To The Australian
David van Gend is right that 'anti-discrimination laws should not be used to silence dissenting voices' ('Conscience demands we debate unimpeded', 26-27/12). He correctly adds that dissenters are not the problem, but 'the existence of laws that suppress free argument on matters of public importance.'

Tim Wilson is equally adroit in noting that 'free speech is being restricted by ill-defined anti-discrimination law' ('Outing clear harassment doesn't need elaboration', 26-27/12). He wisely objects to tests for restricting speech 'based on subjective and loose terms' and rightly points out that the fashionable phrase 'hate speech' is vague and ambiguous. However, his proposal that legal prohibitions should be supported against 'conduct that intimidates' and 'expressions designed to deny another person's humanity' does not itself escape from unacceptably subjective terminology. Moreover the 'particular concern of the Jewish community after the experience of the Holocaust' should not be allowed to make that topic off limits to supporters of revisionists with dissident perspectives, such as Gerard Menuhin and Nicholas Kollerstom.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

The battle to maintain our freedom and our culture in Australia continues. In recent days we've seen the Australian Human Rights Commission commence an investigation into Bill Leak, a cartoonist for the Australian newspaper, because a small number of people were offended by his cartoon highlighting family dysfunction in some Aboriginal communities.

Meanwhile, the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board has commenced its 32nd investigation into me. However, it refuses to let me know exactly what it is 'investigating'. I have been given until Friday to respond...
This should not be surprising. These bodies are essentially the political police force for left-wing radicals. They were always designed as such and they are simply doing the job that they were always established to do. The solution to this intolerable situation is not to tinker with sections of legislation that are probably unconstitutional anyway. Instead, the entire apparatus of the anti-discrimination industry must be destroyed.

The opportunity this technology provides can be considered under the following scenarios: gas refineries emit CO2 to the tune of up to 40% of total production-throughput. This is a large source of CO2 and should be an ideal candidate for genuine environmentalist activists to pursue.
CO2 is emitted as a bi-product of combustion: heaters, boilers, internal combustion engines. This again is a large source of CO2 for conversion to ethanol - power stations, refineries, cars.
If converted at source of these fuel burners, the ethanol can be recycled back as additional fuel.
There is no longer a concern for CO2 caused global warming-ed.  

Ref: http://www.thedrive.com/news/5613/scientists-accidentally-found-a-great-new-way-to-convert-co2-into-ethanol
Scientists in Tennessee have accidentally discovered a method to convert carbon dioxide, one of the most serious causes of climate change, into ethanol for use as a fuel for internal-combustion motors. This newfound ability to recycle the greenhouse gas could potentially help slow global warming.

“We discovered somewhat by accident that this material worked,” said Adam Rondinone, an author on the research group’s study journal, in a press release. “We were trying to study the first step of a proposed reaction when we realized that the catalyst was doing the entire reaction on its own.”
Researchers at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that by putting copper and carbon together to create nanospikes on silicon, exposing the matter to carbon dioxide dissolved in water, and electrifying it, the solution was transformed into a surprisingly-highly-concentrated blend of ethanol.

“By using common materials, but arranging them with nanotechnology, we figured out how to limit the side reactions and end up with the one thing that we want,” Rondinone said.

As Popular Mechanics notes, unlike other CO2-to-fuel converting processes, this method puts more common materials—carbon and copper—to use. Also, the final product is ethanol, which is already a relatively commonly-used fuel that has plenty of engines capable of burning it.

The theme discussed in articles this week – ranging from the philosophical lessons of the US election, to gun control, section 18 C and many other topics –is that “the system is rigged,” to take a meme from the present Trump debates. The idea here is that the “system” – economic, political, and cultural – has fundamental elements of corruption and deception built into it. Social creditors would not be surprised to be told this because they have been aware since at least Major Douglas’ first writings about our flawed financial/economic system, with faults ranging from the lack of purchasing power to the “black magic” creation of credit by banks out of nothing and the debt creation on financial instabilities produced by that.

However, apart from the “big picture” corruption, relating to the fundamental contradictions of the system, we continue to find every week “micro corruptions” in the economic, political and cultural systems. To name a few from economics: there is the “discovery” of a global gold price collusion, where the world’s major banks rigged the price of gold for over a decade: The Australian, October 14, 2016; A Caminschi and R. Heaney, “Fixing a Leaky Fixing: Short-Term Market Reactions to the London PM Gold Price Fixing,” The Journal of Future Markets, vol. 34, no. 11, 2014, pp. 1003–1039.
There is also the failure of politicians across the world to address the seriousness of the exploding debt crisis. While the media falls all over Hillary Clinton, bowing to her globalism, US national debt is now a crushing $US 20 trillion, as Collapse News, October 21, 2016 reports. It would take 18 months, using the entire US GDP – which is obviously impossible – to pay this debt off No-one asks: who is the debt to, and how could a nation become essentially bankrupt? Who lurks in the shadows pulling the strings?

Of all the things which Donald Trump has said, the claim that the system is “rigged” is the one which really upsets the ruling elites because this challenges the legitimacy of the “game.” Hillary Clinton said that Trump is “denigrating … talking down our democracy.” But what “democracy” does America have with a “rigged” media, constantly lying, and much worse, totally corrupt polls with fraudulent voting?

Let’s begin with the media who do not make any attempt to disguise outright bias, even in the face of inconsistency. For example, the New York Post.com, October 23, 2016, has an article “Trump Leading in Poll that has Best Track Record Over Last Three Election”: http://nypost.com/2016/10/23/trump-leading-in-poll-that-has-best-track-record-over-last-three-elections/. The article cites the Investor’s Business Daily/TIPP tracking poll which has Trump with 42.1 percent and Clinton at 39.7 percent. That would at a minimum, if words and numbers still have a meaning, of indicating a reasonable chance for Trump, surely. But the last sentence of the article quotes a Reuters/Ipsos vote analysis that gives “Clinton a 95 percent chance of winning”. Anyone who knows basic statistics can see that this is a mathematical inconsistency because the voting analysis could not get such a super-high, unrealistic success probability contrary to the best poll. The article doesn’t even address the issue but just dumps the last sentence in to “refute” the poll.

Senator CULLETON (Western Australia) (17:20): I stand here in this chamber today to present my inaugural speech on oath, to deliver my message to the Australian people. What follows will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before almighty God and the people of Australia.

The Washington Times, (October 6, 2016), reports that on US universities liberal professors outnumber conservatives by nearly 12 to 1. The study equated Democrats and liberals, and Republicans, and conservatives, which is problematic in itself, since Republicanism is today very much liberal and just another form of the Democrats.

They certainly are a party of “cuckservatives” and if Trump has none nothing else he had shown that. They are almost as degenerate of the Australian Liberal Party.

Former Keating government attorney-general Michael Lavarch, the architect of the Bringing Them Home Report (1995), has said that indigenous child removals is almost reaching 10 percent of all indigenous children and is set to create a new “Stolen Generation.” (The Australian, October 6, 2016, p. 8)

The Bringing Them Home Report claimed that the removal of mixed-blood children in the past constituted a form of “genocide”. High school children are taught, and university Arts/social science youths are indoctrinated, with the idea that this was a “racist” program, rather than an attempt to save children from harm. There were many articles in Quadrant over the years arguing that the “stolen generation” was the “saved generation,” and in general the courts found against applicants.
See: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/2010/03/the-stolen-generations/.
Nevertheless, learning from history, child-welfare authorities probably should abandon addressing what they take to be the neglect and abuse of indigenous children because down the track this will be condemned as “racist.”
It is the elites who are saying that there is no problem here, only a lack of “cultural sensitivity,” so one may as well run with this and avoid another “Stolen Generation.” If this leads to disaster, let the guilt be upon them for once.

In the lead up to the referendum over Aboriginal constitutional recognition, every scientific paper thought to support the “long-term view” gets media coverage. Thus, attention was given to A-S. Malaspinas (et al.), “A Genomic History of Aboriginal Australia,” Nature (2016): doi : 10.1038/nature18299.
The research was a genetic study of 83 Aboriginal Australians and 25 Papuans from the New Guinea Highlands.

It is said that there was diversifications in populations 25-40,000 years ago “suggesting pre-Holocene population structure in the ancient continent of Sahul (Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania)” However, the Aborigines descended “from a single founding population that differentiated ~ 10-32” (thousand years ago).”
To my mind this means that the 40,000 year or even now 65,000 years’ occupancy figure must be incorrect.
They also say: “Aboriginal Australians and Papuans diverged from Eurasians 51-72 kya  (thousand years ago), following a single out-of-Africa dispersal and subsequently admixed with archaic populations.”
So, “archaic populations,” “archaic hominins” were really here first! Is there going to be constitutional recognition of the ancestors of the Aborigines? Surely there must be, in all fairness.

Collapse News, October 5 2016 reports that during the past year, according to leaked FBI data, there were over 7,700 terrorist encounters in the US. Most of these terrorist encounters were in the states near the US/Mexico border, showing that terrorists are entering through this non-protected barrier.

Of course, when this issue was raised by playboy Don Trump, he was shouted down as a racist by the manic left. But the issue raised here are how safe are borders, and especially, what is getting into Australia through our vast coastline, where resources necessary for adequate protection are also missing from action?

We, at this site have been critical of Pope Francis for his support of liberal ideologies, especially the Islamisation of Europe. However, the Pope has fallen from grace with liberals recently for his criticism of genderism in schools, which he has referred to as “ideological colonisation.” Genderism was a “great enemy of marriage” and part of a “global war to destroy (traditional) marriage.”
See: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4991/pope_francis_vs_gender_ideology.aspx.

In March 2016 the Pope published a letter Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love), which criticised same-sex marriage, seeing it as the “legal deconstruction of the family,” and wrote that genderism was flawed because of its denial of “the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman” and far its utopian dream of a “society without sexual differences.” The attempt to erase sexual difference is the symptom of a sick society, he proposed.
See: https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf.

Will activists be slamming the Pope with a hate/discrimination case?

See further: https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2016/08/22/popes-critique-gender-theory-emboldens-bishops-speak/.

As much as possible I have tried to shield myself from all the hype associated with Hollywood star Kim Kardashian. But I do know that she supports gun control.
How ironic, then, that in gun-controlled France (gun-controlled for ordinary people, not the criminals), Kardashian was robbed by armed robbers, disguised as police officers. Kardashian has said that guns “scare her” and if she could change the world, gun control is something she would do.

Well, Paris is a city with the sort of gun control the likes of which Kardashian supports, and look where that got her. Presumably she has some sort of security system, but she still ended up with the situation of being robbed at gun point. She could have been murdered.

Collapse News, October 5 2016 reports that during the past year, according to leaked FBI data, there were over 7,700 terrorist encounters in the US. Most of these terrorist encounters were in the states near the US/Mexico border, showing that terrorists are entering through this non-protected barrier.

Of course, when this issue was raised by Donald Trump, he was shouted down as a racist by the manic left. But the issue raised here are how safe are our borders, and especially, what is getting into Australia through our vast coastline, where resources necessary for adequate protection are also missing from action?

I have been given a copy of Christopher Jon Bjerknes’ Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist (2002), and by coincidence I also linked to the Quora.com discussion “Was Einstein a Fake and a Plagiarist?” The very-much establishment site Quora had the usual fan boy responses to those questioning sacred cows.

Interestingly enough a lot of attention was given to the views of Nobel Prize winner Philipp Lenard, who became of chief of Aryan physics under the Nazi regime. Naturally, Lenard’s claims of Einstein’s plagiarism must be dismissed, as Nazi propaganda.
However, one Quora comment, by Wasim Bari, makes the case that Einstein was the “plagiarist of the century.”
The key ideas in his 1905 paper, written without any references, were known to Lorentz and Poincaré before Einstein.
The famous E = mc2 equation was known to S. Tolver Preston (1875) and to Jules Herin Poincaré (1900), along with Olinto De Pretto (1904), before Einstein.
All of the basics of the special theory of relativity had been presented by Poincaré, such as the velocity of light as a limit velocity that mass depends upon speed and the impossibility of detecting absolute motion. None of this was acknowledged by Einstein in his unreferenced 1905 paper.
The interesting question is, if all of this is true, and Bjerknes’ book gives ample evidence, why has the media promoted the image of “St. Albert”? And, what other scientific sacred cows, have yet to be exposed?

The hypocrisy of the political and chattering class never ceases to amaze me. We have seen the spectacle of male politicians and journalists falling over themselves to condemn Trump’s language and raise themselves to ever-higher moral heights. Yet, while we cannot name names here because of defamation, you can surf the net and acquire much dirt on many leading names. It is well known in Canberra that high class call girls regularly serve the political class. None of this dirt gets out because both sides do it, but from time-to-time a pollie gets careless with payments and gets exposed.

A number of leading pollies in the past were notorious sex addicts and one is said to have died in the act. From a Christian perspective this is sinful and appalling, but is how the world is. What is more appalling though is the sham high morality of pretending to be offended by the “P” word, while Hillary Clinton’s latest Wikileaks shows that she is lying about almost everything.

I know, I know.  These are just words.  But listen to these words, these are absolutely amazing words, nobody before dared say what Trump says.  At the very least, I think that we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.  What if Trump is really sincere?  I am not saying that he is.  But I am wondering – what if?!

Before the Trump-gate bad-mouth-about-women scandal, Donald Trump Jr said that the Syrian refugee problem could be described as follows:

“If I had a bowl of skittles and told you just three would kill you.
Would you have a handful?”

Ref: http://katehon.com/article/syria-uk-and-funding-moderate-armed-opposition

A document produced last December by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, headed: “ UK Humanitarian Aid in Response to The Syria Conflict”, makes interesting reading. The British government it states, has spent “over £100 million” since 2012, “working closely with a range of actors” to “find a political solution to the conflict and prepare to rebuild the country in the post Assad era.” (Emphasis added.)

Ref: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45702.htm
When Mosul falls, Isis will flee to the safety of Syria. But what then?
The entire Isis caliphate army could be directed against the Assad government and its allies – a scenario which might cause some satisfaction in Washington.

Syria’s army and Hezbollah and Iranian allies are preparing for a massive invasion by thousands of Isis fighters who will be driven out of Iraq when Mosul falls. The real purpose behind the much-trumpeted US-planned "liberation" of the Iraqi city, the Syrian military suspect, is to swamp Syria with the hordes of Isis fighters who will flee their Iraqi capital in favour of their "mini-capital" of Raqqa inside Syria itself.
Read further: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45702.htm

from JoNova's Website:
Bill Leak is a cartoonist, who did a cartoon highlighting the dismal state of some dysfunctional familes in central Australia. I can’t show you that cartoon and we can’t discuss appalling crime statistics nor why  “women of a certain ethnic group are 30 times (or 80 times) more likely to be beaten and hospitalized.”  Two women die every week but we can’t talk about the problem of people who stomp on someone else’s head because words might offend someone.)

Read further: http://joannenova.com.au/2016/10/dont-put-bill-leak-on-trial-lets-try-the-human-rights-commission-instead/