PM Albanese claims, ‘momentum is growing to enshrining an Indigenous voice in the Constitution’? Nonsense. The opposite. There’s growing resistance to setting up an apartheid system favouring mainly city-based Anglo-Aboriginals. He says he ‘commits to holding a national poll in the next 12 months’? Beware the Labor Party’s attempt to rush through the vote/referendum before the resistance spins out of control.
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s Newsletter of 8 April 2022
The left love to use Indigenous Australia to win political points.
They think that if they acknowledge traditional land owners enough, talk about changing the date of Australia Day, support Black Lives Matter and join protests about deaths in custody, we’ll all vote for them.
We all know the left think they have a monopoly on minority groups.
It’s the “soft bigotry of low expectations”.
They do their best to distract us, keep us angry and divided about the problems of the past, hoping we won’t pay too much attention to the problems of NOW, because they have no REAL solutions.
While Loopy Lidia Thorpe cries racism because she wasn’t allowed on her tax-payer funded flight because her handbag was overweight, Indigenous women in the Northern Territory remain the most at-risk group for domestic violence.
Women like R Rubuntja, a founding member of the Tangentyere Women’s Family Safety Group, who was brutally murdered last year by her own partner Malcom Abbott.
Where was the outcry for her? Where was her ‘Black Lives Matter’ protest?
A woman who had worked so hard to raise awareness of domestic violence in the NT, who was a voice for the voiceless, a mum and a grandma murdered in cold blood by a man with a chilling record of violence against women.
In 1997 this monster was only given 10 years for stabbing two women, killing one. In 2009, just two years out of prison, he was only given five more for stabbing his partner three times. Just after that in 2014 he was only given 15 months for assaulting his sister-in-law. And in 2019, it was just one year for stabbing another partner.
WHY WAS THIS MAN NOT BEHIND BARS?!
Fatherlessness, drug and alcohol abuse, and black-on-black crime rates going unaddressed mean the country is leaving rural Indigenous communities behind.
It’s all caused by racist white men and the patriarchy.
The left have done their best to remove all responsibility from the shoulders of the perpetrators. They say it’s not their fault things are bad, and only they can fix it for us.
The left are more concerned with dredging up the problems of history than the REAL problems facing us NOW!
Well sorry, but we’ve tried it your way.
It’s time we find REAL solutions to the REAL problems affecting Indigenous communities.
It’s time we stop listening to inner-city “experts” and start listening to REAL women like R Rubuntja.
Maybe if we focus on the NOW, not the past, we can save some lives.
If I get to Canberra, that’s what I’m going to do.
I’m going to represent you – and the community I’ve lived in my whole life – by listening.
And when I get to the Senate, I have some things to say, and the people who pay lip service to Indigenous Australians to win some white-guilt votes aren’t going to like it.
See you there.
Yours for REAL solutions,
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
Country Liberal Party Senate Candidate for NT
Vladimir Putin had reasonable issues regarding Russia’s security – the same America had at the time of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. John Mearsheimer, to whom I referred in previous comments, outlined a background – NATO’s eastward movement – for Putin’s concerns about security in his video, Why is Ukraine the West’s Fault? I found his case compelling.
A second reason I had sympathy for Putin’s position was his projection of a Burkean conservatism in speeches that invoked Russia’s rich history, traditions and culture. But the idea that Putin espoused a Burkean conservatism was a chimera – a chimera destroyed by a brutal invasion that has since degenerated into barbarism and vandalism.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine shows he cannot be trusted and that his nationalism is similar to that of Hitler’s or Mussolini’s, both driven by a warped vision of their history. Their form of nationalism must destroy the sympathy of those who think history, tradition, and custom, circumscribed by the natural law, are of fundamental importance to a healthy nation. Nothing can excuse the indiscriminate pulverising of Ukraine’s cities.
The best outcome now for Putin is a Pyrrhic victory, the worst, total defeat. One must have not only sympathy for the people of Ukraine, but also for the Russian people, most of whom clearly did not want a war with the people of Ukraine and who regard the Ukrainians as brothers and sisters.
A naked act of war entirely predictable
Insurrectionists, mostly Australians of different degrees of Aboriginal ancestry, some unrecognisable as ‘indigenous’, have been shouting their intentions for years. They don’t recognise ‘ownership or ‘sovereignty’ over Australia by anyone but themselves. ‘Always was, and always will be’ is a constant refrain sung by the complicit government-funded ABC and SBS. These are not empty beliefs. They are intentions and beliefs to be acted on. And they have acted.
They were shouting ‘burn it down, burn it down’ while they piled kindling on the flames eating away at the doors of Old Parliament House. They had no compunction setting alight Old Parliament House. It was a right act in a righteous cause. Their ownership gives them the right to destroy whatever does not meet their insurrectionist/separatist agenda.
And there, yet again, was the seriously delusional Greens senator, Lidia Thorpe, shouting her support for what was nothing else but an act of war.
The insurrectionists have declared war on Australia. Why not give them the war they want?
Has power-hungry Putin fixed his lustful eyes on Ukraine?
Commentary in Australia says ‘yes’. Vladimir Putin is just another Russian dictator about to crush a weak defenceless country – a country without the protection of the US and NATO. But this a stereotypical unresearched (even self-serving) view of President Putin. There is far more to the story and it could be the US and NATO who are at fault.
Professor John Mearsheimer provides a compelling case that the West is responsible for the explosive situation on Ukraine’s border in his hour-length video, Why Ukriaine is the West’s fault. If one wants to stick to the case that Russia and Putin are showing their characteristic lust for power, one has to answer the extensive detail in Mearsheimer’s case.
I have been taking an increasing interest in Russia and Vladimir Putin since the Oliver Stone interviews in 2017. Until then I thought of Putin and Russia in the way most in the West think – a communist dictator in a different dress, the Soviet Union in a different uniform. The interviews changed my mind, as they must have with many people in the West who saw them.
First, Putin was open, candid, and endeavoured to give straight answers all to Stone’s questions. Second, and this is what impressed me most, he argued with much verifiable evidence that the West had gone back on promises made to Russia. If Putin was right, then the West was playing a dirty game of shameless lies and deceit.
What? I thought. It’s the communists who are the liars, not us. We’re pure, innocent, keep to our undertakings. No, in this case, if Putin is right (and it’s easily verified), it’s the West who fits the image we have had of the communists.
Since the interviews I have been following developments and viewing the many youtube videos on Russian history and culture. Particularly informative are the Russian vloggers who give a fascinating look at ordinary Russians and Russian culture. As regards Professor Mearsheimer’s presentation, he has merely confirmed and filled out my own conclusions about the Ukraine problem.
The US and NATO are the problem and as of today, it looks they are prepared to unleash a senseless war which nobody wants.
What’s Happening to Australia
My life-long friend and I were chatting recently about the dramatic changes in Australian society since the revolutionary 1960s and 1970s. We both agreed that Australia has had its best years, those years culminating in the 1950s when Australia was one, sure of itself, patriotic and optimistic. A few days later, the essay below appeared, extending our conclusions. It is an excellent essay that serves as a warning to the ordinary Australian. If someone does not act soon to stem the decay, well, we can kiss goodbye to our nation and leave it in the hands of those who hate us.
Daniel Wild, in Essays for Australia, IPA
29 November 2021
For many Australians, Australia no longer feels like Australia. The relaxed, sunny, and optimistic attitude characteristic of the quintessential Australian has been replaced by a deep sense of pessimism, malaise, and a loss of self-confidence and self-belief. There is a growing unease that something has gone very wrong with our country and way of life, accompanied by an unshakable belief that Australia’s best days are behind it.
The spirit of our sunny optimism was perhaps best captured on 29 November 1948, the day the first commercially sold Holden rolled off the assembly line at Fishermans Bend in Port Melbourne. The Holden was “Australia’s own car.” The first car “made in Australia, for Australia”, described by then-Prime Minister Ben Chifley as a “beauty.”
The Holden was more than a car. It was a symbol of national success and hope for the future. The parent company of Holden, General Motors, stated at the time that “the manufacture of a car is the greatest industrial stride Australia has made since the production of steel was introduced in Newcastle in 1915.” And that the start of car manufacturing “will go down as a milestone in Australia’s history.”
It was a time when almost every Australian who wanted a job had one. And almost every one of those jobs was stable, full-time, and available to Australians of any cultural background, skill level, or occupation. It was the era that gave birth to the Australian dream of owning a home in the suburbs on a quarter acre block.
I have alleged often on this website that Aboriginal activists (mostly the delirious white faction) are agitating for a separatist system of government in Australia. Theirs is an apartheid, though, with a huge difference from the South African system in which black Africans were the inferior race.
In our local activists’ vision (not all Aboriginals are activists), white Anglo-Celtic peoples who established and built the Australian nation with absolutely no input from the disparate Aboriginal tribes roaming the continent, constitute the inferior caste.
But Australia’s Aboriginal activists (particularly the white ones) are not the only indigenous group struck down by delusions of superiority. In all countries where Europeans founded a new nation you have a similar a group of ‘First Nations’ people pontificating to the bad white (mostly Anglo-Celtic) folk, often from fat-cat positions in government and non-government organizations.
Confession and Conspiracism in the Church of Social Justice
Jonathan Kay, Quillette, 22 Nov 2021
“Indigenous peoples have been stewards of this planet since time immemorial,” tweeted Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault from the Glasgow Climate Change Conference earlier this month. “The fight against climate change is not possible without their knowledge and leadership.”
It was an odd thing to post. In recent years, many Canadian Indigenous groups have become full commercial partners in oil and gas development projects, and so have no particular incentive to apply their “knowledge and leadership” toward assisting white environmentalists such as Guilbeault in limiting carbon emissions. But even if First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples fully answered his call, it’s not clear why they would have any special insights to offer in regard to how densely urbanized nations such as Canada can best shift their industrial base, power generation, and transportation networks to low-carbon fuel sources.
But for Canadian progressives, Guilbeault’s intended audience, his message would have made sense, as it channelled the officially endorsed conceit that Indigenous peoples comprise a sort of oracular caste, whose folk wisdom shall inform the project of planetary salvation (or as one magazine headline writer rapturously put it, “we need Indigenous wisdom to survive the apocalypse”). Canadian progressives, a constituency once defined by fastidious secularism, are now experiencing a sort of Indigenous mystical awakening—a northern variant of the phenomenon described aptly by John McWhorter in his new book, Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America.
The ‘stolen generations’ claim is a constant refrain in the Marxist narrative, despite not one case succeeding at law. And why wouldn’t it be? It is a massive weapon in the extreme left’s goal to create chaos and destroy the nation that was founded in Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788 and endured whole until the 1950s. Sure, Aboriginal children, full and mixed blood, were removed from their parents, but they were removed for the benefit of the children, as the authorities then judged. In most cases, it was the right action. Tony Thomas provides some background to the political issue of ‘stolen generations’ with a review of Nicholas Hasluck’s book, Bench and Book.
The Unsinkable Child-Stealing Myth
Tony Thomas, Quadrant, 12 October 2021
A bit of judicial biffo goes on all the time as appeal courts rule on whether a trial judge got it right or wrong. A case in point is the High Court’s unanimous critique last year of two Victorian appeal judges who sent the innocent Cardinal Pell to prison. Such court language has a polite veneer. But do you ever wonder what judges really think? To find out go buy Nicholas Hasluck’s Bench and Book, (Arcadia, $44), published a month ago. It’s his two-year diary from 2000 when he became a WA Supreme Court judge. He reitred in 2010.
Barrister Nick, also novelist, memoirist and poet, took crimson while continuing as chair of the Literature Board of the Australia Council and finishing a Jacobean-era novel, Arbella’s Baby, writing as “Margaret Martin” in a post-modern identity twist.
Book and Bench publishes for the first time his private biffo with ex-High Court Judge Sir Ronald Wilson over the latter’s Bringing Them Home Report of 1997, source of the “stolen generations” story and alleging government-administered “genocide”.
Hasluck’s father, Paul, was Commonwealth Minister for Territories running Aboriginal policy and administration in the Northern Territory from 1951-63, and Governor-General 1969-74. Paul Hasluck, with his devotion to Aboriginal welfare, didn’t actually spend his time stealing part-Aboriginal kids from their wailing mother’s arms. Equally absurd is that Paul’s bureaucrats did the stealing behind his back; Paul was fanatical about portfolio detail.
Yet if Bringing Them Home were true, Paul had to be a genocidal monster. Paul’s son, Nick, was not having any of that.
The intra-judicial explosion detonated when Sir Ronald wrote effusively to Nick congratulating him on becoming a judge (their Perth homes were only 7km apart as the crow flies). Sir Ronald doubtless expected a grateful reply. But Nick was stewing over Sir Ronald’s telling the National Press Club in 1999 about NT ‘genocide’ in the Hasluck era. Nick blasted Ron; Ron lashed back. They banged heads to mutual exhaustion. And later, Ron admitted to Patrick Carlyon of The Bulletin (June 2001) that his ‘genocide’ claim was a crock (p258) – which hasn’t stopped the Australian wokerati spraying the term around regardless.
Review of The History of Political Theory by Garrett Ward Sheldon
GenZconservative, 14 March 2021
As I’ve said before, political philosophy is something I find interesting but struggle with reading and truly comprehending it. I love reading books like The Prince, Leviathan, and The Federalist Papers, but wonder how much I’m able to glean from the complex ideas in those books. However, my eyes were opened to the value of well-written, concise discussions of political philosophy when I read Professor Sheldon’s The Political Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and, shortly afterward, The Political Philosophy of James Madison. Because I enjoyed those books so much, I chose to read his The History of Political Theory: Ancient Greece to Modern America.
As you should be able to guess from the title, The History of Political Theory covers how political theory has developed over the years. Beginning with Socrates and ending with Benjamin Barber, it covers some of the most influential political thinkers, generally from the West, and what their ideas were.
If you don’t have time to read the full review, just know this: The History of Political Theory is a book you need to read. To develop a better political system, we must understand the political ideas of the past, as those ideas are the concepts from which our system extends. We must understand them so that we can tweak and refine them in our quest to create the “more perfect Union” referred to in the Constitution. Read it. You won’t regret doing so.
The arguments for free speech in current debates are almost exclusively based on a principal of utility. Simply put, free speech will result in benefits for society. Those acquainted with the academic discourse on free speech are likely to appeal to J.S. Mill’s utilitarian arguments which he summarises in four points. In brief, to suppress all beliefs in favour of one held to be the truth, presupposes infallible judgement. No one and no group is infallible. Thus the clash of many opinions is the way to the truth. That presupposes free speech. If people reason their way to true belief, they will not hold that belief by prejudging – not as a prejudice.
If arguments from pure utility are unconvincing for some, one can also mount a Burkean defence of free speech incorporating an idea of utility, but one drawn from man’s nature rather than resting solely on a principle of utility. There are two crucial passages in Burke that provide the basis. The first is in the Reflections:
[Without civil society] man could not by any possibility arrive at the perfection of which is nature is capable, nor even make a remote and faint approach to it… He who gave our nature to be perfected by our virtue, willed also the necessary means of its perfection – He will therefore the state – He willed its connection with the source and the original archetype of all perfection.
The second is in the Appeal:
The state of civil society… is a state of nature; and much more truly so than a savage incoherent mode of life. For man is by nature reasonable; and he is never perfectly in his natural state, but when he is placed where reason many be best cultivated, and most predominates.
These passages constitute Burke’s refutation of the state of nature arguments of Hobbes, Locke, Paine and others, but they can be extended to defend free speech within the limits of the natural law. The basic argument is that man as a being with moral consciousness and a perception of the natural law needs to be in community with other such beings in order for that consciousness and perception to operate. But it is not a question of mere operation. A being in community with others and with a consciousness of right and wrong naturally seeks what’s right and avoids what’s wrong.Continue reading BURKE ON NATURAL RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH