There has been a dramatic increase in both suicide and murder-suicide dads since the mid-1970s.

In terms of causative factors, these fall well outside the archetypal narcissist Christian psychopathic type so beloved of Hollywood, and if we are to understand and ameliorate the causes we must recognise more explicable contexts than ideologically-censored social science permits.

America and Australia have two genres in common and it is possible that these are also related to the horrifying increase in massacres.

War Syndrome: Wars emotionally and psychologically cripple around one third of surviving infantry soldiers, and inflict damage on all. Both nations live with the product of WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan; returned soldiers now living as civilians in the mainstream community.

Defence and Health authorities are well aware of the damage sustained by these men but this is actively unacknowledged because politicians have refused to allocate funds for adequate treatment. It is this absence of public accountability that we must focus on, rather than bureaucratic failures, because this directly reflects the wider parallel trend towards decision-making from the top down, rather than the democratic governmental response to electoral sentiment that is our right.

Conditions will continue to deteriorate in this and all other respects, until electorates challenge the century-long propaganda that democracy and representationalism are one and the same thing. They are not.

As Abe Lincoln put it, in such lyrical and very deliberate over-statement, Democracy is Government of the people, by the people and for the people. Representationalism is electing an already pre-selected pawn of the plutocrats to do our thinking for us; a manifestly unwise way to determine our own future. If we reflect that we have just handed our own share of people’s power to corrupt politicians; and remember that power always corrupts, we should anticipate increasing loss of freedom, rights and prosperity.

If we stop to think (who, these days, has time for that?), we will immediately recognise that the much-proselytised phrase representative democracy is in fact an oxymoron.

This lack of electoral influence on Government is also responsible for the source of social dislocation we will next examine.

Casualties of Feminism: Women activists of 1967 to 1970 pursued admirable agendas of equal rights and equal opportunity, which (in Australia and NZ at least) were entirely supported by the majority of men. Disturbed by this evolution of democracy; David Rockefeller and Rupert Murdoch initiated a sustained global media campaign to sabotage the movement.

In tandem with this, they also arranged for the United Nations to develop multi-sourced programmes channelled directly at youth through universities and schools to depress the original women’s objectives and instead pursue aggressive affirmative action. This transferred wealth and social mobility from family men to a select stratum of women; the upper demographic. Women in the lower socio-economic blocs did not benefit.

To appreciate the reversal of moral direction this constituted, it is illustrative to compare this with a hypothetical anti-slavery movement wherein, instead of banning all slavery, roles are simply reversed; with slave owners becoming slaves and slaves becoming slave owners. In other words, a mere shift in power occurred and no moral ground was reclaimed or justice achieved.

Moreover, under the feminist regime, academics who were suitably compliant were very well supported in their publishing endeavours. The author of the Female Eunuch was the most celebrated example. The text of this book was mindlessly one-eyed; it insulted and alienated half of humanity, and revealed the author’s mean-spirited and negative personality. Intellectually, it demonstrated an appalling miscomprehension of human nature. But the book’s cover design was visually brilliant; it’s only redeeming feature.

Young women in UK and Australia have publicly rejected the author, Germaine Greer, for being false and betraying every single principle she claimed to represent. In Australia, her homeland, she dare not return because several thousand Aussie women have stated publicly that they will beat her to a pulp. Other feminists have been similarly reviled, even by their own daughters.

Feminism, as intended, down-valued the role of mothers in birthing, loving and nurturing their children, and it turned men and women against each other: daughter against father, and wife against husband. What for millennia had been men ‘courting’ young ladies suddenly become stalking. Foreplay, in which women did not enunciate a sober and distinct verbal “yes”, became rape if intercourse took place. If couples had sex while inebriated, the female partner was encouraged to prefer charges of rape, and youths actually did prison time for this. History and human nature were both turned on their heads.

The insanity progressed. Little boys who exhibited an ‘unhealthy’ desire to play with toy guns were thrust in the direction of dolls, and traditional girl’s sports such as netball, suddenly had hapless boys thrust onto the court. The message to boys was unmistakably Boys bad; girls good.

By 1975, a campaign to present the natural male/female relationship in marriage as a war of oppression against women was having its effect, and marriage itself was effectively depopularised; if not actually outlawed. The terms husband and wife became the target of derision and revulsion, and women were actively encouraged to rid themselves of their husbands.

The majority of adults harboured serious reservations about these trends, but fear of public and media-driven reprisals prevented a wholesale condemnation of the harm being done to society by feminism. The intimidation continues but now many women are crying, enough! The damage to both men and women has been profound, but the real target of the manipulators was always FAMILY.

One of the functions of Feminism was to depress family incomes. A family income today, with both parents working full time, is now 10% less than it was in 1960, with the male parent the sole breadwinner. The proportionate levelling effect of women entering the workforce gradually eroded the incomes of the average male worker (which is a statistic around 100% different to the average male income of typical social science focus).

Simultaneously, and internationally, economies began to shrink, with wealth sliding rapidly towards the big end of town, and the poverty class expanding exponentially, especially in Australia (which went from zero percentage in poverty to 54% in little more than three decades). Quite apart from supporting parents, the aged and the infirm; twenty percent of people became permanently unemployed, inasmuch as they could not secure a living wage.

In the US this figure is generally accepted as 30%, although many believe the figure now comes closer to 40%.

Obviously, feminism was only one of the factors in the material and social destruction of families; others being tariff removal, FTAs, inequitable taxation regimes, corporate off-shoring and outsourcing, and outrageous increases in migrant and refugee numbers. However, the sources of policies that brought these damaging developments into being, including the sub-prime crisis, were the same… the global banker and corporate plutocrats that control governments through financing of election campaigns. But in terms of damage to families and children, feminism outperformed all other weapons.

Meanwhile, poked and prodded by the media, national cultures continued to encourage women to materialistically value men on the basis of being successful breadwinners. This was immensely destructive for most men and few, when surveyed, could outline a coherent male role in society to which they could realistically aspire. The pulse of male anger was gradually becoming palpable.

This was also a time when the term 'loser' was propounded and proselytised in the media and acronyms such as SNAG slid into currency; promoted as usual by the Murdoch-led media. Using sport as a Trojan horse, the word elitist gained a respectability it had not known since the 1790s.

As far back as 1976, following demands by the United Nations, social security laws were changed to encompass the provision of benefit incomes for women who wished to leave their 'oppressive' husbands; or to not marry at all.

As a welfare officer at that time, I had a running caseload of 100 'supporting mothers', with about 3% on average, presenting genuine grievances. In other words, female commitment to marital relationships was fast disappearing in western culture. In Family Courts, all official parties were made to understand that men were always wrong, and that cruelty and violence was to be presumed. By 1978, it was understood that children did not need fathers anyway and that only in instances of irrefutable evidence of serious neglect and abuse by mothers, could fathers gain custody of their children. Even mothers who abandoned their babies had superior rights under Family Law. Only when three Family Court Judges were shot by furious Australian fathers, were these excesses toned down slightly.

In these times, it was routine for feminist operators of ‘women’s refuges’ (their very existence a propaganda exercise) to provoke visiting fathers with suggestions that their wives and daughters would henceforth be raised as lesbians, and in fact were enjoying lesbian orgies at that moment. They then videoed the distraught men as they attempted to reach their children; silent footage that was presented in Court as evidence of their violent behaviour.

Restraining Orders and Protection Orders became standard tactics to create spurious evidence of violence, and husbands were encouraged to use lawyers who then liaised with the wife’s lawyer to further undermine the male parent’s rights and interests.

By the 1980s, male resentment was running deep, albeit expressed openly only with jocular and slightly barbed humour. More tangible expression was repressed by omniscient feminist fury, which has targeted its victims with a fanaticism that compares favourably with that of the Spanish Inquisition's Torquemada.

Perhaps the extent to which feminism continues to dangerously override reality can be demonstrated by government-funded television advertising which condemns domestic violence, and men, with the dark solemnity of a hanging judge.

However, studies around the world have found that around 80% of domestic violence is initiated by women. Astonishingly, concomitant surveys revealed that the most commonly expressed reason for inflicting violence on their husbands was that "he wasn't listening to me". These assaults included homicide by knife and gun.

Contemporary women now feel entirely comfortable with slapping or punching their boyfriend and husbands, because, as evidenced by the media and government, it is only violence if perpetrated by men. And the emotional violence of humiliating men in public with references to grossly inadequate sexual prowess, is now simply not acknowledged.

A similar stream of logic has infected all of society, with even Government officials ruling, for example, that white abuse of blacks is racism, but black abuse of whites is highly understandable reaction to centuries of abuse and denial of basic human rights and is, therefore, not racism. In other words, cultural values are no longer integrated, but operate in societal isolation; the prelude to total cultural collapse.

In only two decades, marriage break-up went from 30% to 54%. With other surveys finding that 80% of relationship breakdowns are now attributable to the female partner, it is clear that something of historical breakdown in human values has occurred and that children are at imminent risk of losing all protection and sources of love, affection and nurturing.

Most certainly, by 2005 it was becoming apparent that so many children were growing up without a normal father image as a role model for adult life that a crisis in behaviour was emerging; for both boys and girls, but very dramatically for boys. The only male role models most children now have access to are film and TV stars and sports heroes; or Mum's current boyfriend. But male partners who are genetically unconnected to their partner’s children, are often abusive or neglectful.

Because the sports heroes tend to be self-absorbed, hyper-competitive or violent; or all three, it is unsurprising that many children's behaviour has become erratic and anti-social. And with both types of heroes, genuine role modelling is almost certainly futile in any everyday sense. This leaves a legacy of violence and resentment and an almost complete absence of respect.

In schools, curriculum was redeveloped continually over three decades to favour females; a trend reinforced by the mass retirement of men from school-teaching; a career becoming untenable, with feminist-driven attitudes which equate normal male affection for children as paedophilia, and one-on-one teaching of adolescent girls as ipso facto evidence of underage sexual predation.

Very clearly, it is fast becoming impossible for most men to emerge into adulthood equipped with a coherent and positive direction and role in life; and in society. In short, they are bitterly angry but inarticulate, and are directionless and without the anchor of values and role models. That many drift into depression, substance abuse, nihilism and suicide should be a surprise to no one. That some take their nearest and dearest down with them is one of the oldest acknowledged traits of mental illness in history.

To restore the sanity of both individuals and the mainstream community, will require returning direction back to the community, and by concomitantly disarming the dangerous and destructive lobbies and agents of control that have wrought such destruction for more than three decades.

There is a simple way such a redeeming and healing process can be launched and that is by restoring government by informed electoral consensus. Or to put it another way, by bringing back democracy.

Night fears: There is a third source of psychological and emotional insecurity and that is fear. This is an issue that appears to effect only one nation, and that is the US.

This is not a new observation. Home-born critics such as Michael Moore have queried the violence and fear inherent in American society compared with, for example, Canada.

So far, a correlative factor has not been put forward that might explain this phenomenon. It is felt that researchers have ignored a prosaic aspect of American life that might very well account for otherwise inexplicable behaviour. A clue may be that the American tendency to precipitate premature violence in tense situations is most prevalent in the white middle and upper classes.

What is probably invisible to Americans, it being entirely normative behaviour, is putting babies and small children alone in bedrooms to sleep. Outside the United States, where this is seen in American movies, it is either regarded as a worrying exercise in isolation and withdrawal of parental affection, contact and protection; or, especially to people of more child-indulgent cultures, as a horrific failure to provide their child with the affection, proximity, love, nurturing and protection that infants and children need as much as food; and certainly more so than clothing and shelter.

To outside observers, it seems that Americans believe that their children will suffer from sleep deprivation if silence does not reign in the child’s bedroom. Whatever the reason, it seems to be the common outcome for American children to lie alone and terrified in their room, seeing monsters in every shadow. Add this to the tendency for American fathers to give less love and affection to their boy infants than they give to their daughters, and you have deeply neurotic children, who will be unable to give affection in their own adult relationships.

If both parents are thus afflicted, you have seriously unconnected and emotionally undeveloped children. The apparent upper demography of this syndrome is reinforced by the notion that the children of poorer families must share beds with parents or siblings and, therefore, enjoy immediate comfort.

The relationship between skin contact and affection with parents, and healthy development of children should not be underestimated. We are reminded of the real reason Spock the paediatrician originally became famous.

In his time, many hundreds of children being treated in hospitals succumbed to what was known as wasting disease. The cause was unknown, but the death rate was highest in the most modern and well resourced hospitals; in one case, 100%.

Spock and his associate hired women whose only skill to contribute was their compulsive motherliness, and directed them to pick each baby or infant up in turn and cuddle and coo to them each for twenty minutes. Wasting disease dropped from 100% to zero overnight.

Two decades earlier in France, at a time when mentally retarded children were automatically put in juvenile institutions, the managers placed ten children in a home for mentally retarded adults, and monitored their development against a control group in the conventional children’s institution. All ten of the children raised by the adults grew up to live independent lives; three of them went to university and one of them secured a degree.

What happened, is that the retarded adults had informally adopted the children and lavished them with saturation love and affection and admiration.

This is the power of expressed love and affection. The denial of this creates a deep and painful hollowness; and not an anticipation but a certainty of rejection and withdrawal of love. Such a child will grow up to be deeply fearful, and to panic whenever familiar visual reinforcements are taken away. Moreover, he or she will respond to the hunger from within by imposing power on those around them; whether this takes the form of bullying, emotional blackmail, violence or powerfully compulsive behaviour; which in turn will be coloured and linked by other circumstances, such as punitive upraising, religious fanaticism, or disturbing social or sexual behaviour.

Let us be very clear here; what is said here is eons from being definitive, but a clarion call should be heard for urgent research into this destructive but locally invisible aspect of American culture. Ideally, the research should be conducted by a team made up of ordinary graduates of widely disparate cultures. PhDs should be avoided like the plague, because such personnel are almost guaranteed to be the product of the emotional and social sterility we are trying to avoid. They will bend the results of the research to reinforce their own status, as all social scientists do.

Tony Ryan is a world-famous tile-layer, sharpshooter, and taxidermist. Write to him at tonyryan43@gmail.com.

During the more than two years we had to wait while Neil Entwistle cooled his heels in the Middlesex County House of Correction and the Bridgewater State Hospital (to find out if he was sane enough to stand trial) we all wondered what on earth he would use as a defense. For it was obvious to anyone with any experience that Entwistle was as guilty as Cain, or perhaps even guiltier, as Cain only killed his brother while Entwistle killed his wife and baby. If I had been his lawyer I would have plumped for the insanity defense. It would have had next to no chance of success, but at least it would have had validity. I think that Entwistle was completely abnormal. According to criminal profiler Pat Brown, every narcissist is not a criminal, but every criminal is a narcissist. And, every criminal is not a sociopath, but every sociopath is a criminal. Entwistle, was, I believe, all three of the above.

Finally, the great day arrived. The prosecutor, Michael Fabbri, gave a fairly conventional opening statement in which he pointed out that Neil Entwistle had not dialed 911 to get help for his wife and baby when he "found" them shot, and that he had not even called his dead wife's parents. Instead he drove to his in-law's house in Carver to return the murder weapon to his father-in-law's gun collection and then hightailed it off to London, where he left the keys to his in-law's house locked inside his BMW in the parking lot at Logan Airport- the keys he claimed that he could not find, as he had supposedly only gone to the house to commit suicide with one of the guns from his father-in-law's collection.

I have a great advantage in this case, and it is that I live in Middlesex County, where the crimes were committed. For example, I know that Entwistle's story about driving about "in a fog" between Hopkinton, where the murders were committed, and Carver, is absurd. In the first place, it's more than an hour's drive. One would think that this would be more than enough time for someone to come out of a fog. In the second place, he would have had to take route 495, which is a six lane superhighway loaded with eighteen-wheeler trucks going 80 miles an hour. If he really was in a fog, knowing Massachusetts drivers as I know them, he never would have survived the trip.

Next up was the defense, giving I felt a very weak opening, where Elliot Weinstein,the lead attorney, claimed that we the public didn't know the real Neil Entwistle and that all the weird things that he had done were because he was a man crazed with grief, and that "everything he said, everything he did was because he loved them"

"Neil Entwistle is not guilty"

Of course Entwistle's affect in the courtroom was completely bizarre. He sat at the defense table with an expression on his face of an almost bridal radiance. I think in his own twisted mind he had finally made it; he was the center of attention at last, surrounded by cameras, even if it was only in a small Massachusetts county courtroom, accused of the most heinous of crimes. Only once did he behave in a normal manner, which was when Massachusetts State Police Chemist Deanna Dygan displayed his baby daughter's blood-soaked footie pajamas on a board. He turned his face away from the cameras and wept, then.

But worse was to come.

After the State Medical Examiner Dr. William Zane took the stand for the prosecution, he was subjected to a brilliant cross examination on murder-suicides by Stephanie Page, another member of Entwistle's defense team. Never has such legal talent been so wasted as Page's, as it sunk in slowly on all of us observers that the defense planned to blame Rachel Entwistle for the death of her own baby. Disgust filled the courtroom as the defense described how a "depressed" Rachel Entwistle (they offered no evidence that this girl was depressed) first shot her baby and then herself in the top of her head.

Much to our amazement, the defense put on no case of its own whatsoever, declaring that it had proved reasonable doubt with its cross-examinations. In his closing statement, Elliot Weinstein claimed that Neil Entwistle had driven to Carver to return the murder weapon to his in-law's home to preserve his wife's reputation so that "no one would know she had killed her own baby and shot herself." He had sacrificed himself, according to Weinstein, for his wife. This has to go down as about the nuttiest defense theory I have ever heard. Here we have two dead bodies with .22 caliber bullets in them, and somehow if the gun is not found, no one will suspect a thing.

The jury was out a respectable 11 hours before it convicted Neil Entwistle on two counts of first-degree murder, most of which time they spent with the murder weapon trying to see if it was possible for a petite woman like Rachel Entwistle to shoot herself in the top of the head. They found that it was not physically possible as her arms would not have been long enough.

Entwistle's response on being convicted of the first-degree murder of his wife and child was to laugh and roll his eyes.

At a somber press conference after the verdicts of life in prison without parole had been read, Rachel's mother and stepfather, Priscilla and Joseph Materazzo, thanked the public for their support.

Showing a complete lack of respect, which included not rising for the judge and jury in the courtroom, Neil's mother Yvonne Entwistle, made the following statement: "We know that our son , Neil, is innocent, and we are devastated to learn that the evidence points to Rachel murdering our grandchild and then committing suicide." (What evidence? She must have been watching a different trial than I was . All I heard were a bunch of ludicrous accusations made on cross with nothing to back them up. Most states would not even have allowed this, but Massachusetts allows every latitude in a first-degree murder case. We have no death penalty here either.)"I knew Rachel was depressed. Our son will now go to jail for loving, honoring and protecting his wife's memory."

This was a truly sickening ending to a truly heartrending case. In the next thirty years or so he spends in a Massachusetts jail, I am sure that Entwistle will continue to do what sociopaths and narcissists do best- lie, lie, and lie, and hope that they will find someone stupid enough to listen to them so that they can go back out in the world and kill and cheat again. I hope that this time he will find no one to believe him.

Next Week- Why Did He Do It, And Other Murderous Dads.

Last Thursday, in the Middlesex Superior Courthouse, in Woburn, Massachusetts Neil Entwistle, 29, was found guilty of murder in the first degree in the execution-style slayings of his wife Rachel Entwistle, 27 and their baby, nine-month old Lillian Rose. Thus ended a transatlantic tragedy that began in late January, 2006, when a worried parent, Priscilla Materazzo, telephoned to the Hopkinton police department that she could not locate her daughter, son-in-law or grandaughter. After several searches of the rented colonial-style house, which they picked the locks of with a credit card, police found the two decomposing corpses hidden in an upstairs bedroom under a comforter and pillows.The bodies, from their positions, had been shot in their sleep. At first I was very puzzled as to why the Hopkinton police could not find the bodies on their first search of the house. But, having seen the crime scene photos with my own eyes (unfortunately they were courtroom exhibits and cannot be reproduced here) it becomes understandable. One would never guess that there was one body lying under that carefully arranged pillow and comforter, let alone two.

Rachael Matterazzo was studying at Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts when she decided to spend her senior year abroad at York University in England, where she met Neil Entwistle. They fell in love and decided to get married. The Entwistles began their married life in the upscale village of Droitwich Spa. Rachael Entwistle taught at St. Augustine's Catholic School in nearby Redditch. Neil worked at a nearby company as an engineer. This idyllic existence went on for three years. I feel that if we knew why the Entwistles left England for America we might be able to get more of a handle on this case and why the murders happened. My brilliant theory is that he was either so much in debt in England that he thought going to America would give them a fresh start, or else he couldn't cut the muster at work- or both

At first I was of the opinion that Neil Entwistle, the missing father, would be found dead in the woods, by his own hand. But no, I was wrong. Entwistle's rented BMW was found at Logan Airport, having been there since January 21, and Entwistle was found in London, having a gay old time with friends, attending films, eating out at restaurants, and making copious notes in a pocket notebook he had purchased which read,"Sell story to highest bidder". There was also in his possession a page ripped out of a magazine advertising escorts. He also ran his mouth like few murderers before or since. Each of his friends was told a totally different story about the "tragedy", which he of course claimed to have no part in. Some were told that he telephoned 911 before he ran away to London; others were told that he telephoned his wife's parents; some heard that he telephoned the Massachusetts State Police. All were of course lies. After committing the murders he ran away without calling anyone. He also found time, although he didn't find the time to fly back to America to attend his wife and baby's funerals, to telephone to his landlord in Massachusetts that he could keep the security deposit and that he wouldn't be wanting anything from the house as he wouldn't ever be coming back to America.

Well, Neil, you were wrong about that one.

By this time Massachusetts investigators had built up quite a case against him. His father-in-law, Joseph Matterazzo, was fond of target practice and had taught his son-in- law to shoot and load guns, of which he had a collection. These guns were all tested by the State Police Laboratory and one was found to have Rachel Entwistle's DNA on the muzzle and Neil Entwistle's DNA on the trigger. I guess a brilliant guy like Neil thought that returning the gun to Mr. Matterazzo's house would somehow absolve him of all suspicion. Neil Entwistle was arrested for his crimes on a subway platform in London. He attempted to escape, but was chased down by British police. He waived extradition and was returned to Massachusetts to face trial.

Meanwhile we were learning more and more about Neil Entwistle. He was obviously a pathological liar and con artist. His wife told her mother that the expensive house that they had rented in Hopkinton, which was worth more than a half million dollars, would soon be purchased by Neil with money he had in an "offshore account" They just had to wait for the money to"get there". In actuality Neil Entwistle was deep in debt, and one of the only true remarks he made in the days following his wife and baby's death was that he planned to declare bankruptcy in both Britain and America. Also supposedly Neil was "looking for work". The only thing the record shows is that he was looking for sex, trolling the Internet and joining groups like "Adult Friend- Finders" and making internet searches for "half-price escorts" He also claimed to be employed by British intelligence doing top secret work.

Neil also ran a couple of internet sites which seemed to be no better than pyramid schemes, or as we call them here in Massachusetts, Ponzi schemes, after Charles Ponzi, one of the greatest confidence tricksters of all time. Every day at lunchtime in downtown Boston, Ponzi would open the windows of his office in South Station and fling armloads of twenty-dollar bills out of the window. He had people standing in lines around the block waiting to give him money. Unfortunately, Neil Entwistle had no such luck. One of his websites, millionmaker.co.uk, promised 24-hour seven-day- a- week support to those running pornographic internet sites.A profit of $6,000 a month within the first six months was promised.

A Web site that tracks internet scams lists millionmaker.co.uk as a possible scam site. Also, Neil Entwistle had 16 complaints in the last month he was in business alone on e-bay for non-delivery of services. Several of the complaints targeted Rachel Entwhistle. Another stated "Complete scam. E-bay users beware! Absolutely nothing received!"And then there were those penis enlargement kits. Sometimes people like Entwistle don'r seem to realizr that it is easier to work for a living than it is to try and cheat people.

We all eagerly awaited the trial, figuring that maybe we would learn the answer to that question that always is raised in cases like this one- Why? How little we knew the shocks and the surprises we had waiting for us.

Next Week- The Trial

By Tony Ryan

In the two previous articles we established that the Reserve Bank is subservient to the people of Australia and that a responsive and responsible Government must direct the Governor to significantly reduce interest rates.

We recognised the traditional role of government in breaking up monopolies and regulating profiteers; titles the Coles/Woolworths duopoly well deserves. We noted the long overdue termination of the Oil Price Parity Agreement, which forces Aussies to pay futures-driven international prices for Australian-produced oil.

Moreover, we concluded that economic stimulation and the massive savings generated by the above measures would significantly expand government revenue, sufficiently to justify an incremental reduction in fuel tax, eventually leading to a bowser price of 12 cents per litre; less for diesel.

Finally, we clarified and defined ultimate authority, noting that no international treaty, organisation or alliance has supremacy over the democratic wishes of any sovereign nation. Thus, signatories to economic arrangements that were not mandated by national referenda, as required by the Australian Constitution, must be regarded as invalid.

Our next step in this survey of Australia’s economic chaos must be a fresh look at trade per se. Australia is now the only country in the world that is potentially self-sufficient. The only items we are forced to import are lubricating greases and oils, and approximately one third of our petrol. Following a quick catch-up in electronics, all else can be produced in Australia. By establishing a workable public transport system and thereby reducing our traffic, we could easily eliminate the imported petrol factor. Likewise, reductions in diesel consumption can be achieved by converting road transport to an enhanced and integrated rail system; with the added benefits of reduced air pollution.

A fundamental question is never asked, why do we need to export? In terms of core economics, we must export only to cover costs of essential imports, which we have already demonstrated are miniscule. So why do we export? The reason, as in so much of politics, is surprisingly oblique.

Because we have no laws that regulate election campaign expenditure, these have become an industry in their own right; and an intensely profitable arrangement for Rupert Murdoch, who also happens to be one of the most powerful men in the world. Murdoch promotes the two party system because this optimises his editorial influence; being able to tip public opinion scales to either of the Tweedledum or Tweedledee major political parties, with minimal effort.

These campaigns are largely financed by international banking cartels and mega-corporations; in return for policies that are, for them, profitable. There is only one way these profits can occur and that is through trade; and the financial transactions and usury that lubricate trade.

The collaborating plutocratic elite of Australia are also beneficiaries; any rewards for Australian workers being incidental and inevitably diminishing. A glance at history will tell us why. In the 1950s and 1960s union influence and activity was at its zenith, and unions were the sole reason why workers received a fair share of the nation’s wealth. When London School of Economics graduate, Robert Hawke took over the ACTU, we saw a commencement of damaging union amalgamations; the intention being to transfer the power of union members to a central hierarchy. When Hawke became Prime Minister, the same thing happened to ALP branches, with all power transferred to an ambitious elite, few of whom had any affinity with Australian workers. Hawke personally vetted candidates for preselection.

How could this happen? The distinction between ALP and Liberal has been illusory since 1973. The Vietnam War protest movement created irresistible peer pressure amongst university students, which forced formerly conservative students of the professional class to socially identify with the ALP and unions; a political migration that, with their entry into the workforce, resulted in a rapid university graduate takeover of union and ALP hierarchy. An accommodation of employer and professional interests quickly developed as natural loyalties were re-established.

Within a decade, the United Nation’s banking and trade bodies; the WTO, WB and IMF, had managed a seamless conversion to privatisation, deregulation, economic rationalism in Australia; with incremental tariff reductions spearheading redistribution of wealth to the elites. Over a period of two and a half decades, two thirds of family farms folded and almost half of Australia’s manufacturing sector; both unable to sustain unfair competition from third world subsidised products. Contrary to globalist propaganda, these products were the result of corporatised near-slave labour.

Realists now recognise that when local business owners have been cleared from the market, subsidies will cease and the price of currently cheap imports will rise to a level regulated only by supply and demand. Meanwhile, as we noted previously, the human cost of this ideologically-driven destruction has been three million full time jobs, and the drift of one million workers and farmers from regional and rural Australia, into East Coast cities. Compounded by disastrous intakes of migrants and refugees, these population explosions created new but well anticipated crises.

Australia is a dry continent and, apart from the Murray/Darling system, has widely dispersed, shallow and localised water catchments. This means it is not suited to intensely populated European-style cities. A network of regional centres was always the only environmentally sustainable pattern of habitation; with food produced on family farms, slowly developing in the direction of permiculture. Broadacre monoculture agribusiness was never a viable option.

The manipulation of Australia’s population into coastal cities has created a water crisis in almost every centre; accommodation is in short supply and overpriced; infrastructure is overburdened; and urban sprawl is threatening local ecologies and agriculture. The collapse of the rural economy has impoverished local councils, providing centrist state governments with pretexts for forced amalgamations. To redirect culpability, Government has presented water shortages as the product of drought; a complete misrepresentation of circumstances; such as portraying Wivenhoe flood mitigation dam as a catchment failure. Without the urban population explosion, drought would not be an urban issue.

Is reconstruction of Australia’s economy too massively complex to be attempted? Thankfully, as we will see, the primary solution is breathtakingly simple; tariff restoration.

Tariff restoration will enable farmers to return to rural lands and regenerate the rural and regional economy. Surveys indicate that, not only will former regional populations return, many young urban families and retirees will join them, seeking more nurturing living environments and considerably lower residential costs. Concomitantly, urban rents will fall and suburban homes will once again become affordable. With city populations returned to sustainable levels, the water crisis will be over.

Tariff restoration will spark the overnight re-creation of our manufacturing sector; much of which has been in mothballs for a decade. Within five years, the three million full time jobs lost to tariff removal will have been replaced; and if tariff protection is extended to IT and service industries, a further one million jobs will emerge.

Obviously, tariff restoration pre-empts a dramatic reduction in imports. This will significantly reduce importation of worrying US recession; with optimum import termination creating an impervious firewall against global recession. Politicians argue that recession is not a real threat, and that our China trade will support our economy. This is a lie and they know it. The US has reduced imports from China and will continue to do so as recession bites deeper; which means our exports to China will fall in tandem, inexorably tilting our balance of trade towards the abyss in which all defaulting nations languish.

By now it must be occurring to readers that, although we have so far adopted a posture of presenting options for Australia’s future, in fact we no longer have the luxury of options. The value of our imports is now approximately 30% higher than that of exports. Due to oil price rises, this percentage may now be higher. If Australia was a business, our accountant would be telling us we are bankrupt. Economists might concede that we are only bankrupt in a technical sense; however Australia’s multi-entity Tariff Restoration Bloc members bluntly state that ‘technical’ is a euphemism for in the real world. Now is the time to call a spade a spade.

What is absolutely inevitable is that the World Bank is going to cover our debts only if we surrender National Sovereignty. Even if such a concept were to be entertained by our politicians; and we should not for one second imagine there are any patriots in Parliament, this would have to be an issue resolved by referendum. Only the most remote and insular academic could imagine the Australian electorate would agree to such a proposal. We can safely presume the electorate will choose the retained independence and reclaimed prosperity of tariff restoration.

Foreign affairs academics; not renowned for grasping real world issues, argue that the ‘international community’, will not tolerate Australia’s refusal to become enmeshed in the new global colonialism, in which we are to become absorbed in the China-led, Asia-Pacific Union. In case New World Order euphemisms mislead readers, in plain language this means that Australia is to become a colony of China. It is no coincidence we have a new Mandarin-speaking Prime Minister.

Are the academics right? Recalcitrant nations usually become the subject of trade sanctions and boycotts or, failing this, military intervention. However, if we become a self-sufficient non-trading nation, these measures cannot be applied; and military intervention is the only big stick at hand. And of course, by military intervention we all know this means US-led UN military intervention on one pretext or another. The incredulous need to understand that the US has flown this flag on some seventy occasions since 1946; always with success. And as always, to the world this would be presented as rescuing freedom and democracy from a terrorist threat; no doubt Muslim. With the world’s largest Muslim population on our doorstep, this will seem plausible; especially to Americans and Europeans.

Here, already holding all the aces, Australia can play its trump card. The easiest military target is an urbanised nation. The more we disperse our population the more expensive and problematic invasion and occupation becomes for the invader. Secondly, the six US military bases in Australia, effectively the Pentagon’s eyes and ears on the Asia-Pacific theatre, are widely dispersed and America does not currently have the logistic capacity to invade, occupy and hold these bases, in addition to the entire continent.

Without these bases firmly in US military hands, the Australian epicentred hemisphere could, almost at the flick of a switch, become unnavigable to aircraft carriers, submarines, aircraft and ICBMs. What this means is that any overt threat levelled at Australia will have unthinkable and mortifying consequences for American global supremacy.

Citing their satellite bases in Australia, yet arrogantly failing to nurture us as hosts, has been America’s greatest strategic error. The price the White House will have to pay will be an unspoken treaty guaranteeing Australia’s sovereign independence. Thus we can restore tariffs with impunity, and revoke nonsense treaties and agreements such as FTAs, GATS and GATT.

Further undermining White House resolve, a great many American citizens are making similar demands; that the US once again adopt a nationally-focussed economic philosophy. In France, Netherlands, UK and most of Europe, there are identical movements. It’s a small world.

In summation, Australia’s prosperity and independence can be re-established by:

restoring tariffs, lowering interest rates, regulating Coles/Woolworths prices and ending the duopoly; and terminating the Oil Price Parity Agreement.

Let’s hear Rudd explain why he continues to obstruct cohesive national policies.

By Tony Ryan

With sustained unemployment 6% higher than during the Great Depression, Australia is experiencing more domestic hardship than at any time in our nation’s history.

In the first in this series, we looked at the fraudulent presentation of the Reserve Bank as being independent of Government and of the people of Australia. We now understand that the Reserve Bank has no godlike status and it is entirely subservient to the people of Australia; through our Government. Consequently, Government, representing the needs of the people, must direct the Bank to lower interest rates.

The second string to our bow is the centuries old recognition that governments have a responsibility to prevent exploitation of industry, commerce and consumers. Although exploitation is now widespread in Australia, nowhere is this more critical than in the provision of motor vehicle fuels and groceries. We will examine our options regarding groceries first.

Government has the power to impose price controls on Supermarkets, and then to break up the monopolies. This has been standard behaviour of responsible governments since the 19th century, with America’s pioneering Sherman and anti-trust laws being prominent examples; and, as we speak, this same measure is being implemented in the UK where the grocery monopoly is only 50%. This necessary action will dramatically reduce grocery prices and is, of course, a standard and genuine anti-inflationary device.

However, we should be warned; the ACCC was designed to lubricate exploitation, not prevent it, and this organisation, along with its current examination of supermarket profiteering, should be terminated. Sceptics of this assertion (are there any?) should access the paper The Banks and Small Business Borrowers: case studies of adversity (ISBN 1 86487 629 8) by Evan Jones, School of Economics and Political Science, University of Sydney, for revealing insights into A triple C behaviour.

Now to oil; Australia produces arguably the best diesel in the world; Bass Strait supplies only require particle filtering before immediate use. We also produce two thirds of our own oil. There is no compelling reason why Australia cannot organise to eliminate usage of the one third of petrol it imports, and adopt alternative measures; including use of rail freight instead of the more polluting and horrifically more expensive use of road haulage. A coordinated, subsidised, national public transport system has long been called for; and our fuel distilleries must be recommissioned. These fuel consumption and cost reductions would enable Australia to revoke the outrageous Oil Price Parity Agreement (OPPA), under which we pay international prices for Australian oil. Politicians had no mandate to sign this agreement in the first place, no prerequisite referendum having been undertaken.

Having eliminated the iniquitous OPPA, Government can then erase fuel tax. These measures will reduce the bowser price of Australian fuel to around 12 cents per litre; albeit, double what Venezuelans pay. The loss in Government revenue can be made up in company tax as Australian businesses and industries proliferate and prosper without the restrictions of high fuel overheads. And, of course, Government’s own fuel bill would be reduced. If corporate welfare was also ended (always around 30% higher than the social security budget), national account parity would be easily achieved. Any deficit can be made up by cancelling politicians outrageous pensions.

Moreover, with grocery and fuel costs dramatically reduced, creating close to zero inflation, there would be no demand for wage increases; rather, a vastly enhanced consumer capacity. This is the road Swan’s Razor Gang should have walked, rather than viciously slashing the slowest-moving Australians.

Another myth perpetrated by collaborating media and politicians is that there is some international compulsion on Australia to adhere to treaties and agreements; illegal or otherwise. There is none.

Two of the most important words in the history of civilisation have not been heard in quite a while, National Sovereignty; and what these words mean is that no international organisation or alliance has supremacy over the democratic wishes of any sovereign nation. This is what we mean when we say that All Authority Resides in The People; a phrase that has had global currency since the aristocracy, and their claimed supreme right to rule, were rejected forever at the time of the French, American and European revolutions.

Those poseurs who love to express their imagined worldliness by making references to ‘the international community’ and how it will not tolerate Australian unilateralism, merely expose their own infantile naiveté. There is no such entity as the ‘international community’. The closest we come to this is the United Nations and with this organisation’s litany of abject failures, its credibility is non-existent and it is held together only by World Bank-generated debt and the threat of violence by the permanent members of the Security Council; a euphemism for global bullying.

Nevertheless, these pompous frauds will wail that ‘the international community’ will launch trade sanctions and embargoes and cripple Australian trade and, therefore, our economy. As there is no economic imperative for Australia to trade with anyone; manifestly this is not so. Australia is the only country in the world today that is self-sufficient. Essentially, we do not need to import; which means we do not have to balance trade with exports. We do so only to make our own elites rich.

Another slogan that must crash is the cry that Australia must become internationally competitive. What gibberish. We always were. With our resources, we hold all the aces. We always negotiate from a position of strength. Strictly speaking, Australia must export only to pay for lubricating oils and greases, which Venezuela can provide bilaterally without any strings attached. All else we can produce for ourselves.

What is said here is not an argument for isolationism, but to clarify our enviable bargaining position; and the acute absurdity of the claim that we must eliminate our prosperity and democracy to “be internationally competitive”. We already were; prosperous and competitive. All we need do now is eliminate the treasonous elements within Government.

In the third and final article in this series, we will examine Australia’s true trading position; our immediate capacity to create an impervious firewall against imported recession; our ability to restore balance of trade and eliminate national debt; stabilise currency; and how we can create three million full time jobs in less than five years.

Considering that those three million jobs were the collateral damage of purely ideologically-driven tariff removals… the destruction of two thirds of our family farms and associated rural and regional economy, and almost half of our manufacturing… no spectacular miracles need be wrought. Restoration of tariffs alone will deliver the jobs and prosperity, but this time extended to cover IT and service industries.

In the next article, we will also consider Australia’s strategic position vis a vis conceivable military imposition of ‘American rules’. Once again, contrary to propagated belief, with the Australian-epicentred hemisphere of US satellite navigation, spy ware, and communications sited on our continent, Australia actually quite literally holds the world’s strategic military balance of power in its hands. The Pentagon must ask itself the question, how do you attack a nation who can casually immobilise your entire utilisable military? What price must be paid to ensure this can never happen? As Americans might say, it’s time to talk turkey.

Tony Ryan is a gardener, an expert taxidermist, and knows the man "Crocodile" Dundee was based on. Write to him at tonyryan43@gmail.com

Interview: President of the United States, George W Bush / Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, Anthony Ryan,

Recording commences: 1101 hours WHSD. 2008-06-01 (FPASecretariat) <1448hshdk.838383.dhjbn>

President: It’s so great to have a visit from our good friends and allies in Australia. Welcome to the White House, Mister Ryan.

Ryan: Thank you, Mr President. And, may I say, that as we regard the American people as our closest cousins, during this visit I want to ensure that our relations become even more cordial and mutually beneficial.

President: This is excellent. This means you are keeping your troops in Iraq after all?

Ryan: Not quite, Mr President. We won our recent elections largely on the basis of removing our troops from Iraq; meanwhile expanding our commitment in Afghanistan. What we would like to discuss with you is our new programme of tariff restoration.

President: But you can’t do that. We have a free trade agreement. It took years of negotiation with the pharmaceutical industry.

Ryan: The Prime Minister has asked me to convey our apologies, Mr President. This was not our original plan, but the electorate now demands it. All polls demonstrate at least 80% support for full tariff restoration. As a democracy, we have no option but to comply.

President: But why? How did this happen?

Ryan: What no one realised before was that removing protective tariffs would bankrupt most of our family farms and our manufacturing sector, making one in five Australians unemployed; and the subsequent rural migration to cities has created a water and housing crisis. The people demand we reverse the process.

President: Godammit, man, the corporate and banking lobbies will go bananas. All those billions in lost profits. The World Trade Organisation will go ballistic. I won’t be able to prevent global trade sanctions against Australia.

Ryan: We’re not too worried about trade boycotts, Mr President. Once full tariffs are installed, there will be no trade to blockade.

President: But how will you pay for imports?

Ryan: Australia only needs to import mineral lubricants, Mr President; and we have alternative energies to cover the small quantity of fuel we used to import. That nice Mr Chavez has promised to send us these in return for steel; and there will be no trouble with the World Trade Organisation because Chavez has already removed the WTO from Venezuela; along with the IMF and the World Bank.

President: This is unacceptable! The great American people will not tolerate this attack against freedom and democracy. You realise this means war.

Ryan: With respect, Mr President, surveys show the American people want to restore tariffs too. Polls say most Americans are suffering, and want a return to decent jobs, liveable wages; and the famous American dream of having a home in which to raise their children. Our circumstances are the same. Mr President.

President: Mr Ryan. Are you telling me my Vice-President and Secretary of State have lied to me? Both assure me that all decent, loyal and patriotic Americans are 100% in support of my policies. Any that do not must be traitors and terrorists, and will attract extreme measures. You can tell your Prime Minister that Australia will be attacked and annihilated.