2006 Thought for the Week:
There is something
delightfully quaint about the way we debate the common European foreign policy
in Britain. We make sonorous noises about the importance of NATO. We trot out
cliches about Britain's links to the rest of the English-speaking world.
But we are a decade too late. To all intents and purposes, we are already in a
common foreign policy.
On Wednesday, Brussels announced plans to merge the
25 national consular services in non-EU countries: a tidying-up measure since,
in most of the world, Brussels has taken over diplomatic representation from the
Go to any banana republic and you will find that the national
legations have been displaced by giant EU embassies (still coyly known as 'missions
of the European Commission'). I have just come back from Nicaragua where Britain
recently closed its embassy because the tasks it used to perform - trade, aid
and visas - have been absorbed by the EU.
And what is the primary function
of these imposing and well-staffed EU embassies? To encourage other countries
to form their own regional associations, in mimicry of the EU. The
Central American nations are being told, in no uncertain terms, that the EU will
sign commercial and development deals only with supra-national blocs, not individual
states. Members of ASEAN, Mercosur, the African Union and the rest are told the
Some of them don't much like it: Costa Rica, which diverges historically,
politically and ethnically from its neighbours, resents being pushed into a regional
parliament whose chief purpose seems to be to afford immunity to ex-dictators.
When I passed on this argument to a British euro-diplomat , he replied, with the
air of a man delivering a brilliant put-down: "That's like arguing that Britain
shouldn't join the euro!"
Such are the people representing us abroad;
yet still we tell ourselves that we are independent.
- - Daniel Hannan's
EU Briefing, November 2006.
THE WHEAT DEBACLE CAN BE SOLVED
Woe to the politicians who
do not understand Wheat - Socrates.
that despite all that has been reported and regurgitated from the Cole Enquiry,
the great majority of grain growers still want the single desk exporting concept
Okay - but how? There is only one way. The National Party
has its greatest chance in decades to come out from the political shadows and
cat's paw role they are locked into within the Coalition. Simply say to the Joint
Party: "The single desk stays." "Bring in better governance as
Take on all objections from Prime Minister Howard to all
maverick backbenchers calling for the end of the AWB.
the Traders are circling. Big Growers are whinging and WA growers are claiming
great disadvantages without proof.
Maybe Mr. Howard is considering 'reform
options' with the Free Trade long-term agenda in mind?
The National Party
can stand up and show they are still a force and keep faith with their
long-suffering electorate. Remember, Mr. Howard needs the Nationals - not
the other way around.
AND MISCHIEVIOUS CLAIMS
Hands up those readers
who have received the email titled: "Forget your mortgage lender, it's the Queen
who has first claim on your home". It would appear that is the misleading and
mischievous claim made by 'investigative journalist' and financial writer Kevin
Cahill in a forthcoming book "Who Owns the World: The Hidden Facts Behind Landownership".
Excerpts from the book are being circulated via email and the claim is: 'The
Queen owns the ground beneath everyone's feet.'
asked Dr. David Mitchell to explain what is the legal situation:
much of the nonsense currently being circulated regarding alleged inapplicability
of law, this claim sounds as if it might be right. Indeed, there is a sense in
which there are elements of truth behind the claim but these elements are so
misrepresented that they are completely misleading and mischievous.
In our constitutional system the term Crown or Queen
can be confusing because it usually has no reference to the person of the monarch.
Both these words are generic terms meaning "the government". It is nonsense to
say that the Queen has any claim, let alone first claim, on your home. By legislation,
the government does have some rights, but the Queen in person has none.
law protected Freeholder's rights:
Historically, the idea was that the
monarch "owned" the land and could deal with it however he chose. When the monarch
was strong enough to defend his "ownership" by physical force the historical theory
worked in practice. However, when a stronger claimed the land, the monarch no
longer "owned" it. As English law and its enforcement developed, the technical
"ownership" by the king was recognised but the concept of "freehold" was also
recognised as ownership. "Freehold" existed when the king granted land, for whatever
reason, to another person without retaining any right to recover the land. Such
land was referred to as being "alienated" because it was no longer "owned" by
the king. The law protected the freeholder's right to his land against everyone,
including against the king. The freeholder could himself assign his ownership,
or rights in the land, to another person. Of course, assignments from the king
or from a freeholder could be conditional. If land is assigned for a limited period
the assignment is called a lease.
and borrower - 'his' land:
When land is offered as security for money
lent, historically the title actually passed to the lender. The loan document
was called a "dead hand (or dead glove)" (mortgage) because the borrower was no
longer in control of "his" land. The "owner" retained only "an equity of redemption"
(a right to demand the return of the land on repayment of principal and interest).
Since the passing of the Land Titles Acts in every State of Australia the term
"mortgage" is still used but the freeholder retains title. If the borrower fails
to fulfil his contract to repay principal and interest the lender has power to
sell the land for the purpose of recovering what is owing to him under the loan
The way in which land is held or owned is called "tenure". The owner
is called a "tenant" (e.g. tenant in fee simple, joint tenant, tenant in common),
not because he pays rent but because "tenant" means "holder".
'Crown' land and Native Title claims:
The "unalienated" land of Australia
(or Great Britain or Canada or New Zealand) is referred to as Crown land, not
because it is owned by the Queen but because it is controlled by the government.
In Australia all unalienated Crown land is now subject to possible claims for
The Queen in person does own land in freehold, as do other members
of the Royal Family, (particularly in U.K., perhaps in other countries also) but
unalienated Crown land is not hers. "Crown" land is government land of the country
The Queen has no power to resume land from a freeholder for her
own benefit. Resumption can only take place if there is government legislation
authorising it. In the Commonwealth and in every State there is legislation authorising
the government to resume land for public purposes, but the payment of "just compensation"
to the landowner is required. Compulsory acquisition is common, particularly for
road making or widening. Acquired land does not become the property of the Queen,
even in war time. If the acquisition is stated to be in the name of the Queen
or the Crown, this still means the acquisition is by and for the government."
We will publish the full email article
in the December issue of The New Times Survey.
OUR HIGH COURT TRUE TO FORM
Ian Wilson LL.B:
The High Court decision "New South Wales and Western
Australia v Commonwealth of Australia"  HCA 52 (14 November 2006) was
a disastrous decision for Australian Federalism. In this case, which concerned
the Commonwealth's constitutional power to enact its workplace reform legislation,
the majority of the Court decided that subsection 51 (xx) of the Constitution,
the corporations power, overrode other sections of the Constitution giving the
Commonwealth powers over anything involving a corporation.
Greg Craven, a constitutional law expert sums it up thus: "the Commonwealth
has an open cheque to intervene in almost any area of State power that catches
its eye, from higher and private education, through every aspect of health, to
such matters as town planning and the environment. The Court has given Canberra
the key to the Constitution." (The Australian 16/11/-6 p.10)
Federal system has been destroyed and the State parliaments have become, impotent
debating societies. Uranium waste dumps in your back yard? Sure, the corporations'
power will allow it.
This pathological centralist view of law has been
present in the High Court from the very beginning. Over many cases it has slowly
chipped away at the Federal system. There has been no effective separation of
powers: the Court has always delivered what Canberra wanted. Even Mabo was a decision
that the Keating government wanted.
Perhaps the States need to exercise
their "ultimate State right" of secession: Australia as we know it,
may be too far-gone to save. The rotten parts of the body politic need to be quarantined
lest all be ultimately lost.
'COMMON PURPOSE' EU AGENDA
by Betty Luks:
British Housewives' League has published a paper in The Lantern October
2006, alerting their fellow Britisher to another facet of the push for a 'new
world order'. The report outlines the agenda and tactics of a semi-secret group
known as "Common Purpose", whose stated aim is to set up a 'post-democratic'
society in the United Kingdom under the rule and reign of the European Union parliament
and its bureaucrats. One doesn't have to read too far to detect the same old finger-prints
all over the document.
It is well over twenty years since I last read Whittaker
Chambers' story in "Witness" - but I recognise the same old philosophy,
the same old tactics and techniques which he had exposed.
The younger generation
might never have heard the story of the former communist secret agent Whittaker
Chambers and his dealings with a Communist Fifth Column that infiltrated the upper
echelons of the United States Government.
But, on 3rd August 1948, Whittaker
Chambers then a senior editor of the prestigious Time magazine, shocked
his fellow countryman by alleging before the Un-American Activities Committee
that Alger Hiss, president of the venerated Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace and previously a high State Department official, had served with him in
the Communist underground.
Chambers wrote his book "Witness," in
an effort to explain to his children - and to his fellow American - why men and
women turned to Communism and what made a dedicated Communist 'tick'.
summary, potential converts were presented with a Vision and a Faith. The Vision
was of a brave new world which inspired the convert, giving him the Faith to be
willing to live or die for those convictions.
The Communist Vision pointed
from a World in Crisis, to a Vision of a 'more glorious' World Order. The world
Crisis impelled action towards the 'more glorious future'.
the power over the mind:
He insisted the secret of the Communist power
over the minds and lives of men, baffled most people because in large measure
the rest of the world had lost the power to hold convictions at all - let alone
act upon them. Communists, wrote Chambers, are that part of mankind which had
recovered the power to live or die - to bear witness - for their faith.
type of faith is not new. It is in fact man's second oldest faith. Its promise
was whispered in the Garden of Eden under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and
Evil: "Ye shall be as gods."
have had great visions, they have just been different versions of the same type.
§ The vision of God and Man's relationship to God -
and to one another.
§ The Communist vision of Man without God.
Chambers explained there is one experience which most
ex-Communists share, and he retold a conversation he had with the daughter of
a former German diplomat in Moscow who had defected to the West.
As an 'enlightened
modern man' the diplomat had been extremely pro-Communist, but upon conversion
became implacably anti-Communist.
The daughter was perplexed by this dramatic
change and her father's explanation as to why:
"One night in Moscow my
father heard screams. That's all. Simply one night he heard screams."
The daughter, as a child of Reason and the 20th century,
knew that there is a logic of the mind. What she didn't know was that the soul
has a logic that may be more compelling than the mind's. She didn't see that she
had swept away the logic of the mind, the logic of history, the logic of politics
and the myth of the 20th century with those five annihilating words: one night
he heard screams.
Chambers continued: What Communist has not heard
those screams? Execution, says the Communist code, is the highest measure of social
protection. What man can call himself a Communist who has not accepted the fact
that Terror is an instrument of policy, right if the vision is right, justified
by history, enjoined by the balance of forces in the social wars of the century?
Those screams have reached every Communist's mind. Usually they stop there.
one day the Communist really hears those screams. Suddenly, there closes around
him a separating silence, and in that silence he hears screams. He hears them
for the first time and they reach beyond his mind, they pierce his soul, and he
says to himself:
"Those are not the screams of a man in agony, those
are the screams of a soul in agony." He hears them for the first time because
a soul in extremity has communicated with that which alone can hear it - another
A genuine Vision is desperately needed:
But, it is
not enough that we understand what drives a dedicated Communist, or a dedicated
Monopolist, or a dedicated Common Purpose member or any other 'one-worlder', if
we are to survive the coming chaos and set about rebuilding, we also must seek
a genuine Vision - and act upon it!
To 'take root' and grow the Vision must
be based on mutual love and co-operation between human beings (do unto others
as you would have them do unto you) - and that is just what Social Credit seeks
to do, and is one aspect of the practical application of the Christian Faith,
in the lives of men and women - with souls!
A 'POST-DEMOCRACY' SOCIETY
the British Housewives' League:
Although it has 80,000 trainees in 36
cities, 18,000 graduate members and enormous power, 'Common Purpose' [in the United
Kingdom] is largely unknown to the general public. It identifies leaders in all
levels of our government, to assume power when our nation is replaced by the European
Union, in what they call the 'Post-Democratic Society".
They are learning
to rule without democracy, and will bring the EU police state home to every one
of us. It has members in the National Health Service, the BBC, the police, the
legal profession, the Church, many of Britain's 8,500 quangos, local councils,
schools, social services, the Civil Service, government ministries (it is backed
by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott), Parliament, and it
controls many of the Regional Development Agencies.
It was the C.P. senior
police officer who authorised the 'Shoot-to-kill' policy without reference to
Parliament, the Law, or the British Constitution. This policy remains in place.
'Common Purpose' registered as a 'charity':
The organisation was started in 1985, and in the 1990s, with its members'
cross-departmental influence, it was involved with what then became the disastrous
New Millennium Dome Company and the squandering of £800 million. It appears that
£300 million of this was diverted into the web of quangos set up by C.P.. There
is a fraud case over this, stalled in the courts thanks to C.P.'s influence in
the legal profession.
Common Purpose International (Ltd. by guarantee) is
registered as a charity (N. 1056573) and describes itself as being involved in
Adult Education. Over £100 million of our money has been spent on C.P. courses
alone, and it has been hidden from the public. Accounts are not published, and
members' names are highly secret, but the courses are very expensive; one course
is £3,950, (plus Value Added Tax), while that for a high-flying 'leader' can be
as much as £9,950 plus VAT - paid out of the public purse. Such leaders are encouraged
to act as a network, and their meetings are held under the Chatham House rules
Utopian visions of 'empowering
communities, working partnerships':
All this secret activity encourages
'cronyism', closed contract bids - for example in large building projects - fraud
and corruption. Common Purpose undermines traditional effective and efficient
government departments with an overwhelming influx of new language, political
correctness, and management initiatives. However the public is presented with
visions of empowering communities, working partnerships, regeneration, celebrating
diversity, etc. As C.P. 'leaders' become more senior, they employ countless managers
and bureaucrats. In time, confusion rules, and things don't seem to work properly.
Management decisions are made that seem stupidly destructive. Undermining the
NHS has been their biggest success so far, with bureaucrats outnumbering hospital
staff three to one.
Labour's next 'leader-in-waiting'
is all for it:
David Cameron, who is pro-Europe, uses the language and
techniques of Common Purpose against the Conservative Party. He has appointed
Ken Clarke, the most committed of the pro-Europeans, in charge of the 'Democracy
Taskforce' - rather like putting the cat in charge of the safety of mice! Common
Purpose targets children from the age of 13, and more recently, younger, for special
leadership and citizenship training, but the average parent has no idea of this.
If you suspect that C.P. is active in your organisation, or see a pattern
of incredibly bad decisions, money being wasted, notice bullying, fraud or threats,
note the names of those involved, and please contact us. We have already tracked
down over a thousand. And publish the truth about Common Purpose as widely as
UK readers: See website http:eutruth.co.uk for action.
more comprehensive report on the "Common Purpose" will be published in the January
2007 edition of The New Times Survey.
A PICTURE TELLS A THOUSAND WORDS
The future revealed in a photograph! The illustrative photograph
to an article by Shelley Gare on our troubled schools (The Weekend Australian
11-12/11/06, p.29) has a portrayal of "new university students". The class is
almost entirely Asian. With some minutes of study and a magnifying glass, I spotted
two Aussies i.e., Anglo-Australians.
it will not be possible to play spot-the-Anglo at all. Isn't this discriminatory,
or is this just business-as-usual in creating the next class of elites to rule
by James Reed
An article in
New Scientist 11/11/06 "Preach Your Children Well," reports on the home
schooling movement, which "is quietly transforming the landscape of science education
in the US, subverting and possibly threatening the public school system that has
fought hard against imposing a Christian viewpoint on science teaching." The concern
of the writer is that Christian home schoolers are teaching creationism and intelligent
design theory and opposing evolution. That is shocking for New Scientist,
although the magazine itself dabbles in presenting the views of 'scientists' who
think time travel is possible and offer an array of weird and fantastic 'scientific
Yet many of these pop science claims
are not directly experimentally verifiable, e.g., the String theory. Somehow though
the idea that God created the world is objectionable. In Britain Christians on
campuses are beginning to stand up to the politically correct thought police and
are taking legal action against universities whose policies are suppressing their
beliefs. (The Australian 22/11/06 p.37) One hopes that it is not too late.
BY THE WAY, DID
YOU MISS THIS
? by James Reed:
guru Alan Wood reports ("Central Bankers Wary of Collapse," The Australian
20/11/06 p.1) that some of the world's top central bankers "fear" that
the world may be heading for a financial crisis. Margins for risk in financial
markets are "so low". "Complacency" may breed financial shocks.
The economies of all major players are booming and global inflation is "ticking"
The illusory debt-based money system is like a badly leaking pipeline
held together with plumber's tape: at some point, despite patch-up efforts, the
entire system will blow. Let us try not to be caught in the direct explosion.
BANKS MOVE ON OUR HOMES
Herald Sun, 19/11/06, reported: Banks are repossessing thousands of Victorian
homes as higher interest rates begin to bite into family incomes. Banks have sought
writs to repossess 5010 homes since January 2005, according to new statistics
from the Victorian Supreme Court. And the rate of mortgagee auctions has risen
50 per cent in the past year.
2005, the Reserve Bank has raised official interest rates four times, equalling
a one percentage point rise in rates. In the first half of 2005, 968 writs to
repossess a home were issued, but that jumped to 1610 for the remaining six months
of the year after a March increase. In 2006, there were 1474 writs issued in the
first six months and 958 in the period from July to beginning of November. Families
spend on average about 28 per cent of their disposable income to service their
mortgages. And banks try to tell us they lose money on rising interest rates!