RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2018/09/three-false-waves-australian-history/

The divisive myth that modern Australia is the result of three sequential ‘nations’ — Aboriginal, European and post-war immigrant — has seduced many, most recently Paul Kelly, who believes it ‘true and inclusive’. There has been only one nation, brought into being at Federation.

Morrison should reference the best recent formulation of Australian identity and history, courtesy of Noel Pearson, who argues the nation embodies three traditions: the first Australians, who roamed this continent for 65,000 years, long before the ages of Babylon, Athens and Rome; the British inheritance dating from the voyages of James Cook, the initial colony at Sydney Cove, the rise of British-derived laws, values and institutions; and the immigrant tradition, the arrival of people from many nations that so enriched the culture and led to a multicultural nation. Pearson’s concept is true and it is inclusive. It should appeal to the entire nation, from conservative to progressive.
—Paul Kelly in The Australian, September 26, 2018, on Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s call to retain Australia Day on January 26 but also observe a new public holiday to commemorate indigenous people.

___________________

There are a number of problems with this proposal from journalist Paul Kelly. For a start, it is wrong to say the concept originated with Noel Pearson; second, it provides a seriously mistaken view of the formation of the Australian nation; and third, it is not hard to show the notion fosters division not inclusion.

Nonetheless, Kelly is right to say the idea should appeal to both conservatives and progressives, since it has already done so for almost twenty years now. John Howard used the same terminology in 1999 when he sought to include in the preamble of the Constitution the words ‘honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation’s first people’. I have heard both John Howard and Tony Abbott repeat this terminology several times since then, providing the same ‘Three Waves’ version of what they call the ‘national story’, though without knowing its real origins.

The idea that Aborigines are the nation’s first people is a version of Australian history devised not by Noel Pearson but the left-wing economist Herbert Cole ‘Nugget’ Coombs in 1982. As president of the Aboriginal Treaty Committee, he addressed the National Press Club on Australia Day that year, giving a speech titled ‘The Three Waves and Australian Identity’. Coombs said Australian history was defined by three distinct human migrations: the Aborigines who arrived some 40,000 years ago; the Anglo-Celtic migrants from the British Isles who came in 1788 and thereafter; and the third wave, the more ethnically mixed migrants of the period after the 1939-45 world war.

Coombs did not go to the National Press Club to lecture his audience about Australian demography. His aim was to score moral and political points, and he laid down a narrative that many people have found compelling ever since.

On the one hand, he described the continent when Aborigines dominated it as a paradise where people were in harmony both with nature and one another.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/china-naval-power-growing-new-doctrines-new-missions/

Over time, the expanded navy will push China to new doctrines and new missions.

With the launch of its second aircraft carrier, China has enhanced its position in the front ranks of military powers and prompted questions as to the ultimate purpose of its navy. The Chinese navy, formally known as the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), is expanding and will be doing so for years — decades — to come. Some of this is the natural consequence of being the navy of a country in economic ascendancy. Some of this is bureaucratic politics; the PLA is represented on the Communist Party Central Committee, and the PLA answers to the Chinese Communist Party, not the Chinese government. But some of this, the interesting part, is what’s left after one accounts for normal economic growth and institutional self-interest. We might not just be seeing an updated navy or a more potent navy; we might be seeing a different navy, with a different mission.

The axiom here is that in the short run, doctrine determines capabilities, but in the long run, capabilities determine doctrine.

So in the short run, the PLAN will acquire the navy it needs to do its job, already expanding to resupply and safeguard the growing Chinese base structure in the South China Sea. And with one eye on the United States, the PLAN will advocate internally for more ships, bigger ships, better ships, along a new generation of ballistic missiles, all with enhanced range, speed, and lethality. The U.S. military terms the Chinese strategy A2/AD, for “anti-access/area denial.” In other words, China need not match the U.S. ship-for-ship or weapon-for-weapon; it can still throw quite a punch. None of this should surprise military analysts. As countries grow, they seek to project power.

But in the long run, this new navy will itself push the PLAN to new doctrines and new missions. No longer just territorial defense. No longer just Sea Lines of Communication, those maritime arteries that facilitate commerce and military access. No longer just to intimidate or defeat countries in its near abroad, the “first island chain” in PLAN lexicon. Over the next few decades, China will increasingly discover that it has a broader mission.

President Trump’s speech at the United Nations on Tuesday is one of the greatest political speeches ever delivered in peacetime.

Maybe you are like those members of the audience seated in the General Assembly who tittered when the president began his speech noting that, “In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.”

The bureaucrats shifting upon their glutei maximi upon the plush receptacles provided by the custodians of the United Nations may have found the president’s frank statement risible. But their hilarity detracts not one iota from the truth of his observation.

What President Trump said was not braggadocio. It was the unvarnished truth.

What Were They Laughing About Again?
In less than two years, the United States has added some $10 trillion in wealth to its economy. Four million new jobs have been created, and unemployment has plummeted to historic lows. Consumer confidence has soared, while tax reform has put more money in the pockets of average Americans and turbocharged American businesses.

Meanwhile, the President’s attention to the United States military has reversed the decay orchestrated by the Obama Administration, upping military spending to $700 billion this year, $716 billion next year. In short, “the United States is stronger, safer, and a richer country than it was when I assumed office less than two years ago.”

Giggle away, ye bureaucrats, giggle away.

So it is with the president’s speech. Barack Obama is reputed to be an impressive orator. But he never gave a speech that, in substance, could hold a candle to President Trump’s speeches at Warsaw, at Riyadh, before the joint session of Congress last year, or indeed his “rocket man” speech at the United Nations. And this topped them all for forcefulness, clarity, and wisdom.

The forcefulness and clarity, I believe, are acknowledged by everyone, even the president’s opponents. Emblematic passages include his description of ISIS “bloodthirsty killers,” his characterization of Iran as a “brutal regime,” the “world’s leading sponsor of terrorism,” whose leaders “sow chaos, death, and destruction” and “plunder the nation’s resources to enrich themselves and to spread mayhem across the Middle East and far beyond.” All this is patently true, but one is not supposed to utter such things on the floor of the General Assembly.

This is not the usual language of diplomacy. It is the frank argot of truth: a tongue rarely heard in the echo-chambers of the United Nations with its squadrons of translators who translate clichés from one language into another swiftly, accurately, and inconsequentially. How refreshing—though admittedly, how startling it must have been to hear someone deliver an entire speech without lying.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271423/trump-delivers-powerful-un-general-assembly-speech-joseph-klein

President Donald Trump delivered his second speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, September 25th. Its overarching theme was the primacy of national sovereignty as the best organizing principle to help foster prosperity, peace and freedom in the world.

At the outset of his speech, the president was met with derisive laughter from the assembled world leaders, ministers and ambassadors in the audience. They were mocking his claim that, in less than two years, “my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.” In a quick rejoinder to the laughter, President Trump smiled and said, “I wasn’t expecting that reaction but that’s ok.” Then he proved his case with a recitation of facts demonstrating a strengthened economy at home, a stronger military, and more assertive U.S. leadership on a broad range of global issues. In the year since the president’s 2017 remarks to the General Assembly, the Trump Administration has diminished major threats to world peace, including the imminent threats posed by the North Korean regime and ISIS. President Trump has proven that the United States can engage fully with other nations on the world scene to surmount serious challenges to peace and security without sacrificing its own national sovereignty.

“We believe, that when nations respect the rights of their neighbors and defend the interests of their people,” President Trump said, “they can better work together to secure the blessings of safety, prosperity, and peace.” As far as America is concerned, President Trump made it unmistakably clear that it will always honor its own national sovereignty and protect its own people over any dictates coming from unaccountable global governance institutions. “America is governed by Americans,” he told the General Assembly attendees who sat on their hands throughout much of the president’s speech, shook their heads or stared blankly ahead, and only mildly applauded at the speech’s conclusion. “America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance,” the president remarked.

President Trump singled out the International Criminal Court (ICC) for criticism, which, he said “has no legitimacy or authority.” The ICC, he added, “claims near universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country, violating all principles of justice, fairness and due process.” He vowed to “never surrender America’s sovereignty” to such an “unelected, unaccountable” globalist body. The president also reiterated that the United States will not participate in the new global compact on migration. “Migration should not be governed by an international body, unaccountable to our own citizens.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/transgenderism-is-no-longer-a-fringe-issue/

In 2001 in the United Kingdom, an individual named Karen White saw the inside of a prison cell for child abuse. Then, in 2003, Karen White raped a woman. Then in 2016, White raped two more women.

Her Majesty’s Prison Service thought that the best place to Karen White, while the rape trial was pending, would be a women’s prison — there White assaulted female inmates. (Still with me?) The prosecutor explained, “Her penis was erect and sticking out of the top of her trousers.”

“Her penis”? Strange — “women don’t have penises” — many might think, just as a student at Durham University did when he tweeted that exact phrase. But because of transgender orthodoxy, this is no longer a reasonable thought to share. He learned the hard way:

Less than a month after sending that tweet, I had lost my position as president-elect of Humanist Students as well as my role as assistant editor of Durham University’s philosophy society’s undergraduate journal, Critique. I was also given the boot as co-editor-in-chief of Durham University’s online student magazine, the Bubble. All for saying something that many people would surely agree with.

Now perhaps he might have included some tactful qualifications. For instance, he might also have tweeted something like:

Gender dysphoria is a medically and morally complicated condition, and it is decent to treat such people with compassion and tact.

Or:

Some adults with gender dysphoria may prefer a transgender identity or surgery and — though they should be provided with all the available information — this decision is ultimately the (adult) patient’s prerogative.

But I wager that it would not have made the slightest bit of difference. The student’s crime was stating the obvious; those who do so with nuance seldom fare better. You see, when it comes to transgender doctrine, the options available are an ebullient celebration or total silence. Everything else is “hate speech.”

Think I exaggerate? What else could explain why British MPs were not allowed to debate the issues raised by Karen White’s case. As James Kirkup over at The Spectator writes:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/bound_for_a_runoff_down_in_brazil.html

Down in Brazil, there is a presidential election in a few weeks. The election is happening in the context of a slow-growing economy, corruption battles, violence out of control, and the stabbing of a presidential candidate.

The latest is from Reuters:

Fernando Haddad, the presidential candidate for Brazil’s leftist Workers Party (PT), is closing the gap with poll-leading far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro for an Oct. 7 first-round vote and would beat him in a runoff, a survey released Monday showed.

Bolsonaro held steady at 28 percent of voter approval in the first round as compared to the same Ibope poll released last week. Haddad gained three percentage points to hit 22 percent, according to the survey, released by the Estado de S.Paulo newspaper and the Globo TV network.

We will see.

I did speak with a friend down in Sao Paulo yesterday. He basically agrees with the poll and the suggestion that Haddad would win the runoff. At the same time, my friend said that the issues, the violence and corruption, favor Mr. Bolsonaro.

It’s true that Bolsonaro has a little Trump in him and that he often speaks without thinking. He has promised a no-nonsense policy against criminal elements.

Of course, the bottom line is how the other candidates react and who they endorse in the second round.

So let’s come back to this after the first round in a couple of weeks.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/09/australia_the_south_pacific_frontline_in_the_battle_against_foreign_interference.html

When many Americans think of Australia, things like white sandy beaches, kangaroos, and Steve Irwin come to mind – an image that is at times more of a caricature than an actual country.

What actually goes on in Australia, especially in its politics, is an unknown to most people not from the Land Down Under. It’s usually not that well covered by the media, especially since the advent of Brexit and Donald Trump’s presidency.

There is, however, an extremely dangerous trend in Australian politics that should concern lawmakers and political regulatory bodies across the democratic world. That’s the foreign interference and strong-arming within Australia’s political sphere.

Americans are most familiar with the foreign interference in the democratic process stemming from the allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election of 2016. But in Australia, politicians at both a state and a federal level have been forced to resign after being caught in involvement with companies or individuals with ties to the Communist Party of China.

The Chinese influence in Australian politics is already very real, as the country relies heavily on China economically for its continued prosperity.

Australia managed to dodge the “Great Recession” largely as a result of Chinese domestic stimulus measures that boosted the Australian resources and mining sectors. The Chinese stimulus allowed Australia to not only avoid recession, but enjoy an economic boom while the rest of the world suffered through the global financial crisis. Since then, sectors of the Australian economy have become more and more dependent on Chinese consumers and capital.

In recent years, Australia has undergone a major apartment-building boom underpinned by Chinese investors purchasing the properties. The boom has become so large as a result that Australian cities have more large cranes working on construction projects than the United States, despite having less than 8% of the U.S. population. In addition to that, Australian universities have become increasingly reliant on Chinese students, with 31% of the 525,054 foreign students in the country coming from China.

Director of the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Focus Group Michael Fay said: “[I]f anything happens to the Chinese market, such as with a downturn in the economy or problems with visas, Australia would be very exposed.”

In essence, Australia is economically addicted to the capital and revenue Chinese consumers can provide, giving China incredible leverage over a country that has enjoyed economic prosperity without a recession for over 26 years.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13023/help-iran-people

Are the Iranian people actually seeking regime change? If they are, why have past protests failed and how can current demonstrations have a better chance of success?
Currently, Iranians who oppose the Islamist regime are an unarmed population, bereft of leadership, and faced down by hardened militia units that are ultra-loyal to the economic benefits of backing the theocrats in power.
The tragic reality, however, is that without further help to the people of Iran who want an end to repressive laws — as well as to the regime’s squandering of money domestically for corruption and repression, and abroad to fund terrorism and aggression — we may not see a change either in Iran’s regime or its behavior.

During a recent speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo hinted that America would support the Iranian people should they seek to replace their regime. “While it is ultimately up to the Iranian people to determine the direction of their country,” Pompeo said, “the United States…. will support [their] long-ignored voice…”

What “direction,” then, is that? Are the Iranian people actually seeking regime change? If they are, why have past protests failed and how can current demonstrations have a better chance of success?

Some commentators are suggesting that today’s demonstrations indicate that the regime of the mullahs may be in trouble. This idea is partly based on the recollection that the general structure of Tehran and other cities remain much as it did in the late 1970s, when merchants played a critical role in the overthrow of the late Shah Reza Pahlavi.[1] Today, however, the political power, financial strength and religious influence of the bazaar class is much reduced.[2]

Within two years of establishing the Islamic Republic, however, the theocratic regime carried out a massive purge of politically active businessmen in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar;[3] presently, economic influence is in the hands of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and ideological theocrats affiliated with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. The IRGC is now a powerful economic conglomerate in Iran, with IRGC veterans heading major industries. IRGC retirees are able to take economic advantage of their political contacts in the Majles, Iran’s parliament, many of whose members are also IRGC veterans.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-bad-iran-bet-1537916797

President Trump will lead a United Nations Security Council session Wednesday on weapons of mass destruction and Iran, and European leaders are signaling that they’re more than willing to disagree with the U.S. Meanwhile, Europeans are looking for ways to duck U.S. financial sanctions—without much success.

On Monday European Commission foreign-affairs chief Federica Mogherini unveiled a new “special-purpose vehicle” to facilitate trade with Iran after U.S. sanctions go back into effect in November. Restoring Iran’s access to the global financial system and trade was a central plank of the 2015 nuclear pact. Ms. Mogherini and the three European co-signers of the deal—Germany, France and Britain—have been scrambling to keep those commercial benefits and they view trade as the main carrot for Tehran to comply.

Recent months have shown what a diplomatic mistake this has been. European companies have withdrawn from Iran to avoid U.S. sanctions, despite the European Union’s so-called blocking statute barring compliance with this U.S. pressure. Access to the U.S. market and financial system are too important no matter how noisily European diplomats complain about the Trump Administration.

Brussels also hasn’t found a financial workaround for Iranian trade. Vague proposals to establish direct links between Iran’s central bank and its European counterparts to move euros have faltered in part because European central banks and finance ministries worry about Iran’s money laundering.