Angry National

2 Oct

Picture: Ella Pellegrini | Source: The Sunday Telegraph

Aren’t we all?

If not, we should be.

Especially over the looming financial assault on the citizens of Australia by this government, via their unconstitutional, 100% dishonest carbon “tax”.

From today’s Daily Telegraph:

Angry Anderson has joined the Nationals and will run for a seat in the next election

He is angry about the carbon tax and he is doing something about it.

Angry Anderson has joined the Nationals with the intention of running for a seat at the next federal election.

“If between the party and I, we can agree, I feel I can best serve the Australian people on the national stage,” the 63-year-old rock singer told The Sunday Telegraph.

“I’ve always liked big stages. We’re in discussions at the moment – listen to me, all of a sudden I sound like a politician” he laughs.

The former Labor supporter said he chose the Nationals because he didn’t feel that he would be free enough to express his opinions in either of the major parties.

“I am a lapsed Labor supporter,” Anderson said.

“I have over the last 10 to 15 years drifted towards the conservative side of politics. I’ve said before I don’t want to be silenced by a major party.”

While Anderson cited the Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce as a key influence, he said it was “good friend” and NSW Liberal Upper House member Charlie Lynn who suggested he consider the Nationals “as more of a better fit”.

The former Rose Tattoo frontman said being drawn into politics was a natural extension of his community service work.

“You can reach a stage like I have where you’ve done as much as you can in your profession in my case music and a political career becomes an extension of the community work I’m doing,” he said.

Anderson has been a prominent campaigner against the carbon tax, appearing at rallies around the country.

The Nationals … and Barnaby in particular … were the first (and still, the only) political party in Australia to see through the global warming/climate change fraud, call BS on it, and outright oppose.

They remain the only political party in the country genuinely focussed on the most important issues this nation faces – such as food and water security.

You know what I’d like to see, dear reader?

I’d like to see the Nationals break their formal coalition with the Liberal Party – who are architects of a sneaky plan now stolen and implemented by the ALP to steal your super by stealth.

I’d like to see the Nationals go it alone … giving them complete freedom to say what they wish, adopt whatever policies they think best, and form post-election coalition/s with whomever they see fit.


If we can’t have a Parliament of genuine Independents (rather than political party apparatchiks), each representing the true will of their local constituents, then an independent National Party would at least be a positive step in the right direction.

I’d even consider (sacré bleu!) joining an independent National party myself.

58 Responses to “Angry National”

  1. Tomorrows Serf October 2, 2011 at 9:43 am #

    Hell Angry, I’ll vote for you. (somehow)

  2. Oliver K. Manuel October 2, 2011 at 3:07 pm #

    Citizens feel betrayed and are angry worldwide!

    Government science became a tool of government propaganda, despite President Eisenhower’s warning about this specific danger on 17 Jan 1961:

    Today I parked next to a new Ford hybrid with government labels still in the windows, including a sticker that was new to me:


    This illustrates Big Brother’s contempt for the scientists that showed there is no valid scientific basis for the Global Warming story promoted by world leaders, Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  3. Andrew Richards October 2, 2011 at 5:45 pm #

    “The Nationals … and Barnaby in particular … were the first (and still, the only) political party in Australia to see through the global warming/climate change fraud, call BS on it, and outright oppose.

    They remain the only political party in the country genuinely focussed on the most important issues this nation faces – such as food and water security.”

    I need to call this out as a fallacy, if not a blatant lie. The Citizens Electoral Council ( have opposed the “green” aganda for the repackaged Nazism it is (happy to elaborate on that, but that is a long post in and of itself) and have been pushing for the restoration of our sovereignty as a nation, as well as a return to protectionism which would ensure it, since its inception in 1988.

    During this time the Nationals have been asleep at the wheel and working with the Liberals in the continuation of the Fabain economic policies started by Hawke and Keating (and heavily influenced by Ross Garnaut) under Howard, and are only just now waking up at the wheel.

    So let’s lose the rose coloured glasses here- the Nats have been complicit in the buildup to this and are only just now in these past few years, waking up to reality.

    Meanwhile, the only political party that has ever continuously cared about the general welfare of the people in this country has been subjected to a continuous media blackout- with the exception of a frameup where a gesture of “giving the hangman his noose” was reported as a death threat by a bunch of radicals.

    If the Nats gave a damn about this country, they’d join forces with the CEC and target our REAL enemy- the Monarchy and the International Banking cartel run out of the city of London. That’s where it’s all being run from, just as it was when the British Eugenics Society got together with British Nazis in 1961 to form the World Wildlife Fund for Nature in 1961.

    Yet the fact that they to this day, remain in coalition with the reformation of the UAP (the Liberals)- the party who supported facist armies in NSW during the Great Depression, and the people of Australia starving to death while Brittish bond-holders got richer and richer, really shows their true colours.

    Until that vchanges, let’s stop deluding ourselves that they’re serious about saving this country.

    • The Blissful Ignoramus October 2, 2011 at 7:37 pm #

      “I need to call this out as a fallacy, if not a blatant lie.”

      Andrew, you are entitled to your viewpoint, and rest assured that it is respected. I am perfectly happy for you (or others) to “call out” any errors I may make … if you provide supporting proof of same. However, since this is my blog, I would ask you to please refrain from making accusations of blatant lying, unless you are also able to prove that I have prior knowledge that what I write is untrue. That is my definition of “blatant lie”.

      In this instance, I was (a) not even aware that CEC is a registered political party (are they?), and/or (b) that they called BS on the global warming fraud prior to Barnaby / the Nats. If you have proof that they did, I’m perfectly open to your presenting said proof (NB: you have not done so). I am not saying you are wrong, Andrew; for all I know, you may be right about CEC. What I am merely pointing out, is that you have falsely accused me of lying, and then, not even provided proof of error, much less proof of “blatant” lying.

      I certainly agree with you that the Nats can and should do far more than they are doing to protect our sovereignty – hence, my own call in this very post for them to split from the Coalition.

      • Andrew Richards October 2, 2011 at 9:18 pm #

        My apologies if that came across as too strong. My point was that it was such an outright fallacy that it could only have been made by either a complete lack of knowledge, or a knowing lie. You have pointed out it was the former, which considering the premeditated
        media blackout against the CEC (and yes they ARE a registered political party and have been since 1988) I can believe that to be the case.

        The earliest public attack on the ideology of the “green” movement can actually be found in their earliest archived publication of New Citizen (Vol 5. No 4. Feb 2002 in the article “Prince Phillip and the Other Great Apes” (pg 15) but you will find that they have been aware of the Fasism and eugenic agenda and have campaigned on it from the getgo.

        If you genuinely want proof, I would advise checking that article and using the publications on their website as a launching point. However I would advise against it, unless, to paraphrase Morpheus from that iconic scene in the Matrix, you wish to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes….

      • JMD October 2, 2011 at 9:24 pm #

        Take a look at the link Mr Richards provided, I guarantee you a laugh.

    • Twodogs October 5, 2011 at 4:01 pm #

      Protectionism is self-interest at a sovereign level, and requires a failure of other countries to respond in kind. Rampant protectionism killed trade and growth and contributed greatly to the depression by preventing the flow of goods from efficient producers to less efficient ones. Wikipedia even claims to invalidate the legitimacy of differences in labour rates between countries.

      So Tony Abbott is a secret UAP mole and closet fascist? I suppose he hides it in his budgie smugglers?

      • Andrew Richards October 5, 2011 at 4:39 pm #

        More utter fallacy, based on Malthusian usurist garbage. To begin with, protectionism underpinned by nationalism fosters sovereignty by diversifying and developing local industries through the maximising of the creative potential of that nation’s population. Furthermore when exercised in a regional framework it leads to joint cooperation on massive infrastructure programs.

        Your alternative is the Adam Smith style rubbish economy we have now where small business is devoured by predatory corporate practices (free trade and deregulation go hand in hand), the destruction of productive industry and the destruction of agriculture. If you want proof of that, then open your eyes and take a good look at the way farming and manufacturing in this country has been utterly obliterated since the economic reforms of Hawke and Keating.

        As for your beloved wikipedia, I suggest you check out the following cartoon which accurately depicts how reliable wikipedia is:

        As for Abbott, the entire Liberal Party has the same ideology it has always had, favouring big business, which ultimately means the city of London. Things like Work Choices, privatisation (which is fascism by Roosevelt’s definition) and free trade have laways been their stock and trade. Heck, where do you think the Martin report’s findings were ripped from?

        Honestly, I can’t decide right now whether you’re brainwashed and ignorant or deliberately being a caricature.

        • The Blissful Ignoramus October 5, 2011 at 6:50 pm #


          The tone here is becoming unconducive to considered and polite discussion.

          I’d ask all commenters to please observe basic respect and courtesy for each other as fellow human beings and fellow countrymen… even if you violently disagree with their viewpoint. There’s plenty of interesting and insightful information and alternative perspectives being shared here.

          A gentle tip for all, in the form of an old wisdom.

          Advice is like snow.
          The softer it falls,
          The deeper it gets.

    • Twodogs October 5, 2011 at 8:10 pm #

      Continuous media blackout or ignored due to electoral irrelevance? Until you can show evidence of a media conspiracy, the simplest explanation of electoral irrelevance is the most likely.

      Who runs the international banking cartel from London? Isn’t it the Rothschilds? Or is it the jews? I never can tell!

  4. JMD October 2, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

    Hell, even I might join & my philosophy is voting only encourages the politicians!

    • The Blissful Ignoramus October 2, 2011 at 9:03 pm #

      I’m with you there JMD … it does just encourage them!

    • Twodogs October 5, 2011 at 6:51 pm #

      (This is a reply to Andrew Richards – for some reason there’s no reply option. Is there a message in there??).

      Firstly, LOL. You clearly misunderstood my sarcasm WRT Wikipedia. I was actually in serious disagreement with them, and am annoyed that it has not been challenged (although dissent is often discouraged or ignored). Wikipedia is okay as a rudimentary tool to find information, however it is politically biased and is polarising towards a particular world view, and i find this unsurprising.

      Your nationalistic ideology is in defiance of trade theory, which accurately predicts and describes economic benefits and wealth creation. It is somewhat simplistic, but as a theory it accurately predicts and explains our dramatic increase in collective wealth, or are you fixated with relative wealth like the socialists who will never be happy while there are people wealthier than themselves, despite being filthy rich by the standards of just 100 years ago. If you can’t explain the historic growth in wealth, how can you insist on a particular economic model?

      I don’t have time in one go to describe my full position on this, but it’s worth remembering for both of us that economics is far too complex to be entirely predictable, but there are principles which need to be debated as there are always unfulfilled potential benefits to society. Nationalism in an economic sense turns the somewhat arbitrary borders of our nations into demarcation lines of production. If you take protectionism to its logical conclusion, you produce all goods within your borders alone. This is fine to an extent if you’re the USA, but what if you’re Luxembourg? The true test is how poor or rich you as a nation become as a result. Do we pay filipinos double their going rate to produce shoes in sweatshop conditions while we do mining jobs for $100k p.a.? Or do we make Australians makes shoes on a minimum wage for some perceived national benefit? Add to that government subsidies to maintain minimum wages and other Australians paying through the nose for those shoes (we do anyway just quietly, but that is due to market manipulation, not free trade), and we are somehow better off? We have problems, sure, but our current government would rather tax us to oblivion rather than address such issues in a way that results in a net benefit to Australia.

      That said, i love free speech and i appreciate your alternative point of view! If either of us learn something out of such robust debate, then it is indeed a good thing. I’ll get to my “three strikes” later…

      • Andrew Richards October 5, 2011 at 7:50 pm #

        Twodogs, your post once again has far more to do with Malthusianism than trade theory. The fundamental idea you have with trade, is the exchanging of goods or services you have, for those you require- nowhere in there does it say that you should trade goods or services you have for those which you can provide yourself with. You ask “what about Luxembourg?”

        The answer there is simple- let Luxembourg innovate with science and technology to create technologies and processes which can only be accessed by trading with them.

        You’re entire argument reads like a manifesto for Adam Smith where you strip a country down to having one export. In our case that has become raw materials. That’s not an increase in wealth; that’s looting. How does the wealth of our resources stay in the country, when they are shipped overseas needlessly to add value to them in the form of manfacturing processes, then sold back to us as manufactured goods, with the profits going overseas? Alternatively, we should be manufacturing the goods locally and exporting them instead, where the wealth and profits stay in the country.

        You allude to sweatshops, but this is precisely why this form of economics is popular, because the only ones who benefit from it are the multinationals.

        You refer to the cost of things, but so much of that has been due to inflation due to looting the physical economy. The reality is that the value of our dollar is determined by the quality of our state owned infrastructure and our physical productivity. Between privatisation, the very deregulation you have argued against and a shift into more and more dodgy economic practices such as derivatives and mortgage backed securities, our physical economy has been sucked dry. It’s literally that simple, and as physical economists like Lyndon LaRouche have proven for the past 50 years, completely predictable. You’re confusing protectionism with a decoupled and deregulated economy here.

        It’s ironic that you’re so quick to call conspiracy theory on the issues with the British Crown I’ve raised. The reality is that both sides of politics in this country are merely puppets of different arms of the British Crown. The Liberals are as they were when they reformed from th UAP back in 1945. John Howard’s attitudes towards the queen and imperialism demonstrate that much (do you really think the party has changed in the last 5 years?). Meanwhile the Labour Party has been taken over by the Fabian Society since the early 1980s. What you are seeing now is an elite who are so cocky of winning their end game that they’re not even hiding their true colours now.

      • Twodogs October 7, 2011 at 9:54 am #

        You seem to have vanished, Andrew, but your last line (below) is worthy of comment.

        I don’t think they even have an end game, as that would imply retiring once they have achieved their goals. Does a tyrant stop acting with impunity once he has achieved the ability to do so? Totalitarianism is not a means to an end. In the Fabian sense, the means to the end is restrained incremental change to ultimately achieve the ability to act without restraint.

        Idiots like Bob Brown have let the cat out of the bag, signalling his (delusional) intent with his claim that a one world government is only a matter of time. Such poor discipline has revealed intent far too early, and they won’t get past the next election.

        Now it is time to fight back while we still can. Scientifically, AGW is on the ropes, yet politically it remains an Everest. That even Tony Abbott won’t take that mountain on head on.

      • Twodogs October 7, 2011 at 9:57 am #

        Oops! I didn’t finish the final sentence. I meant to add that Abbott won’t take on that Everest head on is testament to how strong AGW still is politically.

      • Andrew Richards October 8, 2011 at 2:13 am #

        I haven’t vanished at all. I simply have a 3,000 word essay due for uni on the emergence of radical Islamic groups which has to take precendence. Most of the points you’ve raised here I’ve actually already refuted in one post or another (in fact in at least 1 case, you completely screwed up a response by completely missing a key point about a 19th Century detractor of Malthusianism) and so it’s going to be me pointing to specific quotes I’ve brought up already and spoon-feeding the imformation, rather than simply relying on people to recognise things for how they are.

        If I have to, then that’s fine, but for at least the next week, real life has to take precedence, at which point I’ll come back to this.

      • Twodogs October 8, 2011 at 4:38 pm #

        Reality’s a bitch, ain’t it? I’d love to see your essay on radical islam. You’ll be treading on eggshells, dude!

      • JMD October 8, 2011 at 6:44 pm #

        No Twodogs, we really don’t want to see the essay on radical Islam.

      • Twodogs October 11, 2011 at 8:26 am #

        JMD, you have no sense of black humour!

      • Andrew Richards November 3, 2011 at 4:27 am #

        Actually if you’re interested in FACT rather than spin, I would recommend a couple of highly informative books I uncovered in the course of my research.

        The first is “Hushed voices : unacknowledged atrocities of the 20th century” (edited by Heribert Adam, Berkshire Academic Press, 2011 – specifically the chapter entitled “Israel: Stillborn Nation”) and the second is “”Hamas: unwritten chapters” (Azzam Tamimi, Hurst & Co., 2007 (printed 2009) ).

        I suspect you’ll find them very eye-opening.

      • Andrew Richards November 3, 2011 at 4:50 am #

        Now to deal with your points. There is a difference between protectionism and isolationism.

        The flaw in confusing free-market econimics with any and all trade theory is that free-market economics actually destroys wealth and sovereignty within a country.

        Take a look at what the elimination of tariffs and banking deregulation did in terms of our manufacturing industries our farming, the worth of our currency and the slippery slide which followed in the form of foreign ownership of productivity and infrastructure.

        All of these things actually remove wealth from the country, transferring it into foreign hands, and devalue the dollar.

        There is a very simple reason why we now have a cost of living crisis. Our dollar is only worth what we product and are capable of producing. Our productivity and productive capacity is jack all (heck we even have the likes of China buying up our farmland to secure their own food supplies now), so guess what our currency is worth.

        The problem with foreign ownership is that even though it brings in money; that money is devalues every other cent of our currency the moment it changes hands, because the transaction has literally sold off part of the value of that currency.

        What has happened and continues to happen, is that the markets are becoming more and more speculative to stave off the economic collapse which has been pending for decades – all because we re-adopted the British monetary system which sent us straight into the Great Depression last time and for the exact same reason.

        You claim that economics is far to unpredictable to forecast, yet why is it, that physical economics has been able to pinpoint every single economic collapse over the past 50 years? Do you think it’s a coincidence that LaRouche’s accuracy has been uncanny and the Anglo-Dutch propaganda machine has him portrayed as a “loon”?

        It does indeed present interesting problems, but then you’re looking at manufacturing here without factoring in human creative potential and creative density and how that affects science and technology. Do you think it’s a coincidence that eco-eugenics is anti-creative density (via their “overpopulation” rhetoric) and anti-technology?

        You correctly point to govt inaction on this, but you need to understand that all three major parties are controlled by the British Empire. Labor has been under Fabian Society control for the past 30 years. The Liberals were reformed by UAP members who were formed in a belief that the rich should be put first and the general welfare can go to hell. Then you have the Greens who are the party representing the repackaged Nazism that is environmentalism. They are doing something about it- exactly what their puppet masters in the British Empire want them to.

        LaRouche has correctly pointed out that it will take 3 generations of re-educating the population (in the form of undoing the “dumbing down” of society”) for us to reach the point where we’ll have addressed those issues.

        One last thing; every agenda has an end game- namely consolidation and maintaining that consolidation.

  5. Andrew Richards October 2, 2011 at 11:01 pm #

    Really JMD, if it’s a laugh then why was the entire “green” movement founded by a comibnation of ex-Nazis and the British Eugenics society?

    In fact as the WWF themselves acknowledge

    And how exactly is it a laught JMD? Let’s look at the facts.

    The WWF was founded in 1961 by Prince Phillip of England, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and Sir Julian Huxley.

    Prince Bernhard’s Nazi links are self-evident, given he was a former Nazi SS member.

    Then you have his cousin, Prince Phillip and some of his more colourful quotes-

    “Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed… We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.”
    — HRH Prince Philip, interview “Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation”, People Magazine, Dec. 21, 1981

    “The object of the WWF is to ‘conserve’ the system as a whole; not to prevent the killing of individual animals. Those who are concerned about the conservation of nature accept… that most species produce a surplus that is capable of being culled without in any way threatening the survival of the species as a whole.”
    — HRH Prince Philip, founder of WWF, in the Chancellor’s Lecture, Salford University, June 4, 1982.

    Forgetting about digging up his quote about wanting to be reincarnated as a deadly virus; these quotes demonstrate his beliefs in genocide.

    As an aside to his point about disease, you might want to look at the following quote:

    “What is so intolerable about the continued funding crisis is not just the staggering loss of life, so much of it completely unnecessary, but what it says about us, the donor nations and our lamentable, incomprehensible behavior… We know what we are doing, but we do it anyway.”
    — from speech at “Global Health Council conference”, May 28, 2003

    However there is a missing link in here- the British Eugenics Lobby- eugenics for the uniformed, being the ideology which lay at the heart of the Holocaust.

    That is where fellow WWF co-founder Sir Julian Huxley comes in. Huxley’s links are to the Fabian Society of course whose eugenic breed of facism is apparent to anyone who’se taken a decent look at some of the writings of the early prominent writers, such as H.G. Wells in hiw 1901 non-fiction work “Anticipations”. The foreward to Julian’s cousin Aldous’ work, Brave New World is also another example.

    However let’s look at what Julian Huxley had said on multiple occaisions

    Here are some of the more more “colourful” quotes by Huxley-

    “The lowest strata… allegedly less well endowed genetically… must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive…”
    — Julian Huxley, Galton Lecture at the Eugenics Society, 1936
    “Thus, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenics policy of controlled human breeding will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care…”
    — Julian Huxley, “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy”, 1947

    There’s also the not so small matter of Huxley being the president of the British Eugenics Society in 1961- the year he co-founded the WWF.

    I can get into the fact that “overpopulation” is merely the new “undersirables” looking at the underlying ideologies, but it should be painfully apparent to anyone who takes a decent look at it.

    As I was asking JMD, excatly where is the good laugh there?

    • JMD October 2, 2011 at 11:49 pm #

      Sorry, I thought I must have been reading the Onion or something, you know… Lyndon LaRouche?… Charles Darwin a fraud & third rate intellectual?

      If you people are serious then you are a bunch of creationist ‘greenbackers’. But I do have a genuine, bonified, electrified, six car monorail I can sell you.

      I swear it’s Australia’s only choice… throw up your hands & raise your voice!…. monorail!…. monorail!…. monorail!

      • Andrew Richards October 3, 2011 at 12:30 am #

        Right, because the moment someone calls out Charles Darwn as a fraud because they reduce human beings to some mere evolutionary accident, dehumanising human beings to being no more than animals and therefore completely discrediting humanities greatest resource (it’s creative potential), they MUST believe in “creation science”. *rolls eyes*.

        If you’d actually bothered to read things through you’d have discovered that there is a concrete link between Darwin and Sir Thomas Malthus of the East India company, and that the whole point of his pseudo-science was to discredit the actual forces of evolution, which take life to a higher level of evolution at each stage. You see it with the way plants evolved above amoebas in their creative potential (simple olfactory communication); animals above plants (proto-tools and more evolved communication) and in turn humans above animals (the ability to make scientific discoveries and advanced communication of even advanced abstract ideas). This in turn set a precedent for the way the Green movement views human beings- that’s your fraud.

        Furthermore, if you’d bothered to read their stances, you’d also have found that they equally oppose the pseudo-science of the 6 day creation myth.

        So the question is, are you actually going to start reading things through and actually coming up with CREDIBLE points, or are you simply going to continue discredit yourself with ignorant assumptions?

      • JMD October 3, 2011 at 9:39 am #

        No, the problem is you know nothing about the theory of evolution. Humans are not ‘more evolved’ than other organisms, that is your own ‘creationist’ bias. Have you ever studied the physiology of a marine invertebrate? Nothing less evolved about it.

        So what if there’s a link between Darwin & the East India Company? They probably paid for his voyage on the Beagle.

        Your Sir, are the fraud. And if you follow LaRouche, you are also a greenbacker.

        Your time would better be spent inquiring into the nature of money & government role in distorting said for its own benefit. You seem to think the City of London is the centre of the ‘conspiracy’, start with the Bank of England & its irredeemable obligations.

        • The Blissful Ignoramus October 3, 2011 at 11:04 am #

          Gents, given this blog is predominantly concerned with debt and money vis-a-vis politics – and in the interests of avoiding unnecessary conflict between readers 😉 – I’d like to suggest that both of you have raised valid points deserving of further investigation by open-minded readers. And although I recognise the interconnectedness of all things and thus the rationale that all these points arguably have relevance, even so, perhaps it may be wise to draw a line (at least for now) under the necessarily lengthier and more distant-from-finance debating points?

          Personally, I very much agree with the wisdom of Henry Thoreau’s observation that “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one striking at the root”. Both of you have either directly or indirectly pointed to finance as a common topic of interest/concern – City of London / BofE etc. In consideration of Thoreau’s maxim, I’d suggest that this is by far the most fruitful ground over which to share (y)our respective knowledge, because therein lies the real root of all the other issues raised in this discussion, IMHO.

  6. Andrew Richards October 2, 2011 at 11:02 pm #

    That should have read “As the WWF themselves acknowledge, the co-founders of the WWF in 1961 were Sir Julian Huxley, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and Prince Phillip.”

  7. Oliver K. Manuel October 3, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    This week WikiLeaks [1] and exposed the Trojan Horse and the truth about Earth’s variable heat source, as well as pseudo-scientific “Bio-fuels”, “ocean acidification”, the “SSM” model of the Sun and the “AGW” model of Earth’s climate:

    Environmentalism was a Trojan Horse we welcomed, until we found that science [2,3] was sacrificed for:

    Redistribution of wealth [1] with a one-world government [4] in control of Reality [5].

    Regretfully it took me forty years (1971-2011) to reach these conclusions:

    A. Reality is greater than world leaders and dogmatic science.
    B. Communion is greater than dogmatic communism.
    C. God is much greater than any dogmatic religion.
    D. Cowards hide under these dogmatic cloaks.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo
    Former Greenpeace Supporter


    1. “Clean-energy credits tarnished,” Nature 477, 517-518 (2011)

    2. “Is the Sun a pulsar?” Nature 270, 159-160 (1977)

    3. “Solar abundances of the elements,” Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)

    Click to access SolarAbundances.pdf

    4. “Deep roots of Climategate” (2011)

    Click to access 20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf

    5. Carl Gustav Boberg, “The Great Reality” (1885)

    • Andrew Richards October 3, 2011 at 6:52 pm #

      “C. God is much greater than any dogmatic religion.”

      Thankyou for pointing out this incredibly valid point- it is the fundamental flaw in the dogmatics on the sides of both the “creation scientists” and the statistical-modelling dogmatics like JMD. Sadly both cannot see how flawed their entire views of the universe are.

  8. Andrew Richards October 3, 2011 at 6:51 pm #

    So JMD, LaRouche is a Greenbacker is he? Then why does the movement support Nationalised banking, in this country at the very least (in fact the CEC is in support of the establishment of the equivalent of what the Commonwealth Bank used to be and believe it to be at the very heart of the financial recovery of this country).

    So either you have the barest half an idea of what you’re talking about and have acted like a completely ignorant fool, or you’re a blatant liar and spin doctor, so which is it?

    Furthermore, based on what you have just said, stop pretending you oppose the establishment as you clearly support Green Fascism, the Carbon Tax, the sucking dry of our economy through an Imperialist model of subjugation and divide and conquer and as a part of that, the genocide of 6 Billion people and the sucking dry of our economy by the City of London. The fact that you would support a pseudo scientific HALF-TRUTH (far more dangerous than an outright lie) try and spin the the exposure of said half truth into creation science, which it clearly isn’t proves as much.

    The reason Darwin’s theory is a fraud is because it claims the process is far more random than it is and based entirely on physical characteristics, when the reality is that there is a scientific principle raising the level of creative potential with each level of evolutionary progression. Where evolution took us on this planet was to the unique place of being able to make and exploit scientific discoveries about our planet and the universe. That places us as high above animals as animals are above plants.

    As for the link, if you’d bothered to read the article, you would have seen the link was Julian Huxley’s grandfather, Thomas Huxley who was in turn influenced by Thomas Malthus. Furthermore the link in question wasn’t just funding but ideological influence.

    The very fraud you hold so near and dear has only given society the following ethical consequences-

    a) Social Darwinism – the notion that non-Caucasians are “lesser evolved” than Caucasians and therefore that viewing indigenous populations as “savages” and therefore justifying the institutionalised racist practices which came with centuries of colonialism.

    b) Eugenics, which was a spinoff of it- the notion that certain types of people are “undesirable” due to certain traits and that the “genetic disease should be purged”. The approximately 11 Million who died in the Holocaust directly due to this very ideology are a testimony to just how warped this is.

    c) Green Fascism- where the agenda of the likes of Hans Shellnhuber who wish to kill off 6 billion people and can justify it with the same logic and ethics of a “kangaroo culling”, in fact the term in the green movement for genocide is “culling” funnily enough. This is the same logic and ethics set regarding the value of human life which also lay at the heart of the previous 2 examples.

    b) Furthermore, by minimising human creative potential you not only deprive mankind of its greatest resource, but you create a society which suppresses the one thing which brings about self-determination and therefore is the greatest threat to colonial imperialism. Human creative potential and free thinking has an exponential relationship to population levels and operates in the same manner as frequency inter-modulation. The less people you have, the less ideas you have and therefore the more controllable a population is- especially if you atrophy that potential through a poor education system (funny about that last bit). Either you’re blind to that JMD or you’re a willing party to it. Logically it has to be one or the other.

    BI, you bring up the City of London, however what you are missing is that all of this, the economics, the environmentalism, has all been one long running agenda begun by the East India company as a means to defeat the notions of self-determination and nationalism which were evolving at that time, in and effort to support colonialism. Environmentalism, the paradigm shift from physical principles based science to statistical modelling, “Adam Smith” style specialisation based economies, Malthusian economics- they’re all a part of the larger agenda to break the backs of nationalism globally in all its forms, and to restore the British Empire to its former glory when it was the Venetian Empire.

    JMD claims we should be looking at the City of London, but considering hew is so quick to spin the agendas ORIGINATING from there; I can’t help but wonder just how superficially he wants us to look at them.

  9. Jazza October 3, 2011 at 8:11 pm #

    Andrew Richards:

    Yawn, yawn! Boring, B O R I N GGG…..

    • Andrew Richards October 3, 2011 at 8:18 pm #

      If these issues are boring to you then why even post a response? Or can it be that I’m a little too close to the facts for your liking?

    • JMD October 3, 2011 at 9:42 pm #

      He’s lost my vote.

  10. Tomorrows Serf October 3, 2011 at 9:10 pm #

    My, My,

    I just wanted to let Angry know that he is well supported in his honest attempt to inject some fair dinkum, grass roots, No BS into the Australian political scene and help kill this treasonous carbon “X”( tax cum derivatives trading platform)

    Personally, I welcome a pollie with tats… lots of them. And history.. lots of history. He’s been there and done that..(oh, but so has Peter Garrett) Oh well. Angry’s older and wiser.

    Andrew Richards and JMD are really going at it. What have they covered.?

    Nazi eugenics, Mathusian genocidal tendencies, British Royal insanity, City of London conspiracy to loot the world, the CEC,(I thought they were crazy too, but I think they may well be onto something),Darwinism, Brave New World, One World Government, the Georgia Guidestones,….and not to forget, the implosion of the Global economy.(let’s not forget that!)

    I suspect both Andrew and JMD are right, but coming from two totally different directions.

    I’d have to say there’s some strange shit going on. And the end result is a consolidation of wealth in the hands of people who least deserve it. Is it by design?? Probably! Can we do anything to stop it? Hopefully. The guys occupying Wall Street are having a crack at it right now.

    How about WE occupy Canberra?

    PS. Nice job refereeing, BI and I liked your quote from Thoreau. We too easily get bogged down with the side issues, and neglect to focus on the core problem. Food production, real productivity, maintaining the REAL environment, keeping debt down, our debt based monetary system (an identical copy of the US Federal Reserve System) and the corruption of our political system by vested interests intent on imposing this cursed carbon tax/derivatives trading platform…. and bankrupting us in the process.

    I’m a simple guy, but it sure looks to me that someone wants to see Australia go down…

    The question then becomes, WHO & WHY??

    HINT: Suggested reading…”The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G Edward Griffin.

    It’s one book you MUST read before you die.

    • JMD October 3, 2011 at 10:15 pm #

      I’ve covered hardly any of that, merely pointed out that Mr Richards has no understanding of the theory of evolution & I’ll add biological science in general. I do since I am a Bachelor of Biological Science. This man & his ‘council’ disparage the scientific method without even knowing what it is.

      I also pointed out that since he thinks the ‘conspiracy’ is centred in the City of London, he should focus on the Bank of England & its irredeemable obligations, the Bank of England being the bank of the
      British government.

      I didn’t say I believe there is a grand conspiracy emanating out of the offices of the East India Company, though I did read a very entertaining novel called Lempriere’s Dictionary. I recommend it.

      • Tomorrows Serf October 3, 2011 at 10:30 pm #

        Too much information!!

      • Andrew Richards October 3, 2011 at 10:35 pm #

        Exactly JMD, you’ve covered nothing of merit, simply heckled based on incorrect assumptions. Furthermore I perfectly understand the theory of evolution. You on the other hand clearly missed the “convenient ommission” of a clear pattern of higher levels of consciousness and creative potential with each leap in evolution which are far too consistent to be down to random chance.

        This is especially true when you consider how underdeveloped human beings are and our lack of defensive or offensive physical attributes. Our human physiology combined with our being “at the top of the food chain” simply doesn’t equate to a “law of the jungle” hypothesis, and suggest a much higher order phenomenon at play. But of course, the moment people don’t cling to statistical modelling and ASSUMED science to you of course, they MUST be “creation scientists” as you have demonstrated ad nauseum in this thread.

        All of this leads me to wonder, are you a complicit spin doctor, or just an ignorant fool?

      • Andrew Richards October 3, 2011 at 10:44 pm #

        “I do since I am a Bachelor of Biological Science. This man & his ‘council’ disparage the scientific method without even knowing what it is.”

        This says it all really- you’re not a scientist at all, but a zealot of the “Church of Statistical Modelling”.

        Funny how REAL scientists in Russia call out the approach you cling to like a zealot, for the utter FRAUD it is.

        Why don’t you try reading up on Vladimir Vernadsky, you might actually learn something- presuming you can think outside the confines of a statistical model that is…

      • JMD October 3, 2011 at 11:02 pm #

        Ok Andrew, I admit, for you see we are as gods and shall ever perjure, rob & blind the common weal with talk of trade, by which we know our own profit & gain & you know us as the Company.

    • Andrew Richards October 3, 2011 at 10:27 pm #

      I’ll tackle the side issue of the CEC quickly. I’ve generally found that if I dig deep enough I’ve been able to verify most of what they’ve said- enough so that where the odd gap shows up, I can give them the benefit of the doubt based on their intent. That and the fact that the media has even taken to such premeditation as to pull interviews from their publications online after printing them (a recent interview with Craig Isherwood in a major media publication – which I can dig up the exact details of if need be – is one example of this).

      Then again, most people have no idea of just how desperate the Imperialists of the Venetian Empire are (let’s call the British Empire what it really is)- to the point that there was almost a Millitary coup in NSW and the only thing which averted it was the corruption of NSW Governor Phillip Game. The CEC was the first source I encountered on the issue, yet the likes of Andrew Moore, very quickly confirmed it. I’d recommend fully looking through their publications and media releases. Even if you don’t completely agree with their approach (Ann Lawler, their National Director and I have had some disagreements there, but that’s more to do with the stages of the recovery we’re each looking at), there’s enough there that’s a good launching point.

      You said “And the end result is a consolidation of wealth in the hands of people who least deserve it. Is it by design?? Probably!” Serf and you’ve raised an interesting point- to the point where you’ve identified one hell of a looking glass and I’m not sure you realise just how deep it truly goes.

      The Carbon tax and carbon trading is by design and serves several functions. First off, it makes the parasitic monetary system we currently have self-sustaining, giving those who have brought the world to this point economically the ultimate get out of jail card.

      Secondly, it converts the world economy from being competition based to being consolidation based. You brought up a work of fiction, well I would strongly recommend another- the original 1975 version of Rollerball as it is very telling in terms of the corporate rules system we are heading towards, regardless of whether the illusion of democratic representation is kept or ultimately discarded.

      Thirdly it is an ideological circuit breaker for any self-determination movements on several fronts.

      To begin with, national sovereignty is replaced with “global citizenship” where the needs of a nation and its people are placed permanently second to “the needs of the planet”.

      In addition to that you have people like JMD buying into the lie that human beings are no better than animals and have no defining abilities which set us apart. This viewpoint dehumanises the human race and it’s exactly how things like “ethnic cleansing” start up and get a free pass. Furthermore, if human beings are nothing special then neither must human creativity be, therefore education which develops critical reasoning and actual scientific approaches (based on physical principles) becomes redundant because there is nothing radically important about the human intellect.

      The crux of it all is you have a dumbed down population who cannot think because their intellects have been atrophied, but more to the point, simply see no need to think.

      So where does this take us? Back to the 13th Century when the Venetian Empire in the form of the British Empire regains the control it once had, and the people of the world are left suffering and in despair.

      • Tomorrows Serf October 3, 2011 at 10:42 pm #



        Good night.

  11. Tomorrows Serf October 3, 2011 at 9:13 pm #

    Oh, and I forgot one thing.

    I hate to disparage anyone, especially on a site as worthy as this, BUT, Jazza,

    You’re a boofhead!!

    • Tomorrows Serf October 3, 2011 at 10:51 pm #


      I would like to retract my disparaging comment about you. You are NOT a boofhead.

      And I would NOW like to concur with your previous assessment of AR.

      • Andrew Richards October 3, 2011 at 11:21 pm #

        Then you are a fool, so close to reality and yet so far. Let me know when you’ve fully woken up to reality.

  12. Andrew Richards October 3, 2011 at 11:47 pm #

    Re Darwinian theory: the one thing I find interesting is that one one hand, people can thoroughly reject one piece of scientific half truth presented as absolute fact (eg IPCC report, WGBU report, etc) and then completely balk at the idea that it could have been done before in history.

    Claiming that disputing Darwin makes you a “creation scientist” is as ludicrous as calling someone a “flat earther” because they reject the utter fraud that there are no external factors on this planet which are the prime causes of climate change.

    Just goes to show what happens if you brainwash a population long enough and from early enough, with a convincing enough half-truth.

    Ironic too in light of the fact that it was the Darwinian half-truth which laid the academic and ideological groundwork for much of the “green” movement.

    • JMD October 4, 2011 at 2:34 pm #

      Hey, I never accused you of being a scientist Andrew, creationist or otherwise.

      That’s one thing you certainly ain’t.

      • Andrew Richards October 5, 2011 at 3:22 am #

        Actually you accused me of being a creationist, or “creation scientist” right from the getgo. The irony of course is that I have a far greater understanding of scientific methodology than you do. You’re as much a scientist in your eugenic and statistical training as someone doing a degree in Malthusian monetary theory is an economist. Here’s why.

        As Einstein said; “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

        This is especially pertinent when dealing with modern scientific methodology.

        Traditional scientific methodology had a person having an hypothesis, testing it, observing what happens, looking at all phenomenon discovered and reaching conclusions based on that. The moment additional phenomenon were discovered, those conclusions were altered. That approach is what REAL scientists take and you still find it these days in places like Russia who thankfully had influences like Vernadsky in the early-mid 20th century which greatly shaped scientific research there. Especially pertinent were concepts of his such as the Noosphere.

        Modern scientific methodology, still starts with having a theory and testing it. However that testing involves a SURVEY of data, disregarding any phenomenon which do not fit into a line of best fit, and creating a dogmatically adhered to STATISTICAL MODEL based on that.

        The moment the model is wrong, scientists defend the model, by claiming that phenomenon encountered are anomalies, rather than admitting that it’s junk science to begin with, and maybe, after it’s been proven wrong enough times and significantly enough, they admit that the model is wrong.

        Darwinian theory fits this flawed modern methodology.

        There is no doubt that we evolved from animals, however in the case of Darwin’s model, it is we human beings who are that anomaly.

        We are less developed at birth than most animals, take the longest to develop, have one of the longest and most vulnerable pregnancies in nature and have no defining characteristics offensively or defensively to make us superior to anything else in the jungle. Yes we are tool users, but so are birds when the sweep a nest holding a twig in their beaks, as are other anomales when they pick up a rock and use it to crack open the shell of a nut.

        If Darwin’s “law of the jungle” model was accurate, we should have been wiped out long ago or at the very least be nowhere near as high up the food chain as we are. In fact, we’d be convenient snacks for anything even slightly smaller than us, found in caves in a tiny region in the world at best.

        Yet there was one fundamental physical change which happened with humans- the lowering of the voice-box, allowing for complex speech patterns to develop. The linguistic capabilities of humans far outstrip any life form on this planet. What animals do using a series of cries, form the basis of our vowels, tone, pitch and intonation, the subtelties of our speech. In fact considering recent discoveries about the “proto-language” of newborn babies with their use of distinct cries to comprehensively cover every single one of their needs (burp me, change me, feed me, etc).

        However the 21 consonants and 5 distinct vowel sounds which are exclusive to human speech due to a lowered voicebox take our language to a far higher level, which therefore takes our formation of ideas to a much higher level.

        This in turn leads to the creations and usage of the 6 most fundamental words in any language: who, what, where, when, why and how. At this point you have the birth of every single field of science on the planet- ranging from the physical sciences, to the non-physical sciences such as philosophy and metaphysics.

        It was this ability to develop increasingly complex ideas which turns simple tool usage into the development of machines, the observation of fire into the harnessing of fire, and lead to where we are today in terms of technology.

        When you factor this into the model, it shows itself to be completely and utterly faulty, as evolution has never been about physical traits, but the evolving facilitation of being able to explore more and more complex ideas.

        Amoebas and bacteria/viruses were the base platform- the only ideas they could entertain were feeding themselves and reproducing. Plants then gain the ability to communicate by secreting chemicals- something we have known about since the 1980s.

        Then you get animals who through the voice-box, over time develop a system of cries and grunts in addition to body language (the later of which we still use in our communication), whilst retaining the chemical communication of plants in the form of pheromones.

        Then you get humans who have that voice-box lower to allow for speech, on top of all previous forms of communication. As previously demonstrated, it is those forms of communication which have lead us to where we are today- as much above animals, as animals are above plants.

        Then again, this is what happens when you actually apply scientific modelling as opposed to taking a survey and statistically modelling the results of it.

        The question in terms of this thread is, are people actually going to bother reading this post, or simply ignorantly and foolishly heckle without bothering to take it in, as has been the case with the majority of my posts in it? Time will tell.

    • Twodogs October 5, 2011 at 7:52 am #

      Show us the science, dude! If it ain’t random, then who’s pulling the strings? Accepting Darwin’s theory of evolution does not cause a dehumanizing of Hunan life, or else peace and harmony would have prevailed prior to the 19th century. More like an excuse for racism and genocide. It’s good to see an alternative viewpoint, but blind assertions and accusations need to be challenged. Back it up, dude!

  13. Twodogs October 5, 2011 at 8:14 am #

    Er, Andrew, you have not ‘demonstrated’ anything. You have made a few assertions though.

    Anything that confers an advantage will arise in biological evolution, so even randomness can achieve that. You fail to demonstrate how this is no accident. Is it preordained? You’re right, it only takes one piece of contrary evidence to destroy a theory, so where is it? I somehow doubt Darwin used modeling, and the only resistance comes from organized religion. Feel free to overturn it, but it’s a big mountain to climb, and infinitely ahead of climate ‘science’.

    • Andrew Richards October 5, 2011 at 11:26 am #

      Twodogs, you’re actually getting into some complex historical ground here as you need to look at Imperialism vs Nationalism to understand the context of what Darwin was doing. What people need to realise is that Darwin’s theory was not Darwin’s at all by that of Thomas Malthus, the father of the British free trade model and eugenics. Malthus, for the uninformed was very senior in the East India Company, which had become the financial manifestation of the British Empire, which of course was the resurrected Venetian Empire.

      Imperialism of course, works off the premise of “divide and conquer”, subjugation and usury, which is interestingly enough the Venetian model. You wonder why there was no peace and harmony before Darwin, well there’s your answer.

      However a counterpoint to this was the nationalist movement of self-determination, which called for the unification of each nation, and placed the highest value on human creative potential, in terms of both advancing science and technology within a society, and in fostering a questioning nature when it came to institutionalised authority.

      Both of these of course are a threat to any Imperialist agenda. The most effective way of doing that is completely devalue the uniqueness of human creative potential by reducing us to yet another animal.

      In fact Darwin advocates for a staunch adherence to Malthus in his intro to “Origin of Species” when he says:

      “[T]he Struggle for Existence amongst all organic beings throughout the world … inevitably follows from their high geometrical powers of increase … .This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms. As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself … will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected”.

      There you have it Darwin himself admits his entire theory is based on a Malthusian MODEL. So what exactly did Malthus say?

      “All the children born beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons. …. therefore, we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. … But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.”

      (An Essay on the Principle of Population)

      People make the mistake of thinking that Darwinism is misused and twisted into eugenics and Social Darwinism, however the reality is the Darwinism naturally leads to eugenics and Social Darwinism and is a justification for both, as Malthusianism is eugenics. In fact the whole of Malthusianism operates from an intellectual worldview of usury and elitism.

      Furthermore people ask where the challenge to Darwinism lies. This actually is an interesting question considering when Darwin published his work- specifically that he waited until 1859 to do so (almost a decade after the voyage of the Beagle)- the very year that Alexander Von Humboldt died. In fact it was published after Von Humboldt’s death.

      The reason for this is that Von Humboldt would have torn his work to shreds as the fallacy for which it is. In fact he wrote in his 1848 work “COSMOS: A Sketch of the Physical Description of the Universe”

      “Nature considered rationally, that is to say, submitted to the process of thought, is a unity in diversity of phenomena; a harmony, blending together all created things, however dissimilar in form and attributes; one great whole animated by the breath of life. The most important result of a rational inquiry into nature is, therefore, to establish the unity and harmony of this stupendous mass of force and matter… .”

      In fact the whole science of cosmology flies completely in the face of the Darwinian Model (including the oxymoron of things happening due to randomness ie that there are no universal constants or laws of science)- especially when you look at 20th Century cosmologists like Vernadsky. You ask where the proof is, well there is your starting point. This is not a blog for people who expect to be spoon-fed, so I am not about to start spoon-feeding on this one. That link to the CEC is a good start, including the article they have written on the fraud of Darwin. The question is, do people here have enough of an independent mind to question the brainwashing they have been fed by our “beloved” Imperialist institutionalised society with an open mind?

  14. Twodogs October 5, 2011 at 12:50 pm #

    Wow, so imperialism and nationalism are mutually exclusive? That’s new.

    How to make a conspiracy theory;

    Add a few selective truth pertaining to your worldview as appropriate;
    Fill in blanks with assumptions as required;
    Mix liberally;
    Arrange in logical order to create an argument;
    Assert as incontrovertible truth.


    The problem with conspiracy theories is that they imply greater intent than necessary. It’s more likely of course that the East India company was created for nothing more than to become filthy rich.

    Nowhere in Darwin’s introduction does he assert a moral basis for his theory, or of Malthus. It might be a logical conclusion to draw, but it is one of many. Fantastical claims require fantastical evidence, so get cracking!!

    • Andrew Richards October 5, 2011 at 1:17 pm #

      Twodogs, your entire argument here is flawed. To begin with, and as I posted Darwin did say in his introduction “This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.”

      The word Doctrine, directly states that there is an ideology present- the ideology behind Malthus’ ideas. The fact that an ideology is present in turn states that there is a moral basis present.

      We know exactly what Malthus’ ideas are based on those segments of his essay on population I posted in the previous post.

      As for your comment on the East India company; the fact that you would divorce profiteering from the ethical framework required for it is again, fallacy. You cannot treat people as either beasts of burden (like what was done in London with law changes to create a cheap workforce of peasant labour, or in Africa with slaving) or as animals to harvest comsumer goods from (such as in North America) without an ideological viewpoint which not only allows for it but justifies it.

      You claim “East India company was created for nothing more than to become filthy rich.”

      Yet that is exactly what an agenda which is based in Imperialism, elitism, usury, Social Darwinism and eugenics facilitates.

      I am not your father or your mother and you are not a child. Therefore do not expect me to spoon-feed you as you clearly currently are based on this post I am responding to.

      I have provided sufficient evidence to warrant people here using it as a launching pad for their own investigations (including a link which will give people a starting point). For a blog that supposedly contains independent thinkers who do not buy into the status quo, that should be enough for people to research further to form their own conclusions. Some decent research by people reading this will soon verify what has been said.

      Then again it is a reliance upon spoon-feeding which leads to the preconditioned response of “conspiracy theory” the moment this sort of agenda is raised, no matter how credible the information might happen to be.

  15. Jazza October 5, 2011 at 2:07 pm #

    Tomorrow’s serf

    No, I’m not big enough to have a boof head, nor is mine swollen

    But your apology is graciously accepted.

    I don’t mean to be rude ,but there are so many news/ blogs sites to read in a day ,that long winded arguments and repetitions between only one or two persons on any, ARE BORING ie a turn off

  16. Twodogs October 5, 2011 at 3:05 pm #

    Are you sure an ideological framework is required to pursue greed? You’re confusing disregard with primacy of intent. Ideology epitomizes the phrase “the path to evil is paved with good intentions”. You assume (yet again) that malice is the motivator, while profit is a mere positive side-effect. Do you disagree wholeheartedly with Adam Smith and his consideration of self-interest as a prime motivator?

    Malthus is the belief in unsustainability of population growth, but he didn’t count on contraception or the inverse correlation between wealth and women’s Suffrage with population. He proposed intervention in population growth as a means of avoiding famine. Darwin understood that organisms exploit all opportunities through natural selection and simply sought to explain it through empirical evidence and subsequent theory. Social Darwinism is a conclusion drawn by some from the implications of his theory, but that it not the fault of Charles Darwin that assumptions are drawn from it. Eugenics is the ideology of self-direction of human evolution, a bastardization that lead to even worse assumptions about “what should be done”. Did I mention the danger of assumptions? It’s like blaming Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem witch trials. Subsequent assumptions are not the fault of those who propose theories based on the cold hard facts they see and study.

    Is contraception part of the Malthusian conspiracy? Is contraception the moral equivalent of the holocaust? Conspiracy theorists such as yourself do not know when to stop drawing conclusions, and use your own conclusions to draw further conclusions. These rabbit holes will drive you mad!

    If you disagree with a scientific theory, it can only be defeated on scientific grounds. Appeals to political or ideological conspiracy cannot overturn a scientific theory. It’s playing the man, not the ball, old son!

    • Andrew Richards October 5, 2011 at 3:25 pm #

      Your entire post here is so utterly fallacious that it’s practically the antithesis of reason. To begin with you claim that Darwin cannot be to blame for Social Darwinism or eugenics, yet Darwin himself says that his theory is:

      ““This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.”

      A quick survey of Malthus’ works such as his essay on population, as I have already proven, is blatant Social Darwinism and eugenics. Furthermore Darwin’s work forms the basis of the “science” behind green fascism as it is Malthusianism. In fact what
      I quoted from his essay on population is eerily similar to what Prince Phillip has been quoted as saying. Strike 1 on your part.

      Then there is the claim you make that an ideology cannot be about the pursuit of greed. A quick study on monetarism and usury, and the modern (Rosevelt’s) definition of fascism proves that wrong. Furthermore, if you lump abortion in as a form of contraception, which society generally does, then it is definitely a holocaust through infantocide. Strike 2

      Finally you claim that a scientific theory can only be defeated on scientific grounds, yet I have referred you to the works of Vernadsky, and Von Humboldt as well as the entire field of Cosmology which calls out Darwin’s theory for the utter fraud it truly is- directly refuting it with a quote from Von Humboldt. Strike 3 – you’re out.

      The reality is that there is someone here making assumptions- that would be you dismissing historical fact as conspiracy theory.

  17. Twodogs October 5, 2011 at 8:05 pm #

    Can causation be reverse chronological? Can darwinism be caused by social darwinism, when it is a prerequisite for said social darwinism? Correlation does not equal causation, but you clearly claim that Darwin is responsible for all subsequent thoughts inspired by it.

    A quick survey on Malthus’ essay on population? It’s over 100 pages, and it’s in 18th century eloquence. There is of course no mention of eugenics in his essay. Darwin wrestled with releasing his theory on the origin of species, knowing its confronting implications, and with consideration of his deeply religious wife. He knew it would be confronting to religion and promote atheism, but if he believed it to be true, should he have taken his knowledge with him to the grave? The truth is whatever it is, and our sensibilities are not a consideration.

    As for green fascism, you are referring to the politics, which have been demonstrably hijacked by marxists and trotskyites (Greenpeace, see Australian Nuclear Disarmament Party ), and are not necessarily shared by all environmentalists. Darwin did not create marxism! The “eerie similarities” with what Prince Phillip was quoted a saying means simply that he has quoted Malthus for whatever harebrained thoughts he has concocted. Don’t get me wrong, i’m no fan of malthusianism, but blaming him for all the sins of the world is a bit rich.

    Again, you make no distinction between abortion and condoms, the pill, pulling out or wanking for that matter. Your absolutism dictates that they are all as equally evil as abortion, and even the holocaust.

    Vernadsky’s noosphere is barely a hypothesis, and how has Von Humboldt discredited Darwin?? This letter hardly discredit’s Darwin’s theory.

    Feel free to test my assumption. You made the claim, so until you can prove so, the status quo remains. The ball is in your court. Thrust and parry!

    • Andrew Richards November 3, 2011 at 4:20 am #

      Several points here. You’re posting a rather ironic argument given the blog being in many respects, about people being trapped in a 2-party paradigm, yet your entire defense of Darwin falls straight into that “us and them” mentality this blog talks about breaking free of.

      I never said evolution doesn’t exist; but rather than Darwinism was a fraud.

      Darwin’s fraud was claiming that evolution was random and that it came down to the “law of the jungle”. In fact Darwin says in describing his theory of evolution “This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.”

      Malthus’ economic doctrine, which is the doctrine Darwin is referring to, is one of usury, which in the context of Malthus’ East India company amounted to slavery, harvesting body parts, disposession and genocide. In fact the notion of “savages”, is something which was born directly out of colonialism, which was primarily driven by the East India Company as part of its apologetics for its inhumane practices. The quotes from his essay I have pulled and are in previous posts, are just some examples of this. Thus if Darwinism is literally a biological translation of Malthusian economics,which Darwin clearly stated it was, then it is eugenic by its very nature, and the emergence of Social Darwinism and Eugenics as a result of it, was inevitable.

      In layman’s terms and to draw an analogy; regardless of whether I say I’m being racist; if I make racist statements then I am being racist.

      You claim that Von Humboldt’s writings do not contradict this, yet to repost this quote, he wrote:

      “Nature considered rationally, that is to say, submitted to the process of thought, is a unity in diversity of phenomena; a harmony, blending together all created things, however dissimilar in form and attributes; one great whole animated by the breath of life. The most important result of a rational inquiry into nature is, therefore, to establish the unity and harmony of this stupendous mass of force and matter… .”

      In other words, there are scientific phenomenon guiding evolution. Recent experiments in the field of cosmology, investigating the effect which cosmic rays have on vegetables for example, have demonstrated that cosmic rays do play a significant role in growth and evolution, which prove this. Therefore Darwin’s Malthusian punt, is pure fallacy.

      You claim that Von Humboldt never directly criticised Darwin’s work- that is correct. Von Humboldt was neither Jesus nor Lazarus- he cannot rise from the dead! Yet this is the only way he could have criticised “The Origin of Species” after it had been published.

      The fact is that Darwin waited almost a decade, until after Von Humboldt’s death to publish his work. That is unsurprising given that Von Humboldt would have made swiss cheese of it.

      Furthermore, you fail to recognise that there is a difference between Marxism and eco-eugenics.

      Eco-eugenics makes it pretty clear that the whole of the human race are a ‘virus’ to this planet which are its greatest threat; the parallels between this and what Hitler said about the danger “undesirables” supposedly presented to Germany, are startling for anyone who can, to use Matrix terminology ‘unplug’ for a few minutes and objectively take a look at things (herein also lies the most telling evidence that eco-eugenics is a fraud, but that is a point which deserves a post all on its own).

      The key founders of eco-eugenics were all staunch supporters of eugenics (I’m more than happy to dig up quotes here). The current calls of the green movement are for “depopulation” and have been since its inception in the 1960s: Marxism has nothing to do with the “overpopulation” focus of the movement.

      Furthermore, Prince Phillip has been influenced by Malthus’ legacy, regardless of how direct or indirect it was. Heck by the time you get up to Darwin, you’ve had Thomas Huxley (incidentally the grandfather of Julian Huxley) be influenced by Malthus and then go on from that influence to directly influence Darwin as a result.

      Then you have the rise of Social Darwinism and eugenics resulting from that. They then influence the “Gentleman’s clubs” of Europe and societies such as the Fabian Society. Then you have the likes of Hitler being influenced by it when he writes “Mein Kampf” in the 1920s, however even before that eugenics has affected social policy regarding the disabled in Germany (when you look at when the Holocaust ACTUALLY started, you see that Hitler built on it and kicked it into high gear rather than actually starting it from the getgo).

      That incidentally is where Prince Phillip was influenced by it. His family were card carrying Nazis (quite literally) with his cousin and WWF co-founder Prince Bernhard being an S.S. member.

      You are right in saying that Malthus cannot be blamed for the sins of Hitler the green movement or any part of colonialism he was not a party to. However he is guilty of giving them ideological cover and apologetics- as is Darwin for his pseudo scientific half truth (the most dangerous kind of lies).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: