THE SECRET IS… NEIGHBOUR TO NEIGHBOUR AGREEMENT

Whether one agrees with Coal Seam Gas projects or not, what freedom loving people would agree on is their right to decide for themselves what they want for their community. The following report was picked up by America’s Next World TV and the message is theirs.

"In New South Wales, Australia there is an area covering about 90 towns that have fought the gas industry and won! At a meeting in February 2012, residents saw a Coal Seam Gas film, then voted overwhelmingly to make their roads and lands "CSG Free". Coal Seam Gas is a form of natural gas extracted from coal beds, also called CBM or Coal Bed Methane. Obviously, it is extremely destructive to the environment.

After this meeting, working groups were formed to survey each household. Outcomes were astonishing. The community was united. Of 432 respondents, one said ‘not sure’, two said ‘no’. A whopping 429 said YES to making their roads CSG-free (99.3%).
As a result of this participatory process, there were three territories that were declared Gasfield Free on 14th April 2012.

"We encourage other communities to do what we've done here. The secret is neighbour to neighbour engagement. A "Gas Seam Free" road sign is of little use unless there's a community behind it," says one participant. "We're all leaders in this movement. It's up to us!"

THE FISCAL COSTS OF POPULATION GROWTH

by Peter Ewer
A report produced for Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (United States) has looked at the fiscal costs of population growth: Counting the Costs and Benefits of Growth . The report looked at various land use categories such as residential, commercial, industrial and agriculture and set out to ascertain if they paid their way for the public services required. It was concluded that “few land uses pay their way … because new area residents require services that increase local government costs at a greater level than the additional local revenue they contribute”. The fiscal costs in Australia of each new migrant have been estimated to be at least $200,000 per year, a strain that is nearly bankrupting some Australian states. It is a big price to pay for passive white racial genocide via demographic swamping.

Costs of Growth Underestimated - Peter Ewer not the only one to think so
This letter appeared in the Northern Argus (South Australia) 15/1/2013:

“Clare's population is expected to double by 2030, but at what cost? Australia is in the grip of an immigration boom, due to Kevin Rudd's and Julia Gillard's megalomaniac penchant for "big Australia".
There is no political debate on our population size, or immigration rate, or categories of visas. There is no "sustainable" growth when our planet is under severe stress already; as evidenced by climate change and limits to Earth's finite resources. The costs of growth are never debated, or vocalized. Australia is the driest continent, set to be hit heavily by climate change.
Our governments are undermining any individual or organisational efforts to live sustainably. "Big Australia", despite the great majority of people not wanting it, is being forced onto us, recklessly.
Voters should always consider a political party's population policies before casting their votes. Big is not always better!
- - Signed: Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

ALL TO DO WITH PEOPLE MANAGEMENT

You are right Vivienne Ortega “governments are undermining any individual or organisational efforts to live sustainably”. Biologist Geoffrey Dobbs wrote of this situation - its history stretches back to the 1930s. In “The Local World” Geoffrey set out the background to the setting up of The New Deal, the first American great socialist experiment:

“… More important still was the way in which the whole population was managed, their opinions and policies manipulated with the aid of almost unlimited money, into line with the policy of the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). Individuals, groups, institutions of all sorts found that it paid (financially) to co-operate enthusiastically with the Authority, and the example spread to other areas from which much of the labour was drawn. This was what Lilienthal called 'grassroots democracy'. Its essence was decentralised administration of a centrally imposed policy: and it is this which is the aim of those who seek for a World Government to 'save the planet'.

From the start the whole operation was set up as an example to be copied, as it has been, in modified ways, first in the USA and later throughout the world… If the people of the Tennesse Valley had been allowed a small fraction of the vast sums expended by the TVA along with some genuinely informed advice from the Soil Conservation Service where wanted, all the real improvements necessary to restore and conserve the soil could have been carried out without any of the monstrous interference with land, water and people which was imposed upon them by central direction. The valley lands could have been retained, and the floods restrained, mainly by afforestation and conservation of the higher terrains; where necessary by a few flood-control dams.

There was not then, and there is not now, any secret about the measures necessary to restore the land and conserve the soil; but all over the world they are beyond the powers of the debt-enslaved farmer. Tree-planting, contour ploughing, terracing, legumes, careful choice of crops to suit the soil and real needs rather than urgent cash-return, sub-soiling, and so on: they are all perfectly practicable.

Nature (is) too slow to ‘pay’ even the interest, let alone the capital, of borrowed money…

"The world's supply of rock phosphate is strictly limited, but this plant nutrient is present in most subsoils and needs only to be circulated. The TVA produced soluble and concentrated super-phosphate using electric power at central factories and then 'sold' it to the farmers to give them sudden lush growth ; but the so-called world-wide phosphate problem can be solved only locally, in every place, by adopting the correct methods which are too slow to 'pay' even the interest, let alone the capital, of borrowed money.

FROM RHODESIA TO ZIMBABWE; FROM RICHES TO THE PIT OF POVERTY

by Chris Knight
About 35 years ago Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, had the richest agricultural land in Africa, exporting billions of dollars in food. Today, Zimbabwe, under Black rule has US$217 left in the bank after paying its civil servants.

The nation’s once strong agricultural industry failed in 2000 after President Robert Mugabe seized the land of over 4,000 white-owned farms. The country went into hyperinflation reaching 11,200,000 per cent. Zimbabwe today,; the United States tomorrow; Australia, the day after tomorrow.

AN ENDANGERED SPECIES – WORTH REVISITING: On Target 4 September 1979
“In every part of Africa where the European has been driven out, the results have been disastrous for the Africans. The international campaign against the European influence in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and South Africa ignores the fact that if it were not for the Europeans in Southern Africa, the economies of many African States would be in a more desperate condition than they are. Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia rants about the whites of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and South Africa, but he does not reveal what has happened to agriculture in his country since the whites have been progressively forced out. He relies upon food from south of the border.

One of the most amazing aspects of the Rhodesian drama has been the manner in which a handful of whites have been able to provide the know-how and leadership which has enabled them, in co-operation with the blacks, to continue to produce not only sufficient food for a rapidly increasing African population, but to provide a surplus for export. If the white man is driven from Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, the agricultural system must collapse with the most chilling consequences for the blacks.

Irrespective of what Bishop Muzorewa may be pressured into agreeing to at this week's London talks, unless the morale of the remaining whites can be sufficiently sustained to encourage them to stay, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia is doomed.

With his ill informed attacks upon the white minority in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser has made a major contribution towards eroding the morale of those who alone can prevent another African State from collapsing into chaos and assisting the very Communist strategy which Mr. Fraser says he is so concerned about…”  

HOBBESIAN NIGHTMARE – OR BREAKTHROUGH OF SUCH SPLENDOUR?

Is There an Artificial Crisis Over Artificial Intelligence? asks Cris Sheridan, 6 February 2013 at Financial Sense.com

“There’s a lot of controversy over robots these days. The NY Times reports [1], “Robots have once again gripped the nation’s imagination, stoking fears of displaced jobs and perhaps even a displaced human race.”
Yesterday, the Atlantic ran a story [2] asserting that people are freaking out, creating an “artificial crisis” over AI. 60 Minutes stirred the pot [3] with a news segment that went viral when they interviewed MIT Professors, Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, on how robots are partly to blame for our jobless recovery:

Andrew McAfee: Our economy is bigger than it was before the start of the Great Recession. Corporate profits are back. Business investment in hardware and software is back higher than it's ever been. What's not back is the jobs.
Steve Kroft: And you think technology and increased automation is a factor in that?
Erik Brynjolfsson: Absolutely.

Is this just an artificial crisis, or is AI something that we should take seriously? If we focus exclusively on the hardware aspect of AI—that is, robotics—there’s reasons to be skeptical. As the Atlantic explains, “let's calm our warm-blooded nerves by remembering that the current stock of humanoid robots is still remarkably primitive, as Brynjolfsson and McAfee acknowledge themselves. They look creepy. They struggle with people skills. They fall down stairs. They're bad at problem-solving. They're not very creative.”
This line of argument against the threat of AI is not uncommon. Unfortunately, it’s also very wrong.

In discussing the current or future impact of machine intelligence—whether on the economy, the stock market, or with military weapons, for example—it is important to distinguish between hardware and software. Take, for example, the millions of algorithms currently evolving in the stock market today. What do they look like? Or, how about self-replicating cyberweapons like Stuxnet and Flame used for attacking Iran. How are they with people skills, problem solving, and creativity?

Another thing: It is terribly misleading to associate progress on AI with our ability to create something that looks, walks, or talks like us. This is where most people get side-tracked. A good analogy that I’ve mentioned before is the historical attempt to master flight. Many well-meaning but unfortunate inventors once thought the key to flying was by strapping on wings and imitating a bird. Given how much of a failure that turned out to be, we likewise shouldn’t attempt to judge the nature of AI on something that resembles our physical likeness. Software, of course, is immaterial.

So, I repeat the question: Is this just an artificial crisis—as the Atlantic and others assert—or is AI something that we should take seriously?

As WSJ reporter, Scott Patterson, writes in one of my favourite books “Dark Pools: High-Speed Traders, A.I. Bandits, and the Threat to the Global Financial System” [4]
“The algorithms were changing so rapidly, devouring one another so viciously in the daily microsecond skirmishes of the Algo Wars, that the market seemed poised on the edge of either a mind-blowing evolutionary leap—or a cataclysmic implosion. Its own architects... could barely keep pace with the changes. It was a lab experiment in real time, with no turning back. Mathematicians, computer programmers, and physicists were conducting a grand experiment on the global financial system—one of the most chaotic, unpredictable forces on the planet..."

When we consider just how much influence the machine of global finance has over the world, the greatest threat posed by AI is not to replace our jobs locally, but to replace our worldwide influence in one of the most sensitive networks we've ever created—a network more strategic, concentrated, and vital than any military alliance between countries. With money, trade, and the fate of nations now laying in the market’s hands the real question we should be asking is, if AI takes over global finance, what does that mean for the rest of the world?”
Links: [1] [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/how-to-freak-out-responsibly-about-the-rise-of-the-robots/272855/ [3] https://www.financialsense.com/node/10225 [4] https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0307887170/financialsenseon [5]

Wallace Klinck of Canada responded to the above article:
“What an absolutely mesmerized and hypnotized dispensation in which we live. A dispensation where abundance is so utterly feared and we worship with abject submission and adulation at the altar of Work.

Can we not see that Work is to achieve its proper end of providing material needs and wants efficiently with less work, instead of perversely, to create more of it? We surely are absolutely mad. We are so close to a genuine and profound revolution. What can we do to break through the "veil of finance" maintained by the obstructive forces of Puritanism into the unobstructed light of day?”

There is such a thing as ‘enough’, there is such a thing as ‘sufficiency’:
Readers should call to mind the words of Iceland’s President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson about modern banks – they have become high tech companies! Hiring mathematicians, engineers and computer scientists.  

THE LOGIC OF DREYFUS

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Welcome to the world of the new Attorney General Mark Dreyfus. He has said that Liberal frontbencher Christopher Pyne’s remarks allegedly comparing the Gillard government to Hitler’s Third Reich were “offensive”. The comments were “deeply hurtful to Holocaust survivors”. Dreyfus himself Jewish, did compare Tony Abbott to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels in 2011.

Specifically Dreyfus said:
“Abbott’s wildest claim is that he is running a “truth campaign”, which Dreyfus described as “Goebellian cynicism”. Pyne said: “This government is starting to resemble a scene from Downfall”, the movie about the fall of Hitler. Dreyfus defended himself by saying that use of “Goebellian” is a well known propaganda term and that, presumably, no Holocaust survivors should be offended. Dreyfus’ argument has been widely criticised, I think he is right.

However, by the same legalistic reasoning Christopher Pyne can be defended. He did not exactly equate the Gillard government with Hitler. What his comparison was, was between acts of “downfall”, namely that the desperation portrayed by Hitler and Gillard was comparable. This is probably a bit of poetic excess, but it is not politically incorrect. At no point has Dreyfus proven that the remarks are offensive to reasonable people, “right-thinking” Australians.
In fact, Letters to the editor (e.g., The Australian 5 February, 2013, p.13), expressed the view that most “punters would see the two instances to be similar”.  

LIBERALISM ACHIEVING ITS GREAT DEATH WISH

The address “The Great Liberal Death Wish” by Malcolm Muggeridge has been mentioned in these pages recently. It is not too difficult to see why this essay is not quoted all that much. Speaking about abortion and the millions of babies aborted each year and the Holocaust Muggeridge said:

“…what is even more ironical, the actual considerations that led to the German holocaust were not, as is commonly suggested, due to Nazi terrorism, but were based upon the sort of legislation that advocates of euthanasia, or “mercy killing” in this country and western Europe, are trying to get enacted. It’s not true that the German holocaust was simply a war crime, as it was judged to be at Nuremberg. In point of fact, it was based upon a perfectly coherent, legally enacted decree approved and operated by the German medical profession before the Nazis took over power. In other words, from the point of view of the Guinness Book of Records, you can say that in our mad world it takes about thirty years to transform a war crime into a compassionate act”. Controversial words in today’s political climate.

The great liberal death wish captures the idea that liberalism itself is an incoherent and self-destructive political ideology. Its extreme worship of liberty over all other values, leads to enslavement. Its pursuit of anti-discrimination, leads to discrimination. Its shallow idea of freedom leads to no fr5eedom at all. Liberal values such as freedom of speech are discarded whenever it suits the liberal.
Liberals in a breath can become totalitarians if it supports the regime which they rule. This is not a healthy philosophy; modern liberalism is indeed a very sick puppy.

Bob Livingston “The Failing American Regime” (Personalliberty.com 4 February 2013, nicely links the creation of money out of nothing or “fiat witchcraft” and growing levels of political oppression: “As regimes collapse, they step up oppression of their subjects. Because the collapse is gradual, so is the increased oppression. Gradualism and stealth are key components to the success of the elites and their stepped up oppression of the people”. Fiat money does the same reducing people “to a very low standard of living, driving them toward eventually becoming beggars rummaging through garbage cans”.

Fiat money, created out of nothing, is really a transfer of wealth from the people to the power elites, which will continue until the Collapse comes. The power elites are ready for this inevitable social breakdown.
In the US, Homeland security has purchased 1.6 billion rounds of hollow point ammunition, none of which can be used by the military or for target practice. It is enough ammunition to shoot every American four times over – all done as Obama preaches about the evils of guns – while himself being the most heavily protected president in American history.

The US military are working with Homeland Security and local law enforcement to conduct training drills such as the one which was recently conducted in Miami where black hawk helicopters zoomed through the night sky unleashing blank rounds from Mini-guns.
US soldiers then rappelled (descended by ropes) out of helicopters, onto Miami’s streets. It was captured on Youtube. It is a show of force by a decaying, failing regime. The stench from the corpse of liberalism will take many years to fade.  

NOT WILD ABOUT ISLAMISATION

Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders will be in Australia in March. He has recently been quoted as proclaiming that “Judeo-Christian humanist” values are fundamentally better than Islamic values (The Weekend Australian 2-3 February, 2013 p.11). Linking Judaism and Christianity is problematic for some, but humanism is often thought to be compatible with both.

Never mind, Wilder rolls on in his critique:
“You see it in every country where Islamisation has grown that they face the same problems. There are cities and neighbourhoods where police are afraid to go, where there is enormous amount of crime, where there is beating up of women and homosexuals, that there is a growth of honour killings… of genital mutilation, all those kinds of things are growing in communities where you have more Islamisation and we should stop it”.

A recent article “1 in 4 Swedish Women Will be Raped as Sexual Assaults Increase 500%” (frontpagemag.com, 29 January, 2013), supports Wilders thesis. Between the years 2004-2012, Sweden’s population increased from 9 million to 9.5 million, with immigration from Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, etc. At present 16 per cent of all new-born babies have mothers born in non-Western countries. Immigrant unemployment is 54 per cent.

Sweden’s rape statistics rose from 9.24 per 100,000 in 2003, to 36.8 in 2005 to a staggering 53.2 in 2008, after South Africa the second highest in the world. Muslims are represented in around 77 per cent of rape cases. Stockholm, a city which is one-third immigrant and between a fifth and a quarter Muslim, has an average of 5 rapes a day. What would the Vikings of old have thought of this?

It will be interesting to see what Mr. Wilders has to say on this question when he comes to Australia. In our politically correct regime, it is amazing that he can even visit.  

CAN TWO WALK TOGETHER … UNLESS THEY BE AGREED?

asks Uri Avnery: https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/02/07/uri-avnery-attends-the-new-knesset/

Uri Avnery – the old rebel of Israel
“Compared to the Knesset it could have been, this is a very good Knesset!” I heard this, in so many words, from at least ten former Knesset members and others, as we were drinking orange juice in the Knesset foyer. I could have said it myself (and probably did).

It was the opening session of the new Knesset, and former members were invited to a reception with the new ones. Then we were seated in the plenum hall. I did not attend the last few times, but this time I was curious to see the new members – 49 out [“of”] 120, an unprecedented number – some of whom I had never even heard of before. It was really a good sight. Some of the new people were leaders of the social protest movement of summer 2011, some investigative reporters from the media, some social workers. Some fascists remained, but the worst were gone. The change was not large enough to make me jump into the air from sheer joy, but enough to be glad. Beggars cannot be choosers.

It was a ceremonious occasion, with trumpets and all. Up to a point. Unlike the British, Jews have no talent for pomp and circumstance. Real Jewish synagogues – not the Western European copies of Catholic churches – are quite chaotic. In my ten years in the Knesset, I took part in many “festive” sessions, in honour of this or that historic event or personality, and not one of them was really uplifting. We just haven’t got it. This one was no exception. The President of the State, Shimon Peres, who enjoys much respect abroad but very little in Israel, arrived with an escort of motorcyclists and horse riders, trumpets sounded. He entered the building, made a dull speech full of platitudes. So did the oldest Knesset member (a youngster of a mere 77 years, 12 years younger than I). Many members were dressed casually, in shirt-sleeves or sweaters. Few wore ties. Very Israeli. During the speeches, members wandered in and out. All the Arab members left immediately after being sworn in, with Hanin Zuabi in the lead, before Hatikvah, the national anthem, was intoned.

Ben Gurion and Uri – Early Knesset Days
For the new members it was, of course, a day of deep emotion. I remember my own first day. It was exciting indeed. Looking at Ya’ir Lapid, I could not refrain from thinking about the superficial similarity between him and myself at the time. We were both elected as heads of completely new parties we had founded. I was 42, the youngest member at the time, and he is 49. We were both journalists by profession. Neither of us has a matriculation certificate. Our voters came from exactly the same sector of the population: Israeli-born, well educated and well positioned Ashkenazi young people.

Yet there the similarity ends. I represented a tiny faction, his is the second largest. I brought with me a revolutionary new outlook for Israel – peace, a Palestinian state next to Israel, separation of religion and state, equality for Arab and Eastern Jewish citizens. He brings a cocktail of pious slogans.

Nevertheless, the first day in the Knesset is like the first day at school. Exciting. Every new member brought with him his whole family, with the children in their best clothes, to gaze down from the gallery at father or mother sitting below in this proud company. In this first meeting, members old and new are not allowed to say anything, except the two words “I undertake” (to serve the State of Israel).
If I may be permitted to indulge for a moment in memories: I was determined to make my mark and present my message on the very first day.

Studying the Knesset statutes, I discovered a loophole. I demanded to move a motion for the election of the new speaker, and had to be called to the rostrum. So I made my first speech right there: a proposal to appoint an Arab speaker in order to symbolize the equality of all citizens. David Ben-Gurion, who, as the oldest member, served as temporary speaker, looked at me with wonderment mixed with distaste, an expression immortalized in a rare photo.

When it was over and Binyamin Netanyahu stood up, like all of us, a curious thing happened: Ya’ir Lapid jumped from his seat, ran up to him and embraced him. It was more than a casual gesture. As I have said before, Lapid’s future depends on his now making the right decisions regarding his role in the new coalition and his terms of joining. Tension is in the air. The minimum Lapid needs to satisfy his voters is well beyond the maximum Netanyahu can politically afford to give him. To strengthen his hand, Lapid has ganged up with Naftali Bennett, in order to keep the orthodox factions out. The manifest aim is to compel the orthodox to serve in the army.

Arafat and Uri
This raises the ancient question voiced by the prophet Amos (3:2): “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Bennett is an ultra-rightist. Some of his detractors call him fascist-lite. He is totally committed to a Greater Israel, the expansion of the settlements and opposition to any contact with the Palestinians – except, perhaps, an offer for negotiations on terms the Palestinians could not possibly accept.

True, Bennett has a knack for hiding his real ideology behind a façade of bonhomie. He pretends to belong to the same social sector as Lapid: White, Ashkenazi and liberal, the Israeli equivalent of the American WASP (White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant). The small size of his kippah serves the same purpose. (It always reminds me of an admonition a British judge in Palestine gave to aspiring lawyers: “Let your summing-ups be like a lady’s skirt: long enough to cover the matter and short enough to be attractive.”)
But Bennett really belongs to quite a different sector: the “national-religious” camp of the fanatical settlers. The nationalist part of his ideology is far more important to him than the religious one. With him in the cabinet, any substantive movement towards the two-state solution would be impossible.

If Lapid doesn’t care, what does that tell us about him? He chose to start his election campaign in the capital of the settlers, Ariel. He emphasized that Jerusalem, “the eternal capital of Israel”, must remain undivided. That already is a non-starter for peace.
When my friends and I first brought up the two-state solution in the aftermath of the 1948 war, we insisted that the borders between Israel and Palestine must be open for the free movement of people and goods. We had in mind a close and friendly relationship between two sister-states. What Lapid preaches is the very opposite: the two-state solution as a final and total “divorce”.

Talk Show Host – Ya’ir Lapid – aka ‘the Hunk’
When Lapid chooses Bennett as his favoured bedfellow, he implicitly declares that the issue of the Orthodox serving in the army is more important to him than peace. If he preferred peace to the service issue, he would choose the religious Shas party instead of Bennett. That would be very unpopular, but make peace possible. Shas is a hawkish party, though it started out dovish. But like its Torah-Jewish sister party, it really doesn’t care about anything beyond the narrow interests of its community.

On the evening of the Labor Party’s victory in the 1999 elections, tens of thousands of delirious voters spontaneously streamed to Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square to celebrate what was seen as a liberation from Netanyahu’s (first) government. When the victor, Ehud Barak, appeared on the balcony, the shout went up from the thousands: “Anything but Shas! Anything but Shas!”

A few days later, at the opening session of the new Knesset (the last one I attended until this week) I went up to Barak and whispered in his ear: “Take Shas!” Four years ago, when TzipI Livni could have set up a government instead of going to elections, she needed Shas. Shas, as is its wont, demanded a lot of money for its clientele.
Instead of paying up, Tzipi kept her virtue and refused. The result: Netanyahu back in power. This is the same dilemma we are facing now. Pay the Shas-man and have a go at peace, or take Bennett and talk about “service equality”. (It’s just talk anyhow. A law to ensure real equality of military service would mean civil war.)

What About the Real Boss? No, I don’t mean Sara’le Netanyahu, who also starred at the opening session. I mean Barack Obama. Back when Bibi thought he was going to nail Obama with his Romney ace in the hole. Without warning he announced this week that he is coming to Israel. Immediately after the formation of our new government. He will go to Ramallah, too. Should we be happy or not?

Depends. If it is a consolation prize for Netanyahu after his election setback, it is a bad sign. The first visit of a US President since George Bush Jr. is bound to strengthen Netanyahu and reinforce his image as the only Israeli leader with international stature. But if Obama is coming with the intention of exerting serious pressure on Netanyahu to start a meaningful peace initiative, welcome. Netanyahu will try to satisfy Obama with “opening peace talks”. Which means nothing plus nothing. Even Bennett can agree to that. Not to mention Lapid and Livni. Yes. Let’s talk. “Without preconditions”. Which means: without stopping settlement expansion. Talk and go on talking, until everyone is blue in the face and both Obama’s and Netanyahu’s terms are over.

But if Obama is serious this time, it could be different. An American or international blueprint for the realization of the two-state solution, with a strict timetable. Perhaps an international conference, for starters. A UN resolution without an American veto.
If this happens, the new Knesset with all the fresh, young faces will be called upon to hold a real debate and take fateful decisions. And – perhaps, perhaps, perhaps – make history.  

LETTER TO THE PRESS

To the Editor of The Australian, 9th February 2013

You have performed a great service to Australia in the last year or so by mounting a steadfast and varied defence of free speech in a wide range of published opinion articles, of which those by Michael Sexton ('Freedoms fall to silent enemy', 8/2) and Ross Fitzgerald ('Suffocate debate and we all lose', 9-10/2) are the latest excellent examples.
There is another way in which 'The Australian' can free up public debate in Australia, and that is by itself publishing more articles on certain topic areas hitherto more or less censored out of our public forums. For example, better and fairer coverage is needed of so-called 'extreme right' political viewpoints, including balanced analyses of the works of historical revisionists - even those with dissident views about the Holocaust - as well as sympathetic analyses of texts by racial nationalists and those opposed to immigration.
Other areas crying out for more substantial coverage are alternative history (such as the researches of Graham Hancock and Colin Wilson) and alternative religion (such as the books of the Perennialists or Traditionalists of the school of Rene Guenon, and the expanding range of Gurdjief-Ouspensky works).

- - Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic