Why have we imported this danger? Why won’t the ABC discuss it? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Why have we imported this danger? Why won’t the ABC discuss it? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Australian Labor is following UK labors policy on
immigration. That is to throw open the doors so to speak and change
social makeup of our society in order to ‘rub the rights noses’ into
diversity and render all future arguments out of date.




Their strategy revolves around the opinion that all these migrants will be left wing supporters.




However in the UK. this has got well and truly out of hand with the
Muslim population now reaching around 2.5 million and growing rapidly.




Islam is now the fastest growing religion over there and on track to become the dominant religion within the next decade.


One doesn’t need a crystal ball to see Englands future. A future where
there is no left or right, no England, just Islam and sharia.(No wonder
Scotland wants to become independent)




The same will eventually happen here unless we are very careful.




AS for the ABC. At the moment they still answer to Russel St. and Labors
racial vilification laws which are designed to prevent any adverse
discussion on this topic.

rudi of Townsville (Reply)

Gillard: Australia's own stuttering clusterfuck of a malignant failure.

Gillard is a classical fabian- childless, intellectually stunted, highly opinionated, psychopathic, relentlessly hostile to normal people and their nuclear families, a tainted monster literally hell bent on a luciferian dominion on earth.

2013 is not just the opportunity to throw this evil bitch out of office, but it must also be the opportunity we take to cleanse the country of fabians, Gramsci-media and their cultural war enablers.

If we don't, we are FUCKED.

IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing | Watts Up With That?

IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing | Watts Up With That?

IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing

Posted on December 13, 2012 by Guest Blogger

 

UPDATE1: Andrew Revkin at the NYT weighs in, and semi endorses the leak, see update below – Anthony

UPDATE2: Alternate links have been sent to me, should go faster now.  – Anthony

UPDATE3: The main site is down but a large “all in one” RAR file (and bittorrent) has been created by a readers, see below.

Full AR5 draft leaked here, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing
(Alec Rawls) I participated in “expert review” of the Second Order Draft of AR5 (the next IPCC report), Working Group 1 (“The Scientific Basis”), and am now making the full draft available to the public. I believe that the leaking of this draft is entirely legal, that the taxpayer funded report report is properly in the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act, and that making it available to the public is in any case protected by established legal and ethical standards, but web hosting companies are not in the business of making such determinations so interested readers are encouraged to please download copies of the report for further dissemination in case this content is removed as a possible terms-of-service violation. My reasons for leaking the report are explained below. Here are the chapters:



From http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/
(which is down now, see updated links below in update #2)
Summary for Policymakers
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean
Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere
Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives
Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols
Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Chapter 8 Supplement
Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
Chapter 13: Sea Level Change
Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
Chapter 14 Supplement
Technical Summary

Why leak the draft report?
By Alec Rawls (email) [writing at http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/ ]

General principles
The ethics of leaking tax-payer funded documents requires weighing the “public’s right to know” against any harm to the public interest that may result. The press often leaks even in the face of extreme such harm, as when the New York Times published details of how the Bush administration was tracking terrorist financing with the help of the private sector Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), causing this very successful anti-terror program to immediately collapse.

That was a bad leak, doing great harm to expose something that nobody needed to know about. With the UN’s IPCC reports the calculus is reversed. UN “climate chief” Christina Figueres explains what is at stake for the public:

… we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.

So may we please see this “science” on the basis of which our existing energy infrastructure is to be ripped out in favor of non-existent “green” energy? The only reason for secrecy in the first place is to enhance the UN’s political control over a scientific story line that is aimed explicitly at policy makers.

Thus the drafts ought to fall within the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.

The Obama administration implicitly acknowledged this when it tried to evade FOIA by setting up private “backdoor channels” for communications with the IPCC. If NCAR’s Gerald Meehl (a lead author of AR5′s chapter on near-term climate change), has working copies of the draft report (and he’s only one of dozens of U.S. government researchers who would), then by law the draft report (now finished) should be available to the public.

The IPCC’s official reason for wanting secrecy (as they explained it to Steve McIntyre in  January 2012) is so that criticisms of the drafts are not spread out across the internet but get funneled through the UN’s comment process. If there is any merit to that rationale it is now moot. The comment period ended November 30th so the comment process can no longer be affected by publication.

As for my personal confidentiality agreement with the IPCC, I regard that as vitiated by the systematic dishonesty of the report (“omitted variable fraud” as I called it in my FOD comments). This is a general principle of journalistic confidentiality: bad faith on one side breaks the agreement on the other. They can’t ask reviewers to become complicit in their dishonesty by remaining silent about it.
Then there is the specific content of the Second Order Draft where the addition of one single sentence demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole.

Lead story from the Second Order Draft: strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC
Compared to the First Order Draft, the SOD now adds the following sentence, indicated in bold (page 7-43, lines 1-5, emphasis added):

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999).  
The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is. This directly undercuts the main premise of the report, as stated in Chapter 8 (page 8-4, lines 54-57):

There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2.

The Chapter 8 authors (a different group than the Chapter 7 authors) are explicit here that their claim about natural forcing being small compared to anthropogenic forcing is based on an analysis in which the only solar forcing that is taken into account is TSI. This can be verified from the radiative forcing table on page 8-39 where the only solar variable included in the IPCC’s computer models is seen to be “solar irradiance.”

This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing.

The Chapter 8 premise that natural forcing is relatively small leads directly to the main conclusion of the entire report, stated in the first sentence of the Executive Summary (the very first sentence of the entire report): that advances since AR4 “further strengthen the basis for human activities being the primary driver in climate change” (p.1-2, lines 3-5). This headline conclusion is a direct descendant of the assumption that the only solar forcing is TSI, a claim that their own report no longer accepts.

The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work.

My full submitted comments (which I will post later) elaborate several important points. For instance, note that the Chapter 8 premise (page 8-4, lines 54-57) assumes that it is the change in the level of forcing since 1980, not the level of forcing, that would be causing warming. Solar activity was at historically high levels at least through the end of solar cycle 22 (1996), yet the IPCC is assuming that because this high level of solar forcing was roughly constant from 1950 until it fell off during solar cycle 23 it could not have caused post-1980 warming. In effect they are claiming that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, that you have to keep turning the flame up to get continued warming, an un-scientific absurdity that I have been writing about for several years (most recently in my post about Isaac Held’s bogus 2-box model of ocean equilibration).

The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.
President Obama is already pushing a carbon tax premised on the fear that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. Last week his people were at the UN’s climate meeting in Doha pretending that Hurricane Sandy was caused by human increments to CO2 as UN insiders assured the public that the next IPCC report will “scare the wits out of everyone” with its ramped-up predictions of human-caused global warming to come, but this is not where the evidence points, not if climate change is in any substantial measure driven by the sun, which has now gone quiet and is exerting what influence it has in the cooling direction.

The acknowledgement of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing should upend the IPCC’s entire agenda. The easiest way for the UN to handle this disruptive admission would be to remove it from their final draft, which is another reason to make the draft report public now. The devastating admission needs to be known so that the IPCC can’t quietly take it back.

Destabilisation -> Crisis -> Messiah: Obama.

Gillard, Hilldog, Panetta... All in Australia? What the hell did we do to deserve THAT???

Seriously.

Robert Welch: 1958: good thing none of this came true, eh?

The Vetting: Obama, Radical Islam and the Soros Connection

The Vetting: Obama, Radical Islam and the Soros Connection

Yuri Bezmenov: Psychological Warfare, Subversion and Control of Western Civilisation. NO ACCIDENT

EUSSR: no longer hidden.

I used to find the EUSSR trope tedious, but now…

Take a close look at this promotional poster. Notice anything? Alongside the symbols of Christianity, Judaism, Jainism and so on is one of the wickedest emblems humanity has conceived: the hammer and sickle.

For three generations, the badge of the Soviet revolution meant poverty, slavery, torture and death. It adorned the caps of the chekas who came in the night. It opened and closed the propaganda films which hid the famines. It advertised the people's courts where victims of purges and show-trials were condemned. It fluttered over the re-education camps and the gulags. For hundreds of millions of Europeans, it was a symbol of foreign occupation. Hungary, Lithuania and Moldova have banned its use, and various  former communist countries want it to be treated in the same way as Nazi insignia.
Yet here it sits on a poster in the European Commission, advertising the moral deafness of its author (I hope that's what it is, rather than lingering nostalgia). The Bolshevist sigil celebrates the ideology which, in strict numerical terms, must be reckoned the most murderous ever devised by our species. That it can be passed unremarked day after day in the corridors of Brussels is nauseating.

The gillard club: super best friends for eva!

June 25, 2010:

"On Ms Gillard's media team is Alex Williamson, the daughter of Labor's national president and boss of the Health Services Union, Michael Williamson. He was another NSW Right figure who shifted his union's support to Ms Gillard during the pivotal hours on Wednesday."

http://www.theage.com.au/national/factional-ties-took-a-turn-to-the-right-20100624-z3i9.html

YOU ARE PROPERTY

gillard, barry soetoro, soros, the UN... let's cut to the fucking chase here.

Another gillardist koan

We can't afford to fund the nation's defence or our own armed forces, but we CAN afford foreign mercenaries and rental of pointless military technology?

Beyond insane. Into the dizzying heights of lunacy that only the permanent adolescence of fabianism achieves.

A movement begun by Lucifer worshippers (theosophists, alphabet reformers*, orgy-addicted syphilitic satyriacs, elitists and anti-anglo saxon middle europeans) ends in the world government their unholy trinity has been calling for across the last 164 years.

Say No To Socialism

Say No To Socialism

In his Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx urged his followers to replace capitalism with communism via a “socialist redistribution of wealth,” which “should displace capitalism and precede communism.” Marx advocated ten “despotic inroads on the rights of property,” and he called them the ten planks of communism. The most important are:

• A progressive or graduated income tax;
• Abolition of rights of inheritance;
• Centralization of credit in the hands of the state;
• Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state;
• Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.[iii]

If you know the Manifesto, you will think Marx himself wrote the Democratic Party’s 2012 electoral campaign, which contains all of the above planks of Marxism. If you don’t know the Manifesto, click here and you’ll get it from the horse’s mouth.

***

All well and good, but it was RICHARD NIXON who championed all of the above Communist points. Nixon.

And for that matter there is qualitative difference in political platform on these matters between red-blue Hegelian puppets in any Western country.

The only leader who seems remotely opposed to stealth Marxism let alone overt Marxism... is Tony Abbott of Australia.

Bond villain Soros gives EU three months before annihilation: As Soros Starts A Three Month Countdown To D(oom)-Day, Europe Plans A New Master Plan | ZeroHedge

As Soros Starts A Three Month Countdown To D(oom)-Day, Europe Plans A New Master Plan | ZeroHedge

Remarks at the Festival of Economics, Trento Italy

Ever since the Crash of 2008 there has been a widespread recognition, both among economists and the general public, that economic theory has failed. But there is no consensus on the causes and the extent of that failure.

I believe that the failure is more profound than generally recognized. It goes back to the foundations of economic theory. Economics tried to model itself on Newtonian physics. It sought to establish universally and timelessly valid laws governing reality. But economics is a social science and there is a fundamental difference between the natural and social sciences. Social phenomena have thinking participants who base their decisions on imperfect knowledge. That is what economic theory has tried to ignore.

Scientific method needs an independent criterion, by which the truth or validity of its theories can be judged. Natural phenomena constitute such a criterion; social phenomena do not. That is because natural phenomena consist of facts that unfold independently of any statements that relate to them. The facts then serve as objective evidence by which the validity of scientific theories can be judged. That has enabled natural science to produce amazing results.

Social events, by contrast, have thinking participants who have a will of their own.  They are not detached observers but engaged decision makers whose decisions greatly influence the course of events. Therefore the events do not constitute an independent criterion by which participants can decide whether their views are valid. In the absence of an independent criterion people have to base their decisions not on knowledge but on an inherently biased and to greater or lesser extent distorted interpretation of reality. Their lack of perfect knowledge or fallibility introduces an element of indeterminacy into the course of events that is absent when the events relate to the behavior of inanimate objects. The resulting uncertainty hinders the social sciences in producing laws similar to Newton’s physics.

Economics, which became the most influential of the social sciences, sought to remove this handicap by taking an axiomatic approach similar to Euclid’s geometry. But Euclid’s axioms closely resembled reality while the theory of rational expectations and the efficient market hypothesis became far removed from it. Up to a point the axiomatic approach worked. For instance, the theory of perfect competition postulated perfect knowledge. But the postulate worked only as long as it was applied to the exchange of physical goods. When it came to production, as distinct from exchange, or to the use of money and credit, the postulate became untenable because the participants’ decisions involved the future and the future cannot be known until it has actually occurred.

I am not well qualified to criticize the theory of rational expectations and the efficient market hypothesis because as a market participant I considered them so unrealistic that I never bothered to study them. That is an indictment in itself but I shall leave a detailed critique of these theories to others.

Instead, I should like to put before you a radically different approach to financial markets. It was inspired by Karl Popper who taught me that people’s interpretation of reality never quite corresponds to reality itself. This led me to study the relationship between the two. I found a two-way connection between the participants’ thinking and the situations in which they participate. On the one hand people seek to understand the situation; that is the cognitive function. On the other, they seek to make an impact on the situation; I call that the causative or manipulative function. The two functions connect the thinking agents and the situations in which they participate in opposite directions. In the cognitive function the situation is supposed to determine the participants’ views; in the causative function the participants’ views are supposed to determine the outcome. When both functions are at work at the same time they interfere with each other. The two functions form a circular relationship or feedback loop. I call that feedback loop reflexivity. In a reflexive situation the participants’ views cannot correspond to reality because reality is not something independently given; it is contingent on the participants’ views and decisions. The decisions, in turn, cannot be based on knowledge alone; they must contain some bias or guess work about the future because the future is contingent on the participants’ decisions.

Fallibility and reflexivity are tied together like Siamese twins. Without fallibility there would be no reflexivity – although the opposite is not the case: people’s understanding would be imperfect even in the absence of reflexivity. Of the two twins, fallibility is the first born. Together, they ensure both a divergence between the participants’ view of reality and the actual state of affairs and a divergence between the participants’ expectations and the actual outcome.

Obviously, I did not discover reflexivity. Others had recognized it before me, often under a different name. Robert Merton wrote about self-fulfilling prophecies and the bandwagon effect, Keynes compared financial markets to a beauty contest where the participants had to guess who would be the most popular choice. But starting from fallibility and reflexivity I focused on a problem area, namely the role of misconceptions and misunderstandings in shaping the course of events that mainstream economics tried to ignore. This has made my interpretation of reality more realistic than the prevailing paradigm.

Among other things, I developed a model of a boom-bust process or bubble which is endogenous to financial markets, not the result of external shocks. According to my theory, financial bubbles are not a purely psychological phenomenon.  They have two components: a trend that prevails in reality and a misinterpretation of that trend. A bubble can develop when the feedback is initially positive in the sense that both the trend and its biased interpretation are mutually reinforced. Eventually the gap between the trend and its biased interpretation grows so wide that it becomes unsustainable. After a twilight period both the bias and the trend are reversed and reinforce each other in the opposite direction. Bubbles are usually asymmetric in shape: booms develop slowly but the bust tends to be sudden and devastating. That is due to the use of leverage: price declines precipitate the forced liquidation of leveraged positions.

Well-formed financial bubbles always follow this pattern but the magnitude and duration of each phase is unpredictable. Moreover the process can be aborted at any stage so that well-formed financial bubbles occur rather infrequently.

At any moment of time there are myriads of feedback loops at work, some of which are positive, others negative. They interact with each other, producing the irregular price patterns that prevail most of the time; but on the rare occasions that bubbles develop to their full potential they tend to overshadow all other influences.

According to my theory financial markets may just as soon produce bubbles as tend toward equilibrium. Since bubbles disrupt financial markets, history has been punctuated by financial crises. Each crisis provoked a regulatory response. That is how central banking and financial regulations have evolved, in step with the markets themselves. Bubbles occur only intermittently but the interplay between markets and regulators is ongoing. Since both market participants and regulators act on the basis of imperfect knowledge the interplay between them is reflexive. Moreover reflexivity and fallibility are not confined to the financial markets; they also characterize other spheres of social life, particularly politics. Indeed, in light of the ongoing interaction between markets and regulators it is quite misleading to study financial markets in isolation. Behind the invisible hand of the market lies the visible hand of politics. Instead of pursuing timeless laws and models we ought to study events in their time bound context.

My interpretation of financial markets differs from the prevailing paradigm in many ways. I emphasize the role of misunderstandings and misconceptions in shaping the course of history. And I treat bubbles as largely unpredictable. The direction and its eventual reversal are predictable; the magnitude and duration of the various phases is not. I contend that taking fallibility as the starting point makes my conceptual framework more realistic. But at a price: the idea that laws or models of universal validity can predict the future must be abandoned.

Until recently, my interpretation of financial markets was either ignored or dismissed by academic economists. All this has changed since the crash of 2008. Reflexivity became recognized but, with the exception of Imperfect Knowledge Economics, the foundations of economic theory have not been subjected to the profound rethinking that I consider necessary. Reflexivity has been accommodated by speaking of multiple equilibria instead of a single one. But that is not enough. The fallibility of market participants, regulators, and economists must also be recognized.  A truly dynamic situation cannot be understood by studying multiple equilibria.  We need to study the process of change.

The euro crisis is particularly instructive in this regard. It demonstrates the role of misconceptions and a lack of understanding in shaping the course of history. The authorities didn’t understand the nature of the euro crisis; they thought it is a fiscal problem while it is more of a banking problem and a problem of competitiveness. And they applied the wrong remedy: you cannot reduce the debt burden by shrinking the economy, only by growing your way out of it. The crisis is still growing because of a failure to understand the dynamics of social change; policy measures that could have worked at one point in time were no longer sufficient by the time they were applied.

Since the euro crisis is currently exerting an overwhelming influence on the global economy I shall devote the rest of my talk to it. I must start with a warning: the discussion will take us beyond the confines of economic theory into politics and the dynamics of social change. But my conceptual framework based on the twin pillars of fallibility and reflexivity still applies. Reflexivity doesn’t always manifest itself in the form of bubbles. The reflexive interplay between imperfect markets and imperfect authorities goes on all the time while bubbles occur only infrequently. This is a rare occasion when the interaction exerts such a large influence that it casts its shadow on the global economy. How could this happen? My answer is that there is a bubble involved, after all, but it is not a financial but a political one. It relates to the political evolution of the European Union and it has led me to the conclusion that the euro crisis threatens to destroy the European Union. Let me explain.
I contend that the European Union itself is like a bubble. In the boom phase the EU was what the psychoanalyst David Tuckett calls a “fantastic object” – unreal but immensely attractive. The EU was the embodiment of an open society –an association of nations founded on the principles of democracy, human rights, and rule of law in which no nation or nationality would have a dominant position.
The process of integration was spearheaded by a small group of far sighted statesmen who practiced what Karl Popper called piecemeal social engineering. They recognized that perfection is unattainable; so they set limited objectives and firm timelines and then mobilized the political will for a small step forward, knowing full well that when they achieved it, its inadequacy would become apparent and require a further step. The process fed on its own success, very much like a financial bubble. That is how the Coal and Steel Community was gradually transformed into the European Union, step by step.
Germany used to be in the forefront of the effort. When the Soviet empire started to disintegrate, Germany’s leaders realized that reunification was possible only in the context of a more united Europe and they were willing to make considerable sacrifices to achieve it.  When it came to bargaining they were willing to contribute a little more and take a little less than the others, thereby facilitating agreement.  At that time, German statesmen used to assert that Germany has no independent foreign policy, only a European one.

The process culminated with the Maastricht Treaty and the introduction of the euro. It was followed by a period of stagnation which, after the crash of 2008, turned into a process of disintegration. The first step was taken by Germany when, after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, Angela Merkel declared that the virtual guarantee extended to other financial institutions should come from each country acting separately, not by Europe acting jointly. It took financial markets more than a year to realize the implication of that declaration, showing that they are not perfect.

The Maastricht Treaty was fundamentally flawed, demonstrating the fallibility of the authorities. Its main weakness was well known to its architects: it established a monetary union without a political union. The architects believed however, that when the need arose the political will could be generated to take the necessary steps towards a political union.

But the euro also had some other defects of which the architects were unaware and which are not fully understood even today. In retrospect it is now clear that the main source of trouble is that the member states of the euro have surrendered to the European Central Bank their rights to create fiat money. They did not realize what that entails – and neither did the European authorities. When the euro was introduced the regulators allowed banks to buy unlimited amounts of government bonds without setting aside any equity capital; and the central bank accepted all government bonds at its discount window on equal terms. Commercial banks found it advantageous to accumulate the bonds of the weaker euro members in order to earn a few extra basis points. That is what caused interest rates to converge which in turn caused competitiveness to diverge. Germany, struggling with the burdens of reunification, undertook structural reforms and became more competitive. Other countries enjoyed housing and consumption booms on the back of cheap credit, making them less competitive. Then came the crash of 2008 which created conditions that were far removed from those prescribed by the Maastricht Treaty. Many governments had to shift bank liabilities on to their own balance sheets and engage in massive deficit spending. These countries found themselves in the position of a third world country that had become heavily indebted in a currency that it did not control. Due to the divergence in economic performance Europe became divided between creditor and debtor countries. This is having far reaching political implications to which I will revert.

It took some time for the financial markets to discover that government bonds which had been considered riskless are subject to speculative attack and may actually default; but when they did, risk premiums rose dramatically. This rendered commercial banks whose balance sheets were loaded with those bonds potentially insolvent. And that constituted the two main components of the problem confronting us today: a sovereign debt crisis and a banking crisis which are closely interlinked.
The eurozone is now repeating what had often happened in the global financial system. There is a close parallel between the euro crisis and the international banking crisis that erupted in 1982. Then the international financial authorities did whatever was necessary to protect the banking system: they inflicted hardship on the periphery in order to protect the center. Now Germany and the other creditor countries are unknowingly playing the same role. The details differ but the idea is the same: the creditors are in effect shifting the burden of adjustment on to the debtor countries and avoiding their own responsibility for the imbalances. Interestingly, the terms “center” and “periphery” have crept into usage almost unnoticed. Just as in the 1980’s all the blame and burden is falling on the “periphery” and the responsibility of the “center” has never been properly acknowledged.  Yet in the euro crisis the responsibility of the center is even greater than it was in 1982. The “center” is responsible for designing a flawed system, enacting flawed treaties, pursuing flawed policies and always doing too little too late. In the 1980’s Latin America suffered a lost decade; a similar fate now awaits Europe. That is the responsibility that Germany and the other creditor countries need to acknowledge. But there is now sign of this happening.

The European authorities had little understanding of what was happening. They were prepared to deal with fiscal problems but only Greece qualified as a fiscal crisis; the rest of Europe suffered from a banking crisis and a divergence in competitiveness which gave rise to a balance of payments crisis. The authorities did not even understand the nature of the problem, let alone see a solution. So they tried to buy time.

Usually that works. Financial panics subside and the authorities realize a profit on their intervention. But not this time because the financial problems were reinforced by a process of political disintegration. While the European Union was being created, the leadership was in the forefront of further integration; but after the outbreak of the financial crisis the authorities became wedded to preserving the status quo. This has forced all those who consider the status quo unsustainable or intolerable into an anti-European posture. That is the political dynamic that makes the disintegration of the European Union just as self-reinforcing as its creation has been.  That is the political bubble I was talking about.

At the onset of the crisis a breakup of the euro was inconceivable: the assets and liabilities denominated in a common currency were so intermingled that a breakup would have led to an uncontrollable meltdown. But as the crisis progressed the financial system has been progressively reordered along national lines. This trend has gathered momentum in recent months. The Long Term Refinancing Operation (LTRO) undertaken by the European Central Bank enabled Spanish and Italian banks to engage in a very profitable and low risk arbitrage by buying the bonds of their own countries. And other investors have been actively divesting themselves of the sovereign debt of the periphery countries.

If this continued for a few more years a break-up of the euro would become possible without a meltdown – the omelet could be unscrambled – but it would leave the central banks of the creditor countries with large claims against the central banks of the debtor countries which would be difficult to collect. This is due to an arcane problem in the euro clearing system called Target2. In contrast to the clearing system of the Federal Reserve, which is settled annually, Target2 accumulates the imbalances. This did not create a problem as long as the interbank system was functioning because the banks settled the imbalances themselves through the interbank market. But the interbank market has not functioned properly since 2007 and the banks relied increasingly on the Target system. And since the summer of 2011 there has been increasing capital flight from the weaker countries. So the imbalances grew exponentially. By the end of March this year the Bundesbank had claims of some 660 billion euros against the central banks of the periphery countries.

The Bundesbank has become aware of the potential danger. It is now engaged in a campaign against the indefinite expansion of the money supply and it has started taking measures to limit the losses it would sustain in case of a breakup. This is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the Bundesbank starts guarding against a breakup everybody will have to do the same.

This is already happening. Financial institutions are increasingly reordering their European exposure along national lines just in case the region splits apart. Banks give preference to shedding assets outside their national borders and risk managers try to match assets and liabilities within national borders rather than within the eurozone as a whole. The indirect effect of this asset-liability matching is to reinforce the deleveraging process and to reduce the availability of credit, particularly to the small and medium enterprises which are the main source of employment.

So the crisis is getting ever deeper. Tensions in financial markets have risen to new highs as shown by the historic low yield on Bunds. Even more telling is the fact that the yield on British 10 year bonds has never been lower in its 300 year history while the risk premium on Spanish bonds is at a new high.
The real economy of the eurozone is declining while Germany is still booming. This means that the divergence is getting wider. The political and social dynamics are also working toward disintegration. Public opinion as expressed in recent election results is increasingly opposed to austerity and this trend is likely to grow until the policy is reversed. So something has to give.

In my judgment the authorities have a three months’ window during which they could still correct their mistakes and reverse the current trends. By the authorities I mean mainly the German government and the Bundesbank because in a crisis the creditors are in the driver’s seat and nothing can be done without German support.

I expect that the Greek public will be sufficiently frightened by the prospect of expulsion from the European Union that it will give a narrow majority of seats to a coalition that is ready to abide by the current agreement. But no government can meet the conditions so that the Greek crisis is liable to come to a climax in the fall. By that time the German economy will also be weakening so that Chancellor Merkel will find it even more difficult than today to persuade the German public to accept any additional European responsibilities. That is what creates a three months’ window.
Correcting the mistakes and reversing the trend would require some extraordinary policy measures to bring conditions back closer to normal, and bring relief to the financial markets and the banking system. These measures must, however, conform to the existing treaties. The treaties could then be revised in a calmer atmosphere so that the current imbalances will not recur. It is difficult but not impossible to design some extraordinary measures that would meet these tough requirements. They would have to tackle simultaneously the banking problem and the problem of excessive government debt, because these problems are interlinked. Addressing one without the other, as in the past, will not work.

Banks need a European deposit insurance scheme in order to stem the capital flight. They also need direct financing by the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) which has to go hand-in-hand with eurozone-wide supervision and regulation. The heavily indebted countries need relief on their financing costs. There are various ways to provide it but they all need the active support of the Bundesbank and the German government.

That is where the blockage is. The authorities are working feverishly to come up with a set of proposals in time for the European summit at the end of this month. Based on the current newspaper reports the measures they will propose will cover all the bases I mentioned but they will offer only the minimum on which the various parties can agree while what is needed is a convincing commitment to reverse the trend. That means the measures will again offer some temporary relief but the trends will continue. But we are at an inflection point.  After the expiration of the three months’ window the markets will continue to demand more but the authorities will not be able to meet their demands.
It is impossible to predict the eventual outcome. As mentioned before, the gradual reordering of the financial system along national lines could make an orderly breakup of the euro possible in a few years’ time and, if it were not for the social and political dynamics, one could imagine a common market without a common currency. But the trends are clearly non-linear and an earlier breakup is bound to be disorderly. It would almost certainly lead to a collapse of the Schengen Treaty, the common market, and the European Union itself. (It should be remembered that there is an exit mechanism for the European Union but not for the euro.) Unenforceable claims and unsettled grievances would leave Europe worse off than it was at the outset when the project of a united Europe was conceived.

But the likelihood is that the euro will survive because a breakup would be devastating not only for the periphery but also for Germany. It would leave Germany with large unenforceable claims against the periphery countries. The Bundesbank alone will have over a trillion euros of claims arising out of Target2 by the end of this year, in addition to all the intergovernmental obligations. And a return to the Deutschemark would likely price Germany out of its export markets – not to mention the political consequences. So Germany is likely to do what is necessary to preserve the euro – but nothing more. That would result in a eurozone dominated by Germany in which the divergence between the creditor and debtor countries would continue to widen and the periphery would turn into permanently depressed areas in need of constant transfer of payments. That would turn the European Union into something very different from what it was when it was a “fantastic object” that fired peoples imagination. It would be a German empire with the periphery as the hinterland.

I believe most of us would find that objectionable but I have a great deal of sympathy with Germany in its present predicament. The German public cannot understand why a policy of structural reforms and fiscal austerity that worked for Germany a decade ago will not work Europe today. Germany then could enjoy an export led recovery but the eurozone today is caught in a deflationary debt trap. The German public does not see any deflation at home; on the contrary, wages are rising and there are vacancies for skilled jobs which are eagerly snapped up by immigrants from other European countries. Reluctance to invest abroad and the influx of flight capital are fueling a real estate boom. Exports may be slowing but employment is still rising. In these circumstances it would require an extraordinary effort by the German government to convince the German public to embrace the extraordinary measures that would be necessary to reverse the current trend. And they have only a three months’ window in which to do it.

We need to do whatever we can to convince Germany to show leadership and preserve the European Union as the fantastic object that it used to be. The future of Europe depends on it.

SS-KGB: THe EmPire NeVer FeLL

Our national tragedy (as well as the tragedy of all other former communist countries) is that there was no clear defeat of the ruling communist system, no Nuremberg-style trial of its crimes, no vigorous lustration (de-communisation) process. The West was quick to celebrate the end of the Cold War and the victory of democracy in the former Iron Curtained countries, but in reality there was no change of "elites" there. The former communist "nomenklatura" has remained in the position of power in all branches of the government, albeit under a different name.

One particular part of the communist "nomenklatura" - the KGB - is of special interest to us. The Soviet secret police/intelligence service, originally called VChK, was defined by Lenin as an "armed detachment of the Party," and remained as such throughout Soviet history, while changing its name every few years (VChK, OGPU, NKVD, MGB, KGB, FSB...). Its prime task was to safeguard the interests of the Party and of its ideology, both at home and abroad.

By the 1970s, like anybody else, they came to resent the ideological supervision of the Party which they perceived as hampering their efficiency. They vigorously supported Gorbachev in his "perestroika" campaign, and he, in turn, has heavily relied on their services. Their task, (as it was the task of Gorbachev's leadership), was to salvage the remnants of the Soviet system, not to abandon it.

- Vladimir Bukovsky, 2004

 "Today the Soviet system can no longer seriously strive toward the spectre of Communism - but at the same time it cannot yet abandon the grandeur of its tasks, for otherwise it would have to answer for fruitless sacrifices which are truly innumerable. But in what then can the Soviet system find its justification? Only in the consciousness that it was unconsciously in the past, as it is now quite consciously, God's instrument for constructing a new Christian world. It has no other justification, and this is . . . a genuine and great justification. By adopting it, our state will discover in itself a truly inexhaustable source of Truth, spiritual energy and strength, which has never before existed in history . . . The old pagan world has now finally outlived its era . . . In order not to perish with it we must build a new civilization - but is Western society, whose foundations have been destroyed, really capable of this? Only the Soviet sytem, having adopted Russian Orthodoxy . . . is capable of beginning THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION OF THE WORLD."

 (Passage written by Russian nationalist G.M. Shimanov quoted in Yanov's The Russian Challenge, p.236)

How the Chinese Communist Party Is an Evil Cult | Nine Commentaries | China | Epoch Times

Commentary 8: On How the Chinese Communist Party Is an Evil Cult | Nine Commentaries | China | Epoch Times

The Communist Party’s cultish traits can be summarized under six headings:

1. Concoction of Doctrines and Elimination of Dissidents
The Communist Party holds up Marxism as its religious doctrine and shows it off as the unbreakable truth. The doctrines of the Communist Party lack benevolence and tolerance. Instead, they are full of arrogance.

Marxism was a product of the initial period of capitalism when productivity was low and science was underdeveloped. It didn’t have a correct understanding at all of the relationships between humanity and society or humanity and nature.

Unfortunately, this heretical ideology developed into the international communist movement and harmed the human world for over a century before the people discarded it, having found it completely wrong in practice.

The cultish traits of the CCP.

Party leaders since Lenin have always amended the cult’s doctrines. From Lenin’s theory of violent revolution, to Mao Zedong’s theory of continuous revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, to Jiang Zemin’s “Three Represents,” the Communist Party’s history is full of such heretical theory and fallacy.

Although these theories have constantly caused disasters in practice and are self-contradictory, the Communist Party still proclaims it is universally correct and forces the people to study its doctrines.
Eliminating dissidents is the most effective means for the evil cult of communism to spread its doctrine. Because the doctrine and behavior of this evil cult are too ridiculous, the Communist Party has to force people to accept them, relying on violence to eliminate dissidents.

After the CCP seized the reins of power in China, it initiated land reform to eliminate the landlord class, socialist reform in industry and commerce to eliminate capitalists, the movement of purging reactionaries to eliminate folk religions and officials who held office before the communists took power, the Anti-Rightist Movement to silence intellectuals, and the Cultural Revolution to eradicate traditional Chinese culture.

The CCP was able to unify China under the communist evil cult and achieve a situation where everyone read the “Red Book,” performed the “loyalty dance[2],” and “asked for the Party’s instructions in the morning and reported to the Party in the evening.”

In the period after Mao’s and Deng’s reigns, the CCP asserted that Falun Gong, a traditional cultivation practice that believes in truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance, would compete with it for the masses. It therefore intended to eradicate Falun Gong and initiated a genocidal persecution of Falun Gong, which continues today.


2. Promoting Worship of the Leader and Supremacist Views
From Marx to Jiang Zemin, the Communist Party leaders’ portraits are prominently displayed for worship. The absolute authority of the Party leaders forbids any challenge. Mao Zedong was set up as the “red sun” and “big liberator.” The Party spoke outrageously about his writing, saying “one sentence equals 10,000 ordinary sentences.”

As an ordinary Party member, Deng Xiaoping once dominated Chinese politics like an overlord. Jiang Zemin’s “Three Represents” theory is merely a little over 40 characters, long, including punctuation, but the CCP Fourth Plenary Session boosted it as “providing a creative answer to questions such as what socialism is, how to construct socialism, what kind of party we are building, and how to build the Party.”

“I represent it all!” Jiang Zemin, with his “three represents” is trampling on people’s interests.

The Party also spoke outrageously about the thought of the “Three Represents,” although in this case, actually mocking it when saying it is a continuation and development of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong thought, and Deng Xiaoping theory.

Stalin’s wanton slaughter of innocent people, the catastrophic Cultural Revolution launched by Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping’s order for the Tiananmen Square massacre, and Jiang Zemin’s ongoing persecution of Falun Gong are the dreadful results of the Communist Party’s heretical dictatorship.
On one hand, the CCP stipulates in its Constitution, “All power in the People’s Republic of China belongs to the people. The organs through which the people exercise state power are the National People’s Congress and the local people’s congresses at different levels.” “No organization or individual may enjoy the privilege of being above the Constitution and the law.”[3]

On the other hand, the CCP Charter stipulates that the CCP is the core of the leadership for the Chinese-featured socialist cause, overriding both the country and the people. The chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress made “important speeches” across the country, claiming that the National People’s Congress, the highest organ of state power, must adhere to the CCP’s leadership.

According to the CCP’s principle of democratic centralism, the entire Party must obey the Central Committee of the Party. Stripped to its core, what the National People’s Congress really insists upon is the dictatorship of the general secretary, which is in turn protected in the form of legislation.

3. Violent Brainwashing and Mind Control
The CCP’s organization is extremely tight: One needs two Party members’ references before admission; a new member must swear to be loyal to the Party forever once admitted; Party members must pay membership dues, attend organizational activities, and take part in group political study.
The Party organizations penetrate all levels of the government. There are basic CCP organizations in every single village, town, and neighborhood. The CCP controls not only its Party members and Party affairs, but also those who are not members because the entire regime must “adhere to the Party’s leadership.”

If the Party wanted you dead, you could not live; if the Party wanted you alive, you could not die.

In those years when class struggle campaigns were carried out, the “priests” of the CCP religion, namely, the Party secretaries at all levels, more often than not, did not know exactly what they did other than disciplining people.
The “criticism and self-criticism” in the Party meetings serves as a common, unending means for controlling the minds of Party members.
Throughout its existence, the CCP has launched a multitude of political movements for purifying the Party members, rectifying the Party atmosphere, capturing traitors, purging the Anti-Bolshevik Corps (AB Corps), disciplining the Party, and periodically testing the sense of Party nature—that is, using violence and terror to test the Party members’ devotion to the Party, while assuring they keep in step with it forever.

The CCP cult advocates belief in the Party.

Joining the CCP is like signing an irrevocable contract to sell one’s body and soul. With the Party’s rules being always above the laws of the nation, the Party can dismiss any Party member at will, while the individual Party member cannot quit the CCP without incurring severe punishment. Quitting the Party is considered disloyal and will bring about dire consequences.

During the Cultural Revolution when the CCP cult held absolute rule, it was well-known that if the Party wanted you dead, you could not live; if the Party wanted you alive, you could not die. If a person committed suicide, he would be labeled as “dreading the people’s punishment for his crime,” and his family members would also be implicated and punished.

The decision process within the Party operates like a black box, as the intra-Party struggles must be kept in absolute secrecy. Party documents are all confidential. Dreading exposure of their criminal acts, the CCP frequently silences dissidents by charging them with “divulging state secrets.”

4. Urging Violence, Carnage, and Sacrifice for the Party
Mao Zedong said, “A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained, and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”[4]

Deng Xiaoping recommended “killing 200,000 people in exchange for 20 years’ stability.”
Jiang Zemin ordered, “Destroy them [Falun Gong practitioners] physically, ruin their reputation, and bankrupt them financially.”

The CCP promotes violence and has killed countless people throughout its previous political movements. It educates people to treat the enemy “as cold as the severe winter.” The red flag is understood to be red for having been “dyed red with martyrs’ blood.” The Party worships red due to its addiction to blood and carnage.

The CCP makes an exhibition of “heroic” examples to encourage people to sacrifice for the Party. When Zhang Side died working in a kiln to produce opium, Mao Zedong praised his death as being “heavy as Mount Tai.”[5]

In those frenzied years, “brave words” such as “Fear neither hardship nor death” and “Bitter sacrifice strengthens bold resolve; we dare to make the sun and moon shine in new skies” gave aspirations substance amid an extreme shortage of material supplies.

Young nurses took vows to be Party members and were sent to care for the SARS patients, while Jiang Zemin escaped to Shanghai.

At the end of the 1970s, the Vietcong dispatched troops and overthrew the Khmer Rouge regime, which was fostered by the CCP and committed unspeakable crimes. Although the CCP was furious, it could not dispatch troops to support the Khmer Rouge, since China and Cambodia did not share a common border. Instead, in the name of self-defense, the CCP launched a war against Vietnam along the China-Vietnam border to punish the Vietcong.

Tens of thousands of Chinese soldiers therefore sacrificed blood and life for this struggle between communist parties. Their deaths had in fact nothing to do with territory or sovereignty. Nevertheless, several years later, the CCP disgracefully memorialized the senseless sacrifice of so many naive and bright young lives as “the revolutionary heroic spirit,” irreverently borrowing the song “The Elegant Demeanor Dyed by Blood.”

One hundred and fifty-four Chinese martyrs died in 1981 recapturing Mount Faka in Guangxi Province, but the CCP casually returned it to Vietnam after China and Vietnam surveyed the boundary.
When the rampant spread of SARS threatened people’s lives at the beginning of 2003, the CCP readily admitted many young female nurses. These women were then quickly confined in hospitals to nurse SARS patients.

The CCP push young people to the most dangerous frontline, in order to establish its “glorious image” according to which one should “Fear neither hardship nor death.” However, the CCP has no explanation as to where the rest of the current 65 million Party members were and what image they brought to the Party.

5. Denying Belief in God and Smothering Human Nature
The CCP promotes atheism and claims that religion is the opiate of the people. It used its power to crush all religions in China, and then it deified itself, giving absolute rule of the country to the CCP cult.

At the same time that the CCP sabotaged religion, it also destroyed traditional culture. It claimed that tradition, morality, and ethics were feudalistic, superstitious, and reactionary, eradicating them in the name of revolution.

During the Cultural Revolution, widespread ugly phenomena violated Chinese traditions, such as married couples accusing each other, students beating their teachers, fathers and sons turning against each other, Red Guards wantonly killing the innocent, and mobs beating, smashing, and looting. These were the natural consequences of the CCP’s smothering human nature.

After establishing its regime, the CCP forced minority nationalities to pledge allegiance to the communist leadership, compromising the rich and colorful ethnic culture they had established.
On June 4, 1989, the so-called “People’s Liberation Army” massacred many students in Beijing. This caused the Chinese to completely lose hope in China’s political future. From then on, everyone’s focus turned to making money.

From 1999 to this day, the CCP has been brutally persecuting Falun Gong, turning against Truthfulness, Compassion, and Tolerance (the fundamental principles of Falun Gong) and thereby causing an accelerated decline in moral standards.

Since the beginning of this new century, a new round of illegal land enclosure[6] and seizure of monetary and material resources by the corrupt CCP officials in collusion with profiteers has driven many people to become destitute and homeless.

The number of people appealing to the government in an attempt to have an injustice settled has increased sharply, and social conflict has intensified. Large-scale protests are frequent, which the police and armed forces have violently suppressed. The fascist nature of the “Republic” has become prominent, and society has lost its moral conscience.

In the past, a villain didn’t harm his next door neighbors, or, as the saying goes, the fox preys far from home. Nowadays, when people want to con someone, they would rather target their relatives and friends, and call it “killing acquaintances.”

In the past, Chinese nationals cherished chastity above all else, whereas people today ridicule the poor but not the prostitutes. The history of the destruction of human nature and morals in China is vividly displayed in a ballad below:

In the 50s people helped one another,
In the 60s people strove with one another,
In the 70s people swindled one another,
In the 80s people cared only for themselves,
In the 90s people took advantage of anyone they ran into.

6. Monopolization of the Economy
The sole purpose of establishing the CCP was to seize power by armed force and then to generate a system of state ownership in which the state holds monopolies in the planned economy. The CCP’s wild ambition far surpasses that of the ordinary evil cults that simply accumulate money.
In a country of socialist public ownership ruled by the Communist Party, Party organizations that hold great power (that is, the Party committees and branches at various levels) are imposed upon or possess the normal state infrastructure. The possessing Party organizations control state machinery and draw funds directly from the budgets of the governments at different levels. Like a vampire, the CCP has sucked a huge amount of wealth from the nation.

---

[1] “The leopard has died, but its skin is still left” is from the ancient Chinese book of prophecy, the “Plum Blossom Poem,” by Shao Yong (1011–1077). The leopard here refers to the geographic territory of the former Soviet Union, which indeed resembles a running leopard in shape. With the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the essence of the communist system has disintegrated, leaving only the “skin” (the form), which the Chinese Communist Party inherited.
[2] A kind of group dance popular during the Cultural Revolution to show loyalty to Mao and the Party. See a picture of the dance on www.shm.com.cn/yantai/2004-05/13/content_3717.htm.
[3] Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (official translation, 1999).
[4] From Mao’s “Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan” (1927).
[5] From a poem by Sima Qian (about 140–87 B.C.), a historian and scholar in the West Han Dynasty. His famous poem says, “Everyone has to die; one dies either more solemn than Mount Taishan or lighter than a feather.” Mount Taishan is one of the major mountains in China.
[6] The Land Enclosure Movement relates to a dark side of the economic reforms of China. Similar to the industrial revolution in England (1760–1850), agricultural lands in today’s China have been demarcated to build various economic zones at all levels (county, city, provincial, and state). As a result of the land enclosure, Chinese farmers have been losing their land. In the cities, residents in older city and town districts were frequently forced to relocate in order to vacate the land for commercial development, with minimal compensation for the residents. More information is available at www.uglychinese.org/enclosure.htm

How Red Was My Fabian?

MAT 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

What normal group of people with good intent would willingly and knowingly adopt a symbol of the Antichrist?

Fabianity in its own words:

 Who We Are
Though we call ourselves a think tank, the Fabian Society is more than this. For more than half a century, we have been at the forefront of research and debate into progressive political ideas and public policy reform.

National Board
Executive Members of the Australian Fabian Society.
History
The Australian Fabian Society - established in 1947 and active ever since - is Australia's oldest political think tank.
Australian Fabians
Famous Australian Fabians include some of the great Prime Ministers and Political leaders of our country.
British Fabians
The Fabian Society was founded in Britain in 1884. It has been "one of the most famous and successful agents of social change" in British political thought - and has had a profound impact on political thought in Australia.

Fabianism attracts nonconformist, egotistical second rate minds whose desire for self aggrandisement and mastery of others leads to the most gross and overweening attempts at eugenics (a Fabian creation) totalitarianism (another Fabian creation), marriage of monopoly capitalism and socialism ie collectivist elitism, destruction of anglo-saxon culture and corruption of political and social processes.

Unlike racially based anti-civilisation movements such as Jewish socialism and Islam, the Fabian is predominantly motivated by the appeal of being an oligarch in a chaotic age of darkness. Materialists and people with no stable home life, their narcissistic personality disorders lead them into unfortunate choices throughout their lives.

Roger Simon at PJ Media did a very insightful piece some time ago about why jewish people go left so much, and how much harm it has done them to pursue socialism when it is so hostile to what so many jewish people love and honour. Sadly, we've never seen a similarly perceptive screed from within islam, so far at least.

Fabianism was born from the most evil and deliberately manipulative group of people ever to gather under the protection of anglo-saxon civilisation. Those amongst them who were artists or authors have enjoyed every protection under our culture, their works promoted in school and adopted as cultural high points. And yet at the core of all their works are the same nihilistic concepts, and an extreme contempt for "common" people. It screams out of their political pawns, a paternalistic attitude to voters of "the left", and a desire to subsume all people into a slave class that the Fabians would rule over forever. Fat chance.

There are comments on the World Wide Web claiming that the Lucis Trust was once called the Lucifer Trust. Such was never the case. However, for a brief period of two or three years in the early 1920’s, when Alice and Foster Bailey were beginning to publish the books published under her name, they named their fledgling publishing company “Lucifer Publishing Company”. By 1925 the name was changed to Lucis Publishing Company and has remained so ever since. Both “Lucifer” and “Lucis” come from the same word root, lucis being the Latin generative case meaning of light. The Baileys' reasons for choosing the original name are not known to us, but we can only surmise that they, like the great teacher H.P. Blavatsky, for whom they had enormous respect, sought to elicit a deeper understanding of the sacrifice made by Lucifer. Alice and Foster Bailey were serious students and teachers of Theosophy, a spiritual tradition which views Lucifer as one of the solar Angels, those advanced Beings Who Theosophy says descended (thus “the fall”) from Venus to our planet eons ago to bring the principle of mind to what was then animal-man. In the theosophical perspective, the descent of these solar Angels was not a fall into sin or disgrace but rather an act of great sacrifice, as is suggested in the name “Lucifer” which means light-bearer.

                            -Lucis Trust, publishing arm of both Fabianism and the UN.

How to Destroy a Country | Sharia Awareness Action Network

How to Destroy a Country | Sharia Awareness Action Network


“There is a revolution coming. It will not be like the revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and with culture, and will change the political structure only as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence. This is the revolution of the new generation.”

— Charles Reich. “The Greening of America.” 1970.

 
Herbert Marcuse is probably the most infamous person that most people today have never heard of. His book Eros and Civilization promoted Free Love and the Pleasure Principle. His counter-cultural ideologies gradually transformed American and Western society from that which built Western Civilisation into that which exists only to tear it down. The greying politicians who now run the West and the majority of its institutions are the same fresh-faced students of the 1970s who once sang the Marcuse-inspired “Hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ [civilisation] has got to go.”


 A cult developed around Marcuse during the 1960s and 1970s, and the student-hippie generation was the Marcuse generation. He was held in such esteem that everything he penned was taken seriously, resulting in the students’ absorption of not just Marcuse’s most famous expression, “Make Love not War”, but also the rest of the Frankfurt School’s anti-Western, counter-cultural propaganda. Never had Lenin’s useful idiots been more abundant.

 But Marcuse was an evil man. He genuinely wanted to overthrow the traditional West. When asked who would play the part of the Russian proletariat in the Western revolution, he replied it would be all the marginalised groups, including black militants, feminists, homosexual militants, the asocial, the alienated and third world revolutionaries represented by the mass murderer Che Guevara.
The destructive policies of the Frankfurt school were known collectively as Cultural Terrorism. Today, they are simply referred to as Political Correctness, an ideology people are aware of, although very few know of its anti-Western, destructive and revolutionary roots. Doubters should ask why the victims of the politically correct lobby are overwhelmingly white, Christian, capitalist, heterosexual and male, or DWEMs as they are crudely referred to in America, short for Dead White European Males.

The simple answer is that these men and the qualities they embodied laid the foundations, erected the props, and over many centuries built the various layers of intertwined ideology and structure that formed Western Civilisation. If our memory of them can be destroyed, if the ideology can be destroyed, and if the race of people who currently represent that ideology can be destroyed, then Western Civilisation can itself be destroyed.

Only when we understand this harsh reality does the modern world make any sense. Western society has not suddenly become insane. We do not live in a society of political correctness gone mad. It is not that we are old and just don’t get it. The terrifying truth is that we are being set up for deliberately engineered control by a well-planned Socialist operation that has been decades in the making. Partial proof of this fact is the typical white liberal/leftist who denounces the historical European colonisation of foreign lands as imperialistic and oppressive, yet celebrates the current foreign colonisation of Europe. This tells us it is not colonialism with which the liberal/left have a problem, but Western Civilisation itself.

And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. Mark 3.25

The Menace of Multiculturalism (A Summary)

 The reality of multiculturalism

The practical application of multiculturalism varies between what Professor Lauchlan Chipman has called "soft multiculturalism" (ethnic foods and dancing) through to "hard multiculturalism" (ethnic separatism, traditional hatreds, barbaric customs, etc.). Chipman said that "it is clear that advocates of multi-culturalism are operating in the middle and harder divisions of the spectrum; the soft end ... is reserved simply for astounding the shallower critics who, in expressing doubts about multi-culturalism, are made to look like racists, or illiberal and intolerant bigots. Fast footwork through the spectrum is frequently necessary in debates with multi-culturalists."

Multiculturalists advocate the right for other cultures to practice their own cultural traditions and "unique" ways of life, and feel that this liberalistic view is a fair and just position to take. How ironic, therefore, that we find that some of the cultural ways and traditions subsequently practiced are considered to be far from "liberal", "just", or "fair".

The reality of the multicultural ideology (despite what any of its promoters might claim) is that it actually encourages and supports various distasteful ethnic customs:
- Treatment of women as second class citizens, including a "sheltered, separate, limited and thoroughly sexist upbringing for daughters" that exists among fundamentalist Muslims.
- Female genital mutilation (also known as female circumcision) by Africans.
- Greek and Italian daughters raised in strict households, not being allowed to associate socially with Australian classmates.
- Extremely rigid, and almost blindly obedient, patriarchal family structures.
- Arranged marriages, whereby brides (and sometimes grooms - depending on which culture is involved) have no say in the choosing of their partner. Indian and Australian Aboriginal arranged marriages can involve girls as young as eleven to fourteen being married to middle-aged men.
- The notion of the duty to kill to preserve family or blood honour.
- Aborigines being speared in the leg by other Aborigines, as tribal punishment for crimes, in line with their customary law (other types of punishment also occur).

To try to encompass all cultures is blatantly ridiculous; but to try to change, or to try to ban, certain cultural traditions is to "discriminate", to act "culturally superior", and to be "racist". Of course, some cultural demands cannot coexist in the same country, for instance, some cultures demand that monogamy be the only legal marriage, while some want polygamy to be legal. It is a direct contradiction: You can't have it both ways.

Another reality of multiculturalism is the monetary cost to the Australian community, now estimated at more than $7.2 BILLION a year.


The great multicultural fraud

Multiculturalists often use two differing definitions of their ideology. First, that of Descriptive Multiculturalism, whereby a claim is made "about the pluralistic nature of society" (i.e. that Australia consists of many different cultures). Secondly, that of Prescriptive Multiculturalism, whereby an assertion is made "about an ideal type of society to be achieved at some time in the future". The way that many multiculturalists can so easily swap between these two differing definitions of their ideology can make their arguments "as slippery as an eel" to pin down. As has been noted by Anne Seitz, "The descriptive and prescriptive definitions of multiculturalism are seldom used consistently and accurately. Very often there is a confusion or a `sliding' between the two concepts. Frequently this `slippage' is deliberate -- a convenient tactic to confuse the issue under debate."

But to call Australia "multicultural" is actually a misnomer. To illustrate the point we can compare culture with language. Australia's language is English, both in the official sense and in the practical sense. There are, however, some people in Australia who speak another language as their "first" language, so in a pedantic sense the country could be termed "multilingual" (but which would infer that most Australians are everyday speakers of foreign languages). Yet, only an idiot would seriously describe Australia as "multilingual": it is an "English speaking country" which happens to have a small minority of people who speak other languages (with only an extremely small minority who can't speak English at all). So it is with culture: the vast majority of Australians adhere to the Australian culture (even fewer are those who adhere solely to another culture).

Don't be misled by statistics of "ethnic background": the vast majority of the Australian-born (second generation, third generation, or whatever) are Australians, who are part of the Australian culture; some may be raised in such a way as to be imbued with aspects of another culture, but that does not change the overall picture: we share (broadly) the same way of life; speak the same language; relate to the same national icons; operate under the same cultural mode of everyday behaviour; and we live in, and enjoy, the same country. Culturally, most Australians are just that: Australian.

Many migrants can be viewed in a similar light, that despite being statistically classified as being of "ethnic background", many have adopted the Australian culture as their own and often have become virtually indistinguishable from the native-born.

The fact is that Australia is not a multicultural country. To use an analogy, it can readily be seen that a white dog, with a pink tongue and black paws, would only seriously be described as "multicoloured" by an idiot, or someone with an ulterior motive; so it is with multiculturalism: there is an ulterior motive behind the push to call Australia "multicultural". The reasoning is that if Australia is called "multicultural" (which would imply that most Australians are everyday practitioners of foreign cultures), that the entire country will be perceived to be, as a whole, "multicultural" (no matter what the reality is); that, if this country is "multicultural", we therefore need "multicultural policies", that therefore we need "multiculturalism", which will then be used to turn Australia "on its head" to produce a multiculturalist, internationalist society.

The phase so often used by multiculturalists, that "Australia is a multicultural society" is a cleverly constructed political phrase. Despite its pretensions to moral grandeur; multiculturalism is simply a political ideology, pushed by internationalists and small `l' liberals, that is dangerous and destructive, and promises only one end for our country: the death of the Australian culture and our national identity.

Australia is not a "multicultural society", it is a monocultural society with some ethnic minority cultures at its edges, or to be more succinct, Australia is a "core-culture society". The term "multicultural society" implies that the entirety of our society is multicultural, which is far from the truth, and is a term used in support of a political ideology (multiculturalism). The term "core-cultural society" is a far more accurate and truthful description of the Australian nation.

As Brian Bullivant has warned, "We have become so accustomed to the regularly parroted assertion, 'Australia is a multicultural society', that there is a considerable risk of assuming that such a society exists."