The majesty and eternity of Christ contrasts sharply with the feet of clay shown by the oppressive New World Order or what is now called globalism. We have seen many victories by the little people against their oppressors, from Brexit and the US electoral victory of Trump to our own Federal Election result.
Our writers have used these events to encourage Australians who are hurting – from farmers, to blue collar workers, to the homeless and unemployed, to also take action and become part of a “Western spring,” a democratic grassroots revolt against the elites. I have some articles torn from The Weekend Australian (November 26-27, 2016), on this exact theme.

One article discussing the “nation’s new fringe-dwellers,” observes that “on the urban edges and in country towns, people are feeling abandoned,” which is surely the understatement of the year. Country people are in a state of economic and social crisis, produced by a system too much devoted to inner-city political correctness issues to address their real needs. And the result of this is that Grievance politics, consuming much of the Western world, is also here in Australia. The driving forces are irresistible.

It is the dogma that is the drama - not beautiful phrases, nor comforting sentiments, nor vague aspirations to loving-kindness and uplift, nor the promise of something nice after death - but the terrifying assertion that the same God who made the world lived in the world and passed through the grave and gate of death.
Show that to the heathen and they may not believe; but at least they may realise that there is something that a man might be glad to believe.
Creed or Chaos by Dorothy L. Sayers

Ref: http://www.ipa.org.au/portal/uploads/IPA_Report_The_Case_For_The_Repeal_of_Section_18C_12122016.pdf

Greens and technically challenged scribes apparently believe that battery-powered cars and planes are exciting new clean “zero-emissions” vehicles. There is little new about batteries – battery powered cars were running on British roads over a century ago - they were pushed out of the market by petrol power. Batteries just store energy made elsewhere and all have a finite life. Every battery needs primary energy and resources for production, recharging, replacing and recycling, and every step produces its own emissions.

Batteries require lots of expensive raw materials - lead, calcium, nickel, cadmium, lithium, hydrogen, plus ancillary copper, steel, zinc, aluminium and plastic. All need primary energy like coal or gas for mining, manufacture, construction, recharging and recycling plus coking coal for smelting metals. Even wind and solar are not emissions-free once construction, maintenance, and life cycle replacement are fully accounted for.
All cars, even Green ones, need road maintenance using bitumen, concrete and diesel-powered machinery, all costing money and producing emissions. Green cars also need recharging stations, demanding more metals.
Batteries have an important place in our lives. But they are not “emissions free”.

Just in case one may think that we have been exaggerating about the desire of the ethnic multicultural lobby for preserving section 18 C, here is a direct quote, cut from “Chinese Tycoon Risks New Battle Over 18 C,” The Australian, November 29, 2016, p. 6:

“A Chinese powerbroker at the centre of a political donations scandal, Huang Xiangmo, has moved to rally ethnic community support for controversial hate speech laws, sparking a political brawl and claims he could be trying to minimise scrutiny of China in Australia.
In an opinion article titled “18C is a bedrock of society” published in Chinese-language newspaper Sydney Today, the Chinese billionaire argued against winding back section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which restricts speech that insults and offends.
“If the hard-line advocates of free speech succeed in having section 18C of the act repealed major cracks could open in society,” Mr Huang said. “This is the last thing we need at a time when there is heated debate in many places around the world about such things as immigration, foreign workers and radical Islam.”

How’s this one: a mother of six is facing gaol time after selling a homemade meal to an undercover investigator: http://www.naturalnews.com/056132_regulations_food_police_California.html. The Californian woman sold a meal without a permit, and in the socialist republic of California (much like Australia), that is an offence with one year’s gaol time. She will go on trial in December. We in Australia also have our own versions of “food crimes,” but we may not be as crazy as California yet.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton may not be prosecuted by Trump, who perhaps for strategic reasons has moved away from appointing a special prosecutor, although maybe he might have changed his mind with the Democrat’s challenge of the election results: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/27/trump-threatens-prosecute-hillary-clinton-pursues-election-recount.html. Trump said to The New York Times:

The standard reference to 40,000 years for the alleged first Aboriginal settlement of the landmass that would come to be called “Australia” by the British keeps getting pushed further back into pre-history, according to mainstream and less than mainstream archaeology. I have heard a 75,000 year figure: http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2011/09/dna-confirms-aboriginal-culture-one-of-earths-oldest/.  On the net, various groups even go so far as to claim that Aboriginal Australians are 400,000 years old: https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/australian-aboriginal-history-timeline.

There is an interesting paper about this at: http://thestringer.com.au/homo-sapien-sapiens-originated-in-australia-not-out-of-africa-dna-evidence-5938#.WD4nV4N95aQ.
See also: http://humansarefree.com/2014/08/the-first-human-race-came-from.html.
The logical conclusion of all of this is that modern humans did not arise in Africa, as the “Out-of-Africa” anti-race hypothesis posits, but arose in Australia!

The childhood homes of many Australian prime ministers have been “razed without a trace.” (The Australian, November 21, 2016, p. 7) The home of Paul Keating at Marshall Street Bankstown, has been levelled and units put up, probably largely occupied by Muslims.
Bob Hawkes’ childhood home at 63 Farquhar Street (another good Anglo Street name), Bordertown, is up for sale, no buyer yet.
John Howard’s childhood home now has a KFC on it. And so on.

In America and Britain, they preserve such relics, but here in Australia we tear them down, and rightly so. The legacies of these clowns should not survive and they deserve to all be swept into the dustbin of history.

For some time now a small group of scientists have been raising sophisticated doubts about the soundness of virtually all statistically-based research in the social sciences and medicine, with a now classic paper being John Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Findings are False,” PLoS Medicine, 2, (2005).
The problems are many and relate to a misuse and abuse of P-value significance tests to systematic biases arising from small, unrepresentative samples.

Yet another addition to this literature is by A. D. Higginson and M. R. Munafo, “Current Incentives for Scientists Lead to Underpowered Studies with Erroneous Conclusions,” PLoS Biology, November 10, 2016. These scientists attempt to account for the Ioannidis-inspired research, arguing that funding mechanisms reward small studies that are likely to produce false results.
Using an ecological analysis, they show that “fitness,” that is academic success, is produced in this way rather than by careful large studies that take more time and resources.
The problem is not merely academic. About 50 percent of research findings in medical research cannot be replicated in human trials, putting a big question mark over the use of some Big Pharma drugs.

Throughout the Trump campaign the mainstream media, including Australia’s (witness our coverage of The Australian), went into fits of rage and temper tantrums, about Trump’s immigration reforms. They were quick on the draw with their magic “racism” gun, expecting that people would die in fright with their legs up in the air. But, it all backfired.

Zogby Analytics conducted a poll for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR – see their on-line journal critiquing immigration, The Social Contract). It has found that 58.5 percent of Hispanic voters supported President-Elect Donald Trump’s immigration policies, while only 32.9 percent supported Hillary Clinton’s open border policy. It was also found that 83 percent of the American electorate wants immigration stopped or reduced: www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/17/exit-poll-58-percent-hispanic-voters-back-donald-trumps-immigration-policies/. So much for the racism argument!

One of the inconvenient truths that the “let’s make Australia part of Asia” mania do not openly discuss, is the penetration of Asian organised crime into Australia. A recent article, “China Deals 'Launder Drug-Trade Billions,’” The Australian, November 23, 2016, p. 7, quotes the NSW Crime Commission, in stating that trade deals with China are being used as cover for multi-billion-dollar money laundering, from drug profits.

The NSW Crime Commission said that the over 600 major crime figures are “beyond its reach.” Its law-enforcement efforts have been ineffective in dealing with the problem of the masses of drugs coming into Australia.
The problem now is that Australia, in becoming part of Asia, has also absorbed the Asian crime networks as well. These, no doubt, deeply penetrate into the heart of government, as probably older mafia networks did, and still do.  At the deepest level, government, finance and crime all connect up in the Two Towers.

Here is a worrying sign from India, reported by Brian Maher at http://dailyreckoning.com/author/bmaher, November 17, 2016.
In India 90 percent of all transactions are by cash. But the government, in a plan so secret that even India’s financial institutions were unprepared, suddenly banned its 500-rupee and 1,000-rupee bills, worth $US 7.50 and $US 15 respectively. This led to poor people having to go back to barter, if they could.
This shows that governments could outlaw cash overnight, even in Australia. However, willing members of the legal profession could immediately initiate action in our High Court of Australia to pull the federal government back to order using our constitution as the supreme law of the land.

From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_51(xii)_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia

Some media statements by notable people need to be quoted rather than paraphrased for the full impact to hit. Thus, consider Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson’s comments about the “racist” ABC (The Australian, November 22, 2016, p. 1) in the context of Paul Keating’s promising reforms which had been:

“Wrecked by ignorant ministers and malign bureaucrats, aided and abetted by the media, not the least the country’s miserable, racist national broadcaster.” The ABC was “a spittoon’s worth of perverse people willing the wretched to fail.”

With all the anti-Trump articles in the mainstream media, two more balanced ones did catch my eye, those articles making high quality comments.
Professor Ramesh Thakur (The Australian, November 18, 2016, p. 14), rightly noted that “Trump is neither a threat to democracy nor a symptom of its flaws but the people’s chosen instrument to refresh and regenerate democracy.” The people voted against a corrupt elite symbolised by Hillary Clinton, who represented both the cultural globalism of the politically correct Left and the economic globalism of the super-capitalist Right.

Commenting on section 18 C Professor Thakur says that the “same danger exists in Australia with weaponisation of identity politics to polarise voters.” Discussing the failure of the Human Rights Commission to protect the student’s rights, he says “It beggars belief that many politicians see no problem with section 18 C and reject the call to review and tweak it.”
Thus, in conclusion: “If mainstream Australian politicians belittle, deride and dismiss popular beliefs and anxieties, they make the rise of populist demagogues inevitable. Australia awaits a champion to drain the Canberra swamp.”

The social credit writers of the League have been producing some very good work on dealing with the issue of the 'end of work'. Here I simply want to mention that I am seeing more material published on this in the mainstream press, which is no doubt a testing ground for what is to come.
There have been reviews of a new book on this topic by Tim Dunlop, Why the Future is Workless, (New South, 2016). Neo-liberalism combined with robotics has created a new class of people, the “precariat,” to use economist Guy Standing’s term. These people have uncertain part-time or short-term work, and consequently an uncertain future. And the class of the precariat will grow, with Oxford University researchers predicting that 47 percent of existing jobs will disappear in the next 20 years.
As an example, just around the corner, 3D printers might “print” out an entire house!

To deal with this social challenge there will need to be fundamental changes and Dunlop is sympathetic to the idea of a universal basic income. There is no mention of social credit, and the limitations of the basic income scheme have been discussed at this site.
One of the things following from the robotics revolution, ironically enough, is the end of globalism, or at least in part. Jamie Walker, “Robots Help Bring Jobs Back Home,” The Weekend Australian, November 19-20, 2016, p. 15, points out that both cheap energy and robotics will result in more reshoring because robots are cheaper than overseas workers. There will not be, though, many new jobs created, and those that are, will be essentially in getting the intelligent machines to work, if they are lucky, before even they are replaced.
Thus, we can indeed take it that work as we know it has come to an end and any discussion and future planning should proceed from that point.

I vaguely recall that way back in the 1990s, when Pauline Hanson released her book, Professor Robert Manne was, among others, critical of the use made of conservative thought on the new class and the new class elites. Hanson’s supporters had pointed to an abyss between these primarily university educated progressives and the beliefs of the ordinary people.

Robert Manne, “Elites Smashed by ‘Parochials,’” (The Weekend Australian, November 19-20, 2016, p. 20), penned a good piece about the causes of the present populist revolt. First, there was the cultural revolution of the 1960s overturning Western values that had been held for centuries. Then, beginning in the 1970s was the economic revolution of neo-liberalism and free trade, all part of globalism. The cultural revolution was embraced whole-heartedly by Left-leaning cosmopolitans and the economic revolution by Right-leaning cosmopolitans linked to money and big business.

Matt Ridley is one of those “no limits” kind of guys, and it is not surprising to see his article welcoming the rise of the robots: “Let’s Stop Being So Paranoid about the Rise of the Androids,” The Australian, November 22, 2016, p. 10. The problem is that both low skilled and high skilled jobs are at risk. If “thinking machines” can be created, even those with a good approximation to human capacities, regardless of philosophical problems about the nature of consciousness, the thinking jobs will go too. The computer geeks like to think that they are safe: someone has to look after the “thinking machines,” but even they are delusional because ultimately a robot floating in algorithms, could do that.

Ridley says that in the past automation of work led to more jobs, not less. The pessimists are just wrong. And if they are right, well, then its the time to consider a basic income, a salary from the government. Dream on. The mainstream media are simply not dealing with this issue with the seriousness it deserves. This time, it is really different.
Fortunately, this site has a lively social credit response to the “end of work” problem, and well recommended for reading is http://www.alor.org/NewTimes%20Survey/A%20Carbon%20Currency%20Future.htm

It seems likely that there will be an appeal lodged in the QUT student case. (The Australian, November 22, 2016, pp. 1, 6) The case has been widely condemned as one that should never have got as far as it did, but now it could proceed to trial. At stake here is the freedom to say anything, because the student comment that the indigenous computer lab was “segregation,” is surely a legitimate, basic, political comment that does not touch section 18 C. The other student comment about where the “white supremacist computer lab is,” is also a legitimate, basic, political comment, if there is any, repeat any, free speech in Australia at all.

The Human Rights Commission claims that it has examined whether section 18 C and the right to freedom of expression under article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are consistent, and has concluded that there is no conflict because free speech is “not an absolute and unfettered right.” But neither are the multicult “rights” behind section 18 C which give carte blanche legal power to offended ethnics for hurt feelings. The point is that section 18 C completely erodes all free speech worth having as the QUT/student case well demonstrates.

Heart disease was once the leading cause of death in America, and still is in Australia (considering all heart disease-related conditions). But as reported by Natural News.com, November 20, 2016, surprisingly enough, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease are now the world’s leading cause of death, and are so in both America and Britain. In Britain death from dementia and Alzheimer’s accounted for 11.6 percent of all recorded deaths.

This radical increase cannot be due to the ageing of populations, because heart disease is also closely linked to ageing and in many countries the death-rate for heart disease has declined. Doctors are now certainly better at diagnosing dementia and this would have impacted upon the recent morality statistics.

To The Australian
Noel Pearson's hagiography of Paul Keating is unconvincing ('A visionary of power', 22/11). It ignores the fact that the Australian people soon recognised, within one term of government, that their country was being led in the wrong direction by Keating. They chose as replacement a much greater prime minister and re-elected him several times.

Pearson's potted account of the 'three defining moments' of our history is misleading. Australia is first and fundamentally a British nation. The facts that long ago people crossed the Torres Strait land bridge and that there has been much non-British immigration in the last half century do not affect this truth.  Keating attacked the prime foundation stone of our British culture - the Australian monarchy. Australians didn't buy that and they won't buy the current 'reconciliation' campaign - really a hypocritical power grab - either.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic