Book reviews

This post comprises reviews books that add substantially to the understanding of our world, economics, politics, history and geopolitics, and what may happen in the future.  Scroll down to read all reviews.

  • They’re Conning You! By Peter Senior
  • Full review at: David Icke’s Everything You Need To Know But Have Never Been Told
  • JFK and the Unspeakable. Why He Died and Why It Matters  Book review by Edward Curtin, 31 October 2017
  • The Cosmic War, by Dr Joseph P Farrell
  • Phantom Self, by David Icke
  • 1984 – Nineteen Eighty Four. George Orwell’s 1950 classic
  • Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now, Ayaan Hirsi Ali
  • The Death of Money, James Rickards  
  • American Betrayal, Diana West
  • From Third World to First, Lee Kuan Yew
  • Lee Kuan Yew by Graham Allison

They’re Conning You! 

Who are ‘they’? And what are ‘they’ planning? This is the REAL story of our past, present and possibly future.

They’re Conning You! By Peter Senior, Senior Consulting

They’re Conning You! is only available on Amazon Kindle because it includes hundreds of vital Internet links that would be far too tiresome to type in from a paper book.

They’re Conning You! presents information that is likely to cause ‘cognitive dissonance’ as it examines in depth a wide range of evidence that demonstrates much of what thought we knew is, in fact, wrong. The subjects discussed cover a wide spectrum from aliens and UFOs to asking where the technologies used to construct ancient structures come from, whether ancient civilisations waged nuclear wars against each other, to financial treason.

‘Consciousness’ is examined, as is what are we made of and how did this come about? Could it be that aliens modified our DNA, which may have come from the outer Cosmos anyway?

We are accustomed to overt and covert PC education, indoctrination and media ‘fake news,’ but do we realise how this is turning us into zombies? Servants of the State? Many scientific bodies, government departments and corporations often distort and lie about what is assumed to be ‘science.’ Even nastier things are being exposed such as paedophilia and Satanism.

Some ‘deep state’ government departments with-hold information that would enable free energy and the consequent massive improvement to most peoples’ lives and countries’ economies in order to protect their secrets as well as the massive oil and associated industries valued at $500 trillion.

There is compelling evidence that US President John F Kennedy was assassinated by covert government people because he planned to share US’ knowledge of aliens and UFOs with Russian President Khrushchev, as well as expose massive corruption.

The book presents frightening information about the two events that changed our world most in the last 55 years: JFK’s assassination and ‘911’, the demolition of the Twin Towers and Tower 7 on 11 September 2001 by covert government-controlled actions.

The subject of who ‘they’ are is discussed in depth, in particular with regard to plans for a New World Order (NWO), and who is orchestrating this.

The US is mimicking the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, whilst Europe is gradually transitioning into a bureaucratic dictatorship. The world’s financial systems are being manipulated for the benefit of their controllers, all underpinned by the ‘deep state’ which has been shown to have syphoned off at least $21 trillion through covert Pentagon misappropriations. Globalisation has expanded trade around the world, but it is now being manipulated by global corporations.

Compelling evidence demonstrates the US and other ‘deep state’ governments have secret space programs that have grown since the first UFO sightings and capture during and shortly after WWII. Imagine what 70 years of ‘reverse engineering’ from captured UFOs would yield, together with alien contact?

Several potential future scenarios are presented with assessments of each. Readers are invited to decide which seems more likely based on what they now know after reading this book and, hopefully, carrying out much more in-depth research.

A review of They’re conning you! by highly-regarded executive journalist Julian Tomlinson, based on 24 years’ experience, notes:
‘This book will appeal to the firm believers in so-called “conspiracy theories” and “conspiracy facts”, as well as those with a curiosity and even the firm non-believers. The author combines painstaking research from innumerable sources and combines bland shreds of information into a compelling narrative. Readers will feel they are sitting there actually talking to the author as he manages to convey a sense of wonder, concern and excitement in every sentence, effortlessly flicking between known pre-history, the Roman period and modern times in a manner that’s easy to follow.
If you are in the “conspiracy camp” this book expertly summarises everything you do know and want to know into one, easy-to-read volume. If you are not in the camp, you’ll at least gain an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of “conspiracies” and why they exist. You may even start to believe. Well worth a look.’

They’re conning you! is available from Amazon Kindle: www.amazon.com – search for: they’re conning you

or: https://www.amazon.com.au/Theyre-conning-they-what-planning-ebook/dp/B078SL9CQG/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1515216498&sr=1-1&keywords=they%27re+conning+you

Seven further reviews by Indie Book Reviewers are highly complimentary, and recommend the book should be read by everyone:

  1. This is a powerful, very well-written and highly informative book! I have read several books on different types of hidden ‘truths’ and conspiracy theories… what is really going on in our world and what the future might hold, and sometimes I get the sense that most are just recycling old information or things we’ve all already heard before. For this book it seems like I read a lot of new ideas presented in a way that makes a great deal of sense, even if might be perceived as somewhat “controversial”. The content was mostly new to me and laid out in a coherent way that is easy to follow, but is meticulously researched and supported with solid evidence. Peter Senior uses facts and present-day conditions as well as real-life examples to share his perspectives and ideas, Fast paced, informative, and easy to read, I recommend this book, “They’re Conning You!” to everyone who wants to know what is really going on, from aliens to secret societies, shadow governments and 9/11 and so much more.  (5 stars) John Goldman– Goodreads; Barnes & Noble; Indie Book Reviewers
  2. Peter Senior has a great ability to take complex ideas, concepts and put them in the simplest terms for all to understand easily. He covers many different points of society – past, present and future—and holds nothing back in the way of exposing information that many people might not be aware of. The media and governments do a great job of distorting reality and manipulating truths so that the average person has no idea what is really happening. Mr. Senior has compiled so much interesting research and documentation on a variety of hot-button topics and gives straightforward, convincing arguments that demand to be heard and studied further. Nicely crafted and I liked how it was formatted/broken down into individual chapters that focused on different elements. Made for easier reading and retention. Near flawless editing (formatting is a little wonky at times) and I walked away feeling like I really learned something from reading this book and am inspired to do more reading and research on my own. (4 stars) Leo Gregory– Goodreads; Barnes & Noble; Indie Book Reviewers
  3. Funny how few books there actually seem to be on so many of these topics… and this is such important information! I am still in college and it’s just not normally the type of book that I gravitate to for ‘fun’, but I thought there might be something useful I could learn anyways and I was so right! It is eye-opening and very compelling – it is clear that the author knows what he’s writing about and has done in-depth research (and has detailed and comprehensive appendices at the end to prove it). Provocative and bold, this book is not just for academics or scientists or political gurus, but for anyone who wants to know what is REALLY going on ‘behind the scenes’ and how different it is from what “they” are telling you. Everything from the JFK assassination to Twin Towers to Extra-Terrestrials, Antarctica and “Deep State” governments… Peter Senior has created an impressively comprehensive body of research and theories that can definitely get people’s attention, whether you are a ‘skeptic’ or a ‘believer’. I could definitely see the truths behind much of what he was saying. The main concern I had was that while he presented lots of great information and shocking revelations, I was left with the feeling of like “okay, now what am I supposed to do with this info?” So in that regard it is a little frustrating, but I guess it is better to know than to not know. I like that it challenged the traditional narrative and put things into new perspective. (4 stars) James Masters– Goodreads; Barnes & Noble; Indie Book Reviewers
  4. I wasn’t sure what to expect when reading “They’re Conning You” by Peter Senior, as I’m not normally one to read about things like this. But surprisingly enough I found the straight-forward and engaging narrative style to be quite fascinating and down-to-earth. I liked how Mr. Senior uses his vast and well-researched knowledge ‘story-style’ to make his points and relate his ideas in ways that we all can fully and easily grasp. Each chapter/section/topic gives valuable information, examples and supporting links or sources for further research/reading. The whole thing just flowed so well and I hope people pay attention to as it is clear that the author knows what he is talking about, and that he is an excellent writer. I have found that many times reading philosophy/political or ‘conspiracy’ theory books can either be too ‘highbrow’ and esoteric, or they just don’t present the material in a way that I feel I can relate to (or its condescending), but this definitely was not the case here at all. My only very small complaint was that I wish there were more in-text citations for sources (footnotes or direct links), because while the author does provide a very thorough appendices/references at the end, there were a few times I would’ve preferred to see the sources cited in text. A very minor thing, though. Recommended read. (4 stars) Cale Owens– Goodreads; Barnes & Noble; Indie Book Reviewers
  5. I think a lot of these types of books get a bad rap sometimes, as a lot of times they are all theory and ‘talking in circles’ but don’t really bring anything ‘new’ to the table or make the information credible and or relevant. But I have to say in this case I feel like the author did a solid job of getting his message out and doing so in a very digestible manner. I was unaware of so many things discussed in this book, and I consider myself to be fairly well educated and worldly. I’m not exactly sure who the right target audience for this would be, as it almost seems something almost anyone could (and should!) read. I admit I am not all that sure what to do with this information, but if nothing else I enjoyed learning more about certain things I was unaware of before, and I have ALWAYS had an interest in knowing more truths with aliens/ET and their contributions to our planet and advancing civilizations. The pacing is pretty even and overall it is an impressive effort by Mr. Senior and worth serious thought and discussion. (4 stars) Carla Biggins– Goodreads; Barnes & Noble; Indie Book Reviewers
  6. In “They’re Conning You…” Peter Senior lays out his ideas is a way that encourages the reader to think ‘outside the box’ and question the ‘reality’ that is often presented to the masses. Whether you believe in conspiracy theories or facts or not, there is enough detailed examination of ‘controversial’ subjects here to entice the pickiest of readers. His narrative is easy to follow, even if some of the concepts were admittedly a little ‘out there’ at times. I still feel like I gleaned some valuable information – actually a lot that I didn’t know before. While not exactly a ‘mainstream’ sort of book, in a way that is exactly what makes it so good –This book is intelligent and thought-provoking – opens your eyes and provides a necessary paradigm shift. Some parts pull the rug out from under you – others will pull the wool from your eyes and expose truths, sometimes uncomfortable, that we all need to at least hear about, even if you chose not to believe it.  At least you can decide for yourself when given the bigger picture. I liked how many outside sources he references, so many links, videos, articles and books… I will definitely be reading more! Recommend. (4 stars) Cody Brighton – Goodreads; Barnes & Noble; Indie Book Reviewers
  7. Warning – when starting “They’re Conning You…” make sure you don’t have anywhere you need to be or anything you need to do because you won’t want to stop reading until you’ve finished it all!! Trust me on this! The book starts off with an intriguing beginning pulling us into this provocative world and ideas, and just keeps going with one interesting topic after the next. I think what I liked the most about this book was just the overall feel the author Peter Senior managed to create where it felt intimate, like a friend is telling me this really cool, strange story that I didn’t want to stop listening to. Loved the energetic tone and the fact that he has his opinions, but the book doesn’t feel overly ‘biased’ or judgmental… This went much deeper than that, and I was truly impressed with the author’s literary and research skills. I actually feel like I learned a lot, all while being ‘entertained’. I’ve always had a fascination with many of these subjects (esp. aliens and secret societies), but they are usually presented in such an eye-rolling, unbelievable way It was great to read something so intelligently constructed with impressive research and complex connections that all come full circle. Suitable for mature teens on up. (5 stars) Essie Harmon—Goodreads; Barnes & Noble; Indie Book Reviewers

================

The American Deep State: Big Money, Big Oil, and the Struggle for U.S. Democracy – Updated version 

Note: this review is  copied from the Amazon/Kindle website.

Now in a new edition updated through the unprecedented 2016 presidential election, this provocative book makes a compelling case for a hidden “deep state” that influences and often opposes official U.S. policies. Prominent political analyst Peter Dale Scott begins by tracing America’s increasing militarization, restrictions on constitutional rights, and income disparity since World War II. With the start of the Cold War, he argues, the U.S. government changed immensely in both function and scope, from protecting and nurturing a relatively isolated country to assuming ever-greater responsibility for controlling world politics in the name of freedom and democracy. This has resulted in both secretive new institutions and a slow but radical change in the American state itself. He argues that central to this historic reversal were seismic national events, ranging from the assassination of President Kennedy to 9/11.
Scott marshals compelling evidence that the deep state is now partly institutionalized in non-accountable intelligence agencies like the CIA and NSA, but it also extends its reach to private corporations like Booz Allen Hamilton and SAIC, to which 70 percent of intelligence budgets are outsourced. Behind these public and private institutions is the influence of Wall Street bankers and lawyers, allied with international oil companies beyond the reach of domestic law. Undoubtedly the political consensus about America’s global role has evolved, but if we want to restore the country’s traditional constitutional framework, it is important to see the role of particular cabals—such as the Project for the New American Century—and how they have repeatedly used the secret powers and network of Continuity of Government (COG) planning to implement change. Yet the author sees the deep state polarized between an establishment and a counter-establishment in a chaotic situation that may actually prove more hopeful for U.S. democracy.

================

Everything You Need to Know,  by David Icke, 14 February 2018

See full review at: David Icke’s Everything You Need To Know But Have Never Been Told

David’s latest book is reviewed in a recent post by Freedom Article, as follows: ‘This book sprinkled throughout with David’s humor, e.g. when discussing transhumanism poster boy Ray Kurzweil of Google, David remarks “I wouldn’t trust him to tell me the date in a calendar factory” or when discussing the Christian sacrament of the Eucharist (eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ), David remarks that mainstream religion is “Satanism lite.”

Here are 2 key quotes from the book:

“If you want to control the dream you must control the perceptions of the dreamer and that’s the global conspiracy to enslave humanity in a single sentence.”

David uses the same quote from Einstein twice in the book, since it’s so important:

“Everything is energy and that’s all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you can’t help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics.”

Therein lies the grand solution. The solution to all these problems, to the entire New World Order, comes down to some very simple principles. Remember who you are. Identify with the depth of your spirit, not the shallowness of your form. Life is a mirror: whatever you put out, you receive. Change your perception and your change everything. The universe matches your vibration with an experience or situation, so if you change your vibration, you change your experience, and your entire life. If enough of us do it, we change the entire world.

Everything You Need To Know But Have Never Been Told is the kind of book that can change your life. Get a copy, read it, let it inspire you with knowledge and courage, and let the astonishing amount of dot-connecting sink in and give you a perceptual reboot.’

================

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters

 JFK and the Unspeakable. Why He Died and Why It Matters  Book review by Edward Curtin, 31 October 2017

Despite a treasure-trove of new information having emerged over the last forty-six years, there are many people who still think who killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and why are unanswerable questions. There are others who cling to the Lee Harvey Oswald “lone-nut” explanation proffered by the Warren Commission. Both groups agree, however, that whatever the truth, it has no contemporary relevance but is old-hat, history, stuff for conspiracy-obsessed people with nothing better to do. The general thinking is that the assassination occurred almost a half-century ago, so let’s move on.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as James Douglass shows in his extraordinary book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (Simon & Schuster, 2008). It is clearly one of the best books ever written on the Kennedy assassination and deserves a vast readership. It is bound to roil the waters of complacency that have submerged the truth of this key event in modern American history.

It’s not often that the intersection of history and contemporary events pose such a startling and chilling lesson as does the contemplation of the murder of JFK on November 22, 1963 juxtaposed with the situations faced by President Obama today. So far, at least, Obama’s behaviour has mirrored Johnson’s, not Kennedy’s, as he has escalated the war in Afghanistan by 34,000. One can’t but help think that the thought of JFK’s fate might not be far from his mind as he contemplates his next move in Afghanistan.

Douglass presents a very compelling argument that Kennedy was killed by “unspeakable” (the Trappist monk Thomas Merton’s term) forces within the U.S. national security state because of his conversion from a cold warrior into a man of peace. He argues, using a wealth of newly uncovered information, that JFK had become a major threat to the burgeoning military-industrial complex and had to be eliminated through a conspiracy planned by the CIA – “the CIA’s fingerprints are all over the crime and the events leading up to it” – not by a crazed individual, the Mafia, or disgruntled anti-Castro Cubans, though some of these may have been used in the execution of the plot.

Why and by whom? These are the key questions. If it can be shown that Kennedy did, in fact, turn emphatically away from war as a solution to political conflict; did, in fact, as he was being urged by his military and intelligence advisers to up the ante and use violence, rejected such advice and turned toward peaceful solutions, then, a motive for his elimination is established. If, furthermore, it can be clearly shown that Oswald was a dupe in a deadly game and that forces within the military/intelligence apparatus were involved with him from start to finish, then the crime is solved, not by fingering an individual who may have given the order for the murder or pulled the trigger, but by showing that the coordination of the assassination had to involve U.S. intelligence agencies, most notably the CIA. Douglass does both, providing highly detailed and intricately linked evidence based on his own research and a vast array of the best scholarship.

We are then faced with the contemporary relevance, and since we know that every president since JFK has refused to confront the growth of the national security state and its call for violence, one can logically assume a message was sent and heeded. In this regard, it is not incidental that former twenty-seven year CIA analyst Raymond McGovern, in a recent interview, warned of the “two CIAs,” one the analytic arm providing straight scoop to presidents, the other the covert action arm which operates according to its own rules. “Let me leave you with this thought,” he told his interviewer, “and that is that I think Panetta (current CIA Director), and to a degree Obama, are afraid – I never thought I’d hear myself saying this – I think they are afraid of the CIA.” He then recommended Douglass’ book, “It’s very well-researched and his conclusion is very alarming.” [1]

Let’s look at the history marshaled by Douglass to support his thesis.

First, Kennedy, who took office in January 1961 as somewhat of a Cold Warrior, was quickly set up by the CIA to take the blame for the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in April 1961. The CIA and generals wanted to oust Castro, and in pursuit of that goal, trained a force of Cuban exiles to invade Cuba. Kennedy refused to go along and the invasion was roundly defeated. The CIA, military, and Cuban exiles bitterly blamed Kennedy. But it was all a sham.

Though Douglass doesn’t mention it, and few Americans know it, classified documents uncovered in 2000 revealed that the CIA had discovered that the Soviets had learned of the date of the invasion more than a week in advance, had informed Castro, but – and here is a startling fact that should make people’s hair stand on end – never told the President. [2] The CIA knew the invasion was doomed before the fact but went ahead with it anyway. Why? So they could and did afterwards blame JFK for the failure.

This treachery set the stage for events to come. For his part, sensing but not knowing the full extent of the set-up, Kennedy fired CIA Director Allen Dulles (as in a bad joke, later to be named to the Warren Commission) and his assistant General Charles Cabell (whose brother Earle Cabell, to make a bad joke absurd, was the mayor of Dallas on the day Kennedy was killed) and said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” Not the sentiments to endear him to a secretive government within a government whose power was growing exponentially.

The stage was now set for events to follow as JFK, in opposition to nearly all his advisers, consistently opposed the use of force in U.S. foreign policy.

In 1961, despite the Joint Chief’s demand to put troops into Laos, Kennedy bluntly insisted otherwise as he ordered Averell Harriman, his representative at the Geneva Conference, “Did you understand? I want a negotiated settlement in Laos. I don’t want to put troops in.”

Also in 1961, he refused to concede to the insistence of his top generals to give them permission to use nuclear weapons in Berlin and Southeast Asia. Walking out of a meeting with top military advisors, Kennedy threw his hands in the air and said, “These people are crazy.”

He refused to bomb and invade Cuba as the military wished during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Afterwards he told his friend John Kenneth Galbraith that “I never had the slightest intention of doing so.”

Then in June 1963 he gave an incredible speech at American University in which he called for the total abolishment of nuclear weapons, the end of the Cold War and the “Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war,” and movement toward “general and complete disarmament.”

A few months later he signed a Limited Test Ban Treaty with Nikita Khrushchev.

In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum 263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and a total withdrawal by the end of 1965.[3]

All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Khrushchev via the KGB , Norman Cousins, and Pope John XXIII , and with Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel. In an interview with Daniel on October 24, 1963 Kennedy said, “I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we will have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.” Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top generals.

These clear refusals to go to war and his decision to engage in private, back-channel communications with Cold War enemies marked Kennedy as an enemy of the national security state. They were on a collision course. As Douglass and others have pointed out, every move Kennedy made was anti-war. This, Douglass argues, was because JFK, a war hero, had been deeply affected by the horror of war and was severely shaken by how close the world had come to destruction during the Cuban missile crisis. Throughout his life he had been touched by death and had come to appreciate the fragility of life. Once in the Presidency, Kennedy underwent a deep metanoia, a spiritual transformation, from Cold Warrior to peace maker. He came to see the generals who advised him as devoid of the tragic sense of life and as hell-bent on war. And he was well aware that his growing resistance to war had put him on a dangerous collision course with those generals and the CIA. On numerous occasions he spoke of the possibility of a military coup d’etat against him. On the night before his trip to Dallas, he told his wife, “But, Jackie, if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it, so why worry about it.” And we know that nobody did try to stop it because they had planned it.

But who killed him?

Douglass presents a formidable amount of evidence, some old and some new, against the CIA and covert action agencies within the national security state, and does so in such a logical and persuasive way that any fair-minded reader cannot help but be taken aback; stunned, really. And he links this evidence directly to JFK’s actions on behalf of peace.

He knows, however, that to truly convince he must break a “conspiracy of silence that would envelop our government, our media, our academic institutions, and virtually our entire society from November 22, 1963, to the present.” This “unspeakable,” this hypnotic “collective denial of the obvious,” is sustained by a mass-media whose repeated message is that the truth about such significant events is beyond our grasp, that we will have to drink the waters of uncertainty forever. As for those who don’t, they are relegated to the status of conspiracy nuts.

Fear and uncertainty block a true appraisal of the assassination – that plus the thought that it no longer matters.

It matters. For we know that no president since JFK has dared to buck the military-intelligence-industrial complex. We know a Pax Americana has spread its tentacles across the globe with U.S. military in over 130 countries on 750 plus bases. We know that the amount of blood and money spent on wars and war preparations has risen astronomically.

There is a great deal we know and even more that we don’t want to know, or at the very least, investigate.

If Lee Harvey Oswald was connected to the intelligence community, the FBI and the CIA, then we can logically conclude that he was not “a lone-nut” assassin. Douglass marshals a wealth of evidence to show how from the very start Oswald was moved around the globe like a pawn in a game, and when the game was done, the pawn was eliminated in the Dallas police headquarters. As he begins to trace Oswald’s path, Douglass asks this question: “Why was Lee Harvey Oswald so tolerated and supported by the government he betrayed?” After serving as a U.S. Marine at the CIA’s U-2 spy plane operating base in Japan with a Crypto clearance (higher than top secret but a fact suppressed by the Warren Commission), Oswald left the Marines and defected to the Soviet Union. After denouncing the U.S., working at a Soviet factory in Minsk , and taking a Russian wife – during which time Gary Powers’ U-2 spy plane is shot down over the Soviet Union – he returned to the U.S. with a loan from the American Embassy in Moscow, only to be met at the dock in Hoboken, New Jersey by a man, Spas T. Raikin, a prominent anti-communist with extensive intelligence connections, recommended by the State Department. He passed through immigration with no trouble, was not prosecuted, moved to Fort Worth, Texas where , at the suggestion of the Dallas CIA Domestic Contacts Service chief, he was met and befriended by George de Mohrenschildt, an anti-communist Russian, who was a CIA asset. De Mohrenschildt got him a job four days later at a graphic arts company that worked on maps for the U.S. Army Map Service related to U-2 spy missions over Cuba. Oswald was then shepherded around the Dallas area by de Mohrenschildt who, in 1977, on the day he revealed he had contacted Oswald for the CIA and was to meet with the House Select Committee on Assasinations’ Gaeton Fonzi, allegedly committed suicide. Oswald then moved to New Orleans in April 1963 where got a job at the Reilly Coffee Company owned by CIA-affiliated William Reilly. The Reilly Coffee Company was located in close vicinity to the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and Office of Naval Intelligence offices and a stone’s throw from the office of Guy Bannister, a former Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Chicago Bureau, who worked as a covert action coordinator for the intelligence services, supplying and training anti-Castro paramilitaries meant to ensnare Kennedy. Oswald then went to work with Bannister and the CIA paramilitaries.

During this time up until the assassination Oswald engaged in all sorts of contradictory activities, one day portraying himself as pro-Castro, the next day as anti-Castro, many of these theatrical performances being directed from Bannister’s office. It was as though Oswald, on the orders of his puppet masters, was enacting multiple and antithetical roles in order to confound anyone intent on deciphering the purposes behind his actions and to set him up as a future “assassin.” Douglass persuasively argues that Oswald “seems to have been working with both the CIA and FBI,” as a provocateur for the former and an informant for the latter. Jim and Elsie Wilcott, who worked at the CIA Tokyo Station from 1960-64, in a 1978 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, said, “It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA station that Oswald worked for the agency.”

When Oswald moved to New Orleans in April 1963, de Mohrenschildt exited the picture, having asked the CIA for and been indirectly given a $285,000 contract to do a geological survey for Haitian dictator “Papa Doc” Duvalier, which he never did , but for which he was paid. Ruth and Michael Paine then entered the picture on cue. Douglass illuminatingly traces in their intelligence connections. Ruth later was the Warren Commission’s chief witness. She had been introduced to Oswald by de Mohrenschildt. In September 1963 Ruth Paine drove from her sister’s house in Virginia to New Orleans to pick up Marina Oswald and bring her to her house in Dallas to live with her. Thirty years after the assassination a document was declassified showing Paine’s sister Sylvia worked for the CIA. Her father traveled throughout Latin America on an Agency for International Development (notorious for CIA front activities) contract and filed reports that went to the CIA. Her husband Michael’s step-father, Arthur Young, was the inventor of the Bell helicopter and Michael’s job there gave him a security clearance. Her mother was related to the Forbes family of Boston and her lifelong friend, Mary Bancroft, worked as a WW II spy with Allen Dulles and was his mistress. Afterwards, Dulles questioned the Paines in front of the Warren Commission, studiously avoiding any revealing questions. Back in Dallas, Ruth Paine conveniently got Oswald a job in the Texas Book Depository where he began work on October 16, 1963.

From late September until November 22, various Oswalds are later reported to have simultaneously been seen from Dallas to Mexico City. Two Oswalds were arrested in the Texas Theatre, the real one taken out the front door and an impostor out the back. As Douglas says, “There were more Oswalds providing evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald than the Warren Report could use or even explain.” Even J. Edgar Hoover knew that Oswald impostors were used, as he told LBJ concerning Oswald’s alleged visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. He later called this CIA ploy, “the false story re Oswald’s trip to Mexico…their ( CIA’s) double-dealing,” something that he couldn’t forget. It was apparent that a very intricate and deadly game was being played out at high levels in the shadows.

We know Oswald was blamed for the President’s murder. But if one fairly follows the trail of the crime it becomes blatantly obvious that government forces were at work. Douglass adds layer upon layer of evidence to show how this had to be so. Oswald, the mafia, anti-Castro Cubans could not have withdrawn most of the security that day. The Sheriff Bill Decker withdrew all police protection. The Secret Service withdrew the police motorcycle escorts from beside the president’s car where they had been the day before in Houston; took agents off the back of the car where they were normally stationed to obstruct gunfire. They approved the fateful, dogleg turn (on a dry run on November 18) where the car came, almost to a halt, a clear security violation. The House Select Committee on Assasinations concluded this, not some conspiracy nut.

Who could have squelched the testimony of all the doctors and medical personnel who claimed the president had been shot from the front in his neck and head, testimony contradicting the official story? Who could have prosecuted and imprisoned Abraham Bolden, the first African-American Secret Service agent personally brought on to the White House detail by JFK, who warned that he feared the president was going to be assassinated? (Douglass interviewed Bolden seven times and his evidence on the aborted plot to kill JFK in Chicago on November 2 – a story little known but extraordinary in its implications – is riveting.) The list of all the people who turned up dead, the evidence and events manipulated, the inquiry squelched, distorted, and twisted in an ex post facto cover-up – clearly point to forces within the government, not rogue actors without institutional support.

The evidence for a conspiracy organized at the deepest levels of the intelligence apparatus is overwhelming. James Douglass presents it in such depth and so logically that only one hardened to the truth would not be deeply moved and affected by his book.

He says it best: “The extent to which our national security state was systematically marshaled for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy remains incomprehensible to us. When we live in a system, we absorb and think in a system. We lack the independence needed to judge the system around us. Yet the evidence we have seen points toward our national security state, the systemic bubble in which we all live, as the source of Kennedy’s murder and immediate cover-up.”

Speaking to his friends Dave Powers and Ken O’Donnell about those who planned the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, JFK said, “They couldn’t believe that a new president like me wouldn’t panic and try to save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong.”

Let’s hope for another president like that, but one that meets a different end.

[1] http://consortiumnews.com/print’2009/091309a.html [This link appears to be too old to still work. Unlike the print age, the digital age loses references, another way that memory and history are stolen.]

[2] Vernon Loeb, “Soviets Knew Date of Cuba Attack,” Washington Post, April 29, 2000

[3] See James K. Galbraith, “Exit Strategy,” Boston Review, October/November 2003

Edward Curtin teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts

====================

The Cosmic War, by Dr Joseph P Farrell

A review from Amazon of this extraordinary and compelling  ‘must read’ book, The Cosmic War: Interplanetary Warfare, Modern Physics, and Ancient Texts: A Study in Non-Catastrophist Interpretations of Ancient Legends, Author Dr Joseph P Farrell.

Farrell’s foray into ancient antiquity is scholarly in it’s precision and thought-provoking in its ramifications.  Oxford educated researcher Dr. Joseph P. Farrell unleashes a reverberating hypothesis regarding ancient history whose echoes will be forever heard.

Cosmic War is an extremely intriguing incursion into the possibility of a very ancient war in high antiquity. Dr. Farrell’s hypotheses of an Ancient Interplanetary War is argued in an in-depth, precise and reasonable approach. The extensive evidence Farrell collates and synthesizes will leave the reader aghast with the possibilities.

Intriguingly, many ancient cultures stated that the ‘Wars of the Gods’ were quite real. Predictably, even though there’s extensive evidence for advanced physics, advanced weapons, ancient [millions and BILLIONS of year old artifacts found by reputable sources], the establishment has painted all over ancient history with myth.

Regarding this very issue, Jim Marrs in his book Our Occulted History, sets his cross hairs on this very issue: “The term mythology stems from the Greek word mythos, simply meaning words or stories reflecting the basic values and attitudes of people. In past ages, when the vast majority of humans were illiterate, easily understood parables were used to educate people about history, science, and technology. During the Dark Ages, when most of people were taught that the Earth was flat, the word mythology was changed by the Roman Church to mean imaginative and fanciful tales veering far from truthfulness. This small change in semantics has caused untold damage in current perceptions.”

Ironically enough, there is starting to be more and more evidence of ‘myths’ now turning out to be fact. As Chris Hardy Ph.D remarks in her poignant book DNA Of The Gods: “…let’s remember that, before the discoveries of loads of ancient tablets written in the pictographic Sumerian language (Late Uruk period, fourth millennium BCE), the kingdom of Sumer was believed to be a myth. We had already discovered Akkad and deciphered Akkadian, and still archaeologists wouldn’t give credence to the numerous carved references, within historical dated records, to a line of kings whose title was “King of Sumer and Akkad”.

Or how about the “myth” of Troy: “This myth collapsed in 1865 with archeologist Frank Calvet’s discovery of the historic ruins of not only one city of Troy but nine layers of it! The city, whose siege is recounted in Homer’s Iliad, is only Troy VII, the seventh level underground, dating to the thirteenth century BCE.”

The gatekeepers, for many reasons, want to keep established history in a nice little box. Fortunately, as anyone who has extensively research these topics know, there’s more than ample evidence that shows that at minimum history isn’t what we have been told.

In any case, Cosmic War covers wide ranging but pertinent topics such as Van Flandern’s exploded planet hypothesis, an analysis of plasma in relation to weapons that employ scalar physics, petroglyphs which show plasma instability glyphs that were recorded by ancient cultures, remnants of giants in ancient history, optical phase conjugation, the story of the ‘gods’ as related through ancient texts, pulsars, generational charts of the ‘gods’, the scarring of The Valles Mariners being possibly from a weapon, Iapetus and its hexagonal craters, and a LOT more.

The ramifications of this book abound, and filter in all aspects of our lives. Dr. Farrell gives compelling reasons [coupled with countless others in his other trenchant books] as to why we need to give history, particularly ancient history, a very long and thorough look.

In its totality, this book is a veritable fountain of information that is scholarly in precision, and thought-provoking in its ramifications. This book is a must read for anyone interested in ancient history, ancient civilizations, and any of the topics there-in. There is more than enough information to make the reader curious about our past in more ways than they can really imagine.

========================

David Icke’s “Phantom Self”: A Book Review from Freedom Articles

david-ickes-phantom-self-a-book-review-from-freedom-articles

Phantom Self, the latest book of researcher David Icke, takes conspiracy research to a new depth with the idea of a primal virus that has hacked Life itself.

(Editor’s note: this book is amongst the most fascinating, timely and thought-provoking books I’ve ever read.  I strongly recommend setting aside all prejudice and past learning – what we were taught, and so believed – then reading it with an open mind. And then thinking deeply.)

Phantom Self is the latest book of famous researcher and free-thinker David Icke. Just as in his previous book The Perception Deception, David takes his research to a new level of depth with a comprehensive display of dot-connecting that will leave many in awe of his knowledge – but more importantly awaken people to the real dire straits humanity is in. Like many of his books, it ends with a positive message and the ultimate solution to all of humanity’s problems; however, most of the book is devoted to exposing the current reality of planet Earth, often in horrifying detail. This is an essential part of David’s message, for without the true knowledge of what is really going on – and the capacity to feel the horror of it – we will not muster the courage and motivation to change it. Part of the reason humanity is so stuck deep in the conspiracy is that it is engaged in massive collective denial, which it prevents it from acting decisively to quash and transform the evil (or unconsciousness as I prefer to call it). A hallmark of Phantom Self is that it takes a step further down the rabbit hole – past the reptilians and Archons – and looks at the controlling force behind them, which David says resembles some kind of computer virus that has hacked life itself.

The full review can be seen at david-ickes-phantom-self-a-book-review-from-freedom-articles

========================

1984 – Nineteen Eighty Four

George Orwell’s classic 1950 novel is very worthwhile reading (again for most people).  It is frightening to review how much of what Orwell wrote is happening today, albeit is somewhat different guise.  Recall Orwell was a member of the Fabian Society, where he learnt of their plans before resigning.  He used novels as a practical was to publicise the plans he learn about from other Fabian members.  The Amazon website – – explains much about the book, and presents several perceptive reviews – this is one of the 4,613:

George Orwell’s classic was incredibly visionary. It is hardly fathomable that this book was written in 1948. Things that we take for granted today – cameras everywhere we go, phones being tapped, bodies being scanned for weapons remotely – all of these things were described in graphic detail in Orwell’s book.
Now that we have the Internet and people spying on other people w/ webcams and people purposely setting up their own webcams to let others “anonymously” watch them, you can see how this culture can develop into the Orwellian future described in “1984.”
If you’ve heard such phrases as “Big Brother,” “Newspeak,” and “thought crime” and wondered where these phrases came from, they came from this incredible, vivid and disturbing book.
Winston Smith, the main character of the book is a vibrant, thinking man hiding within the plain mindless behavior he has to go through each day to not be considered a thought criminal. Everything is politically correct, children defy their parents (and are encouraged by the government to do so) and everyone pays constant allegiance to “Big Brother” – the government that watches everyone and knows what everyone is doing at all times – watching you shower, watching you having sex, watching you eat, watching you go to the bathroom and ultimately watching you die.
This is a must-read for everyone.

=====================

Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now

Author: Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Ali was born in Mogadishu, Somalia, was raised Muslim, and spent her childhood and young adulthood in Africa and Saudi Arabia. In 1992, Hirsi Ali came to the Netherlands as a refugee. She earned her college degree in political science and worked for the Dutch Labor party. She denounced Islam after the September 11 terrorist attacks and now serves as a Dutch parliamentarian, fighting for the rights of Muslim women in Europe, the enlightenment of Islam, and security in the West.

Editor’s note: this book should be considered essential reading by anyone who has an interest in Islam as well as everyone who is or may be effected by Muslims (that means just about everyone!).  The book is very comprehensive and, unlike most other books on the subject, provides not only a wide-ranging background and analyses based on her own experience, but some thought-provoking solutions.  After scanning numerous reviews of this excellent book, the following written by ‘Helpful Advice’ on Amazon is more or less  what I would have written.

After ‘Infidel’ and ‘Nomad’ worldwide known, equally hated and adored Ayaan Hirsi Ali is back on literary (and considering the topic inevitably political) scene with her new and probably the most controversial book so far she wrote – ‘Heretic’.

A book that will certainly be subject of numerous texts, quoted or despised, she raised the question of some key Islam teachings incompatibility with the values of modern or free society for which the majority (or at least we think so maybe) people in the world stands for.

It seemed that comparing to some other major religions, Islam somehow proved immune to changes in the new world we are living, characterized by enormous speed of information exchange and the development of human rights. There were some attempts such as Arab Spring that tried to challenge traditional thinking, ingrained prejudices or facts about the Muslim world. But with the simultaneous proliferation of Islamic fundamentalism and even its acceptance in certain circles of the population in the West, according to the author it seems that it is time for some radical actions that must be implemented by the very Muslims, not someone else from outside.

So, what Ali proposes needs to happen for Muslims to defeat the extremists for good? Economic, political, judicial and military tools have already been proposed, some of them deployed, though it seems that all these will have little effect unless Islam itself is reformed.

Therefore she calls for a Muslim Reformation—a revision of Islamic teachings, alignment of modern society with traditional religion doctrine, that seems difficult, but not unfeasible due to the rejection of extremist behavior among the majority of Muslims around the world.

She reminds that such reformation has been called for since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent abolition of the caliphate, but instead of general phrases and generalized objectives she precisely pointed out five key precepts that have made Islam resistant to historical change and adaptation. And only when the harmfulness of these ideas will be recognized and as result they will be rejected, a true Muslim Reformation would be possible.

Although to comment each of them would require writing essays, I’ll just list all five of them:
• Removing of Muhammad’s semi-divine status, putting him into the history context as important figure that united the Arabs in a pre-modern time that cannot be copied in the 21st century. And consequently also recognizing the fact that Quran is the book made by human hands.
• Emphasizing that life is more important than something that comes after it will reduce the appeal of martyrdom.
• Appreciation of modern laws that need to be put in front of Shariah legislation that is violent, intolerant or anachronistic.
• The abolition of the individual’s right and so called religious police to enforce the law, something for Muslim community is unfortunately particularly known
• And most important, Islam must become a religion of peace removing the imperative to wage holy wars against infidels

Once again this author must be admitted undeniable courage to tackle the dangerous subjects in a world where because of the drawn cartoons you can easily lose a life. Her theses are clear, her objectives are fully explained, her mission to change the Islamic world from the inside continues, causing the happiness and satisfaction of all civilized Muslims worldwide.

Therefore high recommendations for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, this brave author who after fighting for the rights of women engages into even greater battle with the hope that one day we will be able to say that books like these changed the world. For the better.

===============================

The Death of Money

The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System.  8 April 2014.  By James Rickards.

James Rickards, author of the other best seller, Currency Wars, has gone even further in The Death of Money: The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System, in telling it like it is (and will be, so prepare yourself!). Jim’s all-facts, straightforward approach is peppered with just enough analogy and anecdotal wit to make sophisticated economic/mathematical/political concepts understandable to the (educated) layperson. His clarification techniques serve the book well by making sure the content never gets watered down or condescending. For anyone interested in knowing what is going on behind the scenes, how the dollar is being systematically devalued by The Fed (and why), what a rigged sham our banking system is, and how things are likely to play out in the very near future, read The Death of Money!

American Betrayal

The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character by Diana West (May 28, 2013).  Diana West’s newest book “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on our Nations Character” is a highly researched, blockbuster of a story taking 356 pages to tell with 29 pages of notes.  Whilst not directly about ‘management’, this book is packed with information that any successful manager should understand, in particular regarding communications (propaganda?)  and planning.  It’s the most thought-provoking, worrying, disillusioning book I’ve ever read.  I’ve attached a couple of reviews of the book from Amazon.com. American Betrayal, Diana West, May 2013. Reviews  that give you a glimpse of what it’s about.  John, of John’s Newsletter fame, noted: ‘American Betrayal explains what many already know about the creation of the soviet monster by the FDR administration, stacked with communist spies and the author of the cold war from as early as 1942.  How FDR’s lackeys could give the USSR the atomic bomb via Lend Lease is fascinating and unfortunately true.  It is clear that powerhouse though she may be, America has been ungovernable since the outset…Just too big, too complex and too full of leaks and confused ideologies.  America is now, as a reaction, on the road to becoming a police state.  Folk who have read the book  called “The Open Society and Its Enemies” by Karl Popper will understand how the USA came to this pretty pickle and the realities behind this scandalous state of affairs.  Horrific though her anecdotes are, I have seen independent corroboration elsewhere of Diana’s central themes and accept them as factual – when asserted as such.  This book is too disturbing for general consumption.’

From Third World to First

The Singapore Story: 1965-2000 by Lee Kuan Yew  (Oct 3, 2000).  Note:  although older, it is useful to read this book before the Grand Master’s Insights book, below. Some comments on the Amazon website: Lee Kwan Yew had a clear vision, set himself clear goals…. Above all, what led to his success is his execution skills…. Although Singapore is a free market economy, its philosophy concerning workers and employees are caring and genuine, unlike in the United States….His views regarding leadership and a wide range of management issues are profound….. Read this book to be inspired.

Lee Kuan Yew

The Grand Master’s Insights on China, the United States, and the World by Graham Allison et al., 1 Feb. 2013.  Some comments on the Amazon website: Lee excels in pithy evaluations of regional and national strengths and weaknesses. At his best, the man is a cross between Confucius and Machiavelli. (Washington Times)……..”I found myself engrossed this week by the calm, incisive wisdom of one of the few living statesmen in the world who can actually be called visionary. The wisdom is in a book, “Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master’s Insights on China, the United States and the World,” a gathering of Mr. Lee’s interviews, speeches and writings…He is now 89, a great friend of America, and his comments on the U.S. are pertinent to many of the debates in which we’re enmeshed.” — Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal.

Posted in Must-Read Articles | Comments Off on Book reviews

More must-read articles

Better-management.org brings you thought-provoking, and many very worrying, articles on finance, economics, geopolitics, the environment, government and much more.

Scroll down to read the most recent articles; links to previous articles follow.

Who is going to run a perfect world?

Who is going to run a perfect world  By John Rappoport, The Matrix Revealed, 23 May 2019

“Ah, yes.  Utopia.  You see perfection, i see mediocracy.  You see triumph, I see surface gloss and shiny objects and moths drawn to luminous signs and symbols.  You see order, I see walled-in compartments.  You see community, I see the abdication of the soul.” (From my Notes on Technocratic Utopia)

In early human societies, technology was primitive, and top-down control over the population was overt and menacing.

In modern times, technology develops apart from massive political power—or it seems to.  

Large numbers of people who work with technology view it as a path to perfection of civilization.  Perfection equals order, organization, coordination, comfort, security, and so on.  Or as one technocrat put it to me, “Everyone and everything in its proper place.”

If you don’t examine what that means, if you just take it as a surface generalization, and if you dream technology can solve all problems, the future looks rosy.

You can even flesh out details of the future.  Buckminster Fuller did.  He proposed that technology had reached a point where every human on Earth could be guaranteed, from birth, at no charge, the essentials of life: food, clothing, shelter, education.

There are many versions of a technocratic utopia.  They all promise a collective triumph for the human species.

But is the fundamental premise true? Is modern technology developing apart from top-down control?  Unfortunately, the answer is no.  At the summit of the food chain, the people in charge see technology as a means of universal control.  They aren’t content to allow innovation with no firm hand on the reins of society.

Who will run the perfect society?  The people who are building it.  The technocrats, who see humans as pieces on a board; pieces that need to be positioned properly.

What quality will disappear if the technocrats have their way?  FREEDOM.  

A technocrat looks at humans and sees a mess made of millions of bad individual decisions; a massive and well-programmed computer can fix that, if the computer is made king.  The computer can organize the whole of Earth.  “You go here, you go there.  You do this, you do that.  You have this much energy you can use every month…”

If you ask a dumb and dumber liberal who will run the perfect world, he’ll say THE GOVERNMENT.  If you ask a dumb and dumber conservative the same question, he’ll say GIANT CORPORATIONS AND BANKS.  

The truth, of course, is GOVERNMENT AND GIANT CORPORATIONS, WORKING TOGETHER.  How naïve does a person have to be to embrace, without worry, GIANT GOVERNMENT or GIANT CORPORATIONS?

Resistance to this future starts with understanding what INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM means.

Or else, at some point, you’ll get this: “Hi, I’m Jim.  I’m with your electric company, your bank, your employer, your insurance carrier, your court, and your doctor.  I just wanted to go over a few things with you prior to your annual interview.  As you know, this year the energy allotment for each citizen is going to decline, so we want you to be prepared for that…”

Skip ahead in time and the annual check-up will include a DNA scan, to make sure your genetic profile fits your assigned status.  

Too far-fetched?  I can tell you this.  Every year, the number of individuals who are ready to sacrifice their highest dreams and ambitions “for the sake of the community (the collective)” grows.  The ideology of equality, twisted to turn into more control from the top, expands.

======================

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating referred to the Australian intelligence agencies as “nutters”

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating referred to the Australian intelligence agencies as nutters  By James O’Neill, American Herald Tribute, 12 May 2019

In interview given to Australia’s ABC network former Prime Minister Paul Keating referred to the Australian intelligence agencies as “nutters”.

The comment was in the context of the advice that those intelligence agencies were giving the government on relations with China, Australia’s most important economic partner by a considerable margin.

There were the usual expected expressions of outrage from several quarters, and Labor leader Bill Shorten hurriedly confirmed his faith in the said agencies, his good relationship with them, and the value he attached to their advice.

It was perhaps too much to expect during an election campaign, one currently devoid of appearances by the Foreign and Defence Ministers, that Mr Keating’s remarks might be discussed beyond his colourful adjectives as to the state of their alleged sanity or lack thereof.

The absence of such a discussion is greatly to be regretted because there have been a number of events in the world of strategic significance to Australia and repercussions within Australia since the election date was announced last month, almost none of which have received any significant media coverage, let alone discussion and analysis.

A number of European elections and political events in Europe this year have seen the rise of right-wing political parties, either gaining power or significant increases in their political representation in their parliaments. This is mirrored in Australia. The European Union

At least in Australia there seems little appreciation of why this phenomenon is occurring. Not the least of the reasons is that in economic terms, the income inequality gap is at levels unprecedented in modern times. This trend has accelerated since the global financial crisis of 2008 and has not been seriously addressed by mainstream political parties. Instead, tax cuts are proposed for those on higher incomes, and the long discredited trickle-down theory of wealth redistribution is still parroted.

The second great impetus to popular discontent has been the manifest disparity between the rhetoric of the liberal rules based international order and the objective reality.

Australia’s “joined at the hip” ally, the United States, is increasingly seen by the vast majority of the world’s nations as a lawless bully that unhesitatingly abandons commitments that it itself made because of an overarching presumption that it is entitled to change or ignore rules in its own perceived self-interest.

This year alone, and we are not yet halfway through, the United States has recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; approved Israel’s annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights; imposed sanctions on a range of countries pursuing their legitimate interests; attempted a coup d’état in Venezuela and threatened that country that “all options are on the table”; unilaterally abandoned the JCPOA that it was a party to the negotiations on, and approved in the United Nations Security Council less than four years ago; abandoned the antiballistic missile treaty; dispatched a carrier task force to the Persian Gulf “as a message to Iran”; described (by the US Ambassador to Russia) another carrier task force in the waters adjoining Russia “as 100,000 tonnes of diplomacy”; and imposed swinging tariffs on Chinese imports; to cite but a few examples.

All of these actions strike at the heart of the notion of a “rules based international order” unless one defines such a term as ‘our rules that we are free to change or ignore as we see fit’.

As recently as this week United States Secretary of State Pompeo threatened to sever intelligence sharing with the United Kingdom if it persisted with its intention to allow Huawei to participate in the United Kingdom’s digital updating. Australia has already succumbed to United States “advice” that Huawei represented a “national security threat.”

Huawei has denied there its 5G technology is a digital backdoor for spying. Those denials may or may not be true, but it is completely dishonest to advance that as a reason when we have known, thanks to Edward Snowden, the existing American technology enables precisely that and has done so for a number of years.

It is also dishonest to criticize China for alleged cyber spying when Australia’s Pine Gap fulfills precisely that function on behalf of the United States. As with American opposition to the Nord Stream 2 project where it wishes to replace Russian gas with its own LNG at three times the price, so too does the US wish to replace Huawei with its own inferior indigenous technology.

The recent BRI Forum in Beijing, attended by more than 5000 delegates from 150 countries all eager to learn more about, and consolidate their participation in, the world’s greatest infrastructure and development program, is further confirmation that the vast majority of the worlds’ nations are rejecting the United States and its allies’ zero sum mentality which allows only one winner.

The era of the unipolar hegemon that has threatened, sanctioned, bombed, overthrown the governments of and invaded more than 70 nations in the post-World War II era is over. That state of affairs is in the midst of being reversed by the emergence of a multipolar world, spearheaded by Russia and China.

Mr Keating may have overstated his criticism that the intelligence agencies are “nutters.” The profounder truth of his criticism, however, is that those agencies are dinosaurs from a different era.

The refusal of the United States and its allies like Australia to recognise that the world is changing, and that the true “nutters” are the US leadership that thinks it can bully, cajole and threaten others to get its way. These are the people that represent a very real danger to our peace and security.

Is it too much to hope that the last week of this incredibly banal election campaign will actually address these existential issues that are as much a threat as the effects of climate change reported in a major (and largely ignored) United Nations report. That report disclosed a rapid and ongoing extinction of millions of species on the planet. The challenge will be to ensure that the human species is not one of them. On present indications the symptoms are not encouraging.

========================

How did our nation, Australia, sink to this?

How did our nation, Australia, sink to this  By Andrew Clennell, The Australian, 9 May 2019

Australian NSW State member of parliament, Mark Latham, unleashes in a brilliant maiden speech. First an article in The Australian, then the full speech below.

New One Nation NSW MP Mark Latham has railed against the Left and political correctness in his maiden speech in the NSW parliament, accusing people of trying to bring down western civilisation through a campaign of “cultural Marxism”.

Mr Latham defended rugby player Israel Folau and said that he would be “moving legislation for the protection of free speech, religious freedom and the privacy rights of workers” in his time in parliament.

He also said he would move legislation allowing nuclear power into NSW and said the federal Opposition spokesman on the environment, Mark Butler, would become the “minister for blackouts” with his pro-renewables approach and compared the push for renewables to a “pagan religion”.

Mr Latham, who with a One Nation colleague and several other crossbenchers will hold the balance of power in the upper house in NSW, said he and others were in the “fight of our lives” to bring back the values of Western civilisation.

“Mr President, I stand with Israel Folau. In his own private time away from his job playing football, he’s a preacher at his community church and naturally, he quotes the Bible,” Mr Latham said.

“I was on Folau’s list of sinners”

“He believes, as millions of people have believed for thousands of years, that sinners go to Hell.

“As per his valid religious faith, he loves the sinner but condemns the sin. Yet for his beliefs, his Christianity, he is not allowed to play rugby, to chase the pigskin around the park.

“How did our State and our nation ever come to this? I was on Folau’s list of sinners, more than once actually.

“But as I don’t believe in Hell, there was no way I could take offence. Those claiming outrage have fabricated their position solely for the purpose of censorship. This is not an argument about diversity.

“The Wallabies have no female players, no disabled, no elderly, no middle aged.

“They are selected from a tiny fraction of the young, fit, athletic male population.

“By excluding a committed Christian, they are making their game less inclusive. And as for Folau being a role model for young gay men, one only needs to state this proposition to understand its absurdity.

“Footballers are not role models for anyone, other than in enjoying their sporting ability.

“I say to any young person: if you are looking for guidance and inspiration in life, study Churchill, Lincoln, Reagan and Roosevelt, not Todd Carney. By the way, that’s Ronald Reagan, not Reg Reagan.

“The new serfdom”

“No Australian should be fearful of proclaiming four of the most glorious words of our civilisation: I Am A Christian.

“No one should be sacked by their employer for statements of genuine belief and faith that have got nothing to do with their job.

“The Folau case exposes the new serfdom in the Australian workplace: how big companies, the corporate PC-elites are wanting to control all aspects of their employees’ lives — their religious and political views, how they speak and think, how they behave, even in their own time away from the workplace.

“This is a stunning intrusion on workers’ rights. Yet far from condemning the new serfdom, Labor and the trade unions have been cheering it on.

“As per our One Nation election commitments, I will be moving legislation for the protection of free speech, religious freedom and the privacy rights of workers.”

Mr Latham also went on to rail against the Left generally.

“For all its pitfalls and failings, the Legislative Council has always redeemed itself in wanting to extend the reach of Western civilisation and advancement in Australia. Until now,” Mr Latham said.

‘A scene from the Life of Brian’

“Like so many parts of our politics that have changed quickly in recent times, there are voices here who do not believe in the virtues of the West, who do not acknowledge the nation-building achievements of our culture and our country.

“It’s like a scene from The Life of Brian, a case of: What has Western civilisation done for us? Only advanced healthcare and education; architecture, engineering, information technology, free speech and the rule of law.

“ In fact: this chamber, this parliament, in this city, all our public institutions and the material comforts we take for granted — none of them could exist without the greatness of the West. Without the advances that began with the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution and continue to this day.

“Yet still, among the Leftist elites, among the social engineers and cultural dietitians, sneering at our civilisation and its achievements has become their new pastime.

“They preach diversity but practice a suffocating cultural conformity, wanting everyone to be just like them.

“They argue for inclusion but as soon as a Christian, a conservative, a libertarian, a nationalist, a working class larrikin, an outsider from the vast suburbs and regions of our nation disagrees with them, they crank up their PC “outrage machine to exclude them from society. “

They are tolerant of everything except dissenting values and opinions — meaning, of course, they are tolerant of nothing that matters, only themselves.”

Mr Latham said this was a “Leftist curse through the ages: the recurring history of those who so badly crave control over others, they lose control over themselves.”

“Safe Schools garbage”

He said those from the Left were taking away from “battlers” “the right to speak their mind. To say they love their country and want Australia Day to stay”.

“To practice their Christianity, openly and freely. To send their children to school without the garbage of Safe Schools, Wear-It-Purple days, ‘HeadRest’ indoctrination and the other crackpot theories making some NSW classrooms more like a Hare Krishna meeting than actual education.

“And when they go to work, the chance to do their job without being bombarded by employment quotas, ‘unconscious bias’ training and a long list of unspeakable, taboo words — scary, scary stuff, like ‘guys’ and ‘mums and dads’.” “The New Left are the new primitives of our time: junking the importance of evidence, of recorded history, of biological science, to pretend that all parts of our lives (especially race, gender and sexuality) can be fluid, that everything we know and feel around us is, in fact, ‘socially constructed’.”

Mr Latham said society “shouldn’t be confusing young people and risking their mental health by pushing gender fluidity upon them”.

“ … In the last national census, for instance, 13 hundred Australians identified as transgender. But to listen to the political and media coverage of this issue, you would think there were 13 million.

“ Mr President, Everywhere I travel, parents and grandparents, workers and communities, tell me how concerned they are about Australia’s direction. They ask me, ‘What’s happened to our country; where has this nonsense come from?’ The answer is clear. The Leftist project, then and now, is about control. “Having, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, lost the struggle for economic control, the Left got smarter. It shifted from the Cold War to a culture war. It moved from pursuing economic Marxism to pushing cultural Marxism.

“Instead of seeking revolution at the top of government, it has marched instead through our institutions — a tactic that’s harder to combat. The elites have been remarkably successful in this cultural invasion.

“Our abiding national traditions of free speech, merit selection, resilience and love of country are being lost, not just in the public sector — in schools, universities, public broadcasters, major political parties and government agencies — but also in large parts of corporate Australia and the commercial media. The rest of us are the Resistance to this national takeover.

“If you control someone’s language, you control a big part of their lives: how they interact with others, how they communicate in society, their feeling of belonging.”

“As the great John Cleese has pointed out, telling a joke about someone doesn’t mean we hate them.”

Mr Latham went on to defend former Labor leader Luke Foley’s description of “white flight” from western Sydney but criticised his successor Michael Daley’s comments about “Asians with PhDs” coming in to take jobs.

And he said there was too much immigration.

“Big Australia immigration has flooded the labour market, holding down wages. “It has also flooded the housing market, driving up demand and prices.

“It’s fuelling Sydney’s congestion and overdevelopment crisis. This city cannot continue to grow at 100,000 per annum, at a severe cost to the environment and residential lifestyle.

“For a government struggling to build a couple of tram tracks down the main street, the promise of better planning is a hoax.

He said Premier Gladys Berejiklian’s government was championing an “aerotropolis” near the new Western Sydney Airport.

“The government talks about it like it’s a cross between Silicon Valley and Disneyland.

“But it’s looming as just another excuse for urban sprawl and under-servicing.

“The government says it’s building a new city the size of Adelaide, with 1.3 million people. Yet remarkably, there are no plans for a new public hospital, only a so-called ‘integrated health facility’ servicing less than 20 per cent of the proposed population.

“Mr President, The fightback for freedom is long overdue. As is the fightback for fairness.

“The repair job in education is massive: hours of discussion, hundreds of questions to be asked and answered, scores of policy ideas and reform proposals to be advanced. And that’s what I’ll be doing throughout this term of parliament — my word I will. Mr President, I’m concerned for the future prosperity of our State.”

Priorities: education, energy

He said education and energy policy were his two priorities.

“I’m not a climate denier. I respect all forms of science. But just as much, I don’t believe in running public policy through the work of zealots.

“And that’s what renewables have become — a new pagan religion, whereby the Green-Left wants to hand over human control of our energy grid to the vagaries of the weather, through wind and sun worship.

“We are being asked to change the climate by relying on the weather — a high-risk, paradoxical way of planning for the needs of a modern economy. There is a place for renewables in the system. But it must be supplementary to baseload power, not the other way around.

“Currently the Federal Labor Shadow Minister for Energy, Mark Butler, is promising the Australian people a new era of “dispatchable renewable energy”. “Yet when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, there is nothing to dispatch. Butler will end up being the Minister for Blackouts.

“In longer term planning for the State, lifting the ban on uranium mining and nuclear power, as per the Deputy Premier’s policy. I can advise the House that yesterday I gave notice of a Private Member’s Bill for this purpose.”

Mr Latham said that since retiring from federal parliament having served as federal opposition leader in 2005: “The days and years with my children have been the best of my life but now they are so much older and, through them, having seen what the government school system has become, it was time to come here to do something about it.”

He thanked 2GB broadcaster Alan Jones for his support, saying he “at various times gave me a chance when no one else would”.

“ For those of us who believe in the virtues of Western civilisation, who treasure the advances and values of the Enlightenment … this is the fight of our lives. Our ethos, sir, is simple: No surrender. No surrender in any debate, in any institution, on any front. No surrender in trying to take back our country, That, Mr President, is why I’m here and what I’m fighting for.”

——————————————–

The full speech:

Hon mark lathem INAUGURAL SPEECH, NSW parliament, 190508

The PRESIDENT: Before I give the Hon. Mark Latham the call, I take this opportunity, on behalf of all honourable members, to welcome into my gallery guests of the Hon. Mark Latham, including Mr Alan Jones, Mr Ross Cameron and Mr Rowan Dean, here in the House today for the member’s speech. I take this opportunity also, on behalf of all members, to welcome our former colleague the Hon. Paul Green, who is in the public gallery. The Hon. Mark Latham has the call.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM (16:33): Thank you, Mr President, and I congratulate you on your re?elevation to high office. I note that not far from where you sit, some 10 metres from the entrance to this old Chamber, there is a wonderfully imposing canvas. It depicts the decisive moment in Australian history—the landing of the First Fleet at Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788. The great painting by Algernon Talmage is called the Founding of Australia, a founding marked by the arrival of Western civilisation on this continent. It is an appropriate entrance statement for this place, the mother of legislative power and progress in Australia.

Despite attempts by both sides of politics to either abolish it or silence it, for nearly two centuries the Legislative Council has, by and large, been a civilising force in New South Wales. Over the years the Australian Labor Party has expelled more of its MLCs for failing to vote for the Legislative Council’s abolition than are here representing Labor today. Among conservatives, George Reid in 1895 dissolved the Parliament on the single issue of Legislative Council obstruction, pledging—he said—to “clear the fossils” from a rotten and corrupt Chamber. And he had not even met Eddie Obeid.

Crooks and scoundrels aside, this place has been true to Talmage’s painting. It has honoured the founding principles of our nation: That progress is possible through parliamentary debate and deliberation; that in a land of hard work and meritocracy every citizen can and should receive a fair go. For all its pitfalls and failings the Legislative Council has always redeemed itself in wanting to extend the reach of Western civilisation and advancement in Australia—until now. Like so many parts of our politics that have changed quickly in recent times, there are voices here who do not believe in the virtues of the West, who do not acknowledge the nation-building achievements of our culture and our country.

It is a bit like a scene fromThe Life of Brian, a case of: What has Western civilisation done for us? Only advanced health care and education, architecture, engineering, information technology, free speech and the rule of law. In fact, this Chamber, this Parliament, this city, all our public institutions and the material comforts we take for granted—none of them could exist without the greatness of the West—without the advances that began with the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution and continue to this day.

Yet still, among the leftist elites, among the social engineers and cultural dieticians, sneering at our civilisation and its achievements has become their new pastime. They preach diversity but practice a suffocating cultural conformity, wanting everyone to be just like them. They argue for inclusion but as soon as a Christian, a conservative, a libertarian, a nationalist, a working-class larrikin, an outsider from the vast suburbs and regions of our nation disagrees with them, they crank up their PC-outrage machine to exclude them from society. They are tolerant of everything except dissenting values and opinions meaning, of course, they are tolerant of nothing that matters, only themselves.

This is the leftist curse through the ages—the recurring history of those who so badly crave control over others they lose control over themselves. In their lust for authority they lose their respect for the rights of others. It is a bit like a scene from Orwell’sAnimal Farm, the Green-Labor-Left has become the thing it originally opposed—elitist, would-be dictators taking away from working-class communities the things these battlers value: the right to speak their mind; to say they love their country and want Australia Day to stay; to practice their Christianity, openly and freely; to send their children to school without the garbage of Safe Schools, Wear-It-Purple days, “HeadRest” indoctrination and the other crackpot theories making some New South Wales classrooms more like a Hare Krishna meeting than actual education; and when they go to work the chance to do their job without being bombarded by employment quotas, “unconscious bias” training and a long list of unspeakable, taboo words, scary, scary stuff, like “guys” and “mums and dads”.

The New Left are the new primitives of our time, junking the importance of evidence, of recorded history, of biological science, to pretend that all parts of our lives, especially race, gender and sexuality can be fluid, that everything we know and feel around us is, in fact, “socially constructed”, that is what they say, “socially constructed”. They are peddling fake news. We have not been brainwashed by capitalist hegemony as the post?modernists argue. People know and understand the things they see and feel in their lives. It is called evidence. Our personal characteristics and identities are fixed, not fluid. With few exceptions people are born either male or female.

We should not be confusing young people and risking their mental health by pushing gender fluidity upon them. We should not be taking away from parents their essential role as the primary carers of their children in matters personal and sexual. We should not be changing the purpose of our education system, transforming schools from places of skill and academic attainment into gender fluidity factories. Most of all, we should not be losing sight of the interests of mainstream, majority Australia. In the last national census, for instance, 1,300 Australians identified as transgender. But to listen to the political and media coverage of this issue you would think there were 13 million.

Everywhere I travel parents and grandparents, workers and communities, tell me how concerned they are about Australia’s direction. They ask me, “What’s happened to our country? Where has this nonsense come from?” The answer is clear. The leftist project, then and now, is about control. Having with the fall of the Berlin Wall lost the struggle for economic control, the Left got smarter. It shifted from the cold war to a culture war. It moved from pursuing economic Marxism to pushing cultural Marxism. Instead of trying to socialise the means of production, it is now trying to socialise the means of individual expression and belief—our language, our values, our behaviour. Instead of seeking revolution at the top of government, it has marched instead through our institutions—a tactic that is harder to combat.

The elites have been remarkably successful in this cultural invasion. Our abiding national traditions of free speech, merit selection, resilience and love of country are being lost, not just in the public sector—in schools, universities, public broadcasters, major political parties and government agencies—but also in large parts of corporate Australia and the commercial media. The rest of us are the Resistance to this national takeover. Our chief ally is evidence—evidence and human nature. Through the power of reason and enlightenment people want to have a say about the things that are important to them. They want free speech. They want freedom of religion and belief. Australians are also a tough yet fair-minded people. It comes from our origins in colonial times, the things depicted in Talmage’s painting.

The Australian story in settling a harsh and sometimes hostile continent on the other side of the world is one of the most remarkable in human history. Leaders such as Arthur Phillip and Lachlan Macquarie, in little more than a generation, turned a penal colony into a civilisation—building what has now become the best nation on earth. It was achieved through resilience and mateship—the Australian habit of toughing it out and treating others as equals. Jack is as good as his master. It is in our nature to treat people as we find them—to judge them on their individual merit, their work ethic, their community contribution. This is what makes identity politics—subdividing our people on the basis of race, gender and sexuality—so foreign to the Australian way. Just as the old Soviet Union fell over because human nature wanted economic competition and individual wealth and excellence, I believe these new mutant strains of social control—post-modernism and identity politics—will also fail. They run contrary to the nature and evidence of our lives.

I ran for parliament to be part of the fightback for freedom and fairness. In New South Wales One Nation took 34 detailed policies to the election, including a detailed package for human rights reform. We believe New South Wales needs new laws protecting freedom of speech, especially on university campuses where so much of academic and student freedom has been lost. Sometimes we laugh at the absurdity of political correctness but at its core it is an insidious movement, a handbrake on liberty. If you control someone’s language, you control a big part of their lives: how they interact with others, how they communicate in society, their feeling of belonging.

Like every other Australian, I own my own words; I know what I mean by them. Like so many Australians, I refuse to allow my words to be controlled by strangers—by the elites with their confected outrage and PC censorship. In truth in society, offence is taken, not given. It is a personal choice, based on assumptions about what someone meant by their words. Yet only the person speaking those words truly knows what was meant. As the great John Cleese has pointed out, telling a joke about someone does not mean we hate them. We love the people we joke about. We love the Irish, the blondes, the gays, everyone—as they have helped to bring humour and joy into our lives.

The other problem with political correctness is in knowing what is genuine and what is not. So much of the offenderati, the outrage industry, involves the fabrication of offence—saying that their feelings have been hurt solely for the reason of closing down their political opponents. PC is riddled with these internal contradictions. Let me give an example from this parliament. Labor members of Parliament [MPs] are not allowed to say two words—”white flight”—-even though they are a truthful expression of what is happening in western Sydney, having been identified by Luke Foley. It is a sad day for democracy when MPs cannot talk about the evidence in their electorates. Then last year in the Blue Mountains, when Michael Daley launched a wrong-headed attack on Asians with PhDs, the two Labor MPs in the room stood mute. So the Labor leader who had it right, Luke Foley, cannot have his words repeated; while the one who had it wrong went unchecked, for months on end. Go figure the logic of that. New South Wales needs freedom of speech laws, even for its own MPs, and also new laws for the protection of religious freedom.

As I am sure the President will appreciate, many migrants came to Australia to escape religious persecution. Now they are saying the problems in their home country have followed them here. I am not a Christian but I recognise the vital contribution of Christianity to our civilisation: its vast social and charitable work; its teaching of right and wrong in civil society. I stand with Israel Folau. In his own private time away from his job playing football he is a preacher at his community church and naturally he quotes theBible. Why would he not? He believes, as millions of people have believed for thousands of years, that sinners go to hell. As per his valid religious faith, he loves the sinner but condemns the sin. Yet for his beliefs, his Christianity, he is not allowed to play rugby, to chase the pigskin around the park. How did our State and our nation ever come to this? I was on Folau’s list of sinners, more than once actually. I dread to look at how many times I was listed by his social media postings. But as I do not believe in hell there was no way I could take offence.

Those claiming outrage have fabricated their position solely for the purpose of censorship. This is not an argument about diversity. The Wallabies have no female players, no disabled, no elderly, no middle aged. They are selected from a tiny fraction of the young, fit, athletic male population. By excluding a committed Christian, they are making their game less inclusive. And as for Folau being a role model for young gay men, one only needs to state this proposition to understand its absurdity. Footballers are not role models for anyone, other than in enjoying their sporting ability. I say to any young person: if you are looking for guidance and inspiration in life, study Churchill, Lincoln, Reagan and Roosevelt, not Todd Carney. By the way, that is Ronald Reagan, not Reg Reagan.

I believe that no Australian should live in fear of the words they utter. No Australian should be fearful of proclaiming four of the most glorious words of our civilisation: I am a Christian. No-one should be sacked by their employer for statements of genuine belief and faith that have got nothing to do with their job. The Folau case exposes the new serfdom in the Australian workplace. Who ever would have thought it would come to this, how big companies, the corporate PC-elites are wanting to control all aspects of their employees’ lives—their religious and political views, how they speak and think, how they behave, even in their own time well away from the workplace? This is a stunning intrusion on workers’ rights. Yet far from condemning the new serfdom, Labor and the trade unions have been cheering it on.

As per our One Nation election commitments, I will be moving legislation for the protection of free speech, religious freedom and the privacy rights of workers. The fightback for freedom is long overdue, as is the fight for fairness. I mentioned earlier that for most people identities of race, gender and sexuality are fixed. People are born a certain way and should not be judged by the things in life they cannot change. To do so is to practice the poison of identity politics. It has become the great obsession of leftists everywhere; even though for normal people it is not the way in which they live their lives. No-one wakes up in the morning and thinks, “I’m male or female. I’m black or white. I’m straight or gay.” They start their day as workers, as parents, as family members, as community contributors. Not only is identity politics irrelevant to most people, it is a betrayal of social justice and social democracy.

In the 1980s and 1990s we were told to look through a person’s race, gender and sexuality. These things were said to be irrelevant to a person’s character, their work ethic, the way in which they care about others. There was no need to lump them into broad and unrepresentative categories based on the primitive notion of how they look. When I was first elected to the Federal Parliament in 1994, if you had asked me, “Who typically is the neediest person in your electorate?”—the one I was trying to help as a Labor member of Parliament—I would have said, “A white working-class man living in one of Campbelltown’s public housing estates, who had been restructured out of manufacturing work in the eighties and now faced the indignity of long-term unemployment and welfare dependency.” How silly of me. How little did I know. I am now told he was an example of white male privilege and that the bum out of his pants was actually a rainbow shot up his backside.

International studies have shown that Australia is one of the most racially tolerant and fairest nations on earth. Through equal pay and employment opportunity laws, we also have achieved large slabs of gender equality. Australia now has more female than male university graduates, lawyers, GP doctors, vets, teachers, office managers and public servants. When the Prime Minister’s department tested for evidence of unconscious bias in its 2017 Behavioural Economics Team Australia [BETA] study of workforce recruitment practices, it found that the only type of bias was against white men: Women, ethnic groups and Aborigines enjoyed favouritism in the workplace. This is the truth about Australia and the fair-mindedness of our people.

Identity politics is a zero-sum game. It uses employment quotas and other forms of institutionalised bias to favour one hand-picked identity grouping over another, regardless of personal need. This causes enormous resentment among those who miss out because they have the wrong skin colour, the wrong gender, the wrong sexuality—things they can do nothing about. Divisive identity politics subdivides our society, destroying its sense of common good and it leaves the rainbow Left impotent. They have no solution for the white welfare-dependent man living in a public housing estate. In fact, far from helping him, perversely and tragically they define him as part of the problem. Imagine how he feels. I have spoken to these men. Imagine how they feel when they see other identity characteristics gaining special treatment.

I have studied these things all my adult life. I come to this Chamber convinced that there is only one way of running a fair society and that is through merit. The best person for the job must get the job, regardless of race, gender and sexuality. This is why One Nation proposes to abolish employment quotas and other identity-based forms of discrimination. Let me say something about identity politics at the other end of the political spectrum. When Pauline Hanson approached me to run for One Nation, I insisted on all discriminatory clauses and policies being purged from the party’s platform. When that happened, we were able to campaign as a pro-merit, anti?discrimination party in the New South Wales election.

I am particularly pleased that the party ran its first Islamic candidate, Emma Eros, for the seat of Hornsby. Emma is present in the public gallery. In the social media storm that followed, some anti-Islamic fundamentalists told me they could not vote for us as long as a Muslim was representing One Nation. Privately I thought, “So be it.” I oppose discrimination in all its forms whether it is the new anti-white racism of the Left, or the flawed belief of some that all Muslims are evil and inspired by theKoran to cut our throats when the caliphate is called. Islam, like all religions, is diverse in its range and intensity of belief. It gains more public attention because at one extreme when it is bad, it is barbaric with the horror of radical Islamic terrorism.

At the other extreme, it has some great people, such as the Indian Fijian community in south-west Sydney. Kicked out of India for being Muslim and then kicked out of Fiji for working too hard, they have come to Australia and set up businesses with a strong work and study ethic. I know several of those families and I am proud to call them friends—as I am proud of Emma Eros. As a party, One Nation cannot go around calling on migrants to integrate yet not support someone like Emma, but Emma has. A licensed plumber and businesswoman, she talks western, dresses western and works hard in western style, yet also practices a moderate and conservative strand of Islam. She is a wonderful example of what multiculturalism should be: a seamless blend of the best of our country and her traditional beliefs.

Whether we are talking about the extreme Left or extreme Right of politics, the challenge—indeed, a work in perpetuity—is to overcome ignorance to enable people to cross racial and religious boundaries and get to know each other, building a more trusting and cohesive society. The rise of identity politics has coincided with Australia losing control of the scale of its immigration program. Governments seem to think we owe the rest of the world easy entry into our country when in fact immigration policy should be framed for the benefit of the people who live here now. Big Australia immigration has flooded the labour market, holding down wages. It has also flooded the housing market, driving up demand and prices. It is fuelling Sydney’s congestion and over?development crisis. This city cannot continue to grow at 100,000 people per annum at a severe cost to the environment and residential lifestyle.

Whether someone is a longstanding resident or they recently came to Australia and Sydney, we are all in the same circumstances: crawling along car park roads, standing on crowded trains, trying to combat congestion and urban sprawl. I have to say that the promise of better planning is a hoax from a government that is struggling to build a couple of tram tracks down the main street. We in western Sydney know this problem well. For 40 years in different capacities I have been arguing that jobs and services need to come to our region before the people do. That is the reason I got into politics in the first place. If anything, in this era of high immigration, the problem is getting worse. None of the lessons of the seventies and eighties have been learned.

Take for example the proposed aerotropolis surrounding the Badgerys Creek Airport site. The Government talks about it as though it is a cross between Silicon Valley and Disneyland, but it is looming as just another excuse for urban sprawl and under-servicing. The Government says it is building a new city the size of Adelaide, with 1.3 million people. Yet, remarkably, there are no plans for a new public hospital at the aerotropolis—only a so-called integrated health facility servicing less than 20 per cent of the proposed population. Adelaide has four public hospitals. The aerotropolis? None.

I say to the Government, “Fix this problem. It is a huge priority for One Nation. You’re creating the youth capital of Australia between Penrith and Camden. It needs not only a new public hospital but also a specialist children’s hospital to cope with rapid population growth.” Earlier I asked where the attacks on our country and our civilisation are coming from. And here is the problem: I am not just talking about the usual suspects from the Greens-Labor Left. I am talking about Liberal and The Nationals parties that have been paralysed on these issues, that have not stood up for freedom of speech, freedom of religion and meritocracy.

Specifically in this place, I am talking about a Coalition Government that tried to abolish greyhound racing in New South Wales, having surrendered to a belief that animal rights are more important than human rights. I am talking about a National party that under Minister Adrian Piccoli allowed the monstrosity of post?modernism fluidity theory to run through the New South Wales school curriculum. The Nationals used to believe in the basics of school education. Sure, they are still committed to young people learning the alphabet, but it is the LGBTQI-WTF version. The rot set in under Piccoli, who amazingly became a mouthpiece for the Teachers Federation. He broke the golden rule of sound education policy in this State, which is: When the Teachers Federation says something needs to be done, do the opposite.

Through a loss of academic standards, testing and grading, New South Wales school results are going backwards compared to other States and other countries. There is no one thing that has gone wrong in the education system. What we are experiencing is system failure—multiple problems feeding off each other, a downward spiral in standards and outcomes. Teacher quality has collapsed in many government schools to the point where it now resembles social work more than academic instruction. The curriculum has been infested with ideological content, with high school English becoming a tutorial in identity politics. Student resilience is being lost and replaced by snowflake schooling where only half an excuse is needed to avoid testing and grading.

Useless fads, like “growth mindset”, “soft skills” and “progression points”, are also clogging up the classroom. The “All Must Have Prizes” mentality is levelling out notions of excellence and effort—like the old Soviet Union where, no matter how students performed, they all got the same result and the same recognition. In disadvantaged communities, a welfare school model has emerged whereby teachers pursue pastoral care and student happiness as their primary goals rather than results and career paths.

I must say, these developments break my heart. One of the best parts of my life was attending Hurlstone Agricultural High School at Glenfield—by far the best school in south-west Sydney until Piccoli ripped it off us with his harebrained scheme of moving it to Richmond. The tragedy of declining school results is that they hit disadvantaged students hardest. A good school is a poor kid’s passport to a better life. There is a mountain of work to do to restore those opportunities and uplift the standards of New South Wales education. It is all there in the One Nation policy platform. Measurement is the key. The old adage in public sector management applies: what gets measured gets done. In New South Wales schools we measure very little. The repair job in education is massive: hours of discussion, hundreds of questions to be asked and answered, and scores of policy ideas and reform proposals to be advanced. That is what I will be doing throughout this term of Parliament—my word, I will. It is a top priority to try to fix our schools and restore the quality of opportunity in our society.

I am concerned for the future prosperity of our State. There are two clear and present dangers to the New South Wales economy: the first, as I mentioned, is education; the second is energy policy. The issue around energy involves a basic question of responsibility. The Government and the Parliament has no greater duty of care to the people of New South Wales than to keep the lights on so our essential services can continue to save lives, our households can continue to function and our businesses can continue to grow. History shows and common sense confirms the best way to do this is through reliable, dispatchable base load power. We need to build the system on a strong foundation of full-time, 24/7 power generation, on top of which intermittent, part-time sources can play a role.

When the peak demand hits, invariably in summer, and accidents hit the system, again invariably in summer, around-the-clock base load power is our best insurance policy against blackouts. The two ways of achieving this are nuclear power and coal-fired stations. Yet across the country nuclear is banned and coal is being run out of the market through the subsidies, targets and special deals being offered to renewable energy providers. The Australian Energy Market Operator has stated that—this is an amazing statistic—in the decade to 2015 the equivalent of 30 percent of New South Wales peak electricity demand was lost in power generation.

It is being replaced by a patchwork system—a series of part-time power sources, the effectiveness of which rely heavily on weather and environmental conditions. When the sun is not shining, there is no solar power. When the wind is not blowing, there is no wind power. When the water supply runs short, there is no hydro. Even gas power is limited, due to access and pricing issues in New South Wales, meaning it is best suited to peaking plants, rather than the 24/7 baseload. These are part-time sources of power. Yes, it may be possible to cobble them together in a way that meets full-time electricity demands, but the risks are high. We are talking about a privatised, vertically integrated market where normal pricing signals do not apply. There are perverse incentives to short the market, as we have seen with AGL Energy. In terms of green technology, there is another leap of faith: a reliance on the rapid development of battery storage—all I can say is, “Good luck with that.”

For all the public relations hoopla about Elon Musk’s battery farm in South Australia, it has a capacity for meeting the needs of the Tomago Aluminium smelter in the Hunter Valley for just eight minutes. In truth the projections for energy production and peak energy consumption in New South Wales are beginning to separate in the wrong direction. The State is losing its energy self-sufficiency. The likely tipping point—a heightened risk of blackouts—will occur in the summer of 2022-23, following the closure of Liddell Power Station. As a Parliament and as representatives of the community our responsibility and duty of care to the people of New South Wales is to make provision now—right now—for this contingency. We have to stop sleepwalking into disaster.

I am not a climate denier; I respect all forms of science. But I do not believe in running public policy through the work of zealots. That is what renewables have become—a new pagan religion. The green left wants to hand over human control of our energy grid to the vagaries of the weather through wind and sun worship. We are being asked to change the climate by relying on the weather. That is a high-risk, contradictory way of planning for the needs of a modern economy. There is a place for renewables in the system, but they must be supplementary to base load power; not the other way around. Currently the Federal Labor shadow Minister for Energy, Mark Butler, is promising the Australian people a new era of “dispatchable renewable energy”—remember those three words: dispatchable renewable energy. Yet when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, there is nothing to dispatch. Butler will end up being the “Minister for Blackouts”.

Our Asian economic competitors must be laughing their heads off. Australia is the world’s most resource?rich nation, yet we have some of the world’s highest electricity prices and we are shedding generation capacity that would otherwise meet 30 per cent of public demand during the hot summers of the nation’s largest State. New South Wales should be a global energy super power with abundant nuclear, coal-fired, gas and renewable energy. How can this goal be achieved? I have confidence in the new Minister for Energy and Environment, Matt Kean. Under his policy leadership it would be wise for the Government to pivot away from the renewables fetish and emphasise the importance of energy security and affordability.

One Nation offers its cooperation in implementing six vital changes: first, upgrading the capacity of our inter-State connectors, especially into coal-rich Queensland. Second, bundling up the State Government’s electricity consumption and putting out to tender a supply contract exclusively for additional coal-fired power. Third, abolishing all targets, subsidies and special deals for renewables, levelling the playing field on the production side of the market. Fourth, abolishing the Government’s Climate Change Fund, which has become a slush fund for projects unrelated to climate change. This would cut electricity prices for households and businesses. Fifth, immediate approval of the Santos project at Narrabri to overcome the State’s chronic deficiency in gas supply. This is no longer an environmental or local-land-use issue, but a question of keeping the lights on. Sixth, planning for the State in the longer term, lifting the ban on uranium mining and nuclear power, as per the Deputy Premier’s policy. I can advise the House that yesterday I gave notice of a private member’s bill for this purpose. I am delighted to be doing the Deputy Premier’s policy work for him in lifting the ban on uranium mining and nuclear power.

I have had a fortunate life. As a child my parents told me to study hard at school and I did. As a young man I had the honour of being Labor mayor of my home town, Liverpool, building facilities that should have been built 30 years earlier. Then I had the opportunity to serve in the Australian House of Representatives, doing what very few Australians ever have a chance to do: running to run the country at a general election. For the past 14 years I have lived the greatest joy and responsibility of my life as a home dad and primary carer, giving support and all my love to my wife, Janine, and our three children, Oliver, Isaac and Siena. When I left the Federal Parliament in 2005 the words of the former member for Bass, Warwick Smith, echoed in my ears, “Every day you spend away from your children is a day you never get back.” The days and years with my children have been the best of my life, but now they are so much older and—as they keep telling me during household discussions on politics—wiser. Through them I have seen what the government school system has become. It was time to come here and do something about those issues and others.

On 23 March three members of the minor parties on my side of politics—two from One Nation—were elected to the Legislative Council. I congratulate my friend and colleague Rod Roberts on his election. I thank all who made it possible: our party leader, Senator Pauline Hanson, a committed patriot who would do anything for her country; our highly dedicated New South Wales One Nation officials, particularly Mick Jackson and Amit Batish; and our candidates, party workers and volunteers. I thank my campaign manager, Corrine Barraclough, who was magnificent in every respect. I also thank Alan Jones, who at various times gave me a chance when others would not. I am delighted to see Alan in the President’s gallery, along with two outsiders: Ross Cameron, whose dad served here with great distinction, and Rowan Dean. Rowan and Ross were supposed to have a long?running television show, but I have brought them here instead. Hopefully that will make a good difference to someone along the way. Parliamentary privilege is a beautiful thing—how did I ever let it go? He is a great broadcaster and, of course, a great fighter for Australia.

Most of all, I thank the people of New South Wales, who have given me a second go at parliamentary service. The personal vote below the line at the recent election confers a special responsibility. Our supporters are a long way from the centre of political power, but they hold a powerful belief in what politics should be. They are salt-of-the-earth people without a parliamentary or media megaphone of their own. Therefore, they rely on parties like Pauline Hanson’s One Nation to fight for the things they love about their country. For those of us who believe in the virtues of western civilisation, who treasure the advances and values of the Enlightenment, who look at Talmage’s painting and marvel at its meaning, this is the fight of our lives. Our ethos, sir, is simple: No surrender—no surrender in any debate, in any institution, on any front; no surrender in trying to take back our country. That is why I am here and it is what I am fighting for. I thank the House for its courtesies and for listening to my maiden address.

========================

Previous articles

August 2016

July 2016

June 2016

May 2016

April 2016

March 2016

February 2016

January 2016

December 2015

November 2015

October 2015

September 2015

August 2015

    •  A sea of frothing, sweary, often pompous, intolerance  By Tim Black, Spiked Online, 29 August 2015

July 2015

June 2015

May 2015

April 2015

March 2015

February 2015

    •  

January 2015

 

Posted in Must-Read Articles | Comments Off on More must-read articles

The US Empire: rise, fall, and now what?

The US was the dominant world power, but has been failing, compounded by desperate plans for hegemony and appalling errors and lies over a long period. Will President Trump overpower the Deep State and restore the US in a unipolar world, perhaps in conjunction with President Putin and Chairman Xi?

Scroll down to read the most recent articles.  Links to previous articles  follow.

US West Coast Cities are overwhelmed by rats, drugs, crime, garbage piles & the homeless

US West Coast Cities are overwhelmed by rats, drugs, crime, garbage piles & the homeless  By Michael Snyder, The Economoc Collapse blog, 23 May 2019

Can you name the major west coast city that has become a rotting, decaying hellhole and is being completely overwhelmed by rats, drugs, crime, piles of garbage and hordes of homeless people?

Of course San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, “all of them” and “any of them” would all be correct answers, but in this article we are going to talk about Los Angeles. Once upon a time, millions of young Americans flocked to “sunny L.A.” in order to experience “the California Dream”, but these days Los Angeles seems to be on the cutting edge of many of our most critical societal problems. L.A. has been known for Hollywood, the porn industry and world class traffic congestion, but now it is also becoming famous for “rat-infested piles of rotting garbage”… Rat-infested piles of rotting garbage left uncollected by the city of Los Angeles, even after promises to clean it up, are fueling concerns about a new epidemic after last year’s record number of flea-borne typhus cases.

Even the city’s most notorious trash pile, located between downtown LA’s busy Fashion and Produce districts, continues to be a magnet for rats after it was cleaned up months ago. The rodents can carry typhus-infected fleas, which can spread the disease to humans through bacteria rubbed into the eyes or cuts and scrapes on the skin, resulting in severe flu-like symptoms. Today, approximately 18.7 million people live in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and many fear that the rat population may exceed the human population at this point.

When garbage and filth are everywhere, rats can breed exceedingly quickly. In fact, under ideal conditions two rats can become 482 million rats in just three years. So you would think that L.A. would want to get this rat problem under control, but an NBC Los Angeles investigation discovered that “there is no plan or program to control the growing rat population”… But in Los Angeles, the I-Team learned there is no plan or program to control the growing rat population that feasts at trash piles like the one on Ceres Avenue.
“It’s something that we’ll look into,” said Pepe Garica, of Los Angeles’ bureau of sanitation. Lovely, eh?

In a previous article, I noted that the rats have now even conquered Los Angeles City Hall… Officials at Los Angeles’ City Hall are considering ripping all of the building’s carpets up, as rats and fleas are said to be running riot in its halls. A motion was filed by Council President Herb Wesson on Wednesday to enact the much needed makeover amid a typhus outbreak in the downtown area.

Wesson said a city employee had contracted the deadly bacterial disease at work, and now he’s urging officials to investigate the ‘scope’ of the long-running pest problem at the council building. Meanwhile, the homeless population continues to multiply as well.
The number of homeless people living in L.A. has risen by at least 75 percent since 2012, and authorities cleaned up nearly 15,000 homeless encampments last year alone… Nearly 15,000 homeless encampment cleanups were conducted last year in Los Angeles, a process that begins with officers clearing people from the area before sanitation workers remove trash and other items.

The cleanups cost taxpayers millions of dollars, but some residents who live near the encampments said they are usually repopulated soon after sanitation crews are done. It’s a seemingly endless cycle that leads neighbors to ask whether there are better ways to spend that tax money. In other words, Los Angeles is cleaning up an average of 41 homeless encampments every single day. Overall, Los Angeles spent a whopping 619 million dollars on the homeless problem last year, but it just continues to get even worse. Of course wherever there is homelessness there is crime, and those that live in downtown L.A. are getting fed up… “Everyone living, working in, or visiting downtown has noticed the rapidly deteriorating conditions,” downtown resident Catherine Tomiczek told the committee. She said a friend was beaten and robbed on the street and a neighbor was stabbed in her building.

Councilman Paul Krekorian, who heads the committee, said he would request the information sought by the group. Major crimes downtown increased 6.7 percent this year compared with the same period in 2018, according to LAPD crime data through April 13. Much of the violent crime is fuelled by the drug trade, and according to DEA agent Bob Thomas Los Angeles is definitely a national hub for drug activity… In a middle class neighbourhood in Los Angeles a house is surrounded by crime tape. A young man had lost his life to drugs inside.

It’s happened a record 72,000 times last year in the United States and Los Angeles is a big part of the problem.

“Drug cartels send their stuff to LA, where it’s distributed across the nation,” DEA agent Bob Thomas said. Further up the California coastline, northern California is being absolutely overwhelmed by a meth epidemic that is completely out of control. Just consider these shocking numbers… Since 2011, emergency room visits related to meth in San Francisco have jumped 600% to 1,965 visits in 2016, the last year for which ER data is available. Admissions to the hospital are up 400% to 193, according to city public health data. And at San Francisco General Hospital, of 7,000 annual psychiatric emergency visits last year, 47% were people who were not necessarily mentally ill — they were high on meth. “As California goes, so goes the nation” is a phrase that people like to use, but we better hope that it isn’t true, because California is going down the toilet. And as our planet continues to become increasingly unstable, scientists assure us that it is only a matter of time before “the Big One” hits the state. Earlier today, northern California was shaken by a magnitude 3.8 earthquake, and one of these days a truly catastrophic quake is coming.

In recent years, approximately five million people have packed up and moved to another state, and you can’t really blame them for leaving.

========================

The Assange/Manning Cases Discredit Humanity

The Assange Manning Cases Discredit Humanity  By Paul Craig Roberts, 21 May 2019

The rule of law has given way to law as a weapon in the hands of government

Everyone who is aware of the US government’s extraordinary criminal actions at home and abroad bears a heavy weight.  The millions of peoples murdered, maimed, orphaned, widowed, and displaced by gratuitous American military aggression comprise a Holocaust of deaths based entirely on lies and false accusations in order to advance secret American and Israeli agendas. I suspect that the heavy burden of responsibility for mass murder and destruction committed in our name is the reason most Americans prefer the fake news fed to them about how good and wonderful and exceptional we are and how hard our government works to protect us from the nasty folks elsewhere.  This storyline converts the illegal brutal war crimes of the US government against women, children, defenseless citizens, schools, wedding parties, funerals, and farmers in their fields into glorious and brave defenses of our liberty and virtue. If you want the truth watch the video leaked by Manning of US troops enjoying themselves while from the air they machine-gun reporters and innocent civilians walking along a street and follow up by machine-gunning a father and his two young children, babies, who stopped to help the wounded bleeding in the street.  The leak of the video that showed the true picture of Washington’s wars is the reason Manning was tortured and imprisoned.  It is the person who told the truth, not the criminals who committed the murders, who was punished.

I agree that the fake story of America’s moral worthiness is much easier to live with than it is to bear the shame of the true story.  But in the end the fake story destroys our liberty even more completely than would conquest by a foreign opponent. People are more suspicious of an occupying power than they are of their own government and are less likely to believe foreign occupiers when they lie to them.  In contrast, a people’s own government can trap them in a false consciousness and keep them there with fake news.

Wherever one looks at the behavior of Americans today, from airline flight attendants to police to national security advisors and secretaries of state, one sees people devoid of moral conscience, integrity, compassion, empathy, and self-control. For unreasonable and petty spite alone, a female airline attendant on a long-delayed Southwest Airline flight called police and had a man to whom she took a dislike arrested and taken off the airplane.  All of the passengers protested to the police that the arrested person had done nothing, but the cops didn’t listen. They had another victim to abuse. Was the victimization of this person the result of Identity Politics teaching women to hate men?  https://sputniknews.com/us/201905151075040032-us-traveler-booted-from-southwest-flight-over-vodka-joke/

Recently, a black woman pushed an elderly white male off a bus into the street simply because he interrupted her harangue of other passengers by telling her she should be nicer to people. He died from his injuries. Was this murderous act the product of Identity Politics teaching black Americans to hate white Americans?  https://5newsonline.com/2019/05/17/las-vegas-bus-pushing-murder-suspect-released-on-bail/

Trump’s crazed war criminal national security adviser, John Bolton, and the idiot secretary of state, Pompeo, want to cause massive civilian deaths in Iran and Venezuela.  Iran is to be overthrown for Israel, and Venezuela for US oil companies. The motives are blatant and obvious, but Bolton and Pompeo are not denounced and forced to resign for their shameful murderous intentions.  Yet, if they used the n-word or sexually harassed a woman, they would have to resign.  This demonstrates the twisted and sick state of American morality today.  Bombing people is acceptable, but words might really hurt them.

Washington’s case against Julian Assange is so contrived and so weak, that the corrupt US attorney assigned to frame-up Assange has resorted to persecution of Manning in an effort to coerce false testimony against Assange from Manning. After being tortured and serving seven years in prison for revealing a US war crime, as Manning was required to do under the US military code, Manning was pardoned by President Obama. Now Manning is back in prison for a second time after being pardoned, because Manning will not cooperate in the frame-up of Assange by giving false testimony to a grand jury.  Without false testimony, the corrupt US attorney hasn’t a case that could get a conviction from even the typical insouciant American jury, normally a collection of gullible people easily manipulated by the prosecutor.

When Manning was imprisoned for 63 days for refusing to tell lies about Assange, Manning spent 28 of those days in solitary confinement.  Why?

A week after Manning was released, the corrupt US attorney called Manning again before the grand jury that the corrupt US attorney is using to contrive a case against Assange.  Again Manning refused to cooperate in the frame-up, and was again held in contempt and again remanded into federal prison.  This time a corrupt US federal district judge, Anthony Trenga, added to Manning’s jail time a daily fine of $500 rising to $1,000 daily after 60 days.  In other words, the corrupt judge is helping the corrupt US attorney to coerce Manning into cooperating in a frameup of Assange.  Americans need to understand that their judges are not judges. They are operatives of the American police state.

When I characterize the US attorney and judge as corrupt, I don’t mean that they are taking money, although that cannot be ruled out.  I mean that they are corrupt in the sense that they have abandoned the rule of law and do not see their function as serving justice.  The US Constitution and its amendments establish law as a shield of the people against coercive and arbitrary actions of government, but the US attorney and judge are using law as a weapon against individuals against whom authorities want revenge.  For years we have been witnessing the rule of law being attacked from every level, from the president to the local police. See Roberts and Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions.  https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Good-Intentions-Prosecutors-Constitution/dp/0307396061/ref=sr_1_2?crid=23ZTXE46TUKKT&keywords=paul+craig+roberts+books&qid=1558288856&s=books&sprefix=Paul+Craig%2Caps%2C155&sr=1-2 

No one has protested the open and highly visible effort to force Manning to commit perjury that can be used to build a case against Assange or otherwise be imprisoned for “contempt” and fined into penury.  The despicable liberal-progressive-left whores that comprise the US print and TV media and NPR will not protest the injustice.  They hate Manning and Assange for having more integrity than all of them together.  The conservative talk radio hosts won’t protest the attempt to coerce Manning, because they love Trump, Washington’s wars, and hate “anti-Americans,” which is everyone who dares tell the truth about the US.  On conservative talk radio on May 17, I heard one popular host say “I am happy Manning is in prison.”

No US senators or representatives and neither the Senate or House judiciary committee sees anything untoward in forcing an American citizen to produce the needed lies for framing up the world’s best journalist.  Law schools and bar associations are not demanding the corrupt US attorney to be disbarred for violating every precept laid down by US Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice, and Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson.  Nor are they demanding the impeachment of the corrupt federal district judge, who perhaps has his eye on appointment to the appeals court for his cooperation in finishing off the First Amendment.

The American people are too insouciant and brainwashed to know what is happening.  Regardless, they are as powerless as third world peasants who have a dictator’s boot on their necks.

The “Western democracies”—what a joke—have not raised a voice at the US government’s public display of intimidation of a witness, at the US government’s use of imprisonment and coercive fines in a public display of forcing a person to lie in order that the US government can get revenge on a journalist who published leaked materials that show conclusively that the US government is a deranged war criminal, a liar and deceiver of its dumbshit allies and population, and the greatest threat to peace and stability in the world.

Assange might be saved by prosecutors with a guilty conscience in Sweden, the country in which Assange’s troubles began.  Assange’s troubles began in Sweden where two women enthralled with his celebrity separately invited him into their beds. One of them became alarmed when he did not use a condom.  To reassure herself that he did not have a sexually transmitted disease, she asked him to take a test.  He foolishly refused.  She went to the police, not to report a rape but to inquire if Assange could be forced to submit to testing. The other woman found out about the other woman, and was angry that she was not the only woman in his sexual life.

It was the police and a feminist prosecutor taught to hate men who made it into a rape investigation.  But as the women said it was consensual sex, the charges were dropped.  Assange was released and free to leave Sweden.

His second mistake was to go to England, an American puppet state. Once Assange was in Britain, he was as good as in Washington’s hands.  Washington encouraged a second Swedish feminist prosecutor to reopen the case.  As there were no charges against Assange, all the feminist prosecutor could do was to try to extradite Assange for more questioning.  Once Sweden had him, the expectation was that Washington would pay the bribe for his extradition to the US. Normally, extradition requires formal charges, but Sweden had none.  Normally, there is no extradition for questioning.  But a corrupt British court, perhaps well paid by Washington, agreed to the extradition for questioning and placed Assange under house arrest under a large bond paid, if memory serves, by Sir James Goldsmith’s  daughter.

Whether or not Sir James’ daughter understood it, Assange and his lawyers understood that he was in line to be delivered to Sweden and from there to the Washington torturers. Therefore, asylum was arranged for Assange in the Ecuadoran Embassy where he lived seven years until a Washington-compliant and corrupt Ecuadoran president, well paid with an IMF loan, gained power and revoked Assange’s asylum. The British police then did Washington’s bidding and dragged Assange out of the embassy and placed him in a maximum security prison as if he were some sort of dangerous criminal.

The second Swedish prosecutor had eventually consented to interviewing Assange in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London and afterward dropped her extradition request, and the case was closed for the second time. But the corrupt British legal system, which is almost as corrupt as the American one, put Assange in jail for 50 weeks based on “bail jumping” despite the fact that the extradition request from Sweden on which the bail was based was withdrawn.

Now Washington’s British vassal is considering the request from Britain’s Washington master to hand over Assange for torture, confession, and death or long-term imprisonment. But suddenly Sweden has found that there is “still probable cause” that not using a condum could be a sexual offense and have again requested Britain to hand Assange over to Sweden.

Is this a rescue attempt on Sweden’s part to make up for having ruined the life of the world’s best journalist? Or is it Washington’s insurance policy against the British coming to their senses and, on the basis of justice, refusing Washington’s extradition order?

In England the decision is up to the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, who is not of British ethnicity. Hopefully, he is an immigrant from one of the abused colonies and will stick his finger in the UK/US eye and turn Assange over to Sweden where he is unlikely to be convicted for engaging in unprotected sex. Hopefully, Assange will not  be so stupid as to then travel to another Washington puppet state. If he does, he will experience his tribulation again.

But Washington pays so well I doubt Assange can escape. The corrupt Western media is against him because Assange  shows them up as devoid of an ounce of integrity and devoid of the practice of journalism. The American presstitutes don’t care about the First Amendment.  As they never tell the truth, they don’t need First Amendment protection.

Washington, which claims to represent the American people, is for war and more war.  Bolton intends that the US will, for Israel, attack Iran and create chaos there as was created in Iraq and Libya, and also in Syria prior to the Russian intervention.

Under neoconserative and Israeli leadership, America has become a deranged country, distrusted by other governments and considered the primary threat to peace and life on earth.

Every American should be ashamed.  But they are not.  At some point, the Russians, Chinese, Europeans, Iranians, and everyone else will finally realize, hopefully before it is too late, that Washington is overwhelmed by evil, capable only of destruction, and a dangerous threat to life on earth.

======================

US constant Psy-Ops

US constant Psy-Ops  By Finian Cunningham, 17 May 2019

To say the US conducts “foreign policy” is patently a misnomer. US policy is nothing short of low-intensity warfare against the whole planet. Its “foreign policy” is nothing more than a continuous program of psychological operations.

An important element of this colossal corruption of politics is America’s so-called news media which plays a crucial role in concealing and propagating the psy-ops.

Just look at US conduct over the past year with regard to geopolitical rivals, foes and even supposed allies. American behaviour is that of a hegemon and tyrant that brooks no dissent. Ultimatums, economic sanctions, threats of punishments, threats of annihilation, actual military intimidation. These are all forms of aggression or low-intensity warfare. In the case of Iran or Venezuela, the warfare is approaching the brink of all-out violence.

To think this is a development peculiar to the Trump presidency is a grave mistake. US foreign policy was always prone to aggression and warfare, certainly since the Second World War. Ever since the GW Bush administration in the early 2000s, the US has degenerated into a permanent state of aggression, often involving waging simultaneous wars. Now under Trump, US belligerence is manifest in every aspect of policy. It has become all-consuming.

For the US, there seems to be no longer any diplomacy or foreign relations. It’s a winner-demands-all attitude underpinned by the latent or sometimes not-so-latent threat of military destruction. In short, the US is behaving as a fascist power. There’s no frills or cosmetics to hide the ugly truth of it. It’s simply full-on fascist power in your global face.

Washington threatens China with economic torpedoes if Beijing doesn’t do as Washington demands to rectify America’s own internal economic failings. Beijing is labelled a cheat, telecom spy and backslider by boorish American politicians whose slanderous claims are amplified by the US media, rather than critically examined. In addition, the US sends warships to Chinese territory by way of reinforcing the threat.

Washington slaps economic sanctions on Russia based on farfetched claims of Russian meddling in US elections. No proof obligated. Even when a two-year investigation by a special counsellor finds no evidence of Russian conspiracy, the slander against Moscow continues unabated across the American establishment and media. In his visit to Russia this week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted to President Vladimir Putin that Moscow “does not interfere in elections again”. This unproven slander keeps being repeated to undermine Russia and keep it under American-led sanctions. Again, as with China, US military threat is also at hand in the form of NATO expansion along Russia’s borders or tearing up arms control treaties and installing nuclear weapons in Europe.

Washington beats up its European allies with threats of economic punishments if they don’t toe the line with regard to doing business with Russia for natural gas supply, or for implementing legitimate trade relations with Iran under the 2015 international nuclear accord, which the US unilaterally trashed.

Washington vows outright military violence against any number of countries, including Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran.

Such threats are a violation of the UN Charter. It is a crime of aggression established by the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders. How is American “exceptionalism” somehow exempt?

Iran is currently in US cross-hairs. Already assailed by American economic warfare, the Islamic Republic is facing imminent US military assault. Washington has threatened Iran many times over the years with air strikes – again always in blatant violation of international law.

Now the US has sent nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to the Persian Gulf to hit Iran with “unrelenting force” if it is perceived, or rather “framed-up”, to endanger “American interests”.

The psy-war stage of US policy has become full-blown and terminal.

Washington’s international credibility has all but imploded into the dust of its own paranoia and self-serving propaganda. No-one, except for Israeli cronies or Saudi despots, believes anything Washington pronounces on. Even normally dutiful lackeys in the European Union are incredulous about Washington’s latest attempts to start a war against Iran.

The Europeans bought Washington’s nonsense about “supporting democracy” in Venezuela. They rolled over to entertain the Trump administration’s preposterous coup plans in Caracas against elected President Nicolas Maduro.

Within weeks of that sputtering US charade, the American psy-ops moved on to Iran without skipping a beat. But no-one of sane mind can possibly go along with the febrile fabrications of warmongers like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo – no matter how much US media indulgence they are afforded for their fantasies of “Iran threatening American interests”.

Surely too, ordinary, hard-working Americans, impoverished and brutalized by their own oligarchic rulers, are also beginning to see through the tyrannical travesty that American government has become.

The collapse of the American empire has been a long time coming. Its genocidal, criminal wars all around the world over the past seven decades have always been proof of its hegemonic fascist tendency. As the empire’s corporate capitalist economy slips increasingly into moribund decay, the last desperate resort for sustenance is full-on, constant use of American military aggression against the rest of the world.

In order to get away with that audacious malignancy, US foreign policy has had to become, by necessity, one giant relentless psy-ops of lies and distortions.

=============================

Previous articles

Posted in The Rise and Fall of the US Empire | Comments Off on The US Empire: rise, fall, and now what?

‘PC’, Orwellian censorship, official lies, media lies, ‘socialism’ and modern ‘democracy’

Many from the ‘Left’, progressives, Cultural Marxists and activists keep trying to stymie democracy with their shrill, often illogical, Orwellian and ideological views. The following articles provide evidence.

New Zealand is criminalising free speech

New Zealand is criminalising free speech  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR Weekly, 23 May 2019

On Saturday Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison led his Coalition to a surprise election victory. The result defied pollsters and commentators. They had been predicting a win for Labour’s Bill Shorten and his strongly progressive agenda. But in the end, grassroots working people were not convinced that higher taxes, expensive renewable energy, and a bigger and more powerful government would improve their lives, so they supported ‘ScoMo’.

Like Brexit in the UK and the US presidential election the result shows that a strong undercurrent of voter disillusionment existed that was not reflected in the polls.

Scott Morrison tapped into this and dedicated his victory to the common sense and aspiration of the quiet Australians: “It has been those Australians who have worked hard every day, they have their dreams, they have their aspirations, to get a job, to get an apprenticeship, to start a business, to meet someone amazing. To start a family, to buy a home, to work hard and provide the best you can for your kids. To save for your retirement. And to ensure that when you’re in your retirement, that you can enjoy it because you’ve worked hard for it…”

The result re-affirmed that democratic elections are won in the middle ground of politics. Labour had followed the Greens to the radical left, and in doing so had become removed from middle of the road voters.

One of the issues touted as defining the election was climate change. But while Labour pushed for more stringent carbon targets, electric cars, and the closure of coal mines, voters focused on the tangible effects of escalating costs and the widespread loss of jobs.

Veteran Sky News broadcaster Alan Jones also believes the hate speech ban proposed by the Green Party did not help Labour. He said Labour would “presumably adopt the same policy of making hate speech illegal… Those championing the ban want to ‘shut up’ debate and don’t want an open platform where ideas can be canvassed”.

The very same dynamics that were at play in the Australian election are happening here – including  the Green Party’s push for a hate speech ban. But unfortunately for New Zealand, now the Greens are in power with Labour, it will happen. Already Justice Minister Andrew Little is undertaking a review of hate speech laws to determine which need strengthening.

Proponents of hate speech bans appear to have forgotten that throughout history it is free speech that has enabled those who are oppressed and disenfranchised to achieve emancipation and equality. Now our elite ruling class wants the power to sit in judgement and decide who will be given the right to speak freely, and who will be criminalised for doing so.

Worse, the Prime Minister is now using the Christchurch tragedy to regulate the internet, giving rise to grave fears that her measures will go too far and will undermine free speech everywhere.

To progress her agenda, the PM teamed up with French President Emmanuel Macron. They invited world leaders and tech executives to a meeting in Paris to support a pledge to prevent terrorist content – like the live-streaming of the mosque shooting – from being broadcast online.

At a news conference before the meeting, the PM sought to reassure New Zealanders that her move was not aimed at restricting free speech: “This isn’t about freedom of expression, this is about preventing violent extremism and terrorism online.”

But those reassuring words have not eased concerns that our Prime Minister is leading us towards mass censorship that criminalises people for their views – especially given the involvement of the French President.

Concerns about the President date back to his actions when first elected.

France, of course, had suffered horrific terror attacks in 2015, when ISIS targeted 6 venues killing 130 people and wounding almost 500. As a result, then President Francois Hollande closed the borders and declared a state of emergency.

Once elected in 2017, President Macron made permanent the extraordinary powers that had been imposed during the two-year long state of emergency.

New Zealand journalist Branko Marcetic outlines the details: “The new law allowed authorities to close places of worship supposedly putting out radical ideas (no proof needed from the investigators), carry out stop-and-search measures in more places, put individuals suspected of terrorist links under a form of house arrest for as long as a year (even if they haven’t been accused of a crime), and much else.”

He explained that the President’s actions caused outrage in France, not just over civil liberties, but concern that the new powers would be used to target and harass law-abiding citizens: “Of course, in language that may now sound familiar to Kiwis, Macron assured the public this would allow authorities to ‘deal with terrorist threats while preserving citizens’ rights’…

“Macron and his government appear particularly hostile toward journalism… Early this year, on the orders of the French public prosecutor, police demanded to search without a warrant the office of online news outlet Mediapart, which had just published scandalous and politically damaging stories about two of Macron’s former security guards.”

As Branko Marcetic explains, the rise of the yellow vest protest movement in France has resulted in increasingly heavy handed measures being imposed by the President. It is alleged that more than 80 journalists have been arrested, detained or attacked by authorities… This led to a meeting between the President and the media at the Élysée Palace earlier this year, “where he appeared to suggest the French government needed to take a stronger hand in the news business… and suggested the state should establish financing bodies to fund the news and ‘make sure that it is neutral’. The comments elicited alarm from French journalists, one of whom accused Macron of ‘imagining what looks like a partial nationalisation of the press’.”

Concerns are now being raised that in giving the French President the opportunity to regulate the internet – and the media – New Zealand’s Prime Minister will end up being responsible for restricting free speech around the globe.

Clearly Jacinda Ardern is exploiting the Christchurch tragedy to advance her agenda of State control.

She used it to force through Labour’s firearms restrictions, trampling on democracy and riding roughshod over the long-established rights of law-abiding Kiwis to own and use their guns.

So it was no surprise to see it being used again – this time to introduce State control of the internet.

The Christchurch Call pledge has now been signed by 17 countries, the European Commission and eight major tech companies, including Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter and YouTube.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Dr Bronwyn Howell, a programme director at Victoria University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has closely followed the developments in Paris and outlines exactly what the pledge entails. She is extremely concerned, however, that the process has been hijacked for political purposes:

“At first glance the pledge appears, as intended, a positive example of collaborative negotiation toward a self-governing regime… A deeper examination, however, leads to a more worrying conclusion. While governments have agreed to a range of difficult-to-enforce aspirational goals, the tech companies have agreed to take a number of concrete, observable, and measurable steps on which it will be much easier to hold them explicitly accountable.

“In the bargaining of the summit, they have agreed in effect to act as the agents of the governments in delivering their political objectives of countering ‘distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives’ and engaging in ‘the fight against inequality’.

“Rather than simply removing offending content, as they might be required to do for pornographic or addictive content, they have been recruited to promote community-led efforts to counter violent extremism through the ‘development and promotion of positive alternatives and counter-messaging’ and to ‘redirect users from terrorist and violent extremist content’ – that is, to develop and distribute government-sanctioned propaganda. This is further reinforced by the tech firm-specific undertaking to use ‘algorithms to redirect users from such content or the promotion of credible, positive alternatives or counter-narratives’.”

In other words, Bronwyn believes the pledge could ultimately lead to mass censorship: “It behoves both the governments and the tech companies engaged in the Christchurch call pledge to demonstrate that their agreement is not just another exertion of government control over the freedom of the press (and other publishers) to prevent citizens from seeing the world in all its ugly reality by directing them instead to a preferred sanitized message. The current wording, unfortunately, provides no such assurance.”

Facebook’s report on the Christchurch Call agreement also points out that one of the joint goals is “combatting hate and bigotry in order to attack the root causes of extremism and hate online”.

While an investigation into internet regulation by former Prime Minister Helen Clark found that “it is difficult to establish a causal link between on-line hate speech and violence”, this fact will do nothing to temper the regulatory zeal of Jacinda Ardern.

RadioNZ reports “Jacinda Ardern says the ultimate test would be stopping the hatred not just the abuse on social media”. And Newshub reports she hasn’t ruled out blocking Facebook altogether to achieve her goal.

The danger is that such restrictions will be the thin end of the wedge, and will escalate from addressing extremism to criminalising speech that socialists like our Prime Minister and her parties think is objectionable.

Any controls they might seek to impose would, of course, run counter to Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights, which says, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form”.

But this is not much of a protection, as a 44-year-old Christchurch man has already found out. He has been arrested and is in custody for sharing the mosque shooting video on the internet. He will be sentenced next month. The judge has ruled out home detention so he is likely to face jail – for sharing a video.

It is understood that over 300 people are now on the Police’s ‘watchlist’ for the crime of expressing themselves freely.

Magic Radio host Sean Plunket says callers to the station are describing how armed Police are turning up at their houses to ask them about their political opinions. In one case they were warned not to use Facebook. In another case the accusation was: “You called the Prime Minister a socialist”!

Sean Plunket says that he has had no official response from anyone in the Government or the Police to the questions he has asked about these developments. Those questions need to be answered.

New Zealand used to be a free society. What we are now seeing is a sinister taste of what’s to come if Jacinda Ardern is allowed to press ahead with her campaign against free speech.

Newstalk ZB’s political editor Barry Soper – the longest-serving member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery – believes the Prime Minister intends to regulate mainstream media as well. He explains that she is already trying to influence how the Christchurch attacker’s trial will be reported, but says “It’s not for the politicians to dictate how events should be covered”.

While New Zealanders should be increasingly alarmed that this Labour-Green-New Zealand First coalition is planning to criminalise free speech, it is important to remember that in some countries the freedom of speech is sacrosanct.

The US would not sign Jacinda Ardern’s pledge to regulate the internet due to concerns that doing so would conflict with First Amendment rights, which enshrine the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.

According to White House officials, “We continue to be proactive in our efforts to counter terrorist content online while also continuing to respect freedom of expression and freedom of the press”.

The reality is that under the cover of the terrorist attack, this country’s ruling elite is in the process of restricting what people can say and think. This represents a sinister threat to all Kiwis and to our free and decent society.

======================

Message to the Australian green/Left: most voters don’t want you

Message to the Australian greenLeft, most voters don’t want you  By Paul Kelly, The Australian, 20 May 2019

Scott Morrison called it a miracle. But the most astonishing election result since World War II is ­attributable to two forces — Morrison’s superior reading of the Australian character and Bill Shorten’s fatal overreach in his agenda for radical change.

Morrison’s victory redraws the landscape. This is a win for Morrison’s vision of the Liberal Party — speaking to the silent, hardworking and retired Australians who don’t want sweeping change, class warfare or progressive ideology imposed upon them, but seek instead a government offering reliable, steady and credible returns.

The Abbott-Turnbull era is closed. The Morrison era is launched. With Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott out of parliament, Morrison has the chance to give the government and the Liberal Party a fresh start under a united team, a prospect virtually impossible last August.

This victory, its engineering and campaign was Morrison’s work — it transforms him from an underrated stopgap into an authority figure. Too much of Labor’s climate change campaign was post-material utopianism, not the practical politics Morrison or most Australians represent.

Labor’s calculated shift to the Left in its ethos and policies has ended in tears. Bill Shorten did not just lose an election the party was convinced it would win. The transition of Labor into a redistributive, progressive party — sharply different to that Kevin Rudd led to victory in 2007 — is revealed as a flawed project. Labor has a special problem. The challenge now is not just its strategy; it is Labor identity.

The paradox of Labor’s campaign was the scant evidence that the majority of the public wanted the sweeping change, punitive tax increases or vast spending agenda that Shorten offered. With its rejection, this defective manifesto, endorsed by the leadership group, looms as a monumental folly. What were they thinking?

But a miracle result does not equate to a comfortable government. Morrison needs to reach a majority in his own right. Minority government is a recipe for trouble. If Morrison can get to 76 or 77 seats — a likely outcome — then he governs without the crossbench, a critical threshold. Labor has lost and it must rethink to stay competitive. Many of its retained seats are reduced to marginals. Labor threw this election away. It faced a government whose divisions meant it had virtually forfeited the right to govern. Victory was there for the taking but Labor, arrogantly, chose to make itself the issue. It surfed the great progressive wave that seemed to be Australia’s ­future but forgot the lesson of Trump and Brexit and the silent, working and retired people who listened to Morrison’s pitch.

Shorten’s blunder was overkill. That allowed Morrison to overcome the legacy of chaos. The paradox is the task of reconciling regional Queensland with leafy Melbourne that tormented the Coalition in recent years became the issue that smashed Labor — its progressive agenda disappointed in Melbourne and provoked a workers’ revolt in Queensland.

The progressives treated Queensland with moralistic superiority — wanting Adani to be halted, dispatching anti-coal political convoys from the south and lecturing Queenslanders on how they should live. Labor’s reward is a primary vote of 27 per cent in the state.

Many in the political cognoscenti misread and underestimated Morrison. They disliked his “everyman” style, his denial of grandeur, his down-to-earth, matey, community-based politics, his modest agenda and his values, notably his faith. But no other Liberal politician could have achieved this win — and the party knows it from top to bottom.

The Liberals beat back the Labor attack, survived most of the assault from independents — apart from Abbott’s own defeat — and will have fresh confidence in fighting GetUp in future. Morrison’s election-night speech stuck by his script — he will work for ordinary people. It is hard to imagine a Liberal leader more remote from the “big end of town” fiction that Shorten used as the selling point for his tax redistribution.

The group that will carry the party into the future after the ­Abbott-Turnbull era is apparent — Morrison with Josh Frydenberg as his deputy, Christian Porter and Greg Hunt, with Mathias Cormann and Peter Dutton both committed to Morrison.

The policy foundation for the Morrison campaign was the Frydenberg budget. This was the ­essential platform. It embodies the long-established Morrison trifecta strategy from his own time as treasurer — entrench the surplus, back strong service delivery (Morrison will prioritise medicines, the NDIS, mental health and youth suicide prevention programs) and personal income tax cuts.

The aim will be the demonstration effect of Morrison’s central theme — the economy is about people. This has the potential to reshape the Liberal appeal drawing upon this victory — for Morrison the Liberals are the party of surplus budgets, compassion for families, service delivery and tax policy that backs aspiration.

During the campaign Morrison signalled his outlook by saying “people want a government that has simple, honest aspirations” not a government that engages in “a great class conflict and makes grand, unachievable promises about what they think they can do”.

Morrison will not be a grand economic reformer. He has no interest in debates about the free market versus government intervention. He is practical and will adopt whatever works. Morrison will not seek to remake the nation. He will seek to improve the nation — and the lot of people. One of the first priorities will be to legislate the three-stage personal income tax cuts, a test for the new Senate.

On the economy, Morrison needs to activate business investment, a critical task given the evidence of economic slowdown and the risk of recession. He will support all industries — manufacturing, services, farming and mining — and tell the public no industry should be closed for political reasons. Morrison’s method will be consensus; his purpose moderate economic reform to keep the growth economy on track.

Now that he has won, the fact that Morrison made so few promises in the campaign is a plus, not a minus. He will have flexibility. The result suggests he has rebuilt the Liberal base vote in a remarkably fast fashion and, given the United Australia Party and One Nation breakaways, that he has secured a superior preference flow from these parties than before.

With this win the Coalition has broken free from the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era that was extinguished after two terms, the fate most analysts felt would befall the Coalition. At this third election the Coalition shows a two-party-preferred vote of about 51-49 per cent, enjoying a swing of about 0.5 per cent.

Perhaps never in our history has a government been behind in the polls for so long, so consistently, yet won the poll that counts. Last night the government was on 74 seats, Labor on 65 with six independents and Greens and six seats undecided. Morrison should secure government in his own right.

Labor’s mistake is that it became infatuated by its success and its near victory against Turnbull in 2016. Labor captured the popular mood on same-sex marriage, the banking royal commission, the problem of stagnant wages growth and the public’s concern about health and education. Yet it overreached and misjudged.

It succumbed to an old-fashioned spending agenda financed by a higher tax burden and a series of tax redistributions that hurt an array of investors, higher income earners and retirees. This was never first-best tax reform defined as “broadening the base and cutting the rates”. It knocked aspiration. It was often sold on false grounds, witness Shorten’s claim that franking credit refunds were “gifts”. It was framed for two years in rhetoric of class warfare unseen for many decades and ran in parallel with proposed changes to the industrial relations system to secure higher wages through public intervention, not productivity.

This was accentuated when Labor embraced climate change ideology, with Shorten doubling down as the campaign advanced. He refused to provide any data on the economic costs of his emissions reduction policies on the basis that this was no longer needed. For Shorten, Australia had reached the stage where cost-benefit economic arguments didn’t matter — the environmental and moral case was the new polity.

This was ideological folly yet a reflection of progressive politics. The upshot is the Labor primary vote is under 34 per cent. Only one in three Australians is voting Labor as the first preference. In the resources states of Queensland and Western Australia it is far worse. The coal revolt in Queensland covered four seats — Herbert, Dawson, Capricornia and Flynn. The coal campaign conducted by Resources Minister Matt Canavan had a material effect.

Senior Labor figures speaking on election night and yesterday were a bundle of confusion. They lost because of their blunders — yet they seem unable to absorb this. The reason is not hard to find. Labor has changed its character as a party and it believed that Australia was also moving. But this weekend many of the Forgotten People did a rethink. They thought twice and decided not to trust Labor and its grand agendas of sweeping change. That leaves Labor with an embarrassing gulf between its own party and the people.

EDITOR-AT-LARGE

Paul Kelly is Editor-at-Large on The Australian. He was previously Editor-in-Chief of the paper and he writes on Australian politics, public policy and international affairs.

========================

A blueprint for more online censorship

A blueprint for more online censorship  By Danielle Ryan, Freelance Journalist, 17 May 2019

There is nothing inherently wrong with the new ‘Christchurch Call’ to curb violent and terrorist content online. No one in their right mind wants mass shootings live-streamed online — but it’s what comes next that should worry us.

Drawn up in the aftermath of the Christchurch mosque massacre, which was streamed live online, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s ‘Christchurch Call’ is billed as a “roadmap for action” and calls for the “immediate and permanent” removal of “terrorist and violent extremist content” from social media platforms. It has been signed by 18 governments and eight tech companies.

On the face of it, that sounds fine. It’s difficult to argue against removing terrorist content from the platforms so many of us use on a daily basis. The trouble is, Ardern has already admitted that the pledge is simply a “starting point” — and if you were expecting this to be the moment at which social media companies finally began to push back a little bit, sorry to disappoint you, but they’re all in on it together.

Endorsing censorship

Lord of social media, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who is afflicted with an obvious and ever-worsening God complex, offered a full-throated endorsement of online censorship a few days ago, saying “…the question of what speech should be acceptable and what is harmful needs to be defined by regulation, by thoughtful governments.”

That’s right, Zuck thinks “thoughtful governments” should be deciding what is “acceptable” for us to say online. There’s no ambiguity there. It’s a simple, straight-forward endorsement of the idea that governments should be allowed to regulate our speech. If that doesn’t worry you, then maybe you’re the kind of person who reads dystopian novels and cheers for the wrong side.

Zuckerberg’s comment isn’t exactly out of the blue. Facebook is already under fire for censoring political speech from both the right and left ends of the political spectrum. The company has banned a slew of right-wing commentators and conservative agitators from its platform and taken worrying steps against leftist and anti-war activists around the world.

Just the beginning

So, if social media companies aren’t going to fight back on our behalf (and they clearly are not), who will? The obvious answer is “journalists” — but they don’t appear to be in too much of a rush to halt this creeping censorship either. Some of them appear to be advocating more censorship, rather than less.

In an interview with Le Monde on Monday, Ardern was asked why she decided to focus “uniquely on violent terrorist content, and not more broadly on hate speech, which also contributes to the drift in social media?”

Ardern replied that focusing on terrorist content was just the “point of departure” on which everyone could agree. So this is a journey we are on. We’ve departed at ‘terrorism is bad’ — but where will we end? Ardern said she was wary that going any further right now would “open the way for debate” on potential risks to freedom of expression. But in a joint press conference on Wednesday with French President Emmanuel Macron, she said her hope was that working together, governments and tech companies could “eliminate ideologies of hate.”

That would be lovely — and if only the word were so simple, we could just eliminate all the meanies from the internet and live in an online utopia. Unfortunately, this is completely unrealistic, and when you start talking about eliminating certain ideologies, that’s where things get sketchy. Particularly if we’re going to delegate the task of deciding what is and is not “harmful” (as Zuckerberg said) to “thoughtful governments.”

‘Hate speech’ or ‘free speech’?

Florida’s Republican governor Ron DeSantis is set to sign a bill that would make it a “hate crime” to “demonize” or“delegitimize” Israel. The bill purports to be about “anti-Semitism” but it’s really just a vehicle to censor and even criminalize political speech. You see, that’s the kind of thing that “thoughtful” politicians get up to if left to their own devices. Then again, the Florida bill probably isn’t something that would ring alarm bells at Facebook HQ, either. Zuckerberg already happily complies with orders from the Israeli government to delete Palestinian activist accounts.

As for the US government, it has refused to sign Ardern’s ‘Christchurch Call’ citing first amendment rights — but declining to sign a vague and non-binding agreement doesn’t mean much. Capitol Hill is still swarming with politicians just dying to enforce more restrictions on free speech.

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy tweeted in the aftermath of last year’s Infowars ban that the very “survival of [US] democracy” depends on Facebook’s willingness to “take down” more websites that “tear our country apart.” Sure, why don’t they just get rid of any content that could conceivably be categorized as divisive? Sounds like a foolproof plan.

A US government intelligence report last year highlighted a former RT show hosted by Abby Martin as an example of content that sowed “radical discontent” in society for critically covering controversial issues like US regime change wars, fracking, capitalism and police brutality. Be careful out there, you never know what could be defined as “radical” content next.

As journalist Igor Ogorodnev wrote in a recent oped, the aftermath of an atrocity “is a honeypot for short-sighted do-gooders buzzing about looking to do something, but also opportunist politicians to realize their long-harbored ambitions.”

Trying to distract us

Social media is what the public uses to organize en masse in the 21st century.

Is it any wonder that Macron, facing months of Yellow Vest protests against his government, is helping lead the charge toward more online censorship?

A French government report recently called for the eradication of content that damages “social cohesion” and warned that“false information,”“unfounded rumors” and “individuals pursuing political or financial objectives” can have an impact on “the social order.” But who decides what constitutes “false information” and “unfounded rumors”? Is Macron’s government “thoughtful” enough for Zuckerberg?

Of course, it’s much easier for governments to pass the blame for social discontent onto companies like Facebook, while arguing that censorship is the only solution. If they didn’t do that, they’d have to admit that what really drives mass discontent are the neoliberal policies that have had a detrimental effect on basic standards of living, wiped out people’s life savings and ravaged the planet.

But maybe that’s all something Ardern and Macron can work on some other day — that is, if we’re allowed to talk about it.

====================

Previous articles

    • pauling-hansons-first-speech-in-the-senate-14-september-2016
    • cairns-post-editorial-201016  Laws of diminishing returns as the ‘nanny state’ takes over control of our freedom, By Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 20 October 2016
Posted in Better Government | Comments Off on ‘PC’, Orwellian censorship, official lies, media lies, ‘socialism’ and modern ‘democracy’

British ‘democracy’ in action

What will Brexit mean, both short and long-term?  Could it lead to more countries’ rank and file voters deciding to take back control from the elitists who denigrate the hoi polloi?  Or will the elitist establishment continue trampling on democracy?

Scroll down to see previous articles

EU Making Brexit So Torturous So No Country Ever Dares Leave EU Again

EU Making Brexit So Torturous So No Country Ever Dares Leave EU Again  By Amalric de Droevig, 21 May 2019

If EU bureaucrats were bargaining in good faith and genuinely interested in striking a deal, there would be one already

I have long observed the Brexit debacle in bewilderment. Why has it been so hard for Britain to leave the EU? Why do the talks seem so complex and obscure? Of course, we can not discount the role of the British ruling class in holding up the process. The business community in the UK has never wanted the country to exit the EU. Along with its allies in the lying press, it has pulled out all the stops to prevent Brexit from ever actually transpiring. UK elites believe it their moral obligation to ensure the rubes and the bigots and the racists don’t win in the end. Western power players are seriously warped people, people who believe that democracy means voting how they tell you to vote.

If one reads the Wikipedia article on Brexit, it reads as a pure propaganda piece against Brexit. It is so one-sided and extreme it almost strains credulity. It is equally hard to believe this site has the chutzpah to call itself an encyclopedia. You would finish reading the article believing that Britain’s economy will collapse like a house of cards the moment it actually exits the EU. You would think the British economy wasn’t the most powerful and prosperous economy in the world long before the EU was even conceived of as a concept. At long last anyhow, I have come to conclude that the primary reason Brexit has not materialized, the primary reason that the process has been so long and arduous and fruitless, is because that is precisely how EU bureaucrats want it to be.

Aspiring totalitarian EU bureaucrats don’t just want to punish Britain for leaving the EU, they want to make the process so complicated and torturous that no other European nation will ever even contemplate leaving the EU again. The EU is a fundamentally anti-democratic institution after all, and always has been. It is the Stephen Moore of political unions. The EU is about money and capitalism and greed and always has been, the people and their consent be damned.

British politics are today in disarray (Theresa May will soon be gone) because the British people once childishly imagined their EU pals were really pals. They weren’t. Their EU pals were in it for themselves all along. That always meant that any divorce would be an acrimonious and uncooperative process. The British people should have been prepared to play hardball. They should have been ready to shut the borders down, to shock their own economy for the sake of negotiating leverage, etc. Instead, they imagined they would just prance out of the EU with smiles on their faces and daisies in their hair. Did they really think EU[SSR] bankster sociopaths like Guy Verhofstadt and Donald Tusk were going to make it that easy?

Your typical EU banker: Guy Verhofstadt

Since the Brexit victory–a glorious victory, mind you, for ordinary Brits over their extractive, semi-tyrannical, anti-white overlords–the EU has outwitted the British Government every step of the way. They understand that the UK Government is basically a Cultural Marxist puppet government controlled by banksters and oligarchs. EU negotiators have always had the UK’s number because they know precisely what the UK is trying to avoid at all costs, namely any economic pain at all.

The truth is, you can’t reason with oligarch-puppets, which is why EU oligarch-puppets have never tried to to reason with UK oligarch-puppets. You must hit oligarchs and corporations in their purses to change the conduct and negotiating positions of their puppets, which is why the EU has held economic pain over Britain’s head from day one. Money is the only language these people speak. The UK is trying to negotiate from the standpoint of principles and fear with people who don’t care about principles and who are masters at exploiting fear for their own gain.

That negotiating posture is one of unbelievable weakness. The UK has been willing to concede anything to avoid a painstaking and unpleasant Brexit. This is sheer folly. It is basically a game of chicken, and Theresa May is the ultimate chicken. She is so busy clucking and twitching and shaking that I have had the compulsion on more than one occasion to reach through the TV to start plucking the gray hairs out of her witchy head.

Moreover, Brexit was never going to be pain-free. EU bureaucrats were always going to make sure of that, and any major economic restructuring is guaranteed to be difficult and unpleasant. Change is painful, for both individuals and economies.

The first negotiating guidelines drafted by EU[SSR] apparatchik Donald Tusk included a “divorce fee” of $90 billion to be paid by the UK to EU member states upon exiting the EU. The first negotiation between the UK and the EU in 2017 involved Theresa May making numerous concessions to the EU, including very generous residency allowances, but the EU rejected them. The EU’s position on migrants and residency is basically the Democrat position on immigration here in the US, namely that any concession is worse than the default arrangement (that is, what happens if nothing is agreed to). So long as Brexit is drawn out and unrealized, EU courts continue to have jurisdiction in the UK regarding the rights of EU citizens living there, so why change or concede anything?

President of the European Council Donald Tusk, formerly Prime Minister of Poland

Not even a week after the Brexit referendum was held, Mama Merkel herself stated that the UK could only remain in the single market (a free trade union), if the free movement of people was also guaranteed. In other words, if you want free trade, you’re going to have to accept untold hordes of rapefugees with it. Is being ethnically cleansed from your homeland really worth a few extra shekels? I bet the children in Rotherhamcelebrated wildly in the streets after hearing Merkel’s proclamation. And by the way, what is Mama Merkel the mother of exactly? A human trafficking syndicate? Shades of Mrs. Minassian in Brandenburg it seems.

These are but a few examples, but they should give you a fairly good idea of what is truly going on here. EU officials are not really negotiating in good faith. They also care even less about what the British people want than do the shamefully corrupt leaders of the UK. You can’t make parties negotiating in bad faith change their bargaining postures or positions by pleading and arguing in desperation, especially when they have most of the sticks, when the result of any transaction will invariably be a net loss to them, and when you have little to offer them in the way of carrots. Remember, for the EU, no Brexit is better than any Brexit. The only way to negotiate in such a circumstance is to promise to make the process and the results of that process even more painful for the other side if they don’t come along reluctantly. The UK has very little to offer the EU, save the withholding of pain, but the UK can’t withhold what it is unwilling to inflict, and to inflict pain means harming itself.

In other words, it is time for UK Brexit negotiators to get tough, even if that means enduring minor blows to their own economy. Sometimes it is perfectly rational to chop off one’s pinky to save one’s arm. If Cultural Marxist EU bureaucrats want to trample on the British people, it is the duty of British leaders and representatives to cut out the EU’s legs with bayonets to protect their subjects. Let’s see if the EU can, or will even attempt to, enforce their fees and penalties and formal rules and preposterous laws. What is the EU going to do if the UK deports its citizens or expels its judges? How far is the EU really willing to take this? Not very, I suspect. If the UK crashes out with no deal, I’d like to see the EU army try to enforce a mammoth Brexit fee!

The EU is bluffing, plain and simple. The banksters who command the EU don’t really want a war, of any kind. They simply think Brexiteers are soft and unwilling to endure any economic hardship. That is their leverage. They think they can steal and extract anything if they just promise to make the mugging painless. They are like schoolyard bullies who promise not to hit you, just so long as you keep giving them your lunch money. The problem for them is that the underbelly of the EU is even softer. It won’t take a lot of pain or defiance to make the EU fat cats cry uncle. The UK may have to take a punch or two to liberate itself from EU domination, but it will be worth it in the long run.

===========================

Forget ‘Project Fear’, This Is What A “Hard Brexit” Could Mean For The UK

Forget Project Fear, This Is What A Hard Brexit Could Mean For The UK  By Patrick Barron, via The Mises Institute, Zerohedge, 22 March 2019

When Britons voted on June 23, 2016 on whether or not to leave the EU there was no discussion of a “hard or soft Brexit”. These terms were invented after Brexit passed by a surprisingly large margin and the mostly anti-Brexit Tory Party government, especially its leadership, decided that it needed to negotiate the terms of leaving. Brexit supporters regard such terms as betraying the 2016 Brexit referendum itself. These 17.4 million Britons undoubtedly believed that Brexit would mean exactly that: Britain would no longer be governed by any EU laws, regulations, etc. Nevertheless, all that the world has heard since that day in June 2016 is a debate over the terms of leaving, with any so-called terms being labeled as a “soft Brexit” and leaving without any agreement as a “hard Brexit”.

In a “hard Brexit,” Britain just leaves and all EU regulations, etc. are null and void. It’s pretty clear cut. A “soft Brexit” can mean almost anything that is not a “hard Brexit”; i.e., Britain would agree to continue some or all of the manufacturing regulations, tariffs, and intergovernmental agreements — such as ceding jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice — that apply to EU countries. The list is almost endless and the time frame very nebulous, a perfect playground for those who wish to have a Brexit In Name Only. If there is to be Brexit of any sort, however, Parliament must act. Experts in British constitutional law claim that only Parliament can actually take Britain out of the EU and only Parliament can decide under what terms, if any, it will do so. Of course, one of the terms of separation could be that there are no terms of separation — thus, a “hard Brexit.”

The Effect on Imports

The current government has been exploring the possibility of dropping all import tariffs to zero except on “sensitive industries”. This would be very good for consumers, because the EU imposes tariffs on almost all imports from nations not in the EU itself. Most notably in its attempt to insulate inefficient European farms from worldwide competition, the EU imposes onerous tariffs on non-EU agricultural products via the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Eliminating these and many other tariffs would significantly lower the cost of living for the British people. The success of Brexit may depend entirely on whether Britain does in fact eliminate tariffs on most goods. It is a golden opportunity. The EU itself is very export oriented, so it is unlikely that it would impose any restrictions on member countries selling goods to Britain. So far so good!

The Effect on British Exports

Exports are another matter entirely. No longer in the tariff free customs union, it is assumed that the EU would impose tariffs on British products as it does on any other non-EU country, raising their cost to EU buyers, which one must assume would result in fewer British sales. The real harm would not fall on British exporters but on Britain’s EU customers, who now are forcibly prohibited from buying British goods at the previously advantageous price. On the other hand since it no longer must meet onerous EU manufacturing regulations, British industry might enjoy lower manufacturing costs which would enable it to sell more to non-EU countries. Although it might take time for Britain to develop new markets for its goods, some countries, led by the U.S. itself, have stated that they are ready to sign free trade agreements with Britain as soon as it leaves the EU.

The Effect on the City of London

The City of London is a massive global hub. Its banking and insurance companies are dominant in the EU and likely to remain so for reasons of depth of market knowledge and a high reputation for honesty and fair dealing. Although some companies have moved some operations to Frankfurt, it is unclear if these moves are significant in number and may be simply part of normal market flux. The same fears about the fate of the City were raised when Britain secured an opt-out from the 1992 Maastricht Treaty which formally created the euro. Unless the EU imposes some special tax or regulation prohibiting EU members from utilizing London firms, it is unlikely that the City will be much affected by a “hard Brexit”.

The Effect on Controlling borders

Uncontrolled illegal Immigration into the EU became a key issue for passing the Brexit referendum. There had been much concern for decades over loss of British sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and the economic cost of belonging to a closed customs union with high tariffs and onerous regulations, but the movement to leave came to a head over border controls or lack thereof. One of the four pillars of the EU is freedom of movement of people within the EU. (The other three were freedom of movement for goods, services, and capital.) Illegal immigration came to a head following the crisis of refugees from the Arab world. Once inside the EU, these refugees could migrate anywhere within the bloc, including Britain, raising the cost of providing social services and disrupting settled life. Britain was not the only EU country that opposed this unforeseen migration. In fact immigration control may yet break apart the EU, as the elite in Brussels insist that every EU country not only accept a dictated number of refugees but also that every country then allow refugees to migrate freely within the EU. A “hard Brexit” would remove the requirement that Britain accept more refugees than it believes it can assimilate. Uncontrolled border crossings would end as modest checkpoints are reinstated.

A separate border issue pertains to the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland over goods. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and there has been much concern over continuing the free flow of goods into and out of the Republic of Ireland. This seems to be much ado about little. Most probably goods to and from the Republic of Ireland would be subject to random checks with very little hindrance on trade. The EU has lobbied for an “Irish backstop”, whereby Northern Ireland would remain in the EU for some period of time. Naturally this has incensed loyal British subjects, especially in Northern Ireland, and has almost no chance of being part of a “soft Brexit” deal.

A Positive Conclusion

In conclusion the effect of a “hard Brexit” on Britain itself should be overwhelmingly positive, especially if Britain does in fact remove all tariffs and conclude free trade pacts with the rest of the world fairly quickly. Naturally my advice to Britain is to unilaterally remove all tariffs on all goods, including “sensitive industries.” Free trade deals then become irrelevant. Britain could lead the way in showing the world the benefits of unilateral free trade, just as it did in the nineteenth century with the abolition of the Corn Laws. Perhaps this outcome is what the EU fears the most, because it would call into question the benefit of belonging to a closed customs union and would spell the end of the EU itself.

=========================

The fight for Brexit is only just beginning

The fight for Brexit is only just beginning  By Brendan O’Neill, Spiked Online, 16 March 2019

Brexiteers, buckle in – our battle to defend democratic rights is about to heat up.

To see how serious the political elite’s war on Brexit has become, consider this: Tony Blair has been having secret talks with French president Emmanuel Macron on how to prevent Brexit from becoming a reality. Apparently, Blair has told Macron to ‘stand [his] ground’ against any kind of so-called Hard Brexit and to use his clout, and the EU’s clout, to pressure Britain to stay in the Customs Union and maybe even to hold a second referendum. To put this in plain, blunt English: a former British prime minister is conspiring with a foreign power to try to subvert the will of the British people.

In normal times, this would be a scandal of epic, epoch-defining proportions. There might have been riots, certainly protests. Blair would have been publicly shamed, possibly exiled. His name would live in infamy. But we don’t live in normal times. We live in an era in which most of the political class has ditched even the pretence of feeling a strong attachment to democracy. An era in reactionary anti-democratic sentiment is more casually expressed than at any other time in living memory. An era in which the chattering classes nonchalantly call for the overthrow of the largest vote in British history (the vote for Brexit), in which parliamentarians explicitly pit themselves against the people’s will, and in which anyone who so much as raises a peep about any aspect of this polite tyranny will be slammed as a hard-right menace to public life.

And so there is no widespread outrage over the fact that a former British PM is meeting with a tinpot Jupiterian who has subjected his own people to months of extreme violence. No frontpage denunciations of this Brit who has sided with the most violently repressive leader in Europe to try to ensure that the largest number of voters in British history don’t get what they want. Indeed, I bet that if anyone were to suggest that Blair is a traitor, they would be railed against. And yet, look up the word traitor in the dictionary. ‘A person who stops being loyal to their own country.’ What more apt description is there of a powerful Briton who is working with a foreign power to thwart the British people’s political desires? ‘How DARE you call us traitors?!’ – Remainer elitists do protest too much.

The Blair / Macron love-in is in some ways a better snapshot of where Britain is at right now than what will happen in parliament this week. For it reveals a bigger, more important truth than the parliamentary tussles over customs unions and delays to Article 50 do. It confirms that the crisis facing Britain right now is not a technical one of how to leave the EU and whether leaving the EU will cause economic difficulty. Rather, it is a crisis of democracy. It is a situation in which the very democratic premise upon which modern Britain has been built – at least since 1928, when all adults, including women under 30, got the right to vote – is being called into question. The scrapping over ‘how’ we Brexit disguises the far more profound question that has been thrown up by the British masses’ disobedient vote to Leave in June 2016. Which is this – do the people rule or do they not?

Of course, MPs should vote down May’s proposed deal. The supposedly Brexiteer Tories and the ostensibly Brexiteer right-wing press who have fallen into line behind May’s deal in recent weeks are behaving terribly. They know, in their heart of hearts, that May’s deal is ‘BRINO’ – Brexit In Name Only. In fact, her deal, as it stands, would be worse than the status quo. In potentially keeping us entangled in EU arrangements, while restricting our ability unilaterally to leave these arrangements, it would do the opposite of the thing that 17.4million of us voted for – it would reduce Britain to vassal-like status, where what the people demanded in the referendum was that we ‘take back control’. Control over our trade, our borders, our laws, our destiny. May is offering us non-control. She deserves humiliation in the Commons today.

The problem for us Brexiteers, however – and for anybody who believes in democracy, Brexiteer or Remainer – is that most of the parliamentarians lined up against May’s deal are not driven by an urge to protect the democratic will to take back control. On the contrary, their motivation is to find other, potentially more successful ways to suffocate Brexit. Some want to extend the Article 50 process, creating the conditions for the constant delay of the democratic will. Others want to force us to vote again. Including the Labour Party, in a spectacular betrayal of both its 2017 General Election manifesto and its traditional working-class voters, who tend to back Brexit. Blair is only doing in a more direct way what the rest of the establishment hope to achieve by other means. They are dedicated, most of them, to killing Brexit, whether by working with foreign powers to weaken it, or by demoralising the electorate by making us vote again, or by extending the process so that compromise inexorably overtakes democratic urgency.

We’ve been putting up with anti-democracy for nearly three years now. Ever since the 17.4million voted for Brexit, there has been a reactionary elitist pushback against the ‘low-information’ electorate, against the ideal of national independence, and against the hard-won value of democracy itself. Maybe it is a mistake, elitists have wondered out loud, to solicit plebs’ opinions on national, constitutional matters. How much longer should we put up with this? Why should we accept being spectators to the political class’s slow-motion betrayal of our democratic aspirations? Enough is enough, no? May’s deal should be voted down today. But that will be but a tiny blow in the broader battle to defend the vote for Brexit and the very idea that voting is important. Democrats should buckle up – the ideals of June 2016 remain under grave threat from reactionaries and traitors, and we will have to argue, march and fight in their defence.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

===============================

More articles concerning British ‘democracy’

Posted in Brexit: a world-changing event? | Comments Off on British ‘democracy’ in action

Environmentalism: too many gravy trains, lies and dangerous hidden agendas

The modern environmental, or ‘green’, movement has shifted from overt care for the environment towards activist and economic damage, self-serving agendas and covert promotion of more sinister agendas, often supported, even driven, by politicians.  But opposition grows by the day as evidence and  common sense start to prevail.   

Scroll down to read the most recent articles; links to previous articles follow.

New Zealand’s Labour Government suicidal Climate Change plans

New Zealand’s Labour Government suicidal Climate Change plans  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR.com, 17 May 2019

The coalition Government’s newly announced Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill 2019, which has been described by a former Energy Minister as “the most dangerous piece of  government legislation ever placed before New Zealand’s House of Representatives”, is so radical that it offers National a similar opportunity. But only if they start acting like a real opposition and stop allowing themselves to be manipulated by the Government into a ‘consensus’ approach.

First, some background.

The drive for ‘zero carbon’ is being used as a vehicle by the United Nations’ to advance its global socialist agenda. By embracing extreme environmentalism, they have tapped into a rich vein of activism and popular political support.

The fact that in 2016 almost every country supported the Paris Agreement to limit the global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2050 – with a long-term target of 1.5 degrees – demonstrates their success and momentum.

However, as the tangible effects of the Paris Agreement are beginning to be felt – through expensive energy-rationing policies that are forcing up prices with no environmental benefits – public opposition is increasing.

It is this growing mood of resistance that brought the UN’s Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on a promotional tour of New Zealand and the Pacific. Amid his exaggerated predictions of climate doom, he was full of praise for the hard-line approach being taken by our Prime Minister.

“We are facing a climate emergency…The paradox is that as things are getting worse on the ground, political will seems to be fading. That is why the leadership of the government of New Zealand is extremely important. Not only is New Zealand fully in line with what was promised in Paris, but New Zealand is introducing legislation to achieve carbon neutrality before 2050. Your leadership Prime Minister is absolutely crucial in this regard and I’m extremely grateful for it.”

It is deeply concerning that our PM has taken on the role of international cheerleader for the climate change movement – as she is also doing over gun control and hate speech.

With the support of the UN, Prime Minister Ardern is determined to see New Zealand leading the world in climate restrictions, even though at 0.17 percent, our contribution to global man-made greenhouse gas emissions is almost too small to measure.

Since the PM’s new legislation has been modelled on that of the UK, it is instructive to read what policy analyst and former advisor to the Chancellor of the Exchequer Rupert Darwall has to say about the expected impact of the zero carbon targets that are being proposed by their Committee on Climate Change:

“Going to net zero requires a significant ramp up in policy, i.e. even more cost, hardship and disruption. The ban on petrol and diesel cars will have to be brought forward. One fifth of Britain’s farmland is to be converted to forest or given over to growing crops for fuel. ‘Societal choices’ will be made (how?) so people eat less beef, lamb and dairy. People will need to make changes inside their homes. The committee envisages little room for Britain’s manufacturers in a net-zero economy.”

The impact of zero carbon targets on New Zealand will also be significant. According to the Bill’s Regulatory Impact Statement the estimated cost to the economy will be up to $12 billion – $8,000 for the average household – each year for the next 30 years. Other economists believe the costs will be much higher. As the Minister for Climate Change increases the value of carbon, prices will escalate putting huge pressure on family budgets, businesses will close, and unemployment will rise.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, former Energy Minister Barry Brill and Chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition has examined the Bill and provides a sobering ‘must read’ analysis:

“The Bill envisages government intervention and regulation in every aspect of daily life, so as to facilitate a centrally-planned ‘transformation’ of New Zealand’s economy, society and environment.

“It is fundamentally anti-democratic in seeking to bind future Parliaments and governments by a heavily entrenched 30-year target and 15-year budgets/plans.

“It is unconstitutional in delegating to the Minister for Climate Change the power to impose the largest tax increases in history.

“It arms Minister Shaw with unfettered statutory authority to decide what climate-related risks might arise in any part of the country and what should be done about any of them. His 2020 plan can render homes uninsurable, devastate property values and hike rating burdens – without limitation – and will override all the existing protections in the RMA and elsewhere.”

As Barry explains, the Bill attempts to bind future governments by making it almost impossible to relax carbon restrictions even if they cause widespread hardship and poverty.

And while the Paris Accord set a temperature reduction target of 2° Celsius by 2050, with an aspiration goal of 1.5°, astonishingly, it is this harsher 1.5° goal that our PM has set as New Zealand’s standard in the legislation.

The Bill outlines the targets: “net emissions of greenhouse gases are zero by 2050; and gross emissions of biogenic methane are 10% less than 2017 emissions by 2030; and are at least 24% to 47% less than 2017 emissions by 2050…”

The bill explains that ‘net’ emissions can be offset by forestry or by carbon credits from other sources, while ‘gross’ emissions, which refer to methane, allow no such offsetting.

With almost half of all New Zealand’s emissions generated by the food producing agricultural sector – largely by sheep and cattle chewing their cuds – the only option to reduce methane will be to cut stock numbers.

But by imposing such restrictions on farmers, Jacinda Ardern is ignoring Article 2 of the Paris Accord which specifically prohibits countries from restricting food producers. It says, “This Agreement… aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change… in a manner that does not threaten food production”.

So despite New Zealand’s livestock farmers producing almost twice the milk and meat per kilogram of carbon dioxide than the global average, Prime Minister Ardern’s cheerleading means they will face the harshest restrictions in the world.

It is astounding that such punitive measures could even be contemplated by our own Government on a vital sector of New Zealand’s economy and an international leader in primary production.

In fact this attack on farmers looks like a re-run of the ‘fart tax’ that Helen Clark’s Labour Government tried to impose in 2004. At that time, the public and the opposition rallied in support of the farming community and forced Labour to back down.

This time around, Labour and the Greens will be hoping that the rural community will remain isolated, without the support of National strongly opposing the Bill.

It remains to be seen how the New Zealand public will react to the Government’s radical zero carbon agenda and whether opposition will grow – as it has done overseas.

In France in 2018, when President Emmanuel Macron tried to impose carbon taxes to meet the country’s targets under the Paris Accord, protesters donned yellow vests and took to the streets. They forced the President to abandon his scheduled increases in fuel taxes, electricity prices, and vehicle emissions controls. Despites this the protests are continuing.

In Canada, a backlash is also underway against Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Paris climate policies. The new federal carbon tax that he imposed on the five provinces that have climate sceptics as their premiers, is now being challenged through the courts.

In Australia, former PM Malcolm Turnbull’s plan to introduce Paris carbon restrictions is said to be one of the reasons he was forced to resign. His successor, Scott Morrison, announced that reducing energy prices and improving reliability, rather than fighting climate change, would be the government’s goal going forward.

In Holland, the Forum for Democracy, a political party that started life as a think tank that opposed global warming scaremongering, has just become the biggest party in the Senate. The FfD’s victory in the provincial elections is a clear signal that Dutch voters are increasingly opposed to the government’s overly-ambitious climate policies.

Essentially, the FfD claimed the government was being driven by “climate-change hysteria”, saying their policies were far too costly and would attain a reduction in global temperature of only 0.0003 degrees Celsius by 2100. They wanted to stop the government funding programs to meet international climate agreements, and like US President Trump, they want to leave the Paris Accord.

In Finland, climate change also dominated their recent elections. With most parties proposing to raise energy prices and limit people’s energy use, the Finns Party made the fight against expensive climate policies the central part of its platform. It gained the second-highest number of seats in the Parliament. Just two months before the election, polls showed support for the Finns Party at only 8 percent, but after opposing climate alarmism became its main objective, its popularity doubled.

The New York Times credited the Finns Party’s success to its climate scepticism: “As Finland’s other parties competed with each other to offer ambitious climate goals, the Finns Party has seized on climate as a new front in the culture wars, warning its conservative, working-class supporters that they are being betrayed by urban elites. Aggressive environmental measures will ‘take the sausage from the mouths of laborers’, warned a Finns Party politician in a televised debate. And, more important, from dogs and cats, whose food would increase in price by 20 to 40 percent. ‘What are you going to say to the little girl or boy who cries when Mom and Dad say that they can’t afford it any longer? And take the lovable pet to be put down?’ If that was not enough, he suggested contemptuously that, if the liberals got their way, dogs and cats would have to accept vegan substitutes for meat.”

In Germany, even Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union Party is positioning itself against a carbon tax. They are putting the interests of the economy ahead of climate protection, as concerns grow that many aspects of everyday life will become considerably more expensive under carbon pricing, with the financial burden falling disproportionately on the poor.

In some German polls, opposition to carbon taxes has now risen to over 60 percent. At a recent meeting in Brussels, Germany sided with Poland, Italy, Hungary and the Czech Republic in refusing to commit to climate neutrality by 2050.

It was in 2016 that President Trump turned America away from the Paris climate accord. He refused to support what some had called an ‘economic suicide pact’ intent on exerting global government control over the lives and living standards of people everywhere.

At the time, the Heritage Foundation estimated that the Paris restrictions “would cost average US families $30,000 in cumulative higher electricity prices over the next decade. Paris would eliminate 400,000 high-pay manufacturing, construction and other jobs – and shrink the US economy by $2.5 trillion by 2027.”

Other analysts put the costs much higher.

With the first reading of the Zero Carbon Bill scheduled for next week, the big question is whether National will recognise the need to take a leading role in bringing the Prime Minister and James Shaw to heel.

National needs to decide whether it will continue to go along with this global climate change hysteria and allow New Zealand to be pushed into a vortex of decline. Or whether it will defend the national interest and oppose this extremist legislation.

=======================

Coral can take the heat, unlike experts crying wolf

Coral can take the heat, unlike experts crying wolf  By (Professor) Peter Ridd, The Australian, 26 December 2018

Editor’s note: Peter Ridd was sacked by James Cook University for questioning other scientists’ dubious reports, as noted below. A related court case is pending.  JCU also removed world-renowned Professor Bob Carter (1942-2016) for similar reasons.

Scientists from James Cook University have just published a paper on the bleaching and death of corals on the Great Barrier Reef and were surprised that the death rate was less than they expected, because of the adaptability of corals to changing temperatures.

It appears as though they exaggerated their original claims and are quietly backtracking.

To misquote Oscar Wilde, to exaggerate once is a misfortune, to do it twice looks careless, but to do it repeatedly looks like unforgivable systemic unreliability by some of our major science organisations.

The very rapid adaptation of corals to high temperatures is a well-known phenomenon; besides, if you heat corals in a given year, they tend to be less susceptible in the future to overheating. This is why corals are one of the least likely species to be affected by climate change, irrespective of whether you believe the climate is changing by natural fluctuations or because of human influence.

Corals have a unique way of dealing with changing temperature, by changing the microscopic plants that live inside them. These microscopic plants, called zooxanthellae, give the coral energy from the sun through photosynthesis in exchange for a comfortable home inside the coral. When the water gets hot, these little plants effectively become poisonous to the coral and the coral throws them out, which turns the coral white — that is, it bleaches.

But most of the time, the coral will recover from the bleaching. And here’s the trick: the corals take in new zooxanthellae, that floats around in the water quite naturally, and can select different species that are better suited to hot weather.

Most other organisms have to change their genetic make-up to deal with temperature changes — something that can take many generations. But corals can do it in a few weeks by just changing the plants that live in them.

They have learned a thing or two in a couple of hundred million years of evolution.

The problem here is that the world has been completely misled about the effects of bleaching by scientists who rarely mention the spectacular regrowth that occurs. For example, the 2016 bleaching event supposedly killed 93 per cent, or half, or 30 per cent of the reef, depending on which headline and scientist you want to believe.

However, the scientists looked only at coral in very shallow water — less than 2m below the surface — which is only a small fraction of all the coral, but by far the most susceptible to getting hot in the tropical sun.

A recent study found that deep-water coral (down to more than 40m) underwent far less bleaching, as one would expect. I estimate that less than 8 per cent of the Barrier Reef coral died. That might still sound like a lot, but considering that there was a 250 per cent increase in coral between 2011 and 2016 for the entire southern zone, an 8 per cent decrease is nothing to worry about. Coral recovers fast.

But this is just the tip of the exaggeration iceberg. Some very eminent scientists claim that bleaching never happened before the 1980s and is entirely a man-made phenomenon. This was always a ridiculous proposition.

A recent study of 400-year-old corals has found that bleaching has always occurred and is no more common now than in the past. Scientists have also claimed that there has been a 15 per cent reduction in the growth rate of corals. However, some colleagues and I demonstrated that there were ­serious errors in their work and that, if anything, there has been a slight increase in the coral growth rate over the past 100 years.

This is what one would expect in a gently warming climate. Corals grow up to twice as fast in the hotter water of Papua New Guinea and the northern Barrier Reef than in the southern reef. I could quote many more examples.

This unreliability of the science is now a widely accepted scandal in many other areas of study and it has a name: the replication crisis. When checks are made to replicate or confirm scientific results, it is regularly found that about half have flaws. This is an incredible and scandalous situation, a view shared by the editors of eminent journals and many science institutions. A great deal of effort is going into fixing this problem, especially in the biomedical sciences, where it was first recognised.

But not for Barrier Reef science. The science institutions deny there is a problem and fail to correct erroneous work. When Piers Larcombe and I submitted an article to a scientific journal suggesting we needed a little additional checking of Great Barrier Reef science, the response from many very eminent scientists was that there was no need. Everything was fine. I am not sure if this is blind optimism or wilful negligence, but why would anybody object to a little more checking? It would cost only a few million dollars — just a tiny fraction of what governments will be spending on the reef.

But the truth will out eventually. The scare stories about the Barrier Reef started in the 1960s, when scientists first started work on it. They have been crying wolf ever since. But the data keeps coming in and, yes, sometimes a great deal of coral dies in a spectacular manner, with accompanying media fanfare. It is like a bushfire on land — it looks terrible at first, but it quietly and rapidly grows back, ready for the scientists to peddle their story all over again.

Peter Ridd was, until fired this year, a physicist at James Cook University’s marine geophysical laboratory.

========================

An ideological mess of monumental proportions

An ideological mess of monumental proportionsBy Maurice Newman, The Australian, 6 July 2018

Australia’s emissions reduction policies are in response to what has always been an ideologically charged, fashionable flight of fancy, writes Maurice Newman.

Once upon a time, politics was referred to as the art of the possible. It was less about what was right or best than what could be achieved politically.

Today, the political class has refined that dark art and, like the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, has decided that “imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality”.

It removes the constraints of inconvenient truths and unpalatable facts. For the doubters, “experts” can always be enlisted to validate even the wildest fantasies.

Take the government’s latest national energy guarantee contrivance. Even though it requires significantly more wind farms than now and a much increased demand for gas (despite the constraints on its extraction), some pundits say it will allow Australians to have their cake and eat it, too. It will allow us to meet emissions reduction commitments, to deliver reliable electricity supplies and make energy use more affordable. Imagine that. South Australia tried something similar and ended up with the highest retail electricity prices in the world.

Yet, notwithstanding the vagaries of ageing coal-fired generators, the addition of the expensive Snowy Hydro 2.0 and an increased reliance on intermittent sources, we are assured that this time it’s different.

Australia’s emissions reduction policies are in response to what has always been an ideologically charged, fashionable flight of fancy: the imagined danger that industrial “greenhouse” gas emissions lead to catastrophic global warming. Somehow, across time, this became politically accepted “settled science”.

It spawned an industry of crony capitalists and other taxpayer-dependent rent-seekers. But it didn’t stop Mother Nature, independent scientists and scandal exposing the hollowness of the narrative. Rather than withdraw from economically crippling and socially impoverishing emission abatement schemes, the political class just doubles down.

Rational thinkers may ponder what it will take for policymakers to recognise reality. It clearly takes more than the University of Alabama in Huntsville’s 40-year satellite data, which to date has recorded no increase in Australia’s atmospheric temperature.

Likewise, NASA’s recently released global data, which recorded average temperatures for the two years to February this year, shows the biggest two-year drop in the past century. That cooling brought the worst British winter in 42 years, and the related deaths of 48,000, mainly elderly, Britons.

Perhaps this and last year’s Greenland melt season, which was the lowest since 1996, are just aberrations. But then what about the Ross Ice Shelf, the largest of the Antarctic ice shelves, which, contrary to scientific predictions, continues to expand? If sea levels are rising dangerously, why are 80 per cent of reef islands in the South Pacific and Indian oceans stable or growing? And why do the longest continuous Australasian records at Fremantle and Auckland reflect a tendency towards a general slowing in the rise of mean sea level? Perhaps the fact polar bears were listed as endangered in 2008 but have increased in number by more than 30 per cent since 2005 can pass without comment today. But there was a time when this was promoted as emblematic of global warming.

Albert Einstein told us: “Knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world.” Well, we know a lot more than we did 40 years ago.

Climate change advocates may say individual data points are simply isolated weather events, but collectively the evidence is mounting and no longer should be denied. Yet it is. The political class remains unfazed and seems determined to ensure that whatever the latest science may prove, ideology, not economics, will prevail.

It is no mean feat to take a country from being among the cheapest energy markets to one of the most expensive. Confirming the collapse of the low-cost market-based system, in nine years retail prices in the National Elec­tricity Market are up 80 per cent to 90 per cent and wholesale prices have risen 120 per cent since 2015.

The economic cost of emissions abatement policies can be observed in increasing layoffs, relocations and industry closures. The cumulative effect has yet to be felt, but it will be significant and deep, consistent with experience overseas, where higher energy ­prices have led to many more job losses in the broader economy than have been created in the renewables space.

So where to from here? With the range of renewable energy subsidies paid for by consumers, and state, territory and federal taxpayers running at more than $4 billion a year and likely to remain in force to at least 2030, the outlook is bleak.

With financial inducements and priority to the grid, intermittent energy progressively will crowd out fossil fuel generators. In such distorted markets, new investment in reliable coal-fired power will be uneconomic. Subsidies to would-be clean-coal investors will distort the market further.

Perhaps after 27 years of uninterrupted growth, policymakers are as dismissive of the laws of economics as they are of inconvenient scientific evidence. Going from a virtual debt-free position 10 years ago to a half-trillion dollars and counting is alarming enough. But when the debt is hypothecated to unrealistic expectations of an endless demand for Australian exports, the risks magnify.

Add to this the Bank of International Settlements’ recent observation of record household debt, static real wages, rapid rises in non-discretionary household expenditure and potential interest rate hikes and Australian families have rarely been more exposed to an economic downturn than now.

There is no quick fix. Australia’s manufacturing base has been hollowed out and the mortgage belt is running on empty. This is an ideological mess of monumental proportions and the likelihood of returning the electricity market to some form of normality may well be beyond the political courage of today’s politicians.

Still, as Ayn Rand reminds us, “We can ignore reality but we cannot ignore the consequences of ­ignoring reality.”

==================

Links to previous articles

Posted in Environmental battles | Comments Off on Environmentalism: too many gravy trains, lies and dangerous hidden agendas

Which ‘New World Order’?

Who is planning a ‘New World Order’ (NWO),  in what form, and what progress so far?  One obvious focus is ‘globalism’, but there are other more complex and sinister issues at play discussed in the following articles.

Scan down to read the latest articles.  Links to more articles are at the end of this post.

Trending to a Multipolar World: Opportunities and Challenges

Trending to a Multipolar World, Opportunities and Challenges  By James O’Neill, American Herald Tribune, 26 April 2019

At the conclusion of the Second World War the United States was the overwhelmingly dominant military and economic power. The other major colonial powers, in particular France and the United Kingdom, had been financially exhausted by the war. Germany was shattered, its industry in ruins. The United States has a monopoly on nuclear weapons and there were serious plans to use those weapons on the Soviet Union (Operation Unthinkable) (1).

The Soviet Union had borne the vast brunt of the fighting against the Germans, losing at least 28 million soldiers and civilians, a sacrifice of people and treasure that has never received the acknowledgement in the west that it is due. Generations of Australians and New Zealanders among others were raised on the mythology of “plucky Britain” standing alone against the Nazi hoards.

In fact, as many Russians died during the siege of Leningrad (September 1941- January 1944) as total US and UK casualties combined for the whole war. Nearly half a million Russians were killed in the battle of Stalingrad (July 1942 to February 1943), which is more than total US losses for the whole war.

Had Churchill’s plan for a surprise nuclear attack of the Soviet Union after the defeat of the Germans in May 1945 eventuated, additional casualties would have been incalculable. It is the memory of those horrendous losses during the war, and the treachery of the British and the Americans after the defeat of Germany that is essential to an understanding of the reaction of Soviet, then Russian, leaders ever since to the actions of the western powers.

Any thoughts of a military confrontation between the Western powers, notably the United States and the United Kingdom, were solved in 1949 when the Soviet Union successfully exploded its own nuclear bombs. Instead of a “hot” war, the two sides instead engaged in what is generally referred to as a Cold War. That term is somewhat of a misnomer, as war was indeed waged on a number of fronts: ideological, propaganda, economic and via a series of proxy actions in third countries.

The other great shock to American sensibilities in 1949 was the defeat of the Chiang Kai Shek nationalist forces in the Chinese civil war. In what was to be a precedent for the following decades, the United States refused to accept Mao’s Government as the legitimate rulers of China, but fought to retain the nationalists as China’s Representative on the United Nations Security Council. US Navy ships patrolled the narrow straight between Formosa (is it then was) and the Chinese mainland.

The fiction of Taiwan being the representative of China in the United Nations persisted until 1971.

In an echo of Operation Unthinkable, the United States military command in the Korean War (1950-53) urged President Truman to allow the use of nuclear weapons against China (2), after China entered the war on the side of the North Koreans. US and Allied forces defied the clear intention of United Nations Security Council resolution 82 and invaded North Korea, continuing to the Yalu River which marked the border between North Korea and the People’s Republic of China.

The Allied forces were quickly driven back to the North/South border, itself a unilateral creation by the Americans in 1945 without reference to the citizens of either the North or the South (3). From then until the armistice of 27th of July 1953 the United States and Allied troops waged a relentless war against the north. The entire country was devastated, with civilian infrastructure almost completely destroyed. That, together with the use of chemical and biological weapons, amount to a sustained war crime against North Korea (4). As is the case with all atrocities committed by the United States and its allies in the almost continuous warfare waged since 1945 against mostly poor and relatively defenceless nations, the issue of accountability for war crimes is a non-issue as far as the western powers are concerned.

In the American case, not only do they not subscribe to the international criminal Court, they have threatened sanctions and worse (5) should that body ever have the temerity to investigate the actions of its military personnel or those of its allies, much less prosecute them.

As a result of that war, North Korea lost an estimated 8 to 9 million people, or about one third of its total population at that time. By comparison, the United Kingdom lost 0.94% of its population during World War two, which lasted twice as long as the Korean war.

An understanding of that war, as well as the history of United States intervention in Korean affairs, which dates back to the 1880s (6), is essential to an understanding of the contemporary geopolitical situation on the Korean peninsula.

The post World War II military and economic dominance of the United States and its imperviousness to international law had a number of other consequences. In particular it bred an attitude best expressed in their own self-description of being the “exceptional nation”. The ordinary definition of the word exceptional implies being atypical, extraordinary, or out of the common or usual mode.

In the American case however, it came to be equated with much more, and in particular a profound belief in all levels of society that their way was the only way. Deviations from that defined the path were not to be tolerated, and recalcitrant nations or individuals work subject to “regime change” operations, economic and financial sanctions, and in extreme cases invasion and occupation (7).

These actions will always justified in terms of “bringing democracy”, or “upholding the rules based international order” or some other patently self serving justification.

It is difficult to reconcile these high-minded concepts with the actual behaviour of the United States and its allies. Operation Boot (UK name) Ajax (US title) on behalf of the Anglo Persian oil company overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government. That coup was reversed with the Islamic revolution in 1979, an outcome that still dominates United States attitudes and behaviour towards Iran.

That was followed in 1954 by Operation PBSuccess, the overthrow of the Guatemala government, to the great benefit of the United Fruit Company. Operation Condor from 1968 to 1989 involved the assassination or disappearance of tens of thousands of Latin American civilians, and the installation of a series of brutal dictatorships, all supported by and paying obeisance to, the United States.

From an Australian perspective there is a common thread running through many of the CIA coups of the post war era. There was a coup in South Korea in 1961; in Indonesia in 1965 (where more than 500,000 were killed at the instigation of the CIA); Chile in 1973 and Australia in 1975. The common denominator to all four was a State Department diplomat named Marshall Green, name in CIA and State Department circles as the “coupmaster.”

Declassified CIA and State Department documents show that Green was sent to Canberra as ambassador in 1973 with a specific brief to deal with the “Whitlam problem.” (8)

Whitlam was threatening to close Pine Gap spy station, the United States lease on which was due to expire in December 1975. The Governor General sacked him in November 1975 the day before he was to make an announcement in the Australian parliament about Pine Gap.

Again to return to the earlier point, it is impossible to understand the stance taken by Australia viz a viz the Americans and their illegal wars without understanding the effect that the coup had on successive Australian governments.

Efforts by historian Jenny Hocking to uncover the role of the British, and in particular the correspondence between the Governor General Kerr and Buckingham Palace, while worthy, in this writer’s view misses the main point (9). By 1975 the British had become of peripheral relevance to Australia’s geopolitical perspective. Then as now, Australia was an appendage to US foreign policy, “joined at the hip” in former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s infamous phrase.

Australia has joined illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to support the Americans, when any vital Australian interest is vanishingly small.

American hubris reached its pinnacle following the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991. Boris Yeltsin became president and the following decade was catastrophic for the Russians. Life expectancy plummeted. State assets were sold off at fire sale prices to western corporations and Russian oligarchs. Yeltsin, an incompetent drunk, would in all probability have lost the 1996 presidential election were it not for blatant and large scale US intervention for his benefit (10).

That they had “their” man in office only added to the sense of US triumphalism. This history is bitterly ironic given the hysterical and wholly fake allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.

From an American perspective, the demise of the Soviet Union, and the election of a pliable puppet in the form of Yeltsin, meant that they had won the Cold War. In what was a common and disturbing pattern, the undertaking given by George HW Bush to President Gorbachev that NATO “would not advance 1 inch to the east”, was almost immediately broken. Successive US presidents have overseen the expansion of NATO allies and US military bases right up to Russia’s borders.

This was a pattern repeated in the east with again a steady increase in US military bases on China’s borders. They made no secret of the fact that the policy was to “contain” China (11).

Despite the frequent invocation of phrases such as “Chinese assertiveness” or “a threat to America’s allies” in the Asian region, there was never any evidence to support such claims.

What the US sought to “contain” in fact was the rise of an economic and military powerhouse that threatened US hegemony the world. On the basis of parity purchasing power, China is now the world’s largest economy, and the gap is destined to widen for the foreseeable future. The US reaction to this has been an increase in economic warfare through sanctions, tariffs, and an unrelenting propaganda barrage to paint each and every positive development emanating from China in negative terms.

This is not a new phenomenon. Victor Marchetti told the United States Congress decades ago that the CIA provided $250 million annually (in modern value) to the Asia Foundation for anti-Communist academics to disseminate a negative view of China, and paid journalists and publishers elsewhere in the world to do the same.

Operation Mockingbird was a large-scale CIA program that began in the 1950s to infiltrate student organisations, newspapers and magazines, and other forms of media outlets to “manage” the news in such a way as to favour US interests (12). Any resemblance to the truth was coincidental. The only thing that is changed since the 1950s is the scale and the sophistication of the penetration of news outlets.

The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte’s book Gehanfte Journalisten (Bought Journalists, 2014) which exposed how German mainstream journalists had been compromised, had its English rights bought by a Canadian company, but was never published. Amazon does not stock it, although it can be bought (in German) on Book Depository for A$41.95.

When Vladimir Putin replaced Yeltsin as President of Russia he initially sought to cooperate with the United States. He has been criticized within Russia for persisting in seeking détente in the face of constant rebuffs and unilateral moves such as the United States withdrawal from the antiballistic missile treaty in 2002, and the aforementioned constant expansion of NATO.

Putin’s change of heart became most clearly evident when he addressed the Munich Security Conference on 10 February 2007. His speech included the following remarks that are worth quoting:

”What is a unipolar world? ….. It refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within the system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but impossible in today’s world.

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in International relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts…… we are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. One State, first and foremost the United States has overstepped its national borders in every way”.

If the unipolar world is not only unacceptable, but “impossible in today’s world”, what then is the alternative? The pattern of voting in the United Nation’s General Assembly over the past few decades in particular shows that the overwhelming majority of the world’s nations want a better alternative than the unipolar model dominated by the United States.

Those nations see for example, the transformation of China in the 40 years since the “reform and opening up” of the Chinese economy and society that officially began under Deng Xiaoping. Those reforms have seen more than 600 million Chinese (more than the whole of Europe’s population) lifted into the middle class since the turn of the century.

China outspends the United States on basic science and technology research by a ratio of 4:1. It leads the world in patent applications, with more than twice the number than the United States (1.38 million versus 606.9 thousand in 2017) which in turn represented more than a third of all the world’s patent applications in that year.

Significantly, Chinese patent applications to the world intellectual property office (WIPO) in Geneva grew by 14.2% over the previous year, while United States applications grew by 0.2% (so much for allegations of intellectual property theft).

The fundamental difference between the rise of China to a dominant position compared to that of the United States is that China does not seek either to dominate the world, or to impose its system on others.

The philosophy underlying China’s international posture was clearly set out by President Xi Jinping in his speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2017. Again, it is worth quoting some brief key passages from Xi’s speech.

”The global economic landscape has changed profoundly in the past few decades. However, the global governance system has not embraced these new changes and is therefore adequate in terms of representation and inclusiveness.

(Red Cross founder) Henry Dunant once said ‘our real enemy is not the neighbouring country: it is hunger, poverty, ignorance, superstition and prejudice.’

We should pursue a well-coordinated and connected approach to develop a model of open and win-win cooperation.

There is a growing call from the international community for reforming the global economic governance system, which is a pressing task for us.

We should adhere to multilateralism to uphold the authority and efficacy of multilateral institutions. We should honour promises and abide by rules. One should not select or bend rules as he sees fit.

No country should view its own development path as the only viable one, still less should it impose its own development path on others.”

It is not difficult to identify which country Xi had in mind. The Chinese model of development is seen for example in the following organisations.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is the best known of these modern vehicles for multilateral development, but it is far from the only one. Others include the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), which has as a primary aim the establishment of an equitable, democratic and multipolar world. Dating from 2001 BRICS has developed its own bank and other forms of financial cooperation. It is not a coincidence that both Brazil and India are targets of United States’ foreign policy aimed at undermining their growing relationship with China.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) also began in 2001 with six original members (China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Pakistan and India both joined at the same time in 2017. In addition, there are four observer States (Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran and Mongolia) and six dialogue partners (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Turkey).

Countries as diverse as Egypt, Israel and Ukraine among others have applied for observer or dialogue partner status and others in the Middle East such as Iraq, Bahrain and Qatar have expressed interest.

The North South Transportation Corridor (NSTC) grew out of the Ashgabat Agreement in 2011 and a rail link from Mumbai to Moscow via Iran, Armenia and Azerbaijan is now up and running. Again, a range of countries in proximity to the original route have expressed an interest in becoming part of this transformative transport project. As with the major rail projects that are an integral component of the BRI, these developments have the potential to slash both transport times and costs for goods traversing Eurasia.

Eurasian Economic Union. This organisation was formalized in 2015 and incorporates Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia, with Iran signing a free trade agreement in 2018.

There is a notable overlap of membership of these organisations. They increasingly trade in their own currencies, part of a rapidly increasing move toward the elimination of the United States dollar as the principal medium of international trade. The demise of the dollar from its central role will remove one of the United States’ most powerful tools for imposing its policy preferences upon sovereign nations.

The reserve status of the dollar has enabled the United States to defy economic logic, running huge internal and the balance of payments deficits without the logical consequences that would ordinarily flow. That day of reckoning is rapidly approaching.

The United States has for decades neglected its own vital infrastructure and educational standards as more than half of each federal dollar is spent on its military industrial intelligence complex. It has not been value for money, as both Russian and Chinese military technology is significantly superior, as even the Americans now acknowledge (13).

There is little evidence however, that the United States recognises the cause and effect between its preference for military expenditure over civilian needs; the political, economic and reputational costs of endless wars for and on behalf of vested interests; and its steady decline in the world both in absolute and relative terms.

The United States will undoubtedly continue waging its wars, whether they are hybrid wars using terrorist proxies which it has done since the least Operation Cyclone began in the 1970s, or overt invasions and destruction of sovereign States as in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria to name but a few.

There is a remarkable correlation between victim countries of the past two decades and the “seven countries in five years” identified by General Wesley Clark (14).

The world has tired of this endless aggression and the chaos that ensues. The win-win philosophy expanded by President Xi is for an increasing number the most attractive option. This is why more than 128 nations have now signed Memorandum of Understanding with the BRI, in Africa, Latin America, Island States in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, the Middle East and throughout the Eurasian continent. They clearly view the multipolar world as the preferable alternative. The question is whether they will be able to continue to develop along their preferred path, or will the frankly insane US political class make one final attempt at regaining world hegemony, and in the process destroy us all.

*(Top image: Russian President Vladimir Putin with President of Iran Hassan Rouhani (left) and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Credit: Kremlin.ru)

References

  1. J. Walker Operation Unthinkable: the Third World War The History Press (2013).
  2. C. Posey How the Korean War almost Went Nuclear www.airandspacemag.com July 2015
  3. B. Cumings The Korean War: A History Modern Library 2011
  4. J. Kaye Revealed: The Long Suppressed Official Report of US Biowarfare on North Korea.www.medium.com 20 February 2018
  5. S. Vasaliev Not Just another Crisis www.ejiltalk.com 19 April 2019 (Part 1); 20 April 2019 (Part 2).
  6. M. Pembroke Korea: Where the American Century Began One World Publications 2018
  7. W. Blum America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy Zed Books 2013
  8. J. Jiggens November 11 Coup? What Coup? www.greenleft.org 20 November 2010
  9. J. Hocking The Dismissal Dossier Melbourne University Press 2015
  10. S. Shane Russia Isn’t the Only One Meddling in Elections: we do it too. www.nytimes.org 17 February 2018; S. Cohen Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post Communist Russia. Norton & Co (updated edition) 2001
  11. J. Reed Surrounded: How the US is Encircling China with Military Bases www.foreignpolicy.com 20 August 2013
  12. C. Bernstein CIA & The Media www.rollingstone.com 20 October 1977; J. Tracy The CIA and the Mediawww.globalresearch.ca 30 January 2018
  13. A. Martyanov Losing Military Supremacy Clarity Press 2018; The Saker Newly Revealed Russian Weapons Systems www.southfront.org 9 March 2018; R. Ridenour Has the US Lost its Military Supremacy over Russia www.counterpunch.org 4 April 2019
  14. J. Conason Seven Countries in Five Years www.salon.com 12 October 2007

Writer James O’Neill is a barrister at law and geopolitical analyst.

======================

Will Evangelicals Spur the US to War?

Will Evangelicals Spur the US to War  Alastair Crooke, 24 April 2019

On March 14, Russia’s National Security Council, headed by President Putin, officially raised its perception of American intentions toward Russia from “military dangers” (opasnosti) to direct “military threats” (ugrozy). In short, the Kremlin is preparing for war, however defensive its intention.

Why? Why would Putin do that? ‘Trump doesn’t want more wars… He has consistently called for good relations with Moscow. And now that Mueller has come up with zero…’.

This is the familiar refrain that suggests that a confrontation with Russia simply cannot happen: “It wouldn’t make any sense: it would not be rational”. Well, maybe Russia is reading the ‘tea-leaves’ differently, and maybe they simply understand that when it comes to wars, it is often the non-rational that trumps the rational.

As Russia might view things, the precursors for a conflict in the Middle East are fast falling into place. On the one hand, we have a very hawkish Israel, ‘pie-eyed’ from large draughts of team Trump’s ‘Greater Israel’ cool-aid; then we have Bolton prosecuting his ancient hatred for Iran – trying to corner the Republic, and to implode it.

These represent major clashes of tectonic plates, especially as the northern tier of the region (including Turkey) is now with Iran (to one, or other extent). Moscow will be aware that colliding tectonic plates release hot plasma, which all too easily can spread to scald Russia.

And then, we have other shifts in the tectonic plates: Turkey is inching toward Russia and China, and so – it seems –might be Egypt (after Sisi’s recent altercation in Washington). Translated – this all says that the US is fast losing its hold over the Middle East. And Russia, whether intentionally, or not (more ‘not’, than actively ‘sought’), is increasing its’ reach.

Usually, such occurrences are met with Washington decreeing a hard slap over the head for Moscow’s Promethean ‘impudence’. But… actually, America is almost out of substantive allies in the Middle East – except ‘the one’.

Yes, indeed – up to this point, we are dealing with the rational chessboard. So, what about the ‘non-rational’?

Let us go first, to basics: 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump in 2016, and his popularity amongst them remains high – in the 70s percent. Whilst other white voters may have become disheartened by Trump’s foreign policy (the Saudi embrace), white evangelicals have become his last, solid bastion. They are not insignificant either: they form some 25% of all Americans.

Professor of Religious Studies, Andrew Chesnut tells us that Christian Zionism has become the “majority theology” among white US Evangelicals. In a 2015 poll, 73% of evangelical Christians said events in Israel are prophesied in the Book of Revelation. For Christian Zionists, achieving a ‘Greater Israel’ is one of the key preconditions for ‘Rapture’. It is a belief, known as pre-millennial dispensationalism or Christian Zionism, Chesnut says.

“Trump himself embodies the very opposite of a pious Christian ideal. Trump is not a churchgoer. He is profane, twice divorced, who has boasted of sexually assaulting women. But white evangelicals have embraced him, writes Julian Borger.

“Some leading evangelicals see Trump as a latter-day King Cyrus, the sixth-century BC Persian emperor who liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity. The comparison is made explicitly in The Trump Prophecy, a religious film screened in 1,200 cinemas [last year], depicting a retired firefighter who claims to have heard God’s voice, saying: “I’ve chosen this man, Donald Trump, for such a time as this …

“Cyrus is the model for a nonbeliever, being appointed by God as a vessel for the purposes of the faithful,” said Katherine Stewart, who writes extensively about the Christian right. She added that they welcome [Trump’s] readiness to break democratic norms, to combat perceived threats to their values and way of life.

Mike Pompeo and Vice-President Pence are strongly of this Evangelical orientation. It is something that has real import for foreign policy: During his tenure as CIA director, and before that as a member of the House of Representatives, Pompeo has consistently used language that casts the war on terrorism as a cosmic, divine battle of good and evil. He has referred to Islamic terrorists as destined to “continue to press against us until we make sure that we pray, and stand and fight, and make sure that we know that Jesus Christ is our savior, and is truly the only solution for our world”.

The proscription of Iran’s IRGC, by Pompeo was couched in exactly this language of terrorism, with the clear connotation that Iran is the cosmic ‘evil’. This style of Apocalyptic or Rapture language has been adopted wholesale by Trump, and his Administration. “To worship our Lord and celebrate our nation at the same place, is not only our right,” Pompeo told attendees at a Kansas rally in 2015: “It is our duty.” He added, “We will continue to fight these battles,” the then Congressman said at a church in Wichita. “It is a never-ending struggle … until the Rapture. Be part of it. Be in the fight!”

Pompeo’s reference to Rapture is important: The Rapture, Tara Burton notes, “is a distinctively American theology that says Christians will be taken up, or “raptured,” into heaven, at the onset of the End Times … and a number of GOP politicians allow their belief in Rapture theology to influence their political worldview. Because the Rapture is ultimately desirable — it marks the return of Jesus Christ — anything that hastens it, is desirable too. For many evangelicals, apocalyptic “good versus evil” battles, particularly centred over the “Holy Land” of the Middle East, are signs that the longed-for end may be at hand”.

So, how does all this balance out? Well, the pivot is the Las Vegas Casino billionaire, Sheldon Adelson. He donated $82 million to Trump and other Republican candidates during the 2016 election. Trump has consciously courted the moneyed Jewish diaspora Right, but Adelson’s significance lies more with his passionate commitment to Netanyahu’s“Greater Israel” political agenda, and to strengthening ties between the Republicans’ evangelical base and Israel.

And just to be clear, the ‘Greater Israel’ mission is similarly rooted in ‘End of Time’ biblical theology. David Ben-Gurion, the “father of the nation”, was a firm believer in the ‘mission’, declaring: “I believe in our moral and intellectual superiority; and in our capacity to serve as a model for the redemption of the human race”. At the 2003‘Jerusalem Summit’, whose participants comprised three acting Israeli ministers (and included Netanyahu, and Richard Perle from the USG), the group solemnly professed: “We believe that one of the objectives of Israel’s divinely-inspired rebirth, is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, as foretold by the Prophets”.

As Larent Guyénot observes, Zionism, in fact, has always been about a New World Order, under the mask of ‘nationalism’. It is with the Adelson lynchpin too, that John Bolton fits in. Bolton is no evangelical. He says that to call him a neoconservative “is clearly not accurate”, by which he explicitly means that he never shared the desire to ‘spread democracy’ as other mainstream neoconservatives did. He does however, hold to the belief that America (and Israel) are ‘chosen’ to lead and shape the global order. This may not be strictly a ‘religious’ expression, but it is a prime example of a millenarian ‘project’ that emphatically denies religion, yet is in fact a vehicle for religious myth – Judeo-Christian myth.

Bolton says it explicitly: “I would describe myself as pro-American. The greatest hope for freedom for mankind in history is the United States, and therefore protecting American national interest is the single best strategy for the world.”

The American millenarian ‘myth’, then and now, was (and is), similarly rooted in a messianic belief in the Manifest Destiny of the United States: ‘the New Jerusalem’ that would represent humanity’s best hope for a utopian future. This belief in a special destiny (being ‘chosen’) is reflected in a conviction that the United States must lead – or more properly, has the duty to coerce – mankind towards its universalist destiny.

Adelson’s role then – using his own money – has been to resurface neoconservative policies: Policies that had been discredited after the US invasion of Iraq, and to reconnect these policies to the Israeli Right (as they were, before the war on Iraq). This whole is underpinned through the extensive Evangelical base that forms Trump’s key constituency. Both Pompeo and Bolton are reportedly Adelson’s protégés, whom Adelson pushed into their key positions in the White House, as a part of his political architecture.

And with the resurfacing of neoconservative policies, comes, inevitably, their ancient attitude towards Russia as an existential struggle that can have only one outcome – Russia’s collapse, leading to regime change – either via war or means short of war. All elements of western policy are geared to that one inalterable objective.

Former US diplomat, James Jatras, remarks [that these American millenarians] “hate Russia not for what it does, but for what it is: an obstacle to absolute global domination by a US-led [New World Order]. Russia’s deployment of the most powerful weapons imaginable – perhaps can limit the military aspect of that agenda, but it cannot reverse it. Quite to the contrary, such actions, like Moscow’s defensive moves after the 2014 regime change in Ukraine; or Russia’s 2015 deployment in Syria; or current presence in Venezuela, are held up as further “proof” of Russians’ “typically, almost genetically driven” aggressiveness, in the words of former CIA Director James Clapper.”

“With Robert Mueller’s pointless investigation concluded, nothing has improved, nor can there be much expectation that it will”. Jatras quotes [Gilbert] Doctorow:

“… the step by step dismantling of the channels of communication, of the symbolic projects for cooperation across a wide array of domains, and now dismantling of all the arms limitation agreements that took decades to negotiate and ratify, plus the incoming new weapons systems that leave both sides with under 10 minutes to decide how to respond to alarms of incoming missiles – all of this prepares the way for the Accident to end all Accidents. Such false alarms occurred in the Cold War; but some slight measure of mutual trust prompted restraint. That is all gone now, and if something goes awry, we are all dead ducks”.”

One might perceive that this broad ‘dismantling’ of channels, agreements and commitments came about as some unexplained, extraneous ‘happenstance’. If so, it would be wrong: No, it represents signature Bolton thinking. He says:

“America has slowly constrained its range of action, through foolhardy entanglements with international institutions such as the United Nations, and naive bilateral agreements that promised too much to America’s enemies, in exchange for too little. [Bolton] saw bad deals all around: The INF Treaty … was one. The Iran nuclear agreement, which Bolton has laboured tirelessly to scrap, was another.”

So, why should Trump acquiesce in this road to calamity?

Trump was raised as a Presbyterian, but leaned increasingly towards Evangelical preachers as he began contemplating a run for the presidency, Katherine Stewart observes. Trump’s choice of Pence as a running mate was a gesture of his commitment.

But, having lost control of the House of Representatives in November, and under ever closer scrutiny for his campaign’s links to the Kremlin, Trump’s instinct has been to cleave ever closer to his most loyal supporters. Almost alone among major demographic groups, white evangelicals are overwhelmingly in favour of Trump’s border wall, which some preachers equate with fortifications in the Bible, Stewart suggests.

In brief, this is what Trump has – this is what ‘has his back’ politically. Bolton gives him some cover from the US Deep State; the Evangelicals and the deplorables represent a base which sustains the President from the plots to remove him from office. A core base, which simply ignores the denigrations thrown out at President Trump, daily.

But here is the point: There lurks a major danger in to this ideologically ‘non-rational’ set-up. One that threatens us all – and may explain the Russian raising of their ‘threat status’. Trump’s instincts still remain that a channel with Mr Putin is essential. But the demonization of Russia will not be stilled with the publication of the Mueller investigation. It will just swap to a new narrative.

The pressures on Trump from his Bolton-Evangelical team, to hasten End Time with an Apocalyptic good-v-evil struggle, possibly linked the Christian Zionists’ Greater Israel ambition, inexorably will mount (precisely in response to US weakness and crisis). Will Trump hold the line? Might he offer up Iran, towards advancing Rapture, (and pleasing his base)?

The major danger is that Trump is not fearful of nuclear war – at least not in the way earlier generations of US leaders were. For Trump has manifested (admittedly before assuming the Presidency) a strange and worrying fatalism about nuclear conflict. Will Bolton manoeuvre to exploit this quirk?

We know that Trump regards himself as ‘an expert’ on nuclear conflict: In a 1984 interview with the Washington Post, Trump said that he hoped one day to become the United States’ chief negotiator with the Soviet Union for nuclear weapons. Trump claimed that he could negotiate a great nuclear arms deal with Moscow. Comparing crafting an arms accord with cooking up a real estate deal, Trump insisted he had innate talent for this mission.

In a 1990 interview with Playboy, Trump said, “I think of the future, but I refuse to paint it. Anything can happen. But I often think of nuclear war.” He explained: “I’ve always thought about the issue of nuclear war; it’s a very important element in my thought process. It’s the ultimate, the ultimate catastrophe, the biggest problem this world has, and nobody’s focusing on the nuts and bolts of it.”

Five years on, Trump was asked  where he would be in five years. “Who knows?” he replied. “Maybe the bombs drop from heaven, who knows? This is a sick world. We’re dealing here with lots of sickos. And you have the nuclear and you have the this, and you have the that.” Trump continued expressing the notion that nuclear annihilation could be on the horizon: “Oh absolutely. I mean, I think it’s sick human nature. If Hitler had the bomb, you don’t think he would have used it? He would have put it in the middle of Fifth Avenue. He would have used Trump Tower, 57th and Fifth… Boom”.

In another Playboy interview —this one in 2004—Trump once more conveyed his nuclear despondency. He was asked, “Do you think Trump Tower and your other buildings will bear your name a hundred years from now?” Trump responded, “I don’t think any building will be here—and unless we have some very smart people ruling it, the world will not be the same place in a hundred years. The weapons are too powerful, too strong.”

During the Presidential election debate, Candidate Trump said in December: “The biggest problem this world has today is not President Obama with global warming … The biggest problem we have is nuclear – nuclear proliferation – and having some maniac, having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon. That’s in my opinion, that is the single biggest problem that our country faces right now… I think – I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation, is very important to me.”

“So for decades, it seems” David Corn has written in Mother Jones, “Trump has been haunted by the feeling that nuclear war may be inescapable. Now he is in a position to do something about the matter”. And, as former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper remarked, “[If] in a fit of pique he [Trump] decides to do something about Kim Jong Un, there’s actually very little to stop him”. “The whole [nuclear weapons] system is built to ensure rapid response if necessary. So there’s very little in the way of controls over exercising a nuclear option, which is pretty damn scary.”

In short, should a fatalistically inclined US President, order a nuclear tactical weapons strike (and America currently is taking delivery of tactical weapons, and exercising with allies, the air delivery of them) – possibly believing recourse to tactical nuclear weapons is somehow inevitable, and egged on by his messianic team – there is almost nothing to stop him.

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

=========================

The Great Fraud of National Zionism

The Great Fraud of National Zionism  By The Saker, 27 March 2019

The Defining Event for the US

There is no doubt that the 9/11 false flag (now even admitted (by direct implication) by NIST!) was a watershed, a seminal event in our history. While millions (or even billions) watched in horror as the twin towers burned, a small group of Mossad agents stood nearby and danced in overwhelming joy. Why exactly were these Israelis dancing? Surely there was more than just Schadenfreude in this spontaneous expression of euphoria? Considering that these three dancing Israelis were just the tip of a much bigger iceberg, we can rest assured that there were many more folks dancing in joy that day, especially in Israel.

Why were these Mossad agents so blissful? The answer is obvious: 9/11 put the following notions front and center of the concerns of most people in the US:

  • We are under attack and in grave, imminent, danger
  • Islam wants to destroy our way of life
  • Those who did 9/11 also want to destroy Israel
  • We need to ask the Israelis to share their “expertise” in dealing with Islamic terrorism
  • Draconian laws and new police powers need to be passed to protect us from mass murder
  • If you are not with us, then you are with the terrorists

Almost a decade before 9/11, in 1992, Francis Fukuyama had explained to us that history itself was coming to an end while Samuel P. Huntington explained to us in 1996 that we were witnessing a “clash of civilizations.” This kind of “scholarly” research created the perfect political background to an already rather disquieting perception of the upcoming Year 2000. In 2001, when all hell broke loose, the general public was already well prepared for it (just like the AngloZionist elites who had already prepared the huge “Patriot Act” long before the Twin Towers came down).

9/11 was as much the culmination of a significant preparatory effort as it was the trigger for a decade or more of wars.

Still, all this immense effort into shaping the West’s perceptions was not good enough to hammer the sufficiently hysterical mindset into most people, in spite of the best efforts of the legacy Ziomedia to explain to us that Bin Laden decided that “we” were next in line for some kind of horrible (possibly nuclear) terrorist attack. Inside the US the constant fear-mongering of the legacy Ziomedia did induce the suitable hysterical panic, while in the rest of the world things were not going quite as well. Especially not in Europe (which was vitally needed as a fig-leaf to pretend like the GWOT was not a US-Israeli thingie, but that there was a large “coalition of the willing” formed of the best and brightest countries out there). Something else, bigger and better, was needed and, sure enough, it was found: a mass exodus of poorly educated immigrants, the vast majority of them from Muslim countries.

While the (totally fictional and therefore totally unsuccessful) GWOT was petering out, the AngloZionists directed their stare at Libya and its leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi had warned that unless Europe was willing to pay Libya to contain the many millions of African refugees, a major catastrophe would happen. He explained that

Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European, and even black, as there are millions who want to come in“, “we don’t know what will happen, what will be the reaction of the white and Christian Europeans faced with this influx of starving and ignorant Africans” and “we don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions.

The AngloZionists heard his message loud and clear and proceeded to immediately (and illegally!) overthrow and brutally murder Gaddafi (it is still unclear how many Israelis were dancing the day Col. Gaddafi was murdered). Almost exactly a decade after 9/11 the Zionists finally had their “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor,” but this time the victim was the entire European continent.

The defining event for Europe

The effect of what can only be called an “invasion” of immigrants was huge, to say the least. Even before this latest invasion began, Europe had already suffered many negative consequences from previous waves of emigres (Romanians, Gypsies, Albanians, Tunisians, Moroccans, Algerians, sub-Saharan Africans, Turks, Tamils, Kurds, Latin-Americans (during the US-sponsored terror years in Latin America), etc. and even before them there were the Spanish, Portuguese and Italians (who, at least, all superbly adapted to their new place of residence). But that new wave was much bigger and much more dangerous than any previous one. A huge, massive, immigration crisis resulted in most European countries.

Can you guess what the Europeans felt? They felt that:

  • We are under attack and in grave, imminent, danger
  • Islam wants to destroy our way of life
  • Those who did Charlie Hebdo and all the other terrorist attacks in Europe also want to destroy Israel
  • We need to ask the Israelis to share their “expertise” in dealing with Islamic terrorism
  • Draconian laws and new police powers need to be passed to protect us from mass murder
  • If you are not with us, then you are with the terrorists

Sounds familiar?

If it does, it is because it is.

In terms of methods and means, 9/11 and the invasion of Europe by hordes of immigrants could not be more different. But in terms of results, they achieved very similar outcomes.

Russians and Muslims, which do you fear most?

The election of Trump was something so totally unexpected by the AngloZionists (and for Trump himself too!) that it caught everybody completely off-guard. In their typically infinite arrogance, the Neocons were darn sure that Hillary would win and they would be left in total control of the US, but the American people decided to show them a big, collective, middle finger and vote for the “unthinkable” and “impossible” candidate. And since the Neocons could hardly blame Trump’s victory on Bin Laden or al-Qaeda, they quickly came up with the “Russian interference” canard which had the added beneficial side-effect that it could justify spending even more money on war against a very real and powerful Russia than on war against a rather nebulous “al-Qaeda”.

The fact that Russia has no reason to attack anybody, least of all the US made no difference here. All that was needed to “prove” (under the “highly likely” “Skripal standard of evidence”) that the Russians are a terrible threat was to come up with the absolutely ridiculous Skripal false flags combined with a few imaginary chemical attacks by “animal Assad.” And, of course, when the US suffered it’s latest military debacle in Syria, the Neocons could also blame it all on Russia. As they say, “one hand washes the other.” Initially, the Russian bogeyman looked even sexier than the Islamist one, but then with Putin and Russia steadfastly refusing to take any of the many baits tossed at them, the “Islamic” threat became sexier again. After all, Russians are (mostly) White and (mostly) Christian, so they are not that scary. But Muslims?!

Ask a typical westerner what he knows about Islam and you will be treated to a long list of evils, some based in reality, others entirely imaginary. Besides, the Muslim world is so big and so diverse, that it is effortless to find horrible things about it, even real ones! The lie here is primarily one of omission. Specifically, two things are never said:

  1. That Takfirism is a minority strain of Islam and long before killing all the “infidels” and “Christians” the Takfiris first want to kill any and all Muslims (the vast majority) who dare to disagree with their interpretation of Islam.
  2. That all the Takfiri terrorist groups are federated, organized, financed, trained and even protected by the AngloZionist Empire (as seen many recent times in Syria when the US protected, transported, treated, resupplied, and even coordinated the various al-Qaeda franchises in Syria). That was also true for Chechnia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

This last point is so important that I will repeat it again: to the degree that there is an “Islamic threat” to the West, it is a “threat” fully and totally created and controlled by the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire. You want proof? There are many, but my favorite one is the passports which are found next to the smoldering ruins of the Twin Towers or the passport left in the car right before the Charlie Hebdo attack. How nice it is of the “Islamic terrorists” to make darn sure that they are quickly and “convincingly” identified! There is also the “minor” fact that all those “Islamic terrorists” apparently have ties with western security services (heck, some even traveled to Israel!). As for the lifestyle of these “Islamic terrorists”, in each case they are anything but Islamic (which the legacy Ziomedia and various Zionist “experts” always explain as part of a “deceptive tactic” not to be noticed in spite of the fact that every one of those so-called “Islamic terrorist” was, of course, not only “noticed” but even actively “developed” by western security services!).

The real nature of the threat faced by mankind is rather well illustrated by this image which I found somewhere on the Internet. Not convinced? Try this thought experiment. For a few minutes, simply assume that Wahhabism=Imperialism=Zionism and then see if the world we live in makes sense to you. Next, assume that Wahhabism is sui generis, that imperialism is something the pesky Russians are guilty of, and that Zionism is absolutely wonderful. Now see if the world we live in makes sense to you.

Unless you are severely challenged, the correct model is rather obvious, I think.

Of course, like all slogans or conceptual shortcuts, Wahhabism=Imperialism=Zionism grossly simplifies a much more complex reality and takes a few intellectual “shortcuts”. But at its core, it is a crude but fundamentally correct interpretation of the world we live in. The only thing I would add to that list would be an “=terrorism” at the end.

So what about Russia in all this?

Russia is self-evidently the only country on the planet which can turn all of the US into radioactive ashes in just a few hours. But there is much more to Putin’s Russia than just military power. For one thing, what Russia can do to the US, the US can do to Russia. So there is an ugly, but so far stable, balance of terror between the two countries. In economic terms, Russia’s economy (soon to be roughly about the size of Germany’s) is dwarfed by the vast Chinese economy and Russia is not, therefore, a credible economic competitor. Politically, things are a bit more complicated: Russia is popular with many nations worldwide, but a majority of governments will bow to the World Hegemon every time Uncle Shmuel slams his fist on the table, right? Well, not really. The case of the US aggression against Venezuela is compelling as the US failed to get any legitimate regional or global organizations to back the attempt at overthrowing the Venezuelan government. True, this is primarily due to the genuinely fantastic incompetence of the Neocons who in their crazed zeal found nobody better to pick than Elliott Abrams to lead the attack against Venezuela (does that stupid choice also remind you of the time when the Neocons suggested Henry Kissinger as the head of the 9/11 Commission? The Neocons really don’t realize how offensive and even ridiculous they appear in the eyes of the rest of mankind…). Still, it is rather clear that under the Presidency of Donald Trump the US influence and power in the world have declined truly dramatically – so much for making anything at all “great again”. Well, except Trump’s ego, of course, which was already huge even before the election). Now let’s add it all up.

In military terms, while Russia has a much superior conventional capability, in terms of nuclear forces the US and Russia keep each other in check by both having the capability of vaporizing the other side even after riding out a first strike (hence the redundancy of nuclear weapons systems). Here we have a draw.

In economic terms, the US economy dwarfs Russia’s. Advantage US.

In political terms, Trump ain’t too popular (or credible), but neither is Putin (although he, at least, is taken seriously). Another draw, but with another advantage for the US.

So what’s the big deal with Russia? Surely, nobody in the White House seriously believes that the Russians hacked the DNC, that they stole the elections, that they poisoned Skripal or that they plan to invade the Baltics and Poland. That kind of nonsense is just the vulgar “political prolefeed” for those who still pay attention to the legacy Ziomedia.

No, the real threat posed by Russia is a civilizational one.

Putin’s Russia as a civilizational threat

I need to clarify why I speak of “Putin’s Russia.” The reason for that choice of words is that modern Russia is not the Russia of the 1990s or even the Soviet Union. And neither is modern Russia the same Russia as before 1917. Next, I want to stress that Putin’s Russia is a project, a moving target, a partially realized potential – but not yet a stable, finished “product” (in the past I wrote about these issues, here, here and here). Still, we can see a number of very interesting phenomena taking place in Russia.

First, the overwhelming majority of the Russian people reject the Western-style “democracy” and its so-called “values.” After almost two decades of gross violation of every single norm, the West pretended for centuries to stand for the credibility and reputation of itself as a source of moral or political inspiration, and now it has become roadkill. Mind you – the Russians very much want real people power, real “democracy” if you will, just not of the western model. They want their own, uniquely Russian democracy.

Second, Russia is openly and systematically denouncing the absolute hypocrisy of the AngloZionist Empire. The historical speeches of Putin in Munich or at the UN come to mind.

Third, Russia is at least partially a Muslim country too! She does not have a Muslim majority, and Islamic customs and traditions are mostly kept only by a minority of Muslims (just like Christian traditions are held by a majority of nominally “Orthodox” Christians). The point here is this: for Russians, Muslims are not some type of “scary aliens” who will invade your village and destroy your way of life. Historically, Russia has had terrible relations (including 12 wars) with Turkey, and rather bumpy relations with other Muslim countries (I think of Iran here). But Russians have also lived in peace with their Muslim neighbors for centuries, and they are acutely aware of that. Which means that Russians have a much broader spectrum of experiences with Muslims and Islam, some good, some bad and some absolutely horrible. But what Russians know and which makes them so dramatically different from most people in the West is that peaceful cohabitation with traditional Islam is very much possible. It all depends on the specific type of Muslim you are dealing with.

Finally, while Christianity is still struggling in Russia, there is no doubt that most Russians prefer the traditional values found in Christianity to the kind of “everything goes” or, even more so, the “everything has its price” which forms the “spiritual” core of the West’s post-Christian materialistic society. This is why most Russians are clearly “gender-differentiated” – men look and act like men, women look and act like women, and the various LGBTTQQIAAP (add more letters if you are so inclined, that will be more “inclusive”) are told to hold their “pride parades” elsewhere.

These are some (there are many more!) reasons why Russia should not be considered part of Europe, at least not in a civilizational sense of the word. Of course, Russia is partially European geographically, and most Russians look “White” (albeit that whiteness hides a huge genetic diversity). Some particularly ignorant observers believe that Russia is European because Russia is Christian. This completely overlooks the “minor” detail that Latin (and later Reformed) Christianity had lost all connections with the rest of the Christian world during much of the Middle-Ages while the Christian Roman civilization continued to exist far away from barbaric Europe, first in Byzantium and later in Russia and other Orthodox countries.

Besides, the modern West is not Christian at all, not Latin and not Reformed, it is post-Christian and, I would argue, anti-Christian. Thus, even if Russia was a paragon of traditional, Patristic, Christianity – this would in no way affect the dynamics in the West, neither with the various Christian denominations (which, by Patristic standards cannot even be called “Christian” any more) nor with the overwhelming majority of atheist/agnostic materialists who have lost even a vague sense of right/wrong or even true/false.

There are, of course, millions of Russians who lost their original Russian cultural and spiritual roots. A person like that is called a “??????” (vy-rooss) in Russian. Thankfully, many (most?) of them have emigrated (to the West, of course) and they are therefore not very influential nowadays. But we often see their hostile comments under pro-Russian or pro-Putin articles. Many of these folks made good careers in the 1990s and are angry at Putin for terminating that bonanza. Others hate Putin because they were found useless and ditched as soon as the Eltsin gang lost power.

True, the Russian elites (as opposed to the common people) have been profoundly westernized for the last 300+ years. With Putin in power this has dramatically changed. There is still a powerful 5th column in Russia, but the keys to real power are held by Putin and his Eurasian Sovereignist supporters in the armed forces, the security services and, most importantly, in the general public. And so far, they are holding firm, and while there are regular ups and downs, all in all, Russia is doing amazingly well and is headed in the right direction. I would even argue that theirs is the only viable direction!

So why do the western elites hate (and fear) Russia so badly? Let’s look into what kind of values the West truly stands for today.

21st-century western values are not your grandfather values for sure!

Here we need to come back to 9/11 and the invasion of Europe by an immense flow of refugees. These are just two instances in which the people in the West felt directly attacked and whether 9/11 was a false flag or not, or whether the Empire triggered the refugee crisis by militarily attacking the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (that was the official name of Libya) is irrelevant.

What matters is that the people in the West felt attacked by a vicious and most dangerous enemy: Islam.

There were other, no less significant “attacks” on the very core of Western identity. For example, I don’t believe that the term “cultural Marxism” makes any sense at all, but it does describe a real phenomenon. Ditto for the profusion of pushy and even aggressive “minorities” of all kinds who demanded not only equal rights but even special privileges. In the legacy Ziomedia, we saw an apparently never-ending hunting season against Whites, against men, against heterosexuals, against Anglos, and against Christians.

Needless to say, the attack on White Anglo-Saxon Christian heterosexual males was (and still is) relentless. A majority of people in the West were told that they are guilty of this or that historical injustice or crime, that their traditions and beliefs were evil and that they out to be ashamed of their identity on all levels. Of course, there have been many horrible and outright disgusting chapters in the history of the western civilization, but unless you believe in collective and/or inherited guilt, that hardly justifies the kind of hatred and contempt which the (pseudo-) “liberal” elites constantly express against anything traditional.

If the election of Trump was a huge slap in the face of the Neocons, the reaction of the Neocons to this event was a massive slap in the face of the American people. What began with Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” soon turned into a long list of ridiculous accusations (including, my personal favorites: Ron Paul is a “Putin’s best friend,” Rand Paul a “Russian stooge” and Tulsi Gabbard a “Putin puppet“).

Frankly, this kind of constant bashing of everything traditional is nothing else but a type of mental rape of the western cultural identity. A reaction to this kind of onslaught was inevitable. The only question was which form it would take.

Understanding National Zionism – a primer

It took the form of what the French philosopher Alain Soral called “National Zionism.” Here is how Soral explains this ideology:

There is a huge surge of what is called national-Zionism, that is, to bring nationalists to Zionism. For me, this is a fundamental contradiction in this amalgam of Muslims equal to Daesh, basically in France in Muslim equal to scum equal to Daesh equal to Palestinians and therefore the good Frenchman if he wants to get out of the shit in which these people have put him, must support Israel and not take offense and accept the disproportionate power that the Jewish community embodied by the CRIF has over France and that is the supreme scam. This is politically unacceptable, morally unacceptable, strategically stupid. This is what I call national-Zionism and this is the fundamental struggle today. We must refuse this scam, refuse the nationalism in Kippa. And that’s not for that, all of a sudden, we would become pro-Muslim to come back to your question.

We must treat the issue of the world seriously, that is to say that immigration is very, very problematic today and the Muslim issue is a follow-up to the immigration issue. (…) They do absolutely nothing against immigration. This is a certainty, so if we want to be against the Islamization of France, we must take the problem at the right end, that is, resolve the migration issue. To resolve the migration issue, we must regain political power over those who have the power and who have brought us to this point today and who have fought with all their strength, with all their strength, against our borders, against identity.

I would remind you that the last cover of Elisabeth Lévy’s magazine, Causeur, the title, is “anti-French ideology” which would also be favourable to Islam or Muslims. I would remind you that this is the opposite of the title of Bernard Henri Lévy’s book. So we have a Lévy that responds to a Lévy whose book was “The French ideology” which was at the time to say that French was intrinsically fascist and anti-Semitic.

So in 20 years, we have gone from the problem being Catholic French, French and today, no, finally the problem is Muslim immigrants. But those who declared war on the native French in the 70s and 80s are the same today who tell us, let us be friends to fire those who were put in your face and educated against you. Because that’s what national-Zionism is all about, making friends with the people who are the cause of all our problems and who for 2500 years have been systematic and fierce anti-nationalists except for their own nation called Israel. So that’s clear.

Another French author, Youssef Hindi, explained the role of the US in this new ideological paradigm:

We see the return of the idea of “nation.” The EU is in a state of crisis. A part of the American Establishment, particularly Donald Trump, is trying to implement the implosion of the European Union. We are witnessing a resurgence of nationalism: like in the US, Russia, GB and also in Italy. It is falling apart on all sides. Thus, the strategy is as follows: to always stay a step ahead, assert control over this new European patriotism and nationalism. Therefore, from the Right Jews elites’ perspective, it is absolutely essential to retain control over this European patriotism and nationalism by amalgamating it with the state of Israel.

I never believed that the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire were very intelligent, that is a Hollywood myth, but they indeed are clever, and when they realized that a nationalistic blowback was inevitable, they decided to simply take control of it. This is the brilliant simplicity of the logic of National Zionism. It goes something like this:

I, we, my family and my country are all under attack by rabid religious fanatics who will never cease until they kill all those who don’t agree with them and destroy our way of life. In this struggle for our very survival, we need to turn to those who fought that enemy for decades and who have developed the most sophisticated anti-terrorist methods and means: the Israelis.

Furthermore, Israel is like a small island of European democracy in an ocean of violent and chaotic brutality. Heck, Israel is part of Europe, really, it even participates in the Eurovision! Unlike us, the Israelis are proud, and they don’t hesitate to defend their culture, religion, and values, why don’t we do the same? They even have the right to bear arms! Jews are White, like us, and we share a common Judeo-Christian heritage which places a duty upon us all to support Israel, especially against the Iranian Mollahs who have publicly sworn to kill all Jews and wipe Israel off the map. Last but not least, Islam is a threat to our civilization and Muslim immigrants must be either re-educated to fit into our society or sent back home. Those who disagree with any of the above are either anti-Semites, Putin agents, Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists, terrorist sympathizers or terrorists themselves.

Let’s take a few well-known US public figures associated with conservatism or the Alt-Right: Alex Jones, Paul James Watson, Jordan Peterson, Steve Bannon or even Donald Trump himself. Have you ever heard these “defenders” of western tradition or “Christian values” have anything critical to say about Israel, Israeli policies or Zionism? The exact same phenomenon can be observed in France where putatively “conservative,” and “patriotic” folks such as Eric Zemmour or Marine Le Pen are using the frustration of the French people with the regime in power to channel that frustration into a hatred of Islam and everything Muslim. These folks are also the promoters of what has become known as “Christian Zionism” which worships everything Jewish and/or Israeli and which believes that Christians and Jews have “almost” the same religion. Let’s take Steve Bannon as an example.

Here is an article entitled “Steve Bannon drafting curriculum for right-wing Catholic institute in Italy” which sure makes Bannon look like some kind of very conservative and traditionalist Christian. The same article also mentions Cardinal Raymond Burke, as “a leading Vatican conservative”. According to Cardinal Burke, this institute’s missions is “to promote a number of projects that should make a decisive contribution to the defense of what used to be called Christendom”. This “right-wing Catholic institute” is run by a Christian Zionist, Benjamin Harnwellwho declared that the younger generation across the Western world was on a “long slide” into darkness. His Institute is working to resist by “trying to prop up one of the major pillars of Western civilization – what used to be called ‘Christendom’ – and that’s the recognition that man is made in the image and likeness of God.” So far, this also looks very nice.

The problem is that Bannon, Burke, and Harnwell have all sold out to Israeli interests and the ideology which they are promoting is not traditional Christianity at all, but this nonsensical and amorphous idea of “Judeo-Christianity.” This is why the Latin website “Media Catholiques Infos” correctly concludes by saying “Such a high place of Christianity deserves better than to serve as a springboard for National Zionism under the guise of an “academy for the defense of the Judaeo-Christian West.”

The sad truth is that these pretend-traditionalists have all been co-opted by the Israel lobby and that they are being used to brainwash the folks in the West to see Islam as a foe when, in reality, the real foe of the West is Zionism as Zionism is the force which is responsible for both 9/11 and the massive flow of immigrants into Europe. As for the Papacy, it has been in bed with Talmudic and Kabbalistic rabbis for many centuries (just read Michael Hoffman’s superb book, the 700 pages long “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome”) and not just since Vatican II (as some Latins naively believe!). It is therefore not surprising that Bannon says about “Catholic” universities that they are “the foundational institutions of the Judeo-Christian West.”

France does not have the equivalent of a Steve Bannon. But it does have a functional equivalent in the person of Renaud Camus whose very politically-correct biography you can read on Wikipedia. Even a cursory read-through that entry will immediately reveal the profoundly Zionist worldview of Camus which can be further established, if needed, by reading about Camus’ “Great Replacement” theory; you might also want to compare this to the “Eurabia” theory of the Israeli author Bat Ye’or (aka Gisele Littman).

All this paranoid and racist nonsense can be summed up in a short sentence: led by Zionists the White Christian West will rise again!

If it weren’t so ugly and tragic, it would actually be funny (especially to see the Latins and the Talmudists in bed with each other after centuries of mutual hatred). But in reality, there is nothing funny about the colonization of the western minds by the Zionist parasite. It might even end up with a nuclear war.

The US Alt-Right and the French National Front as the useful idiots of AIPAC and CRIF

I am personally convinced that the entire Alt-Right movement has been created by the US deep state and that it is still run by it. The purpose of the Alt-Right and the National Front is to offer a nationalistic and pseudo-Christian alternative to any kind of real traditionalism or any kind of real Christianity. On the rank and file level you will find a lot of anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist and even anti-Jewish sentiments amongst Alt-Righters and National Fronters, but on the leadership level, it is wall to wall Zionist. To get a feel for this Zionist (pseudo-)patriotism just take a look at these propaganda images:

A sample of Zio-patriotic propaganda

By taking control of the key nationalist movements in the West the Zionists have given themselves a “dream opposition”: that is an opposition which they fully control; which they can poke a little from time to time when there is the need for some kind of anti-Semitic incident; but which they can also mobilize against anybody daring to oppose Israel or Zionism.

In this context Russia becomes the ultimate threat for very good reasons:

First, Russia is completely rejecting the unipolar world model and, together with China, Russia wants a multi-polar world in which relations between states are ruled by international law.

Second, Russia cannot be militarily threatened and neither can China, by the way. The RAND Corporation finally admitted that much.

Third, thanks to the various sanctions against Russia, Russia is gradually withdrawing from the AngloZionist controlled markets. You could say that the main effect of all the sanctions has been to make Russia stronger, more independent and closer to the goal of full sovereignty.

Fourth, Russia is not only openly rejecting the AngloZionist civilizational model, but she also denounces its absolute hypocrisy. In particular, the Russian people are rejecting the West’s materialism, in particular in its turbo-capitalist variant. While not officially endorsing socialism as such, Russia does declare herself a “social state.”

Fifth, Russia is taking the polar opposite approach to Islam, to what we see in the West. Unlike the Empire, Russia is serious about killing as many Takfiris as possible no matter where they are. But, unlike the Empire again, Russia sees traditional Islam as a vital ally against the Takfiri rot and Russians don’t think of Muslims as “aliens” at all.

Last but not least, Putin’s Russia has made patriotism (i.e., love for one’s country) a central element of the social and political culture while categorically rejecting any form of nationalism or, even more so, racism. “White Pride” is about as popular in Russia as “Gay Pride” would be.

You could say that the gradually emerging new Russian ideology is the polar opposite of National Zionism. No wonder the Neocons hate Russia so much!

Conclusion: National Zionism is a gigantic fraud

There is no other way of putting this: National Zionism is a gigantic fraud. It is also the rising political ideology of the West, and that presents a major risk for our entire planet. I often hear naive folks saying “what is your problem with Zionism?! all it wants is a safe homeland for Jews too! What is wrong with that?!“.

I addressed this issue in some detail here, so I will simply say here that Zionism, whether of the national or the anti-national type, separates mankind into two qualitatively different categories: Jews and non-Jews (ironically, it shares this fundamental belief with National-Socialism. It’s just that the hierarchical scale is reversed, that’s all).

Next, it assumes that all non-Jews are at the very least potential“anti-Semites” and thus Jews need to do two things to remain safe. First, create a Jewish homeland and, second, secure enough Jewish power in literally all the countries on the planet to be ready should the goyim (literally “nations” but in the Talmudic context it carries exactly the same meaning as the German Untermensch: subhuman) come down with unpredictable (by definition) and unexplainable (by definition) cases of “anti-Semitism”. In contrast, Jewish lives and, especially, Jewish blood acquire a profound soteriological meaning: Jewish life is infinitely precious because 1) Jews will “repair” the world (tikkun olam) and 2) because the Moshiachwill be born from a Jew and become a world leader accepted by all nations.

A (somewhat secularized) variation of this philosophy is that all Jews form a “collective Moshiach” and that all the “nations” will accept their power and rule with gratitude as this will usher the final and everlasting era of milk and honey. Finally, Talmudic/Pharisaic “Judaism” teaches that Jews “represent” mankind before God and God before mankind (yeah, modesty if not their forte). Next time you hear some Israeli politician going bonkers about spilled “Jewish blood” just remember this info, and it will all make sense. Ditto for when some other (or even the same) Israeli politician demands some gruesome revenge, terrible retribution or promises to kill some huge number of enemies. This kind of “Purim talk” only makes sense once you realize how deep and fundamental Talmudic/Zionist racism really is.

So what constitutes “enough power”? Simple: once the people of a country lose control of their government and the sovereignty of their country is gone, then the Zionists will feel they are safe. This theory is 1) racist 2) paranoid 3) sociopathic and, frankly, just plain silly. But this is what the Talmudic worldview produces in a secularized society. A critical assumption of this worldview is that any form of nationalism or even patriotism is dangerous (by definition) unless it is Jewish or Israeli, at which point it is laudable and benevolent (again, by definition). Thus, besides being many other things, Zionism is also a theory of power based on a zero-sum game. Of course “zero-sum” might sound benign until you remember that it implies a total struggle to the end, a total, absolute defeat of the other, a destruction of all your enemies. Not something helpful in a multi-polar world with lots of nuclear weapons.

National Zionism is a fraud and an extremely toxic and dangerous one. Any supposed patriot or nationalist who fails to recognize that, is at best poorly informed and, at worst, a useful idiot for the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire.

The Yellow Vests in France got it. Occupy Wall Street, or the Tea Party did not. I suspect that many Trump voters also got it, but they were betrayed by Mr. MAGA. Will Rand and/or Ron Paul recognize this danger? What about Tulsi Gabbard? Frankly, I don’t know. But if they don’t, other Americans eventually and inevitably will.

We might even see a US version of Yellow Vests one day, who knows?

PS: for the latest National-Zionist induced stupidity, see here: https://www.rt.com/news/454428-us-israel-golan-recognize/

============================

Previous articles 

Posted in "New World Order" | Comments Off on Which ‘New World Order’?

Government betrayals, cover-ups and false flags

This  post describes government ‘false flags’, cover-ups and ‘conspiracy theories’ that, on closer examination of available evidence, are more likely conspiracy realities.

BBC Producer Admits The “Gas Attack” Footage From Syria “Was Staged”

BBC Producer Admits The “Gas Attack” Footage From Syria “Was Staged”  By Arjun Walia, Collective Evolution, 20 February 2019

IN BRIEF

  • The Facts:

Riam Dalati, who is a well known BBC Syria producer recently put out a tweet stating that the supposed gas attacks in Douma were “staged.”

  • Reflect On:

How many whistleblowers, documentation and examples do we need to see the truth here? How many examples of mainstream media completely making up stories and aiding the global elite (their owners) will we believe? Why do we continue to watch?

“The problem of fake news isn’t solved by hoping for a referee, but rather because we as citizens, we as users of these services, help each other. We talk and we share and we point out what is fake. We point out what is true. The answer to bad speech is not censorship, the answer to bad speech is more speech. We have to exercise and spread the idea that critical thinking matters, now more than ever, given the fact that lies seem to be getting more popular.” –Edward Snowden (source)

advertisement – learn more

It’s truly amazing what’s happening in regards to information today. It’s being heavily censored. News browser extension NewsGuard is one of the latest examples, which promises to help readers pick out fake news. However, NewsGuard is funded and run by individuals tied to the CFR, Atlantic Council, and prominent elite figures who own mainstream media. You can read more about that here.

There is a war on information right now, especially any information that threatens the elitists’ and globalists’ agendas or corporate profits. It’s not morally right to have government authorities step in and determine for the population what is real and what is fake, and what to censor and what not to censor. Our free speech is being shut down, and this is evident by Facebook’s recent deletion and mass censorship of multiple alternative media outlets acting as a new ‘ministry of truth.’ It’s truly Orwellian-like.

Truth, however, cannot be stopped, and it’s mainstream media that’s recently been outed as promoting the most ‘fake news,’ which is evident by the multiple award-winning mainstream media journalists who’ve ‘blown the whistle,’ so to speak, about mainstream media and how they are paid by corporations, governments and intelligence agencies to spread and alter the news they share. There are also some very telling documents that go into detail regarding mainstream media’s relationship with multiple governments, and how it’s used to alter the perception of the masses and keep a tight grip on the information that’s disseminated through academia and journalism. I provide many examples within this article if you’re interested, which includes access to those documents. The article is about William Arkin, a well-known military and war reporter who is best known for his groundbreaking, three-part Washington Post series in 2010, who just went public outing NBC/MSNBC as completely government run agencies.

But let’s get to this latest example regarding Syria.

It comes from Riam Dalati, who is a well known BBC Syria producer that’s been reporting from that region for a long time. He shocked his nearly 20,000 twitterfollowers a few days ago, as well as other mainstream media journalists from major outlets like the BBC, when he concluded after a “six month investigation” that he “can prove without a doubt that the Douma Hospital scene was staged.”

As his twitter states, he is also a close colleague of the well-known BBC Middle East Correspondent, Quentin Sommerville.

The thread went on to include these words:

Truth is James Harkin got the basics right in terms of Douma’s “propaganda” value. The ATTACK DID HAPPEN, Sarin wasn’t used, but we’ll have to wait for OPCW to prove Chlorine or otherwise. However, everything else around the attack was manufactured for maximum effect.

Furthermore, the BBC producer continued:

I can tell you that Jaysh al-Islam ruled Douma with an iron fist. They coopted activists, doctors and humanitarians with fear and intimidation. In fact, one of the 3 or 4 people filming the scene was Dr. Abu Bakr Hanan, a “brute and shifty” doctor affiliated with Jaysh Al-Islam. The narrative was that “there weren’t enough drs” but here is one filming and not taking part of the rescue efforts. Will keep the rest for later.

James Harkin is a journalist who has written for multiple mainstream outlets like the Guardian, and has also published books detailing information about ‘the war on terror’ and terrorist groups in the Middle East. Jaysh al-Islam is a rebel group that operates in the region that, like terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda, have connections to Saudi Arabia and the United States with regards to weaponry and funding.

This tweet was picked up by multiple media outlets, and a quick google search will yield those results.

Dalati made these statements in response to a lengthy and well publicized investigative report by Harkin in The Intercept. Harkin examined the scenes and physical environment of the alleged Douma attack and interviewed eyewitnesses on site. His report paints a picture of propaganda and deeply compromised rebel sources such as Saudi-backed Jaish al Islam, which had control of Douma amidst a Syrian government onslaught to retake the town.

Below is one of many pictures of children who have possibly been painted and staged for the purposes of such deception. Ask yourself: If this is not true, and the information we’re being fed is false, what does this mean for our world? Our reality? Who our leaders are? Who the media is? It may be a bit of a challenging thought to go down this path, but it’s important. And we explain why in our CE protocol you can check out here.

This story compliments a lot of other statements and investigations. An interesting report by Robert Fisk, a multi-award winning Middle East correspondent of The Independent and a journalist who has risked his life to visit the Syria clinic after the supposed attack, suggests that he has “serious doubts” about the situation.

He met with Dr. Assim Rahaibani, a doctor in the area, and shared his experience:

“The 58-year old senior Syrian doctor then adds something profoundly uncomfortable: the patients, he says, were overcome not by gas but by oxygen starvation in the rubbish-filled tunnels and basements in which they lived, on a night of wind and heavy shelling that stirred up a dust storm.”

“He refers twice to the jihadi gunmen of Jaish el-Islam (the Army of Islam) in Douma as “terrorists” – the regime’s word for their enemies, and a term used by many people across Syria. Am I hearing this right? Which version of events are we to believe?”

He goes on to explain,

“Readers should be aware that this is not the only story in Douma. There are the many people I talked to amid the ruins of the town who said they had “never believed in” gas stories – which were usually put about, they claimed, by the armed Islamist groups.”

Russian news outlets have jumped on this story.  Vladimir Putin flat out said that:

“We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack.”

This was before the attack in Douma as well, so he did indeed call it correct.

Putin has long called out the “imaginary” and “mythical” threats used by the elite to force their agenda onto mainstream perception.

However, this type of sentiment is often criticized. As mainstream media was blaming Syrian President Assad for the attack (allegedly attacking his own people), it’s understandable that the minds of the masses would instantaneously follow, as mainstream media has the ability to completely convince its viewers that something is true when it’s really not. It’s complete manipulation of perception.

It’s far from ‘Russian propaganda,’ as the western military alliance has a long history of ‘faking’ attacks in order to justify the infiltration of other countries for ulterior motives.

This is Nothing New

For example, the CIA actually began meddling in Syrian politics as far back as 1949, only a year after the agencies existence was publicly disclosed. Syria’s democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Kuwaiti, hesitated to approve the Trans Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. As a result, the CIA engineered a coup, replacing al-Kuwaiti with the CIA’s handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za’im. Al-Za’im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, 14 weeks into his regime. This was outlined in detail by Tim Weinter, a CIA historian in his book Legacy of Ashes.

It’s no surprise now that Dick Cheney, James Woolsely, Rupert Murdoch, and more are currently drilling in Syria for oil with “Genie Energy.”

Below is a great, well known quote from Smedley D. Butler, the highest ranking (at the time) Marine General, which provides insight into how history hasn’t changed, and that this has been the way of the elite for a very long time:

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

Titled “Syria: Scenarios of Dramatic Political Change,” this document was written in July of 1986 by the Foreign Subversion and Instability Center, part of the CIA’s Mission Center for Global Issues. It states its mission was to analyze “a number of possible scenarios that could lead to the ouster of President Assad or other dramatic change in Syria.”

Mass propaganda is used to make the citizenry believe the government is fighting for the good of humanity and for peace, but the truth is that they are fighting for lies and for a globalization agenda that uses false-flag terrorism to justify attacks on foreign nations.

Many American patriots have admitted this. Former Four Star General, Wesley Clark, who was the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe of NATO from 1997-2000, is one of many examples. Clark said in an interview with Democracy Now that the U.S. had plans to invade countries in the Middle East, including Syria, for no justified reason at all.  He offered the sentiments of some within the American military that they have a “good military” and that they can “take down governments.”  He spoke of a memo that described how the U.S. had “plans to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off, Iran.” (source)

When it comes to Syrian attacks, the issue received even more attention when Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters stopped a live concern to explain the false-flag chemical attacks in Syria with the aid of the White Helmets.

I recently published an article about the White Helmets (you can read it below), which includes more information that went completely unreported by western mainstream media outlets.

UN Panel Discusses ‘White Helmets’ Criminal Activities, Organ Theft & False Flag Terrorism

“I think we have to understand how this happened. This happened because of us. These 600,000 [dead] are not just incidental. We started a war to overthrow a regime. It was covert. It was Timber Sycamore. People can look it up. The CIA operation together with Saudi Arabia still shrouded in secrecy, which is part of the problem in our country. A major war effort shrouded in secrecy, never debated by Congress, never explained to the American people, signed by President Obama – never explained. And this created chaos, and so just throwing more missiles in right now is not a response.” – Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Colubmia University (source)

Everything in this article may be deemed as ‘fake news,’ and deleted and censored. How wrong is that?

The Takeaway

Often when I write about such topics, I always include the following quotation by Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, an award-winning author, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, and the founder and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization:

“The global war on terrorism is a US undertaking, which is fake, it’s based on fake premises. It tells us that somehow America and the Western world are going after a fictitious enemy, the Islamic state, when in fact the Islamic state is fully supported and financed by the Western military alliance and America’s allies in the Persian Gulf.” (source)

His outlet has also previously been put on a list of ‘fake news’ sites, but I’m hoping you can see through this trend now and recognize just how disturbing information censorship has become.

At the end of the day, the veil with regards to major global events is lifting. Reality is not always as it’s presented, and the chemical gas attacks in Syria, 9/11, and several other examples make this quite clear. Humanity has woken up, as these narratives previously weren’t even on most people’s radars. But times have changed, and our perceptions with regards to global events have shifted drastically. Just a decade ago, we were the minority. But now, it seems, we are in the majority. All one has to do is turn off their TV and think and conduct research for themselves. Those who do this often come to the same conclusion: We have been ‘bamboozled,’ and our own minds have been used to justify inhumane actions and prolong wars and states of conflict that benefit only a select few.

=============================

Evidence about alien reproduction vehicles

Evidence about alien reproduction vehicles  By Arjun Walia, Guest author for Humansarefree.com, 11 October 2017

It’s hard to know where to begin when writing on a subject that seems to top the Google search engine charts year after year. It’s no secret that the world is fascinated with the idea that intelligent extraterrestrial life did, and currently could be, visiting our planet, and regularly.

The unfortunate part about the phenomenon is that the world rarely sees evidence for it presented in a credible way. Nearly all mainstream media outlets, news anchors, and journalists do more harm than good, discrediting a topic that has plenty of proof behind it. Either it’s not discussed at all, or it’s done through ridicule.

Yet the very first Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) flat out told the New York Times in 1960 that, “behind the scenes, high ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about UFOs, but through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense.”

I’m led to wonder whether the connections we’ve written about in the past between the CIA and the media included official disinformation campaigns pertaining to the UFO/extraterrestrial subject, and if so, whether that’s still happening today.
You can explore these connections, and a few of the actual documents straight from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), in the articles linked below:

Today, there are hundreds of people and documents that have shown, beyond a doubt, that UFOs exist, and that some of them could be extraterrestrial, and others, our own advanced technology.

The documents show objects traveling at unattainable speeds, and performing maneuvers that no known aircraft can perform. Here is a great example, out of thousands, detailing one such encounter.

Here’s one regarding an encounter over Antarctic military bases describing red, yellow, and green “flying saucers” that were spotted hovering for more than two hours.

As far as people, we have high ranking military personnel, politicians, astronauts, and academics from different fields flat out telling us that we are not alone, and that this is known at the highest levels of government, or those who puppet the government.

Whether it be a former Chairman of the Royal Navy telling us that “there is a serious possibility that we are being visited, and have been visited by people from outer space,” a former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee telling us that “I do know that whatever the Air Force has on the subject is going to remain highly classified,” or an Apollo 14 astronaut saying that “there have been crashed craft, and bodies recovered,” we have no shortage of high ranking insiders attesting to the reality of this phenomenon.

For decades, as General Carlos Cavero told the world in 1979, “everything” has been “in a process of investigation both in the United States and in Spain, as well as the rest of the world.” On a global scale, “the nations of the world are currently working together in the investigation of the UFO phenomenon” and there is “an international exchange of data.”

This is why so many academics, like Harvard professor and Pulitzer prize winner John E. Mack, believe that “it’s both literally, physically happening to a degree; and it’s also some kind of psychological, spiritual experience occurring and originating perhaps in another dimension.”

Perhaps his most astonishing investigation came from more than 60 schoolchildren in the town of Ruwa, Zimbabwe. You can read more about that here.

Former Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer also went on record stating that “visitors from other planets” came here decades ago.

This all raises so many questions in so many branches of human knowledge. Take physics, for example. Jack Kasher, Ph.D, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of Nebraska, points out that “there is another way, whether it’s wormholes or warping space, there’s got to be a way to generate energy so that you can pull it out of the vacuum, and the fact that they’re here shows us that they found a way.”

So, as you can see, if you’re a believer in the extraterrestrial hypothesis for a possible explanation for the already verified UFO phenomenon, you’re not alone, and you are in good company.

“Intelligent beings from other star systems have been and are visiting our planet Earth. They are variously referred to as Visitors, Others, Star People, ETs, etc. . . . They are visiting Earth NOW; this is not a matter of conjecture or wistful thinking.” – Theodore C. Loder III, Phd, Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of New Hampshire

Extraterrestrial Reproduction Vehicles

Well-known aerospace journalist James Goodall, an accomplished speaker who specialized in the history, development, and operations of the world’s only Mach 3 capable, manned air breathing aircraft, who also wrote for for publications such as Jane’s Defense Weekly, Aviation Week & Space Technology, and Intervavia, interviewed many people from the classified black budget world. He did all of this while being the Associate Curator at the Pacific Aviation Museum.

According to him, and the people he has spoken to, “we have things out there that are literally out of this world, better than Star Trek or what you see in the movies.”

He also claims to have known Ben Rich — the second director of Lockheed Skunkworks — very well. In a video interview, Goodall stated that he spoke to Rich approximately 10 days before he died:

“About ten days before he died, I was speaking to Ben on the telephone at USC medical center in LA. And he said, ‘Jim, we have things out in the desert that are fifty years beyond what you can comprehend. They have about forty five hundred people at Lockheed Skunkworks. What have they been doing for the last twenty years? They’re building something.”

Another source for Ben Richs’ comments come from Jan Harzan, a senior executive with IBM, along with Tom Keller, an aerospace engineer who has worked as a computer systems analyst for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. They discuss a talk Ben gave some time ago.

On March 23, 1993, at a UCLA School of Engineering talk where he was presenting a general history of Sunk Works, he said:

“We now know how to travel to the stars. There is an error in the equations, and we have figured it out, and now know how to travel to the stars and it won’t take a lifetime to do it. It is time to end all the secrecy on this, as it no longer poses a national security threat, and make the technology available for use in the private sector. There are many in the intelligence community who would like to see this stay in the black and not see the light of day. We now have the technology to take ET home.”

There are multiple sources for statements coming from Ben Rich, but I’ll stop there. Below is a video  of Jan telling the story.
This brings us to the next point, the alien reproduction vehicle. This concept was introduced by Mark McCandlish, an internationally-recognized artist who has specialized in aviation and conceptual art within the defense and aerospace industries for three decades. His father was a 25-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force, which is where he developed his love for the subject.

He has gone on record stating his belief that carefully protected technology has been co-opted by an as-yet-unknown group, and the sequestration of this technology has provided this organization a great deal of leverage in global politics, finance, and international conflicts over the past five decades.

Below is a clip from 2001, where hundreds of former military personnel gathered at the National Press Club to share their experiences and information. In the clip below, he speaks of the alien reproduction vehicle and how he came across it, and also mentions his interest in UFOs due to a sighting over a nuclear weapons storage facility.

Related articles on that topic:

Here is a more recent talk by McCandlish at a conference discussing the secret space program, where he goes into more detail regarding the feasibility of interstellar travel.

Before we get to the vehicle you see in the picture above, it’s important to note that there is evidence showing this type of exotic technology that dates back prior to the Second World War.

A classic example would be the CIA keeping tabs on developments in Germany, as explained by this document, which looked into “a German newspaper” that “recently published an interview with George Klein, famous engineer and aircraft expert, describing the experimental construction of ‘flying saucers’ carried out by him from 1941 to 1945.”

Here is an authentic image/story of a large UFO hovering over L.A., which was witnessed by 1 million people. Dubbed the “Battle of Los Angeles,” it was an event that showed us how the U.S. military was learning to lie about UFOs five years prior to the Roswell Incident.

Here’s another document that goes on to mention an experiment described by Klein:
The “flying saucer” reached an altitude of 12,400 meters within 3 minutes and a speed of 2,200 kilometers per hour. Klein emphasized that in accordance with German plans, the speed of these “saucers” would reach 4,000 kilometers per hour.

One difficulty, according to Klein, was the problem of obtaining the materials to be used for the construction of the “saucers,” but even this had been solved by German engineers toward the end of 1945, and construction on the objects was scheduled to begin, Klein added.

You can read more about that here and here.

Below is a clip from Dr. Steven Greer’s film Unacknowledged, now available on Netflix. He is the one who brought fourth 400 hundred verified, high ranking former military witnesses, some of whom testified at the National Press Club along with McCandlish, as you saw in the video above.

Since then, multiple efforts have sprung forth, one being the Citizens Hearing On Disclosure that took place a couple of years ago.

It was also held at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, and saw a number of professors, historians, scientists, and high ranking political and military personnel gathered to elaborate on the ongoing reality of the UFO phenomenon to several former Congresspeople.

Dr. Greer also released a previous film, titled Sirius, where he revealed having had high level meetings within the Pentagon regarding the UFO/extraterrestrial topic. This was verified by Dr. Edgar Mitchell, the Apollo 14 astronaut who accompanied Greer on his meetings.

The “Sneak Peak.”

The Secret Space Program

Although there are still many people who would dismiss you for even considering there’s any truth to a secret space program that has reversed engineered extraterrestrial technology, it comes from a place of innocent ignorance on their part.

It’s easy to condemn something without ever really looking into it, and this is a result of a small group of people and the corporations they run controlling all major media networks, painting whatever picture they’d like us to perceive about our world, and using it to their advantage.

Just to reiterate that you are in the presence of good company, I thought I’d use yet another example. According to Herman Oberth, one of the founding fathers of rocketry and astronautics, “Flying saucers are real and… they are space ships from another solar system.

I think that they possibly are manned by intelligent observers who are members of a race that may have been investigating our Earth for centuries.” (Oberth, Hermann: “Flying Saucers Come from a Distant World,” The American Weekly, October 24, 1954)  (source 1)(source 2)

Here’s another great clip, taken from the Thrive documentary, of a former NASA astronaut and Princeton physics professor. I’ve been using it for years, so my apologies if you’ve come across it already.

UFO don’t necessarily equate to extraterrestrial, but in some cases, they might.

The programs doing this exotic work exist and are known as Special Access Programs (SAP). From these we have unacknowledged and waived SAPs. These programs do not exist publicly, but they do indeed exist. They are better known as ‘deep black programs.’

A 1997 U.S. Senate report described them as “so sensitive that they are exempt from standard reporting requirements to the Congress.”

I just wanted to provide a little bit of background information about the “secret space” program and what could be going on in it. For a deeper look into the subject, below is a great lecture given by researcher Richard Dolan.

By Arjun Walia, Guest author

============================

71 False Flag events that were admitted by authorities

71 False Flag events that were admitted by the authorities  By Washington’s Blog, 31 July 2017

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Generals, Spooks, Soldiers and Police ADMIT to False Flag Terror

In the following instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to it, either orally, in writing, or through photographs or videos:

(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found:

“Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….”

And see this, this and this.

(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked several attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. The staged attacks included:

  • The German radio station Sender Gleiwitz [details below]
  • The strategic railway at POSunka Pass (Jab?onków Incident), located on the border between Poland and Czechoslovakia
  • The German customs station at Hochlinden (today part of Rybnik-Stodo?y)
  • The forest service station in Pitschen (Byczyna)
  • The communications station at Neubersteich (“Nieborowitzer Hammer” before 12 February 1936, now Kuznia Nieborowska)
  • The railroad station in Alt-Eiche (Smolniki), Rosenberg in Westpreußen district
  • A woman and her companion in Katowice

The details of the Gleiwitz radio station incident include:

On the night of 31 August 1939, a small group of German operatives dressed in Polish uniforms and led by Naujocks seized the Gleiwitz station and broadcast a short anti-German message in Polish (sources vary on the content of the message). The Germans’ goal was to make the attack and the broadcast look like the work of anti-German Polish saboteurs.

To make the attack seem more convincing, the Germans used human corpses to pass them off as Polish attackers. They murdered Franciszek Honiok, a 43-year-old unmarried German Silesian Catholic farmer known for sympathizing with the Poles. He had been arrested the previous day by the Gestapo. He was dressed to look like a saboteur, then killed by lethal injection, given gunshot wounds, and left dead at the scene so that he appeared to have been killed while attacking the station. His corpse was subsequently presented to the police and press as proof of the attack.

(3) The minutes of the high command of the Italian government – subsequently approved by Mussolini himself – admitted that violence on the Greek-Albanian border was carried out by Italians and falsely blamed on the Greeks, as an excuse for Italy’s 1940 invasion of Greece.

(4) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.
(5) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.

(6) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachevall admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and then falsely blamed it on the Nazis.

(7) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews who were Holocaust survivors attempting to flee to safety in Palestine right after World War II, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and see this, this and this).

(8) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).

The U.S. Army does not believe this is an isolated incident. For example, the U.S. Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies said of Mossad (Israel’s intelligence service):

“Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”

(9) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950?s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

(10) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

The Economist notes:

Starting in the 1950s Turkey’s deep state sponsored killings, engineered riots, colluded with drug traffickers, staged “false flag” attacks and organised massacres of trade unionists. Thousands died in the chaos it fomented.

(11) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.

(12) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s through the 1980s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism.

As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated:

“You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” … so that “a state of emergency could be declared, so people would willingly trade part of their freedom for the security” (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred).

And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.

The CIA also stressed to the head of the Italian program that Italy needed to use the program to control internal uprisings.

False flag attacks carried out pursuant to this program include – by way of example only:

(13) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]”.

A U.S. Navy HSS-1 Seabat helicopter hovers over Soviet submarine B-59, forced to the surface by U.S. Naval forces in the Caribbean near Cuba (October 28–29, 1962) (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

(14) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.

(15) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news reportthe official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

(16) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.

(17) The U.S. Department of Defense also suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States:

“The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”

(18) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.

(19) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained:

“In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.”

In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.

(20) A declassified 1973 CIA document reveals a program to train foreign police and troops on how to make booby traps, pretending that they were training them on how to investigate terrorist acts:

The Agency maintains liaison in varying degrees with foreign police/security organizations through its field stations ….

[CIA provides training sessions as follows:]

  1. Providing trainees with basic knowledge in the uses of commercial and military demolitions and incendiariesas they may be applied in terrorism and industrial sabotage operations.
  2. Introducing the trainees to commercially available materials and home laboratory techniques, likely to he used in the manufacture of explosives and incendiaries by terrorists or saboteurs.
  3. Familiarizing the trainees with the concept of target analysis and operational planningthat a saboteur or terrorist must employ.
  4. Introducing the trainees to booby trapping devices and techniques givingpractical experiencewith both manufactured and improvised devices through actual fabrication.

***

The program provides the trainees with ample opportunity to develop basic familiarity and use proficiently through handling, preparing and applying the various explosive charges, incendiary agents, terrorist devices and sabotage techniques.

(21) The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.

(22) A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist transmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.

(23) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing.

(24) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).

(25) In 1993, a bomb in Northern Ireland killed 9 civilians. Official documents from the Royal Ulster Constabulary (i.e. the British government) show that the mastermind of the bombing was a British agent, and that the bombing was designed to inflame sectarian tensions. And see this and this.

(26) The United States Army’s 1994 publication Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces – updated in 2004 – recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other regions as part of the CIA’s “Dirty Wars“. And see this.

(27) Similarly, a CIA “psychological operations” manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels noted the value of assassinating someone on your own side to create a “martyr” for the cause. The manual was authenticated by the U.S. government. The manual received so much publicity from Associated Press, Washington Post and other news coverage that – during the 1984 presidential debate – President Reagan was confronted with the following question on national television:

At this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs.

(28) A Rwandan government inquiry admitted that the 1994 shootdown and murder of the Rwandan president, who was from the Hutu tribe – a murder blamed by the Hutus on the rival Tutsi tribe, and which led to the massacre of more than 800,000 Tutsis by Hutus – was committed by Hutu soldiers and falsely blamed on the Tutsi. [GR Editor: This government report is contested. The alleged role of foreign powers in the shoot down is not acknowledged]

(29) An Indonesian government fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked”.

(30) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).

(31) As reported by the New York TimesBBC and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that in 2001, the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”. They lured foreign migrants into the country, executed them in a staged gun battle, and then claimed they were a unit backed by Al Qaeda intent on attacking Western embassies”. Specifically, Macedonian authorities had lured the immigrants into the country, and then – after killing them – posed the victims with planted evidence – “bags of uniforms and semiautomatic weapons at their side” – to show Western diplomats.

(32) At the July 2001 G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, black-clad thugs were videotaped getting out of police cars, and were seen by an Italian MP carrying “iron bars inside the police station”. Subsequently, senior police officials in Genoa subsequently admitted that police planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer at the G8 Summit, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.

(33) The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war.

Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction.

Despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. (Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government; but such a claim is beyond the scope of this discussion. The key point is that the U.S. falsely blamed it on Iraq, when it knew Iraq had nothing to do with it.).

(Additionally, the same judge who has shielded the Saudis for any liability for funding 9/11 has awarded a default judgment against Iran for $10.5 billion for carrying out 9/11 … even though no one seriously believes that Iran had any part in 9/11.)

(34) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country. And see this.

(35) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

(36) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.

(37) Police outside of a 2003 European Union summit in Greece were filmed planting Molotov cocktails on a peaceful protester.

(38) In 2003, the U.S. Secretary of Defense admitted that interrogators were authorized to use the following method: “False Flag: Convincing the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating him.” While not a traditional false flag attack, this deception could lead to former detainees – many of whom were tortured – attacking the country falsely blamed for the interrogation and torture.

(39) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

(40) Similarly, in 2005, Professor John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School – a renowned US defense analyst credited with developing the concept of ‘netwar’ – called for western intelligence services to create new “pseudo gang” terrorist groups, as a way of undermining “real” terror networks. According to Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh, Arquilla’s ‘pseudo-gang’ strategy was, Hersh reported, already being implemented by the Pentagon:

“Under Rumsfeld’s new approach, I was told, US military operatives would be permitted to pose abroad as corrupt foreign businessmen seeking to buy contraband items that could be used in nuclear-weapons systems. In some cases, according to the Pentagon advisers, local citizens could be recruited and asked to join up with guerrillas or terrorists

The new rules will enable the Special Forces community to set up what it calls ‘action teams’ in the target countries overseas which can be used to find and eliminate terrorist organizations. ‘Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?’ the former high-level intelligence official asked me, referring to the military-led gangs that committed atrocities in the early nineteen-eighties. ‘We founded them and we financed them,’ he said. ‘The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren’t going to tell Congress about it.’ A former military officer, who has knowledge of the Pentagon’s commando capabilities, said, ‘We’re going to be riding with the bad boys.’”

(41) United Press International reported in June 2005:

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

(42) In 2005, British soldiers dressed as Arabs were caught by Iraqi police after a shootout against the police. The soldiers apparently possessed explosives, and were accused of attempting to set off bombs. While none of the soldiers admitted that they were carrying out attacks, British soldiers and a column of British tanks stormed the jail they were held in, broke down a wall of the jail, and busted them out. The extreme measures used to free the soldiers – rather than have them face questions and potentially stand trial – could be considered an admission.

(43) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.

(44) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).

(45) A 2008 US Army special operations field manual recommends that the U.S. military use surrogate non-state groups such as “paramilitary forces, individuals, businesses, foreign political organizations, resistant or insurgent organizations, expatriates, transnational terrorism adversaries, disillusioned transnational terrorism members, black marketers, and other social or political ‘undesirables.’” The manual specifically acknowledged that U.S. special operations can involve both counterterrorism and “Terrorism” (as well as “transnational criminal activities, including narco-trafficking, illicit arms-dealing, and illegal financial transactions.”)

 

(46) The former Italian Prime Minister, President, and head of Secret Services (Francesco Cossigaadvised the 2008 minister in charge of the police, on how to deal with protests from teachers and students:

He should do what I did when I was Minister of the Interior … infiltrate the movement with agents provocateurs inclined to do anything …. And after that, with the strength of the gained population consent, … beat them for blood and beat for blood also those teachers that incite them. Especially the teachers. Not the elderly, of course, but the girl teachers yes.

(47) An undercover officer admitted that he infiltrated environmental, leftwing and anti-fascist groups in 22 countries. Germany’s federal police chief admitted that – while the undercover officer worked for the German police – he acted illegally during a G8 protest in Germany in 2007 and committed arson by setting fire during a subsequent demonstration in Berlin. The undercover officer spent many years living with violent “Black Bloc” anarchists.

(48) Denver police admitted that uniformed officers deployed in 2008 to an area where alleged “anarchists” had planned to wreak havoc outside the Democratic National Convention ended up getting into a melee with two undercover policemen. The uniformed officers didn’t know the undercover officers were cops.

(49) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.

(50) The oversight agency for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police admitted that – at the G20 protests in Toronto in 2010 – undercover police officers were arrested with a group of protesters. Videos and photos (see this and this, for example) show that violent protesters wore very similar boots and other gear as the police, and carried police batons. The Globe and Mail reports that the undercover officers planned the targets for violent attack, and the police failed to stop the attacks.

(51) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.

(52) Austin police admit that 3 officers infiltrated the Occupy protests in that city. Prosecutors admit that one of the undercover officers purchased and constructed illegal “lock boxes” which ended up getting many protesters arrested.

(53) In 2011, a Colombian colonel admitted that he and his soldiers had lured 57 innocent civilians and killed them – after dressing many of them in uniforms – as part of a scheme to claim that Columbia was eradicating left-wing terrorists. And see this.

(54) Rioters who discredited the peaceful protests against the swearing in of the Mexican president in 2012 admitted that they were paid 300 pesos each to destroy everything in their path. According to Wikipedia, photos also show the vandals waiting in groups behind police lines prior to the violence.

(55) On November 20, 2014, Mexican agent provocateurs were transported by army vehicles to participate in the 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping protests, as was shown by videos and pictures distributed via social networks.

(56) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.

(57) Two members of the Turkish parliament, high-level American sources and others admitted that the Turkish government – a NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks in Syria and falsely blamed them on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.

(58) The former Director of the NSA and other American government officials admit said that the U.S. is a huge supporter of terrorism. Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of “Al Qaeda” in the 1970s to fight the Soviets. The U.S. and its allies have been supporting Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups for many decades, and providing them arms, money and logistical support in Libya, Syria, Mali, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iran, and many other countries. U.S. allies are also directly responsible for creating and supplying ISIS.

It’s gotten so ridiculous that a U.S. Senator has introduced a “Stop Arming Terrorists Act”, and U.S. Congresswoman – who introduced a similar bill in the House – says:

“For years, the U.S. government has been supporting armed militant groups working directly with and often under the command of terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.”

(59) The Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others. Ukrainian officials admit that the Ukrainian snipers fired on both sides, to create maximum chaos.

(60) Speaking of snipers, in a secret recording, Venezuelan generals admit that they will deploy snipers to shoot protesters, but keep the marksmen well-hidden from demonstrator and the reporters covering the events so others would be blamed for the deaths.

(61) Burmese government officials admitted that Burma (renamed Myanmar) used false flag attacks against Muslim and Buddhist groups within the country to stir up hatred between the two groups, to prevent democracy from spreading.

(62) Israeli police were again filmed in 2015 dressing up as Arabs and throwing stones, then turning over Palestinian protesters to Israeli soldiers.

(63) Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.

(64) The CIA has admitted that it uses viruses and malware from Russia and other countries to carry out cyberattacks and blame other countries.

(65) U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants.

(66) German prosecutors admit that a German soldier disguised himself as a Syrian refugee and planned to shoot people so that the attack would be blamed on asylum seekers.

(67) Police frame innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit. The practice is so well-known that the New York Times noted in 1981:

In police jargon, a throwdown is a weapon planted on a victim.

Newsweek reported in 1999:

Perez, himself a former [Los Angeles Police Department] cop, was caught stealing eight pounds of cocaine from police evidence lockers. After pleading guilty in September, he bargained for a lighter sentence by telling an appalling story of attempted murder and a “throwdown”–police slang for a weapon planted by cops to make a shooting legally justifiable. Perez said he and his partner, Officer Nino Durden, shot an unarmed 18th Street Gang member named Javier Ovando, then planted a semiautomatic rifle on the unconscious suspect and claimed that Ovando had tried to shoot themduring a stakeout.

Wikipedia notes:

As part of his plea bargain, Pérez implicated scores of officers from the Rampart Division’s anti-gang unit, describing routinely beating gang members, planting evidence on suspects, falsifying reports and covering up unprovoked shootings.

(As a side note – and while not technically false flag attacks – police have been busted framing innocent people in many other ways, as well.)

(68) A former U.S. intelligence officer recently alleged:

Most terrorists are false flag terrorists or are created by our own security services.

(69) The head and special agent in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office said that most terror attacks are committed by the CIA and FBI as false flags.

(70) The Director of Analytics at the interagency Global Engagement Center housed at the U.S. Department of State, also an adjunct professor at George Mason University, where he teaches the graduate course National Security Challenges in the Department of Information Sciences and Technology, a former branch chief in the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, and an intelligence advisor to the Secretary of Homeland Security (J.D. Maddox) notes:

Provocation is one of the most basic, but confounding, aspects of warfare. Despite its sometimes obvious use, it has succeeded consistently against audiences around the world, for millennia, to compel war. A well-constructed provocation narrative mutes even the most vocal opposition.

***

The culmination of a strategic provocation operation invariably reflects a narrative of victimhood: we are the victims of the enemy’s unforgivable atrocities.

***

In the case of strategic provocation the deaths of an aggressor’s own personnel are a core tactic of the provocation.

***

The persistent use of strategic provocation over centuries – and its apparent importance to war planners – begs the question of its likely use by the US and other states in the near term.

(71) Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the “benefits” of of false flags to justify their political agenda:

Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
– Adolph Hitler

“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
– Josef Stalin

Postscript 1:  It is not just “modern” nations which have launched false flag attacks. For example, a Native American from one tribe (Pomunkey) murdered a white Englishwoman living in Virginia in 1697 and then falsely blamed it on second tribe (Piscataway). But he later admitted in court that he was not really Piscataway, and that he had been paid by a provocateur from a third tribe (Iroquois) to kill the woman as a way to start a war between the English and the Piscataway, thus protecting the profitable Iroquois monopoly in trade with the English.

Postscript 2:  On multiple occasions, atrocities or warmongering are falsely blamed on the enemy as a justification for war … when no such event ever occurred. This is more like a “fake flag” than a “false flag”, as no actual terrorism occurred.

For example:

  • The NSA admitsthat it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war
  • One of the central lies used to justify the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait was the false statementby a young Kuwaiti girl that Iraqis murdered Kuwaiti babies in hospitals. Her statement was arranged by a Congressman who knew that she was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.S. – who was desperately trying to lobby the U.S. to enter the war – but the Congressman hid that fact from the public and from Congress
  • Another central lie used to justify the Gulf War was the statement that a quarter of a million Iraqi troops were massed on the border with Saudi Arabia(see also this article)
  • Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind reportedthat the White House ordered the CIA to forge and backdate a document falsely linking Iraq with Muslim terrorists and 9/11 … and that the CIA complied with those instructions and in fact created the forgery, which was then used to justify war against Iraq. And see this and this
  • Time magazine points outthat the claim by President Bush that Iraq was attempting to buy “yellow cake” Uranium from Niger:

had been checked out — and debunked — by U.S. intelligence a year before the President repeated it.

  • Everyone knewthat Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. More
  • The entire torture program was geared towards obtaining false confessionslinking Iraq and 9/11
  • CIA agents and documents admitthat the agency gave Iran plans for building nuclear weapons … so it could frame Iran for trying to build the bomb
  • The “humanitarian” wars in Syria, Libya and Yugoslavia were all justified by highly exaggerated reportsthat the leaders of those countries were committing atrocities against their people. And see this

Afterword: The corporate media will likely never report on false flags … as it is ALWAYS pro-war.

==================

Previous articles

Posted in Government Betrayals and False Flags, Must-Read Articles, Uncategorized | Comments Off on Government betrayals, cover-ups and false flags

Cairns Port Development

Cairns Port development sabotaged by politics 

This post presents a chronology of issues and events relating to Cairns Port development, including East Trinity. Scroll down for more background and sections 1 – 7.

Dredge capsizes on way to start Cairns Shipping Development

Dredge capsizes on way to start Cairns Shipping Development  The Cairns Post, 26 April 2019

A DREDGING vessel carrying 43,000 litres of diesel has capsized on its way to start work on the long-awaited expansion of the Cairns shipping channel.

Dredging barge Wombat overturned in the Coral Sea about 160km east of Cooktown on Wednesday morning while under tow to Australia.

An Australian Marine Safety Authority spokesman said no crew members were on board the Wombat at the time.

“The barge remains connected to the tug Vulcan to hold the Wombat in position and tow it back toward PNG while the owner arranges commercial salvage services from PNG,” he continued.

“AMSA is in contact with the master of the Vulcan and the barge owner’s representatives and is monitoring the situation.

“The barge is not self-propelled but is fitted with machinery for the operation of its dredging equipment.”

The barge was on its way to support the $127?million capital dredging program of the Cairns shipping channel.

The spokesman said there were 43 cubic metres of diesel on board.

“AMSA has been advised that the first priority will be the removal of the fuel,” he said.

Hall Contracting is the secondary contractor, behind RN Dredging, due to carry out the $127 million dredging program from early-July to mid-September.

A spokeswoman for Hall said the Wombat was carrying two large suction pumps, with the bulk of the actual dredging to be carried out by a separate vessel.

She said there was no risk of diesel leaking into the ocean, as it was kept in barrels sealed below the deck.

“The vessel underwent Australian Quarantine Inspection Services cleaning and successfully passed a survey inspection and warranty tow inspection prior to departure,” she said.

“Its watertight integrity was also routinely assessed multiple times, with no cause for concern identified.

“Hall Contracting has been advised the incident has not posed any environmental hazards and there are no indications of debris in the water.”

The cause of the capsize is unknown.

It is understood the Cairns Shipping Development will not be delayed, with Hall having the option of deploying alternative suction dredges to complete the work.

Hall Contracting’s full statement

Australian dredging company Hall Contracting has been advised its cutter suction dredge, Wombat, overturned in the Coral Sea yesterday.

An external towage contractor was towing the vessel from Port Moresby to Cairns at the time of the incident.

No one was on board and all personnel aboard the accompanying tug boat are safe.

At this stage, the cause is unknown.

The vessel remains afloat and it is currently being towed back to Port Moresby under the direction of insurers.

The vessel underwent Australian Quarantine Inspection Services cleaning and successfully passed a survey inspection and warranty tow inspection prior to departure.

Its watertight integrity was also routinely assessed multiple times, with no cause for concern identified.

Wombat was afloat for several days before departing for Australia and was approximately three-and-a-half days into the journey when it overturned.

Hall Contracting has been advised the incident has not posed any environmental hazards and there are no indications of debris in the water.

We have been working closely with Marine Safety Queensland and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) to ensure all regulatory procedures are adhered to.

The dredge was originally being towed to Cairns to pump dredged material at Trinity Inlet. Wombat’s return to Port Moresby will not delay the project, with Hall Contracting able to use alternative equipment to complete the task.

=============================

Less for more: Dredging price tag rattles proponents

The Cairns Post, 30 January 2019

TRINITY Inlet dredging advocates have questioned how Cairns Shipping Development costs have blown out by $7.6?million despite the project being scaled back.

Cairns Port Development president Ron Crew was baffled by the $127.6 million price tag issued since Building Queensland completed its detailed business case.

He said the estimated volume of marine sediment for relocation as now 740,000 cubic metres to be dumped at the Northern Sands quarry and 50,000 cubic metres at the end of Tingira St in Portsmith, despite approvals being in place for up to 1 million cubic metres.

“The question is: If the volume of relocated marine sediment is the lesser amount of 790,000 cubic metres, what amount may the cost estimate reduce by?” Mr Crew asked.

“We would expect the overall cost may only reduce marginally as the majority of cost is the bund walls, pumps, piping and dredging, that are fixed costs.

“We consider this to be a very expensive project in comparison to alternative locations that may have been used.

“We would hope Northern Sands site can take the full 1 million cubic metres, as the council approval has made provision for the larger amount.”

Mr Crew ships entering the port would be limited to 300m in length, ruling out the 320m Voyager class which would be the dominant cruise ship in Australian waters by 2026.

“The project is delayed, is very expensive and is insufficient”, he said.

=============================

Cairns Shipping Development Project update

Cairns Post,  8 August 2018

THE dredging of Trinity Inlet is shaping up to be a multimillion-dollar windfall for former Cairns pub baron Tom Hedley.

The former high profile developer is the owner of Northern Sands, the Holloways Beach quarry where 1 million cubic metres of dredge spoil is proposed to be dumped, as part of the Cairns Shipping Development Project.

Development applications for earthworks associated with the $120 million project — to widen and deepen the city’s shipping channel to accommodate larger cruise ships — were lodged last week with Cairns Regional Council.

The plans detail the first phase of the project, involving the construction of the “Northern Sands Dredge Material Placement Area” on land within the Barron Delta, containing Mr Hedley’s sand quarry, waste disposal and processing facility.

New bunds would be built at the quarry, which would be used alongside the placement of soft clay dredge material from Trinity Inlet.

The dredge spoil is to be delivered from the inlet into the area as a slurry through a 7.5km pipeline.

Ports North’s revised environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project shows site acquisition for the land placement of the dredge spoil will cost $10.8 million.

Compensation costs to other land holders may also be part of the site acquisition costs.

Mr Hedley declined to comment yesterday, citing a confidentiality agreement with the port authority.

==========================

Ports North net profit of $16.1 million for 2017/18 financial year

Cairns Post, 2 October 2018

Editor’s note: Approval has still not been received for several aspects of the dredging project.

THRIVING  trade and steady tourism have doubled Ports North’s net profit over 12 months, prompting calls for Trinity Inlet dredging to be listed as a priority project.

The corporation recorded a $16.1 million net profit at June 30, compared with $8.8 million last year.

Ports North chairman Russell Beer said the corporation had been actively targeting trade “rather than just waiting for it to come in”.

“We’re seeing a lot more commercial activity through the port, more than we’ve probably seen for about 60 or 70 years,” Mr Beer said.

Cargo for the Mt Emerald Wind Farm and Rio Tinto’s Amrun (Weipa) mine projects has increased Ports North’s trade revenue, resulting in a $3.5 million boost in the underlying operating result.

The port also secured the contract as the supply port for cargo for the new $75 million green energy power plant at the Arriga sugar mill.

“Because we’ve demonstrated the capacity to deal in those large infrastructure components people are now looking at our port in a different light,” Mr Beer said. “We’ve got people chasing us now.”

An increase in super yacht and cruise visits also helped. Mr Beer said the loss of the Pacific Eden’s home port in Cairns shouldn’t adversely affect next year’s figures.

“The cruise ship isn’t one of the key drivers to our profitability,” Mr Beer said.

Cairns Port Development president Ron Crew said it was important to upgrade facilities to keep it financially healthy.

“We have Northern Australia’s most used port … and we seem to get left behind all the time,” he said, adding that the dredging needed to be a priority project.

Ports North has been allowed to retain this year’s dividends – normally paid to the State Government – as partial contribution to dredging costs.

Following approval of the environmental impact statement, Ports North is working to obtain all relevant approvals to move the dredging project to the construction phase.

Mr Beer said work could start after the wet season.

“A couple of years ago there were less than 20 vessels coming in; now we have more than 60, so the trajectory is in the right direction,” he said.

“We expect by the middle of the 2020 decade we’ll be seeing up to 150 cruise ships visiting here a year.”

==================

Letter published in the Cairns Post, 15 September 2018

The recently released Queensland Ports Association report, Sediments and Dredging at GBR Ports report, June 2018, provides the figures for Cairns port on page 5.

Cairns port-related re-suspension of sediment is 1% of the total natural load; that is, tidal, wind and waves, and in any case is far from the reef.

The ‘Save the Reef’ activists greatly exaggerate the re-suspension loads, and so the supposed related costs.

These and similar furphys led to government policy such as the Reef 2050 Plan that initially caused our port development project to triple in cost based on several invalid assumptions, then get downsized and now delayed as well as banning future expansion.

The opportunities lost to our local economy are already valued in the 100’s of millions of dollars.

===================

Letter published in the Cairns Post, 12 September 2018

Advance Cairns received special mention in the Queensland parliament Hansard records on the 10th of November 2015. Then the Minister for State Development stated that Advance Cairns supported a downscaled Cairns port that effectively condemned it to a backwater small scale port.

Today we still bear the brunt of the failure of Advance Cairns to support our port even though we have the largest population in Northern Australia with the largest marine servicing sector, reef tourism and fishing fleet based at the port. Industries in Cairns are lamenting the stagnation of port modernisation progress, yet Advance Cairns hosted the Prime Minister last week who appears unaware of the Commonwealth Governments draconian Reef 2050 plan imposed regulations with no solutions on offer. Moving marine mud to create a deep shipping channel within the harbour operating limits does not harm the reef.

Advance Cairns is not advancing Cairns port. Advance Cairns appears beholden to the interests of a few including the Queensland government-owned Ports North, a major sponsor of Advanced Cairns. The question remains, when is Advance Cairns going to do as their name suggests?

===================

Letter published in the Cairns Post, 8 August 2018

Questions over spoil site

Re: Hedley’s $10.8m spoils (CP,8/8), taxpayers would like Ports North to answer the following questions:

  1. What would be the alternative costs to place the bulk of the dredging spoil on the state-owned East Trinity site? The existing bund walls on this site would need minor upgrades, the site is closer to the planned dredging and the spoil would fix the serious and costly acid sulphate soil problems caused by the State ignoring CSIRO advice.
  2. Would the East Trinity site involve less overall environmental issues?
  3. If the spoil is pumped to Hadley’s quarry, could the raised area be suitable to convert later to industrial land?

The East Trinity site was evaluated in Ports North’s 2015 draft EIS report for the dredging project.

A submission to the Coordinator General noted serious flaws in the report’s assumptions.

======================

Cairns Post readers back dredging for bigger cruise ships

Cairns Post readers back dredging for bigger cruise ships  By Chris Calcino, The Cairns Post, 19 July 2018

Hedley to reap $10.8M spoils from Cairns Shipping Development Project

By Daniel Bateman, The Cairns Post, 8 August 2018

https://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/hedley-to-reap-108m-spoils-from-cairns-shipping-development-project/news-story/bacf11a14ac83db4e96b28cc7d3b8875

THE dredging of Trinity Inlet is shaping up to be a multimillion-dollar windfall for former Cairns pub baron Tom Hedley.

The former high-profile developer is the owner of Northern Sands, the Holloways Beach quarry where 1 million cubic metres of dredge spoil is proposed to be dumped, as part of the Cairns Shipping Development Project.

Development applications for earthworks associated with the $120 million project — to widen and deepen the city’s shipping channel to accommodate larger cruise ships — were lodged last week with Cairns Regional Council.

The plans detail the first phase of the project, involving the construction of the “Northern Sands Dredge Material Placement Area” on land within the Barron Delta, containing Mr Hedley’s sand quarry, waste disposal and processing facility.

New bunds would be built at the quarry, which would be used alongside the placement of soft clay dredge material from Trinity Inlet.

The dredge spoil is to be delivered from the inlet into the area as a slurry through a 7.5km pipeline.

Ports North’s revised environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project shows site acquisition for the land placement of the dredge spoil will cost $10.8 million.

Compensation costs to other land holders may also be part of the site acquisition costs.

Mr Hedley declined to comment yesterday, citing a confidentiality agreement with the port authority.

==============================

Cairns Post, survey results, 19 July 2018

IF POLITICIANS are waiting for a mandate to ramp up dredging in Trinity Inlet, they have it now.

Four years. Three polls. No change in opinion.

The Cairns Post’s recent Your Say on the Far North Reader Survey asked if the current dredging program should be expanded to allow bigger ships full of tourists to dock.

An overwhelming 80 per cent of respondents backed the idea, in almost perfect synchrony with previous independent appraisals.

Compass Research conducted a random survey ahead of the 2016 local government elections and discovered 82.5 per cent of residents supported deepening the shipping channel.

A couple of years earlier, another Compass survey commissioned by Ports North found 78 per cent of people supported dredging.

The key difference this time is that dredging has been approved – subject to a protracted business case from Building Queensland – but not to a satisfactory degree for Far Northerners.

Cairns Regional Council Mayor Bob Manning believed politics, not economic and environmental realities, had triggered the current scaled-down 1 million cubic metre dredging plan.

The 2014 study for the Newman government’s since-abandoned 4.4 million cubic metre proposal found dredge spoil could be placed at a depth of 28.7m with basically no dispersal – even in cyclonic conditions.

“Dredge material deposited at that level does not move,” Cr Manning said.

“Here’s a case where the doctor says this is the diagnosis but we’re not going to treat you accordingly.”

Cairns Shipping Development Inc spokeswoman Emma Thirkell hoped Building Queensland was taking so long on the business case because it had realised the current proposal to cap cruise ships at 300m in length would be a wasted opportunity.

“I hope they might be allowing a redesign of the channel so they can get the Voyager class in,” she said.

“They’re up to 320m long.

“To tack on a bit more doesn’t have to be expensive.

“We would still work on getting the Reef 2050 Plan amended because of what that does to investor confidence.

“But at least it becomes less urgent.”

Proponents for a return to the original, quadrupled-in-scale project say the Federal Government is not free of blame, with its Reef 2050 plan banning placing capital dredge spoils at sea.

“It has to be amended,” Ms Thirkell said.

“It’s due for revision in 2019, and we will be advocating on behalf of the city to get it changed – you just can’t put this economic cap on the city.”

=======================

Freight boss calls for Admiralty Island port expansion for Cairns

Freight boss calls for Admiralty Island port expansion for Cairns  By Chris Calcino, The Cairns Post, 16 July 2018

https://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/freight-boss-calls-for-admiralty-island-port-expansion-for-cairns/news-story/48ffa6ddc6c546822bce9c5c414e7dde

THE boss of Australia’s biggest privately-owned shipping company says Cairns has three options – expand the port, cap the population or let future generations starve.

Sea Swift CEO Fred White has outlined a proposal to transform Admiralty Island into Northern Australia’s premier logistics hub, complete with road and rail access and a fuel tank farm removed from the mainland.

The idea has been bandied about for decades, only now undergoing a resurgence amid Trinity Inlet dredging’s awaited start and predictions of the region’s population doubling to 500,000 by 2050.

Mr White dared politicians to stake a claim for the future or watch jobs float away to centres willing to dream big.

“The hub incorporates a railhead, major road access realignment, laydown areas, and to remove the current constraints limiting existing port operations,” he said.

“Importantly, this concept provides certainty and optimism for current and prospective operators and users and will encourage private sector investment.

Sea Swift CEO Fred White has outlined a proposal to turn Admiralty Island into a new port precinct for Cairns called the Northern Australian Logistics Hub. PICTURE: CAIRNS POST

“There are too many constraints in the current port land use configurations, which impact on efficiencies and increased costs.”

Port land is facing death by a thousand cuts, with concepts like the State Government’s global tourism hub casino-resort expected to remove another valuable bank of potential growth land.

Even the approval for Hemingways Brewery to take over Wharf One raised questions over the State Government’s long-term vision for the port.

Mr White said the lack of an overarching strategic plan to 2050 meant piecemeal developments such as Mourilyan Harbour upgrades or shoe-horning cramped infrastructure into the existing Cairns port would occur sporadically.

Even then, the available land may have a rapidly approaching shelf life.

Cairns only imports fertiliser and fuel by ship, but the scenario will be very different once this century is half exhausted.

Mr White said containerised imports would be necessary once the population reached a critical mass unable to be served solely by road.

Royal Australian Navy, Boarding Party personnel demonstrate a search on a simulated suspect vessel during the Live Exercise demonstration at the Proliferation Security Initiative, Exercise Pacific Protector, 17 held at HMAS Cairns on September 9.

Like Sea Swift, he said major freight firms like Toll and Linfox would want to invest in a state-of-the-art logistics hub on Admiralty Island.

“We’re not quite there yet, but that population is coming and it’s coming at a rate of knots,” he said.

“That’s why we need to start thinking about this and planning for it.”

Sea Swift faces a battle getting the proposal considered by government, with major environmental and cultural concerns about developing the island, particularly considering the volume of dredge spoil necessary to reclaim the land.

Mr White said he was ready for that conversation, noting Portsmith was swampland until dredge spoil made it usable.

“You move it once and it’s future-proofed,” he said.

“It allows foreshore development, but more importantly it allows a working port future.

“We need to reinvest in Cairns and start treating this issue seriously as one of strategic importance to keep our operators here and to attract new ones.”

Enterprise North president Kevin Byrne. PICTURE: STEWART McLEAN

Byrne backs Sea Swift proposal

ENTERPRISE North has taken aboard Sea Swift’s proposed Northern Australia Logistics Hub as one of its key infrastructure policies.

The fledgling regional advocacy group’s president Kevin Byrne said the time was right to get Ports North, Cairns Regional Council and the State and Federal governments to the table.

He said the concept needed to be integrated into the council’s strategic plan, as well as “agile thinking and innovative funding” from all levels of government.

“Marine-based activities will play a decisive role in our future economic fortunes, providing for employment and domestic and international trading opportunities,” he said.

“We have oodles of land, deep water off Admiralty Island, and we are at the end of the northern rail line and the Pacific Highway.

“These are important strategic advantages and we need to capitalise on them.”

The possibility of moving HMAS Cairns was discussed but not deemed make-or-break, given existing operators’ shift would open up new Defence land in Portsmith.

Representatives from all three tiers of government have received informal presentations on the proposal, along with several marine operators who have showed varying degrees of enthusiasm.

Mr Byrne said the next steps were to work through the details and arrive at a general agreement about progressing the various and staged components of the plan.

“We have the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility here available to support these sorts of projects provided that there is the agreement between Federal and State governments,” he said.

“We create an additional industrial land bank, we relocate the fuel tanks farm to a new and more appropriate location on Admiralty Island, and free up and value-add land within the city in close proximity to the CBD.

“We can look at the growth of HMAS Cairns through a new set of eyes and provide some real impetus behind the mooted Cairns Marine Maintenance Precinct.

“What a wonderful opportunity now to do this.”

Cairns MP Michael Healy is not yet convinced Admiralty Island is the right solution. PICTURE: BRENDAN RADKE.

Questions over the need

THE only way Cairns MP Michael Healy sees the Admiralty Island pitch gaining traction is if Defence opts to shift HMAS Cairns across the inlet.

“If the Federal Government wanted to build a Defence facility at Admiralty Island, then the Federal Government would have the legal right to do so,” he said.

That foray could set the ball rolling for further development, but Mr Healy (above) was not ready to back the proposal without proper scrutiny.

“I think it’s fabulous that we’ve got a significant marine operator in our area that thinks they should be expanding to other areas,” Mr Healy said.

“The authority that is charged with the ongoing development and future needs of our port is Ports North.

“Ports North is made up of a board of selected individuals, the majority of them have been influential locals.

“I would see it as their responsibility to project growth in that area and where we need to be by 2030 and 2050.”

Mayor Bob Manning says working port land should be sacrosanct. PICTURE: STEWART McLEAN

Inevitability slowly marches forward

MAYOR Bob Manning hoped developing the untouched island between Cairns and East Trinity will not be necessary, but said it may be inevitable if the working port keeps losing space to expand.

“When the City Port masterplan was passed by the Cabinet, it defined the boundary between the City Port and the working port,” he said.

“There was never to be any stepping over the line into the working port.

“You don’t build an airport

and then use it as a parking lot.”

Cr Manning (left) said Cairns’s shipping potential was going backwards, despite multimillion-dollar promises of investment from governments.

“The port has probably the highest density of people of any part of the city,” he said.

“It (Ports North) is there to protect, preserve and provide for the future port needs of Cairns.

“It’s not there to shut these businesses out.

“That should be sacrosanct.”

Member for Leichardt Warren Entsch and Minister for Defence Marise Payne visits HMAS Cairns to speak about expansion plans to the Navy base. PICTURE: BRENDAN RADKE

Defending the port’s future

SHIFTING HMAS Cairns off the mainland has Leichhardt MP Warren Entsch’s wholehearted support – and he says the scheme is nothing new to Ports North.

“The Port Authority has already done a concept plan, and the base fits perfectly over there,” he said.

“The fact is, Defence has already committed close to $750 million for upgrades over the next 10 years.

“I’ve already raised it as a prospect the Defence Department needs to look at.”

Mr Entsch (left) said a letter of support from the State Government would help shore up the proposal’s legitimacy in the Federal Government’s eyes.

“We could start looking at some sort of land exchange,”

he said.

“They might be a bit nervous, but the State Government really needs to be on board with this, otherwise we’ll be going nowhere.”

The last of the Mt Emerald wind farm blades arrived at the Port of Cairns on December 19, 2017, in a shipment delivered from Houston in the United States. CREDIT: PORTS NORTH

Masterplan under review

PORTS North is due to create a new development masterplan over the coming 12 months.

“Since 2006, trade demand has been consistent with the masterplan, and the existing infrastructure does not constrain any of the port operations,” a spokeswoman said.

“As part of normal practice Ports North will be undertaking a review of the existing masterplan and developing a new masterplan for the future commencing during this financial year.”

The work will include “significant stakeholder and port user consultation”.

Norship Marine operating with all cylinders firing in February 2016 with maintenance, refits and restoration underway two Armidale Class patrol boats, one Cape Class patrol boat, one Pacific patrol boat, one Freemantle Class patrol boat, two Bay Class patrol boats and 30 commercial vessels (not all pictured). PICTURE: SUPPLIED

Comment: Time to knuckle down

THE term lingchi refers to the ancient Chinese “lingering death” torture and execution process, whereby tiny portions of a person’s body are gradually sliced away until the sweet release of death finally arrives.

Port land in Cairns is slowly but surely going the same way as those poor tormented souls – a finger lopped here for an admittedly lovely brewery, a big toe there for a “global tourism hub” casino.

We can survive on what we’ve got now, but eventually a critical mass will be reached where we need major port growth to allow imports as well as exports, just to keep us fed, clothed and employed.

Cairns has the biggest locally-based commercial marine fleet in the state with 1600 vessels – more than Brisbane’s 1200 and way above the 600 on Townsville’s books.

According to the 2016 census, it boasts the greatest employment in marine activities in Northern Australia, and the region’s population is also the fastest growing in the North.

Unless we take off the blinkers and look far ahead to 2050 and beyond, places like Darwin will catch us with our dacks down.

Turning Admiralty Island into a logistics hub may or may not be the answer, but it is at the very least a strong prospect that will become inevitable if this death by a thousand cuts is allowed to continue.

The benefits are obvious, but the cultural and environmental concerns cannot be ignored and will be a bloody minefield to negotiate.

Leases on the fuel farms in Portsmith start expiring from 2024, and the Federal Government is talking about spending $750 million over a decade on the marine industry with little detail on where it will go.

It’s time to start the discussion.

Chris Calcino
chris.calcino@news.com.au

===========================

Cairns Post article, 14 June 2018

FUNDING for the dredging of Trinity Inlet is not expected to start flowing at least until next financial year.

The Palaszczuk Government has been criticised for not including any new funding for the Cairns Shipping Development Project in the 2018-19 State Budget.

The only mention the project receives in budget papers is a commitment to “progress approvals” for the widening and deepening of the city’s main shipping channel.

A spokesman for Transport Minister Mark Bailey said $60 million towards the project was already committed in the 2017-18 budget, subject to the business case stacking up and all relevant environmental approvals being obtained.

“That commitment, of course, remains,” he said.

“As identified in Budget Paper 2, the Port of Cairns is continuing to progress regulatory approvals.

“The Port is currently awaiting Federal approval of their EIS (Environmental Impact Statement), and the business case for the project is being finalised.

“The State’s funding will flow, and will be reflected in future budget documents, once all relevant approvals have been obtained.”

The initial project involved the removal of 4.1 million cubic metres of dredge spoil from Trinity Inlet, to allow larger cruise ships to berth at the port.

The project’s scope was reduced last year to allow 1 million cubic metres of spoil to be dredged, for better environmental and economic outcomes.

Cairns Port Development president Ron Crew, whose group has been fighting to have the channel dredged since the early 2010s, said it sounded like the project had stalled.

“I’m really disappointed in it not getting the green light,” he said.

“I am aware that Townsville Port has received about $1.6 billion, where we were promised $120 million.

“It’s almost laughable that we get left out of it.

“I just can’t believe that we’re not getting the money, and getting it in a hurry.”

————————————

Letter to the Cairns Post Editor following the Coordinator General’s evaluation report, 24 March 2018:

The Coordinator General’s evaluation report on the environmental impact statement for the Cairns Shipping Development Project is now available.

Two requirements stated in the project’s Environmental Impact Study report Terms of Reference were to provide ‘descriptions of all feasible alternative land-based spoil disposal,’ and ‘sufficient baseline economic data to underpin a comprehensive assessment of the direct, indirect, cumulative, costs and impacts of the project.’

The Coordinator General’s report covers a massive range of environmental considerations, but is silent on these two points.

Options for placement of spoil at East Trinity in the 2015 draft EIS had major errors noted in submissions to the CG. East Trinity is not even mentioned in the CG report.

The 2012 Ports North proposal included 10.5 million cubic metres of spoil; the 2015 plan had 4.3 million and the current proposal is ‘less than 1 million’.

Until Ports North presents a full benefit-cost assessment that demonstrates the current plan is the best option, no one, including the CG, should accept the present plan is optimal for the Cairns Region. It doesn’t even pass the ‘pub test’.

=================

Letter published in Cairns Post, 25 July 2017

The Cairns Post article ‘Port must dig deeper’ (24/7) notes Federal Minister Matt Canavan ‘has promised to take up the fight for a more extensive plan…’.

After 5 years and over $8m preparing reports, the revised EIS report is at best a temporary fix; only a quarter of the dredging previously proposed.  But current legislation would prevent any further ‘capital’ dredging projects for two decades.

It is vital that the current proposal be extended to be just the first phase of a longer-term project.

The current proposal to pump all spoil into sand pits by the Barron River is preferred to the alternative location at East Trinity.  However, the report’s reasoning comprises mostly subjective assessments and a few unconvincing quantitative comparisons.

The next immediate step should be preparation of a detailed cost/benefit plan for a long-term phased dredging plan that includes credible comparisons with an alternative to place immediate and future spoil at East Trinity.

=======================

Calls for Cairns Port dredge spoil to go to East Trinity

Calls for Cairns Port dredge spoil to go to East Trinity, 24 July 2017

DREDGING  supporters have dusted off calls for East Trinity to be transformed into a new residential suburb built atop huge amounts of spoil scooped from the bed of Trinity Inlet.

Members of the Cairns Port Development group took ­Senator Matt Canavan and the Cairns Post on a helicopter tour of the city to point out ­potential sites where dredge spoil could be dumped.

Well-known authority on the issue Norm Whitney ­rejected the notion East Trinity was an environmentally ­important natural wetland, pointing to a photos from 1988 showing it was covered by cane farms, grazing land and a healthy melaleuca forest.

Hundreds of those trees now stand dead and leafless in artificial stagnant ponds.

“Compare that to the present environmental mess we overlooked where the now ­former high-and-dry farming land is overgrown with secondary growth vegetation and weeds and is a habitat for feral pigs and other vermin,” Mr Whitney said.

A CSIRO study found the lower sections of East Trinity were 1.4m lower than the original land level.

The group appealed to Mr Canavan to use his political ­influence to have Cairns classed as a priority port and the original 4.4 million cubic-metre capital dredging plan to be reinstated rather than the current scaled-back version.

A dead melaleuca forest now sits in stagnant water at East Trinity.

“The port has to be determined to be a strategic port and the dredging be able to continue as necessary,” Mr Whitney said.

“The present dredging program must only be classified as Stage 1 of the total project.”

Maintenance dredging is ­already undertaken annually but Down Under Cruise and Dive managing director Peppi Iovanella said it barely touched the surface.

He pointed out yachts and small boats actually avoiding the path set by floating leads directing users to the supposedly safest channel to the port, despite maintenance dredging being carried out just last week.

“It’s a joke. It’s not really dredging and it’s not safe. It’s not even maintenance dredging. It’s negligible,” he said.

“Forget the cruise ships, even the local operation is a problem. I don’t totally blame Ports North. All their money goes down to Brisbane.”

The Cairns and Far North Environment Centre and Ports North could not be reached for comment.

PLEDGE TO ACT

FEDERAL Minister for Northern Australia Senator Matt Canavan has pledged to take up the fight for a more comprehensive dredging scheme and further development of Port of Cairns.

“The port development is crucial to the future of the Cairns economy, especially to ensure it builds a diverse and resilient economy,” he said.

“I will take up the issues raised by Cairns Port Development with the Queensland Government and Ports North.”

=====================

Cairns Post, 16 February 2017

Dredge delays veiled in secrecy

Note: click on the thumb print if article does not show.

A letter published in the Cairns Post, 17 February, from this website’s editor summed up the reaction from all but the more extreme green/left community: ‘The continuing delays to deepening Trinity Inlet are a disgrace (‘Dredge delays veiled in secrecy’, 16/2) – what you would expect in a third-world dictatorship.   I recall a meeting with Mayor Bob Manning nearly two years ago to discuss the port deepening and major associated benefits.   I was dismayed at Bob’s explanations, and said so.  Having led or advised on many far larger projects overseas, I know how projects can be completed rapidly, particularly when the benefit-cost calculations are very positive, as is the case with the port deepening.  Now I realise that the main driver of FNQ infrastructure projects is politics, and offer my apologies to you, Bob, for my naivety.   The latest explanation from Ports North for not completing a comprehensive project plan after some five years, and spending over $8 million dollars of our money, is pathetic and appears to assume we locals are idiots.’

22 June 2016. Excellent news that Cairns Port development seems to be back on track.  The Cairns Post, 22 June, reported ‘PORTS North will zero in on two possible locations to dump one million cubic metres of dredge spoil from Trinity Inlet.  The Cairns Post yesterday revealed dredging of the Cairns shipping channel would be fast-tracked to allow cruise ships up to 300-metres long to dock at the city’s port.  City leaders welcomed the revival of the project, which would have a total cost of about $120 million.  Ports North chairman Russell Beer said the organisation would work hard over the next 12 months to complete a rigorous environmental impact statement and “turn that into an approval”.’ Some background:  After Ports North presented a practical plan in 2012, something happened causing their plans to veer off course.  Was this applying fashionable ‘green’ ideology?  Over $5 million dollars spent on consultants produced a draft EIS, checked by the Coordinator General and passed to Treasurer Pitt who pronounced the port development far too expensive at $365 million.  This draft EIS was shown to have major flaws.  Now different consultants indicate dredging only 1 million cubic metres of spoil – 23% of the previous 4.4 million – will enable larger cruise ships up to 90,000 tonnes and full fuel and sugar cargo ships to navigate the harbour.  The proposal includes innovative ideas such as pumping the spoil to an underwater location in a sand pit, so no expensive treatment will be needed.  Also, an East Trinity site is favoured – presumably to cover the small highly polluted area, as recommended by CSIRO in 1999.  Hopefully the new plan, costed at $120 million, will now be expedited.  It seems fair for the cost of this essential infrastructure be shared equally by the Federal and Queensland State governments.

8 June, the Cairns Post included an impressive 20-page supplement that presented a wide range of articles explaining the issues and benefits available from widening and deepening the Trinity Inlet.  The lead-article was an open letter to the Prime Minister, leader of the opposition and the Queensland Premier asking for their support to expedite the port development project.  The supplement is complimentary to the March 1 report to the Premier Cairns Port Development Report to Ministers.

1 June 2016: Advance Cairns, the peak independent non-government Advocacy and Economic Development Organisation for Tropical North Queensland (TNQ), advised on its new website: RECOMMENDATION – Prioritise Cairns port infrastructure as a strategic investment in the regional economy enabling long-term sustained growth for tourism, Navy, port and service industries.  Commit to this $1B industry by supporting the EIS process and implementing the CSDP’ (Cairns Shipping Development Project). The announcement continued: Project Timelines – The final cost will be assessed as part of the revised Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with expenditure in 2017-20. EIS commenced and extended until June 2017′.   This very welcome announcement appears to override Advance Cairns and the Cairns Chamber of Commerce previous submission to the Coordinator General which concluded ‘We believe that the Cairns Port will need to continue to incrementally develop the inlet and associated port infrastructure’.  http://www.advancecairns.com/project/shipping-development/ and Cairns Chamber, Advance Cairns submission.

The Cairns Post editorial, 17 May, noted the state government’s record of blatantly ignoring the results of it’s own consultation.  ‘First there was the public hearing regarding dredging the Trinity Inlet…Business people presented a great case to have Cairns included as a “port of significance” that would allow large-scale dredging…They were so successful that the people  hearing the arguments recommended the Government include Cairns on that list. ‘  The result?  The Labor State Government kowtowed to the Greens and ignored the recommendation of it’s own committee.  So much for democracy!  (Click on editorial graphic to expand).

CP Editorial, 170516

The following article in the Cairns Post, 6 May, written by Queensland State Treasurer’s about Cairns Port deepening, comprised a mix of facts and misleading information (click on graphic to expand).  A letter published on 7 May explains some of the more egregious points: State Treasurer Curtis Pitt writes ‘Still room to move in the inlet’ (6/05).    The most worrying aspect is that readers may think this is a reasonable assessment.  Just a few of the shortfalls are noted below.  Pitt states the Ports North proposal included ‘land-based options around $365m’.  He formed this view based on the DRAFT EIS, ignoring the correct process to await public submissions, one of which explained the costs were grossly exaggerated, ignored optimum technology solutions, and should cost less than $250m.  Pitt explains simulations have enabled a few of the large cruise ships to berth at the CBD cruise terminal. He does not mention that the majority will still have to anchor off Yorkeys Knob.  Pitt wrote ‘we’ve seen a good environmental and economic outcome..’, but does not mention the many cargo ships that arrive and depart half full because the channel is too shallow, resulting in far higher costs.  Pitt notes Ports North ‘will also be allowed to remove … up to 150,000 cubic metres in any four-year period.’ That rate would take 120 years to deepen and widen the channel as proposed.’

Cairns Post Curtis Pitt opinion piece 8 May

Cairns Post’s InvestCairns magazine, April 2016, Loss of Cruise Control, include several quotes from ‘renowned economist Bill Cummings’ such as “While small to medium-sized cruise ships can be home-ported in Cairns, the city will only fully realise its potential to become a cruise shipping h um if deepening and channel widening takes place – something that will also result in efficiencies for Cairns as a cargo and naval port.”

Invest Cairns magazine 200416

A letter from Treasurer Curtis Pitt’s Chief of Staff, John Humphreys (Qld Treasurer reply 120416), 12 April included: ‘Far North Queensland Ports Corporation Limited (Ports North) requested an extension to the EIS deadline to allow it further time to review target vessel sizes and channel improvements options, include the latest survey and field information on revised channel designs, undertake simulations to verify the size of cruise ships and access of reduced  upgrade channel and a tidal window analysis. This request was approved by the Coordinator-General in December 2015 and the project lapse date has been extended to 30 June 2017.’ 

A letter published in the Cairns Post, 5 April, summed up the current impasse: ‘I refer to the Cairns Post story “Make Aquis Happen – Stop mucking around’ (26/03). A Cairns business leader is warning Queensland Government to stop playing politics with … Aquis”.  Then on page 23 “Cairns a jobless hotspot – Cairns was still 2.1% above the state average.” (7/3)  I also recall the article “HMAS Cairns major expansion to make it key northern defence base.  The confidential documents, obtained by The Cairns Post, reveal a new role for the city that includes dredging the inlet and expanding the base to accommodate 3000 personnel in an estimated $2 billion boon to the local economy.”  Since then, it has been a deafening silence.  Also, a recent report sent to the Premier and ministers explained how the reasons given for delaying Cairns Port development have been overcome.  The report (see www.better-management.org) recommended the State government should expedite completion of a “shovel-ready” project plan.  The total inaction suggests the rumours after the State election that the Greens did a deal with Labor to prevent large-scale projects in Cairns were true.   Sorry Cairns, you’ve been dudded by your Governments.’  Note: The report can be downloaded from Cairns Port Development Report to Ministers.  The report includes: ‘An independent group of specialists should be contracted as soon as possible to deliver a ‘shovel-ready’ plan to complete the port development, including a full benefit-cost analysis. Suggested terms of reference for this assignment are at Cairns Port Deepening Plan, TOR 081115.

 An article in the Cairns Post, 7 March, noted: ‘TOP-level documents reveal plans to triple the size of HMAS Cairns as northern Australia’s key strategic naval base. The confidential documents, obtained by The Cairns Post, reveal a new role for the city that includes dredging the inlet and expanding the base to accommodate 3000 personnel in an estimated $2 billion boon to the local economy.’  See http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/hmas-cairns-major-expansion-to-make-it-key-northern-defence-base/news-story/975d9b137efb74d8479f7588ef4f2a27 . Also John MacKenzie discussed the issue with former head of the Australian Army Lieutenant General John Grey: http://www.4ca.com.au/mornings/50986-will-the-feds-force-the-dredging-project-to-happen.

CPDI presentation to Coordinator General – Cairns Port Development Inc. made a presentation to the  Queensland State Coordinator General from a high-level suite near the Trinity Inlet on 8 December 2015.  The venue allowed the presenters to point out the CoG the major developments in Cairns that had been achieved over half a century using spoil dredged from the inlet.  The presentation described the many issues relating to the proposed port development proposal, including several errors in the Ports North draft EIS such as the exaggerated costs.  The major benefits the Cairns Region would gain following the proposed development were explained, together with tables showing the calculations.  The Power Point presentation can be downloaded from: CPD Inc. Presentation to the Coordinator General, update.

The Cairns Post Editorial, 22 January, heading Public input just ignored, compared the  Labor State Government’s parliamentary hearing concerning the reduced nightclub opening hours with the previous hearings regarding the Cairns port “priority port” status.  In both instances, it is clear the supposed ‘consultation’ was a sham.  Even when the government’s own priority port committee recommended, without dissent, that Cairns should have priority port status, the Labor masters in Brisbane ignored their committee’s recommendation; an expensive con more worthy of a communist state.    The Editorial concludes: ‘To invite guidance from the public is fair and right, to then ignore it is the height of hubris and conceit – something the Queensland electorate has shown contempt for.’  The complete editorial below makes compelling reading:

1-CP Editorial 220116,2

A letter from Peter Campion, Tolga, in The Cairns Post, 2 January, summarises the current deplorable status: ‘Doctor Fanny Douvere, the marine program coordinator at UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre, does not expect the Abbot Point port expansion to hurt the Great Barrier Reef.  Yet here in Cairns, the State Labor Government, using dodgy legislation and its fully-owned company Ports North, is continuing to delay the much-needed improvement of our port.  Our local “environmental experts” at CAFNEC help the ALP’s anti-Cairns cause by spreading blatant falsehoods about our port, including that dredging it will kill the Reef.  Science has proven our anti-port minority wrong at every step and now even UNESCO agrees dredging is not a problem.  For Far North Queensland to be truly sustainable, we need our port to be fully functional.  It’s now clear that to return our port to full efficiency we need to expose CAFNEC’s propaganda and to dump the ALP at the next election.’  Note: responding to a letter criticising this letter (09/01), Campion replied (CP letter 07/01): ‘(The writer) has  been conned by CAFNEC and the anti-Cairns ALP and seems unaware of local history’, followed by supporting evidence. 

The Cairns Post Editorial, 1 January 2016: Tourism the way ahead…..With such a bright outlook for a tourism-related economic boost, it is timely for our city leaders to consider adopting a stronger stance on dredging Trinity inlet to allow larger cruise ships to dock. As the Australian dollar stays relatively low, more and more foreigners will add Australia to their travel lists, and the Far North and Great Barrier Reef are highly likely to be on the itinerary. In light of UNESCO’s tacit approval of recently announced wholesale dredging of the Abbot Point coal terminal near Bowen, surely that opens the door for the same in Cairns.  Dredging opponents and federal and state government have used UNESCO’s threat to downgrade the Reef’s status as a reason to ban large-scale dredging in the inlet.  But the world environmental watch dog barely gave a whimper after the Abbot Point dredging plan was revealed.  As the inlet’s Environmental Impact process drags on, Abbot Point has now made itself a compelling precedent….

An ABC Rural article noted Dr Fanny Douvere, marine program coordinator at the World Heritage Centre and involved in the recent UNESCO decision not to list the reef as ‘in danger’, said: ‘Port expansion is not an issue if it is managed well’.  http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-24/unesco-not-worried-by-reef-ports/7052924?WT.mc_id=newsmail. This article gives the lie to many related statements from Federal and State Governments and other ‘green’ organisations.

An article was published in  the Cairns Post business section, 23 November:  ‘Benefits of dredging impossible to ignore’:

Cairns Post article, 23,12,15,

The article above followed the Cairns Post article by Nick Dalton, 19/12/15: Call to get big ships into port, reproduced below with additional comments in Italics:

Treasurer and acting State Development Minister Curtis Pitt has instructed Ports North to focus on ways to increase the size of ships entering the city’s port.

  The Government has granted the authority an 18-month extension to an environmental impact statement. The final Terms of Reference for the Cairns Shipping Development Project were released by the Coordinator General in September 2012. Ports North announced they had commissioned consultants ARUP to complete the EIS in April 2013. Ports North stated the draft EIS report would be provided in May 2014, then a delay to September 2014. Ports North said changed conditions required further work and had delayed the report. In fact, the Terms of Reference had not changed, and the ‘changed conditions’, ie government ruling against dumping dredge spoil at sea, required far less work rather than more as the TOR always required assessment of options to place dredging spoil on land. The draft EIS was finally released in April 2015.   Rather than waiting for submissions and a final EIS (a key requirement of the CoG’s assessment process), Mr Pitt announced ‘on the basis of the draft EIS, the government had decided against the proposed Trinity Inlet dredging’ – he later explained the $365m cost calculated in the draft EIS was unacceptably high. A submission to the CoG demonstrated the draft EIS had grossly exaggerated the project costs (Submission to Coordinator General.)

  While full-scale dredging has been ruled out, Mr Pitt said dredging the mouth or approach channel to the Trinity Inlet shipping waterway and the swing basin was expected to be included in the EIS.   Rather than ‘expected’, the EIS TOR required this inclusion.

  Wholesale dredging has been ruled out on the grounds of cost (estimated at $100m) and a ban on dumping dredge spoil in the Great Barrier Marine Park. The terms ‘full-scale’ and ‘wholesale’ dredging have not been defined, so are meaningless. Again, the draft EIS described options for on-land placement of spoil, albeit at a grossly exaggerated cost.

  The dredging was to allow larger ships, particularly cruise liners, to navigate the channel.

  The Government wants the port to look at dredging parts of the channel and the swing basin so bigger ships can enter and turn around. This is precisely what the draft EIS was directed to do.

  The Cairns Shipping Development Project is able to proceed under the transitional arrangements as part of the Sustainable Ports Development Act 2015 passed in the November 12 Parliament sitting. So the Sustainably Port Development Act 2015 was a complete red herring as far as Cairns Port is concerned – a massive distraction from the main event.

  “The scope of the project includes capital dredging of the swing basins and Trinity Inlet and deepening of the approach channel to the port”, Mr Pitt said. Mr Pitt said previously the Reef 2050 report, on which the agreement signed by Federal Minister Greg Hunt with UNESCO is based, precludes ‘capital dredging’ in Cairns Port, which Mr Pitt said the Cairns Shipping Development Project would require. In fact, the Reef 2050 report states ‘Dredging can either be capital dredging, for new channels and berths, or maintenance dredging, necessary to maintain existing and approved dredging areas.(Reef 2050 plan excerpts.) The Cairns Shipping Development project requires ‘maintenance dredging, defined as ‘to maintain the safe and effective ongoing operation of a port facility’.

  Mr Pitt said the Coordinator-General had allowed Ports North until June 30 2017 to re-submit an EIS for the project. Ports North contracted their consultants in April 2013 to produce a draft EIS report that covers everything Mr Pitt says he wants. The draft EIS did not adequately cover two key requirements of the TOR: ‘Sufficient baseline economic data to underpin a comprehensive assessment of the direct, indirect, cumulative, costs and impacts of the project’. AndThe indirect impacts likely to flow to other industries and economies from developing the project, and the implications of the project for future development.’ Competent specialists could complete these two requirements in a few months if they were directed to do so. An extension of 18 months, when there has already been a delay of more than 12 months, is completely unnecessary, and can only be deliberate procrastination.

  “Granting this extension gives Ports North more time to develop a project that is economically and environmentally sustainable for the expansion of Cairns Port”, he said. Nothing additional to the requirements of the original EIS TOR has been requested. It must therefore be concluded that Mr Pitt’s announcements can only be a deliberate means of delaying the port deepening and subsequent benefits to the Cairns Region even longer.

   “We can strike a balance that protects the environment and supports economic development, jobs and future trade growth.” This is exactly what the CoG’s TOR for the EIS required.

   Perhaps, as The Cairns Post Editorial, 3 September, noted: ‘The decision by State Development Minister Anthony Lynham to consign Cairns’ port to second-tier status should [has] cause[d] outrage throughout the Far North.’

   The editorial Cairns Post editorial, EIS backflip a big query, 220815 explains the main problem: ‘If the revised EIS suddenly comes back with a favourable opinion of increased dredging, surely this raises suggestions the government is advising its consultants what outcome they should find rather than merely letting the science do the talking.’  Not only the ‘science’, but assessing and describing in more detail the major benefits the Cairns Region will gain after the port deepening has been completed (See Cummings Economics submission Cummings Economics submission).

 It is highly unlikely that the Government will direct Ports North to produce a full plan for deepening the port that would be necessary for logical related decisions to be made, and so most unlikely Ports North will direct their consultants to produce such a plan. This plan should be produced by a new group of independent consultants as soon as possible, including a full benefit-cost analysis based on best-practice methods. Terms of Reference for such an assignment have been drafted: Cairns Port Deepening Plan, TOR 081115

==========================

A summary of the Cairns Port deepening saga

  • Cairns Region will gain major benefits from port deepening, estimated at $5 billion over 25 years, including business growth and many job opportunities.  See Cummings Economics submission.
  • Australia’s long-established defence programs need Cairns Port naval base as a fully-operational strategic port for regional and coastal operations.
  • Spoil from major dredging programs will not be discharged offshore in future, irrespective of scientific reports.  Why? Because government agreements and public perceptions and reactions preclude this.

…… HERE’S HOW

  • Dredging spoil has been put on land to develop Cairns city and its economy for many decades, and can be again – e.g. Portsmith.
  • But Ports North’s draft EIS exaggerated the cost of putting spoil on land. See Submission to Coordinator General.
  • So a new report is needed ASAP to present the most cost-effective plan and quantify the resulting benefits.
  • Government dredging decisions, including those following negotiations with UNESCO, have been based on the Reef 2050 report, which states: ‘Dredging can either be capital dredging, for new channels and berths, or maintenance dredging, necessary to maintain existing and approved dredging areas.Reef 2050 plan excerpts.
  • Port deepening: is NOT for a ‘new channel’; it IS necessary ‘to maintain (an) existing and approved dredging area’; and maintenance dredging IS allowed.

…… AND IF PORT DEEPENING IS NOT EXPEDITED?

    • The whole Cairns Region will suffer major economic, business and job losses, and Australia will not have a strategic port’ in the far north.
    • The miniscule coven of green/Labor extremists will have won their covert battle to impose their anti-growth ideology on the Cairns Region.
    • The State Labor Government can expect to lose the four local seats at the next election if the LNP demonstrate credible support for expediting port deepening.
  • Cairns Region Councillors that don’t support expediting port deepening can expect to be replaced at the election next year by Councillors that do.

SO WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NOW? ‘PLAN B’?

    • Qld State Treasurer Curtis Pitt was reported in the Cairns Post on 15 May saying.  “What we’ve said is that Ports North, as the proponent, can go back, recast that EIS and make another proposal which has an emphasis on onshore disposal.’
    • Dr Anthony Lynham, Qld Minister for State Development said on 11 November  ‘The (Ports North draft) EIS proposal is respected by the government as being in place before this (the Port Sustainability Bill)….The Bill has nothing to do with the EIS….The Coordinator General (who controls the EIS process) is independent but has to abide by the government policy but on decisions such as extending EISs, he is independent…..I can’t tell him what to do….Maintenance dredging is for maintaining the existing channel.  It is not for widening channels….Unfortunately the strategic designation (instead of the Bill’s category of Priority Port) doesn’t come under UNESCO or the Bill.  That would be quite difficult to throw in another category now after all the negotiation with UNESCO.’ 
    • BUT…recall the Reef 2050 report, which formed the basis for Federal Minister Greg Hunt’s negotiations with UNESCO states: ‘Dredging can either be capital dredging, for new channels and berths, or maintenance dredging, necessary to maintain existing and approved dredging areas.’  The Sustainable Ports Development Bill 2015, Schedule 1 subsequently modified the Reef 2050 definition to: ‘Capital dredging – (a)  means dredging or enlarging a channel, basin, port, berth or other similar thing; or’……. (b) does not include dredging to maintain the safe and effective ongoing operation of a port facility.
    • Surely ‘effective ongoing operation of a port facility’ includes the ability for large cruise, cargo and naval ships to use the port?
    • The Ports North proposal was submitted well before the Bill, and the EIS deadline has been extended to the end of March 2016.  Minister Lynham said it is up to the CoG as to whether this deadline is extended, noting the only time an extension was not granted after a reasonable request was when the EIS was not completed after 7 years and the company had ‘folded’.
    • The State Government has given Ports North another $350,000 (on top of the previous $5.1m) for its consultants to review the draft EIS – presumably expecting different conclusions.
    • The latest technologies and methodologies should underpin the modified draft EIS, and result in different conclusions, including far lower costs (see Submission to Coordinator General).
  • The modified draft EIS could satisfy all requirements: lower cost dredging of the existing channel and all spoil put on land rather than at sea (thus complying with the Reef 2050 report, although possibly a problem with the Bill’s modified definition); meeting environmental requirements; complying with Federal Minister Greg Hunt’s agreement with UNESCO to not de-list the reef; meeting Australia’s naval strategic requirements; and last but not least, enabling the Cairns Region to benefit from the major economic benefits when the next stage of port deepening is completed.

How to ensure Ports North’s modified draft EIS results in expediting the requisite port deepening ASAP?

    • In a nutshell, the Coordinator General needs to ensure Ports North interpret the EIS Terms of Reference (TOR) correctly so the modified draft EIS provide:  ‘Sufficient baseline economic data to underpin a comprehensive assessment of the direct, indirect, cumulative, costs and impacts of the project’; and ‘The indirect impacts likely to flow to other industries and economies from developing the project, and the implications of the project for future development.’  (See Cairns Shipping Development EIS TOR Nov 2012.)
  • These points were not covered adequately in the current draft EIS.  The approach suggested in the following document would  ensure the modified draft EIS provides all the information necessary for the relevant authorities to decide to expedite the port deepening: Cairns Port Deepening Plan, TOR 081115

======================

Recent progress and events

The Cairns Post, 18 November article noted: SUPPORTERS of dredging Trinity Inlet will meet the state’s Co-ordinator General and lobby Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to ensure deepening and widening activities suffer no further setbacks.  Dredging restrictions are in place after the state’s Sustainable Ports Development Bill passed with bipartisan support on Friday…. The State Opposition has defended its stance in voting against exempting Cairns and Mourilyan from restrictions.  “The two major parties’ collusion has put the Port of Cairns back 50 years.” …. Cairns Port Development Inc. spokeswoman, Emma Thirkell, said members would lobby federal politicians to place greater weight on scientific evidence supporting dredging, its lack of impact on the Reef and the positives for business that dredging offered.  “Agreement is in place for us to meet the Co-ordinator General and we hope to update Cairns Regional Councillors on the present situation and the possible repercussions of this bill,” she said.   See full article at: http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/cairns-port-development-inc-takes-trinity-inlet-dredging-proposal-to-federal-politicians/story-fnjpusyw-1227612935494

Cairns Post articles, 4 and 5 November, spell out the State Government’s latest restriction on dredging limits for Cairns Port.  At 150,000 cubic metres in 4 years, this would mean completing the 4.5 million cubic metres proposed to deepen the channel in 120 years.  Weirdly, Advance Cairns CEO is quoted saying this: “provides for the ability for the port to grow as our city grows”.  This is in line with the Advance Cairns and Cairns Chamber of Commerce submission to the Coordinator General regarding the Ports North draft EIS, which states: ‘We believe that the Cairns Port will need to continue to incrementally develop the inlet and associated port infrastructure to support the growth of the regional economy.’  Over 120 years?  Listen to John MacKenzie discussing this conundrum with Peter Senior on 4CA radio talkback.  Several other callers raised similar points with John, including a member of Cairns Chamber complaining that members had not been consulted, and she totally disagreed with the stance, as presented in today’s update ‘A workable solution for Cairns.  We have some very exciting news to share with you…’:

 28 October, 4CA Talkback: Federal Senator Warren Entsch discussed with Peter Senior the overall port deepening issue; in particular the point noted above that the proposed port deepening is defined as ‘maintenance dredging’ in the authoritative Reef 2050 report, as such is allowed and should go ahead – if only the local State Members would support what is clearly in the best interests of the Cairns Region.  This is essential listening:

22 October.  Senators Ian Macdonald and Bob Katter talked with John Mackenzie on 4CA Talkback about deepening Cairns Port to enable large naval, cruise and cargo ships to use the port and facilities.  Both Senators noted deepening is essential, should be expedited, and will bring major benefits to FNQ.  Naval access is also an essential Australian defence requirement.  Senator Macdonald said: “The Qld Government really has to ignore the minority greens groups who will make up any story to stop any sort of development in Cairns or anywhere else and get some sensible advice…”. Everyone should listen carefully to these comments:

A letter from Dr Anthony Lynham MP, Queensland Minister for State Development and Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, 16 October 2015 stated: ‘The government will not divert from elements of the Bill which form part of our Reef 2050 plan… However, any future development must be consistent with the government’s commitment to protect the GBRWHA and its ban on sea based disposal of port related capital dredge material.’  See Minister Lynham letter 161015.   As noted above, the Reef 2050 report states: ‘Dredging can either be capital dredging, for new channels and berths, or maintenance dredging, necessary to maintain existing and approved dredging areas(see Reef 2050 plan excerpts.) Given that the proposed port deepening: is NOT for a ‘new channel’; and IS necessary ‘to maintain (an) existing and approved dredging area’; and maintenance dredging IS allowed, it seems the Minister is approving port deepening as further maintenance dredging, particularly if the dredging spoil is disposed of on land.

6 October, the second cruise ship anchored at Yorkeys Knob in so many weeks is unable to get passengers ashore for trips – passengers express great disappointment; Cairns reputation sullied; tour companies lose big $$$$$.

1 October, new Chairman of Ports North announced by State Labor Government Minister.  Cairns Post article heading ‘Chairman confident of port progress’ only aligns with recent State actions if ‘progress’ means towards boutique port status. Noted on Facebook: Yes, another Labor stooge. If Labor wasn’t sure he’d follow their directives, he wouldn’t have been appointed. The sorry fact is, Government funds many activities in Cairns, and directs these operations through their well-paid bureaucrats that also mostly lean to the green/Left. What an unholy alliance! Labor’s recent decisions prove they intend financing Townsville expansion and downgrading Cairns Port to boutique status, irrespective of contrary evidence. If Cairns Port deepening supporters continue to play by the Brisbane-controlled Labor rules, we’ll lose – for sure. Go figure…

18 September: the Ports Sustainability Bill has been postponed.

The Cairns Port Development Inc. petition signature sheets were handed to the Queensland Parliament at 7.28 AM on 15 September.  The 4,099 written signatures plus the 2,017 online signatures totalled  6,116 – one of the largest petitions ever from the Cairns region.

As a reminder, the petition reads:  TO: The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland.    Queensland citizens draw to the attention of the House the Sustainable Ports Development Bill 2015 does not include the ports of Cairns and Mourilyan as priority ports. If capital dredging is discontinued, new larger passenger, naval and cargo ships will not be able to enter the ports. The estimated earnings foregone may be more than $5Bn over the next 25 years, compounding the record high youth unemployment rates.  Your petitioners request the House to amend the Sustainable Ports Development Bill 2015 to include the ports of Cairns and Mourilyan as ‘priority ports’ allowing the ports to carry out vital capital works dredging NOW and always. We also request that an independent project be commissioned to assess and recommend the lowest cost environmentally acceptable dredging solution. Revitalize our economy, restore confidence and save many businesses from the brink of bankruptcy.

Six months out from the local government election, Cairns lawyer Jim Brooks on Friday announced the arrival of his Connect Cairns team in front of supporters, including Cairns MP Rob Pyne.  Brooks, Pyne and CAFNEC are joining forces to oppose deepening the Port and stymie the huge economic benefits the Cairns region would gain.

The Cairns Post 3  Sept. noted: ‘Minister shuns committee report into developing Port of Cairns’ and ‘A WIDE-reaching inquiry by a Queensland parliamentary committee has found that excluding the Port of Cairns as a priority port would have a “detrimental impact” on the growth of the region and have negative impacts on employment and tourism, and on business.  ‘However ‘Minister for State Development, Natural Resources and Mines, Dr Anthony Lynham, who dismissed the committee’s findings just hours after they were released.  “I appreciate the committee’s consideration of the Bill and their report will be considered in full and in detail,” he said in a statement.  “However, the Government will not divert from elements of the Bill which form part of our Reef 2050 plan.’              http://www.cairnspost.com.au/business/minister-shuns-committee-report-into-developing-port-of-cairns/story-fnjpusdv-1227509909212

The Cairns Post Editorial, 3 September, noted: ‘The decision by State Development Minister Anthony Lynham to consign Cairns’ port to second-tier status should cause outrage throughout the Far North….The good doctor rejected this (Committee Report unanimous) recommendation and bowed to the threats of a foreign environmental body (UNESCO) over the pleas of Cairns’ top business groups’ (http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/opinion/second-tier-status-for-cairns-port-is-a-disgrace/story-fnjpuwl3-1227509793053).

An allied issue is flagged in the Cairns Post editorial, 27 August, ‘THE State Government must act immediately or we can all watch the Aquis ship and its bounty sail out of the (undredged) Trinity Inlet….the stench of bureaucracy-induced failure… If the Fungs walk away from Cairns, heads should roll in the halls of state parliament.’ CP Editorial re Aquis 270815.

The Cairns Port Development Inc. advertisement appeared in the Cairns Post again on Thursday 27 August  DON’T SINK OUR PORT petition advertisement.

The Cairns Post article, 22 August, ‘New look at dredging – Ports North told to come up with revised proposal’ can be read at: http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/cairns-port-dredging-plan-back-on-the-cards-in-state-government-rethink/story-fnjpusyw-1227493667126.  The editorial Cairns Post editorial, EIS backflip a big query, 220815 explains the main problem: ‘If the revised EIS suddenly comes back with a favourable opinion of increased dredging, surely this raises suggestions the government is advising its consultants what outcome they should find rather than merely letting the science do the talking.’  Until a new independent assignment is completed (see below) the project will be stalled, along with realising the $25 billion of benefits forecast over 25 years.

Terms of reference for a new assignment to produce a Cairns Port Deepening Plan respond to Treasurer Curtis Pitt’s requests to:  ‘recast that EIS and make another proposal which has an emphasis on onshore disposal’; and put another option ‘on the table.’   This plan would provide essential information to enable State and local governments, Cairns business leaders and the Cairns community to understand fully and make informed decisions on deepening and widening the Trinity Inlet and basin.  Terms of reference for this assignment have been prepared: Cairns Port Deepening Plan, TOR 081115.  Any related decisions made before this or a similar project is completed, including public disclosure, are likely based on conjecture and/or ideology.

Cairns Post 4 August, article by State Treasurer Curtis Pitt: ‘Where we differ from the previous government is that its proposal for capital dredging in Trinity Inlet never stacked up on any measure and couldn’t proceed – the volume of dredge spoil and costs over $360 million were uneconomic….The EIS is a live process and will be used as a vehicle to put in an overarching plan for expansion works.’  The $360M has been shown to be very and deliberately exaggerated, and surely ‘expansion works’ does not suggest the proposed vital major port deepening project?

Cairns Post, 1 August: ‘Independent Member for Cook Billy Gordon and Katter’s Australian Party MPs Shane Knuth and Rob Katter have revealed to The Cairns Post they would move an amendment to the Government’s Bill that would designate Cairns and Mourilyan ports as “priority ports”.‘  The newspaper’s very supportive editorial includes: ‘The fact that the government even wants to limit coastal development in Queensland at all should be fought tooth and nail’. (Click on article to enlarge). http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/queensland-mps-unite-against-bill-which-could-sink-cairns-port/story-fnjpusyw-1227465438442

Cairns Post Editorial 010815

The  Ports Bill Committee public hearing at Cairns, 29 July, was a great success for supporters of dredging the Trinity Inlet and basin as far as conveying our message to the Committee and emphasising the width and depth of Cairns’ public support.  But will it be effective?  The Cairns Post front page heading DON’T SINK OUR PORT, editorial, cartoon and double-page spread describe overwhelming support, demanding major changes to the Ports Bill, and action from Federal and State Governments to expedite the dredging.  Failure will lead to Cairns’ economy slowly sinking.  http://www.cairnspost.com.au/business/state-government-urged-to-rethink-ports-bill-for-far-north/story-fnjpusdv-1227462332057 .  The numerous calls to John MacKenzie’s 4CA Talkback were equally supportive.

Cairns Post poll, 24 July: ‘Do you support increased dredging of Trinity Inlet’.  Result in Monday 27th edition: YES 73%.

Friends of the Port of Cairns is now Cairns Port Development Inc. (Incorporation #IA55117).  A media release CPD media release 280715 includes a summary of Cummings Economics’ presentation, on behalf of CPD, to the public hearing of the Ports Bill Committee in Cairns 29 JulyThe presentation is at CPD Presentation to Ports Bill Committee, 290715.

Friends of the Port of Cairns submission to the Qld Coordinator General responded to the Ports North draft Environment Impact Report (EIS): Submission to Coordinator General The submission summary concludes:We request the Coordinator General recommend to the Government that a more comprehensive study be undertaken of placement options in consultation with the Cairns community with a view to developing a lower cost and environmentally acceptable solution to enable the project to proceed as soon as possible.’

Cummings Economics submission to the Sustainable Ports Development Bill 2015 on behalf of the Friends of the Port of Cairns supports the continuing development of the Port of Cairns. Details of the many major benefits that will result from dredging the Trinity Inlet are presented.  http://www.cummings.net.au/pdf/reports/J2865_IPNRC_SustainablePortsDevelopmentBill2015.pdf 

Cummings Economics submission to the Qld Coordinator General, Cummings Economics submission, presents a compelling case for the dredging.  Conservative calculations of the benefits to Cairns total $1.35 billion NPV – $5 bn in cash terms over 25 years, or at least $200 million each year.  Who is stalling these benefits?

Adam Gowlett, Branch President of the Urban Development Institute of Australia talked with John MacKenzie on 4CA radio talkback, 21st August, explaining how the Qld State Labor Government is short-changing Cairns in favour of the South East, and Townsville in particular where $65m has just been allocated to dredge and expand their port plus more major expenditure: .

Friends of the Port of Cairns Facebook page is at: https://www.facebook.com/PortofCairns

Local developer Ken Frost’s submission presents an exciting approach for Cairns long-term needs –  EIS submission KF

A brief submission from Advance Cairns and Cairns Chamber of Commerce equivocates, noting Ports North will need to be able to continue to undertake incremental development projects…’ : Cairns Chamber, Advance Cairns submission.

The current status of the East Trinity property is described in an article in The Cairns Post, 20 June: East Trinity, not a wetland, just a mess, CP article 200615

East Trinity for future urban growth and more vital benefits for Cairns were described in an article in the Cairns Post, 6 June (click on picture below to expand). 

Dredging Tinity to build a new city

Radio 4CA July 23, 2015. John MacKenzie speaks with Peter Senior from Cairns Port Development Inc. and Tim Nicholls MP for Clayfield and shadow minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, Small Business and Trade 23rd July 2015 about progressing the dredging of Cairns Harbour.

Talkback host John MacKenzie discussed Friends of the Port of Cairns’ submission with Peter Senior on 3 June:

Ports North $5 million draft EIS can be downloaded in sections from: .  Click here to see the draft EIS Executive Summary.

East Trinity’s history is described in this article, from page 25:   A Sustainable East Trinity

================================

More post contents

    1. Update
    1. Another option: a phased approach
    1. Articles and letters in the Cairns Post
    1. John MacKenzie’s radio talkback show
    1. TV News
    1. Background and history
  1. Other related documents

Introduction

An aerial photograph of East Trinity, Trinity Inlet and the Cairns CBD in 1942 is shown below, with points of interest flagged (click on graphic to expand).  Note the area some ‘greens’ insist should be ‘restored’ to wetlands never was wetlands – it was saltpan, grassland and woodland.

1942 aerial photo of Cairns

…. and this is a recent photo of the Southern end of the East Trinity property.  Note the dead Melaleuca trees as a result of flooding by sea water – which CSIRO strongly recommended against.

East Trinity now, dead maleleucas

The next 7 sections explain the convoluted steps that resulted in the current dismaying situation.

1. Update

For the latest in the long-running saga concerning dredging the Trinity Inlet at Cairns and reclamation at East Trinity, check the Facebook site, Friends of the Port of Cairns – https://www.facebook.com/PortofCairns. 

The Facebook site includes a petition you may want to send to the Coordinator General:  http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-the-port-of-cairns.html – it only takes a couple of minutes to read, then send if you agree.  As at 4 June, 1,298 have ‘liked’ the site, and 170 almost-all local people have sent the petition.

Check this Post for more background information and proposals.

———————————————-.

The Cairns Shipping Development Project draft Environmental Impact Statement report was released on Saturday 18 April.  State Government  Treasurer Curtis Pitt announced that, on the basis of the DRAFT EIS, the government had decided against the proposed Trinity Inlet dredging.   Listening to callers on radio talkback shows, the overwhelming overall reaction is extreme dismay. 

Cairns Labor MP Rob Pyne added to the dismay, as described in the Cairns Post Editorial, 25 April (see full text in Section 3):  Cairns MP Rob Pyne’s outburst against the business sector is about as undiplomatic as you’ll ever see from a politician…  Industry and commerce quite rightly supports the dredging of Trinity Inlet because it would have brought bigger cruise liners, cargo vessels and navy ships to Cairns and provided a $1.3 billion boost to the economy… He really starts off badly by describing business as the “big end of town” and then his Facebook rant continues with “your unsustainable, unfunded and illogical ‘capital dredge proposal’ will not fly…”.

Cairns Post article, 27 April (full text is in section 3) included: Industry group Cruise Down Under is urging the Government to consider the economic benefits of dredging of about $1.3 billion.  CDU general manager Jill Abel said a study showed cruise ships injected $12.6 million into the city’s economy in 2013-14.  Ms Abel said.  “… Cairns is a must-see destination from a passenger perspective, and integral to the eastern seaboard itineraries.” 

Cairns Post, 30 April, article (see details in section 3): BARRON River MP Craig Crawford has broken political ranks to back the dredging of Trinity Inlet.

This post suggests a practical and cost-effective way to avoid dumping the dredging spoil at sea as well as reclaiming the degraded State-owned area at East Trinity.  Many related issues are discussed, media coverage is presented and relevant background is explained.

The report, Dredging and East Trinity opportunities 081214, presents a proposal to dredge Cairns Trinity Inlet channel; and reclaim the State-owned degraded East Trinity property; and gain major short and long-term benefits for Cairns community and businesses……AT NO NET COST to taxpayers.  Imagine a residential suburb at East Trinity:

 ET with suburb, small

2. Another option: a phased approach

Note: This section has not been updated since the draft EIS was released.  Some of the assumptions and figures used in the draft EIS are in serious doubt, as are some of the conclusions.  It is expected that further checking by different specialist engineers will identify substantially different conclusions that may be more in line with the proposal outlined in the Phase 1 proposal described below. 

Another variation on Phase 1 (call it Phase 1b) could be, if both the State and Federal Governments are persuaded to allow capital dredge to be placed offshore (currently very unlikely), then the State could sell their 944 ha property at East Trinity to pay all dredging costs, with the proviso that the developer must resolve the current pollution problems on parts of this property.

Responding to comments by the previous State Member for Parliament, Gavin King, that East Trinity could not be developed for many years until the dredged spoil has settled, an alternative option is now presented.

Pending release of the Environment Impact Statement (EIS) report, it was stated that ‘500 hectares’ of East Trinity land will be required to place the 4.4 million cubic metres of spoil.  Given the fact that the State-owned property at East Trinity is 943.6 ha, the residual 443.6 ha of property could be available for development immediately, noting 168 ha of this part is raised, affording grand views across the inlet to the CBD and hills beyond.

The original report has been updated to include a Phase 1 where half of the residual 443.6 ha is sold to one or more developers for a nominal sum, on the condition that the developer(s) pay all the costs of dredging, spoil treatment and associated costs, which the original report estimated at $125m.  However, as it is understood the Ports North EIS estimates these costs as between $200m and $250m, a midway figure of $225m is assumed.   The changes to the original report are shown in red.  An alternative with the same effect would be for the state to sell the land outright and use the proceeds to pay for the dredging and spoil treatment.  Phase 1 is estimated to produce a profit of $7m, although more land could be available which could enable the level of profit to be increased.  The updated report can be downloaded from Dredging and East Trinity opportunities, phased, 230115.

Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan

The Federal Government’s Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan, released on 21 March 2015, includes the intention to: ‘mandate the beneficial reuse of port-related capital dredge spoil, such as land reclamation in port development areas, or disposal on land where it is environmentally safe to do so; [and] to establish a maintenance dredging framework which identifies future dredging requirements, ascertains appropriate environmental windows to avoid coral spawning and protect seagrass, and examines opportunities for beneficial reuse of dredge material or on-land disposal where it is environmentally safe to do so.’  Unfortunately the report becomes suspect when it introduces climate change alarmist ‘PC’ phrases such as ‘ocean acidification’, which are not included in the ‘glossary of commonly used terms’ and is an oxymoron anyway – all oceans are alkaline (PH about 8.1); it is physical impossibility for oceans to become acid, i.e. less than neutrality, about PH 7.  Recent government dredging decisions have been based on the Reef 2050 report, which states: ‘Dredging can either be capital dredging, for new channels and berths, or maintenance dredging, necessary to maintain existing and approved dredging areas.’  Port deepening: is NOT a ‘new channel’; it IS necessary ‘to maintain (an) existing and approved dredging area’; and maintenance dredging IS allowed.  See Reef 2050 plan excerpts.

During an interview by John MacKenzie with Federal MP Warren Entsch on John’s Talkback show, 18 March 2015, Warren described his proposals for the dredging and East Trinity which are identical to the proposal in the Phase 1 report.    Leichhardt MP Warren Entsch has applauded the government’s move to ban the dumping of any capital dredge spoil in Great Barrier Reef Marine Park waters, but says it shouldn’t be news to Ports North in regards to their Port of Cairns dredge proposal.

Warren Entsch: “dredging critical for growth”

An article in Dredging News Online, 20 March, noted: ‘Entsch says land-based disposal  “dredging critical for growth”.  “I congratulate Environment Minister Greg Hunt for this decision, it’s something that I’ve been arguing for forever – even in regards to maintenance dredging going into the waters,” Mr Entsch said.  “I’ve always said that we have an obvious opportunity on East Trinity, it’s the perfect site for disposing of the dredge spoil.  “It provides us with an opportunity to bring the next stage of the development of Cairns closer to the CBD by developing a site that is only five minutes across the water.”  Mr Entsch said he couldn’t see why the option hasn’t already been factored in by Ports North.  “Greg Hunt has indicated for a long time that his preferred option for disposal is on land, and I have certainly conveyed this message to Ports North with every meeting I have had with them. So I don’t see any reasons why there would be delays as they have already considered a number of land-based options.”  Mr Entsch said it was critical that the dredging of Trinity Inlet take place. “Just look at the expansion of the cruise ship industry, which has been phenomenal. One of the large cruise companies is looking at Cairns as a home base, but that may never happen without dredging.  “While undoubtedly a land-based option will be more expensive, what needs to be factored in is the environmental benefits of taking the pressure off hill slopes as our city grows, and the economic benefits of reducing ribbon development as we head south past Gordonvale.  “Originally the plan was for 25,000 people at East Trinity, this can be expanded further to the adjoining land west of the Yarrabah road, allowing a significant increase in our population base. It also gives us a genuine second access to Cairns and would significantly improve connectivity between the Yarrabah community and the city.”  Mr Entsch said he understood that it would be several years before any dredge spoil at the site would have settled enough to be developed. “However there’s an opportunity to develop the adjoining areas in the meantime, and encourage private investment,” he said. “The end result is that it would significantly expand capacity close to our CBD and contain the city to a much smaller footprint.  “There’s been more than enough time for EIS to be assessed. I’d urge the new Queensland government to release it as soon as possible, so that the Cairns community can talk about the options.”

Achieving a failed promise at no cost to the taxpayer

One would imagine that achieving a failed promise made by the previous LNP Government at no cost to the taxpayer would be viewed very favourably by the new State Treasurer, Curtis Pitt (who has inherited a very serious budget deficit) as well as the new MP for Cairns, Rob Pyne.  Regrettably, complications arising from current charges relating to the State Government member for Cook, Billy Gordon, may delay the long-awaited release of the EIS report for public viewing.

Why the delay?

Consider the statement by The Honourable David Crisafulli MP, Ex Queensland State Member for Mundingburra and Minister for Local Government  on John MacKenzie’s talkback radio 23rd January, a week before the State election:

…We do need to find a way to get that dredging done.  Now, there has been every roadblock put up that could possibly happen….. (details and context below).

Note: the Liberal National Party (LNP) was swept from power in a rout at the Queensland State election on 31 January 2015, to be replaced by Labor (ALP)  in a coalition with an  independent member and Katter party members.  To date, in addressing the dredging EIS, the four local Cairns region Labor candidates said only that they will await the EIS release before making any related decisions.   It may be relevant that the Labor Treasurer, Curtis Pitt, is the local Mulgrave  member and won his seat comfortably.  So, back to all in limbo, but with different people in charge!  It may also be relevant that the previous Cairns Member, Gavin King, who consistently spoke in almost sycophantic support of Ports North’s plans, lost his seat in a landslide.

Surely the general public has a right to know exactly what these ‘roadblocks’ noted by David Crisafulli are; not just hinting at dark secrets that sound more like a conspiracy.   Hopefully all will be revealed shortly by the new Labor Government and its four local members.

Who gains by delaying the EIS?

    • It would probably be quicker and easier for Ports North to dump the dredged spoil in the proposed extended area at the end of the Trinity Inlet Channel (if some-one else pays).  However, this is at odds with the Labor State Government’s view as well as Federal Government and the previous LNP State Government views and directives.
    • Both the Cairns Regional Council and all those involved in the sudden recent announcement of the  major residential development at Mount Peter would likely be very averse to competition from another residential development a few kilometres away at East Trinity.
  • Last year (2014) the CRC Mayor, Bob Manning, expressed his belief that the spoil should be placed at sea, and that the State-owned land at East Trinity should not be involved in the dredging project at this time.

There is a general rule that invariably assists resolution that first came to prominence in All the President’s Men (1976), Deep Throat: ‘Just follow the money trail.’  The three points above give rise to further questions:

    • Who are the ‘road-blockers’ that David Crisafulli (see above) refers to?
    • Exactly what ‘roadblocks’ would detractors be likely to put up?
    • Are there significant connections between the un-named ‘road-blockers’?
    • How much would genuine competition from an additional residential development  improve related outcomes for future residents?
    • What will a Labor Queensland State Government do, given that three local members are now Labor (the fourth, Billy Gordon is now independent but likely to align with Labor), including the likely Treasurer, Curtis Pitt, who has the residual of the previous Labor Government’s massive budget deficit to tackle?  Note: It is the Coordinator General’s role to assess the EIS, but it seems likely that the outcome will now be influenced by Labor’s plans and may be less influenced by current ‘road-blocks’ (see John MacKenzie’s talkback radio 23 January, below). 
  • Will new Cairns State Member, Rob Pyne, be able to fulfil his intention to expedite release of the EIS (see article in Cairns Post, 3 January, below)?

 “It’s just unaffordable …”

Gavin King, previous Member of Parliament for the Queensland state seat of Cairns, commented on the TV7 news on 15 August: “It’s just unaffordable, certainly in the short-term.  Unless either the private sector or the Feds come across with some dollars.” 

Both proposals (see links above  to download the reports)  respond to Gavin King’s comment:  The private sector could  ‘come across’ with all the costs for the dredging by buying the dredging spoil, a valuable resource, as part of the overall development of East Trinity.  Unless there are material errors in the reports assessments, they both demonstrate the dredging:

    • Could be ‘affordable’;
    • Could be achieved at no net cost to taxpayers;
    • Could avoiding widespread concerns about dumping huge amounts of spoil near the Great  Barrier Reef; and
  • Would make a major contribution to Cairn’s economy including allowing large cruise and other ships to enter Cairns port.

3. Articles and letters in the Cairns Post

15 May

TWO senior State Government ministers are not ruling out developing the Port of Cairns, including dredging.  Queensland Treasurer Curtis Pitt and State Development Minister Anthony Lynham are calling on Ports North to re-examine their Environmental Impact Statement on dredging Trinity Inlet shipping channel.  Dredging has been ruled out on economic and environmental grounds by the government, with sea dredge spoil dumping estimated to cost $100 million and land based $365 million.  “What we’ve said is that this EIS doesn’t rule out future port development, what it does is say the options that are on the table … are not viable options,” Mr Pitt said.  “What we’ve said is that Ports North, as the proponent can go back, recast that EIS and make another proposal which has an emphasis on onshore disposal.  CONDITIONS: State Development Minister Anthony Lynham said any dredging of Trinity Inlet would have to include land-based spoil disposal at Ports North’s cost.  “It could mean that they need to change focus from being on large cruise shipping to ensure they can look at a suite of works that may need to happen in terms of future port expansion.”  He said that might include expanding the Reef Fleet terminal, a barge ramp or a wharf expansion.  Dr Lyneham said any dredging would have to include land-based spoil disposal at Ports North’s cost.  The Cairns Regional Council has called on the government to defer a final decision on channel dredging and to re-examine the proposal.  Ports North declined to comment.  Royal Caribbean International commercial director Sean Treacy, who was in Cairns yesterday preparing for the visit of the giant Legend of the Seas cruise ship next month, would not be drawn on the dredging issue.  He said the company would continue to work with governments and ports on the best way for their ships to visit.  Mr Treacy said the practise of using tender boats to transport passengers to shore at Yorkeys Knob was common for the company throughout the world.

14 May

A letter to the Cairns Post Editor: Mr Hitchcock’s letter, 9-5, stated ‘Peter Senior’s opinion piece (2-5) is very misleading’.  This letter responds to some points in his letter.  Far from being misleading, I have provided credible evidence for every point I made in my opinion piece.  Warren Entsch, in his article also on 9-5, congratulated me for my ‘very considered contribution’.

Mr Hitchcock is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.  For instance, a 1942 photo on Warren Entsch’s office wall shows the East Trinity site, far from being ‘largely rehabilitated wetlands’, was mainly salt-pans and grasslands, similar to Portsmith. 

Mr Hitchcock had attended last December’s meeting of the local Volunteer Fire Brigade, he would have heard the overwhelming support for the dredging and East Trinity reclamation – except, of course, from the CAFNEC attendee.

If Mr Hitchcock and his colleagues had not strong-armed Peter Beattie’s government into cancelling the approval for the proposed world-class Royal Reef Resort at East Trinity, which included resolving all pollution problems, then Beattie’s Government would not have had to pay $10m of tax-payers money to NatWest Bank, plus the continuing maintenance costs.

6 May

A letter to the Cairns Post Editor: ‘For the Queensland Government and Ports North not to reconsider immediately their policy decision not to dredge Trinity Inlet and allow continuing expansion of the Port and the economic development of our City defies all logic.  Overwhelming evidence in the draft EIS giving scientific advice that an alternative off shore dump site is suitable and would not be damaging to the Great Barrier Reef and the environment.  Alternatively the EIS preferred site for on shore disposal area, a section of the 10 sq km East Trinity freehold property owned by the State Government, must be given greater consideration.  This is more important following the reported statements from the highly qualified Engineer and Consultant, Peter Senior published on Saturday last where he detailed the potential revenue to the State from development of that property could cover the entire cost of the dredging operation and secure a future suburban growth area for the City only one km from the CBD.’

2 May

An article in the Cairns Post was heavily edited from the submitted copy.   The article below shows words as-published in black, with the words edited out in red:

The Cairns Shipping Development Project draft Environmental Impact Statement draft report (EIS) was released on Saturday 18 April.

  State Government Treasurer Curtis Pitt announced that, on the basis of the draft EIS, the state government had decided against approving the proposed Trinity Inlet dredging.

  The overwhelming reaction of numerous callers on Cairns’ radio talkback was extreme dismay and disillusionment.

  Most Cairns people are now thoroughly confused.   Little wonder as there are so many conflicting views and reports.

  This article presents a summary of the main factors relating to the proposed dredging and draft EIS, then proposes a way forward.

  The economic analysis presented in the draft EIS report indicates the dredging project has a very strong benefit-cost ratio, with additional income benefits to Cairns over 25 years estimated in present values, with future benefits discounted at 7% per annum, totalling $1.3 Billion.

  The $4.2m draft EIS is just that: a ‘draft’.  Proper process requires a draft EIS to be published, inviting submissions to the Coordinator General’s office for consideration, then a final EIS.  The Coordinator General then is required by law to send[s] a recommendation to the government.  No final EIS exists, so presumably the Government has not received the recommendation.  What then is the government’s decision based on?  Many articles in main stream media focus on alarmist reports and views.  For example, TV7 local news often shows a video with brown water around a dredge.

  This video, provided and paid for by ‘green’ organisations, clearly suggests pollution.

  The major objectors to the proposed dredging comprise four broad groupings:

  • People who believe the scaremongering, many of whom genuinely care about the environment, some with almost religious fervour;
  • A few shrill extreme environmentalists who are anti-development (recall their attempts to prevent Skyrail);
  • Unelected organisations with other agendas such as the UN, WWF and Greenpeace (UNFCCC’s Christiana Figueres said: “We are setting ourselves the task.. to change the [world’s] economic development model”);
  • Several government departments such as GBRMPA (GBRMPA’s alarmist GBR 2014 report largely blamed climate change for their dire forecasts concerning the Great Barrier Reef,  mentioning ‘climate change’ 365 times).

  The draft EIS estimates off-shore sea disposal would cost about $100m.  [Some] Reports based on scientific evidence conclude disposal near shore would not be harmful or environmentally damaging.

  The EIS Terms of Reference includes: ‘Provide descriptions of all feasible alternative land-based spoil disposal.’  And ‘Sufficient baseline economic data to underpin a comprehensive assessment of the direct, indirect, cumulative, costs and impacts of the project.’

  The report selects the 964.3 ha state-owned East Trinity site as the preferred option for land-based spoil disposal.  Most of that area was in continual agricultural production since the first survey in 1894.

  CSR purchased the property in 1971 and expanded it by constructing a bund wall, then re-contouring the area into productive cane fields. [But when] Cane production [became] was uneconomical, so the land was sold to developers.

  The report notes ‘In the early 1990s a proposal to develop a satellite city on the site attracted community attention, but failed to gain approval. In 2000, the Queensland Government purchased the site.’  More accurately, the Royal Reef Resort proposal for this site was approved in 1995.

  But the Labor State government succumbed to persuasion from green pressure-groups and overrode the approval.

  The developer went into receivership.  National Westminster Bank commenced legal action against the State, resulting in a $10m out-of-court settlement.

  The draft EIS assesses placing spoil on 518 ha of low land at East Trinity.

  This area is highly degraded, costing about $500,000 for annual maintenance that has failed to fix the degradation.

  CSIRO advice to cover this area with spoil was ignored.  The report’s benefit-cost of developing this 518 ha concludes development would be uneconomical.

  The whole site comprises 518 ha plus partly-raised 428 ha.  The latter could be developed immediately, but the report ignores this option.

  Applying figures from the report to developing the 428 ha area indicates sufficient profit to pay for all the dredging and treatment costs, leaving the 518 ha to be developed later.  The report also ignores related benefits such as providing work for Yarrabah people, and funding potential tourist trails on adjacent wetlands.

  It seems the State and Federal governments is unlikely to be convinced that evidence-based science concludes responsible near-shore dumping of spoil would not be detrimental to the reef – political factors appear to outweigh evidence.

  Cairns now urgently needs a credible and visionary leader to assemble a well-respected team to develop as soon as possible a new proposal to achieve the many benefits to Cairns that will accrue when the dredging is completed.

  Optimising port operations and tourist potential is critical to Cairns’ future.  Surely an option that meets environmental standards and is self-funding, or requires minor taxpayer funding, would be acclaimed by our state government?

30 April

Crawford backs dredging on Trinity Inlet. BARRON River MP Craig Crawford has broken political ranks to back the dredging of Trinity Inlet. He says the widening and deepening of the channel to accommodate larger cruise ships may not happen in the short term, but needs to happen eventually – as long as the Queensland Government has the money to fund it. “I would like to see it happen. What’s restricting us at the moment is certainly the finances for it,’’ he said. The Palaszczuk Government dumped the Cairns Shipping Development Project about two weeks ago, saying there was no economic or environmental case for it. The draft environmental impact statement for the project stated the minimum cost would be $100 million, but only if the 4.4 million cubic metres of spoil was dumped offshore. It would cost an estimated $365 million for land-based disposal options. The LNP had committed $40 million for the project. Mr Crawford believed the dredging of the port could still go ahead, if more research was done on the income generation associated with the cruise industry. “The projection for cruising in Cairns is certainly good, pushing out into 2025, that sort of thing,’’ he said. “We don’t have to do this thing this year, and we certainly don’t have to do this sort of thing next year. “This is not a situation right now where if we don’t dredge the inlet right now, we’re going to miss the boat totally on these sorts of things. “We’ve got a window, so in time, hopefully we can get what we need. At the moment, the restriction is money.” He said he had faith the Labor Cabinet had made the right decision to knock back the proposal. “Coming into the campaign with this government, there was a lot of election commitments given by all sides and a lot of discussion with all groups about financial management and debt reduction and all things like that,’’ he said. “Now we’ve got a Treasurer who’s working on that and obviously trying to make sound financial decisions. “Throwing $365 million at dredging the inlet tomorrow probably wouldn’t be one of his best financial decisions. So I trust him in that, but I do want to see this done at some point in the future, when it’s right.” Treasurer and Mulgrave MP Curtis Pitt said since the EIS was announced, he’d made it clear alternative proposals for port expansion and other initiatives to support the cruise ship industry in Cairns may be considered. Cairns and Far North Environment Centre marine programs co-ordinator Josh Coates invited Mr Crawford to contact the centre to be told about the potential environmental impact of the dredging.

 27  April

Cairns Mayor Bob Manning responds to Rob Pyne’s dredging Facebook rant. Share.  FIGHTING WORDS: Cairns mayor Bob Manning has hit back at a dredging social media spray by Cairns MP Rob Pyne, urging residents to respond to the released EIS in the hopes people power will put it back on the agenda.  CAIRNS mayor Bob Manning has hit back at a dredging social media spray by Cairns MP Rob Pyne, urging residents to respond to the released draft EIS in the hopes people power will put it back on the agenda.  Last week Mr Pyne took to Facebook to slam the “big end of town” and vow the project “will not happen”.  He later stood by the comments and said health and education services should take priority.  But Mr Manning took a swipe back, warning such statements could be unpopular with the electorate.  “When you get involved in any form of political life people will judge you,” he said.  “The saying is the public always gets it right and in three years they will make their decision.”  Mr Manning has already called for the $40 million slated for the project to remain in Cairns.  But Mr Pyne said yesterday he was unaware the money was even available.  “Is there $40 million? If there is of course I want it spent in Cairns,” he said.  “But if there is $40 million I want it spent on a special school, I want it spent on a unit for brain injuries.”  Last week Mr Pyne took to Facebook to slam the “big end of town” and vow the project “will not happen”. The public have been given until June 1 to respond to the EIS and Mr Manning said it was vital people were aware of its conclusions.  He said he would never support anything that put the Great Barrier Reef or rainforest in jeopardy and believed the study affirmed neither were in trouble.  Industry group Cruise Down Under is urging the Government to consider the economic benefits of dredging of about $1.3 billion.  CDU general manager Jill Abel said a study showed cruise ships injected $12.6 million into the city’s economy in 2013-14.  “Here is an industry that wants to bring tourists and their spending to Far North Queensland in large numbers,” Ms Abel said.  “Having recently returned from our key international trade event, Cruise Shipping Miami, the message is very clear that Cairns is a must-see destination from a passenger perspective, and integral to the eastern seaboard itineraries.”

25 April

Rob Pyne’s rant against business is unfounded.  Cairns MP Rob Pyne’s outburst against the business sector is about as undiplomatic as you’ll ever see from a politician.  CAIRNS MP Rob Pyne’s outburst against the business sector is about as undiplomatic as you’ll ever see from a politician.  The ALP member has been elected to represent everyone in the community – to single out a sector that employs tens of thousands of workers is foolish, if not naive and inflammatory. Industry and commerce quite rightly supports the dredging of Trinity Inlet because it would have brought bigger cruise liners, cargo vessels and navy ships to Cairns and provided a $1.3 billion boost to the economy as well as lucrative taxes and other government fees this administration desperately needs. The Cairns Chamber of Commerce and Advance Cairns have called for the original $40 million promised for the work to be quarantined and even be used for a smaller dredging project.  But Mr Pyne wants none of that.  He prefers the money to be spent on health, something that is needed, but an area that does not create as many new jobs or generate money.  He really starts off badly by describing business as the “big end of town” and then his Facebook rant continues with “your unsustainable, unfunded and illogical ‘capital dredge proposal’ will not fly. It does not stack up and it will not happen”.  He then goes on to say that he is only interested in improved health, education, training, disability, community and sporting opportunities for the “ordinary people” of Cairns.  Industry and commerce quite rightly supports the dredging of Trinity Inlet because it would have brought bigger cruise liners, but Cairns MP Rob Pyne believes it will only suit “the big end of town”. Mr Pyne singles out “Tories” (conservatives) and says he will only deal with health board chairman and conservative Bob Norman.  The post also contains a photo of a man lighting a cigar with an American banknote.  Mr Pyne’s criticism is sure to alienate a large section of the community and appears to show he is not concerned about business, the sector which employs the most people in his electorate and produces the billions of dollars needed to keep the economy humming.  It’s no secret that the city’s economy continues to struggle and still needs a major project such as Aquis or the Aspial towers to start as soon as possible.  Fortunately his colleague, Mulgrave MP and State Treasurer Curtis Pitt, has a far better grasp of what makes this city tick and will achieve a lot more than Mr Pyne’s list of priorities.  At least our business leaders have shown the sense not to react to his surge of illogical rage.

20 April

LNP spent $4.2 million on failed Cairns Trinity Inlet dredge study. DREDGE DIFFICULTY: A huge amount of money was spent on finding out dredging Trinity Inlet is not feasible. TAXPAYERS forked out $4.2 million for a study which strongly found against the dredging of Trinity Inlet. [Editor’s note: these first two paragraphs are totally incorrect.] The State Opposition’s infrastructure spokesman Tim Nicholls yesterday revealed how much the Newman government contributed to the Cairns Shipping Development Project, which was knocked back by Labor on Friday. The long-awaited draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the widening and deepening of the city’s shipping channel was released on Friday, showing there was no environmental nor economic case for the project. The 3000-page report stated the minimum cost of the project would be $100 million – but only if the 4.4 million cubic metres of spoil was dumped offshore. Both parties have committed to preventing dredge spoil from being dumping within Great Barrier Reef waters. The LNP promised $40 million towards the project in 2012 as an election commitment. In a statement yesterday, Mr Nicholls said it was disappointing the Palaszczuk Government was “pandering to the Greens” with no thought or plan on how it would open up tourism or boost the economy and jobs in the Far North. “The money spent on this project is an investment in the future of Cairns and unfortunately the Treasurer has dismissed this project too quickly without looking at all the options or considering funding partnerships with the private sector,’’ he said. The former Queensland treasurer said with the ever-increasing size of new cruise ships, it was essential the port was positioned to respond. “Dredging Trinity Inlet would have provided access for larger cruise ships, boosting economic and tourism benefits for the region,’’ he said. “It is now on Labor to detail what their plan is to bolster and support industry, tourism and create jobs in Cairns.” He said the report was not released before the election as the Co-ordinator-General had to take into account the changing Federal Government position on dredge spoil dumping. His spokeswoman did not respond when asked if the LNP would still push for the dredging of Trinity Inlet. Cairns and Far North Environment Centre marine programs co-ordinator Josh Coates said the project was never necessary, never environmentally responsible, and did not represent a good use of taxpayers’ money. “The fact is that there is no need to expand the port for larger cruise ships, which continue to visit Cairns transporting passengers to shore at Yorkeys Knob,’’ he said. “We have welcomed the State and Federal governments’ commitment to put a stop to new dredge spoil dumping offshore in the Great Barrier Reef marine park. “This ban should be extended to all World Heritage areas to address dumping elsewhere in Queensland.” He said while the Government had ruled out funding the project and released the EIS for legal reasons, it was still important for people to have their say on the project.

JCU Trinity Inlet dredge report tells of damage. RULED OUT: Increased dredging of Trinity Inlet to allow larger cruise ships to dock in Cairns has been quashed by a number of sources. An independent study into the economic benefits of cruise shipping has revealed the industry would be of little-to-no benefit in Cairns. The findings have been released after an unrelated State Government review rejected a plan to grant extra dredging permits for Trinity Inlet to allow “mega” cruise liners to dock in Cairns. James Cook University’s report into the economic opportunities and risk of cruise tourism in Cairns, which will be released today, concludes that even if every person onboard a major cruise liner made a day trip to the reef or Kuranda, the net benefit for local companies would be negligible. The $10,000 study was commissioned by the Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS). “The price of a shore excursion purchased onboard is typically marked up between 70 per cent to 200 per cent, with less than half that amount paid to excursion operators,” the report states. “The swift arrival and departure of high volumes of cruise passengers can put pressure on local tourism capacities, degrade the natural resources upon which they depend, and lower the overall level of tourist satisfaction.” The report states the average spend of an international cruise passenger in Cairns is about $200 a day, 66 per cent higher than domestic tourists. It comes just days after the Palaszczuk government released a 3000-page scientific report showing that dredging the inlet would do untold environmental damage. AMCS Great Barrier Reef campaign director Felicity Wishart said the report showed dredging was not necessary for the Cairns tourism economy to access the benefits of the cruise industry. “Dredging … could result in serious damage to the environment – which is the reason people want to come here in the first place,’’ she said. Advance Cairns CEO Mark Matthews, who read the government’s EIS yesterday, said there was no consideration of the impact of ships not being able to offload passengers at the current facilities at Yorkeys Knob due to bad weather. “The researcher has not spoken to any of the cruise lines,’’ he said. “Their information is taken from annual reports, they acknowledge that some of their data cannot be verified.” Ports North chairman Brett Moller said dredging could only proceed if it was fully funded by government and “the Queensland Government has indicated that it will not be funding the project.” Cairns Chamber of Commerce CEO Deb Hancock still backed expansion of Trinity Inlet to attract larger vessels. “While the Government’s decision is not to proceed with the port expansion project, the allocated funds should be used to develop portside or other infrastructure for our future economic development.”

18  April

Trinity Inlet dredging canned after Environmental Impact Statement raises issues.  CAIRNS’ potential as a mega-cruise ship and navy hub is sunk after the State Government used environmental and financial factors to stop the required dredging of Trinity Inlet.  The move is sure to anger business leaders hoping for more cruise passengers in Cairns. Treasurer Curtis Pitt yesterday released the long-awaited draft Environmental Impact Statement which he said showed there was no case in favour of dredging. “The $40 million the Newman Government committed to the project in 2012 was politically cynical and misleading because it was never enough to make the project viable,” he said. “The proposal, which includes dumping dredge spoil at sea, would cost more than $100 million and the land-based dumping options about $365 million.” Releasing the document is a legislative requirement but the Newman administration refused to make it public prior to the January election. LACKING BENEFIT: Treasurer Curtis Pitt yesterday released the long-awaited draft Environmental Impact Statement into dredging Trinity Inlet, which he said showed there was no case in favour of dredging. Mr Pitt said he wanted Queenslanders to have an accurate understanding of the economic costs and environmental impacts of dredging. “This EIS highlights the Newman government’s reckless disregard for the one of Queensland’s most valuable assets, the Great Barrier Reef,” he said. “It was never fully funded and anyone who looks at the proposal and its environmental and economic impacts can see why the government is not proceeding with it. “The Palaszczuk Government opposes the recommended option in the draft EIS to dump dredge spoil in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and World Heritage Area.” Ports North had proposed to widen and deepen the Port of Cairns channel in Trinity Inlet to allow the future expansion of the HMAS Cairns naval base and accommodate mega-class cruise ships. Great Barrier Reef Minister Steven Miles accused the LNP of having “complete disdain for Queensland’s environment” and putting election pledges ahead of sound economic policy. “We’re not going to waste $40 million subsidising a dredging project which has now been exposed as environmentally and economically unsustainable,” he said. “The money the LNP wanted to waste on this unviable project would be far better spent on frontline services or job-generating projects, including initiatives in Far North Queensland.” HOPES DASHED: Ports North had proposed to widen and deepen the Port of Cairns channel in Trinity Inlet to allow the future expansion of the HMAS Cairns naval base and accommodate mega-class cruise ships. PICTURE: BRENDAN RADKE Source: News Corp Australia. The Great Barrier Reef supports about 70,000 full time jobs and contributes $5.7 billion a year to the Australian economy. State Development Minister Anthony Lynham said on that basis alone the dredging proposal had no merit. “When people look at the EIS they will see why the only option is to discontinue the project,” he said. “That’s why the government, in line with its election commitment, has decided to withdraw the money allocated by the Newman government. “The Great Barrier Reef needs to be protected not only as a unique natural wonder, but also because of its economic importance.” Copies of the EIS will be available at the Cairns City Library from April 20 to June 1. Electronic copies can be ordered by phoning 4052 3888. To lodge a submission on the draft plan, click here.

23 March

A Letter to the Editor in the Cairns Post 20 March: The article ‘Port EIS release delayed – Labor tardiness questioned’ (18-03) is very worrying.    The Cairns Post is to be congratulated for requesting a copy of the draft EIS under the Right to Information laws, subsequently denied by the Coordinator General.  The department says there is an “intrinsic responsibility” to not disclose this multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded EIS.    Cairns Labor MP Rob Pyne notes this denial is “undemocratic”.  The delay and denial are also disgraceful and completely unacceptable.    It appears that a tiff between Ports North and the Coordinator General has somehow managed to delay progressing this project and the major economic benefits it will bring to Cairns.    The question must be asked: who is running our government?  A few unelected bureaucrats, or our elected representatives?  Hopefully this denial will be a catalyst to force immediate progress of this vital project.

 20 March

An article in the Cairns Post 20 March: Cairns Post article 200315

19 March

An article in the Cairns Post 19 March: A REPORT into the potential dredging of Cairns Port is expected to be publicly released “within weeks”. Cairns MP Rob Pyne has spoken with Minister for State Development and Minister for Natural Resources and Mines Dr Anthony Lynham about the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cairns Shipping Development Project, which has been locked away by the government since late last year. The Minister’s department blocked the release of the taxpayer-funded document after it was requested under Right To Information laws by the Cairns Post. Mr Pyne said Dr Lynham gave him an undertaking the 3000-page report would be released publicly after an upcoming Cabinet meeting. He could not say, however, how soon that would be, instead saying he would be “disappointed” if it was any longer than the next two months. “All I can say is it’ll be tabled over coming weeks and discussed by Cabinet, and then made public,’’ he said. Mr Pyne had previously questioned the department’s transparency but said the latest development had restored his faith in the Labor ­Government. He said the Far Northern community needed the report to inform the debate about whether Trinity Inlet should be widened and deepened to attract larger cruise ships to the region. “We need to look at the report and look at whether it actually stacks up,’’ he said. “I think the report will tell us if such expenditure would be supported or such an investment would stack up, in terms of benefits to the Cairns ­community. “It will, very importantly, look at any environmental costs as well.” Ports North submitted the EIS to the Queensland Coordinator-General and the Federal Government’s Department of Environment late last year. The Newman administration didn’t allow the document’s release before the January election. Cairns and Far North Environment Centre director Angelika Ziehrl welcomed the EIS finally being made public. “CAFNEC is looking forward to this finally being released so the public and CAFNEC can comb through it,’’ she said. Green groups have raised concerns the large quantity of sediment generated by dredging could impact the marine environment.

18 March

Two Cairns Post articles, 18 March: Cairns MP Rob Pyne questions government decision to block port study from public release.  THE transparency of the Queensland Government has been questioned by one of its own Labor MPs after it blocked the release of the ­report into the proposed dredging of Cairns Port. The Department of State Development has denied The Cairns Post’s request under Right to Information laws for a copy of the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cairns Shipping Development Project.  The long-awaited report was due to be released for public comment late last year but is still under consideration by the Co-ordinator General.  The department says there is an “intrinsic responsibility” to not disclose the taxpayer-funded EIS, which the Co-ordinator General needs to be satisfied adequately covers the terms of reference.  “The information was ­received in circumstances which would make it unacceptable conduct for the ­receiver to disclose the information in a way the giver has not authorised,’’ a departmental officer wrote.  Once the Co-ordinator ­approves the EIS, it will be ­released for public and state government advisory agency consultation for six weeks.  The Newman Government committed to fully funding the EIS as part of its $40 million investment in the project.  Cairns Labor MP Rob Pyne said for the department to deny the document’s release under RTI was “undemocratic.”  “These things need to be transparent and the document should be released for people to talk about,’’ he said.  Advance Cairns CEO Mark Matthews said it was in the ­region’s best interests to see the report, to have a way forward for the dredging project.  The Office of the Co-ordinator General did not respond to questions about when the report would be released.

Future in the balance.  Far Northern leaders are adamant the region’s economic future hinges on a plan to develop the Cairns Port.  The Cairns shipping Development Project promises to inject $634  million of 25 years into the local economy and create more jobs by dredging the Trinity Inlet to accommodate large cruise ships.  But complete bans on sea dumping proposed by the state and federal government could jeopardize the project.  Federal Leichhardt MP Warren Entsch said a land site must be found for dredge spoil, no matter what the cost.  Cairns Mayor Bob Manning was confident port development and a healthy reef could co-exist. “It’s inevitable that our region is going to grow and it’s inevitable the port will need to grow”, he said.

11 March

Cairns Post article, 11 March: ‘New bid to release Inlet EIS.  The time for talking about releasing the Trinity Inlet Environmental Impact Study into dredging is over, according to Advance Cairns CEO Mark Matthews.  And Cairns MP Rob Pyne agrees.  Both have been in discussions for release of the document which is stuck in the Coordinator General’s office.  “As an organisation we have been calling on government to release the EIS and get on with it,” Mr Matthews said.  “We asked for that in our early engagement with government and in my first meeting with Rob, so we expect that will be forthcoming.”  Mr Pyne has been applying what political pressure he can and insists he won’t be stone-walled.  “I wrote, emailed and phoned requesting its release last month and I’ll do that again today,” Mr Pyne said.  “Some people have foregone conclusions about what they want to see happen in the inlet, but I want the EIS released so those people who are thoughtful can read it and base their opinions on something that has rigorous content.”  Ports North submitted the EIS to the Queensland Coordinator General and the Federal Government’s Department of environment in November last year.  The Newman administration didn’t allow the document’s release before the January election.  The new Labour Government is yet to make a move on the document.’

9 March

A letter in the Cairns Post on 9 March noted: ‘Deputy Premier Jackie Trad has stated that strategic assets will be retained, but ‘assets such as unused land and vacant buildings will go under the hammer.’  Perhaps Ms Trad includes the 946.3 ha (that’s nearly 10 square kilometres) State-owned unused land at East Trinity?  The proceeds from this sale could well pay all the costs of dredging the Trinity Inlet Channel as well as providing land to place the dredging spoil.  It appears that only about 500 ha will be required for the spoil, so there is ample land left to sell to developers to pay for the dredging.  Perhaps this is what Jackie Trad is flagging?’

 27 February

Cairns Post article, 27 February:  Still no word on Cairns port Environmental Impact Statement. The release of a long-awaited study into the dredging of Cairns’ port has been further stalled by the new Queensland Government. It’s now been five months since the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Cairns Shipping Development Project was last expected to be made public. The state’s Co-ordinator General has now delayed the report’s release, citing the Palaszczuk Government’s policy on dredging within the Great Barrier Reef marine park needs to be taken into account. Prior to the state election, the ALP committed to preventing dredge spoil associated with the project being dumped within the marine park. A Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning spokesman said the 3000-page document would not be released at this stage. “The implications of the new State Government’s policy statements and position on the project need to be taken into account,’’ he said. “In particular, the Co-ordinator General is seeking the advice of the proponent on how it intends to meet the government’s commitment of no sea-disposal.” Cairns MP Rob Pyne, who previously vowed to make the report public, said he would continue to push for the study’s release. “As we speak I’ve emailed the minister requesting its release and awaiting reply,’’ he said. “How can you have an intelligent public discussion if this information isn’t made public?” Widening and deepening of Trinity Inlet will allow the city to accommodate larger cruise vessels in its main channel. Ports North has proposed to remove 4.4 million cubic metres of dredge material from the inlet and deposit it either at sea or on land. One of the sites under consideration for dumping the sediment is inside the Great Barrier Reef marine park. Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection and Minister for the Great Barrier Reef, Steven Miles, said the Co-ordinator General was assessing if the EIS was “adequate and suitable” for public release. “The Government was elected on a platform of protecting the Great Barrier Reef, which I know is important to many Cairns residents and the Cairns economy,’’ he said. “Consequently, the Government will not support any proposal that involves the dumping of dredge spoil offshore. “I would expect that the Ports North EIS has included a land-based disposal option (Editor’s note: assessment of land-based options is a requirement of the EIS Terms of Reference – see below). “When the EIS is released for public comment my department will assess the project and provide advice to the Co-ordinator-General.” Cairns and Far North Environment Centre marine programs co-ordinator Josh Coates said the project should be shelved.

3 February

An article in the Cairns Post, 3 February:  CAIRNS MP Rob Pyne has vowed to publicly release a study into the dredging of Trinity Inlet – as long as he has the power to.  The former Cairns Regional councillor has cemented Labor’s commitment to preventing 4.4 million cubic metres of dredge spoil associated with the Cairns Shipping Development project from being disposed within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.  Mr Pyne also said if his party formed government he would endeavour to publicly release the long-awaited Environmental Impact Statement – which despite being completed late last year, has yet to see the light of day.  “If I have the power to make it public, I will make it public,’’ he said.  “The public paid for (the report).”  He said his opinion of the project, to widen and deepen the city’s main shipping channel, was that it still “needed to stack up”.  Ports North has proposed to remove dredge material from the inlet and deposit it either at sea or on land.  Sites under consideration for dumping of the material include East Trinity, Admiralty Island, on cane land in southern Cairns near the inlet, along the Esplanade and near the Cairns Airport.  Five offshore sites were also under consideration, including areas within the marine park.  Queensland’s former Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney late last week blamed Ports North for the delay in releasing the project’s EIS, which was initially expected to happen in September.  In a brief statement yesterday, Ports North chairman Brett Moller said the authority had submitted the draft EIS to the Queensland Co-ordinator General last year.

30 January 2015

An article in the Cairns Post, 28 January:  ‘DEPUTY Premier Jeff Seeney has blamed Ports North for the delay in releasing a study into the potential dredging of Trinity Inlet.  The Environmental Impact Statement, which will determine whether the deepening and widening of Cairns’ port should proceed, has still not been made public by the government.  The draft EIS for the project, which involves the removal and disposal of 4.4 million cubic metres of dredge spoil from the channel, was initially expected to be released in September after being submitted to the Co-ordinator General.  Mr Seeney, who visited the Tableland yesterday on the election trail, told The Cairns Post he did not know when the EIS would be released.  The Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning said Ports North had not yet addressed Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt’s new regulations to ban dredge spoil dumping in the Great Barrier Reef marine park.  “The Federal Minister took a decision in relation to offshore disposal,’’ he said.  “So we had to go back to the proponents and say, well the Federal Minister has said this is the situation and you have to address that situation in your application.”  He said the EIS did not need to be rewritten, only one particular section of the report.  “That section of the EIS that deals with the disposal of the material now needs to look at other disposal options, be it further out to sea or on land or whatever,’’ he said.  He could not say when the report would be completed or released.  Ports North refused to answer questions yesterday about whether it had resubmitted its EIS, and what – if anything – it needed to change in the report to address the Federal Government’s new regulations.’

28 January 2015

A letter to the Cairns Post Editor, 28 January, noted: ‘Dear Editor, ‘Resort project promised all help Newman can give’ (24-01).  Good one, Premier!  Most Cairns people are very frustrated about yet another delay of the dredging EIS.  The LNP will lose many votes if they tell us nothing before the election except that we’ll just have keep waiting.  Most Cairns people support ruling out dumping spoil at sea.  In any case there is a much better alternative: pump the spoil on to the lower 500 ha of the State-owned property at East Trinity, and sell some of the residual 446 ha to pay for the dredging and treatment costs.   This will also enable fixing the pollution there, as recommended by the CSIRO.’ 

‘How about two more promises, Premier?  Commit to supporting pumping the dredging spoil on to the State-owned property at East Trinity if the final EIS recommends this, and repeat your previous promise to fund up to $90 million dollars if necessary.’

12 January 2015

An article in the Cairns Post, 12 January, noted: Business leaders blast delay in vital dredging report.  A DECISION to delay the release of the long awaited Environmental Impact Statement for the dredging of Trinity Inlet to widen and deepen the shipping channel has been savaged by two leading business groups in Cairns. Advance Cairns and the Cairns Chamber of Commerce have blasted the State ­Government for holding back its release until after the ­January 31 election. Originally it was earmarked for a September release last year but has been dogged by hold-ups. Dredging of the channel was an LNP election promise in 2012 with $40 million pledged towards the cost. At issue is whether to dump the spoil at sea, which is cheaper, or on land. Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney said the Co-ordinator General was currently considering the Trinity Inlet EIS. “As the Co-ordinator General adheres to caretaker conventions, the EIS will not be released during the election campaign,” he said. Advance Cairns chief executive Mark Matthews said the delay was frustrating. “While we appreciate the assessment process and the conventions of a caretaker government, it is disappointing to see that the only key election promise for Cairns made by the government prior to the previous election has yet to be fulfilled,” he said. “We have no entertainment precinct, no shipping development. Is the government serious about growth and prosperity in the north? “And if so, then let’s see a clear commitment and action to deliver major infrastructure projects for our region.” Chamber chief executive Deb Hancock said the decision was “very disappointing”. “It’s very convenient to hide behind the conventions of a caretaker government,” she said. Ms Hancock said the ­government would have known when the election was to be called and “made a conscious decision not to release the information”. “It was an election promise (in 2012) and they have failed the community,” she said. “We would like to hear how the LNP government will continue economic growth, particularly in the shipping area.” She said the LNP had three years to honour the promise, which included a $40 million funding commitment. “They have taken no action with regard to implementation and even to make a decision,” Ms Hancock said. Tourism Tropical North Queensland declined to ­comment.’

6 January 2015

Another article in the Cairns Post, 6 January, noted: ‘THE Queensland Government has been urged to release a study into the potential dredging of Cairns Port before the State election is called (Editor’s note: the election was called for 31st January later that same morning), or shelve the project completely.  The draft EIS for the project, which involves the removal and disposal of 4.4 million cubic metres of dredge spoil from the channel, was initially expected to be released in September (Editor’s note: the first release date promised was May 2014, then September, then ‘the end of the 2014’ – after missing all 3 promises, no date has been announced since). In a statement yesterday, however, Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney said the report was still being assessed by the Co-ordinator General. “The EIS process is rigorous, thorough and undertaken without political interference,’’ he said. Before the 2012 election, the Newman Government committed to dredging Trinity Inlet so larger cruise liners could enter and dock at the Port of Cairns. Advance Cairns CEO Mark Matthews said the LNP had yet to honour its commitment. “I think it’s beyond the time,” he said. “If it can’t go, it can’t happen, then let’s say it can’t happen and let’s get on with it. “The dragging on of this whole process causes a lot of confusion.” ‘

6 November 2014

Another article in the Cairns Post (6-11-14) was very supportive of expediting dredging the Trinity Inlet.  The article covering the visiting National Geographic MV Orion, with about 100 passengers disembarking, noted: ‘One of the world’s leading adventure travel companies is willing to bring more of its fleet to Cairns if the city’s shipping channel development goes ahead. ….. Australian business development director, Jeremy Lindblad, said if Trinity Inlet could be widened and deepened the company would look at bringing more of its vessels to Cairns.’

11 November 2014

Another article in the Cairns Post (11-11-14) reported: ‘Labor environment spokesman Mark Butler vows to stop dredge spoil dumping on Great Barrier Reef off Cairns.  FEDERAL Labor has committed to preventing dredge spoil from entering Great Barrier Reef waters if the Cairns ­Shipping Development project goes ahead.  The ALP announced yesterday, if re-elected, it would impose a ban on capital dredge spoil being dumped in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.  The Federal Opposition’s environment spokesman Mark Butler, in Cairns yesterday with his Queensland counterpart Jackie Trad, said 4.4 million cubic metres of dredge spoil associated with the widening and deepening of Trinity Inlet could only be dumped onshore.’

15  November 2014

More from the Cairns Post, 15  November: Secrecy shrouds Cairns Inlet dredge report  release.  …. Despite the office of Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt being uncertain about whether dredge material from the channel expansion was included in a proposed ban, Mr Entsch said there was clarity on the policy. “We can be absolutely definitive that there is a new position on dredge spoil disposal,” Mr Entsch said. “Any new proposals will be subject to this and the Federal Government is currently setting out the legal frameworks and legislative instruments to accompany it. “We can be crystal clear on this….In addition, I’ve spoken to Minister Hunt about it many times and he is well aware that I am vehemently opposed to water-based disposal – it will happen over my dead body.” ’

 23 April 2014

Another Cairns Post article, 23 April, spelt out The Federal Government’s thinking, preceding Labor environment spokesman, Mark Butler’s, similar announcement above:  ‘Five million cubic metres of dredging spoil is unlikely to be dumped at sea if a port development in Cairns goes ahead.    Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt yesterday met with Ports North to discuss the Cairns Shipping Development Project, which proposed to widen and deepen the shipping channel at Trinity Inlet for so-called mega-class ships.    “The overwhelming preference if anything were to happen in Cairns is for land-based disposal.” Mr Hunt said.  He backed Leichhardt MP Warren Entsch, who continues to advocate for spoil to be dumped at East Trinity near Yarrabah.  Mr Entsch said: “I absolutely think it’s critical that we go ahead and do this,  I believe the most appropriate site is …the degraded NatWest (land at East Trinity) and it can be done in an appropriate way, which actually will strengthen Cairns in many ways.” 

Cairns Post G20 magazine, September 2014

The Cairns Post G20 magazine, WORLD OF INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES, reproduced the double-page photo with the superimposed new residential area at East Trinity, as above, on pages 52-53 in an article describing a future vision of Cairns:

Cairns Post G20 magazine     Cairns Post, Cairns G20 magazine

An inside source revealed that the authors of this article were ‘strongly ticked off’ for including this photograph, and were directed to remove this and associated photos from the newspaper’s library.  The source did not know who made the initial complaint, or why Cairns Post reacted this way, but it is interesting to speculate when considering the ‘road-blocks’ noted above.

4. John MacKenzie’s radio talkback show

4 May

A 22-minute interview with Peter Senior can be listened to at Note: if necessary, copy the address and paste into your internet link box.

20 April

John MacKenzie kicked off over two hours of non-stop discussion on the State Government’s decision to turn down the dredging proposal with an interview with Cairns Regional Council Mayer Bob Manning.  Bob explained at length how this was a shocking and altogether wrong decision for many reasons.  Bob noted that all ‘the science’ showed there would be no problems if the proposed dredging spoil was placed in the proposed area at the North East end of the Trinity Inlet.  A later caller added that internationally-recognised reef experts, Dr Walter Starck and Professor Bob Carter, endorsed this view, noting all the inner areas between the land and reef already have some one metre of spoil at the bottom of the shallow sea from centuries of sediment drained for the land.   Other callers noted: the $365m cost stated in the draft EIS was excessively high, and ignored the potential for selling some or all of the excess State-owned land at East Trinity to pay for the dredging and treatment costs.  Several references were made to the two proposals linked at the start of this post.  Every caller presented additional information in dismay, and in some instances, disgust, that the State Government had made this decision before even waiting for submissions on the DRAFT EIS report.  The overall view was that Cairns leaders and the general public must make their views known to the State Representatives to dissuade them from this fundamentally wrong decision.  The following day’s show continued the theme for nearly two hours as well.

20 March

During an interview by John MacKenzie with Federal MP Warren Entsch on John’s Talkback show, 18 March 2015, Warren described his proposals for the dredging and East Trinity which are identical to the proposal in the Phase 1 report.

23 January 2015

The Honourable David Crisafulli MP, Queensland State Member for Mundingburra and Minister for Local Government said:  ‘…We do need to find a way to get that dredging done.  Now, there has been every roadblock put up that could possibly happen…..  My role in the next Government will be work with blokes like Trout, like King, like Kempton to strike a balance for our part of the world.’

Would David, had he still been Minister, have succeeded in changing Gavin King’s views,  as quoted below?  And how will the new Cairns Member, Rob Pyne address these points now Gavin King is no longer in a position to ‘road-block’?

  • ‘It would be 20 – 30 years before the land at East Trinity could be developed’ – thousands of other reclamations started development within a few years, including Portsmith and Trinity Park.
  • ‘It’s just unaffordable, certainly in the short-term…’ – Gavin continues to ignore the potential for revenue gains from development.
  • ‘A bridge would be required’ – not necessary, noting it is faster to drive from East Trinity to the CBD in rush-hour than from Palm Cover.
  • ‘The change by Federal Government regarding dumping spoil at sea caused Ports North to carry out considerably more assessments which had caused the delay’ – Not so; the final Terms of Reference were released in November 2013 requiring all land-based options to be fully assessed.  This was 4 months before Ports North let the EIS contract to ARUP.
  • Portsmith reclamation: ‘That was a century ago’ Portsmith reclamation was completed in the late 70s; many of the current buildings were completed in the 80s.

20 January 2015

A conversation between Queensland State Minister for the Environment,  Andrew Powell, and Michael Trout, Member for Barron River and Peter Senior covered the following points:

  1. Peter asked why Gavin King had said it would be 20 – 30 years before the land at East Trinity could be developed, then noting there was ample land currently available for development that would not be required for spoil placement, further noting such development could pay for all the costs of dredging and spoil treatment.  Andrew said they were aware of such options but it was necessary to wait for the EIS report.
  2. Peter asked why the EIS report was delayed so much past it’s original promise of May 2014, given the Terms of Reference had not changed since the original TOR published in November 2013, requiring full evaluation of all land-based options.  Responses from Andrew and Michael did not really address the question, noting again the need to await the Coordinator General’s completion of the EIS assessment.

15 January 2015

A conversation between Gavin King and Peter Senior covered the following points:

  1. Gavin said it would be 20 – 30 years before the land at East Trinity could be developed.  Peter noted that ‘only’ about 500 ha of the 946.3 ha of State-owned land at East Trinity was apparently required to place the spoil.  So the other 446.3 ha could potentially be available for development immediately, including the 168 ha of raised land at the North East end.
  2. Gavin said a bridge would be required.  Peter noted this was costed by GHD in the late 90s at $400m, so about $800m could be realistic now.  But a bridge is not needed, noting it takes longer to drive from Palm Cove to the CBD in the rush hour now than it takes to drive in from East Trinity.  A small, regular fast passenger ferry from East Trinity across the 1 Km of water to the Pier marina would probably attract considerable numbers of residents for work and pleasure.
  3. Gavin twice said that the change by Federal Government regarding dumping spoil at sea had caused Ports North to carry out considerable more assessments which had caused the delay.  Peter pointed out that the project Terms of Reference had not changed after the November 2013 update that was the basis for the ARUP contract.  Full assessment of all potential land options were a requirement of the original terms of reference, so nothing has changed.
  4. Gavin said Peter should talk with Ports North, as he had previously offered to arrange.  At that point, John MacKenzie terminated the discussion due to shortage of time.  Peter had been about to tell Gavin that Norm Whitney and he had three long meetings: first on 18/o4/13 with the Mayor and executives from Ports North; then 3/9/13 with Ports North executives plus ARUP consultants; then a month later with the ARUP environmental consultant at East Trinity; then 3/6/14 Peter met with the Mayor to discuss progress – we agreed, politely, to disagree on most points.   Ports North clearly indicated at the three meetings they considered on-land disposal would be a far more costly option with no benefit.
  5. An earlier conversation on this talkback show between Gavin and ‘Bill’ concerned the issue of Portsmith having been successfully reclaimed.  Gavin said this was ‘a century ago’.  In fact filling at Portsmith was mainly carried out during 1960’s and completed in late 1970’s.  Buildings at Portsmith, especially around Aumuller street and Redden Street, were constructed mainly during 1980’s.

5. TV7 News

During an interview on the TV7 Bold Report on 16  November, the Hon Julie Bishop, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party stated: ‘I have been involved in some detailed discussions about the Great Barrier Reef and Australia is committing to world best practise in the conservation and preservation of the Great Barrier Reef, and last week we ann0unced there would be no dumping of capital dredge waste in the marine park’.  How much clearer can the Federal Government be?

6. Background and history

The report at  Dredging and East Trinity opportunities 081214 presents details and several photographs that tell the story of East  Trinity.  Then you will be able to compare this proposal with the Ports North EIS report when it is released by the Coordinator General. 

Ports North originally stated the EIS report would be presented to the Coordinator General last May, some 8 months ago.  Release to the general public would be authorised by the Coordinator General at a later date, expected to be announced in the Cairns Post.  Further information is noted below in.

Terms of Reference for the EIS

The Coordinator General’s Terms of Reference for the EIS report include the requirement for Ports North to present:

  •  An outline of the alternative options considered and reasons for selecting the proposed development option.
  • Detail the criteria used to determine the alternatives and provide sufficient detail to convey why certain options or courses of action are preferred and why others are rejected.
  • Provide descriptions of all feasible alternative land-based spoil disposal.
  • Sufficient baseline economic data to underpin a comprehensive assessment of the direct, indirect, cumulative, costs and impacts of the project.
  • The indirect impacts likely to flow to other industries and economies from developing the project, and the implications of the project for future development.

The EIS should therefore include full responses to the five points above with regard to the East Trinity option without the need for further extensive investigation. 

Ports North initially stated the report would be delivered in May 2014.  Later the delivery date was stated as September 2014.  In an article in the Cairns Post, 9 August 2014, Brett Moller, chairman of Ports North, wrote: ‘After 18 months of studies, the project EIS is due for submission to government later this year’.  A later statement from Ports North noted an ‘October’ completion.  On  6 November Chairman Moller told John MacKenzie on his radio show the report would completed ‘by the end of this year’.  The report will be available for public release when the Coordinator-General’s office authorise this.

Options East Trinity

Other approaches could be suited to the East Trinity property such as a large marina, residential and commercial properties, and a large resort with a golf course, as was proposed then approved by Queensland State Premier Peter Beattie’s government in 1995 (this proposal is described at the end of this post).  Imagine the now-familar depiction of the amazing Aquis resort superimposed on the graphic below:

East Trinity with marina 290714, cropped

The issues were captured brilliantly in a cartoon in the Cairns Post, 16 August 2014:

Cairns Post cartoon, 160814

Cruise ships

Cairns is a small idyllic city on the North-East coast of tropical Queensland.  The Great Barrier Reef, rain forest and glorious tropical weather are just three features that attract visitors from across Australia and the rest of the world.

Many cruise ships visit Cairns, docking at the cruise terminal adjacent to the central area with its many restaurants, entertainment facilities and the lagoon by the marina.  Larger cruise ships have to anchor a few kilometres North of Cairns off Yorkeys Knob.  Passengers come ashore in tenders.  A Channel 7 TV News item on 28 November 2012 interviewed several passengers who were dismayed at the long boat trip to get ashore, then the lack of welcome, unlike other ports they visited that have music, gifts of flowers and shelter.  Queensland State MP, Gavin King, suggested putting up a welcome sign. It was dismaying to hear a cruise director from the Celebrity Solstice, visiting Yorkeys Knob on 4 December 2012, tell me: ‘It’s like a dead city; no welcome, no taxis for my passengers…’. 

Almost 2 years later, on 19 November 2014, the Cairns Post announced the ‘Yorkeys Knob’s newly upgraded $2.2m cruise liner facilities will host its first cruise this morning.  Passengers from luxury P&O vessel Pacific Dawn are expected to arrive ashore at Half Moon Bay Marina from 9.30 this morning.  A two-year joint venture between Ports North, Yorkeys Knob Boating Club and the State Government, the upgraded facilities include a reconfigured car park with a large covered area, an improved jetty, resurfacing and lengthening of the boat ramp and a new floating walkway.’  A temporary shade tent was again erected on the nearly-sealed area for waiting passengers.

Proposal to dredge the channel

Ports North propose to dredge the Trinity Inlet channel to provide sufficient depth of water for all except the largest mega-cruise ships to navigate the channel and dock at the central cruise terminal – clearly a major advantage for cruise passengers, and certain to attract more cruise ships.  This dredging project has many implications and potential major benefits in addition to attracting more cruise ships.  The downside is that Ports North plan to dump the massive amount of spoil – 5+ million cubic metres initially plus ongoing maintenance – from the dredging in an extended area near the Great Barrier Reef (click on diagram of Cazalys Stadium for clearer definition). 

It is important to note that, whilst most local public opinion is against dumping this spoil at sea, and State and Federal legislation currently prevents ‘capital’ dredging spoil being dumped at sea, many credible technical explanations and assessments have demonstrated that such dumping at sea would not harm the reef providing it is done in a controlled manner.  Much of the negativity about dumping dredging spoil at sea has been stirred up by both extreme environmentalists and organisations, including some government departments, that have been seduced by bodies such a the UN that promote very dubious and ideological aims.  The key factors are explained well in an article by Professor Bob Carter, The Australian, 29-12-14: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/great-barrier-reef-a-shore-thing-muddied-by-misconceptions/story-e6frg6zo-1227168703706

What 5+ million cubic metres looks like

5m M3

Submissions

The Queensland Coordinator-General issued draft Terms of Reference (TOR) for the dredging project assessment; submissions were invited so anyone could comment on the draft TOR.  The deadline was 29 October 2012. One submission presented can be viewed at Submission for Cairns Shipping Development Project draft Terms of Reference, Peter Senior, 291012. This submission canvasses the key issues and presents several suggestions, in particular noting that dredging spoil could be used as a valuable resource for several land-based projects such as bulk-fill to assist fixing the environmental disaster at East Trinity.

Revised Terms of Reference

It was very gratifying that the Coordinator-General’s  considerably revised Terms of Reference document included a well-balanced approach that requires rigorous assessment of a range of land-based solutions for the use of Trinity Inlet dredging spoil.

On 25 September 2012, the Queensland Government declared the project as a “significant project for which an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required”, following the submission of an Initial Advice Statement.  The Queensland Coordinator-General is managing the State’s assessment process and Terms of Reference (TOR) for the project are available at www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/cairns-shipping-development-project.

Ports North provided a submission to the Federal Government to determine if the project is a controlled action, which means it has to be assessed for environmental impacts under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).  The project was declared a “controlled action” on 5 October 2012 and will therefore require the preparation of an EIS that addresses Federal Government guidelines.  Information on the Federal EIS process and guidelines can be found on the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities website www.environment.gov.au

The Cairns Regional Council’s 12th December 2012 meeting considered the Great Barrier Reef Ports Strategy, a succinct and relevant paper which includes requests for submissions by 14th December:

http://www.cairns.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/66639/12dec12_ordinary_cl1.pdf

‘Deputation’ to the Cairns Regional Council

A ‘Deputation’ to the Cairns Regional Council was planned to be presented to the full Council on 27 February 2013.  This was cancelled hours before the scheduled start time because several people felt strongly that the presentation would be counter-productive at that time.  Here is the Power Point presentation that was planned for the deputation: Trinity Inlet dredging proposal (2.8 MB).

Ports North announced on 22 April 2013: The Cairns Shipping Development Project took another step forward today announcing Arup in partnership with BMT WBM as the Lead Consultants who will work with Ports North to deliver a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to meet the requirements of both the State and Commonwealth Governments.’  As at 3 September 2013 the consultants were making good progress towards completion of the draft EIS report.

Many Cairns local business people and community members look forward with great interest to reading what the report has to say, and what the Queensland Co-ordinator General’s departmental response is, regarding the EIS terms of reference points (as listed above).

Meeting the consultants

A meeting with Ports North and their consultants on 3 September 2013 demonstrated  the consultants were on track to prepare a draft EIS report for Ports North to make available for public consultation starting in May 2014.  At this meeting, the following points were re-iterated:

It is likely the lowest direct cost of the total dredging project will be to dump the spoil in an extended area by the current dumping area.  This solution also appears to fulfil the Ports North objectives.  A primary concern remains that there may be major benefits for the Cairns community, economy and environment through managing this massive amount of dredging spoil as a valuable resource that could contribute towards several important on-land projects – ‘may be’ because no significant investigation or cost-benefit studies have ever been undertaken in the past to address this issue.  

Also the EIS appears to extend well outside the formal role and objectives of Ports North, and moves towards a much wider mandate.  To this extent Ports North is in a difficult position in determining just how far they are required to go outside the Port’s mandate to fulfil the EIS. Recalling that the most obvious location to place the dredging spoils is over the environmentally-devastated East Trinity area, two close neighbours of that area, Brigadier Mansford and Norm Whitney, noted that, under the management of QASSIT (Queensland Acid Sulphate Soil Investigation Team) and other government bodies, this area has become a major health and environmental hazard. For instance, destruction of an entire new forest of melaleucas – a 2013 photo:

 East Trinity ruined, 2013 

Yet landowners face stiff penalties for such vandalism. A range of signs, community concern, media articles and reports such as the SKM’s ‘Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region’ suggest dumping dredging spoil at sea off the Queensland coast has a very limited life. 

The 1988 aerial photo

The 1988 aerial photo below shows a light-brown area, lower-left where the developers purchased dredging spoil from the harbour board to test the effect of placing spoil on the land.  It is recorded that the trial was successful.  It is instructive to compare this area now with satellite photos on Google Earth

East Tinity property 1988 prior to purchase by State

LNP’s quarterly magazine, Dialogue

The Liberal National Party’s quarterly magazine, Dialogue, has an article (pages 24 – 27) in Issue 6 describing the history of the East Trinity property: LNP Dialogue magazine, A Sustainable East Trinity, that concludes: ‘Wise decision-makers, unafraid of disinformation from a very small but vocal minority, need to act now. The environmental catastrophe at East Trinity can be resolved and the property made available for the City’s future growth. The land, and potentially another four square kilometres, could become an urban residential development area very close to the CBD, as advocated by town planners. A bonus would be that valuable agricultural land presently earmarked for residential development would remain productive, extending the viability of the sugar industry and the associated jobs.  Surely that is a win-win for the environment as well as most Cairns stakeholders.’

The fundamental issue is this: is it better for the Cairns community to place this massive amount of spoil in an extended area close to the Great Barrier Reef, with possible attendant dangers, or to manage  this spoil as a potentially valuable resource that may enable the large East Trinity area – only 2 kilometres from Cairns’ CBD – to be reclaimed and become part of Cairns future development.  The EIS report is required to address this issue.

Earlier letters to the Cairns Post

A letter published in the Cairns Post on 17 February 2014 posed the question: ‘The dredged material need not be an off-shore disposal problem.  Instead this valuable resource could enable creation of  more land of a similar size to Portsmith only 2 kilometres from the CBD.  Our city’s forefathers chose to create Portsmith using dredging spoil from Trinity Inlet. Will our current city leaders be as wise?’

Another letter in the Cairns Post on March 11 2014, written by Brigadier Mansford addressed the issue of short-term expediency over long-term planning and benefits: ‘If the impending report on dredging Cairns Port advises that dumping at sea is safe, then do it as an interim measure.  However, given the long-term needs for continued expansion of port facilities it would be stupid to consider it a permanant solution.  The region’s future should not be determined by controversial and questionable treatment costs.  Government must pursue and determine innovative and economical methods to use the spoil on degraded land and convert it into assets that will contain future infrastructure, abundant green open space and environmental corridors on the very perimeter of the CBD that any city would envy.  The past history of reclaiming many areas of degraded land in Cairns should be part of the research to determine fact from fiction.  We need to be more positive.  It’s time to roll up our sleeves and find ways to do what we can and must do, as opposed to assuming it’s all too difficult.’

Meeting the consultants, 31 October 2013

Stepping back a few months, a meeting on 31 October 2013 with one of the consultants at a property adjacent to the Queensland State-owned East Trinity area in question demonstrated at that stage the consultants had minimal knowledge of the current and past status and events that lead up to the state of this ‘disaster area’.  Several previous reports about the area were passed on to the consultant, together with detailed explanations of related past events.

CAFNEC public meeting

The Cairns Post published an article on 5 April 2014 noting the draft EIS report is now expected in September rather than May.   (Click on graphic below to enlarge).  Much of the article describes the  views of the local miniscule extreme environmental group, CAFNEC, who organised an event on Sunday 6 April protesting dumping dredging spoil ‘near out reef’ (as several banners read)  Other banners and  T-Shirts had messages including:

    • Don’t stop our fishing
    • Our reef is already sick
    • i-care about our environment – www/acfonline/org.au
    • Save the Turtles
    • Save the Great Barrier Reef
    • Dump on Abbott, not our reef
    • Big Coal is killing Nemo
    • Sea Shepherd Australia
    • Fish are my friends

CAFNEC’s views for many years have been consistently against any development (recall they were strongly against the superb and world-acclaimed Skyrail project).  Their argument against dumping spoil at sea is quite widely supported by Cairns’ locals.  Their other argument concerns the dredging spoil ‘…so the obvious solution of using it as fill for building really isn’t an option in this case because of the nature of the sediment’.  They fail to point out that the real issue is the cost of treating and compaction, which of course CAFNEC do not address, nor how this spoil from the same area was successfully used over many decades to cover then develop much of Portsmith.  Note too there have been major advances in spoil management technology and equipment for preloading and compacting since Portsmith was created, including for the forthcoming Abbotts Point project. Perhaps CAFNEC’s ‘obvious solution’ is indeed both practical, economic and would provide a range of  major benefits for most Cairns residents and businesses.  Ports North chairman Brett Moller sensibly noted: ‘Ports North are not prejudging the outcome of the EIS in relation to the relocation of dredge material ….‘. That was, of course, before the 11 month delay – and counting…..

  More research CP 050414

4,000 ha is available…

A potentially overriding aspect of the issue of where to place the dredging spoil was summarized in a letter published in the Cairns Post on 12 April 2014: ‘Several recent letters and articles raise concerns about future housing and rental affordability if the huge Aquis development goes ahead.  For instance ‘Affordability key to fate of Aquis’ (10-04).  Perhaps it’s time to dust off proposals from the 1990s to develop housing on land at East Trinity?  There are over 4,000 hectares of land largely wasted at East Trinity that could become available for residential development.  This land could provide housing for at least 60,000 people, would avoid using other valuable agricultural land further South and fulfils modern town planners’ recommendations for urban development to be close to the CBD.  This option to accommodate Cairn’s certain population growth appears to have much merit.  Perhaps Cairns Regional Council have this on their drawing boards as one of several options for assessment?’

Ruling on land-based disposal

A further update of the Federal Government’s thinking was spelt out in a Cairns Post article, 23 April 2014:  ‘Five million cubic metres of dredging spoil is unlikely to be dumped at sea if a port development in Cairns goes ahead.    Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt yesterday met with Ports North to discuss the Cairns Shipping Development Project, which proposed to widen and deepen the shipping channel at Trinity Inlet for so-called mega-class ships.    “The overwhelming preference if anything were to happen in Cairns is for land-based disposal.” Mr Hunt said.  He backed Leichhardt MP Warren Entsch, who continues to advocate for spoil to be dumped at East Trinity near Yarrabah.  Mr Entsch said: “I absolutely think it’s critical that we go ahead and do this,  I believe the most appropriate site is …the degraded NatWest (land at East Trinity) and it can be done in an appropriate way, which actually will strengthen Cairns in many ways.” 

The deadline for the project’s environmental impact statement was extended to September to allow for further water-quality studies.  Earlier this month, hundreds of residents rallied in Cairns to protest port developments near the Great Barrier Roof, including the Trinity Inlet proposal. 

Legal personality for the reef

The Environmental Defenders Office of Northern Queensland is campaigning to grant the reef a legal personality so it can be defended in court.  It was prompted by a Great Barrier Roof Marine Park Authority decision to allow three million cubic metres of dredging spoil to be dumped in the marine park as part of the Abbot Point coal port expansion, north of Bowen.  An online petition for a referendum to award the reef legal rights has attracted more than 600 signatures.  Mr Hunt yesterday dismissed the campaign: “The reef already has a legal personality, the GBRMPA is there to represent the reef, it defines the area of the reef, it does a tremendous job.  “The GBRMPA is an independent executive agency, it is one of the world’s leading marine park agencies, if not the world’s leading marine park agency,” he said.’

These views were reinforced in a Cairns Post article, Committee fears for Reef, 24 July 2014: ‘Leichhardt MP Warren Entsch, however, said both he and Environment Minister Greg Hunt’s preferred disposal site was on-land. “Greg Hunt had already made it publicly clear that he wants the dredging on land,” he said. “I have made is very publicly clear that I want it on land, at East Trinity. It won’t be a blow-in from Tasmania who will influence a decision to have it there.” He said depositing the dredge spoil at East Trinity would also provide land for the city’s future population growth.’

==============================================================

7. Other related documents

Plan for the Royal Reef resort

The plan that was prevented when Peter Beattie’s Labor government withdrew its approval to appease environmental activists, resulting in Cairns losing what would have been a fine development, and paying the National Westminster bank what is rumoured to have been many millions of dollars to avoid being sued.  The Royal Reef AIS and EIS reports (respectively 1992 and 1995), two exceptionally comprehensive 40 mm thick reports produced by a team of specialists led by Brannock Humphreys, Town Planning Consultants, describe the proposal in detail.  Section 10.0 CONCLUSIONS notes: ‘There will be no  major detrimental impacts to the environment as a result of the  proposed development which has been modified to be generally in accordance with the Trinity Inlet Management Plan.’  A selection of diagrams from the report are below: a hotel and beach, a plan of the whole resort and a location plan.

Royal Reef hotel and beach

Royal Reef layout

Royal Reef site boundary 2

Government documents relating to the project are available at: http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/cairns-shipping-development-project.html

A vision for Cairns

It seems The Cairns Post is the only ‘leader’ pushing a vision for Cairns on a range of issues including many articles describing the manifest benefits that would result from dredging the Trinity Inlet.  One example was published in the Cairns Post in May 2012:  Cairns Post front page 08-05-12  Cairns Post follow-on 08-05-12.  Hopefully Cairns’ civic leaders will take up the challenge soon.

Labor Premier Beattie turns a blind eye

It also seems no-one showed former Labor Premier Peter Beattie all the evidence that had been provided to his departments, or informed the Cairns City/Regional Council on related matters.  A letter from Peter Beattie dated 4 February 1999 included: “In relation to the acid sulphate and sewerage issues you raise, this Government has seen no evidence which would indicate there is an acid sulphate problem at East Trinity, while matters pertaining to solid waste disposal are primarily the responsibility of the Cairns City Council and, as such, should be raised directly with this authority.”

 

A history of East Trinity:  History of East Trinity, letter, 180607

========================================================

 

Posted in Cairns Port Development | Comments Off on Cairns Port Development

Could energy be free?

Modern society growth is proportional to available energy, so the availability of cost-effective energy for everyone is clearly critical.  This post presents a range of issues with regard to the science, views and potential for free energy and so-called renewable energy.

Scroll down to see additional articles at the end of the post.

Could energy be free?

Could energy be free A series of articles about ‘free energy’, 30 Sept 2017

Interim conclusions:

  •  The technology for ‘free’ (over-unity) energy has been demonstrated beyond doubt to be known by some ‘black’ government departments and subcontractors, but is currently kept secret.
  • Numerous crimes have been committed by deep state government groups and associated military/industrial organisations to protect their industry and advantages.
  • The technologies for ‘free energy’ include zero-point (sub-atomics / quantum) as well as received electro-magnetic energy.
  • ‘Science’ has made fundamental errors, deliberate and otherwise, including defining energy systems as ‘closed’.
  • Open experiments to produce ‘free’ energy have to date been suppressed covertly by energy industry leaders.
  • Access to ‘free’ energy will eventually enable massive improvements throughout all parts of the world, far greater than the industrial revolution.

 Introduction

Modern society growth is proportional to available energy, so the availability of cost-effective energy for everyone is clearly critical.  This post presents a range of issues with regard to the science, views and potential for free energy and so-called renewable energy.

Of the seven largest markets in the world; energy, agriculture, telecoms, auto, chemicals, packaged foods, and pharma, the energy market surpasses all others by a minimum margin of $3.3 trillion dollars per year. The growing demand for energy drives market size projections to $10.4 trillion per year by 2020, helping energy maintain its dominant position in the world markets.   The 2013 world GDP was USD75.59 trillion, so energy comprised about 15%.

Numerous organizations are working flat-out to develop low-cost devices that could provide almost-free energy that potentially could destroy or replace most of the current energy industry.  Question: how do you think energy industry leaders are reacting?  Read banker J P Morgan’s reaction to Nicola Tesla’s inventions below, and view Thomas Bearden’s videos, also below.

However, most of the official scientific views of ‘free energy’, Tesla’s demonstrations, zero-point energy and the like are dismissive.   But then, recall everyone ‘knew’ the sun went around the earth, and peptic ulcers were caused by stress and acidity – until 2 doctors, who had been scoffed at for 20 years – proved these ulcers were caused by bacteria, and won Nobel prizes.  Science has an alarming history of ‘getting it wrong’. As Einstein said, it only takes one person to prove I’m wrong’.

There is considerable evidence that some US ‘black’ government departments have been aware of the ability to produce ‘free’ energy for many decades. This is discussed below, in particular by Dr Greer.

Caveat

The reader is advised that most of what is presented in this section is very different from what he/she is likely to have been taught, read and viewed.  Rather than scoffing, which is a natural reaction, it would be better to maintain an open mind and consider the degree that past information on this and allied subjects may have been manipulated for entirely different ends.

A broad introduction to subject of ‘free energy’ is presented by the Sirius project.  Dr Carol Rosin interviews Dr Steve Greer to discuss an update on Sirius Disclosure (34 mins intro, implementation at 77 mins, ends 94 mins) – audio interview.  Note: there are many more later presentation covering major progress.  Also the following video interview with Dr Carol Rosin: Von Braun’s legacy – 34 min 2013 YouTube

Zero Point Energy

 Recent article (170930) explaining the current situation and issues surrounding ‘free energy’. Note in particular the third video.  ZPE / ‘free energy’ has been demonstrated for over a century, but bankers (J P Morgan / Nicola Tesla), the international energy industry (estimated to be worth well over $200 trillion) all conspire to steal the technologies, experiments etc. and prevent the world from getting free energy.

 

  • A gateway to ZPE and a new ‘particle’?
    • http://gizadeathstar.com/2016/06/new-fifth-force-nature-discovered-well-maybe-cant-resist-high-octane-speculations/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GizaDeathStar+%28Giza+Death+Star%29

 

The Perpetual Motion Machine science scam

Science skeptic and writer, Martin Gardner has called claims of such zero-point-energy-based systems, “as hopeless as past efforts to build perpetual motion machines.”  Perpetual motion machine refers to technical designs of machines that can operate indefinitely, optionally with additional output of excessive energy, without any cited input source of energy, which is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

But technical designs to harness zero-point energy would not fall into this category because sub-atomic zero-point energy is claimed as the input source of energy’.  The issue is, what boundaries comprise the overall system in which the energy resides?

‘Science’ considers all energy systems are ‘closed’; that is, no energy can come in or out of them.  Closed system thermodymamics is taught as gospel by conventional academics and forms the foundation of our civilization and all current technologies. The problem is, there is no such thing as a closed system. All systems have varying degrees of interaction with their environments, both macro, micro, nano and sub-atomic (quantum).  ZPE, for instance, considers energy from sub-nuclear ‘fields’.   Electro-magnetism comes in and goes out from everywhere in the universe (albeit in rather small amounts after applying the cube rule to distant sources).

Another key factor is those who control all energy in the world are less than keen on experiments with above-unity power system, so they do everything they can to stop them (e.g. JP Morgan and Tesla).

‘Science’ appears to have made a colossal mistake in simplifying Maxwell’s equations (see Tom Beardon’s article) and losing a key component that provided for over-unity power generation. But science in universities etc. get all their funding from governments who stick with the PC view, including science.

However, there are cracks appearing in the armor.  One article noted ‘As to whether zero-point energy may become a source of usable energy, this is considered extremely unlikely by most physicists, and none of the claimed devices are taken seriously by the mainstream science community. Nevertheless, SED interpretation of the Bohr orbit (above) does suggest a way whereby energy might be extracted. Based upon this a patent has been issued and experiments have been underway at the University of Colorado (U.S. Patent 7,379,286).’

There are many other views and experiments to develop over-unity power system (the system generates more power than it consumes) deploy various electro-magnetic forces, often based on Tesla’s experiments.  Some have been demonstrated to be successful, but without full explanations are to how or why they work. There are many examples of these experimenters being either bought off or possibly assassinated.  It is assumed those controlling various aspects of the power industry are responsible for such repression.

Nikola Tesla

 A Device to Harness Free Cosmic Energy Claimed by Nikola Tesla: “This new power for the driving of the world’s machinery will be derived from the energy which operates the universe, the cosmic energy, whose central source for the earth is the sun and which is everywhere present in unlimited quantities.” It is not clear how or whether this related directly to zero-point energy.  It is fully documented that banker JP Morgan believed it would work and preclude his profiting from selling energy; he sabotaged Tesla’s progress and stole Tesla’s patents.  Acknowledged as the greatest inventor ever, as a result, Tesla died a pauper. First a long interview with Tesla from ~1900, with a link to a 1916 interview.

 

  • The ‘science’ of frequencies, and their relevance. Nikola Tesla, the great genius and father of electromagnetic engineering, had once said, “If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would hold a key to the universe”. The 3, 6, and 9 are the fundamental root vibrations of the Solfeggio frequencies. Albert Einstein stated: “Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” All matter beings vibrate at specific rates and everything has its own melody. The musical nature of nuclear matter from atoms to galaxies is now finally being recognized by science.
  • Tesla: his background, genius and how his advances were stolen. To what effect now?

Dr Steven Greer (also covered in part below in Extra-terrestrials and UFOs)

 Steven Greer, re new/free energy/East Trinity summary 2009.

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jfTK5KFHXQ Also
  • Greer video, 16 mins, in which he explains a conversation with a billionaire who would not back Greer’s free energy device because GM already had this, but an executive who was planning to release it to produce free-energy cars was murdered 2 weeks after he presented his plans. The 85-year old billionaire said he was not afraid for himself, but for his family.  NB this is the fifth video in a 5-part series.
    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3zFPi1XzIY
  • The potential for ‘free energy’ is discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy – Utilization Controversy section.  Zero-point energy, also called quantum vacuum zero-point energy, is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground stateDespite the scientific stance to typically discount the claims, numerous articles and books have been published addressing and discussing the potential of tapping zero-point-energy from the quantum vacuum or elsewhere. See 44 references with links.

==================

Inherit the Wind (and not much else)

Inherit the Wind (and not much else)  By David Archibald, Quadrant Online, 8 Feb 2015

 The RET Scheme, a monstrous mis-allocation of resources, continues to make Australia poorer for no good reason.  Those who concocted and voted for it seem determined to hobble the nation’s prospects while slipping some $5 billion every year into the pockets of rent-seeking saboteurs

One Senate inquiry is addressing Australia’s drift towards a fuel crisis, a sin of omission on the part of the Rudd/Gillard government and the current Liberal one.  Another Senate inquiry is investigating a sin of commission that started under John Howard’s watch and continues to this day, namely the proliferation of wind turbines under the RET Scheme.

Submissions to the latter inquiry are online here.  I commend submission Number Five by your humble correspondent. It is reproduced below:

No electric power producer would take power from a wind turbine operation if they had the choice.  All the wind turbines in Australia have been forced upon the power companies that take their output.

Why do we have wind turbines?

So the question has to be asked, why do we have wind turbines in the first place?

Wind turbines are commonly considered to produce renewable energy.  This is distinct from energy sources that are once-through and thus finite. The rationale for renewable energy is that its use reduces the consumption of fossil fuels by substitution.  The rationale for that, in turn, is that fossil fuels contribute to the warming of the atmosphere through the greenhouse effect.  This last rationale goes to the source of the wind turbine problem.  So it is apposite to examine that claim.

While climate change is real in that the climate is always changing, and the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is real, the effect at the current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is minuscule.

The greenhouse gasses keep the planet 30°C warmer than it would otherwise be if they weren’t in the atmosphere.  So the average temperature of the planet’s surface is 15°C instead of -15°C. Of that effect, 80% is provided by water vapour, 10% by carbon dioxide and methane, ozone and so on make up the remaining 10%.  So the warming provided by carbon dioxide is three degrees.

The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 286 parts per million. Let’s round that up to 300 parts per million to make the maths easier. You could be forgiven for thinking that if 300 parts per million produces three degrees of warming, the relationship is that every one hundred parts per million produces a degree of warming. We are adding two parts per million to the atmosphere each year, which is 100 parts per million every 50 years and, at that rate, the world would heat up at a fair clip.

The relationship is logarithmic

But the relationship isn’t arithmetic, it is logarithmic. The  University of Chicago has an online program called Modtran which allows you to put in an assumed atmospheric  carbon dioxide  content and it will  tell you how  much  atmospheric  heating that produces. It turns out that the first 20 parts per million produces half of the heating effect to date. The effect rapidly drops away as the carbon dioxide concentration increases.

By the time we get to the current level in the atmosphere of 400 parts per million, the heating effect is only 0.1°C per one hundred parts per million. At that rate, the temperature of the atmosphere might rise by 0.2°C every one hundred years.

The total atmospheric heating from carbon dioxide to date is of the order of 0.1°C.  By the time humanity has dug up all the rocks we can economically burn, and burnt them, the total heating effect from carbon dioxide might be of the order of 0.4°C. This would take a couple of centuries.  A rise of this magnitude would be lost in the noise of the climate system.  This agrees with observations which have not found any signature from carbon dioxide-related heating in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide level is dangerously low

The carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere is  actually  dangerously  low,  not  dangerously  high.   During the glacial periods of our current ice age, the level got as low as 180 parts per million.  Plant growth shuts down at 150 parts per million. Several times in the last three million years, life above sea level came within 30 parts per million of extinction due to a lack of carbon dioxide. The more humanity can increase the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the safer life on Earth will be.

Further to all that, belief in global warming from carbon dioxide requires a number of underlying assumptions.  One of these is that the feedback loop of increased heating from carbon dioxide causes more water vapour to be held in the atmosphere which in turns causes more heating, a runaway effect.  And that this feedback effect only starts from the pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – not a higher level or a lower level, but exactly at the pre-industrial level.

Some estimates of the heating effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide are as high as 6.0°C for a doubling of the concentration from the pre-industrial level.  For this to be true, atmospheric heating of at least 2.0°C should have been seen to date. In the real world, there has been a temperature rise of 0.3°C in the last 35 years, as measured by satellites.  This is well short of what is predicted by global warming theory as practiced by the CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology and others.

This is also a far more plausible reason for the warming of the planet during the current Modern Warm Period which followed the ending of the Little Ice Age in 1900.  The energy that keeps the Earth from looking like Pluto comes from the Sun and the level and make-up of that energy does change. The Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than it had been in the previous 8,000 years.  As shown by the geomagnetic Aa Index, the Sun started getting more active in the mid-19th century and the world’s glaciers began retreating at about the same time.

It is entirely rational to think that a more active Sun would result in a warmer Earth, and this is borne out by empirical observation. To wit, the increased Antarctic sea ice cover observed during the satellite period.

Arctic sea ice extent retreated for the last 20 years of the 20th century.  That is compatible with global warming for any reason.  At the same time, Antarctic sea extent increased by an amount similar to the Arctic sea ice loss. This is not possible if we accept that global warming is due to carbon dioxide.  It also means that global warming due to carbon dioxide did not cause the bulk of the warming in the rest of the planet because carbon dioxide’s effect was overwhelmed in Antarctica by some other force.

Increase in Antarctic sea ice extent

The increase in Antarctic sea ice extent is entirely consistent with increased global temperatures due to high solar activity, as explained by Henrik Svensmark’s theory, which holds that high solar activity produces a lower neutron flux in the lower troposphere from intergalactic cosmic radiation, in turn providing fewer nucleation sites for cloud droplet formation and, thus, less cloud cover. Sunnier skies over Antarctica in turn mean that more solar radiation is reflected by high-albedo snow and ice instead of being absorbed in the cloud cover.  Thus Antarctica has cooled.

The rest of the world has enjoyed the best climatic conditions, and thus agricultural growing conditions, since the 13th century.  But what the Sun gives it can also take away.  Solar physicists have been warning for over a decade  that the Sun is entering a prolonged period of low activity similar to that of the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1710. Most recently, Livingstone and Penn have predicted a maximum amplitude for the next solar cycle, Solar Cycle 25, of 7.  By comparison, the previous solar cycle, Solar Cycle 23, had a maximum amplitude of 120.

The longest temperature record on the planet is the Central England Temperature Record from 1659.  Using the solar-based forecasting model developed by Dr David Evans and the Livingstone and Penn estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude of 7, a prediction can be made of the effect on the Central England Temperature out to 2040.  The reduction in solar activity now being observed will result in temperatures returning to the levels of the mid-19th century at best, with the possibility of revisiting the lows of the 17th and 18th centuries.  Peak summer temperatures may not change much but the length of the growing season will shorten at both ends, playing havoc with crop yields.

The notion of global warming

The notion of global warming has resulted in an enormous mis-allocation of resources in some Western societies, but we can be thankful for one thing.  If it had not been for the outrageous prostitution of science in the global warming cause, then the field of climate would not have attracted the attention that has determined what is actually happening to the Earth’s climate.  Humanity would otherwise be sleepwalking into the severe cold period in train.

As demonstrated above, there is no moral basis for Australian society’s investment in wind turbines if the purpose of that investment is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through a form of renewable energy.  Global warming due to carbon dioxide is of no consequence and the world is cooling anyway.

Wind turbines

WIND TURBINES may lack a moral purpose, but might there be some other good involved?  Let’s examine the claim that wind turbines provide renewable energy, thus reducing our depletion of finite energy resources.

Wind turbines are made using energy from coal at about 4 cents per kWh and provide energy thought to cost of the order of 10 cents per kWh.  In effect, they are machines for taking cheap, stable and reliable energy from coal and giving it back in the form of an intermittent and unpredictable dribble at more than twice the price.

That is one thing.  But what stops wind turbines from being renewable is that the making of wind turbines can’t be powered using energy from the wind turbines themselves! If power from wind turbines costing 10 cents per kWh was used to make more wind turbines, then the wind turbines so produced would make power at something like 25 cents per kWh.  The cost would compound away and any society that attempted to run itself on wind energy would collapse. Wind energy as a component of a power system relies upon transfer of energy at its inception from another source.  It is not renewable energy.  It is no consolation that solar power from photovoltaic panels is much worse in this respect.

That wind energy is renewable energy is the second lie on which the RET scheme is based, the first being that renewable energy is a palliative against global warming.

There is not much more that needs to be said. The RET Scheme is a monstrous misallocation of the nation’s resources and continues to make the Australian people poorer for no good reason.  Those who concocted it and voted for it have sold the Australian people into the servitude and oppression of rent-seekers to the tune of $5 billion per annum. The science and economics it is based on are no better than voodoo and witchcraft.  The wind turbines scattered around the Australian countryside are a physical manifestation of the infestation of the body politic by the self-loathing, millenarian cult of global warming.

The RET Scheme draws resources from better schemes

Unfortunately, the RET Scheme and its ilk have drawn resources from the development of energy sources that would power Australia cheaply, efficiently and with enough of a return on energy invested to maintain Australia’s high standard of living into the next millennium.

The same kind of intense interest from the wider scientific community that determined what is really happening with climate has also determined that the optimum nuclear technology for society to adopt is the thorium molten salt reactor.  Any middle-ranking industrial power, such as Australia, could develop this technology, and should do so.

Much time and treasure has been lost chasing the phantom menace of global warming.  The sooner the RET Scheme is put to rest, the sooner that the nation’s efforts can be properly directed towards our security and welfare in developing the best possible energy source if the nation is to survive and prosper.

David Archibald is a visiting fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington DC where his research interest is strategic energy policy.  The Institute is a graduate school for US security agencies, State Department and Department of Defense. He has published several books and a number of papers on climate science.  He has lectured on climate science in both US Senate and Congressional hearing rooms. His most recent book is Twilight of Abundance (Regnery, 2014)

============================

Energy plan puts public service before public good

by Alan Moran, Director, Deregulation, Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) March 14, 2014

THE energy white paper under preparation proclaims that government has a role in the energy industry. But it is one that is best limited to controlling natural monopoly elements within the industry. It is certainly not to provide some blueprint for the future.

A history of public ownership

Energy has an ongoing history of public ownership, at least in part stemming from misplaced notions that it is a natural monopoly and a necessity requiring government interventions. The outcome has been deleterious and has been compounded by a determination of governments to use the industry to accommodate its social, environmental and industry policies. This has transformed an inherently low-cost industry into one that now has among the world’s highest prices.

A worrying feature of the review is a prominent role given to the supposed need to maintain analytical capability within the government. This appears to be a priority to protect departmental personnel jobs that sits badly with the market-driven industry the white paper claims to be championing. The priority may be partly due to an excessive number of goals that the white paper’s “issues paper” specifies. These encompass supplying and using energy:

  • To put downward costs of business and households.
  • To grow exports.
  • To promote low emissions energy technologies.
  • To encourage the more efficient use of energy.

Whatever may be said of the first two of these stated goals, the third and fourth are in conflict and have spawned the egregious interventions in energy policy that have created a need for a white paper. The fourth also adopts the discredited hubris: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”

Markets develop from the interactions of consumers with businesses, which seek to sell their goods, access inputs and reduce risks. Government’s role is to allow these processes to be pursued and to uphold the law.

A plethora of goals

Rather than a plethora of goals, the white paper should have a single focus: to allow the market to bring about efficient production of energy with interventions limited to addressing natural monopoly situations. Anything beyond that will perpetuate the weaknesses presently evident.

Energy is a vital factor in the direct wellbeing of consumers.

More important still for Australia, it is a key component of economic development. Our minerals and agricultural processing industries are natural fits to the resource endowment that ­Aust­ralia has and cheap energy is both part of that endowment and crucial to its development.

Irresponsible government actions

Irresponsible government actions have impaired the value of our energy resources. This can be seen in four key areas:

  • Retaining ownership of energy businesses in networks where such ownership is verifiably inefficient and always likely to remain so.
  • Placing taxes and regulatory imposts on energy suppliers to force them into costly measures in pursuit of government-determined efficiency, consumer consultation and greenhouse-re­­­d­­uc­­­­ing measures.
  • Impeding access to land for gas exploration and development.
  • Suppressing prices to certain customer groups, thereby weakening incentives to supply and maintain industry resilience.

Policies to rectify these impairments often entail government action, which are the cause of the problems in the first place.

In the past, as with the post-­Hilmer competition policy ­pay­ments, governments were re­warded (and occasionally punished) with regard to an agreed set of principles.

But the use of government to combat government deficiencies is oxymoronic.

Indeed, if a previous commonwealth government had attempted more forcefully to exert pressure on states to promote a goal it favoured, energy saving measures, the outcome would have been even more perverse than that which has eventuated.

The white paper’s aforementioned issues paper continues to promote market interventions in many places associated with green energy and energy efficiency.

It also has to be said that providing incentives for governments to do things that are in the interests of their own consumers is logically questionable.

A useful starting point

A useful starting point for policy, in line with the government’s deregulation initiative, is to announce the early sun-setting of all regulatory measures and discriminatory charges and taxes on energy supplies at the commonwealth level. This would be accompanied by an invitation to state governments to adopt similar programs. In the absence of such a measure the best that can be hoped for is to have the process unveil costs of poor decisions in the past as counsel for future decision-makers.

 

Posted in Energy Management | Comments Off on Could energy be free?

Banksters, other financial criminals and the greedies

Key parts of the world’s financial affairs have been hi-jacked by self-serving financial organisations, bureaucracies, country leaders and individuals.   The outlook is dire.

Scroll to end to view previous articles

Former Lehman Brothers chief economist warns ‘risk incentives’ could cause new crisis

Former Lehman Brothers chief economist warns ‘risk incentives’ could cause new crisis  By Adam Creighton, The Australian, 22 October 2018

The former chief economist of failed US investment bank Lehman Brothers has warned that conditions for a financial crisis are “serious and intensifying”, scolding regulators for leaving the financial system vulnerable to “doom loops” more than a decade after the GFC began.

In a private note to clients titled “the next global crisis”, John Llewellyn, chief economist at Lehman until the bank collapsed a decade ago, told investors the combination of irrational exuberance, greed, explosive debt and ultra-low interest rates were creating an economic tinderbox.

“While greed cannot be eradicated, it can be discouraged. Few financiers have been fined, and almost no one has been jailed; incentives remain unduly skewed towards risk-taking,” he said, in a note based on comments made at a closed OECD forum in September, which included former ECB governor Jean Claude Trichet.

“It has become common place to say that considerable progress has been made in financial regulation (globally),” Dr Llewellyn said.

Dr Llewellyn, now a consultant, said banks could lend to sovereign governments without maintaining any equity — in effect a zero per cent risk weight. “Banks still have too much latitude to use internal models to set their own risk-asset provisioning,” he says.

Risk weights, based on the perceived level of risk set by regulators, permit banks to ignore shares of their assets when calculating their minimum equity requirements. In 2016 the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority increased the average risk weight for residential mortgages from 16 per cent to 25 per cent, which allows each dollar of equity to support $50 of lending.

“White-collar crime is generally treated far more leniently than its blue-collar counterpart,” he said.

Dr. John Llewellyn, managing director and former chief economist for Lehman Brothers. Picture: Bloomberg News.

The comments come at a delicate time for financial services after a damning report by the royal commission into the integrity of the financial service sector and the quality of its regulation.

Speaking at a parliamentary inquiry last week, officials at ASIC, which has come under heavy criticism for lack of vigilance in enforcing the law, said the corporate regulator would toughen its stance.

But ASIC chairman James Shipton also cast doubt over the government’s “industry funding model” for the watchdog, telling parliament he faced a cash shortfall to fund the expected 50 criminal and civil prosecutions to be launched against rogue executives and corporations over the next two years.

In numerous speeches since taking over as ASIC chairman in February, Mr Shipton has stressed the need to improve ethics and integrity in financial services to mitigate misconduct.

Lehman Brothers collapsed in October 2008, ushering in months of near unprecedented global financial turmoil, which prompted regulators to redraft prudential regulations.

Finalised last year, the revamped Basel bank regulations capped bank leverage at about 33 times their shareholders’ funds, and curbed banks’ ability to set their own equity requirements.

Since 2007 the major banks’ capital ratios — equity as a share of their total assets — has increased from 4.4 per cent to about 5.7 per cent.

Mr Llewellyn said economists were under “considerable pressure” to play down concerns. “Investment bank economists and most analysts have an employer … with a vested interest in the status quo: few are genuinely independent, and those who are generally have only limited access to the media,” he added.

Higher capital ratios reduce “return on equity” and curb the implicit subsidy from government to financial institutions. “Honest analysts are therefore hesitant to shout when they see crisis as imminent,” he said.

Ratings agencies were “less dysfunctional”, Dr Llewellyn said.

“But still no fundamental change has taken place in the incentives facing them — it is still the ‘ratee’ who pays,” he said.

Ratings giant S&P puts the major Australian banks in the bottom half of its global rankings for “risk adjusted capital”, noting they experienced among the “steepest declines” globally in 2017.

“Following unwarranted fiscal stimulus, the equity market is near an all-time high, and valuations are stretched,” Dr Llewellyn said.

=================

Ten signs we’re heading for economic Armageddon

Ten signs we’re heading for economic Armageddon  By Liam Dann, Herald News Business Editor, 11 February 2018

This week’s global share market bloodbath was “a small tremor before the big earthquake” as the world moves “ever closer to economic Armageddon”, a former Australian government economist has warned.

John Adams, a former Coalition policy adviser who last year identified seven signs that the global economy was heading for a crash — later warning the window for action had closed — believes the US$4 trillion wipe-out was just the opening act of his apocalyptic prophecy playing out.

“When the economic earthquake hits, don’t be surprised to see soaring interest rates, massive falls in asset prices [like] shares, real estate and bonds, higher unemployment and widespread bankruptcies,” he said.

Adding to previously identified economic indicators such as household debt and record low-interest rates, Mr Adams has expanded his list of warning signs to 10, including rising inflation — fear of which had a hand in the latest sell-off.

“Against a whole range of economic and financial metrics, the Australian and international bubble which I warned about in 2017 has continued to grow larger over the past 12 months,” he said.

“Australian household debt has never been higher — now at nearly 200 per cent as a proportion of disposable income — household savings have slumped, the US share market is now in a bigger bubble than 1929, risky derivatives are now being sold in significant quantities and global debt is $US80 trillion more than it was in 2008.”

Adams said those born after 1973 — people under the age of 44 — had never experienced a major economic downturn as a working adult and hence needed to ensure they didn’t succumb to “normalcy bias”.

“Australians should be concerned about what lies ahead for themselves and the country as a whole,” he said, predicting a collapse likely to be more severe than the 1991 recession and which may potentially rival both the 1890 and 1929 depressions.

Those concerned can take some precautions for hard economic times, he added, by reducing their personal spending, increasing savings and having more cash on hand, paying down debt, reducing their exposure to risky or overvalued assets and managing the risk of rising prices, including interest rate payments.

“We all must assume personal responsibility and take pre-emptive action to ensure that we are able to ride out harsher economic times that are coming to our shores.”

SIGN 1: RECORD HOUSEHOLD DEBT

“According to the Reserve Bank of Australia, Australian household debt as a proportion of disposable income continues to soar and reached an all-time high in September 2017 of 199.7 per cent as the Australian Bureau of Statistics recently included debt from self-managed superfunds into this statistic,” Adams said.

This has parallels in the local market, where New Zealand national debt topped half a trillion dollars at the end of last year, up 7.3 percent from a 12 months earlier.

The Reserve Bank figures (for the year to April 30) show household debt has topped $250b, driven by rising property prices and an increase in consumer borrowing.

That’s an increase of more than 60 per cent in 10 years.

SIGN 2: DECLINING HOUSEHOLD SAVINGS

“Coinciding with the rise in household debt, Australian household savings have fallen to their lowest level since the 2008 GFC,” Adams said.

“According to the ABS, the Household Saving Ratio (seasonally adjusted) has fallen from a high of 10.1 per cent in the December quarter of 2008 to 3.0 per cent and 3.2 per cent in the June and September quarters of 2017 respectively.”

Comparatively, New Zealanders have fared better in this regard with improved savings helping to offset total volume of debt.

However, the risks remain high.

For New Zealand households, the ratio of debt to income has now reached a record – 168 per cent, well above the pre-financial crisis peak of 159 per cent.

SIGN 3: CONTINUED RECORD LOW INTEREST RATES

“Despite foreign central banks raising interest rates, the RBA has continued to keep the official cash rate at 1.5 per cent,” Adams said.

“However, in December 2012 former RBA Governor Glenn Stevens warned that interest rates kept too low for too long would prove macroprudential controls ineffective in controlling systemic financial risk as people would be driven to over borrow given the cheap rates.”

Last week, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) held the official cash rate steady at 1.75 per cent, saying monetary policy will “remain accommodative for a considerable period”.

However, following the market uncertainty over the last seven days, acting Reserve Bank governor Grant Spencer warned that there could be more volatility to come.

SIGN 4: GROWING HOUSING BUBBLE

“Concentration of credit in the Australian housing market continued to grow by 7.23 per cent from June 2016 to June 2017. As of June 2017, Credit to Housing as a proportion of Australian Gross Domestic Product reached a 26-year high of 95.33 per cent compared to 21.07 per cent in June 1991,” Adams said.

“Over the same period, credit which has been directed at the business sector or to other personal expenses have remained relatively steady as a proportion of GDP.”

New Zealand has benefitted from a cooling housing market (particularly in Auckland), which saw the rate of credit growth ease last year.

In terms of housing credit growth, things “have definitely improved”, Spencer told the Herald last year.

 

SIGN 5: CONTINUED INCREASE IN GLOBAL DEBT

“Global debt continues to grow, driven especially by rapid growth of debt in emerging economies,” Adams said.

“According to the Institute for International Finance’s January 2018 Global Debt Monitor Report, global debt reached a record high of $US233 trillion in the third quarter of 2017 or 318 per cent of global GDP, representing growth in global debt of 8 per cent through the first three quarters of 2017.

“Global debt is now $US80 trillion higher than the end of 2007 with current interest rates substantially lower relative to the pre-GFC period.”

SIGN 6: MAJOR INTERNATIONAL ASSET BUBBLES KEEP GROWING

“The past 12 months has seen significant growth in major asset class values (particularly shares) across the world which has been fuelled by the significant increase in global debt,” Adams pointed out.

“For example, according to the PE Shiller Index, the US share market (as measured by the price of a company’s share relative to average earnings over the past 10 years for US companies in the S&P 500) is now at its second highest valuation level in history at 32.62, with the highest being the 1999 dotcom bubble.”

According to the PE Shiller Index, Adams said, the bubble in US share market is now bigger than the peak reached in September 1929 which was 32.54.

SIGN 7: INCREASING INFLATION

“In late 2017, inflation started to emerge in developed economies, beating the targets set by national governments and central banks,” Adams said.

“This emerging inflation was driven in part from rising global oil prices which increased by 51 per cent, along with increases in other commodities, over the past seven months.”

This has had a significant impact on a number of developed economies int he world.

“In 2017, the US Producer Price Index hit an annual rate of 3.1 per cent (a six-year high) and the US Consumer Price Index grew by an annual rate of 2.1 per cent whereas in the UK, inflation reached an annual rate of 3.1 per cent. In both the US and UK cases, inflation as measured by the CPI is above the stated 2 per cent target of the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England.”

The impact stretches well beyond the US and the UK, Adams warned.

“Other developed countries such as Canada and Japan also saw a notable pick-up in inflation during 2017. Higher rates of inflation will put pressure on the value of bonds and currencies, placing countries that do not deal with inflation through higher interest rates at a competitive disadvantage as investors make lower returns.”

 

SIGN 8: TIGHTENING MONETARY POLICY AND RISING GLOBAL INTEREST RATES

“Many foreign governments in the past year have been tightening monetary policy (either through reducing or ending quantitative easing or through ‘quantitative tightening’) as well as raising interest rates,” Adams said.

“During late 2016 and all of 2017, interest rates were raised in both developed economies such as the US (four times, or 1 per cent), Canada (three times, or 0.75 per cent), or the UK (one time or 0.25 per cent) as well as smaller and emerging economies such as the Czech Republic, Mexico, Malaysia and Romania.”

Adams added that interest rates are expected to continue to rise in 2018 as global economic growth and inflation continue to rise.

“Higher interest rates will make the ability to service global debt increasingly more difficult.”

SIGN 9: INVERTED AND FLATTENING YIELD CURVES

“The US Government bond yield curve has continued to significantly flatten over 2017. In early 2018, the difference between the two-year and the 10-year bond yield reached approximately 0.5 per cent, which is the smallest difference since 2007.

“The Chinese bond yield curve (i.e. the difference in interest rates between the five-year and the 10-year bond) briefly inverted twice in 2017 and is now approximately less than 0.1 per cent.

“Inverted yield curves (i.e. where long-term debt instruments have a lower yield than short-term debt instruments of the same credit quality) are known as a market predictor of a coming market crash or broader economic recession.”

SIGN 10: RETURN OF RISKY DERIVATIVES

“According to the Bank for International Settlements, the value of the over-the-counter derivatives market (notional amounts outstanding) remained high between June 2016 and June 2017 to stand at $US542 trillion,” Adams said.

“Many of these derivatives contracts (which are agreements that allow for the possibility to purchase or sell some other type of financial instrument or non-financial asset) are concentrated on the balance sheets of leading global financial and banking institutions, are bought and sold privately, involve significant complexity and carry significant counter-party risk that many institutions and government regulators struggle to understand.”

Adams’ concern is supported by research out of a major bank.

“In November 2017, a research report from Citibank reported that ‘Synthetic Collateral Debt Obligations’, which were one of the main financial instruments responsible for the 2008 GFC, were now back and are being sold to investors in significant quantities and is expected to top $US100 billion by the end of 2017, up from $US20 billion in 2015.”

==================

The Greatest Bubble Ever: Why You Better Believe It – Part 1 & 2

The Greatest Bubble Ever, Why You Better Believe It – Part 1 and 2  By  David Stockman via Contra Corner blog, ZeroHedge, 31 December 2017

Read Part 1 here…

During the 40 months after Alan Greenspan’s infamous “irrational exuberance” speech in December 1996, the NASDAQ 100 index rose from 830 to 4585 or by 450%. But the perma-bulls said not to worry: This time is different—-it’s a new age of technology miracles that will change the laws of finance.

It wasn’t. The market cracked in April 2000 and did not stop plunging until the NASDAQ 100 index hit 815 in early October 2002. During those a heart-stopping 30 months of free-fall, all the gains of the tech boom were wiped out in an 84% collapse of the index. Overall, the market value of household equities sank from $10.0 trillion to $4.8 trillion—-a wipeout from which millions of baby boom households have never recovered.

Likewise, the second Greenspan housing and credit boom generated a similar round trip of bubble inflation and collapse. During the 57 months after the October 2002 bottom, the Russell 2000 (RUT) climbed the proverbial wall-of-worry—-rising from 340 to 850 or by 2.5X.

And this time was also held to be different because, purportedly, the art of central banking had been perfected in what Bernanke was pleased to call the “Great Moderation”. Taking the cue, Wall Street dubbed it the Goldilocks Economy—-meaning a macroeconomic environment so stable, productive and balanced that it would never again be vulnerable to a recessionary contraction and the resulting plunge in corporate profits and stock prices.

Wrong again!

During the 20 months from the July 2007 peak to the March 2009 bottom, the RUT gave it all back. And we mean every bit of it—-as the index bottomed 60% lower at 340. This time the value of household equities plunged by $6 trillion, and still millions more baby-boomers were carried out of the casino on their shields never to return.

Now has come the greatest central bank fueled bubble ever. During nine years of radical monetary experimentation under ZIRP and QE, the value of equities owned by US households exploded still higher—-this time by $12.5 trillion. Yet this eruption, like the prior two, was not a reflection of main street growth and prosperity, but Wall Street speculation fostered by massive central bank liquidity and price-keeping operations.

Nevertheless, this time is, actually, very different. This time the central banks are out of dry powder and belatedly recognize that they have stranded themselves on or near the zero bound where they are saddled with massively bloated balance sheets.

So an epochal pivot has begun—-led by the Fed’s committment to shrink its balance sheet at a $600 billion annual rate beginning next October. This pivot to QT (quantitative tightening) is something new under the sun and was necessitated by the radical money printing spree of the past three decades.

What this momentous pivot really means, of course, is ill understood in the day-trading and robo-machine driven casinos at today’s nosebleed valuations. Yet what is coming down the pike is nothing less than a drastic, permanent downward reset of financial asset prices that will rattle the rafters in the casino.

This time is also very different because there will be no instant financial market reflation by the central banks. And that means, in turn, that there will be no fourth great bubble, either. Here’s why.

PART 2

As we explained in Part 1, the most dangerous place on the planet financially is now the Wall Street casino. In the months ahead, it will become ground zero of the greatest monetary/fiscal collision in recorded history.

For the first time ever both the Fed and the US treasury will be dumping massive amounts of public debt on the bond market—upwards of $1.8 trillionbetween them in FY 2019 alone—and at a time which is exceedingly late in the business cycle. That double whammy of government debt supply will generate a thundering “yield shock” which, in turn, will pull the props out from under equity and other risk asset markets—-all of which have “priced-in” ultra low debt costs as far as the eye can see.

The anomalous and implicitly lethal character of this prospective clash can not be stressed enough. Ordinarily, soaring fiscal deficits occur early in the cycle. That is, during the plunge unto recession, when revenue collections drop and outlays for unemployment benefits and other welfare benefits spike; and also during the first 15-30 months of recovery, when Keynesian economists and spendthrift politicians join hands to goose the recovery—-not understanding that capitalist markets have their own regenerative powers once the excesses of bad credit, malinvestment and over-investment in inventory and labor which triggered the recession have been purged.

By contrast, the Federal deficit is now soaring at the tail end (month #102) of an aging business expansion. And the cause is not the exogenous effects of so-called automatic fiscal stabilizers associated with a macroeconomic downturn, but deliberate Washington policy decisions made by the Trumpian GOP.

During FY 2019, for example, these discretionary plunges into deficit finance include slashing revenue by $280 billion, while pumping up an already bloated baseline spending level of $4.375 trillion by another $200 billion for defense, disasters, border control, ObamaCare bailouts and domestic pork barrel of every shape and form.

These 11th hour fiscal maneuvers, in fact, are so asinine that the numbers have to be literally seen to be believed. To wit, an already weak-growth crippled revenue baseline will be cut to just $3.4 trillion, while the GOP spenders goose outlays toward the $4.6 trillion mark.

That’s right. Nine years into a business cycle expansion, the King of Debt and his unhinged GOP majority on Capitol Hill have already decided upon (an nearly implemented) the fiscal measures that will result in borrowing 26 cents on every dollar of FY 2019 spending. JM Keynes himself would be grinning with self-satisfaction.

Moreover, this foolhardy attempt to re-prime-the-pump nearly a decade after the Great Recession officially ended means that monetary policy is on its back foot like never before.

What we mean is that both Bernanke and Yellen were scared to death of the tidal waves of speculation that their money printing policies of QE and ZIRP had fostered in the financial markets. So once the heat of crisis had clearly passed and the market had recovered its pre-crisis highs in early 2013, they nevertheless deferred, dithered and procrastinated endlessly on normalization of interest rates and the Fed’s elephantine balance sheet.

So what we have now is a central bank desperately trying to recapture lost time via its “automatic pilot” commitment to systematic and sustained balance sheet shrinkage at fixed monthly dollar amounts. This unprecedented “quantitative tightening” or QT campaign has already commenced at $1o billion of bond sales per month (euphemistically described as “portfolio run-off” by the Eccles Building) during the current quarter and will escalate automatically until it reaches $50 billion per month ($600 billion annualized) next October .

Needless to say, that’s the very opposite of the “accommodative” Fed posture and substantial debt monetization which ordinarily accompanies an early-cycle ballooning of Uncle Sam’s borrowing requirements. And the present motivation of our Keynesian monetary central planners is even more at variance with the normal cycle.

To wit, they plan to stick with QT come hell or high water because they are in the monetary equivalent of a musket reloading mode. Failing to understand that the main street economy essentially recovered on its own after the 2008-2009 purge of the Greenspanian excesses (and that’s its capacity to rebound remains undiminished), the Fed is desperate to clear balance sheet headroom and regain interest rate cutting leverage so that it will have the wherewithal to “stimulate” the US economy out of the next recession.

Needless to say, this kind of paint-by-the-numbers Keynesianism is walking the whole system right into a perfect storm. When the GOP-Trumpian borrowing bomb hits the bond market next October we will  already be in month #111 of the current expansion cycle and as the borrowing after-burners kick-in during the course of the year, FY 2019 will close out in month #123.

Here’s the thing. The US economy has never been there before. Never in the recorded history of the republic has a business expansion lasted 123 months. During the post-1950 period shown below, the average expansion has been only 61 months and the two longest ones have their own disabilities.

The 105 month expansion during the 1960s was fueled by LBJ’s misbegotten “guns and butter” policies and ended in the dismal stagflation of the 1970s. And the 119 month expansion of the 1990s reflected the Greenspan fostered household borrowing binge and tech bubbles that fed straight into the crises of 2008-2009.

Yet the Trumpian-GOP has not only presumed to pump-up the fiscal deficit to 6.2% of GDP just as the US economy enters the terra incognito range of the business cycle (FY 2019); it has actually declared its virtual abolition. Ironically, in fact, on December 31, 2025 nearly all of the individual income cuts expire—-meaning that in FY 2026 huge tax increases  will smack the household sector at a $200 billion run-rate!

But not to worry. The GOP’s present-day fiscal geniuses insist that the current business expansion, which will then be 207 months old, will end up no worse for the wear. The public debt will then total $33 trillion or 130% of GDP—even as the US economy gets monkey-hammered by huge tax increase.

Alas, no harm, no foul. The business expansion is presumed to crank forward through FY 2027 or month #219.

Needless to say, the whole thing degenerates into a sheer fiscal and economic fairy-tale when you examine the data and projections. But that hasn’t deterred the GOP’s fiscal dreamers.

Not only have they implicitly embraced an out-of-this-word 219 month business cycle expansion, but they have also insisted it will unfold at an average nominal GDP growth rate that has not been remotely evident at any time during the 21st century.

As shown in the chart below, the 10-year CBO forecast of nominal GDP (yellow line) is already quite optimistic relative to where GDP would print under the actual growth rate of the last ten-years (blue line). In fact, the CBO forecast generates $16 trillion of extra GDP and nearly $3 trillion more Federal revenue than would a replay of the last 10-years—and notwithstanding the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus during that period.

Still, the GOP/Trump forecast (grey line) assumes a full percentage point of higher GDP growth on top of CBO and no intervening recession and resulting GDP relapse.

Accordingly, the GOP assumes $30 trillion of extra GDP over the coming decade or nearly 23% more than would be generated by the actual growth rate (blue line) of the last decade; and consequently, $6 trillion of extra revenue.

That’s right. An already geriatric business cycle is going t0 rear-up on its hind legs and take off into a new phase of growth in the face of an epochal pivot of monetary policy to QT and a public debt burden relative to GDP that is approaching a Greek-style end game.

(Note: Figures in the box are inverted. First line should be 2006-2012 redux and third line should be Trump forecast.)

Stated differently, fiscal policy has descended into the hands of political mad-men at the very time that monetary policy is inexorably slouching toward normalization. Under those circumstances there is simply no way of avoiding the “yield shock” postulated above, and the cascading “reset” of financial asset prices that it will trigger across the length and breadth of the financial system.

As usual, however, the homegamers are the last to get the word. The unaccountable final spasm of the stock market in 2017 will undoubtedly come to be seen as the last call of the sheep to the slaughter. And owing to the speculative mania that has been fostered by the Fed and its fellow-traveling central banks, it now appears that the homegamers are all-in for the third time since 1987.

Indeed, Schwab’s retail clients have never, ever had lower cash allocations than at the present time—not even during the run-up to the dotcom bust or the great financial crisis.

But this time these predominately baby-boom investors are out of time and on the cusp of retirement—if not already living on one of the Donald’s golf resorts. When the crash comes they will have no opportunity to recover—-nor will Washington have the wherewithal to stimulate another phony  facsimile of the same.

The GOP-Trumpian gang has already blown their wad on fiscal policy and the Fed is stranded high and dry still close the zero-bound and still saddled with an elephantine balance sheet.

That is, what is fundamentally different about the greatest financial bubble yet is that there is no possibility of a quick policy-induced reflation after the coming crash. This time the cycle will be L-shaped—– with financial asset prices languishing on the post-crash bottom for years to come.

And that is a truly combustible condition. That is, 65% of the retirement population already lives essentially hand-to-month on social security, Medicare and other government welfare benefits (food stamps and SSI, principally). But after the third financial bubble of this century crashes, tens of millions more will be driven close to that condition as their 401Ks again evaporate.

That’s why the fiscal game being played by the Donald and his GOP confederates is so profoundly destructive. Now is the last time to address the entitlement monster, but they have decided to throw fiscal caution to the winds and borrow upwards of $1.6 trillion (with interest) to enable US corporations to fund a new round of stock buybacks, dividend increases and feckless, unproductive M&A deals.

 

Then again, what the GOP has not forgotten is the care and feeding of its donor class. That mission is being accomplished handsomely as it fills up the deep end of the Swamp with pointless, massive defense spending increases and satisfies K-Street with a grotesquely irresponsible tax bill that was surely of the lobbies, by the PACs and for the money.

At the end of the day, however, the laws of free markets and sound finance will out. The coming crash of the greatest bubble ever will prove that in spades.

=====================

Previous articles

Posted in World finance: when will the bubble burst? | Comments Off on Banksters, other financial criminals and the greedies

Government for the Silent Majority

The KiS report – “Keep it Simple” – Government for the silent majority.

The full report can be downloaded as a PDF file: KiS full report 100316  The report summary and table of contents are provided below.

The KiS  report describes an Australian government the ‘silent majority’ of voters would likely have elected – if they had the choice.

Why?  Because because it would benefit them far, far more than any recent governments which have evolved since federation over a century ago.  Many would say most if not all aspects of government have gone downhill ever since.  Like a corporation that is failing badly, the Australian Government needs a fundamental restructure – a ‘root and branch’ rebuild based on the needs of 2016 and the future.

The report includes assessments of, and proposed solutions to, key factors voters expect their governments to lead and manage appropriately on their behalf such as: finance, debt, defence, environment, law and order, energy availability, pollution regulations, immigration, taxation, healthcare, recreational drugs, education, infrastructure and related planning approaches.

Please note this report was written nearly 5 years ago and is in dire need of updating in some areas.  However, the substantive points remain valid, and the overall proposed solution will not change significantly in the update.  A few areas such as the system for taxation will be modified, as will aspects of foreign relationships.

Whilst the report is focused on the Australian government, much of the report could be applied to most governments in democratic countries.

About the author: Peter Senior CV March 2016 – email: petersenior42@gmail.com

The report Table of Contents, then the Summary, are below:

KiS Report – Table of Contents

1Summary

2.  Introduction
2.01  There are glimmers of hope
2.02  Check the roadmap first

3.  Issues Influencing KiS Government
3.01  Democracy evolution
3.02  The modern nation-state
3.03  Cargo Cult mentality
3.04  Immigration
3.05  Freedom of speech
3.06  Trade unions, labour laws and productivity
3.07  Standards, regulations and intrusion
3.08  ‘Carbon pollution’ v. weather
3.09  The ‘green mafia’
3.10  Water management
3.11  Energy management
3.12  Global governance
3.13  NGO influence
3.14  Bureaucracy and convoluted government management
3.15  Levels of government

3.16  Justice
3.17  Economics and financial management
3.18  The modern politician
3.19  Human imperfections and differences

4.  KiS Issue Summary

5.  KiS Philosophy

6.  KiS Vision for Australia

7.  KiS Management
7.01  Management 101 delivers optimum results
7.02  A starting point to improve on

8.  KiS Government Organisation
8.01  KiS national government objective
8.02  KiS national government law process
8.03  National Government structure
8.04  Two levels of government
8.05  Democracy

9.  KiS Government management
9.01  Criminal Justice
9.02  National and local service fees
9.03  Excise tax and royalties
9.04  Financial management
9.05  Commercial and financial oversight
9.06  Citizenship and Visas
9.07  Infrastructure and the environment
9.08  Labour laws and productivity
9.09  Welfare
9.10  Retirement
9.11  Health
9.12  Education

10.  Implementing KiS Government
10.01  Transition plan
10.02  KiS government activities and resources
10.03  Planning and plans
10.04  International agreements and foreign aid
10.05  Asset ownership
10.06  Process and regulation simplification
10.07  Culture and values tests
10.08  Guardian group and freedom of speech
10.09  Communicating KiS changes

11.  Would the Silent Majority Vote for KiS?
11.01  Are the silent majority of Australian voters sufficiently fed up?
11.02  Boiling frog syndrome
11.03  An about-turn by politicians as well as the silent majority?

Appendices
A.  Australian immigration history
B.  The Greens’ agenda
C.   ‘Carbon Pollution’ in the UK
D.  The Silent Majority (1):  Australian divorce
E.  The Silent Majority (2):  ‘I’m tired’ (US)
F.  The Silent Majority (3):  What good people do
G. ‘The Australian Government beat me to it’

KiS Report Summary

Surveys, ‘pub-talk’ and media comment indicate that most Australians are very dissatisfied with their Government.  Few voters believe that current political parties can fix the plethora of problems which arise from the government itself – and politicians tend to exacerbate problems rather than fixing them.

Voter frustrations include: excessive governmental intrusion and bureaucracy; financial regulator failures; abysmal government management of risk, building, health, water, energy and immigration; ineffective criminal justice; ‘carbon pollution’ taxes and waste; the ‘green mafia’; variability of freedom of speech; covert influence from some NGOs; inadequate employment laws; and the regularity of politicians’ breaking of promises.

No democratic government in the world is widely viewed as very successful, so there is no ideal model to copy.  The complexity of government and the depth of related problems are too entrenched for incremental improvements to be effective.  A keep-it-simple policy could provide the best solution.  KiS is a completely different way of democratic government, starting with a ‘clean slate’ and applying the best management practices.  Key components of a KiS government would include:

  • Recognition that competent and diligent governmental staff are often thwarted by excessive complexity and by covert agendas of power brokers and ideologues.
  • Government structure comprises two levels: national and local.  States have figurehead roles only.  Local governments have wider roles including health and education boards.
  • House of Representatives and Senate member numbers are reduced to a total of 100.  Members demonstrate excellent competencies and comply with fiduciary duties of care.
  • All taxes are replaced by ‘flat rate service fees’ introduced over 3 years: 20% on individual incomes and 10% on business expenditure.  Compliance is simple.
  • Businesses such as mining companies using natural resources pay economic rents which enable fair profits and encourage investment and growth, including overseas investment.
  • Recreational drugs are not illegal.  Excise duties are charged on alcohol, tobacco and recreational drugs at rates that cover all related costs with rigorous auditing and penalties.
  • Government processes, systems and regulations are reviewed using ‘clean slate’ methods that optimise efficiency and effectiveness, and, if necessary, are modified or replaced.
  • All government departments have audited plans that conform to guidelines reflecting best practices, and which include preparation for such contingencies as catastrophic weather.
  • The criminal justice system focuses first on full compensation of all victims’ losses and all related judicial costs, then on the rehabilitation of criminals.  When appropriate and possible, custodial sentences consist of home detention – prison is a last resort.
  • Government asset ownership is retained only if no better alternative be available.
  • Commercial and financial oversight is strengthened to ensure that GFC-type greed and excesses are not repeated.  Net government debt is eliminated as soon as practical.
  • All government funding relating to ‘carbon pollution’ ceases.  Related actions are reviewed after rigorous assessments and recommendations from a Royal Commission.
  • Immigrant assessments are completed and decisions made within three months.  Immigrants sign contracts agreeing to abide by Australian law and to support Australian culture and values.  Major transgressors are evicted from Australia.
  • A Guardian group investigates concerns about covert influence and behaviour.
  • Implementation is gradual over several years; each step builds on the last success.

KiS solutions focus on the concerns and wishes of the ‘silent majority’ of voters — the antithesis of political power-brokers, ideologues and rent-seekers.  KiS proposals are not intended to be definitive; rather they provide a basis for improvements and further reforms.

Are the ‘silent majority’ of voters so fed up with existing governments that they would vote for radical change such as KiS?  Would sufficient candidates with the requisite competence and credibility stand for KiS and promote it, or would an existing political party adopt KiS policies if it became clear a growing movement of voters demand change?  Failure to implement radical change soon will result in Australian politics and government descending even further into complexity, intrusion and waste with little hope of real reform.

Posted in Better Government | Comments Off on Government for the Silent Majority

The Rise and Fall of the EU

European countries ruled the world for centuries.  Since WWII the fall from grace has accelerated.  Now it remains to be seen how Britain’s EU exit, and mass immigration, pan out.

Note: more articles are available at the end of this post

Who’s destroying England and Western Europe?

 

Who’s destroying England and Western Europe  By Jon Rappoport, July 10, 2018

 

As the “British Exit (Brexit)” stalls in the UK, Italy picks up the torch of resistance…

~~

June 4, 2017

“Here’s a great idea, boys.  Gather around.  We’re going to build, on top of every national government on the European continent, another government, bigger, more bloated, more corrupt, more powerful.  Who’ll notice?  Who’ll care?”

“Terrific.  Love it.  But ultimately we’ll need to destroy all those separate countries and rule the whole continent as one entity.  We can do that, yes.  We’ll open all borders and let in a massive flow of immigrants and erase national identities.  Terror attacks will multiply.  We’ll put a lid on talking about immigrants as the cause of the terror.  Call it hate speech.  We’ll train the population of Europe to accept terrorism as part of the glorious future.  It makes no logical sense, but so what?  No top-down ideology ever made sense.  We’ll preach unlimited tolerance and love.  We’ll be a de facto Church of sorts.  We’ll hypnotize the whole continent…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

As I was writing this article, multiple terror attacks were launched in London.  To say the human destruction “once again raised the question of immigration” would be a vast understatement.

In the run-up to the Brexit vote in 2016, immigration came to the fore as the key issue.  But of course, the European Union has a policy of opening borders of all member countries.

The EU wants one continent, no separate countries—and the way to achieve that is by creating a massive flood of migrants.  Destroy traditions and cultures that define countries.  In the process, accept terrorism as “inevitable.”  Don’t talk or write about the actual effects of immigration.  That would be “hate speech.”  Keep eyes and mouth shut, and march straight ahead into a future of one European continent ruled from above by the EU.

Ever since the UK vote to leave the unelected, terminally corrupt, and rotting edifice known as the European Union, stall tactics and threats have been launched at Brits.

First it was, “It’s going to take a long time to untangle the UK from the EU, it’s very complicated.”  Actually, that tactic was predated by Prince Obama traveling to England to warn the population they’d stand at the back of the line in forming separate trade deals with the US, if they left the EU.  It’s called interfering in the political affairs of another nation.  Now it’s the EU and Queen Merkel beating the UK to the punch by plotting trade deals with India and China, in order to leave the British out in the cold.

But the basic question is, Is Britain a nation?  Does it exist?  It’s a question citizens are supposed to answer.  Not Merkel, Obama, or the EU.

This issue, in case it’s unclear, is all about Globalism.  According to that totalitarian political philosophy, of which the EU is a standard bearer, there are no nations.  There are only mega-corporations and banks.

As the recently departed guru of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote in 1969, “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

This is not only a political and economic statement, it’s a prescriptive piece of psychological advice: Stop thinking of yourself as a citizen of a country; you’re a global citizen; you exist and function at the pleasure of a new collaborative international order.

And the new order will triumph.  Bow your heads and accept it.

Unless people get up on their hind legs and say no, which is what happened in the 2016 Brexit vote.

Defection.  Decentralization.  Independence.

Hideous words to the ears of Globalists.

Their basic strategy, since the end of World War 2, has been to spin a highly complex network of political and economic relationships, from one end of the world to the other—a labyrinth—from which escape is seen as virtually impossible.

Trade deals like NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT are only part of this system.  The EU itself keeps churning out thousands of rules, regulations, and laws.

Build the maze; put national governments and populations in the maze.

Then more or less claim the planet would collapse without the maze.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker just issued a “maze statement” to President Trump after Trump rejected the Globalist Paris Climate (non-) Treaty: “Europe’s duty is to say: it’s not like that.  The Americans can’t just leave the climate protection agreement. Mr. Trump believes that [he can] because he doesn’t know the details…We tried to explain that to Mr. Trump in Taormina in clear German sentences.  It seems that our attempt failed, but the law is the law, and it must be obeyed. Not everything which is law and not everything in international agreements is fake news, and we have to comply with it.”

Supremely arrogant, Juncker was winging it and writing his own script, because, in fact, the US didn’t sign on to a treaty in Paris.  Obama tried to unilaterally bind the US to the climate pact, when a two-third’s vote by the US Senate is actually required for such international agreements.  And no Senate vote was taken.

But this is the EU’s preemptive attitude toward defection, decentralization, and independence.

In the case of Brexit, climate change wasn’t the issue.  Immigration was.  The EU tried its best to chastise England for daring to insist unlimited numbers of migrants might be too many.  “You’re in the maze, stay in the maze.”

And there is another vector of attack being launched at England: reminders the nation is evil for its colonial practices, which can never, ever be erased.  But the covert leaders in that propaganda effort, the EU and its Globalist bosses, feel entitled in their own attempt to colonize the whole planet.  “Your colonizing was bad, ours is good.”

With an annual budget in the vicinity of $100 billion, the EU is intractably corrupt and incompetent.  It’s estimated that $5 billion a year is stolen from that budget.  As for the other $95 billion, what is it for?  Nations can govern themselves.  The EU could disappear tomorrow and no one would catch a cold.  The entire bloated structure, employing between 30 and 50 thousand people (depending on how far the count is extended) is a vast boondoggle.

It’s astonishing that anyone in the UK would feel a sense of loyalty to the EU.

There is nothing strange about Brexit at all.  It’s a natural reaction: One day, a house pet goes outside and wanders off into the woods and never comes back.  Who is really surprised?

The “system” called the EU insists that terrorism is somehow a price the British people must pay for entering “a better future for all.”  Don’t ask what that future looks like.  Don’t think about it.  The UK doesn’t have the right to set its own immigration policy.

The chaos and destruction that result from open borders are simply an “adjustment period,” after which things will settle down.  A new and better England and Europe will emerge.  Diversity will triumph.  How?  Don’t worry about that, be happy.

You see, diversity is a high-minded principle, and by definition it implies a more humane society.  Therefore, there is no counter-evidence.  Facts are unimportant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The latest London attacks are a message to the British people: You may have exited from the EU, but the EU policy on immigration still stands.

No it doesn’t.  Britain is free to set its own policy.

To do so, politically correct speech will have to be jettisoned.  Facts will have to be widely expressed.  Lies will have to be widely exposed.

The EU will need to be named as a driving force in immigration, and the results of migration will need to be laid at its door.

The EU sees immigrant terrorism as its ticket to greater control over Europe.

The London attacks are a challenge thrown in Britain’s face.  Bow down and accept; or rebel.

Leaving the EU means LEAVING the EU.

How many times must British citizens witness these attacks and watch police come in after the fact?  How long before leaving means LEAVING?

How long before the British people realize that the flood of migrants is not simply “a refugee crisis” created by the US and its allies, whose imperialist policies of Empire and wars in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, initiate “blowback?”

How long before they see numbers of these “refugees” are just military-age young men who arrive with destruction on their minds?

How long before they see England is riddled with EU agents who are “forwarding a humane immigration policy,” come hell or high water?

One continent, under no liberty and no justice, with suffering and slavery for all.

How long before they leave THAT?

 

 

Use this link to order Jon’s Matrix Collections.

 

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

 

 

You can find this article and more at NoMoreFakeNews.

======================

This Is the New Italy

This Is the New Italy  By Attilio Moro, Strategic Culture Foundation, 1 June 2018

Sesto San Giovanni, a town on the outskirts of Milan, used to be one of the industrial capitals of Italy.

With around 200,000 inhabitants (45,000 blue collar workers, and a robust middle class), it was the headquarters of some of the most dynamic Italian companies, including Magneti Marelli, Falck, Breda and many more.

Today Sesto is an industrial desert – the factories are gone, the professional middle class has fled, many stores have shut down, and the city is trying to reinvent itself as a medical research center.

Twenty-three kilometers (14 miles) to the north of Sesto, the town of Meda was the seat of various symbols of Italian excellence: Salotti Cassina and Poltrona Frau, both of which exported high-quality furniture all over the world and employed tens of thousands of workers and designers. They fed a number of small family-based companies providing parts and highly qualified seasonal labour. Today both companies are gone.

Montezemolo: Public enemy

Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, a former chairman of Ferrari, Fiat and Alitalia, and now a public enemy because of his dismissal of the “Made in Italy” label, acquired both companies and moved them to Turkey, choosing profit over quality—and Italian jobs. Montezemolo, of aristocratic background, is a champion of Italian neoliberalism, having founded the influential “free market” think tank Italia Futura (Future Italy) in 2009.

Another victim is the town of Sora, with a population of 25,000, 80 km. (50 miles) east of Rome. Until recently Sora was an affluent commercial city, with medium-sized paper factories and hundreds of shops. Today, all of the factories are gone and 50 percent of shops have closed.

All over Italy, the neoliberal policies that led to the economic crisis and resulting social decadence have accelerated in the wake of the financial collapse of 2007.

Once The Stalingrad of Italy

Sesto San Giovanni used to be known as ‘the Italian Stalingrad’, due to the strength of its working class and the Communist Party receiving over 50 percent of the vote. Now the strongest party in town is the Lega (The League), a right wing, xenophobic party. This has been accompanied by a demographic shift, as Sesto has lost almost one third of its population, but acquired tens of thousands of immigrants, which today constitute almost 20 percent of its population.

The Italian Communist Party, once the strongest in the capitalist world, has in the meantime disappeared, together with the working class. There is also the destitution of a dwindling middle class accompanying the breakdown of the social fabric with rampant corruption. All the traditional political parties have been wiped away.

Sesto San Giovanni: Once the Italian Stalingrad

They have been replaced by the so-called ‘populists’: TheLega and the 5 Star Movement, undisputed winners of the latest elections in March, who are now in the process of trying to form a new government. The Lega expresses the frustrations of the north of Italy that is still productive (fashion, services and some high quality products), and demands lower taxes, as Italian taxes are among the highest in Europe. They also want a parallel national currency, a reduction in circulation of the Euro (which slows down exports, especially to Germany) and limits to immigration.

The 5 Star Movement, which is partly considered to be the heir of the former Communist Party but with a different social base consisting of an undifferentiated lower class replacing the disappearing working class. It advocates a moralization of the political parties and a universal basic income of 750 euros per month ($875) for the poorest to reduce the effects of the social disaster which took place in the south of the country in the last 10 years: 20 percent unemployment, affecting 40 percent of young people, making the mafia and organized crime the biggest ‘employers’ in the most critical southern regions.

This is the new Italy. The old one, the Italy of Fiat, Cassina, small family-run businesses, the Italy of the Christian Democrats, the Communist Party and vibrant working-class culture is no more.

==================

Open letter to EU boss Jean-Clause Juncker: yes, break up America!

 

Open letter to EU boss Jean-Clause Juncker, yes, break up America  By Jon Rappoport, 25 May 2018

“There is a line that governments cross. When they reach a certain size, and when they are exerting enough control, they turn around and tell their citizens, ‘We love you and we care about you and we help you. In return, all we ask is that you do whatever we tell you to do, no matter what the consequences are. That’s fair, isn’t it?'” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

 

Here is a piece I wrote in March of 2017. It was prompted by an outburst from European Union (EU) boss, Jean-Claude Juncker. “The Junk Man” is quite a piece of work. To put it nicely and politely, he’s an unelected gas bag:

The Express (March 30, 2017): “European Union boss Jean-Claude Juncker this afternoon issued a jaw-dropping threat to the United States, saying he could campaign to break up the country in revenge for Donald Trump’s supportive comments about Brexit.”

“In an extraordinary speech the EU Commission president said he would push for Ohio and Texas to split from the rest of America if the Republican president does not change his tune and become more supportive of the EU.”

Dear Jean-Claude,   You unfathomable twit, we love you! Come to America soon and help a few of our states secede from the US.   Our country is far too big. The federal government is a titanic engorged bureaucracy. The idea of a limited Republic is dead. The people are too distant from their ruling government—exactly the situation in which the people of Europe find themselves, with their unelected swollen overseers—of which you are the present leader.

You and your cronies and minions make the laws, and there is no recourse.   You’re a useless barnacle on the European continent. So come here and help Texas and Ohio secede. It’ll be a party. You might learn something.

I would suggest you begin with California. The state government presently has $440 billion in debt and unfunded liabilities stretching into the future. Perhaps you could help California cancel the unsolvable problem. “We’re free! We don’t owe anybody anything! It was all an illusion.”

Perhaps you could convince the new nation of California to take in 30 or 40 million more immigrants. “New citizens are good for the economy.” You know, use the same tactics you’re using in Europe. Prosecute anyone who speaks out against immigration. People need repressive fascism. It’s good for them.

I suggest New York City and Chicago should become countries. Why not? They’re big enough. Let them rise and fall on their own. That would be a sight to see. Chicago is the major trafficking hub for Sinaloa Cartel drugs. Chicago could come right out in the open and announce itself as Heroin Cocaine Central. “These are our products! This is what we sell! This is how we thrive!” New York is the world center for News. “Buy our fake stories! They’re limitless!”

Here’s another strategy you could promote. Link all 300 US sanctuary cities and colleges together as one nation. “We want to be the home for EVERYBODY from EVERYWHERE.” I think some kind of theocracy would work for this emerging nation. A Pope who favors infinite kindness. Citizens would be income-taxed at a rate of 80% to fund the grand altruistic program. Hollywood celebs would be appointed cardinals and bishops.

But here is a dire prediction. Somewhere along the line, as you carry out your plan for secessions, a US state that becomes a nation is going to pop up with a truly dangerous idea: SELF-SUFFICIENCY.

O the horror. That state is going to turn down all outside funding. It’s going to institute a robust free market, in which anyone can sell any non-harmful product or service, absent red tape. For example—a hundred different forms of natural-health treatments. On the other hand, a company that pollutes the landscape with poisonous chemicals and doesn’t immediately fix the problem will see its executives sent to prison for long terms. The people of this state will do their best to produce what they need from inside their own borders. Speaking of which, the state will do its best to keep out people who refuse to subscribe to hard work, earning their own way, and free speech. No political correctness. No triggering. No safe spaces. No need for them.

This could be your Waterloo, Jean-Claude. Suddenly, that state (a new nation) would be setting a shining example for other emerging nations to follow.

People would wake up to the life they’ve always wanted.   Wouldn’t it be interesting to watch you try to put that genie back in the bottle? You, the great defender of top-down arbitrary rule by Globalists. You, the entitled buffoon, who wants One Europe. You, the arrogant parasite on your throne.

Come to the US, Jean-Claude. We need many new Republics springing up across the land. Help us.   Liberate the buried spirit of America.   Perhaps you’ll feel your blood moving through your calcified veins again.

Well, perhaps not. You’re dedicated to the Big Bloat. In your gluttonous mind, the citizenry is suffering from a deficiency of bureaucracy, and you’re the prescribing doctor.

The EU employs 46,000 people. My God, that’s not nearly enough, even though each member nation already has its own federal government. Here’s an idea. Automatically make every migrant who comes to Europe an EU employee. What would they do? Promote and facilitate more immigration! Perfect!

Anyway, we’re waiting for you to come to America and help states secede from the Union. I’m ready to provide you with talking points. But first, I suggest you read an old dusty document called the US Constitution. You’ll find a trove of ideas there for newly minted nations like California and Texas.

If you really want to push a subversive destructive agenda in the US, and raise the ire of our federal government, wave the Constitution around and start citing sections of its corrosive doctrines. You’ll cause a great deal of trouble, I guarantee it.

You’ll probably land in jail. But we’ll back you. We’ll make you a hero.

FREE JUNCKER! FREE JUNCKER!

You’ll love it.

And when they shut down your budding Twitter account and You Tube Channel, we’ll take to the streets!

Come on, Junk Man, America is waiting.

=====================

Previous articles

Posted in The Rise and Fall of the EU | Comments Off on The Rise and Fall of the EU

The dogma of sustainability and renewables is ruining the power system