Jacob's Soap Box

14 June, 2008

You have to give it to Irish, they saw right through the bullshit of the country’s major political parties’ heavy campaign for a “yes” vote in the ONLY referendum in the EU on their reconditioned constitution, cleverly named “The Lisbon Treaty” to circumvent further referenda in EU member states. Ireland voted “no” for the second time! Those Europhiles don’t give up, do they?

Three years ago France and Holland rejected the European Constitution in another rounds of referenda. It was then widely believed at the time that had the question put before voters in other EU states, they too would have rejected it. I suspect that, despite the rhetoric, this time the situation is similar, had the question been put in a referenda to other countries in addition to Ireland the result would have been a resounding “NO” of global warming proportion.

It goes to show that if all the major political parties are in agreement, you better watch out, they are protecting their own interest, not yours – good on you Ireland!

The pundits will no doubt try and explain the “no” vote in Ireland as a “yes” vote except that middle class, middle age, middle blond women voter or whatever spoiled it for the rest of the country – well, maybe so but the result is still no.

Why should I care about the EU? I care because since Britain joined the EU we Aussies, Kiwis and other member of the Commonwealth have to queue up in the Aliens line in Heathrow, shock horror! Isn’t that a good enough reason? 🙂

No it is not, BUT, seeing that our illustrious hollow Prime Minister, Mr. Kevin Rudd (aka Kevin07) is running around Asia proposing a “union” of Asia and the Pacific similar to the EU, I thought that I better take a look at what Kev has for us.

I realise that this is just another of Kevin’s stunts, after all the man could not arrange an orgy in a whore house, let alone deal with our problems at home, such as inflation, petrol prices, food prices to name a few. Thus he packs up his loyal journos in his VIP plane and over prawns (shrimps) with Champaign hands them their next reports that portray himself as a great statesman, grandstanding on the world stage fighting climate change and arranging a union of …. Listen to that … according to The Australian of 5 June Mr Rudd said that:

“We need to have a vision for an Asia-Pacific community, a vision that embraces a regional institution, which spans the entire Asia-Pacific region – including the United States, Japan, China, India, Indonesia and the other states of the region,” said the Prime Minister.

Who are those “other states of the region“? Apparently the Prime Minister is talking about adding India to the 21-mambers states of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation states (APEC). According to APEC Internet site, they are (in alphabetical order):

Australia; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; People’s Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Republic of Korea; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Peru; The Republic of the Philippines; The Russian Federation; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; United States of America; Viet Nam.

Did you see what I did? Is he serious? The United States and the Russian Federation together in a union a-la EU? With Canada and Mexico in it too what about the NAU? Actually why not? After all Russian is only 92 Km (58 Miles) from the USA.

This is turning more and more into the bizarre world of George Orwell’s 1984 which is divided to four super states, albeit arranged differently than Kevin Rudd’s has in mind but just as bizarre, he continued:

[The body would be] “able to engage in the full spectrum of dialogue, co-operation and action in economic and political matters and future challenges related to security”.

“The purpose is to encourage the development of a genuine and comprehensive sense of community whose habitual operating principle is co-operation,”

(What does it mean?)

And a bit of alarmism borrowed from the climate change rhetoric:

“The danger of not acting is that we run the risk of succumbing to the perception that future conflict within our region may somehow be inevitable.”

[Brackets and emphasis provided]

Well, according to local media here in Australia, at least one of the US presidential hopeful, Mr. McCain, is “greatly in support“; Greatly? had John McCain actually seen the full proposal before he welcomed it or did he smoke something that day?

When further queried by The Australian, John McCain said that:

“I believe the more closely that the countries in the region work together for free and open trade and the more agreements with the United States, I’m greatly in support of.”

Frankly I regard Kevin Rudd’s stunt proposal, as a pie in the sky, at least in the way it presented. This is not to say that there no powers to be who support globalisation by creation of super states. Although, thanks to rejections by the people of Holland, France and now Ireland, the EU is not, as yet, a supers state, leave it to the politicians and the Eurocrats it will turn into one tomorrow.

The history of the EU is going back to the humble European Coal And Steel Community (ECSC) that was founded in 1951 by the Paris Treaty signed by the “original six”: France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Nederlands and Luxemburg. It was later turned the European Economic Community (EEC), commonly known as the “Common Market” and since the Maastricht Treaty of 1993, The European Union (EU).

The object (in 1951) was to create a framework of cooperation on steel and coal production and to promote lasting peace in Europe. The selection of these two commodities was not accidental, they are both with paramount strategic importance at times of war. Little is known that USA actively supported and encouraged the idea of a European union . America was weary of fighting wars in Europe and saw such arrangement as serving its own interests, beside they all had a new threat to worry about, Stalin and Communism, a good reason to unite irrespective of other reasons.

Britain was excluded from the original plan and its first attempt to join in 1963 was vetoed by France’s General De Gaulle who regarded Britain as a “Trojan Horse” for USA influence.

American influence on France? God forbid, Has mon général objected to the “American influence” on the invasion of Normandy? In any event France’s objection ended with the end of De Gaulle’s presidency and Britain finally joined the EEC in 1973 under the stewardship of (the Conservative ) Prime Minister Edward Heath.

I note that when it comes to European Globalism the socialists do not have monopoly. Even half American, like Winston Churchill supported some form of united Europe although he was not clear on whether Britain should be part of such union.

In the meantime (in 1960) seven non EEC European countries formed the European Free Trade Agreement zone (EFTA), these included Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, they were later joined by Finland (1961 as associate and full member in 1986), Iceland (1970) and Liechtenstein (1991). Today only Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland remained in EFTA whilst the rest have all left and joined the EEC/EU.

Today the EU includes 27 member states, 23 official languages, a European Parliaments with two locations, 785 Member of the European Parliament (MEP) roughly allocated pro rata to members’ population. The European Commission, a sort of executive branch that comprises of one appointed commissioner for each member state, the European Council which is an assembly of the 27 heads of the EU member states. The Presidency of the Council is rotated on a six monthly basis. The “European Council” is not to be confused with the “Council of the European Union” that is a council of ministers. Confused? (I told you not to be! 🙂 So am I.

Only 15 of the EU members adopted the Euro as their currency, this group is also known as the “Euro zone”, who are (in alphabetical order) Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Malta, Nederlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain. Notable in their absence are Britain, Sweden and Denmark who elected to retain their own currencies in or out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM)

The original European Treaty (Rome 1957) obligated member states to strive for:

” … an ever closer union among the people of Europe …”

This wording mandates the Europhiles to go the whole hog for a “United State Of Europe” no matter how they spin it. We often hear that the EU is an assembly of countries with “shared sovereignty” which sounds a lot better than “Surrendered sovereignty” , I must confess, that to my mind the former is a misleading term – if you have the right to enter my house at any time and do as you pleased in it without my permission, I surrendered my sovereignty and we share nothing! Because I don’t have the same right.

In his book, Not Quite The Diplomat, Chris Patten, a former (Conservative) minister in Margaret Thatcher’s and John Major’s governments, the last (British) Governor of Hong Kong a former EU Commissioner and (naturally) an avid Europhile describes the salami tactics employed by the Eurocrats in conquering sovereignty from member states. In his book Mr. Patten quotes the then Prime Minister of Luxemburg, Jean-Claude Juncker in an interview to “The Economist” magazine, he said:

“We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because people don’t know what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”

[Emphasis provided]

I call this modus operandi “a conspiracy”

Another EU plot was to rename its constitution a “Treaty”. The reason being that many of the member states governments have the power to ratify treaties with or without their national parliaments approval, but such powers do not extended to constitution that in all cases require referenda.

This is a trickery aimed at avoiding facing the people!

There is little doubt that given the opportunity, the people of other European countries would have reject the “Lisbon Treaty as did the Irish people. As this so-called “treaty” can come into effect only with ratification by ALL members, the Lisbon Treaty is now dead! Any further ratifications by government are futile exercise if public relations and declines of further (but unlikely) referenda would merely kill a dead horse but would further embarrass and weaken the case of the Europhiles.

Mind you, this trickery is not the sole domain of the Europhiles, the Globalists of the UN often use the “treaty” tricks to circumvent national constitutions.

Chris Patten’s comments on the 2005 France and Nederlands rejection stands today in light of the Irish “no”:

“…. [the people of Europe] dislike the feeling that Europe is made over their heads … [and] … there is clearly a sense that the European project has gone too far, too fast for many of Europe‘s citizens …”

Frankly I have no objection that the people of Europe establish the “United States of Europe” (USE) if they so wish, the problem is that they clearly do not want to, yet our Prime Minster jumps in half cocked with a similar suggestion for us. Well, take heed America, this is what you will get if vote in a hollow man.

In a different context, I already said that I don’t want to be ruled from Beijing this is still the case now, by the way where would we pout the Pacific parliament? Washington, Moscow, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Canberra or should it be a travelling road show as the European Parliament.

I find it hilarious that approximately once a month, the European Parliament, packs up, lock stock and barrel, down to the last filing cabinet and moves from Brussels to Strasburg (France) and back again.

Where can I sign up to become a Parliament removalist?

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2008

6 March, 2008

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate how a deceptive use of statistics and (misguided or not) opinion leaders can create “truths” that are “beyond question”, such as the current attempts by the global warming scare mongers.

For a sake of full disclosure I am a smoker in remission. There are a number of reasons why I don’t consider myself “ex-smoker”: Firstly I am ex-nothing (except perhaps to my ex-wife but yet she is an ex too), secondly, I have nothing against smokers nor do I care when they smoke near me, thirdly, I do not believe the anti-smoking “science” which is in fact the forerunner of the global warming “science” – I have no doubt that you have noticed the global worming scare mongers’ identical terminology and tactics as the anti-smoking ones.

Whilst I agree that smoking MAY BE harmful, it is certainly not as bad for you as you are led to believe, the so-called harm from passive smoking is only second to the con job of Global Warming or is it the other way around? Having defeated the tobacco industry on the issue of smoking, the anti-smoking lobby took dirty tricks that they had learnt from the industry improve on them and applied the enhanced version in their pursue of social engineering control. The tools: abuse of Statistics and “experts” opinion.

All successful propaganda campaigns start with “experts” and “opinion leader”, someone that the unsuspecting target of the propaganda trust. The medical profession was selected as the “expert” and “opinion leader” due to its respectable status and the high trust it holds with the general public. If only the medical profession join the anti-smoking campaign, the Anti Smoking Lobby concluded, they, the medical profession, will do the legwork for the social engineers. This in fact has happened.

Statistics has been used in medicine for years for two purposes, a) to test effectiveness of new medicines or other treatments and b) to establish a (mathematical) relationship between a suspected cause of a medical condition – the effect which is the resultant ailment.

Once a mathematical (statistical) relation is found, it provides a basis for a clinical tests whereby the hypothesis that the suspected cause is in fact THE cause or one of the causes for a particular condition. If and when such hypothesis is proven clinically, then there is a proof between a cause and effect, otherwise we say the the (suspected) cause has not been proven. In other words, the mere existence of a statistical relation is not a proof for cause and effect.

Let me explain this, 95% death of people occurs in whilst they are laying in bed, you cannot get a much stronger (prima facie) statistical relation than that. Does that mean that we can extend our life expectancy by sleeping on the floor? Of course not, because laying in bed is not a cause of death, the real causes of death, illness, injury, frailness etc, also cause people to lay in bed, this is the real link.

Whilst in this example it is easy to see that laying in bed is not a cause of death, in the majority of tests, it is not that clear. For example, according to Gallop Poll survey in the USA 15% of The Democratic party voters consider their own mental health “fair to poor” whilst among the Republicans the ratio is 8%, or about half that of the Democrats. The question is; does voting for the Democrats makes you crazy? Or do you have to be crazy to vote for the Democrats?

Now that you understand the concept of cause and effect, lets bring the doctor in. Until the 1960’s the collective medical wisdom was that stomach ulcers are caused by fried and fatty foods, people who were diagnosed with ulcer were place on diet of well cooked bland food to avoid further exacerbation of their condition. The reason was: studies (statistics) showed a strong relation between fried and fatty food diets to stomach ulcer.

Believe it (or not) we still don’t know what actually causes stomach ulcer but we do know that it is associated with stress – the fatty and oily foods, the fast food of the 1940’s and prior, were only another effect of stressful lifestyle,  the real cause for ulcers. Had such “study” be carried out today the same relation would have been found between fast food and ulcer, I can just see the headlines: MacDonald Causes Ulcer.

If The doctors got it wrong only 40 years ago! What makes you so sure that the doctors did not get it wrong only 10 years later with (active) smoking and 20 years later, when the concept of “passive” or (“second hand”) smoking was introduced?

The success of the anti passive smoking campaign has nothing to do with science and all to do with the smell of cigarettes smoke. People who do not like cigarette smell readily accept any reason or no reason to demonise those with “filthy habit”, the “science” and the doctors were needed to get the media attention thus tip the opinion of those who did not care one way or another.

In 1999 the New England Journal Of Medicine (NEJM) published a (statistical) Meta-Analysis about “Passive Smoking And The Risk Of Coronary Heart Disease – Meta-Analysis Of Epidemiologic Studies”, by a number of researchers. By all account a respectable publication not to mention the impressive title and titles (I told you not to mention it).

In lay terms “meta-analysis” is consolidation of a number of statistical studies into one, something akin to “an average of averages”. Such analysis is as valid as the studies it is based on, the principle “garbage in garbage out” certainly apply to such studies and the implicit assumption that the parts that makes this study were done correctly is A BIG ASK without further supporting evidence that this is the case.

That said, I went looking for signs of reverse research. Reverse research is a process whereby the starting point is the “proof” from which the researchers focus only on data that support such “proof”. In plain words: fudge the data by selecting bias information that supports the desired results. Look at the data in the following extract from the NEJM:

View a in full size

We can see that risk was measured in ALL cases against FAMILY members, namely spouses. Think about it, tit  is an identical scenario to people dying in beds. People who live together have a similar lifestyle, they eat the same food, breath the same air (with or without smoke), exposed to the same cleaning materials etc, etc. etc. … and … yes when we talk about spouses they also have sex.

Of all the possible common causes the researchers pick smoking, unless they can support their assertions by clinical research, it just as valid as to suggest that Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), lungs cancer or perhaps smoking itself is a Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD)? I am told by two independent medical practitioners that they are not aware of any clinical study  on the cause and effect of passive smoking.

The fact that couples have so many aspect of their lives in common may be a proof that CHD, is not a result of first hand smoking (meaning that smoking is harmless to smpker) but that CHD is caused by some unknown common food or particular chemical that is hidden under the kitchen sink.

The duplicity of the anti-smoking lobby and the medical profession (on the smoking issue) is further comes to light when it was found that, statistically, smoking may prevent Parkinson Disease or otherwise it is medically beneficial – almost with the same breath as admitting the (possible) benefits from tobacco smoking the anti smoking lobby is quick to point out that statistical relation is not a proof of “cause and effect” and that “more research is needed”, isn’t it exactly what I say in relation to smoking?

OK, let’s have the “more needed research” on ALL aspects of smoking, good and bad! In the meantime, excuse me, do you have a light?

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2008

12 February 2008

Reading MySpace friend Pirate’s excellent blog Even Bigots have Freedom Of Speech I realised that watching the Obamination of America  I get a déjà vu feeling vis-à-vis the “Ruddicalisation” of Australia that culminated last November with the election of a “Hollow Man” one Mr. Kevin Rudd to be the Prime Minister of this country for three years.

The parallel between Rudd and Obama is astounding; Both relatively new to their political position, both have attempted to “re-right” their biography to portray a  more “suitable” story, both targeted the young voters with bumper sticker slogans and whilst one will not wear the American Flag on his lapel, the Australian Flag stood out in its absence in all Labor Party campaign ceremonies.

There must be a school for socialist aspirants to the highest position in the land in which students recite the “how-to-do” manual in the morning parade, immediately after singing The Internationale.

Just imagine Barack Obama get elected as the president, lightly hops on the White House steps, clapping hands and chanting yes we can …. And then what?

My guess is that he would be lost; Obama, who is a junior senator, has never held an executive or an administrative position in his life is now seeking to become the most powerful man on earth; making him the Commander in Chief is akin to putting a man who has never driven as much as a car, with automatic transmission, behind the wheel of a 12-gears-transmission, 18-wheeler semi-trailer and expect him to drive it proficiently.

My suggestion to my American friends is to go back to the future. What I mean by that is watch America’s future Obamination through the Australian current Ruddicalisation. It might give you a guide on the answer to the “then what” question.

With the notable exception of industrial relations, climate change and “me too-ing” our former Prime Minister, Mr. John Howard, Kevin Rudd was elected on a sleek promotion campaign that included bumper stickers, Kevin07 tee-shirts, YouTube  and empty slogans such as “working families”, “fresh ideas”, “embrace the future” and the like.

Senator Obama follows the same script almost to the letter.

Having won the election the very first Ruddical (or should I say “Ruddish”) act of our newly elected PM was to save the planet by ratifying the Kyoto protocol, a symbolic act which its timing has nothing to do with its ranking of importance (if you believe in that nonsense) but it had all to do with the fact an international conference on climate change was in progress in Bali when Rudd took office, a “not to miss” opportunity for Kevin’s applauded appearance on the world stage.

The second most important “achievement” of our new PM was to divide the nation and say “sorry” to the Aboriginal people for something that happened (or not) a few generations ago and to the left wing imaginary-cross generation guilt conscious we all must have. How much “reconciliation” such apology will bring is a matter of conjecture, but a good distraction from our real problems it certainly is.

I don’t know what would be Obama’s first action, if elected, but I grant you this: it will be a stunt, just as symbolic and just as meaningless.

With the opening of parliament this week the pattern of the Ruddicalisation is emerging, which is governed by stunts. Within the first week of Parliament sitting, Mr. Rudd announced that parliament will sit on Fridays but without government ministers (himself included) thus there will be no Question Time on Fridays.

Having just won a $100,000 increase in salary the new Prime Minister (who is married to millionaire wife), also announced this week that there will be no increases in parliamentarian salaries for the next 12 months, another “anti-inflation measure”.

For the 12 months prior to his election, we heard the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Rudd, calling himself an economic conservative whilst  acknowledging the accomplishments of the government of the day in term of a robust Australian economy. During the campaign Kevin07 had never criticized the Howard government for any of their economic policies – not even once! Instead he campaigned on undisclosed fresh ideas ,embracing the future and supporting working families, a term he plagiarised from an American Democratic election campaign.

Had you expected that after 70 days in office, Mr Rudd would have revealed what are his fresh ideas, you would be greatly disappointed. Instead, Kevin Rudd is going to invite one thousand (1,000) of the brightest minds in the country to convene in the Australia 2020 Summit and to come up with policy suggestions for the country. What has happened to Kevin07’s fresh ideas?  Did he forget them, or, more likely he had never had any to start with. Obviously it was just another one of his rhetorical campaign stunts.

I am not sure whether “2020” refers to the year 2020 or to hindsight vision of 20/20, in any event the list of invitees includes the usual suspects whose views are well known to agree with Kevin’s and with Labor Party policies. Andrew Bolt of the Melbourne Herald-Sun hit the mark by naming this charade  as The Charge Of The Bright Brigade.

Kevin07 now has to deal with it as continuing increases of interest rates by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) as a precautionary measure of, what the RBA sees as, coming inflationary pressures following the election of a Labor government; it reminds us all of the previous hard Labor terms we served (under Whitlam, Hawke and Keating) – if indeed inflation will materialised and interest rates continues to rise, it may well cost Kevin the next election which is due in just under 3 years.

The new Rudd government has quickly moved into immediate anti-inflationary measure and appointed a committee to count pencils and staplers and report to the PM himself, citing the Howard government “mismanagement” of the economy, 10 consecutive budget surplus produced by the Howard government notwithstanding.

(By contrast, in the last 30 years, only one budget surplus was produced by a Labor government, that was Paul Keating’s 1989/90 budget).

Hey mister, nothing much has changed since your election campaign, you knew what you were getting into, remember? Further, you were going to stop the blame game, remember? You said that you will take responsibility, remember? So stop whining and do what you suppose to do, GOVERN!

Wake up America, put down that Cool-Aid.

6 February, 2008

The (socialist Labor) Federal government of Australia is going to say “sorry” to the Aboriginal people on behalf of the Australian people, for the so-called stolen generation. In a nutshell, the term refers to successive governments’, federal and states, policies of removing half caste Aboriginal children from their tribal neighbourhood for their safety and placing them in institutions, church missions, foster and adapting homes, between 1910 and 1970.

This policy did not apply to full bolded Aboriginal children.

Once again the Leftist/Marxists/Fabians/socialist/communists have taken upon themselves, to trigger our collective guilt conscience for action taken by some people in Australia generations ago. Can someone please let me know what those action have do with me? Halooowww?!

What is it about those people who feel the urge to continuously set off our collective guilt conscience? We are blamed for everything from climate change to terrorism, child obesity, skin cancer or death of dolphins by supermarket plastic bags, and now this. The answer is simple, control by guilt even if such guilt has to be invented.

The term “stolen generation” was coined by Professor Peter Reid, of white European descent, of Sydney University in 1981 who subsequently campaigned on behalf of 100,000 “stolen” Aborigine “victims”, a number which was never substantiated, nor was any theft of children was ever been proven – In fact, so far out of the bombastic number of 100,000 cases only a few got to court ,just to be thrown out for lack of evidence of mal doing.

At the centre of the dispute is a consistent bi-partisan policies, between 1910 and 1970, of state and federal governments to remove half caste aboriginal children from their native tribes in order to protect them from almost certain harm by way of ostracism, physical and sexual abuse and even possibly death, from the full caste members of their families and tribes. Mothers, often underage themselves, were required to agree and/or the Child Protection Officers had to fill in answers to an elaborate questionnaire on the prospect of the child being accepted by his/her biological family and the tribe. The officer had to answer the last question yes before the child could be removed:

Having considered all points separately is the child likely to live a more contented, happy and fuller life, if removal occurs, than if he is left where he is?

So much for “stealing” children.

The proponents of the lie go as far as fabricating “evidence” of babies that were “stolen” from hospitals and mothers being told that they had stillborn, the problem with this myth is that very few tribal Aboriginal births were carried out in hospitals making the whole claim myth. But as always is the case with lefties emotional blackmail, why let the truth spoils a good story.

Don’t get me wrong, I do not claim for a minute that the system was perfect, even less so by our current values , nor do I claim that that there was no element of racism or other unacceptable practice, but one thing is for certain and that is that those who were involved at that time had honourable intentions, and that what counts.

Andrew Bolt, an Australian journalist and author issued a challenge to the Aboriginal misery industry to provide him with only ten names (out of 100,000) of “stolen” children to be scrutinised. Instead he got a barrage of accusations for being racist but no names. Don’t you wonder why not? I don’t!

Andrew Bolt interviewed Ms. Lowitja O’Donoghue, the first chair of the (now disbanded) Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders Commission (ATSIC) who had claimed to be part of the “stolen generation”, after persistent questioning she confessed in the interview that her father had in fact had dumped her with her four siblings at the United Aboriginal Mission’s Colebrook Children’s Home in South Australia and went walkabout. Andrew Bolt commented:

“To look at her own history, the two missionaries who took her in – Sister Rutter and Sister Hyde – did a marvellous job in not just saving her, but giving her a brilliant future. They deserve her thanks, not these distortions and demands for compensation.”

When Ms. O’Donoghue’s mother was located, its further transpired that she, the mother, is an alcoholic. Only when Lowitja O’Donoghue changed her own status from “stolen” to “removed” (or a similar word).

I want to make it absolutely clear that neither I nor this essay is critical of the Aboriginal people as a group, nor would I wish this essay to become an Aborigine bashing exercise. I am critical of the radical loudmouths in the Aboriginal movement, that includes white European people too, doing their utmost to divide the Australian society with provocative statements such as white fellas systematic genocide of blacks and comparing of Aboriginal people to Jews in the Nazi occupation of Europe.

As a Jew I take exception to such stupid comparisons, it is not the ignorance that enrages me, it is trivialisation of the Holocaust by people who demand that I, not only respect Aboriginal culture (I have no problem with it), but that I should apologise for something that I did not do, something that in fact never happened.

As I said earlier, many Aborigines confirm that that policy of removing half caste children have saved their life, gave them opportunities they would have never otherwise received and they, those Aborigines see no reason for the Australian government to be sorry about.

Further, it is generally acknowledged that although there were instances of child abuse, those have been dealt with by the courts applying stiff penalties. In any event such child abuse cases were neither of Government making, nor were they limited to Aboriginal kids only.

Take heed that since the 1950’s, the laws in Australia regarding welfare of children was changed to ensure equality when establishing what constitute a child at risk, covering both Aborigines and non-Aborigines families. However, such is the impact of the term stolen generation (it is taught in schools) that child welfare agencies are so concerned of being accused of “stealing” aboriginal children that they rather leave some children at risk then rescue them.

In other words, the child protection agencies are damned if the do (protect the kids) and damn if they don’t.

In early December, 2007 Australia was shocked by an extremely lenient rape sentence imposed by (a woman) judge on 9 man who admitted to rape of a 10 years old Aboriginal girl in Cape York in far north Australia. This court ruling was publicised internationally with the usual racism accusation, through ignorance.

As part of the background to this case, it transpired that the girl had been removed to foster care, when she was 7 or so, but returned to her dysfunctional family just before she was raped, because she is aborigine and that the Queensland department responsible was concerned of being accused of child “stealing”. This rape would have never occurred had the girl stayed with her foster care family.

On 14 December, 2007 the Melbourne paper Herald-Sun wrote:

TELL me if you see any real difference between Mary, Topsy and Dolly, all Aboriginal girls, writes Andrew Bolt.

“Mary” is 10 and has had sex with many men, contracting gonorrhoea and syphilis.

Topsy is 12, and also has syphilis. Her father is gone and the whereabouts of her mother unknown. There is no treatment out where she lives, no school and no police.

Dolly is 13 and seven months pregnant. She’s not with her parents and works for no wages on a station, kilometres from anything. She’s had no schooling and needs care.

The difference between them? Time and a myth, mostly.

Mary you’ve read about all this week. She’s the Cape York girl, whose last nine rapists were allowed to walk free.

She was given to loving white foster carers after being raped at seven, but was sent back to her town because welfare officials didn’t want to repeat the “stolen generations”

Weeks later she was raped again, and has been removed again. Too late.

Topsy and Dolly, on the other hand, are two of the children Prof Robert Manne, the top “stolen generations” propagandist, named when I asked him to list just 10 of the 100,000 Aboriginal children we’re told were stolen from their parents for racist reasons, not welfare.

Name just 10, I asked. He named Topsy and Dolly, “stolen” by a Queensland protector of Aborigines a century ago and sent to missionaries for medical care, food and schooling.

In fact, it’s precisely because Manne and others told us we were racist to steal children like Topsy and Dolly that we don’t “steal” children like Mary.

So now the Rudd Government wants to say sorry to Topsy and Dolly for “stealing” them, yet is sorry Mary wasn’t stolen, too. Here’s a dangerous contradiction that needs resolving.

So who should we really say sorry, to? To the girl we didn’t save, I’d say. Her life we’ve broken.

And that’s the difference that counts.

Spare some thoughts for Dean Shillingworth, a two years old Aboriginal baby who was found dead inside a suitcase in a pond in Western Sydney. His mother was charged with his murder and is awaiting trial. It transpired that the child had been known to the (state) Department Of Community Services (DOCS) for some time prior to his murder, were they (DOCS) too concerned about “stealing” another child because he is Aborigine? I guess we will find out during the trial.

We are already hearing Aboriginal activists talking about $1 billion compensation taking a leaf from the Canadian “sorry affair” to their indigenous people. Our Prime Minister promises us that there will be no reparations but can he make such promise? Once a claim goes to court it is up to the legal system to decide the case and we all know on whose side our legal system is.

Most Australian just want get on with it, we have more pressing matters to deal with, or is it a sign that our 2 months old government cannot deal with our real concerns such as inflation, House affordability, interest rates, petrol (gas) prices, food prices etc. Well looks like not!

© Copyright Jacob Klamer (except attributable quotes)

8 January, 2008

To most people outside the Commonwealth, cricket is a leaping insect similar to the grasshopper from the cicada’s family. To the people of the Commonwealth, cricket is also a ball and bat field sport’s game. If you arrived to Planet Earth today and landed in India, don’t get too alarmed by the local press, India is not about to invade Australia or even call its High Commissioner (Ambassador) in Canberra back for “consultations”

It all started in cricket test match (a game that lasts 5 days) between Australia and India in Sydney. Australia, snatched victory from what had looked like a certain defeat earlier in the match, with the usual jubilation which was quickly subdued because, it was transpired that an Indian player, Harbhajan Singh, called an Australian player Andrew Symonds “monkey”

Symonds is a English born with mixed English-West Indian ancestry who plats his hair and look quite ridiculous with bright white sun screen cream on his lips, but play cricket he can.

The matter was brought to the attention of the (South African) umpire (referee) who found Singh in breach of the “anti-racial” rules of the game and banned him from playing for 3 matches.

The Indian “response” was swift, first they threatened to boycott all further planned tests and return home then, presumably because of the financial implication of such action (heavy fine), they modified their attitude, lodge an appeal and “suspended” their participation pending the result of the appeal.

This brought the “anti racial rules” to the fore front. Why do we need an “anti-racial” rules in cricket, or in sport for that matter, is beyond me. This is obviously the product of the Political Correctness and the Multiculturalism viruses that infected every good part of our society including sport. The Australian media, a subsidiary of International Proletarian Movements, took up the Indian side, accusing the Australian team of dobbing, lack of humility and … yes, you got it “RACISM” Do you believe that? the victim, if there is one, became the villain.

There is nothing new in the victim being turned into villain, just watch a “cross examination” of a rape victim in court, the list of “rights” of the defender, defence “deals” to minimize criminals’ sentences or compare the rights of crim to the rights of the cops.

There is somehow the notion that racism and intolerance are the domain of solely white heterosexual of Europeans descent. Blacks, South Asian, other Asian, Latinos, homosexuals or indigenous people can never be accused of racism (you may recall the University of Delaware policy that require students to acknowledge that only “whites are racist”), thus Harbhajan Singh’s comments could not possibly be racist. The media even went as far as bring in an “expert” on Indian culture to “prove” that in fact in Indian culture “monkey” is a term of endearment. WHAT? I have many Indian friends and I have never heard of such stupidity. The Indian media found it “offensive” that there was a suggestion that of them make a racial comment.

To Australians, depending on the tone it is said, the term “you bastard” is a term of endearment, if your mate succeeded in, say, past a difficult exam, you would go, pat him on his back and say “you made it, you bastard”, but you would NEVER do it to a non Australian for obvious reasons.

The point is not whether calling someone “monkey” is racist or just juvenile stupidity, the game’s “anti-racial rules” should not have been there in the first place. This is another example of the results of social engineering the has been shove down our throat for years – without this PC rule the game would have (probably) finished with “sorry mate” – “no worries mate”.

In short the whole episode is, in the eye of the media is the fault of the Australians. Indeed, how dare they win a game of sport against the “oppressed”? (ok they did not quite say that but this the corollary). Beside, we have a RULE that encourage us to get offended, let’s use it, let’s play (and pay) lawyers instead of cricket.

What I find REAL offensive, is the white patronising multi-culti who decide for other people when and why they should be offended. Who are those morons to tell me that I should be offended by Christmas decoration because I am not a Christian? Who are those moron that at times of shortage of beds in public hospital ONLY non Muslim women are forced share a ward with men? Who are those morons who allow people an Australian Drivers License without being able to speak English?

Multiculturalism is in fact Cultural Apartheid. It is divisive and it is DISCRIMINATORY as much as it demands “understanding” of minorities by the majority but not the other way around. Christians suppose to tolerate Yom Kippur and Ramadan but Jews and Muslims suppose to be offended by Christmas, Who is running this asylum?

Take care, you bastard 😮

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2008

Camden NSW in Australia is a quiet small rural town with a population of about 50,000 including three (3) Muslim families. The town came into the news recently when an unknown organisation, “The Quranic Society” submitted a A$19 (about US$17) million Development Application (DA) for a 1,200 students Islamic school in town.

The resident apparently do not like the idea much. The Sydney based newspaper the Daily Telegraph reported that:

“Unsurprisingly, the proposal has raised a number of eyebrows in the predominantly Anglo-Saxon township in Sydney‘s south-west.

Many have already made their concerns known. According to mayor Chris Patterson 3500 submissions about the school have already been lodged with council. Of them, he says at least 2700 residents have included their full address details and while the count is still ongoing, just 13 have been in support of the school.”

The Quranic Society hired the past Lord Mayor of Sydney, Jeremy Bingham, as their lobbyist, representee and spokesman who quickly “express concerns”, accused the resident of “racial motives” (or words to that affect) and “reminded” the Mayor of Camden that:

“the council is legally obliged to judge the application against planning considerations only. The fact that the residents are unhappy about it is immaterial.

“If the council should knock back the development application, the (Quranic) Society will appeal the decision and we’re confident the Land and Environment Court will approve it.”

In simple words, as the Law stands, the residence can go jump unless they can demonstrate some sort environmental damage, such as that the school will destroy the habitat of the Common Three Legged Australian Grass Hopper (Socialistus Bullshititus) or that the buses that will bring the kids from who knows where will crate so much greenhouse gases GHG) and pollution that will seriously endanger the whole planet with 17 degrees Global Warming and 25 meter (75 feet) tidal waves.

Talking about GHG’s, the plan also include a THOUSAND (1,000) car spaces car park. What for? Is the Quranic Society has some further plans for Camden, a Mosque perhaps? You bet!

About a year ago a company named “Garden View Apartments” purchased an old disused public school with some land around it in Bass Hill from the State Government for “residential housing development” . As soon as the purchase was consummated, the property passed to another mob, “Al Amanah College” who placed a DA to the local Council (Bankstown) for …. Yes, you guessed it, a 1,200 STUDENTS ISLAMIC SCHOOL. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that:

“Nearly 2500 submissions were received from residents – 1829 against, 649 in support.”

Almost an identical copy of the reaction of the residents of Camden, albeit that Bass Hill is in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and it is near Muslims “ghettos” created by multiculturalism in the last 30 years. Bankstown Council rejected that DA “on planning grounds”.

My question is why do we need all those large Islamic Schools? 1200 students is 40 CLASSES and around 30 SCHOOL BUSES TWICE DAILY. There is little doubt that a smaller school would have been permitted in Bass Hill, what was questioned was the SIZE of the Bass Hill school. The case of Camden is different because THERE ARE NO MUSLIMS LIVING IN THE CAMDEN AREA and the residents of Camden want to keep the semi-rural characteristics of their town and, I suspect, avoid turning their town into little Beirut, Islamabad or Kabul as the case is now in the Southwest of Sydney with large Muslim enclaves.

More pertinent, WHO ARE the Quranic Society? And WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?

The Quranic Society has an address 2nd floor, 42 Faldon Street, Lakemba, NSW. It has a telephone and a fax but no website or an e-mail address. A photograph provided by an anti Islamic group show a dilapidated entrance to an organisation that lodged $19 million DA, obviously a temporary front only.

42 Faldon Street Headquarters

The main “suspect” is Saudi Arabia who finances the vast majority of Islamic Schools across the West but by no mean the only one. Among the other “suspects” are the Jama’ah Islamiyah (JI), Jama’ah at-Tableegh, also known as Tablighi Jamat which is associated with a group known as “Tableeghee” or “Tablighi” (TJ), both of which are known to be involved in terrorism and there are no doubt others.

The other question is WHY CAMDEN? There are no Muslims to speak of (3 families) living in the area and it is some distance (although not great) from centres of Muslim population. The answer is in the question – Because there are no Muslims in Camden and because it is some distance fro other Muslim populations. It is simply an attempt to start a new centre to spread Islam upon us like couch grass in a veggie garden.

It is a duty of every Muslim to spread Islam, either by “darwa” (invitation, proselytising and preach) or by Jihad (struggle, strive or fight), more about Jihad later but in order to spread Islam Muslim has to establish presence, conquer if necessary. Having practically “conquered” the Southwest of Sydney, the Muslims of Sydney are now ready to spearhead further fields outside the cities and move into the country.

And the people of Camden don’t like one bit, their main fear is that the school will bring in Moslem “immigration” which will transpose their town into a place resembling a town in the Middle East, North Africa or on the mountains of Pakistan.

Some will tell you that Islamic school has the same right as Christian, Jewish or any other religion based school. This is true to a point, Non-Islamic religion based (day) schools are ALWAYS located within a concentration of their respective people. Secondly Non-Islamic school do not teach hatred against other religions as Islamic schools do by citing the Koran naming Jews “monkeys” and Christians “pigs”. In fact the Koran does not make this assertion, it is an common “interpretation” of Allah’s special punishment to Jews and Christians that is commonly taught.

Watch on YouTube

This is what they teach kids in schools in the UK (and elsewhere) and this what they will teach in the proposed school in Camden, that the residents of Camden are (predominantly) pigs. In fact Muslims starts messing up children minds from the time they are born

Watch on YouTube

The children in Islamic school (madrasah) of Camden will learn about the “five pillars of Islam” which are: One God, Allah (shahahdah), Prayer five times daily (salah), giving to charity (zakat), fasting in the month of Ramadan (swam) and the pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime (the hajj).

The so-called six pillar of Islam is THE JIHAD or as it commonly known, the HOLY WAR. The Koran says:

“Go forth light and heavy, and struggle [or strive] in Allah’s path with your property and your persons; this is better for you, if you know” [9:45]

This is one of the many calls for Jihad in the Koran “al-jihad fi sabil Allah” (Struggle in Allah’s path). Some moderates and all of Islam Useful Idiots interpreting “Jihad” as inner struggle, however, the better known (and practiced) interpretation is physical struggle or war. The most commo interpretation of Jihad is “holy war” and Arabic term for a person engaged in Jihad is “mujahid” or the more known plural “mujahadin”. It is not hard to imagine the teacher asking the children “where is the infidel?” and children will answer, “right outside the school”

All Australian private schools, including religion based one, receive Federal Government subsidies provided they adhere to certain criteria such as open to all students (sex segregation is permitted), minimum curriculum requirements, minimum portion of time on non-religion teaching time etc. Recently it has been discovered that an Islamic school, The Muslim Ladies Collage in Perth was caught cheating the on the number of students and money received was sent to Pakistan – What was it that the Australian Government was financing in Pakistan, or somewhere further? Your guess is good as mine – mine is terrorist training camps in the ungovernable North West Frontier Province in Pakistan.

The Muslim Ladies Collage in Perth was closed by the (Australian) federal Government. So WAS the Islam Burapha religious school in Thailand [lost link)] AND The Jamaah Islamiyah School in Mark Cross, near Crowborough, East Sussex, England.

Last month (November 2007) the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended that the Islamic Saudi Academy in Virginia be also closed because of suspected of extreme Islamic teaching. More about Islamic schools in the West in here.

Any Muslim will tell you that the Koran is perfect and beyond questioning, the duty Islamic Jihad is in the Koran, collectively we have been through 9/11, London Bombing, the two Bali Bombing, Suicide Bombing in Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan, the US Embassy in Kenya and Beirut USS Cole and all averted attacks published or not. MUSLIMS ARE USING OUR OWN FREEDOMS AND LIBERTIES TO DEFEAT US ALL The same way that hackers exploit security vulnerabilities in Microsoft Windows. WTF has to happen before our governments wake up?

Unfortunately my opinion, yours or the wishes of the resident of Camden to live peacefully does not count. unless they can find that elusive “endangered” rare frog or grasshopper in the proposed site for the school, I am afraid that the school and soon to follow a mosque, and women covered from head to toe and man with tea (kitchen) towel as headgear will be shove down their throat, insh’Alla (God willing).

And to the Lord Mayor of Sydney or anyone else who wish to use the race card I say: “remember that Islam is a religion not a race!”