A NATION’S ‘CURRENCY’ IS ALSO A MATTER OF PHILOSOPHY

by Betty Luks
Gerald Celente has summed up the present parlous state of the world’s financial system in the above video but like most ‘money men’ still thinks the answer can be found within the present financial system. For him, it is a matter of what form, what medium, ‘money’ takes.
He reminded his audience that Jesus Christ “whipped the money changers out of the temple” but failed to mention some other important sayings of Jesus Christ, one of which was: “You cannot serve God and mammon.” That is, you can’t be of two minds. You can’t have one foot in each camp. You can serve only one.

If I understand him correctly Gerald Celente thinks America should go back to the Gold Standard as the basis for its currency. While not as complex as a modern money system, a ‘gold-backed’ currency certainly goes back to the Sumerian civilisation, and it is one long sorry story. Money and power are what matters – people count for nothing.

The historian, Josephus, in “Antiquities of the Jews”, records: "He (Cain), (the Canaanite civilisation…ed) introduced a change in that way of simplicity wherein men lived before; and was the author of measures and weights. And whereas they lived innocently and generously while they knew nothing of such arts, he changed the world into cunning craftiness."

STILL THE SAME OLD MARXIST DIALECTICS
Gina Rinehart is calling for Australians to work for a mere pittance, as is the case of the African mine workers (less that $2 per day). Only then can her company compete in the international cut-throat world of mining. She has called for a cut to Australians’ wages. According to Rinehart, ''If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain. Do something to make more money yourself - spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working.'' Mrs Rinehart believes the true purpose of man is to work, does she? According to the Christian Faith, work is a means to an end, it is not an end in itself.

Dr Richard Denniss, executive director of the Australia Institute, a Canberra-based think tank asks of the ‘conservatives’ in the land: “Do Tony Abbott and the ''traditional family values'' crowd support the idea of fathers spending three weeks away from their kids each month? What about the Australian Christian lobby? What is their position on an Australia in which 300 per cent more parents are unable to sit down with their kids for dinner each night? Does the Christian right support the rise and rise of fly in, fly out families? It's a simple question, but I bet they won't answer it simply…”

It has long been my experience that neither the organised Christian churches, the conservatives of the ‘so-called’ Right, nor the socialists of the Left want to resolve such issues on behalf of all Australians. They need the never-ending conflict to gain support for their causes. For the churches, too often the problem is said to be that of human nature (sin) and as for the political parties they need to keep the people divided into the various camps.

I have come that you may have life and life more abundant: Social crediters have sought to point pastors and priests to the truth that modern production processes can supply an abundance of goods for all Australians without the need for full employment, but there is a crying need for a financial mechanism to distribute the abundance.

The responses have been along these lines: “We would rather not get involved in this affair. We are happy enough that the poor and the unemployed scramble for the crumbs under the table, the crumbs that we (the church), along with government bureaucrats, dole out. We would rather not see them feasting on the Abundant Provisions laid out on God’s table.”

In a modern community, where the production of goods and services is now a social function, there is a great need to provide a MECHANISM whereby ALL may feast at the table of abundance God has provided – not just those in privileged positions nor those who have employment.

RACHEL CORRIE AND THE KOSHER LEGAL STAMP

The League reported on the tragic death of the young American activist Rachel Corrie in 2003: “The Maid and the Ogre” by Israel Shamir Vol.39-No20 March, 2003. From Gilda Atzmon’s website
Former Israeli Gilad Atzmon now comments on the Israeli judge’s ruling on her murder. “Rachel Corrie and the Kosher Legal Stamp,” 30/8/2012.

“Judge Oded Gershon’s ruling earlier this week that the state of Israel is not to blame for the death of Rachel Corrie, came as no surprise. In fact it reaffirms everything we know about the Jewish state - its politics, legal system and spirit. Israel is surely a most peculiar state - it is impervious to ethical thinking and humanist thought. Accordingly, Judge Gershon gave this week a kosher stamp to a cold-blooded murder and by so doing, he proved, once again, that Israeli criminal actions are consistent with the most vile interpretations of Old Testament and Talmudic Goy-hating.

As one would predict, Judge Gershon, restricted himself to legalism and litigation as opposed to ethical thinking - he actually blamed Corrie for not ‘behaving reasonably’. Yet, one may wonder what is this ‘reason’ or more precisely, what does an Israeli mean when he or she refers to ‘reason’.

Rachel Corrie was bulldozed to death by the driver of an Israeli military D9 Caterpillar on 16 March 2003. She was part of ISM (International Solidarity Movement), a non-violent pro-Palestinian peace activist group. Being an American youngster, Corrie mistakenly believed that Israeli soldiers were humanly driven. Being a reasonable person she must have believed that an Israeli bulldozer driver would never drive over her body. She was wrong…” Read more here...

THE SERPENT’S EGG HATCHES

by James Reed
Tony Thomas (“The Serpent’s Egg: Stagecraft Behind Global Warming Alarmism”, Quadrant 2 May 2012 pp.2-24), has done an excellent job of exposing the alarmists behind the so-called climate science. He briefly mentions NASA’s James Hansen, but devotes most of his article deconstructing the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

The details are difficult to summarise for a brief article, but in essence, key IPCC figures came to their positions already convinced of the truth of the hypothesis of human-caused climate change. Thus the think tank TERI in New Delhi was in 1989 run by the IPCC’s future chair Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, and before the first 1990 IPCC report.

Here is TERI’s thesis: “Global warming is the greatest crisis ever faced collectively by humankind. Unlike other earlier crises, it is global in nature, threatens the very survival of civilisation, and promises to throw up only losers over the entire international socio-economic fabric. The reason for such a potential apocalyptic scenario is simple: climate changes of geological proportions are occurring over time-spans as short as a single human lifetime.” (Thomas p.22) Thomas pointed out that in 1992 the UN drew up its Framework Convention on Climate Change, where “climate change” was defined as “humanly-caused climate change”, and the IPCC charter was modified so that it was to support the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Thus, although the 1990 IPCC report did not say that humanly-caused climate change was occurring, the next IPCC report in 1995 did find that “there is discernable human influence on global climate”, subject to uncertainty, which the environmental lobby groups ignored. As well, the 1995 text had critical caveats about the lack of evidence of the human-caused climate change hypotheses deleted. (p.22) The Chairman denied this and said that it was just the normal sort of editing.

Once a “consensus” had been obtained in this way the probability of the human caused climate change hypothesis went from likely in 2001, to very likely in 2007. The IPCC charter does not require an investigation of natural and cosmological sources of warming, which are likely to be periodic. So the whole research process is circular Thomas concludes. Yet this is the research upon which the carbon tax is based.

Thomas does not discuss why this has occurred, or how China is ignoring it all. As I see it, “climateitis”, the disease of climate change, is but another attack upon Western civilisation by the same elites who brought you every other attack. In destroying our kind, no stone is being left unturned, but hey, if they are right about climate change, they are going to cook with the rest of us!  

CHINESE COMMUNIST CAPITALIST CONSUMERISM

by James Reed
Kiss the environment goodbye. Usually I don’t read the glossy, big business insert, The Deal placed inside The Australian, but I steeled my nerves and looked at the August 2012 edition. An interesting article, originally published in the Wall Street Journal by Tim Doctorof, the author “What Chinese Want: Culture, Communism and China’s Modern Consumer”.

“Same Bed, Different Dreams” pretty much is a condensed version of this book , and here is my condensed version of the condensed version. China is embracing modernisation, but not westernisation. It loves western brands but only insofar as consuming them indicates that one is trendy and upwardly mobile. China is a Confucian society mixed with communism – a combination that has no room for individuality. Top-down patriarchy, government controll and social mobility run together.

Thus, would-be trendies and elites-to-be meet at Starbucks to be seen. The coffee is secondary. Progress is everything. Even pizzas are eaten as an academic reward and McDonalds has Professor Ronald. And all of this striving is to make China No.1.

As I see it, the environment doesn’t stand a chance. These people are embracing consumerism even more deeply than the West. Chinese consumerism is the real face of the environmental apocalypse spoken about by the Greens, although they would rather die than say anything negative about a non-white folk. On their gravestones will be: “We died, the environment was destroyed, but at least we were politically correct to the end.”  

THE EVIL EQUALITARIAN RELIGION

by James Reed
Equality as an evil – how could that most holy of holinesses be evil? In his essay “Equality as an Evil: The Moral Scourge of Modernity” (Alternative Right.com, 13 April 201) Alex Kurtagic questions the principle of equality. Equality is based on the assumption that all humans are born equal in dignity and rights, and the bearer of such rights, merely by being human, has equal moral worth. This, Kurtagic remarks, is out-rightly circular reasoning. But worse, equality is an evil.

The pursuit of equality has led to numerous injustices such as admission policies in the US universities that “privilege the scholastically inept at the expense of the scholarly apt” – and includes millions of students. The appointment of equity officers also comes at the expense of the use of limited funds that could be used more profitably elsewhere.

Equalitarians endorse cultural diversity, but this also leads to problems as Kurtagic shows: “Diversity is predicated on difference. The elimination of one implies the elimination of the other. Modern egalitarianism’s celebration of diversity, and its proclamation of diversity, as a good worth pursuing for its own sake, are, therefore, contradictory. What is more, by criticising opponents of diversity as immoral, egalitarians fail to meet their own professed standards of morality, making egalitarians themselves immoral.”

Worse still: “The negation of differences implies, by extension, a negation of quality, both in the sense distinguishing attributes and of superiority. The logical end product of equality is, therefore, sameness and mediocrity, a denial of all the things that make life good and worth living.”

And such a doctrine can hardly be moral, having such impoverishing consequences. Equality also negates individuality, for if all are equal then the individual will lack uniqueness and autonomy. But this, I think, is what the religion of equality is really about. It is the moral version of collectivism which sees the multicultural ants nest as more important than the living creative individual. And that, I think, is the religion of equalitarianism’s greatest sin.  

THE GILLARD AFFAIR

by James Reed
I read in draft form an essay by Ian Wilson, yes, our Ian Wilson, defending Julia Gillard! I couldn’t believe it. Ian basically argued that from the perspective of a lawyer, Gillard has not been shown, to the legal standard of evidence, or any reasonable standard, to have done anything legally or ethically wrong. He says that those on the blogosphere making allegedly defamatory allegations about Gillard should ‘put up or shut up’.

I don’t know at the time of writing this whether the Wilson article will appear here. If it does and if it is read by mainstream journalists they will no doubt wonder if the League has gone soft! My view is that Hedley Thomas hits the nail on its head with his article “Media’s Shameful Silence” The Weekend Australian 25-26 August 2012 p.14. Back to the basics. Gillard did complex legal work in setting up an Association without opening a file for her boyfriend.

If she was a health practitioner, even that would be against the law in the parallel situation. She was not at arm’s length from her client… well, let’s not go there… In her 1995 interview with her law firm she could not categorically rule out personally benefitting from union funds in the renovation of her Melbourne home. And that is the key to this. Is there evidence to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt proving that Gillard did benefit? The ex-boyfriend may know.

Perhaps Tony Abbott as PM might like to give the Ex immunity from prosecution to see how sweetly he sings, if he sings. And by the way, notice how polite the Liberals were during this media cycle of about one week? Now mainstream media interest, which was essentially only The Australian, is elsewhere. But the blogosphere doesn’t forget.  

DR. DEATH AND AUSTRALIA’S HEALTH CARE CRISIS

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
The High Court of Australia in Patel v The Queen [2012] HCA 29 (August 24, 2012) held that (“Dr Death”) Jayant Patel’s conviction be quashed on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice occurred and that Patel should be retried. Some media reports give the impression that the issue was about the prosecution beginning with the argument that Patel breached section 288 of the Queensland Criminal Code and then on day 43 of the trial changed course and began arguing that a breach of section 282 occurred.

Section 288 concerns the duties of persons undertaking surgery, while section 282 relates to a standard of reasonableness generally taken to apply to a situation about whether it was reasonable to operate or not. The prosecution had found that that the evidence for the specific cases of Patel’s surgery indicated that he had conducted surgery competently enough, but there was a case that the surgery shouldn’t have been conducted at all.

The problem was that the jury had heard what the Court considered to be prejudicial and irrelevant evidence about Patel’s behaviour, such as his record of unprofessional activity in the United States, and basically an attack on his professional activities in Australia. That is the key argument. The court found all of this material too overwhelming to be dealt with by a warning to the jury from the trial judge.

Here I disagree. The evidence about lack of professionalism is irrelevant to the issue of professional character, and is also propensity evidence, evidence of a tendency to do things, badly. The decision to conduct surgery and evidence about unprofessional activity form a coherent system of evidence indicating flawed professional character.
No doubt the prosecution should have got their theory of the case right, but the High Court decision is flawed. It seems that the retrial may not occur and Patel will walk free.

Bob Birrell, in his research report for the Centre for Population and Urban Research, Monash University (September 2011), Australia’s New Health Crisis: Too May Doctors tells us that International Medical Graduates are allowed into Australia to practice on “concessional terms” in districts of workforce shortages.
Employers can sponsor as many International Medical Graduates on temporary visas as they like. There is no independent assessment of their clinical skills and they are able to practice for up to four years under supervision. All they have to do is make progress in updating their qualifications to the level of Australian general practitioners.

Birrell notes that “Australia is awash with doctors wishing to become GPs,” that is, thousands of International Medical Graduates. There is already an expanding number of domestic medical graduates, so guess what our ‘globalised” future will be.

GOP SHAPE SHIFTERS NOW OPPOSE AGENDA 21

from ‘Political Outcast’
One of the new additions to the Republican Party platform is opposition to Agenda 21. In its section on leadership in international organizations, the platform now reads, “We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty, and we oppose any form of U.N. Global Tax.” I’m glad they added this language to the platform, but I wonder how many people who voted in favour of this addition know what Agenda 21 is.

Agenda 21 is a plan put forth by the United Nations that seeks to implement “sustainable development.” Nebulous government-speak terms like “smart meters,” “smart growth,” “sustainable communities,” “greenways,” and my personal favourite, “social justice” all have to do with the U.N.’s Agenda 21. On the surface, sure they sound good. Why would we not be in favour of “smart” things and “sustainability?” Why would we not be in favour of “social justice?” They sound like things we could be in favour of, but what do they mean by them?

At the U.N.’s “Earth Summit” in 1992, George H. W. Bush was one of 178 world leaders who signed the Agenda 21 protocol and agreed with its goals. Maurice Strong was the Secretary General at this conference. He stated that “current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Agenda 21 is all about environmental control. It seeks to ration natural resources in the same way that Obamacare will ration healthcare. ** Energy will be rationed based on the assumption that our government owns all resources including food, water and land.

Local Agenda 21 initiatives will mandate certain appliances and outlaw others based on energy consumption, and your energy consumption will be monitored so that you don’t “go over your limit.” Homes and buildings will have to be built or rebuilt to meet new “green” building codes or else face hefty fines. It seeks to transition citizens away from rural areas and into cities. It wants to “wean” people off private vehicles (because of “dirty” fossil fuels) and have them start using public transportation like high-speed rail. Outdoor recreational activities will be restricted because those practices are not “sustainable.”

“Social justice” means the abolition of private property
Here’s an excerpt from a report published at the U.N.’s Habitat I Conference in 1976: Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole. It’s not fair that individuals own land or property. What will make it fair is if it is collectively owned. The United Nations wants to mandate global communism. They just don’t call it that. They call it “social justice.” And they’re going to execute “social justice” through “sustainable development.”

These things are already happening in our own country. Over 600 cities and counties across the U.S. have become members of ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives), “an international association of local governments as well as national and regional local government organizations who have made a commitment to sustainable development.”.

In 1993, a year after Bush Sr. signed the Agenda 21 protocol, President Clinton issued an executive order that created the PCSD (President’s Council on Sustainable Development). This group made Agenda 21 public policy and sought to implement its goals at the local level through ICLEI. J. Gary Lawrence was an adviser to this council. He advised that people should not know about Agenda 21 because if they knew about it, they would be opposed to it:
Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.

And this is why we don’t ever hear about it. They control the language in media. Their agenda is shrouded in vague terms that could mean anything, and people are naïve enough to give them the benefit of the doubt. Since the creation of Clinton’s PCSD, Obama has issued executive orders creating similar and more expansive “councils” that work to further the U.N.’s agenda.

Tom Madrecki is a spokesman for Smart Growth America, another one of those Agenda 21 type organizations. He doesn’t like the fact that Agenda 21 is in the new Republican platform. He said, “The fact that it’s in the platform gives credence to something that just shouldn’t get any.” He’s concerned that such a mainstream position opposing Agenda 21 will only serve to stir dissent and will “continue halting beneficial conversations about community planning.” There’s another one of those buzz phrases…”community planning.”

It’s great that the Republican Party has officially taken a stand against the United Nations and its global communist agenda. I hope it stays in their platform, and I hope Romney and other elected republicans will work tirelessly to expose the U.N. for what they really are and to extricate the U.S. from the organization itself, thus restoring our national sovereignty. Read more here...

** OT Vol.46-No44 Nov.2010, Vol46-No45 nNov.2010.  

LETTER TO PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATIVES

Submission to Liberal Party Members on Foreign Ownership of Australian farmland. September 5 2012. To Mr Tony Abbott and Liberal Party Members.

It has been reported that the huge Cubbie Station has been sold with 80% of it going to foreign interests. Whether it is Cubbie Station, the Ord River land or my neighbour’s place, the public is very angry at the continuing sales of our farmland to foreign interests. It matters not whether the purchaser is a private person, a corporation or a government body, a sale to any foreigner is a loss of Australian ownership.

When will someone in Parliament wake up and truly represent the wishes of the people? Party policy seems to see a need for foreign money. This may have seemed appropriate after WW 2 when development was necessary but those days are now gone. Most development has been achieved.A land sale simply constitutes a foreign entity owning Australian land from which the production is likely to be shipped directly to the ‘home’ country outside of any normal trade. This means Australia gains no revenue from taxation and no levy funds are contributed to Research and Development.

The foreigners are very smart at exploiting our weakness as they move to ensure their future food security. If only we paid the same attention to our future! I believe the Foreign Investment Review Board has not declined approval for any farmland deals. Whether in the future, it will be the FIRB or any “National Interest Committee”; the Terms of Reference will need to be vastly different. The New Zealand model is possibly worthy of copying.

It is worth asking, “What is the benefit to Australia for selling any land to a foreign interest?” China and Japan deny us the chance to buy their land - they rightly secure land ownership for their citizens. Let our land be owned only by Australian citizens and corporations. To suggest that it would be only a foreigner who would have sufficient funds is not a valid call. A sound proposal would attract local investors such as banks, insurance companies, superannuation funds and Australian corporations. Just give them a chance!

- - Ken Grundy, Naracoorte South Australia.

Sent to: Abbott, Secker, Pasin, Xenophon, Katter, Lib Senators David Fawcett, Sean Edwards, Anne Ruston, Simon Birmingham, Cori Bernardi, Bill Heffernan. Also Chris Pyne, Jamie Briggs and Vic DLP Sen John Madigan. Barnaby Joyce  

LETTER TO THE PRESS:

To the editor of The Australian 3rd September 2012:
Colin Rubinstein is incorrect ('We still need race hate laws', 3/9) in claiming that certain legal cases have established as a principle that 'Holocaust denial' is 'anti-semitism'. Unlike the situation in some fourteen or so nations, mainly in Europe, Australia retains freedom of speech in this area and it is not unlawful to express in our public forums dissident views about the received account of the Holocaust.
Nor should it be; for free speech has gone once it has been established that one particular view of certain historical events is legally unchallengeable. Moreover, it is quite plain from their writings that Holocaust revisionists of the calibre, say, of Germar Rudolf and Robert Faurisson, are not motivated by negative attitudes towards Jews but by a passion to proclaim what they see as the truth. And that is where Rubinstein's defence of 'hate speech' becomes both suspect and sinister: it appears that powerful Jewish interests are endeavouring to erect an untouchable dogma about the Holocaust to safeguard and extend their power and influence among the nations.

- - - Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Victoria