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                  

To The Age
Louise Adler correctly says that the best cartoonists 'make us reflect on our prejudices and blind spots' ('It's no laughing matter', 22/11). However, she is on less secure ground in bluntly asserting that 'in a civil society racism or sexism is deemed unacceptable' and that legislation such as 18C 'serves as an educative tool and a moral compass for a decent society'.

One problem is that opinions differ on what is or is not sexist or racist. Adler's phrase 'moral compass' tends to suggest that all good people see things the same way. They don't. Another problem is that, as a matter of fact, laws against racial hatred and vilification have been used in many countries to achieve political censorship. Perhaps oversensitivity to alleged slurs is one of Adler's blind spots.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Ref: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/chinese-tycoon-risks-new-political-row-defending-18c/news-story/e895c1821117bbd9543929e59108da0b

Ref: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/definition-of-aboriginal-needs-to-be-clarified-pauline-hanson/news-story/a335deb75228ffb356e2b18bc93d9b48

Remember the proposal by the South Australian Labor Premier Jay Weatherill to build a facility for holding the world’s high-level nuclear waste, which would, given Murphy’s Law, ultimately kill us all and make Australia into a radioactive multicult, culturally diverse but radioactively green? Yes, that’s what your nightmares have been about. That is the real reason why you, like Uncle Len, have had insomnia, high blood pressure and an aching back.
Now our premier is going for a referendum for the doomsday dump (The Australian, November 15, 2016, p. 7) that is sure to kill us all, did I say that, for a few dollars. The Greens and Aboriginal groups have been strongly opposing this, all in accordance with my grand plan. And opposition leader Steven Marshall has withdrawn his support and opposed the project: God bless you Stevey!

Oh, the referendum requires bipartisanship because Jay thinks there is no point having a referendum if the “No” side is likely to win. That’s the spirit!
So you in the east and west, be thankful that our cash-strapped pollies may not unleash a nuclear holocaust on you. Behind the scenes Uncle Len letter-boxed daily and has even neglected his writing, disappointing his many thousands of fans, who looked forward to his zany style of dark humour, or near-humour, to wash down each week, the bitter news of politics in the age of Spenglerian decadence. What’s that Uncle Len, a literary allusion? How long before you burst into song? Well, talent I may not have, but at least I don’t glow in the dark. For now, at least.

The activist group Get Up! that gets up to all sorts of things Left wing (my God, that’s almost a poem), has been campaigning for a ban on foreign donations to Australian political parties. (The Australian, November 21, 2016, p. 7) That is about the only thing they do which I support. The problem though is consistency:
Get Up! itself received over $300,000 in the past two years from foreign donors, most of whom are rich Leftoid groups. And then there is the PayPal button on their site for overseas donors.

Get Up! campaigned to “put the Liberals last” in the last election, which would be a good idea if Labor could also be put equal last. In any case as it is not a political party, banning foreign donations to political parties would not harm it. What is needed is counter-organisations to Get Up! from our side of politics to oppose them, and if necessary funded by overseas organisations!
The Trump administration and new CIA should think seriously about funding Australian organisations which are pro-Trump and concerned about opposing Chinese domination of Australia.
Now let me think: who has been working on that one? To quote a Left wing guru: “you know my name, look up the number.”

One of the most delightful things about the US election, is having a cold beer and watching the liberal fallout. In America university campuses are having collective “cry ins,” and students are able to pat “comfort dogs” to help their stress levels. Mike Adams has said in a recent Natural News.com article (http://www.naturalnews.com/055980_precious_snowflakes_universities_natural_selection.html), that these sensitive snowflakes will be eliminated by natural section in the next major existential survival event, such as a global economic collapse. Isn’t that sad, bringing a tear to one’s eye? I don’t know about you, but my box of tissues is empty.

This is a generation produced by the baby boomers, who have never had to be in contact with cold hard reality, as past generations did, who tamed a savage land, built civilisation and defended it. They are the generation of levelling and destruction, who have been spoilt rotten, and now are rotten, as seen in their temper tantrums on the streets of America, and even Australia. Only a people corrupted by affluence would behave in this way.

As a cradle Catholic, but no longer practicing, I demand my multicult rights to make this criticism, with years of tears of frustration at the direction of the Mother Church.  Not only does Pope Francis welcome what he described in his own words as an “Arab invasion,” but when asked about the election of Donald Trump, he said that while he did not want to pass judgment on politicians, contradicting himself, that he wants us to “understand the suffering that their approach causes the poor and excluded,” meaning refugees and migrants. (Breitbart.com, November 12, 2016)

Well if he feels so strongly, here is what he should do.  Liquidate the Catholic Church!  Sell up the Vatican, all of the countless trillions and zillions of dollars of riches accumulated over the centuries.  Land, artworks, schools, universities, the lot should be sold.  Go back to the poverty of Jesus!  Have church services in rented community centres.  Then pool this great wealth and buy up vast amounts of land in Africa.  Let the refugees go there and live very well.  Let the Africans live well too, thousands of time better than they do now.
So Pope Francis, time to show humanity an example.  Do this, and I will return to the flock.  I promise.

My God, don’t they ever go away?  First Paul Keating has been back in the news, not only making helpful suggestions for the Labor Party, but also because he does not support the constitutional recognition of Aborigines because this does not go far enough.  He wants an indigenous treaty.  Thus, in a letter to academics doing a book on the topic he said: “Why would any of you want or need that document to acknowledge you?” (The Australian, November 14, 2016, p. 4)
Here is the full, classic Keating quote:

“I am not a supporter of the so-called constitutional route to recognition. The route to recognition has to be straight through the front door, with a document acknowledging prior occupation, including recognition and atonement for the dispossession.”
“A treaty is the best way to do this, notwithstanding it has to be 200 years late. If my forebears had been here 60,000 years, there is no way I would be fobbed off with some weasel words in this country’s horse-and-buggy utilitarian Constitution.”

What happens in America usually comes – like a disease – to Australia, hence it is wise to watch what is happening across the “pond.”
On the negative side, an academic from the Northwestern University had “argued” that Christian fundamentalism poses a greater threat to the United States than Islamic terrorism. (Breitbart.com, October 27, 2016) Apparently radical Christians have access to all those nuclear weapons that could blow up the world. This academic also argues that Jesus would be a socialist and advocate for “the just sharing of the world’s resources.” Ok, let the Pope start the process, as Peter West has said.

On the positive side, an African-American professor at Harvard University, James Sidanius (et al), “Ethnic Enclaves and the Dynamics of Social Identity on the College Campus: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 87, 2004, pp. 96-110, has shown that “safe spaces” for minorities does more harm than good, primarily by damaging relationships with other ethnic groups. Your Queensland student case may be an illustration of this principle.

This issue has relevance to your section 18 C (I write as an American in Australia). The point arises from Donald Trump’s closing ad which targeted the globalists such as Soros, which has been said to have “anti-Semitic over tunes.” (Huffington Post.com November 6, 2016) The ad which defended “Americanism” against “globalism” and used expressions such as “global power structure,” was said by various groups to involve “stereotypes” and “baseless conspiracy theories.”

But the “conspiracy theories” are not baseless. The evidence is clear that Soros is not a helpless man living on the streets. He is in fact a globalist with enormous financial power who acts to further an agenda against nationalism. A multitude of leaked emails confirm this. So, should Soros and others be beyond criticism?
If there was an Australian Trump you can be sure that section 18 C would be cranked up to full volume and used against this hypothetical individual’s many statements about crime, ethnicities and immigration, made in an Australian context. That is one reason why section 18 C is so wrong and why it is a pity that the Australian Constitution, an enabling document, does not have a right of free speech.

Prince Harry has made what the Huffington Post calls an “extraordinary attack on press treatment of girlfriend Meghan Markle” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/11/08/prince-harry-makes-extraordinary-attack-on-press-treatment-of-gi/) Before going on, we should note that Markle is Jewish in terms of religion, and racially is “black,” having an African-American mother. See: http://www.ethniccelebs.com/meghan-markle, and http://www.celebritybeliefs.com/meghan-markle/.

Kensington Place on November 8, 2016 issued a statement addressed to the press saying that a line had been crossed with the media harassment of Markle and her family, with smears on national newspapers, “outright sexism and racism” and her mother having to battle reporters just to get to her front door.  Some reporters and photographers even attempted to break into her home.
Bribes were offered to her ex-boyfriend for “dirt” and the reporters harassed anyone from family to friends to get a story on her, the more controversial the better.
It is a shame to see the young love birds having their relationship torn apart by a predatorial media and the British tabloid one is as vicious as the American one and almost as bad as the Australian media.

Here are some further disturbing signs of what is to come in the gender agenda. First, a German court has ruled that a 16-year-old-girl can continue having a sexual relationship with her uncle – yes, her uncle, aged 48 – which began when she was 14. The “prohibition of love is a threat to the child’s well-being.” (DailyMail.com, November 4, 2016) What!

Forgetting about the incest angle, the age of sexual consent in Germany is 14 so long as a person over the age of 21 does not exploit the child’s “capacity for sexual self-determination.” How could it be otherwise, for it is a child that we are talking about here. What hope have German’s got?
In Ontario, Canada, “mother” and “father” are terms set to be scrapped by the government of Kathbeen Waynne in the Children’s Law Reform Act, being replaced by “birth parent” and “parent,” respectively. Along with sexual and gender identity teachings the social engineering of the family is well underway, as it is in Australia.

The issue of Chinese domination has taken a back seat to other issues, but let us revive the issue.
There was “alarm” by the US about the influence of China in Australian politics, and US ambassador John Berry said, noting that foreign donations were illegal in America: “It is an entirely different matter when the government of China is able to directly funnel funds to political candidates to advance their national interests in your national campaign. That, to us, is of concern. We cannot conceive of a case where a foreign donation from any government, friend or foe, would be considered legitimate in terms of that democracy.” (The Australian, September 14, 2016, p. 1)

Previous to that, an article at Afr.com, August 30, 2016, reported on the Briefing Book given to all senators and members by the Parliamentary Library, pointing out that “Beijing’s plan to spend billions on infrastructure projects in the region, including in northern Australia, (is) an attempt to gain a strategic advantage and validate its claims over disputed waters in the South China Sea.”
Our Asianised, politically correct, foreign investment-drunk politicians do not appear to be listening to these words of warning.  Time for an Australian version of Donald Trump, only much stronger and cleaner living.