Australian Civil Liberties Union

Insanity Fair

Geoff Muirden, talk at "Insanity Fair" seminar,
held Australian League of Rights, Perth, Western Australia, 37th annual seminar,
Saturday, 9th August, 2003.

(Slightly augmented version of talk) by Geoff Muirden

(Theme: a move towards extinction of freedom under the guise of "anti-terrorism")

Do not adjust your mind. The fault is in reality. As we look at what is 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", saying it was hard to distinguish the allegedly insane from the lunatics. He also wrote: "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 freedom in Western civilization seem to be fading into oblivion. Needless to say, as a civil libertarian, a central concern is the way in which civil liberties, a proud heritage of Western society, are now cast aside, and landmarks 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, and to thrown it into the waste bin of history with the assistance of our so-called "democratic representatives" in Parliament 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"? Isn't that like putting the fox in charge of the hen house? And isn't it "terrorism" to use depleted uranium that will threaten not only people invaded but even US troops?This is treating their own army people as disposable "cannon fodder"! A sample of the madness has come close to us. Near Perth, there is a US repository of depleted uranium at Lancelin that threatens our health and 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 aren't, is conveyed in Dr Helen Caldicott's book, "The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush's Military- Industrial Complex", in 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..

"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 examples to all other countries as we enter the twenty-first century.

"Now blink and enter reality."

Of course, 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, and "terrorism" and "rumours of terrorism", 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. (For more information, see Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber's book, Weapons of Mass Deception;the uses of propaganda in Bush's war on Iraq )

What is worse, is that 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  in 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 already there is in the works. An addition to Orwell's analysis is the "terrorism" gimmick.  Maybe some of various warnings, including Orwell's, 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.

Many and varied have been happenings in politics that show 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 ago. Not only was it inherently unlikely that a man of his character would do this, but also the Archdiocese of Bendigo, Victoria, there this incident allegedly took place, did not list him as being present at the camp where this supposedly 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 harrassment. 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 is shown in the selection of the Very Model of a Modern Major-General, Michael Jeffreys, as the new Governor-General. This could be a move towards a garrison state.

An article in April-May , 2003, Strategy, maintains that the office of Governor- General is itself a "con" in that it implies that the Governor-General represents the Queen of Australia in an executive position. The article claims that the title "Queen of Australia" is just a figurehead title, and not a 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) the article maintains that 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 that 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 article claims that 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 Nigel Jackson does, they can do so (nothing personal against Nigel) 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 representative in Australia, the Governor-General, can act on their behalves, are wasting their time and preserving a legal fiction. In effect, we seem to be living in a de facto republic. "Muirden's Law" is vindicated again.

The British monarchy is itself under threat, and is in effect being invited to commit suicide. 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 offers the monarchy a poisoned chalice.

It is 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 King 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 blockheads will accept 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, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, 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 the right of the monarchy to decide who their sons and daughters can marry is to be scrapped, and male primogeniture, which gives priority of succession to a male heir, is to be discarded. The monarchy should have no right to dissolve or summon Parliament, their royal assent over Parliament is to be revoked and their right to chose a Prime Minister in the event of a hung parliament is to be abolished. 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 may have to help her subjects, and resist a race to a One World disorder.

The destruction of the monarchy's civil liberties is only one sign of a trend towards their worldwide abolition.

A major concern is the way 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 writer? Because of his qualifications:

They include Councellor, 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 Staretg;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 this 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 towads 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 or war, of their power. He believes that the world would be in chaos if it were not for the intervention of the US as world policeman.

His statement is corroborated by Dr Johannes B. Koeppl, a former German Defence Ministry official and advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Werner. He told FTW (From The Wilderness website) that "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 an are now moving to implement open world dictatorship. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens" (italics mine). This statement sums up the real purpose of the alleged anti-terrorist drive.

Vice President Dick Cheney said that the so-called war on terorism "may not end in our lifetimes". What that means is that it will not end until all armed groups, anywhere in the world, which possess the political, economic or military might to resist US control, have been destroyed.

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

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 bilion of Russian assets during the 1990s, destabilizing Russia's currency (1998) and ensuring that a weakened Russia would 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 imperitive 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. Almost 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 asserts, "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 imperitives 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 contain 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 properous 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)

Is it a "coincidence" that this has now been constructed?

"It follows", he says, "that America's 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)

"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)

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." More detail about the way in which the UK endorses US neo-colonialism is in the book, Web of Deceit: Britain's Real Role In The World, by Mark Curtis.

No doubt Little Johnny would also endorse US policies. 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 US invasions and preceded by diplomatic manouvres. It is a move towards centralizing power in Oceania as a move towards a One World dictatorship. It is something of a footnote to Brzezinki's plan.

Brzezinski concludes that "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) showing a US focus on Eurasia.

He warns that "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 time for the US to grab power while it can.

Brzezinski'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. It assumes that Might is Right, that US military power gives it unlimited rights to rule. It shows no concrn 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 depleted uranium and its lethal effects in Iraq and elsewhere, nor does it bother about use of chemical and biological weapons. (Anyone who wants documentation about the extent to which the US has pioneered chemical and biological weapons should read Bioterror: Manufacturing wars the American way  edited by Ellen Ray and William H. Schaap.)

As former US President, Jimmy Carter, once put it, "even for the world's only superpower, the ends don't always justify the means." (cited Blowback,  p. 96). Johannes Koeppl, ex-German defence minister, warned that Brzezinski was planning world dictatorship, He said, "in 1983-4 I warned of a takeover of world government 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 ecomic 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.

What we are faced now is a militaristic United States run by the military- industrial complex, well depicted in books such as William Blum's Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower.  New updated edition, 2002;Howard Zinn's Terrorism And War;  and Samantha Power's A Problem From Hell; America And The Age of Genocide.

The way in which the truth is being concealed about 9/11 is demonstrated 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 hampered by lack of cooperation from US intelligence and government sources, and insistance that "minders" attend hearings to intimidate witnesses.

The pattern of events since 9/11 suggest that the real aim in invading Afghanistan and throwing out the Taliban was to seize oil reserves in the Caspian Sea and build an oil pipe line across Afghanistan to Pakistan to exploit these natural resources.

The events of 9/11 were used to "justify" draconian legislation to "save" the US from terrorism, whereby a dictatorial state could itself become an agency for terrorism, a major example of Doublethink. The US Patriot Acts in effect abolished the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Dept. Of Homeland Security has tried to force librarians to disclose reading habits of library users. It is to the credit of many librarians that they have resisted these demands., 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 presented in 2001 had been prepared well before.

The America 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 words, or blows, or 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."

John Adams understood the way in which moral and religious values prepared the way for tyranny. John Adams said, "our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." That is why Communism worked to weaken the moral basis of society.

Another sign of tyranny is the imposition of military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the Pentagon wants to charge prisoners 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. 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 the 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.

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

As if 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 oes 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 http://www.wired.com/news/print.0.1294.58.909.00.html

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 thr world a safer place;(the war) has ade it a more dangerous one 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 in a guerrilla war, full-scale war or terror attack. War does not solve terrorism; it makes more terrorism. These methods are another sign of insanity and a further proof that we have learned nothing from history.

One thing we should have learned from history is "blowback", explored in a book of the same name by Chalmers Johnson. This means the unintended consequences of intervention overseas with unintended consequences. According to a    US 1997 Defence Science Board report: "historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States."( Cited in Blowback, p. 9) Another way of saying it is that you reap what you sow. There is a moral law that says "God is not mocked. Whatsover a man sows, that shall he also reap." That law applies to nations too. But they don't necessarily reap it in the same country in which they sow it. A report in the West Australian,  8/8/03 quotes Amrozi's co-bombers as saying that Amrozi planned the Bali bombing as revenge for the invasion of Afghanistan.

The policy for the present US Bush adminstration was planned back in 1977, when the 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 much as Brzezinski did, the so-called "chickenhawk" policy.

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

Mere hours after 9/11 Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld ordered an attack on Iraq, even though intelligence officials told him there was no connection between Iraq and the attackers. Nonetheless, this lie of a connection was used a pretext for invasion. This is a weapon of mass deception coming more to light in the US, UK and Australia.

One pretext for attacking Iraq was its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. But if the US and its allies are offended at weapons of mass destruction, they should cast a great mote, the size of a Mack truck, out of their own eyes first. According to Dr Caldicott's The New American Danger, the US possesses more than 7,000 nuclear weapons, and is making more. It also possesses vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons, according to Bioterror,  it uses depleted uranium and the HAARP frequencies to create devastating weather patterns as a weapon.

Israel is the only country in the Middle East to have nuclear weapons, according to American Free Press, March 17,2003, p. 17, the Federation of American Scientists, Israel's nuclear weapons stockpile is estimated at 400 warheads.

The UK has atomic weapons and Australia can get access to them. So why don't they all cast motes out of their own eyes before condemning others for weapons of mass destruction? The leaders of these countries see themselves as shining paragons of perfection righteously condemning other states as "evil" for actions they do themselves.

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. According to the "Weekly Telegraph" June 11-17,2003, Tony Blair's closest advisor, Alistair Campbell, has written to Si 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 doctored intelligence before the Iraqi war. Parts were lifted from the Internet from a thesis by a 12-year old 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 was the alleged suicide, or possibly murder, of intelligence whistleblower, David Kelley, on 17th July, 2003, who revealed ways in which Blair doctored intelligence claims.

Some of the tension and madness within Australia in the relations between the intelligence networks and the Australian government have been revealed by the article in Melbourne Age's 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 officerwho 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 that there is a massive groundswell 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 governmentsw", 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 in the national interest.

"Anybody who rocks the boat by simply being honest in the nation's interests 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 committed 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 and is content to take the role of Little Brother in invading the Solomons, 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 sign of the extent of American Empire.

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

In Sept.,2000, as the Olympic Games got underway, Australian Federal Police raided homes in Sydney and Canberra in response to leaks about East Timor in the Press. An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald, Sept.,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 spire, against the free flow of information, against truth, by a government more concerned to bully those who questions its actions than truly to protect national security."

These concerns have been heightened now 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 from Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, suggests that if a journalist were to write a story about terrorist organisations and ASIO didn't have the information, it could under ASIO laws, issue a warrant for his arrest. He then would have the choice of breaking his ethics of silence concerning sources or face five years in jail. Under the legislation, he can be detained seven days and, if new evidence is produced or manufactured, another seven days. This process can continue repeatedly.

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

Although ASIO has more powers than police, they have less accountability. Complaints can only be made to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

Maybe in future the ASIO law will ban whistleblowers such as Douglad Wilkie, a defence analyst for the ONA (Office of National Assessment) who published an article dated March 16,2003, condemning the Australian government's plan to invade Iraq.

The problem with politicians that lie about   WMD and other matters is they produce a lack of faith in their government, but despite this they generally continue in office.

As for their alleged devotion to democracy, 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"? The Reagan administration assisted Iraq in its war against Iran in the 1980s and issued no condemnation of its dictatorship. It is a cynical act of political expediency whereby so-called "friends" can be ditched when politically inconvenient.

But that was back in the 1980s. Have things changed since? Not according to an article in magazine, Current History,  March ,2003, by Michael T.Klare, who points out that the        US has developed ties with dictators in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan since the war in Afghanistan. These dictators have been 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. So much for its commitment to democracy.

And, of course, since 9/11, the imposition of totalitarian legislation such as the Patriot Act have made it a traversty to speak of the US as democratic. Iraq and other states could say that if this is "democracy", they want none of it.

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 againsyt Israel's 5.2 million Jews. But this is itself only part of a wider plan for global domination.

So we have a whole bunch of insanity fairs here: the use of the supreme example of terrorist force,war, to "stop terrorism"; shunning weapons of mass destruction when armed to the teeth with them yourselves; making false claims of WMDs in Iraq and having it shown this was a complete fabrication;announcing the export of democracy to the Middle East and installing a dictatorship. None of this is based on truth. Jesus Christ said: "the truth shall make you free". But lies will enslave you.

Two major motives for invasion and the drive for oil and the need for 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 startegic 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 is threatened.

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 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, presently being built up.

To keep this military control threatened, civil liberties must be suppressed, and so they are. One of the ways they are suppressed is demonstrated in Plato's Republic, part of the inspiration for the chickenhawks. In Plato's Republic,a character called Thrasymachus says that "justice is the will of the stronger".

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

Plato didn't like this definition, but it seems that Thrasymachus was right. We see it today, with influential interests imposing such Communist doctrines as "anti-racism", "anti-sexism" etc. Not on the basis of their truth, but as a way to manipulate people and suppress civil liberties.

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" required to fit into these globalist plans. He used the massacre at Pt. 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 in 2003 installed armed guards in Australia. He saw that the last aspects of the ASIO bill were installed, to suppress basic rights such as trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, right to silence and allowed arrest on "suspicion" to hold suspects without trial. It is a purely authoritarian and totalitarian control system, that fits nicely with globalist agendas. I believe the ultimate goal is to establish rule by informers, to enable others to be spied on and denounced anonymously. 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) which could be used to repress citizens.

Remedies some have suggested for this march towards slavery have uneven merit.

These include an appeal to the UN and its statement of human rights, which however ignore the fact that the UN allows exceptions by law in member countrues, and most countries do allow exceptions. Also the UN is totalitarian and anti-democractic by its very nature.

Another is a call for a Bill of Rights. But, firstly, any rights not specified in a Bill of Rights, can be assumed not to exist. Secondly, history shows that if a government chooses not to abide by a Bill of Rights, they will ignore them. A Bill of Rights existed in the Russian Constitution under Stalin, and all were swept aside by Stalin.

Thomas L. Fielder's book, Candle of Light, which all should buy, 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 grassroots. He mentions that people are not moved by information, but only by the pressure of events powerful enough to make them change. He recommends organizing into small groups to promote important objectives, such as Social Credit. He recommends forming a pressure group to approach politicians that are vulnerable enough to be in margina electorates and in danger of losing their seats if they do not get votes.

Some reports in The Australian have claimed that Jews may cut off funding to the ALP. If so, this could weaken the Labor Party and make it more vulnerable to pressure from patriots.

One actionist, Barry Thomson, suggests that organizations should be funded by patriots agreeing to jointly pay in funds on a regular basis to finance them. It's a great idea.

Grassroots can play a part in opposing tyranny. In the US, some librarians have refused to hand over records of citizens' borrowing. State governments such as Alaska have passed rules against the USA Patriot Act. We need to resist oppressive acts and if possible get the backing of some State governments.

These are some secular remedies.

But the problem and the solution is spiritual. 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 ruled by God, so we are ruled by tyrants.

The solution will only come as we cry out to God in repentance. But we cannot rely on our churches, most of which are agents for political correctness. Only as we see our need for God in our own hearts and call on Him for rescue, can the rescue come. We are victims of spiritual "blowback", and only God can save us. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Geoff Muirden

Contents of Your Rights