Comments

quark

Thu, 2015-08-27 08:57

Rising house prices do not benefit people who only have one house which is adequate and not superfluous to their needs. Home owner retirees on more or less fixed incomes are disadvantaged by the rise in the $ value of their houses as their council rates increase and become an ever higher proportion of their incomes. Furthermore costs of moving house are multiplied by the rise in house prices . Living in a house you own because you paid for it is not hoarding capital as the house is needed. It is does not represent excess capital.

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2015-08-26 23:08

What is the relationship between keeping a home and preserving capital growth. Why must both be aimed at? If house prices go down so will the cost of living. Less growth will be required. I need more explanation.

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2015-08-26 23:03

I am glad people are discussing the "Note" in the above article and attempting to relate it to politics. I would like to refer readers to the article below, quoted in part. http://candobetter.net/node/3197 It discusses how power and territory can be and is accumulated through endogamy and how forced exogamy has the opposite effect of disorganising power and possession of territory. Australians might like to think about the use of 'diversity' as a policy in this context. Without endogamy we would not only have no Zulus, Maoris, different Australian aboriginal peoples, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, different tribes and languages in New Guinea, exotic peoples like the Karen in Thailand, French regional differences, Jewish communities or royal families. It is indeed ironic that Australian policy encourages tolerance towards Muslims and other ethnicities coming to Australia from the Middle East whilst supporting devastating military interventions in their countries of origin: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and every effort to destroy local organisation (based on endogamy) in those countries. Without endogamy we would also not have separate populations and sub-populations of other animals and plants, for every sexually reproducing species seems to be organised according to rules about incest varying according to local environmental capacity. See Demography, Territory, Law: Rules of Animal and Human Populations In the article http://candobetter.net/node/3197 I explain that, depending on the kinship rules in your clan or tribe, you will have more or less fertility opportunities, limited to your own people (i.e. your tribe or clan). When animals (including humans) could only travel on foot, immigration existed but could rarely make a lot of difference to fertility opportunities unless there was wholesale invasion. Boats, horses, elephants etc made distant travel more accessible for humans and some peoples, like the Vikings and the Romans, took early advantage of such opportunities. Mass migration and rapid distance travel have exploded clans and tribes since rail, then automobile and plane. Small states coalesced into nations, which are really big natural intermarrying tribes. All have their rules about exogamy. Almost no peoples totally outlaw out-marriage or adoption into the clan or tribe, but all have their rules, which usually preserve their 'autopoesis' or self-recognition. What has happened in the 'settler states' is that the tribe has become an administrative notion overseen by a privileged caste which does not intermarry with ordinary people but with money and power, whilst administering a disorganised population with few connections to land or power. So I would say that our problem is not poor, malnourished people who sometimes intermarry despite heavy genetic disease loads, but powerful people who intermarry and accumulate territory whilst making sure that the rest of us are dispersed and landless and our bargaining powers are diluted by high immigration. With regard to IQ, healthy genes are obviously a bonus; environmental stimulation plays a huge part; diet is super important and lack of sufficient animal protein and fat in early life dooms whole populations to less than their potential intelligence, especially when the problem continues over generations. I guess that the popular identification of inbreeding as a feature of oddball peoples came from observation by occupying castes of the people they displaced and forced into suboptimal conditions, rather than similar practices among the occupying castes who intermarried to preserve their territory. Whilst modern genetic counselling may reduce the incidence of inherited diseases (but not all are known or tested for) modern fertility enhancement increases fertility in women and men who might otherwise not have reproduced and who have genetic problems, such as polycystic ovarian syndrome, which is on the rise. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776334/. Environment and diet may also play a part in this syndrome. http://candobetter.net/node/3197 Overpopulation: Endogamy,Exogamy and fertility opportunity theory Outside the property development and population growth lobby, very few people who are worried about population growth and high immigration appreciate the effect of endogamy (marrying within your people) and exogamy (marrying outside your people) on population size and fertility. They also don’t recognize its effect on the private amassing of wealthy estates and political power. Anyone who wants to understand modern day problems with overpopulation, poverty, and loss of democracy would do well to study this article. This article is intended to stimulate debate about democracy, wealth distribution, and overpopulation. The author invites critical comments and argument. Article based on S.M. Newman Demography, Territory and Law: Land-tenure and the origins of capitalism in Britain, Countershock Press, 2014. and S.M. Newman Demography, Territory and Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations, Countershock Press, 2013. How to read the diagrams: White squares in the diagrams below indicate permitted marriages and black squares indicate forbidden marriages. White squares become black squares when someone is already married, although polygamy varies this factor. The symetrical rules for marriage to "in-laws" are indicated by mirror images, creating an overall pyramid form in the diagram of an extended family or clan. "Endogamy" refers to marrying within one’s clan, tribe or similar social unit. "Exogamy" refers to marrying outside those units. The most extreme kinds of endogamy tend to be practiced by ancient royal clans, such as the Egyptians and the Incas, where there were sibling, father-daughter and grandfather-granddaughter marriages. Less extreme, but more common, are first and other cousin marriages, frequently practiced by nobility and other established clans and tribes. The wealthy, whether they are noble or not, tend to marry other wealthy people for similar reasons. Diagrams and rest of article here: http://candobetter.net/node/3197

Dennis K

Wed, 2015-08-26 22:34

The reduced spending power of Western nations is dragging down emerging economies (including China), who rely on being able to export goods to us. But we don't have money to buy those goods. International trade has slowed markedly in the last year or two, and is one of the reasons for the current financial crisis emerging. The wealth is tied up in bubbles. Our current spending was sacrificed to buy inflated assets in the past, and with the sharemarket turning sour, we can expect to see the Self Managed Super Fund grey army pour their money into bricks and mortar, driving up prices further, and further eroding productive spending, and exacerbating the financial crisis. We cannot support sustainable population economically if we are to support asset price bubbles. I'll be blunt. Any attempt to stabilise population levels, or stop population growth, without also correcting asset bubbles and reducing private debt (not government debt) is doomed to fail. The choice has to be made. Do older Australians get to keep their capital in their homes, or do we have a sustainable population? If they want to keep their homes AND the capital growth, then we have to find additional consumption from elsewhere. You have to understand that the West still has most of the wealth. The rest of the world relies on our buying of goods. If the large boomer demographic of the wealth holding west lock it up and hoard it, then trade slows and the global economy slows. Here is where the animosity towards the Boomers that some have comes in. They are perceived as being unwilling to allow the situation to correct and the government knows this. That is not to say that this is THE reason, there are many other factors, but it is one reason, and it is a reason that there was concern about the 'ageing' population.

Dennis K

Wed, 2015-08-26 21:09

Engogamy doesn't necessarily imply close breeding (ie, cousin marriage). Inbreeding can have positive results, in that deleterious genes are brought to the forefront and can be eliminated, and desirable traits can be propagated, as potentially beneficial recessive genes are more likely to be expressed. BUT, in human society the role of natural selection is subdued, and intermarriage becomes a political matter. While it may serve a purpose politically or socially it is the result of the social systems that people have created. Also, the likelihood of inbreeding becoming a problem is dependant on the number of deleterious genes in the family in the first place. A family with good genes can engage in interbreeding with little ill effect. One with bad genes will display issues within a few generations. As for the benefit of endogamy, I struggle to see how a working, sustainable endogamous system can be created without "racist" implications. The argument against racism necessitates the removal of this type of thinking and essentially outlaws any advocation of endogamy, which in practice would continue what the argument against racism states should cease... Also, I do believe that IQ as measured does measure some aspects of intelligence reliably, and does correlate with a nations development. The role that diet, education and genes play in IQ is yet to be reliably quantified, but it seems that health/diet and genes are quite significant (refer to the Flynn Effect).

anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2015-08-25 18:16

"In fact, a high rate of endogamy need not be genetically damaging; it can be beneficial, both in terms of preserving control over territory and in strengthening positive traits. " Maybe there should be a clear distinction between marrying withing one's close family, such as with cousins, and marrying within the community, or tribe? I know of a carer for people with disabilities, who said that there are many Italian and Greeks who traditionally intermarried, and now have grown up offspring in care. “It is once said that marriage your cousin & increase your empire” but that was the tribal era which promoted the system but close family marriages are also practiced & preferred in Royal families. Inbreeding is considered a problem in humans because inbreeding increases the chances of receiving a deleterious recessive allele inherited from a common ancestor. Statutes passed in the 19th and early 20th centuries made inbreeding and marriages to the first cousin level illegal in the majority of the United States. It is estimated that at least 55% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins and the tradition is also common among other British South Asian communities and in Middle Eastern countries. Muslim culture still practices inbreeding and has been doing so for the better part of 1400 years. Nikolai Sennels is a Danish psychologist who has done extensive research into a little-known problem in the Muslim world: the disastrous results of Muslim inbreeding brought about by the marriage of first-cousins. According to Sennels, research shows that children of consanguineous marriages lose 10-16 points off their IQ and that social abilities develop much slower in inbred babies. While it might sound "racist", the damages from inbreeding, for many centuries, could be devastating and should be avoided.

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2015-08-25 09:04

We must uphold the Iran nuclear agreement, but upholding it while pretending that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, or is threatening anyone, will not create a stable and lasting foundation for peace. Upholding an agreement with both proponents and opponents threatening war as an alternative is perilous as well as immoral, illegal, and — given the outcome of similar recent wars based on similar recent propaganda — insane.

Please spread the above message on Facebook here, Twitter here, Instagram here, Tumblr here, and Google+ here.

Please post your thoughts as comments at this page, where World Beyond War leaders will be engaging in discussion with you re the facts of the matter, the politics at work, and what can be done.

Read our statement: World Beyond War Supports Iran Deal

In the U.S. sign these petitions: one, two, and join these events. 

More events all over the world, and tools for creating your own are here.

Outside the U.S., contact the nearest U.S. Embassy.



Sign the Declaration of Peace.

Join us on Facebook and Twitter.

Support World Beyond War's work by clicking here.

admin

Tue, 2015-08-25 01:36

This was posted to Q and A in response to their failure to put my video question to Anna Bligh on tonight's program. See also 9:36PM on Q and A: Anna Bligh to be questioned on privatisation.

Dear Tony Jones,

Was Virginia (Triole - spelling?), your temporary replacement for tonight's program, not properly instructed on how to compere Q and A?

... or was it the Q and A management's decision not to put one video question, nor one posted on-line question to any of the four panellists?

The only questions put to the panel were from the studio audience, none of which seemed to pose any challenge to any member of the panel.

A friend who watched Q and A to see my question put to Anna Bligh fell asleep for a while, so bored was she with the questions put and the self-indulgent responses from the panel.

I went to lot of trouble to have my question to Anna Bligh filmed, edited and uploaded. I had thought that my question about why she did not ask Queenslanders at the March 2009 elections for a mandate to privatise so many of their publicly owned assets was precisely the sort of question that should be put to members of Q and A panels and precisely what Q and A's domestic audience want to see.

If you can confirm that the failure to post any videos was due to a failure to properly instruct Virginia Triole how to compere Q and A, and not due to a management decision, I would like to post a video question to Naomi Klein for next week's program. (I have bought and read all of Naomi Klein's books and have given away copies of "The Shock Doctrine" to a number of my friends.)

Finally, could you please tell me how questions are selected to be put to panel members? It was quite uplifting, before tonight's episode, to see my video question only fourth in the queue. Are they voted upon by Q and A viewers or are they selected by you or other staff at Q and A?

Thank you,

yours faithfully,

James Sinnamon

James Sinnamon

Mon, 2015-08-24 17:54

A video of my question to former Queensland Premier Anna Bligh has been posted to the ABC Q and A site. The video is Question on privatisation for Anna Bligh. The text of the question is:

This is a question for former Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh. In 2009 I ran in the Queensland elections as a candidate against the privatisation of state assets. I would have run again on this issue in 2012 but for a near fatal car accident in 2010. On page 186 of your recently published memoir, Through the Wall, you blame the campaign by affiliated trade unions against privatisation and not yourself for the Queensland Labor Party's devastating defeat at the 2012 state elections. Why didn't you ask the Queensland public at the March 2009 elections, as I had formally asked you to do in February 2009, whether or not they wanted even more of their assets privatised? Or, do you think, as, for example, John Howard, Paul Keating, and Peter Beattie evidently believed, that the owners of public assets had no right to say whether or not their assets were flogged off? Assets sold off included the Port of Brisbane, the coal carrying division of Queensland Rail, and the Abbott Point coal loader.

See also: To Q and A: Why wan't my video question put to Anna Bligh?

Geoffrey Taylor

Thu, 2015-08-20 01:52

First published (17/8/15) on PressTV A British Conservative lawmaker says that young unemployed Britons should be sent to mandatory boot camps to ensure their fitness for a job. Matt Hancock said, "By working across government to make sure that every young person is in work or training, by opening up 3 million more apprenticeships, expanding traineeships, and making sure that a life on benefits is simply not an option, we want to end rolling welfare dependency for good, so welfare dependency is no longer passed down the generations." "We are absolutely committed to ending long-term youth unemployment and building a country for workers, where nobody is defined by birth and everyone can achieve their potential," he added. This is while critics have slammed such a plan as a form of punishment of the youth, which Hancock was swift to dismiss, saying, "We are penalizing nobody because nobody who does the right thing and plays by the rules will lose their benefits," he told BBC Radio 4 on Monday Now London-based editor and commentator Javier Farje says such a plan can only bear results when there are job opportunities for the young people and that without such vacancies, there would be no point in training the youth who will also lose their benefits if they fail to attend the trainings. The 'boot camp' will take place over three weeks. Young people who do not attend will be stripped of their rights to the Job Seekers' Allowance benefits. Dubbed an 'intensive activity program', the camp will take place at job centers and comprises up to 71 hours of the first three weeks of a benefit claim, according to RT. The curriculum is set to include classes on filling out job applications, interview techniques and will teach youngsters how to search for jobs. It will be compulsory for all job seekers between the ages of 18 and 21.

Geoffrey Taylor

Wed, 2015-08-19 19:54

Below are reader's comments in response to Jeff Kennett's opinion piece. It is necessary to allow a number of web sites to run scripts on your browser to see these comments. To post a comment or even just press the 'like' or 'dislike' links for any comment, it is necessary to register with the Courier Mail and provide personal details.

Ecoengine 5:20PM, 18 Aug 2015

Jeff Kennett's suggestion that our young people are unemployed because they lack development, and experience. Thus, they need to do community work, or national service. It's offensive to the unemployed, and a slight on their efforts and abilities! What is flawed is our economic model on endless growth, and the loss of jobs because of government policies. We have our skilled migration, of up to 240,000 per year, plus an uncapped quantity of temporary migrants here. Our population growth is faster than job creation. There needs to be an assessment of our current economic policies, and immigration rates need to be pulled in line with our productivity, costs, and how many jobs there are left over for locals without blowing out our welfare budget.

Steve 10:00AM, 18 Aug15

Quote - "First, those receiving unemployment benefits, who are not intellectually or physically disabled, should be involved in some form of occupation that will keep them busy, in return for the financial benefit they receive from Australians."

I don't disagree with this, but they must get at least minimum wage. Work for the dole only deals with slave wage amounts. And any work will do. It doesn't have to be stimulating ... my work surely isn't, but here in the real world, you do what you can to get paid so you can live.

Leslie 8:20AM 18 Aug15

For the record, my housemate is a 22 year old radiographer student who is finishing up his final year placement. He works 5 days fulltime for $0 from 6:30am, he is one of the most switched on and clued-up young people I've ever met, head on straight, incredibly hard worker, looks after his health, knows what's going on in the world and is completely disillusioned with our government and the trajectory our country is taking.

He lives on Austudy, he lives very frugally, the biggest cost is our bedroom rent as he needed accommodation near the hospital, did I mention he bike rides each morning at 6:30am to get there in the freezing cold, to save petrol money. He buys groceries and petrol and pays bills, aside from that over 6 months all I've seen him buy is a mattress and oil for his bike. I'm actually concerned he needs his car serviced as it sounds terrible, but he doesn't have the money.

So what I'm getting at:

Is this the world we want for the next generations? Baby Boomers 1  sitting high in their negatively geared properties while our youth slug their guts out so they can spend their years renting, all the time told they just need to work harder? Do you wonder why the bitterness and resentment is growing when we see people like Bishop and that other guy take all the travel and perks they like at our expense. When we see these people parading about fluffing their feathers at us who completely lack any sense of decency and morals.

Then you call for community service for youth.

It just smacks of hypocrisy and is simply disgusting. When we get to the crux of the matter, the youth didn't put our country in the situation it's in, greed did: namely government colluding with big business and topping it off with help from Murdoch. So trying to pin all the consequence onto youth, let them carry the entire weight of your mess-ups, (and also pensioners, 50+ getting back into workforce - I haven't forgotten about how you've been screwed over too), lies at the heart of the problem.

Just like Wall Street getting off scot-free with a very nice bailout a few years back. The real culprits skate, while the victims are left to pick up the tab.

Leslie 8:00AM, 18 Aug15

Wonderful, so lets lump all the young in the category of selfish, selfie taking, brats, good work. So all the young who reject this materialistic lifestyle, have a brain and are kind, bighearted and selfless, who see what has become of this country would then be forced into community service for a year. Lets just do a one size fits all, works like a charm everytime doesn't it?

Then when they finish their one year of community service or as it's more properly known "work for the dole" they can to come out to no jobs aside from retail and hospitality again so they can be further exploited. Brilliant, critical thinking going on there.

You had me up until community service as long as you were talking about real jobs and not stacking boxes in a warehouse (after the young person has already spent countless years working menial hospitality/retail jobs), a real entry level job where they can gain experience, actual training (that word employers are allergic to) and move up in the field they studied in. Then you lost all credibility. The politicians ought to do community service, they certainly having been serving the community for a long time now, just 1% of the community.

Footnote[s]

1. ↑  The following articles argue that Baby Boomers as a group have been unjustly blamed for many of the problems created by high immigration and the neo-liberal economic policies that were imposed on this country since 1983 by Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and their successors on both 'sides' of the Australian parliamentary political spectrum:

Baby Boomers can't win! (17 Aug 2008) by quark and Baby Boomer to Gen Y on home ownership (11 Feb 2014) by admin.- Ed

anonymous (not verified)

Wed, 2015-08-19 17:06

It’s an issue that mirrors the nation’s economic and social health but gets little or no attention and very little public debate. The article by Jeff Kennett says that the unacceptably high rate of youth unemployment and there are no programs of substance at any level of government to proactively address the issue. Australia’s youth jobless rate today stands at 13.4 per cent. The highest rate ever recorded in Australia was 20.3 per cent in 1992 and the lowest rate was 7.7 per cent in 2008. His solutions are: First, those receiving unemployment benefits, who are not intellectually or physically disabled, should be involved in some form of occupation that will keep them busy, in return for the financial benefit they receive from Australians. Secondly, Australia should consider a mandatory year for all young Australians at the end of their secondary education, or when they turn a certain age, to undertake community service. Life today is so much about the individual – there is little concept about team, or of working and sharing together. Of being Australian as opposed to being an individual. Opinion: Tackle youth unemployment with meaningful jobs programs and community service work, says Jeff Kennett (undated as of 19/8/15) | Courier Mail There's some underlying assumption that young people need to be developed, and benefit from community or national service. He's suggestion there are personal limitations in our young people, rather than as flawed economic model, based on endless and perpetual growth! There's nothing mentioned about our massive "skilled immigration" of temporary and permanent immigration, the prohibitive costs of tertiary training/education, or the fact that due to trade agreements and high quantities of imports, Australia is losing jobs instead of producing goods. Successive premiers, from Jeff Kennett to John Brumby, have lobbied for more migration. Jeff Kennett, was actively courting the ethnic vote, siding openly with the Greek leadership on the Greek/Macedonian question. The unemployment crisis should be relabeled as a symptom of population growth overshoot of jobs creation, and our economy.

Rob Braby (not verified)

Wed, 2015-08-19 01:45

The Victorian Government is currently conducting an inquiry into end of life issues. Submissions have closed - so far 300 have been posted on the web site. http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/lsic/article/2609. The weight of argument and evidence in the submissions is very strongly in favour of reform, i.e. the decriminalisation of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. My submission is too long to include here, but it can be read as submission no. 193. Comments welcome.

anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2015-08-17 19:07

The United Nations is not doing its job. As its name, it should be negotiating to end the causes of asylum seekers, but it's being ignored. It should be uniting nations against conflicts, intervention, corruption, colonialization, overpopulation and ending wars. This aspect of asylum seekers is being ignored. It's assumed that 60 million displaced people is an inevitable part of our modern world. If there's more bombing in Syria, where will the people go? The US has opened a gaping wound, opening up the evil of ISIS and opposition to the West. The UN is corrupt. It's old and out of date with modern world problems. The Latin American leaders are corrupt, and end up in the high positions, executives of the UN. Exceptional was one Peruvian Dr Perez de Cuellar. He was the last honest, sane, transparent, and a strong authority who inspired respect- the best one. Now friends of dictators of Latin America are corrupt. How can Bolivia or any other country be "neutral" if the central office of the UN is in New York? Not possible. The United States is part of the business of destroying Syria. America wants to sell more guns and prohibit prosperity for third world countries and keep the status quo for business!

Stop the kangar... (not verified)

Mon, 2015-08-17 16:39

The population in the suburb of Grace which sits north of Canberra, grew 57 per cent in the past financial year - the fastest level of population growth during the period. The suburb is about 13 kms from Canberra’s CBD. The suburb started out as bushland in 2009 but by 2014 recorded $112 million worth of new dwellings. "Urban growth is as inevitable as progress" says Simon Crowther, CEO of nearmap. This is our present economic model, of "progress" in housing growth, and foreign investment in property! Watch as one of Australia's fastest growing suburbs transforms from a vacant dirt block to suburbia in ACT This former "dirt block" was actually bushland. The silence of protest to protect the legless lizards and sun-moths is deafening - the environmental reason for the ACT's annual kangaroo "cull" because they are an environmental threat!

DennisK (not verified)

Mon, 2015-08-17 12:47

I take the view that if white Australians were to start forming a political block for their (my) interests, this would NOT be a tragedy. This would be a positive development, as this is natural, and what everyone else does. I don't care much about culture, and I don't care about conservatism or "cultural nationalism". 2000 years ago, my direct ancestors had a culture completely alien, and in many ways one considered "inappropriate". 100 years ago, the culture was different, and wouldn't be expected today. Even 50 years ago, what was culturally normal has been jettisoned. In 50 years, cultural norms today, which we think are "progressive" will be dumped, and our grandchildren will have a different culture. You wouldn't comprehend the English language a century ago, nor would I comprehend ancient Greek, but the fact the people remained is far more important than "lost" culture. Far better for these language and cultural changes to occur, than for Britain to wholesale import people because they speak pre-Chaucer English and don't oppose feudalism. So it is. Cultural nationalism is the idea that it is better to have someone, anyone, practice the same "culture", even if it means that that someone won't be my family or descendants. It is the view that other peoples who don't change culturally are preferable to our own who will. Cultural nationalism must therefore become traitorous, as it changes allegiance to the backwards peoples who don't change and away from the original peoples. Allegiance is based on a proposition, and when people realise the proposition is faulty, they become enemies. Why do you think fascists went against their people? They didn't agree with the proposition. People who claim were are a "multiculture" then consider national enemies those who see it differently or see issues. At least with a solid, identity based nation, allegiance doesn't swing based on change and progress. People are free to think. Culture based nations have to suppress thought. Culture is fluid, and just an idea. People matter, and putting vague "cultural ideals" before specific people IMO leads to confusion and division.

Geoffrey Taylor

Sun, 2015-08-16 02:02

The following is a continuation of the Online Opinion discussion, a copy of which was posted above. If other contributors to candobetter could also post comments to Online Opinion and link back to this page
(i.e. <a href="/node/3445">Syria's press conference the United Nations doesn't want you to see</a>) it could greatly lift the profile of candobetter.

Thank you, Leslie on Saturday, 15 August 2015 12:57:43 PM for that helpful information. I agree with your proposal that no-one, who, like Professor Alon Ben-Meir, fails to acknowledge and respond when fallacies in his/her articles are pointed out, should be allowed to continue to contribute.

By the way, please feel welcome to post a comment in response to any article posted on the site https://candobetter.net which I help administer. We don't censor anything (except for forum spam or material which is abusive and/or illegal).

Thank you, Geoff of Perth for your post of Saturday, 15 August 2015 1:54:22 AM.

Most of Thierry Meyssan's journalism is published on http://www.voltairenet.org/en . Thierry Meyssan was present in Libya during the NATO invasion of 2011 and has since also travelled to Russia and Syria. Other sites on the Internet which provide truthful information about Syria include the Syrian Arab News Agency's site at http://sana.sy/en, http://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/, https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com.

ttbn wrote on 15 August 2015 11:22:05 AM, "The U.S has a record of supporting some really rotten people all around the globe ...".

This includes the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Qatar dictatorship, Israel, and the current rulers of Libya, Turkey and Ukraine.

ttbn continued "... Assad [is] probably not the finest of men [but] doesn't kill people in the name of Allah."

In fact, the evidence shows that President Bashar al-Assad is one of the great political leaders of the 21st century. I would personally rank him alongside JFK. If Australians were to ever learn the truth about Bashar al-Assad, they would much prefer him as Prime Minister to Tony Abbott or even to Bill Shorten.

In one interview lasting 56:28 minutes on CBS in September, President Bashar al-Assad, who speaks fluent English, confronted and refuted each of the allegations put to him by 60 Minutes' Charlie Rose. Only a small cut down version of the interview was featured on 60 Minutes, but fortunately the Syrian Arab News Agency recorded and published the full interview video and transcript. The full video can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3G9MIDoa64. The same interview, but split into Part 1 and Part 2, together with the full transcript, can be found in the article "Syrian President al-Assad interviewed by CBS News" (10/9/13) at /node/3445

Could anyone imagine Tony Abbott or Barack Obama lasting over 56 minutes with an informed and hostile interviewer as Bashar al-Assad has been able to do on this and other occasions?

This is surely evidence that their claims against him could not possibly be true.

nineofclubs (not verified)

Sat, 2015-08-15 14:36

Identity politics has always been with us. This is nothing new. What is new is that with mass immigration and multicultural policies that encourage migrants to perpetuate their ethnic identities on arrival in their host countries, the focus of the 'identity' has become increasingly ethnic / racial. The examples that you cite are all about racial or ethnic identity and I agree that the focus on this aspect of identity is increasing. The irony of this is that both 'racial' nationalists and standard issue multiculturists both subscribe to the assumption that racial or ethnic identity is the main or primal source of identity. Their differences come down to whether States should be ethnically homogenous or whether states should require multiple ethnic identity groups to coexist. But identity doesn't have to be about race or ethnicity. Consider the most unashamedly nationalist country on earth today, Israel. It's people are unified by their religious identity. Race and ethnicity are not the main source of either unity or division in Israeli society. In a grimmer vein, consider Islamic State. Despite their fanaticism, all races and ethnicities are welcomed as long as you agree with their very specific take on Islam. Even in Fascist Italy, the focus on race was muted and Mussolini was famously dismissive of Hitler's antisemitism. As long as Australia continues on it's current trajectory, with unsustainable levels of immigration and no cultural or other identity strong enough to unite the various people here, we will see ethnic identity politics rising. One assumes that at some point, white Australians with no claim to another sub-species of ethno-identity may start seeing themselves (and indeed may become) another ethnic minority among the many inhabiting the Australian landmass. They may identify and organise as such and start promoting their own narrow self interests in the way that other ethnic groups do now. Personally I think this would be a tragedy. I like the sense of community and unity that comes with identity and I think that there is an urgent need to further develop a strong Australian national culture that is not predicated on race. In this sense, I suppose you could call me a cultural nationalist. But make no mistake, this will never happen while mass immigration and official policies of multiculturalism continue. The ethnic identity politics that we see on the rise around the world, on the other hand, require the continuation of both.

Geoffrey Taylor

Sat, 2015-08-15 01:02

The following was posted to an Online Opinion forum about Syria on 14 August 2015.

The claim that "the US has become a de facto ally of Assad" is idiotic. Since March 2011 the United States has been supplying arms and money to hordes of foreign terrorists waging a war against the people of Syria, including Syrian Christians (who speak the same language spoken by Jesus Christ) and even the small Syrian Judaic community. So far, as of August 2015, that war has cost the lives of more than 220,000 Syrians by one estimate.

On one previous occasion, in July 2014, those attempting to demonise Syria's popularly elected President Bashar al-Assad as well as to portray the terrorist war against his government as some kind of popular uprising, seemed to have lost their voices when confronted with evidence and logic. I don't suppose that anyone here, would care to show other site visitors why BiancaDog is wrong at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16435#287856 ?

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2015-08-14 20:22

"Russia maintains that the only way to defeat Islamic State is for all anti-IS forces, including the Syrian government, to unite in their efforts.

“Without a broad coalition of all those fighting the terrorists on the ground, the airstrikes conducted by the US-led coalition will not achieve the desired result and ISIL will not be destroyed,” Lavrov said.

Meanwhile, the US says there is no way it will work with Assad. “We believe that Assad and Assad regime long ago lost legitimacy,” Secretary of State John Kerry said on August 3. The US State Department last week called the Assad regime “a root of all evil here.”   

READ MORE: Ousting Assad militarily would enable ISIS to seize Syria – Lavrov 

Lavrov argued that the policy presents a double standard. “When the goal was to get rid of chemical weapons, Bashar Assad was legitimate partner. But, when it comes to fighting terrorism, he is for some reason not,” he said.

Despite the differences, there is a surge in diplomatic activity focused on how to fight against Islamic State in Syria. Over the past few weeks, Russian, US and Saudi top diplomats have met in Doha, Qatar. Also, Lavrov met with Kerry in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, while the Saudi diplomat traveled to Moscow and Assad met with an Iranian diplomat in Damascus. "

Read more here: http://www.rt.com/news/312414-lavrov-syria-opposition-meeting/

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2015-08-14 00:44

Here is a video of a crowd of Syrians of all ages rushing into a field in Hama, Syria, where a government helicopter has landed. They are cheering and embracing the Syrian Arab Army soldiers who have landed.

All the signs are that Syrians are desperate to take any opportunity to demonstrate to the world their support for the Al Assad Government, because it is their only hope of survival - and also because this government has resisted attempts to privatise their free health, subsidised housing and education.

They know that the West is trying to remove Assad. They do not want this to happen. Assad won government by democratic vote overwhelmingly in June 2014 and people took videos of themselves enthusiastically voting.

It is so important for people hostage to the Murdoch news and CNN and various government tv stations which do not show this side of Syria, to notice these attempts by Syrians from all walks of life asking us to support their government in its fight against the 'rebels' and IS. Unfortunately Australia and other US and NATO allies are doing just the opposite. Our national policy towards Syria is ultimately as destructive as that of ISIS because our policy prevents people from remaining united citizens in defense of Syria. We are even supporting Turkey's plans to annexe northern parts of Syria.

End the EU (not verified)

Thu, 2015-08-13 14:38

UNHCR tells Al Jazeera a record 224,000 migrants and refugees have arrived in Europe since start of 2015. They claim that refugee crisis in Europe is a crisis not because of the number of refugees, but because of Europe’s failure to respond to it in a coordinated fashion, the UN Refugee agency has said. Surely these numbers are far more than can be accommodated by the UN Refugee Convention, or EU policies to asylum seekers? "In our view, European countries need to work together rather than point fingers at each other. In order to deal with this situation, Europe should open more legal ways for refugees to come," William Spindler, senior spokesperson of the UNHCR, told Al Jazeera. Migrant crisis a failure of European policy, UN says (6/8/15) | Al Jazeera The ongoing crisis off Europe's shores have prompted a wave of debate across Europe over migration, with each government deferring responsibility for each passing crisis. There's a Cornucopia belief that the impoverished and persecuted, in whatever numbers, can not be overwhelming! France blames Italy and Greece for failing to process asylum seekers arriving on its shores, opening the doors for them to travel elsewhere. The European Commission reproaches member-states for not taking their share of asylum seekers: it wants to set up a system of compulsory quotas. the migration crisis is testing the EU’s ability to find long-term solutions to pressing challenges. The Arab Spring and the subsequent Libyan and Syrian conflicts have shown that the EU urgently needs to find a common approach to migration. Calais currently houses some 3,000 migrants, mainly from North African countries. EU countries have so far only agreed to take about 32,000 of the asylum seekers from Italy and Greece, but there are 40,000 to be placed. Spain is very critical of the relocation plan because it will create a pull factor" attracting more migrants to Europe instead of preventing their departure. "Most of those crossing the Mediterranean are refugees fleeing war and persecution, not economic migrants," U.N. refugee agency spokesman William Spindler said, adding that Syrians fleeing the bloody civil war accounted for 38 percent of arrivals this year. Taking in refugees does not reduce the number of refugees. It will actually increase the number. The world's number one issue is overpopulation. The UN say that the Sub-Saharan regions of Africa, in particular, will likely face massive overpopulation problems in the next decades due to “persistent high levels of fertility and the recent slowdown in the rate of fertility decline.” Of those migrants who crossed the Mediterranean this year, Eritreans formed the third-largest national group, behind Syrians and Afghanis. The UNHCR says 5,000 leave every month. Eritrea is not at war, but its a possibility of a return to conflict with neighbouring Ethiopia. Since the migrants are driven not merely by war but by poverty, famine, drought, over-population and unemployment, there is no reason to think they will soon stop coming. Open borders don't work, and the EU should be disbandoned so that each nation can formulate their own criteria and limits to how many asylum seekers they can accommodate.

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 2015-08-13 11:53

There has has been the lack of any international action to stop the bombardment and brutal violence against civilians in Syria. This has left a vacuum that has been filled by organised extremist groups. No wonder the Syrians feel the world has forgotten about them, and their despair has created a fertile atmosphere in which extremism can grow. It means Jihadists can come in and kill.

Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay, 1  motivated by fear of civil war – a spectre that is not theoretical as it is for those who live outside Syria's borders.

With half of Syria's population displaced due to its ongoing civil war, Church leaders in the country are seeking to send a message of hope and support for the persecuted Christian minority who have chosen to stay. Archbishop Jeanbart's diocese, of Aleppo, is seeking to establish a development program offering concrete aid to benefit small businesses, help rebuild small workshops, and repair homes damaged in the civil war.

He noted that the Church in Syria has been fighting against the Christian exodus for years, because it weakens and "compromises the presence of the Church of the Apostles in the land that saw the very beginnings of Christianity".

Whether it's called a humanitarian corridor and no-fly zone, a safe zone, a free zone, it really is an excuse for US air cover for the forces that they want to pull into power. No one is more responsible for the rise of ISIL, for the funding, and for the destabilization of the entire region and ISIS has flourished.

Footnote[s]

1. ↑  55% seems to be considerably less than the true figure. According to Landslide Win for Assad in Syria's Presidential Elections (4/6/14) | Haaretz :

"Syria's parliament speaker said Wednesday President Bashar Assad has been re-elected by a landslide, capturing 88.7 percent of the vote.

"... Assad's two challengers, Hassan al-Nouri and Maher Hajjar, won 4.3 percent and 3.2 percent respectively.

"The Supreme Constitutional Court said turnout was 73.42 percent."

65.1% of all eligible Syrian voters voted for President Bashar Al-Assad in these difficult circumstances. Had a number of countries not obstructed the participation by Syrian expatriates in that election, the turnout would have been even higher. Clearly President al-Assad can claim far more political legitimacy than the rulers of the United States, Britain, Australia, Israel, Saudi Arabia and any other country I can think of which is hostile to Syria on the international stage.

The above article from Haaretz is linked to from Syria's press conference the United Nations doesn't want you to see (21/6/15) with a one hour embedded video republished from Global Research. – Ed

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2015-08-12 21:24

My comment in response to "Struggling with the Growth Dream": Dealing with the growth lobby on population numbers is like dealing with alcoholics on alcohol. They keep telling you how much fun it is. When you point out the devastation it is causing, they say, but, if you switch brands or drink milk first or practice 'smart growth', it will all be alright. When you point out that the rent has not been paid and the children are running around without shoes, they suggest you should work harder and pay more taxes to build more roads to cope with the extra traffic. Growth is an addiction and the people who are hooked on it are divorced from reality, self-obsessed and will rationalise and lie about any problem their addiction creates rather than accept responsibility and stop the first development that leads to the ongoing speculation, debt and loss of democracy.

admin

Wed, 2015-08-12 16:44

The Grimethorpe Colliery band will be performing tonight at 7:30PM at the Frankston Arts Centre in Frankston Victoria. Details of subsequent concerts in Hobart (13 Aug), Monash University in Melbourne (14 Aug), Norwoood in South Australia (15 Aug 15) and Perth (16 Aug) can be found here. The world renowned Grimethorpe Colliery Brass Band was formed from coal-miners who lost their livelihoods following their heroic year long strike against the neo-liberal policies of Margaret Thatcher which ended in January 1985.

Dennis K

Tue, 2015-08-11 20:54

The quote about how Government really exists to protect corporations from aggrieved people is quite apropos. In this instance, the government is protecting the real estate mafia from the pressures of human need. Ironically, there is a threat of oversupply, in particular the inner city apartment supply which could create a glut. The apartment towers have come up quickly to seize the opportunity for to grab outgoing Chinese money, but will leave an oversupply. If China slows their purchases, this could create a problem for developers. The Chinese economy has growing cracks, which could impact us heavily. Today, the ASX dropped 80 points due to devaluation of the yuan, when our corresponding Asian markets rose. The largest sharemarket fall in recent years occurred simply because the ANZ raised capital to meet the new regulatory requirements. In other markets, this wouldn't be received so negatively, as it is essentially the action of a bank strengthening its position. This indicates fear and uncertainty, and there is a growing awareness that the future isn't so rosy, an optimism necessary to maintain bubbles. These 'meta' indicators reveal a lack of confidence in the Australian economy, and a possible harbinger of future economic malaise which I predicted earlier this year. It seems that the mood has changed from an "if" to "when", the reserve bank is talking of a housing bubble and crazy prices, when this wasn't admitted, AT ALL, a couple of years ago. Also, talk of a correction has gone from fringe speculation to something we are told to buckle up for. Also, an indicator is the shilling from the Real Estate Industry, but this will be the last thing to ramp up. I'm not sure whether the market will crash, or whether prices will remain elevated, at the extreme cost of other parts of society, but either way, the notion that rising house prices is "good" will soon be really challenged. Increasing prices are always the sign of a poor economy. Either it is due to lack of ability to produce, resource scarcity or some other trouble. In a healthy, progressive economy, prices go down. We've sabotaged our economy long enough to sustain the "up is really down" perverted housing bubble, we await to see how this economic anuerism blows.

quark

Tue, 2015-08-11 13:20

Great, readable expose of the situation of housing un-affordability in Australia! Housing stress seems to be everywhere you look in Melbourne. Today, 2 people I know who live in comfortable Melbourne suburbs related to me their concerns about their adult children and families, all "between houses" who have moved back in with their parents. One fairly elderly couple have, for about 3 weeks had their son, daughter in law and 2 children living with them after having sold a house, with no end in sight, and another, a widow, slightly younger has 2 of her adult children living with her, one as a result of marriage break-up and accompanied by one child and another son and daughter in law saving up for a house and their 4 day old baby. It could sound like happy families but it was clear that the situations were not easy for the parents.

Geoffrey Taylor

Tue, 2015-08-11 03:07

In a recent interview – I can't cite where right now – President al-Assad urged Syrians not to flee Syria and urged those who had fled to return to Syria.

Bashar al-Assad seems to be well aware of how Syrians fleeing from the war, are, paradoxically, helping to further increase the flood of of refugees together with the attendant drownings in the Mediterranean and social unrest in Greece, Sweden and elsewhere thereby reinforcing the mainstream media's lie that he is a 'brutal dictator' who is murdering his own people.

That lie has been used since March 2011 to justify the proxy covert war against their own country, which has so far cost the lives of over 220,00 fellow citizens according to one estimate. Should the war continue or even become an overt invasion, with the help of Turkish President Erdogan, even more Syrians will feel compelled to flee.

In one recent news item, I heard some Syrian refugees in 'neutral' Sweden – the country which has set up Australian whistleblower Julian Assange, now besieged in the London Ecuadorian embassy, with trumped-up rape charges in a transparent attempt to have him ultimately extradited to the United States to face the same fate as fellow whistleblower Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning– praise that rogue state for supposedly helping them.

In the meantime a large influx of refugees and immigrants into Sweden, from Syria and elsewhere, add to unemployment and drive down the living standards of native Swedes, thereby undermining that country's social harmony and adding to global chaos.

Population overload (not verified)

Mon, 2015-08-10 21:12

Number of displaced people world wide is just under 60 million! According to the UNHCR (2104) the country hosting the largest number of refugees was Turkey, with 1.59 million refugees. By the end of 2014, Syria had become the world’s top source country of refugees, overtaking Afghanistan, which had held this position for more than three decades. Iraq witnessed massive new internal displacement as a result of the Islamic State (or ‘ISIS’) offensive across multiple parts of the country. Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia: more than half of the refugees on the planet come from one of these three countries plagued and undermined by years of war and violence. Many of these people are concentrated in the Middle East and in particular in Iraq and Syria, where ISIS’s advance and the Syrian civil war have driven many people from their homes. Refugees have a way of destabilizing whole societies and regions even decades after the tragedies that led to their displacement. With the fragile nature of our planet's ecosystems, and the overcrowding, peace is easy to destroy! More than 60% of those going to Europe are fleeing the conflict in Syria, with others escaping continued violence in Afghanistan. Likewise, the majority of people arriving nearby in Italy are fleeing armed conflict in Somalia or conscription in Eritrea. Some are fleeing failed nations, overpopulation and poverty. This humanitarian crisis is largely the direct result of the United States and NATO decision to effect regime change in Libya in 2011, and Syria and the Middle East. Libya never recovered from the intervention. Citizens of many African nations routinely went to work in Libya, an oil rich nation which had jobs for migrants. Besides population overshoot, first world countries are guilty of causing many of the world’s refugees directly through invasion and intervention, and economically through exploitation and colonization policies, looting countries of their own natural resources.

Population overload (not verified)

Mon, 2015-08-10 20:55

The UN say by the year 2030 (that's 15 years away), Earth's population will grow from the 7.3 billion it currently stands on, to 8.5 billion. That's not it; by the end of the current century, it'll be at 11.2 billion, 6% higher than what was projected earlier.

India be taking over China's population in just seven years, taking over the number one spot of being the most populated country in the world. Africa has the highest birth rate in the world. On average where a U.S woman bears 1.9 children, Europe 1.6, and Japan 1.4, African mothers bear a staggering 4.7 children.

Globally the number of persons aged 60 or above is expected to more than double by 2050 and more than triple by 2100. But, Africa has the youngest age distribution of any major area, but it is also projected to age rapidly, with the population aged 60 years or over rising from 5% today to 9% by 2050. The numbers are astronomical, and will drive further the existing global problems of climate change, food security, conflicts, environmental degradation and "shortage" of water!

While natural resources are declining, global human populations are exploding, yet few people are able to join the dots on the latter. India, one of the largest agrarian economies in the world, is deeply at risk from climate change, and could see economic losses of up to 8.7 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP) by 2100 if the world fails to respond to a host of climate threats, a Manila based multi-lateral funding agency said in a report. Their GDP is hardly a problem!

Please add a comment:
India to be the world's most populated country by 2020

Sheila Newman

Mon, 2015-08-10 19:30

Hi Jerry, I have emailed your comment to Bob Brown. He is the most extraordinary dynamo and, if unleashed, recorded and publicised, could possibly single-handedly turn the forest burning madness around. I filmed him once, but he was such a perfectionist, he decided what he had said was not absolutely perfect. If anyone succeeds in harnassing him as a presenter, they will have an incredible weapon.

jerry browning (not verified)

Sun, 2015-08-09 14:58

I totally agree with Bob McDonald's article criticising Bill Gammage's "Greatest Estate on Earth" & Gammage's promotion of fire as a tool to improve the land. There is absolutely no positive benefit from any fire as the most important element we need in forests & farmland is CARBON. Carbon is the fuel for all the micro & macro organisms that create soil, & is the most important element that is lacking in & on the soil, & is over abundant in the air. Fire does nothing but harm, & I hope that this comment can be passed onto Bob McDonald as I would really like to congratulate him on his powerful article.

Dennis K

Sun, 2015-08-09 11:37

You did mention 3D printing, a technology I think will be groundbreaking. My point was simply to state that innovations like this can in the end have a much bigger impact on reducing waste and energy usage than overtly "green" technology, even though they weren't created with that intent. This isn't the only example, and I would think that focusing on what is called 'green' or 'environmental' may, nay, probably will, mean missing much bigger things elsewhere. Also, having seen many things once thought impractical become regular consumer items, I reserve judgement on potential developments.

Sheila Newman

Sat, 2015-08-08 15:42

Hi Dennis, You have some good answers to my questions. Thanks. I did mention 3D printing, I thought. I find it difficult not to call myself an environmentalist (as well as an evolutionary sociologist), just because some people confuse the term with the Church of Faux-Environmentalism. The Fast Breeder Reactor technology still looks dim to me, although you never know. It costs a fortune and there is less and less money to build that stuff. Did you realise the history of the FBR goes back to 1951? From my book, Sheila Newman, (Ed), The Final Energy Crisis, 2nd Ed., Pluto UK, 2008:
The first Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) or Fast Neutron Reactor was built in the US in 1951 with a tiny output of 0.2MW (electricity) and operated until 1963, when it was succeeded by a 20MW (el) one, a 66 MW one, a 20MW one and “Fast Flux TF” which had a thermal output of 400 MW, from 1980-93. The UK had a 15MW (el) from 1959-1977 and then a 270MW one from 1974-94. France built her first in 1966 with an output of 40 MW (therm), followed by Phenix in 1973 with 250 MW (el) (still in operation) and Superphenix in 1985-98 with an output of 1240MW (el). Germany had one very small one with an output of 21MW (el) from 77- 91, India has one with an output of 40 MW (therm), built in 1985; Japan’s Joyu with 140MW (therm) was built in 1978. Monju 280 MW (el) went from 1994-1996 and is currently closed. Kazakstan’s BN350 has been going since 1972 with an output of 135 MW (el), half of which desalinates about 80,000 tons of water each year for the city of Aktau. Russia has had three FBRs: the first in 1959-1971 reopened in 1973; the second from 1979 produces 12 MW (el), and the third, built in 1981, with an output of 600 MW (el) is the largest still running (with assistance from a US supervisory crew), but it has had a lot of problems with liquid sodium coolant and other leaks, involving long periods out of action. France’s Super Phoenix was the biggest in the world, but it was closed down due to safety problems associated with sodium leaks. Monju Fast Breeder in Japan was also closed due to safety concerns. Significant commercial success seems to have been elusive so far but there are international ambitious plans for “Generation IV” FBRs of various designs, including thorium based ones. The low cost of uranium is often offered as an explanation for the failure of this technology to find the necessary finance to take it past the experimental stage. Design and research are materially and financially costly.
There is more about thorium based breeder reactors here: http://candobetter.net/node/997 Politics also enter this FBR dynamic. But diminishing capital and abundant cheap fossil fuel energy (related things) probably impede the creation of even CANDUs and boiling water reactors. I think that we can make a very good argument to say that petroleum is not really keeping up with population demand because of the increased reliance on novel sources now redefined generically as 'oil' in the major charts (EIA and BP stats), plus the desperate recourse to fracking, despite huge democratic costs. Also, the large proportion of the world's population that does not have access to petroleum due to not being able to afford it. Sheila N

quark

Thu, 2015-08-06 22:50

How much of today's international trade is actually necessary? How many people...er... globalised units of labour really wish to leave the bosom of their families and communities to live in a foreign land for extended periods or forever purely, for the purpose of work? We (humans) find ourselves on an exquisitely beautiful planet where any one of us could have woken up to a magnificent view be it a horizon on the edge of a desert ,a wide white beach, a sparkling river, a snow capped mountain or anything in between, every morning of our lives and for millennia most of us did! But now we are making such heavy weather of life on Earth. All the fun is being sucked out of it as we lose track of what it is about life that has real value. Recently I went to an orchestral concert where the artists appeared totally focussed on reproducing the fruits of a long dead composer's imagination. What a worthwhile cooperative exercise! It was as though this musical interlude was of the utmost importance and it was. That's the way it should be, each of us with the opportunity to act out that which we love doing. We only get a short spell here as humans. It's really not all about work though Let's scrap the system we seem to be enmeshed in because it's just not working for us! We're working for it! Life's not getting better, it's deteriorating. People are working longer hours than they used to and our environment is being destroyed. There are so many aspects of the economic system we seem to be part of that can be challenged but a fundamental one is "does this work in our favour?" I just hope that enough people find the time to stop and ask this question. Realising that we are being cheated is a start on the long road to rectifying the situation

Sally Lawrence (not verified)

Thu, 2015-08-06 15:00

Hello Menkit, I saw your letter in the paper saying there was a protest on Tues 6th. It was not clear whether this meant Tues 4th Aug or Thurs 6th Aug. There is no Tues 6th Aug. I have been trying to attend koala protests, went to one supposed to be at Surfers a long time ago, but it had been cancelled. Would have liked to attend this latest protest at Tweed, but again, the details of correct time and place are impossible to find out. Left a message on a web page, but no response.

Dennis K

Wed, 2015-08-05 23:20

As an environmentalist, I was wondering what your operating definition of 'environmentalist' is, for the purposes of your argument here. I am using this in the most likely perceived sense of the word. I consider myself an environmentalist too, but the most popular connotation of environmentalist doesn't elicit the thoughts and ideals which match my form. So I don't call myself such. There are limits to efficient technologies. They usually mean using fuel more efficiently. This often breaks down to choosing the best fuel for the task, as arguably was demonstrated by Cleveland, C.J., Kaufmann, R. K. and Stern, D.I. “Aggregation and the role of energy in the economy”, Ecological Economics, 2000, vol. 32, issue 2, pages 301-317, also at www.bu.edu/cees/people/faculty/cutler/articles/Aggregation_role_of_energ.... Economists often talk about dematerialisation - i.e. doing more work with less energy, but they measure using energy calories alone, without taking into account how those calories are packaged and where they are used. One of the assumptions made is that we have exhausted the available fuel supplies. This is an understandable conclusion to make, not necessarily because it is true, but because it seems an element of human nature. It has been always in error. For me to conclude that 'this times it different', is to make the same error. There are limitations to current technology. Theoretically, these limits can be overcome. I don't consider the fact we don't know how a major problem. You might call this a blind faith in technology. We must be thinking of different scientists. :-). I was referring to those politically engaged, the majority of which don't have a scientific background. The Greens party isn't run as an environmentalist party by those who studied ecology. Many of the most vocal and assertive proponents for change don't seem to have a scientific background. Some DO, no doubt, but they typically don't form political parties. If you are thinking of Generation IV nuclear technologies, people were writing about them as if they were already being used commercially in the past few years, Not specifically, though in-viability today is not guarantee of in-viability in the future. In a more 'meta ' sense, we know the following to be true - The energy per kg of fossil fuels may represent among the densest form of usable energy available in large amounts which can be released by a chemical reaction. - The energy contained in that matter, or any matter is many magnitudes of order greater than that available by breaking those carbon bonds. - Our understanding of physics is constantly evolving. - As the understanding increases, our assumptions of what is possible and what is not possible, and abilities changes. - Assumptions about the future are always are incorrect. Black Swan events occur. Therefore, while it is reasonable today to surmise we are reaching limits, this is only based on a contemporary and temporary state of affairs. While we shouldn't hedge the Earth's future on some miraculous energy source emerging (we don't know when it will occur), it may also be in error to panic and de construct systems which could make such progress possible. Renewable energy may only be a stop-gap measure rather than a new paradigm. Okay, I've already argued that this is a bit of a pipe-dream. We aren't getting more efficient. I could add that we are spending a lot on war and most people are getting poorer and have less control over their lives. Recycling is mostly a crock, pardon my language, except for organic stuff. Recycling is used cynically as a "ploy" to appear environmental. Much of what is put into recycling bins, carefully segregated and washed gets dumped in landfill anyway. However, because it is implemented poorly by people who don't care, it doesn't necessarily invalidate the concept. One of the major problems with recycling, is that goods are manufactured to be constructed, but not destructed. That is, the manufacturer only considers the life of the product until the end of its marketed usefulness (Which can be short for consumer items, which almost everything nowadays is). But consider 3D printing, which is an emerging and rapidly growing technology. It allows people to produce their own goods at home using starting materials designed to be manipulated. This offers the opportunity to create technologies which could construct simple components, then de-construct them back to their constituent parts to be reconstructed again. There is emerging technology which allows processors to be reprogrammed, which would mean that your smartphone could have its microprocessor literally replaced without replacing the unit. New chip technology won't require a hardware replacement. This is in contract to "green" technology which does nothing but save a little power, such as automatic standby mode, i-stop. This technology doesn't open up new avenues, but just allows the existing status quo to keep going albeit with a little less power usage. It is marketable, but doesn't change anything. That which will likely lead to real changes will likely start off having nothing to do with any intention to be "Green". Telecommuting, the Internet, especially high speed internet, FPGA reprogrammable chips, 3D printing, Uber (allows carpooling), video conferencing, flash storage, new mouldable and remouldable plastics and metals, all these can be used with more effect than that explicitly 'environmental. Take Hard Drives. The "green" hard drives which are sold to be power efficient use less by spinning the drive down, but advancements in flash storage allow solid state drives which use less power than even the 'green' drives. Increasing storage density reduces the number of drives one might require. Some companies advertise their "Green" credential by some useless measurement of how many "black balloons" of carbon they have saved. At one place I worked, they have large TV displays on throughout the site telling us how much carbon they saved. The irony of using an always on large screen display panel to tell us this was lost. But, the company which implements good IT systems which allow people to work at home would save far more power. The pursuit for more environmentally friendly items often detracts from advances which really ARE better. I'm with you on the anti-moralistic attitude, but can't join you on the anti-conserver attitude, because I don't think you have proven your case. I agree with some of your planning efficiency, but it also has social value which is probably more efficient - in the sense of durable and workable and useful to people - than something deemed to have short term financial value as 'producitivity'. The examples I used above are just a model. While there is no issue at all with conservation, the actual attempt at conservation may end up counter productive due to incorrect assumptions. Using housing as an example, it may seem to many logical to reduce the land footprint, but this is actually counter productive. The philosophy is that working towards better systems can solve problems better than tackling the problem directly. This is partly what I do for a living, where recurring problems may have to be dealt with and are exacerbated by attempts to solve them. Rather, general overall improvements and advances tend to do more, even inadvertently, than reactionary corrections. Many of the most vocalised environmental solutions fall into the reactionary category (and this allows the centre right opportunity to denigrate them). Too many people? Suggest smaller families. Urban sprawl? Smaller houses. Energy use causing problems? Use less energy. Deforestation? Limit logging. Carbon Dioxide a problem? Tax it. While the intent is good, the focus is on fitting an environmentally friendly paradigm into a system which just can't really do it, without really developing systems which can. This leads to government allocating funds to the wrong places. There is a sense that progress and protecting the earth are to a degree mutually exclusive, but this is only true if one defines progress as per the agenda of the planet rapers and growth advocate parasites. Note how the establishment create scepticism over better technologies? Filesharing is bad and takes food out of the mouths of Angelina Jolies kids. 3D printing will give everyone guns and is dangerous. Uber is dangerous and hurts Taxi drivers. Open Source/Free Software is idealistic faff. Border and trade protection is xenophobia and nationalistic. Renewables chop up and fry birds.

Dennis K

Wed, 2015-08-05 21:54

With that said, it seems that in the long term, ethnic differences tend to become less important as individuals - and their children and grandchildren - merge into the broader community. I see identity politics rising, and rapidly. The Democratic party in the USA play identity politics, and do it will. The Republicans do it poorly, and then lose elections because they go after the Hispanic and Black vote, despite the fact they traditionally vote democratic. If they went after the White vote, they'd need only 4% of Whites to swing to win. They however aren't interested, so will lose. Trump is a wild card though. Eventually, if the Republicans want to have a future, they will have to play identity politics and represent the ethnic groups which don't solidly vote republican. Similar situations are emerging in Europe, where multiculturalism is quickly becoming a dirty word. Political parties playing in identity are growing and fast. I predict they will outlast the far left parties and become big players. In some cases, they already have. As I said, in some examples, where the minority group really IS a minority group, you can have stability. But this is idealism. This is NOT the world we live in. We live in a world where the demographics are changing. The change in demographics changes politics. Most people don't want to acknowledge this, or can't admit error and react to a changing world by blaming those who warn of the problem for causing it. This is typically what happens when a crisis of confidence happens, whether social or economic, so its not unique. As Europe, the USA, UK and Australia rapidly change their demographics, so too will the politics, the economy and damn near everything else. The norms of the past become irrelevant and so too does its successes. You can no longer use the past as a model for the present, because the situation of the past has been replaced. I still hear people talking about protecting the changes they made to society FIFTY years ago, seemingly completely unaware that the society which made those changes possible and workable no longer exist (ironically in some ways as a result of their actions). People STILL use ' The Greeks and Italians' as some kind of example today, which I find amusing. My Greek Grandparents came to a country which would today be unrecognisable. A vastly different situation. I doubt their circumstances apply now.

Dennis K

Wed, 2015-08-05 21:21

One of the big problems with neo-liberalism I think can be summed up as the disparity in ability to cross national boundaries. Capital can move itself internationally, far far easier than people can move. As the barriers towards the movement of capital, jobs, business are eroded and the capacity for capital to flit across the world increases, the ability for people to move with it doesn't. So jobs can be exported from a nation at a rapid rate, but the people are stuck. This power disparity gives an advantage to those who can move their assets the fastest. Billionaires can then exercise power in the fact they can move their business faster than the people they employ can follow them. This is an oversimplification, but it represents the basic model, and the problem with globalism. The issue is that free movement of people to this extent is not desirable, as it is socially disruptive for all involved. So anti-globalists are advocating a level playing field, usually by advocating freer movement of people (open borders) and limiting free trade agreements and such. However these will never level out satisfactorily. But all this still occurs in the same ideological mindset, that a country is a business enterprise. What is the purpose of civilisation? Of this human enterprise? Why do we create this? It isn't to create a business, that's for sure, nor to create an impersonal system. I think the Left has lost relevancy because it has systematically and militantly ignored human nature, preferring to put an idealised model of humanity in front of a realistic model. Since at least the 1960's, the Left has pushed an idealism which which on paper seems good, but was not in accordance with the harsher truths of human existence and human nature. The Left to me appears to be in damage control, trying to maintain the idealism pushed, and therefore too busy to effect any real change. Increasing hostility and decreasing tolerance of heresies is more indicative of the state of those seeking to find heresies than those committing them. As a result, the Left is failing (Syriza is a perfect example I predicted would fail) and blaming others for picking up the slack (the corresponding shift to the far right in Greece as a result will be blamed on those who warned of the failure). I oppose globalisation, and am definitely a revolutionary in the sense that the path we as a society is taking is fundamentally flawed. I think the left embody some of those flaws, in particular the means by which truth is determined, which is interlinked with morality. That is, there exists a bias to judge truth based on its conformance with pre-existing moral biases, which is akin to religion or ideology, neither of which is adaptable. The ability to support those biases is fading so the mainstream Left has become less revolutionary and more conservative. I would be unsurprised to find that these splits within the left correlate with psychological types

nine of clubs (not verified)

Wed, 2015-08-05 17:10

An excellent additional metric, Greg. It's very disheartening, as a lifelong rank and file union member, to see the conceptual gymnastics performed by former union leaders and Labor MP's when justifying the latest bit of 'micro economic reform'. .

Greg (not verified)

Wed, 2015-08-05 13:17

I like the metrics you offer to compare 'then' with 'now'. Let me offer one more. Is it easier/more common now for an accomplished union official to find lucrative tenure within the private sector? I heard Martin Ferguson today on the radio supporting the Productivity Commission's proposal to reduce Sunday penalty rates for hospitality workers. Seems he's the face of big tourism now as well as big mining. He has the perfect voice to play a pig in a stage-play of Animal Farm. Brandis should be canvassed to cough up the funding for this one. Tony can play the farmer who has to push the animals hard so as to keep up the steep mortgage payments to Murdoch the evil land-owner. Diversity provides camouflage and richly sustaining habitat for the politically mobile predator class.

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2015-08-04 23:31

I will stick my oar in here to say that I don't believe that you can import and export 'cultures'. You might be able to import and export 'symbols' of cultures - i.e. bits of the whole that are identifyable with it, but you would need to import the biophysical environment that created and nurtured that culture. Ways of life are built from the ground up as clans, tribes and peoples adapt to their local conditions. We are all Australians and we should, as others have suggested, learn to live here and respect our environment by not overpopulating or otherwise abusing it. Obviously we are very far from this aim.

Without history no-one can have a handle on where they came from and where they are now. Ancestor worship is a fine old tradition that makes you aware of your territory and the acts and qualities of your forbears. It situates you in time and place like nothing else - except when you are in a new place. As well as acknowledging the traditional Aboriginal owners of Australia, we need to give respect to the generations that preceded us in Australia from the time of the convicts, for they actually came head to head with this land and forged a real society - the one we have today with all its faults (which included replacing something that lasted for around 40-60,000 years and which must have been incredible). At time of Federation there was more communication between Australians than there is now because the mass media had not taken over the public messaging stick. Our population was still small enough for it to be able to agree on a constitution at Federation.

It is true that our society was crafted at the expense of the first Australians - the Aborigines - but the society we are perpetuating through immigration is the society that began then.

Multiculturalist ideology is predicated largely on the idea that Federation agreed to a White Australia Policy because of a racialism peculiar to Australians. This is part of the burial of history from the Australians of today because the White Australia Policy was largely an Anti-Slavery policy and an Anti-Slave Labour policy. Many of the First Settlers were convicts, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and English, transported to this continent because they committed crimes of poverty in Britain, which was a land overpopulated by landless labour. It was the descendents of those convicts who fought for a different and fairer system than Britain’s. They came up with the 8 hour day and they came up with a policy to exclude people from countries where slave labour prevailed and these people were mostly non-Europeans in British and other colonies. Australians had crafted industrial laws at Federation to protect themselves from similar exploitation and the White Australia policy was supposed to prevent slave labour from being imported to undermine those laws.

It would be erroneous to pretend that by acknowledging the traditional Aboriginal owners of Australia we are somehow reforming and repairing the ongoing damage we are doing at industrial pace and that by dishonoring as racists and irrelevant those who dispossessed the aborigines, we are giving the land back to the Aborigines. As Dennis K says, if we who were born here are not real Australians, then neither are the immigrants. That seems to leave us all in the hands of the corporations and transnational elites, which is, I suspect, the Plan.

Some of us might choose to identify with a global, internationalist culture - and on candobetter.net there is some of that since we participate actively with politically engaged people on the other side of the world. However, when it comes to living in a place and acting within a polity, and being constrained by the laws of the land, and participating in planning for a decent quality of life where you live, then there is need for a realistically based local culture.

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2015-08-04 23:11

Dennis, you wrote, Environmentalists don't seem to understand what the Earth needs As an environmentalist, I was wondering what your operating definition of 'environmentalist' is, for the purposes of your argument here. Not meaning to take offense, but somewhat mystified since I am an environmentalist. But as one reads to the end of your comment, one sees that you imply a particular kind of self-identifying 'environmentalist'. There is nothing wrong with increasing consumption, if this is done with more efficient technologies. There are limits to efficient technologies. They usually mean using fuel more efficiently. This often breaks down to choosing the best fuel for the task, as arguably was demonstrated by Cleveland, C.J., Kaufmann, R. K. and Stern, D.I. “Aggregation and the role of energy in the economy”, Ecological Economics, 2000, vol. 32, issue 2, pages 301-317, also at www.bu.edu/cees/people/faculty/cutler/articles/Aggregation_role_of_energ.... Economists often talk about dematerialisation - i.e. doing more work with less energy, but they measure using energy calories alone, without taking into account how those calories are packaged and where they are used. Looking at the causal relationship between energy use and GDP from 1947 to 1996, Cleveland et al find, instead, that people and business have not used less fuel, but that they have been more careful about the fuels they choose to do different tasks, choosing cheaper fuels to do low production work and more expensive ones for high returns. Cleveland et al’s main indicator of quality is financial price and it seems to be an indicator which performs well in this case. The authors find that the financial cost of fuels is an accurate reflexion of their versatility or adaptability to specific tasks more than is measuring the total calories they embody. " But as they know little of science, their only answer is to make do with less. But scientists also advocate conserving soil, water, fuel, reducing population growth, stabilising production... So, which scientists are you referring to? Which ironically, probably will harm the environment more. We must be thinking of different scientists. :-) For example, how many pro-environment liberal types advocate high density living, considering the 1/4 acre blog as 'wasteful', despite the fact that high density living is worse for the planet. Ah, so are the 'environmentalists' you have in mind people who think of the environment as a moral envelope rather than a biophysical one? Do you mean people who might interpret environmentalism as a kind of religious code? This is what you seem to imply below: Sometimes I think it is ressentment against human progress which drives them, not concern for the environment. Like the old monks, they seek austerity over exuberance. For example, new nuclear technologies could provide abundant energy which is clean and cheap. Consumption is increased, but footprint is still decreased. If you are thinking of Generation IV nuclear technologies, people were writing about them as if they were already being used commercially in the past few years, (See: http://candobetter.net/node/1538; http://candobetter.net/node/1562; http://candobetter.net/node/1571; http://candobetter.net/node/1026; http://candobetter.net/node/431) but they experimental prototypes are now decades old and none is working commercially. (See: http://candobetter.net/node/997). Even that long-time champion of FBRs, Russia, just postponed one of their series in development in order to return to tried and true boiling water reactors. (See: http://www.world­nuclear­news.org/NN­Russia­postpones­BN­1200­in­order­to­improve­fuel­design­16041502.html) CANDUs and other traditional reactors have a track record, I agree, but in the Australian context the cost of retrofitting is prohibitive. In 2008 (when I last did the figures) you were looking at something round $2b per plant, and 225.6 thousand MWe nuclear power plants each supplying 25PJ to cope with then fuel demands, plus an average of 4.8 new nuclear plants per year to supply annual growth in consumption. Each plant’s initial cost would be around $USD2 billion, in an Australian economy then valued by the World Bank at $US768 billion, but heavily indebted and privatised." (Source: "France and Australia after oil" in Sheila Newman (Ed.) The Final Energy Crisis -2nd edition, Pluto Press, UK, 2008.) Then you have to wonder why France is considering building no new nuclear plants and not replacing old ones. It could in part be because France does not intend growing her population. By the way, I find France's nuclear power plant to population ration for production of electricity a useful rule of thumb for estimating energy needs. Australia uses far more electricity per capita than France but France supplies about 60 million people their electricity with 58 nuclear reactors of varying capacities. But France also uses a lot of wood, plus tidal, water and solar. What a country can use in terms of alternative energies is shaped by its biophysical nature. Australia has sea and tides, but they are not very harnassable. We have few useful rivers for navigation, unlike Europe. And, another point, France is a very techno country, as well as fairly rooted in soil and tribe. Despite being high tech, it is an energy conserving country and that is how it has survived since the first oil shock. It also doesn't encourage population growth. Better location of jobs and population (ie, have homes for people, not for speculation) could reduce travel times (decreasing footprint), but consumption (the number of trips) remains the same. If people could afford to live near where they work, they would use a fraction of the fuel. Yes, I agree here. Especially on the relocalisation implications. Reducing the need for travel means reducing energy and materials use (where you began by arguing that more energy use was not a problem; we were not to live like monks.) However local basis of economies also implies local source of energies and materials, small local populations and small economies, not the big populations mass producing and mass consuming. Feel free to contradict me with some example. Individual consumption of resources can still increase, while total withdrawal from the planet decreases, as efficiency increases. Consider recycling, more efficient extraction processes and more efficient manufacturing process. More goods can be created using the same, or even fewer initial starting materials. Okay, I've already argued that this is a bit of a pipe-dream. We aren't getting more efficient. I could add that we are spending a lot on war and most people are getting poorer and have less control over their lives. Recycling is mostly a crock, pardon my language, except for organic stuff. Collecting, then processing materials costs energy in transport and fuel and rarely prolongs materials significantly. It has become more of an industry that councils and residents subsidise. Richard Pratt used to send his recycled collections off to Taiwan for cheap labor to process, I believe. (Anecdotal). This is true progress, and true growth. I'm with you on the anti-moralistic attitude, but can't join you on the anti-conserver attitude, because I don't think you have proven your case. I agree with some of your planning efficiency, but it also has social value which is probably more efficient - in the sense of durable and workable and useful to people - than something deemed to have short term financial value as 'producitivity'. Growth of knowledge is the most important growth there is. Period. Can't disagree there, however, for current political systems to remain in place, people have to lose knowledge, and they seem to be doing this. Lousy education system helps. Rather than being made to feel guilty for 'consuming' and having a house, we should seek to further our knowledge to improve our economy, and it is here where the Greens fall utterly flat. I agree that guilt is political manipulation, well-trialed and ground well-prepared by religions. Improving our economy in my view would be to stabilise population numbers, improve democratic power and living stability (as in people having secure landed positions, improve education, encode civil rights, insulate buildings, use shallow geo-thermal, wind power, passive solar, relocalise and try to preserve the global internet in order to preserve knowledge and freedom. All ecologies have an economy. Our economy describes the ecology of human civilisation. This is why I write so much about economics, it is a form of ecology and linked with the Earth ecology in general. Agree. But we are losing sight of what an economy IS, let alone how to make it work, and as a result, losing sight, philosophically speaking, of what it takes to make it run efficiently. Agree with the concept; just differ on technological solutions and notion of increasing efficiency of machines. Organisation has its place in efficiency though and the internet, if it can be preserved, would be key to allowing a very local basis for technologies, including 3D printing for maintaining and repairing stuff, as well as new inventions.

nine of clubs (not verified)

Tue, 2015-08-04 13:51

I think that you're generally right there Dennis. Historically, people living together in an area have been of a similar ethnic and cultural background.

With that said, it seems that in the long term, ethnic differences tend to become less important as individuals - and their children and grandchildren - merge into the broader community.

This goes to the inevitability of assimilation. I formerly lived in a small country town where there were people descended from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, including 'anglo', aboriginal, eastern European and Chinese origins. Most had been in the area for their whole lives and many had families who'd been there since the gold rush. All lived harmoniously, shared a strong local spirit and considered themselves to be Australian. Just Australian, not Anglo-Australian, or Chinese-Australian or whatever. They were culturally homogenous, even if they were ethnically different. The cultural unity of the area was remarkable.

Remember that the differences between the indigenous tribes of the area, the Chinese gold seekers and the Anglo-Irish settlers back in the 19th century were huge. The Europeans who came after WW2 had recently been commiting atrocities against each other. By comparison, the cultural distance between some of the identity groups extant in contemporary Australian society is small indeed.

So how is it possible that a small country town can assimilate people of such different ethnic/cultural backgrounds, when our major cities today become more and more ethnically separated and stratified?

Obviously, size matters. Where you have a sizeable minority that is large enough to be self-sustaining, the rate of assimilation slows. Many country towns have barely enough people to support a school and a newsagent, let alone an ethnic enclave.

Fresh arrivals from overseas also serve to slow down the rate of assimilation. These folk will tend to go,initially, to urban areas where there are concentrations of culturally similar people. Over time, the more established families may over further afield, but the new arrivals maintain the existence of an identifiable enclave. This is not a new trend, I should add. Russel Ward, in his 'Australian Legend' noted that newly freed convicts and 'new chum' arrivals to Australia would congregate in the cities as early as the 1820's.

Lastly, it has to be said that the speed of assimilation does depend to some extent on how culturally similar people are. The closer, the quicker. Stands to reason, really.

I personally would favour a situation where Australia seriously limited immigration for a time, for social reasons. I believe that this would facilitate assimilation and make for a less divided nation. Looking outside our major cities for examples of how well a united community can work would also be worthwhile.

.

Dennis K

Mon, 2015-08-03 20:22

I think it is important to understand that local ties between people have usually coincided with identity ties. It is the historical norm for a local community to also be comprised of people of similar cultural/ethnic heritage. Therefore it can be difficult to tease out the role that locality and common heritage played. Especially since there is pressure to come to conclusions which support the modern narrative. We simply don't have enough examples of diverse but local communities which have existed for long periods of times. Those few that we do tend to be punctuated with trouble.

nine of clubs (not verified)

Mon, 2015-08-03 16:53

A great article that captures the collapse of localised community in Australia.

It's ironic that during a period when the mainstream media makes regular mention of various identity-based 'communities' (often based on ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation), little focus is devoted to the degeneration of the traditional, locally based community. Robert Putnam covered the topic in his now classic book, 'Bowling Alone', where he argues that changes to work, computers, TV and different family structures have contributed to the loss of social capital in the US.

In Frank Salter's new(ish) book, 'The War on Human Nature in Australia's Political Culture' he arrives at similar conclusions, but goes further to assail the very concept of 'diversity' as undermining social cohesion. Salter says:

"Diversity has also been associated with reduced democracy, slowed economic growth, falling social cohesion and foreign aid, as well as rising corruption and risk of civil conflict."

Of course, Australians have always been a diverse bunch. Even in the 1950's - now reviled as a cultural wasteland of bland conformity - you had huge differences in lifestyles and attitudes. The farmer of the Darling Downs had little in common with the surfer at Coffs, who had little in common with the culture vultures of Sydney's inner city, who themselves were light years away from the suburban working classes. Nevertheless, the one binding identity that united all of these disparate folk was their national identity - they were Australian. This was unity forged in the hard times of two world wars and a depression. It was a strength. The contemporary mantra is that diversity is a strength, but Salter takes this tired cliché and dismantles it. His book is well worth reading, but will garner little attention on the left.

The organised Left argues that national unity stands in the way of class struggle, because workers will be less inclined to take on the bosses if they feel any commonality with them. The proposition is easily tested; were unions stronger in the 1940's - 1970's, or now? Was wealth in Australia more evenly distributed then, or now? Did the quality of life for most Australians increase more quickly from 1945 - 1980 or from 1980 - 2015? Was getting a job easier in 1972 or now?

A national identity that builds national unity is a strength. It is an extension of strong local community identities - which we can all help build ... just by smiling at each other on the street.

Again - great article.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2015-08-02 10:58

"The total cost of such congestion will increase from A$13.7 billion a year to A$53.3 billion by 2031, an increase of nearly three times". By 2031 congestion will cost up to $53.3 billion Congestion,the Infrastructure Australia report warns, will overwhelm our futures, making them unlivable, uneconomic and ungovernable as we fight for every piece of road space. The IA report says that 'the total cost of such congestion will increase from A$13.7 billion a year to A$53.3 billion by 2031, an increase of nearly three times. The loss of time will apparently cripple us'. Do they actually have a formula to optimize our nation's human capital, in line with appropriate infrastructure deficit? As for the elusive "affordable housing", it's a myth that it can be achieved by more dense stacking of people! There are more and more people on the streets. Housing is a commodity, to achieve maximum profits, not for social justice or an egalitarian society. Australian cities peaked in car use per person in 2004, like all developed cities across the globe. While per capita use of cars has decreased, absolute numbers are increasing. The article fails to mention "population growth"! If we are using population growth to boost our GDP, then surely we must come to an optimum size before being hampered by loss of productivity, and the costs of congestion? With no population plan for Australia, except "growth", surely it's time to consider a cost-benefit analysis of a sustainable and productive population size would be for Australia?

Save the Great ... (not verified)

Fri, 2015-07-31 13:54

Two turtles and two seabirds have been found covered in oil in the wake of a spill near Townsville, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has confirmed. GBRMPA general manger operations Mark Read told reporters in Townsville that a large dead flatback turtle and a juvenile flatback turtle, plus two boobies, had been found covered in oil. However Mr Read said tests by veterinarian experts at James Cook University suggested the adult turtle may have died before the oil spill. Queensland oil spill: Turtles, seabirds found slicked near Townsville (30/7/15) | Brisbane Times The Queensland Transport Department, which is coordinating the clean up response, said more than 100 workers helped to pick up the oil patties, which posed no danger to the public. And a turtle found dead on at Taylors Beach, south of Lucinda, was being tested to see if it was affected by the oil slick. A transport department spokesman says oil samples from nine out of 10 domestic tankers in the area at the time have been tested in a bid to identify the culprit. Four tankers that have since headed overseas will also be tested. The damage oil does to marine ecosystems is well known. But the nature of damage that would be done by such a large mountain of coal seems less certain. Back in 2010 Maritime law specialist Dr Michael White, adjunct professor with the University of Queensland, said oil is the major environmental threat posed by ship groundings. He says a cargo of coal dumped into the sea could do "considerable localised damage" and there would be some element of localised toxicity. Marine pollution is widely recognised as one of the four major threats to the world's oceans, along with climate change, habitat destruction and over-exploitation of living marine resources.

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2015-07-30 19:23

Comment sent by Robert Stuart, the author of the letter featured in the above article.

Please find at this link my second complaint to the BBC regarding apparent breaches of the Geneva Convention by BBC One presenter Dr Saleyha Ahsan.  

The original complaint is here.
As a preface to an online publication of the recent BBC decision to uphold my complaint that the editing of a 2014 BBC News Channel report about Syria breached BBC editorial standards on accuracy, I have hastily drafted this summary of the status of the wider "playground napalm bomb" case.

John Bentley (not verified)

Wed, 2015-07-29 19:08

I totally agree with you! After reading of the latest outburst at Adam Goodes I was absolutely disgusted. I'm and avid football follower, a life member of my local club, a past administrator and player. I've born witness to various isolated incidents that could be put down to passion, ignorance and stupidity. The current wave of harassment surpasses this in the racism stakes. The booing isn't people being passionate, ignorant or stupid, it's orchestrated and therefore blatant racism and therefore cannot be tolerated. I agree with your suggestion that the players from both teams should walk off the ground during such incidents. The AFL is culpable by their lack of action on the matter by not ensuring the workplace (the stadium) is free from such incidents.

Stop the slaughter (not verified)

Wed, 2015-07-29 17:19

Walter Palmer, and American dentist, has come under fierce criticism after he was named as the hunter who killed Cecil, amid allegations it took the lion 40 hours to die. Cecil, a popular attraction among many international visitors to the Hwange National Park, was reportedly lured outside the park's boundaries by bait and initially shot with a bow and arrow. This was in the name of the "sport" of trophy hunting! Mr Palmer and Zimbabwean professional hunter Theo Bronkhorst had gone hunting at night and tied a dead animal to their vehicle to lure Cecil, who was aged about 13, out of the national park. The world started on a tirade of disgust. "You are a disgusting excuse of a human" and "when does hunting season start on Walter Palmer". Palmer paid $US50,000 ($68,000) to two people who lured the animal to its death. Celebrities, meanwhile, have taken to social media to express outrage and exasperation over the death of the animal. The death of Cecil has left conservators deeply worried for the safety of several lion cubs, who are now living unprotected in the park. “I had no idea that the lion I took was a known, local favorite, was collared and part of a study until the end of the hunt. I relied on the expertise of my local professional guides to ensure a legal hunt,” said Palmer. If convicted, the men face up to 15 years in prison. What lures these "hunters" to kill? Poor self-esteem, desire for blood and dominance, or just a macabre trophy to adorn a wall?

JQ (not verified)

Wed, 2015-07-29 12:25

To: [email protected] To whom it may concern, I have virtually nil interest in football of any kind, but I can’t help being aware of the disgusting bullying by “fans” of Sydney Swans star Adam Goodes. I don’t know if it is racially motivated but it is personal and relentless. I think if Goodes were to retire from football as a result of this disgusting mindless campaign it would show up the AFL as weak and able to be manipulated easily. One suggestion is that when this booing starts, the players from both teams should go on strike and refuse to play. It is unmistakable and everyone knows when it is happening. The AFL and their team management should support them. In this way, the AFL and players stand up against bullying and racism. The offenders would pretty soon get short shrift from the better behaved fans. Sponsors should also support this action. It seems everyone is being extremely weak about this. Football should symbolise strength and courage both physical and moral. As I write this I hear on the radio that Goodes may not play next Saturday because of this stupid “meme” (something that is spreading as a behaviour as does a gene as it is passed down) The question in the media is “is it racially motivated” To me that question does not need to be answered in order to censure the behaviour. The booing is targeted towards one person and it is affecting his life. It is totally reprehensible if no action is taken by other players and those in authority. Please direct my letter appropriately if necessary.

Dennis K

Sat, 2015-07-25 23:10

I see the merit in the boat turnback policy. But what about those who arrive by other means? China is one of the biggest sources of illegal immigrants. Are they all arriving by boat too? The focus on 'boat people' is to distract the population from PROPER border control to some sideshow, so the ruling class can exploit their ability to neglect enforcing our borders for our posterity, for their own purposes and profits of narrow vested interests. Proper border control would also prevent large numbers of legal migrants from entering as this too impacts negatively on the population. The whole point of a border is to keep people OUT so that the people within can maintain the society they wish to maintain.

Dennis K

Sat, 2015-07-25 23:04

There is nothing wrong with increasing consumption, if this is done with more efficient technologies. But as they know little of science, their only answer is to make do with less. Which ironically, probably will harm the environment more. For example, how many pro-environment liberal types advocate high density living, considering the 1/4 acre blog as 'wasteful', despite the fact that high density living is worse for the planet. Sometimes I think it is ressentiment against human progress which drives them, not concern for the environment. Like the old monks, they seek austerity over exuberance. For example, new nuclear technologies could provide abundant energy which is clean and cheap. Consumption is increased, but footprint is still decreased. Better location of jobs and population (ie, have homes for people, not for speculation) could reduce travel times (decreasing footprint), but consumption (the number of trips) remains the same. If people could afford to live near where they work, they would use a fraction of the fuel. Individual consumption of resources can still increase, while total withdrawal from the planet decreases, as efficiency increases. Consider recycling, more efficient extraction processes and more efficient manufacturing process. More goods can be created using the same, or even fewer initial starting materials. This is true progress, and true growth. Growth of knowledge is the most important growth there is. Period. Rather than being made to feel guilty for 'consuming' and having a house, we should seek to further our knowledge to improve our economy, and it is here where the Greens fall utterly flat. All ecologies have an economy. Our economy describes the ecology of human civilisation. This is why I write so much about economics, it is a form of ecology and linked with the Earth ecology in general. But we are losing sight of what an economy IS, let alone how to make it work, and as a result, losing sight, philosophically speaking, of what it takes to make it run efficiently.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2015-07-25 14:46

Labor leader Bill Shorten will unveil his party's asylum seeker policy including boat turnbacks as he stares down critics at the national conference. The recent arrivals of "boats" are from Vietnam, where there is no conflict or war. They will be interrogated and maybe imprisoned if they return, but there's no valid reason to leave. The tsunami of displaced is far too great that can be accommodated by the 1951 Refugee Convention. It's outdated and could overwhelm smaller nations by overloading job demands and infrastructure. The UN are keen to see "developed" countries cope with the tide, but are reluctant to actually address and mitigate the causes of displacement! We must ensure world peace, stop powerful nations intervening in foreign affairs, encourage sustainable population sizes, and repatriation of displaced in temporary camps until they can return home. Global population growth means there are no new colonies to conquer and settle, as in the past. There are many failed and dysfunctional nations, that are incapable of handling their overpopulation. Overpopulation drives conflicts, for limited natural resources, and drives the boats. The problem of asylum seekers has outgrown the international agreements, and human migration to "asylum" across the globe is unsustainable. There must be an international think tank to address the issues at their source, not just pretend that people can be shuffled around the planet, like deck chairs in the Titanic!

Ponzi demographics (not verified)

Sat, 2015-07-25 12:38

"I am particularly concerned about the increasing rates of consumption per capita in our society and the implications that has for our footprint on the planet". (James Ryan) This is typical of the Greens' diversion from the topic of population growth - per capita consumption! We might reduce individual consumption levels, to some extent, but on an absolute level they will increase considerable, in fact massively, with "big Australia"! How are we to keep reducing consumption individually? We could all become vegan, but that's not one of their policies anyway. Ride bikes, public transport, yes, but living in high rise apartments is much more energy consuming living, and foot or pedal power can't compensate for the high consumption rate of high rise living. Australia is taking the lazy route to increasing GDP, through population growth rather than through increasing productivity or participation. With the latter declining, government in later years have boosted the former, immigration, to maintain the housing boom! The Greens environmental basis is a distraction, to confuse and attract voters. They are really a party promoting social progress, and agendas of alternative feel-good lifestyles, so-called universal human rights, open borders, "compassion" for the world's displaced, marriage "equality", and free migration to Australia. Feeling "good" does nothing to actually address the issues causing asylum seekers, or protect our environment and lifestyles from the masses of people filling our cities.

quark

Sat, 2015-07-25 09:19

The Greens, one would have thought are so named for their concern for the environment symbolised by the colour green which in nature indicates the presence of water enabling plant life, underpinning animal life. I did not get a sense of urgency about Australia’s environment from most of these replies from pre-selection candidates. Yet Australia's environment is going downhill fast from the effects of human activity. Much needed are strong policy responses to this situation for which we, as current custodians are currently responsible. I don't think there is room for some of the emotions I picked up in these replies. The first was a sort of guilt or awkwardness about the respondent being a migrant herself. Surely a more worthy and responsible attitude would be to feel the need to protect the place which is now her home both for herself and family, the rest of us and future generations? The other theme was that of looking globally first, another sort of guilt response. To me this is almost a recipe for inaction as the problems of the whole globe are so vast and varied. Putting off local issues to the global sphere is like putting action off until tomorrow and tomorrow never comes. The next issue is that of regionalisation. It is the opposite direction of the current one where everyone is flooding to the major cities. Government polices e.g where funds are taken from Aboriginal communities are making it difficult for people to live in remote areas. Harsh banking practices are turning families off their farming land. I'd like to see a detailed plan to reverse the trend of population concentration in rising megalopolises both in terms of overseas and internal migration.

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2015-07-23 08:55

Sarah Hanson-Young on 774 on ALP leader Shorten's promotion of agreement with Abbott's stop the boats policy failed to articulate the problems that cause asylum seekers and refugees. She did speak about multi-lateral approach, without going into detail. Jon Faine however said something to the effect that "We can't do anything about the conditions that cause the refugees." He is wrong. Obviously we could stop supporting wars in the sending countries. Unless we do this then the asylum seekers will still take huge risks and ultimately impinge on the borders of their destination countries. Economic immigrants are also the result of the destruction of economies through war and through ill advised sanctions. The ABC and all commentators have to start questioning our rotten foreign policies. Where is the anti-war movement on refugees and economic opportunity costs of war? Note: Sorry for ambiguity: Changed 'Hanson' to 'Hanson-Young' belatedly.

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 2015-07-23 08:40

The United States has the money to make college free, as some other nations do. Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a bill to do that (S.1373). http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file The U.S. is falling behind in education, developing a less-informed public. Students are unable to attend college or to complete it or to choose any but the highest paying job upon graduation. Along with television and prison, student debt is probably one of the greatest impediments to activism and civic engagement in this country.[1] Click here to tell Congress we can afford to make college free and can't afford not to. Student debt has reached an astonishing total level of $1.3 trillion. But that's what the United States spends each year for military purposes.[2] It's also an amount that could be raised in 4 years by a tax of 0.5% on major Wall Street transactions.[3] The U.S. is rolling in money, it's just not being used to provide the globally recognized human right of education. Click here to quickly email Congress your view of the matter and to share it with others. After signing the petition, please forward this message to your friends. You can also share it from the webpage after taking the action yourself. This work is only possible with your financial support. Please chip in $3 now. -- The RootsAction.org Team

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2015-07-23 08:14

This correspondence in relation to the article "Complaint to UK Channel 4 of reuse and relabeling of old film for anti-Syrian propaganda purposes - by Robert Stuart" was initially published on Robert Stuart's blog at https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/bbc-upholds-complaint-re-substitution-of-napalm-bomb-footage/
22Jul / 2015

BBC upholds complaint re: substitution of “napalm bomb” footage

22 July 2015

Ref: CT/1500344

Dear Mr Steel

Thank you for your provisional finding of 20 July (reproduced below) informing me that you propose to uphold my complaint regarding the substitution of Syria footage in respect of accuracy.

The finding does not address the points I have raised regarding the journalistic ethics of substituting images without acknowledgement or of the disturbingly vague and seemingly arbitrary categories of “taste of decency”. As your colleague Mr Tregear patricianly put it:

You have been given an explanation as to why the footage was changed; there is no reason why the audience should be made aware that any such editing has taken place; and BBC News is under no obligation to tell you the source of the substituted images which were broadcast.

and:

In response to your comment about the paragraph in my email which you found “astonishing”, I can only say the point I was making was that there is no formal policy which obliges BBC News to inform viewers that footage has been changed or to confirm when asked the source of material used.  It is a matter for BBC News to decide whether to provide that information.

I shall wish to pursue these matters following receipt of your final report.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Stuart

https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com

________________________________________________________________________________________

British Broadcasting Corporation White City, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ

Telephone: 020 8743 8000 Email: [email protected]

Editorial Complaints Unit

Mr R Stuart

Email:

Ref: CT/1500344

20 July 2015

Dear Mr Stuart

Syria Vote: One Year On, BBC News Channel, 30 August 2014

I’m writing to let you know the provisional outcome of the Editorial Complaints Unit’s investigation into your complaint about a report broadcast on the BBC News Channel at 4.30am BST on 30 August 2015 [sic]. I’m sorry this has taken longer than we initially led you to expect.

We’re now in a position to add to the account you were given in the email of 17 May from the BBC Complaints Team. As explained in that email, the report was re-edited in order to replace the footage of the Aleppo attack of August 2013 with less graphic images (of an attack in Saraqeb, Northern Syria, on 29 April 2013) for a different audience. We’ve now established that the editing was carried out by the Newsnight team after the programme came off the air – at about midnight, in fact, and after Laura Kuenssberg had left the studio. I’m told that they didn’t check the sound-track, and the fact that the replacement of the pictures rendered the accompanying script line inaccurate simply didn’t register with them –and of course the News Channel team would have no reason to suppose there was anything amiss with the report as it reached them. I agree with the view that the change of pictures didn’t change the journalistic integrity of the piece, in the sense that it wouldn’t have affected viewers’ understanding of the matters under discussion. Nevertheless, it would have given them the impression that they were seeing footage of an attack which took place just before MPs voted when the footage actually dated from four months earlier – an impression which could have been avoided if the script had been appropriately edited or if less graphic images from the Aleppo attack had been used. I’m therefore proposing to uphold your complaint in respect of accuracy, though I hope the explanation I’ve given will reassure you that there was no intention to mislead.

As my colleague, Colin Tregear, explained in his letter of 18 June, this is a provisional finding and so I’ll be happy to consider any comments you may wish to make provided that you let me have them by 3 August. Alternatively, if you are content with the finding as it stands, let me know and I’ll finalise it without further ado.

Mr Tregear also said he would ask the relevant BBC manager to respond to your concerns about the time it took tom [sic] address your complaint at Stage 1 of the process. This is their response:

We have reviewed the delays in replying after Mr Stuart’s return complaint was received in November and do apologise again for these on behalf of the BBC Executive. There was already a backlog of complaints being investigated in BBC News which caused some initial delay when Mr Stuart escalated his complaint in November 2014. This was a consequence of large volumes of complaints following the conflict in the Middle East during the summer and then the Scottish Referendum in September. Although the relevant editor was asked on a number of occasions for a response over many weeks, he had not provided one by March when he moved on to a new role. A response from his successor was consequently delayed and provided over a month later. We apologise for these delays, which do not reflect the level of service we strive for and are normally able to provide.

Yours sincerely

Fraser Steel
Head of Editorial Complaints

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2015-07-22 22:00

In response to Geoffrey Taylor's comment, Where multiculturalism has worked, but on a smaller scale", I wish I had time to write what I know and think about the Syria-Australia multiculturalism comparison, but I don't. What I would say is that Syria was a functioning sophisticated several-tribe system before the Ottoman Empire, under which those tribes in their territories became millets; i.e. retained their distinct cultures and territories. Due to later French colonisation it retained systemic aspects of French law (as well as some Sharia law) which probably have helped it hold together as its population exploded from 2,368,000 in 1937 to more than 22million in 2012, due to urbanisation and immigration (mainly refugees) from neighboring countries. Unlike the Australian system, the French system accords housing, health treatment and education as citizens' rights and emphasises secularity over sectarianship; it is anti-communitarian but pro-citizen. I would need to study Syria more (and hope to do so) but this is the hypothesis that I would start by testing.

The civil war is the product of external forces of colonialism in a region with huge energy resources, of which the disappearance of Palestine is one casualty. It seems likely that Israel and her protectors are keen to break up Syria because of Syria's acceptance of so many displaced Palestinians, who have then continued to fight for their homeland from Syria. It says something for the system in Syria that the Syrian Government has thus far managed to retain majority loyalty in the face of such concerted international interference plus the continuous influxes of refugees. Also remarkable that the Al Assad Government continues to urge refugees to remain in Syria and appears to provide for them.

Ashlyn Johnson (not verified)

Wed, 2015-07-22 21:53

Candobetter.net Editor: I'm preserving this comment, which is really spam, because it is so self-illustrative. The writer cannot spell and the website it touts encourages people to blatantly cheat. However the site appears so incompetently written that anyone who uses it will probably be wasting their money. Tragic from all sides!

Finance is a basic thing and need in the education Visit Our Website - domyassignmentforme.com without finance no education will be a part of any body life's by which they have to struggle for the better future and they can get the more reasons to live in the education premises.

admin

Wed, 2015-07-22 21:15

Subject was: Response to 'What Is An Australian' by Mark Allen - Ed

My definition of an Australian is someone who resides in Australia. Nothing more nothing less. I was born overseas and I see no particular place as my homeland but I do hold a deep connection to places here in Australia and in Europe. I see the earth as my home in all of its cultural and environmental diversity. Here in Australia, the greatest threat to our precious environment and heritage comes from the neo-liberal brigade currently captained by Tony Abbott, not from multiculturalism.

DennisK (not verified)

Wed, 2015-07-22 14:46

Can Europeans then legitimately claim that the immigrants from outside Europe are not truly European, and just visitors. I take it that attitude is acceptable too? I was born here. Someone of Aboriginal descent was born here. To segregate me from then in terms of entitlement is to suggest that biology plays a part in defining who we are, and what we belong to. This contradicts the line that we are all the same. Also, Australia First Party are seeking to limit people who you yourself suggest aren't and can't be true Australians anyway, so what's the big deal? Can you clear this up? Because people who cheer multiculturalism put out very, very mixed messages. What does one have to do, to be able to claim a homeland exactly?

John Bentley (not verified)

Wed, 2015-07-22 09:57

That's a tricky one Dennis, but I'll have a crack at it anyway. Mind the step, I think of myself as an Australian, but I know I'm not. I was born here, but that doesn't make me an Australian. I don't belong to any religion, I don't celebrate Australia Day, I do believe, however, I'm a liberated person and see the world for what it is with my eyes wide open. The first peoples of Australia are the only true Australians, the rest of us are only visitors. We like to think that we're Australians, but that's a lie. Whether we're Anglophone, European, Oriental or whatever, we're visitors. Visitors while making the place home, should always leave the place (Australia) like it was when they arrived. But we haven't, we've wrecked the joint!!

Dennis K

Tue, 2015-07-21 21:36

Hi Mark, What do you consider the definition of Australian? Presuming such a thing could be described in a few sentences (which may not be a reasonable presumption to make!)... I personally am willing to wager a large sum of money that as Australia's demographic make up, so too will attitudes towards green spaces, space in general and heritage. Travel the world and realise that your attitude isn't universal.

Mark Allen (not verified)

Tue, 2015-07-21 18:21

When anonymous says "Australia needs to be kept Australian," could he/she please explain what the definition of being Australian is? Is it dancing to Waltzing Matilda around the campfire while munching on a lamington? It is easy to create some fake nostalgic image of a perfect society but I guarantee that reality never really existed. If you want to preserve what is good about where we live then we must focus on preserving our green open spaces, our biodiversity, our indigenous cultures and our built heritage and not target the different people and cultures, who with the aid of proper planning can enhance and add new meanings to these spaces. Yes we need to slow population growth so that our growth can be sustainable but we should not confuse this with a misguided desire to recreate some kind of false utopia.

Anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2015-07-21 13:22

There are limits to almost everything in a finite world, and there are limits to human tolerance. The "Reclaim Australia" rally was because people are losing what they see is a safe and unified Australia, with a culture intact. The people do not want to see the growth of Islam in Australia. Already there are growing tensions and conflicts of ideologies and practices over the world. Of course the high rate of immigration has brought more "diversity" and extreme cultures to Australia. People don't want to be confronted by burkas, exclusive shops, the suppression of rights for women, and FGM etc. Australia needs to be kept Australian, and we've had a long history of welcoming migrants from all over the world, but extreme immigration since the Howard era is now fruiting with extreme multiculturalism. However, the rally attracted extremist "left" and "right" elements, thugs who are against "racism"! Islam is NOT a race, any more than Judaism is a race.

DennisK (not verified)

Tue, 2015-07-21 10:05

Syria had those cultures already living there. It wasnt the product of engineering. European nations had different cultures because or organic human development. Yugloslavia consisted of long established existing peoples. Multiculturalism here is a cover for growth and social engineering, and I object to being used in a social experiment this way. It robs me of my dignity and right to know what kind of society I live in and my children will be in. The "multiculturalism" is fake, engineered by the growth lobby and people with racial grievances. Almost all our laws limiting speech are in some way a result of this. Big money and big government can hide behind migrants and use them as a cover for awful policies, use them like a human shield. People whose bank accounts in Cyprus were plundered to bail out banks didn't have the sky fall in the next day. But as a matter of principle, it is wrong. Just as it is wrong to deny a people the ability to develop their own society, just as it is wrong to subject people to a social experiment that has failed elsewhere. And Syria is a poor example.

Geoffrey Taylor

Tue, 2015-07-21 05:45

The secular state of Syria is an example of a country where multi-culturalism has worked. This country which has been unjustly demonised by the lying Australian mass media which also sings the praises of high immigration and multiculturalism in Australia.

Within Syria, as well as the three branches of Islam – the Sunnis , the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Alawites of which President al-Assad is a member, there also Christians and a small Judaic community. Other ethnic groups in Syria include Kurds and Armenians – the latter having suffered terribly in neighbouring Turkey, particularly during the Armenian genocide which began in 1915 in the time of the former Ottoman Empire.

In addition, Syria has given refuge to 1,300,000 Iraqis, who fled as a result of the illegal wars and sanctions in which Australia has participated since 1990, 543,400 Palestinians and 5,200 Somalis.

But even Syria would have trouble coping with the vast waves of immigration coming from so many ethnic backgrounds from so many countries that have been imposed on Australia since 1983 when Paul Keating imposed globalisation upon Australia.

Mark Allen (not verified)

Mon, 2015-07-20 23:57

I see no evidence that the vast majority of non European migrants are clashing headlong with "traditional, Ozzie and transparent values". This kind of language is dangerous and increases the risk of creating discrimination and disharmony. Multiculturalism is essentially working well in Australia. Our current rate of population growth is too high on the grounds that our wildlife, agricultural land and infrastructure is being adversely impacted. This has nothing to do with multiculturalism. Australia First is not a result of being 'overwhelmed by multiculturalism'. Instead it is a result of the perception of being overwhelmed by multiculturalism. This perception is engineered by those who want to distract society from the real problem eating away at us, that is the growing powers of the corporate elite. If you fall for the 'multiculturalism is bad ethos', they have you eating out of their hands.

Dennis K

Sun, 2015-07-19 20:40

and that if negative gearing was withdrawn that the housing industry would be annihilated. In a market economy, goods are produced if there is a demand. It is considered a market inefficiency for goods to be produced where there is no demand. The basic idea is, that those who spend resources on things people don't need, go out of business. Such behaviour is weeded out. They don't even pretend to ascribe to this anymore. They blatantly state that the market is propped up, and that this is normal. We have to produce houses that no one needs, because, well, because someone who wants to squander resources should still be able to make a profit and not have to shift towards something the market actually needs. This is a step towards economic fascism, where people's money is decided, by the state, where it goes, what it is spent on. That money is taken for me, for developers to produce something that people don't have a market for (if there was, they would sell at the price they produce it for without grants or gearing). That is basically theft.

John Bentley (not verified)

Sun, 2015-07-19 11:13

The torrent of articles supporting neoliberalism emanating from Fairfax Media lately is way over the top. As a follow-up to Jane Nathan's horror story on Thursday is Elizabeth Knight's "Negative gearing just one card in the bubble blame game" in Saturday's Age. The nexus of the piece, according to the precious Lizzie, is that we need to take a wider view of our tax take ie if we scrap or tighten the rules regarding negative gearing, other taxes (incentives) need to be adjusted to accommodate those changes. In short if we take money off the rich bastards, the poor bastards must pay for it. It works this way according to Gavin Slater from NAB supported by the Business Council of Australia (rich bastards) who is 'pretty relaxed with some tinkering with negative gearing as long as it wasn't done in isolation from a broader group of measures around tax'. In essence they believe that if change in this area is implemented then changes in the GST, capital gains tax and company tax must also be adopted which will impinge on Joe Public (the poor bastards). The article goes on to say that negative gearing is not the sole cause of the housing boom (there's no bubble - repeat after me - there is noooo... bubble) and that if negative gearing was withdrawn that the housing industry would be annihilated. Slater is, apparently, quite happy to concede that we have a housing affordability problem (to go with renting affordability, homelessness, marriage and family dysfunction &c) and points out that without negative gearing property development will stall precipitating a rise interest rates and unemployment. How thoughtful of him! This article is just a mindless piece of neoliberal propaganda, reinforcement of the official narrative, the more often it's repeated the bigger the chance that the punters will believe it. This is the nauseous sort of stuff that continually fills the pages of Fairfax Media of late, typical of all mainstream media. Another toxic little piece in the same paper was Ruth Pollard's "New horror for Syrians: falling mines"!!

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2015-07-18 14:47

Not only is the Australian Population Institute a front for the growthists' pushing their agenda, but "Sustainable" population fronts can also hide behind this increasingly meaningless word. It's become an oxymoron!

There was a "Sustainable Population Forum" last Thursday, in High Street Thornbury. John Thwaites as a former Premier of Victoria, represented the Monash Sustainability Institute. Contradictorily to the name, he's an unashamed and unabashed pro-growth pusher! He's supporting of Melbourne's population boost to 8 million, and used all the stock and trade words of creating a sustainable city, with more people in apartments, and that we can "de-link" population growth from the impacts in the I=PAT equation! He claims water usage and green house gas emission have declined, despite population growth. He said we should welcome all the asylum seekers and embrace Asia to our heart!

Despite the forum title, of "Sustainable" population, it was chaired by a team of pro-growth activists, unquestioningly linking economic growth population growth. There was nothing said about the folly of the desalination plant, the homeless, the crowding, the congestion, the loss of amenity and unemployment.

Kevin O'Connor, is Professorial Fellow in urban planning (needs JavaScript). He was not quite as big a growthist, and at least acknowledged some limits to growth, but he also assumed that our population doubling in 35 years was inevitable, without questioning the politics. With vested interest in urban planning, he obviously thinks that "development" is the silver bullet to cramming more people into cities.

One woman was a wildlife rescuer and she reminded the speakers of the horrendous carnage on our roads, and that carers get no funding, not even for the bullets to kill mortally injured kangaroo! Limits to our environmental resources, and species extinctions, were given scant regard.

Lucinda Hartley gave some comforting words about our wonderful public spaces and urban designs, so we can all adapt happily to small apartments and have it endorsed as socially progressive and modern.

The myth of Cornucopia is vibrant, and many organisations based presumably on "sustainability" are really hiding their growth agendas, fooling the public who are naive enough to believe that it's inevitable!

Dennis K

Fri, 2015-07-17 21:52

If you listen to what people are talking about, when they talk of multiculturalism, they are not talking about making interpreters available for people, making Australians more worldly, allowing alternative modes of thought (which is necessary for multiculturalism). They are talking more and more about demographics. Multiculturalism has more to do with demographic make up than culture. It actually has little to do with culture (except for restaurants). Alternative moral systems, which are the fundamental basis behind culture are not tolerated. The problem is population policy, and its use in pushing social engineering. The multiculturalist seeks to achieve a diversity target, which is implemented by means of population policy. This requires social engineering and demographic engineering to succeed. No one who advocates multiculturalism says it is satisfactory for our current demographic make up to remain as it is today. We have not met the target. Big money seeks to achieve "Growth" by means of a size target, say 30 million people by next month by means of a population policy. This requires social engineering and demographic engineering to succeed. No one who advocates for grows says it is satisfactory for our current population levels to remain as it is today. We have not met the target. Big money and multiculturalism virtually overlap completely. It is for this reason I suspect the Greens don't attack it. If they advocated a stable population, the two "racist" scenarios I mentioned earlier would occur, and this means we don't achieve our target. They have to support a population policy, and the current one of growth almost matches exactly the one they would have in mind. Why oppose it? Hitler also had a population policy. He too believed that Germany would be better of the demographic met his 'targets' and changed to what the state said they should be. He too wasn't happy with the population it was, he had not met his target. This idea is paralleled today, ironically supposedly in opposition to his idea and to prevent that type of thinking occurring! Perhaps it will take a generation for people to see the irony. All genocides are also a form of 'population policy'. I think the problem is accepting the idea that the state, government, business or whoever has the right to impose population policy on people. It is very dangerous and usually unnecessary. One you allow this, you allow abuse. If you have population target, you are painting a target on people. Population policies, or social engineering of this manner is a hideous ideology. Having a population policy is an evil, and leads to evil acts. Period. I wonder about people who hyperventilate about groups like Australia First Party, but still support social engineering and having the state decide demographics and consider this A-OK . Do they have their heads screwed on straight? What is the alternative? The alternative, at least in the West, is to allow the most democratic, smartest means. To set population size by the individual reproductive choices that people make. This is the most democratic, as people are directly participating in selecting the population size. It is also the smartest because the decisions are made by many people, who evaluate their own lives and environment, and not some disconnected, corrupt, easily bribed and manipulated technocrat. For area's of the world where the birth rate is high, and capacity to support the population is low, this ideal wouldn't work, but at least in the West, where birthrates are still low, this would make sense. Immigration should therefore be relegated from its current status of tool to engineer population, to merely being a gatekeeper, where influx is perhaps proportional to the birthrate (ie, an immigration rate of 10% -20% of what the birthrate is). Also, the argument that cutting immigration will only stop population growth so far is incorrect. Some (actually much) of the birthrate is a direct result of immigration. If immigration was slowed, the birthrate would correspondingly drop.

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2015-07-17 16:17

Re "Multiculturalism fraying at the edges", I don't think that there would be any fraying at all if it were not for the massive population growth that is being foisted on Australians so undemocratically. The numbers, no matter where they originate from, are pushing us into catastrophe, with terrible rates of traffic congestion, loss of control over neighborhood density, loss of opportunity for Australians to get Australian jobs, housing and rental debt, homelessness, loss of public ammenity, selling off of public and agricultural lands, reduction in wild spaces and native fauna and flora that many of us grew up with. Our environment is becoming alien, not because changes in where immigration streams originate from but because of the rate and scale of changes to our built and natural landscapes, engineered by growth lobby industries who now influence parliament at the highest level. This alienation of our built and natural landscapes is obvious but many people do not know where it is coming from but they can see that there are many new people here, demanding services and pushing up prices.

DennisK (not verified)

Fri, 2015-07-17 15:54

Australia is stalling economically. The consequences of mindless growth are coming home to roost now. Expect more of this as the situation worsens. The noise about how great growth is has to drown out the reality we see. The more obvious it becomes, the more they will shout to cover it up. The more audible the reality, the louder they yell. Thats all that this is, ensuring they are the loudest.

Vivienne Ortega

Fri, 2015-07-17 15:25

It seems that the much honoured and treasured Multicultural policy is fraying at the edges, and lack of assimilation is dividing our cities. Before we had European migrants, mainly, even though they may not have been the traditional "white" migrants of the British post war era. Now, we have south east Asia, the Middle East, and Indian migrants with extreme cultures and diversity - clashing headlong with traditional, Ozzie and transparent values. The many "right" groups such as Australia First is a result of being overwhelmed by multiculturalism and high population growth.

Stop the housin... (not verified)

Fri, 2015-07-17 15:14

The Brimbank Community Fund reveals that 43% of Brimbank residents were born overseas, and 14 babies a day are born at Sunshine Hospital. 25% of Brimbank’s population is between 10 and 24 years, and approximately 2,500 10-14 year olds are not in education. Almost 15% of Brimbank's 15 to 24 year olds are unemployed. It's not the cafe-sipping, "green" and healthy image projected by the article! The Brimbank Community Fund is a charitable fund account of the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation. It's asking for donations to help out the disadvantaged. http://www.brimbank.vic.gov.au/COMMUNITY/Brimbank_Community_Fund Surely the jobs and prosperity should come BEFORE turning up the immigration rate? It's like a car going up a hill on empty, then wondering why the engine (economy) is faltering? Of course, it's always the lack of "development", "investment" or other factors that are blamed, not that population is outstripping job creation or affordable housing! Nothing, not facts, anecdotal evidence or opinion, seems to inhibit the enthusiasm of growthists to keep growing the population! The City of Brimbank population forecast for 2015 is 193,590, and is forecast to grow to 218,349 by 2041. Rather than "forecast", this is about tweaking our demographics to achieve a target, through full throttle immigration rates, considering our low fertility levels in Victoria. Like piranhas, savvy Sydney investors are swooping on properties in Melbourne’s west. “Priced out of Sydney, these buyers are outbidding the locals and snapping up the more affordable homes here, usually before auction,” YPA Derrimut director Gioan Pham said. "Unaffordable housing" is being imported to an area that's already disadvantaged. Melbourne City Mission now runs the Sunshine centre. The mission’s chief executive Ric Holland said it received nearly 500 requests for emergency accommodation from youth across Melbourne every month. But Mr Holland said the system was “under such pressure that hundreds of these kids are turned away”. Associate Professor Robyn Broadbent says the government contributes to disenfranchising certain groups of young people because it does not have clear youth policies that recognise the value of the country’s young people. “No one is joining the dots about why the young men making news as ‘terrorists’ in Australia are becoming marginalised and disengaged,” she says. So, disengaged young people, with little hope of a future, end up "radicalized" through desperation to belong and be part of anything! “Areas such as Brimbank or Dandenong in Melbourne are notable for their very high rates of youth unemployment, school drop-outs and families living in poverty, as well as for their large proportions of minority communities". As for domestic violence, more and more strangers are forced together because extended families are broken apart, without support. The Australian Population Institute should be about demographics, research, and be objective and non-partisan as its name suggests, not masquerading as a not-for-profit, public information organisation. This "institute" is not academic or indifferent, but another pro-growth lobby group.

Dennis K

Thu, 2015-07-16 23:07

I admire the efforts of people to keep the debate purely about numbers, but I think this is not a viable option. Regardless of how one frames the debate, it is pretty much impossible to avoid issues of 'racism' entering the argument. The reason being that issues of ethnicity or race factor into the argument for growth, and counter arguments which don't acknowledge this will always be weaker because some arguments go un-addressed. Consider a proposal to reduce immigration, without ANY discriminatory bias. This will still nevertheless result in the following A) The transformation of Australia to a more ethnically diverse society, and away from a Anglo/European, or white majority will be slowed, perhaps even halted. B) Despite no intention to discriminate, lowering immigration will nevertheless result in more people from non-traditional sources of immigration being denied entry than people from the Anglosphere and Europe. Both these outcomes, which will happen can still nevertheless attract accusation of xenophobia, bigotry, and be claimed to be similar to what groups like Australia First propose. The counter move could be perhaps to have limited immigration, which still works towards these goals, but this still nevertheless concedes to the growth lobby, and still involves discrimination. Also, generally people who argue for sustainable growth, in particular the more 'moderate' voices wanting to lower immigration, still seem to implicitly support the underlying ideological basis which allows big money and big political to engineer society and push mass immigration. Because of this, I think this may help explain why sentiment against immigration seems to find a more popular voice among the so called far right, instead of SPA/SPP/Vic First style groups. While it might be theoretically desirable to approach the problem from this position, I don't think it is practically feasible. That isn't to say that the far right have the correct approach, I think judging migrants by how they assimilate is not a good method for determining suitability for entry, but the issue is messier and more controversial than I think many are comfortable with. I plan to submit an article which elucidates this idea more clearly.

Kronicilas (not verified)

Thu, 2015-07-16 22:51

Julianne Bell raised the following questions on 14 July to the Mayor at the City of Melbourne Council meeting in Public Question Time. The Lord Mayor said that they were "in the plans" but Ms Bell cannt see any detailed plans in the QVM draft Master Plan for car parking and no reference to access to public transport nor operation and future location of the bus terminal. Please comment if you have further information. Questions: 1 Given there are an estimated 10 million visitors/shoppers/tourists come to the Queen Victoria Market each year from the CDB, inner and middle suburbs and that many park in the 700 carspaces now provided or on 1500 on street car spaces, can the City of Melbourne now detail parking arrangements under the new development proposals for the Queen Victoria Market? 2 Given that there are 7 bus routes to and from the Queen Victoria market with 606 buses operating continuously daily with the bus terminus located on the street in the carparking zone on Franklin Street near the intersection of William Street and given the new development wipes out the Franklin Street carparks and the bus terminal, where and how will these extensive bus services operate once development plans are in place? Julianne Bell Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. PO Box 197 Parkville 3052 Mobile 0408022048

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2015-07-16 22:47

The point cannot be made too clearly that The Victoria Markets are Public Land. On public land we citizens have rights that we do not have in private shopping malls, where permission may be denied even to photograph, let alone demonstrate, give out hand-outs, address the public etc. Another point which cannot be overemphasised is that there should be no question of any level of government simply selling off land that belongs to the public. It is OUR land. It would not matter if the market were not the historic site it happens to be. What matters is that the people should dispose of their own land. And should have the final say in whether or not to retain it. Successive Victorian governments have continued to aggressively invite huge numbers of economic immigrants to Victoria. They have then used the resulting population growth to ram home excessive privatisation and overdevelopment. Overpopulation is being used in a corrupt way to pressure citizens and take political power from them and give it to developers and corporations, friends of the big end of town which is trying to take over every decision that might affect the rest of us. The Victoria Markets are truly an historic landmark for Victoria, marking the place where country and city came together, as they have traditionally from the first towns and cities. Markets are bastions of local political and economic participation which is too important to give to multi-national road, carpark and high-rise builders. These markets are a very big item to steal from the public.

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2015-07-16 18:00

It is possible that these desperados will persevere with such suggestions as reducing footpaths. In the United States there are many places with almost nowhere to walk. I remember trying to get to a motel on foot which I normally reached by car and almost being stranded by concrete obstructions and an absence of footpaths due to the hypertrophy of freeways and other roads leading from the airport to the outer suburbs of Washington.

Endora (not verified)

Thu, 2015-07-16 17:54

Just heard on the radio (ABC news) that the NSW govt is considering narrowing footpaths to ease road congestion. There is the pedestrian mall idea and now the narrow footpath idea. They just don’t know what to do next IMO. It’s such a wonderful example of the impossibility of keeping on growing and keeping on moving!

Person with a p... (not verified)

Wed, 2015-07-15 19:41

We can begin by nationalising the banks and the mines straight up and place severe restrictions on the activities of the real estate industry. This is major. I think it's time for Australians to get the army on side and rise up.

Anonymous (not verified)

Wed, 2015-07-15 12:38

Australia First Party
National Wattle Day
1st September 2015

Nominations for the Native Australian Award

"THE ORDER OF THE WATTLE BLOSSOM"

are invited from Fairdinkum Australians

GENERAL CRITERIA.
Persons nominated should have displayed a commitment to Australia's cultural heritage, our national values, our native soil, or any other suitable aspect that has contributed to the advancement of our European derived civilisation.

Nominations may be either Native Australians, members of the Australoid Races, or any assimilable [1] immigrant who has particularly exhibited having taken up the Australian Spirit.

Please forward particulars, including the following information to the address below before 25th August 2015.

Name and address of nomination; suggested award citation.

Include your own name and address.
In keeping with past tradition, up to five awards can be granted.

AUSTRALIA FIRST PARTY
Identity - Freedom - Independence
www.australiafirstparty.net email: [email protected]
P.O. Box 223 Croydon 3136 National Contact Line 02 8587 0014

I've fought it through the world since then, I wrote for her, I fought for her,
And seen the best and worst, And when at last I lie,
But always in the lands of men Then who, to wear the wattle, has
I held Australia first. A better right than I? Henry Lawson
AUSTRALIA FIRST PARTY - Reclaiming Australia for Australians

[1]
candobetter.net editor: We were inclined to commented out the term 'assimilable' before the word 'immigrant' in this press release because its meaning was not clear and could be deemed offensive because it implies that certain immigrants are not assimilable, although it leaves the reader to infer who, why or how. We are a website that focuses on numbers in the population debate, not ethnicities or 'race'. However we also encourage political alternatives and appreciate the idea of a National Wattle Day award. We do not like censoring although we do comment out anything that seems to be contrary to the law. Please comment if you have an alternative view on this matter.

DennisK (not verified)

Wed, 2015-07-15 12:25

I think the Greens were originally truly environmentalists, so the brand did fit. What has happened is a political class infiltrated the party and changed the agenda. This is textbook entryism, and it is a known tactic of that political class going back to Lenin. It is pretty obvious that The Greens have been subjected to this. The agenda then changes, and the entryists who have more stamina and time win out. Some in the Greens seem to be aware of this, but they now need the supporters and money and cant go back. Its too late. If they drop the Social Justice stuff they are finished as a party. If they go to true scientific environmentalism, many will lose interest and membership will collapse. Few people seem to question how so many people without any formal education in science, let alone biology or ecology can presume to manage the environment. The environmental movement has seen political warriors pile into it, and the environment is now therefore considered a political matter (as everything these people seem to touch turns into). And you spoke of something highly important, the push for a model where we trust elites to manage us! This doesnt work. Elites who have no connection with the community or nation cant represent its interests. This gives power to politicians.

DennisK (not verified)

Wed, 2015-07-15 11:19

The past governments were centrists who abided by the established political and social economic order. The Greeks then broke away (partially) by electing Syriza. Although I am sceptical of how far apart Syriza is from the established order (I doubted they were as radical as they appeared), the Greeks nevertheless must be punished for not choosing the "approved" Democratic path. Tsipras has dropped hints which could suggest that the ECB threatened to destroy Greece if Syriza did not capitulate. Its more then money, its religion. Everyone must truly BELIEVE in their neoliberalism. It is politics first and foremost. The Greeks will be punished for straying and not believing, Syriza will be seen to fail them (as they already have been seen to) and Greece will move to the only other anti austerity parties, the far right. An alternative to the stranglehold they technicrats have cannot be tolerated. You cant just offer to payback the money, you have to adopt and believe their world model. This is why Russia is considered a pariah, because they havent fallen into line. This was given as a reason for attacking Serbia in the 90's.

James Sinnamon

Tue, 2015-07-14 22:43

On SBS Insight just now, a female member of the audience asked why the European Union and the IMF never held to account past Greek governments for their mishandling of the money lent to them in the past.

Just as the rulers of Nazi Germany were held to account for their crimes at the Nuremberg trials, those past Greek governments, who indebted Greece so badly for no tangible economic gain, should have been held to account by the European Union and the IMF, before they allowed them to further increase Greece's indebtedness.

Given that the European Union and the IMF did not hold those past Greek governments to account, why should the EU and the IMF be considered any less culpable for Greece's economic failures and indebtedness than those past Greek governments, and why should all Greeks, including the vast majority, who were not complicit in that financial mismanagement, be expected to pay so dearly in 2015?

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2015-07-14 22:40

The problem is that the Green brand reads 'Green', so people think they are 'Green', i.e. ecological. Similarly the Labor brand reads 'Labor' so people think it is for the workers and the less well-heeled. And for some the Liberal brand means 'liberal', i.e. not overtaxing, not over-regulating, but acting fairly and giving citizens their dignity.

We have to stop believing in brands and remember that appearances are deceptive.

I could be wrong on some of these details, but this is how I read the Greens policies and philosophies generally. Although they seem to want to preserve some aspects of our environment, like forests, with the other hand, they give away our power to do so by failing to represent our rights to say no to more building permits at local level and no to more invited economic immigrants than we can cope with.

As you say, it seems that the Greens are a 'progressive' party, which doesn't mean that they are scientific and democratic. It means that they buy the whole box and dice of material progress. They believe the usual ideology about how population growth brings more material wealth and that overpopulation can be cured by 'development' - the same 'development' that the World Bank believes in. The Greens also seem to believe in social justice and equity, but this still involves 'development', which means disempowering locals, making everyone dependent on a market and adapting local environments and biodiversity to the needs of the market.

Their version of preserving the environment seems to be preserving breathable air and clean water, planning for bicycles and public transport, allowing some personal vegetable gardens. It doesn't mean allowing indigenous peoples to preserve their indigenous ways of living and keeping their territory for themselves. It doesn't mean allowing Australians to exercise sovereignty and control over their housing, land, resources and ammenity. It's basically an economic view of the world, not an ecological one.

And, social justice doesn't mean democratic and equitable sharing of wealth within a democratic polity controlled by its citizens who have civil rights. On the face of it, for the Greens it means opening borders to the world's poor in the belief that, after development occurs over there, and redevelopment occurs over here, we will all live modestly, with light footprints. However that model doesn't safeguard our rights; it says that we have to trust power elites to allocate us a sufficiency. And that model doesn't protect 'them over there' from poverty either, because the Greens don't protest against the wars that our economies rely on to generate cheap goods and labour, but which also generate refugees.

And, since most immigrants to Australia are actually quite wealthy, not asylum seekers or refugees, it really means allowing any number of people from all over the world to come in here if they have money to invest and buy land, water, power and any resource, with no Australian citizen having ability to limit the impacts, in terms of inflation of prices and overuse of ammenities, natural and built.

It's really hard to tell whether the Greens are quite cynically ensconced in a niche in the mainstream system, or whether they simply believe the general sales-talk of the major power elites - i.e. 'progress' and 'development' facilitated by a world economy.

The more I think about it, the more it looks to me as if the Greens' working philosophy is just a rehash of the Christian dogma that the meek shall inherit the world and find their reward in heaven, but, in the meantime, they should shut up and let the real people (the economist priests and the power elite they work for) just get on with it.

Stop the TPP (not verified)

Tue, 2015-07-14 17:17

Indonesia - which accounts for about 56 per cent of Australia's $1.3 billion live export market - will only take 50,000 head of cattle this quarter, down from 250,000 for the same period in 2014. Labor has blamed Canberra's tense relationship with Jakarta over the executions of Australian drug smugglers Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran as well the Abbott government's asylum seeker boat turn-back policy for the live cattle reduction. Most animals who are exported live for slaughter have their throats cut while fully conscious. Millions have died at sea. Some 35 investigations have revealed that in destination countries, many animals endure routine abuse and brutal slaughter in places where laws do not protect them from cruelty. Barnaby Joyce says Indonesia's decision to cut its quota of live Australian cattle exports is 'disappointing'. However, it's a partial victory for those who've been lobbying to end the misery and brutality. The industry was never sustainable, politically, economically, ethically or environmentally.

DennisK (not verified)

Tue, 2015-07-14 15:16

Actually, this IS the Greens party I have in mind. I'm not sure why anyone should expect any different. Knowing their ideological standpoint, arguing for population growth is in line, and necessary. Yes, there is a conflict with environmentalism, but if we are to take The Greens as a generally left/Progressive party, then this position is on par for the course. That general political ideology promotes a social vision which requires growth to achieve.

Stop the TPP (not verified)

Tue, 2015-07-14 13:18

What's new! Almost every asset in Australia is under grabs for China! Housing, meat, kangaroos, agricultural land, infrastructure and natural resources. Timber is just one of them. The China / Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA) was signed 17-June-15 with the aim of reducing the cost of trade between the two countries over the next 20 years. China and Australia signed a “history-making” $160 billion free trade deal but while the government was lauding it both unions and employers warned it would cost jobs. Australian consumers will get slightly cheaper Chinese products like clothes, electronics and other imports, but the real impact will be in the way we work. So, they will dump more of their commercial produce onto us, and they will take jobs away! We are becoming a nation of service providers, and shopkeepers, for the benefit of China. Port of Gladstone is on track to be Australia's largest multi-cargo port by the end of the decade. The export of logs began with the first shipment of 38,000 tonnes of logs to China last week. It is expected that woodchip exports will begin in September. According to VicForests’ own figures, this ‘residual’ timber is 3/4 of the wood being taken from our native forests. The destruction is simply not worth such a low output.

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2015-07-13 09:19

Groundwater is extensively used right across the Australian continent, and poses serious threats to humans that need it to drink, crops that are irrigated with it, and natural ecosystems that rely on it for their survival. Two satellites, launched in 2002, are able to make detailed measurements of the Earth's gravity field in the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). For the first time ever, large-scale assessments of the changes in total groundwater store within massive aquifers at monthly, seasonal, annual and inter-annual time-scales. Over 700 million people in 43 countries suffer from water scarcity today. The United Nations predicts that by 2025, 1.8 billion people will be facing absolute water scarcity. The demand for groundwater is impacted by population growth, urbanisation, agricultural irrigation and the effects of climate change. Mass production of grain and other food supplies is draining aquifers beyond sustainable capacity. GRACE Satellite Mission Indicates Global Groundwater Diminishing (24/6/15) | Future Directions Rain-starved California is currently tapping aquifers for 60 per cent of its water use as its rivers and above-ground reservoirs dry up, a steep increase from the usual 40 per cent. In Australia, the Canning Basin in the west had the third-highest rate of depletion in the world, but the Great Artesian Basin to the east was among the healthiest. The difference, the studies found, is likely attributable to heavy gold and iron ore mining and oil and gas exploration near the Canning Basin. Those are water-intensive activities. In a report written by insurance companies, it claims that with the world’s population set to hit nine billion by 2050, demands on the Earth to meet food and water supplies could be stretched so tightly humankind will implode on itself; causing civil wars, relentless terrorism and heightened weather events that will leave the world in tatters. Food security and water security are euphemisms for overpopulation, a Malthusian crisis that it taboo to mention! Water and food and other natural resources are the next weapons that can be used to hold nations to ransom, and weaken their defences. Bye, bye birdie: Civilisation will collapse in 2040, apparently (23/6/15) | News.com.au

Sheila Newman

Mon, 2015-07-13 00:35

The situation is like watching Nazis slaughter whole populations whilst the western press just looks the other way - at the stock market, at the Euro, anywhere but at what their masters are doing to the Middle East.

Stop the TPP (not verified)

Sun, 2015-07-12 18:27

The Saudis have again violated the humanitarian truce in Yemen. It seems that the Saudis have no intention of halting their lethal and deadly campaign against Yemen. People in Yemen do not have enough food for their children. They have been living on the basic seeds which they can plant in their backyards but it seems that the world doesn’t care about that. The UN says violence has been escalating and humanitarian access decreasing in a war zone where more than 3,200 people have died and millions need assistance. Hours before the humanitarian deadline, warplanes from the Saudi-led coalition pounded positions of Iran-backed rebels, more than three months into their campaign in support of exiled President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi. The departure of the close U.S. ally and the imminent fall of the southern port of Aden pushed Yemen further toward a violent collapse. Close to 13 million people are unable to meet their food needs, 15 million people have no healthcare and outbreaks of dengue and malaria are raging unchecked. Considering how frequently many US politicians like to opinion on other foreign conflicts, it is striking that there have been so few interested in talking about the U.S. role in Yemen! The war has generated virtually none of the outrage or criticism here in the U.S.

Dennis K

Sat, 2015-07-11 15:57

Pentagon Concludes America Not Safe Unless It Conquers The World The Pentagon has released its “National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2015,” June 2015. The document announces a shift in focus from terrorists to “state actors” that “are challenging international norms.” It is important to understand what these words mean. Governments that challenge international norms are sovereign countries that pursue policies independently of Washington’s policies. These “revisionist states” are threats, not because they plan to attack the US, which the Pentagon admits neither Russia nor China intend, but because they are independent. In other words, the norm is dependence on Washington. We are seeing similar action in Greece. There can only be one world order, one system. If a nation goes its own way, proves that breaking the neo-liberal mould can be done, and can be done successfully, then it represent a threat to the established order, the status quo. That cannot be permitted. They cannot trust a nation with sovereignty. It is here where "smash the system" activists become useful idiots. Most of the criticism against the powers that be, support their agenda by enforcing compliance to it in a manner stricter than even the global elites care for. Start a party which speaks of national sovereignty, and now start taking the idea seriously and see who opposes you.

Pages

Click to read all comments.