DO PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THE DISASTER THAT LIES WAITING?

by James Reed
We are seated on board a train that resembles more a toilet on wheels, than a place to relax and be safe. Too alarmed to sleep we huddle together for safety, 'circling the wagons'. Most of us pretend that there is no danger on the train, in the wilderness of seats just beyond our protective circle.

Even fewer of us have dared to look outside of the train, down the track. If they did they would see that in the soon-to-be-reached distance, the track runs out. All then is precipice. But the driver rockets the train at ever-greater speeds, like there is no tomorrow - because without a Great Awakening, there is none.

A fascinating article in Time magazine (4/12/06) sheds some light on why few people look outside of the window of the train to see if the track ahead is clear. The human brain is "prehistoric", built to deal with primitive attacks from, say, wild predators rather than complex long-term threats.

Our behaviour is dominated by hormonal "flight-or-fright" responses from the amygdala, a region in the brain that controls such responses.
To try to deal with long-term risks requires over-riding the immediate by the rational neo-cortex brain and that is often a feat which people are incapable of achieving.

However, it is not impossible and that is why we press on regardless here.

BAGDAD IS THE FUTURE

by James Reed
US President George Bush and British PM Tony Blair rejected the Iraq Study Group's proposals for reformulating policy on Iraq (and are sending more young Americans to do their fighting and die for… what?…ed.). Bush insists that "victory" (whatever that means) can be achieved and democracy spread across the Middle East.

Blair believes that this vision is "absolutely correct" but is somewhat dismayed by the slowness of progress in what Bush has called a struggle "between freedom and democracy on the one hand and terrorism and sectarianism on the other." Democracy? Terrorism? According to New Statesman 20/11/06, over 7,000 prisoners have been captured in the "war on terror" but only 700 of the "lucky" ones ended up in Guantanamo Bay.

Without any reason, proof or accusation, thousands have wounded up in secret CIA gaols and concentration camps. Torture is all part of the deal, and in some camps in Uzbekistan, prisoners have been boiled alive - so by inference some "war on terror" prisoners have probably met the same fate. All in a day's work in spreading democracy.

Andrew Bacevich, "Bagdad Chaos is Beyond Control" The Australian 6/12/06 p.14, argues just that. Iraq was an artificial creation, a creation of the British after WW I. Irreconcilable cultural and religious schisms will inevitably erupt.

Conflict between the Sunni and Shia could spark a larger regional war according to Bush's own Iraq Study Group. Conflict in Iraq between the Sunni and Shia could then spread from Iraq and destabilise neighbouring countries. The report says: "Such a broader sectarian conflict could open a Pandora's box of problems - including the radicalisation of peoples, mass movements and regime changes - that could take decades to play out."

The multiracial/multicultural "experiment" is a failure - or if the name of the game is to bring down a nation - a success. The future for the West begins with Bagdad.

ISRAEL PLANS NUCLEAR STRIKE ON IRAN

Published by The Sunday Times U.K 7/1/07 by Uzi Mahnaimi in New York and Sarah Baxter in Washington:

It is once more claimed: Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons. Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear "bunker-busters", according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open "tunnels" into the targets. "Mini-nukes" would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

"As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished," said one of the sources.
The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad's assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.
Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action:
Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.

We are reminded of the words of James Petras as quoted by Israel Shamir (New Times Survey January 2007):
"Israel's power is just a mere reflection of real Jewish power in the West, which is based not on Israeli tanks, but on Jewish think-tanks; not on Israeli nukes, but on Jewish news. Unless the Jewish hold on discourse is broken, the West will keep sending its sons to follow the Pied Piper of Hamelin to the streets of Baghdad and to the hills of Lebanon. Iranians came to the conclusion that there is no chance to come to agreement with this world-wide Jewish media syndicate. There is no way to get to peace terms. One has to fight back.

MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER REPORTS ON THE HOLOCAUST CONFERENCE

As I surveyed the people aboard that plane going to Tehran (from Frankfurt, Germany, my connection point from Washington, DC), I realized in my own mind, for the first time, that these were people who might soon be dead: innocent victims of a reign of fire from the sky (a very real Holocaust) either from American bombers or Israeli bombers or both.

These Iranian people, living their lives, travelling freely back and forth from their country to others, are in the gunsights of America's George Bush and his Zionist allies in Washington and Tel Aviv.
Those Iranians are among the people whom 1,000 American Jewish rabbis - representing, by their sheer numbers, an overwhelming proportion of the synagogue-going American Jewish community - recently petitioned President Bush to attack, using American military resources (and risking the precious lives of American men and women) to do it.

"If those rabbis, supposedly 'men of God,' want to wage war against these Iranians," I thought, "then let them do it. But they had better stop pestering Americans to fight another needless war for Israel."

The realization that these living, breathing human beings from all walks of life - these Iranians - were the targets of the wrath of those war-crazed rabbis stayed with me throughout my entire time in Iran, a great burden for me as an American, knowing that the president of the United States is more in line with the thinking of those 1,000 war-mongering "religious" leaders than he is with the vast numbers of peace-loving Americans.

The Holocaust Conference:
Michael Collins Piper's full report is now posted on the League's website: alor.org/Race, Culture and Nation section - The-Holocaust-Conference.
For those who don't have access to the internet send $4.00 for cost of photocopying and postage to Heritage Books, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley 5159.

RUDDERLESS RUDD REPLACES THE BIGGEST LOSER

by James Reed
On TV at present is a reality show called "The Biggest Loser". Huge, obese people with personalities that generally match their weight problem, compete for the 'big money'.
They are trained by fanatical trainers who believe in the philosophy of "no pain, no gain". Contestants form alliances, stab each other in the back - if they can find their backs - and cry when they lose.

Australian politics is a lot like that programme. Now we have Kevin Rudd telling us "I'm running the show" (The Australian 5/12/06 p.1).
Oh no you're not: you are but an actor on the great soap drama of Australian politics; another contestant in the ultimate reality TV show. Behind the screen, the scriptwriters and producers of international finance are drafting next season's performance.

PRINCE CHARLES' RIGHT TO PRIVACY

from David Flint's Opinion Column:
A few years ago, addressing an Australian media conference, a leading privacy lawyer observed:
"With apologies to Professor David Flint, while everyone had a right to privacy, members of the Royal Family are an exception."
Of course I disagreed. In my view, and notwithstanding ill-considered judicial legislation by the US Supreme Court, all public figures have a right to privacy. (This right is protected by a mixture of legal and ethical rules, particularly those relating to the media.)

The view that public figures have a right to a private life is under attack, and not only in the more disreputable London press. (In a recent unauthorized biography of a well known and influential Australian broadcaster, an ABC journalist put up the most convoluted and untenable arguments to justify the invasion of the broadcaster's private life, including the publication of rumour. The book was reviewed in The Australian and Online Opinion on 31 October 2006 and mentioned on the ACM site on 8 November, 2006. )

As we noted on the ACM site on 30 June 2004, the London newspaper, The Mail on Sunday, is one newspaper which does not respect the privacy of members of the Royal Family. It paid a valet sixty thousand pounds to tell a scandalous story against Prince Charles which was, predictably, repeated around the world.
When the valet, clearly unstable, subsequently admitted the story was untrue, this hardly caused a ripple.

Then in 2005, The Mail on Sunday published extracts from the Prince's private journal, "The Handover of Hong Kong, or the Great Chinese Takeaway" which related to the 1997 transfer of Hong Kong to the Peoples' Republic of China.
As we reported on the ACM site on 30 November, 2005, the journal was clearly intended to be private and confidential, and had only been sent to close friends. The newspaper had been warned, not once but five times, that if it published extracts al it would be in breach of the Prince's copyright and the confidentiality to which he was clearly entitled.
The newspaper ignored these warnings and went ahead and published extracts. The Prince reluctantly sued.

Now, on 21 December, 2006, the England and Wales Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in Associated Newspapers Ltd v Prince of Wales. (For one who is occasionally guilty of not detecting spelling errors, there is an amusing one in the internet law report. I leave readers to discover that.)
The judges, not inaccurately described by Elsa McClaren in The Times of 21 December, 2006, as Britain's "top judges" - the Lord Chief Justice of England Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers , the Master of the Rolls Sir Anthony Clarke, and Lord Justice May - delivered a scathing rebuff for those who think that when it comes to the Royal Family, the law can be broken with impunity. The Prince's case for privacy, they declared, was not only "unanswerable", it was "overwhelming".

This was an appeal by the newspaper against a decision in the High Court earlier in 2006. The original hearing created headlines around the world. The case was not without surprises. One was when The Mail introduced, as its principal witness, Mr. Mark Bolland. He had not only been the Director of the Press Complaints Commission, but he had then worked as the Prince's deputy private secretary for five years. The newspaper relied on his evidence to support its spurious argument that publication of the journals was in the public interest. This is of course the standard refuge of a prying press.

Since leaving the Prince's employ, Mr Bolland has revealed private matters concerning his employment to the press, including at least one hostile opinion piece. But as we noted on the ACM site on 22 February, 2006, Mr.Bolland had obviously been employed by the Prince because of his skill in dealing with the press. He would surely have understood that part of his role was to protect the Prince from intrusions into his and his family's privacy, a matter which had been of frequent concern at the Press Complaints Commission.
Yet the reported extracts of his statement did not seem to reflect this. You would have thought he was a mere passive employee who always acted on the instructions of the Prince, rather than being a trusted and confidential adviser.

Mr. Bolland claimed the Prince of Wales sees himself as a "dissident" working against prevailing political consensus, whose self-appointed "campaigning role" was "constitutionally controversial" and had not "so far as I am aware, been endorsed either by the Queen or by Parliament." He says it was "regarded with concern by politicians".
But as we reported on 26 February, 2006, this was denied by the Prime Minister, and polling supported the Prince's right to speak out. In the meantime, Charles Moore, the distinguished former editor of the London Daily Telegraph expressed serious reservations about Mr. Bolland's role:..

"Intrusion and betrayal".
The Prince's highly competent, and we should add - staunchly loyal - private secretary Sir Michael Peat dismissed Mr. Bolland's claims. The Prince, he said, "avoids making public statement on matters which are the subject of disagreement between political parties".

"Speeches and articles are cleared beforehand with the relevant Government department. He does, from time to time, express views privately to Government ministers. He has followed the practice that such views can be expressed by the monarch and by privy councillors.
"The Prince of Wales has not 'bombarded' ministers with his views but has written to them from time to time on issues which he believes to be important."
"I am informed by him that he gave no instruction to draw the media's attention to his failure to attend that banquet or to publish material critical of the Chinese government."

The Mail on Sunday receives stolen property:
Given that only 14 copies of the Hong Kong Journal were sent to 21 recipients, counting husbands and wives as one, and all had given assurances that they had respected the confidentiality of the document, how had the newspaper obtained the journal? The answer to that was another surprise. The newspaper's behaviour had been even more reprehensible than previously thought. …

A former employee - dismissed for other reasons - had made copies of some extracts from the journals. Thinking them amusing and worth publishing one day, she took them home. With a view to selling them, she asked a friend to approach The Mail on Sunday. The newspaper had been given "about 50 pages." But her lawyer then warned her not to sell. So her friend asked The Mail to return them but the newspaper had refused. Not only did The Mail receive stolen property, it refused to return it.

Our view expressed on the ACM site was that it was inconceivable that The Mail on Sunday's palpably sham defence of acting in the public interest could possibly stand. So we were delighted to report on 18 March, 2006 that the High Court judge Mr. Justice Blackburne had ruled, the day before, that the Mail on Sunday had broken the law in publishing the extracts.
The judge said it was open to the Prince to claim for damages in respect of the Hong Kong journal and an injunction to prevent further infringement of his copyright.

Two appalling aspects about the case:
The newspaper sought leave to appeal, which was granted. In the meantime we said there were two absolutely appalling aspects about this case. One was the willingness of employees to betray confidences, and not only in the theft of the journals.
As one legal writer asked, how was it that Mr.Mark Bolland, the former deputy secretary, came to give evidence against the Prince, his former employer?
The other was the willingness of the newspaper to keep, copy and use stolen material.

We editorialized:
"Surely the criminal law has an answer to that. If someone steals my property I expect the law to protect me and the criminal to be punished, including any criminal who knowingly deals in my property. Can you imagine the wailing if the editor were put in the modern equivalent of the Tower? Of course it won't happen-the editor is more likely to be awarded damages against the Prince. For stress, I suppose."

Prince's case for privacy 'unanswerable':
The Court of Appeal has now ruled that the journals were ".private information, public disclosure of which constituted an interference with Prince Charles' .rights. As heir to the throne, Prince Charles is an important public figure. In respect of such persons the public takes an interest in information about them that is relatively trivial. For this reason public disclosure of such information can be particularly intrusive."

The Court cited the trial judge's reference to the Prince's "private space: the right to be able to commit his private thoughts to writing and keep them private, the more so as he is inescapably a public figure who is subject to constant and intense media interest."
The trial judge said the Prince "is as much entitled to enjoy confidentiality for his private thoughts as an aspect of his own human autonomy and dignity as is any other."

The fact that the journals were stolen by an employee under a duty to keep the contents confidential weighed heavily in favour of Prince Charles. The judges said that without this the Princes' case for privacy was "unanswerable"; with it his case was "overwhelming."

Sir Michael Peat, Principal Private Secretary to the Prince of Wales, said:
"We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has decided that the Prince of Wales's case for breach of confidence is 'overwhelming' and has dismissed the Mail on Sunday's appeal. This confirms what we have always maintained, that the Prince of Wales, like anyone else, is entitled to keep his private journals private."

The Mail on Sunday said, predictably and pathetically, that the ruling of the appellate judges is a "worrying threat to the freedom of the Press and to the public's right to know".
We only hope that the decision causes some elements in the media to worry not so much about future profits lost, but about the dangers involved in a repeat performance. They should not assume that they can continue to break the law with impunity.

FROM LEN THE CLEANER

AS PREDICTED THEY GET OFF THE HOOK

by James Reed:
So here it is in conclusion, the wicked wheat scandal. The UN was at fault for the Iraqi kickbacks because it approved AWB's contracts with Sad Hussein - but not the federal government. (The Weekend Australian 25-26/11/06 p.1)

Eleven former AWB executives could face criminal charges and gaol terms - but the Cole Inquiry cleared John Howard and his Minister of hiding kickbacks.
Howard (et al) are without blame that the kickback scandal went unchecked and undetected and claims by AWB were uncritically accepted. Ignorance was their defence, but no other corporate leader could escape responsibility in this way.
Alexander Downer brushed off the one criticism made by the Cole Inquiry - that his department did not have a system to detect corruption. (The Australian 30/11/06 p.1) All was well with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and they are open for business as usual with all the dictators of the world.

We live in a world where there are no moral standards in the market - only customers.

FEAR THE FINANCIAL PARASITES

by James Reed:
Described as the "scary new beasts of international finance" and "the parasites of the financial sector" (The Weekend Australian 16-17/12/06 p.1), the private equity clubs are targeting the Australian public equity markets. They are like the "new masters of the universe", being "past and present merchant bankers".
Their mechanisms are "mind-blowing debt, huge fee flows, inscrutable tax minimisation, and a capacity to conduct their business outside of the rules that define, and increasingly constrain, the conduct of public companies."

The new governor of the Reserve Bank sees them as posing a threat to the economy. But "scary beasts" and "parasites" are all part and parcel of the Rocky Horror Show of International Finance.
Private equity buyouts do not challenge the nature of Capitalism; to the contrary, they represent the essence of the predatory nature of modern Financial Capital.

Social Credit is a medicine that would eliminate the parasitic nature of Capitalism and create a new market system based upon anti-monopoly principles of a decentralised economy.

THE FUTURE IS NOW

by James Reed:
"Human Race to be Two Tribes," is a forecast by evolutionary biologist Dr. Oliver Curry. (The Advertiser 22/10/06 p.39)
The human race will divide into two: a "glamorous upper class" and a "goblin-like underclass". As well: "Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured humans."

The splitting of the human race will arise from sexual selection after a technologically dependent human race in 10,000 years time faces a loss of basic human emotions. This scenario would make a good novel - in fact H.G. Wells wrote about it in 1895 in his novel "The Time Machine".

But sociologically, it is not really science fiction: our cancerous economic system is already working to eliminate human qualities such as racial differences and to make the underclass goblin-like.

The elites are desperately trying to make the world of "The Time Machine" and "Lord of the Ring" reality. Don't let it end that way.

ANOTHER MYTH BITES THE DUST

by James Reed:
It could have passed by without much comment but is worth recording.
Environmentalist William J. Lines published an important article "Black and White Lies" in The Weekend Australian 14-15/10/06 p.21, debunking the myth of the "ecological Aborigine".

Lines writes: "At a rainforest symposium in Cairns in l987, Ian Lowe, head of science policy at Griffith University argued that there are general principles of resource management that hunter-gatherer societies embody, and from which we can learn if we have the perceptiveness and the humility to do so."

Lowe attempted to elaborate:
"Some of these lessons,'' he claimed, "were spelled out over a century ago by Chief Seattle:
'The Earth is our mother. Whatever befalls the Earth befalls the sons of the Earth. If men spit upon the ground they spit upon themselves. This we know: The Earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the Earth. This we know: all things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the Earth befalls the sons of the Earth. Man did not weave the web of life: he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.'"
Fine sentiments. Except Chief Seattle never proclaimed them, nor did any other Native American. The entire speech was a concoction written by a modern, non-Native American scriptwriter, Ted Perry, for a 1972 film about ecology and falsely attributed to Chief Seattle. Despite their counterfeit modern provenance, Chief Seattle's words won disciples all over the world…"

Although Lines does not say this, this myth has been used by radical leftists as part of their attack upon traditional Australia.
What Lines does say is equally important. The myth of an ecological Aborigine gave moral superiority to Aborigines "and disparaged people of non-Aboriginal background. They would never belong in Australia."

Lines points out that this is racial thinking which logically dooms conservationism! A nice argument that should have been published long ago - but better late than never.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Toxic Waste:
Dear Editor, Ballarat Courier:

Whatever Maria Riedl (letters December 13) says about the toxic waste dump as it applies to Nowingi applies in a broad generalisation to every proposed site. Surely she is not saying that Russell Savage took no interest in the issue.

Everyone, however, can be assured that a toxic dump will be established somewhere in Melbourne. Don't bet on it. A safer bet would be that it will occur somewhere in rural Victoria. It will also be in an electorate Labor is not interested in. Thus, Nowingi cannot be ruled out.
Yours truly,
Ron Fischer Sebastopol, Vic.