VALE TERRY ROGERS

by Charles Pinwill

Attended by his family and many friends at the funeral on the 4th July 2007, our friend and colleague, Terry Rogers, was buried at Tatura, after a service at St Augustine's Anglican Church in Shepparton, Victoria.
Terry was born on the 5th September 1937 and grew up in the Footscray area in Victoria. He had come into contact with the Social Credit movement through the Murray Electors' Association, and became an active assistant to Tom Fielder. He was a popular associate of the many families who have supported the movement in that part of Victoria.
Terry served for many years as the State Director of the League of Rights in Victoria. Among his many notable achievements was a campaign against the Victorian government's legislation proposing that one third of Victoria become Aboriginal Land. All Victorian Local Governments were contacted and the submissions presented caused a furore of interest. Perhaps fifty asked that speakers be made available to address them, and most carried resolutions in condemnation of the legislation. The political stakes were raised and the proposed legislation abandoned.
Possessed of a clear intelligence, the courage of his convictions and a cheerful gentlemanliness which conferred the dignity of value to all, Terry left an indelible mark on all who had the good fortune to know him.
Those non-family members who knew Terry through his interests in philosophy, theology, finance/economics or his quests for the correct principles of human association, which we call Social Credit, were deeply moved by the testimony of his twenty or so grandchildren, two of whom gave eulogies to their beloved "Pappy". Here was a quality person who invested his life in others, and both his family and society is indebted to his legacy.
Our sympathies to his wife Sandra and all his family.

THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE : DIVERSITY MELTDOWN

by Brian Simpson
Like many of the writers of this movement, I well recognise the terrible threat to Western Christian civilisation which we face. It would be nice to be beyond the stage of documenting the danger, but part of our duty as writers is surely to continue to alert people to cultural decline and degeneracy.
Recently a stabbing victim lay dying on the floor of a shop whilst on-lookers stepped over her and recorded the event on their mobile phones ("Stabbed? Smile for the Camera," The Australian 5/7/07 p.11). This event occurred in Wichita Kansas, but it could have happened in any major city of the world - including, I think, Melbourne.

What is the social meaning of such an event?
Professor Putnam on the Diversity Meltdown: The above event is a clear indication of a loss of 'social capital'. Professor Robert D. Putnam has been quoted in this journal before his pronouncement that in the "short run" (and he doesn't define how long this is) ethnic diversity produced by mass immigration, reduces social solidarity and social capital. Optimistically Putnam believes that in the long term immigration and diversity will have economic and cultural benefits (to whom?). However as a famous homosexual economist once said, in the long term we are all dead.

Short term social chaos and breakdown has the nasty tendency to become long term. Again, Putnam does not consider this criticism in his paper "E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century," Scandinavian Political Studies,Vol.30, no.2, 2007, pp.137-174. Evidence from the United States indicates that in racially and ethnically diverse neighbourhoods, people of all races tend to adopt a survivalist attitude of "circling the wagons" or "hunkering down". Trusting people, even of one's own race is lower, there are fewer friends and community networks and community co-operation becomes rare. Immigration and diversity produce social isolation and anomie as people like turtles "hunker down" (p.149).

Inhabitants of diverse communities, Professor Putnam tells us "tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of television." (pp.150-151)

This is of course a recipe for social disaster. But Professor Putnam cannot see it coming because his theological belief is that diversity in society is good, and more diversity even better. I could not find anything in his paper to indicate his views on whether more immigration (say of non-Jewish people) and more non-Jewish diversity in Israel would also be a good thing. Perhaps he will tell us in another paper.

He is optimistic because he thinks the US is a racial success. No mention here, of course, of the disproportionate rate of Black against White crime. He, however, has only looked at the short term. For the long term view, turn back to paragraph one.

THE FACE OF THE RACE OF TRAITORS or - - ACADEMICS

by D. West
It is instructive for an ex-academic (circa 1980s) to 'surf the net' to see what happened to old enemies and other species of traitors. Without exception, everyone that I could locate via google at various universities, who has not yet retired, is engaged in activities and research which have the net result of aiding in the destruction of our race, culture and nation.

From my laundry list of ghosts from the past I found at least someone working on every manner of politically correct topic under the sun. The combined research output reads like a course from hell. All done on salaries of an average $80-100,000 per year, all paid for from our taxes.

I myself could not continue teaching in an arts faculty and resigned to start my own business. It was the best thing I ever did. The universities are completely and utterly intellectually corrupt. If an earthquake swallowed them all up and chewed up all of the academics, society would be infinitely better off.

THE TREASON OF THE INTELLECTUALS

by Brian Simpson
Some readers may think D. West's opinion of the modern university is 'over the top'. My view is the modern university is a close approximation of a Nordic hell: a horrible, politically correct hades ruled by intellectual dwarfs and wicked feminists. But this we all know.

Yet most of us think there was a golden age when all was different. No doubt in the past there was less of the evil that we deal with in these pages - but an examination of Western intellectual history of ideas clearly shows that most past philosophers, thinkers and intellectuals since the time of the ancient Greeks were what we would call cosmopolitans or globalists. Only a few were not in the long history of ideas.

Being an "intellectual" seems to have been conceived of in the West as having a duty to be part of a "culture of critique" - of criticising their own society, culture and race. Few philosophers have defended the local over the global, home over foreign, and their own kind against the alien.
The racial 'other' is always infinitely attractive and exotic to them, than boring locals. Entire disciplines such as sociology are grounded upon this anti-White, racially destructive metaphysic. Where did these shackles and chains come from? Why is our culture inflicted with this disease? And… how can we save our race when the rot seems so deep within and so total?

Our intellectual traditions are a symptom of a much deeper, more serious disease, one which alienates our kind from each other, making us as unified grains of sand in the great racial maelstrom.

IT'S US THAT DESERVE THE PENSION!

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Politically correct High Court judge Michael Kirby recently made a plea for the government to change the law on spouse pensions so that his homosexual partner can inherit his judicial pension of $226,338 when the judge dies.

Chris Merritt ("Judicial Independence at Stake," The Australian 12/7/07 p.4) is surely right in saying: "Michael Kirby is right - anyone who would put up with him for 38 years does deserve a pension." But Merritt thinks that Kirby's suggested change is right because otherwise the independence of the judiciary is threatened: "gay judges might feel obliged to ingratiate themselves with the government in order to improve the financial security of their partners."

However the available evidence indicates that the High Court has long been the servant of the executive government. The Australian (14-15/7/07, p.21 and 16/7/07 p.5) has covered the issue of the judiciary activism of the High Court since the time of chief justice Anthony Mason.

Professor Jason Pierce, "Inside the Mason Court Revolution: The High Court of Australia Transformed" (Carolina Academic Press, North Carolina 2006). The book is frightening reading, being based on anonymous interviews with senior judges. The left wing politically correct judges were "deciding cases as Marx or Freud would have." Clearly these judges see themselves as law makers, not interpreters of the law.

Who knows, perhaps the court may come to find that Kirby's spouse pension requirement is an implied right in the Constitution: after all, the US Supreme Court found in Roe v Wade a constitutional right for abortion! Like everything else, our legal system is running out of kilter. This, I believe, is not a product of the Mason revolution.

Since the beginning the High Court has constantly returned centralist judgements that have undermined the fundamental Federalism established by the Founding Fathers. There is something very, very wrong here.

PARTYING WHILE ROME BURNS

by James Reed
Following on from the judicial activism debate is news that the long-suffering Australian taxpayers have 'coughed up' over $208,000 over the past two years so that six high-paid judges could go to international legal conferences. Of course they stayed at the world's best hotels. Nothing second class for them. It shows their attitude of being a law unto themselves.

There is simply no justification for a judge to attend any international conference. Let them earn their money - let them stay at home and sit down on their soft behinds and decide cases - even if they have to do it using Marx or Derrida!
Source: "Judges' $208,000 Travel Bill," The Australian 18/7/07, p.7.

JESUS IN THE TALMUD

by Betty Luks
On 15 January 2007, Princeton University Press released a book by Professor Peter Schäfer, head of Princeton University's Judaic Studies Program and listed as "one of the world's most famous academic authorities on Judaism". The book is entitled "Jesus in the Talmud".

I read a review of this book and checked on Amazon.com just to be sure that what I read was true - even that such a book existed! According to the review, Peter Schäfer argues, contrary to the claims of the Jewish lobby, that Jesus is given a very poor and unflattering portrayal in the Jewish sacred texts of the "Talmud". It has often been claimed that only anti-Semites have promoted this allegedly false view of Jesus and that there are few Talmudic references to Jesus.
From a search with a surf-the-net-literate friend we were unable to find a copy of this book in any library in Australia - surprise, surprise - although the book ranked 31,332 on the Amazon.com site. We will get the book and make our own assessment.

On 2 February 2007, in the case of Jeremy Jones v The Bible Believers Church [2007] FCASS, Holocaust denial material, being allegations that the Holocaust did not occur (among other things), was found to contravene section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, outlawing race hate.
One wonders if Professor Peter Schäfer and Princeton University Press have also violated this Act, not on the Holocaust but on another "sensitive" ground, this time of religious difference? For the Race Hate Act, truth is not a defence, and all that matters is "offence" and also any "offence" that is "unreasonable" and "not in good faith".

Jeremy Jones ("The Last Word", Australia Israel Review June 2007) in commenting on the Bible Believers' federal court case finished his article with the following words:
"But on one issue I would hope that agreement by members of all faiths, and none, has been reached - that racism, and contempt for others, of the type expressed by the abovementioned sheiks (Muslim …ed) and the "pastor" (Christian…ed), is completely beyond the pale of acceptability."
Do the same standards apply to the Talmud and Judaism Mr. Jones? Maybe "the last word" hasn't yet been heard.

REPUBLIC IRREDEEMABLY DEBAUCHED

Source: David Flint's Opinion Column:
Only two republican models have endured as long as the Westminster system. They are the American and the Swiss, and only if you ignore their nineteenth century civil wars. The Swiss is unusual, reflecting the nation itself. While our founders borrowed the Swiss referendum, no one has tried to import the Swiss system. When the American system has been exported, it has never worked successfully for long, even in France.

The American republic has excellent checks and balances against the abuse of power. But it can be inflexible whenever there is an attempt to bring down a government. There is then the danger of a long paralysis, something unknown in the Westminster system. Remember the attempt to impeach President Nixon.
The other weakness is that all of the American institutions are intensely political, even the courts. There is no institution so above politics as the Crown is in the Westminster system. This is illustrated by the pardon President Bush recently gave to his associate, "Scooter" Libby. President Bush was not of course the first president to pardon a political ally. In the dying days of the Clinton administration, a large number were accorded. On his last day in office, President Clinton granted 140 pardons, some controversial including one to Marc Rich: Barbara Olsen, "The Final Days," Regnery Publishing, Washington, 2001, page 121.
The decision to grant a federal pardon in the United States is vested in the President, who acts in his own, absolute discretion. It is not a cabinet decision, and there is no convention about advice being necessary.

How different it is under the Crown. A pardon would have to be recommended to the Governor-General, probably as a result of a collective decision in cabinet, rather than an individual decision of the Prime Minister. The Governor-General would need to be assured that he had the power to do this, and that all conditions on the exercise of that power had been fulfilled. Even then, he would be entitled to advise against the pardon if he thought it were inappropriate. There are thus more checks and balances under this system, without making it too rigid.

Seeing the weakness of the American system exposed in the Libby affair, Mr Les MacDonald of Balmain in New South Wales was moved to write to the Sydney Morning Herald. His letter was published as the lead letter on 6 July, 2007 under the title:
"Abuse of the presidential pardon a miscarriage writ large."

"If anything further was needed to convince a reasonable person that the US political and legal systems are irredeemably debauched," he said, " it is the farce of presidential pardons. This power was granted to the president to enable the exercise of mercy on those who were regarded to have been failed by the legal system. It has been used, by recent presidents, as a "get out of jail free" card for the most egregious criminals who have inhabited high office in the US."
"Respect by the citizens for the impartiality of their legal system is fundamental to a functioning democracy. Yet most Americans know that judges throughout the US system are often elected not for their judicial expertise but because of their party affiliation and willingness to do the bidding of powerful local party bosses. They also know that the justice handed out to the rich and powerful is a very different."
"The Supreme Court has also, in recent presidential elections, supplanted the electorate's voice with its judgments about who should be president."
"The impression that the system gives to objective observers is that it can, and will, be manipulated to ensure that the result is what those in power want, not what the interests of justice demand."

AL GORE'S ASSAULT ON REASON

by James Reed
After his Movie/DVD "An Inconvenient Truth" and book of the same title, Al Gore is back in the saddle with another book "The Assault on Reason". The argument of the book is that reason, logic and truth are playing a diminishing role in the way Americans make decisions.
Thus the war on terror has eroded important freedoms and condoned activities, such as torture, that were outlawed by previous generations.

Gore says that the faith in the power of reason - the basis of democracy - has been undermined. TV and the mass media has dumbed down the level of public debate, if there is one at all, and substituted reality TV and other bread and circuses. Reading is in decline. There is no longer a well-informed citizenry, which democracy requires. Voters are simply purchased and manipulated by media spin doctors.
Gore hopes that a re-establishment of democratic discourse could come about through the internet. After all, Enlightenment was brought about by the print medium democratising knowledge, he argues.

I agree with Gore that there is a major problem facing democracy and I know that everyone except for me has a love affair with computers - but - I think that this is all whistling in the dark. There needs to be more fundamental and radical changes - to finance, economy and society - than supposing that democracy will survive because we are "networked". Anyway, who says that the internet is going to survive?

An article in New Scientist (13 November 2004) which I found when visiting my dentist, says, "Experts agree that the net is on the brink of collapse…Unless we do something the internet will become the largest target of attack on the planet."
Computer terrorism is on the increase and is the wave of the future. Is this what we should pin our hopes on? Al Gore may have given a partial diagnosis of a problem, but he has supplied no lasting solution.

LETTER - GERMAR RUDOLF

Paul Grubach writes to inform folk of Germar Rudolf.
Friends,
I received another letter, dated July 17, 2007, from Germar Rudolf, the imprisoned German scientist and Holocaust revisionist scholar. His forensic studies of the so-called "Auschwitz gas chambers" proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they never existed. The current German government cannot disprove his thesis with contrary evidence and logic, so they had no recourse but to put him into prison.
By their oppressive behaviour, the current German rulers have shown themselves to be a Jewish-Zionist inspired, totalitarian despotism, masquerading as a "democracy."
Anyhow, here are some of the contents of the letter. Overall, he appears to be in a good mood, albeit somewhat justifiably hostile and combative.

1. In regard to his physical fitness issues, he writes that "things look bright right now." His wife sent him a pair of running shoes, and he feels good running to stay in good physical condition.
2. Despite the fact that he keeps his cell meticulously clean, he has "to kill a cockroach a day," because the other inmates do not have his habits of cleanliness.
3. He is justifiably angry at the prison authorities. I quote directly from the letter: "Last week the prison authorities forbade me to call the residence of a lady at the Lake Constance...Some clerk in this...[prison]...found an entry on a Wikepedia site claiming that some ancestor of that lady had some official position during the years 1933-1945, and this was reason enough for the prison head to declare that this lady endangers my resocialization...On top of it, that lady was banned from visiting me for the same reasons."
4. The prison authorities put the same bans upon a supporter of his, because some clerk found out that he is a member of some unspecified organization.
5. In a short, justifiable denunciation of the current German authorities, he mentions the "chemical residues in the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz."
6. After experiencing these problems, he had a talk with the prison psychologist. I quote directly from his letter:
"I had it and told the psychologist, who had an interview with me today in order to assess how my prospects for social reintegration would be, to pack his stuff and get off my back with his pack of hypocrisy and lies. Which is equivalent to saying that I won't get an early release." He states that he has two remaining years left on his sentence, and he refuses to be brain washed.
Again I quote directly from his letter:
"Well, I'll wing those two remaining years--exactly on this very day [July 17, 2007]--somehow. Worse things could happen. At least I'm going to be in one piece, healthy, and still the old guy, with backbone unbroken and brain unwashed. That's more important than a few months sooner out of here."
11. He gave me permission to spread the information in this letter over the Internet. I quote directly from his letter:
"Of course you can spread this message far and wide. Serves them well the world knows what a nuthouse Germany has become."

Germar Rudolf is a fine human being. It is a great honour for me to be his friend and colleague. You too can write to him at: Germar Rudolf, Herzogenriedstr 111 D-68169 Mannheim, Germany. Source: ReportersNoteBook.