“.... By attacking the private ownership of property they [the socialists] struck unconsciously at the foundation on which in the historic policy of England’s individual liberty had always rested.  Because the privilege of ownership had ceased to be widespread as in the past and had become restricted to the few, they supposed that its destruction would extend to the freedom of many.
They forgot that, apart from economic liberty, political liberty has little meaning. Only so long as a man knows that he can defy superior power and still support himself and his loved ones is he a free man. Without that knowledge, whatever his standard of living or theoretical status, he is a kind of slave".

Paperback, 165 pages $24.95 ISBN: 978-1-925501-40-7

Alan Moran has been a prominent writer on regulatory matters for thirty years. He was the inaugural head of the Australian governments’ regulatory review office and researched the issues in “think tanks”.

Working outside and within the Victorian Government, he was a major participant in the disaggregation of that state’s monopoly electricity business into a dozen independent parts and in the creation of what later became the National Electricity Market.

Dr Moran has written many books and articles on the interface between climate change, energy and economic well-being. These include editing and contributing to the 2015 best seller, Climate Change: the facts.

Climate Change: treaties and policies in the Trump era, is an examination of:
• The setting of the climate change agenda
• Its position in the international arena where nations have agreed to treaties and agreements that have increasingly placed pressures on governments to take actions in conformance with their provisions
• The developments leading to the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change, which incorporated governments’ “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs) on abatement of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
• The costs nations are actually and prospectively incurring in meeting their INDCs and in other measures designed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions
• President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement and other nations’ responses.

The book foreshadows the collapse of the Paris agreement and gradual, if not abrupt, dismantling of the costly measures it entails – primarily involving forcing consumers to subsidise wind and solar energy.

     Back in the year 2000, there was a UN document prepared which championed the idea of “replacement migration” in Europe, to deal with the alleged problem of a declining and ageing population: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm.  No prizes for guessing the conclusions: migration is the big answer to every problem, provided that it is the migration of non-White people to the West. They meant it when talking about “replacement.”

     Documents such as this are actually quite common, and form the standard tool kit of the pro-migration lobby. It would be a mistake to identify one document as being the key, just as old salts activists decades ago, used to single out the Lima Declaration as being the main bad guy document leading to what we now call globalism. There is no one document, but rather a cultural movement among the power elite to push for changes, undermining the traditional world.

     Uncle Len, who liberals would dismiss as a racist, joined Aboriginal activists, and mainly young people in Rundle Mall, in a place far away, called Adelaide,  on the 24th July, to protest about the penalty given to a White man who ran over a 14-year old Aboriginal boy in his ute: http://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2017/07/21/driver-not-guilty-indigenous-teen-elijah-doughtys-manslaughter.  The lad was killed after stealing a motor bike in the Western Australian Goldfields region.

     One report said this: “Instead, the teenager, who wasn’t wearing a helmet, tumbled under the car after the impact and died instantly from severe injuries to his neck, chest, pelvis and right leg, a fractured skull and bruised lungs.

     Recovering from a massive hangover, I will try my best to be coherent, at least between coffees. If I was in Texas, in this mood, I could soon be able to go out and run over protesters, and not be punished:
https://www.centraltrack.com/a-texas-house-rep-wants-to-make-it-easier-to-run-over-protestors-with-your-car/.
This law is insane. There are already too many deaths and injuries from cars and someone has to do something about motor vehicles.

     I read Uncle Len’s article about the Aboriginal lad being killed by the White driver and agree with him that a kid dying over a motor bike, a hunk of metal for a human life, is just wrong:
https://newmatilda.com/2017/07/23/groundhog-day-elijah-doughty-joins-a-long-list-of-deaths-with-no-justice/. This is crass materialism before human life. Plenty of kids steal bikes and cars, and then after disciple are put back on the right track. What chance is there now?

     An insightful article by Miranda Devine, “Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Climate Monster,” at http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/whos-afraid-of-the-big-bad-climate-monster/news-story/5079c031c43e3de67572402640cc6fc0, makes the point that many have got rich from peddling the idea of a climate catastrophe.

     She says that Al Gore is back with a new film and we can expect more hysteria:

     If readers think that I am giving the Pope a hard time, a product of my own Catholic dark night of the soul, then have a look at the seething, blistering attack made by Mike Adams. I won’t quote in detail because it may not even be legal, at least by civil law standards:
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-07-23-after-vatican-staff-caught-in-gay-orgy-the-pope-says-gmos-are-approved-by-the-catholic-church.html.
     We do live in uncivil times.

     The hawks who are pining for the US to go to war against Russia, something temporarily stopped by the election of President Trump, should pause and think hard about China’s recent military exercises with Russia, China’s first involvement in European inland waters, in the Baltic Sea.

     In September, the exercises shift to the Sea of Japan, another area of possible confrontation. China’s newspapers made clear that all of this was to strengthen the Chinese-Russian strategic partnership. The Global Times of China said that China’s navy “will surely get stronger and stronger and march further and further, which the West should get used to.”

     Forget fences, in this day and age of mass immigration invasions: nations need walls, thick, long and strong: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/07/22/orban-europe-must-regain-sovereignty-soros-empire-build-border-wall-stop-muslimized-europe/.

     How’s this for a headline: “Orban: ‘Europe Must Regain Sovereignty From The Soros Empire’, Build Border Wall to Stop ‘Muslimized Europe’”.  The Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has made a passionate defence of  European values and identity at the Bálványos Summer University camp in Romania. He called on European nations to end their association with billionaire open-borders, mass immigration  financier George Soros, who Orban saw, has his vast wealth to fund pro-mass migration organisations to create a “new, mixed, Muslimized Europe. ” Orban said that the EU was in an “alliance against the people’s will” with the financier.
Orban said:

     The entire world is now in debt by $ 217 trillion, which is the number 217 followed by twelve zeroes: $ 217,000,000,000,000. This is 327 percent of the world’s annual economic output (GPD), according to the Institute of International Finance.
     Even China, the so-called miracle economy, is running on debt, which has increased its borrowings by $ 2 trillion, and the IMP is concerned about China’s rising debt levels. Already, China’s debt levels are unsustainable, in conventional economic terms, being 260 percent of its GDP: https://www.rt.com/business/394557-global-debt-surge-gdp/.

     The elephant in the room here is: just precisely whom does every nation owe such unsustainable debt to? The answer is: the international financial system, run by the masters of the New World Order. Governments long ago gave the Masters of the Universe, the power to control credit, and now they rule the world. Having a One World Government may be what many want, but the more sophisticated Demons see this as too much work. What does it really matter who is elected when they can be ruled effectively by the power of money?

     At a closed door meeting of eastern European leaders in Budapest, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has launched an attack on the European Union, saying the EU would wither and die if it did not change its policy towards Israel:    
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/19/eu-will-wither-and-die-if-it-does-not-change-policy-on-israel-netanyahu.

     Contrary to what is pushed in the immigration-mad media in the West, Netanyahu wisely urged Europe to close their doors to refugees from Africa and the Middle East.

to THE AGE
     As James Paterson notes (‘Radical approach to Indigenous recognition will fail’, 25/7), the Referendum Council’s recommendations have 'far-reaching implications for all of us.’ He does not, however, seem to have grasped the problems associated with the proposal for a ‘declaration of recognition.’  From one point of view, why do we need an official statement of the obvious? On the other hand, is it so obvious? Government should be wary of making historical assertions about controversial matters. That’s the stuff of totalitarianism. There is some doubt as to whether our Aboriginals really were the ‘first people’ on this continent or whether they displaced an earlier group. Then again, no present-day Aboriginals existed in time before other present-day Australians.
     And who knows what radical implications future High Court judicial adventurers might claim to read into even the declaration’s seemingly innocuous statement about ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’?
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     Well on the way of making heterosexual contact illegal, feminists are moving onto the next horizon in Amsterdam: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/02/labour-seeks-to-make-sexual-harassment-on-the-streets-as-crime/.
     The Dutch Labour party has a bill to make sexual harassment on the streets a crime, with up to three months jail. For women, this initially sounds like a good idea.  And, ideally should help against migrant sexual assaults. But, on reflection, we should understand that it will do nothing of the sort, since sexual offences by non-Whites against women are not treated with the same degree of concern as sexual offences by Whites:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/06/europes-rape-epidemic-western-women-will-be-sacrificed-at-the-alter-of-mass-migration/
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/01/07/muslim-male-refugees-are-raping-women-in-europe-n2100918
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/19/dutch-battle-surge-of-desperate-violent-muslim-ref/
     The proposed measures are likely to be just more politically correct window dressing.

     Here is my brief take on the book sent to me by the noble editor to review, Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, (Vintage books, New York, 2013).  I was genuinely hoping to find some answers here, but was disappointed for my vast investment of time spent ploughing through 449 pages. Was I told the inner secrets of psychology, or how human nature ticked?

     Well, early in the book I was introduced to moral problems. How best to enlighten a Christian audience when the profane is involved? Just push ahead and offer an apology, because this is not my fault.  But, Professor Haidt really likes his example of a moral problem, and I quote: “A man goes to the supermarket and buys a chicken. But before cooking the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it.” (p. 4) I did not expect to be hit by such a shocking example so early in a popular, yet still scholarly book. Worse, it is not clear why this is a moral problem, rather than one needing to be deal with by mental health workers. It may well be that there is nothing morally wrong here from a secular humanist framework, unless masturbation is wrong (which from a Christian framework, it arguably is), but that does not mean that the activity does not exhibit psycho-pathological sexual disorders. It is the wrong example to illustrate a moral/ethical problem, and I found myself questioning many of Haidt’s claims in the book: but where is the argument for that?

     Migrants in Australia, we are told, have delivered an almost four-fold increase in employment growth between 2011 and 2016: The Australian, July 21, 2017, p. 7.  It though is a Ponzi scheme, with the growth being caused by migrants anyway, who tend to be put into what jobs are available. The claim is made that the only jobs lost are those of the unskilled, but this is manifestly untrue, because local skilled also miss out, such as some university graduates.

     For example, the new class elites want to see international students working in the state even before they finish their studies: The Australian July 19, 2017, p. 27.  These jobs will be lost to locals, and it is just magical thinking to suppose that the flow of money spent by international students will create new jobs. There is considerable flexibility in the economy to absorb workers, and to not require more for increased output. More efficiency is simply squeezed out of existing workers. Thus, increased student loads is met by making young PHDers work harder, not by increasing the number of jobs. The money just goes as profit:
http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2017/07/the-economic-argument-against-mass-immigration.html;
https://cis.org/Immigrants-Replace-LowSkill-Natives-Workforce; 
https://cis.org/Immigration-and-Wages;
https://cis.org/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households.

    I have been making this claim, with some controversy here over the years, that Pope Francis hates the West, is a commo Pope, and wants to see the West go down.  A discussion of just these points has appeared now in the mainstream press: Tess Livingstone, “Pro-Migrant Pope ‘Aspires to Destroy Christianity’”, The Australian, July 19, 2017, p. 12; http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/promigrant-pope-francis-aspires-to-destroy-christianity/news-story/76be2aee290dacbaa9417aa8af5abb63.

     The remarks primarily are concerned with retired Pope Benedict XVI, who recently compared the church under Pope Francis to a ship that “has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing.”  As far as criticisms go, that one is strong.
Pope Francis has called on the European nations to abandon their borders, and adopt a federal structure. He is a proponent of open borders immigration for the West, but is silent about immigration to non-white countries, because, well, he is a New World Order kinda guy.

     As James Reed was struggling with the hundreds of pages of his book review, he tossed to me, Cameron Murray and Paul Frijters, Game of Mates: How Favours Bleed the Nation,( 2017).

     This book is timely given that the issue of Chinese influence on our politicians through donations, is not often out of the news. Thus in today’s paper we have “ALP Branch Bows to Chinese Donations Ban,” The Australian, July 21, 2017, p. 5, which tells us that the NSW ALP, under pressure from Bill Shorten, will stop taking donations from two Chinese-born businessmen, with close links to the Beijing government.  ASIO had previously warned about these Chinese businessmen:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/investigations/asio-warns-parties-that-taking-china-cash-could-compromise-australia-20170602-gwjc8t.html. This is a good development.

Australian Conservative, Senator Cory Bernardi, in his “Weekly Dose of Common Sense” shows the real agenda behind Free Trade Agreements and how the UN has morphed into a type of World Government.

He wrote, in part ………………

“As I told the crowd of over 450 people in Brisbane last night, it doesn’t mean any one of us has all the answers. Individually, we bring our unique gifts and skills and talents into the battle of ideas. But together, those gifts complement each other and strengthen our capabilities. Through working together, our individual differences become a source of strength rather than isolation.
That’s what being a community is all about. It’s that sense of belonging and contributing to something bigger than oneself that strengthens families, clubs, cities and nations. It strengthens political parties too.
However, all communities need ties that bind. They need the thread of continuity that runs through all so that we may be drawn together.
At the most basic level that thread is familial. In a political party it is idea, vision and values. As a nation, it is culture.
Culture is our language, our traditions, our laws and our expectations of each other. It emerges over successive generations, each one building upon the previous, bringing us ever closer.
Except that’s not what’s happening now. There is a new force at work within our culture. It isn’t of us and it isn’t working for us. Many refer to it as globalisation but it can take on many monikers.
Despite the reckoning of many pundits, globalisation isn’t about free trade or international markets. Those forces can and do work to our advantage. They provide local businesses with export opportunities and local consumers with a broader range of more competitively-priced goods.
Rather, globalisation is a direct attack on our national sovereignty and self-determination.
It sees unelected bureaucrats in supra-national bodies influencing our domestic agenda through groupthink, peer pressure and intimidation.
The best example is the United Nations. Formed in 1945 for the purpose of preventing another world war through dialogue, it now sees itself as a quasi-world government.
It dictates refugee policy, spruiks the great global warming scam, redefines marriage, smoking policy and so many other virtue-signalling and identity-politics agendas that it has simply become a vehicle for the globalists to push their view.
The UN’s stacked resolutions and dodgy reports are used by political outfits like the Greens to undermine our domestic policy agenda in favour of someone else’s.
These people truly believe they are the enlightened powers that should be running a world of open borders and wealth redistribution in order to save us all. Perhaps that should be ‘enslave’ us all.
It’s time for that to change. We need to reassert our self-determination. That means we need to revisit the treaties, agreements and pacts of decades past to make sure they are working in our interest.
Let’s review them to see if they are achieving what we thought they would. We could start with the UNHCR refugee treaty. It was written in 1951 and the driving forces and key players have changed since then.
Just as every prudent person would insist that every contract has a termination or review date, so too should we insist on reviewing our government’s international agreements at regular intervals.
It will help ensure a check is kept on the agenda that is intent on diminishing, rather than strengthening Australia.”…

I wonder of the Australian Conservatives have a firm position to introduce Citizens Initiative and Referenda as a "core" (non-redactable) policy-ed

Ross Cameron commented on The Australian article: Bill Shorten Calls for Bipartisan Cooperation For Fixed Four-year Terms http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bill-shorten-calls-for-bipartisan-cooperation-for-fixed-four-year-terms/news-story/e3a36d3d9ab4b1c9a5b06a0a8543dc0c
     "Interesting how you can get bipartisan support to extend MP privileges, no chance of extending citizen privileges."   (or CIR-ed)

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Why are supporters of ‘constitutional recognition’ of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders so unwilling to address the major arguments against it?
     Noel Pearson and Shireen Morris (‘A modest yet profound way to give the indigenous a say’, 22-23/7) say nothing about its injustice to other Australians through selective suffrage, or its dangers to our national unity and security, or the likelihood that this so-called ‘modest’ proposal will lead to further demands for more drastic change in the future.
     Why do they cite a supporter, Julian Leeser, as a ‘constitutional conservative’, but ignore the real conservatives - Keith Windschuttle, Andrew Bolt, John Roskam, Gary Johns and others, who firmly oppose the project? Perhaps their reliance on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a clue: it all looks like part of a plan to balkanize Australia and make it less easy for us to remain independent of a planned world government - or tyranny.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic