THE TREASON QUESTION

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Congratulations to Nigel Jackson for making a complaint to the Australian Press Council regarding Phillip Adams’ criticism of the League of Rights’ Eric Butler for being a “traitor”.
Adams alleged that Butler had been “often investigated during World War II by stumble bum security people for his pro-Axis activities” and hence by the ordinary meaning of the word “traitor” (if the word traitor means anything) Butler was a traitor.

The Australian dealt with all of this in two articles, Christian Kerr, “An Insult to the Memory of Many” (The Weekend Australian 25-26 August 2012, p.18) in an opinion piece, and Nick Leys’ “Traitor Article ‘Failed to Include Key Fact’” (p.3). Among other things, Butler had been found by the Reed board of inquiry into military offenders to be “loyal to His majesty the King”, as the Leys’ article says.

So, what’s the “key fact”?
The key fact is that the word ‘traitor” is not merely a common usage term. No doubt many of us ‘out there’ would view the activities of our elites as “traitorous”, but that is just an expression of political sentiment. Adams’ article alleged that Butler was a traitor to his country during the war, and this means “traitor” in a technical legal sense. Today “treason” is defined under section 80.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Commonwealth) to involve a person doing a number of activities, including, relevantly, engaging in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy: (i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist: (i) another country; or (ii) an organisation that is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force.

Thus, what then about the allegations of being anti-Semitic? Mr. Jackson challenges such allegations arguing that one can be critical of Jewish activities without being anti-Semitic. But suppose by hypothesis that this was not so, that anything but positive propositions about Jewish activities would constitute anti-Semitism. Would that meet the Criminal Code definition of treason? Hardly.

There is no doubt that in the past, at the time of World War II, many soldiers held views similar to Butler’s and especially on the race issue. Whether this is right or wrong need not concern us. What counts is that it is not relevant evidence to support a section 80.1 violation and would not be admissible evidence in any such trial. Nor would claims that “Churchill, Roosevelt and John Curtin were covert communists” be admissible because it is not materially relevant to the defined conditions under section 80.1.

Even if one was shown in the 1940s to be anti-Semitic, it still did not follow at the time that one was therefore a Nazi. There are many historical examples of anti-Semitism which have no connection to National Socialism philosophy. Butler’s “The International Jew”, whether it be regarded as anti-Semitic by the standards of the times or today’s standards, still criticised Hitler. Any fair court would have to conclude that the book is not “Nazi” even if it was “anti-Semitic”. Only by equating all anti-Semitism to Nazism (historically false), could this book be seen as in some way supporting one of the things that the National Socialists may have believed. I take no position on the merits or otherwise of this book.

To summarise: the case for Eric Butler being a “traitor” is refutable in legal terms. The alleged evidence, even taken to be genuine, would not establish the treason charge. This is so regardless of all the complexities involving anti-Semitism and these sorts of allegations that Mr. Jackson has dealt with, and no doubt will continue to deal with.  

THE COMING GREAT STARVATION

by James Reed
From the Teetering Resources Fizzer to Food Resources Give-aways. You heard it from Resources Minister Martin Ferguson “The commodity price boom is over. Anyone with half a brain knows that” (The Australian 10 September 2012, p.11) as China simply exploits Africa over Oz. This has led to our local capitalists in the iron ore business taking big losses with Gina Rinehart being the hardest hit losing $9.5 billion. (The Weekend Australian Financial Review 1-2 September 2012, p.9) Personally I am hoping for even worse economic conditions so that Gina and friends lose the rest of their billions and millions and hundreds of thousands. I am quite happy to eat soggy pages of The Australian as I starve to death, just to see this.

Speaking about starving to death: “Family Farms Soon to be a Foreign Nation” (The Advertiser 8 September 2012, pp.26-27) reports that Professor John Lee from Sydney University has raised security concerns about Chinese investment in Australia, coming primarily from State-owned enterprises which are very closely linked to the Chinese Communist Party. They are legally required to transfer any intellectual property to other State Chinese agencies. Exxon, Siemens and BMW had their intellectual property in car parts transferred over. But Tony Rabbit doesn’t see a problem here.

The Advertiser article is explicit: “It is predicted more Australian agricultural land will be needed to feed China’s rapidly urbanising population of 1.3 billion.” By adopting Western diets, China could in principle command the entire food of the world. Certainly “food bowl” Australia will be eaten up, while we starve. Since there is no fight left in us anymore, I recommend not throwing out your copies of The Australian as in the future they may be all we have to eat – unless we eat each other!  

WHAT COST TO AUSTRALIA’S LONG TERM BENEFIT?

Ausby is conducting an internet campaign to let YOU have a say in the matter. “Foreign Investment - at What Cost to Australia’s long term benefit?” All Australians must be concerned about the sale of our land to foreign investors. The headline in the Land 7/6/2012 stating “Australia in need of off shore investors” reflects an attitude which has prevailed to our cost for decades.

It is irrelevant that investment in farming is relatively small. We cannot buy land in China, the Arab States, Japan or any of the other nations buying our wealth creating assets whether land or companies. We have the highest interest rates in the world yet our assets our being bought by foreign countries, companies, hedge funds and superannuation funds because they want the profits our assets offer. And in the meantime we pretend the mining industry will save us when 80% of our mining companies are foreign owned much of which is threatening farm land.

What is even more telling from the interview with Tom Mckeon CEO of Hassad, a Qatari Consortium, is that they have identified control of the supply chain including the land is the best way to ensure their food security. The issue is, food grown here will not necessarily stay here to the benefit of Australia. The scenario could occur where if the food exported and not sold then the owners will not pay tax as they are growing it for their own use. Easy to do when you are a nation. These assets will not be added to our exports. Australia will no longer derive income from these assets. Some say they cannot export the land, but land is being bought in strategic parts of Australia by countries and this is an issue of sovereign risk.

Decades of our own Governments’ policies has already exacerbated the situation beyond the farm gate by allowing the control of the supply chain of all but one food commodity, rice, to be majority controlled by foreign interests. To add insult to injury these foreign owned companies do not pay the same tax as Australian companies (10% withholding tax), and control many of our export industries. Private companies dominate in beef and wheat exports and like countries are not transparent. Any wonder farmers are being forced to sell their farms because we have made them price takers not price makers.

AUSBUY calls for a moratorium on the sale of our land and our assets until we establish a “national interest test”. Assets which are within Australia should return long term benefits to the people of Australia. The Mabo Treaty gives land rights to indigenous Australians, while non indigenous Australians have no rights. New Zealand recently applied their national interest test to stop the sale of eight dairy farms to the Chinese on the basis that these assets where for the long term benefit of the New Zealand People. Australians have no such protections… Go to www.ausbuy.com.au Click on Time to Wake Up Australia to have your say.  

SOUTH AUSTRALIA: POWER PRICES ONE OF THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD

Source: adelaidenow, by David Nankervis 12 September 12, 2012.
“South Australia has some of the highest prices for electricity in the world. Thousands going without power as electricity bill defaults skyrocket. More than 10,000 households had their power disconnected after failing to pay their bills - the highest cut-off rate in almost a decade. Figures released by the industry regulator yesterday showed that 10,100 homes lost power in the 12 months to July, compared to 7300 the previous financial year.

Soaring power prices are being blamed for this 38 per cent spike in disconnections, with welfare groups reporting those on fixed incomes suffering the most - including one man who had to resort to cooking his meals over a wood fire in his back-yard for six months after being disconnected. Welfare agency Anglicare said it had reports of disconnected households commonly using candles for lighting, heating rooms with barbecues - and keeping perishables such as milk and butter in Eskies. The number of reconnections is only about a third of the number of disconnections recorded in 2011/12, the figures show.

"While people can reduce their electricity use, they still have supply charges which they can't control," said Anglicare wellbeing manager Christine Bell. "More needs to be done, and one example we are looking at through international research is where people can make payments fortnightly and not be hit with a big quarterly bill."

Oh dear! Isn’t it a tragedy when the one institution (the Church) that once sought for answers to the oppressions of Mammon now can’t see the wood for the trees? This is a financial/ philosophical issue. It is not primarily an ecological/environmental issue. Read more:

ABBOTT SHOWS LIBERALS TRUE COLOURS: RED AND YELLOW OF CHINA

by James Reed
Tony Rabbit has moved to show that he is truly the head bunny in the Coalition by reprimanding colleagues such as Nationals’ senator Barnaby Joyce and others for their criticisms of foreign investment, especially from China.

No, the multicoloured mice of Australia have nothing to fear from the mighty Chinese dragon buying up rural resources such as the Cubbie house. Beaten in line, the National senators voted against a Green’s motion in the Upper House to oppose the Cubbie sale. (The Australian 12 September 2012, p.4)

No doubt the ruling bunnies know that the white mice, the white “No worries, she’ll be right mate” lab mice, are being replaced by little yellow dragons anyway, so it doesn’t really matter if their food and resources are owned by China, as “Australia” is a Chinese possession. We must find a quiet spot to die and hope that the smell of our decaying culture and people does not offend.

REVEALING QUOTE ON THE LIB/LAB EVIL STUPID PARTY

by James Reed
Janet Albrechtsen (“Just Like Howard, Abbott has the Numbers that Really Count” The Australian, gasp! Forgot the date, but who cares) gives a revealing quote which shows that the Labor and Liberal Party are really one.
“For starters, when Bob Hawke and Keating ushered in ground-breaking economic reforms, the Coalition supported each of these reforms. Floating the Australian dollar, dismantling protectionist barriers, opening up the financial industry and privatising government assets. “Reforms” in the true sense of that word,. They enjoyed support from the Liberal Party, Howard said.”

We can add along with this, an ending of the White Australia Policy, pursuing multiculturalism, multiracialism, Asianisation and now Chinese colonisation, the Labor and Liberal Party have been as one. Abbott was “deputised” by Howard to deal with Pauline Hanson and One Nation. LabLib is the evil stupid party and stupid evil party, all rolled into one.

I suggest that you don’t waste your vote on them, but vote for Katter or an Independent who is even vaguely okay. At worst, vote for some crazy if there is no one else. Most importantly write “Reduce Immigration” on your ballot paper.  

WORLD GOVERNMENT OF A DANGEROUS KIND ALREADY HERE

by Peter Ewer
Bob Brown – remember him? – has lots of times on his hands to devote to his cause of world parliament. (The Australian 13 September 2012, p.2) What Bob wants is a bicameral system, with an upper house having one member from each country, and a lower house with representatives in proportion to the population of their countries.
This, according to Bob is “extraordinary common sense,” and anti-racist to boot: “So why isn’t it on the agenda? Why isn’t it being discussed? It is because there is some fear of the very dictum at the basis of democracy itself. That fear that we might find that we are not superior, that we might find that every human being on the planet deserves her or his equality with ourselves.”

Yes, in Bob’s world China, India and the Third World would make the decisions. What about a pro-growth decision of destroying all the rainforests of the world? Bob of course would argue that non-Western nations would not do this, but a glance at the present growth philosophy of China would lead one to believe that under Bob’s system you could kiss the environment goodbye, and our freedoms.

Keith Windshuttle wrote a piece about this in Quadrant May 2012, pointing out that conventional Bob Brown-style visions of world government (i.e., a world parliament) fail, but a global governance by way of international; courts, transnational bodies and the like is real. International conventions and treaties regulate many government activities, such as immigration and refugee policy.

This has created a “supra-national legal regime, a de facto constitutional authority above national constitutions but enforced mostly by compliant national courts.” This is a sort of world government we should fear, because we have it already, I believe.

Comment: Ever thought just how the smaller population of Australia would be outvoted every time by just such a system?  

EQUALITY, THEN AND NOW

by Chris Knight
In his otherwise excellent critique of equality, “Murderous Equality” (Alternative Right.com, 7 September 2012), Andy Nowicki wonders whatever reason Thomas Jefferson had for including in the US Declaration of Independence, the ill-defined phrase “All men are equal”. It seems like sleeping liberalism, just waiting for the multicultural/multiracial society to come to wreak havoc. But Jefferson and the Founding Fathers did not have the intelligence to learn from history and try to prevent the same internal destruction which has happened to other civilisations happening to them.

The phrase in question, “All men are equal” referred to the English and proclaimed that Americans ands Englishmen were equal. The passion of the War of Independence was still on their minds. At that time they never looked down the track. Look at us for example. It is clear that we are going to be swamped by the Chinese through migration but people in the freedom movement can’t get moving to put up even a token of resistance. How many people have resolved to write “Reduce Immigration” on their ballot papers? What will remain of our culture and race in 100, 50 – even 20 years time?  

IMMIGRATION SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED

by James Reed
UK senior conservative politician Nicholas Soames has opened a well–needed “debate” on immigration. An online petition signed by over 100,000 people in just a week, wanted the government to keep the UK’s population below 70 million. However, even with immigration cuts, the youth of the largely Third World population and high birth rates will push Britain’s population to 66 million, and with immigration in the tens of thousands, the population will reach 70 million by 2035.

Soames has rightly blamed Labour for its “chaotic ill-thought out and deeply irresponsible approach to immigration” which gave the UK “the greatest wave of immigration … in nearly 1000 years.” Soames did not mention that newspaper articles have shown that this was deliberate and planned, to create a multiracial/multicultural society that would vote Labour. That’s right, change the people to keep the evil stupid Party in power. (BBC News, 6 September 2012 “Stop Ignoring immigration, Soames urges MP colleagues”).

The destruction of Anglo Saxon Britain, as with the destruction of Anglo Saxon Australia, has been a matter of planning.  

THE DEAD DUCK OF CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION?

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Good news? The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Justice Commissioner has said that a referendum on indigenous constitutional recognition would not occur in the life of the Labor government, presumably the government of Gillard. (The Australian 28 August 2012 p.78) Maria Langton, also a member of the government’s constitutional reform panel, has as well called for a delay in the referendum. In her speech given to the Melbourne Writer’s Festival; (“Get Rid of Race to Stop Racism”, The Australian 31 August 20102 p.12) she pulled no punches and said: “Defining Aboriginal people as a race as the Constitution does, sets up the conditions for indigenous people to be treated, not just as different but exceptional; and inherently incapable of joining the Australian polity and society.”

She went on to say: “Being descended from an Aboriginal person who lived before British colonisation is not sufficient reason by itself to hand out money to people who make a claim to being indigenous. This attitude of entitlement is poisoning Aboriginal society just as much as it is poisoning Australian attitudes to indigenous people.”

Yes, she observed “Many Aborigines share some of Andrew Bolt’s concerns about Aboriginality.” But don’t get too excited. Langton still wants the constitutional recognition of Aborigines as a first peoples, not a race. The Constitution needs to be deracinated. Instead the proposal is for the Constitution to have a prohibition on discrimination “on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic or national origin,” not precluding affirmative action style measures “for the purpose of overcoming disadvantage, ameliorating the effects of past discrimination, or protecting the cultures, languages or heritage of any group.”

Here is the worst of all possible worlds as I see it. An enshrining of politically correct dogmas as well as allowing the great affirmative action gravy train to charge on. The anti-discrimination clause would, as I believe, amount to Constitutionally grounding immigration, multiculturalism, Asianisation and anti-Anglo ideology in the Constitution. Just imagine the field day the human rights legal elite will have with it. I can hear the ‘pitter patter’ of tiny keyboards now as they prepare for the onslaught.

This entire debate has been put on the wrong foot. If there is any change to the Constitution it should be to recognise and protect the Anglo-Saxon founders of this nation. Before them there was no “Australia” – only a land mass with a group of tribes. This was not a nation, anymore than say the Germanic tribes of Northern Europe formed a nation 2,000 years ago.

It is clear that the direction to be taken by the Constitutional change debate is one which pushes the agenda of the new class even further. Don’t be lulled into a sense of false security, the real battle is just beginning.  

ECONOMICS AND THE LIMITS TO GROWTH AND ECONOMICS

by Brian Simpson
David Uren, economics editor of The Australian (“Ken Henry’s Asian Century Paper Will Suffer Same fate as His Tax Review”, 6 September 2012, p.12) has written: “The government’s Asian Century white paper looks like arriving too late. Asia’s skyrocketing growth, on which it is premised is fading…”
This got me thinking about the fragility of economics and how the economic men in the shiny suits don’t, and can’t think, beyond the next pay. Neoclassical economics in first year uni, in the first lecture, is said to be about scarcity, solutions to the economic problem of limited resources and unlimited human wants (not needs).

Within a few months though, economics becomes a justification of capitalism with a consumer culture and unending economic growth to feed consumer needs. Surely something went wrong here. Yes, we all know that ideology was added to this witches’ brew.
If resources are scarce then surely it is the finite wants that need to be examined. It is obvious that the way the economic problem is set up, no matter how much growth, no matter how much materialism, if there are literally infinite wants – be this consumer greed or the capitalist lust for money-power – the result can only be the creation of an endless treadmill.

The environment and the life support systems of the planet, which inconsistently, capitalist economics gives no value to, will be degraded. Rational economic man thinks that technology puts him above biology and ecology: a rude shock is about to be delivered.  

ORGANIC SAFER, HEALTHIER, THAN PESTICIDE-LADEN ALTERNATIVES

by Peter and Vera West
The paper by Smith-Spangler (et.al) “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier than Conventional Alternatives” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol.157, 4 September 2012, pp.348-361, has been reported in the media as allegedly showing that organic foods are not healthier than conventional foods. However, on examining the paper shows that the story is much more complex.
For a start the study was a meta-analysis of published papers and had the stated limitation: “Studies were heterogeneous (i.e., not uniform) and limited in number, and publication bias may be present.” Indeed, for a meta-analysis, garbage in garbage out.

Even after concluding that the limited studies reviewed (17 studies in humans) allegedly showed that there was a lack of evidence that organic foods were significantly more nutritious than conventional (Big Agri foods), the paper concluded that “Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and anti-biotic-resistant bacteria.”

Mike Adams (Natural News.com, 4 September 2012), points out that the study did not examine the issue of genetically modified foods and the use of genetically-modified bovine growth in conventional milk, which is not permitted in organic milk. Nor was the issue of the environmental impact of conventional Big Agri chemicals and pesticides discussed. This is an example of science becoming ideology because of the use which the opponents of alternative agriculture can make of an admitted limited study.

** French GM study raises red flags on both sides
Sydney Morning Herald, September 20, 2012

Controversy has erupted over new French scientific research claiming that genetically modified corn and the herbicide Roundup increases the chance of lab rats developing tumours and dying prematurely.
The paper, published by journal Food and Chemical Toxicology overnight, prompted the French government to ask a health watchdog to investigate whether the strain of GM corn posed a threat to human health and imports should be suspended....

The strain of GM corn at the centre of the new study is sold, but not grown, in Australia. It is used in products such as corn oil, corn syrup and cornflour.

Regulator Food Standards Australia and New Zealand has approved more than 50 GM products to be imported into the two countries. Farmers in some Australian states — particularly Western Australia, but also Victoria and NSW — grow GM cotton and canola.

Scott Kinnear, director of GM-sceptic organisation the Safe Food Foundation, said the new research exposed a critical deficiency in the local regulatory process....

Food Standards Australia New Zealand said it had not seen compelling evidence of a safety risk. FSANZ chief scientist Paul Brent said it would look at any new research, but its confidence in the safety of GM products was backed by regulatory counterparts in the US, Canada, Japan and Europe.

Read more:

END OF MODERN MEDICINE? SUPER BUGS BEAT ANTIBIOTICS

by Vera West
“The age of antibiotics is over. It’s history. There are no more patented chemical antibiotics in the pipeline. The drug companies have all but abandoned antibiotics research, leaving humanity to suffer the fate of a wave of drug-resistant bacteria – superbugs – that the drug companies actually helped create.”
Sobering news from Natural News.com, 30 August 2012. The item points out that one chemical, colostin, will kill superbugs but also damages the kidneys. Drug companies are more interested in highly profitable drugs for treating erechle dysfunction than saving sick people in hospitals.

Dr. Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organisation has recently said: “Things as common as strep throat or a child’s scratched knee could once again kill him.” She went on to say that “A post-antibiotic era means, in effect, an end to modern medicine as we know it.”

Mike Adams argues that the death of modern medicine may not be all that bad because of the side effects of its drugs and treatments. He says that superbugs can be controlled by an array of natural cures which are not used because they are not profitable: garlic, colloidal silver, Manuka honey, copper surfaces, vitamin B3, organic extract, are cited.

Adams says that in the United States, iatrogenic disease, doctor-caused disease, and mistakes, kills about 783,000 people a year, so the average person is more likely to be killed by modern medicine than a terrorist! He sees hospitals are the places where you are most likely to contract a superbug. The alternative, according to Adams is to be healthy and don’t give the superbugs a chance. And that’s food for thought for me.