In our days of darkness, spreading ignorance, and absence of serious debate in public forums, we can take hope from the fact that some scholars still produce serious and informative books on the most critical issues of our time. If in the future policymakers again seek the guidance of truth, they will have the information at hand. One such book of truth is Jeremy R. Hammond’s just published Obstacle to Peace, a closely reasoned, heavily documented (68 pages of footnotes), fully indexed, readable book with a Foreword by Richard Falk, an Introduction by Gene Epstein, and an endorsement by Noam Chomsky.

a Statement by Viv Forbes, Founding Secretary of “Clexit” (Climate Exit)
29 August 2016
For at least a decade we have been told by the UN/IPCC, by most government media and officials, by many politicians, and by the Green “charities” and their media friends that “the science is settled”. We are lectured by Hollywood stars, failed politicians and billionaire speculators that anyone who opposes the World War on Carbon Dioxide is ignorant, mischievous or supporting some hidden vested interest. We endure calls for an end to free speech for climate sceptics, smearing with derogatory terms like “denier”, and even aggressive punishments like dismissal and legal action against sceptics for speaking out. We notice the sudden and unexplained denial of pre-booked sceptic conference facilities and the steadfast refusal of alarmists to debate facts and issues.
 
Why are they so afraid of words? Surely this is a sign that their facts are shonky and their arguments are feeble? They fear they are losing the confidence of the public.
 
The tide is turning, and informed opposition is growing. It is time for the thinking media to give sceptical evidence and conclusions a fair go in the court of public opinion.
 
In a short time with no costly international meetings and very little publicity, Clexit has gathered the support of over 115 members in 20 countries. Please look at the list of Foundation Members and countries: http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/clexit-members.pdf
 
Look at the skills, qualifications, experience and wisdom of our founding members; and the many other well-qualified dissenters listed at the end. The science is clearly not settled.
 
This global warming alarm started with UN sponsored groups such as the IPCC. But Clexit has members who were official IPCC reviewers but they dissented from the final public IPCC reports which were prepared by political appointees.
 
The climate alarm rests totally on computerised models of atmospheric physics. But Clexit has highly qualified meteorologists, physicists, astro-physicists, radiation experts, climate modellers and long-range forecasters who reject the science, maths, assumptions and forecasts of the greenhouse-driven computer models.
 
We are told that Earth’s climate is controlled by the gradual increase of a tiny trace of one colourless gas in the atmosphere. But Clexit has specialists who can show that the warm and cold currents in the deep and extensive oceans, the variable water vapour in the atmosphere and Earth’s changing cover of ice, snow and clouds have far more effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide.
 
We are told that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. But Clexit has organic chemists, biologists, physicians, naturalists, graziers, foresters and farmers who know that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is very beneficial for Earth’s biosphere – deserts are contracting, bush and forests are expanding, and crop yields are up.
 
We are told that sea levels are rising alarmingly. But Clexit has experts on sea level history and measurement who can prove that there is nothing unusual or alarming about current fluctuations in sea levels.
 
We are told that today’s climate is extreme and unusual. But Clexit has geologists and geographers who have studied eons of climate history via ice cores, stratigraphy, paleontology, deep-sea drilling, historical records, glaciers, ice sheets and landscapes and who say that climate change is normal and today’s climate is not extreme or unusual.
 
We are told to fear the coming global warming. But Clexit has geologists and researchers who have studied the cycles of the ice ages and the climate effects of the Milankovitch cycles in Earth’s orbit – obliquity, eccentricity and precession. They say we have passed the peak of this modern warm era and the long-term trend is now towards global cooling. We will still have short-term periods of hot and extreme weather, and some heat records may still be broken, but the 1,000 year climate averages are trending down towards the next glacial epoch of the Pleistocene Ice Age.
 
We are told repeatedly that the Great Barrier Reef is doomed by dangers that change annually – rising seas, river sediments, warm seas, ocean acidity, fertiliser run-off, coal port development, over-fishing or marauding star-fish. But Clexit has qualified members who have studied oceanography and ancient and modern corals and report that the Reef is healthy, and corals have survived far more dramatic changes in sea levels and climate in the past.
 
Solar cycles get no consideration in the IPCC climate models but Clexit has astro-physicists and long range weather forecasters who have demonstrated that solar and lunar cycles have big effects on Earth’s climate and weather cycles. In addition, while billions of dollars are spent fruitlessly on failed climate models and endless climate conferences, little is known about the strings of undersea volcanoes or how much geothermal heat is released from Earth’s molten interior during orogenic upheavals.
 
We are told that we must embrace green energy. But Clexit has power engineers and logistics experts who say that wind and solar can never run modern industrial societies, modern transport or big cities. Such a policy is a recipe for blackouts and starvation. Clexit also has naturalists and conservationists who see more harm than good in extensive wind, solar and bio-fuel developments.
 
Finally, we are told that to save the world we need to hand powerful taxing and regulating powers to unelected officials of the United Nations. But Clexit has politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen, columnists, lawyers, army officers and bloggers who see that this political agenda will destroy the freedoms we cherish.
 
Many Clexit members have held very senior positions in research, industry or academia but no longer have sensitive positions, careers or incomes to protect, so are free to express honest opinions, which they have done by supporting “Clexit”.
 
We ask the media to give our soundly-based dissenting conclusions a fair hearing – there are two sides to most stories, but only one side is being aired.
 
The Clexit initiative was launched with no budget, promises or funds. So, unlike the alarmists with an agenda, those receiving rivers of government funds and those posing as tax-exempt charities, we cannot afford massive advertising costs.
 
We hope, in the interests of fair play, you see fit to give our valid concerns some space in the free media.

Note: The first informal meeting of many Clexit members will take place in London on Sept 8/9, 2016 at this conference (whose first booked venue was suddenly withdrawn):
https://geoethic.com/london-conference-2016/
 
Disclosure: The formation of Clexit was not prompted or supported by any industry, corporation, group or lobby nor have they had any say in our statements or conclusions.
 
Viv Forbes,
Secretary, Clexit
www.clexit.net
Rosewood    Qld   Australia

All that the present multicult, politically correct regime in the West lacks, which would make it a new form of the Medieval Inquisition, is the systematic use of physical torture to subdue dissent, or anyone in any way bucking the system, or misbehaving.
Consider the case of the “racist banana.”

There is no doubt that the red-headed Port Adelaide supporter, who in the heat of an angry moment, threw a banana at indigenous Crows star, Eddie Betts, acted in poor taste. But, once upon a time, before race became the politically charged issue it is today, people would have laughed this off. The player would have given a rude finger sign to the girl, or even threw the banana back, with some witty line to put her in her place. Everyone, even members of the opposing team would marvel at this displace of masculinity, taking it on the jaw.
The Premier would not have taken time off from running the state to comment on playground incidents. And that is what politically correct football is now – little more than an extended version of high school, literally a politically correct football.

Perhaps it is time for Australians to move on beyond a game where grown men in rude shorts, chase a ball. How about we all stop going to the football, and ban ourselves for life?

Migrants who came to Australia after the war got their unfair share of Aussie banter, but it did not stop them from going on to success. They gave back as good as they got, and nobody cried about name calling, banter, or the shame of “racism.” What shows the inconsistency of the multicult and the hyper-anti-racist culture, is that the girl was subjected to extreme sexual and racial abuse on the social media by Social Justice Warriors, who exist as attack dogs against anyone transgressing their cosmopolitan norms.

I was opposed to the same sex marriage plebiscite until reading Michael Kirby’s article “Parliament is the Proper Place for Enacting Laws,” The Australian, August 9, 2016, p. 12.
Kirby, the great dissenter on the High Court of Australia has no problem with unelected judges making law, and in fact he proudly proclaims: “The High Court of Australia in 2013 unanimously made it clear that the entire power to enact same-sex marriage in Australia rested with the federal parliament.”

Kirby doesn’t like plebiscites, saying that a “plebiscite, as a precondition to legislation, is a totally exceptional procedure with no foothold in the Constitution.”

The news that Australian gas is cheaper in Japan than it is for Australian consumers comes as no surprise to older readers of On Target.

The June 17, 1977 edition of OT reported:

MORE SUBSIDIES FOR SOVIET CONSUMERS

"Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co. Ltd. of Victoria, manufacturer and marketer of dairy produce for more than 6000 Victorian and southern NSW dairy farmers, announced last week a huge sale of butter and full cream milk powder, worth almost $50 million, to the Soviet Union and Venezuela". The Australian, 27/5/77

The information which one can obtain from your local member can be instructive. One of our supporters wrote to his local member asking about recent cuts to dairy prices and potential assistance to the industry. The letter, in part, said:
“I referred specifically to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (Articles 3 and 5) and the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (Article 13 and Annex 2).
These agreements prohibit governments from providing subsidies or direct assistance to businesses which can then influence the export performance of a product, or preference domestic over imported products.”

So, a 50 c/L levy on milk, that would save our local dairy farmers, would breach these agreements. But, other nations only give a nodding glance at these agreements, which are basically only for the West to hold to, so both hands are tied behind our backs. It does not take long surfing the net to find vast literature on Chinese protectionism of industry and agriculture. Even Obama accused China of protecting its car industry, contrary to WTO dictates. Indeed, much industry in China is based on the communist state-run enterprises, so there is not even a sharp distinction between public and private, which is presupposed by the WTO documents.
These WTO Trade Agreements and other agreements such as the TPP are a recipe for Australian economic suicide.

Perhaps I am just being my optimistic self, but I observe just a little bit more caution from some of the leading journalists at The Australian, especially over the Chinese bid for the NSW electricity network – a sale which is still potentially open to the Chinese as attempts are made to jump over security concerns. (The Australian, August 19, 2016, p. 2) Of course, Asianisation first; security second.

This sale is of an asset and is not an investment which builds a new business. Thus, the Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens (The Australian, August 17, 2016, p. 1), has recently warned against this sort of foreign investment, which is pushing up the value of the Australian dollar.
Stevens said: “Foreign capital that builds new assets – like some of the capital that funded the mining boom – that’s one thing. Foreign capital that buys up the existing assets, I’m not saying that we should be closed to that, but that’s not creating new capital for the country. That’s just altering the allocation of who owns the capital that’s here now".

 The Human Rights Commission is seeking to have the public prevented from commenting on an inquiry into their handling of the University student race-hate case. (The Australian, August 8, 2016, p.5) The commission submitted that it would not be appropriate to consider submissions from the public.

That, I think, is the best argument which one can give for the dissolving of the Human Rights Commission.

Although I seldom agree with The Australian's "editor-at-large", Paul Kelly, his article "Race, Gender: The Risk of Identity Politics" (The W.E. Australian, August 6-7, 2016, p.15), raises issues that conservatives have become too afraid to address. In fact Kelly does talk about the question of "weakness":

"This movement proves the ideological creativity of the Left, the manipulative power of human rights law and the perversion of the idea of justice - seen in this country in Section 18 C of the Racial Discrimination Act where individuals can (initiate) legal action because they are "offended" by others".

An interesting article, worth noting is by Michael Sexton, “Telling Argument Against Dissenting Perspectives,” The Australian, August 16, 2016, p. 12.
Sexton says that the politically correct class in Australia is extremely powerful and rules the public agendas and debates, tolerating little dissent.
It champions same-sex marriage, section 18 C, sees Australia as deeply racist, and believes in human-caused climate change, all with the passion of a religion.

We can add to this list; such that Australia is a part of Asia,  and a fanatical support for multi-culturalism/multi-racialism and mass migration, and the array of Aboriginal issues.

The “Trump apocalypse” is a term I use to describe what will happen when Hillary Clinton is inevitably elected president of the United States in November, and the political fallout that will come from it.
There are, of course many who believe that Trump will triumph, such as exhibited by a recent turnabout by former critic Brad Thor (“Rethinking the #NeverTrump Position,” August 16, 2016, at http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/16/brad-thor-rethinking-the-nevertrump-position/.)
Hillary is a “cancer drug” which will kill the US; the Trump-drug may also kill the US, but it may also slow the cancer down.

David Cole at Taki Mag (“My God, What if He Loses?” August 18, 2016, at http://takimag.com/article/my_god_what_if_he_loses_david_cole/print#axzz4I0higTGG0,  expresses doubt that Trump could win. He interviews some Alternative thinkers, who are also concerned. The polls for Trump look bad, Cole argues, and the polls are usually right. Yes, sure, like they were right about Brexit; all polls indicated a defeat, and look where that went. And not all polls, if any, can be trusted at all, indicate that Trump is losing.

The proposed reforms to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act suggested by Judge Ron Sackville ('Align 18C with community standards: judge', The Australian, 20-21/8) are not a satisfactory defence of free speech on race.

Firstly, there is no need to balance freedom of speech with retention of 'an effective armoury against racial hatred'. Such a retention is a significant and unacceptable inhibition on true freedom of speech, because of the range of interpretations to which the phrase 'racial hatred' is subject.

Australian businesses with close ties to China donated $5.5m to political parties, investigation shows

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-21/australian-groups-strong-ties-china-political-donations/7768012

The disastrous visitation imposed on Australian Dairy-farmers was not unexpected.
It has been building up for many years and if you had been following the trends it was inevitable although its final form unknown; invariably it would be accompanied by misery and hardship for honest hard-working Australians.

The number of cows needed to remain a viable business has increased year by year pushed by costs arising from outside the farm boundary. In the beginning it was relatively easy to milk a few more cows or plant a couple more acres of crop. It was akin to a raging fire under the steam-boiler and adding more weight to the pressure relief valve.

All of the increased costs are induced by State and Federal Governments who automatically increase their taxes and charges by the annual inflation rate and this flows right through the community.
Added to this are local government rates and charges; have you ever known rates to be reduced? Capping council rates is another weight on the ‘pressure valve’.
Whenever there is a tariff review or references to the Productivity Commission, it always means increased costs whether it is energy (power and fuel), water for irrigation, etcetera. Farmers cannot pass these costs on to somebody else.

To offer farmers’ loans at concessional interest rates is also an inane response when the total rural debt carried by a diminishing number of farmers is rising each year.
It is not sustainable and will lead to ever more hardship and misery spread throughout the entire population of Australia with the only exemptions the few who live in ‘ivory towers’ who are insulated from the results of their decisions; it is time for a change!

The nub of the problem lies with the financial system and inherent inflationary policies emanating from our Parliaments. The Reserve Bank is a creature of the Parliament and is charged with ‘managing Australia’s Finance’. (Ask your elected Member for a copy of the Reserve Bank Act 1959)

Inflation should NOT BE MANAGED BUT ELIMINATED, and it can be!
This was effectively done during World War II and you can find references in the Australian Year Book, Number 37, 1946-47, beginning page 458.
Chapter XII, Labour Wages and Prices. Section C. Control of Prices during and since the 1939-45 War.

An inquiry into the Financial System needs to be undertaken but not lead by the wolves, (bankers and economists) instructing the foxes (elected politicians) how to manage the lambs and chickens (Australian Public).

It is the Parliament that should be instructing the ‘financial managers’ to implement policies in the best interests of the Australian people or terminate their employment; they must be judged on their performance which at present is wanting.
This also applies to the elected politicians who would rather yield to external foreign and financial interests before serving their constituents.

In the final analysis it comes down to the voting patterns of you, the Australian Voter … when will you wake up?
Louis Cook, Numurkah, Victoria

Some press references for your interest follow …

Most of us are aware that Senator Cory Bernardi has an on-line petition, "Free Speech Petition" at http://www.corybernardi.com/18c_petition.

The petition seeks for parliament to remove the most troubling words from section 18 C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the words being "offend" and "insult". This would still leave the words "humiliate" and "intimidate" in the section, which would operate as before.

Is this a step forward, or this this managed dissent?
The answer is: both. It is a step forward, as eliminating these words would knock down almost all of the problematic cases from the Bolt case to the University student ones. It is thus worth supporting for that reason.

However, there is weighty opinion that has been made repeatedly in The Australian by legal commentators, that the entire section needs to go. A good book arguing for more comprehensive reforms, especially to defences, is No Offence Intended: Why Section 18 C is Wrong (2016).

I think the presently "offended" ethnics will only now claim that they are "humiliated." There is only a thin line between being offended and being humiliated, and today, all those offended will say that they are also humiliated, and naturally intimidated, because the bar is very low in the politically correct landscape.

Democracy Needs Divine Intervention
In 1887 the Scottish history Professor Alexander Tytler, at Edinburgh University, speaking about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2000 years earlier, (was attributed to have said-ed) the average age of the world's greatest civilisations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years.

"During those 200 years these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
from bondage to spiritual faith,
from spiritual faith to great courage,
from Courage to Liberty,
from liberty to abundance,
from abundance to complacency,
from complacency to apathy,
from apathy to dependence,
from dependence back into bondage".

The essence of free speech is the ability of a person to be able to publicly express an opinion, informed or otherwise, true or false, on matters of local, national and international importance, without hindrance. Defenders of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, such as Meredith Doig, President of the Rationalist Society of Australia Inc. (‘Dealing with the contentious matter of 18C’, Sydney Morning Herald, 25/8) decline to uphold this ideal and produce specious arguments to justify their position.

There is no obligation on government whatever to ‘balance’ liberty against ‘equality’. The latter is an arithmetical term foolishly invoked to mask the agendas of interested parties. Equity is the appropriate term to use; and it does not collide with the defence of intellectual freedom.

The Federal government spending on Indigenous affairs is an astonishing $5.9 billion a year, but most of this money is failing to help Aborigines, according to a report published by the Centre for Independent Studies. (The Australian, August 23, 2016, p.1) The study found that less than 10 percent of 1082 programmes had been subjected to proper evaluation to determine their effectiveness.

The 1082 programmes are “just the tip of the iceberg.” And the figure will increase once non-indigenous NG0 spending in the indigenous sector, and university spending is added, which would add billions.