A Changing Australia

1.9.11 A Changing Australia Audio- Leon Pittard

Welcome to a changing Australia. G'Day, fellow Australians, We are living in a time of change in Australia. It does not matter which direction you look. From Christmas Island in our north, to the new detention facility at Bagdad in Tasmania, From the mine fields of the Pilbarra to the Coal Seam Gas rush of the rich farming lands of the East, From the windfarms of Boorowa, to the mothballed desalination plants of our major cities, To the farmer and rural citizens who are being forced to flee their own land due to giant wind turbines and the inroads of the Coal Seam Gas industrial complex.

And all this is the new clean energy future that we are promised will bring us such prosperity. We are witnessing the greatest changes to our country for many decades. For those of us who believe we lived in a democratic nation where the government was kept in check by the constitution and the real power rested with the people, we are being awakened every day to see our powers being eroded away. We the people should have the power through our elected representative to demand change. Our representatives are to represent the majority of the electorate. But alas we live in a time of change.. We live in a time where:

Truth is being replaced with media consensus.
A time when honest scientists are witnessing our universities and institutions such as the CSIRO being the centre of the corruption of science, that they were once stewards of.
A time where the government is dictating to the people what they should believe.
A time where our countrys form government is changing. Changing from a representative government to a Facist government.
A time where free speech is being challenged, and questioned.

Freedom is the most important thing. Australians should enjoy liberty of thought and action. I am not here to put forward any political party or any group of men as the answer to the many problems we face today in Australia and in the world. I would like to suggest tonight that you are the answer. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. The bible says:

Hos 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee. John 8:32. Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Denial
Opposition
Acceptance

Think about it and you can probably see this process has occurred in your life. If you are honest and search for the truth and don't move with the majority, you will come to see what the truth is. Often the majority are wrong!

Australia divided.

The proposed introduction of the Carbon Dioxide Tax is dividing Australia. The term Carbon Pollution is used constantly, which in itself is a lie regarding CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant and is not listed by one on the Governments own website. The debate (which never happened) has moved from the scientific merits of whether or not Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) exists to the political cliché, “we must tackle climate change.” This of course is code for, we will tax you for living. All energy, all life is to be the subject of a penalty. From the breath we breath, to your lawmower's emmissions, to your cows burping, all will come under the microscope of this all inclusive invasive taxation control system. The premise of the CO2 tax is based upon a lie. Not so much Gillard and Swans lie, but the fact that the Australian Government National Pollutants Index does not list CO2 as a pollutant!

National Pollution Inventry

Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 1 10 tonnes per year
Carbon monoxide 630-08-0 1 10 tonnes per year

http://www.npi.gov.au/substances/list-of-subst.html We live in a time where the truth is irrelevant. Every day we have the PM preaching that C02 is a pollutant. If you challenge anyone on the science, the usual response is: “Well its good to do something for the enviroment anyway.” This of course is cop out language. This is often an admission that the systems might is too great to fight, and its best to just tag along. Think positive, you know, the government knows best. Lets face it. To begin with we are talking about a $12 Billion tax, this is not some small thing.

The agenda of the New World Order must move on. Move on to developing a systematic control agenda where every persons life will be monitored, categorized and controlled. This is all done under Agenda 21 using “Sustainable Development.” Oh, and if you get nervous when I mentioned A New World Order, you should, understand that this is not a 'Conspiracy Theory.' This is fact. Look at Bob Brown said only months ago. "Why shouldn't we now join vigorous moves in Europe and at the United Nations for a global people's assembly based on one person, one vote, one value?"

13.7.11 This statement is code for the Greens vision of a total control state, where every persons activity – carbon usage is monitored, restricted and costed. There is much evidence that this is there ultimate utopia, a planet controlled and run by them – the wise planners and keepers of mother earth. Listen to my audio on the Lima Agreement and the New World Order, ther are dozens of factual quotations from world leaders calling for end to national sovereignty and the development of a now.

This is no 'Conspiracy Theory', it is conspiracy fact. Resolution 5........Recognising the urgent need to bring about the establishment of a New International Economic Order based on equity, Sovereign equity, Inter-dependence and co-operation as has been expressed in the declaration and program of action on the establishment of a New International Economic Order in order to transform the present structure of economic relations. In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

Green enviromentalist.
The working class family with children who rely on Gov't rebates.
The political thinker who like centralised big government.
Those who enjoy the proposed safety of government welfare.
Proffessional planners and beurocrats.
And finally those who like to download movies from their home PC. (NBN cheerleaders)

The religion of climate change.

For most laid back Aussies, religion is not really a big part of Australian culture. Until now. For those of you who have not heard my previous podcast on the Greens Agenda, I would encourage you to listen to it as a foundation for this study. All avaible via email. Leave your address. The Green Ideology that drives the climate change alarm comes from the belief that the earth is God. The earth itself is divine.

This of course is the opposite to Christianity that understands that the earth, together with mankind is but a small part of the creation of the universe. The Greens God is often refered to as 'Gai' after the Greek goddess. In their mind anything that they perceive as hurting the earth, is guilty of sin and should be punished. Therefore any activity that mankind takes part which changes the earth or our footprint must be opposed. In a perfect Green world all of mans activity would amount to no change from the natural, or original. This of course is ideology and not reality.

The central doctrine of climate change is that mankinds use of fossil fuels has increased the output of CO2, and that this output is responsible for dangerous global warming. To the global warming believers this doctrine is accepted regardless of the science. (We can examine the science aspect later) It is a belief and a matter of faith, that is an intergral part of their ideology, their religion.

Therefore any activity that man produces is responsible for 'destroying the earth – their god.' This is why the global warming faith is a religion. Just as in centuries past people were beheaded, burnt at the stake and killed in all manner of ways because they did not believe, what the church taught was fact. In like manner today we have the 'Eco Facists' calling for the execution of the non believers or as they are being called the 'deniers'. What is this reference to the 'deniers'? Well this is a tactic to isolate the unbelievers and class them with those who deny that the Jews were killed by Hitler during WW2. This of couse is a deliberate ploy, a phychological warfare weapon.

Used to try and intimidate people who may be undecided from listening to anything except the carefully scripted mainstream news. If you are interested in the truth, you need to get your information from the alternative resistance media, from those that question the status quo. After all, isn't this what the media is supposed to do? Keep the government accountable to the people? But today to a majority extent we have a compliant media, that merely sings the government tune. The ABC really needs to 'come out' and become the 'propoganda department' of the government. For centuries collectivist governments have sought to control the masses and squash individual thought and action. Under the New World Order no independence will be tolerated! Just ask Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Gadafi, Mabarak etc.

All these become marked men as they chose an independent action. It was for this reason that the Son of God came to this earth to teach us that we are to be set free from the bondage of men and governments, the shackles of controlled thinking we are to be free agents. Listen to what he said:

Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

Freedom of thought and action is the greatest thing. Religious and individiual liberty is everything and must be guarded at all costs. "... Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. …." H. G. Wells, in his book entitled The New World Order (1939) This is the premise of Sustainable Development: That individual human wants, needs and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of planners. According to the church of global warming:

God = the earth. Commonly known as 'Gai'.
Sin = currently it is CO2 and anything that changes the face of the earth, ie: roads, mining, clearing, dams, fishing, hunting, farming etc.
Messiah = Government which introduces laws to control the people. Gillard, Rudd, Greg Combet, Penny Wong, Brown, Milne etc. These are the Saviors of the earth through intrusive policy.
Priests = Global warming alarmists like Tim Flannery, Ross Garnaut, who are paid to propogate the doctrines and lies of the alarmists. Not to mention a compliant media that have to a large extent accepted the faith partly because it feels good, and sounds right. And secondly because the vast majority of mainstream TV, radio and newspaper media is staffed by a current generation of left wing Green ideologs that have been schooled in the faith by the believing Universities. (On the 28th July Tony Blair made a visit to Australia, and held press conferences promoting Gillards Carbon Tax. Whay he failed to mention was that he is being pain 1 million + $per annum to promote Global Warming and Climate change by a Green energy company. At the same time Gillard refused to meet with the current President of Checkoslavakia because he is a denier)
Believers = all those who follow the official doctrine and its solutions. These people are willing to sacrifice money, careers, development, progress, having children, time and most importantly, an individuals liberty in a perceived effort to save the church and hence the earth. These people are wanting all others to put aside individuality and freedom of thought for the good of the church and the earth. A small group of discredited scientists who stand to profit from the official doctrine belong to this group.
Unbelievers = 'The Deniers.' These are those who disagree with the stated consensus, all those who dare to express an opinion or offer facts contrary to the government position. These people are a problem to the church, as the dissemination of false doctrine is really dangerous to the world at large. Scientists who demand that the science is not settled belong to this group.

Tithe = Tax from the people. The concept is that the people of the earth are the problem, and that they must be penalized for living and performing any activity. By using CO2 as the basis of sin, and activity involves expressing CO2, breathing, growing, using electricity, using a car, a lawnmower, all farming espescially the production of animals ie: cattle, sheep etc.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/latest/8916664/carbon-tax-billions-...

$599 million of our taxes. WA 28/2/2011.

Even the Wall Street Journal reveals that this Global Warming ideology is a religion: Wall Sreet Journal 17/7/11 - “It is if you believe in the theology that loathes carbon fuels and wants government to allocate the means of power production. In a speech Thursday, Ms. Gillard vowed to press forward with cap and tax and said that her convictions are "very deeply held." We'll see if her government can survive them.”

Anarchy, which means no central government.
A Constitutional Representative government, which is a system where there is a government but all productive property is privately owned and the government is limited by a strong constitution to protecting the life, liberty and property of every citizen. The governments consists of representatives voted by the people that are chosen to reflect the interests and will of the majority of their electorate. This was originally Australia's form of government.
Fascism/Nazism, which is a system where there is nominal private ownership of the means of production, but total government control of every aspect of business and life. The government is aggressively nationalist. There is close collaboration between big government and big business. Everything is done via collective organisations. Censorship and controlled media is the norm. Individuals are largely powerless.
Communism, which is a system where government owns all productive property and has total control of all aspects of business and life. The collective owns and rules everything, including the media. Communists are generally aggressive internationalists.

It is my proposal that we in Australia are witnessing in our generation a change in our form of government from a Constitutional representative government, to a Fascist Dictatorship government. This of course is done by stealth in the plain light of day, hiding where everyone can see it. I will use several points to establish that this change is well under way oblivious to most everyday Australians.

Fascist government defined.

Nominal private ownership, but total govt control over what you can do with your land and business. Eg: Native vegetation laws administered through local councils etc. Agenda 21. Sustainable Development.
Close collaboration between Govt and big business. Eg: Mining tax. 3 companies decide tax behind closed doors.
Everything done via collective, through central government. Communications through the NBN.
Censorship and media control are the norm. Internet filter, media regulation: TV, radio, press.

Free speech in a changing Australia?

Professor Clive Hamilton - The Scary politics of Climate Change 15.11.07

“Environmentalists have often over-stated the effects of environmental decline. The risks of nuclear power, though considerable, have been exaggerated. The dangers of urban air pollution have been inflated. The threats posed by DDT, lead pollution and pesticides, while significant, have usually been presented as much scarier than they actually are. And the likely effects of genetically modified crops have been blown out of proportion. The purpose of political exaggeration is to stimulate stronger emotional responses, usually fear, and therefore make us more likely to act in the way desired. Very few people, even among environmentalists, have truly faced up to what the science is telling us.

This is because the implications of three degrees, let alone four or five, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of ‘emergency’ responses including the suspension of democratic processes.” Our national anthem says that we must rejoice for we are young and free. But questions are being raised about how free we really are and if this freedom will continue.

Ian Chubb.

Joe Kelly The Australian 22/6/2011 AUSTRALIA'S chief scientist Ian Chubb has waded into the highly charged debate surrounding climate change, arguing people who disagree with the scientific evidence supporting human-induced global warming do not "deserve equal weight". (Animal Farm. George Orwell. All animals are created equal, but some are created more equal than others) Professor Chubb yesterday used the stage at the National Press Club in Canberra to say the debate on climate change had been "appalling" and "hysterical", and to label the scientific literacy of politicians as lacking. He yesterday took aim at the media's coverage of the climate change debate, saying it had not conveyed the science in a "proper and balanced" way. "I think attacking people because they're giving a message is appalling.

I think some of the language that's used is bordering on the hysterical," he said. "I've seen literature that suggests (more than) 90 per cent of experts in climate science are all of one view. And that is that the planet is warming and humans have intervened to accelerate that process. "So somebody who comes along and says it's not true doesn't deserve equal weight. They deserve to have their views considered if they've gone through the proper and scientific process and it's ended up in the peer review literature." Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce contested Professor Chubb's reasoning. "He must be proposing that both sides of an argument have the capacity and the funding to present their views. Otherwise we're not talking about debate," he said. Very prominent alarmists have said that coal company executives should be in jail, others suggest they should be denied freedom to speak, and they continually they use the term "denier" which to many people is far more offensive than "fascist". This is OK of course.

Richard Glover. SMH.

The Dangers of Bone Headed Beliefs. June 6. 2011. “Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies. Not necessarily on the forehead; I'm a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ''Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?'' Listen, friends this is blatant anti semetic language, but being used against those who think different from the collective. You see Fascist thinking is that the government has control and your thinking must be bought into line with what is being propogated.

Everyone lives in fear of speaking his mind as there may be someone in this room about to go and report to the authorities, which will come and arrest me or you for daring to express freedom of thought. Notice the headline. “The dangers of bone headed beliefs” You see we are, the deniers are painted as being a danger to society. I was recently in a local hospital and a nurse from Chekoslavakia was attending to me, and I began to ask her about what it was like living in a communist society. She looked at me and hesitated. I could see that this hesitation was automatic, she was wary, she was suspicious, about my intentions. She said it was terrible, “the walls had ears” she said. You trusted no one and never spoke what you thought for fear of arrest, beatings and death. Many of her family died for daring to question the authorities. THE "debate" over a carbon tax in Australia has become high farce.

Jill Singer. Herald Sun 22.6.11

Really? I'm prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics - put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide. You wouldn't see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing. Now, this clearly is placing the thought into the believers minds. Rememeber who are the believers? Those who accept the government position on climate change. But wait this is only the test case, this policy is designed to divide us as a people, it is designed to expose our mindset towards government control over our lives.

See the suggestion here is: that the unbelievers should be gassed as were the Jews in the past. You see the suggestion is that the unbelievers are the cause of the problems in society. This is no different thinking to those in the past that thought that because I am a Protestant, and protest against the Roman Catholic Church (which was a governing power) I should be burn't at the stake, or because I am a Jew I should be gassed and the world will be a better place without me and with me dead. You see friends we have the past, where we can see the Jews were tattooed and gassed for being different, and this is exactly the language being used openly in the press to isolate and denigrate the deniers.

Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Rev 13:15-17 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. The end game is that if you do not worship this beast power you should be killed. But before that you must receive a mark in your forehead or your arm. Sound familiar? This is because you are such a danger to society (a denier) you should be gassed and we won't have to listen to you anymore. The children. But wait its not that we are worried about you, it is our children that we must protect from you. Ahh yes the children, the little children are always bought into it. Let me show you the mindset of these people that want to control our society, through the enviremental agenda.

Forget about Koalas and hugging trees, these people want control of your children. I was studying some material on a website called JoNova.com, she is an Australian scientist which was formerely a Green but now an unbeliever, and this is a contribution from a true believer. This offers a true insight into the mindset of those on the enforcing side of the climate change debate. A post from Tim. We were having a good laugh at the posts at work (from both sides of the “debate”) so keep it coming. I though we ( the under 30′s at work anyway) should make you aware that no matter what side is right those in the “skeptics” camp are being change managed.

You will go through many stages of this but will most likely not make it to the end state of acceptance before you die. Chin up though, we have your children and will make sure they live in a carbon constrained economy. Also take comfort that they will not want to smoke cancer-sticks, they will tolerate non-white Australians and refugees, they will not pray to Jesus to save them and they won’t believe in an intelligent designer of the universe. Love and kisses … So this is the mindset of the Greens Labour coalition that are governing this country today. We want your children and we will get them.

Primary school children terrified by climate change.

Daily Telegraph 9/7/11

PRIMARY school children are being terrified by lessons

claiming climate change will bring “death, injury and destruction” to the world unless they take action.On the eve of Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s carbon tax package announcement, psychologists and scientists said the lessons were alarmist, created unneeded anxiety among school children and endangered their mental health.

Climate change as a “Doomsday scenario” is being taught in classrooms across Australia.Resource material produced by the Gillard government for primary school teachers and students states climate change will cause “devastating disasters”. There it is the open propoganda from a Fascist Dictator government to the children. Indoctrination, calculated to scare the children into confomity, and distrust of their parents. There have been reports of surveys being sent home with the children, asking questions like:

Do your parents believe in climate change.
Are you willing to cut your emmissions by 10% to help save the planet.
Do you support your governments attempts to tackle climate change.
Do your parents support penalties against those who disagree with the government.

The idea is to train the children to become reporters for the government.Children take back the report innocently not knowing that their report forms a part of a database profile of the parents. Couple this ith googles connection with intelligence agencies and the government is compling a profile on each of us. You Google New World Order, and your IP address and name is immediately recorded on the watch list. Just as if you Google 'How to make a bomb.” sic. You are immediately on a terrorist watch list.

Well guess what, the new terrorist is the denier, those who do not accept the government position on AGW. The lobby group called by the name of 10/10, produced a series of TV commercials targeting those who did not conform. The idea was to intimidate the weak and wavering into compliance. The threat from the televised commercials was death. In one commercial school children were given the ultimatum of compliance or 'no pressure' being blown up in front of their school mates. In another commercial, a group of office workers was given the same ultimatum of conformity to the new regime or face 'no pressure' death by being blown up in front of their collegues. Blood and guts covering everyone. No pressure eh? Welcome to the New World Order. The more telling response by 10:10 came from the organization’s founder in an interview with the Daily Telegraph shortly after the controversial video went viral. “We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change,” Franny Armstrong said.

Carbon cops will have to clean their own house.

Gemma Jones From:

The Daily Telegraph July 13, 201112:00AM HUNDREDS of "carbon cops" will police compliance with the carbon tax and will have the power to inspect premises, take companies to court and impose financial penalties.

Fascisim and the media - Monkton's tour.

In a free society, any person who would like to share his view about say, climate change should be given the right to do so, unhindered, and without obstruction and persecutuion. Not so today in Australia. Lord Christopher Monkton recently embarked upon a tour of the country which begun by mass condemnation of his use of the word fascist when refering to Ross Garnaut. The majority of the media then went on to attack Monkton on anything they could find. His tour has been dogged by closures of booked venues and mass telephone campaign by Get Up against him and more importantly his views. This however, is not about Monkton, this is about you, this is about your liberties being taken away. This is about you being able to disagree with the government and voice your opinion or what you understand to be a fact.

Not worthy of the name “academic”

Andrew Bolt – Thursday, June 30, 11 A scandalous attempt by “academics” not just to gag free speech, but to counter inconvenient opinions with a cowardly ban rather than an argument: More than 50 Australian academics have signed a letter urging Western Australia’s Notre Dame University to cancel a speech by British climate change sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton…

... a letter signed by more than 50 academics has called on the university to bar the controversial speaker

, saying “he stands for the kind of ignorance and superstition that universities have a duty to counter”. Really? I thought universaties were there to teach people to be thinkers? Not just reflectors of other peoples thoughts. Or have our universaties become avenues of government policy?

Andrew Bolt – Friday, July 01, 11

What a shameful surrender to the enemies of free speech:

THE Brisbane Broncos Leagues Club has withdrawn its venue from the Lord Christopher Monckton speaking tour (The Age June 1 2011.)

of Australia after complaints from its members. The club’s general manager, Geoff Kuehner, confirmed the withdrawal last night. Tour organiser Andy Semple said Mr Kuehner had told him the decision was because of member complaints and a discussion with the club board. The strategy. The warmists’ strategy is two-fold: first, to deny there’s a debate by refusing to actually have one; and, second, to avoid subjecting their ludicrous claims to scrutiny by the informed. In fact, you can generally assume that if Garnaut or a Gillard discuss global warming with a journalist, they have judged that journalist to be a propagandist, a dupe or otherwise harmless. Chris Uhlmann would be a rare exeception, but only because he’s with the ABC’s 7.30, which Labor does not dare boycott. Hence attempts by some on the Left to drive him off. This fear of debate should tell you everything about the warmists and their theory. But give credit to those few that do dare meet their critics.

Bob Brown censorship.Would you trust Bob Brown to run your media?

Andrew Bolt – Thursday, July 14 Greens leader Bob Brown has this afternoon called for an inquriy not only into media ownership, but the opinions newspapers publish.

Julia Gillard is open to the idea:

Ms Gillard says she was disgusted by events in the Britain and she is not surprised some parliamentarians want a review of the media. “I anticipate we’ll have a discussion amongst parliamentarians about this,

about the best review and the best way of dealing with all of this,”

she said. I am shocked to hear the leader of a major political party propose something so dangerous, so threatening to free speech. And to this this within an hour of some in the Canberra press gallery virtually demanding of Gillard advice on how to help her… Do not doubt just what Brown has in mind as he cynically exploits the scandal that’s engulfed the Murdoch-owned News of the World in Britain to muffle conservative media outlets and journalists, and rig the debate more in the favor of the Left. He says he does not want an inquiry just into media ownership, and the determination of a “fit and proper” newspaper owner - the very kind of restrictions which have allowed the Gillard Government to intimidate TV proprietors. He also made clear he wants a more Left-friendly coverage. He said he wants to ensure newspapers are “even handed and unbiased and to a degree selfless”. By whose standards, Bob? “Unbiased” the way the ABC is “unbiased”?

He says he wants to the inquiry to tackle “‘the narrow range of media opinion and the intrusion of opinion into the news columns”. What narrow opinion, Bob? Are you worried about the fact that The Age has not a single on-staff conservative as a columnist? That the ABC has not a single conservative host of a TV current affairs show? Or is it the conservative voices which trouble you, especially those in the Murdoch papers of what you call the “hate media”? Brown wants better rules to guard “privacy”, which could make it harder to tell you important facts about public figures that may safeguard your democracy. In a healthier age, these suggestions would be seen as the far-fetched demands of a closet totalitarian. But Brown is powerful, Gillard is desperate and despises the Murdoch papers who’ve questioned her policies, and the “elite’ media has rarely been so supine. Worse, News has stained its reputation and is weaker than it’s been in years to defend itself.

And, of course, those famous defenders of free speech have gone only too silent since the rise of this Labor Government. No one knows that better than me. These are suddenly dangerous times for those who value free speech. The Murdoch haters may well gloat over the company’s shame in Britain, but it’s their free speech that is now threatened, too. A word of warning to them. The next prime minister is also certainly going to be Tony Abbott. Would they trust him with the powers that Bob Brown now demands? Would they trust, say, me with the authority Brown demands for a regulator policing bias? Be very careful what you wish for. Be especially careful of the rise of the new totalitarianism.

A note on Ross Garnaut.

Particularly his statements and claims about the danger to Australia’s environment in general and the Great Barrier Reef, the Murray River system, Ningaloo Reef and Kakadu National Park, in particular—all Australian natural icons. Professor Garnaut took every opportunity to stress that these treasures of the nation were under threat from our rapacious greed, made possible by our creation of CO2. While the good and gilt-edged professor was highlighting the impending loss of the Great Barrier Reef, a few thousand kilometres to the north, Lihir Gold, a mining company of which Professor Garnaut is chairman, was dumping millions of tonnes of toxic-sludge into the ocean near its mine site on Lihir Island, north of the Papua New Guinea mainland. While the good professor has making us all feel guilty every time we turn on our leaf-blower or toaster, up in Papua New Guinea, his mine was destroying about 60 square kilometres of ocean floor, and it is just getting started.

The mine has a life expectancy of 20 years so by the time it stops, toxic-waste will have destroyed coral reef and ocean life over a vast area of the Pacific. It is creating a dead-zone. While the good professor was telling us about the threat of rising sea-levels, he and his company were doing their bit (to make them rise) by dumping millions of tonnes of mine-processing residue into the Pacific Ocean. While he was telling this nation about the environmental dangers to Ningaloo Reef in Western Australia, his own Company, Lihir Gold, was destroying the reefs of the Bismarck Archipelago, on Papua New Guinea’s north-eastern approaches. For the full article go to:

http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/ross-garnaut-is-a-traitor-to

Trillateral Commission member listed as the Asia representative: AsianDivisionmembers Ross Garnaut – Senior Economic Adviser Hawke Administration Australia's Ambassador to China Chairman, Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd (PIBA) Chairman, Bank of Western Australia Ltd (BankWest) First Assistant Secretary (Head of the Division of General Financial and Economic Policy), Papua New Guinea Department of Finance Research Director of the ASEAN-Australia Economic Relations Research Project Foundation Director, Asia-Pacific School of Economics and Management Garnaut Report into Global Warming, led PM Kevin Rudd to sing Kyoto Treaty Australian of the Year 2009 Current chief adviser to Gillard government on Climate Change

http://www.takeoveroftheworld.blogspot.com/What is the Trillateral Commission?

The Trillateral Commission is one of several Globalist organizations operated by men of power. It has approx 325 members all prominent banking, business and political entities. It along with other organizations such as, The Bilderberg Group, The Council on Foreign Relations openly and covertly work for a One World Government commonly refered as The New World Order. Isn't it interesting that Australia's Ross Garnaut, the guy who is telling us we must be taxed into poverty to save the earth, is a listed member. The Trilateral Commission was founded by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski in July 1973 and is composed of approximately 325 elites in business, banking, and politics. The Trilateral Commission is propagated as being an economic cooperation between America, Europe, and Japan, but in reality is another secretive society/organization - this one specializing in creating the trilateral economic interdependence necessary to bring in the New World Order system of world currency and world governance.

They are setting up the framework/power structure necessary for these multinational banks and corporations to assume global control, dominating the world’s populations, governments, and economies. "David Rockefeller's newest international cabal [the Trilateral Commission] ... is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States …The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power — political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical.

All this is to be done in the interest of creating a more peaceful, more productive world community. What the Trilateralists truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. They believe the abundant materialism they propose to create will overwhelm existing differences. As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future." -Senator Barry Goldwater, “With No Apologies” 1979 It is for this reason that the Commission has acquired a reputation for being the Shadow Government of the West …The Trilateral Commission's tentacles have reached so far in the political and economic sphere that it has been described by some as a cabal of powerful men out to control the world by creating a supernational community dominated by the multinational corporations." Laurie K. Strand "Who's in charge—Six Possible Contenders"

A note on Priest Tim Flannery:

- Herald Sun. July 30. 2011. In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water". Check Sydney's dam levels today: 73 per cent. Hmm. Not a good start. In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009." Check Adelaide's water storage levels today: 77 per cent. In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ". Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood.

Check Brisbane's dam levels: 100 per cent full. All this may seem funny, but some politicians, voters and investors have taken this kind of warming alarmism very seriously and made expensive decisions in the belief it was sound. So let's check on them, too. In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster. As he put it: "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming ... "In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months." One premier, Queensland's Peter Beattie, took such predictions - made by other warming alarmists, too - so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayers' money on a desalination plant, saying "it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate".

But check that desalination plant today: mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned. (Incidentally, notice how many of Flannery's big predictions date from 2007? That was the year warming alarmism reached its most hysterical pitch and Flannery was named Australian of the Year.) Back to another tip Flannery gave in that year of warming terror. In 2007, he warned that "the social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally" by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff. We should switch to "green" power instead, said Flannery, who recommended geothermal - pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam. Flannery repeatedly promoted this "straightforward" technology, and in 2009, the Rudd government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin, the very area Flannery recommended.

Coincidentally, Flannery has for years been a Geodynamics shareholder, a vested interest he sometimes declares. Time to check on how that business tip went. Answer: erk. The technology Flannery said was "relatively straighforward" wasn't. One of Geodynamics' five wells at Innamincka collapsed in an explosion that damaged two others. All had to be plugged with cement. The project has now been hit by the kind of floods Flannery didn't predict in a warming world, with Geodynamics announcing work had been further "delayed following extensive local rainfall in the Cooper Basin region". “But Flannery bears much closer resemblance to a religious evangelist than a scientist. His doomsday prophecies, radical solutions and religion-like certainty are all indicators of his status as a modern-day climate prophet, rather than expert scientific advisor. It seems the Gillard Government has failed to do their research into his absurd, inaccurate and often extreme public statements before appointing him to his well-remunerated public post. Or perhaps they're just hoping we won't notice.” IPA Review Article 3.8.11. James Patterson

Eco-fascism & the Greens

by Merv Bendle. Quadrant Magazine. July 3, 2011 The parallels between the Greens and the Nazis are once again in the news, with the leading climate change skeptic, Christopher Monckton, unjustly coming under attack for his comments about the authoritarian manner in which climate change advocates seek always to prevent rational and informed debate about their outrageous claims and proposals for the de-industrialization of society. Ironically, this tactic of de-legitimizing critics was fundamental to the success of fascism.

Questions about the parallels between the radical environmentalist movement and the Nazis and fascists have generally been ignored, or even interdicted (as we have seen with the move against Monckton). This is because the Greens portray themselves as ‘progressive’ in their ideology and policies, and much of the media is sympathetic to these values and reluctant to question the self-portrayal of the Greens as being primarily concerned with nature and the environment and not state power and radical social transformation. In fact, the ideological affinity between the Green movement and fascism (and especially Nazism), is well established, and has been explored in depth in such books as How Green Were the Nazis? Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich (2005), by Franz-Josef Brüggemeier, Mark Cioc, and Thomas Zeller. As they conclude, “the green policies of the Nazis … demonstrate with brutal clarity that conservationism and environmentalism are not and have never been value-free or inherently benign enterprises” (p.14). Examples abound. At the philosophical level the prominent Nazi, Ernst Lehmann, defined National Socialism in terms of the same apocalypticism, nature-mysticism, devaluation and subjugation of humanity, and ersatz paganism (or ‘Gaia worship’, as it is now called) that can now be found in any Greens manifesto: Separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction … Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole …

This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought. (Biologischer Wille. Wege und Ziele biologischer Arbeit im neuen Reich, 1934) (Like the Greens, Lehmann was also an enthusiast for non-viable technologies, dying as the senior officer aboard the Hindenberg when it crashed and burned in 1937.) The desire to achieve a complete mobilization of society against a mortal enemy is another primary shared characteristic of the Nazis, the fascists and the Greens, and this mobilization is invariably conceived of in terms of war – e.g., against the West, the Jews, the now the modern industrial world.

As the ex-executive director of Greenpeace, Paul Gilding (who is touring Australia, supported by the ABC), makes clear in his new climate change manifesto, The Great Disruption: How the Climate Crisis Will Transform the Global Economy (2011), global warming requires that the entire world be placed on a war footing that will vastly exceed that achieved in World War II, and its targets will be every aspect of modern industrial society, ranging from the technological to the ideological and political, leaving no aspect of life unaffected.

At the level of economic theory, the statist and anti-market commitments of the Greens are the same as those of fascism and Nazism. As Peter Hay (himself a leading Tasmanian environmentalist) explains in Main Currents in Western Environmental Thought (2002): Ecological ideas appealed to the Nazis because they, too, believed that the laws of nature were immutable, and … with their economics of state-managed rather than market capitalism, they approved ecology’s opposition to the laissez-faire market. (p.184) In terms of political authoritarianism, the parallels are so obvious that the more thoughtful members of the environmental movement itself have warned against the propensity of the Greens to embrace antidemocratic and fascist methods to achieve their aims.

They insist that this tendency “demands an acute awareness and understanding of the legacy of classical eco-fascism and its conceptual continuities with present day environmental discourse” (Janet Biehl, Peter Staudenmaier, Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience, 1995, p.26). This tendency is deeply embedded in the history of environmentalism, as Hay has also conceded, “scientists who determined the agenda and values of the early modern environmental movement … developed a politics that was undemocratic, authoritarian, pessimistic, repressive, illiberal, static and closed” (p.186), and this inclination has increased, especially as the environmental movement had become more hysterical and desperate to impose its will on an increasingly recalcitrant society. In Australia, this antidemocratic and authoritarian tendency is well-developed amongst environmentalists. For example, the aspiring Green parliamentarian and prominent Sydney academic, Clive Hamilton, has made some notorious anti-democratic and demagogic observations. He is also an alarmist of

Biblical proportions

, predicting, in accordance with the frantic eco-apocalypticism of Gilding and other Green prophets of doom, a future characterized by the mass-death of hundreds of millions or even billions of people, in a climate change catastrophe a hundred or even two hundred times worse than the Nazi Holocaust, dwarfing any known loss of life in human history, including the Black Death, which wiped out half the population of Europe. Like other Greens Hamilton is extremely annoyed by the reluctance of ordinary people to accept this ridiculously overblown apocalyptic vision, and by their unwillingness to embrace the Greens’ programme of ‘unilateral economic disarmament’, as a leading American Congressman has described the effects of the carbon tax on Australia (‘Carbon tax is economic disarmament: US MP’, The Australian, 27/6/2011). Consequently, according to

Hamilton

, governments led or controlled by the Greens must “look to any possible scenario to head [the apocalypse] off, including the canvassing of ‘emergency’ responses such as the suspension of democratic processes”. Obviously, this immediately recalls the anti-democratic authoritarianism of the Nazi Party, which like the Greens also saw its mission in terms of an apocalyptic vision of the future involving a cosmic battle for the future of the earth. The parallel becomes more apparent when Hamilton’s advocacy of demagoguery is also considered. Demagoguery, of course, was an art widely practiced and perfected by the Nazis and fascists and used by them to undermine and eventually destroy democratic institutions. Demagoguery sweeps aside all attempts to conduct a reasoned debate and appeals instead to people's emotions, instincts, and prejudices in a deliberately exaggerated and manipulative fashion. Hamilton made his views here

quite explicit

, speaking about the nature of Green propaganda: “The purpose of political exaggeration is to stimulate stronger emotional responses, usually fear, and make [people] more likely to act in the way desired” by those seeking to manipulate the people. The messianic mission of the Greens apparently means that any such manipulation is justified as far as ‘saving the world’ is concerned. As Hamilton confesses: Environmentalists have often overstated the effects of environmental decline. The risks of nuclear power, though considerable, have been exaggerated. The dangers of urban air pollution have been inflated. The threats posed by DDT, lead pollution and pesticides, while significant, have usually been presented as much scarier than they actually are. And the likely effects of genetically modified crops have been blown out of proportion.

Such demagoguery is used to promote fear and emotional responses, presumably because the empirical evidence for the various claims associated with these issues is not considered sufficiently convincing in itself, and therefore must be misrepresented and exaggerated to have the desired effect. Once again the parallels with the Nazis are obvious. With the Nazis, demagoguery was used to mobilize the German people behind the Nazi programme of economic nationalization, destruction of democracy, remilitarization of society, and suppression, incarceration (and involuntary euthanasia and eventual extermination) of critics, various other unwanted people, the Jews and any other scapegoat groups who resisted the Nazi programme and were therefore moral depraved.

Similarly with the Greens, demagoguery is required to mobilize the population behind the Green programme of economic nationalization, destruction of democracy, systematic de-industrialization of society, and suppression (and future incarceration or involuntary euthanasia?) of climate change skeptics, opposition politicians and other ‘wreckers’, the ‘hate-media’, and any other scapegoat groups who resist the Greens programme and are therefore moral depraved.

Eco-fascist movements like the Greens also share with the Nazis a contempt for the ordinary person and believe that they can be manipulated by what the Nazi minister for propaganda called ‘the Big Lie’ – i.e., that the fate of the world is at stake and drastic action must be taken NOW, or all will be lost. On the basis of this Big Lie, the Greens claim, like the Nazis, to have the right to implement any policies they like, irrespective of their effects on society, the economy or the lives of the people. The Greens also share another characteristic with the Nazis. This is their eagerness to manipulate and exploit the democratic system to achieve power and implement their programme.

It is frequently forgotten that the Nazis initially came to power as a minority party within the German parliament and only then began the construction of a totalitarian state dedicated to ‘saving the world’, as they saw it, sweeping aside the political establishment, which believed naively that it could keep Hitler and his zealous followers under control. They had no idea of the extreme plans Hitler intended to implement or what catastrophes would transpire under his rule. Similarly, the Greens have now ascended to a position of great power within the federal parliament, helped there by a moribund and mortally wounded Labor government, which is desperate for Green support to hang onto power, with all the privileges this brings. Ignorant of how extremist parties like the Greens and the Nazis have operated historically Labor naively thinks it can contain the Greens and restrain their messianic ambitions.

As Bob Brown has now made clear, the Greens look forward to becoming the dominant political power in Australia, with all the potential for social, political and economic transformations that this implies. He also looks forward to the reign of one world government, placing every human being on earth under the power of a single global state system, guided, of course, by Green ideology. Rather than shooting the messenger, as with Monckton’s timely warning, the ALP and the media should spend time thinking hard about the many sinister parallels between the Greens and earlier extremist parties that Monckton has courageously pointed out.

Eco fascist blackmail

- Andrew Bolt Saturday, July 09, 2011 ONE of the things we must never lose in this country is our freedom to speak our mind. But this week many chief executives got a letter from a lobby group called GetUp, whose founding directors included Bill Shorten, now the Assistant Treasurer. Some extracts: Dear CEO, You may be aware that ... the Australian Food and Grocery Council has reportedly put its support behind a multi-million dollar campaign to fight proposed legislation to put a price on carbon pollution ... As such, it is our intention in the next few days to provide easy to use product information to our membership such that they can boycott goods and services that are linked to the scare campaign ... GetUp! has more than 570,000 members ... We’re asking companies the below questions and we’ll inform our members and the Australian public of the answers to these.

1. Do you accept the science of climate change?

2. Do you believe the Australian Government should take action to address climate change in the cheapest and most effective way possible?

3. Do you support the proposed AFGC campaign against carbon pricing?

4. If you do not support the AFGC campaigning against carbon pricing will you immediately write to the AFGC to inform them of your position and will you resign your membership ... To me, this seems close to blackmail.

Moreover, it is appalling that companies are threatened with a boycott, even if they are merely sceptical about the science of climate change - a science fiercely contested even by the greatest scientists. GetUp’s claim to have 570,000 members is a bluff. You can get listed as a member just by signing a GetUp petition. In fact, its most recent annual report says just 17,295 people gave any money to GetUp, which actually gets much of its funding from unions. But GetUp has an outsized reputation, thanks to the eagerness of journalists to treat it as the voice of the streets, and to the fact that that one of its officials, Lachlan Harris, became the media adviser of prime minister Kevin Rudd. It’s used that reputation to become a big player in a wider push to make free debate on some Leftist issues too scary for dissenters. Another example. The GetUp website ran several appeals to members to disrupt the current speaking tour of global warming sceptic Christopher Monckton, publishing a list of his venues, and particularly highlighting the Brisbane Broncos Leagues Club.

The club received more than 100 messages from people it took to be club members, and panicked, cancelling Monckton’s booking. GetUp then deleted its website appeals, making the Broncos decision look more like a genuine grassroots protest. But it’s not just GetUp that’s now trying to shut down debates or delegitimise them, especially when the topic is global warming. I don’t mean the increasingly desperate abuse, such as calling sceptics deniers, which warmist Prof Robert Manne openly admits is meant to make people like me seem like Holocaust deniers. I mean more a new tactic to refuse to debate sceptics, both to pretend there actually is no debate and to avoid getting disproved. For instance, Labor ministers and the Greens have refused all invitations to appear on my own Channel 10 show to discuss global warming, as have the climate commissioners, government adviser Prof Ross Garnaut and many others.

Just recently, a Melbourne public policy centre asked me to argue global warming with Garnaut. I agreed, Garnaut refused. The Spectator magazine had the same trouble trying to get Labor politicians and warming advocates to agree to a debate next month in Sydney with sceptic Lord Lawson, the former British chancellor of the Exchequer. Sceptic Prof Bob Carter says he can’t buy a debate, either, and 50 academics in Perth petitioned Notre Dame University to ban Monckton from even speaking. But Monckton has suffered even worse from the new McCarthyists, especially those in The Age newspaper and the ABC. Sydney ABC radio host Adam Spencer this week first abused Monckton for allegedly making false claims about his peerage and his Nobel Prize - baseless slurs both and then hung up - when he started to talk science. Spencer particularly berated Monckton, a gifted mathematician, for having no formal qualifications in climate science.

Yet nor do Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Bob Brown, Ross Garnaut and most other catastrophists including Spencer himself, who serves on the NSW Government’s Climate Change Council. The viciousness of the attacks on Monckton is so extreme that it seems intended to warn off other sceptics. Take Age environment reporter Adam Morton’s sliming report this week on Monckton, who’d apologised for saying Garnaut’s appeal to the authority of warmist scientists was a fascist thought: “The attack on Prof Garnaut was not the first time Lord Monckton accused those he disagrees with of being Nazis,” Morton wrote. “In December 2009 he accused students who stormed the stage as he delivered a speech in Copenhagen of being Hitler Youth.” This is a grotesque misrepresentation. I’ve seen the footage of what happened that day in 2009.

A Monckton lecture was gatecrashed by dozens of protesters who shouted him down, blocked his video link to his audience, and physically intimidated him. Holding his nerve, Monckton continued to speak, telling his audience through the screams and jeers that these protesters were like the Hitler Youth - not because of their opinions, as Morton claims, but because of their jackboot tactics. And he was right. There is something of the fascist in this stifling of debate - the threats, abuse and blackmail. A line has been crossed, and these enemies of free speech cannot be allowed to win, whether against Lord Monckton or the humblest grocer who simply dares to doubt. Just a few lies from Gillard!

Lie Number 1: Carbon Pollution. It isn’t carbon and it isn’t pollution.
Lie Number 2: The majority of scientists agree that climate change is a result of human activity. A manufactured consensus from a politicised organisation (the IPCC) which was formed to find evidence of a pre-conceived conclusion. How much climate change is actually a result of human activity? We don’t know.
Lie Number 3: We can avoid the worst impacts by reducing “pollution”. No we can’t. The carbon tax will do nothing to change the climate.
Lie Number 4: Climate change is predicted to lead to further rises in temperature, rises in sea levels and some extreme weather events becoming more common, making life more difficult. Temperatures and sea levels have been rising slowly for centuries, without any help from man-made emissions. There are no confirmed links to more extreme weather events despite what the media tries to tell you.
Lie Number 5: Countries around the world are already taking action [lists China, USA, India and Europe]. No, they are not. China’s emissions will rise for the foreseeable future despite a few token environmental gestures, India’s carbon tax is $1/tonne, the USA has backed away from any federal climate action leaving just the tiny RGGI, and Europe is a hopeless economic basket case on the verge of collapse, thanks in part to a crippling ETS mired in fraud and corruption.
Lie Number 6: These clean energy sources [solar, wind, tidal and geothermal] are sustainable, renewable, their supply cannot be disrupted by events elsewhere, and they don’t contribute to pollution. None of those energy sources can replace fossil fuels for base-load electricity generation. And wind and solar are “disrupted” when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Tidal power is non-existent in Australia, and geothermal is so tiny as to be not even worth mentioning. The manufacture of solar panels and rare earth magnets for wind turbines releases millions of tonnes of real pollution into the environment.
Lie Number 7: Developing these new industries means developing new jobs. False. Every fake green job costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and takes away on average 2 – 4 real jobs. Subsidising inefficient, unreliable and expensive alternative energy is like burning $100 bills. The market will decide when “alternative” energy becomes competitive, not the government.
Lie Number 8: Meeting the challenge of climate change means being responsible, staying competitive and Australia continuing to prosper. A unilateral carbon tax does nothing for climate change, it is totally irresponsible, will make Australia less competitive compared to its trading partners, and will damage the economy for no benefit.

Wow. Eight whoppers in just over a minute. Pretty impressive. And it’s all paid for by YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS. Summary To my mind, despite the lies, deceit, tyranny, and proposed slave state that we are entering into. There is an answer for humanity, for those who choose to open the door of their mind. There is no need to fear, when you know who you are and where you are in time.

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. John 14:1-3.