Christopher Monckton has heralded the concept of a third political force based on individual freedom.He wants this concept to go global.

There is no doubt that over the last few decades that people have become increasingly alienated from their govts,feeling frustrated by the over regulation,taxes and bureaucarcy that make our lives unnecessarily complicated and expensive.

In the USA the Corporates now have so much power that Wall St and the Bankers decide who will be the next president,what wars they will fight and how the money will be distributed.How do we know this? Well after the Bush debacle,Obama put in control the same old failed economic advisors and gave more powers to the US Federal Reserve who were responsible for the GFC.Roosevelt,when he came into power put in a whole new team and distanced himself from failure.

For a third party to work,it must be free from corportate influence in terms of donations.It would have to have within it's constitution an exclusion clause for powerful interest groups.We only have to look locally to see how money buys power and favours in our Govts.It has to be a grass roots movement,but for it to work,the people have to turn off the media distractions and study what power structures control their lives.

How would you formulate the constitution of such a third political force? ie What rules will make it represent the will of the people?

Firstly I would ban hereditary rich idiots like Monckton from having anything to do with it. Hardly a paragon of equality and inclusiveness is he? Hardly an example of a man that worked hard to get where he is. Im sure life is very free for him with all his wealth and influence.

When people like Monckton talk about freedom they dont mean freedom for all of us they mean freedom for property and money but not people. They want to own everything and make the rest of us pay to use it. Roads, police, courts, water, all the things that people need and rely on to live.

Any new political party will have to be accountable directly to the people and subject to removal if the populace is unhappy with them. They will have to involve the population in decision making and lead people in a better direction than current parties who only do anything for base political advantage. Including things that damage our country. Whatever it takes to get re-elected.
People should be chosen to lead for their skills not how powerhungry they are. Nor how wealthy they are or what school they went to. Business should be excluded from politics the same as religion. Only individual citizens should have a part in the running of countries/the world. Business has shown how its greed and lust for more money corrupts the whole process of politics and the public sphere. Business has only self serving and damaging, to the rest of us, reasons for wanting to influence policy and they have shown their willingness to destroy our lives unless those in power give in to their extortion.

The time has come to make corporations and big business our slave and not our master. As it was in the past and should be forever.

Arjay should you live for ten thousand years you will not get your wish.
An understanding is called for, we ordinary people, make the party's we have.
And we ordinary voters ask for and mostly get, the policy's and directions of those party's.
Sitting on the sidelines and throwing stones at those party's for not being everything we want, is wasteful.
rights and wrongs, failures and success every party who holds government for some time does it on the back of being what most like.

Why not go the whole hog, mikk, and turn government into a permanent TV show along the lines of "Australian Idol"?

>>Any new political party will have to be accountable directly to the people and subject to removal if the populace is unhappy with them. They will have to involve the population in decision making<<

We can sit in front of our TV sets and vote people in and out of office at a whim, and vote ourselves a tax cut every day.

The concept of governments functioning effectively through the direct involvement of citizens in the decision-making process is romantically idealistic, but ultimately unworkable.

Here's a typical comment on California's system of citizen-initiated ballots:

"...the system has since become something its creators never intended: an unwieldy, untenable wolf that has subverted the deliberative nature of representative democracy; tied the hands of elected officials charged with controlling the state's purse strings; and undermined traditional court protections of minorities by eliminating fundamental civil rights - and all via mostly narrow majorities in popular votes."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-normoyle/vote-no-on-everything-urg_b_207473.html

As has been noted on a number of occasions, propositions designed to spend taxpayers' money get approved, while propositions to increase taxation are rejected.

That's not the only danger.

One observer asks "if civil rights can be eliminated by a simple majority vote, why even have a constitution at all?"

There's a pretty thorough analysis here:

http://www.votenooneverything.org/voteno/About_Vote_No_On_Everything.html

"Although good decisions have at times been made by the majority, the general populace should not have the power to legislate directly by a simple-majority vote. Legislation is the role of the legislature, to be kept in balance by the other two branches of government."

When "everyone" decides on a particular course of action, "no-one" is actually responsible. Either for the outcome, or for making it happen - since the decision could easily be reversed the next day. Or the day after.

We have a massively imperfect system right now, open to all sorts of undesirable influences and horse-trading.

But that's no reason to replace it with a system that is even more flawed.

mikk,I don't care where good ideas come from.Never let your own prejudice blur good judgement.

This is a time when real positive change can happen if enough people are aware of the problems.We live in the illusion of democracy.Govts are supposed to serve the people.Presently we are getting closer to a dictatorship and we are pathetically indifferent.

Belly nothing will change with your present attitude.

Mikk, Arjay and others

I tend to agree with Arjay in that Monckton idea shouldn't be summarily dismissed because he has a hereditary title nor should he have enhanced credibility because of the same.

However, Monckton credibility on AGW is exceedingly low given that he is simply a journalist and has little or no serious scientific authority or accuracy either.

Monckton's idea appears either ego or fanciful idealism bases and on any real substantive reasoning. It is very reminiscent of the movement toward love, peace, understanding of the 60s. They sounded good but once they spread beyond a specific community it was corrupted and eventually collapsed. The hard graft was done by the marchers and the real committed idealists that had specific short term objectives.

As stated before any long term organization with vague goals (political parties) tend to devolve to where the primary purpose becomes the longevity and power for the party. This inevitably leads to the initial idealism being subsumed by the pragmatics and egos of personal power within the organization. e.g. The implosion of the Democrats.

Mikk, your suggestions also assume too much, in that the facilities and good will for them to exist doesn't and can't (human nature) exist. i.e. no communication it bullet proof and therefore subject to corruption.

I'm with Arjay. A lot of good energy will come out of the noble hope he's expressed. I disagree with Belly about who causes political parties to be the way they are, even though I'll admit that politicians have gone on the record occasionally (mostly on leaving office) resignedly confessing that the voters taught them to be what they are or they won't get elected. Hip pocket voting nerve. I've run for parliament twice, and I learned that the hard way, and had to adjust my view of it all without becoming cynical or one of the lads guaranteed of pre-selection.

The work to be done is to get debate going, and to air views that go against the tripe we get indoctrinated with - post-modernist waffle and 'money-and-security-mean-everything' rot. In other words, to dismantle the constipated materialistic society we've glued together to represent very little when push comes to shove. We need a broad broom in education and to put the humanities back on top of the garbage being taught in universities in a dumbed-down Australia.

Belly's 'revelation' is what I call the bleedin' obvious. What's not obvious is how a decent party can be put on legs, as needs to happen badly if we're to advance as a civilisation. Bob Menzies managed it, if we want a local example that was only slightly flawed. Don Chipp did it, and it was only flawed later by egos on the rampage, which could have been prevented if a real leader had presented in time. Chavez is doing alright now in Venezuela after the plutocrats got him out of office temporarily - illegally - until the people jacked up right across the country. The Swedes always get it right because they aren't weighted-down by cynics who know how to whine but have nothing constructive to say.

Go for it, Arjay. We need more Australians like you. You actually have a vision (are you sure you're one of us?)

CJ

I am constantly amused - and sometimes bemused - by the examples used by posters here to support their positions.

So, thank you Calamity James, for your contribution to my early afternoon chuckle.

>>What's not obvious is how a decent party can be put on legs... Bob Menzies managed it... Don Chipp did it... Chavez is doing alright now in Venezuela after the plutocrats got him out of office temporarily - illegally... Swedes always get it right<<

Wow, what a mixture. You certainly cannot be accused of blind Party loyalty, CJ.

But seriously. However much I agree - and I most certainly do - that a new approach to politics is vitally necessary for our long-term survival, your choice of poster-children sends out nothing but confusing signals.

Menzies formed a party that was viable only in a Coalition. The Liberal vote only ever exceeded the Labor vote on two occasions - out of a possible (Reps and Senate) twenty-nine occasions. He is remembered, if at all, for his visceral anti-communism.

Chipp formed a party that actually could have made a difference.

But didn't.

The Democrats held the balance of power in the Senate for twenty-five years, during which time they had a negligible impact on the passing or withholding of key big-Party legislation.

What a wasted opportunity.

Chavez - now that's a crack-up.

Chavez is a dictator, pure and simple, ruling by presidential decree.

"Within hours of a presidential decree on January 8th [2010] devaluing the currency by up to 50%, long queues formed outside household-appliance shops in Caracas"

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15287355

Remember, CJ, you were talking about "how a decent party can be put on legs".

And Sweden is actually a country, not a political party.

Just thought I'd mention it.

It makes my day to find that I've got a laugh somewhere.
It's something only political parties can normally manage
but at our great expense. By legs I mean up and running
according to its original objectives. Do you honestly see
Labor as a worker's party any more? Why the Lierals are called
that I don't know when Conservative is the truth of its advertising.
I was Bob Menzies preferred waiter at the Canberra Rex. He was
a good bloke, and his politics was genuinely middle of the road.
Labor are a bit like rats only there are some things rats won't do.

Sweden is the world's archetypal socialist state. It works well.
They're disgusted by our health system, as I am. The party that
managed that is the Swedish Socialists, of course. I thought it
was obvious. Their education system makes ours look like an
amateur production. The Swedes chucked out their old Constitution
about sixteen years ago and started from scratch. Can you imagine
that happening here? Well, Perry lad, it's the lack of education
here that prevents such an adult communal act. Still want to laugh
about Sweden?

Chavez did a Kiwi by telling the Yanks where to get off. Gutless
Australia gets down on padded knees to lick their boots and other
parts. Chavez's party has bigger testicles than our shabby bunch.
It, not Chavez, threw off the dictatorship you incorrectly attributed
to him. It was the people who got him back into power after the
pro-Yank plutocrat coup. Chavez dictator? Do you only read Yank papers?

If we got a Chavez here I wouldn't just vote for him I'd join him.
All of our ex-PMs complain that when you get into the big chair you
can't do anything more than a backbencher (which is suck up to the
real people who run Australia). We're in big trouble, and the luck
has run out. Running out of oil will give us Hell shortly, but not
nearly as much as our running out of luck.

Walk with me arjay and hear what I say.
I never once questioned your right to think as you will.
I often however do say you are not even near mainstream in your thoughts.
Your new fan should read your print history before getting in your harness team.
Do you understand basic politics?
That todays ALP is not in any way the one that started this party?
That Liberals are no longer the party that Menzies started.
Both have evolved, had conservatives not swallowed up policy's of one nation and sabotaged it, it may have been a third, always last, party, nationals, greens all have only to win support to be that party.
Even to become one of the two who always will be in the final say the ones to rule.
Threads are getting less linked to reality every day, politically illiterate and such, your thoughts all we need is another way.
We , you and I walk into party meetings and can become ministers, reality is you will never be happy but mate,,,,the sky is not falling

Calamity James thanks for the accolades but myself like most are just a small cog in the machine.You served Mezines a drink,well I served M Fraser one when he was PM.He was and is a very arrogrant man.I have no time for him.

Whether you like or hate Monckton is irrelevant.Without him we would not have know of the secret agenda for a dictorial world govt.Had Monckton not warned us and had climategate not happened,we and the US would be slaves to this Green communist world Govt.It is not over yet,they are still pushing for carbon taxes and derivatives.Note that the Green movement is heavily financed by the corporates.Sections of the corportate world do not care whether it is a communist Govt or facist.They will still make money via socialised medicine since the tax payer is forced to buy more than they need via so called free medical.Socialist medicine is good for the pharmaceutical companies.

There is an internet underground fighting for freedom.Monckton has done extensive interviews with Alex Jones in the USA, has close contacts with Alan Jones here.I notice that A Jones' attitude change a lot in the last 12 mnths.Monckton may be a good catalyst to spark off a new political movement that unites all these various movements.Monckton is very articulate and good on his feet.It does not mean he will be some grand leader.The important part will be the formulating of the constitution.

Many people on this site cannot work me out.I'm a great fan of John Pilger because he is one of the few journos that has the courage to speak the truth.I don't agree with his socialists views but he believes in freedom and has integrity.

I probably won't live long enough to see it happen,but I live in hope that our children will see a fairer system evolve.

I'm not sure we're on the same page, Calamity James.

>>I was Bob Menzies preferred waiter at the Canberra Rex. He was
a good bloke, and his politics was genuinely middle of the road.<<

You said you were looking for a Party that is "up and running according to its original objectives." Are the Liberals still "middle of the road", like their founder?

>>Sweden is the world's archetypal socialist state. It works well.<<

There are seven political parties in the Riksdag. Which of those did you have in mind as a model?

>>Still want to laugh about Sweden?<<

I certainly have been there often enough to know that I would prefer to live here. Personal tax rates through the roof - about 60% higher than Australia's. And over ten bucks for a glass of beer? Not for me.

Any President who abolishes the limits on his term of office is a dictator. Chavez did just that last year. And now rules by personal decree.

You may admire his cojones as much as you like. But his actions have little to do with the "political party" he set up in order to get elected.

>>If we got a Chavez here I wouldn't just vote for him I'd join him.<<

I'm sure he'd enjoy adding another sycophant to the team.

As I said before, the politicians/Parties you used to support your "if only we could be like them" position are completely inconsistent.

They seem more about hero-worship than anything else.

I am afraid I only see more evidence of lost and isolated opinion in your post arjay.
And I still firmly, think our party's evolve to follow voters, are in fact different party's than those of yesterday with the same name.
Truly I am stunned true, that any one can put fears of a communist or socialist one world government on the table.
To think one is possible surely is strange.
Capital controls us and if ever we got such a government, I do not know if it would be so bad, it would still be in charge.
Facts.
election Australia 2010.
ALP and Rudd with an increased majority.
Do you think, even a small bit? voters do not know what they are doing?
Alan Jones?what can I say he wrote speech's for his party of choice Liberals, is as unbalanced as Piers Ackerman, and not worth listening to, unless you are looking for a grin.

Belly the communist world Govt was on the agenda.Go to Monckton's site
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ It was hidden in the Copenhagen Treaty and Rudd according some,was involved in writing it.The carbon taxes were going to used to finance it.Guess what Belly,neither you or I would have a vote in the decisions they would make.

It was to be the New Wrold Order heralded by GHW Bush back in 1992.

Jesus said an unrepentant heart and unless your mind is renewed by the word that you can't possibly understand let alone see the kingdom of God. Everyone is lost so without a change of direction and mind we all continue wandering around lost in our own thoughts. ALL have sinned and fallen short. There is Nothing we can do "except" believe in the finished work of the cross and trust in Jesus even in his name. Man hasn,t got the answers in his own ability or experience even if he is foolish enough to think he has. Third world countries did nothing for the Y2K2 bug because they did not have the money. I am ashamed to say the sun still rose out of the east the next day and all of man,s efforts accounted for nothing. Copenhagen has come and gone and the sun still rises from the east. Our pastor died on friday night aged 56 which only proves Gods word that nobody knows the hour or the day he will die. Kev did everything humanly possible to manage his life but he went the way we all will go. so it does not matter what we believe Gods word is true.So if we want the blessing instead of the curse we have to humble our self and do it Gods way. All of mans ways without God finish in death. The only thing we have control of is our choices and they determine our final destination. So I give you again Jesus new commandment, put God first and love one another.

Richie 10,finding solace in religion is all good and well,but it will not change a thing unless we the people stand up and fight for our freedoms.Brave Heart,"They can take our lives but will never take our freedoms!" That is the basic urge in all good men and women,since without it,we cannot develop to a higher level of consciousness.

A nation of obedient drones is impotent,boring and in the throes of decay.We should never let a good GFC go to waste.This is a time when the pendulum of fairness can swing back in favour of ordinary folk.

Dear Ajay,
I do not find solice in religion I look to Jesus for abundant life not an igsistance. King David was a man after Gods own heart and a very human man, a warior and tactition in the art of warfare so I am sure you misunderstand God and his relationship with man . Christians are not diferent only forgiven by the finished work of Jesus not by works that we might boast. God does not condenm he gives hope for abundant life on earth and eternal life in the life to come and we perish from lack of knowledge. when we chose to follow man we take our fate in our own hands . Knowledge does not just come you must seek it out. Education is not confined to the class room , If you are not continuly expanding your knowledge you are ill equipt to live the abundent life and are dying for the saying if you don't use it you lose it is true.If God has called Lord Munkton to start a new political party it will susceed otherwise it will wither on the vine.
Richie10

What a fascinating glimpse into the biblical mind, Richie 10.

>>King David was a man after Gods own heart and a very human man, a warior and tactition in the art of warfare<<

That's a beautifully primitive image. You are imagining that a warrior-king is a "man after God's own heart", as if God has specific preferences.

The Romans had the same approach to their gods, picturing them in different situations as being all-seeing and all-powerful. They too prayed to them for help, and imagined that they were, fundamentally, simply amplified versions of humans.

"Mars for example was the god of war. This meant he was good at fighting and it meant that he had most of all the soldiers at heart. A Roman soldier would hence most likely pray to Mars for strength in battle."

http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html

Remarkably similar to your own view, "a warrior and tactitian in the art of warfare". Could be the same guy, really.

One of the more impressive aspects of the pantheist approach was the lack of friction between the gods and their worshippers. You wouldn't find anyone boasting of the superior power of his chosen favourite, or beating up anyone who didn't share his preference.

It is also quite encouraging that we now consider these beliefs to be somewhat odd. To think that people, in their everyday life, used to sacrifice animals to their chosen god, seems bizarre. There is every likelihood that future generations will come to think of the present obsessions with different variants of religion, and the rituals that attend them, as equally bizarre.

After all, there is an identical lack of logic in worshipping one god, as there was in worshipping multiples of them.

As Richie 10 says, in his own unique way...

>>If you are not continuly expanding your knowledge you are ill equipt to live the abundent life<<

I'll buy that.

Errr... I know your heart is in the right place in the war against political corruption, Arjay.

But you need to be careful with your slogans.

>>Brave Heart,"They can take our lives but will never take our freedoms!That is the basic urge in all good men and women..."<<

Braveheart was a movie. Those words represent the basic urge of Hollywood scriptwriters to manipulate their audience.

Hollywood romances are not reality, Arjay. Even though Wallace is undoubtedly a significant character in Scottish history, very little is actually known of the man, let alone anything he might have said.

The earliest record of Wallace was in the form of a poem, written some two hundred years later by Blind Harry, a writer of heroic couplets. The Hollywood scriptwriter of his time, if you will.

The script of Braveheart was even more manipulative of history.

In his pre-battle speech, Wallace is heard to refer to a hundred years of oppression, whereas in fact that century was almost entirely peaceful between the English and the Scots. It was only in 1296, a year before Stirling Bridge, that Edward I decided to revive the English claims to overlordship of Scotland.

The movie also describes an affair between Wallace and Isabelle (Isabella) of France, hinting that she was pregnant with a son who would become Edward III of England.

Aaaah, romance.

Unfortunately for the happy-ending-seekers, i) Isabella was nine years old at the time, ii) was living in France, and even Blind Harry didn't mention Wallace ever left Scotland and iii) Edward III was born in 1312, while Wallace was executed in 1305.

The thing about history is that it is real. It is occasionally captured in documentaries, but they are extremely rarely told from any objective standpoint. Compare the different versions of the Battle of Waterloo, for example. The only reality of Braveheart was that Mel Gibson is an actor of some considerable talent.

>>A nation of obedient drones is impotent,boring and in the throes of decay.<<

Not necessarily. The Third Reich was big on obedience. But hardly impotent or boring.

Dear pesticle,
Do you have children. If you do you know the fathers heart. So you do not have to guess or speculate any more.
Richie 10

Pericles, Hitler and the 3rd Reich evolved because because the banksters and the rest of the West demanded reparations for WW1.

They sent Germany into the depths of depression.Hitler however was very smart.He sacked the banks backed by the Rothchilds and created his own national bank.The international Banksters tried to stop Germany from trading with other countries by not recognising his new currency,but Hitler was too smart for them,he simply engaged in bartering with his trading parteners and circumvented their perverted monopoly money scams.

Independant sovereign capital does pay,since it is only a manifestation of the wealth that already exists in your own people.

That's a very strange observation, Richie 10

>>Do you have children. If you do you know the fathers heart. So you do not have to guess or speculate any more.<<

Yes, I have children.

But I haven't the faintest notion what you mean by "know the father's heart" in this context.

And as for guessing or speculating, I was doing no such thing.

Simply observing that according to you, your God was a warrior, just like Mars.

>>King David was a man after Gods own heart and a very human man, a warior and tactition in the art of warfare<<

Or Ares, if you prefer the Greek version.

I found it an interesting idea, that was all.

And Arjay, I was simply commenting on your "nation of obedient drones", and how Hitler's Germany could hardly be accused of being impotent or boring, despite their high level of obedience.

Not a "bankster" in sight.

Dear pericles,
Man is made in the image of God and you are a father. I am assuming you are a man and I am assuming that you love your children so if I assume correctly You have a fathers heart. So if man is made in the image of God we are a spirit as God is Spirit. We are capable of love as God is Love. God does not need an earthern ware vessel to operate in heaven and when he is on earth he operates in and through mankind and we provide the earthern ware vessel. God is a three part being, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Man is a three part being, we are a Spirit who lives in our earth suit {body} and we have a soul {mind, or interlect, will, and emotions}. When we are born again we change prisons and from sin and death to righteousness and life. In saying that God is a god of war you are assuming man created God. Which came first the chicken or the egg. Logic would tell you that to get an egg you must first have a chicken. A twisted mind assumes that we must have had an egg to get the chicken. Jesus is the saviour of our soul [mind] for without a change of heart and a change of mind we can never understand Gods word the bible. I hope I have provided you with something solid to chew or meditate on.
Ps the only sin God can't forgive is total rejection as he has given man free will to pray, not my but thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Richie 10

You're sounding more and more like a pantheist of the Roman persuasion with each post, Richie 10

>>In saying that God is a god of war you are assuming man created God.<<

Exactly. Without the human dimension, war would not - could not - exist. War surely isn't a natural occurrence, is it? Of course, some animals are predators, but that is not the same as "waging war", which is a uniquely human trait.

So by definition, this particular aspect of godship - the image of a warrior - must be of human origin.

It isn't that surprising. "Man-in-god's-image" is not so very different from "god-in-man's-image", when you think about it.

>>A twisted mind assumes that we must have had an egg to get the chicken<<

"Twisted mind"? Richie 10? That's a Creationist view. Are you a Creationist?

>>without a change of heart and a change of mind we can never understand Gods word the bible<<

The obvious question, to me, is "what makes that set of words more believable than all the other sets of words that claim the same thing"?

Worship of the Roman gods fell alongside the extended collapse of their empire. Meanwhile, Christianity was developing its own power structure, entirely dependent upon the achievement and maintenance of political control.

In order to do so, they needed to hold a largely ignorant peasantry in thrall, and turning their scriptures into a mystical talisman was just one aspect of that process.

Music and architecture were two further tools that they used to absolute perfection; a sung Mass in a cathedral would, on its own, be sufficient to convince a people unable to read and write that something pretty special was going on. From there, but a tiny step to instil the right levels of fear, and shazam! A people willing to believe anything you tell them.

It's a story, Richie 10. A very comforting story to a lot of people. A very necessary story also, to those people who find life on this planet bewildering, in the absence of certainty.

But a story nevertheless.

Richie10
Try as I might I fail to see any relevance between your self-referential ramblings and either the topic or the threads you interrupted.
__________________________

King Belly,
While I agree that Arjay at times, can be a little more that the two standard deviations away from the mean, you need to be careful that your reasoning doesn't stray into a different never-land.
Your soap box is a little wonky too.

Mass public opinion too, tends to be unduly simplistic and myopic that doesn't make it correct either. ultimately one needs to have fact, perspective, objectivity on side. Some of you assertions about the labor party aren't exactly substantiated by facts or complete.

As I've pointed out many times organizations ten to make their long term survival and power the primary objectives rather than the interest of the members or the wider public. Both major parties spend an inordinate amount of their time and energy on politicking, both internal and externally. Consequently parties tend to be inefficient and some what mired, often counter productive and somewhat Malthusian.

Their preoccupation tends to be not upsetting the powers that be (status quo), and squabbling over swinging seat. The net result of this is that the public neither the best politicians nor good governance.

On the 22/1/10 the USA supreme court has passed a law that enables the corporates to donate as much money as they want, in order to premote their own cause.In other words it is a free for all in terms of bribing Govt members to comply with their agendas. see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24471.htm

Richie 10 does seem to be saying that God is is reponsible for everything.If life is pre-ordained ,why bother living? It seems man did create god in his own image.The formal religions are all about power of the elites.They are often used as the opiate for the people so they willing suffer more serfdom.

Looking at that decision by the US Supreme Court,it now means that foreign owned companies can now have even more control over Govt.Using that logic,why don't they let the entire planet vote in US elections? This decision is totally against any notions of fair play.
We need to exclude all corporate donations from the political process.Perhaps we need to ban most of the BS advertising and let parties do a limited dollar amount of media presentations.Let them use the internet to present policies and in that way we will get some semblense of intelligence in the democratic system.

Dear Arjay,
God is not responsible for rebelious man. God provided man a way out of rebelion. His son Jesus provided the way back to God, life,and blessing so it is still our choice. My wife was sharing with a woman in financial trouble who was trying to kill her self and my wife pointed out all the reasons she had for keeping going. God never promised an easy road but he promised never to leave us or forsake us. Have you ever read footprints in the sand. It is an incouraging read. Rebelious men see God through the eyes they look at the world. They think they are owed a debt by society so screw first before you are screwed and as you reap what you sew the cycle of rebeliousness continues. The way out of depression is to count your blessings instead of sheep. The mind is the battle ground. All man centred kingdoms will fail. I agree with what Lord Munkton says about the one world government. God called men to lead men back to right relationship with him But rebelion has turned that calling into man centred religion and kingdoms on earth and they will all pass away because God is the giver of life. We only have a short season then our body goes back to dust. My hope is in Jesus. Do you have a hope.
Jesus said"the kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for the joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field."
Whom will he teach knowledge and whom will he make to understand the message? For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little. Yet they will not hear. Still as true today as when the prophet Issiah spoke them.
regards Richie 10

Arjay wrote:
"Christopher Monckton has heralded the concept of a third political force based on individual freedom.He wants this concept to go global."

Ah yes, I've heard Monckton mention this before, which made me lose a tonne of respect for the man!

While billions protest one world government, the typical poly-tick reveals his true colours. The old government scam of problem, reaction, solution.

The Problem:
The watermelons are trying to take over the world under the guise of global warming.

The Reaction:
We must unite the people against these commy red bastards and fight them to the end.

The Solution:
The people must unite under a one world party, a party for the people to thwart this enemy.

One world party for the people, which people might that be?

A few points Arjay, Calamity.

There are plenty of examples of politicians in Australia, who weren't born into wealth. Kevin Rudd's one example, so is Turnbull. By and large, we don't have the same entrenched kind of class system as can be seen overseas.

So when you start hammering on about our evil government being a conspiracy, I can't help but shake my head. I've met quite a few politicians in my time. Aside from developing a somewhat slick approach to conversations, they're still human. Sure, occasionally they're bought by big interests, but I don't view the world as this big plebian mass manipulated by all-powerful schemers.

Power isn't segmented like that. There are the apathetic, who tend not to wield much influence, the alienated fringe groups (look no further than these threads for plenty of examples) then the interested and active, who can and do get involved in decision making.

What's really amusing, is even those who support the case against global warming theory recognise Monckton's a charlatan, which does no credit to those who are taken in by his theatrics. I know that my charlatan siren goes nuts when that wide-eyed goofball starts his ranting.

Consider this: The Australian newspaper has been among those to give the most exposure to anti AGW spokespeople:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/heated-moments-mar-monckton/story-e6frg6zo-1225821369435

"Unfortunately, while Monckton has mastered the best arts of persuasion, he also succumbs to the worst of them when he engages in his made-for-the-stage histrionics. In Copenhagen, when a group of young activists interrupted a meeting, he berated them as Nazis and Hitler Youth. Elsewhere he has called on people to rise up and fight off a "bureaucratic communistic world government monster". This extremist language damages his credibility. More important, it damages the debate. You start to look like a crank when you describe your opponents as Nazis and communists."

Same goes for the "one world government, evil conspiracy" preachers. Honestly. Get a grip, people.

Cause and effect. People don't treat theories such as this as rubbish because they're part of a conspiracy, they treat them as rubbish because they sound like extremist whackjobs.

TRTL. Since when is the Australian News Paper the font of all knowledge? They under the aupices of Murdoch want absolute power.

Monckton had them nailed.He found within the Copenhagen Treaty a number of references hidden within this treaty which K Rudd was a party to.

K Rudd should be charged with treason since we the electorate gave him no authority to sign away our sovereignty to a foreign Govt with no recourse of a vote to deny their intent!

It is more like turn left/right and treason.They have betrayed us under the guise of saving he planet.

Arjay, you state: "TRTL. Since when is the Australian News Paper the font of all knowledge? They under the aupices of Murdoch want absolute power."

Misinterpretation or misrepresentation. I made no comment about them being the font of all knowledge. I pointed out they've been very accommodating to the anti-global warming cause. Far more so than most would be. Look no further than the extreme rhetoric of Janet Albrechtsen. Yet, those who publish the Australian and support such views have pointed out that Monckton's sprays can't be taken seriously because he undermines them with idiotic extreme language.

Though given these other nuggets from your post:

"they... want absolute power"
(really? Do they cackle and stroke white cats too?)

"K Rudd should be charged with treason"
(Golly! Treason! Shazaam! Heck, why not stop there? Lets nail him for crimes against the english language for that bit on 'programmatic specificity'!)

"They have betrayed us under the guise of saving he planet."
(Ah, yes. For their designs on absolute power, right? And who is pulling these puppet strings? I forget, there's so many gosh-darned shadowy groups out there. Is it the Halliburton Cartel, the Freemasons, the RAND corporation, The Rockefellers, the Trilateral Commission, OPEC or all of them? Do I add the IPCC to the list? It's getting a wee bit crowded, but I suppose each time has its villain-du-jour. The IPCC's as creative as any).

Allow me to summarise -

My contention: Ridiculous language like Monckton's damages his credibility. And those who mimic him.

'Course, he could just call his opponents fascists under the pay of the one-world-government-conspiracy now couldn't he... which is precisely my point.

Dear Turn Right then Left,
There are only 2 master puppeters yanking our strings. One for good, one for evil. Is that to simple to understand. Good is God. Evil is the old crud satin. We have a choice who we allow to yank our string. It is said "by their fruit you shall know them". Words have power of life and death. Out of the mouth the abundance heart speaks and only God knows the heart of man. There is a law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I am unsure of the understanding of this law and its origin or who discovered it. I know Sir Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity. Christopher Columbus proved King Solomon that the world is round. Maybe you might know who discovered it and what is the law called.

It's Newton's Third Law, Richie 10.

>>There is a law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I am unsure of the understanding of this law and its origin or who discovered it<<

It goes like this.

"Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force -F on the first body. F and -F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction"

Incidentally, Newton didn't "discover" gravity. That honour goes to Ugg, who threw a stone at a sabre-toothed tiger, then watched in horror as an external force dragged it to the ground before it was able to strike its target. His widow called this force "gravity", because of its grave consequences for Ugg.

I'm sure we are wandering even further from the theme of this thread, but this is irresistible.

"Good is God. Evil is the old crud satin"

I always had my suspicions about satin.

Too glossy. Too shiny. Altogether too... sensual to be good.

The fact that there is a fetish site for satin-lovers says it all - I won't post the URL, as you probably are already familiar with it.

And this will have me puzzling for weeks

>>Christopher Columbus proved King Solomon that the world is round<<

The puzzle, of course, is not what the sentence means - although that is, you have to admit, somewhat obscure.

But what on earth possessed you to write it in the first place.

By the way, Arjay. In picking Monckton as your latest hero, you are carrying on your fine tradition of selecting people with one apple short of a barrowload.

Dear Pericle,
Many on OLO put the blame on God for the bad things that happen in this world e.g earthquakes, fire, floods, famine. Monckton thinks another man made political party is the answer. I happen to believe we are the problem and Jesus is the answer. We all start on the journey in rebelion. Man was created to caretake this planet (have dominion).To be the gardener and plant in all the planet not just Eden. That calling has never been revoked. When A son walks with his father in the cool of the evening in a loving relationship work is planed and much is acomplished. When the son rebels and choses selfishness and greed, devision destroys the relationship. Education should train people how to think not what to think. God gave us free will it is our choice whether we follow our concience or the lusts of the flesh. I am 66 years old with little formal education but have grown up in the school of hard knocks with many dry gullies and at the lowest point of my life I encountered a man called Jesus and he changed the way I think. I am still in the race of life but train for a marathon not a sprint. I do what I can and trust Jesus for the rest.
I hope this explains my point of view or opinion. If we do things right it works. If we take the easy road there is always a price.
Haiti is a hell of a mess because of wrong choices. the biggest problem was lack of powder and reo in the concrete which is a disaster waiting to happen. So is the glass half full or half empty.

Further and further off-topic we go, Richie 10.

This could be an interesting line of enquiry, though.

>>Many on OLO put the blame on God for the bad things that happen in this world e.g earthquakes, fire, floods, famine.<<

By definition, only those on OLO who believe that there is a God, can do this.

But you yourself "trust Jesus" for all the stuff that is outside your control - as you said, most specifically, "I do what I can and trust Jesus for the rest"

It seems only logical that if you let Jesus take care of all the things that you cannot do yourself - and I fully expect "earthquakes, fire, floods, famine" to fall into this category - then surely he has to take responsibility for the results?

Both good, and bad, no?

Or perhaps he might keep the good stuff for himself, and pass off earthquakes, fire, floods, famine etc. as being the work of the Devil?

But where do you draw the line?

A fire may burn down a few houses, but reinvigorates the bushland - is this the work of Jesus or the Devil? Similarly, was it the Devil who burned down the warehouse, but Jesus who claimed on the insurance policy?

Floods may wash away a few people, but irrigate the surrounding land to bear crops for the next couple of years.

Jesus or Devil?

The problem is, life cannot be conveniently parcelled into neat packages of good and bad.

>>Haiti is a hell of a mess because of wrong choices.<<

Ah, but whose choices were they?

The people who are now buried under a tonne of rubble? The people who will die subsequently from famine or disease?

Or maybe the people who only look up from their newspaper only when there is a disaster in some remote place. The recent Tsunami, perhaps. Or the perennial floods in Bangladesh.

Haiti is in a hell of a mess because i) it is an intensely impoverished country and ii) earthquakes are highly destructive.

http://jeffreyhill.typepad.com/english/2010/01/cartoon-haiti-reconstruction.html

Surely you are not suggesting that being dirt-poor is a choice?

Okay Penticle,
When you have a relationship you bother to get to know the other person and only a fool would trust an unreliable person. As you rightly say people from 3rd world countrys have fewer choices than we have But they can still do what they can and trust Jesus with the rest. When I was young my grandmother instilled in me the value of my word for if you keep your word people respect you. Well the ones I want to respect me are my wife and family not other people. I take Jesus at his word and as he now resides in heaven I only have his word and his Spirit to rely on. That word tells me that we perish from lack of knowledge so it is our job to read and meditate on his word. It is the Holy Spirit's job to teach me the truth or understanding of his word. My wife comes from a 3rd world catholic country where due to lack of knowledge and religious beliefs they did not practice any form of birth control and as a result many poor families had children who starve to death because there is not enough money to go around. So what is the answer, more money or more knowledge. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for a life time.
As they know and trust me I have been successful in implementing family planing with family members. My wife is my best support because I try to keep my word in all things. All we have in life is our name and our word and if we don,t respect that we receive no respect from others. Sowing and rearing.

Pericles, Monckton may be a bit of an opportunist,but his barrow is quite full.I'll gladly use his expertise to get the message across.

Pericles,do you agree with hidden agenda of a world govt bound up within the Copenhagen Treaty.What say you?

Dear Pericle,
I regularly watch Glen Beck because he uncovers what future our politicians are planing.
I love the Lords words to Joshua the son of Nun when they were about to enter the promised land. "Be strong and very courageous,that you may observe to do acording to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to thr right hand or the left, that you may prosper whereever you go. this Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it.For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success, have I not commanded you? Be strong and of good courage; do not be afraid, nor be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.
We do not know the future only our past. If we don't learn from our past we repeat our mistakes. The future is either an adventure we eagerly look forward to or we are afraid and approach with fear and trembling according to what we dwell on in our thoughts.
I spent the day resently with one of my friends having a look at his property. He had an accident and is a quadraplegic. If he dwells on his circumstances he would give up but as we toured about and as he saw what he had acomplished he came alive with energy and hope for the future for the best is yet to come. He chose not to give up but to go on and embrace life to the fullest against all the well meaning advice of others. There are lots of things he no longer can do but he choses to dwell on what he can do. What an encouragement.
If you do not understand what I am talking about you have two choices
1. give up and say "what a bloody idiot".
2. meditate on these words until the understanding comes.
regards Richie 10

My problem with Monckton, Arjay, is that he gives climate scepticism such a bad name.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/10/viscount-monckton-ukip

As for his world government "revelations", they are nothing more than the fantasies of a superannuated chinless wonder with delusions of grandeur.

He has a history of exaggeration and self-promotion.

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Aristocrat-admits-tale-of-lost.3340554.jp

So I'm afraid that he's not the poster-boy for enlightenment that some would have you believe. My only question is how has he succeeded in fooling so many people so quickly?

My own theory is that as a member of the first generation of hereditary peers that does not automatically take a seat in the House of Lords, he feels cheated. Especially galling must have been when he stood for election, and received zero votes.

That must have hurt.

So my advice would be to take everything he says with a healthy pinch of salt.

And I'm sorry, Richie 10, but I'm going to have to bow out of our little chat, as your posts make less and less sense each time. I couldn't quite believe you said this, for example, without comment.

>>He chose not to give up but to go on and embrace life to the fullest against all the well meaning advice of others.<<

Are you seriously suggesting that this poor guy was surrounded by people telling him to give up?

With friends like that, who the hell needs enemies?

Which is pretty much how I feel about Monckton being a climate sceptic.

Dear pericle,
I know because he told me so, and as I was told the same thing when I had a major stroke and was written of by doctors as a dead man walking. Something else my grandma told me, if you are not planing a future you are a dead man ---- walking or existing and that is not life.
From your opinion of Munckton I would hazard a guess that you have a pretty low opinion of other opinions that disagree with yours.
Richie 10

After seeing a TV interview Monckton gave recently, I'm of the opinion he's no better than Al Gore. They're both extreme evangelists, just on opposing edges of the debate. The only good thing about them is they neutralise each other in the debate.

Same with Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin - they only spring to life when their equal and opposites on the Democratic side of politics do. You know the world will be a better and less extreme place when these people act like matter and anti-matter pairs and annihilate each other on contact.

I was only exploring the background to your narrative, Richie 10, I have no reason to believe that it wasn't true.

>>I know because he told me so<<

It just staggers me that people could be so cruel as to tell someone in that position "hey, it's hopeless, just give up".

>>From your opinion of Munckton I would hazard a guess that you have a pretty low opinion of other opinions that disagree with yours<<

Not in the slightest. I was merely observing that there is discomfort in having similar opinions to someone who is so obviously a professional fruitloop.

If only this were true, RobP

>>The only good thing about them is they neutralise each other in the debate.<<

Instead of cancelling each other out, which would be a Good Thing, they encourage people to gravitate to one end of the spectrum of the other. Which is a discomfiting environment for someone not convinced by the extremist position at either end.

If you're pro-Monckton, you're tarred with the brush of "loony denier". If you're pro-Gore, you're a global scaremonger profiting from the creation of a new and unnecessary industry.

Sadly, the chances for a reasonable discussion went out the window years ago.

Pericles,

>>Instead of cancelling each other out, which would be a Good Thing, they encourage people to gravitate to one end of the spectrum of the other.<<

Even if both do encourage people to gravitate to the extreme ends of the spectrum, as long as people do so in equal measure, the debate is still in an overall balance. Yes, the distribution changes and yes, it does become more uncomfortable.

But it's not a lost cause as there may be a good consequence of ordinary people evacuating the middle ground: it opens up the way for some of the movers and shakers to take it and use their position in the establishment more positively. Read: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/be-truthful-on-climate-british-science-boss-john-beddington/story-e6frg6nf-1225824148004

>>Sadly, the chances for a reasonable discussion went out the window years ago.<<

This sad state of affairs could all change if the right people get involved and "drag the frame" so that the debate undergoes a new paradigm. The best thing that can be done now is that science is given the mandate to better understand the uncertainties in climate science and reaches prominence again. Something new has to come into the equation and a proper investigation of the IPCC and its processes might just be it.

Pericles,

Ease up, I used to like froot loops as a child, now its just another spoiled childhood memory.

However, your observations are excellent, this could simply mean I agree with them.

IMO Gore's input was tactically appalling in that his objectives were short focused, much like US presidential campaigns, designed to raise public profile to get over the line. Big on hyperbole, shock and awe.

He 'pushed' public opinion across the 'line', raising the profile of the topic but at the cost of objectivity.

Consequently we have presidential style polarized slag fest. More focused on style and personality than substance.

Likewise Monckton's "contribution?" to the debate is a means to crazier end. Proof positive that a hereditary title and/or privilege is no guarantee to superiority of any kind.

You may have noticed, that I have employed several different techniques to encourage discussion on the observable/provable and the science, in order to tease out addressing the probable consequences of the above, rather than fixating on either absolute. Sadly my skills are lacking.

Pericles,of course the Corporate media will attack Monckton.He has revealed the agenda a world govt owned by them and their financial backers.

You cannot deny it Pericles,it was there in black and white.Copenhagen was to be the nemisis of their New World Order ordained by the noble concept of saving the planet.

The likes of the Rothschilds heavily finance the Green movement.It is all a game.The corporates will back Obama's socialised medicine since the tax payer is then forced to buy their subsidised ,over utilised medicines.Socialism is fine for the Corporates since we are then all forced to buy their products decreed by Govt edict.

David Rockerfeller once said that competition was a sin.The object of all Corporates is to elimate competition.Competition exists only for small business and workers who generate wealth for the elites.

Hey, calm down there Arjay.

>>You cannot deny it Pericles,it was there in black and white.Copenhagen was to be the nemisis of their New World Order ordained by the noble concept of saving the planet.<<

What was there "in black and white"?

And I hate to nitpick, but from the context I don't believe you mean "nemisis"

nemesis
1. something that a person cannot conquer, achieve, etc.: "The performance test proved to be my nemesis".
2. an opponent or rival whom a person cannot best or overcome.
3. (with initial capital letter) the goddess of divine retribution.
4. an agent or act of retribution or punishment."
[Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.]

I suspect you may have intended to write "genesis".

No matter. If you have a reference to the "black and white" part, please don't hesitate to link to it.

Monckton said that World Govt was mentioned several times.It was hidden in stratas of gobbly-de-gook.Once Rudd had signed us up to that treaty,we would have been bound by it's edicts.It would have been the thin end of the wedge.Was there any mention of us voting down their edicts? No! This treaty had nothing to do with democracy!

The next stage will be a world currency owned by guess who? The same Gobal Res Banks who control the UN, Green Movement,World Bank ,IMF and Bank of International Settlements.

Arjay:

"Monckton said that World Govt was mentioned several times.It was hidden in stratas of gobbly-de-gook."

We've already established that many, if not most, consider Monckton a few cans short of a six-pack. So you're going to have to do better than "he said it was mentioned several times."

Kindly point to this "gobbledygook" which allegedly mentions world-government. Because frankly, it sounds to me like the very definition of a cop out.

"Once Rudd had signed us up to that treaty,we would have been bound by it's edicts"

You're proceeding from point A to point B without establishing point A has any credibility.

Which, incidentally, is my main beef with stupid conspiracy theories, and why I feel the need to put an end to this silliness right now.

Consider Rudd for example. At what point, was the lad from Nambour, brainwashed into a global conspiracy? He's already the leader of a country. Kindly explain the *benefit* of joining some international secret cabal?

How did this induction look, hmm? Did they sit him down at a table and come in wearing robes? Was it more of a sooper-dooper-secret blackmailing affair?
And more importantly, how did they manage to coordinate the legion of co-conspirators? Same goes for 9/11 and this JFK rubbish. Honestly people, how wide is this ridiculous cabal?
And how can you honestly believe that all the media and government circles just go along with these things?

Are you honestly that divorced from reality? Hundreds of thousands of public servants, journalists, politicians and public figures are just what, going along for the ride?

Anyhow, I'm clearly off on a tangent. My apologies.

Arjay, before proceeding to points B then rushing to Y and Z, kindly provide something to validate point A.

Monckton is dead wrong about Global Warming, but I think there is a large grain of truth in his claim that Global Warming is being used as an excuse to further the interests of some of the the global corporate elite, particularly with the Emissions Trading System scam.

A good many who reject Monckton's views on Anthropogenic Global Warming also reject the ETS as a solution.

These include NASA scientist James Hansen (http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100113/people-vs-cap-and-tax) and David Spratt (http://climatecodered.blogspot.com) author of "Climate Code Red".

For further information, see also http://candobetter.org/taxonomy/term/10 http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/01/29/my-response-to-moncktons-conspiracy-theory/

---

TurnRightThenLeft wrote, "Same goes for 9/11 and this JFK rubbish".

The same does NOT go for 9/11 and the JFK assassination. Anyone who claims to accept the official accounts of either of these events is either a complete fool or a corporate/government shill.

This has been shown conclusively, amongst many other places, in the forum discussion "JFK.E Howard Hunt Ex CIA, Accuses LBJ" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=19 and "9/11 Truth" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=83

Hey, here's something we can agree on, daggett

>>A good many who reject Monckton's views on Anthropogenic Global Warming also reject the ETS as a solution.<<

Hooray. It took some finding, but there it is.

ETS will fail to achieve any of the goals set for it, except to make a huge wad of cash for the Traders.

In fact, it is almost designed to fail.

Apart from the simple concerns about leakage, which in themselves will establish an enormous grey market based on "emission arbitrage", there is the straightforward stupidity of taxing emission at source, rather than at the end-user.

Reducing demand, as opposed to restricting supply, has always been a far more effective - and far less corruptible - means to control markets.

But it is sadly a question no longer open to logic, having been solidly buried in political gamesmanship and policy horse-trading.

It's not going to be pretty.