Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old February 23rd, 2008 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default The Legal Situation in Australia

Australia Calling: radio show on federal government attempting to censor Internet

(1/1/08) The Federal Government's plan to censor the Internet content available in Australia has finally attracted the attention of the mainstream media and the public are not happy. A News Limited on-line poll recorded that 87 percent of people were opposed to the idea.


http://www.nsm88radio.com/Aussie%20calling/AC010108.mp3
 
Old February 24th, 2008 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Nationalist clothing website yanked on behalf of Talmudic law

A WEBSITE selling anti-Semitic and Nazi clothing has been taken offline, following a Seven Network investigation that outed its 26-year-old Bathurst owner.

The site, Noble Front, was selling T-shirts depicting swastikas and a ladies fashion range displaying photos of a smiling Hitler before a “server problem” closed the site last week.

When confronted by Seven Network News, David Pollard, the owner of the website, said he did not think he was doing anything wrong.

“We’re just selling it, we’re not forcing it onto anyone,” he said. Asked if spreading race-hate was a lucrative business, he responded by saying: “Will be.”

Pollard, whose website appears to be vilifying people based on their race or religion, said he planned to keep the website open “until it gets shut down”.

However, last week users were unable to see or buy its products.

NSW Jewish Board of Deputies CEO Vic Alhadeff said the website promoted bigotry and racial hatred, and has no place in our society.

“The internet has become the primary source of information for young people, which makes the fact that the website specifically targets this demographic particularly dangerous and insidious,” Alhadeff said.

Executive officer of the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission, Manny Waks, said the items are “despicable” and “highly insensitive”.

“We would urge those who are involved in this racist endeavour to desist from doing so immediately and educate themselves on the issue of racism,” he said.

http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=4951
 
Old February 24th, 2008 #3
Troy Alexander
Nice shot Troy you got him
 
Troy Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 2,332
Blog Entries: 1
Troy Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Asked if spreading race-hate was a lucrative business, he responded by saying: “Will be.”
This guys is onto something you know. I think we should turn VNN into a company and all the posters here should buy shares in it. Racism is soon going to go through the roof, so any good or service related to racial solidarity will be much in demand. Also if we saw VNN as a profit making business we will have a much greater incentive to spread our message amongst the people, and we would especially not give up on anti's so easily.
 
Old March 2nd, 2008 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default


[censoring Andrew Fraser]



[Australian academic censored for questioning anti-White immigration policy]


Another Oz Outrage: Andrew Fraser Furor Continues

By Steve Sailer

Americans admire Australians as plainspoken, fearless "That's not a knife, now … THAT'S a knife" Crocodile Dundees.

Yet diversity is working its emasculating effect Down Under. It’s making Australians as pusillanimous as any Harvard faculty member shocked, shocked by Larry Summers's tactless honesty about sex differences.

For years, I've been pointing out that, although ethnic diversity is alleged to inspire the free interplay of multiple viewpoints, the reality is that it undermines our heritage of free speech.

Australia is a case in point: the presence of a few hundred Sudanese refugees in the country has apparently intimidated two universities into shutting down discussion of the wisdom of importing more sub-Saharan Africans into Australia.

As I reported in July, Macquarie University suspended law professor Andrew Fraser, a VDARE.com contributor, for the unforgivable transgression of writing a letter to the local newspaper suggesting that people of African descent have a higher propensity toward crime.

In fact, of course, in the wake of the New Orleans Nightmare, the view that there are systematic differences in different races’ propensity for crime is more undeniable than ever. See, for example, the just-released report The Color of Crime—or the Associated Press report last week, "Half Katrina Refugees Have Records”:

"In South Carolina, state police checked every evacuee flown there by the government. Of 547 people checked, 301 had criminal records, according to Robert Stewart, state Law Enforcement Division Chief."

But nothing makes people madder at you than telling a truth that they are perfectly aware is true when they just want it to disappear.

So what just happened to Fraser is hardly surprising.

A lengthy essay by Fraser had passed through the standard double blind-referee evaluation process of the Deakin University law review and was scheduled for publication. Then the lawyer for the Sudanese, one George Newhouse, [send him mail] threatened Deakin University under Australia's law against "racial vilification."

After displaying some backbone for a few days, Deakin University's higher-ups shamefully caved in [email Deakin Vice-Chancellor Sally Walker] and stifled the article’s publication. In response to an inquiry by British psychometrician Chris Brand, the Dean of Deakin's Law School, Philip H. Clarke, [email him] claimed:

"The decision not to publish was taken following legal advice from counsel that publication would contravene the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and also, possibly, state and territory legislation dealing with racial and religious vilification. As I am sure you will understand, in these circumstances, publication was not possible."

Clearly, Australia needs a First Amendment. But it's also obvious that Deakin University was looking for an excuse, as Brand acidly demonstrated in his reply:

"I have read the 1975 Act and note that it actually expressly exempts racial criticism of an academic nature. Please can you tell me which law firm advised you to depublish and what was the precise wording of their opinion and how much Deakin paid for the advice? As things stand, it looks as if Deakin has been exceptionally cowardly in not even attempting to see whether academic free speech is still possible in today's Australia…"

It's striking how the mere residence of a few hundred Africans in Australia can cause two major universities to corrupt themselves morally, to humiliate themselves publicly, by junking their promises of academic freedom.

But, then, that's the magic of diversity!

Fortunately, retired academic John J. Ray showed some of that traditional Australian spunk and posted Fraser's spiked essay, "Rethinking the White Australia Policy", on one of his many websites.

Fraser's paper turns out to be far-reaching, provocative, and intellectually ambitious. Perhaps to a fault—he might have been well advised to point out that not every one of his more speculative arguments is necessary to his overall point.

To the typical contemporary intellectual with his impoverished conceptual vocabulary, however, Fraser's essay could only be expressed in one word: crimethink!

In 1901, Australia adopted a requirement that immigrants be literate in a European language, which became known as the (now much-denounced) "White Australia" policy. At the time, it was pushed through by labor unionists and socialists. They knew that both the high wages of the Australian working man and the Australian government's nascent social safety net would be undermined by the capitalist class' desire to have the impoverished masses of nearby Asia pour into this largely empty island.

Immigration restriction helped make the "Lucky Country" into a relative paradise for the working class. Also, as environmentalist Jared Diamond quietly implied in his recent bestseller Collapse, the White Australia restriction moderated the ecological stress on this geologically ancient continent permanently plagued by infertile soil and aridity.

Similarly, Californians of a century or more ago, such as the formidable socialist author Jack London, backed the U.S. government's ban on Asian immigrants.

And that helped long preserve California as the Promised Land for America's working and middle classes.

Looking back, it's clear that emigration to Australia or America could not have alleviated on any meaningful scale the awful poverty of Asia. The only thing that could help that mass of people is the kind of radical improvement in government policy that China underwent in 1978 and India in 1991.

Someday, we may see the same in Mexico—but probably not until we shut down the ruling elite's use of its northern border as a safety valve for its discontented.

After WWII, Australia encouraged immigration from southern Europe. Large numbers of Italians and Greeks were assimilated with considerable success.

In the 1960s and 1970s, however, the ascendant Leftists turned away from the welfare of the majority to championing minorities, thereby trumpeting their moral superiority over their fellow whites. Australia dumped its White Australia policy and began admitting sizable numbers of non-European immigrants. (Needless to say, Asian countries did not open their borders to Australians. Racial equality is a one-way street.)

Fraser is appalled by the Australian immigration policy of the last few decades. But an American patriot might be mildly envious. John Howard, the brilliant right-of-center politician who recently won his fourth term as Prime Minister, has made the fight against illegal immigration and abuse of the refugee process central to his political identity. (After barely scraping by two Presidential elections in a row, it's starting to become clear that the GOP's only hope in 2008 is to imitate Howard).

Australia's legal immigration quotas are high, but not as extravagant as in Canada, where the ruling Liberals use immigration to import new left-of-center voters from around the world.

And, unlike the U.S., Australia strives to accept applicants rich in human capital who are more likely to pay more in taxes than they consume in government subsidies.

Thus, Australia (and its distressed Aboriginal population in particular, who hardly need new competitors at the bottom) has largely been spared the importation of a second underclass (although Australia is having crime problems with Muslim immigrants).

In contrast, the U.S. has chosen to drive millions of African-Americans out of jobs they were qualified to do and replace them with Latin American immigrants.

Still, one downside of Australia's emphasis on high-quality immigrants is that its Asian newcomers are pushing native Australians out of elite meritocratic institutions—just as in California, several of the University of California campuses have come to be dominated by workaholic Asians.

Perhaps the most intriguing of Fraser's many themes: his paradox that the same high level of "trust" (to use Francis Fukuyama's term) extending beyond kin that has allowed the English-speaking peoples to build self-governing institutions that square the circle of reconciling individualism with cooperation also threatens to undermine the Anglosphere—by making us suckers for self-sacrificing ideologies that more clannish immigrants laugh at.

In most countries, in most eras, you needed to belong to an extended family "mafia" for protection. Upper-middle class individuals in English-speaking countries, at least when not watching The Sopranos, generally just don't get the importance of extended families in the rest of the world. Anglosphere intellectuals are especially oblivious, for emotional reasons—they tend to despise their relatives, who often aren't as smart as they are, but frequently make more money.

The English were perhaps the first to break out of this rut. Fraser notes:

"Over time, individualistic social structures encouraged the emergence in England of the common law of property and contract and, later still, the emergence of impersonal corporate forms of business enterprise, all requiring cooperation between strangers…"

Some of the cultural attributes that emerged in Northwestern Europe that made individualistic polities possible include, include, according to Fraser:

"Only a people such as the English, characterized by the ‘non-kinship based forms of reciprocity’ associated with Protestant Christianity, monogamy and companionate marriage, nuclear families, a marked de-emphasis on extended kinship relations, and a strong tendency towards individualism could possibly succeed in creating such a 'society of strangers.’"

Fraser speculates that these attributes have genetic roots. While that’s certainly possible scientifically, we're still a number of years away from being able to test that idea empirically.

But even if the roots of our civic societies were purely cultural in origin, as they may well be, these are not tendencies that immigrants can or will choose to adopt immediately—especially in our era, which glorifies multiculturalism and denigrates the host culture's traditional values.

Fraser argues:

"This exposes a fundamental paradox built into the free and open societies of the West: The only racial groups able to fit seamlessly into the society of strangers constituting a civic nation are those whose members can easily shed the deeply-ingrained ethnocentrism and xenophobia characterizing most non-European peoples."

For example, the extended family values of Asian newcomers often serve them well economically in English-speaking countries. But they can place a burden on the host country's civic virtues.

Fraser argues, borrowing from Amy Chua's book World on Fire:

"At the high end of Australia's immigrant intake, a growing cognitive elite of East Asians threatens to become similar to ‘market-dominant minorities’ such as the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, Jews in Russia or Indians in East Africa. Faced with competition from a growing East Asian population, white Australians will find themselves outgunned: Western-style ‘old boy’ preference networks are only weakly ethnic in character, and, thus, permeable, making them no match for the institutionally-directed, in-group solidarity or ‘ethnic nepotism’ practiced by other groups. Endowed with an edge in IQ and a temperament conducive to rigorous regimes of coaching, rote learning and stricter parental discipline, young East Asians already dominate the competition for places in universities and professional schools. Within two to three decades, it is not unreasonable to expect that Australia will have a heavily Asian managerial-professional, ruling class that will not hesitate to promote the interests of co-ethnics at the expense of white Australians."

This is somewhat more of a danger for white Australians than white Americans, due to the Australians' greater proximity to Asia, smaller numbers, and traditional working class aversion to entrepreneurialism. But it could happen here too.

Whether the threat to the economic position of native Australians is as dire as Fraser warns, I couldn't say. But it's certainly something that should be studied in quantitative detail in Australian scholarly journals.

Oh, except that the topic apparently isn't allowed to be studied in Australian scholarly journals.

So the country is flying blind into an uncertain future.

Best of luck, Aussies.

You're going to need it.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050925_fraser.htm

Last edited by Alex Linder; March 2nd, 2008 at 05:45 PM.
 
Old March 10th, 2008 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[Fredrick Töben]

Dr Fredrick Töben's disclaimer:

"I am operating under a Federal Court of Australia Gag Order that prohibits me from questioning/denying the three pillars on which the >Holocaust-Shoah< story/legend/myth rests: 1. During World War II, Germany had an extermination policy against European Jewry;

2. of which they killed six million;

3. using as a murder weapon homicidal gas chambers. It is impossible to discuss the >Holocaust< with such an imposed constraint. I therefore am merely reporting on matters that I am not permitted to state.

For example, if I state the >Holocaust< is:

1. a lie;

2. six million Jews never died, or

3. the gas chambers did not exist, then I would claim that I am merely reporting on what expert Revisionists such as Professors Butz/Faurisson, et al, are stating in public.

Anyone who refuses to believe in these three pillars of orthodoxy will face a world-wide group of enforcers who will use any means to destroy dissenting voices. The problem is that these pillars are not set in concrete, though attempts at setting them in legal concrete have been under way for decades - without success.

The latest victims imprisoned for refusing to BELIEVE in the >Holocaust-Shoah< narrative are Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zündel & Sylvia Stolz in Germany; Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium, and Wolfgang Fröhlich & Gerd Honsik in Austria.

If you wish to begin to doubt the >Holocaust-Shoah< narrative, you must be prepared for personal sacrifice, must be prepared for marriage and family break-up, loss of career, and go to prison. This is because Revisionists are, among other things, dismantling a massive multi-billion dollar industry that the >Holocaust-Shoah< enforcers are defending, as well as the survival of Zionist-racist Israel. So, do not cry when the knock on the door takes you away from family and friends. Such experiences can be character-building. Revisionists are not foolish or naive but realistic as befitting someone who still cherishes such life-affirming ideals as Love, Truth, Honour, Justice, Beauty!

Some definitions:

a. An antisemite is someone who condemns Jews because they are Jews, something I reject in my maxim: >Don't blame the Jews, blame those that bend to their pressure<.

b. The term >antisemitic< is itself a problem because it refers to language-type and refers to the Arabic-speaking peoples, not just the Hebrew-speaking peoples; both peoples use a Semitic language.

c. An antisemite is someone the Jews hate.

d. Antisemitism is a disease. You catch it from Jewish behaviour.

If you seek to create Beauty-Love, Honour-Justice and Truth, then feel free to enter

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/
 
Old April 3rd, 2008 #6
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,381
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default


[Every encounter between jew and Aryan gives rise to a double standard favoring the jew. Unless the Aryan is led by a nationalist government.]


The Chosen Extradition Treaty Between the

Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Israel

By David Brockschmidt

On 15 March 2008 the Melbourne Age informs its readers that an extradition treaty between Australia and Israel exists, “…but Israel does not extradite its citizens”.



So, my question to our Foreign Minister: Please explain how this so-called extradition treaty works between Australia and Israel, if only one side, in this case Australia, is willing to extradite one or more of its citizens, should the State of Israel requests that? This is assuming that such an extradition request would not violate Australian and international law



But in the case where Australia would demand one or more of its citizens living in Israel to be extradited to Australia – and we can assume they are all Jewish and hold dual citizenship – then the Australian demand for extradition is denied with a simple explanation that such a request would violate the laws of the State of Israel because as a matter of principle the State of Israel does not extradite any of its citizens to any country in the world, regardless what they are wanted for, regardless what crime has been committed.



My second question to the Foreign Minister is: What type of extradition treaty is this? Is this a joke or the Monty Python version of an extradition treaty? This makes the state of Israel look like a rogue outcast country within the international community and a haven for Jewish criminals from all over the world.



Such extradition treaty arrangements of course perverts Theodor Herzel’s idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and the later foundation of the State of Israel, to become a refuge for persecuted Jews from all over the world. I don’t think Herzl wanted to include Jewish criminals in his ideal.



I will highlight just one example out of thousands to illustrate my point. I am referring to the alleged mass murderer Solomon Morel who murdered, partly with his own hands, in Polish Secret Service uniform after the end of WWII innocent Polish and German civilians, men, women and children. This took place in an ex-German concentration camp in Poland, which the Polish Bolsheviks took over, as detailed in John Sack’s book: An Eye for an Eye. John Sack was a Polish Jew living in the USA writing for various publications. Sack also attended Adelaide Institute’s 1998 Revisionist Symposium. His research activated the Polish prosecutor General in Warsaw to have Morel put on trial in Poland for crimes committed against the Polish people. Morel fled to Israel and the Israeli authorities informed the Polish prosecutor that 1. Israel does not extradite its citizens; 2. The accusations against Morel for murder had expired, and 3. The State of Israel refused to put Morel on trial in Israel for his alleged crimes committed in Poland.



This Solomon Morel case, and now the current one involving Malka Leifer, below, shows clearly that western society is morally and intellectually bankrupt because the laws of the State of Israel regarding extraditions of their citizens to countries where they are wanted and Israel’s refusal to hand them over clearly illustrates the Orwellian maxim: Some are more equal than others. I personally always believed that the so-called privilege of being a ‘chosen people’ is a curse, but in this case and in many other circumstances it works well for them.



Bye-bye Democracy, Talmudistan rules supreme – here come the Noahide Laws. On that, let’s be a little predictive here: If Australia demands the extradition of one of its citizens of Palestinian-Muslim descent, who also holds Israeli citizenship, would the state of Israel also refuse to extradite any of its Muslim or Christian citizens, for example Mordechai Vanunu? Or does the refusal to extradite its citizens apply only to Israelis of Jewish faith?

Alternately, will Australia oblige Israel with an extradition of so-called ‘Holocaust deniers’, if Israel makes such a request even if it violates Australian law?

http://adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/n378.htm
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58 AM.
Page generated in 0.14084 seconds.