ANZAC DAY, ADELAIDE 2007 - THEY JUST DON'T GET IT!

by Betty Luks
I don't know what happened at the many thousands of Anzac Day Dawn Services across this great brown land but the politicians at the Adelaide Dawn Service used the occasion for their own base political motives - and that was unforgivable.
Not only did they shove-in ahead of the representatives of the Returned Servicemen to place wreaths, such as Liberal Nick Minchin, who placed his "on behalf of the Prime Minister", it was deemed essential that this order of service should be announced over the public address system! That was unprecedented.

After spending the last fifty years dividing and betraying the people of this great land they are continually striving to conjure up in our minds some unworkable, utopian, multicultural/ multiracial 'Australia' - and then presume to intrude upon Anzac Day.

To me, it appeared, the true representative sons of this once broadly British-Australian nation - the returned servicemen - were shoved aside on the one day they set apart to come together to commemorate the spirit of mateship forever embodied in the sacrifices made by those men on the shores at Gallipoli.

Why is there such a yawning chasm between so many Australians and those politicians?
That very wise South African journalist Ivor Benson, summed up the matter well:
"The entire known history of the human race will confirm that man is essentially a social animal and that he needs, as one of the first requirements of his moral health, the security provided by a sense of community or sense of belonging, which is something he has never been able to find hitherto except in some circumscribed group or community made up of individuals much the same as himself. "Inseparable from such a pattern of existence which has persisted through millennia and is shared by the greater part of the animal kingdom, is a dual code of attitude and conduct clearly designed by nature to preserve that pattern - inside the group, amity and co-operation and mutual sympathy (even if spiced with a little competition between the individuals composing it); towards all those outside the group, an attitude of indifference which can harden into hostility and conflict, as circumstances dictate.

The individual living in such an environment is never morally confused:
"These people," he says to himself, in effect, "are my people. These I can trust and they trust me". He draws a deep-rooted sense of security from the knowledge that there are people joined to him by a shared set of interests and obligations. Operating from such a firm base of security, he is prepared to risk his life, nay, even willingly sacrifice it, giving his all to the group from which he derives…

"Conspicuous among those on the left of politics are those individuals in whom intellect has been developed at the expense of instinct, and who now seek salvation in an imagined world in which all people will be equal and undifferentiated and in which mankind's primordial heritage of dual code can be replaced with a single code of universal amity and "brotherhood"."

In this day of 'multiculturalism and multiracialism': Benson continues:
"The moral and political distortion which afflicts the people of Western European origin can thus be ascribed to the obliteration of the ancient boundaries separating groups of self-consciously similar people and their absorption and intermingling in larger political units. The individual, saddled with a psychology which is the evolutionary product of millennia of experience, now finds himself on the horns of a dilemma.
Drawn or forced into a heterogeneous human environment, he brings with him, and cannot be parted from a deep-rooted need for a homogenous environment. The psychology of the dual code has been built into the cells of his body and brain…" And there you have it!

Like Rudyard Kipling, the great poet of old, we say:
"This was my father's belief And this also is mine: Let the corn be all in one sheaf - And the grapes be all one vine, Ere our children's teeth are set on edge By bitter bread and wine."

A FAR FROM 'NOBLE EXPERIMENT'

by Betty Luks
Between 1996 and 2006, of the 50 most common countries of birth, persons born in the Sudan recorded the largest average increase (27 per cent per year), of immigrants to Australia. This is a vast social experiment.

Professor Andrew Fraser warned that it could be a disaster for Australia and was taken to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission by an African objector, backed by his own legal representation (refugees seem to have no trouble getting legal aid).
However, the tale in the media is supporting Professor Fraser rather than the African objector and his legal representative.

Thus: Caroline Overington "Noble Experiment," The Australian 20/2/07 p.13, documents that both the UN and Australia are starting to wind-down the "African program", not because it has failed, "but the resettlement of large numbers of Sudanese in a short time has been harder than predicted." Even blind Freddy could see the problems posed by resettling masses of largely illiterate non-English-speakers with an average family size of five. One more reason for abandoning the United Nations!

And consider: Richard Kerbaj "Warning on African Refugee Gangs" The Australian26/12/06. Young Africans, many of whom served in militia groups and used rocket launches and grenades, are forming racial-ethnic gangs. These men are "haunted by childhood images of killings, torture and rape and were constantly on edge." These memories are apparently causing gang fights with Turks, Lebanese and other Africans.

Worse yet: "You have the Somalians from Flemington usually [picking] on Somalians from Carlton, so it's like a territorial kind of thing." The usual weapon of choice is a baseball bat. No doubt, in the future, guns will follow if something is not done to deal with some of the problems leading to social tension, such as unemployment.

And no doubt an army of psychologists and psychiatrists backed up by the 'trauma counselling' industry will be needed to deal with "the memories". Just submit the bill for all of this to the sucker weary taxpaying workers.

Only those who believe in the 'idiot theory' of history would see this social mess as simply some sort of a 'a trend'. The results were easily predicted ahead of time. It is all part of the globalist plan.

Gareth Kimberley said in a March 2003 Strategy article, "The New Black Australians":
"The Howard Government's decision to dump black Sudanese refugees in Tamworth should set the alarm bells ringing right across the country. As a result of the government's anti-Australian policies of ever-increasing indiscriminate immigration and enforced multiculturalism, it is now faced with the problem of growing racial enclaves in our capital cities. In a vain attempt to alleviate the problem it has decided to spread the burden to our country towns and any town that dares to object is branded racist."

He rightly concludes: "Multiculturalism must be stopped before it destroys us."

'GLOBAL WARMING' HYSTERICS EXPOSED

Britain's Channel 4 - March 15, 2007:
The Britain's Channel 4 has produced a devastating documentary titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". It has apparently not been broadcast by any of the networks in the United States - or Australia. But, fortunately, it is available on the Internet.

Distinguished scientists specializing in climate and climate-related fields talk in plain English and present readily understood graphs showing what a crock the current global-warming hysteria is. These include scientists from MIT and top-tier universities in a number of countries.

Some of these are scientists whose names were paraded on some of the global-warming publications that are being promoted in the media - but who state plainly that they neither wrote those publications nor approved them. One scientist threatened to sue unless his name was removed.

While the public has been led to believe that "all" the leading scientists buy the global-warming hysteria and the political agenda that goes with it, in fact the official reports from the United Nations or the National Academy of Sciences are written by bureaucrats - and then garnished with the names of leading scientists who were "consulted," but whose contrary conclusions have been ignored.

There is no question that the globe is warming but it has warmed and cooled before, and is not as warm today as it was some centuries ago, before there were any automobiles and before there was as much burning of fossil fuels as today. None of the dire things predicted today happened then.
The documentary goes into some of the many factors that have caused the earth to warm and cool for centuries, including changes in activities on the sun, 93 million miles away and wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the Kyoto treaty.

According to these climate scientists, human activities have very little effect on the climate, compared to many other factors, from volcanoes to clouds. These climate scientists likewise debunk the mathematical models that have been used to hype global-warming hysteria, even though hard evidence stretching back over centuries contradicts these models. What is even scarier than seeing how easily the public, the media, and the politicians have been manipulated and stampeded, is discovering how much effort has been put into silencing scientists who dare to say that the emperor has no clothes.

Academics who jump on the global-warming bandwagon are far more likely to get big research grants than those who express doubts - and research is the lifeblood of an academic career at leading universities. Environmental movements around the world are committed to global-warming hysteria and nowhere more so than on college and university campuses, where they can harass those who say otherwise.

One of the scientists interviewed on the documentary reported getting death threats. In politics, even conservative Republicans seem to have taken the view that, if you can't lick `em, join `em. So have big corporations, which have joined the stampede. This only enables the green crusaders to declare at every opportunity that "everybody" believes the global-warming scenario, except for a scattered few "deniers" who are likened to Holocaust deniers. The difference is that we have the hardest and most painful evidence that there was a Holocaust. But, for the global-warming scenario that is causing such hysteria, we have only a movie made by a politician and mathematical models whose results change drastically when you change a few of the arbitrarily selected variables.

No one denies that temperatures are about a degree warmer than they were a century ago. What the climate scientists in the documentary deny is that you can mindlessly extrapolate that, or that we are headed for a climate catastrophe if we don't take drastic steps that could cause an economic catastrophe. "Global warming" is just the latest in a long line of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly subjected.

Source: <www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle>

'MISTRESS' CLAIMS NOTHING COMPARED TO EARLIER ALLEGATIONS

Source: Ameericanfreepress.com by Michael Collins Piper 23 - 30 April, 2007.

It made the news when World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz was caught arranging a sweet deal for his mistress with World Bank funds, but the fact that Wolfowitz was once investigated for spying for a foreign government has [been] kept under wraps by the mass media in America.

Those who make it their business to know about the doings of intriguers such as the big man at the World Bank recognize that Wolfowitz is a traitor who once engaged in espionage on behalf of Israel - and got away with it.

However, the much bigger scandal, dating back to 1978, has never been plastered across the front pages of newspapers or slavered over by grinning media personalities. While the employees of the World Bank are up in arms and have publicly hissed him and called for his ouster, Wolfowitz is still hanging on at the World Bank with the support of the Israel-controlled Bush administration.

That many are revelling in the scandal surrounding Wolfowitz is not surprising. Not only is Wolfowitz a "neo-con" (that is, one of the famous neo-conservatives) but he is also, as brash commentator Maureen Dowd has noted, a "con," in the classic sense of the word: a con-man, a crook, evidenced by his influence-peddling on behalf of his mistress.

However, in addition, one might suggest, Wolfowitz should also be considered a "con" in another sense of the word: short for "convict" - as in prison convict, which is where Wolfowitz might have ended up if he had been charged with spying for Israel as some federal agents believe he is guilty of having done."

For those with access to the internet and want further details:
<https://www.mikepiperreport.com/Articles_Archive/AmericanFreePress/AFP2007_01-06/Michael_Collins_Piper_AFP20070423,30_Top_NeoCon_Spied_For_Israel_And_Got_Away_With_The_Crime.html>

SPANISH JUDGE - MOST SORDID EPISODE IN RECENT HISTORY

Baltasar Garzón, the Spanish judge who sought to prosecute Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet, has called for US President George W. Bush and his allies to be tried for war crimes over Iraq.

Writing in El Pais on the fourth anniversary of the invasion, Garzón stated, "Today, March 20, marks four years since the formal start of the war on Iraq. Instigated by the United States and Great Britain, and supported by Spain among other countries, one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history began. Breaking every international law, and under the pretext of the war against terror, there has taken place since 2003 a devastating attack on the rule of law and against the very essence of the international community." "Instead of commemorating the war,"

Garzón continues, "we should be horrified, screaming and demonstrating against the present massacre created as a consequence of that war." He then writes that George W. Bush and his allies should eventually face war crimes charges for their actions in Iraq: "We should look more deeply into the possible criminal responsibility of the people who are, or were, responsible for this war and see whether there is sufficient evidence to make them answer for it."

"For many it would be merely a question of political responsibility, but judicial actions in the US are beginning to emerge, as is the case of the verdict passed on one of vice-president Cheney's collaborators, [I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby now serving a prison sentence] which point in a different direction. There is enough of an argument in 650,000 (Iraqi) deaths for this investigation and inquiry to start without more delay," he added.

HOW GREEN CAN YOUR MONEY BE?

Source: Letter to the Editor: The Observer, UK. Sunday April 15, 2007.
Why pay with cold hard cash when you could settle up with a bag of acorns? Lucy Siegle considers a wealth of alternatives.

"Money-making is a notoriously fickle business. After years as the face of £20 notes, Edward Elgar has been cast aside in favour of a Scottish economist, Adam Smith, on the new-look note. Change is difficult, too.
I've seen several transactions come to a near standstill over this weird-looking currency. 'This isn't legal tender,' the man in front of me in the sandwich-shop queue was told the other day.
What if he'd tried to pay in acorns, groats, trugs, Strouds (the eponymous alternative currency set up in the Nineties in the Gloucestershire town) or the Totnesian pounds being developed in Devon by the transition town Totnes, which is preparing for life without oil and with climate change ( www.transitiontowns.org)?

Someone who likes gardening but can't make a living at it under the normal economic system can grow and sell produce to a neighbour who will pay with currency earned by providing another service (say, decorating) elsewhere in the community.

Obviously, a pecuniary revolution based on acorns might not appeal to everyone either, so other recent schemes look more normal.

The BerkShare scheme operating successfully in Connecticut prints its own notes, but its aim is still to revitalise the local economy. Use BerkShare dollars and you get a 10 per cent discount from retailers ranging from mechanics to deli owners. No multinational chains are invited.

There is no doubt that alternative currencies have a local bias. Under such a scheme, local businesses are more flexible; multinationals paying suppliers thousands of miles away can't accommodate notes designed by a local artist. They also add up in environmental terms.

In the conventional economy, natural capital (natural resources and ecological systems that provide vital life-sustaining resources) has very little worth. Financially the smart thing to do is still to chop down trees, for example, and put the money earned in the bank. With most alternative systems the longer you hoard alternative currency, the more it depreciates.
Green money, you see, is like manure (another ethical staple): the more it's spread out, the more benefit it gives overall."

Writer: lucy.siegle@observer.co.uk
Comment: Let's raise the tempo so that people don't get trapped in the important responses to the Climate Change 'alarm bells' while ignoring the underlying driver of an insidious monetary system. Readers might want to note and even to build on this neat little piece.

Those with internet access should congratulate Lucy and widen her awareness of proposals for monetary reform. Share it with others! Send it to your MP !

LIBERALISM AND THE RELIGION OF ANTI-DISCRIMINATION

by James Reed:
British PM Tony Blair has recently said: "There is no place in our society for discrimination. That's why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple."

Thus non-discrimination is the ruling ethical principle in all situations, and overrides all religious, philosophical and ethno-cultural considerations. This however is not a rational moral position. For one thing it begs the question of why non-discrimination is justified at all.

Societies work perfectly well with discrimination i.e., choices. Individuals discriminate all the time and life would be impossible without it. Ethically it is difficult to see how the non-discrimination principle can be justified without presupposing, circularly, its own truth. (Yes, I remember some of my philosophy from my BA!).

Yet the non-discrimination principle, with its feet of clay, is the ruling religion of the new world order.

MANNING CLARK REHEATED

by James Reed
A good indication of the intellectual corruption of Australian academic history is the Manning Clark story. An academic with what exposer Peter Ryan calls a "near-psychopathological hatred of England," a Stalinist who saw the Communist Party as "the conscience of Australia" and someone with an "incapacity to handle mere facts" (The Weekend Australian 10-11/2/07 p.29) publishes a history of Australia which becomes something of a historical bible for the Left.

Generations of history students are harmed by an academic, said by an earlier historian to be "so dangerous and unstable". Peter Ryan was the first writer to expose Clark back in Quadrant of 1993 and 1994 and Ryan says that he "wrote out of puzzlement that a history so flawed and so badly written could continue to work its spell with academics and school teachers." In my opinion, the reason why Clark's influence continues, even with a reissuing of Clark's History, is that this material serves a clear ideological purpose.

(At this point Reed was stung on the foot by a European wasp!) Much like the European wasp which has stung, this ideology is a form of racial poison, designed to cripple the Anglo-Australian people who have been targeted for destruction. How else to explain Clark's "near-psychopathological hatred of England"?

THE LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF POSTMODERNISM

by Brian Simpson
Here is US scientist E.O. Wilson ("Back from Chaos" Atlantic Monthly March 1998, p.58) on Postmodernism, one of the dominant ideologies of the humanities and social sciences:

"Postmodernism is the ultimate antithesis of the Enlightenment. The difference between the two can be expressed roughly as follows: Enlightenment thinkers believe that we can know everything, and radical postmodernists believe that we can know nothing.
The philosophical postmodernists, a rebel crew milling beneath the black flag of anarchy, challenge the very foundations of science and traditional philosophy. Reality, the radicals among them propose, is a state constructed by the mind. In the exaggerated version of this constructivism one can discern no "real" reality, no objective truths external to mental activity, only prevailing versions disseminated by ruling social groups. Nor can ethics be firmly grounded, given that each society creates its own codes for the benefit of equivalent oppressive forces…."

Postmodern relativism as Wilson describes it, "logically" leads to a rejection of "history":
For example, there was no objective Holocaust only a socially constructed reality relative to Jewish groups. This seems to be a more radical denial than that made by Historical Revisionists.
Yet postmodernists are academic stars, whilst Historical Revisionists, who are to a man, defenders of historical truth and objectivity at least as they see it, usually end up in prison. Please explain!