No comments

The light of hope is going out in South Africa – Jenni Russell
Corruption is now so rampant and entrenched that it threatens to bring the state to its knees
I have always returned from South Africa aghast, anxious but ultimately hopeful. It surely can’t become too corrupt or inefficient, I think. The triple forces of capitalism, democracy and a free press will prevent it. Rotten politicians can be replaced; crooked state employees and the individuals paying them off can be exposed. Too many people and profitable businesses have an interest in keeping the state functioning, the trains running and the lights on for it to fall apart.
This year, as in the last, the lights are literally being switched off, and I’ve lost that confidence. For the first time I fear the country may be sliding towards irreversible decay. Corruption has siphoned so much money from the state and twisted so many people’s motivations…

You Cannot Get Figs from Thistles by Arnis Luks
Today’s leading press (MSM) articles attempt to redirect attention away from the ensuing chaos in the major Communist nations. The situation in South Africa and Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) is one that Conservative Western politicians, with significant assistance from high ranking religious leaders, played a critical and decisive role in the demise and subsequent handing over of these nations to atheistic communism.  ‘Eminent persons’ were encouraged (under the auspices of the United Nations), to pressure South Africa and Rhodesia to capitulate to communism (majority rule). Now both nations suffer communist dictatorships collapsing under their totalitarian juggernaut.

The sad history of Russia and China is where Western industrial and political leaders were instrumental in the demise of both these ‘once free’ nations. Withdrawing military support to Chang Kai-shek while simultaneously providing military hardware and technology to the Soviet Union ensured the fall of China to communism. In the league archives you will find authors such as Carroll Quigley, Anthony Sutton, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, all recording the plight of the people of these nations being handed over to communism as deliberate policy.

Paul Keating Riding Roughshod Over China’s Aims
Peter Dutton Suggests Cancelling Welfare of Climate Protesters

Both these headlines show a consistent policy of centralising power. Peter Dutton, through the existing (supposedly) Conservative government, could easily stop the indoctrination of impressionable young people in universities, by withdrawing finance to the tune of hundreds of millions of Australian taxpayer dollars. Rather, he chooses to promote their continued indoctrination to move us closer towards the police state.

The Conservative and Labour governments are responsible for literally millions of cameras being placed around Australia to monitor us. This thing called power, especially totalitarian power, is held precariously, generally from the barrel of a gun. While the guns are not out in Australia yet, the other compulsion – ‘income and employment prospects’ – are used for daring to speak out, refusing to vaccinate, and now protesting against policy. The dialectical conflict is used to promote increased civil tension.

Freedom cannot be separated from responsibility. Moving Australia away from totalitarianism is only possible if sufficient numbers of individuals choose daily to exercise their freedoms and insist upon them.

Ron Owens, who regularly writes for the ‘enough gun’ website, recently reported in an excellent article reprinted on our blog here:, that a farmer, Liam Sheahan, chose to face legal prosecution and received a fine of $100,000 in order to save his farm from the ravages of bushfire. Also, another farmer, Michael Baker faced fines and costs of nearly $1 million, again, in order to save his farm from the ravages of bushfire. Both families appear vindicated and should be exonerated as a consequence of the recent fires.

Freedom doesn’t end with the ballot paper, it is an ongoing battle against tyranny. Our politicians are of no higher calibre than the totalitarians in the Communist regimes. They will yield to human frailty just as readily. Power must be vested at the feet of the individual. The yellow vests in France, the ongoing demonstrations in Hong Kong, the call for another referendum in Scotland, are all indicators of resistance towards tyranny that need to be emulated by Australians to preserve and reinforce our own freedoms. This means that your vote must be exercised in one form or another every single day. Whether it’s talking to your neighbour, insisting on speaking to your representative, writing letters to the media, producing your own pamphlets and distributing to your neighbourhood, or standing on a street corner on a box and speaking your mind, all are parts of exercising freedom. And like all muscles must be used regularly, every day if you can.

The only power that can overcome totalitarianism, is the power of the individual exercising their freedom every single day. Freedom with responsibility are are held in equilibrium by morality.

No comments

The More Things Change, The More They Remain The Same – French writer Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr
Russian Pres Vladimir Putin today announced, in his annual address, a constitutional overhaul, that would allow him to remain supreme leader for life – demonstrating again, the great human frailty.
In March 2018 the National Peoples Congress of China approved the removal of the two-term limit on the presidency effectively allowing Xi Jinping to remain in power for life.
The Communist world dictatorship continues unabated.

Reading history books of the Cromwellian revolution in Britain, this fragile thing called democracy is not easily held onto. Human frailties will always get in the way.
In Australia we continue the exaltation of our Prime Minister to such dizzy heights that he can’t leave the country for a moment. He must be in attendance to handle all situations which is a completely false narrative. We have an army of bureaucrats, officials, ministers and industrial, community and military leaders who could easily handle virtually any situation. We have this picture painted by the propaganda media that the only person capable (in his personal superman outfit) must always be in attendance to save the nation.
This narrative painted by the propaganda media is to further justify the communist world dictatorship.

Freedom with responsibility is the antidote to dictatorship. Hiding behind the secret ballot are the seeds of dictatorship. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can always be assured of Paul’s vote. Socialism (Communism) relies on this frailty – envy. In fact Communist propaganda uses all human frailties to achieve its purpose.

The other day I wrote about my exhausted and constantly overexcited adrenal. “If only they would leave us alone”.

Freedom must be fought for and won by each successive generation or it will be lost.
England, the birthplace of the Westminster limited constitutional system, has a colourful history of tyrants and dictators, whether they be revolutionaries like Cromwell, or dictatorial monarchs like Henry or John. In fact, King Charles 1st as monarchical dictator, laid the ‘seeds of  the Cromwellion revolution, with his refusal to allow parliament to function, nor he representing the people.

Wrestling power from the dictator – devolution – has been something that has had to be done many times. Russia and China, and other dictatorships (whether political, theocratic, or more recently technocracy), will all have to learn this lesson: “freedom” only ever exists when the individual is morally responsible.

So to start!
Active resistance towards tyranny is the first. I recently received an email in regard to individuals who resisted tyranny. They received significant ‘fines’ as a consequence of their resistance but have quickly been vindicated by the consequences of the recent fires. The fines won’t be returned because that would be an instant acknowledgement of a wrong done by the bureaucrats (fascists) in charge.

The yellow vests in France, the ongoing demonstrations in Hong Kong, the call for another referendum in Scotland, are all indicators of resistance towards tyranny.
A federal system in Britain would go a long way to appeasing the calls for independence. We, unwisely, have a federal system but don’t insist on utilising it at every opportunity.

Management of parks and public lands should be a local issue. By handing power of management to central government we don’t accept personal responsibility, in fact we avoid it. This is what is lacking. The Murray Darling Basin Plan is another example of handing power to a central authority instead of being managed locally. Constitutionally the whole MDBPlan concept is unsafe. The states are under such significant financial emasculation that they dare not move outside the box for fear of reprisals. Federation (especially the powers vested in the state) must again be fought for or it will be lost to a dictatorship.
This may sound quite dramatic but it is a realistic appraisal of the predicament we, as a nation, find ourselves in.

In Switzerland their system of federalism rotates the role of Prime Minister every year. The position of prime minister is given no pre-eminence among the federal council. Their communities are regularly consulted using the referenda system. Vesting powers solely at the feet of the ‘President for life’ may be worth ‘reconsidering’ for these dictatorships in light of such reliance on the integrity of a single individual. Power should be disbursed as much as possible.
Constitutional authorities may argue against this position. That in itself is a healthy sign. Open debate, argument and discussion are vital to a free people. This is why the stifling of free speech, which has been a policy of all major parties for at least 30 years, must be actively resisted and overcome. Ideas, debate, consideration, running the experiment, are all part of being a free people. Freedom doesn’t come from handing power to a “dictator for life”, it is lost.

No comments

The Long Lever of Technology
I started writing a list of the available technology at my fingertips to produce this blog and also our video forums. It is formidable and has occurred over a relatively short period of time. Nowadays filming and ‘streaming live’ is almost normal – ‘warts and all’. So the long and arduous task of editing film, which could take perhaps 30 or more hours for one hour of footage, is avoided almost completely. And then of course there is the medium of the Internet which allows almost instantaneous communication of the output of this work.

Now what has this got to do with anything that concerns readers? It is this – that film as a communication medium is relatively young and yet now it’s available for everyone who has a computer and an Internet connection. Purchasing a media outlet historically would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Now it is at everyone’s fingertips.

Manufacturing is no different. Industrial technology has come so far that a handful of people are capable of running an entire factory. This has significant ramifications. We are at a crossroads because of technology. Manufacturing is dominated across the globe by powerhouses such as China and Korea. Weapons manufacturing is dominated by America, Russia and perhaps other European countries. The point to note about weapons is that we have the capacity to obliterate the entire planet. Manufacturing, even using the powerhouse countries only, is sufficient to provide an abundance for everyone on the planet.

The working of technology has driven us to the edge of the abyss. We are custodians, or stewards, of this technology and, either place the output of all of this technological on the edge of a cliff so that it can be thrown off, or, we need to reconsider our current method of distribution. This rampant industrialisation is an abuse of process. Once our basic needs are met, industry should be able to be turned off. What causes us not to be able to turn industry off is the existing distribution system – money and money creation – or more correctly described as debt.

Over the last couple of years North American has been holding a BIG conference – basic income guarantee. The papers presented are centred around a tax based guaranteed income for those not required in the workforce. Technology has removed the onerous burden of work from the back of man. Machines and robots can now perform these tasks, almost automatically.


The question that needs to be answered is: “what would be an equitable distribution system look like?”
Douglas answered this question with the ‘national dividend’ and ‘consumer price discount’. Dividend, as the word implies, is an unfettered payment provided for all. It is not a dole from a tax base.

My thoughts about puritanism – if you do not work you shall not eat.
Who owns the natural resources of the world? If you answered with a name similar to Rothschild, I would gather that you believe an individual who happens to have manoeuvred their way into a position of strength does actually own the resource.
We are only ever custodians, or stewards of the earth. The assets or resources, at best, should be managed on behalf of the community. If it’s a coal deposit which feeds into an electrical power generation, then once the costs of extracting the coal are met, why should profit even come into the equation, this only goes to add further to the final cost of electricity to the so-called benefit of the ‘individual’ who claims ownership of the asset, whether personally owning outright or through shares in a limited company.

We are social beings no question about it. We work together utilising all forms of solar energy (none worked for), raw materials (none produced by us but rather extracted and refined) and technology (our cultural inheritance) to produce finished products. Labour is becoming less and less relevant to the production of material goods or wealth. Harnessing energy and utilising our collective cultural inheritance are the main producers of material goods, or wealth.

The question that must be answered here is: “Who Owns This Cultural Inheritance?” The answer may look something like “everyone equally”.

When I wish to purchase a significant item I may go to the bank and borrow money to complete the purchase. Under existing financial rules I will have to pay this money back (plus interest) out of future income . What if, when the items are produced, the community would be issued dividends to a proportional value of the lack of purchasing power to buy the items? If this was so, costs would have the potential to be liquidated at point of sale which we cannot do at the moment. Debt would become a thing of the past.

While what I have presented is an abstraction, this abstraction is so feared by the “money power” that the Communist Chinese regime saw fit to name their surveillance system “social credit”, with the purpose of discrediting the name.

Systems should be made to serve man and not man to serve systems.

No comments

I found I could not easily have “down time” when I read today’s news. Whether it’s weather, politics, education, finance, economics, we are kept in a constant state of anxiety. So, my response was to turn away so that I may have downtime to rest my overworked adrenal. Each day I try to find time to read something. Today I read, only once, an encyclical by Pope Pius XI – ‘Atheistic Communism’. It’s appropriate, because the inordinate influences over us, even though I try and avoid them, are generally atheistic communist propaganda, whether it comes from the mainstream media – (liberal and socialist working in tandem), or social media. Why are we kept under such a constant state of heightened anxiety? There appears to be no rest from this onslaught, and that is its purpose, to be unrelenting.

So where is my rest? It is found in the natural world, down the beach, or in the forest, or in the garden. With dirt on my hands I’m actually absorbing minerals from the soil, breathing fresh air, and receiving my daily dose of sunshine – vitamin D. Biologically, time with nature is uplifting.
So, is the natural world really in a constant state of dialectical conflict? Marx would have us think so, but in the garden I see harmony, mutualism and peace. We don’t spray, we manage.

When I was working up in the desert we had Christmas beetles in plague proportions. We also had seasonal moths and rats and mice in plague proportions. Not so in my garden. If any number of pests becomes too many, a predator will automatically come in to balance out the numbers. It seems to be that there are these balancing forces in the nature of things. Did you know a lot of deserts around the world are as a consequence of man’s abuse of his environment?

Culture, or civilisation, achieved its high water mark by getting on, individually and in community. Culture is about building up mutual love and cooperation, not tearing it down as Dialectical Materialism (marxism and laissez-faire) determines – only power, soulless and atheistic from the start.

So, how do we ‘build on’ from our inherited legacy, rather than tear it apart? The first would be to look for ‘the real’, rather than ‘the abstract’.
When I am out in the garden I am available to talk with my neighbour. Some of our best discussions have been across the fence. The other day a neighbour’s son came across to help (supervise) me unload the trailer. He was there for more than one hour and we talked about many things including family. All families have skeletons somewhere and need our prayers. This young man and I agreed to pray for all our neighbours. In that is an act of love towards my fellow man, we were building up our community capital, our social credit. That won’t happen if I stay indoors in front of the box.

So the garden got fed, I rested unloading the trailer, and our community is a little more cohesive. All from going out into the garden and tasting a little of the real, not abstract, world.

What difference will doing this make? In times of duress it might make all the difference: one sows, another waters, but God causes the increase.

No comments

cognitive dissonance
▶ noun [mass noun] Psychology the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change.

Today’s post is mostly around the inordinate pressure our Prime Minister finds himself in. The recent bushfires, while we are not even out of the woods yet, are being discussed at great length in the media. What is surprising is that parts of the left media have gone strangely silent, while, the conservative media is now running multiple pieces encouraging the Prime Minister to implement significant legislative change to supposedly manage the environment.

Having the legislative sausage machine produce new laws for every situation with all of the vagaries, is delusional at best, absurd to the extreme. Why do we even think that passing laws will have some effect on our environment or alleviate the threat of bushfires, when past Royal commissions have made so many recommendations and these have not been observed?

The mayor of Kangaroo Island recently tweeted: the cause of the fires was poorly managed national parks. He went on to highlight that the required ‘prescribed burns’ was never achieved and that the fuel load was enormous. So once ignited by lighting there was no way to put the fires out. We just witnessed more than 50% of the island burnt.

No doubt, it is quite difficult to clarify what is actually going on, but if you take a step back from the situation you can see a definite pattern emerge. It is one of mass manipulation to achieve certain ends, revolutionary in their origin.

My personal experience of fires in my local area brings me back to 1984. Interesting date. The hills to the east of Adelaide were aflame and the smoke was apparent to everyone within 100 kilometre radius. I witnessed the moment a fuel station ignited. My eldest son, who is now 38, was a toddler in my arms at the time.
Several weeks after the event I toured the fire zone and saw the damage. It was as if I was driving around the moon. Everything was burnt, no foliage, just the trunks of trees left standing. Within a couple of years the regrowth was prolific. I now regularly drive through that same area looking for blossom to place my bees to harvest the nectar.

The fuel load is enormous. Should it ever get going again, with the wrong wind direction, Adelaide’s outskirts would be under significant threat and very difficult for people to manage. So the task before us all is one of adaption.
We can’t change the weather. If the temperatures are extreme, and the wind direction and speed is adverse, we will have more fires. Paying more taxes, or having a more centralised government, won’t change the situation one iota.

I could go on here about providing potential solutions for fire management, but that is not the real question. The real questions are: How do we orientate our thinking to decipher fact from propaganda? How do we identify the source of propaganda at its origins?

The title, or subject of today’s blog is cognitive dissonance: – attempting to reconcile inconsistent thoughts, decisions or attitudes. It is a psychological method to confuse – brainwashing. Saving the environment by promoting firestorms. Achieving better government by handing power to world authorities. Securing freedoms by promoting monopolies. All irreconcilable to each other. Safe schools is also another example of cognitive dissonance.

Centralised government in all its many forms, i.e. communism, fascism, monopoly-capitalism (laissez-faire, liberal-democracy), are all dictatorships and will never provide a solution for securing freedoms, achieving better government, or saving the environment. Their philosophy is orientated around materialism – dialectics. Conflict is their method to progress. But it is not how mankind develops. Individuals, not as a collective but as independent entities of single people, is where creativity is nurtured. The collective can do no better than follow its primal instinct and follow each other over a cliff.

I can’t even collect my thoughts to write this blog unless I set myself apart. Too much background distraction and I can’t clarify or place into the written form, my thoughts. I have to set myself apart. All my study and observation are usually by myself. I am fortunate that I have a quiet place I can go to, to think, to consider, to logically place my thoughts down in writing. If I just process my thoughts without consideration like a sausage machine, then all I am doing is responding, not considering, like a trained parrot. This causes me to consider our methods of education. If our children being educated, are tested to the amount of their retention of what they being instructed, then, is not this the same thing? Real education is about following thoughts through to conclusion.

The scientific method substantiates or disapproves a theorem. The key is ‘to pursue to substantiate or disprove’.
So, will I achieve better government by handing more power to the world socialist dictatorship? Has it ever happened in the past? Can it be demonstrated to be working successfully in any country? Has there ever been individuals of such high calibre that they could be trusted with dictatorship? Will offering this dictatorship on a world scale achieve the results desired?

It’s ironic when it is put in this fashion that the obvious answer to all these questions is no, never! So we need to come back to what does work, what has worked in the past, what we would expect to work (as we put the necessary steps in place) so that it can be substantiated progressively as we move forward. But also, what does moving forward actually mean? Does it mean change for changes sake? Does it mean that the new ways of doing things is superior to the old ways of doing things? Can we reconcile opposites to take into account both points of view? That is probably the most important question because in it are the seeds of finding the right answer.

Government and freedom appear irreconcilable. With a limited constitutional government, if the power of the government is significantly restricted to an agreed limit, then freedom with personal responsibility is possible and demonstrable. The most significant point about what I just said is “with personal responsibility”. Freedom with no responsibility is anarchy. Libertarian freedom has no moral anchor, nor does Marxist freedom (some more equal than others). So, reconciling the paradox of government and freedom requires that they be held in balance, similar to a three legged stool. If it is only two legs it will fall, but with the third leg it stabilises.

Labour and Capital appear irreconcilable. But reconciled as Douglas did with Social Credit finance, they are placed in a position of balance.

Truth appears to be best understood when opposites are reconciled in balance. The false narrative which our Prime Minister finds himself in can only be found in truth. The media, working in tandem, left and right together, are doing their damnedest to hurl him and Australia with him over the cliff towards totalitarianism. He would do well to look at what works, what has worked in the past, what may work in the future. The nature of people won’t change. We all have within us these great human frailties. None can be trusted with great amounts of power – none, not even the angels.

No comments

There was a saying around the Sen Joe McCarthy era of “reds under the bed”. It was in response to denigrate any suggestion that the pervasion of Communist influences was well within the American administration. Alga Hiss, responsible for the founding of the United Nations, was deeply immersed within the American Administration and later defected to the Soviet Union. This is history. In our league archives we have an enormous amount of material to substantiate this. But the fact is, that it’s on both sides of the political coin, it’s not just one-sided coming from the socialist left.

This week my blog has been about the other side of the political coin, liberal-democracy and its outworking (philosophy) towards totalitarianism. The main stream media is not part of the answer but part of the problem. The ABC again, is not part of the answer but also part of the problem. Even the conservative commentators, if they have been significantly educated (indoctrinated) in liberal philosophy are not part of the answer but part of the problem. So I ask the question ‘where do we start’?
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – Edmund Burke
Thinking about freedom is: that I can’t just pursue freedom for myself, I must also pursue freedom for my brother. Freedom really means the ability to choose or refuse one thing at a time (with no threat to security of supply of the necessities of life).
Douglas refers to either ‘inducement’ or ‘compulsion’.
The Soviets directed significant energies against the Ukraine peasantry and starved as many as 10 millions. The compulsion was a strategic tool of brutality. So if you don’t have a sufficiency of supply of the necessities of life, you are not free at all. So this paints quite a vivid picture of where to start when we think about freedom. It’s not a free for all, but it is ‘freedom for all’, not just the elite.
Last year I spoke about Edward Bernays and his book titles “the engineering of consent” and “propaganda”. Propaganda works similarly for both sides of the political coin. Today I have some titles by Anatoly Gullikson “New Lies For Old”, and “Perestroika Deception”. I have managed to find and place both PDFs into our archives. The stories are the same, one of public manipulation and re/mis-direction through propaganda.

As a free people is not easy to consider the main stream media, governmental information outlets from the ABC, to universities, to radio Australia, and commercial stations, as providing us with a very sanitised and specifically directed stream of information to ensure our thinking is controlled. George Orwell referred to this in his novel 1984 as NewSpeak.

The “art of war” by Sun Tzu, while only a short booklet, goes to great depths of showing the power of ‘propaganda’ – deception – false thinking and how powerful it can be. So it really is a strategic art-form. With effective propaganda the enemy does not have a clue as to your real purpose.

I sometimes receive emails with the heading “by way of deception”. It’s also the same thing, to change the abstraction that is painted in my mind with propaganda, and it ‘is’ an abstraction although it feels very real. It can be overcome but this requires turning away and engagement with the real world, the sensible world, the world that we touch and smell and feel.

So where are we with climate?
Yesterday was 40°.
It’s interesting because after a period of extended heat, you acclimatise, you adjust, you adapt.
I spent 11 years on and off working in the Simpson Desert. During the average summer every day is 42°. I remember vividly an extended period of about three weeks (21 days) while I was up there and my memory tells me it was 47° everyday – Jan 2004. My memory could be telling lies, but, it paints quite a distinct picture. At that high temperature, over extended periods, the workforce was starting to go batty, including me.
I would, as a matter of work practice, as soon as I got off the plane jump into my car, go to the beach and get into the water. It seemed to undo all of that built up stress. I reversed this procedure as I was heading back towards work – the last thing I would do was get in the water and then I would get onto the plane to go to work. It seemed to assist me in adapting to these extended periods of high temperature. Adaption is the key.

People live in the desert. Other people live in the polar regions where it is bitterly cold. Variations of almost 100°C. Mankind is well capable of adapting to climate change of 1 or 2 degrees. We do not need to hand over our freedoms for the socialist UN to manage because of the abstraction called ‘climate change’.

No comments

Cui bono – “to whom is it a benefit?”, is a Latin phrase about identifying crime suspects.
Today’s headlines are all beating the drum for the same end purpose, or policy. Whether it is the stifling of free speech with Prof Peter Ridd and Gerd Schroder-Turk, (the federal government (Liberal) ensuring that the universities will go to great lengths to cripple any dissenting view of the preferred narrative, that climate change is real and must be addressed), OR reinforcing that the existing weather we are experiencing is the hottest that has ever been, (that climate change is real and must be addressed) OR the premier of Victoria warning of a unprecedented fire hazards and conditions, (that climate change is real and must be addressed), the narratives are there for a very specific reason, that climate change is real and must be addressed. The outworking of that will be new legislation to address climate change, that ‘just happens’ to be readily available, fresh off the press, that is to transfer more power to the United Nations so that they (rightly) can manage climate change on a world scale. It is totalitarianism, there is no question of that. Whether the situations are real, or malevolently generated, the result is the same. Handing more and more power to a world authority: totalitarianism.

So we come back to the point of what is real?
The fires are definitely real, but not unprecedented. Australia uses the term black Saturday, or Black Friday, or black Wednesday to mark a significant event. Between February and March 2009 the Black Saturday events resulted in 173 fatalities, again very real but not unprecedented. In the history of fires throughout the eastern states from 1851 onwards it’s always there, in fact Dorothy McKellar in her poem ‘my country’ in the fifth verse reminds us that fire is very much a part of the way of life in Australia.
There is also a significant amount of finger-pointing, for example “poor national park fuel load management, high-density living, drought conditions (always before us), and climate change”.
The thing about all these potential problems is that each one requires local communities to manage the environment as they know best. The bureaucrat sitting in Canberra or Brussels or New York would not have a clue. At best they are deluded, at worst their decisions could compound the problem. Local conditions, topographical characteristics of the area, available community resources, understanding of historical precedents, all go to building a case of ‘how to best manage the problem’. And to make a decisions for all different areas as a standard operating procedure is dangerous, in fact could be quite destructive. Devolution is where I am heading on this, that management of local problems is best done locally.

This is really important when you consider that inner-city living people making decisions on how best to manage your country or rural or National Park areas is absurd, selfish and emotional. Their personal experience of the issues involved is limited, fragmented and at best abstract. Whereas the local people experience their own environment on a daily basis. So the inner-city living city folk need to manage their own business first, otherwise it’s not real, it’s only an abstraction.
The outworking of this abstraction is possibly the current firestorms.
You can’t be free if you are not responsible and hold a moral position. If you are not responsible someone else will be. If you are not moral then what you do may affect other people negatively.
So what does ‘social credit’ have to say about all this? What is the natural law of the universe that we have to look for to answer this problem?

How do people best get on?
In the case of the locals CFS – country fire service – their experiences of fire situations is paramount to an understanding of what is needed. Obviously the volunteers from the local community (as they make any decisions will affect the locals), they will be held responsible, so they will always put the best interests of the community first.

Fire management needs to be managed locally. The policy or purpose behind any plan is to make the community and their assets safe, to minimise any possible damage. So the chance of a firestorm occurring is lowered (in the risk factor) from ”probable”, with high fuel loads, high temperatures, high winds; to “possible” by reducing the fuel loads, and more firebreaks, and more cold burns as part of fire training during the cooler months. This actually makes sense to my mind, but it’s not the purpose of this article to provide solutions. The purpose of this article is to direct our thinking to the bigger picture of how to manage issues and get the results you desire. Obviously a central planning authority operating from Brussels or New York or Peking won’t give you the results you hope to achieve. In fact the results were seeing at the moment could be attributed more to Brussels or New York or Peking, than the local CFS and community. This is because decisions are taken out of their hands and placed in higher and higher authorities which is the very opposite of what is needed. So the answer in my view is one of responsibility, and the moral aspect is also pursued in that: the effect of the ‘decisions made’ have to take into account “what is possible” for each person, each family and each community – devolution – it can only be effective by being done locally.

No comments

The Dialectic and The Real World
The reading done over the break showed me a bigger picture of how dialectics work. The philosophy was obscure to my thinking, in that the monopoly capitalist was some distance from the (supposedly) conservative thinkers. This was my fatal mistake.

The London School of Economics, and other significant institutions (Stanford, Harvard etc.), support ‘both’ abstractionist thinkings – Marxism and Liberal-Democracy (libertariansim – lassie-faire-capitalism). By supporting both thinkings, the dialectic is reinforced. Marxism (supposedly representing the best interests of labour) and Liberal-Democracy (again supposedly representing the best interest of capital), are in constant conflict.
The movie ‘North and South’, depicted this historic tension between labour and capital and was never resolved.
The significant point to make about this dialectic is that they: the abstract thinkers, are both in favour of dismantling society to create a utopia.
Another unfortunate truth to come to grips with is that most seminaries are also supporting this same dialectical narrative. Whether it is ‘end times’ or ‘liberal-democracy and marxism’, the dialectic is there as a false reality.

When the rubber hits the road, all these utopias are a tyranny. Marxism and Liberal-Democracy are both totalitarian. The dominance hierarchy, as referred by Prof Jordan Peterson many times, is ‘this’ slave empire.
So, in order to come out of this with a way of thinking to respond to these tyrannies, you’ve got to visualise, at least I have to, the graph: on the left is totalitarianism in all its many forms, on the right is freedom, further to the right is anarchy. This area of freedom which is where I wish to concentrate on, reinforces to me, that freedom is not a free for all. It requires personal responsibility and morality. Otherwise we have anarchy or totalitarianism.

Labour and Capital need to find resolution to the conflict – both and – as Iain McGilchrist has written and also other Christian thinkers. Douglas resolved this conflict in the most significant way, by going to the seat of power and placing that power at the foot of the individual with the National Dividend. Balancing money – (spending power) as an accurate “form of measurement” of the productive capacity of the Nation.

So What of the Bushfires?
Again, the dialectic is there if you look for it. Green (Communism) policy has been one of returning land management to its natural state, with the significant buildup of fuel on the ground. This has produced the environment for wildfires.
Liberalism, on the other hand, responds to the outworking of these wildfires with the promise of implementation of Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development to respond to climate change. This means world government exercised through the UN.
The conflict produces the desired result, totalitarianism.

What is the correct response?
The National Parks have historically been managed by controlled burns (cold – out of season – burning) and also allowing cattle in to reduce the fuel load. There has also been fire breaks and other strategies. Local knowledge is paramount. So the locals know best how to manage their environment. By allowing a central authority to plan remotely, producers the disaster as we see. A new tax and world government won’t provide any solution at all.

Decentralising administration, local knowledge, and the opportunity to exercise that knowledge to prevent wildfires is the answer. But you have to clearly understand the purpose, or policy, of both, liberal democracy and Marxism. It is to hand more power to higher and higher authorities. Making all decision making remote from the locals who understand what’s going on. Totalitarianism. Now do you see?

Power Generation and Water Supply
I was sent a link the other day which carried the headline “De-Kulakisation in Australia”. Now the history of the Stalinist era kulaks was one of genocide directed towards the (supposedly) middle-class. In fact by today’s standards those people were self-reliant but close to subsistence living. Millions perished as a consequence of the policy. The key to the kulaks was their self-reliance. Starvation was the tool to control the population. We see the same in Venezuela today.
Now in Australia we are looking at the out working of policy that causes water price to increase 500% in a very short time. We also see huge rises in the price of electricity. The effect to individuals, communities and small business is that any profit previously realised is soon skimmed away to pay these higher charges. As pressure mounts viability comes into question. Debts increase, and finally businesses close.
In Victoria, the channel country, has now seen some of those channels filled in to signify they will never again hold water. Dairy, as an industry, is coming to a close in Australia.
The same can be said of manufacturing due to the instability and unreliability of electricity. The massive increases in pricing, again skimming any potential profits off of the top of industry. Viability quickly comes into question and then industries close.
This is the result of policy – purpose behind the agreements and legislation.
So it is by design, and deliberate – Malevolent.
I guess what I’m saying, is that I should not be surprised had I done my homework.

‘Remember the peasantry’: A study of genocide, famine, and the Stalinist Holodomor in Soviet Ukraine, 1932-33, as it was remembered by post-war immigrants in Western Australia who experienced it
– Lesa Melnyczuk Morgan University of Notre Dame Australia


Was the (Irish-ed) Famine genocide by the British?