Gerry of mentone you seem to be blaming Gough for this concept of a New World Order. Did Gough understand Agenda 21 which originated in 1968? I doubt it. When the US Federal Reserve was instigated in 1913 Congress had power over it and slowly Congress lost that power. This Agenda 21 would have been presented initially as a benign concept like the US Fed.

Our elite Central Bankers have always financed both sides of a conflict be they Communist or Capitalist. They don't care who is in power so long as they control it. Under our current system the free market is a lie. All the markets are manipulated by derivatives fuelled by our currencies being created as debt. It was Kissenger's idea to take the US $ off the gold standard in 1971 and back the $ with oil and trade. We all had to buy $ to trade. With money printing this will end with a crash far bigger than the Great Depression. See James Rickards' The Death of Money.

It is not simple argument of communist verses capitalist. The present system is a total lie.

Arjay, I agree it is not a Communist:Capitalist dilemma. It's a Repression:Relative Freedom problem. Ref PRC Murder torture and organ selling ex saintly Falun Gong : Singaporean dictatorship.ment The lives of North Koreans : living conditions in South Korea. Moves towards improvement in Burma. The derelict Left applauded the obscenities of Communist oppression against the Vietnamese people, and a morally bankrupt Mainstream Australia still refuses to see the current Atrocities against Humanity of the Chinese Communist Party's Human Organ "harvesting" industry.

The monopolisation of Banking and Finance by private control is rampant and fundamentally wrong. Democrats must reintroduce the rationales for a real state sovereignty over Finance for the common good. Challenging the lies of Wall Street - exposed so starkly by the GFC, and now ignored - would be a start. Starting a local KiwiBank, or an SBCI [Irish] or KfW [Germany] would build some momentum in the community for the proper of the citizen's Government, in opposition to the sectional interests of the powerful. This is fight for the 'hearts and minds' of our neighbours. Only through real industrial and financial strength can Australia defy corrupt international finance.

But we are going the very opposite direction when we have already destroyed local and community Cooperative Credit societies [by both Government action - at whose behest? - and loss of volunteerism]. A determination to chart our course nationally must start locally, and in our homes.

The National Competition environment supports the largest conglomerates' interests against the citizen - 93% of retail to the duopoly/duopsony. That needs to change if we are to withstand the demands the current international finance and banking impose on us.

Gough had excessive hubris (pride, arrogance) that pulled him down especially in an Australia well attuned to putting Messiahs in their place.

Kevin Rudd suffered the same wouldbe Philosopher King complex.

"Australians can almost feel flattered that the main global players went to so much trouble to get rid of him." No Killarney, just damn lucky we had the help.

Yes Plantagenet, I was thinking of the similarities of Rudd & Whitlam. It probably says something about the thinking of Labor that they go these messiah figures, or the simply nasty like Gillard & Latham.

I came to the conclusion that Whitlam was an impatient dreamer, acting on principle. He did what he thought was right, but would not invest the time in looking at the probable unwanted outcomes, & too arrogant to take advice.

Rudd on the other hand did nothing on principle, if he had any, he was simply an opportunist, going off half cocked, trying to get some praise & admiration, & to hell with the downside. He wasn't smart enough to recognise good advice if it hit him in the face.

Both were of course, equally disastrous.

‘morning Planter,

You said << Just after WWII the US perceived Vietnam as a French colony that needed to return to French control. The US provided almost all of the weapons (on land, air and sea) for France to attempt to reclaim Vietnam. In backing France the US failed to follow the US's more enlightened policy of self-determination for colonial peoples>>.

Rubbish!

The USA opposed the return of Vietnam to the French, so did the British but were threatened by de Gaulle that he would align with the post WWII Eastern Block in Europe unless they got France back to colonial status in Vietnam. In the end it was the British that facilitated the French re-colonization of Vietnam by removing British troops with the agreement of China.

Further, the first British military fleet to go to Vietnam post WWII, was to carry French military and equipment to Vietnam, not the US at all.

“March 9, 1945 - Amid rumors of a possible American invasion, Japanese oust the French colonial government which had been operating independently and seize control of Vietnam, installing Bao Dai as their puppet ruler.

During the Potsdam Conference in Germany to plan the post-war world. Vietnam is considered a minor item on the agenda.

In order to disarm the Japanese in Vietnam, the Allies divide the country in half at the 16th parallel. Chinese Nationalists will move in and disarm the Japanese north of the parallel while the British will move in and do the same in the south.

During the conference, representatives from France request the return of all French pre-war colonies in Southeast Asia (Indochina). Their request is granted. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia will once again become French colonies following the removal of the Japanese.

After the Second World War France attempted to re-establish control over Vietnam. In January 1946, Britain agreed to remove her troops and later that year, China left Vietnam in exchange for a promise from France that she would give up her rights to territory in China.

Cont’d

Cont’d

American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and General Joseph Stilwell privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina (modern day Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) after the war was over. Roosevelt in stead offered Chiang Kai-shek to place all of Indochina under Chinese rule. Chiang Kai-shek supposedly replied: "Under no circumstances!".

When the Geneva conference took place in 1954, the United States delegation proposed the name of Ngo Dinh Diem as the new ruler of South Vietnam. The French argued against this claiming that Diem was "not only incapable but mad". However, eventually it was decided that Diem presented the best opportunity to keep South Vietnam from falling under the control of communism.

The French then withdrew and handed the problems they had created in Vietnam to the United States”.

http://spartacus-educational.com/VietnamWar.htm

One has to wonder Planter, what lengths of post modern deconstruction and ideological propaganda you will stoop to in your anti-American rants? I don’t know how, where or if you were ever educated but hey, let us not allow history to get in the way of your proselytized nonsense.