CHINA DECLARES CYBER-WAR!

by James Reed
What would Shakespeare have made of Kevin Rudd or even Elvis Presley? One day in the press we have the Chinese ambassador to Australia telling us that we have nothing to fear from the red communists and the next day: 'Chinese Spies Target PM 's email, The Australian 3/4/09 p.1. Yes, the Beijing spies attempted to infiltrate Big Kev 09 's prime ministerial emails and mobile phone communications. Surely this was a pointless task, as all they would have been likely to find would be unintelligible scrolls of Kev-speak. It is said that Kev speaks in a type of cyber-code, a language like English, but not English as we know it.

As for the need for the Chinese to spy on Rudd in the first place, this is all a bit rich. Even the Opposition has recognised that Rudd, the Sinophile 's sinophile is 'a Manchurian candidate a programmed traitor, as Dennis Shanahan (The Australian 3/4/09 p.12) describes the Leader of the Opposition 's depiction. I have been promoting this thesis for as long as Rudd was Big Kev 07 and it is good to see that the truth does out.

Elaborating on the Leader of the Opposition 's theme, it seems that if he (and my humble self) are right, then Rudd in acting as an envoy for China is a national security threat, who is putting interests of China over those of Australia. There are many of the Chinese race who have lived in Australia for generations who could represent Australia as a prime minister and have no trouble at all standing up for Australia. But not Rudd. Rudd represents the devolutionary forces of the Labor Party which are anti-nation.

The arrogant Chinese have also attempted to hack into foreign embassies in Canberra and government and business IT networks. China 's cyber-war, no doubt a prelude to the forthcoming shooting war, is global in extent. No nation is safe. Cyber-warfare is not only for military information, but also for commercial information. China sees cyber-war as a way of overcoming the lead which the US has over them in conventional military hardware absurdly, many of the components have been bought from Chinese companies and no doubt could be remotely disabled, or at least rendered useless in a war when spare parts are needed.

If the West had its brain together, it would recognise that China is already at war against them. Instead of fighting a purely defensive fight, Western computer experts should retaliate against the Chinese. But our deracinated, drained-to-death governments, rotted by globalist ideology are like bunnies caught in the dazzle of the Chinese hunter 's spotlight.

COURT HEARS OF CHINESE OFFICIAL 'S FORTESCUE THREAT

Signs of what's ahead if we continue to allow Chinese Investment? Chalpat Sonti 9/4/09:
Before the Federal Court in Perth:
One of China's most powerful bureaucrats vowed to get back at Andrew "Twiggy" Forrest and Fortescue Metals for not giving up enough of the iron ore company in exchange for developing its projects, a court has heard. He Lianzhong, the deputy director-general of the National Development and Reform Commission, which approves Chinese investment overseas, told a Fortescue consultant in February 2005 the Chinese were about to "teach [the company] a lesson" after Mr Forrest told them he would not let the company fall into majority foreign ownership.

John Karkar, QC, representing Fortescue in an action before the Federal Court in Perth which could see Mr Forrest fined and banned as a company director, told Justice John Gilmour that Mr He and a Fortescue consultant, Lawrence Xin, knew each other from their schooldays and Mr Xin mentioned he had "a friend" who held shares in Fortescue. The "friend" had heard Fortescue had signed contracts with the Chinese, but they were demanding a majority stake in the company in return.

"You better tell your friend to sell his shares immediately," Mr He is claimed to have told Mr Xin. Chinese companies wanted control of Fortescue, Mr He said, and as the company was resisting "we will teach them a lesson". Mr Karkar said: "It seems the lesson took the form of the interview in [The Australian Financial Review]". In that March 2005 report which prompted the Australian Securities and Investments Commission investigation, the Chinese said there were no binding agreements with Fortescue and that they were not prepared to build and finance the project.

A key ASIC witness, a former Fortescue head of marketing, Philip Kirchlechner, attended some meetings between the company and the Chinese entities in 2004 when the agreements were being negotiated. Mr Kirchlechner, who said he resigned from Fortescue after Mr Forrest reneged on a promise to give him shares in the company, provided documents to ASIC outlining discussions where the Chinese sought an equity stake.

Cross-examined by Mr Karkar, he did not remember if he had seen the draft of a media release in August 2004 in which Fortescue claimed to have a "binding contract" with a Chinese group to build a rail line from the mine to Port Hedland. That was the first of several documents in which the term was used.

Mr Kirchlechner said:
"The thing I remember most clearly about [a meeting with Mr He in China in August 2004] was that this was the first time [Mr Forrest] actually agreed for the Chinese to buy an equity stake in [Fortescue]." ASIC contends Fortescue knew its agreements with the Chinese could not be binding until the equity issue was sorted out.
Mr Karkar told the court that after believing it had signed up the Chinese by November 2004 to finance and build the project Fortescue had been hit by a "bombshell".
Source: http://business.smh.com.au/business/court-hears-of-chinese-officials-fortescue-threat-20090408-a0v5.html

SORRY, BUT SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED

by David Demming

David Deming is a geologist and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma. Source: Internet Wednesday, April 08, 2009.
'President Obama has said that the science of global warming is "beyond dispute," and therefore settled. This is the justification for the imposition of a carbon cap-and-trade system that will cost $2 trillion. But Obama does not understand science.
"Settled science" is an oxymoron, and anyone who characterises science as "settled" or "indisputable" is ignorant not only of science, but also history and philosophy. Aristotle, who lived and wrote in the fourth century B.C., was one of the greatest geniuses the world has ever known. He invented the discipline of logic, and founded the sciences of ecology and biology. Aristotle's physics were accepted as correct for nearly two thousand years. In 1534, faculty at the University of Paris officially asserted that the works of Aristotle were "the standard and basis of all philosophic enquiry."

Reasonable Reservations:
Aristotle taught that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Over the centuries, a few unreasonable persons expressed sceptical concerns. But the consensus was that the physics of motion were described by Aristotle's dicta. The science was settled.
Around the year 1591, an irascible young instructor at the University of Pisa demonstrated that Aristotle was wrong. He climbed to the top of the tower of Pisa and dropped cannonballs of unequal weight that hit the ground simultaneously. Aristotelean professors on the faculty were embarrassed.

The university administration responded by not renewing Galileo's contract, thus ridding themselves of a troublemaker who challenged the accepted consensus. Galileo is better remembered today for clashing with the Catholic Church over the issue of whether or not the Earth was at the centre of the universe. An Earth-centred cosmology was first proposed by the Greek philosopher Eudoxus in the fourth century B.C.

Impious Aristarchus:
About a hundred years later, an upstart named Aristarchus suggested that the Earth revolved around the sun. Aristarchus' system never proved popular, and he was criticised for being impious. The Earth-centred system was finalised by Claudius Ptolemy in the second century A.D., and remained unchallenged until the sixteenth century. Everyone knew that the science of astronomy had been settled "beyond dispute."

When Galileo insisted that the Earth revolved around the sun, he was castigated by the church for advocating an idea that was not only heretical, but also "foolish and absurd in philosophy." Late in the seventeenth century, Isaac Newton demonstrated definitively that Aristotle's physics were incorrect. He proposed the Law of Universal Gravitation, and explained how the planets move around the sun in elliptical orbits.
Newton is still regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived. He settled the science of motion in such a conclusive way that his system was referred to as an "invincible edifice." But the edifice crumbled early in the twentieth century when Einstein showed that Newtonian physics break down as the speed of light is approached.

Near the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Neptunian School of geology taught that all rocks had formed by crystallisation from a now-vanished universal ocean. Although the evidence falsifying this theory was both plain and abundant, Neptunists interpreted every observation as supportive of their hypothesis.
Blinded by an immoderate zeal, they selected and magnified any fact in accordance with their theory, while neglecting those that tended to disprove it. Robert Jameson characterised the evidence supporting Neptunism as "incontrovertible." But the theory collapsed in a few decades, and today is recognised as an artifact of inexhaustible human folly.

The End Of History?
President Obama, a lawyer and politician, would now have us believe that the process of history has stopped. For the first time, scientific knowledge is not provisional and subject to revision, but final and settled. Scepticism, which has been the spur to all innovation and human progress, is unacceptable and must be condemned.
But in fact, it is our awareness of what we do not know that determines our scientific level. Socrates was the wisest man, not because he knew more than others, but because he was the only one to recognise that he did not know. Knowledge begins with scepticism and ends with conceit. '

FURTHER STEPS TOWARDS THE MONOPOLY STATE

What is, overall, a good explanation of how private banks have the power to create the nations credit-money, the proposal put forward by John Carter in The Land, (NSW 9/4/2009) that 'nationalisation of the banks is the answer, is quite alarming. It must be asked is Mr. Carter simply lacking in understanding and is genuinely na 've, or is he, in reality, a mouthpiece for the banks, or, what about a socialist wolf in sheep 's farm-clothing?

Older readers will remember, the Australian League of Rights came into formal existence in 1946 after social crediters had battled the Labor centralist Dr. Vere Evatt and his moves to nationalise the private banks. Eric Butler had pointed out all those years ago in a "State Monopoly of Credit" - as outlined in Karl Marx's famous "ten steps" in the Communist Manifesto, this proposal was an even worse alternative to the world-wide power of private banking.

By 1948 Eric Butler and the League of Rights supporters, were involved in the battle to forestall Chifley's attempts to nationalise the banks. Eric had written a series of brilliant articles, 'Steps Towards the Monopoly State which were being published weekly by an old established Melbourne newspaper, The Argus. As a description of the threat to Australia's freedom by centralised power from a variety of sources - revolutionary, bureaucratic and corporate - his material was prescient. Before his final articles appeared, The Argus had changed hands and Eric's message was stopped in its tracks. They are all currently available in booklet form.

The Real Objective?
The real objective of bank nationalisation is to further the imposition of a "planned economy". Bank nationalisation is merely a part, admittedly an important part, of the general totalitarian strategy being pursued. A "planned economy" necessitates the centralisation of all political, economic, and financial power into one set of hands. Stripped of all camouflage, a "planned economy" means a Monopoly State in which all resources and all individuals are controlled by the central planners.

Camouflaging the Real Objective:
As proved in practice in 20th century Russia and Germany, and now in most Western countries, under a Socialist regime, a "planned economy" cannot be allowed to be jeopardised by any individual having the power to contract out of the centrally imposed plans.
The Federal Constitution, limits the powers of the Federal Government, and is a barrier to the imposition of a "centrally planned economy" in Australia. If only Australians understood the importance of their Federal Constitution, they would be fighting tooth and nail to safeguard it.

At the time Eric Butler insisted: 'Bank nationalisation is a direct assault upon the Federal Constitution; it is merely a means to an end and not an end in itself.

Despite John Carter 's present admiration for Labor 's Ben Chifley, Eric Butler saw through the media propaganda. Mr. Chifley was persistently publicised as a 'financial expert ', but it was obvious that his argument that bank nationalisation was necessary, supposedly to prevent any policy of credit restriction by the trading banks, was merely camouflaging the real objective.
Bearing in mind in 1947-48 Australia still had its Commonwealth Bank, Eric wrote:
'Is it not a fact that a person who cannot obtain financial credit from one bank can go to other banks? Surely it is elementary that, in the event of all the trading banks restricting their credit advances, the result would be increased business for the Commonwealth Bank. Even the most rabid financial reformer cannot deny that the Federal Government already has more than sufficient power over general financial policy to implement any modifications deemed necessary.

As proved in practice in Russia under a Socialist regime, a "planned economy" cannot be allowed to be jeopardised by any individual having the power to contract out of the centrally imposed plans if he doesn't like them.
The Federal Constitution, which limits the powers of the Federal Government, is a barrier to the imposition of a "planned economy" in Australia. But the planners are still working away at it.
What is genuinely needed is a National Credit Authority. An authority answerable to Parliament on behalf of the People Now read John Carter 's article.

MAGIC CREDIT POISONING ECONOMY

Source: John Carter in The Land (NSW) 9/4/2009.
'I phoned my "man at the bank" to see how far his team were behind the Reserve Bank ' in dropping my interest rate. It was down just 2.5 per cent while the Reserve had dropped four per cent. I remarked how I found it odd that my company, with 97 per cent equity, was borrowing from his company (one of Australia's "four pillars") with maybe three per cent equity - and paying eight per cent for the money. It became more bizarre when these much favoured companies were guaranteed by the Government and made very large profits despite "write offs" of crazy loans.

The credit crunch is lifting the lid off the magic box of credit creation: As JK Galbraith wrote: "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled."

This time, the Godlike reputation of bank directors, chief executive officers and the like have gone up in a cloud of incompetence and greed. If they had understood their job they wouldn't have allowed their banks to go into fields that have now sunk their shareholders and the real economy.
I won't forget the 1994 UK's Barings Bank collapse as its directors saw futures worked as a goldmine in the hands of Nick Leeson, "The Rogue Trader", and continued to send him absurd money. The 230-year-old bank collapsed, Leeson went to gaol and directors were each paid a million pounds by the Dutch Bank that took them over.

Sick - but that was only the beginning:
Now we are seeing trillions created to buy "toxic assets" - debts that can never be repaid. Those believing the US or British taxpayers are ever going to repay these trillions currently being handed out to banks are deluded. They have no more chance than the Germans of 1936 or the people of Zimbabwe. The US Federal Reserve is a private club of the bankers who are rescuing their fellow bankers. The question no government wants to hear is: "If they can create credit to bail out bankers, why can't they do it for everybody?"

Australia fared worse in the last Depression than most countries. The Bank of England insisted on loan repayments by Australia. Jack Lang told them they would have to wait. He was right, but was sacked by the English establishment's representative - the State Governor, Sir Phillip Game.
The IMF chiefs followed the same path as they destroyed Indonesian lives by demanding repayments during the Asian IA Financial Crisis. The world's bankers wanted the money they had created from nothing back in hard cash.

China may give them the lesson they need this time:
The creation of a country's credit should never be done for profit. It is an essential service and should be done by government. Chifley understood but lost an election over it. The global financial crisis is a rare opportunity to have Rudd follow the UK and the US into nationalisation of banks. However "the chaps" won't give up their money factories easily.

A TALE OF TWO STATUES

Source: David Flint 's Opinion Column, 16/3/09:
Al Grassby (1926-2005), was a minister in the Whitlam government, and a 'passionate republican. His book, 'The Australian Republic was published by Pluto Press in 1993.
In his authoritative 2005 book 'Head of State ', Sir David Smith tells how Grassby actually claimed the monarchy was responsible for the recession in the 1980 's, for one million who were unemployed, for the business excess of the period and for the exodus of our top scientists.

This was only one example of leading republicans making ludicrous claims against the Australian Crown and the benefits of moving to a politicians republic. Grassby was a prominent campaigner in the years leading up to the 1999 referendum. The Australian people saw through these claims.

Paul Sheehan recently wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald about a sequel to the TV 'Underbelly series on organised crime. The sequel is called 'Underbelly: A Tale Of Two Cities '. He says this reflects a real-life tapestry of corruption which could be called "A Tale Of Two Statues".
He says one statue, in the town of Griffith, is a monument to honesty. The other statue, in Canberra, is a monument to deceit.

The statue in Griffith was paid for by the local Rotary Club and commemorates the life and death of Donald Mackay, who resisted the Calabrian mafia who were operating around the town of Griffith. 'For his anti-drugs campaign, Mackay was murdered by Robert Trimbole, Mr. Sheehan states. This was done by an 'enforcer for the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. 'It was then given extensive political cover by a Labor politician, Al Grassby, he adds.

He points out that a taxpayer funded $72,000 statue of Grassby as "father of multiculturalism" was recently placed in Canberra 's Civic Centre by the ACT Government at a time when evidence of Grassby's corruption, mafia links and treachery was widely known.
He continues, 'In the report of the Nagle special commission of inquiry in 1986, John Nagle, QC, found that Grassby had engaged in a smear campaign to protect the real murderers of Donald Mackay. He wrote that 'no decent man could have propagated 'the scurrilous lies that Grassby distributed about the Mackay family.
He described Grassby's performance as a witness as 'long-winded, dissembling, and unconvincing, constantly driven to uneasy claims of defective memory '.

“Grassby," he says 'was paid $40,000 by leaders of the Calabrian mafia to circulate an anonymous smear sheet claiming Mackay had been murdered at the behest of his wife and son after a family argument.
'In July 1980, Grassby went to a friend of mine, Michael Maher, the state Labor member for Drummoyne, and asked him to read the document in Parliament. When I asked Maher why Grassby had approached him, he told me: 'Because I had the biggest concentration of Italians in Haberfield, Five Dock, Concord and Drummoyne. He thought I could play the Italian vote, ' Paul Sheehan adds.

Mr Sheehan writes that this was multiculturalism, Grassby-style: 'His career was littered with race-based politics, he says. 'He was a hardened liar who led a double life, both in public and private. And the ACT Labor Government put up a statue in his honour. When Donald Mackay's four children complained about this public insult, they were brushed aside.

We are still waiting for the republican movement to admit the silly claims made by Grassby and other republicans were untrue and that they knew they were untrue at the time. Perhaps they could join in the denunciation of the ACT Government 's gratuitous insult to the memory of the late Donald Mackay.