Wednesday, 31 August 2011

Tradesmen 'face ruin' as solar-energy business collapses | The Australian

Tradesmen 'face ruin' as solar-energy business collapses | The Australian

A COMPANY that acted as a clearing house for solar panel installers to trade their renewable energy certificates has collapsed owing up to $7 million -- sparking warnings tradesmen will be forced to the wall.

Creditors to the company Well Being Green, which was placed in administration this month, will next week receive a report into its affairs that is expected to show directors moved about $1.6m out of the company in the weeks before it collapsed. Of this, more than $500,000 is suspected to have been sent to Pakistan, where Ali Obeid, the brother of the company's sole director, Nasir Naveed, moved to after the administrator was appointed.

Mr Naveed has told the company's administrator most of the money taken out of the company was used to pay creditors and to fund a call centre.

Administrator Pino Fiorentino said he was examining the withdrawals from the company and the transfers to Pakistan as far back as 2007.

He said Mr Naveed had been co-operating with his inquiries, giving him access to records, and had told him most of the withdrawals had been used to pay creditors. He had claimed the money that had been transferred to Pakistan had been used to fund a call centre.

But Brian Carroll, whose Allsafe Energy Efficient Products is owed $1.2m, said the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator should have conducted due diligence and warned installers there were risks in using an intermediary. Mr Carroll's company runs nine stores and employs about 40 people. Solar panels and solar hotwater systems generate renewable energy certificates and installers pay householders the value of the certificates and then redeem them through intermediaries.

"One or two stores have a real prospect of having to close their doors very, very soon," he said.

Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said he had written to the minister months ago about Mr Carroll's problems. "We have taken all the steps we possibly could to let them know and at this stage there's a complete blind eye," he said.

A spokesman for Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said disputes between solar panel installers and intermediaries usually needed to be handled under the normal commercial and consumer dispute resolution processes. "Registration (in the scheme) allows a person to hold legal title to certificates -- it was not created to be a government endorsement of a company or their products," he said.

Bill Shorten PM

Gillard: Psalm 109:8 ~ “Let their days be few and brief; and let others step forward to replace them.”


Psalm 109:8 ~

“Let their days be few and brief; and let others step forward to replace them.”

Monday, 29 August 2011

AWUgate: Stat dec in full

Gillard at Slater and Gordon; AWU; AWUgate

Hansard Search Result

[Previous page] [First Match] [New Search]
Selecting a highlighted speaker's name will display only that speaker's contributions to the whole speech.
TitleCity Link: tender
ActivityQuestions without Notice
Date12 October 1995

many unnamed bank spokesmen engage in political propaganda.

City Link: contractual arrangements

Mr BRUMBY (Leader of the Opposition) -- Will the Treasurer confirm that the major sticking point in the negotiations between the government and Transurban is that Transurban is insisting that it be given a guarantee that in order to increase toll revenue and force cars onto the tollways the government will, firstly, reduce the width of Footscray Road; secondly, close Alexandra Avenue; and, thirdly, allow parking on Toorak Road so that it is no longer a clearway? Will the Treasurer give an undertaking to the house that he will not agree to any of these measures?
Mr STOCKDALE (Treasurer) -- It is a pity for Hollywood that the fertile imagination of the Leader of the Opposition is not captured by somebody who makes movies, because his flights of fancy are beyond belief.
I do not propose to go into the detailed matters that are subject to negotiation.
Honourable members interjecting.
The SPEAKER -- Order! The Leader of the Opposition has posed his question and the house should listen in silence to the answer.
Mr STOCKDALE -- The fanciful suggestions the Leader of the Opposition has made are the first I have heard of that kind. They would be unacceptable to the government in the form in which he proposes them. So far as I am aware, nobody other than the Leader of the Opposition is contemplating them.

AWU union official

Mr PERRIN (Bulleen) -- Will the Minister for Industry and Employment inform the house what action the government is taking on allegations of corruption in the trade union movement?
The SPEAKER -- Order! The Chair has some difficulty with the question. Unless the answer can be related to government administration the question will be out of order.
Mr GUDE (Minister for Industry and Employment) -- This matter should be of serious concern to all Victorians. Serious allegations of fraud and impropriety have been brought to my attention.
It is alleged that the former secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Mr Bruce Wilson, who left the union's employ in August of this year, has apparently misappropriated union funds and used his position as secretary in the most improper manner.
I understand the AWU is still receiving bills for strange items ordered by Mr Wilson. All attempts thus far to find him have come to nothing. What did Mr Wilson do when he found out that his actions had been discovered? The first thing he did was to seek legal advice from the union's solicitors, none other than Slater and Gordon. From whom did he receive that advice? One Julia Gillard.
I am informed that Ms Gillard is no longer with Slater and Gordon due to commitments as an ALP Senate candidate. That may not be the only reason she is no longer working at Slater and Gordon.
Mr Bracks -- On a point of order, Mr Speaker, from the outset you asked the minister to relate his answer to government administration. The minister is not talking about government administration but is speculating. He is seeking to try in the Parliament a case which should be dealt with outside the Parliament.
Mr GUDE -- On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I should have thought that of all members opposite the one who has just risen in his place to make a point of order should have known better because, after all, he is supposed to be the spokesperson in the industrial relations area.
The Employee Relations Act clearly provides for investigation of alleged improper action against a union. I make the point to the honourable member that the AWU is a registered and recognised organisation under the Employee Relations Act.
The concerns that have been expressed have been expressed on behalf of decent working AWU members. I have not only a right but a responsibility as the responsible minister to deal with the matter, and I propose to do that irrespective of the point of order.
The SPEAKER -- Order! If the minister can relate his answer to the act he mentioned he will be in order, but if he strays from that he will be out of order and I will no longer hear him.
Mr GUDE -- Consistent with the provisions of the legislation I am informed that the first thing Ms Gillard did, when asked what she would be doing and why she was getting out of Slater and Gordon, was to pay back moneys to the AWU for work -- --
Mr Brumby -- On a point of order, Mr Speaker -- --

AWU: funds

Mr LEIGH (Mordialloc) -- I grieve about the Australian Workers Union and the allocation of some of its money. The union has a well-known history in the Labor Party. It has been involved in a lot of rorting of the funds of many union members. Today I am seeking a fraud squad investigation into what happened to $57 000 of the union's money.
To set the scene, I want to show the credibility of the witness from whom the information was supplied.
Honourable members interjecting.
Mr LEIGH -- The gentleman concerned -- and government members may laugh -- is a 20-year member of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party, the joint president of the Australian Workers Union and a four-year member of the Victorian ALP administrative committee. He is well known to the Minister for Transport because he sat on the administrative committee during the Nunawading Province re-election inquiry that checked out what the honourable member for Thomastown -- now the Minister for Transport -- was doing when he was secretary of the ALP.
Mr Bob Kernohan has been hounded. Together with a whole range of things that have been done to him, through Telstra the union found his silent phone numbers and has made threatening phone calls to him. Today, the union is still up to its tricks and so are a number of members of the ALP. In a letter to me Mr Kernohan states:
When this is used ... may counteract by attacking me over the $6500 I received from Wilson ...
That is Bruce Wilson, who was then involved in the union. The letter continues that this person:
is well aware that the money I received came out of the Wilson election fund, this was confirmed by John Cain Jr, senior partner, Maurice Blackburn and Co.
On top of that --
this person --
is also aware that I went to the federal fraud squad and made a statement to this effect.
They found that I had no case to answer.
You must also remember that over half a million dollars went missing that --
the secretary of the union --
was aware of prior to him paying out Wilson and his mates (an additional $300 000).
I will make all of the material I have available to the house, including a copy of Mr Kernohan's statement to the federal police, following which no charges were laid against him.
This is a man who has spent a lot of years in the Victorian ALP. He has decided to come forward today

Page 53

because he is sick of what is going on in this open, honest and transparent government. Is it so honest?
Government members interjecting.
Mr LEIGH -- Who pays for you guys? The material I will make available includes several statutory declarations and I intend to read them.
Mr Maxfield -- Can you read?
Mr LEIGH -- I refer to the first statutory declaration which was signed yesterday, although I also have another one signed some time ago by Mr Kernohan. The statutory declaration states:
I had a discussion with ...
the then secretary of the Australian Workers Union (AWU) in mid-1995 and, during the discussions --
the secretary --
alerted me to the fact that a building contractor had been to see him seeking final payment for renovation works undertaken and completed at an address that was authorised by the AWU. AWU officials Bill Shorten and Terry Muscat were also aware of this serious matter.
The secretary:
told me that a considerable amount of ... union funds had already been spent on renovations at this property and that his investigations had disclosed that the property in question belonged to --
an individual. I have not named the individual as yet, but I will in a minute. The statutory declaration continues:
... he told me that $40 000 had been spent by the AWU to date.
The secretary:
told me that --
the person concerned --
was a ... close friend of Bruce Wilson. Wilson was also an AWU secretary.
The person:
was not known to me but --
the secretary --
and Bill Shorten knew her, in fact Bill Shorten said that he knew her well.
I asked --
the secretary --
what was he and the union going to do to recover our members union funds.
The secretary:
told me that he would not rest 'until these --
I cannot use the expletive that is in the document --
crooks are in jail and that the money is returned in full to the union'. To this day, despite court action taken against Mr Wilson and a court order authorising the AWU to recover these moneys nothing has been done.
The secretary:
and myself had a significant fallout over this and other serious fraudulent activities within the union because they wanted to 'cover it up'.
The secretary:
told me that Wilson also spent $17 000 on women's clothing for --
this person --
out of union funds. The ladies clothing store is called the Town Mode of Melbourne Fashion House.
I do not believe the store exists any more. So $17 000 of the union's funds were spent by the Victorian branch of the AWU to make this person well dressed. This person ultimately became what one would describe as the best-dressed chief of staff in the country for a Leader of the Opposition, because this person was a former Leader of the Opposition's chief of staff and received the clothes and the renovations.
Mr Hulls -- I was the chief of staff.
A Government Member -- Do you wear dresses?
Were you wearing a dress at that time?
Mr LEIGH -- I am well aware of some of the strange habits of the now Attorney-General but I think dressing up in women's clothes is not one of them -- that I know of!
I am talking about a former Leader of the Opposition's chief of staff -- not the current or former chief of staff, the honourable member for Niddrie -- Ms Julia Gillard, who was the chief of staff to the now Victorian Treasurer. While Ms Gillard was swanning around the country, presumably with the Leader of the Opposition, to promote the Labor Party, union funds were being used to renovate her property and $17 000 of the $57 000 bought her the best clothes -- --
Mr Hulls -- On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, the honourable member is casting aspersions on a member of another Parliament. His remarks are

Page 54

grossly inaccurate, outlandish, outrageous and indeed highly defamatory. The grievance debate is not a time for members of Parliament to get on their high horse and grossly defame federal members of Parliament for their own purpose, whatever that may be. I ask that you bring the honourable member back to the forms of the house and conduct the grievance debate in a proper manner without allowing the honourable member to cast outrageous defamatory aspersions on a federal member of Parliament.
Mr McArthur -- On the point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, I request that if there are points of order in this vein that you ask the Clerks to stop the clock. I also refer you to Speakers' rulings on this issue. I refer especially to Speaker Wheeler's ruling in 1973 when he said:
In the best traditions of this place, members should refrain from making imputations concerning the official actions of members of other parliaments ...
Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to two things in relation to the ruling. Firstly it says 'in the best traditions of this place'; it is not an absolute prohibition from drawing into question the actions of members of other parliaments. Secondly, the ruling draws a very clear line. It says, 'should refrain from making imputations concerning the official actions of members of other parliaments'.
The honourable member for Mordialloc is bringing into question the actions of a person while not a member of another Parliament, but he is certainly not questioning this person's official actions in any way. The honourable member's issue relates to the possibly fraudulent use of members' funds from a union and where those funds were eventually expended. It does not relate to the official actions of a member of another Parliament. On those grounds you should rule the point of order out of order.
Mr Cooper -- Are you going to stop the clock?
Mr Brumby -- On the point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, the rules of debate in this place, as in other parliaments, are very clear. If a member of Parliament wants to make substantive allegations against another member of Parliament -- --
Mr Leigh interjected.
Mr Brumby -- You have mentioned the person's name now in this debate. If you want to make those sorts of allegations, as repeated in the house by the honourable member for Monbulk, it must be done by way of substantive motion.
To come in here as the honourable member does -- a member who has a reputation for never getting out of the gutter, for always being in the gutter -- --
Honourable members interjecting.
Mr Brumby -- Accusations of that type should be made by way of substantive motion. I stated through you, Mr Acting Speaker, that I assume the honourable member is prepared to make those allegations outside the house, and the gutless little coward opposite says, 'I don't have the guts to do it'!
This is a member of Parliament who cannot help himself to get out of the gutter. I suggest that if he wants to make these allegations he should get to his feet, walk out of this house, stand on the front steps and repeat them. We will then see whether he has the guts and the backbone to back up the filth that he has peddled today in Parliament.
Mr Cooper -- On the point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, there are some rules that govern matters that come before this house, and in particular rules that govern points of order. Neither the Attorney-General nor the Treasurer has followed those rules: they have simply made wild allegations. The Treasurer has tried to debate the issue and extend the debate into an attack upon the honourable member for Mordialloc. The realities are that the house runs by standing orders and precedents set by previous Speakers and by the present Speaker.
The honourable member for Monbulk stated that the precedent states that there is no point of order. The only standing order that is relevant to this matter is standing order 108. I notice that the Attorney-General very carefully avoided quoting that standing order because it refers to members of the house and states that:
all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on members shall be deemed disorderly.
The honourable member for Mordialloc did not breach standing order 108 in his remarks about Ms Gillard and her misuse of union funds. There is no point of order. Further, the clock should have been stopped to allow the honourable member to finish his contribution.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) -- Order! I do not uphold the point of order.
Mr LEIGH -- If the Labor government is true to its word under its leader, Mr Bracks, that it is an open and honest transparent government, I seek from the Minister for Police and Emergency Services an admission that the government has a rogue union inside

Page 55

its organisation, affiliated to its body, providing hundreds of thousands of dollars. I have a record of the former president of that organisation saying that hundreds of thousands of dollars of union money has been rorted. What we have uncovered is a small proportion of that money.
The now secretary of the union, Mr Bill Shorten, knew about it, and the former secretary and now the upper house member in this Parliament, Mr Bob Smith, knew about it. They all know about it. Ms Julia Gillard knew about it and she took the 57 000 bucks to avenge herself.
Mr Maxfield interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) -- Order! The honourable member for Narracan should not shout like that from the back seat.
Mr Lenders -- On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 108, on which the honourable member for Mornington so helpfully addressed us before. The honourable member for Mordialloc has in this case directly and unequivocally impugned the motives of the honourable member for Chelsea Province in another place. It is unambiguous in terms of standing order 108, which reads:
No member shall use offensive or unbecoming words in reference to any member of the house ...
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) -- Order! I have heard enough. I do not uphold the point of order.
Mr LEIGH -- In closing, I seek a police investigation into the misuse of those funds, and I urge the Minister for Police and Emergency Services to take some steps to demonstrate that the Victorian ALP government is as honest as its leader, Mr Bracks, says it is. I do not believe he will do that.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 

AWU: funds

Mr McINTOSH (Kew) -- I am glad to be able to follow the honourable member for Tullamarine in the grievance debate. She talked about workers, but a lot of the issues I propose to raise deal with the way workers have been mistreated by at least one large public institution that operates throughout this country. All honourable members have been concerned about the collapse of HIH Insurance and the appropriate regulatory and prudential controls that should be established to ensure that people do not lose their money through mismanagement and misappropriation, if not criminal behaviour.
Mr Acting Speaker, I have asked the honourable member for Glen Waverley to pass to you a draft report by Coopers and Lybrand and a bundle of various documents. I am happy to table those documents for the benefit of the house.
The honourable member for Monbulk has some copies for any honourable member who wishes to follow my comments.
The institution I wish to deal with is the Australian Workers Union. The Australian Workers Union is now a super-union that resulted from the amalgamation of the AWU and the Federation of Industrial Manufacturing and Engineering Employees on 1 November 1993.
I refer you to the draft report by Coopers and Lybrand, which is addressed to the Australian Workers Union and raises major matters for the attention of the union's committee of management. As I understand it, it is a draft report that was prepared for the head office of the AWU.
The covering letter dated April 1998 deals with matters that arose in the financial years ended 30 June 1995, 1996 and 1997.
I say from the outset that I make no allegation against any individual member or official of that union. I am concerned that the processes adopted by the union raise substantial questions that should be dealt with by way of a public inquiry, if not a police investigation. Most importantly, the dispassionate draft report by the auditors indicates that the union has substantial difficulties.
I refer you, Mr Acting Speaker, to the first page of the draft report, which is the first page of the April letter, and in particular to the second paragraph, which reads:
The issues detailed in this report are considered to be the major issues which significantly impact the control environment and financial integrity of not only the head office branch --
that is, the head office of the AWU --
but also the union as a whole. The seriousness and magnitude of the issues we have identified have resulted in an extreme limitation in the scope of our audit, and as a consequence we propose to issue a disclaimer of opinion on the financial statements for each of the financial years presented.

Page 880

I refer you to what may be the most important words, at the end of the third paragraph:
It must also be noted that should this less than adequate financial environment persist, we would be required under our professional auditing and ethical standards to tender our resignation as auditors of the union.
I refer you to some of the substantial allegations made by the auditors. On page 16 of that draft report, the following observation is made:
During our audit we identified a significant number of transactions for which no supporting documentation was available.
They state that that impacts on their ability to determine income and expenditure and to correctly detail the accounts of the union.
On the last page, page 17, the auditors make the following observation:
With regard to contributions paid by branches and payments on behalf of branches, we noted that:
in the general ledger there are no separate accounts to record contributions/payments for other branches separately ...
It goes on to say that there is a substantial discrepancy between what the state branches and the head office say the income and expenditure should be.
The second bundle of documents relates to a number of exhibits to an affidavit sworn on 19 September 1996 by Mr Ian Cambridge, who was then the national secretary of the AWU. As I understand it, he is now a member of the New South Wales industrial relations court.
The source of the information I propose to put before the house is the affidavit filed in proceedings in the federal industrial relations court.
I refer honourable members to the last three pages of that bundle of documents, numbered 15, 16 and 17. Those pages contain a list of some 30 bank accounts in Western Australia, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Page 16 contains a list of substantive accounts in Western Australia and Victoria detailing not only account names and numbers but also huge deposits -- $156 000 in one case and $383 000 in another.
Mr Cambridge says in his affidavit that he wrote to every bank in Australia and that the replies he received were from the Commonwealth Bank alone. The list of the individual bank accounts relate to the Commonwealth Bank and not to any other. He says in his affidavit that the AWU does not operate these accounts. They are not union accounts but somebody else's.
But they are using the name 'AWU' or 'Federation of Industrial Manufacturing Engineering Employees' or some variation on a theme in all those cases.
By way of example, on page 16 of the documents the first two accounts are shown as the 'AWU Workplace Reform Association Inc. (Cash Management Call Account)', which I will name the call account. The second account is named the 'AWU Workplace Reform Association Inc. (Cheque Account)', which I will refer to as the cheque account. As the front of the documents shows, in about April 1992 a corporation called the Australian Workers Union -- Workplace Reform Association was incorporated in Western Australia. The top document is an application for its incorporation. The second document is the certificate of incorporation.
The association opened the two accounts in Western Australia referred to above, the call account and the cheque account. One must remember that these are not union accounts but accounts operated by a person or persons unknown.
Mr Cambridge names a Mr Blewitt and a Mr Wilson as the signatories and the operators of the accounts, and it appears from his evidence that they were not doing it for the purpose of depositing moneys for the union.
Most importantly, during the course of the operation of those accounts a number of deposits were made by, among others, corporations such as Thiess Contractors in Western Australia. Page 3 is a deposit slip for the cheque account for the sum of $16 000. The second deposit slip on page 4 shows a deposit of some $31 000. Mr Cambridge has deposed that this is the only deposit slips he has, but he understands that the vast majority of the deposits were made by Thiess Contractors. I make no allegation against Thiess Contractors, in fact quite the opposite.
It appears that Thiess Contractors operations were above board.
It had an arrangement with the AWU to employ people for the purposes of training them on their sites in Western Australia under the then Labor government's workplace reform legislation. According to Mr Cambridge's affidavit, the Western Australian government also made substantial contributions to the union in that regard. This was dealing with taxpayers moneys! Those moneys were built up over time. Page 5 is lifted straight out of Mr Cambridge's affidavit. I am happy to table a copy of the affidavit or make it available to anyone who wishes to peruse it.
The table on page 5 gives details of expenditure and shows an unbelievable amount of cash money -- $50 000 -- together with further amounts of $8000 all

Page 881

the way down the table. Payments were made to unknown people. Items 3 and 4 on page 5 show that on about 10 February a cheque was drawn for $25 000 and made payable to a Mr Blewitt. As I indicated earlier Mr Blewitt was a union official, and his involvement raises questions that need to be answered.
On 13 February Mr Blewitt purchased a property in Victoria for $230 000, paying a deposit of $23 000. This happened three days after he was given a cash cheque for $25 000. He nominated a firm called Slater and Gordon to handle the transaction. I emphasise that I make no allegation against Slater and Gordon. It is important to note that that firm was the union's solicitors in Victoria, so no doubt Mr Blewitt went to his internal solicitors. But on or about 18 March, at the request of Slater and Gordon, some $67 000 was paid to complete the settlement of the property, and a further $2000 was paid out of that account. It is not the union's account, but it certainly appears to be union money.
Mr Cambridge has given evidence to say that the property has subsequently been sold and not 1 cent has been used from the sale proceeds to reimburse the union. It has disappeared into the ether, despite the fact that there is a civil order out against Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt in that regard.
On page 16 of the documents the first account under the heading 'Victoria' is named 'Australian Workers Union Members Welfare Association (No. 1) Account'. Again Mr Cambridge knows nothing about that account. It is not a union account, although money has been paid into it.
Page 14 indicates that over a long period corporations such as Thiess Contractors, John Holland, Phillips Fox on behalf of Woodside, Chambers Consulting and Fluor Daniel paid moneys into the account. This is not an account operated by the union. Curiously, on page 15 there are all sorts of extraordinary items.
Items 13 and 14, totalling $17 500, were paid to Town Mode, which is a women's fashion house in Melbourne. Mr Cambridge has given evidence about the likely proceeds of this. The companies were doing no more than they were obliged to do, which is to remit union fees on a regular basis to the AWU. They were the fees of ordinary members. These moneys were put into an account not operated by the union, so ordinary members were paying for items from a women's fashion house. There may be a perfectly innocent explanation but I cannot see it.
Curiously, on my accounting some $185 000 in bank cheques has also been drawn and paid back to individual corporations, presumably because by that time August had expired. At page 16, a letter dated 4 August indicates real concerns on the part of the Victorian finance committee. It states that people are to be charged under various union rules and that those matters will be referred to the industrial relations tribunal and the police. So far as I am aware, those investigations have not been completed.
At page 17, Mr Cambridge indicates he wants the accounts frozen, and they are frozen. Then, for some reason, at the behest of Maurice Blackburn Solicitors, who were then acting on behalf of the Australian Workers Union, moneys were paid out to various accounts. A handwritten note indicates that notwithstanding that the accounts contained union moneys, according to a number of documents signed by union officials they were not appropriately dispersed.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Plowman) -- Order! The honourable members time has expired.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 

Sunday, 28 August 2011

How governments waste money

When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ballpoint pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat the problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 billion to develop a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside down, underwater, on almost any surface including glass and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to 300°C.

The Russians used a pencil.

Thursday, 25 August 2011

Shocking news as MP tells police to do their job.

I know journalists as a class are pretty light on education, but the police are nothing more than public servants. And pretty slack and dismal ones for the most part. There is nothing wrong at all with a minister forcing them to finally do their job, the scandal is why the police have taken so long to act, but we can guess.

Tuesday, 23 August 2011

UCgate: Blatant propaganda at the University of Canberra

Anonymous student from University of Canberra:

I would like to give you an update of the lecture that was delivered for our University of Canberra, Sustainable Environmental Technology lecture. This is an Architecture unit within the faculty of Arts and Design. I have attached a recording of it along with a recording of the lecture performed by our convenor David Flannery immediately afterwards.

This unit is supposed to talk about how to build/design sustainably with materials that take advantage of things like thermal mass etc. We were subjected to a blatant political pitch selling climate change and a push towards the political party 'The Greens'. Will Steffen showed charts on a PowerPoint explaining how the worlds waters are warming and how the ice caps are melting and that it is all human induced because (according to their charts) it all started around the industrial age and accelerated within the past 30 years. He stated that 97% of real scientists agreed with these figures. We were told at the end of the talk that statistically, the major opponents to this sensible approach are older men and people like the 'shock jocks'. As well as people who only thought about their immediate financial needs.

Questions were encouraged and they were applauded by certain students who commented 'Why isn't this shown to all the youth of Australia? This talk simplified all the issues and made it so clear to understand" The reply by Will Steffen was that he was travelling to as many universities as possible and encouraged everyone to talk to their parents about it and explain it to them. A condescending remark was made about the Convoy of No Confidence by our convenor. We were then given a brochure titled 'The Science of Climate Change, Questions and Answers' which had many of the charts that were shown on the PowerPoint' and a questionnaire' to fill in to compare how our answers today correspond with our answers at the end of the unit. It asked for a name and student number stating that this was optional to reveal. It would be quite easy to identify each student whether you chose anonymity or not I did not return mine. I kept it.
This was blatant scare mongering, reiterating that our grandchildren will have to deal with living temperatures at astronomical deathly levels if we did not act now.
The lecture delivered by David Flannery showed a PowerPoint (he did not supply that on the university website) which had images of the leaders of the major political parties,indicating that Tony Abbot was getting in the way of doing the right thing. Flannery also glossed over the real origin of the modern environmental movement in 1930s Nazi Germany. The hostility to Tony Abbott was palpable. Flannery is the lecturer for this subject so the threat is quite clear- toe the line given in this political lecture or expect to get terrible marks.
After leaving the auditorium my friend and I both were appalled at how inappropriate it was to attempt to convert people to The Greens. within a school lecture. It was crystal clear that people with sceptical scientific objections to the propaganda forced on us would suffer academically and socially at our course. This is emotional blackmail and Nazi style soft fascism- pushing people into a viewpoint. It was horrifying how young students in the class were swayed so easily, I suppose because they lacked the education and life experience to be sceptical of this appealing idealistic but false ideology.

There were also several unfamiliar faces in the lecture - a youngish man in a suit stood out as did a morbidly obese older lady and several others. I suspect at least some were GetUp astroturf and dare I say it spies- to see how this going over with the audience. This is part of a structured approach to indoctrinating people at University where we are at their mercy if we want good marks, and good marks are crucial in my industry to getting a good job.

I showed the material to my husband when I got home and he explained how each one of these tables had been disproved long ago and that there are websites directly disproving all of Will Steffen's information.

This sort of totally one sided political speech is in total breach of the conditions of funding for the University and is a breach of its charter too.

Sunday, 21 August 2011

This is fascism. This is the beginning, not the ending.


Trade within the Commonwealth to be free
                   On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.
                   But notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, goods imported before the imposition of uniform duties of customs into any State, or into any Colony which, whilst the goods remain therein, becomes a State, shall, on thence passing into another State within two years after the imposition of such duties, be liable to any duty chargeable on the importation of such goods into the Commonwealth, less any duty paid in respect of the goods on their importation. 

See, when gillard had the australian federal police drop their doughnuts and go and block FREEBORN AUSTRALIANS from exercising their GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS including the ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO PROTEST and use their ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO FREE ASSEMBLY each and every police agent, their organisation, and the government, are in breach of Section 92 as set out above.

Friday, 19 August 2011

EXCLUSIVE: full expose of AGW alarmist propaganda

I will be putting up complete scans and audio files of a propaganda lecture by Will Steffan and staff of the University of Canberra.

The bias on display was staggering- pictures of pro and anti AGW politicians were shown, with a picture of Tony Abbott held up whilst the host lecturer identified him as "a denier" who is stopping the Liberals from doing the right thing.

The presentation was a total propaganda package and had nothing to do with the course for which the COMPULSORY presentation was made. This is really and truly Nazi style gleichschaltung coordination propaganda.

Some in the audience were outraged at the waste of their class time but a disturbing number of dummy youngsters were won over, lacking both the maturity and deeper education to resist the relentless spin and lies.

The lecture presented every single saw from the AGW alarmist camp, from the least offensive to the already discredited and truly shocking travesties of science on which they rely.

Next week: another compulsory lecture featuring Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, which is presented as settled science. It is of course neither.

Thursday, 18 August 2011

A glimpse into the future: Greens-ALP 2020: The fate of the skeptic

What 89% of us think

The Real Cost of Electricity under the Carbon Tax: SKY HIGH


this is straight from an energy trader in NZ, and is the real cost of electricity ahead after a carbon tax comes in:

xxxxxxxxx "In the NZETS electricity retailers appear to have simply added the cost of carbon at the NZETS cap of $25NZD to their prices. This despite an NZU trading at much lower levels. Traders argue that holding costs must be added to the cost of a NZU. There has been no regulatory response that I know of. Some design elements of the AUETS and carbon tax need to address some of the weaknesses of the NZETS that have emerged from its operation over the last year."

In other words, the energy sellers have NOT factored any market fluctuation into prices but instead simply directly stuck the carbon tax on to the price. Using THAT real world data, Treasury's science fiction about prices is shown to be a total fantasy.

Electricity will skyrocket beyond most people's wildest nightmares. Forget 40-50% increases in prices- this will put it at a 300-400% increase, meaning in real terms rolling blackouts, brownouts, energy load scams by unscrupulous sellers, huge increases in energy thefts, and of course the vulnerable literally dying in high summer and deep winter.

Nice work, Gillard.

Solar Energy handouts: Do solar if it makes you feel good, but why should the public purse pay for it?

For the record, insider though I am, unless we’re talking baseload scale solar I have nothing to do with it, never made a cent of it, probably never will.
What I see is patents from Australia getting mass exploitation in China. Given that China is doing all this with borrowed money and one of the greatest con jobs in history, this stands in stark contrast to how we would do it here.
My basic point I guess is if we can find money for statues of bureaucrats, aboriginal arts and crafts PhDs, empty offices owned by the ALP and all the rest of the crap that money is squandered on, buying into solar cell manufacture via leveraging the patents, just as China has, would be a commercialisation project that offers jobs, national security both directly (our military is swapping to solar wherever possible) and indirectly (we’re the only nation capable of supplying all our electricity from solar and producing an excess), as well as innovation and science positions for real science not bushwah.

However, solar, along with my real bete noir windmills, has been totally hijacked by every flavour of soft science, arts student, “environmental engineer” and all the rest of the creeps.
Oh also totally OT but #hookergate - proud to have created that hashtag, and the bomb blast effect it’s had!

#Hookergate : Lo, The Endgame Approacheth

For the millionth time with the gillard regime, from their first corrupt day of illegitimate power when the drunk in the governor general's mansion failed to turf them out to create a playing field to their tone deaf insults of ordinary Australians today, #hookergate is just one more example of how gillard thinks she and her claque can just chimp their way through human decision making with a combination of (one of my favourite words) gleichschaltung (coordination ie passive aggressive bullying of the electorate, aided by the coopted media) and bribery.

It isn't working and it won't work.

People want the ALP and the Greens gone. You can forget what controlled opposition like Andrew Bolt trot out. Forget anyone trying to play middleman between you and your fellow compulsory voters. It is palpable that the only remaining adherents to the junta are the welfare scum, unemployable lardblobs of the bureaucracy and the university dwellers terrified of real life. All normal Australians want this regime destroyed. Not put out of office, destroyed. Rare is it in the events of a nation that one hears almost daily how electors want to see a regime unemployed, its leaders barred from office and put on trial.

And yet here we are.

The Lone Voice: Well I was right. Vile New Labour filth opened doors to migrants for

The Lone Voice: Well I was right. Vile New Labour filth opened doors to migrants for

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
So nothing to do with the best interests of the nation, or the myth that they bring economic growth but all to do with making fellow champagne socialists feel good.

Any resemblance to Australia is purely intentional on the part of the socialist collective.

Wednesday, 17 August 2011

Hookergate: Liberal senator and hardman George Brandis closes the trap.

Yesterday during Question Time in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister was asked by the Member for Mackellar whether she retained complete confidence in the Member for Dobell, Mr Craig Thomson. She was further asked whether she had conducted an investigation of her own into the allegations surrounding the Member for Dobell. The Prime Minister did not answer the second part of the question. However, she did tell the House of Representatives that she had complete confidence in the Member for Dobell, that in her opinion he was doing a fine job and that she was looking forward to him doing that job “for a very long, long, long time to come”. Because the Prime Minister avoided answering the second part of the question, we do not know what, if any, investigations she has made into allegations concerning Mr Thomson. We do know that on Monday night Ms Gillard said:

These matters have been and are in the process of being looked at through various investigations.

She did not elaborate on what those various investigations were, but she did say that she had not held any detailed discussions with Mr Thomson. In view of the severity of the allegations that have been made about Mr Thomson, there are certain inquiries which the Prime Minister herself must make and certain questions which she herself needs to address. I know that Mr Thomson has denied allegations of wrongdoing made against him. Those who are observing the Thomson case carefully will be able to form their own conclusions about the credibility of those denials and about the credibility of the Prime Minister’s evident reliance upon those denials. But there are many facts now in the public arena which are not in dispute.
Those undisputed facts include the following. Between 2002 and December 14, 2007, when he resigned after his election to the House of Representatives, Mr Thomson was the national secretary of the Health Services Union. In that capacity, Mr Thomson was issued with a corporate credit card held by the union, transactions upon which were paid for from union funds. On two occasions - on April 8, 2005 and August 16, 2007 - calls were made from Mr Thomson’s mobile telephone to the telephone number of Sydney Outcalls, an escort agency. On April 9, 2005 and August 16 2007, the HSU credit card issued to Mr Thomson was used to pay for services provided by Keywed Pty Ltd, which is the corporate entity which trades as Sydney Outcalls. The payments were in the amounts of $2,475 and $385 respectively. The credit card vouchers were signed in Thomson’s name, and a driver’s licence number which corresponds to the number of Thomson’s driver’s licence was endorsed upon the receipts. On April 7, 2009, Thomson denied allegations of improper use of the union credit card and told the Sydney Morning Herald that the allegations against him were the result of feuding in the union’s Victorian branches, with “more and more outrageous claims and counterclaims being made” by his factional opponents. In the time since, Mr Thomson has continued to deny that he was responsible for the use of the union credit card to obtain escort services. As recently as the week before last, in the course of an interview with Michael Smith on radio 2UE in Sydney, Thomson asserted that the credit card had been used by a third party and not by him. Let me read into the record some extracts from that interview:

Smith:  Hang on, mate. I’m repeating it. I’m saying your signature is on that voucher. Your driver’s licence has been transcribed on the back of it. How did all that get there?

Thomson: Well, I’m not saying that’s my signature for a start. That’s the first thing that’s there…
Smith:  OK, so did someone forge your signature for the procurement of those services on your credit card?
Thomson: Well, it certainly wasn’t me and in fact on over half of the occasions that I’m alleged to have been using that card in those sorts of establishments, I actually…
Smith:  Let’s talk about one…
Thomson: I’m not going to go through the details of stuff…
The transcript proceeds after a few minutes:
Smith:  OK, well, you were the boss of the Health Services Union at the time the Health Services Union credit card was used to procure those services, weren’t you?
Thomson: Yes, I was.
Smith:  OK. Did you take the matter to the police if you believe the credit card was used improperly, did you go and report it to the police?
Thomson: The union reached a settlement with another gentleman who paid back $15,000 in relation to use of credit cards at an escort agency.
Smith:  Did he forge your signature?
Thomson: I don’t know whether he forged my signature or who forged my signature...
As is the practice in New South Wales, Thomson’s signature appears on his driver’s licence. Paul Westwood OAM, a former director of the document examination section of the Australian Federal Police, who is a handwriting expert with 45 years experience as a forensic handwriting examiner, has compared the signature on Thomson’s driver’s licence and the signature on the credit card voucher and has concluded that they were made by the same person.
Photographs of Thomson’s driver’s licence and the credit card voucher were reproduced in the Sydney Morning Herald on December 1, 2010, and they appear to the untrained eye to be identical. If Thomson did not sign the credit card voucher, then it was signed in his name by an expert forger who eluded Mr Westwood and who also had Thomson’s driver’s licence.
In the same interview with Michael Smith, Thomson admitted that in his capacity as the secretary of the HSU he had authorised the payment by the union to the credit card provider of the credit card accounts, which included debts for the services provided by Sydney Outcalls on both April 9, 2005 and August 16, 2007. Let me read a little more of Michael Smith’s interview with Mr Thomson into the record:

Smith: Ok. Craig, when you got the credit card statement for that month with $2,475 appearing –
Thomson: Michael, I’ve said the difficulty we have in terms of going through these issues -
Smith: Hang on a sec, mate, it’s a simple question. A simple question, Craig. Did you authorise it getting paid?
Thomson: Um… in terms of the actual bills that have been paid? Yes, I authorised all the credit card bills -
In the same interview with Michael Smith, Thomson also asserted that an unnamed third party had repaid some $15,000 to the HSU in respect of escort services. Reading again from Michael Smith’s interview:
Smith: OK, well, you were the boss of the Health Services Union at the time the Health Services Union credit card was used to procure those services, weren’t you?
Thomson: Yes, I was.
Smith: OK. Did you take the matter to the police if you believe the credit card was used improperly? Did you go and report it to the police?
Thomson: The union reached a settlement with another gentleman who paid back $15,000 in relation to the use of credit cards at an escort agency.
Smith: Did you go to the police though, Craig?
Thomson: We have gone through the appropriate bodies in terms of that and you know there has been a person who has paid back some money.
Smith: Who was that?
Thomson: Well, I am not at liberty to say, again, because I am very careful in relation to defamation action. There has been a private agreement signed.

In light of these facts and Mr Thomson’s assertions and admissions, the Prime Minister must satisfy herself in relation to the following matters. First, given the amounts of money involved and the entity to whom the credit card payments were made, why did Thomson not query the accounts before authorising them for payment? Secondly, given that Thomson’s mobile telephone number was used to contact the service provider and that his driver’s licence was produced to verify payment, how did his credit card, driver’s licence and mobile phone find their way into the possession of another person? Thirdly, why was their loss or misappropriation not reported? Fourthly, in what circumstances were they returned? Fifthly, as Mr Thomson now claims that his signature was forged, why was that matter not reported to the police? Sixthly, what is the name of the person who allegedly repaid $15,000 to the HSU and what was the reason for the repayment? Was that person an officer or employee of the union and is that person still employed by the union? Seventhly, if it is the case that another person has accepted responsibility for the fraudulent use of the credit card, why has that version of events not emerged from other sources and why was no evidence disclosed or adduced to that effect in the Fairfax defamation proceedings? Finally, if a third party accepted responsibility, why would a settlement of a matter in which Thomson’s reputation was potentially so gravely affected preclude him from taking any steps to protect his reputation? Moreover, the version of events given by Thomson on August 1 contains inconsistencies with Thomson’s previous versions of events. The Prime Minister must therefore satisfy herself of this: given that Thomson now admits that he personally authorised the payment of the credit card account, why did he allege that his enemies had falsified HSU records and does he still allege that?

I regret to say that there is more that the Prime Minister should be asking the Member for Dobell in order to satisfy herself that he should have her confidence. In April 2009, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Thomson, when national secretary of the HSU, obtained cash advances on the HSU credit card totalling over $100,000. An external audit has not been able to locate any receipts or other records to justify those cash advances. Those matters, I understand, are currently being investigated by Fair Work Australia.
Finally, yesterday the Sydney Daily Telegraph reported that New South Wales Labor Party headquarters had paid $40,000 towards legal fees which Mr Thomson had incurred in bringing his private defamation proceedings against Fairfax, the publishers of the Sydney Morning Herald. This morning the Melbourne Herald Sun reported that this amount was in fact $90,000. That payment was apparently made in May of this year. Thomson discontinued the proceedings on about April 28, having failed in December 2010 to prevent the disclosure of his credit card and telephone records. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that it is proper for the Australian Labor Party to contribute some $90,000 towards the member’s private defamation action against Fairfax, which claim he abandoned shortly after the court compelled the disclosure of his credit card and telephone records which appear to give the lie to his claim that his signature was forged?
Finally, it was only yesterday, when this matter was brought to light, that the member for Dobell sought to amend his register of a member’s interests by lodging with the Register of Members’ Interests for the House of Representatives a letter that identified the payment of a sum of money in May 2011 by the Australian Labor Party’s New South Wales branch, in settlement of a legal matter to which I was a party. Why was that amendment made only after its disclosure was revealed?
I have in the course of this speech suggested many questions that the Prime Minister must ask, but there is one simple question that she must answer for the Australian people: why does she continue to believe that the conduct of the Member for Dobell is acceptable, and how can she possibly continue to assert that he is doing, in her words, “a fine job”?

Mosman Maddie and the Curious Adventure of the Incompetent Collarbomber

If it all proves to be as the police allege, then this post will be nothing more than a cartoonish venture into paranoid thinking in the opinion of the great unwashed.

However, as it stands today, there's a lot wrong with the scenario being offered to the public in relation to the Mosman Collarbomber case.

1. the plot is childish
The idea of putting a collar bomb around someone's neck, supposedly from a book accessible by the alleged victim, her family, the alleged perpetrator and many other people, is not the kind of thinking most criminals indulge in. This is because most criminals are unintelligent but entrepreneurial people from broken homes. The ones that aren't tend to be highly intelligent and totally amoral. In which case if they were silly enough to see the collar bomb scenario as a good idea they wouldn't be skillful enough to, on the current facts, escape detection as they entered and left the alleged victim's home.

2. the extortion attempt was impossible
The way it is described that the alleged perpetrator was going to obtain money is not credible let alone possible. The police were always going to be involved. That means the fake nature of the bomb was always going to be detected. Which means the extortion would never have worked.

3. the alleged victim was in no danger

(a) fake bomb
(b) familiar home environment
(c) bomb placement allowed bodily functions, change of clothes, feeding, drinking, television you name it
(d) swift discovery was certain
(e) availability of resources was easy

4. the alleged victim and her family are taking all this awfully well

5. the police just aren't that competent- this was a scheme that was never going to work

6. the alleged perpetrator was easily caught (by surprise) - see 5.

The possibility has to be at least considered that this childish plot was conceived of by someone other than the alleged perpetrator and that the alleged perpetrator, if involved at all, was a patsy not an originator.

Just a possibility, just an opinion of what the reporting leaves open to question.

Tuesday, 16 August 2011

Flying Tiger Comics: 392 and the muscular response

Flying Tiger Comics: 392 and the muscular response

392 and the muscular response

Gillard's plan for Australia: Lysenko 21C

The Nonsense of "Communist Science"

Because Lysenko rejected the laws of genetics for the the theory of evolution, Soviet agriculture remained backward for decades.

Science was another field that received a great blow from Communism. Stalin's regime, along with inventing the concept of "proletarian art," also proposed the idea of "proletarian science." According to this theory, there is bourgeois science and there is proletarian science. The differences between the two will lead to different results. We might compare this to Nazi Germany's rejection of findings by Jewish scientists-Einstein, among others.

Proletarian science is actually nothing more than science corrupted according to the exigencies of materialist philosophy. One obvious demonstration was the "Lysenko affair," which put its stamp on Stalin's Soviet regime.

Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was educated in various agriculture schools in the Soviet Union. He came to Stalin's attention in the 1940s and assumed the total domination of Soviet policy in agriculture and biology. Most importantly, Lysenko rejected the laws of genetics discovered by the Austrian priest-botanist Gregor Mendel at the end of the 19th century and demonstrated by further experiments in the 20th. Lysenko dismissed Mendel's laws as "bourgeois science" and instead supported the thesis of the 18th century French evolutionist biologist Lamarck on the "inheritance of acquired traits."

Lysenko's idea was based on no scientific proof. But because the Soviet Union was experiencing a major agricultural crisis in the 1930s, Lysenko began to attract attention. He promised that implementing his theory would ensure a much larger and efficient grain production than other biologists believed. He claimed, for example, that when grown under the proper conditions, wheat would produce rye seeds-and he made preparations to achieve this. (This is like saying that dogs living in the wild will eventually bear litters of foxes-a claim that's totally contrary to science, of which no instance has ever been observed.) In 1940, Stalin put Lysenko at the head of the Institute of Genetics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, and he held this chair for twenty-five years. Lysenko also headed the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences, one of the Soviet Union's most important institutions.

Lysenko (top right) explains to Soviet experts the agricultural project based on "proletarian science."

In 1948, it was forbidden to be educated or do research in the area of classical genetics. Those geneticists who rejected Lysenko's evolutionist thesis, and continued to support Mendel's genetic discovery, were secretly arrested and executed.

Meanwhile, Lysenko's agricultural policy created widespread lack of productivity. For example, he claimed that putting seeds in cold water for a while before being sown, would make them gain resistance to cold weather conditions. To test this hypothesis, he had tons of seeds immersed in cold water and then sown on the Siberian steppes. Of course, none of the seeds sprouted. Similar experiments all ended in disaster, but these failures were never spoken of until the 1960s. Finally, in 1964, it was officially acknowledged that Lysenko's theory was wrong. Great efforts were expended to have Mendel's genetic discoveries taught and applied again. Russia moved to the American type of mixed hybridization management, using dung to fertilize the fields. Even though their nonsensical thesis had dealt such a great blow to Soviet science and agriculture, Lysenko and his supporters didn't abandon their ideas. In fact, they maintained their positions and titles in the Soviet scientific establishment.

Generally, modern evolutionists make no mention of the Lysenko affair, a historical documentation of the great damage that can be inflicted by a blind attachment to materialism and the theory of evolution. When they do speak of Lysenko's ideas, they dismiss them as a dogmatic form of Lamarckism. But he and his supporters were not only Lamarckists, they were also Darwinists, regarding Lamarck and Darwin as two complementary evolutionist theoreticians.

Here, Lysenko's nonsense theories are explained in detail to Russian peasants who are forced to implement them. The result was a huge fiasco.

When Lamarck's theory of "inheritance of acquired characteristics" was abandoned as baseless, they realized that left Darwin's theory with no foundation. Therefore, they blindly continued to support Lamarck.

In his article "Darwinian Evolution and Human History," the Marxist and Darwinist thinker Robert M. Young comments:

Moving nearer to our own time, the belief that society and nature followed laws which were both evolutionary and communist led to one of the most disastrous episodes in the Stalinist regime in the 1930s and 1940s-Lysenkoism. Nature's laws were said to be dialectical, and any biologist who adhered to non-orthodox views lost his job, often his liberty, and sometimes his life. Lysenkoism was an evolutionism which ignored or opposed the interesting developments in genetics in the rest of the world. But this was done in the name of Darwinism…56

The resistance to the laws of genetics that Soviet administrators of Lysenko's time displayed is just one example of materialist fanaticism. In the same way that Lysenko and his supporters refused to accept the laws of genetics, many of today's materialists also close their eyes to the "design" (that is, intentional creation) that science has discovered in all living things just because of their own ideological prejudices. To produce a viable opposing theory, they have squandered millions of dollars and many years of labor on research that has come to nothing.

Communist Ideology's Effect on Social Life

Communism is a regime of fear. The people are continually intimidated by stern-faced uniformed officials looking down from above.

In the 20th century, Communist fanaticism has had very negative influences on the social life in countries under their regimes, forcing on people a hellish life devoid of compassion, denying the existence of God, alienating them from religion and discounting all spiritual and moral values. It has imprinted on societies a mentality that thinks of human beings as chunks of matter that will perish after death, establishing one of the most inhuman institutions in history. The Communist system-as observed in the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc countries and Red China-intends to create model societies that regard their citizens as herds of animals, just as the materialist-Darwinist theory intended.

Some of Communist society's basic tenets can be listed as follows:

* Darwin's theory of evolution and Engel's "natural dialectic" regard human beings as an advanced species of animal. Therefore, the idea that society is a herd of animals is expressed at every level. Communist regimes produce a cheerless, spiritless, lifeless person, somewhere between a human and a machine.

The special Djzhernsky Unit, used to suppress public demonstrations in the Soviet Union.

* The Communist system places no value on individuals. Since there are so many in the herd, the loss of one cannot matter. The disabled or those who cannot work are expelled from the herd and left to die. Those in ill health are regarded as detriments. Because there is no forgiveness, mercy, or sense of loyalty, everyone fears old age and death. The aged receive no attention, pity, or respect in the suggestion that they should be like "elephants that go to the graveyard before they die."

* As with animals in a herd, society is composed of one kind of person only. Clothing, cars and houses are all the same. The whole of society is dominated by an intense monotony, with no sense of esthetics. Athletes, artists, academics and workers all share the same of lifestyle. Houses are constructed like shelters for livestock, and clothing is tailored like a pelt to keep off the cold.

* The system is founded totally in the material concept of "labor and production." What is most important is not an individual citizen's qualities, but the contribution he can make to society. The ideal person is a hardworking laborer or hardworking villager. The guiding idea is that "production strengthens the herd." No attention is paid to humans' moral values, intentions, or spiritual condition.

The eastern side of the Berlin wall before it was torn down. With its barbed wire, mines and tanks, the wall was a symbol of Communist despotism.

* Seeing life as a struggle of existence, this way of thinking has no problem with doing away with the weak. On the contrary, this is regarded as necessary. Just as there is a brutal struggle for survival among animals, everyone considers himself first, and so there is no advancement. Because human beings lack compassion, society cannot possibly attain peace and well-being. Lack of compassion and mercy coupled with fear for the future, cause hopelessness and pessimism to dominate.

* Due to "herd psychology," people from the lowest to the highest live in a constant state of fear and quickly react fearfully to everything. They fear the man at the door wearing an overcoat; they fear being called before the authorities. But the source of their fear is not clear, and no one can define it.

* In place of the fear of God, there are various "fear centers." In the Soviet Union, for example, the KGB (and secret services like Checka and NKVD before it) tried to instill mortal fear throughout society. Millions can be sent to their deaths without trial or defense. The conviction that these organizations hear and see everything dominates citizens' minds. Such organizations develop a system of selective cleansing, based on the law of the jungle.

* Because fear of God is systematically eradicated, individuals repress their deepest urges insofar as they fear the system. If the system did not detect or could not punish, they would commit thievery, corruption, embezzlement and every kind of illegal act.

* Anxiety, fear and panic occasioned by the environment they live in put people under stress. They cannot sleep at night and in the daytime, everything makes them anxious. They quickly lose bodily strength. Intense pressure and difficult living conditions exhaust men and women at an early age and sometimes cause their premature death. Because of hopelessness, they cannot enjoy the good things in life, but tranquilize themselves with alcohol and live their hellish lives in a state of intoxication.

* Believing that they will perish after death, people hold on to life tenaciously. In their struggles for life, they regard everyone else as a rival, if not an enemy, and begrudge every act as a slight against themselves. They experience socialism's basic tenets, such as "mutual aid" and "support," only in slogans. In fact, everyone regards others with a suspicion that condemns them to a life of loneliness.

* Because the individual has no faith in God, he can't attach himself to anyone in a meaningful, trusting relationship. The Darwinist-Communist system always crushes individuals, who are hostile to one another, since everyone may at any moment take away what they have. In a Communist state, the only one an individual can trust is himself. But because he knows he is weak, he doesn't trust even himself and is dominated by intense hopelessness. Therefore, he is forever complaining about his life, but cannot try to change it.

* Because people in a Communist society have closed minds, there are defects in every aspect of their lives, whether at school, at home, or in entertainment. They can act only in accord with what they've been taught, and so cannot come up with any original ideas to deal with new issues that confront them. If they do, in fact, they are answered with violence.

* Unthinking people have unorganized minds and can't use resources productively. They waste resources on utopian fantasies, as in the case of Lysenko.

* Communism destroys families, the basic unit of society. There are no marriages in the true sense of the word, only mating and propagation. Marriage is not entered into for the sake of morality; its purpose is the continuation of the species. Families do not look after their children; the state or those appointed by it perform this function. A child is seen as a new addition to the herd and is trained to fight for it and protect it. Because the mother hates her home and environment, she passes her harshness on to her offspring. Children growing up deprived of family love become pessimistic and aggressive. In the place of love and respect in the home, hostility reigns. The child has no one to trust.

* In a society with no concept of marriage, fidelity, or chastity but only a mating mentality, prostitution becomes widespread.

* The police-state oppression controlling Communist society cannot take the place of conscience and the fear of God. For this reason, the crime rate soars; thievery is rampant everywhere. People steal from factories, farms and cooperatives collectively as a matter of course.

* However much Communist ideology may claim otherwise, racism is widespread in Communist society. In the Soviet Union, for example, there was antipathy to anyone who was not Russians, especially Muslims. Quietly adopting the racist Darwinist theory, Russians regarded various Muslim minorities and other minorities as "ethnic groups that were not completely evolved" and subjected them to mass slaughter, under the name of deportation. Communist ideology thinks of murder as "natural dialectic"-a natural component of evolution.

* Communism sees human beings only as productive animals. It reserves a special hatred and loathing for villagers. Marx called villagers inferior "potato sacks." As we saw earlier, Lenin and Stalin murdered millions by deliberately letting them starve. To them, villagers were only herds of animals that produced grain and cotton. Confiscating what they produced (collectivization), including the honey from their beehives, was seen as legitimate and reasonable.

These generalizations are only a broad sketch of a society without religion. In nations where disbelief prevails, no matter what they call themselves, this way of life must unavoidably prevail. People are not respected as worthy beings whom God created and endowed with spirit. With people regarding one another as advanced animals that will perish with death, a society cannot experience well-being, peace, security, cooperation or brotherhood. No one considers anyone else's comfort, health, or well-being. Moreover, in such societies removed from religion, it is impossible to find just administrators and people who work on behalf of all. Everyone looks out for his own interests and tries to profit as much as he can.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...