G20, Climate Change, and the New World Order

In 2009 the G20 Pittsburgh summit revealed the G20 as being the leading group of controlling interests in the world economy. So to understand where the world is heading we should understand a little about what the economic and political vision is among the G20 leaders.

Protestors against the G20 claim that the G20 represent global capitalism, and they the protestors are opposing big corporate greed, but do the G20 really represent this political position of extreme capitalism portrayed by protestors?

Well first lets look at what capitalism means
Definitions vary, but the following from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism seems a reasonable summary.

"Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), is privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in markets; and profits distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries."

So Capitalism might be summarised with the following basic principals:
1. Commodities, materials, property, and money belong to individuals and individuals decide how, when and where they want to use, or spend their wealth
2. People are able to freely trade with others with their labour, goods, materials or wealth
3. Governments should have minimal interference in the first 2 principals

So now lets look at a definition of Socialism.
Again definitions vary but here is one from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

"Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources. A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and method of resource allocation; often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labor expended or individual contribution."

So Socialism might be summarised with the following basic principals:
1. Commodities, materials, property, and money belong to the community, and the community should decide how, when and where they want to use, or spend the wealth.
2. The community will decide who gets what based on who is the most needy.
3. Governments (in a role of representing the community) will strictly control and administer principals 1 and 2 so that individuals don't seek their individual interest above the collective interest of the community.


Now that we understand Capitalism and Socialism, let's cast our gaze back at the G-20.

The G-20 is made up of the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries:

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America; The European Union, who is represented by the rotating Council presidency and the European Central Bank, is the 20th member of the G-20.

Of the 19 countries in the G-20, only 7 could be said to be ruled by conservative governments, which means that 12 of the 19 are libertarian or left central governments that are disposed to favouring the incorporation of strong elements of socialist principals into governance.
The European Union is governed by the European Parliament which consists of 736 members including 7 major parties, and other non-party members. The balance of conservative to libertarian members in the European Parliament is approximately even, so this does not change the great imbalance of libertarian to conservative representation in the G-20.

Together, member countries represent around 90 per cent of global gross national product, 80 per cent of world trade (including EU intra-trade) as well as two-thirds of the world's population. The G-20's economic weight and broad membership gives it a high degree of legitimacy and influence over the management of the global economy and financial system.

These factors have allowed the socialist libertarian movement to initiate a push for world governance which will redistribute the world's wealth in a socialist manner. Taxing richer nations to redistribute their wealth to poorer nations.

The mean by which this is to be achieved is the Kyoto protocol, the Copenhagen Agreement, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which will allow the United Nations to tax green house gas producing nations and give that money over to non-producing nations.
There is no agreement among scientist that climate change is either at problematic levels or that it is caused by human generated carbon emissions.

Leaders around the world including Kevin Rudd, Barack Obama, and Gordon Brown are all talking about a New World Order. This New World Order with global governance by the United Nations has been proposed for decades and is only now coming to fruition as socialist libertarians have gained the balance of global power.
This New World Order turns the whole world into one community and shares the wealth among that whole community, not on the basis of supply and demand, but upon the socialist principal of who has the most need.
This New World Order grants power supreme to those at the top that are enforcing this new global taxation of carbon emissions.

If there really was a problem with humans burning carbon based fuels, then the logical solution would be to stop issuing mining licenses, drilling licenses, export licenses, approvals for port expansions, because the amount of carbon being consumed can only be as much as we dig or drill out of the ground. Governments are not slowing down production of coal and oil, but they are increasing production. That is as plain evidence as you should need to know that carbon fuel use is not a problem.
The only reason that the politicians of the world are promoting the climate changes "crisis" is to give them an excuse to implement a socialist New World Order and a global taxation system.

Vladimir Lenin, drawing on Karl Marx's ideas of "lower" and "upper" stages of socialism defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.


Shouldn't Lenin's words ring warning bells among the free world, that the current push toward socialism is actually a transition to communism?

If you reflect upon history then you will know what happens when you give socialists absolute power.
Should we really risk giving socialist libertarians control of the world?

Labour & Liberal Parties - What's the difference?

Some people may be new to politics and some may not have had the time to get interested in politics before so I thought that it might be worth looking at the fundamental difference between the two main political parties in Australia; the Australian Labour Party and the Liberal Party of Australia.

Now because I am lazy, I thought I would give you a kick start into understanding the difference by recommending that you watch the following videos.

The two types of political vision

Intelligentsia and the vision of left wing politics

The discussions in the videos are held with Dr Thomas Sowell who is an American professor of economics, and political and social commentator.
The discussions by Dr Sowell are in regard to the dominant US political parties of the Democrats and the Republicans.

The politcal views of the Deomocratic and Republican parties in the USA are representative also of the two views of politics which are found in the Australian political parties of Labour and Liberal.

American Democratic Party (Obama)= left wing = libertarian politics = unconstrained vision = Australian Labour Party (Rudd)

American Republican Party (McCain) = right wing = conservative politics = constrained vision = Liberal Party of Australia (Abbott)

So when Dr Sowell talks about central planning (federal control of organisations like health care, instead of state control) you will understand why the Australian Labour party is trying to do exactly the same thing as part of their 2010 election campaign. It is intrinsic to their political vision to gain as much centralized power as they can. The Australian Labour Party tells the Australian people that it wants to federalize health care and if you dig a bit deeper you will likely find that they want to federalize almost everything and do away with state governments.

In these videos Dr Sowell highlights the dangers of this type of politics with central power for the "elite" rulers.

In essence the question that Dr Sowell is posing, is this:
Do you really trust left wing politicians and the intelligentsia enough to give them as much power as they are asking you to give them, and when you give it to them do you really think that they will use that absolute power any better than previous rulers with absolute power have done?

The New Taboos - Politics and Religion

Are politics and religion really such taboo topics that you shouldn't mention them among friends, family or work colleges?; and if you cant speak to these people about politics and religion then who can you speak with about it?

To think about this, I guess we should first define what is a taboo:
Taboo: " 1. A ban or an inhibition resulting from social custom or emotional aversion.
2. a. A prohibition, especially in Polynesia and other South Pacific islands, excluding something from use, approach, or mention because of its sacred and inviolable nature.
b. An object, a word, or an act protected by such a prohibition."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company

So something comes under a taboo in order to protect it's sacredness, or to protect people from the emotional aversion that is connected with the thing, or because the thing is considered so impermissible that people should not even think about it, talk about it or attempt to attain it or enact it.

The world has had many periods when both politics and religion were not discussed with genuine openness to disagreement, and at times this unwillingness to allow disagreements has fuelled conflict between religious or political factions. Today there is an enormous diversity in political and religious beliefs around the world, within nations and even within local communities.

Post-modern philosophy promotes the idea that a particular belief can be valid for one person whilst an opposite belief can be valid for another person. Whilst many people have accepted this concept as a way of avoiding conflict and allowing each person to decide what they believe, the reality is that no successful civilizations were ever built upon a philosophy of Relativism. Civilizations are built upon agreements, not disagreements. Nations are governed by laws and laws cannot allow every person to do whatever they think is best for them.
For example some may think that it is okay to have multiple spouses, some may think that it is okay to married off their children at the age of five and some may say that it is okay to kill a child in its mothers womb.
But if a nation allows each person to do whatever seems best to them and dissolves all laws that govern personal conduct then the very fabric of society is being destroyed. Each nation must determine a set of values and enforce them otherwise society does not function properly.

Now if the fabric of society depends on the proper operation of matters of religion and politics then who is to be in charge of these things?
Should we allow a minor few to speak on and determine what is right about these things, or should the population be able to discuss these things openly and freely?

If politics is only about to be discussed by politicians then are we not a step away from having our political freedom taken from us by those politicians?
If religion is only able to be discussed by religious leaders then are we not a step away from having our religious freedoms taken from us by those religious leaders?

Who has generated these new taboos that put us in political and religious peril?
Let us simply look for a regime that restricts political and religious freedoms. Can you name one? I can.
Quite simply, it is Communism!
Communism places taboos on talking about religion accept that state sanctions religion of Darwinistic Scientism, and communism places taboos on talking about politics unless it is the left wing politics of socialism.

How then are we to respond to these new taboos that have been subversively introduced upon us by socialists?

We must recognise these new taboos for the anti-democratic, anti-freedom propaganda that they are.
We must be willing to speak freely on matters of religion and politics.
We must be willing to allow others to speak freely on matters of religion and politics.
We must not allow difference of views to turn into aggressive conflicts.
We must ensure that we use political means to make and enforce laws that are consistent with nation building values rather than nation destroying values.


Australia's political and religious freedom has come under threat before, and our forefathers fought to protect those freedoms.
Every year in Australia war momorials remind us of the following sayings:
"The price of peace is eternal vigilance" and "Lest we forget"

But many people seem to have forgotten that it is the very ideologies of oppressive nations, (not just the occupants of those oppressive nations) that our forefathers fought so hard to protect us from.

Let us remember the sacrifices made to protect us from harmful ideologies. Let us value our freedoms and hold fast to the values that have been protected with so much blood.

Dwight D. Eisenhower who ruled as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces during World War II said in his inaugural address upon being elected President of the USA:
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both".

Let the people of Australia and the world engage openly in political and religious discussions in a respectful and diplomatic manner, for diplomacy must be better than a new cold war.

What is Pornography?

If you have been noticing an increasing trend in the media of displaying sexually provocative photographs and videos then it may lead you to ask yourself, when do we draw the line between what is acceptable for general distribution and what is pornographic in nature or intent.

Historically the amount of flesh displayed was used as an indication of pornographic content, however current secular standards on how much flesh is acceptable in public have drastically altered the way secular society defines what is pornographic.

Prior to world war two public views on sexuality were typically conservative and sex outside of marriage was seldom considered let alone acted upon by the majority of the western populace. However as a consequence of the Eugenics movement the had been started by Charles Darwin's cousin Francis Galton in the late 1800's and promoted by many prominent people including Theodore Roosevelt and Margaret Sanger the Eugenics movement was popularized and was firmly fixed into the ideology of Nazism. So Nazi Germany and many other countries that had bought into the idea of fighting a race war by breading up what they viewed as their superior race, needed a way to encourage people of their own race to breed successfully.
It was hard to break the social and religious morals regarding sexuality and so Nazi German (as one example) set out on a campaign to give the German woman a sexual image. They had scantily clad fitness girls travel the country and promote person fitness to achieve a body shape of sexual potency so that the German woman could breed better. The small outfits that these promotional girls wore was at that time scandalous in its immodesty. Also at about the same time bans on pornography were lifted and limited amounts of pornography were authorized for production. The Nazis actually commissioned official pornography materials of a nature that they thought suitable to promote the breeding of the German peoples. The Nazis also actively encouraged its male members to take on mistresses so that in addition to breading with their wives, they could breed with as many women as possible.

This culture of sexualization and breaking with cultural norms was also taking off in France during the late 1800's and early 1900's and can be recounted in the famous can-can theaters of Paris. One such can-can theater was the Moulin Rouge built in 1889 which has been recorded in books and movies.
Since the wooden box camera had come into use in Paris in 1826 there had always been an underground market for pornography. The early 1900's was a time of increased drug use, prostitution and pornography in Paris. The popularity in Paris during the early 1900's of the Bohemian lifestyle was a draw card to those of a similar inclination to join this movement in Paris and spread the idea of non-monogamous sexual relationships.

During WWII sexual attitudes continued to change due to a number if factors including stresses of war bride marriages and soldiers being promiscuous when abroad.


Post WWII sexual attitudes had been well and truly challenged and in 1946 when French lingerie salesman Louis Reard thought to himself that he would like to see women wearing lingerie in public, the bikini was born.
Even at this time no reputable professional model would dare to wear such a revealing outfit in public and so Louis hired a stripper from the Casino de Paris to demonstrate the bikini in public. It was a hit firstly among men and sales took off.

Within the next two decades television would bring the rock and roll rebellion era to the mass western populace, and sexuality was brought into the homes of the nation through pop idols like Elvis Presley and males crooners like Frank Sinatra, and female bomb-shells like Marilyn Munro and Sophia Loren sexed up the big screen.

Liberal attitudes towards sexual displays in public have grown in popularity ever since the 1970s, most likely because the generation of people that grew up in that age of the "free love" movement and "sexual revolution" are now the ones running the media outlets of the world that form public opinion.

This however has not changed some portions of society that still retain traditional values in regard to public displays of flesh and sexual behavior.
Additionally western societies are now having to reconsider these issues as immigration from Muslim and Catholic areas of the world into western countries is increasing and our secular societies are needed to learn how to live in harmony with people of different cultures and conservative values.

One question now could be asked; Knowing that some people in society are happy to have obscene images and behaviors allowed in public, does that mean that those who don't accept such things should be subjected to it against their will anyway, and told insolently to shut their eyes if they don't wish to see things that offend them. Or we might ask, what exactly is considered pornographic now, or unacceptable for public viewing?

It seems to me that most libertarians who wish to assert there alleged right to do something despite causing public offense, never take into consideration that such offense can actually harm people.
To demonstrate this fact is easy. It is the very reason that we have media restrictions in the first place.
So take the example of a war documentary which graphically shows people being shot dead. This may be suitable (although unpleasant and distasteful) for a health adult to see, but it is certainly not suitable for a child of 7 years old to watch people being killed in war because this will cause disturbance to the child's mind. Similarly we do not show children images of sexual activity or nudity because this too can cause disturbance to a child's mind. It can also be demonstrated by science that watching pornographic or violent images can cause serious damage to the mind of adults. So although some claim that they have the right to these things it is easy to see that, that does not translate into a right to impose such onto someone else and potentially cause harm or offense.

Here is a definition from The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition:
"Books, photographs, magazines, art, or music designed to excite sexual impulses and considered by public authorities or public opinion as in violation of accepted standards of sexual morality. American courts have not yet settled on a satisfactory definition of what constitutes pornographic material."

So if pornography is what is considered by public opinion as a violation of accepted sexual morality, then how much of society needs to be offended before we say you cant do that or show that in public?
And if there is not objective standard then when sexual immorality become popular enough then does what is pornography now cease to be pornography?

I know what I find offensive and too much of it is going on in public, on TV, in magazines, online, and in the movies. There are no restrictions and anyone can see anything with the click of a button. If you want to see a woman passionately kissing a monkey then its a click away, if you want to see one kissing another woman its a click away, if you want to see men doing the same its a click away, if you want to see people exposing themselves its a click away, if you want to see people doing obscene things to themselves or others then it is a click away. And the biggest problems is that it is very often that you did not know that this thing were going to be presented to you before you click. You just go to a site expecting some non-offensive content that is suitable for public viewing and they have these sorts of obscene images and or links to obscene content.

I believe there should be more regulation of the internet so that website which are for public consumption are actually suitable for the public and not of an offensive nature to children. Content of an offensive nature to children should only be accessible by those that know that they are going to be subjected to such content.
Admittedly some publishers are self regulating on this and do a very good job of keeping it clean, but there is certainly room for improvement not only on the internet, but also in teen magazines, public television, advertising, and public decorum.

I am sure that the libertarians are pulling there hair out at the very idea of determining some level of public decorum, but guess what? We already have standards and they say that you can't walk down the street naked or you will be arrested for indecent exposure. The problem is that the word indecent is too rubbery and libertarians are always pulling that rubber as far as it will go before it snaps and societal morals are destroyed.
Lets get back to some public decency, please if not for our own sakes then for the sake of the children that are being subjected to this obscene culture.