By Geoff. Muirden. 

Held Australian League of Rights Western Australia 37th Annual Seminar, 2003

Saturday, 9th August, 2003 . (Updated version)

Ladies and Gentlemen, this talk is entitled “Where to from here? Iraq and Beyond! Dismantling ancient rights and freedoms” and it could be subtitled “weapons of mass deception.”

Do  not adjust your mind. The fault is in reality.  As we look at what's happening in the world, we may be forgiven for assuming that lunatics have taken possession of the asylum. A man called Vernon Howard wrote a booklet called “The Lunatic Asylum Society” and he said, “it’s not as bad as you think, it’s worse.” It's a world in which the lessons of history have been thrown in the trash can and the legacy of Western civilization seems to be fading into oblivion. As if this were not bad enough, the white man seems to be assisting those who want to destroy him, by cooperating in his own destruction. It is getting to the stage where whites will be expected to dig their own graves, lie down and very kindly shovel the dirt on top of themselves. Needless to say, as a civil libertarian, a central concern is the way in which civil liberties, a proud heritage of Western civilization, are now being cast aside, and items such as Magna Charta, the English Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the US and Australian Constitutions are museum pieces. And this is madness. To have a legacy of freedom for which people fought and died for centuries ago and to throw it into the trash can with the assistance of our so-called “representatives” in a so-called “democracy” is insanity. And this is partly a legacy of the way in which the world is being structured towards totalitarian control.

Doesn’t it occur to anyone that war is the supreme act of “terrorism” and that those who want to save us from terrorism recommend war to “end it”? And isn’t it “terrorist” to use such methods as depleted uranium that will threaten not only opponents but even U.S. troops? A sample of the madness has come close to home. Near Perth , there is a U.S. repository of depleted uranium that threatens our health and our safety. Depleted uranium is one of the greatest threats to health on the planet, a by-product of the drive to military control worldwide.

An indication of the way things could have been, but weren’t, is conveyed in Dr Helen Caldicott’s book, “The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush’s Military- Industrial Complex”, the chapter headed: “The Tragedy of Wasted Opportunities.”

Dr Caldicott creates a fantasy world. She says: “Imagine this: The Cold War is over. A wise and visionary American President, elected in 1992, decides that now is the time to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Six months into his first term he flies to Moscow to meet with a pliable Russian President, who agrees to sign a treaty to eliminate Russian and American nuclear weapons within five years. The governments of France , China , England , and Israel follow suit. India and Pakistan choose not to pursue the development of nuclear armaments, a path they were about to take. The United Nations is vested by the international community with the authority and funding to prevent lateral proliferation of nuclear weapons. Hundreds of tons of deadly plutonium are removed over the next five years from the world’s total of 52,972 nuclear weapons. The overwhelming relief that the world will soon be free from the threat of instant annihilation catalyses effective international planning and cooperation to solve the problem of where and how to store the plutonium.

“American tax dollars are diverted from massive Pentagon and corporate military budgets into projects designed to take care of the nation’s people. A government-funded system of universal health care is instituted, and free, state-of-the-art education from kindergarten through college gradually becomes available throughout the nation. Congress passes a law mandating that all cars be built to operate at 80 miles per gallon and appropriate funding for public transportation operates in every state. Legislation is enacted requiring that most buildings be retrofitted to collect solar energy, and that every new building be powered, heated, and cooled by solar energy. Generous safety nets are put into place, providing for the old, the poor, the sick, and the indigent, and the Social Security system remains immune to the work of “market forces”. Every American child will be immunized, and no child will live below the poverty line.

“Almost five decades since the dawn of the atomic age, the United States of America is on the way to becoming truly secure, no longer dependent on a nuclear barricade for its safety. The nation becomes an inspirational example to all other countries as we enter the twenty-first century.

“Now blink and enter reality.”

Of course, that is pure fantasy. If swords had been turned into ploughshares, and efforts made to phase out all nuclear weapons, civil liberties would be more secure. But in a time of wars and rumours of wars freedoms are under attack in a blatant way and are in process of being phased out. Truth is the first casualty of war. One aspect of these lies being the furore over the lies told about weapons of mass destruction, which constitute weapons of mass deception.

What is worse, warnings have been extant for decades. George Orwell's "1984" was a record of what was to come, even  if Orwell did not foresee the Internet as a weapon of mass instruction and  the way it preserved free speech on a global scale. But much of what he spoke of is now in place and what is not there already is in the works. War, or preparation for war, seems to be a preoccupation of the US government and its allies. This reminds us of the scene of perpetual war in "1984". They cry “peace, peace” but there is no peace.

Warnings of the decay of our civilization have been forthcoming from a variety of sources, including the League itself, individuals such as Peter Sawyer, patriotic newspapers such as "Strategy", Tony Pitt's "National Interest", Christian newspapers such as "It's Time" and on the Net many and varied sources, such as Neil Baird's Newsletter, the American Free Press, National Vanguard, etc., to name but a few. Maybe these have slowed down the rush to destruction, but they haven't stopped it. What I call "Muirden's Law" comes into play. "Muirden's Law" says that in politics, you're either a cynic, or you don't understand the real situation.

It’s a little like something Eric Butler mentioned. He talked about the Gadarene swine rushing to jump over a cliff, and he imagined a solitary pig stopping to ask himself, “is this a wise policy? Maybe we should stop and reflect on it.” He tried to stop other pigs, but few heeded it. This is an analogy of our present society, headed for destruction with only a few voices raised against it. We should also advise others not to commit suicide.

(Many and varied have been happenings in politics that show shown destructive tendencies. We have seen, for example, the former Governor-General, Peter Hollingsworth, hounded out of power by a media campaign to unseat him. His years of service to the poor and needy have been ignored. He was accused of having raped a woman over 20 years previously. Not only was it inherently unlikely that a man of his character would do this, but also the Archdiocese of Bendigo, where this incident allegedly occurred, affirmed that he was not present at the camp where this allegedly took place. The woman who made the accusation died before the case came to court and was thus not available for cross- examination. Nevertheless, Hollingsworth offered to stand down until an investigation took place. His accusers did not proceed with the charge. Nevertheless, Hollingsworth decided that the office of Governor-General had been sufficiently blackened for him to retire. The media demand for him to resign did not stop until he officially resigned.

One of the issues people of the past had fought for, and which is less and less observed now, is "innocent until proven guilty." This was not applied in his case and he was a victim of media harassment. The media found him guilty and treated him as such. Which indicates that the media have a share of blame in promoting these destructive tendencies. The growing interest of Little Johnny in military matters may be shown in the way he chose the Very Model of a modern Major-General, Michael Jeffreys, as the new Governor-General.

But an article in April-May 2003 "Strategy" maintains that the office of Governor-General it itself a "con" in that it keeps the illusion that the office of Governor-General represents the Queen of Australia in an executive position. The article says, and seems to be correct, that the title "Queen of Australia" is just a figurehead title, and not the statement of any constitutional reality.

In 1973, the Royal Styles and Titles Act passed by the Australian federal parliament and signed by the Queen, removed the status of Queen of the United Kingdom in Australia and substituted the title "Queen of Australia". As the 1901 Constitution only recognizes the Queen of the UK (Section 2 of the Constitution Act) this effectively removed the Queen from executive power in Australia .

In 1975 on dismissal of the Whitlam government by Governor-General Sir William Kerr, Speaker Scholes sought direction from the Queen. The reply confirms she no longer has power in Australia .

In 1984 Letters Patent were issued for the appointment of Governor-General by the Queen of Australia. Under the Constitution, the Queen of Australia has no executive power or legal position since the Queen of Australia has no legal position in UK law.

If people want to revere the Queen as a surviving symbol of our Anglo-Saxon-Celtic heritage, which in effect people such as Nigel Jackson do, they can do so, (nothing personal against Nige) but the powerlessness of the Queen means among other things, that those who petition the Queen for redress of grievances, under the impression that she, or her so-called representative in Australia, the Governor-General, are wasting their time and preserving a legal fiction. In effect, we seem to be living in a de facto republic. This is but another example of how institutions supposedly set up to preserve liberty are only a mockery and a sham. "Muirden's Law" is vindicated again.

The British monarchy is itself under threat. In the UK Mail, dated 23 July, 2003 , an article headed: “50,000-word wedding gift to Charles and Diana” announces a 50,000 word Future of the Monarchy document compiled by the Fabian Society affiliated to the Labour Party.

It’s an amazing example of Doublethink. It announces that it will ensure the survival of the monarchy yet its provisions would destroy it. One key item is that it wants to sever the link between the monarchy and the Church of England created under Henry VIII in 1532. If such a suggestion had been made to Henry VIII, he would have sent them all to the block, but maybe the present legislators think they can get away with it.

They announce that “the monarch should have the same freedom of religion as the rest of us,” so they want to ensure that the monarch can be of any religion, such as Buddhist, Islam, etc. And abandon the C of E. Her role as “Defender of the Faith”, a legacy of the Reformation, is discarded, and she becomes defender of any faith.

They recommend that the right of the monarchy to decide who their sons and daughters can marry is to be removed, male primogeniture, which gives priority of succession to a male heir, is to be scrapped. The monarchy should have no right to dissolve or summon Parliament, their Royal Assent over Parliament is to be revoked and their right to choose a Prime Minister in the event of a hung Parliament is to be revoked. As well, they want to demand that the queen pay a 40% inheritance tax. The outcome of all this is of course to make the monarchy impotent and useless as no doubt intended and to abolish any remaining power the queen might have to help her subjects, as part of a race to a One World disorder. A sign of the times.)

As a civil libertarian, a major concern is the way in which 9/11 has been used to stifle liberties and justify war.

Evidence has come to light that not only 9/11 but also the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and in future maybe Iran, Syria and others was planned years before the event.

In a book published in 1997,titled "The Grand Chessboard", Zbigniew Brzezinski , details the geopolitical strategy of the United States in its plan for world domination and international control.

Why am I inclined to give credence to this book? Because of the author's qualifications.

They include Counsellor, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Professor of American Foreign Policy, Johns Hopkins University; National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81); Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission; International Advisor of several major US/Global Corporations; Associate of Henry Kissinger; under Ronald Reagan, member of NSC-Defence Department Commission of Integrated Long-Term Strategy; Past member, Board of Directors, The Council on Foreign Relations; 1988- Co-Chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force. He is also a past attendee and presenter at conferences of the Bilderberger Group, which has meetings attended by the wealthiest and most powerful families and corporations on the planet.

All that adds up to a lot of influence over the policies of the Bush and previous US administrations. I think some weight should be given to his book, as a statement of policy.

His central theme is that the US is the most powerful nation on earth and should gain total global control, suppressing all rivals that may pose a threat and working towards the dissolution of all national governments. He wants a New World Order, controlled solely by economic interests as dictated by banks,corporations and ruling elites concerned with the maintenance (by manipulation and war) of their power. He believes that the world would be in chaos if it were not for the intervention of the US superpower as world policeman.

His statement is corroborated by Dr Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D., a former German Defence Ministry official and advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Werner. He told FTW (From The Wilderness) "the interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller- and the Bilderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens."  This statement sums up the real purpose of the alleged anti-terrorist drive.

Vice President Dick Cheney said that the so-called war against terrorism "may not end in our lifetimes." What that means is it will not end until all armed groups, anywhere in the world, which possess the political, economic or military ability to resist the imposition of this dictatorship, have been destroyed.

These are the so-called "terrorists" the globalists will fight over the world.

In "The Grand Chessboard", Brzezinski describes Russia and China as the two most important countries that might threaten US interests in Central Asia . Of the two, Brzezinski considers Russia the more serious threat. Both nations ( Russia and China ) border Central Asia which he wants to remain under US hegemony. He describes the Ukraine , Azerbaijan , Iran and Kazakhstan as lesser nations that must be managed by the US as buffers or counterweights to Russian or Chinese moves to control the oil, gas and minerals of the Central Asian Republics ( Turkmenistan , Uzbekistan , Tajikistan and Krygyzstan.)

He notes that any nation that becomes predominant in Central Asia could threaten control of US resources in the Gulf. The US had a direct motive for looting some $300 billion of Russian assets during the 1990s, destabilizing Russia 's currency (1998) and ensuring that a weakened Russia would have to look to Europe for political survival, rather than Central Asia .

He says: "the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendancy of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States , as the sole and indeed the first truly global power...” (p. xiii)

"But in the meantime", he adds, "it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America . The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book." (p. xiv)  

"For America , the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia ...and America 's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.

" America 's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival- would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy" (p. 30)

"How America manages Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and...a power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions...Control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania (that's us) geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75% of the world's people live in Eurasia and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well. Eurasia accounts for 60% of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources."(p. 31)

"It is also a fact", he says, "that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America 's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy...Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p. 35)

"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives or imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power" (p. 55)

“Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region...but the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124)

"The momentum of Asia 's economic development is already generating  massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contains reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf that of Kuwait , the Gulf of Mexico , or the North Sea ." (p. 125)

" Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia .

"Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan 's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people." (p. 132)

"For Pakistan , the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan ...and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea ." (p. 139)

" Turkmenistan ...has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea ..." (p. 145)

"It follows that America 's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p. 148) (italics mine)

"  America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena.  Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America 's global primacy and to America 's historical legacy." (p. 194)

He comes back to the suggestion that "without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene." (p. 194)

This rhetoric reminds me of the comment of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in a speech where he said that “there is no more dangerous theory in international politics than that we need to balance the power of America with other competitive powers; different poles around which nations gather.” No doubt Little Johnny would agree with those sentiments. But Little Johnny, while leaning on Big Brother, has adopted the role of Little Brother. His invasion of the Solomons was low key compared to the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq , and it was preceded by diplomatic manoeuvres to ensure that neighbouring countries would not object. But that’s an aside.

To get back to Brzezinski, he continues: "With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia , any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p. 198)

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last.”(p. 209)

So there's an element of "gather ye rosebuds while ye may" about it for him. Now is the chance for the US to move in and grab control and it better do so.

Brzezinki's book is a clear and unambiguous statement of what the US has planned and it cannot be mere coincidence that his mention of a pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan was built after the US conquered Afghanistan . It’s also no coincidence that when Brzezinski wrote this book, he was a consultant to Amoco on Central Asian oil.

His book shows evidence of some of the dangerous madness in the 21st century, although planned back in the 20th century. It assumes that Might is Right, that US military power gives it unlimited rights to rule. It shows no concern about US military invasions now and in the past that have led to slaughter of people in for example, Kosovo, Laos, Iraq and Afghanistan. It does not concern itself with use of depleted uranium in Iraq , which endangers not only the population but even US troops, nor does it bother about use of chemical and biological weapons. Johannes Koeppl, the ex-German defence minister warned that Brzezinski was planning world dictatorship. He said, "in 1983/4 I warned of a takeover of world governments being orchestrated by these people. There was an obvious plan to subvert true democracies and selected leaders were not being chosen based upon character but upon their loyalty to an economic system run by the elites and dedicated to preserving their power. All we have now are pseudo-democracies."

I think he was right and that the US, UK and Oz are all pseudo-democracies.

Despite the alleged connection of an al-Queda network behind 9/11, evidence is accruing to suggest that it was conducted by forces within the US military and government. Nevertheless, the blame was placed on Muslims, and used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan .

The way in which the truth is being concealed about 9/11 is the article in American Free Press, July 21,2003, p. 3, which states that the investigation of  the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, is being hampered by a lack of co operation from US intelligence, and government sources, including the Pentagon and Justice Department, which refuse to release important documents and insist that “minders” are at hearings to intimidate witnesses. 

The pattern of events since 9/11  suggests that the real aim in invading Afghanistan and throwing out the Taliban, was not motivated by any concern for civil liberties but in an attempt to seize oil reserves in the Caspian Sea and build an oil pipe line across Afghanistan to Pakistan to exploit these natural resources in U.S. interests.

The same pattern existed as that following the fire in the Reichstag which Adolf Hitler used as a basis for the Enabling Acts that suppressed personal freedom in the name of security for the citizen. The use of a crisis to generate war is also shown in the way Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew in advance of the planned attack on Pearl Harbour , but failed to alert US forces in Hawaii .

The events of 9/11 were used as a pretext to justify draconian anti-terrorist legislation whereby to "save" us from terrorism, we had to create a state which itself became a terrorist exerting dictatorial control, a major example, of doublethink. The US Patriot Acts in effect abolished the US Constitution and US Bill of Rights.

The Department of Homeland Security has created a situation where US librarians have posted signs on users' computer screens which says: "beware, anything you read is now subject to secret scrutiny by federal agents." It is to the credit of many US librarians that they have destroyed library records of borrowing to stop censorship and protect users. And in case you think there is anything new about the Dept of Homeland Security, be aware that it was outlined well before 9/11. Clinton gave speeches about Homeland Security in 1993. The detailed legislation quickly passed after 9/11 it had been prepared well before.

This is time when the proud history of freedom that inspired the American Founding Fathers is being thrown in the trash can. I would suggest that it is pure insanity to throw aside with contempt what men and women fought and died for during the American Revolution and establish a tyranny far worse than that of the redcoats. Another sign of Insanity Fair.

The American Founding Fathers did not believe for a minute that sacrificing freedom for supposed security was worth it. Benjamin Franklin said: "they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What is being implemented in the US and elsewhere illustrates the maxim suggested by Frederick Douglass. He said: "power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they have resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress."

George Washington also knew the dangers of State powers. He said: "government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire; a dangerous servant and a terrible master."

And John Adams understood the way in which moral and religious decline prepared the way for tyranny, as it has in the US and the Western world generally. John Adams said: "our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." This is why Communism has worked to undermine the moral basis of society, to prepare for the overthrow of Western civilization and the imposition of tyranny.

Another sign of tyranny is the imposition of military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay , where the Pentagon wants to charge prisoners at Guantanamo Bay with war crimes, allowing military officers to be judge, jury and executioner. Any defence lawyers have to be hired from the Pentagon. Their system is geared to winning convictions and imposing the death penalty as easily as possible. The detainees are described as "unlawful combatants" rather than prisoners of war and as a result are not covered by the Geneva Convention.  

If the accused hires a civilian lawyer, the attorney has to have a security clearance, work for no pay, have all conversations monitored, and abide by a gag order about what happened there. They won't see all the evidence against their client. Only the judge, jury and executioner will. The way in which it works has been demonstrated by the sentencing of David Hicks, an Australian citizen who will not be released to Australia and will be subject to these draconian rules.

Once convicted, there will be no appeal. As for "innocent until proven guilty", forget it!

As if all that were not enough, consider this. In 2000 the US Army War College report said that in 25 years we will have a hive mind, that the Pentagon will oversee insertion of public information into a control grid. We will be wired into a government mind-control Brainiac computer.

This is a kind of matrix built by the Pentagon. The embryonic LifeLog programme would dump everything an individual does into a giant database; every email sent or received, every picture taken, every Web page surfed, every phone call made, every TV show watched, every magazine read- all monitored and filed away.

Ref: DARPA's Dreams,  HYPERLINK news/print/ 0.1294.58. 909. 00.html

But let's not forget that a dossier on these spies is also being kept in Heaven, where the spies will be liable for punishment. Behind all these military and civilian tribunals, there is the highest tribunal, the Supreme Court of Heaven, that will judge them in the end. In the meantime, the move towards suppression of civil liberties continues.

Amnesty International's 2002 report was aware of the insanity of using these methods to create peace and safety. The 2002 report says: "far from making the world a safer place, (the war) has made it more dangerous by curtailing human rights, undermining the rule of international law and shielding government from scrutiny. It has deepened divisions among people of different faiths and origins, sowing the seeds for more conflict."

Why? Because war, which is the ultimate act of terrorism, makes more war because those who are attacked swear vengeance, whether it is a guerrilla war such as exists now in Afghanistan and Iraq , or a full-scale war. War does not solve terrorism; it makes more terrorism. These methods are another sign of insanity, and proof that we have learned nothing from history.

Security must protect people as well as states. That means a commitment to human rights.

In 1977, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was formed, led by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol etc., most of them Zionist figures. They agreed to a central role for the US as much as Brzezinski did and the so-called "chickenhawk" philosophy was like that of Brzezinski's.

The plan was for PNAC to gain control of the Bush administration, which proved easier after 9/11. PNAC was behind the National Security Strategy promulgated by the Bush administration in 2002 which assumed world hegemony for the United States , maintaining permanent war, suppressing other countries that looked like posing a challenge, including the use of pre emptive strikes, and making the US the world's policeman. International treaties were to be ignored if they did not serve US interests. Back in 1992 Wolfowitz, part of the cabal, favoured attacking Iraq . The grounds for the Iraqi attack were laid before Bush even came to power.

Mere hours after 9/11 Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld ordered an attack on Iraq, even though intelligence officials told him it was an al-Queda attack and there was no connection between Iraq and the attackers. Nonetheless, this lie of an Iraq-Al Queda connection was mentioned as a pretext for invasion. This is a weapon of mass deception that is coming more to light in the US , UK and Australia . And wouldn’t you think that politicians would be aware, while stating these lies that they would eventually be caught out? Isn’t this part of the madness?

One of the main excuses for invading Iraq was its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. This is itself part of the insanity, because if the US and its ally, Israel , are offended at weapons of mass destruction, they should first cast a whopping great mote out of its own eyes first. At last count, the United States has over 7,000 powerful nuclear weapons and is rapidly making more. So you wouldn't think that countries armed to the teeth, would be morally outraged if another country did have WMD. In addition, the US has another weapon of mass destruction in its use of the HAARP frequencies, the use of weather to create hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. Israel is the only Middle Eastern country to have nuclear weapons, and it has more than 100 of them.

Nevertheless, we were told that Saddam Hussein was a crazed dictator and we must take WMD away from him.He would indeed have to be a crazy dictator if he wanted to attack the US, the strongest military force on earth, but there is no hard evidence that he did. However, US, UK and Israeli military forces attacked Iraq before the invasion was "officially" announced in 2003, on the assumption that Iraq had WMD. Part of it also was an alleged desire to do the Iraqis a favour by installing a democratic regime and giving them the blessings of democracy.

This is more madness. Since the invasion of Iraq , there has been no evidence of any substantial WMD and the US , UK and Australian governments have been shown to be frauds. Blair, Bush and Howard have been shown to be frauds. According to the "Weekly Telegraph" June 11-17,2003 , Tony Blair's closest advisor, Alistair Campbell, has written to Sir Richard Dearlove, chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, for discrediting the service by release of the so-called "Dodgy Dossier" on Iraq .  The dossier, titled " Iraq : Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation" will fuel claims that the government was "doctoring" intelligence before the Iraqi War. Parts were lifted from the Internet from a 12-year old thesis by an American student. One highly placed intelligence source in UK was quoted as saying: "we are not responsible for this bastard offspring."

The fault may not lie with the intelligence services as much as the abuse of their reports by government sources in UK , US and Australia .

One serious event here was the alleged suicide, or possibly murder, of an intelligence whistleblower, David Kelley, on or about 17th July, 2003,who revealed to the BCC ways in which UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, doctored intelligence claims about the Iraq war.

Some of the tensions and madness within Australia in the relations between the intelligence network and the Australian government have been highlighted by the article in the Melbourne "Age" "Good Weekend" Report dated April 5, 2003 , by Nikki Barrowclough headed "Trouble in Spyland".

Tensions and conflicts within the intelligence community can have serious consequences. On June 13,1999 , Merv Jenkins, an intelligence officer who worked for the Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO) committed suicide. The revelations of Andrew Wilkie are further evidence of the tensions generated.

Warren Reed, a former intelligence officer said there is a massive groundswell of opinion in the federal intelligence bureaucracy that intelligence is either ignored or used selectively to prop up policy decisions. Iraq is the latest example in a trend that dates back several years.

"The politicisation of advice to governments" says Reed," was exacerbated under Keating's presidential regime and has been taken to dangerous levels by the Howard government."

Warren Reed says: "the syndrome of politicising intelligence is so bad, so insidious, so far-reaching in Canberra in the intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Defence domains, that the government itself actually poses a significant threat to the national interest.

"Anybody who rocks the boat by simply being honest in the nation's interest will suffer through bastardisation and intimidation unless they toe the line. A classical example is the tragedy of the Merv Jenkins suicide, which is said to be one of the worst cases of bastardisation we've ever seen."

Merv Jenkins was put under such pressure he chose to suicide. But Muirden's Law says that the suicide most likely will do nothing to change government policy. Jenkins was evidently a sensitive individual and the world is now geared for tough characters who have as much sensitivity as a ten-ton truck. Incidentally, if anyone wants an understanding of how the sensitive individual thinks, they should read Elaine Aron's "The Highly Sensitive Person"

According to a paper, "Silent Witness",  written by Des Ball and published in London , the special intelligence relationship between Australia and the US is at the core of the Australian-US alliance, and is regarded as Australia 's most important asset. Little Johnny is happy to fall into line with  Big Brother's military policy ( as demonstrated in a "Bulletin" report) and is content to take the role of Little Brother  in invading the Solomon Islands in June, 2003.The report in "Weekend Australian" August 12-13.2003, that Oz is to be linked with the American Star Wars system is an extension of that principle. It is a further illustration of the extent of the American Empire.

One way in which intelligence information can be concealed is shown by the way in which they were told, ahead of the time, of the role of the Indonesian army, the TNI, behind massacres in East Timor , and concealed it, announcing officially that the Indonesian military couldn't be behind it, so as not to offend Jakarta .

In September, 2000, as the Olympic Games got underway, Australian Federal Police raided homes in Sydney and Canberra is response to leaks about East Timor reported in the Press. An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald, September, 2000, said: "there is nothing to show that national security, as opposed to government embarrassment, is involved here. There is instead much, including the timing of the raid just when national attention is fixed on the Olympics, to suggest that the whole exercise is one of intimidation and spite, against the free flow of information, against truth, by a government more concerned to bully those who question its actions than truly to protect national security."

These kind of concerns have been heightened now that the oppressive ASIO bill passed Parliament in June, 2003. ASIO will now have more powers than police but with less oversight.

Simeon Beckett, a spokesman for Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, suggests that if a journalist were to write a story about terrorist organizations and ASIO didn't have the information it could  under the ASIO laws, issue a warrant seeking his arrest. He then has the choice of either breaking his ethics of silence concerning sources for the story or face five years in jail. Under the legislation, he can be detained for seven days and, if new evidence is produced or manufactured, can be held for another seven days. This process can continue indefinitely.

It's not necessary for ASIO to suggest that they have committed a terrorist offence. It is enough that they have information about a terrorist offence or organization, a power even police do not have when questioning a suspect for suspected murder.

Although ASIO is given greater powers than the police, it will be subject to less accountability. Complaints can only be made to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

Maybe in future the ASIO law will ban  revelations such as those of  Douglas Wilkie, a defence analyst for the ONA (Office of National Assessment) who published an article dated March 16,2003 ,against the Australian government's plan to join the invasion of Iraq .

According to Wilkie, the Iraqi military was "weak" and its "weapons of mass destruction disjointed and contained." Moreover the argument that Saddam Hussein had to be removed before he passed on WMD to terrorists was flawed because there is no hard evidence of active co operation between Baghdad and the extremist network linked to Al-Queda."

The problem with producing so many lies is a lack of faith in the pronouncements of Allied authorities. I.F. Stone, a political commentator, said "all governments are liars. Nothing they say should be believed." Amen.

As for an alleged dedication to democracy and its blessings, why is there no mention of the way the US supported Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in the 1980s when Iraq was "the enemy of our enemy" (thus our friend). The Reagan administration assisted Iraq in its war against Iran in the 1980s and issued no condemnation of its dictatorship. It is a cynical application of  political expediency, whereby so-called "friends" can be ditched when politically inconvenient. There is an interesting article on this topic in the magazine, "Current History", March, 2003, by Michael T. Klare.

But that was back in the 1980s. Has there been a change since then towards greater democracy? No, certainly not. The US has developed ties with dictators in Azerbaijan , Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan since the war in Afghanistan . These dictators have been cordially welcomed to the White House. Also two American allies, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are not democratic.

The US is willing to embrace dictatorships that do its bidding.

And, of course, especially since 9/11 the imposition of totalitarian legislation such as the Patriot Act has made it a sick travesty to speak of the US as democratic. Iraq and other states could justly say that if this constitutes "democracy", they want no part of it.

A book published in 2003 by a Chinese writer, Amy Chua, titled "World on Fire" does a worldwide survey to show that exporting free market democracy breeds ethnic hatred and global instability,. Whereby the market dominance of a minority generates hatred of their domination by the majority. The US has become the world's market-dominant minority.

It looks as if the invasion of Iraq is only the first stage of a plan to invade many countries in the Middle East and create a de facto Israeli Empire. This would pit 221 million largely poor Arabs against Israel 's 5.2 million Jews. Democratisation of Arab states will add fuel to this fire. But this is only part of a wider plan for global domination.

So we have a whole bundle of insanity fairs here: the use of the supreme example of terrorist force, which is war, as a so-called defence against "terrorism". The pretext of shunning weapons of mass destruction when armed to the teeth yourself, then invading and finding none of these weapons. Cuddling up to dictatorships and creating a dictatorship while at the same time announcing the export of democracy to the Middle East while founding a military dictatorship there. None of these motives make logical sense. They are not based on truth. Jesus Christ said, ”the truth shall make you free”. But the flip side of this is that lies will enslave you. And the first casualty of war is truth.

What seem to be two motives for invasion stand out: the drive for oil and the need to create a global Empire.

It's been argued that the invasion of Iraq and other States to seize oil would be more expensive and hazardous than just doing business with them. This is true, but some long-term strategic matters come into consideration here. The US now relies on foreign oil for 55% of its energy and this would rise to 65% in 2020. This dependency is the Achilles heel of American power: unless the Persian Gulf is kept under American control, the ability of the US to remain a world power would remain in question.

The policy known as the Carter Doctrine developed by Pres. Carter in 1980 was to protect the flow of oil by any means necessary, including military force. Whoever controls the flow of oil has a lever of power against rival forces. Saddam used the euro as a means of currency for sale of oil before the invasion. It suits the US economy better to retain the petrodollar as a unit of currency in the sale of oil. It could also put a control check on the up and coming influence of China , which is presently being built up.

At the same time, pressure was put on the US to accede to Israeli pressure to invade Iraq as part of a long-range plan to conquer much of the Middle East and put it under Israeli control. Joe Vialls writes about Israel 's Operation Shekhinah in March-April, 2003 "Strategy", maintaining that Israel is concerned about the future collapse of its American Sugar-Daddy and wants to build up its own resources in the region.

To keep this kind of military control going, civil liberties must be suppressed, and so they are suppressed. One of the ways they are suppressed is demonstrated in Plato's Republic, part of the inspiration for the neo-con or chickenhawk conservatives. In Plato's Republic there is a character called Thrasymachus, who cuts into a conversation by Socrates, who wants to know what constitutes "justice". Thrasymachus says that "justice is the will of the stronger".

What does Thrasymachus mean, that "justice is the will of the stronger?" He means that certain people in society, an elite, have political power and they impose their view of justice on society in general.

Plato didn't like this definition, but it seems Thrasymachus was right. We see it today, with influential interests imposing such Communist agendas as "anti-racism", "anti-sexism" etc. on society, not on the basis of their proven accuracy, but simply because they have the power to proclaim it and enforce it, gaining control and suppressing civil liberties, especially freedom of discussion. (as demonstrated in the suppression of David Irving's video)As the totalitarian control is enhanced, this "will of the stronger" is likely to be dominant, more so than now, and dissent will be rendered difficult. This is the future we are moving into.

Little Johnny is clearly in bed with the US and is implementing the policy of "pseudo-democracy" that is required to fit in with these globalist plans. He used the massacre at Port Arthur as a pretext to ban guns, so the public could not defend itself from government encroachment. He passed laws authorizing Australian troops to fire on civilians, and this year (2003) has armed guards installed in Australia . He saw      that the last aspects of the ASIO bill were installed, which removes such basic rights as trial by jury, innocence until proven guilty, the right to silence and arrest on "suspicion" with the right to hold alleged suspects without trial. It is a purely authoritarian and totalitarian control system, which fits nicely with the globalist agenda. The word "democracy" has become a farce, existing only in the dictionary. I believe the ultimate goal is to establish rule by informers, whereby the paranoia created by 9/11 and so-called "anti-terrorism" is used to spy on others and no doubt denounce them secretly without a trial or any need for evidence. In 2003 we were told that "anti-terrorist" units from Army Reserve were to be set up in every Australian capital city. (Sunday Age, 18 May, 2003 ) but which could of course, be used to repress people.

And the agency behind much of this is war. I believe Major General Smedley Butler, USMC retired, was right when he said, "War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses."

The remedies suggested for the madness which throws into the gutter a proud legacy of  safeguards against an abuse of freedom.

These include an appeal to the UN, and its list of human rights, overlooking the fact that the UN allows exceptions to its list of human rights, except where banned by law, and of course, these rights are banned by law is most countries. The UN itself is totalitarian and anti-democratic, devised by Communist instrumentalities.

The other is pressure for a Bill of Rights, choosing to overlook the fact that if the government chooses not to abide by the Bill of Rights, they are useless and empty words. A Bill of Rights existed in the Russian Constitution under Stalin which supposedly guaranteed basic freedoms and all were swept aside under the Stalinist dictatorship.

Part of what we need is what Eric Butler called "the wisdom of the unlettered man."  Joe Sobran once mentioned an example of this in an article where C.S. Lewis once overheard some soldiers conversing during wartime. He was startled to discover that they all casually assumed their government  was lying. They weren't the least bit outraged by it; they simply took for granted that this is what governments do. It was putting their lives at stake, yet they didn't trust it to tell the truth. Lewis was shocked that they weren't shocked."

It was not that C.S.Lewis was an idiot. He was an intelligent man. Yet these unlettered men showed greater wisdom and understanding in their realistic cynicism, which endorses Muirden's Law.

When it comes to secular tactics for dealing with the present situation, I believe Thomas L. Fielder’s book, Candle of Light (which is worth purchasing) has many useful insights. He documents the descent into barbarism we are experiencing now, and suggests some remedies. He points out that it cannot be remedied from the top down, but only from the grassroots level. He mentions that people are not moved by information but by events powerful enough to make them change. He recommends organizing into small groups promoting important initiatives, especially Social Credit, since he sees the monetary system as a vital reason for our decline and sees the urgency of reform. He points out that it is good to form an active group to approach politicians, especially those vulnerable ones  in marginal seats who are in danger of losing their seat at the next election, and thus missing out on the hearty pension and other goodies enjoyed by politicians.

Recent articles in “The Australian” have suggested that Jewish groups are unhappy with the ALP, and it’s implied may have been behind the push for Mr Beastly to take over as leader from Frank Crean. The Jewish groups have threatened to cut off or reduce funding to the ALP. This could increase the vulnerability of the ALP and make an approach by patriots who threaten not to vote for marginal incumbents very effective.

Another move has been the suggestion by one writer, Bazza Thomson, who urges financial assistance to activist patriots by recommending that many people subscribe into a central fund where money can be pooled and use to finance spokesmen. It’s a great idea, and if it is implemented, he should have a leading role in organizing it and getting assistance from it.

Grassroots can play a part in opposing tyranny. In the US , some librarians have opposed sections of the Homeland Security Act that require the government to be advised on what books people are reading. They have refused to do this. State governments such as Alaska have passed rules against the USA Patriot Act. We need people in Australia willing to resist oppressive laws in this country and, if it were possible, some State government acts against oppressive federal controls.

These are some secular remedies.

But what is the underlying reason for   the descent to barbarism ? It’s a spiritual problem with a spiritual solution. It comes because we have rejected God. As William Penn said "if men are not ruled by God, they will be ruled by tyrants." We are not being ruled by God, so we are being ruled by tyrants. Man’s law inevitably leads to tyranny. The systems devised by men lead to oppression because man is trying to become God, but without God’s wisdom. And those doing it fail to accept the reality of universal sin. That “there is none righteous, not one.” Instead, they try and impose a mask of righteousness to try and hide their oppression.

As part of doing so, they try and suppress free speech, as part of a decline into barbarism. But, as Charles Bradlaugh said, “without free speech, no search for truth is possible; without free speech, no discovery of truth is useful, without free speech, progress is checked, and the Nations no longer march forward, toward the nobler life which the future holds for man. Better a thousand fold abuse of free speech, than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the (human) race.” Free speech is an attempt to find the truth that makes us free, so it is not surprising that those who uses lies to enslave us oppose the truth. In spite of that, there are politically incorrect magazines and the Internet as weapons of mass instruction.

Another factor is set out by writer, Chalmers Johnson, in his book, “Blowback”, a term invented by the CIA to explain unintended consequences of intervention in foreign countries. It’s merely another term for reaping what you sow. The Bible says that “God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.” That rule applies to nations, too, who reap disastrous consequences from foreign illegal intervention. Johnson sets out many examples of the way the US and other countries have reaped havok from what has been sown, often from CIA intervention in ways the American public didn’t know about. The CIA failed to heed the wise admonition of George Washington’s Farewell Address when he warned against “overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty.” Time has shown how accurate those words are.

The existing Christian churches are no more than agencies for political correctness. We need a national repentance to call on God for help and to call for vengeance from heaven against those who oppress us. If we do not, the present drive towards insanity and tyranny will continue. The world will continue to decline towards insanity, as usual, but the Christian can be in the world, but not of it, so he maintains a certain detachment towards it, rather like a visitor to the zoo, who impartially watches two tigers ripping each other apart. We are the observers, who will watch the world tearing itself apart. We can do little to stop it, but we can rise above it spiritually. We will have to relate to God individually and call on Him to assist us individually but the society as a whole is likely to decline unless it accepts the reality that we can only rely on God as the source of our salvation. 

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.


Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute