One honest Christian Judge, in any one of the many Supreme Courts around Australia could give Peter Spencer the incentive to come down from his eyrie, have a good feed, and take the fight right up to the devils governing this country.

It has to be an honest Christian Judge, who fears the Lord, and has a Royal Identifier as his stamp, so that he can place a Royal Identifier on a Writ, issue it from a court, and call the Australian Government to account, and at the same time destroy all the Satanic State Governments that currently support every corrupt and unconscionable State Judge throughout Australia. If you exist Mr Judge, you van serve the Lord, and the Lord knows you are needed as never before.

An honest Christian Judge would know he cannot substitute himself for Almighty God. Every Judge Peter Spencer has had has been an Almighty God Pretender, and the Satanic Forces emanating out of State and Federal Parliaments, have given all these God Pretenders, the power but no glory. As Pierre Schlag, the Professor of Jurisprudence at Denver Colorado Univesity said, “A Judge is the most violent person in society, but never dirties his own hands.” That is why Jesus Christ condemned them in the Gospel of Luke 11:46. If you are a Christian and know a Supreme Court Judge anywhere in Australia who is an honest man, then let him come out of the closet and be counted. The power of one is enough. Just one Honest Judge, in the thousand or so who are roaming Australia is all Spencer needs.

It could be one of the six in Tasmania, or one of the four who regularly serve in Canberra, It could be one out of the seven on the High Court. It could be one of the forty nine in New South Wales, or even be a Victorian Judge, but he or she must be a Christian and honest.

As a Christian the Judge would know that a court must call a jury together to divine the will of Almighty God. Its magical

The Honest Judge would simply say, “Put up a Feigned issue to test the Australia Act 1986.” I will hear it. Knock over the Australia Act 1986, and the whole Satanic House of Cards Legal Profession slave-dom that is Australian Government today will collapse. Feigned Issues are still legislated for in Queensland, so by S 118 Constitution any Judge, anywhere in Australia is authorized to try one.

What is really sad is that some Churches even tolerate these evil dishonest Satanic bums in suits within their congregations. They had the power to excommunicate any dishonest Judge, in 1900, from the Churches that enjoyed a monopoly on the appointment of Judges. That kept the bastards honest. It was not the Democrats, it was the preacher-men.

Knock over the Australia Act 1986, with a feigned issue, cut off the cohones of State Parliaments and then knock over the restrictive trade practices that have caused Peter Spencer to be marooned on a pole 5000 feet above Canberra, and Australia will again be the wonderful place to live in that I was born into.

Sunday is the third of January 2010. If you are going to church, and there are still more people going to church this weekend than will go to the football or cricket, pray for one honest Christian Judge. Today in Australia, the Judge is one of the people who listened to Satan, but Jesus Christ rejected his temptations. Follow me and all this will be given to you. ( Matthew 4:9) Today in Australia everyone must worship Satan, in the synagogues erected by the nine Satanic States, that are heavily into stealing.

Traffic fines are stealing. So about a Billion dollars is going begging in New South Wales alone as people silently protest. Two billion dollars is stolen in New South Wales every year with Land Tax. Victoria is currently planning to steal off every land owner, with a special tax on land. Come on , seek and you shall find. Find Peter Spencer his one honest Judge. Don’t let him die in despair Give him hope on his tower.

It's about time all Australians are given a chance to vote the Labor governments out of power, we do not want to be governed by incompetant, communists who do not have any concern for our lifestlye. Peter Spencer bought HIS land to make a living in a peaceful manner. With a growing population who is going to feed us if all the farms are taken away? What is the motive behind this? If we don't do something about the unjust law and censoreship in this great country we will lose our freedom and dictator Rudd will control everyone. When television stations are not covering an injustice such as this you have to wonder who owns the media in Australia?

It raises two basic questions:
1. are there values over and above human values? If so, how would we know them apart from the speaker's arbitrary opinion and vested interests?
2. how could a government power to manage the environment be limited, even conceptually, let alone in practice?

As the article's critics in this thread have failed to answer these questions, and obviously can't, they have lost on the general issue, and are just engaging in evasion and flapping their gums.

It is not so much a term of abuse, as a term of description, to call them totalitarians, because envisage no limit on the power of government. What else is totalitarian supposed to mean?

Also, fascism is not 'right wing', it's just another species of socialism. "Nazi" stands for 'national socialist'. They are socialists, which our home-grown totalitarians, the self-called 'centre left' never seem to understand.

Either these Australian totalitarian fascists are being deliberately dishonest, or they are literally so stupid they don't understand what they are talking about.

Jardine K. Jardine,

It is only in the last year or so that I have heard anyone attempt to describe the Nazis as left-wing. For the 70 years prior to that, they had been regarded – correctly - as extreme right-wingers.

The fact that the Nazis had the word “socialist” in their name means as much as the fact that the communists called their dictatorships “The People’s Democratic Republic of...” even though there was nothing democratic about them and the “people” used to try to escape from them. The Nazis were not socialists. They did not nationalise industry. They centralised political power but were quite content to allow economic wealth to remain in the hands of business.

In the early years there was a socialist stream in the Nazi Party. Ernst Roehm, leader of the SA, was one who called for a “second revolution” against business. He, along with others, was murdered on the Night of the Long Knives, 30 June, 1934. Hitler had no intention of implementing the Nazi party’s socialist promises. He needed the army, the banks and business on his side. (William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich)

Hitler was not democratically elected. His party won more votes than any other, but less than an absolute majority. He gained power because the Nationalists, another party of the right, decided to join forces with him in the mistaken belief that they could control him. His Enabling Act was passed by the Reichstag with the support of the Cathoic Centre Party - to that group’s everlasting shame - after all the Communist representatives had been arrested so that they could not vote. The only party to oppose the Enabling Act was the Socialist Party; in other words, it was a party on the left that stood for democracy in that time and place. Once the Enabling Act had been passed, there was no more democracy.

"They did not nationalise industry."

Yes they did - in substance but not in name. Agreed, they didn't nationalise it in the way that the Russians did, i.e. abolish legal title to capital goods.

But they did nationalise it in the sense that they left legal title to capital goods in private hands, and then dictated any aspect of production, including what to produce, how to produce, wage rates, prices, quantities, etc. To put it in legal terms, they didn't nationalise the legal title, but they nationalised the equitable title - ie the use-rights. They certainly didn't recognise private property rights and invididual liberty on principle as circumscribing a limit to legitimate government action, so what is it supposed to mean to say they were "right wing"? People's property rights - their real, substantive use-rights, not the name on the title deed - amounted to nothing but whatever was left after the state took and did whatever it wanted.

By naming this same characteristic in contemporary Australian left-wing poltiics, I am not merely attempting to scandalise or slander. I'm pointing it out so as to ask Australians to have a good hard think about what they believe in.

The defining characteristic of socialism of all kinds, is the attempt to replace decision-making based on private property and individual freedom in a particular field, with the presumed wisdom of government central planners, which both the Nazis and social democrats have in common.

This can only go one way - to unlimited government. Social democracy is just totalitarian government by instalments. They fact social democrats don't like it is irrelevant.

Unless the terms left and right wing denote some substantial difference as to the role of government and private property - not just totalitarian dictatorships at either end of the range - they are empty of explaining power and only go to obscure the real class struggle in issue - between those who get their wealth by peaceful production and exchange, and those who get it by violence and threats.