Friday 12th February 1999


This on-line paper is now archived for perpetuity in the National Library of Australia

Subscriber's password check (have your subscription number handy)
Subscribers get free access to the monthly "The Strategy" on-line from April 1998.

Current topical links (available to all readers):
[Links to the MAI]
[One Nation on-line DISCUSSION forum] [One Nation Web Site]
HAVE YOU ORDERED:
[MURDER BY MEDIA, DEATH OF DEMOCRACY IN AUSTRALIA]

from an Aussie's viewpoint on Australia's first daily Internet newspaper.
Since October 1995

Academic to denigrate Hanson in public forum

A Dr Kaye Saunders is presenting a paper on Wednesday 17th February 1999 at 1pm at The Old Museum Theatre in South Brisbane. (Recommend that you arrive early at about 12.30pm)

Dr Saunders reportedly derogatory presentation is entitled "The Iconography of Pauline Hanson".

It is a public forum at The Old Museum on the corner of Grey and Melbourne streets.

For those of you who attended the "Centre for Democracy at the University of Queensland's" forum on One Nation last year this could be a nice appetizer for 1999.

Hanson puts indecisive MPs on notice

Pauline Hanson yesterday told the two MPs, Jeff Knuth and John Kingston, still considering whether to leave One Nation or not to make up their minds by tonight.

She also tackled the One Nation MPs who had turned their backs on the party.

She expressed surprise that the three MPs, Dorothy Pratt, Shaun Nelson and Ken Turner had not talked to her before making their decision.

She was particularly annoyed with the One Nation MP for Barambah, Dorothy Pratt, who she had believed that she had a good relationship with.

"Dorothy could phone me at any time. She could get in touch with me at any time. I always made myself accessible. She never raised a word about any concerns with the party. Not a word. None at all. Dorothy was always very strong with me on these issues, but she stood by me in my role as leader of the party.

"I believe that the three who resigned have been fed wrong information. I don't believe they've really sat down and read the constitution themselves or understood it.

"Maybe if they had taken the time to sit down with me as state president and leader of the party and gone through it sentence by sentence and I had had the opportunity to explain to them why, then their questions may have been answered. But I wasn't given that opportunity.

"I don't believe the concern was there in the first place.

"The people who are picking us to pieces on this constitution, trying to find problems with it, are people who are dissidents within our organisation - people with an agenda to destroy One Nation and divide us. Some people have an agenda out there to destroy One Nation by whatever means they have."

One Nation state parliamentary leader Bill Feldman added, "A lot of these concerns were always there and out there in the branches.

"But the focal point came when the constitution arrived and the branches voiced their concerns about that."

Feldman added that he did not expect "the ramifications to come that three members would walk away".

"I outlined to the national executive our concerns and in the space of two days felt we received the answer that was needed. The trouble is a couple of them (MPs) chose to say they couldn't accept someone's word that these things were going to be done. Dome people seemed more predetermined to push the agenda rather than seek conciliation."

This is what Dorothy Pratt wrote in her resignation letter dated 3rd February 1999:

To Pauline Hanson, David Oldfield, David Ettridge.

As per my conversation with David Oldfield today at 2.31pm, I hereby give written confirmation of my resignation from Pauline Hanson's One Nation, effective immediately.

My concerns and those of the other One Nation members of the Queensland Parliament with regard to the undemocratic draft constitution were treated with contempt and derision by David Oldfield.

This confirms my fears that the opinions of the above One Nation members, who are merely conveying the concerns of the One Nation branch members of their electorates, are of no consequence to you.

Your belief that the draft constitution is democratic shows me we have vastly different understanding of the meaning of democracy and therefore I can no longer remain a member of Pauline Hanson's One Nation

Your sincerely

Signed

Dorothy Pratt MLA

This is what Dolly wrote in her subsequent press release:

"Yesterday I resigned from the One Nation party.

My stand is a demand to the One Nation executive for democratic practices to apply to One Nation's constitution and the elecetion of any executive. The executive proposes a new constitution but it doesn't solve these problems.

I'm passionate about democratic principles. That's why I am about to introduce the "Community Referendum Bill 1999" into the Queensland Parliament. At present only politicians can call a referendum. My bill will correct this great anomaly. It will give voters the right to initiate a new law or veto an existing or proposed law. Because the result is binding on politicians they will finally have to do as people tell them.

Right above Dorothy Pratt and Pauline Hanson at the press conference announcing the launch of the Community Based Referendum policy last year.

Of course Dolly's inference that the Community Referendum Bill was "her idea" and will now somehow be drawn out of the sack "because she is an independent" is palpable rubbish.

You can see the truth of the origin of this idea of giving people a voice at this link.... and coverage of the press conference here.

The censorship of "Murder by Media" ripples through the net.

Here is an extract from this press release by Truth in Media:

Only a few weeks ago, for example, we told you about a new book being released in Australia whose title is "Murder by Media;" sub-title - "Death of Democracy in Australia;" by Scott Balson, with your TiM editor contributing the "American Chapter" to it . Ever since, the book has enjoyed brisk sales around Australia through, Dymocks, a national book store chain. Until this Tuesday, that is…

A Sydney-based friend of a Western Australian friend had recommended the book for her to read. But when the WA friend tried to order it from Dymocks, she discovered that the book had been pulled off their shelves. "Dymocks bookstores withdrew the book from their bookshelves around Australia on Tuesday (Feb. 9) on the direct instruction of Chairman, John Forsyth," said the author Scott Balson, in a Feb. 11 press release. "The book had been sold by Dymocks for nearly three weeks before this surprising decision."

The press release below was sent to over 50 mainstream Australian media by email yesterday afternoon. Not one response either by email or phone has been received. The case of censorship against this book is becoming a deafening noise - lost in the absence of the media blackout.

Such is the state of Australia's media today. Press release:

Dymocks bookstores withdrew the book "Murder by Media, Death of Democracy" from their bookshelves around Australia on Tuesday morning on the direct instruction of Chairman John Forsyth. The book had been sold by Dymocks for nearly three weeks before this surprising decision. (The book was launched on Friday 22nd Janaury - a well publicised event which was boycotted by the Australian media.)

Despite sending a fax to Dymocks yesterday requesting an explanation none has as yet been received.

The official reason given by Dymocks to the branches was that the book was temporary being withdrawn for "legal reasons" while the company lawyers checked the contents.

As the author and distributor of the book, as the sole director of the company publishing the book, Interactive Presentations Pty Ltd, I can say that no complaint, legal or otherwise, has been made to me since the launch.

Scott Balson, Author

Ph: 07 3201 1353

Overview of the book can be seen at:
The book can still be ordered from this page.

For the record here are the recipients of the above email: ausleter@ozemail.com.au ausletr@matp.newsltd.com.au editorial@theage.com.au letters@sml.com.au vincent@journalism.ss.rmit.oz.au sundayhs@newscorp.com.au dtmletr@matp.newsltd.com.au suntele@mail.matp.newsltd.com.au cmletters@qnp.newsltd.com.au smletters@qnp.newsltd.com.au advedit@ozemail.com.au mailedit@ozemail.com.au mercuryedletter@trump.net.au gwb@gwb.com.au plexus@netlink.com.au alptimes@netc.net.au amorison@theage.fairfax.com.au amrmail@margaret-river.com.au reporter@ix.net.au info@ausdaily.net.au edletters@afr.fairfax.com.au newsdesk@bendigoaddy.com.au bmmed@albury.net.au editor@echo.net.au webitor@canberratimes.com.au courier@netconnect.com.au jfarynski@dcn.com.au electric@electric.on.net mail@examiner.com.au fnile@parliament.nsw.gov.au srswann@rpl.com.au lteditor@magna.com.au corinnem@lgfocus.aus.net journo@glgadvertiser.com.au rgarrad@suncoast.com.au johnjoh@onthenet.com.au briant@wn.com.au info@inddaily.com.au frepress@enternet.com.au mail@examiner.com.au review@nor.com.au rfrieden@sun.big.net.au rodnie.merc@trump.net.au editor@riverland.net.au gjackson@labyrinth.net.au newclet@mail.fairfax.com.au edstar@nor.com.au diocese@parra.catholic.org.au rgarrad@suncoast.com.au editor@postnewspapers.com.au tqi@mailbox.uq.edu.au qt@gil.com.au helpdesk@www.sheppnews.com.au independent@shoal.net.au sprem@magna.com.au editor@standard.net.au fbis@mail.fairfax.com.au sso.editorial@rainbow.net.au kimtorch@ozemail.com.au a.marshall@media.unimelb.edu.au thediary@vicnet.net.au editor@standard.net.au kim@perth-wa.com hotmetal@powerup.com.au gwoods@tassie.net.au ypct@katina.mdx.net.au 

Ted Ive's letter

Dear Editor,

The letter from Ted Ives states the matter very well and I have no conflict with its message. However I feel his reference to "Our One nation ploiticians....." might have been stated more effectively, by referring to the elected members of ON as "Our One Nation citizen legislators......"

Since politics became a full time career field in our so-called democratic countries, this career field has produced professional politicians in your country, mine and others who by their actions have degraded the quality of life for everyone except themselves, whenever and wherever they hold sway.

By maintaining the bona fide, unique status of citizen legislators(s), the One Nation members who are elected to public office maintain the strength required to turn the professionals out of their offices. By becoming politicans and joining that political career field, the One Nation citizen legislators lose their unique strength and become nameless faces in the crowded arena!

The activities of One Nation and its members, elected and unelected are watched by caring citizens the world over, usually with envy and cheers because ON is doing something to fix the problems, and restore the quality of life! Please keep us cheering!

Sincere best wishes to One Nation and its loyal members.

john hamilton - USA

Weak individuals

Hi Scott,

Thanks for the email. There are many of us out here who have lived long enough to recognise the treachery of weak individuals who don't have the courage to follow their convictions and who are swayed by the never ending tirade of opposition to the truth. However I have faith that "real" Australians will remember why they fell in behind Pauline in the first place and that's why they can never go back to the hypocrisy of the two party monopoly. Anyone who isn't aware of the need for a solid resistance against bureaucratic thievery is either too young to remember the harm already done or too old to care............

Ned

Treacherous MPs

I for one, will still vote One Nation. The Nationals are suited to picking up traitorous defectors; they are aligned with the Laboural traitors anyway. I voted for the One Nation principles and the two Davids and Hanson. The founders are the greatest asset of any party; they are the anchor that stops the drift by the currents of subversive elements and infiltrators.

Russell

Strong views

I've been overwhelmed with anger and disappointment at the treatment that Pauline Hanson has had to endure. This piece of poetry best sums up

my feelings on the issue.

Political Correctness 11/2/1999

Where are all the icons?
Where are all the men?
Where are all the heroines?
I smell a rat.

Spineless trendies everywhere,
and pseudo-intellects.
Have another cafe latte,
And betray your thoughts with words.

They love their Multiculturalism,
But show me where it works?
All I've seen is bloodshed,
Words fail my Rage!

In this brave new world,
Where people deny history,
The Dollar is the only God,
And the 3rd World is our future.

So betray your life and culture,
Betray your children's future.
One day you'll wake up in a warzone,
And you'll say; 'I'm sorry Pauline'.

Campbell MacKinnon,
Adelaide, South Australia.

New World Order

Hi Scott,

Well it seems that historical personage, Adolf Hitler has been getting a bit of exposure here lately so I'd like my 2 bobs worth.

In response to Philip Madsen, no WW2 was not the first attempt by the NWO to take over, nor was it AN attempt to take over, since the forces we have chosen to call the NWO had already planned a series of 3 wars before WW1 started.

When Hitler's star seemed to be rising the NWO freaks infiltrated their agents into the NDSAP because in Hitller's new party and particularly in the man himself they saw the perfect vehicle to initiate WW2. They spread their poison into the party by the age old means of GOLD. This was often done by anonymous donation or wilfull distortion as to the truth of the origins by these agents provocateur. Hitler was not aware of the extent of his manipulation and if he ever did learn it was obviously too late.

In the Immigration debate within this forum Jack Quin has said "but we can't just say it all, or can we?". Well I'm not sure as to the answer to that one Jack, I can only say I have not told a tenth of what I know yet.

Have a Good day.
David Morgan.

The Disaster of Economics

Looking for the origins of economic thought, presently one of the most worrying belief systems, we find that its basic beliefs were formulated following the First Law. Thus the implications of the Second Law escaped its notice. To this day economists deny its existence. Economics maintains that one creates wealth (for humans, of course) if one takes energy and material and makes them into things. The First Law confirms that this can be done. Although the increase in entropy of the energy and material used in production has to appear somewhere, it only has a money value while the product changes hands. While the goods have substantially lost their worth after purchase (when they are no longer "new"), the money, that was used to pay for them, is reused at full face value. Ten dollars are always ten dollars, first as someone's wages, then for a book, then for paper and ink and then for someone else's wages. The process continues.

While the value of money is constant in transaction after transaction, the goods that are exchanged carry the increase in entropy every time. Every time something is made, sold and used, at least half of the available input is made unavailable for further use and has to be discarded. Applying the Unified Law as proposed shows that no exchange is possible unless the quality of some material or energy is made less available, its entropy increased. That, say, ten dollars (or money in general) has the power to secure access to ten dollars worth of merchandise in perpetual utility, irrespective of how often it is used, leads to the perception that money is a store of wealth and of power. It secures low entropy goods over and over. The more often it is turned over, the more "wealth it creates". That leads to the belief that trade is good.

In reality, however, there is a connection between a nation's resource assets and its wealth or poverty. A nation's economic activity, by converting assets in "creating wealth", does impact on its perceived resource wealth. Economists deny this. The connection is made, however, through the loss of purchasing power of a nation's currency, its inflation rate (Weissmann, 1996). The exploitation of resource assets (minerals, fossil fuels, arable land, clean air and water), and their conversion into waste products, that have to be excreted into the surrounding environment, is recognised as "environmental impact". There can be no economic activity without such impact.

Economics can be useful as an instantaneous instrument for the exchange of goods in a quasi barter situation, where goods with some low entropy content are traded against others with similar qualities. Where money or credit or some other economic instrument is used as an independent measure of value, the Second Law quickly asserts its influence. For instance, a nation that exports its non-renewable fuels for money should realise that it aids the recipient nation to pillage the planet. It subsidises the recipient nation's existence, while it puts its own future in jeopardy. It deprives itself of the low entropy material so lost. If the foreign exchange earned by that trade is used to pay interest on debt, then the transaction is a total loss to the nation in entropic terms.

Human "wealth creation" takes place at an entropic cost to the surrounding world from which the energy and materials are derived. Every time we make something, the quality of some energy or material is decreased, i.e. entropy is increased. It is the predatory action of humans, as of any form of life, on the environment. Where it employs non-renewable fuels, it is not sustainable. To "arrest degradation of the environment", the aim of the political Green movement, is also not possible but often attempted, particularly under present economic rules, because economists don't know what entropy is and neither does any government.

Thus, as a philosophy based entirely on the First Law, economics has no perception of entropy increase, hence it is in principle unable to accommodate real life processes. On the other hand we see the idea promoted that we can somehow - by collecting bottles, cans and paper, by increasing efficiency, through economic development and better technology - return the world to how it was yesterday, make it sustainable for ever and, some maintain, make its tomorrow better than it is today (Brundtland Report, 1988).

The idea of "sustainability" seems to be connected to anxieties surrounding death. The wish for sustainable existence of humans gives rise to the idea that if only processes could be made reversible, then life would last forever. This assumption is presented by the environment lobby as its guiding principle. It attempts to establish perpetual motion, to arrest ageing and the progress of time.

It would be nice, of course, if the existence of humanity could be less destructive of the resource wealth of its neighbourhoods or conurbations. For a compromise between predatory economic use and Utopian sustainability, some beliefs would have to be changed. Perhaps a more idyllic mindset could be generated by a specific population, if it were to trade a lesser impact on its living space against the joy that might be had from "ecological balance", the balance between its happy existence and the solar energy harvest within that living space. The necessary negative feedback that would have to be provided to control excesses of individual wealth accumulation, would necessarily come from some local government with the same level of understanding or intelligence. Until that principle is accepted, a greater degree of sustainability is unlikely to be achieved.

Russell

from the global office:

Another perfect day in paradise.

Have a good one.

This Ring Name site is owned by One Nation. Want to join the One Nation ring? [Skip Prev] [Prev] [Next] [Skip Next] [Random] [Next 5] [List Sites]

exclusive to  (how to) subscribe/rs of the Australian National News of the Day:

One Nation "split" - 6th February 1999
Paff and the red light - 3rd February 1999
Launch of "Murder by Media, Death of Democracy in Australia" - 22nd to 24th January 1999
One Nation's Queensland State Conference - 27th to 29th November 1998
Dual Citizenship and politicians- 20th November 1998
Where Prize Turkeys Gather - 17th November 1998
A time with Heather Hill - exclusive interview with One Nation's first Federal Representative - 25th October 1998
A day with Pauline - exclusive interview after the Federal Election - 22nd October 1998
It's YOUR ABC? - 17th October 1998
The Federal Election - 3rd October 1998

Return to Australian National News of the Day

#

See GLOBE International for other world news.