Race riots are on the rise in Australia’s major cities because it is the outer urban areas that the ethnic ghettos have been allowed to grow and fester. Urban Australian society has disintegrated and decultured since Labour Prime Minister Geoff Whitlam’s naive 1972 multiculturalism manifesto.
Australia saw many race riots between the mid-19th and early 20th centuries when immigration was out of control, and the riots are back because immigration is out of control again. In December 2005 roaming Arab gangs stirred up the infamous Cronulla Riots along Sydney’s beaches. In September this year, 300 Arabs rioted in the centre of Sydney over a foreign issue nothing to do with Australia or Australians.
Early yesterday morning in ethnic concentrated south western Brisbane riot erupted between up to 150 young males resulting in one man driven over and murdered.
Australian police report that the riot spilled out from two parties in the south-western outer suburb of Woodridge in Station Road shortly after 10.30pm after news of the parties was widely circulated via mobile phones and Facebook. Woodbridge is adjacent to the infamous Logan Ghetto which has attracted a high concentration of Pacific Islander immigrants.
Witnesses say the 21 year old driver deliberately run down a 17-year-old boy after his car was damaged in the riot. Then the driver fled the scene. The teenager has since died in hospital from his injuries and police have arrested the 21 year old, seize the car and charged the driver with murder.
On the same day in ethnic south-western Sydney, a race riot blew up involving 30 African spectators at a soccer match- a Sudanese community football cup. Initial reports indicated the fight was racially motivated.
The riot ensued from Van Hasselt Park where the match was being played in the outer suburban ethnic enclave of Willmot near Penrith. The fighting involved Sudanese immigrants, both men and women from their late teens to early 20s. The fighting spilled over into the street and continued for two kilometres along the length of Palmyra Avenue.
One man was stabbed in the back and four others were injured when a chisel, a spanner, a knife and a football corner flag were used in a brawl in Sydney’s west, police say.
Police were called about 4.30pm and established a crime scene stretching across the two kilometres, from Forrester Road, Lethbridge Park, to Van Diemen Avenue, Willmot. Three people were taken to Westmead Hospital and two to Nepean Hospital.
Officers arrested one man, but no one has been charged yet. Police seized clothing and five cars for forensic examination. Investigators arrested one man and five others were taken to hospital, three to Westmead and two to Nepean. One of those remains under police guard.
Chief Inspector Bill Pearce, from Mount Druitt local area command, said police were not certain what caused the riot. “It’s something within the community,” he said.
Only three months ago, a soccer riot occurred between fans at the Campbelltown Stadium in south-western Sydney in mid-August. About 15-20 youths were embroiled during a pre-season game between Sydney FC and the Macarthur Rams soccer teams. A man was taken by ambulance to hospital, and a six-year-old boy was grazed by a flying rock.
Australians have had enough. We need more than increased law and order. New South Wales Police Operation ‘Unite’ goes operational from next weekend targeting public drunkenness.
But the police can only do so much. Why should our domestic police do the job of Immigration anyway? This is a serious ethnic problem undermining our social fabric. Our national government has a duty to protect its citizens from criminals, from civil disorder and from invasion. Our national government needs to remove the cause of this growing ethnic violence problem – put an end uncontrolled immigration, deport the offenders and abolish multiculturalism.
Fix our Criminal and Migration Laws
Place and immediate moratorium on all immigration into Australia and suspend our antiquated Migration Act of 1951.
Put a series of referenda to the Australian people on key immigration policy issues, allowing the re-establishment of immigration only as each referendum item is approved by the majority of Australian citizens
Nationalise Australia’s numerous and disparate state-based and antiquated criminal laws into one consistent Crimes Act, including making ‘Riot and Affray’ a serious crime that it is, and the unauthorised carrying of a deadly weapon to be deemed a serious crime
Include in the new Migration and Crimes Acts the auto-deportation any non-Australian born person convicted of a serious crime back to their country of origin, including all those currently in an Australian gaol. This is to be retrospective.
Include in the new Migration and Crimes Acts the auto-deportation of non-Australian born parents or legal guardians of minors convicted of a serious crime back to their country of origin. The minors are to accompany them. This is to be retrospective.
Develop future immigration policy that prevents ethnic concentrated settlements and mandate that all new immigrants must settle outside urban areas in order to qualify for a residency visa.
Abolish multiculturalism as a failed social experiment, as many Eurpoean countries have started recognising.
The Way I See It......within six months Australia’s urban crime rate would surely be back under control and our gaols beginning to empty.
Meet Dr Phil Williamson: climate ‘scientist’; Breitbart-hater; sorely in need of a family size tube of Anusol to soothe the pain after his second failed attempt to close down free speech by trying to use press regulation laws to silence your humble correspondent.
Williamson – who is attached to the University of East Anglia, home of the Climategate emails – got very upset about some articles I’d written for Breitbart and the Spectator pouring scorn on his junk-scientific field, Ocean Acidification.
In my view Ocean Acidification is little more than a money-making scam for grant-troughing scientists who couldn’t find anything more productive to do with their semi-worthless environmental science degrees. The evidence that Ocean Acidification represents any kind of threat is threadbare – and getting flimsier by the day.
But if, like Williamson, you are being paid large sums of money to conduct a research programme into Ocean Acidification, you’ll obviously want to defend your mink-lined, gold-plated carriage on the climate change gravy train. So first he wrote a long, earnest defence of his income stream in Marine Biologist.
Then, when no one cared, he made a formal complaint about one of my articles to the UK press regulatory body IPSO. And to judge by the punchy tone of this piece he published in Naturebefore Christmas, he fully expected to win.
After a long deliberation, IPSO has released its verdict and found that I had no case to answer. Williamson’s complaint was not upheld.
I’m trying hard to be modest here; I’m trying not to gloat. But I’m afraid the facts of the case just won’t allow me.
IPSO’s verdict represents a crushing defeat for the cause of climate alarmism. In this particular scenario, you need to picture me as Julius Caesar in my chariot, wearing purple with a laurel crown around my head; Williamson (and his alarmist cronies) meanwhile, are Vercingetorix and his defeated Gauls (though without the romantic charm and heroism, obviously) being dragged behind me in chains through the streets of Rome prior to being taken to the city’s prison to be ritually strangled.
Seriously, it could hardly be worse for the eco-loons. Just relish the misery in the comments below this report in the Guardian.
Here are some of the comments:
It’s just a passing comment, but Dingopile is an arsehole that knows less than bugger all about climate change! [Do you see what he did with my name there? Comedy genius!]
Nothing written by Delingpole (photo right) is proper science. The man has a degree in English literature.
So it’s okay to publish outright falsehoods meant to mislead the public, as long as you are of the right?
Delingpole is like a 4 year old child who purposefully defecates in his pants for attention.
Delingpole is not a scientist, certainly not an oceanographer, so why print his ramblings on things he knows nothing about?
James Delingpole is a total arse. He has sunk below the level of Michael Gove or Nigel Farage. He does not deserve this publicity by Damian Carrington. He thrives on the oxygen, and he must not be given any oxygen at all.
Note how very personal it all is. And that’s because, as the last commenter rightly noticed, the Guardian’s Environment editor, the Hon. Damian Carrington, (Winchester and Balliol), decided to make it personal.
The article was full of snarky little asides, like:
Delingpole, who writes for controversial rightwing news site Breitbart, was censured by the Australian Press Council in 2012 after he quoted an anonymous source who compared the windfarm industry to a paedophile ring. He has dubbed greens “eco-nazis” and in another article he ended a long list of people and groups supporting action on climate change by writing: “Truly there just aren’t enough bullets!”
[I would like to make it clear if I haven’t already that I apologise profusely to any paedophiles who may have been offended at being linked to the wind turbine industry]
This is because in the eyes of the climate alarmist establishment I am one of the most dangerous people on earth. And I say this not to brag. It is merely an observable fact that there are certain figures – in the field of climate science they include people like Willie Soon, Pat Michaels and Tim Ball; in journalism they include me, Christopher Booker, David Rose and, perhaps notably, Mark Steyn; in politics they include Lord Lawson, Aussie Senator Malcolm Roberts and now Donald Trump – who drive the Greenies apopleptic with rage. And because the Greenies see us as significant and influential, they seek at every turn to claim our scalps.
Which, of course, was the whole point of this complaint by Phil Williamson to the press regulator IPSO.
Had Williamson been successful it would have been a major blow to the cause of scientific rationalism, honest scepticism and freedom of speech. It would have been cited and crowed about ad nauseam by the usual suspects in the mainstream media – from the BBC to the New York Times – and in the house journals of the alarmist science establishment, such as Nature and Scientific American.
We know that this was the plan because of how closely the case was being followed by the Guardian‘s environment editor Damian Carrington. The first I heard of the IPSO ruling was when Carrington sent an email to my editor at the SpectatorFraser Nelson asking for a comment on the verdict. (The reason Williamson brought his case against the article I wrote in the Spectator, by the way, and not against any of the ones I’d written in Breitbart is because Breitbart doesn’t subscribe to the press regulator IPSO, so he would have been whistling into the wind).
You might think this odd: why would a journalist with absolutely no connection with the case get to hear the result before either the journalist named in the complaint or the publication responsible for running the offending article? The answer, one can only presume, is that Carrington was in close touch with the complainant, Phil Williamson – and was waiting to strike the moment the good news came that the Delingpole monster had been slain by Britain’s press regulator.
The knock-on effects, had IPSO found against my article, would have been dire: the publications for which I write (both the Spectator and Breitbart) would have been made to look like sloppy purveyors of what the left loves to call these days “fake news”; my credibility as a reporter on climate science and the environment would have been diminished (not in the eyes of my regular readers, perhaps, but definitely in the eyes of all those undecideds who can’t make up their mind whether they agree with me on climate science or whether I’m talking bollocks); and, perhaps worst of all, the junk science concept of Ocean Acidification would have been given a reprieve it simply doesn’t deserve.
In case I haven’t made my position sufficiently clear on Ocean Acidification – always a danger with me: I’m forever holding back for fear that someone somewhere might be offended – this seems a good moment to restate it:
Ocean Acidification is a scam – the second biggest one in science right now. I’m not saying that it’s impossible or even unlikely that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide may be causing parts of our ocean to become marginally less alkaline. What I’m definitely saying is that it doesn’t matter a toss, to whit:
Ocean acidification – the evidence increasingly suggests – is a trivial, misleadingly named, and not remotely worrying phenomenon which has been hyped up beyond all measure for political, ideological and financial reasons.
It’s much more a political invention than a scientific one. I call it the climate alarmists’ Siegfried Line because that’s what it really is: it’s their fallback position for when man-made climate change theory finally collapses and they need to find some other half-arsed excuse for justifying their global war on the beneficial trace gas carbon dioxide.
I’m by no means the only person to have pointed this out. Matt Ridley [below] (who unlike me has a scientific background) has written about it here, here and here.
Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, has written a paper debunking it. As has Craig Idso.
So, much as the climate alarmists might pretend otherwise, my scepticism about Ocean Acidification isn’t some weird, lonely, contrarian position I’ve adopted just because I can’t help being an idiot or because I’m instinctively anti-science or because I’m not familiar with the material or because I’m funded by sinister vested interests which want the Ocean Acidification industry to fail or because – if you believe professional greenie Mark Lynas – I’m a “liar” and part of the “alt-right”.
Nope. I’m against Ocean Acidification theory because I’ve done loads and loads of background reading both about the way this marginal phenomenon has been overhyped and about the lack of credible scientific evidence that it represents any kind of problem worth addressing. And the conclusion I’ve reached is that it’s both a money-making scam for some of the many second-rate scientists the grotesquely overbought climate alarmism sector seems to attract and also a silly dangerous propaganda campaign on behalf of all those anti-free-market greenies who are forever in search of another cod-scientific excuse to impose more tax and regulation on us in their endless war against economic growth.
Needless to say, the Ocean Acidification experts with their snouts in the Ocean Acidification don’t like hearing this point of view, which is why they are so livid about the IPSO decision.
It’s not “Science” – as Williamson grandly terms it – that was under attack in my various articles on Ocean Acidification. I’m not questioning the achingly trivial points that Williamson and his pals may or may not have alighted upon in the course of their navel-gazing research. What I’m questioning is whether it’s right that taxpayers should have to stump up for this research – and whether its findings are in any way significant or useful.
This, as IPSO rightly decided in its ruling, is a matter of opinion.
Findings of the Complaints Committee
19. The article was written in the first person, and sought to challenge what it made clear was the consensus view on ocean acidification. Before the article set out its criticisms, it referred to there being an extensive academic literature on the subject, and made clear that the theory had been endorsed by scientists from a number of institutions. The article referred to the author as being one of a group of “sceptics”, and a “denier”, and the final sentence of the article suggested it was “time our supposed ‘conspiracy theories’ were taken more seriously”. The article was clearly a comment piece, in which the author was expressing sceptical views on ocean acidification, and describing sceptical views expressed by others, that were contrary to the academic consensus.
The Committee’s role is not to make findings of fact or to resolve conflicting evidence in relation to matters under debate. Rather, it assesses the care taken not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and establishes whether a distinction is clearly made between comment, conjecture and fact, in determining whether the Code has been breached.
At Watts Up With That, Eric Worrall puts his finger on the fatal flaw of Williamson’s case:
In my opinion this entire sorry episode goes straight to the heart of the difference between the way alarmists like Williamson see the world, and the way normal people view the world.
Alarmists seem to want their models, theories and opinions to be accepted as established fact. But the reality is their shaky theories are full of poorly supported conjecture and extrapolation.
Indeed. And it’s by no means the first time Williamson and his crew have tried it on. In 2011 they made a very similar complaint – to what was then known as the Press Complaints Commission – about a piece I’d written on the Climategate scandal.
They objected especially to my description of Phil Jones, the then-head (recently retired) of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia as “disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method abusing”.
What rather scuppered this particular complaint was when I provided the Press Complaints Commission with more than enough evidence to back up the claim.
But the thing that needs to be understood about these complaints is that they are not really designed to sift right from wrong, truth from untruth. Rather, as Mark Steyn (photo right) says, process is the punishment. That is, if you’re a publicly funded scientist on a generous grant with plenty of time on your hands in your cosy academic sinecure, then it’s no problem at all to while away a few days preparing your vexatious complaint to IPSO or the Press Complaints Commission. But if you’re the hapless journalist who has to prepare your defence, it’s a different story: you’re very busy, time is money, and the whole process is so grindingly tedious you’d almost rather lose then have to go through each pettifogging criticism, crossing every T and dotting every I. (That’s why I would have probably lost had it not been for the efforts of the brilliant and indefatigable Ben Pile who has much more of an appetite for kicking irritating, querulous, nitpicking academics into touch by beating them at their own game).
Thank goodness I did win, though – not so much for my own sake but for the far more important causes of freedom of speech, honest and open scientific inquiry and responsible use of taxpayers’ money.
Oh, and also, for the sheer joy of causing some really dreadful, low-grade people endless amounts of teeth-gnashing misery.
Williamson, consider yourself pawned. Now, back into your box, where you belong, you lank-haired pillock.
The ‘Pause’ in global warming is real and the computer models predicting dramatically increased temperatures have failed.
This is the shocking admission of a paper published this week in Nature Geoscience. It’s shocking because the paper’s lead author is none other than Ben Santer – one of the more vociferous and energetic alarmists exposed in the Climategate emails.
According to the paper’s abstract:
In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.
We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
Translation: the real-world temperature increases were much smaller than our spiffy, expensive computer models predicted.
Its significance did not pass unnoticed by this veteran climate scientist:
His surprise is understandable given that, previously, alarmist scientists like Ben Santer have gone to great lengths to deny the existence of a ‘Pause’ in global warming, to pour scorn on those who have argued otherwise and to insist that their computer models are fundamentally reliable.
Indeed, only last week the Spectator published an article by one such Pause Denier – a scientist from the University of East Anglia (ground zero of the Climategate scandal), fondly known as the University of Easy Access, named Phil Williamson. (photo centre) [ More about this particular deadshit in my next posting.]
It is titled ''The Great Myth of the Global Warming Phase'' and it claims, somewhat imaginatively:
And let’s not forget that in the dog days of the Obama administration, alarmist scientists were so desperate to pooh pooh the “Pause” in the run up to the Paris climate talks that they concocted a junk science paper – now the subject of a federal investigation – which used dodgy data to try to airbrush the Pause out of history.
Truly, as the Daily Caller notes, the alarmists’ flip-flopping on this subject has of late been remarkable. Do they believe in the ‘Pause’ (or ‘hiatus’ as they sometimes term it) or don’t they?
Santer recently co-authored a separate paper that purported to debunk statements EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt made that global warming had “leveled off.” But Santer’s paper only evaluated a selectively-edited and out-of-context portion of Pruitt’s statement by removing the term “hiatus.”
Moreover, climate scientists mocked Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz for talking about the global warming “hiatus” during a 2015 congressional hearing. Instead, activist scientists worked hard to airbrush the global warming slowdown from data records and advance media claim that it was a ''Myth''.
Santer and Carl Mears, who operate the Remote Sensing System satellite temperature dataset, authored a lengthy blog post in 2016 critical of Cruz’s contention there was an 18-year “hiatus” in warming that climate models didn’t predict.
The fact that Ben Santer is involved in this embarrassing retraction – his admission on the Pause is bad enough, but what the paper says about the unreliability of the computer models is breathtaking in its implications – will be particularly piquant to those who remember his prominent role in the Climategate emails.
Santer revealed himself to be one of the nastier and more aggressive members of Michael Mann’s “Hockey” team when he emailed one of his colleagues:
"Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."
(Climatologist Pat Michaels, now of the Cato Institute, incurred Santer’s wrath by being one of the first climate scientists to pour cold water on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. In other words, Michaels made the disgusting, punishment-worthy error of using actual science and being right).
But perhaps Santer’s lowest point was the occasion where he effectively hijacked one of the early IPCC Assessment Reports and ramped up the scaremongering in a way that had rather more to do with political activism than it did to science.
Ben who? Well quite. Unless his name rings a bell as the guy from the Climategate emails who wanted to “beat the crap out of” climate sceptic Pat Michaels, you almost certainly won’t have heard of him. Yet in the mid-90s this climate modeling nonenity was somehow placed in the extraordinary position of being able to dictate world opinion on global warming at the stroke of a pen.
He achieved this in his role as“lead author” of Chapter 8 of the scientific working group report on the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR). Nothing to write home about there, you might think, except that Santer was personally responsible for by far the most widely reported sentence in the entire report: the one from the Summary for Policy Makers (the only part of the IPCC’s Assessment Report most people actually bother to read) claiming “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”
But was this line actually true? Was this really a fair summary – the kind of summary the IPCC purports rigorously and definitively to give of us – of the general state of scientific understanding at that particular moment? Er, well not according to some of the scientists who’d contributed to that chapter of the report, no.
The original version of the chapter – as agreed on and signed off by all 28 contributing authors – expressed considerably more doubt about AGW than was indicated in Santer’s summary. It included these passages:
“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes.”
“Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
“When will an anthropogenic climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is “We do not know.”
Strangely, none of these passages made it to the final draft. They were among 15 deleted after the event by Santer, who also inserted a phrase entirely of his own to the effect that “the body of statistical evidence” now “points to a discernible human influence on climate.” In other words the chapter did not represent the “consensus” position reached by 28 scientists.'' What it in fact represented was the scientifically unsupported opinion of one man, Benjamin D Santer.
The Way I See It.......climate rationalists do still get an awful lot of stick from the alarmists for our old fashioned belief that scientists should stick to the evidence and use actual data rather than plucking stuff from thin air based on their fanciful notions of what ought to be true or what might get them more grant-funding.
How delightful it is to have it confirmed – albeit in the arid language of a science paper – that yet again are 100 percent correct.
I live up to my name and speak frankly and for the silent majority so as to counter-balance the leftist, political correctness that pervades my country. I do not hold any legitimate racist feeling against anyone but I will always try to put crossed-referenced information on current events in a proper perspective that will allow for better understanding and discussions among people. My use of colourful language only adds to getting my point across. It's still a free country as far as I can see.
To put more it directly:
Freedom of speech is the paramount freedom. Without it, we struggle to exercise our other freedoms. With it, we can fight for those freedoms. It may be offensive, insulting and make some governments uncomfortable, but if this is the price to be paid for living in a society where all claims are open to question, then it is a price worth paying.
Feel free to join the I.P.A., the Institute of Public Affairs to help preserve the ideal of freedoms we are now enjoying.
Please note: Feel free to make a comment if you find it interesting and/or entertaining.