state changes the citizenship status of one group of Australians, it, by definition, changes the citizenship status of all Australians. In principle and in practice, this is a recipe for conflict and disaster.’

     For your future reference, here is the text of the Uluru statement which will be worked into the coming Aboriginal constitutional referendum:

ULURU STATEMENT FROM THE HEART
We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart:
Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.
This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link Is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.
How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?
With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.
Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.
We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.”
From: http://nationalunitygovernment.org/content/uluru-statement-heart.

    Here is the conclusion of the indigenous summit: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/indigenous-summit-rejects-recognition-pushes-for-treaty-and-voice-in-constitution-20170526-gwe389.html.

     An all-indigenous convention wants to enshrine a “First Nations Voice” in the constitution in a referendum to be held next year. The politically correct compromise, favoured by the liberals and conservatives, of giving a mere token recognition, was rejected. The Aboriginal lobby now means business, with a “commission,” perhaps much like that in South Africa,  a “Makarrata Commission” to “supervise agreements between Indigenous groups and government and a period of truth-telling about the treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.”

from THE AUSTRALIAN
     The New Zealand parliament, in its wisdom, decided to enshrine the “principles” of the treaty of the 1840 Waitangi into legislation. This has led to endless litigation between Maoris and the government, and endless payments by the New Zealand taxpayer to Maoris to compensate them for apparent “breaches” of the treaty. Such payments have not improved the lot of ordinary suburban Maoris one iota.

     Defining the “principles” of the treaty has led to endless interpretations and permutations, most never envisaged by the original signatories. Judicial activism has been kept alive and well with attempts to satisfy claimants and quests to define and apply the “principles” of the treaty to an ever-increasing list of injustices suffered by Maori at the hands of white settlers and their descendants. The only winners have been lawyers and a select few Maori elite to have received treaty settlements.

     Far better for all Australians to simply get on with their lives and take advantage of what the country has to offer. A treaty will not be the magic bullet for those living in impoverished, remote areas offering no employment opportunities, and it will not help children being brought up in dysfunctional households, nor will it keep people out of prison who make free choices as to the crimes they commit. Most important, a treaty will divide Australia on race. Do we really want to go there?
MH, Northwood, Vic

     There has been a healthy debate at this site about the anthropology of Northern Europeans, with yours truly defending our kind from the charge that Northern Europe was a backwater, and Northern Europeans savages who ate each other. There is considerable evidence of advanced cultures existing, and collapsing in Europe, with architectural remains documenting this. You can use the wonder of the Google search engine operating at this site to read my articles over the years. In the old days the articles may have ended up as a book, but sadly people don’t read books now preferring the fast cut and thrust of the internet article, banged out, week after week, after week…

     Now comes the news that Europe, not Africa may be the birthplace of mankind: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/. The find, which is challenging the “Out-of-Africa” politically correct status quo, is of two fossils of a 7.2 million year old creature, Graecopithecus freybergi, found in Bulgaria and Greece. The so-called “missing link” between humans and chimpanzees, would thus be placed in the Mediterranean, rather than Africa: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127.
    This then would make Europeans older than the standard African Eve orthodoxy, and give time for the emergence, and fall of higher cultures. I see such evidence as supplying one more plank in the restoration of the Nordic thesis: https://archive.org/details/TheAryansAStudyOfIndo-europeanOrigins, something a deracinated and cucked people dearly need: http://www.brill.com/uniqueness-western-civilization.

     According to S. Terbeck (et al.), “Propranolol Reduces Implicit Negative Racial Bias,” Psychopharmacology, February 28, 2012, the use of the drug propranolol, used primarily to treat a variety of medical conditions such as high blood pressure and irregular heart rate, can also “abolish implicit racial bias.” This was tested in 36 volunteers.
     Be that as it may, I know almost that number of people, myself included, who receive this drug to control hypertension. All of these people, except for myself, I being a loving kind of guy, are strong racists, by the system’s standards. I asked everyone in my smaller sample if they had become more racist after taking the drug, and they said that the drug did not effect their attitudes, which were a product of current political events, such as mass immigration.  Although it would bring a tear to my eye, I suppose the socialists would put me into that camp as well.
But, where goes the Terbeck (et al.) hypothesis? Surely it is wrong, for a complex social behaviour could not be regulated just by the administration of β-adrenoceptors. It is biological determinism and reductionism gone mad.

to THE AGE
     John Roskam is right to argue ('An Indigenous treaty would divide, not unite, us', 31/5) that all Australians, no matter what their ethnicity or ancestral background, must be seen as equal under the Constitution and thus under the Crown and at law. This approach to recent demands for constitutional recognition of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders is our best guarantee of maintaining national security and civic peace on this continent.

     The great majority of Australians respect our heritage of Aboriginal culture and currently show this in many ways. We appreciate and value the unique position within our Commonwealth of those having Aboriginal ancestry. What would Australia be without the beauty and profundity of Aboriginal culture? And we recognise the pain of past dispossession. But two wrongs do not make a right.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     We should not be surprised about an Asian nuclear arms race,  because Asians do not have the liberal cucked world view that has come to dominate our world. Thus, it has been reported that Asian is about to embark on an inevitable nuclear arms race, fuelled by fears of North Korea, but no doubt reinforced by long-standing fears of China’s increasing power and aggression: The Australian, May 26, 2017, p. 1. This will almost certainly lead to a nuclear exchange occurring somewhere; recall that India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed sit eternally on a knife-edge: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/forget-north-korea-nuclear-war-betweeen-india-pakistan-19901.

     Australia, from the time of Mr Populate and Perish, Fabian socialist Arthur Calwell (1896-1973), the “father of multiculturalism” and Asianisation: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-speech-that-changed-australia-20141204-1208h3.html, has pursued a policy of dismantling its ethno-racial Anglo-Saxon heritage and culture. If you are 50 years old or more, you would have seen first-hand how this was done, and it is now celebrated for what it truly is, but it was not openly proclaimed as this at the time by the elites: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-speech-that-changed-australia-20141204-1208h3.html. How could “Australian nationalism” be founded on this basis of Fabian socialism, as some still seem to think?  If you think so, then read more carefully the article  above.
Along with this, even the Christian moral and legal framework that past Anglo-Australians grew up with has been slowly deconstructed, brick by brick, so that today not only is homosexuality mainstream, and same-sex marriage likely to soon be law, as it is in America and Ireland, championed by the same class of elites, but transgenderism and beyond are moving up the ranks: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sam-dorman/camille-paglia-transgender-mania-symptom-cultural-collapse.

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Australians as a whole have a duty of care to all those citizens who suffer serious social and health disadvantage, so Ron Spielman is right to champion the cause of Aboriginals in such need (1/6), but his call for vaguely worded 'meaningful' and 'appropriate' recognition is an erroneous response.

     He refers to 'those whose large piece of earth was occupied by strangers against their will.' All those people are dead. The task now is to work towards justice and well-being for all Australians living now and those who will follow. If it be asked was not dispossession unfair to 'the Aboriginal people', answers may differ, but the law must deal with living individuals and not political abstractions in this case.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     President Donald Trump’s sole attempt to keep an election promise, has come unstuck by the court system, populated by globalists from the dream run they have had stacking the system.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld an injunction against Trump’s executive order curtailing travel and immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, claiming that: even an executive order that makes no mention of Islam in its text can be invalidated for violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. This is apparently based on  comments Trump and his associates made during and after the 2016 presidential election. According to Chief Judge Roger Gregory’s opinion for the court calls the travel ban “an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”
“Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute.” Well, given the way the judiciary think, the power to control borders is virtually non-existent. The claim that any decision about immigration control is rally about disfavouring Islam, could only be made in the context of a society suffering from advanced decay: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/25/travel-ban-blocked-again-possible-supreme-court-showdown/. Thinking that the US Supreme Court would be any different, is an illusion since clearly the legal system, and everything else has been corrupted beyond any duct tape repair.

     Thus, former US president Hussein Obama, freely proclaims the virtues of Merkel’s open borders destruction of Germany, while slamming Trump saying that “We can’t hide behind a wall”: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/25/barack-obama-europe-taunts-donald-trump-isolationi/. No mention though of Israel’s highly successful wall.

     As pointed out in a confronting article at https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10430/terrorism-candles-teddy-bears, Europe, and arguably the rest of the West, has not woken up to the realities of the cold winds of war which are blowing through societies at an alarming pace.
    The death toll from Islamic terrorism so far is: Madrid: 191. London: 58. Amsterdam: 1. Paris: 148. Brussels: 36. Copenhagen: 2. Nice: 86. Stockholm: 4. Berlin: 12. Manchester: 22.  There are, as well, hundreds of Europeans murdered in  Bali,  Sousse,  Dakka, Jerusalem,  Sharm el Sheikh and Istanbul. On average there have been terrorist attacks in Europe on an average of one every nine days. But, as the Gatestone article cited above notes,  Europe is fighting back with teddy bears, candles, flowers, vigils, Twitter hashtags and cartoons.”

     We have often commented on how this is likely to end, but recently Roosh v, who himself is non-White, has given a frank statement on where open borders immigration leads. Are you ready for it? The May 15, 2017 article is entitled “The Barbarians Will Solve Your Sterile Existence”:

     There is a school of capitalist business-as-usualism, which holds that we should not be concerned about North Korean nuclear attacks on the West because the Americans have the technology to shoot down the missiles. Recently the US shot down a mock ICBM just to show that it means business.
    However, the only successful tests have been conducted in daylight, not night, let alone in ultra-bad weather. The US has had around a 50 percent success rate shooting down 10 missiles in 18 tests, with the missiles moving over a known path: The Australian, June 1, 2017, p. 9.
This is far from satisfactory because a mass launch of missiles means that almost 50 percent of targeted cities will be destroyed. Hopefully, not our city, but who knows what tomorrow will bring: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-21710644.

     The papers have reported that South Africa is heading to a bloody race war, with growing numbers of farm invasions, and the threat of further illegal confiscations of white farms: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4457280/Is-South-Africa-heading-civil-war.html. Liberal globalists objected to this article, as the recognition of the clear failure of the multiracial dream is unpalatable to them.

     Meanwhile the victims of this supposed war begin to pile up, not just in farm invasions and deaths and tortures: https://mg.co.za/tag/farm-invasions; http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-escalate/news-story/3a63389a1b0066b6b0b77522c06d6476,  but in the day-to-day ghoulish rapes/murders.
    The latest horror: Hannah Cornelius, a 21-year-old student, who was raped, stabbed and strangled to death in Stellenbosch South Africa, by four blacks who had carjacked her. Two suspects have, at the time of writing, been caught. No doubt, this will not be seen as a hate crime:
https://www.amazon.com/Into-Cannibals-Pot-Lessons-Post-Apartheid/dp/0984907017.

     The ASIO director-general has said that there is “absolutely no evidence” of a link between Australia’s refugee intake and terrorism: The Weekend Australian, May 27-28, 2017, p.1. This was a bit hard to swallow, and even The Australian said that the remarks were made “despite multiple Islamic terrorist acts in the past three years involving individuals on humanitarian visas, or their children.”

     The debate exploded with the Attorney General defending the ASIO boss’s comments: The Australian, May 31, 2017, p. 1, saying that Middle East refugees are not the source of the terrorism problem. There is, he observed, many aspects to the Islamic terrorism problem, including the radicalisation of young people by terrorist organisations. True, but trivially true. This is really a superficial response to the issue, as other experts admitted that even if the actual refugees were not a terrorist risk, the sons and daughters of refugees were at danger of radicalisation: The Australian, June 1, 2017, p.1. Thus, it is true that merely being a refugee from the Middle East did not automatically make one a terrorist, but who has said that? No Australian  authority has said that the children of refugees have radicalised solely because their parents were refugees, for clearly other cultural factors must be at work.

     Another day, another slaughter from terrorists, this time in Manchester, where a home-grown Islamic terrorist suicide bomber murdered 22 people, including mothers and children. Salman Abedi was the British-born son of Libyan refugees, and recently returned to Britain from Libya, and had been in contact with Syrian Islamic fundamentalists: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/everything-know-salman-abedi-named-manchester-suicide-bomber/.

     Abedi is thought to be only one of many ready suicide bombers, and Manchester police, along with most of Britain is on red-alert. Even in sleepy Australia, authorities intend to check all bags taken into the weekend football, which is a sound idea. The lack of security in Australia is just making it easy for the Manchester tragedy to be repeated here.
Indeed, the NSW coroner has found that the NSW police took too long to storm the Lindt café during the Monis siege, as well as numerous other errors: The Australian, May 25, 2017, p. 1.  In response, the NSW police will be given rifles to deal with terror threats. One hopes, given other incidents where innocent bystanders took friendly fire: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-09/four-injured-as-police-shoot-man-hornsby-shopping-centre/7496102,  that adequate training with rifles will be given.

     The ongoing campaign for ‘constitutional’ recognition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is an enormous and dangerous scam, no matter how idealistic or not its various proponents are. An attempt to work a vast fraud on the Australian people is in progress; and it is difficult not to believe that there is a ‘third party’, financially and thus politically powerful, behind the whole adventure.

     This critical situation became even more apparent in a huge article in The Australian (20-21 May), ‘Renewing the Faith of 67’ by Nicolas Rothwell, journalist, authority on Aboriginal affairs and long-time advocate for ‘constitutional’ recognition. Although this article is far from impartial and thus genuinely comprehensive, it gives a useful summary of the moves towards ‘Aboriginal sovereignty’ (and thus future national division) since the 1967 referendum. It shows (unintentionally) that a clear pattern emerges of a long-term plan to destabilise the Australian nation, just as former communist Geoff McDonald predicted in his 1982 book Red Over Black.

If you are trying to understand Scott Morrison’s Budget, which someone has described as a ‘Labor Budget’, then the following quote from Mr Robert Menzies (Leader of the Liberal Party) in The Age, March 3, 1941, p. 7, may bring some enlightenment.
Mr. Menzies is reported to have said:

“I always tell my Opposition friends that the only difference between us is that I am theoretically non-Socialist, yet an amazingly practical Socialist, while they are theoretical Socialists. People will take things from us they wouldn’t take from the Labor party. That is outstandingly true in Australia. It is a question of speed. The whole process has been a magnificent justification of the Parliamentary system despite its superior critics. You get two views which, in theory, are violently opposed. In practice the extreme course of today is a commonplace of tomorrow. I claim to think, and that seems to be a most unpopular pastime with a great number of people.”

     Sorry for mentioning naked ladies in the title, but trust me, it is relevant and not gratuitous sensationalism just to get Google hits. You see Stephen Hawking, who is ok in the IQ department, has said that humanity seriously needs to start looking for a new planet because within 100 years, this one will be pretty much finished, from everything from pollution to nuclear war and the population bomb: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/stephen-hawking-100-years-on-earth-prediction-starmus-festival.

     Well, let us suppose that this is so, just for the sake of argument. What is to stop the new planet from being destroyed in record time too? If we can’t save this one, then what likelihood is there of saving the next? And, the one after that? At some point we will reach the limit of space exploration and have to face our own hubris. Why not do it now? In fact, with the slow development of space travel, and the problems of long-term life in space, it is most unlikely that our future will be in the stars:
https://www.wired.com/2016/02/space-is-cold-vast-and-deadly-humans-will-explore-it-anyway/; https://www.businessinsider.com.au/living-in-space-causes-health-problems-2012-7?r=US&IR=T; https://www.wired.com/2012/07/medicine-psychology-space/?pid=4350&viewall=true.
    Meanwhile, in his down time Professor Hawking likes to frolic with the naked ladies at a Californian sex club, as far as that is possible for someone with motor neuron disease in a wheelchair: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/stephen-hawking-brief-history-lapdancing-745182.
    My guess is that given he has previously said that we had 1,000 years to get off the planet, we should take the latest news with a bag of salt.