A Happy New Year for 2008 to all our Readers

NEWTON'S BY-LAWS OF EXPERTS

Source: Online Opinion by William York:
The claim that the science debate over climate change is settled violates the most important of Newton's Laws. This violation is not of the famous Laws of Motion but of a little known set of derived bylaws, Newton's Laws of Experts, a major contribution to understanding social dynamics.

Newton's Laws of Motion may be simply stated as:
First Law: every object persists in its state of rest or uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force; Second Law: the rate of change of momentum is directly proportional to the applied force; and Third Law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Newton's Laws of Experts, the bylaws, are as follows:
First Law: every expert persists in his state of rest or opinion unless acted upon by an external grant; Second Law: the rate of change of opinion is directly proportional to the applied grant; and Third Law: for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.

The First Law of Experts is well known:
The First Law of Experts is well known and can be demonstrated in countless universities, institutes and research bodies. There are two major influences. First, the need to appear relevant to the wants of society means engagement in the great issues of the day. This has been brought on by well intentioned but misguided policy that assumes innovations, financial, technical or other, spring fully developed from academic research and national needs should determine the areas of research interest.
The Second Law of Coupling Science and Politics:
The second and much more worrying influence comes from the coupling of politics to science. The academy has a natural bias towards the Left as its business is overthrowing old ideas and generating new interpretations and understanding. If this is coupled to saving the planet and giving rise to a better world then there is a resonance between politics and academia. At the present time there are three issues that resonate with at least parts of the academy: climate change, genetically modified organisms and nuclear power. In each case, it is arguable that the scientific understanding on the political side is selective, frequently ignorant and often presented in terms that startle the public. As a result governments, often subject to marginal politics, have created opportunities for endless grant applications for any research perceived as relevant to these issues. As a further result, academia has responded by setting up special institutes or university departments and, with knowledge of the availability of large research grants, has applied for and received funding. It is often the case that the envisaged research was not aimed at the target set by the government, but simply represents the dressing-up of a proposal in a way which would attract the grant.

This discussion leads to the Second Law of Experts.
There is no doubt that large grants, leading to the establishment of new institutes, departments or divisions, have the effect of moving experts into positions where they will represent these new initiatives. The lifetime of these organisations is subject to the continuous feeding from grants, so there is every incentive to emphasise the importance and relevance of the research, thus providing strong and positive feedback.

The Third Law of Experts is one that is most commonly encountered in the Law:
Expert witnesses are frequently called by both sides for explanations. So, rather than experts advising the bench, each side presents the most favourable explanation that helps its own case. The present major concern of society is climate change. Why this is so is best understood in the words of H.L. Mencken, the Sage of Baltimore:
§ The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

The effect of the political interest in climate change has been the violation of Newton's Third Law. Where are the experts speaking against the position that climate change is caused by human activity? They are scarcely to be seen or heard at this time. Within the academy, one expert will not willingly place himself between another expert and a grant-giving body, unless he has immunity from subsequent retribution. There are examples of those who have taken the contrary view being hounded by colleagues, being unable to secure research grants and even calls for them to be removed from their positions.

However Newton's Laws are eternal and immutable:
The violation of the Third Law will be only temporary as slowly scientific observation and understanding will get the better of the present situation. From the above analysis, it is a firm conclusion that the climate change debate is distorted in its presentation and that its alleged scientific conclusions are unsound. Only when the Third Law is satisfied will we finally understand.
This writer would not like to estimate how long this will take. Rather he would suggest that we all heed the advice of another sage, this time from Hollywood, where Sam Goldwyn is supposed to have said that he never liked making predictions, particularly about the future.

ANSWERING THE ADVERTISEMENT

by James Reed
'Hey buddy can you spare me a dime?' Maybe you need a real job. Try this: "A Senior Research Officer is sought to work with the Hon. Kim Beazley, Professorial Fellow in Political Science and International Relations, on research and writing projects related especially to the history of Australian defence and foreign policy, including the Australian-American alliance." (The Australian 28/11/07 p.24)

The position is through the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia. The universities are always a refuge for failed politicians. I wonder which Asian studies department will be taking John Howard on board!

SCIENTISTS PROTEST AND EXPOSE FRAUD AT BALI CONFERENCE

It has been reported that approximately one hundred prominent scientists signed an open letter to UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, clearly slamming the current IPCC process as a fraud. They note that it is "not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages."

"The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years."

"The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation …
The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents."

A team of scientists attending the Bali conference to dispute the man-made global warming theory, experienced heavy handed bully tactics and a mainstream media blackout. Dr. David Evans, a former carbon accounting modeller working for the Australian Greenhouse Office, slammed the conference as a "circus". Following a press conference in Bali debunking the global warming hoax, British Lord Christopher Monckton issued a statement describing the hoax as UN-backed slaughter of the world's poorest people. This charge of genocide, most accurately reflects the actual intention of the British financial oligarchy pushing this scam.

Source for scientists' UN letter: <https://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004>

MULTIRACIAL SOCIETIES: JOYFUL, PRECIOUS TO BEHOLD

by James Reed
"Police clashed violently with up to 100 residents in Melbourne's inner north amid fears of a dramatic breakdown of law and order among mostly African migrants." (The Australian 30/11/07 p.2) Multiculturalism is indeed a wondrous policy. The joys of ethnic diversity, cooking, food and culture given to us by Gough Whitlam, Mal Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and John Howard will be continued by our now, 'greatly loved' Prime Minister Big Kev Rudd.
And a little way down the track we look forward to all the good things that will come down to us, when Senator Penny Wong becomes Prime Minister. The international community will take each and every one of our ethnically enriched fingers and kiss them. As they should.

"Victoria Police this week set up a special taskforce, Operation Square, to deal with flare-ups and forge ties with African community leaders." What's this? Aaaagh! Racism! White Australia Policy! Surely this problem should be dealt with by increased African migration, say 1,000,000 per year, supported by taxing the intellectual classes - academics, journalists, teachers, lawyers, etc. - at 99 per cent of their salaries.
I am confident that all of the "chatterers" out there, bored with the riches scooped from the public purse, would be only too happy to make a meaningful contribution to dealing with such an important social problem.

THE UNSINKABLE DR. TOBEN

by Betty Luks
Dr. Fredrick Toben, whose Adelaide Institute website questions the standard Holocaust story was facing action in the Federal Court by Jeremy Jones, former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, requesting the gaoling of Toben for allegedly breaching a 2002 order by judge Catherine Branson. The order by Judge Branson was that Dr. Toben had breached the Racial Discrimination Act on various grounds, including publishing material implying that the Holocaust did not occur, doubting the existence of the Auschwitz gas chambers, among other propositions. The matter was settled by Dr. Toben apologising to a judge on 27 November 2007 and removing the offensive material and not republishing it. Dr. Toben outside the court said that he was going to continue running his site and questioning the Holocaust.

According to Jeremy Jones, former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry : "All we sought was for a person who was causing upset and offence to other people within the Australian community in principle to stop doing it. There's a huge difference between scholarship and behaviour that is outlawed under Australian law." (The Australian 28/11/07 p.10)

This raises the interesting question as to whether or not a scholarly, non-insulting, investigation and critique of the Holocaust is permitted under Australian law. Is any such inquiry "offensive" by definition? P.S. And, true to form, The Australian placed a charming photograph of a posing, smiling new Melbourne arts festival boss, along with a report on his appointment, on the same page with an unposed photo of Dr. Toben taken at an odd angle which made his face appear out of proportion. It reminded me of the dreadful photos of three League folk an Adelaide newspaper published in the 1980s; Frank Bawden, Jeremy Lee and Eric Butler. If the reader didn't know any better he would think he was viewing mug-shots of some of the worst known criminals in town.

ALL FRIENDS TOGETHER?

by Betty Luks
Historian David Irving and British National Party Leader, Nick Griffin, had been invited to Oxford University's debating society to debate on the question of free speech. Protesters from the Left did what they are expected to do and tried to disrupt the event, including staging a sit-in protest.
Protesters had been chanting "kill", "kill", which brought forth Mr. Griffin's description of them as a "mob which would kill." Oxford University's Jewish Society and the Islamic Society worked together to stage the strong protest.
One wonders that if conservative critics who fear a future "Eurabia," an Islamic Europe, are correct, whether such future collaborations will occur.

OH! COME… LET US ALL REJOICE!

From David Flint's Opinion Column:
Australians still benefit from one of the best constitutions in the world, and the Australian flag still flies over our land because a sufficient number of Australians were willing to fight to preserve, to protect and to defend our heritage. In 1999, the people agreed, overwhelmingly. Yet republicans are still trying to undermine what was a very clear decision.
Fortunately there are Australians who remain vigilant in the defence of our heritage. Armed with modern technology, they can inform and motivate other Australians who are not prepared to see our heritage trampled.

This can even happen, it seems, on Christmas Day. On 25 December, 2007, The Age reported that Royal Melbourne Women's Hospital was now to be known as "The Women's." New signage was installed on Friday after "consultants" said the former name was "ineffective." A spokeswoman said the change was "just for branding purposes." She said the hospital was advised by a "professional signage company who developed the signage package."

A Victorian Greens MP, Greg Barber welcomed the change. The Nationals leader, Peter Ryan, asked why Victorians were not consulted, slamming it as "another example of apparently contemporary political correctness on the part of the thought police," he said. A Government spokesman denied any involvement or that there were plans to remove the word "royal" from other institutions.

The ever-vigilant George Bougias, who played a leading role in encouraging those attending the Commonwealth Games to sing "God Save The Queen," and who among other positions, is ACM's International Convener, acted. He protested to the Hospital, and wrote to The Age. Then he circulated all this information to members of the Monarchist Alliance, warning that "the barbarians are at the gate again."
He told the Royal Melbourne Women's Hospital of his "profound disappointment" with the hospital management following their decision. "Having been born at the hospital myself I am especially saddened that the my birth place has chosen to downgrade its role in the community.

The title "Royal" proclaimed to the entire world the status and critical role of the hospital in providing maternity and other care for Victorian women. The title also proclaimed the high regard that all Victorians have for the hospital while also reminding us of our system of Government (a Constitutional Monarchy and the envy of the world), our history and culture.
"Importantly, the title also reminded us that we are in the Commonwealth family of nations - a group that is led superbly by Her Majesty The Queen of Australia. Moreover, having been conferred the title by Her Majesty the Queen of Australia, I find it incredibly rude and ungrateful that a few would choose to remove it."

The fact that the decision was announced so close to the Christmas period (with The Age reporting it on Christmas day!) had not escaped his notice. He said that this "suggests secrecy and an unwillingness to engage with the broader community." Asking that the title be reinstated, he also asked to see the consultant's report. He warned that he would be pursuing the issue with a range of people, including State and Local Government authorities. George Bougias' letter to The Age, which he signed as one born at the Royal Melbourne Women's Hospital, pulled no punches: "So let's get this straight. Management at a Melbourne icon (The Royal Women's Hospital) decides to drop the "Royal" to increase marketing and "other" "efficiency" on the advice of a sign company? And does so around Christmas time so no-one notices?"

"This is either an April fool's joke (at the wrong time of year) or a poorly-thought out ploy by people who should know better. If the Royal Women's management team and their 'consultants' can't leverage the term "Royal" (a title thousands of other organisations would jump at the chance to have) the best thing they could do for the hospital's efficiency would be to sack themselves. What a joke!"

Brett Hogan, ACM's Victorian Convener, sent this powerful protest to the Hospital:
"I have just read of your very disappointing decision to put short term marketing before long term credibility by gradually removing the "Royal" from the name of your hospital, just like the Royal Melbourne Zoological Gardens (now known as just one of three Melbourne zoos) and the Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind (now Vision Australia which sounds like a political party) etc...
"You have chosen to dispense with your Royal Charter, which in one word, gives your hospital respect, credibility and status and replace it with yet another boring and bland marketing term which will merge you into the rest of the pack and presumably need to be changed again in a couple of years by new consultants.
"I don't like to be rude, but as well as being a highly political act, to be honest with you, "The Women's" sounds like a toilet. "It sounds to me like Victoria's pre-eminent hospital for women, with the highest standards of governance, integrity and healthcare is really only "just another hospital" after all."

Harold Schmauze., the moderator of the Monarchist Alliance web pages, then posted the news that the hospital was backtracking. Chris Evans in The Age reported that the hospital was "staying 'royal'". It "vehemently denied" reports that it is about to discard its 53-year-old royal warrant, despite a large illuminated sign on Friday appearing high up on the side of the hospital's new $250 million building in Parkville.

"Of course we are proud to be The Royal Women's Hospital, but people also know us as just The Women's and that was a consideration in pointing people to our building as opposed to the Royal Melbourne Hospital next door," spokeswoman Ms Frostick said. The hospital would continue to display its full name at street level, on its flag and throughout its premises.

George Bougias was not impressed, saying that the backtrack was to an extent "smoke and mirrors," but pointing out the RMH response "shows however what a few can do... .keep the fight going!!!"

He referred to a report in the Herald Sun also on Christmas Day that the hospital said it had been inundated with callers upset by a report in the Herald Sun that the hospital was dropping the "Royal" from the name.

"We're getting lots of phone calls this morning from people upset and asking why we are changing the hospital's name," Ms Frostick said. "We haven't - we've always been known as The Women's but we are still registered as The Royal Women's Hospital."

This story demonstrates the effect vigilant defenders of our system can have. It also shows the length to which republicans will go to circumvent the people's wishes." Bravo folk!

ON MEETING THE ALIENS

by James Reed
It was a shock, at first, for humanity to meet intelligent life from another star constellation: Alpha Centauri, 43 light-years from earth. The Googleplexes came from the planet Alphonsus. Civil war had wrecked their planet and job opportunities were poor. Earth looked a better place to be; nice and blue and watery. So they came in their billions. After all, the Googleplex people had studied earth culture, at least what electromagnetic radiation could tell about early 1960s Earth.

They particularly liked TV shows such as The Rifleman (1958-1962) starring Chuck Connors as Lucas McCain and how he used this large loop Winchester 1892, during the 1880s (proof they concluded, that humans could time travel), to fight racial bigotry. Earth was the place to go. And of course, they were right.
All eight of their green arms were welcomed by globalists and cosmopolitans, who, instead of speaking now of "one world", spoke instead of "one universe."

Further, although the Googleplexes had a radically different DNA to humans, geneticists began to work frantically, to allow interracial matings and conceptions between humans and Googleplexes. After all, they publicly and proudly proclaimed, there cannot effectively be "one universe" as long as racial differences existed.

THIRD WORLD POVERTY

As we read of the terrible atrocities now taking place in Kenya it would be well to ponder once more on the words of Ivor Benson who, many years ago, warned the world about what the One-Worlders were doing to the continent of Africa and its peoples:

Those who investigate the problems of Third World poverty concentrate their attention on possible ways of relieving the poverty, of narrowing the gap between the world's 'haves' and 'have-nots' of eliminating or reducing the present 'inequality' in the enjoyment of the fruits of the earth. And it is always through socialist/collectivist policies.

But the question is never asked:
"What is the cause of all this Third World poverty?" Or, to put the question another way: why is it that countries, once colonies of western powers, could feed themselves; but now that they 'rule' themselves "live on the edge of existence in absolute poverty?"
What happens to the hundreds of billions of dollars in direct aid and irredeemable loans, plus the mountains of free food which pour into these countries?
The control of the people by coercive powers of government may be effective for the plans of the One-Worlders, but such tactics have never been of much use in encouraging people to produce!
A policy of population control over a policy of basic requirements for production is a sure recipe for chaos and disorder. But then, the power wielders of international finance consider the trail of death and misery and destruction as not too high a price for others to pay - for the objective - the herding of individuals and societies into larger and larger groups for the New World Order.

The artificially created African States:
There is not one artificially created state in Africa whose boundaries enclose a homogenous population speaking one language and sharing one cultural heritage. No explanation of the disastrous poverty that has been brought about in Third World states would be incomplete without some reference to a generation of 'idealists' and 'do-gooders', generally described as intellectuals without whose encouragement and active assistance none of this would have been possible

These people can say, along with Shakespeare's Hamlet: I am but mad north-north-west; when the wind blows southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw. In the realm of public affairs they could not be more thoroughly alienated from reality, therefore quite mad, but in matters pertaining to their personal advancement and enrichment, why, truly, they 'know a hawk from a handsaw.'

Theirs has been the task of generating a world of lies as they confer on the ambitions of great power an ostentation of benevolence and good intention. No percipient observer of the Third World scene, honest with himself, could fail to see all these professional humanitarians at work.

Professor Bauer wrote on the subject:
"The belief in Western responsibility for the poverty of the undeveloped world might have proved much less effective but for certain further, deep-seated factors. Many, perhaps most, humanitarians and social reformers, and especially the most vocal and influential of their number, seem primarily interested in groups which can be declared or classified as helpless.
Humanitarians and Social reformers particularly need people who can be classified as helpless victims of causes and conditions beyond their control. And the classification of groups as helpless then actually promotes their helplessness, thus serving the psychological, political and financial aims of the classifiers."

Is it not possible that much of the missionary activity of the last three-quarters of a century was itself a confession of declining faith, a substitution of unlimited expansion geographically and into other spheres, including politics, for a security in depth which had somehow been lost?

Further reading: Ivor Benson's important booklets
"The Moment of Truth," and "A Message from Southern Africa". The set of two for $7.50 posted.

Another excellent League booklet by D. Watts "The Dangerous Myth of Racial Equality: Genocide for the White Races?" -- $5.00 posted from all Heritage Book Services and Veritas Publishing (WA.)

ADELAIDE 1215 LUNCHEON CLUB

LETTER IN THE PRESS